Despite reality of Global Warming, the right can only focus on the Politics

Every day we are directly affected by issues that are improved by partisan debate. When you surf the Internet, the content you receive is mostly neutral due to Net Neutrality. When you shop at the grocery store, the prices of the foods you eat are determined by legislation that keeps those prices consistent. When a farmer sells his crops, legislation gives him the subsidies to afford his supplies and further legislation controls the prices at which he sells those crops.

Some issues, however, are non-debatable. Murder, rape, burglary, perjury, etc. They are all issues whose moral magnitude due to their potential for destruction of lives and society render them non-issues. Bottom line: the idea that these activities would be allowed unchecked in our society is unthinkable, and the consequences completely eclipse the positives. Any person with a concept of morals and ethics would never consider fighting for legislation that would allow these things.

Then why is it that Global Warming, which has the potential, if unchecked, to destroy millions of lives and completely, irreversibly change our eco-system, changing society as we know it and forcing us to spend generations adapting to the environmental damage, is not considered a non-issue? Because of who's connected to it.

Continuously since Al Gore made "An Inconvenient Truth" and the issue of Global Warming made a splash with citizens and policy makers, the rght has done everything in their power to descry the concept. Despite overwhelming evidence that Global Warming is a reality, conservative pundits have done everything from attack the issue on major news affiliates out in the open repeatedly to hiring "experts"to give faux validity to their statements of untruth.

When the Live Earth 2007 concerts amassed one of the largest TV, Internet, and public audiences in history and provided a positive and proactive message towards dealing with the warming crisis, Fox News launched misinformed attacks on the concerts in an effort to undermine their credibility.

Continuously, large media affiliates have provided anti-Global Warming activists with forums on which to speak at Fox News and CNN. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity continuously bring on conservative "scientists" who pump two of the largest radio audiences in the country full of misinformation and distorted, bigoted opinions about the issue which people accept due to their claims as credible news sources.

Is this responsible reporting? Dumping stories full of purposely ignored holes and dismissed facts all for the support of a personal vendetta? That sounds a lot like the way that conservatives treat the issue of Global Warming. Ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence, proclaiming any and all solid counter-arguments as liberal media coverage, and all to take down Al Gore? It's irresponsible and it shouldn't be happening and that's why it's up to college students and up coming politicians to be custodians of the facts in a media climate that is misrepresented in terms of percentage of media coverage to percentage of Americans who share those views.

To quote a friend of mine, Jaybee who regularly posts on MediaMatters.com:

"There isn’t a lot that Progressives can do about talk radio. Contrary to what talk show hosts claim it isn’t really an open market as studies show media companies subsidizing the conservative talk radio industry to the tune of 100 million dollars per year. In that environment it’s no wonder Liberals have turned to blogs for a balancing effect and sharing information in general. Just remember, it’s going to take a lot of blogging to counterbalance almost six years of claiming Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Centers and 30 years of claiming that [the] poor [are so] because they deserve it."

Press on friends.

Comprehensive Guide to this Week's Conservative Media

Hey everyone, welcome to the first installment of what I hope is to become a weekly list of links documenting a week in the life of conservative media. I hope you enjoy.

MSNBC's Carlson on Obama: "[H]e sounds like a pothead to me"
Tucker Carlson refers to the citizens of Fairfield as croc wearing potheads and asks if Barack Obama "talks between bong hits."

Savage called Media Matters "the homosexual mafia"
Mediamatters.org exposes Michael Savage in yet another outlandish attack, now turning his attention to the progressive media critics at their website.

Washington Talk Radio Station Drops Bill O’Reilly
Political voices in Washington criticized for having a conservative slant and the community's response.

Snow Falsely Claims ‘There Was Not Much Investigation’ Of Clinton’s Pardons
White House correspondant Tony Snow tries to distort the facts and claim the "well Clinton did it too" card.

Right Wing Launches Dishonest, Misinformed Attacks Against Live Earth
Through Fox News, the right tries to launch an attack on the Live Earth environmental awareness concerts...and fails.

Fox News: Universal Health Care Breeds Terrorists
Because anything socialized is derived from the Nazis or the terrorists.

Savage on immigrant students' hunger strike: "[L]et them fast until they starve to death. ... Go make a bomb where you came from"
Another hateful rant from a man without compassion.

MSNBC, Fox News devoted far more time to Edwards' haircuts than to Domenici announcement
Mediamatters.org exposing another slant in "Fair and Balanced News."

Thanks to Mediamatters.org and Think Progress for these stories.

Doublespeak

Growing up on the south side of Des Moines, Iowa, I've always been offended by pretentiousness. From the fact that Paris Hilton was arrested for drunk driving in a McLaren Mercedes SLR (a car that she couldn't appreciate, nor could she afford it if it wasn't for our culture's embrace of the wealthy elite) to the overwhelming support of the Republican higher-ups by the socially and economically elite. From big enough boats to well-timed smiles to maintaining proper appearances at White House sponsored events (page 6), the socially elite, and now politically elite, maintain an air of amiability and pleasantness through the art of well-groomed public appearance both physically and rhetorically.

Of course now that the patented doublespeak of 1984 is back in style (retro fashion I expect), the pleasantries enjoyed by the elite are being exposed for what they really are, because much like an Iowa river, the surface may be smooth, but beneath the mucky waters are dangerous currents and jagged rocks.

Let's take the War on Terror for example. What began as an all out, bombs-away attack on the terrorist strongholds of the middle east under the banner of extreme patriotism and the preservation of democracy quickly became suspect as motivation from oil, fulfilling campaign contributions from private contractors, and recompense for Bush Sr.'s mistakes. Besides throwing us shoulders deep into a war that we only supported largely enough for action for a few years, the White House continued to defend the position despite cries to reconsider our strategy. Furthermore, Bush Jr. continues to push us deeper into the quicksand despite obvious results from pollsters that the American people feel the cause is either lost or that we need comprehensive help from foreign allies to attain our lofty goal. Despite initial promises to protect the people, Bush and Co. continue to speak out of both sides of their mouth, promising to do the will of the people, yet pressing on with personal interests.

Even the right's up-and-comings are playing into the game. Who could forget the countless attacks on John Kerry as a flip-flopper? Now, leading by example, the President's views on justice seem to change with the wind, giving one stance on the treatment of criminals and then taking another when the chips are down. Following in his footsteps comes Rudy Giuliani, adamantly pointing the figure at Democratic former president Bill Clinton and then backpedaling along the party line.

Not is this prevailing trend of hypocrisy becoming pedestrian with the current administration, but all around the political landscape are outlandish claims with no true connection, such as the Fox News claims that socialized medicine is a breeding ground for terrorists. Fortunately for the powers that be is psychological research that as long as an opinion is repeated, especially from a credible (this time "credible") source, it has more effect than another opinion expressed by a true majority. This means that, as long as Fox News keeps crawling the evils of socialized medicine, Hillary Clinton, environmental protection, and any and all scientists that agree with global warming across the bottom of the screen, people will believe it.

So why do 9 in 10 Americans believe that the founding fathers would be displeased with the country today? Pay attention and I'm sure we'll have an answer soon.