Wil raises an important (reflexive) and representative point: Why is CORE (Congress on Racial Equality-- one of the major original civil rights groups pivotal during the 1960s) involved? Here we have a historic civil rights group involved in the Freedom Rides, lunch counter sit-ins, the 1963 March on Washington, and the 1964 Freedom Summer in Mississippi, who is sponsoring a anti-climate (policy) conference. What the hell is going on? The answer is mystified, and I think purposefully.
This question is representative because the climate skeptics have used front groups like conservative think tanks to obscure the political ideological and material interests of climate change denial. The interest of the organization is obscured, the position legitimated as on-par with other opinions. But, it turns out CORE is not your typical civil rights group anymore. CORE has been hijacked by the Innis' starting in 1968 since Roy Innis made a bid to take over the organization, and CORE has been conservative apologists for some time now. For example, who came to US Senator Trent Lott's rescue when he had the "slip" of pining for racial segregationist Strom Thurmond's presidential bid? CORE and Innis. Innis (like Horowitz) started out in the radical Left, but did a U-turn and now plays for the other team. Innis has been accused by founder James Farmer and other black leaders of renting out CORE’s historic reputation to corporations like Monsanto and ExxonMobil for his willingness to defend mainstream privilege. More to the point, CORE is now sponsoring folks like Paul Driessen who wrote <Eco-Imperialism:Green Power, Black Death> [how affluent environmentalists are killiing African babies by blocking development and industrial chemicals like DDT for malaria]; and, they have planted CORE-Uganda to puppet their interest in defending industrial capitalism, and western industrial political economy and ideological ordering in general. CORE, is not the only one either; Institute for Economic Affairs, out of the UK, is connected to the group out of South Africa -- Africa Fighting Malaria-- which has the same exact agenda. Though saving Africans doesn't seem to be the priority, indicated by their condemning of making AIDS drugs available outside the manufacturers patents since it would make Africa a "profit free zone". Nonetheless, the mere presence of these groups is supposed to represent authenticity. What irony. The important point, is that, like the climate skeptics, most readers and observers will never get this history or context because it is hidden, and it will seem like a civil rights group is against climate policy action and environmental protections generally, undermining social credibility-- that is WHY, I think, CORE is there. Seems like Wil's question and ones like it are important antidotes to piercing the veil. Peter Peter J. Jacques, Ph.D. Department of Political Science University of Central Florida P.O. Box 161356 4000 Central Florida Blvd. Orlando, FL 32816-1356 Phone: (407) 823-2608 Fax: (407) 823-0051 http://politicalscience.cos.ucf.edu/main.php?URL=jacques >>> "Wil Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2/27/2008 6:40 PM >>> Re: upcoming Heartland conference (and why the heck is CORE one of the co-sponsors?) Perhaps I'm too sanguine about this (though that doesn't tend to be my manner), but I wouldn't sweat a conference like this because I seriously doubt it will have much impact. I've recently been interviewed on radio call-in shows in very conservative places, e.g. Jackson, Tennessee and Mobile, Alabama, and save the random Rush ditto-head caller, the vast majority of folks subscribe to the theory that we're changing the climate, so I don't see a conference of this nature radically transforming public opinion. What is more lamentable is that while a very large majority of Americans believe that climate change is occurring, and is primarily linked to anthropogenic activities, its issue saliency is very low, anywhere from about 16th on the list of most important issues for Democrats to about 25th for Republicans (recent Pew surveys even after much of the recent focus on the issue). Most Americans believe that the U.S. can easily adapt to climate change, and as for the rest of the world, well, as Ari Fleischer once said, we're not going to do anything that interferes with our blessed lifestyle. Tackling both the false (in the mid-term and long-term scenarios at least) perception that we can readily adapt to climate change in the U.S., and finding a way to tweak our collective conscience about the inequities of gaily driving our Hummers to the corner grocery store while Tuvalu disappears under water is the real issue from my perspective. wil Dr. Wil Burns Senior Fellow, International Environmental Law Santa Clara University School of Law 500 El Camino Real, Loyola 101 Santa Clara, CA 95053 USA Phone: 408.551.3000 x6139 Mobile: 650.281.9126 Fax: 408.554.2745 [EMAIL PROTECTED] SSRN Author Page: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=240348 International Environmental Law Blog: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/intlenvironment/ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronnie Lipschutz Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:42 AM To: Beth DeSombre; GEP-Ed Subject: Re: advertisement on Washington Post online No doubt Seitz also asked for a donation to pay for the continuing battle... Ronnie