This week, Gawker–the website that has brought us such gems as “The Top Nine Videos Of Babies Farting And/Or Laughing With Kittens” and “I Can’t Stop Looking at This Weird Chinese Goat“–published an article with the headline “Do Not Give a Dollar to the Opera.” I have copied and pasted the “meat” (read: three-day-old cafeteria mystery loaf) of the article below. Do not feel obligated to click on any of the above links, as page views are the lifeblood of Gawker. I have only linked to these stories to prove they actually exist.
In “Do Not Give a Dollar to the Opera,” Hamilton Nolan–who has brought us such gems as “Most Households Bizarrely Still Have a Landline” and “The Scariest Man Alive Wears A Cardigan“–basically copies a few of the questionable ideas from this New York Times article and puts it in a convenient bullet point list. The list is below. My rebuttals are in bold.
- Opera may not be your cup of tea, or mine, but opera is some people’s cup of tea, and it can be great, as an art form, just as all other art forms can be. In general, a flourishing and diverse art scene in a city is a good thing. Not a bad start. My only quibble here–other than the innate preciousness–is the phrase, “In general,” which implies, “Usually, but not always…” But I say “a flourishing and diverse art scene” is always a good thing.
- However, in a world of limited money and resources, we must make choices. A dollar given to one cause is a dollar not given to another cause. The relatively small number of people wealthy enough to give large sums of money to charitable causes are in high demand. The need of charitable causes for funding far exceeds the available funds at any given time. Translation: Because there isn’t enough money in the world to solve all of the world’s problems, we should not contribute to any of them.