Who can judge?

One of the worst things that happens these days is how information is presented to us at any given time.  Is it just my imagination, or does it seem that we never actually get real information about anything any more?  That is, something happens - say a new tropical storm forms - and all you hear is opinions and judgments of what it is, where it is going, how strong it is, etc.  Now there are those that would say that is what forecasting is all about, but the problem is, typically, the information that you should be getting is salted in amongst things like comparison to some other storm that started at this time, or followed this track.  You don't get what you need to make your own decisions - judgments, if you will - because you are passed on the judgments of every person that reports the information, not just the facts.

When we look at religions, it is the same thing.  Climate?  Same thing.  World events?  ditto.  We don't get facts and raw data, we get judgments.  If you are looking at information about ice extent at the poles, you get judgments, not information half of the time.  "The ice extent in the Arctic has shrunk to the lowest amount in modern history" screams the story.  Is that information that you can judge by or is that a judgment with, actually, no information at all?  If you said the first, I think you are in real trouble, but if you realized it was the second, that means you still can think for yourself.

The first thing that catches my eye in a statement like that is what does it mean by modern history?  Are we talking about the the last 30 years of satellite data or are we talking about the last 200 years where people have visited the region, or exactly WHAT is modern history?  Did it start yesterday?  Last month?  Last year?  Last decade?  Last century?  Do I need to continue?  And of course, relative to what data set has it shrunk?  Against the total area, the thickness, total volume?  These could easily yield confusing and conflicting data.  Information needs to be defined, offered clearly without prejudice, and then WE can judge it for ourselves.

This process should apply to everything we see, really.  Should we be passed "judgments" by those reporting, say, what is happening in Iran regards its nuclear program, or should we require real data to support the statements being made?  The same for the consulate attack in Libya.  Or the run up to war in Syria.  Or anything else that you can think of.  Perhaps we should have been passed facts in the so called presidential debates instead of "judgments" by the media as to who should be running.  Too often, we are passed judgments, not information, and because of that, we are a poorer informed nation than we should be.  And that probably applies to every other nation as well.  All I ever ask of the media is to give me unprejudiced information so that I can conclude for myself - God DID give me a brain, too, you know - and should you wish to write a conclusion to your report, that is fine, but say "in my opinion this means" instead of presenting that opinion as if it was a fact.

Government Priorities

Yes, we have to remember that all governments set priorities. Consider the US government as an example. Here is a government that has set as its highest priority foreign adventurism. How else can you explain the ongoing outpouring of funding for such worthwhile projects as the further destruction of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya? And they have obviously decided that putting Syria in the cross-hairs is far more important then "taking care of the United States," or demonstrating fiscal responsibility.

Must be true!! How else can a group of questionably intelligent leaders possibly feel it realistic and reasonable to allow citizens to lose their jobs, their homes, their hopes, and their children's futures to be lost in natural disasters as well as man-made disasters here in America, while pouring billions of dollars into the destruction of people's jobs, homes, hopes, and their children's futures in foreign lands? If this is the case, then it is a clear cut choice. A clear cut setting of priorities. But for who's benefit? How could that same group choose to destroy entire industries, some of which other industries are built on, to satisfy a theoretical belief that carbon dioxide, the molecule that all plant life relies upon for existence, is pollution, but the radiation from a billion cell phones does no harm what so ever?

And then there is GMOs - genetically modified organisms. We all know that radiation causes mutation. We all know that mutations, when they take hold, are not necessarily in the best interests of Earth or man, but we go out and modify plants and animals with our great intelligence, and haven't a clue what will happen should that organism mutate due to exposure to radiation or possibly even high frequency radio waves mixing in the cell as they pass through. We play God, but lack His controls. And these, too, are government priorities as well.

Oh well, who knows, maybe comet Elenin will turn out to be the savior some hope for, or the destroyer others fear or maybe it will be just another harmless bit of space debris passing through the Solar System. Maybe it won't matter, especially if the icecaps melt and flood the coastal cities and creates new agricultural tracts in the far north, or if a new ice age dawns, the seas shrink and re-creates the land bridge between Alaska and Russia and raises Atlantis above the waves in the South China Sea. One thing is certain, whatever happens will happen, and I doubt that my existence will make one damn bit of difference.