But sort of, and only in a manner that gives me an excuse to rage against pollution in general and then specifically against the way the Magilla from Wasilla emits pollution like a garbage truck in need of a ring job.
Sarah says global warming is real, but we can't necessarily pin it on man-made causes. I agree. The fact is, we cannot know. The earth is a big, old place and it has had ice-ages and Devonian heat-waves in its own seemingly whimsical Can't-Fool-Mother-Nature way for about four billion years. If the temperature generally rises 3 degrees and causes the ice caps to melt, it may be a disaster for us but for the Earth (or Gaia if you must), it's not much more than the feeling you'd get if you broke a sweat trying to catch the bus.
That said, I see no connection whatever between the argument that the earth is/is not warming because of us, and the real outrage that ought to be inspired by the multi-stage environmental disasters we know we are causing, and which are at best depressing and often enough mind-blowing in their rank awfulness.
Sure, Gaia doesn't care whether the Siberian Tiger makes it to the year 2050. But I do. And I know we are causing it to die off because we keep cutting down its forested habitat. Of course we can't know if Antarctica is turning into a palm-fronded paradise because of us. But we do know that the Amazon is getting burned down, and that sludge in the water is killing children there, and that wonderful new species of plants and animals are being discovered there only as they are being destroyed in a sickening quest for cheaper burger-beef (even though I love The King of BK fame).
It may be true that Al Gore is Chicken Little. I never thought he was brilliant (he never seemed bright compared to Clinton, anyway), nor that he really had made a convincing case just because he knew how to use scary pictures in a pedantic manner. But to me, Global Warming isn't the point. The genuine tragedy is the destruction of habitat and species that we KNOW is our fault.
Make no mistake: of course we need to survive as a species--we claim that right and I support it and even support species bigotry because that's as natural as a lion's quest for breakfast. But I don't support wanton destruction of beautiful, complex natural habitats only to replace them with crude dwellings and cheap crap amusements and dimwitted, potbellied nincompoops complaining the Liberals are out to get them and that Sarah Palin's their six-pack-totin' gal. No.
And in a further note on this woman's eternal gift for glaring tackiness, let us briefly review the crude manner in which she blotted out the name of the Man Who Made Her Queen on the silly sun visor she was wearing at the beach in the State That Had Too Many Hawaiians while wearing a vapid, vituperative shirt that said "If You Don't Love America, Why Don't You Get the Hell Out"?
To which I would answer: Sarah, you are not America. You actually don't love the real America--the multi-racial, multi-cultural one that exists today. So why don't you get the hell out? Alaska would be far enough, and keep your stupid mouth shut while you're at it.
Friday, December 18, 2009
I Agree with Sarah (Not Really)
Labels:
antarctica,
anti-Sarah,
Gaia,
global warming,
hawaii,
siberian tiger