I didn’t see much of the Academy Awards last night. Based on the reviews, I gather I was quite fortunate.

The only part I did see was Al Gore accepting his statute. Mrs. Soxblog phoned me from Boston and told me the Goracle’s hour had arrived, and I immediately flipped on the TV to see him bask in the golden warmth of Hollywood’s affection.

It’s only natural that Hollywood has so taken to Gore’s predictions of death and destruction. Gore has been unusually solicitous of Hollywood, even for a politician, and there’s nothing celebrities value more than someone who’s willing to pretend that their opinions are actually relevant.

AS REGARDS AL GORE’S PREDICTIONS OF IMMINENT climatic disaster, I must confess that I haven’t made a careful enough study of the matter to have a well-educated opinion. Unlike, say, Leonardo DiCaprio, I just haven’t had the time or the intellectual curiosity to read all the source studies that doubtlessly inform the conclusions of the Hollywood-types who feel the end is nigh.

But Gore’s theories and his proposals, whether they’re eerily prescient or stunningly misguided, leave me asking some questions. For instance, how much will they cost and who will bear the brunt of that cost?

Let’s just say for the sake of argument that Al Gore could wave a wand and the entire world would immediately fall into line seeking the Al Gore seal of approval for proper stewardship of the environment. Presumably, this would be hardest on developing nations. It would cause economic dislocation. Economic dislocation causes poverty. Poverty causes death. Lots of death. How many deaths and how much poverty are we talking about?

Or to relate things to the home-front, let’s say the price of gas and oil doubled overnight or in a six month period. Obviously that would be a burden for glamorous celebrities who toot around the country in private jets. But they’ll live. Even if the price of gas becomes so prohibitive that they wind up having to fly commercial (oh, the humanity!!!), they’ll get by.

But what of the people who are closer to the economic edge? It sounds to me like a full implementation of a Gore plan would trigger a recession. If we’re lucky. Economic misfortune means less money for fun stuff like healthcare, welfare, social security and national defense. Serious economic dislocation, even in the United States, cost millions of lives. Has the Goracle calculated these things? More importantly, has Leonardo DiCaprio? If they have, I’d like to take a look at the figures.

ONE MORE THING ABOUT AL GORE. There’s a lot of buzz out there that he should toss his biodegradable cap into the presidential ring. At the risk of being cursorily dismissive, give me a break.

If you want to know who’s going to win a presidential match-up, ask yourself one simple question: Which candidate is the greater optimist? This simple question will give you the winner going all the way back to FDR. The only arguable exception to this rule would be Richard Nixon’s first victory, and that was because of the historical anomaly that the 1968 Democratic Party had become enthralled with a bunch of filthy hippies. In literally every other match-up, the more optimistic candidate prevailed.

So how does Al Gore fare on the optimism meter? I would submit that an individual who has worked himself into a lather the last several years because he’s convinced the world is imminently coming to an end is unlikely to be the most optimistic guy in a two man race.

Unless of course the Republicans nominate Chicken Little. If that happens, then all bets are off.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.