The Occasional Observer

My (liberal) sister sent me a link to an Op-Ed in the NYT by Bono in this message:

good article - take a read and let me know what you think - he even says something positive about W!

OPINION | October 18, 2009
Op-Ed Guest Columnist: Rebranding America


I thought I'd share my response:

It's the usual trash in the NYT. It's pure rhetoric and propaganda for what yet another celebrity with a turgid ego picks as his cause. I know Bono is actually well-meaning but it's still nonsense. If you buy into all he is saying, your accepting some very questionable underlying assumptions.

If America is so great that we alone have the power, resources and (possibly) the will to carry out his three great challenges, then why do we care what the Europeans think? Europe's not so great. Many countries there have horrible problems. For example, France has and has had an awful level of unemployment for quite some time. They have a very big problem with Muslim upheaval. Also look at recent elections in Europe. Sarkozy and Merkel are much further right than their predecessors. We cared what the U.N. thought for a long while, and unfortunately most Americans still do. Look where that got us. Graft & corruption. Sending money meant for humanitarian use to Kim Jong Il.

Let's look at Bono's three challenges. Terrorism is first. He mentions W for the AIDS program, but no for his tremendous contribution in the fight against terrorism. Under his command, we took out most of Al Qaida's leadership. The contribution is statistically supported by the precipitous decline in attacks in Western countries. Obama has said some nice stuff but hasn't actually accomplished anything here.

Second is poverty. Again, no real accomplishments from Obama. Why not give the peace prize to Bill Gates? He's done way more - major funding for medicine to fight non-profitable diseases in the third world, like malaria.

And the third is climate change - perhaps the biggest example of demagoguery in history. It was first global warming. Then when the facts didn't fit the propaganda - the antarctic ice cap is getting bigger - the diatribe changed to climate change. What isn't considered climate change? Plus, it's not just one unsubstantiated assumption, it's several. One - the climate is changing in a dangerous way. Two - humans are the cause - it's not a natural cycle (we have data from an infinitessimal period in geological terms). Three - there's something we can and should do to stop or reverse it. Four - it's worth doing these things at any cost. I'll have to find an article I read about this last point. It was written by an economist who points out that the money some people are proposing to spend to fix climate change could help the world's people cope with it, plus feed everyone and treat many diseases not currently being treated.

The saddest part of this is most people, even smart people like you never even consider any of what I've written. Whether you believe what I've said or not, it's food for thought.