HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Feb. 15, 2007 When I was somewhat younger, there was a saying that was popularly employed to demonstrate that someone is all talk and no action: "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is". Sometimes the statement was asked as a question as in, "Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is?" The idea, of course, is that it is one thing for an individual to talk about how much he cares about a problem or issue, wax poetic about what should be done to rectify the situation, it is quite another thing altogether to pony up one's own resources--time, money or property--to help address an issue. I am not sure exactly what became of the expression; I do not hear it used much anymore. My guess is the more modern equivalent is, "Put up or shut up," or something to that effect. In thinking about the old expression, it became apparent we live in an age where it has seemingly become more meaningful to proclaim how much we care about things than to actually do something about them. It is more fashionable to express feelings and perform inconsequential acts than actually making a distinct difference. Hollywood types seem to endlessly tell us how much they care, whether it's by wearing red AIDS ribbons or pontificating about some arcane charity to help some spotted grasshopper somewhere. We hear very little about actual action these care mongers take to contribute to the cause, other than talking about it on Oprah or making a mention as they accept an award for their acting or singing brilliance. Sean Penn took a spin around New Orleans (with plenty of cameras in tow to catch his good side) after Katrina and flew out to Baghdad to pal around with Saddam and his buddies; it is not clear what difference either of these actions actually made. Perhaps Penn dipped into his own deep pockets for the cause, but I tend to doubt it. It is likely he felt his presence was enough. Sure, there are some in Hollywood who back up their words with actions, and I applaud them for it, but it seems these are a select few. Given the tremendous wealth and influence which Hollywood carries, it is downright puny. Interestingly, it seems the Hollywood personalities who are the most openly political about the world's problems are the ones who do the least. Another example of our all-talk world is taking place right now. Congressional leaders in Washington are attempting to make an empty statement, by passing a non-binding resolution against the proposed build-up of troops in Iraq, when they have it in their power to end the war altogether by cutting off its funding. If the war is wrong and cannot be won, bring the troops home; a legislative action, which is really not much more than pure ceremony, is pointless at this stage of the game. Unfortunately, it seems that pointlessness is winning out over truly impactful leadership. Making a statement is, apparently, more beneficial than making a difference. Global warming is an issue which is bubbling up (no pun intended) more and more all the time now, and this issue is bound to be impacted in a significant way by our superficial all talk world. This one is so intertwined with political mumbo jumbo, it is difficult to tell truth from fiction anymore. It seems every week a new study is released which says something a little different. "Global warming is happening and is mostly the fault of human activity, but we can correct it;" "global warming is happening and we caused it, but it is already too late;" "the world is heating up, but it has little to do with us". Just today, another "expert" was on the radio insisting the world is actually cooling off right now. Really, most of us are not scientists or experts in weather patterns and activity, so we are basing our opinions of this issue mostly on faith one way or another. Of course, maybe we do that with many of our personal views. The real issue, to me, related to the global warming threat has to do with this: Based on current knowledge in place, what exactly are we willing to do about it? If indeed it is "Put UP or Shut Up" time for this issue, then what do each of us have at stake? What skin do we want to put in the game? As mentioned above, it is easy to talk about problems, tell the world how much we care. What else? Oh, we can all drive a fuel efficient car and drive less often, promise to turn off lights in empty rooms, etc., but that is pure fluff, these things may make some difference, but they are really just more personal puffery to make us feel good--like those sanctimonious hybrid car drivers who act like they have saved the world because their vehicle gets two miles to the gallon better than the standard engine counterpart. So here is the question: If Uncle Sam, or the UN, comes to us tomorrow and says that every American needs to cut a $20,000 check to help solve this problem, how many of us are willing to do that? There are no guarantees, of course. Much like chemotherapy is to cancer, any "solution" or set of solutions is likely to be a consensus of what may or could work. Too many of us are willing to solve problems only when someone else is paying for it, or when we perceive that someone else is paying for it. So, how much are we willing to pay for the chance to fix the problem? What if the proposed solution meant that you would likely have to give up your career for good? This is a possibility for many who work in the auto or other similar industries. What if part of the solution for global warming involved having the federal government performing surprise inspections to our businesses and homes to make sure we are not consuming too much energy, that our light bulbs are not too bright or they are not on too much? Are we up for that? Many of us struggled with the implications of the Patriot Act after terrorists flew jets into civilian office buildings. What if the corrective package involved government mandates that electrical devices could not be operated for more than a designated period of time in any given day? So televisions, radios, CD players, etc. would contain a chip which shuts them off automatically, say after two hours of usage. Is that reasonable? How about one hour? This is not that far fetched, we have a federal regulation which mandates how much water is to flow in our toilets when we flush them. This product of legislative brilliance results in people flushing their toilets about five times when one flush used to do the trick, and it also led to many people going to Canada or elsewhere to smuggle in "illegal" toilets. Placing limits on non essential electrical devices is a real possibility; the technology is certainly available already for this purpose. I am curious just how strong the American appetite is for making significant changes to our way of life to potentially solve a problem that may or may not be happening and may or may not be curable if it is happening. Similar to the global warming issue, theoretically, what if we could end the war in Iraq, and eliminate the need for any further worry about the Middle East, simply by agreeing to pay $10 per gallon for our gasoline indefinitely? (Of course, there is more involved in the Middle East than simply the price of gasoline; this is a theoretical question, but the point still applies.) If a poll were taken of the American public, what percentage of the people would go for this? Peace in exchange for some coin out of our pockets. I hear the expression, "No Blood for Oil," here is the way to Put Up or Shut Up. In this scenario, there would no longer be any blood for oil. Of course, we would have to make the major adjustments to our lifestyle to accept the terms. The days of casual drives with the family would likely be over, or reduced to precious few. The auto industry might be crushed and unemployment could be massive. The working poor might not be able to afford to even work at all; the rest of us would have to pick up their tab through the government dole that would certainly result. Air fare would be astronomical, eliminating vacations to all but the very rich. Our economy could be in ruins for quite some time. Would the country go for it? Just how badly do we want peace? I can hear the naysayers already slamming my theoretical question. Of course, it is a hypothetical case, I am not saying the solution is as easy as simply agreeing to pay more for gasoline; however, the basic premise remains true. What is not hypothetical is that there are significant concessions we could make as a nation and a society which would at least reduce the likelihood of future wars or other national problems. The question is how far are we willing to go to achieve that state. We are a cushy society, accustomed to watching "American Idol" on our plasma televisions, even on demand if we have a DVR. We want our automobiles handy, ready to take us where we want to go when we want to go. We will drive 60 miles or more just for the opportunity to play that new golf course. Do we have it in us to put our money where our mouths are? ------------ About the author: Ed Abraham is a concerned citizen living in flyover country, U.S.A., who happens to be truly disgusted by the loss of common sense in our society and is doing all he can to try to reinstall it. Email: eabra@myway.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
