America’s Promise
2 days ago
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Durban II Fiasco
Among the issues to be addressed at the conference: any "contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance." Apparently, included in the planners' definitions of the aforementioned terms is "freedom of expression" whenever such expression is critical of Islam or Islamic society. Two of the central planners of this conference are countries with exemplary human rights records: Iran and Libya. Shocking.
George Will vs. The New York Times
Syndicated conservative columnist George Will rarely mentions The New York Times in his writing without some expression of contempt. Will's track record of disdain for the publication continues in his February 15th Washington Post column, in which he voices his skepticism toward global warming. In addition to citing statistics from the University of Illinois' Artic Climate Research Center, he recalls that in the 1970s, the Times, along with pretty much every other major scientific publication, alarmed the American public with its predictions of certain, impending global cooling. By 1980, hysteria about a new ice age had faded, and Will expects a similar trend in regards to the current theories of climate catastrophe.
Andrew Revkin of the Times (which was, I imagine, irked at such an unflattering potrayal) published a news analysis in which he asserted that experts had called out Will on writing a column ridden with inaccuracies and exaggerations. According to Revkin, experts maintain that Al Gore is also guilty of sensationalsim and exaggeration in his affirmation of man-made global warming- he even had to pull a slide from his well-known powerpoint presentation. Revkin's conclusion, based, of course, on "the experts," is that both men are culpable of putting political agenda before indisputable scientific fact and are, thus, deceiving the public. But Will is not one to go down without a fight. Today he published a rebuttal column in the Post.
Note: In January 2005, the late Dr. Michael Crichton echoed an equally skeptical (and rather convincing) view on global warming in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Though he might try, Revkin would be hard-pressed to find anything resembling political bias in the analysis. Recall that Crichton was about as apolitical as it gets.
Andrew Revkin of the Times (which was, I imagine, irked at such an unflattering potrayal) published a news analysis in which he asserted that experts had called out Will on writing a column ridden with inaccuracies and exaggerations. According to Revkin, experts maintain that Al Gore is also guilty of sensationalsim and exaggeration in his affirmation of man-made global warming- he even had to pull a slide from his well-known powerpoint presentation. Revkin's conclusion, based, of course, on "the experts," is that both men are culpable of putting political agenda before indisputable scientific fact and are, thus, deceiving the public. But Will is not one to go down without a fight. Today he published a rebuttal column in the Post.
Note: In January 2005, the late Dr. Michael Crichton echoed an equally skeptical (and rather convincing) view on global warming in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Though he might try, Revkin would be hard-pressed to find anything resembling political bias in the analysis. Recall that Crichton was about as apolitical as it gets.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Change I can't really believe in.
Obama's new CIA chief Leon Panetta promises to show a little bit more respect for what should be the most important of our three branches of government - the Congress. This is all very comforting, seeing as the Bush administration got into the habit of treating our legislative branch more like a nuisance than a Constitutional provision. Meanwhile, it might do us well to remember that Panetta served as Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1994 and 1997, during which time he oversaw the enaction of extraordinary rendition, or "torture by proxy." I should think that this would complicate the plans of Congressional Democrats, who have proposed investigation of the Bush administration for engaging in the practice (among other things). The question of extraordinary rendition will no doubt reach Panetta's desk as the Obama administration considers what course of action should be taken in regards to ex-Guantanamo prisoners.
Less suprising, though still note-worthy, is Panetta's apparent willingness to continue prosecuting the "War on Terror" in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The only difference is that he might tweak the name, whose stigma is obviously a concern to him. Panetta's views seem to be consistent with those of Obama, who has talked openly about increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. In short, we have a new administration, but not, it seems, a new foreign policy in any distinct way.
Less suprising, though still note-worthy, is Panetta's apparent willingness to continue prosecuting the "War on Terror" in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The only difference is that he might tweak the name, whose stigma is obviously a concern to him. Panetta's views seem to be consistent with those of Obama, who has talked openly about increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. In short, we have a new administration, but not, it seems, a new foreign policy in any distinct way.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
News Flash: Israel is responsible for genocide in Darfur
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has proof that Israel is behind the crisis in Darfur. He refutes the absurd idea that the Sudanese government is in any way responsible for the 200,000 and 2.7 million citizens that have been killed and displaced, respectively, since 2003. When pressed about what evidence he had, Gaddafi did not elaborate...but I'm sure he has his reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
