:*iT.K
! - V. *1
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Thursday, May 6,2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
ElDITORI AL.
new movie
strikes fear
into hearts
of Bush fans
You've probably seen it. Huge tidal waves crash down
the streets of San Francisco, sweeping away terrified
denizens on an otherwise normal day. Tornados tear
through buildings. Thunder, lightning, rain — and then,
to top it off, a brand new ice age!
It's not an A1 Gore campaign speech— it's the newest dis
aster flick to put the fear of mother nature into every gullible
person in America. It's called "The Day After To morrow."
But unlike similar ultra-high-budget end-of-the-world
movies of recent years — such as "Independence Day,"
incidentally directed by the same guy — this one has
drawn the ire of every policy wonk from NASA to the
Bush administration.
Why? Those formidable two words that inspire groans
and eye-rolling and are sure to get you kicked out of the
next frat party: global warming.
So what's the big deal with this particular movie com
pared to disaster cinema of old?
That dam government is worried it may affect Bush's re
election campaign. According to many news reports, NASA
ordered its scientists in March not to comment to reporters
about the film or the off-chance that the world as we know
it will meet an untimely end at the hands of those naughty
greenhouse gases. They were later permitted to comment.
NASA officials were worried that the movie's topic and
in-your-face tactics would, God forbid, inspire viewers to
question Bush's environmental policies, as if the American
people have reached a point where they are completely un
able to differentiate between truth and fiction.
(Incidentally, what seems like the bigger disaster in the
movie is the subtle thespian stylings of Mr. Dennis Quaid,
but that's a topic for another day.)
Global warming is a lot like the evolution debate: To
many people, it's too politically loaded to look at objec
tively and too scientific to adequately research in a short
amount of time. And the issue has become such a he-said
she-said in the political world that nobody except environ
mentalists and rabid right-wing environmentalist-haters
seem to care anymore.
Until now! Suddenly, global warming is, like, totally fetch!
So, to make it easy, here is what science has proved, cour
tesy the Environmental Protection Agency Web site:
We know for sure that "human activities" have an on
Earth's atmosphere in that the levels of greenhouse gases,
such as carbon dioxide, have increased since the pre-indus
trial era. We know for sure that the Greenhouse Effect ex
ists; that is, greenhouse gases warm the planet by trapping
heat in the planet's atmosphere, and thus the human-con
trolled buildup of greenhouse gases contributes to the
Greenhouse Effect. We know that the temperature has risen
about 1 degree Fahrenheit since the 19th century, and that
that increase has slightly reduced snow cover around the
world and the size of ice caps, among other consequences.
What is disputed is whether these scientifically proven
global warming factors will result in a catastrophic disas
ter that will end human life on the planet.
You may be asking, then, why the movie features a new
ice age while global warming asserts new warming?
The accepted scenario among environmentalists is
that water coming from the polar ice caps and glaciers,
which would be melted by the increased temperature,
would flow into the Atlantic ocean, thus shutting down
the Gulf Stream and halting warmth for Europe and
parts of North America, according to http://www.com
mondreams.org, a progressive Web site. What would re
sult, according to some, is either a full ice age that would
doom the world or a "little ice age" that would give us
harsh winters and droughts.
In short there are many other pressing issues that would
make a whole lot more sense to worry about right now, in
cluding war, the misuse of incidental fee funds and who
will win American Idol. This movie, and the issues it raises,
is just another topic used by the talking heads to scare the
pants off the naive.
Steve Baggs Illustrator
Playing
with patriotism
On Friday, ABC's television program
"Nightline" devoted its airtime to show
ing the names and faces of 721 American
soldiers killed in Iraq. The conservative
Sinclair Broadcast Group censored the
program on its seven ABC stations, claim
ing that Ted Koppel had "a political agen
da designed to undermine the efforts of
the United States."
Republican Sen. John McCain dis
agreed, calling the censorship "unpatriot
ic." But other conservatives blasted "Night
line" — and Democrats in general — for
using the war dead as a political tool. Like
taking photos of flag-draped coffins, any
reporting on the terrible human cost of
war is considered partisan journalism.
Now, as of May 4, the number of U.S.
soldiers killed in Iraq has grown to 760. By
the time you read this article, who knows
how many more will be dead.
The last two months in Iraq have been
particularly horrific. Nearly 30 percent of
U.S. soldiers killed in the war have been
killed in the past two months. Nearly 40
percent of those killed in hostile action in
Iraq have been killed in the past two
months. In April alone we lost 139 sol
diers, more than any other month. And
so far in May, we are on track to break
that record.
Some might see these numbers as
proof that the situation in Iraq is deterio
rating. Some might see it as proof that the
president has botched the war and is not
doing all that he can to win the peace and
protect American lives.
But Mark Alexander, executive editor
and publisher of The Federalist, an online
conservative journal, sees things different
ly. In a May 1 column, he suggests that
John Kerry, not George W. Bush, is to
blame for the increasing death rate in Iraq.
"The danger, of course, is that (Kerry's)
David Jagernauth
Critical mass
protests today have emboldened Iraqi
insurgents in places like Fallujah and Na
jaf — just as his protests more than 30
years ago emboldened the Viet Cong in
places like Dong Ap Bia. The cost of Ker
ry's political folly is tallied not only in
Demo-campaign donations, but in flag
draped caskets...
"In the 15 months since the coalition's
invasion of Iraq, 736 American service per
sonnel have been killed. But more than a
fourth of those troops have been killed in
just the last two months — a period coin
ciding with the end of the Democrat presi
dential primary. What, you ask, is our
point? Merely that this is precisely the mo
ment when John Kerry's dissenting views
on our mission in Iraq became the central
focus of his political campaign — as
broadcast around the world. *
I know what you are thinking. I also
thought Alexander was just another right
wing lunatic, but then I did some research.
What I found is nothing short of astound
ing. It is even worse than Alexander imag
ined. There exists a direct connection be
tween John Kerry's criticism of the war and
U.S. casualties in Iraq, suggesting that, like
Osama Bin Laden, his speeches are de
signed to aid the terrorists.
For example, on April 17 we lost 11
American soldiers, one of the bloodiest
days in the war. It just so happens that
was also the day that John Kerry delivered
the democratic response to the presi
dent's weekly radio address. Coinci
dence? I don't think so.
During the radio address, Kerry made
audacious attacks that were clearly meant
to provide comfort to our enemies. For
instance, he said, "In order to complete
our mission, we must review our tactics
and change where it is practicable and
makes sense."
And: "We must supply our military
commanders with the additional troops
they have requested."
And this treasonous bit: "By sharing re
sponsibilities with our friends and allies,
we can get others to share the burdens
and the risks."
Do you still doubt that Kerry is respon
sible for the increasing deaths of our sol
diers in Iraq?
Okay, then how do you explain this: On
April 8, Kerry gave a speech in Wisconsin
where he said all sorts of anti-American
things like, "No matter what our feelings
about the war, we support the troops."
Then the next day we lost 15 soldiers.
And on April 3 Kerry delivers a radio
address; the next day 12 soldiers are
killed. The examples go on and on. It is
impossible to come to any other conclu
sion than to say that if it weren't for Kerry
and those damn Democrats with their
constant pessimism we would have won
the War on Terrorism by now.
Oh, and please think of Mark Alexan
der the next time you hear a conservative
accuse the Democrats of playing politics
with the lives of our soldiers in Iraq.
Contact the columnist
at davidjagemauth@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.