critical thinking: which war do we fight?

does anyone else find it ironic that the many of the same people that dismiss global warming are the same ones that bought the rationale for the iraq war?

let’s compare global warming (present tense) and the iraq war (past tense):

both are (were) based on the same premise that something bad might happen that we could stop by taking preventative measures now.

both have (had) “experts” that support the reasoning behind the need to act, and “experts” that deny there is (was) a need to act.

pursuing the iraq war was clearly going to lead to death and destruction, the threat of disrupting the entire volatile middle east region, and alienating many of our allies. being wrong, or lying, about the rationale for war is at least gross incompetence and at most a crime against humanity.

yet that was an easy decision for many to embrace. $300 billion later, iraq is a mess, thousands are dead, terrorists have a new playground, oil prices are through the roof, leaders are dissembling or claiming they didn’t actually say what they actually said, and there’s no end in sight.

pursuing global warming will not lead to death and destruction. it will hopefully lead to lower pollution, cleaner air and water, a vast new renewable energy industry, energy independence (which, as we all should know, makes for better national security) and will have the added effect of weakening the oil companies that have a death grip on our country that adversely affects our foreign policy, economy, and political process.

yet this is heresy to some. instead, they’d prefer to protect the oil industry, which continually chooses profit over american wellbeing and security. they’d prefer to demonize the scientists that contend there is a problem, which is exactly what the oil industry would have them do. they prefer to demonize the media while failing to address the clear interest the oil and coal industries have in the status quo.

so the reality is there are those that willingly accept the path of death and destruction with unverifiable proof and shaky reasoning, but when it comes to making a positive change that is better for our communities, our country, our political process and our future, no matter what proof exists…well that’s too hard to accept, more proof is necessary.

that, my friends, is almost literally the definition of hypocrisy.

(ily, sds)