Tuesday, November 29, 2005

The Moral Fatuousness of Sir Paul McCartney

The Cake Editrix has the goods on McCartney's ludicrous refusal to perform in China because of . . . wait for it . . . their cruelty to animals in the fur trade! Here's Kathy:
While I don't necessarily think it's a good thing to be cruel to animals, where, precisely, was Sir Paul's outrage when Mao was having his little tete-a-tete out in the countryside, you know, that little event that's more commonly known as The Cultural Revolution? Yeah, I know, he was probably stoned like everyone else was. It was the sixties, after all. But still, The Beatles wielded some power back then.

But, seriously though, is he worried about the high rates of female infanticide in rural China? You know, little baby girls being killed right after birth, their tiny bodies dumped in shallow graves because boys are more highly valued? Is he worried about political dissidents who are forced into slave labor? What about the workers who are poorly paid to sew together those cat and dog pelts into coats and the like? Where's his outrage on their behalf?

And you thought Lennon was a dope.

1 comment:

Bizarro Jack said...

I find this post confusing, unless i'm overestimating your irritation with Paul. You know, when someone is an activist on a particular issue, it doesn't prevent them (or other people) from also being activist on other issues.
Maybe he figures that if he demands human rights or health care they'll just laugh at him, but if he demands that topical anesthetic be applied before they club a baby seal, he might get somewhere?

You DO realize the Revolution/Mao thing is a joke, right? ("not gonna make it with anyone anyhow . . ."). I get the impression that CE, if she had the ear of McCartney, might ask "hey, I see a discrepancy; What's up with that?" whereas you'd rather mock him for it.