Newspaper Page Text
8A
March 3, 2005
Upinion
GUEST COMMENTARY By Rena Seeirnzor and Christopher |
The Bush
ini ion’s
administration’s
: |
assault on science
The Bush Administration’s hostility to any and all science
that doesntNarrowly serve its political purposes was on dis
play again recentdy with the release of a new and disturbing
report about global warming,
The report, “Meeting the Climate Challenge,” by the
bipartisan International Climate Change Taskforce, conclud
ed that the planet is approaching a point of no return on
global warming,
In the absence of quick and effective action, we will face
irreversible and widespread drought, large-scale crop failure,
and rising sea-levels, the panel concluded. The Taskforce was
established by respected think tanks in the United States,
Britain, and Australia. It examined the relevant science, con
sulted with top experts in the field, made its assessment, and
issued a series of serious but teasible recommendations for
acuon.
The White Houses response? Silence. Indeed, when
pressed on the issue at his daily press “gaggle” later in the
week, White House Communications Director Scott
McClellan fell back on the administrations familiar global
warming refrain: We need to “advance the science,” and get a
“better understanding,” before we actually do anything,
That, of course, is nidiculous. Scientists are unanimous in
their conclusion that we have ample evidence in hand to con
clude that global warming is real, that it is caused by humans,
and that to stave off serious consequences, we need to begin
cutting emissions of greenhouse gases now. They debate just
how quickly global warming will proceed, and how disastrous
its impact will be.
But they don't disagree that it’s real, manmade, or serious.
Much as the Religious Right has succeeded in exploiting
minor debates over the specifics of fossil records to create the
impression that the scientific community is somehow uncer
tain about evolution, so, too, are polluting industries and the
Bush administration trying to persuade us that global warm
ing is nothing more than a theory. And adding insult to
injury, they do it by saying we need ever more sdentific
research. Indeed, for all the president’s protestations that he
doesn' shape his positions around the polls, it turns out that
the repeated calls for “more science” on global warming are
entirely in keeping with the recommendations of at least one
very prominent Republican pollster.
In 2003, newspaper accounts reported on a warning to
conservatives from pollster Frank Luntz that “the scientific
debate (on global warming) is dosing,” and that “should the
public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled,
their views... will change accordingly.”
So Lunw said conservatives “need to continue to make the
lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.”
Publicly, that's exactly what the administrations doing, But
behind the scenes, they're working to suppress the very sci
ence they say they're supporting. Early in his administration,
the president commissioned a study of global warming by
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). It condluded
global warming was real and on its way. But when the Bush
EPA went to cite the results of the study in a report, White
House officials demanded that they delete all references to
the NAS findings as well as to any other research corrobo
rating the global-warming problem. In its place, the White
House instructed EPA to cite an oil-industry-funded study
that questioned global-warming research.
It has continued that approach to global warming issues to
this very day, even as the already overwhelming evidence of
global warming continues to mount.
Now, courtesy of the International Climate Change Task
force, we have a meter running on the issue. Will we meet
the challenge of dimate change by accepting the over
whelming consensus of the scientific community and acting
on it? Or, will we follow the president’s anti-science, head
in-the-sand approach to global disaster?
Rena 1. Steinzor and Christopher H. Schroeder are Member
Scholars of the Center for Progressive Regulation, and co-editors
of A New Progressive Agenda for Public Health and the Fnvi
romment.
Charles W. Walker
Publisher
- Editor-in-Chief
Since 1981
A Walker Group Publication i (fl \
1143 Laney Walker Blvd. N ] /A
@‘E"fi%
Ebony Brown Marketing Manager
Mary Kangal Subscription Coordinator
James Wilkins Circulation Manager
Jessica Baptiste Staff Writer
Reneé Norris Graphic Designer
Dennis Williams Graphic Designer
Nl O TEMAN o
o & IDENCE FOR 5 YEARS = LIROaY. é{
“ {: S'fl'NG ON E“DE e -..»”: ” :‘»:»‘:\;_\,-»\ — > \. ))/
L TR T e , e 0%
= = T= 57 o eETHE FIRST )\
5;/;'/’ - i .Wi - Tme =
,// fiuMngg‘g’f N L ?y’ ONE To “-.'f.-.‘“.fl -
2 U You}l}& SIDE o T e =oo e
A\ erais, WOWDNT You! ot Bp 7{—s‘ B
.k 7 z ' ) =R NS
2 - R T e& e
P NG~ b % SR =
e AL veriGe CNEEESEE
A \ .N y > | . \\‘-\‘Q‘“.‘
. v . e ‘ . § - :v.‘;::.\\‘:zh :\::'
- /,',“ /. - “.\l"\ ‘i9 é' A “t—\\\\:‘
. % v;; S/- : o,‘ N -
77 ? p%;, 4’(} VhaA e ¢ — -
77/ .< / %:‘.)@ , _:/,\g LS q 2
774 ‘ W (o R
/ i g"y‘/ - /Cg\/&;{//rl. [\ ? ——\/‘:.;a L q
/ AL PN T IMLSR -
7 & 3 -~ =5 v(\ AT A )
eey Y
4 1% VN B . *‘ P %—- ! Y.\ “ WA%ON ‘f &
% J/fl //‘. ""l. ‘ ,/A\ - Drmlllil 4 - & ‘,\? ‘73. :PBS? ok‘bzg
|SR QSO 80N @@' """"‘. }‘. }V\éx 5 U
g 4” e 7/ , ¢ A E -
’/y’ re B 2 -//T L Z e MOy “s @’?R‘VX : .’4‘
Y L ’Q/ { o r‘:fi](‘,‘,& - ‘! B
N ;\\\\")»’."/ 1 25
Jamie, Denzel, Sidney, and Morgan
I don't normally watch
the Academy Awards
because for years African
American actors were
ignored by The Academy.
&’hcn I was young and |
would watch award shows |
always wondered why the
movies | had seen weren't
mentioned?
I thought Shaft, Superfly,
The Mack, Truck '/{;rm’r‘
and Blackula were all quali
ty movies with great rcr
formances. | later conclud
ed that The Academy and |
didn't see eye to eye so |
would award my actors
Watkins Awards.
In the ninth grade I start
ed making up awards in my
mind so Fstoppcd yoing to
sports banquets ;mj watch
ing award shows. | took
matters into my own hands.
This year I did my Nor
man but | couldnt hel
myself. So I found myscn
flipping back and forth
between The Academy
Awards show and the bas
ketball game.
By coincidence or luck |
saw both Morgan Freeman
and Jamie Foxx receive their
awards. Now, when it
comes to Jamie | felt that
An Academy Awards program finally worth watching
Like Usher, I have a
confession. | don't usual
ly watch the Academy
Awards, 1 don’t think
much of the garbage that
usually emanates from
Hollywood. And 1
almost gag every time
someone tries to hold up
entertainers and athletes
as role models for
African-Americans. But
I tuned in Sunday night
for one reason and only
for one reason — to see if
Jamie Foxx would get a
well-deserved Oscar for
his portrayal of Ray
Charles.
And when he won, |
yelled. To understand
my attachment to the
movie, Ray, you must
understand that I love to
mimic people. I can imi
tate Jesse Jackson,
Ronald Reagan, John F
Kennedy, my high
school principal, my for
mer football coaches,
AUGUSTA FOCUS
o 1, ST
3 # |
black in the ojty
there was no way he could
nt win. He didnt know it
but prior to the show | had
already awarded him best
actor via my own awards
system. When [ went to the
movies to see Ray | saw Ray
Charles because Jamie
Foxx disappeared in that
movie he became Ray
Charles.
I am a movie buff I have
never been so taken by an
actor’s pcrfurmancc as |
was by Jamie Foxx's per
formance in Ray.
Now what does all this
prove? The fact that four
African American men
have taken home academy
awards with Morgan and
Jamie doing their thing
this year, does this mean
things have changed? No,
what it means is t%nn Jamie
Howard Cosell and Ste
vie Wonder, among oth
ers. But after seeing
Jamie Foxx s Ray
Charles, not a week has
passed without me imi
tating Jamie Foxx imitat
ing Ray Charles. I know
what you're thinking:
Why not skip the mid
dleman and imitate Ray
Charles? 1f that’s your
question, you haven't
seen the movie. See, imi
tating Jamie Foxx is imi
tating Ray Charles.
There is no middleman.
Rooting for Jamie Foxx
to win was also prompt
ed by my feelings toward
and Morgan’s work was so
far above their peers that
The Academy had to come
clean.
African American actors
are finally getting some
uality parts in films pro
3uccc{ and directed b
white men and as a resuK
they are being allowed to
show their stuff. The
Academy can't do to their
own what they have done
to African American film
makers for years. They are
forced to recognize the
work of their white col
leagues, and honor the
African American actors
they feature in their films.
When African American
actors are given quality
parts they will do their
thing because if there is
one thing my people can
do we can act.
As much as we should
celebrate the accomplish
ments of Mr. Foxx and
Mr. Freeman our celebra
tion should not be because
they recognized them but
rather we should celebrate
them because they are
great actors.
When The Academy rec
Ray Charles, the man.
When he stopped per
forming before segregat
ed audiences in the
South, he began occupy
ing a special place in my
heart. I've been a fan of
Bill Russell, the former
Boston Celtics center,
and Muhammad Ali over
the years, not because
they were exceptional
athletes — and they were
~ but because they
refused to be relegated to
anyone’s back seat.
When 1 was in high
school, I remember read
ing Bill Russell’s autobi
ography, Go Up for
Glory, and his recount
ing how he flew back to
Boston when he learned
that he was expected to
stay in a colored hotel
on the road. Ali risked
his career, standing up
for his religious beliefs.
Russell and Ali were the
exceptions.
ognizes the work of
A%rican American produc
ers and directors Sren we
are to celebrate because
that would signal real
change in Hollywood. It
woul§ mean that we are
finally in charge of our
artistic destiny. %mil then
we must admit they are
recognizing the work done
on the plantation still
under their control and we
are still at their mercy.
The spirit of African
American independence
must be our goal. Unuil
African American movie
makers have complete
control we have yer 1o
overcome. When will Julie
Dash get hers? When will
The l§u hes Brothers get
theirs? %Vhen will Spfi(c
Lee get his? When will
John Singleton get his?
When wfil Melvin Van
Pebbles get his lifetime
achievement award? How
long?
Dr. Watkins is a sociology
professor at Augusta State
University and tir president
7/ Unity’ Council Inc. and
he can be reached via his
website: www.ralph
watkins.org.
And soo was By
Charles. And that’s why
I pulled so hard for
Jamie Foxx on Sunday
night.
I was also pleased that
Morgan Freeman won an
Oscar for his supporting
role as a retired boxer in
Million Dollar Baby. I'd
much rather see him win
for that than for Driving
Miss Daisy. Let Miss
Daisy drive herself.
The fact that Morgan
Freeman won for his role
as an ex-boxer and Foxx
won for his portrayal of
Ray Charles is much
sweeter than three years
ago when Denzel Wash
ington won for Training
Day and Halle Berry
won for Monster’s Ball.
That was the first time
that two African-Ameri
cans had won Oscars for
acting; Sunday night was
Sec Awards, page 13A