Just as the dominant media fails to remind the public that in the 1970's the environmental experts were predicting an "ice age" rather than "global warming," that in the 1920's such experts were predicting an imminent and dangerous loss of polar ice (which subsequently expanded rather than contracting) and that in 2005 such experts categorically asserted that "global warming" (a) not only caused Hurricane Katrina (b) but also would make such massive hurricanes the rule rather than the exception thereafter, after which 2006 and 2007 became two of the mildest hurricane seasons on record, they likewise fail to remind the public that before construction of the Alaskan oil pipeline such experts predicted dire consequences not only for the environment but also for the wildlife but throughout the decades since construction of the pipeline the environment has remained vibrant and the wildlife has flourished. Obviously, what's needed is a massive public-education campaign since it's clear that the dominant media being "in the tank" for radical environmentalists will not present both sides of the issues.
Rather than accurately reporting scientific flaws in, and widespread skepticism about, the "man-is-making-Mother-Earth too hot" theory, the dominant media, which is overwhelmingly secular*, have adopted the human-caused global warming theory as their substitute religion. It's what I call "pantheopianism"-- the pantheistic worship of nature with the zealotry of utopianism. (*By the way, I'm a secular non-theist, but unlike the secular fundamentalists who dominate the media, I haven't discarded the scientific method in favor of a politically-correct theological substitute for religion.)
Likewise, just as the dominant media being "in the tank" for the radical environmentalists makes them unwilling to present all sides of the "climate" issues, the dominant media being "in the tank" for Barack Obama makes them unwilling to subject Obama to the intensity of scrutiny to which they subject McCain, who ceased being the media's "darling" when he transitioned from a "Republican" attacking President Bush into a Republican running for President. Yet the fact that even the current polls show the race between Obama and McCain to be very close rather than showing Obama far ahead warrants an inference that many American voters would prefer McCain, rather than Obama, to be Commander in Chief whenever very bad things happen.
Since Obama and the rest of the chorus of the left had invested so much in their claim of superior "judgment" (in late 2006, throughout 2007 and through most of 2008 so far) that Iraq had become an un-winnable quagmire, the accelerating success of the counter-insurgency strategy designed by Petraeus and ordered by Bush is likely to make the deficiencies in Obama's (and the rest of the Left's) defeatist "judgment" more glaringly obvious. Thus, what is likely to occur is that the future trend line will favor McCain -- especially in the wake of his embrace of off-shore drilling (and despite his still stubbornly refusing to embrace drilling in ANWR).
--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Permanent links to this installment: