Jan 15, 2010

Danny Glover did not say that the Haitian earthquake was caused by global warming.

It's quite likely that Danny Glover is currently having one of those moments that has you wishing life had a reset button.

For those that aren't aware, on January 13, Glover was being interviewed by an online news program when he attempted to make a connection between the earthquake and climate change, apparently attempting to point out that if we continue to do nothing about climate change, as was pretty much the case at Copenhagen - then we'll have to deal with natural disasters on a more frequent basis.

Unfortunately for Glover, he flubbed his lines - and even more unfortunately for him, those "news" outlets that can never get enough of having a good guffaw about anything that ridicules the "global warming hoax" ran with it. They of course were helped along by the internetz fair and balanced purveyor of climate news, Matt Drudge. In the end, they've use his in-articulated words, the actual meaning of which can likely be placed into context by most eleven year-olds, to imply that Danny Glover believes that earthquakes are caused by global-warming.

So - for those of you who are inclined towards truth, as opposed to bending reality to fit your political blinders, I have included a transcript of the relevant statements as they were conveyed by Glover's fumbling tongue (after the video).





Danny Glover on GRITtv – January 13, 2009

... This is a great moment for another type of internationalism – y'know? And I, and I hope we seize this particular moment, because the threat of what happened to Haiti is a threat that can happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, y'know? They're all in peril because of global warming. They're all in peril because of climate change, and all this – we need to (inaudible), this, this, when we back, when we did what we did at the climate summit, in Copenhagen – this is the respon..., this is what happens, y'know what I'm saying? We have to act now... (bumper music begins – end of time slot)

8 comments:

Manuko said...

Translated to spanish and quoted in: http://librexpresion.org/danny-glover-no-dijo-que-el-terremoto-haitiano-fue-causado-por-el-cambio-climatico

The Anti Press said...

"Nonsense" eh?

I'll just assume that something's been lost in translation.

Manuko said...

LOL, I had to look for what you was talking about.

Well, as it's wrote in spanish, it means that the whole thread is nonsense, taking as whole thread the point of Danny Glover saying that the climatic change have any relationship with the earthquake.

So, the "nonsense" comes from that, not from your redaction - I mind, its nonsense to accuse Danny Glover about that.

Anyway, in this case, the best translation is not "nonsense" but "absurdity" or "piffle" or "folly" - talking about the whole thread again, of course. You can check it in google: the original word in spanish was "disparate": http://translate.google.es/translate_t?hl=&ie=UTF-8&text=disparate&sl=es&tl=en#

The Anti Press said...

Fair enough Manuko - sorry for being paranoid.

As a non-Spanish speaker, may I make a suggestion to you folks.

There was a story not too long ago about Chavez giving a speech in which he called Mugabe a brother, and defended Idi Amin.

While I can kind of understand him having this point of view - I think that if he did say it, it's harmful to his reputation in the north.

Chavez is NOT Mugabe. Mugabe has retained his power by taking democracy from the hands of his people.

However, I have never found a transcript of the speech. I have a strong suspicion that this speech was taken out of context by the corporate press.

You can find the story here: (you've probably already seen it)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6927299.ece

If you're able to find a video, or a transcript - and then write an article if it has been taken out of context or fabricated - that would be a hell of a story.

And if you do write it - I would be happy to write an English version from the transcript - and let you post it on your site.

Happy writing.

The Anti Press said...

And thanks for the kind words.
Peace

Manuko said...

Two comments about that:

First one.

You know, I'm not a denfensor of Robert Mugabe, nor his accusator. Just have this in mind: until 2000, Mugabe was friend of everyone in almost everywhere.

He was just doing what Mandela did in Southafrica with the end of the Apartheid: giving rights to the black people in Zimbawe against the monopoly of the white minority. Then, the supporting from, for example, the Commonwealth, finnished when Mugabe did the last step in that kind of "revolution": agrarian reform, or distribution of the land to the whole population.

It happened with him the opposite thing than with Muammar Al-Gadaffi, who was first a cruel dictator and now a good friend of Europe - after the bombing over his home in 1986 by the United States. The question is: How it happened? Well, economics answers that...

The stronger accusations against Mugabe are that when he win the elections, the opposition gets always very low rates, so, with that low rates for the oppositor parties, the elections are "obviously" manipulated. The other one accusation against him is that he's distributing the land to his friends...

Other accusation sais that he gets the oppositors in jail. In fact, the current prime minister of Zimbawe was the last oppositor of Mugabe. Anyway, the press said that thing when the Goverment of Zimbawe got part of the rulers of one party into jail, after they said in TV and international networks that they had to kill Mugabe and finnish with his revolution as soon as possible.

One question about that: What would happend in States if the leader of the Republican Party sais in TV that the people have to kill Obama?

Another point sais that Mugabe's fellows use to kill oppositors to the regime. In fact, the opposition's politicians dead in Zimbawe in "strange circumstances", were all dead in car crashes. To accuse Mugabe about that, we have to assume that the Zimbawe's roads are perfectly safe...

You know, I have heard the same things about Chavez. The last one was that Chavez changed the money interest rates because he wants to get more money for his party.

For me, Mugabe is just as bad ruler as anyone else ruler in Europe or North America, because where the spanish political class, for example, fuck us a lot at the moment (I'm unemployed since three months ago, and I lost three jobs the last year because my bosses couldn't pay me... and that without talking about other threads such as soldiers in Afganistan, traditional animal abuse, the parsimony of the Goverment, the corruption that at least they fight against, the internet surfer rights - that are under threat: at the moment they setted up a bureaucracy method to close webpages "by the quick way" under the charge of multimedia copyright infringement -, and so on...). There are differences, of course, but ours are bad rulers and Mugabe too...

Anyway, for me it's true that there could be something dark about Mugabe (and I'm not speaking about his skin...), but there are darker things about the situation of Zimbawe: Why the north - and not only the north but Southafrica - abandoned Zimbawe to their fate and punished the whole country with an economic blockade?

Manuko said...

The second one:

Between the points of view from Naomi Klein and a spanish periodist called Pascual Serrano ( who was one of the founder editors of Telesur, the international left-wing news network of Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Uruguay and Argentina, and the founder editor of Rebelion.org, a online and daily newspaper where I collaborated sometimes ), and of course my own point of view, I just can figure out that Mugabe wanted to do a socialist revolution, and that Europe and North America didn't like that.

You know what happens then: corporative networks begin with their propaganda, so no-one with sense of truth can figure out if Mugabe is fairly elected or not...That's why I refuse to be his defensor nor his acusator.

Finally, at the moment he won the elections the last time (I think it was two years ago or so), but the finnancial situation of Zimbawe was so fucked up that he gave the Goverment to the opposition. He's the Chairman, yeah, but the MP is his oppositor, under a "National Unity" goverment. I've seen an interview in TV to the Zimbawe's MP, Morgan Tsvangirai, and I just can say that all I heard from him was a strongly biased and subjective point of view.

He just talked about his car crashing in 2008: while after the accident his fellows said that it had not relationship with the Goverment, now he sais that Mugabe tried to kill him.

So, he was in a two-directions road and his car crashed with the truck of an asleep driver, but it was Mugabe that tried to kill him...

In the last ellections, he just went into the first ellection round - and he won, but didn't go to the second round - he said then that the country was mired in violence and that the ellections wouldn't be fair enough... But now, without being ellected, he's the MP.

About Chavez supporting Mugabe, I read about it before. I'll take this link to translate the words of Chavez: http://www.tunoticierodigital.com/foro/chavez-defiende-a-mugabe-y-le-ofrece-apoyo-moral-y-politico-t10087.html

He just said that Mugabe was as satanized by the corporative press as himself was, and offered help to Zimbawe.

He said too that: "Mugabe became the target of some entities of the world's system, and trought the western press they satanize him, they attack him"

And: "The zimbawe's population apreciates Mugabe because of his anti-imperialist fights. He's a man who dedicated his life to the anti-colonial fight. We have to defend him"

Finally, he added: "There's a statement supporting Cuba, requiring United States to respect the United Nations resolutions and lift the bloqueade. The same way for Zimbawe. It's solidarity."

That's the best I can get so far...

Finally, he defended Mugabe, and I don't think there's any problem about that because what I said before.

For me Mugabe continue being the same: a bad ruler. But the northern point of view about anything is always ruled by corporate news networks, so, 'til my point of view is yet the lesser accusation, I cannot say anything else.

(I hope I wrote it clear enough... it's too late here... well, in fact it's to earl, morning... lol)

The Anti Press said...

That's a lot to chew on. Thanks for that - I'll have a closer look soon, but it's late here - so good night to you.