All Comments (73)

Cal is spot on. Most of these people responding are simply communists...they LOVE big brother.

There is NOT evidence to state that global warming is caused by humans or industrialized nations. Period.

The 'consensus' used to be that global COOLING was the fault of humans. Same environmentalist tactics...

Yawn.

DUCKPHUP in the write-up above is getting close to what's happening. But it takes an organization to make things happen.

It would seem the 'Dominionists' are simply using the ruse of Jesus returning to manipulate people's minds so that the 'they' can rule the world as they see fit.

The way they seem to think is that they are not in total control yet and the environmental problem is not a crises yet so why bother. It would seem obvious that they are not concerned about the debt because they don't intend to repay it legitimately.

Has there been one "Grand Old Party" since the writings attributed to Moses that is the behind the scenes organization that believes it is to run the world? Or did the Grand Old Party originate in Egypt and the writings attributed to Moses was just another phase and another tool?

Bushco etc. rather than seeming to sincerely believe in Jesus seem rather to think that they invented God and Jesus. Thence, destruction of people and their environment is of no concern to them.

All 'theology' is man/woman made or derived but humanity doesn't seem to want to except that.

oh jesus cal you show us once more that not all clowns work for the circus! get a life!

EMM

Yes, they are selective, aren't they? One thing that always puzzles me is that fundamentalists hate evolution (which means implicitly that they have to reject vast swathes of genetics, chemistry, physics, and geology on which the conclusions are based). For some reason, though, fields like reproductive biology are spared their wrath, even though virgin conception is an impossibility in mammals for many reasons, not least of which is that the resulting Jesus would be haploid. As you say, it is also puzzling that science can lead to all sorts of wondrous things that can be seen with one's own eyes -- like the processors in this computer -- and yet ALL of the vast and internally consistent threads of evidence that support evolution by natural selection + drift are rejected (in favor of an Iron Age text that has not one but two distinct creation stories that are not internally consistent).

There is one aspect to Cal Thomas, and many other fundamentalists’ distain for science, that seems to get little noticed. These people seem to have no issue when science is used to achieve things they apparently find useful. I have in mind such things as faster cars, ever taller buildings, ever more lethal weapons and the development of new generations of nukes etc. But once science moves into the arenas of biology, human reproduction, the origins of the universe, the evolution of species or global warming all of a sudden they become dismissive and antagonistic. Why is this? I think I have an answer, but it is, I’ll admit, a personal opinion. Where biology is involved it’s all about origin of life issues (i.e. sex). Where weapons technologies and/or global warming are at issue, it’s all about power and control (i.e. capitalism and nationalism). To put it rather crassly; sex bad, power good.

Cal Thomas wrote:

"There is a certain “fundamentalism” in the secular liberal approach to “global warming.” Even some evangelicals are getting into this “faith” that the earth is getting warmer because of human action."

-- 'Faith'? You need to get up to speed on the science. --

"Some of the same scientists who accept “global warming” as true also say the planet will continue to get warmer no matter what humans do. And since the planet has warmed and cooled during periods long before the Industrial Revolution and hydrocarbon emissions became a concern, the worshipers of “Mother Earth” are hard-pressed to blame this cyclical phenomena solely on human behavior, though that has not stopped them from trying."

-- One thing that you fail to appreciate here is that this is the first time that such a thing has occurred while a technically competent species was extant... a society that might end up getting destroyed, unless we act. And though the planet will continue to get warmer no matter what we do, if we take action NOW we can POSSIBLY avert attaining the 'tipping point'. Do you know what will happen if the permafrost thaws, in northern climes? Hundreds of BILLIONS of tons of CO2 will be released into the atmosphere in a VERY short time span. At that point, RUNAWAY global warming will likely occur... a process that will be irreversible via human intervention, and might very well leave us with a climate very much like Venus. Nobody will walk away from that.

But you don't think that we need to worry about that, do you? (More on that, below). --

"I am a conservationist, not an environmentalist. Conservationists believe people should be persuaded not to foul the air, water and land we share. Environmentalists think "big brother" should control what we eat, wear, drive and how much water we should be allowed to use while taking a shower, or flushing a toilet. They worship at the shrine of big government, believing government knows what is best for all of us."

-- Wow. Talk about 'disingenuous'. The reason that it is necessary for 'big brother' to get involved is that people CAN NOT BE "...persuaded not to foul the air, water and land we share"... except, of course, for them danged 'secular liberal' weenies, who you disparage... those who are possessed of an environmental 'conscience'. Those who are concerned about the kind of world we will bequeath to our progeny, generations hence.

But you don't think that we need to worry about that, do you? (More on that, below). --

"In Genesis 1, God subjected all He had created to Adam and told him to "subdue" the earth. Following that event, in Genesis 3, Man fell and both Man and the earth became corrupted. This led to disease and ultimately pollution and the death of all living things."

-- Here is where Mr. Thomas lets us get a first peek his 'Dominionist' credentials. Genesis 1:26 of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (NIV)

Most Christians interpret this verse as meaning that God gave mankind dominion over the animal kingdom. But 'Dominion' theologians believe that that this verse commands Christians to bring all societies, around the world, under the rule of the Word of God.

Its most common form, Dominionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. Its followers, called Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to properly 'explain it to them'.

All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly Fundamentalist Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed.

There were an estimated 110,000 Pentecostal and fundamentalist churches in America in the 1980s. Pat Robertson taught them... through his vast television network and through his books... that the role of the Christian is to rule over the wicked. Dominionism’s purpose is to create theocrats (a Christian class of rulers). But in order to successfully place only certain Christians in positions of power, Dominionism divides Christian believers into classes based upon political ideology and certain hot point issues.
 
The believers who are destined to rule are called the “elect,” and are separated from those believers who do not and will not accept the predestined superiority of the chosen ruling class. A Christian who raises his voice against the “elect” could be labeled a “false prophet or a dreamer of dreams,” and therefore, according to the Deuteronomic law “shall be put to death.”
 
Placing his own words in the mouth of God, Robertson wrote in The Secret Kingdom: “It is clear that God is saying, ‘I gave man dominion over the earth, but he lost it. Now I desire mature sons and daughters who will in My name exercise dominion over the earth and will subdue Satan, the unruly, and the rebellious. Take back My world from those who would loot it and abuse it. Rule as I would rule.’” (p. 201.)
 
On his 700 Club television show (5-1-86) Robertson said: “God’s plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen to take dominion. What is dominion? Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people to reign and rule with Him… but He’s waiting for us to… extend His dominion… And the Lord says, ‘I’m going to let you redeem society. There’ll be a reformation. We are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. We’re not gonna stand for it. We are going to say, ‘we want freedom in this country, and we want power…’” --

"The Christian who believes the Bible also believes that God will restore the Earth -- as He will Man -- to the perfect state he once enjoyed before he fell. "A new heaven and a new earth," John puts it in Revelation.
While we are not indifferent to being good stewards of this planet (just as we want a hotel room that is clean when we travel), we know this is not our ultimate home and so we do not "worship" Earth as our mother, or anything other than what it is: A temporary dwelling place that is a preview of a far better place that is still to come."

-- So... this is where Mr. Thomas truly reveals his hugely warped and dangerous thinking. When he says that he believes that we should "... be PERSUADED not to foul the air, water and land we share", he means that we must take reasonable steps to assure that we don't make the world completely uninhabitable BEFORE Jesus returns... probably within the next 50 years... waving a flaming sword and destroying everything and everyone, except for the 'chosen few'. He believes that the world was put here for our pleasure and use. We don't have to be worried about preserving the environment and resources for future generations for the simple reason that future generations won't need this earth; the few who survive Jesus' holocaust will be given a NEW earth... and the rest will be condemned to the fires of hell.

Cal Thomas is a Bush-clone (or vice-versa)... and Bush thinks he is on a mission from god, charged with shaping the Middle East and setting the conditions for Jesus' return. These people do not care about the long-term consequences of raising the national debt to crushing levels... because they believe that the world will soon be destroyed by 'the Lord', and we won't have to pay it back. They are not worried about global warming, because they think that it will take 100 years for it to become catastrophic... and Jesus will be back to destroy the world and punish evil-doers (99% + of the world's population) LONG before that happens. Thus (in their alleged minds), global warming is NOT a crisis... it is a mere distraction. That is why the Bushies have pooh-poohed the idea of global warming, and tried to dissuade the public from getting noisily concerned about it. Similarly, they are not worried about the depletion of resources or the destruction of the environment. Why should they be? There are MORE than enough resources to last until 'the Lord' gets back here, and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to totally booger-up the environment enough to make it uninhabitable in that time-frame. In all of these arenas, there are absolutely NO worries about letting things get so bad that they are irreversible... because nobody will EVER have to be concerned about reversing them.

Our foreign policy stance of unbridled support for the state of Israel is predicated not upon morality... it is predicated on the belief that it is necessary for Israel to exist in order for biblical prophecy to be fulfilled. In other words, we are helping to prevent the destruction at the hands of the Moslems so that it might be PROPERLY destroyed at the hands of 'the Lord'.

Mr. Thomas, you are dangerously deluded... and you are made MORE dangerous by virtue of the fact that you have a wide audience. You are locked into a world-view that is rooted in the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and peripatetic goat herders. You fathom these fairy tales to be some kind of cosmic 'truth'... although your 'truths' have no more of a basis in reality than do Odin, Zeus, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, bridge trolls or garden gnomes.

To learn what this crazy old coot is REALLY all about... along with the wing-nuts in the White House... Google for 'dominionism'. Pay particular attention to hits from the 'yurikareport' and 'religioustolerance.org'.

Mr. Thomas... the knowledge that a significant number of people like you exist, and are in positions of influence, actually makes me sick. A pox upon you, and all of your ilk. --

Brambleton:

Yes, IMO Thomas is shrugging off environmental responsibility. I cannot imagine that Jesus would agree with a word that Cal wrote.

And although I am no fan of Al Gore in general, at least he is concerned and trying to help. I can think of exactly ZERO conservative or "evangelical" Christians who have made a meaningful effort towards our planet's environmental whoas.

There are however a seemingly unlimited number of "evangelicals" and conservatives who assist, and/or are employed by the major polluters of our world. It seems that if there is enough MONEY involved then miraculously these industries are just a-ok with the God,Guts and Guns crowd.

God before Mammon indeed.

"I'm saying people want to do something and if its harmful or might offend someone, THEN go to the bible to justify it."

Yes, there are many people like that. I'm saying that there are other people whose sense of divine mission is so strong that theoretically, they're capable of doing almost anything. There are also people who are theoretically capable of doing anything simply because they are desperate to get to heaven or to avoid hell.

In my view, the first category is different because those people seem to be motivated mostly by earthly self-interest. In general, they're less likely to hurt others over a religious teaching if doing so would endanger their own lives or well-being.

(What is the religious objection to pornography, anyway? Is it simply about preventing self-gratification, which seems to be the real meaning behind the Supreme Court's "prurient interest" definition?)

Brambleton wrote:
---Fate, Does it make you feel better to purposefully misuse the word "sheep" in reference to believers? Your condescending tone would make a billygoat puke.---

My apologies to all ovis.

---You write as if all the world's ails are the result of catatonic believers who justify everything with scriptures from their holy texts.---

I'm not saying they look into the bible and decide to do something it says or allows. I'm saying people want to do something and if its harmful or might offend someone, THEN go to the bible to justify it. Cal's thesis, that pollution, which causes a lot of damage including disease, cancer and death, is justified because the bible says man was put here to "subdue" the earth, is a classic example of using the bible to justify what on the face of it is not a good thing for man to be doing. My point about the sheep is how some will read Cal's thesis and agree, not because pollution is benign, but because they do not want to go against the bible or its authority, an authority Cal assumes by using it.

---Maybe you could show me where rampant pornography is justified in the Bible? How about abortion? Is there scripture in John or Matthew that speaks to killing babies? Or maybe I missed the justification in the Song of Solomon for embracing homosexuality.---

The following and other like it were used to justify slavery and the harsh treatment of slaves in 19th century America:

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

As for killing babies, did the cities of Sodom or Gommorah have babies within its city limits? If so were they innocent or wicked? Its strange how a whole town can be destroyed but no mention of the babies, as though none lived there, not to mention the fetuses in pregnant women of which there must have been many. Does this event then justify the killing of pornographers and homosexuals? You see, the problem I have here is that the bible, OT and NT, are used to justify things we feel. Many feel homosexuality is wrong and they can find justification for their feelings in the bible as slave holders did to justify slavery, but I would simply ask you what Jesus would do:

-Would Jesus ever own a slave?
-Would Jesus discriminate against the homosexual, sending him/her to jail or otherwise ostrasize him/her from society?
-Would Jesus put in jail a poor pregnant women who could not support a child, or had been raped and did not want the child and sought an abortion?
-Would Jesus blame the porongrapher or would he blame the people who purchase and read the porongraphy without which the pornographer would have no customers?

This is what I find missing. I never hear priests, pastors or ministers ask the congregation what Jesus would do in a situation. Instead the bible is cherry picked to agree with what the church heiarchy has decided on the subject or society considers normal at the time. Most people who studied Christ and his teaching know what Jesus would do and so do not need a bible to explain their actions as Cal, and other like him, do. Would Jesus say that polluting our skies and waters, causing innumerable cancers downwind and downstream is just one way man is subduing the earth and is thus ok? I don't think so, but Cal ignores that argument and instead uses the bible, and uses it effectively and with all the authority believers give it and thus to Cal.

Greg says:

"Canada has 1/10 the population we do so it's far easier for them to manage a system that works."

If anything it's more difficult! A smaller pool of resources, a small population spread out across a vast landmass. Anyway, it's the same (or similar) system in every other industrialized nation on Earth.

AS for wait times, they are no worse for most procedures here in Canada than in the US, in some cases better. (My mother waited all of one week for cancer surgery last year.) And at least you can be sure of getting on the waiting list; if you have no insurance you don't even get that far...

Anyway, that's another topic. On the environment we sadly have just elected a Conservative Party that has spent the last ten years resisting any kind of government innovation on the environment. Their big plan would push any kind of real greenhouse gas reductions down the road thirty years. We have to do better.

BA'AL,
They are, but I think there are more than one source of GG. That's one of the problems, if it were just us humans, it'd be easy. Of course we'd also have to convince the Chinese who are building coal power plants like Vegas puts up casinos to be better stewards...

Fate, Brambleton has a legitimate point about your use of "sheep." Also, I think it's pointless to argue over what Jesus would have done in a modern-day situation.

And Brambleton, I agree that it's inaccurate to blame scriptural literalism for all the world's ills. Still, a valid question is to what degree the promise of heaven or the threat of hell can motivate believers. Were the 9/11 terrorists psychologically disposed to religious extremism? If they had grown up in a Christian environment, would they have become Dominionists or Eric Rudolphs? Or was the expectation of virgins in paradise enough to motivate them to sacrifice themselves? I don't know what was in their heads, although if I had to guess, I'd say it was a combination of personality and doctrine.

(As an aside, I disagree with your contention that homosexuality is an "ill". You may have a point about pornography if you're talking about the exploitation of women as part of the process of creating it. But when that exploitation is not a factor, I think there are many, many things that I would rank higher on a list of ills.)

Fate,

Does it make you feel better to purposefully misuse the word "sheep" in reference to believers? Your condescending tone would make a billygoat puke. You write as if all the world's ails are the result of catatonic believers who justify everything with scriptures from their holy texts. Maybe you could show me where rampant pornography is justified in the Bible? How about abortion? Is there scripture in John or Matthew that speaks to killing babies? Or maybe I missed the justification in the Song of Solomon for embracing homosexuality.

Think,

As an "evangelical", I do not fully support Cal's views. However, I don't believe Cal is suggesting that the Bible instructs us to "shrug" off stewardship of the environment. My take away from the editorial was that he doesn't subscribe to the "sky is falling" rhetoric championed by Mr. Gore. While I feel the same way, I would argue that Christians need to do more than what Mr. Thomas states is required of us.

Hey Cal,

There must be a number of Evangelicals who have read this post by now......Where are your defenders?

Could it be that absolutly NOBODY agrees with your absurd view that the Bible shrugs off evironmental responsibility.

Most reasonable children could pick apart your lame essay with ease.

Greg

I would certainly go for that. Actually, that is describes what is supposed to be current policy. However, the standards have to be strict, enforced, and I really think we need to look hard at greenhouse gasses.

Neal Jettpace wrote:
---My beef was with his choice of Apocalyptic Biblical Language to defend that thesis. I'm sorry, but that type of reasoning is simply moronic and has no place in a publication like the Washington Post.---

But its absolutely appropriate here. Cal is basing his thesis on his faith, and this column is after all called "On Faith". You need to ask yourself whether "faith" is the problem or is it Cal's misuse of the faith. I don't blame Cal if he seriously believes what he is saying. Faith has a way of leading people to delusional justifications for actions that benefit them. Since you can find a section of the bible that justifies almost anything, people who study the bible and use its quotes can therefore justify anything, and in the name of God at that!

Haven't you ever wondered why only small snippets of the bible are quoted? Such as section 2-5 or 11-15? The bible is rarely quoted in full context. Consider that the next time someone justifies polluting your neighborhood by quoting sections of Genesis 1 and 3 but leaving out Genesis 2:

2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

So Cal, by cherry picking his quotes, justifies polluters and I, cherry picking this quote, justify protecting the earth. And so the bible (and Quran and other holy texts) has been used through the ages for many justifications. But Cal never looks at it from a higher perspective. He never says that Jesus would have been happy to see pollution causing thousands to die each year from cancer or cause species to go extinct. That Jesus would have invited tobacco executives to his table. That Jesus would have said for people to obey the corporations spewing pollution into our air and waters because they are doing good. But how Jesus would respond to this question is not brought up by Cal because he knows he could not justify Jesus accepting pollution. Instead, he cherry picks biblical quotes to justify anything he wishes. And the sad part is the brainwashed believers nod their heads because the justification comes from the bible. No wonder the bible refers to believers as "sheep".

---The contrast between Cal's editorial and the rest of the panels' is like night and day. Good heavens, this is 2007, not 1007!---

Is it? What is different between the two eras? Does man not use the bible in 2007 to justify what cannot be justified on its own merits? The crusades began in the 11th century. What have we learned in 1000 years except that the foundations of most religions are wrong based on scientific investigation. Yet people like Cal quote from Genesis, something that does not square with what we know about earth and its history from science, to justify polluting the environment leading to animal extinctions and human disease and death. It might as well be 1007 since the religion and how it is used to justify the unjustifiable has changed little and believers are just as willing to let biblical quotes justify the unjustifiable.

Your science is bad, there are many good books and papers on global warming. I would suggest you read some before you make ignorant claims about what the scientists are telling us: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 and http://www.ipcc.ch/

Everybody lighten up on Brother Cal. No one ever claimed he had any brains. He is an evangelical after all.

BA'AL

So if standards were set by say the EPA and we had incentives to make them happen (carrot) and nasty taxes/fines etc. if they don't (stick), you'd go for that right? And I do think some problems only government can solve, but I have my doubts about which ones. I still think less is more if you catch my drift... :-D

BA'AL, what you say is absolutely so. If one has a tradesman come and say the job is impossible or argue that it shouldn't be done for any reason, fire him on the spot for the job will never get done the way it should be.

I think we're in a dark age just like before. It will take something as dramatic as the plague to wake us up. Hope it doesn't come before I go.

Greg

The one thing I am pretty sure of is that if you put people in charge of a government whose major ideology is that government can never solve a problem and actually IS the problem-- well, you are going to get a self-fulfilling prophecy. The FEMA response to Katrina is one of many examples of what will happen. EPA among many other agencies has been gutted to a shell of its former self.

I think some problems are so big that ONLY governments can solve them. Note the use of the plural in the last sentence. Probably impossible. But it would help if we had grownups in charge, people interested in more than the potential for plunder.

I agree with your carrot and stick idea completely.

Come now WILLEM, you didn't see nice and ever righteous Mr Cal Thomas at a topless bar? Surely you jest. Baptists don't do nothing like that? Do they?

Which one of those reps from GA was it that insisted he always got a divorce from his last wife before sex with the next one when Larry Flint got after him over the Clinton impeachment thing?

OH JESUS CAL PLEEZEE NEXT TIME YOU TALK TO HER I MEAN YOUR JESUS/GOD PLEASE ASK HER FOR A NEW TOUPEE OR PERHAPS IN HEAVEN SHE CALLS IT A NEW RUG FOR YOUR HOMOPHOBIC HEAD.
OH BY THE WAY CALBABI HOW ARE YOUR TWINKIE BUDDIES ROBERTSON AND FALWELL ARE THEY STILL RIPPING OFF OUR COUNTRYMEN AND WOMEN?? REMEMBER CALL WHAT I TOLD YOU LAST TIME I SAW YOU AT THAT STRAIGHT? TOPLESS BAR IN ATLANTA "RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE ANSWER"!

Hermit,
Canada has 1/10 the population we do so it's far easier for them to manage a system that works. What happens if the government offers universal plan for people who have no insurance through their employers or are unemployed. Well it sounds well and good but how long would it take for companies to drop their plans and save money and make the employees take the government plan. And what do you think the tax rates will do at that point?

I just don't trust the federal government that much.

A. Hermit,

You are correct about socialized health care in Canada. The problem is the wait for service. And where do Canadians go when they need experts in various medical fields? Places like the Mayo Clinics in the USA of course.

The uninsured in the USA is however very troubling. Having more doctors would help quite a bit in making medical treatment affordable but the AMA restricts the number of doctors. Why? To keep doctors' fees high so they can live high. Know any US doctors that do not belong to a country club? (How does this work in Canada? ) The US Congress should pass laws to restrict the activity of the groups like the AMA

A tax on the pay of CEO's (and stock brokers/mutual fund managers/"jockstrappers")to include options and severance packages that would be used to pay for health insurance of the uninsured is another way to address the issue.

Everytime I read one of Mr. Thomas' columns, I'm reminded why I look down on religious people.

No wonder the republicans are what they are, and no wonder why bible literalist Christians are the same....no concern for anyone or anything that doesn't fit their deluded agendas. I'm a believer in God, but apparently one with a different view of mans place in the universe...these pompous self rightious people have a real surprize coming in the end.

"we shouldn't be forced to behave in an enviromentally friendly way. That is a very legitimate thesis with very deep connections to the role of human liberty in a social context."

Hence my satirical posts about opening a leather tannery next door to Cal's house. Personal liberty is a wonderful thing much to be desired, but if the consequences of my actions are going to cause harm to my neighbour then the "social context" requires some limits. The idea that polluters will clean up voluntarily is dangerously naive.

Cal's less of a fan of liberty when it comes to personal issues like gay marriage, anyway, so I can't take that argument too seriously coming from him. Smells like hypocrisy...

Regards

A Hermit

On the subject of government programs consider this; the Canadian health care system covers everyone in the country under a single payer, publicly funded insurance system (administered at the provincial level).

The US has a private insurance system, which leaves as many as 15% of the population with no coverage at any one time.
US federal and State governments spend more money per capita than Canadian governments on health care.

Total US spending (public and private) per capita is almost double the Canadian per capita rate.

Administrative costs use up about 11% of total health care spending in Canada, and 23-24% in the USA.

Which is more efficient?

-----------

Some things, like health care, education and our shared environment, are best managed by representative government as they are not amenable to market forces. Health, education and clean air and water are NOT commodities and shouldn't be treated as such. Leaving things to market forces to sort out is fine if you're manufacturing widgets, but not if you need cancer care.

My two cents

A Hermit

My beef with Cal's thinking is not his thesis: that we shouldn't be forced to behave in an enviromentally friendly way. That is a very legitimate thesis with very deep connections to the role of human liberty in a social context.

My beef was with his choice of Apocalyptic Biblical Language to defend that thesis. I'm sorry, but that type of reasoning is simply moronic and has no place in a publication like the Washington Post.

The contrast between Cal's editorial and the rest of the panels' is like night and day. Good heavens, this is 2007, not 1007!

Who cares? Party down now, because God will come down from the clouds in the nick of time to solve all of our eco-concerns.

This guy sounds like a spolied rich kid who bashes up his Dad's car in the comforting knowledge that Daddy will buy him a new one. If we are to maintain an environment that our progeny can live in, this kind of infantile worldview must be defeated.

This sort of ideology is poisonous to our future, and deserves ridicule wherever it is encountered.

How do people like this get print in the Washington Post?

BGone wrote:
---A Hermit, I saw a film on PBS, way back then with animated polar snow caps moving south. That film wasn't made by Michael Moore.---

Hey I'm old enough to remember that show. It was based on the climatic shifts from warm to cold periods and the thought was that we were nearing the end of the warm period and thus the ice age was next, but that would be in 10,000 years. Since then I'm sure the science has improved immensly so I doubt it is still correct. But as usual the media took it and made scary documentaries just to scare us into watching TV so the sponsors could lie to us.

---I'm not sure what the story is right now. It's obvious that we have lots of "earth" problems. Some can be related to population. The Mexicans are leaving Mexico and coming here because Mexico is overpopulated in my humble opinion. People breathing create CO2 that's supposed to be the cause of global warming.---

Its negligeble compared with the amount produced by burning fossil fuels. Just the population of humans, which used to be in the 100,000 range and is now nearing 6 billion, amkes so little CO2 when compared with the 7 billion tons of CO2 we produce each year by burning fossil fuels. And that is carbon that has not been in the atmosphere for millions of years.

---Plants use the CO2 to grow. Cutting down the rain forrests is supposed to be reducing plant life. I don't think so. There's thousands more plant life in the Phoenix AZ area right now than 100 years ago. People grow plants.---

Its negligeble. Most oxygen production (and thus CO2 uptake) is by algae in the ocean. I think they make up 70% of the oxygen production.

---GW is not a black and white issue.---

According to Cal it is black & white. Just ignore it because God said we could do what we want to the earth and He will fix it all later. Maybe besides a tannery and perfume factory I'll open a sludge refinery too.

---Like every threat it should be addressed but not by evangelicals using a hoax for the source of their absolute truths that require faith to be believed.---

Unfortunately we have a government that has evangelicals as advisors.

FATE, I hope you're not looking for an argument from me about Cal. Even the minister of pg can get one right just guessing once in a great while.

Coming ice ages, green house effects, raptures, all same class of things intended to stir people up and all too often panic them into doing the wrong thing.

Around 1840-45 time frame, (I can get exact date if you need it) there was a Baptist preacher that said the world was coming to an end ala Revelation. Stupid people sold, gave away, got rid of their earthly posessions to make way the second coming. It didn't come of course.

Now picture yourself and your family with small children with nothing on earth but the sheets wrapped around you and you've been setting on a hill all day long waiting for Jesus to appear. Now what? But Jesus might have come.

Reality has a way of setting in regardless of what people do or don't do.

Sorry Hermit, With Yucca Mountain, one toxic dump is the limit, plus there's already a pig farm a few miles from my house... lol

BA'AL

Thanks for pointing out the EPA. I forgot about it. But since it generally does its' job you never hear about it. The old 'if it bleeds it leads' syndrome rears it's head again. I'm just distrusful of government interference as a rule. I just think there are better ways to do this, we're going to need some government involvment but also the private sector as well and education as well. If it takes tax credits and a higher gas guzzler tax at the same time etc, so be it. I think half the problem is the people either want the carrot OR the stick, when we need the carrot AND the stick. The war on poverty has not been a great success, nor has the war on drugs. No Child Left Behind has it's problems as well although it's not all bad.

BGone wrote:
---Tonio, in the late 1960s scientists were sure there was a coming ice age complete with films on it showing Texas under snow. Cal is probably betting global warming is the same thing. Otherwise?---

Well Cal must be "betting" because he certainly isn't using science, logic or sense. He's saying it doesn't matter, just do what you want because God said we could. I wonder if he has children who will see New York under 10 feet of water in 2100 while Cal sits in heaven happy he made it off the grungy bus stop he cares less about called earth?

I'm ready to go in with the person who wants to built a tannery next to Cal's house. Maybe add a perfume factory too. I mean, its all temporary right? And God wants us to make money ... lots of money... I'm sure I can find lots of biblical quotes to support this.

A Hermit, I saw a film on PBS, way back then with animated polar snow caps moving south. That film wasn't made by Michael Moore.

I'm not sure what the story is right now. It's obvious that we have lots of "earth" problems. Some can be related to population. The Mexicans are leaving Mexico and coming here because Mexico is overpopulated in my humble opinion. People breathing create CO2 that's supposed to be the cause of global warming.

Plants use the CO2 to grow. Cutting down the rain forrests is supposed to be reducing plant life. I don't think so. There's thousands more plant life in the Phoenix AZ area right now than 100 years ago. People grow plants.

GW is not a black and white issue. Like every threat it should be addressed but not by evangelicals using a hoax for the source of their absolute truths that require faith to be believed.

"in the late 1960s scientists were sure there was a coming ice age complete with films on it showing Texas under snow."

Which "scientists" were those!?

There was a badly written article in Newsweek in the `70's which mis-stated the science at the time, but the science was never that emphatic.

"Tonio, in the late 1960s scientists were sure there was a coming ice age complete with films on it showing Texas under snow. Cal is probably betting global warming is the same thing."

Probably. My objection was to Cal using a literalist reading of Genesis as a basis for environmental policy.

"You're not suggesting putting it in Greg's or Cal's front yards are you?"

Oh heavens, no! That would violate their property rights. But they seem to believe that no one should be able to tell anyone what to do when it comes to the environment, so presumably we should be able to buy the land next to theirs and dump everything there, right up to the property line and they would be OK with that.

They certainly wouldn't call those "Big Brother" zoning authorities to complain, I'm sure...;-)

A Hermit

Andrew, be careful mentioning Jesus. You'll be accused of getting off topic. Contras are not allowed to use the tools of the pros. You must argue agains Cal's position as if you were an atheists. Then if you score a point the subject can be chganged to your requirement to prove there is no God.

The problem with the approach of "persuading" people not to pollute and not letting "Big Brother" get in the way is that the effects of pollution disproportionally affect the most vulnerable. Housing prices are lower next door to a superfund site thus poorer people live there; children, pregnant women (and their fetuses), and the ill are more vulnerable to pollutants, and the poor have fewer healthcare resources to address pollution-caused health effects.

It seems to me that among Jesus's primary tenants was to reach out to the poor and the vulnerable and be distrustful and challenging of the oppressive and powerfull. Mr. Thomas seems to have found a way to ignore the most important teachings from Jesus by dismissing worldly concerns--things that we have control over right now--and focusing on the afterlife ("A temporary dwelling place that is a preview of a far better place that is still to come.")

It is this sort of afterlife-focused justification of the powerful that gives Christians a bad name, aids arguments that religion is used as a tool by the powerful to oppress the vulnerable, fuels the concerns and anger at religion, leads to a decoupling in some minds of religion and spirituallity, and generally makes a mess of things.

The result of his approach is the blanket dismissal of all things "Jesus" by many when in fact there is much of value there (even if you don't believe the Son of God stuff).

Tonio, in the late 1960s scientists were sure there was a coming ice age complete with films on it showing Texas under snow. Cal is probably betting global warming is the same thing. Otherwise?

Greg,

Many federal programs are successful -- although it is a right wing talking point that NONE of them work. The most successful of these arguably are environmental control laws, specifically clean air and clean water acts. They have not eliminated the problem, but they have slowed the rate of degradation in many areas. They would have been more effective if properly enforced. You may not have ever tried to breathe Los Angeles air circa 1965. Believe me, Big Brother improved the lives of a lot of people there. (OT, but maybe you never read about the lives of ordinary elderly Americans in the 1920s before there was Social Security -- another topic for another day).

Cal Thomas could find a scriptural basis for almost anything his right wing buddies want to do. Torture, pollution, preemptive war, who knows, maybe even shooting farmed animals (one of Dead-eye Dick's favorite pastimes). Cal will be there supplying the necessary exegesis.

A Hermit, faith moves mountains. That's why global warming is a topic here. There's mountains of garbage, toxic waste, nuclear waste and more to be moved. You're not suggesting putting it in Greg's or Cal's front yards are you?

"Cal says that he does not want Big Brother as he puts it to dictate to him how to be a good steward."

Greg, I might respect Cal's point if he didn't drag in that nonsense about pollution originating with sin. That sounds like the creationists who claim that meat-eating originated with sin.

Neal made a very good point. I've read a few of Cal's syndicated columns over the years, and he consistently equates opposition to fundamentalist Christian doctrine with opposition to ethics and morals. In his view, apparently, if you don't like Christianity then you don't like Christians. I've reached the point where I cannot read one of his columns without tossing the paper aside in disgust.

Greg:

Don't like Big Brother dictating environmental standards? Does this mean I can build my leather tannery next door to YOUR house? Let me know...I'm looking for a site with lax zoning laws, I'm sure you'll be there to fight the guv'mint for me.

Regards

A Hermit

"40 below being a heat wave tells me heat is relative"

Actually, 40 below is normal; colder than usual even. But most of this winter has been 5 or 10 below freezing (Celsius degrees; that's low to mid-twenties Farenheit). A Lot warmer than we're used to here this time of year.

Hmmm, talk about missing the point. Cal says that he does not want Big Brother as he puts it to dictate to him how to be a good steward. Come out lay your case before him and then let him make up his mind. Seriously how many federal programs are successful? Do we need yet one more drain on our pocketbook?

A Hermit, I think BGone's gone. Too much heat? 40 below being a heat wave tells me heat is relative.

Cal:

God is not man's garbage man.

Why is Cal on this panel? I've only recently been following these questions / discussions, but if his above comments are any indication of the depth of his thinking he's way out of his league.

The position he is advocating is patently ridiculous. It doesn't even merit a response! My eleven year old son thinks with more nuance and consideration!

BGone says:

"A Hermit, global warning is a hard sell in the middle of a blizzard and when the Alberta clipper is cutting a path across the midwest."

Hey, I live on the Canadian Prairie (or as I call it "the Siberia of the West".) The wind-chill temperature here this morning was -40. (That's forty BELOW zero).

But most of this winter has been above normal, it's been two years since we saw weather this cold (usually count on at least a few weeks of it) and once again the winter roads which supply Northern communities were late being built because it's been to warm to cross the lakes and muskeg, snow and rainfall patterns are changing and the Polar Bears that live in the North of my province are in big trouble because the sea ice is disappearing.

What the political hacks and ideologues like Cal Thomas can't seem to grasp is the fact that global warming doesn't mean a gradual, uniform increase in temperature everywhere. It means massive disruption of usual weather patterns; rain and floods where it