False History

So I've obviously filled my last semester with "easy A" classes, but to my surprise a class titled "The Contemporary Enlightenment: Science, Technology, and Human Values" seems to not be as wishy-washy as the title emplies. We're currently talking about how the absence of important national concerns in US media seems to be a recurring theme. Why? Hopefully this class will explain that (one of the assigned books is Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent).

Well my daily perusing of The Guardian has, not shockingly, lead me to a direct example. One of today's top articles outlines the Alaskan Rep. senator Lisa Murkowski's disapproval of congressional abilities to potentially cap greenhouse emissions in her state. She argues that it will further promote unemployment and is quoted in saying, "[climate regulations are] under the guise of protecting the environment, it's set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy."

Well, Lisa, I think that's a pretty steep connection. If you want to widen the divide between the economic classes, take a page out of your boss', Barack Obama's, book (see my previous post for the day.) Complete financial and legal freedom of the wealthiest domestic private industry in world history (a.k.a Wall Street) seems, at least in my perspective, to be a much more effective way of destroying John Q. Taxpayer's 401k. Maybe you didn't learn that when you were a member of Pi Beta Phi sorority. Maybe that's not fair. For a better understanding of your agenda, all we need to do is look at your voting record in the 2006 congressional year.

You voted:

• against S.C. Resolution 83, intended to bolster energy security and lower energy-related environmental impacts
• against an amendment to S. 728 which would make the Army Corps of Engineers more accountable for the environmental and economic impacts of their projects
• for oil drilling in ANWR
• for domestic offshore oil and gas drilling

Interesting; let's take a look at your top 5 campaign contributors for the last 5 years. Listed in order from highest paying:

1. Edison Chouest Offshore
2. Constellation Energy
3. Van Ness Feldman
4. Southern Co.
5. Exxon Mobile

Wow, almost unanimously energy corporations. For those of you who aren't aware, Van Ness Feldman is a law firm that specializes in representing energy conglomerates. I guess it isn't a shock that Murkowski's net worth in the year 2008 alone (which is the most recently reported year) went from $655,000 to over $2 million. Just something to think about.

Ok enough about Lisa Murkowski. The thesis of this post is that the NY Times, regarded as one of the nation's most legitimate main stream news sources, decided that this story wasn't important enough to post on their front page. The only mention of Murkowski's speech is in an editorial that can only be reached using the "search" bar at the top of the webpage. Wait a minute, maybe the NY Times had more important topics to discuss today. Fair enough, here is a list of a few of the front page stories on their website for today, 1/21/2010

Seeing is Disbelieving: What it felt like to play against Mark McGuire

Other People's Lives: 'Girl on the Train' is a seductive drama

ArtsBeat: Gym, tan, and the Jersey Shore. Discuss


My favorite is the last one, but hey, that's just me.

Here is a link to the Murkowski article on The Guardian