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
