Hysteria

i think i've mentioned before that everyone loves a rebel. i think i've mentioned before how much this irritates me. going against common opinions and beliefs in order to be extraordinary--it always felt like cheating to me. being contrary just for attention instead of trying other methods.

but of course, beyond the vaccuum of my own opinions and beliefs is the real world and how it operates no matter what i think or what anyone else thinks either. in the real world, there's never just one of anything. there's always two or more. two or more viewpoints, two or more ways to solve a problem, two or more sides of a story. the real world is subtle--like a feather. when you see a feather, you see a solid shape, but run your finger along its edge and you feel and see all the slender, intricate strands that make up the entire feather. that is what the real world is like.

so it stands to reason that certain rebels are not admired at all, that certain rebels are actually and truly persecuted for their contrary beliefs. there's no false martyrdom, no ambitious dissent. these are the kinds of rebels that rebel without thought to their reputation or the world's opinion of them. these are the rebels that have important reasons for rebelling, or at least reasons that they are not willing to relinquish, reasons that warrant a sort of doomed integrity.

i am writing this in response to an article on The New York Times website which is my browser's homepage. the title on the front page was "The Global Warming Heretic." there is a scientist, you see, an old man, who does not believe that global warming is as much a danger as everyone says it is. he says that the higher levels of carbon dioxide can be neutralized by the growing of plants that absorb CO2, that higher levels of CO2 actually create a richer environment for more vegetation to grow, that there were higher levels of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere when the planet experienced most of its development. he says Al Gore is a global warming "propagandist."

but this isn't just any scientist, any old man. he is a well-respected physicist who worked with Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer. what he objects to is not the information, the data, that proves that the globe is warming up, that carbon-dioxide levels have increased. he fully acknowledges the facts that support a belief in global warming. what he objects to is the single-minded, opportunistic pursuit of such a belief. the using of global warming to prove one's own point, to prove that one was right about using too much coal, to prove that one was right about vehicles that use up too much gas.

reading the article, i felt somewhat vindicated. here is someone willing to think for himself, who refuses to give in to the mass-market hysteria surrounding global warming. i do not mean to say that his views are correct--i really wouldn't know; i do not mean to say that i am an expert, that i don't care about the planet, that i refuse to recycle and conserve energy just to be rebellious. no. i recycle and conserve energy and try not to use as much gas because it is the right thing to do, no matter that everyone else is trying to do the same. what i object to is the sense of entitlement that some people seem to flaunt when they "go green." they go to farmer's markets and buy locally grown vegetables and put them in their reusable shopping bags and drink their organic juice and think they are better than everyone else. they buy laundry detergents and dishwashing soap and disinfectants that are environmentally safe and look down on anyone else who doesn't do the same. if i choose to do those things, i will do it because i should do it not because i want to prove a point, not because i have some self-righteous agenda. there's no need to brag, there's no need to criticize. going green has become just another social measuring stick when it should be important for its own sake. you're considered one of the "elite" if you either go green with a spartan regiment or if you decide to flaunt your refusal not to go green and drive a huge SUV instead. its ridiculous.

i don't mean to bash going green, i mean to point out a way of thinking that has attached itself to going green. don't think like that. do it for the right reasons or don't do it for the right reasons--just do whatever you do for yourself and don't make it about social status and reputation. i think its true that being environmentally conscious is being sold relentlessly to the public through marketing and advertisement. people don't even really listen to the scientists anymore, they rely on Whole Foods Market and TV ads to tell them what they should do to save the environment. it isn't right. know what you are doing, be aware, be conscious of your actions. even if Whole Foods is right and entirely justified in offering what they offer still make an effort to think for yourself, don't surrender your opinions so easily. whatever you do in life, whether it be good or bad, do it so that you can hold yourself accountable for it later on. resist the excuse that you did it because everyone else was doing it. respect yourself, don't sell yourself short in listening to other people when you are fully capable of doing the right thing on your own.

i watched President Obama on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno last week. i felt like i learned more in that interview than in any other interview. my dad said it was because Leno asked good questions, questions that average Americans were asking, like why those top executives that ruined our economy weren't going to jail and why after all the bailouts the money wasn't moving amongst the people yet. its so rare that the President would go to the people. for the most part, if you want to know what's happening in the White House, you have to force yourself to watch CNN or C-Span or other specialized broadcasts. but to have your President willingly come to you by appearing on a show that you enjoy watching regularly--i like that. and he didn't dumb down his explanations on the economy and what he's trying to do and he spoke sensibly. it isn't about quick fixes and blaming the obvious criminals, its about reworking the laws and regulations so that our financial institutions are properly checked and balanced. i got the impression that he's really going to try and do the right thing, that he isn't just going to do whatever America wants him to do. as an out-of-work American i know what i want--i want the economy to improve, and i want it to improve now. but even though he knows i want that, he's not going to do anything rash to make me happy. he's going to do what's right, what's necessary. so i am willing to be patient. i hope others like me feel the same. i hope that America doesn't turn on him unjustly. he doesn't need anymore obstacles to get the work done. just be patient, just let him do his thing.

speaking of which: does anybody need to hire a writer?