About a month ago, I read a columnist who said she[1] found it easy to write columns that were interesting, and easy to write columns that were true – but difficult to write columns that were both interesting and true.
Made a lot of sense. But then I thought to myself…given the current state of the world, there’s plenty of material out there that is both interesting and true, but so much of reality these days is a downer. Not much is upbeat. Instead of adding to the immense pile of pessimism, why not focus on what is interesting, and true – and good news[2]. We could all use more.
So, I got out one of the several notepads I have lying around (remember, I’m old-school). and wrote at the top: LOTRW topics: true, interesting, good news.
Bad idea.
It sat there, blank, for weeks. Mocking me daily. And, as a result, LOTRW has been AWOL.
But we get better at anything we undertake with practice. In the process of looking for positives, I’m getting better at seeing them. There’s now a trickle of ideas. My plan is to try out a few in successive posts.
Here’s one to start.
It comes to me secondhand; this from the American Institute of Physics, dated September 11 (okay, so it’s not just a lack of topics; it’s also procrastination).
The headline?
House Science Committee Advances Weather Research Bill
Of course, the news isn’t all good. After all, this is 2025. Here’s the subtitle:
The reauthorization act received unanimous, bipartisan support, but a similar bill passed the House and stalled in the Senate last year.
So, the negatives right out of the gate: only a reauthorization (that is, permission to spend); not an appropriation (as in, actual cash). Only the Committee; not the entire House. Only the House. Not the House and the Senate. And a similar bill failed to pass last year.
But look at the article’s opening text: A bipartisan bill for weather research advanced out of the House Science Committee on Wednesday by unanimous vote. The Weather Act Reauthorization reaffirms and updates NOAA research, forecasting, and emergency preparedness programs authorized in the 2017 Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act.
The bill recommends between $160 million and $170 million each year through 2030 for NOAA’s research office to carry out specified weather research programs, roughly steady with the program amounts for fiscal year 2024.
True? Check. The House Committee accomplished this actual step.
Interesting? Check. These days, unanimous bipartisan political support for anything (coming from even a small handful of people) goes against the massive flood of news in the other direction. (A bit of the flavor of “man bites dog.”)
Good news? Check. Support not just for forecasting but also for related research and for emergency preparedness – acknowledgment that the mission, the goal, goes beyond the forecast per se and extends to public safety, and extends to innovation and advance in support of that cause.
Is it big news? By itself, maybe not. This news comes only from the narrow area of weather services. But in other sectors we’re beginning to see similar, isolated instances of government walking back some of the draconian and devastating decisions of recent months. The beginning of a movement?
Expect more.
[1]Pretty sure it was “she,” although I failed to capture the column at the time and my skills with AI-enabled Google search were unable to retrieve her (?) article from the blizzard of material out there.
[2] As in, gospel, which comes from an old English translation of the Greek word euangelion found in the New Testament but also in secular contexts.