10 July 2007

Save the World?

Feed the world? Sure, that might make sense to advocate. Money buys food. Musicians bring in money for entertainment. A huge concert might help.

End third-world poverty? Money doesn’t buy national prosperity; free money tends to encourage corruption. But forgiving debt might at least give some nations a chance at a new beginning. A huge concert might help, maybe.

Save the earth – stop global warming…through a series of big concerts? Somehow it just doesn’t make sense. And it makes even less sense when they’re led by a man who still claims to be the “next president of the United States” and who claims that his science is beyond dispute (which eerily reminds me of a South Park episode – but not the one with Gore in it). The whole thing is just preposterous. Or it was. Thank goodness it’s over.

There are bigger fish to fry, so to speak, than global warming. And what’s more, it is strangely convenient for politicians to chase some boogieman instead of tackling – or even addressing – tangible problems. It’s much safer, politically, to advocate a position when the outcome of that position won’t come to pass during the political lifetime of those in question. Take a stand on Iraq and you’ll have to answer the mail in two months (because we all knew the surge wouldn’t work before General Petraeus was sworn in). Take an unassailable stand on “global warming” and you’ll be dead and cold long before the temperature really rises. No consequences, just hot advocation and vote-getting.

It’s said that it takes a smart person to become a “true believer” because the blind faith requires serious abilities of abstraction. For those who have sworn faith in the church of global warming, this was, I suppose, their celebration. I suppose I should be thankful that the message didn’t make any sense to me.

No comments: