Not only did Bush fail to back his pal Tony Blair on aid for Africa at the G-8 summit, he also once again stiffed him on global warming. It's time, suggest Howard Friel and Richard Falk, to ask why "...the United States does the exact opposite of what needs to be done on virtually every global-policy front... ."
The two media critics say that both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are complicit in the failure of the American government --"the most corrupt bunch of legislators in U.S. history" -- to seriously address global warming:
"As early as two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal published a lengthy, lead editorial that said 'the case for linking fossil fuels to global warming has, if anything, become even more doubtful,' and 'President Bush can in good conscience offer a polite rebuff to his friend Tony Blair when the British Prime Minister presses for American action on climate change at the upcoming G8 summit in Scotland.'[4] This editorial position at the Wall Street Journal on global warming is consistent with its position on this issue over the past several years.
"While the New York Times is not quite so medieval in its view of science, it is nevertheless loaded with fear if not loathing for the cause of global-warming prevention."
Many people assume that Bush is simply ignorant when it comes to serious environmental issues like global warming, which is largely true. But his resistance to taking action on reducing greenhouse gases involves more than sheer stupidity, as Jay Bookman point out in this editorial piece:
"Even Bush himself, long a
vocal skeptic, is now being forced to admit the truth, twice
acknowledging in recent days that mankind is altering the planet's
climate.
"Listen, I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and
that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing
to the problem," he told a news conference in Denmark on his way to the
G-8 summit." The problem is that with Bush and his advisors, ideology always trumps science. And his friendship with Tony Blair. *************************** And local blog Portland Communique has an analysis of the legislature's attempt to undo the damage of Measure 36 by providing for civil unions in Oregon: "If the backers of the measure truly wanted to outlaw any separate
secular institution for same-sex couples, then they should have said
that in their ballot initiative. They didn't, because as even The Oregonian understands, 'support for the compromise position, civil unions, is much higher.' " Note the slightly sarcastic reference to the journalistic standards of the Big O. The post brings to mind what I wrote last November in "Homophobia and the (lazy) media", which included a link to the Boston Globe's excellent Thomas Oliphant who blames slip-shod reporting on the 11 state measures banning gay marriage (like Measure 36) for the reelection of George W. Bush. On the same topic, local radio talker Thom Hartmann, before interviewing Roey Thorpe of Basic Rights Oregon, mentioned a piece he wrote a year ago arguing the gay rights are civil rights: "Gay marriage is
simply the logical and appropriate extension of the idea that in a
constitutionally limited democratic republic a vital function of
government is to protect the rights of minorities. It's called 'civil
rights.' "
Speaking of media ineptitude, Middle Earth Journal has a good post on the pro-war reporting crimes of the New York Times Judith Milller, which includes a reprint of an earlier post on Ashleigh Banfield, the MSNBC correspondent who was apparently "disappeared" from the cable news channel for speaking the truth about the reality of war in Iraq.
Comments