Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism. He has worked for NBC, CNBC, PBS television, and the Fox News Channel where he currently appears on the weekly media critique show, “Fox News Watch.” Thomas has authored ten books, including Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?, A Freedom Dream, Public Persons and Private Lives, Book Burning, Liberals for Lunch, Occupied Territory, The Death of Ethics in America, Uncommon Sense and Things That Matter Most. His latest was The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas. In 1995, Thomas was honored with a Cable Ace Award nomination for Best Interview Program. Other awards include a George Foster Peabody team reporting award, and awards from both the Associated Press and United Press International. Common Ground, which Thomas writes for USA Today, offers insightful discussion of contentious social issues with his friend and political counterpart, Bob Beckel. The two are working together on a book to be published in 2007.
Close.
Cal Thomas
Syndicated political columnist
Syndicated political columnist and “On Faith” panelist Cal Thomas has a twice-weekly column that appears in over 500 newspapers around the world. A graduate of American University, Thomas is a veteran of broadcast and print journalism.
more »
I mean, pardon if I berate you a bit, GaryD, but for someone who seems to think Earth was 'Intelligently Designed,' you really didn't read the manual or specs, did you? Mars is much smaller than Earth in terms of mass and volume, ...that means, not only is the *gravity* lower, but also, Mars *coled* a lot faster, that means the denser core *stopped generating magnetism* a lot sooner, and pretty much everything heavier than CO2 or water got blown off into space millions and millions of years ago.
Eighty percent of Mars' atmosphere, as I mentioned, is far *thinner* than our own ionosphere.
Actually thinner than most vacuums that we can easily generate in labs here on Earth. Yes, it's enough to burn up a probe if you aren't careful, but, really. Your 'percentages' are so off- scale that they actually aren't even relevant to Mars, never mind indicative of what's going on on Earth.
People who quote a 'bit' of science to try and prove a certain agenda, or cast doubt upon the obvious in the popular mind, may as well be using *no* science. Or. Well. Lying.
I wouldn't be apologizing to *Gary,* Steven. Especially not on this:
" Garyd:
"TJ I am skeptical of this particular hoax because I have been there and done that. I've more than 40 hours of college level science and math including some hours in Both meteorology and climatology with a smidge of chemistry thrown in for good measure."
Wow. Fourty *hours.* You must therefore know better than the scientific consensus of peer-reviewed scholarship.
"CO2 even after Our much ballyhooed greenhouse gas emissions of the last 60 odd years is still less that 1% of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of Mars is nearly 80% CO2. If CO2 was forcing temperature Mars ought to be nearly as hot as Venus allowing for distance from the sun of course."
This is *such* BS, Gary. Mars' atmosphere is 80 percent CO2 because almost all the lighter gases not bound up in minerals were blown off long ago by solar wind because *Mars Has No Real Magnetosphere.*
You're talking about CO2 being 80 percent of an atmosphere thinner than what most low budget labs call *vacuum.*
Just cause you call it 'sciencey truthiness' doesn't mean it *is.*
There are many of us who have studied the sciences, and thank goodness, have some concept of the scientific method of thinking.
I acknowledge that there is no consensus on the issues of global warming, but there indeed is a clear majority of thought. Dissenters are mostly dissenting the causes of the warming, and not whether or not there is any warming.
Texas A&M's Oceanography and Meteorology department and faculty have put out some good papers on the subject as well, and there are good summaries to be found. I've found that it's wisest to avoid the blogs, because that's definitely where I find the "religion and politics" inserted into the equation.
I disagree with PaganPlace's last post, if I'm understanding it correctly, which presented a premise that there are actually people who believe it's a good idea to enhance the greenhouse effect and add to the polution and overconsumption of the world (as it's own virtue,) and then to turn that into the default position of "skeptic" regarding causes of global warming--it is a classic example of a straw-man argument and kills the discussion pretty quickly.
I'll be watching his/her posts more closely as well!
TJ I am skeptical of this particular hoax because I have been there and done that. I've more than 40 hours of college level science and math including some hours in Both meteorology and climatology with a smidge of chemistry thrown in for good measure.
CO2 even after Our much ballyhooed greenhouse gas emissions of the last 60 odd years is still less that 1% of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of Mars is nearly 80% CO2. If CO2 was forcing temperature Mars ought to be nearly as hot as Venus allowing for distance from the sun of course.
No one is, of course, arguing that climate isn't changing. It is, it always has and it always will. The point is of course that this change involves far more than just the minuscule change in the atmosphere we have introduced since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Paganplace, when we had the first gasoline crisis, 1972 we were told that solar cells cost too much, not economical. Anyone who bought them then now enjoys free electricity because they have now paid for themselves and continue to work. I don't know what they cost then but I'll wager it was as little as 10% of what is being paid in a fever for them now.
The first crisis was a phony to beat off ecologists so "north shore" Alaskan oil could be developed. Guess what. Now they want to drill for more oil in Alaska. Ecologists are a thousand times better entrenched now than back then when setting in a gas line did the trick, got the public behind it.
The price of oil will rise until the ecologists cry uncle. Will they or will a new administration do what should have been done a half century ago and do an Apollo type development of non oil energy. That has the advantage for consumers that all patents go into the public domain and anyone can use them, like computers.
Bush is no boy scout as in "be prepared" but he is a manipulator. Had enough "pain at the pump" yet? No? Then oil goes up and add "pain at checkout stand." Maybe if Chaney threatens to hold his breath until the ecologist get out of the way. He's so green with all that oil money he'll turn yellow rather than blue.
And the fact is, Stephen, that 'skepticism' about whether or not it's a good idea to enhance the Greenhouse Effect through pollution and deregulation and overconsumption was never really relevant.
All it did was cost *valuable time and make things worse.*
We *could* have adapted *much earlier.* Before the security and economic and ecological concerns *got to this point.* When it would have been actually pretty painless, and so that the *developing world* would have been exported *cleaner* tech instead of becoming dependent upon certain kinds of expansion and a system of waste and pollution that stand to make things *much worse.*
Coulda. Didn't. Thanks, 'Skeptics,' ...people needed an excuse to keep their heads in the sand so we could get here.
Now it's likely to hurt. A lot. Sorry, don't say you weren't warned.
I know this is a difficult concept for you, GaryD, but climactic fluctuations such as between the Dark Ages and early Renaissance were chump change compared to taking a big jump back toward the Pleistocene in *too short a span* for our civilization, never mind most ecosystems, to adapt.
Even most of the stall-and-deny crowd have admitted now that the science shows that global warming is occuring and is in fact in large measure the result of human activity that we now know to be irresponsible.
There is *no* debate about what dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere *does.*
This isn't about absolving ourselves of 'blame,' even if there *were* a natural warming trend on.
That wouldn't mean 'Go ahead and burn all the fossil fuels you want, it's not our fault if the world's getting screwed up, so let's screw it up much faster than we... and ecosystems, can adapt.
There's no sound argument to claim that there's anything *responsible* about it, even if the ANWR contains fuel for sixty more years of this, well, the permafrost you need to pipe the stuff *out* won't last that long, at this rate, anyway.
"Let's do in a hundred fifty years that which natural warming trends on that scale did in hundreds of thousands to millions."
Not a sound policy for the future, however 'skeptical' you feel to be.
But you don't believe in a future, do you, Gary? Maybe something more like a world that ends while shortly after you get *beamed out* into eternal unaccountability?
- do onto others as you would have them do unto you
(unless of course you need to "waterboard" them which we all agree with our Great Christian Leader Dick Cheney is not torture)
So tell me, Cal, how have you and your neochristians defined things according to your own moral standards?
- Thou shalt not kill (except for pre-emptive war and capital punishment)?
- Love thy neighbor as thyself (unless they are gay, Muslim or Mexican)?
- Drool over the words of the book of Leviticus and hold them higher than those of Christ to judge, exclude and condemn others (except, of course, verse 19:33)?
TJ
maybe GaryD will someday invite us to a costume party at his home, and we can come as the "trojan horse." I'll sit in the back (since I'm an ass) and you can direct the front, and we'll pop out with a sign that says "Morons!"
We can wear t-shirts that have "Global Warming or Bust" on them, with a little picture of Nova Scotia surrounded by wild grapes!
Seriously,
GaryD I'm just kidding. I appreciate your skepticism. I know it's a complex issue but until we know more, I'm going to assume that the concerns relayed by scientists across the globe should be heeded, and I'll try not to idle my car engine for 10 minutes every cold morning to warm it up.
No one doubts that earth's climate has changed drastically over the billions of years that it has been here to change.
Even if our current warming trend is completely the result of the sun, the greenhouse gases we dump in the atmosphere have the potential to dramatically reduce our ability to cool back down.
I just love dealing with morons who think they no something when they make it clear from their posts that they haven't a clue.
Oh sorry I didn't hit the comma hard enough and didn't notice it wasn't there before I hit submit.
Just to clue you in though part and parcel of the global warming hoax is the notion that it is warmer now than it has ever been in human history. That is nonsense. During the Medieval Warm Period 800-1300 AD they were growing grapes in England as far north as the Scottish border, the North of Germany and they were apparently in Nova Scotia. It is not yet currently warm enough to do that in any of those places yet. The case that has been made by the hoaxers is that it was limited to Europe this however appears to be bogus as we find evidence for warmer climes in sediments world wide.
Steven writes: "I think GaryD is on to something. Do you think we could send his proposal about the "grapes growing wild on Novia Scotia on the border of Scotland" as a submittable paper on Global Warming to the National Academy of Sciences?"
I smell Nobel prize!
Seriously though, the global warming conspiracy is very real. 'They' are after GaryD's 3 or 4k of tax money, assuming he makes enough to pay any at all of course. The ghost of J McCarthy told him so. 'They' are going to take his tax money and turn America into a.. *drum roll* .. pinko hippie commune.
Also, GaryD, Nova Scotia isn't on the border of Scotland. Either buy a map or a box of commas.
Although there is signicant doubt that Jesus' actually said,
"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea", Mark 9:42,
it is, however, a great passage for judging leadership qualities.
Clinton's millstones:
major # 1, Her dishonest, lying, cheating husband who she should have dumped years ago. Having him in the Whitehouse again would percolate the stench of adultery and womanizing on a 24/7 basis for four more years.
major #2, Her disrespect for unborn children.
major #3, Not recognizing the flaws and errors of contemporary religions.
minor #1, "forgetting" the details of her trip to Bosnia.
Obama's millstones:
major #1, The "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright.
major #2, His failure to immediately condemn Wright's recent speech.
major #3, His disrespect for unborn children.
major #4, Not recognizing the flaws and errors of contemporary religions.
TJ
I think GaryD is on to something. Do you think we could send his proposal about the "grapes growing wild on Novia Scotia on the border of Scotland" as a submittable paper on Global Warming to the National Academy of Sciences? I wonder why all those scientists haven't thought of that yet! My gosh the answer would be easy--I'm amazed no one has thought it before--GaryD is a genuis!
(I'm also secretly glad he can cut through all that "trojan horse" stuff to get to the meat of things.)
GaryD writes: "Yeah yeah yeah the old global warming Trojan horse when all else fails invent a threat that isn't easily disproved and set the really bad stuff fifty or an hundred years in the future."
Oh, you mean like the threat of hell when you die if you don't believe in bible god the right way while you're here. Gotcha.
Yeah yeah yeah the old global warming Trojan horse when all else fails invent a threat that isn't easily disproved and set the really bad stuff fifty or an hundred years in the future.
As far as Global warming goes get back to me when grapes grow wild in Nova Scotia on the border of Scotland and in what used to be called Prussia.
And Glaciers flow as they are in Antarctica, where ninety per cent of the Ice not found in peoples refrigerators is located, when the conditions near their point of origin are colder and damper not warmer.
Jand writes: "if you put your hope in a man you WILL be sorely disappointed. why do you think there are so many unhappy athiests out there and on this forum!"
Your jealous and vengeful god must be pretty disappointed eh? Your observation makes your religion, which I assume to be Christianity, even more absurd than it already is.
The sooner you realize that you yourself are defining your own moral standards, via your particular interpretation of your so-called holy book, the sooner you'll be in touch with the reality all around you.
if you put your hope in a man you WILL be sorely disappointed. why do you think there are so many unhappy athiests out there and on this forum! talk about kicking yourself in the nuts. an athiest on a religious forum. my sides hurt from laughing at them so much. i gotta get off here before i bust my gut.
Brambleton - very simple. While democrats may control the war budget, they don't want to be seen as failing to support American troups, and there is no exit strategy or contingency plan in place for an abrupt end to a 5 year old war. That cannot be fashioned without republican and White House cooperation.
I fully expect such developments as these will be coming in the very near future. And to reiterate, as to a change in plans for the continuing occupation of Iraq - clearly there will be no cooperation forthcoming from republicans or the Whitehouse until a changing of the guard is complete after November.
The democrats in Congress are by no means blameless for this war - many supported the war in the beginning as we all know, and it seems as though people like myself, who were completely against the invasion of Iraq as being groundless, without merit and certainly without precedent, were quite in a minority in those days.
Times have changed and public attitudes have reversed themselves. What was once clear to a minority, is glaringly obvious to the majority today. Support for the war in Iraq is all but gone, but eventual extraction maneuvers will not be simple or without continuing casualties.
And let's not forget the Blue Dog democrats - that's over 40 democrats that usually vote with republicans on any and all issues related to the war in Iraq - and are at minimum conservative voters on many other issues as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Congress in charge of war funding? And if that's true, why hasn't the Democratic controlled congress made good on their promises to stop the war?
Isn't it about time for Dems to stop whining that they don't have every seat in Congress, as well as the Presidency, and start standing up for their convictions? If they knew they couldn't end the war without a change in the White House, why was it the focal point of their platform two years ago?
If you can't enact "change", don't lie about it during election season.
Well, here's an inherent problem in Rev. Thomas' assertions:
"The key is discovering whether a presidential candidate has a core set of principles from which he (or she) will not deviate except under the most extreme of circumstances."
Which, in practice, is code for 'public conservative Christian piety' ..which we should know hardly guarantees integrity.
To my experience, people who espouse an absolutist code, but permit themselves deviations from it 'under extreme circumstances' ...tend to find a way to find or manufacture such 'extreme circumstances.' ...And then of course, they can justify anything they want to do.
I'm much more concerned with consistent (and acheivable) *ethics and standards.*
That's one thing that kind of bothers me a bit about those who deal in absolutes. They demand.... 'Only people who believe in absolutes are fit citizens or leaders: Absolutes, except, except, except. I get exceptions from my absolutes when I want to torture, *you* don't get exceptions from my demands when you want equal treatment under the law.'
What we get, then, is deceit, hypocrisy, and repression of the freedoms of the 'little people.'
You, sir, decry 'moral relativism,' try to demand religious absolutes, and yet, of course, excuse yourself and those you support from those very absolutes when it probably would most count.
This, to me, doesn't commend a religious test for office, even if done through the press and pulpit. It shows exactly why there *shouldn't* be one.
It may be fine for Christian belief and practice to insist that believers try to live by absolute standards which one humanly cannot, but it's a poor standard for electing a government.
Those 'exceptions' just keep getting bigger, there. It also tends to make people think that sexual peccadilloes are more important than massive deceit and failures in the actual business of government.
" Moral character is important, though people sometimes define such things according to their own moral standards."
You talk like that's not how it works. Whether you cling to absolutes or not.
Absolutism (with exceptions for the 'constant state of emergency,' of course,) isn't 'moral character.'
What I look for is in fact, principles, and integrity. Not an insistence "There are no grey areas for you, but I reserve the right to declare them for me."
Character is *coping* with things that seem to be grey areas, not insisting one's authority is justified when the 'rules' don't seem to apply.
No politician would ever get elected if he or she does not bend the truth in order to tell too many people what they need, and want, to hear. Far too many people in our society can not handle the truth.
However, to make up a story such as the Bosnia sniper incident fabricated by Sen. Clinton and repeatedly presented with a straight face and no hesitation reveals a practiced liar who can rarely be trusted to tell the truth about anything.
At the supposed time Jesus lived a goodly percentage of Jews named their sons Jesus. What they all said or didn't say would be impossible to determine. Enough monkeys with enough typewriters will say everything eventually. There was probably enough Jews named Jesus to say everything at the time with others taking up any sklack.
The key word is not Jesus, it's Christ. No one was named Christ because Christ is not a name, it's an office like president or mayor or fireman. There's a lot of Christs floating around today. They are known as reverends, an office. No one is named Jesus Reverend.
Jews named Jesus are hard to find any more. Try Latinos if you need to know what folks named Jesus have to say. There's enough of them to have probably said everything already. The righteous are worried sick about how many folks named Jesus they have for neighbors. You can find a righteous one to point Jesus out if you can't locate Judas. There was but one Judas so I hear. Last I heard he was hanging out at the white house.
Since the democrats in Congress don't have a super-majority, the remaining congressional GOP and the White House operating in unison have been successfully obstructing democratic efforts on a number of legislative fronts since the democrats assumed a simple majority - we hear this cannard about the ineffective democrats in Congress without hearing the rest of the story.
Come November, that problem will hopefully be remedied - with a democratic POTUS and a more significant numerical democratic majority in both Houses, we could expect to see very significant changes in both domestic and international policies - we will see a rather quick end to our present full-scale military operations in Iraq, although a pull-out of any magnitude would probably take a year to 18 months in any event.
We will see this happen should democrats take legislative and executive control of the government - otherwise, we'll continue on in the same fashion for years to come and would probably expand our military presence throughout the Mideast with McCain in charge - and with no overriding vote in Congress to stop him.
Looks like the days of the Clinton machine are done for - although Bill should be credited with a number of positive achievements while president. Nevertheless, the majority of folks clearly want a major change from the days of old.
Perhaps we should temper our expectations with Obama - the racial business will turn out to be
absolutely insiginificant once he's elected, and of that I'm convinced. People will make too much of it as usual, of course - but it's unimportant in the scheme of things. He appears to be both competent and highly intelligent, and I'm convinced he will have the interests of the people at heart during his incumbency.
You've got to give the guy at least the first term to get this presidential business organized -and much that is upside down in government must be put rightside up. Bushco has used a wrecking ball with impunity, and considerable damage has been done.
McCain simply has to be discounted as a viable contender - he has no observable qualities that inspire confidence in his ability to manage White House affairs any more effectively than GWB. McSAME's one distinguishing potential feature - OLDEST elected president in US history, should that imponderable nightmare ever take place.
No, we have to give the nod to Obama at this juncture in time....our future really depends on it.
While I don't find particular solice in what Fate writes, neither do I find your alternative very appealing.
In short, you suggest that we're hopelessly lost in our sin, we should just "give up" and resolve ourselves to the predicament, and know that our efforts are all in vain. That there is some "myth of progress," and that those of us who disagree are "hopelessly naive." (Sounds to me like you're sitting on the front porch waiting for the rapture.)
And finally, we should be appreciative of this fact, because we can ultimately focus our intent on some other new world where the gods have made it all right.
It is illogical to conclude that "Only in the Christian story do we find any sense that the problems of the world are solved..." and then claim not to appeal to some utopia, and then to categorically dismiss all human attempts at progress to be "in vain."
Thankfully, there are people who don't think this way, who are eager to improve our situation in this world, currently, and who are not relying on some otherlife to even the scales.
>>Although there is signicant doubt that Jesus' actually said,
>>"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea", Mark 9:42,
Hmmm
Lets put a secular twist on it to show the bias in the statement above:
Although there is significant doubt that Nero actually said as his famous last words:
''Such an artist dies in me''
Who knows that he acutally said that? Was I there? Were you there? Was John Doe there? Could be he actually said that he would have been better portrayed by some actor other than Ustinov.
Your ramblings about the evil Republican empire are both hilarious and absurd. To think that the issues you discussed aren't operating on both sides of the aisle is hopelessly naive.
Cal is correct on one point that most secularists can't discern. It's called the myth of progress. Politicians appeal to it and encourage us to believe in it. "Vote for me and things will get better!" "Vote for Change you can believe in."
As N.T. Wright stated, "Politicans are like people trying to row a boat toward the shore while the strong tide pulls them further and further out to sea. Because they are facing the wrong way, they can't see that their efforts are in vain, and they call out to other boats to join them in their splendid, shore-bound voyage."
The myth of progress fails because it underestimates the nature and power of evil itself. Only in the Christian story do we find any sense that the problems of the world are solved, not by evolving toward some golden future or utopia, but by God going down into the dark and rescuing humankind from its despair.
The temptation to take campaign money from big oil tests the "character" of candidates. The morality standard for that has already been established by evangelicals. This would be a good place to mention they get their morals from a hoax or better yet from the true story of Moses selling his soul. But I won't.
I will point to a solution to the energy crisis, a real character tester for the next administration. A bushel of corn can be used to make ethanol or, it can be used to feed a cow or pig even. Doing so turns it into three things, food, fertilizer usable to grow more corn and, what is now being wasted natural gas. There is the distinct possibility that natural gas, the portable energy is the real solution to the oil squeeze. Will the next administration have the character to do it or will big oil own it like what seems to be the case with the present one?
Natural gas is natural, naturally. And, we need import none of it. All other gas is un-natural, perverted, lacks character. Of course character is the measure of one's morality.
Global warming is one of those, "what we want to hear" areas destined to become a big issues this election. It's a measurable reality.
But what is causing it? Learned scientist say it's the green house effect from burning fossil fuels. Not all scientists of course like not all believe the pope really represents Jesus.
The earth heating could be caused by something as simple as fire. Fire is an age old way of heating things. I did a mental calculation based upon world oil consumption, numbers I get only because there's a crisis. It's a fire without rival needed to burn that much oil every day.
The fire we're talking about is a set of tiny fires so numerous they could be said to be infinite. The number of individual combustion's inside cyliders of automobile engines at any given moment is a staggeringly large number. And they are at near 3,600 degrees centigrade, godawful hot, another way to say it.
Where does all that head go? Into the atmosphere of course. Could it be that the outside of the house can be heated as well as the inside? When we're talking a degree more or less, the answer is yes. Mother earth cannot exhaust the heat into space as fast as we keep making it. We will keep making it as long as the oil holds out and there's at least a 100 year supply at today's usage levels.
There's no doubt about it, the polar ice caps will melt. CO2 is not the cause but rather a symptom. What happens after the ice caps are gone needs a little more thought just to make a guess. First wild guess--farming in Antarctica.
People need all the livable land they can get. Those who own the land will be the Lords of earth. Hello Medieval times.
Cal wrote: "All politicians tell people what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear."
False. Not "all" politicians do this, just the ones you support.
Cal wrote: "Too many care about themselves and perpetuating their political careers more than promoting the general welfare."
See above response.
Cal wrote: "If that is their goal, a certain diagnosis of their character has already been made."
Yes, its called republican ideology.
Cal wrote: "The key is discovering whether a presidential candidate has a core set of principles from which he (or she) will not deviate except under the most extreme of circumstances."
Like "compassionate conservatism"? Like "we should not go out and do nation building"? Like "Afganistan has no good targets, lets bomb Iraq instead"?
Cal wrote: "Moral character is important, though people sometimes define such things according to their own moral standards."
Totally agree. That's how Brownie was considered to be "doing a heck of a job". That's how Libby got his sentance commuted because he was a "good man". That's how this president could do all he could to help Wall Street weather the financial crisis storm but is about to veto a bill to help homeowners who are living in homes they can no longer afford due to being sold bad mortgage terms. That is how those who call themselves christians can support the death penalty. That is how Gonzales was able to go to Ashcroft's bedside and ask him to sign a paper which would have amounted to illegal authority. That is how evangelicals can support this president who has brought this nation to its knees as long as the president supports their religous causes. Yes, morality is relative Cal, we see it every day.
By the way Cal, your columns are getting shorter and shorter. They must be paying you by the column and not by the word. They certainly could not be paying you for any significant content. Have a nice day Cal.
Pay attention. I said that before it happened. The easiest prediction to make is the world will eventually run out of "free" from nature oil.
I also said that the administration has done it's best to make the oil shortage as painful as possible because the tree huggers are in the way of drilling in Alaska in particular. Are you willing to sacrifice a few acres of frozen wasteland for 50 cent gas? Gas at any price? I am.
But wait. There's a complication, catch 22 type thing. It's called global warming. Do you care if New York City and Washington DC go under water and half the country gets churned up in tornado's? Should we care if it's not us? Sorry about that but the greenies win again.
Can you do ratios? During the 1960's gas was 30 cents a gallon and oil was 5 dollars a barrel. Now oil is 125 dollars a barrel. What is the "parity" price of gas? Try $7.50 a gallon.
Before gold was discovered in the black hills of Dakota whiskey was a nickel. After gold was discovered it rocketed up to 50 cents. What role should the government have played to get the price of whiskey back to where poor folks could afford it?
Is whiskey any different to oil? The government didn't get involved in the high price of whiskey. Should it have? Grant's VP hadn't been the president of a whiskey company that got big government contracts to deliver whiskey to "our hero" soldiers running the Indians off land theirs by treaty, hint hint.
Don't like using whiskey for comparison? Worse happened to food in the black hills. I was being gentle.
Thanks for informing me that you know almost nothing about about oil bgone with or without Iraq oil prices world wide were likely to spike. The refusal of the US green weanies to countenance drilling for oil anywhere in this country or near any of it's shoreline guaranteed that as did the emergence of India and China as big time competitors in the world oil market.
We've drifted significantly off the subject which is about character and morality.
Religion defines sin. Sin defines religion. Morality is the lack of sin. Character is the goodness of one's morality. According to the president who I heard say, "we are all sinners" no one must be of perfect morality and in turn perfect character since religion is the base. None of these have any place in politics unless it's a theocracy.
We've had a pseudo theocracy for the past 7 going on 8 years now with evangelicals, religion operators along side defining sin and in turn what is moral thus establishing the character of the candidates. We've elected their candidate, "born again" Bush twice on the basis of character and morals.
Is it an "honest" thing to blame a Democrat congress for the present mess? Does any religions not include lying as a sin? They got one thing straight, sin leads to hell. They failed to warn us that hell is where one finds it and not necessarily after one dies.
When Bush took office, 2001 oil was $30 per barrel. It shot past $120 recently. Does the adventure in Iraq have anything to do with lying, oil, character or morals?
One last question. What will the 87 million "boomers" getting ready to retire that planned to sell their houses for retirement money do now? How about the real sad cases, those that got the head start? They have taken out mortgages and used the money to buy a gas guzzling yuppimoblie or worse yet a 5mpg RV planning to take lots of trips once they retired? I guess they can live in their RVs.
Brambleton, one last comment and then I'll sign off and make room for others.
What I hope to learn about in the next several years is whether or not it will be better to focus, if we are indeed concerned about the good of the society, on "family income," or institute policies that short of being handouts, benefit low-wage workers and their families more directly than simply a minimum wage increase.
The more I think about it, I'd encourage you to read John Bowe's "Nobodies," specifically the section about Saipan, where there is an "experiment" of how an economy operates without any of the market "parachutes"; an economy championed by many of our Republican colleagues as a representation of how "good" things could be without the influences of any overseeing governmental intervention. It has influenced my thinking about how, left to it's own devices, our pure-hearted capitalistic consumerism can be devastating to entire peoples, so I have to agree with you on the point that minimum wage increases are a far cry to the beginning of the end of poverty.
I didn't think it would be that difficult for you but then you make my point by not getting it. For the past 30+ years the word "liberal" has been used like the word hippy for lack of a more thoughtful analogy. It's a put down. You do know what that is?
Will Obama be labeled an elitist? Does the average NASCAR fan know what an elitist is? Not a chance but they know there's something terribly wrong with them, too wrong to vote for one -- just like liberal.
Carl Rove types can put an ice cream eater in the same empty spot in their heads. They're laying in bed thinking themselves to sleep working on it right now.
What do you expect from a Democrat congress with a thin majority in the house and take broadway Joe Liberman away for Iraq in the senate for a tie that you never got from a significant majority Republican congress? Can they mend 7 years of damage without any help from the white house? NASCAR fans are bone heads but not that dumb.
What web site you talking about? Cal knows all about that already and so do all the candidates. Just thinking about it makes the pope's head hurt.
Daniel- its a good thing you are NOT in the lion's den. Better reread the Biblical story and amend your words..
Its not about race or color (although that card is being played over and over again) Its about substance and experience. BO has little to none.
He claims he will accomplish great things for our country- but the fact is he is a political neophyte and has never proven himself as a leader.
Talk is cheap. Color is veneer. Show me his capabilities by his years of faithful service as a public servant. I want to evaluate the choices he's made in the past before I will believe he can lead and achieve change.
I cannot find my original source--I'll continue to look. In brief, it said that about 14 million people had a more direct advantage with increases, and that about another 14 million benefited from the increase in other ways advantageous to livelihood.
I did find a similar number, 13 million, at the Economic Policy Institute site, which also described, but didn't number, the other members of society that stood to benefit from minimum wage increase.
And yes, some states (I read 28) were already on the ball regarding increases above the federal minimum, although that reads that 22 states don't have such minimum standards in place, and those workers are relying on federal minimums, or are just doing without.
I respect and read George Will, but do understand that he is a champion of the free-market don't- touch- it economy. I'm an economics major, although I have spent my career doing something else and have much to relearn, but I have noted in almost 50 years here on this earth that the free-market economy (that good old "invisible hand") doesn't seem to "take care of the least of these" type-folks. I've read some other revealing things recently, including John Bowe's "Nobodies," Joe Baegant's "Deer Hunting with Jesus," and Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickled and Dimed" that give a pretty good picture of those food servers that you seem to so easily dismiss. Not to mention those written by Republicans, (John Dean, Ron Suskind's interviews of Paul O'Neil, Peter Peterson, and a host of others.)
I think we can agree on your disclaimer. Although I think that the efforts of the voting public were not in vain, despite Bush being in "charge," because it sent some specific messages to all politicians that they weren't necessarily secure in their domains. Processes will take time and much effort to repair, and it will be a daunting task for the next Congress and President. And it is definitely about processes. This "gut feeling" administration has about ruined us as a nation.
I hope we haven't stretched ourselves beyond repair.
Finally, I agree that we have many more daunting tasks ahead of us as a nation, but I have never been impressed that an inordinate amount of time was spent on the minimum wage increase. And I think I might have been with you on "why in the world is the government involved in bailing out home owners, or for that matter the stock market?" Can you imagine what would have happened if Bush's Social Security privatization into the stock market were to have occurred, and how much even lounder he'd be proclaiming from his pulpit "Those Congress people (ie Dems) need to fix this mess, and hurry up to boot!!!"
People say he's a hidden genius, but I've yet to appreciate that.
Disclaimer - "Until President Bush is removed from office, all of our rhetoric about bringing the troops home and ending the Iraq war is moot. We cannot and will not be able to complete this task. In fact, the one item we do have control over, war spending, will continue to go unchecked as well. To that end, we will devote all of our attention to the federal minimum wage and bailing out greedy homeowners - at a cost of $2 billion to the taxpayers."
As far as the minimum wage, a few comments.
(1) It should be repealed in its entirety. I know that sounds drastic, but if you spent some time reading about it, I think there's a decent chance you might come to the same conclusion. As George Will stated, "Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices. Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly.
(2) I have no clue where you picked up your 28,000,000 number, but it's wrong. The U.S. Department of Labor indicates that in 2005, 1,900,000 million people were earning wages at or below the minimum (that's a whopping 2.5% of ALL hourly workers). More than HALF of the 1,900,000 are ages 25 or less and more than a QUARTER are between 16-19. READ: STUDENTS and other part-time workers.
(3) About 3 of every 4 workers earning the minimum were employed in food preparation and service industry. READ: WAITERS WHO EARN TIPS.
(4) 29 States, representing 70% of the nation's workforce, have set minimum wages well above the federal standard.
I'm sorry, but there are way too many bigger issues confronting this country than the federal minimum wage. A wage whose time has passed. Of course, what better way to say that you're for the "little guy" and that "looking out for the downtrodden" than to raise wages for the least of us.
Puh-leeze. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice? Uh-oh.
I guess I should feel relieved that I was spared your typical "Jesus is the Devil" rant and the self promotion of your website. Of course, I don't know if this is much better.
That being said, I read your thread twice trying to gleen anything informative from it. For the most part, all I could read was, "blah, blah, blah, excuses, excuses, excuses, blah, blah, whining, blah, blah, more excuses." I did manage to find a couple of items to which I will respond:
1) "Bush will veto and they don't have an overriding majority." I see. So why bother to fight for something you believe in (or campaigned on) because President Bush will veto it anyway? And if the Democratic led Congress controls funding, why does the President continue to get billions of $$$ for the Iraq war?
2) "The congress gets credit for everything Bush tricks them into doing." Also, "If they came out in favor of ice cream the Repubs would blast the air ways with that in a way to convince the lame brain voters that only idiots are in favor of ice cream." Wow. You certainly have a low opinion of the Democrats in Congress. They're too stupid to know when they're being tricked and too pathetic to fight for their cause with the American people.
You're probably right in that I'm naive about a number of things. The more you learn, the less you know. But I know this: Maybe Congress doesn't have enough of a majority to bring the troops home under the current President. But I would have more respect for them if they stood up for the principles they so loudly championed a couple of years ago. Maybe if they cared more about doing their job instead of keeping their job, they wouldn't lie down and let President Bush walk all over them.
You are so naive it defies an adjective. The Dems margin in congress is so low they can't go to the bath room without losing it. If they came out in favor of ice cream the Repubs would blast the air ways with that in a way to convince the lame brain voters that only idiots are in favor of ice cream.
It's like the word, "liberal" making it completely unnnn-fashionable. Just saying "he's liberal" was enough to not vote for him in the past, if you're part of the "in" crowd. The new word is, "elitist." Only those one would never invite to a party will vote for one of them, whatever that is. Want a really good put-down? Call them elitists. Puts them two levels lower that a moles belly button. And you don't even need to know what an elitist is.
The congress is doing nothing because of two things. Bush will veto and they don't have an overriding majority. And, that will be used with the, "only an idiot" would think of doing that by McCain even though it was Bush's idea in the first place. The congress gets credit for everything Bush tricks them into doing, and the congress is controlled by elitist Democrats.
What has the president proposed? Only that which idiots would propose. The idea is to get the congress to "bite." Then McCain can point to them as stupid Democrat proposals.
Liberal and right-to-life are out with elitist and moral taking their places. It's politics as usual. The one that "tags" the other with the key idiot, (only idiots don't know better) words wins. It's the process of turning idiots into stupid jerks.
Those damning key words like liberal are gobbled by young "naive" voters. Obama has the majority of young voters and can get that going for him this time. Like, McCain is one of those stuffy conservative evangelicals that eats ice cream. Would you invite one of them to your party? And, of course from the historical record, there are "Regan Democrats" who seized the opportunity for idiots to "get with the in crowd" and advance to the level of stupid jerk.
again with all due respect,
Disclaimers? Would this be what you had in mind: "Please elect me, although, you need to read the small print: ...nothing I say or do may actually come to pass. In large part, it will depend on if the Republican party and my party can come to terms that Americans want accountability in government processes. We require a certain percentage of votes to make things come to pass. We are in a terrible predicament. If you suffer heartburn, headaches, or bodily aches, please consult your doctor before voting for me."
Minimum wage on President Bush's agenda????? Please give me the details. When was that going to happen, given 6 years in power, with a purely mechanical rote Republican Congress and virtually not a single veto during that stretch?
"All their time and effort???" on one piece of legislation?? Do you comprehend the damage that's been done over the last 7 years, and the job that's current and ahead? Do you believe we don't have a "broken government?" Are you aware of the challenges we as a nation face to undo the damage that's been done over these years? (Read John Dean's book Broken Government, or any number of others written by Republicans.) Going from a 2 to a 5 day workweek was only one of the things that was necessary to increase the time to "fix" things.
A small percentage who benefited? Is (I've read the figures at about 28 million people directly affected by minimum wage increase) that insubstantial? Who do you think these "insubstantial" people are?
Anti-Republican sentiment? Do you think the "Dems" are responsible for that? You don't imagine that we are able to see for ourselves, without the influence of the "Dems," that we have categorically and almost comprehensibly lost those very "values" that the "values party" insisted we cherish, and that landed the GOP in a position to rule over the last 7 years? Do you think it takes "smear campaigns" to get the attention of the American public that we're on a substantially wrong path?
Accountability is exactly what we haven't had during Republican rule.
And it still bothers me that someone might think that raising the minimum wage was political pandering that was a waste of time, and yes I think it's arrogance. My family has lived on substantially less than yours, obviously.
I've read the transcripts from a number of Obama's speeches and they are very short on details. That said, I will spend some time on his website and see if I can discern anything further.
In regards to Congress, I think a number of your remarks are right on point. However, here's the problem - when Dems were whipping up this frenzy of "change" and anti-republican sentiment, they didn't add any disclaimers that, if elected, they wouldn't actually be able to make any changes. You can't yell and scream that you'll bring the troops home if elected and then turn around and whine that the President is pushing you around.
Here's a question: If the Dems control Congress, why can't they just tell the President "No" on his war funding requests? Isn't that what they were elected to do?
Finally, what sickens me is that, given the issues that surround tens of millions of Americans, given the lives and livelihoods that are at risk, the Democratic controlled Congress spent all their time and energy on a piece of legislation that (A) was already on the agenda of President Bush, and (B) helped a micro-fraction of people in need.
All Comments (64)
I mean, pardon if I berate you a bit, GaryD, but for someone who seems to think Earth was 'Intelligently Designed,' you really didn't read the manual or specs, did you? Mars is much smaller than Earth in terms of mass and volume, ...that means, not only is the *gravity* lower, but also, Mars *coled* a lot faster, that means the denser core *stopped generating magnetism* a lot sooner, and pretty much everything heavier than CO2 or water got blown off into space millions and millions of years ago.
Eighty percent of Mars' atmosphere, as I mentioned, is far *thinner* than our own ionosphere.
Actually thinner than most vacuums that we can easily generate in labs here on Earth. Yes, it's enough to burn up a probe if you aren't careful, but, really. Your 'percentages' are so off- scale that they actually aren't even relevant to Mars, never mind indicative of what's going on on Earth.
People who quote a 'bit' of science to try and prove a certain agenda, or cast doubt upon the obvious in the popular mind, may as well be using *no* science. Or. Well. Lying.
May 13, 2008 10:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2008 22:23
I wouldn't be apologizing to *Gary,* Steven. Especially not on this:
" Garyd:
"TJ I am skeptical of this particular hoax because I have been there and done that. I've more than 40 hours of college level science and math including some hours in Both meteorology and climatology with a smidge of chemistry thrown in for good measure."
Wow. Fourty *hours.* You must therefore know better than the scientific consensus of peer-reviewed scholarship.
"CO2 even after Our much ballyhooed greenhouse gas emissions of the last 60 odd years is still less that 1% of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of Mars is nearly 80% CO2. If CO2 was forcing temperature Mars ought to be nearly as hot as Venus allowing for distance from the sun of course."
This is *such* BS, Gary. Mars' atmosphere is 80 percent CO2 because almost all the lighter gases not bound up in minerals were blown off long ago by solar wind because *Mars Has No Real Magnetosphere.*
You're talking about CO2 being 80 percent of an atmosphere thinner than what most low budget labs call *vacuum.*
Just cause you call it 'sciencey truthiness' doesn't mean it *is.*
May 13, 2008 10:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2008 22:06
GaryD
first I appologize for the ribbing.
There are many of us who have studied the sciences, and thank goodness, have some concept of the scientific method of thinking.
I acknowledge that there is no consensus on the issues of global warming, but there indeed is a clear majority of thought. Dissenters are mostly dissenting the causes of the warming, and not whether or not there is any warming.
Texas A&M's Oceanography and Meteorology department and faculty have put out some good papers on the subject as well, and there are good summaries to be found. I've found that it's wisest to avoid the blogs, because that's definitely where I find the "religion and politics" inserted into the equation.
I disagree with PaganPlace's last post, if I'm understanding it correctly, which presented a premise that there are actually people who believe it's a good idea to enhance the greenhouse effect and add to the polution and overconsumption of the world (as it's own virtue,) and then to turn that into the default position of "skeptic" regarding causes of global warming--it is a classic example of a straw-man argument and kills the discussion pretty quickly.
I'll be watching his/her posts more closely as well!
May 13, 2008 8:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 13, 2008 08:42
TJ I am skeptical of this particular hoax because I have been there and done that. I've more than 40 hours of college level science and math including some hours in Both meteorology and climatology with a smidge of chemistry thrown in for good measure.
CO2 even after Our much ballyhooed greenhouse gas emissions of the last 60 odd years is still less that 1% of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of Mars is nearly 80% CO2. If CO2 was forcing temperature Mars ought to be nearly as hot as Venus allowing for distance from the sun of course.
No one is, of course, arguing that climate isn't changing. It is, it always has and it always will. The point is of course that this change involves far more than just the minuscule change in the atmosphere we have introduced since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
May 12, 2008 5:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2008 17:57
And maybe, Cal Thomas is greener than all of us!
May 12, 2008 2:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2008 14:14
PaganPlace
To appreciate skepticism is not to endorse it, if your comment was to me.
I'd be willing to wager I'm "greener" than you!
May 12, 2008 12:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 12, 2008 12:53
Paganplace, when we had the first gasoline crisis, 1972 we were told that solar cells cost too much, not economical. Anyone who bought them then now enjoys free electricity because they have now paid for themselves and continue to work. I don't know what they cost then but I'll wager it was as little as 10% of what is being paid in a fever for them now.
The first crisis was a phony to beat off ecologists so "north shore" Alaskan oil could be developed. Guess what. Now they want to drill for more oil in Alaska. Ecologists are a thousand times better entrenched now than back then when setting in a gas line did the trick, got the public behind it.
The price of oil will rise until the ecologists cry uncle. Will they or will a new administration do what should have been done a half century ago and do an Apollo type development of non oil energy. That has the advantage for consumers that all patents go into the public domain and anyone can use them, like computers.
Bush is no boy scout as in "be prepared" but he is a manipulator. Had enough "pain at the pump" yet? No? Then oil goes up and add "pain at checkout stand." Maybe if Chaney threatens to hold his breath until the ecologist get out of the way. He's so green with all that oil money he'll turn yellow rather than blue.
May 11, 2008 9:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2008 21:48
And the fact is, Stephen, that 'skepticism' about whether or not it's a good idea to enhance the Greenhouse Effect through pollution and deregulation and overconsumption was never really relevant.
All it did was cost *valuable time and make things worse.*
We *could* have adapted *much earlier.* Before the security and economic and ecological concerns *got to this point.* When it would have been actually pretty painless, and so that the *developing world* would have been exported *cleaner* tech instead of becoming dependent upon certain kinds of expansion and a system of waste and pollution that stand to make things *much worse.*
Coulda. Didn't. Thanks, 'Skeptics,' ...people needed an excuse to keep their heads in the sand so we could get here.
Now it's likely to hurt. A lot. Sorry, don't say you weren't warned.
May 11, 2008 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2008 13:44
I know this is a difficult concept for you, GaryD, but climactic fluctuations such as between the Dark Ages and early Renaissance were chump change compared to taking a big jump back toward the Pleistocene in *too short a span* for our civilization, never mind most ecosystems, to adapt.
Even most of the stall-and-deny crowd have admitted now that the science shows that global warming is occuring and is in fact in large measure the result of human activity that we now know to be irresponsible.
There is *no* debate about what dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere *does.*
This isn't about absolving ourselves of 'blame,' even if there *were* a natural warming trend on.
That wouldn't mean 'Go ahead and burn all the fossil fuels you want, it's not our fault if the world's getting screwed up, so let's screw it up much faster than we... and ecosystems, can adapt.
There's no sound argument to claim that there's anything *responsible* about it, even if the ANWR contains fuel for sixty more years of this, well, the permafrost you need to pipe the stuff *out* won't last that long, at this rate, anyway.
"Let's do in a hundred fifty years that which natural warming trends on that scale did in hundreds of thousands to millions."
Not a sound policy for the future, however 'skeptical' you feel to be.
But you don't believe in a future, do you, Gary? Maybe something more like a world that ends while shortly after you get *beamed out* into eternal unaccountability?
May 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 11, 2008 13:33
oops, I forgot:
- do onto others as you would have them do unto you
(unless of course you need to "waterboard" them which we all agree with our Great Christian Leader Dick Cheney is not torture)
May 10, 2008 6:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2008 18:45
So tell me, Cal, how have you and your neochristians defined things according to your own moral standards?
- Thou shalt not kill (except for pre-emptive war and capital punishment)?
- Love thy neighbor as thyself (unless they are gay, Muslim or Mexican)?
- Drool over the words of the book of Leviticus and hold them higher than those of Christ to judge, exclude and condemn others (except, of course, verse 19:33)?
I agree with you, Cal, whose morals?
May 10, 2008 6:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2008 18:41
TJ
maybe GaryD will someday invite us to a costume party at his home, and we can come as the "trojan horse." I'll sit in the back (since I'm an ass) and you can direct the front, and we'll pop out with a sign that says "Morons!"
We can wear t-shirts that have "Global Warming or Bust" on them, with a little picture of Nova Scotia surrounded by wild grapes!
Seriously,
GaryD I'm just kidding. I appreciate your skepticism. I know it's a complex issue but until we know more, I'm going to assume that the concerns relayed by scientists across the globe should be heeded, and I'll try not to idle my car engine for 10 minutes every cold morning to warm it up.
May 10, 2008 3:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2008 15:33
Global warming is complex. Peruse en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming.
Hillary Clinton is not as complicated. Peruse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
Neither is Barak Obama. Peruse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
Neither is John McCain. Peruse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain and
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain
May 10, 2008 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2008 12:48
GaryD,
No one doubts that earth's climate has changed drastically over the billions of years that it has been here to change.
Even if our current warming trend is completely the result of the sun, the greenhouse gases we dump in the atmosphere have the potential to dramatically reduce our ability to cool back down.
Try harder.
May 10, 2008 12:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2008 12:00
I just love dealing with morons who think they no something when they make it clear from their posts that they haven't a clue.
Oh sorry I didn't hit the comma hard enough and didn't notice it wasn't there before I hit submit.
Just to clue you in though part and parcel of the global warming hoax is the notion that it is warmer now than it has ever been in human history. That is nonsense. During the Medieval Warm Period 800-1300 AD they were growing grapes in England as far north as the Scottish border, the North of Germany and they were apparently in Nova Scotia. It is not yet currently warm enough to do that in any of those places yet. The case that has been made by the hoaxers is that it was limited to Europe this however appears to be bogus as we find evidence for warmer climes in sediments world wide.
May 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2008 11:38
Steven writes: "I think GaryD is on to something. Do you think we could send his proposal about the "grapes growing wild on Novia Scotia on the border of Scotland" as a submittable paper on Global Warming to the National Academy of Sciences?"
I smell Nobel prize!
Seriously though, the global warming conspiracy is very real. 'They' are after GaryD's 3 or 4k of tax money, assuming he makes enough to pay any at all of course. The ghost of J McCarthy told him so. 'They' are going to take his tax money and turn America into a.. *drum roll* .. pinko hippie commune.
Also, GaryD, Nova Scotia isn't on the border of Scotland. Either buy a map or a box of commas.
May 10, 2008 10:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2008 10:06
Although there is signicant doubt that Jesus' actually said,
"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea", Mark 9:42,
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/198_Millstone_for_Temptation,
it is, however, a great passage for judging leadership qualities.
Clinton's millstones:
major # 1, Her dishonest, lying, cheating husband who she should have dumped years ago. Having him in the Whitehouse again would percolate the stench of adultery and womanizing on a 24/7 basis for four more years.
major #2, Her disrespect for unborn children.
major #3, Not recognizing the flaws and errors of contemporary religions.
minor #1, "forgetting" the details of her trip to Bosnia.
Obama's millstones:
major #1, The "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright.
major #2, His failure to immediately condemn Wright's recent speech.
major #3, His disrespect for unborn children.
major #4, Not recognizing the flaws and errors of contemporary religions.
May 10, 2008 9:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2008 09:36
TJ
I think GaryD is on to something. Do you think we could send his proposal about the "grapes growing wild on Novia Scotia on the border of Scotland" as a submittable paper on Global Warming to the National Academy of Sciences? I wonder why all those scientists haven't thought of that yet! My gosh the answer would be easy--I'm amazed no one has thought it before--GaryD is a genuis!
(I'm also secretly glad he can cut through all that "trojan horse" stuff to get to the meat of things.)
May 10, 2008 9:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2008 09:19
GaryD writes: "Yeah yeah yeah the old global warming Trojan horse when all else fails invent a threat that isn't easily disproved and set the really bad stuff fifty or an hundred years in the future."
Oh, you mean like the threat of hell when you die if you don't believe in bible god the right way while you're here. Gotcha.
Great point GaryD.
May 10, 2008 5:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 10, 2008 05:29
Yeah yeah yeah the old global warming Trojan horse when all else fails invent a threat that isn't easily disproved and set the really bad stuff fifty or an hundred years in the future.
As far as Global warming goes get back to me when grapes grow wild in Nova Scotia on the border of Scotland and in what used to be called Prussia.
And Glaciers flow as they are in Antarctica, where ninety per cent of the Ice not found in peoples refrigerators is located, when the conditions near their point of origin are colder and damper not warmer.
Do you know how many glaciers there are?
May 9, 2008 11:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 23:07
Jand writes: "if you put your hope in a man you WILL be sorely disappointed. why do you think there are so many unhappy athiests out there and on this forum!"
Your jealous and vengeful god must be pretty disappointed eh? Your observation makes your religion, which I assume to be Christianity, even more absurd than it already is.
May 9, 2008 7:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 19:33
Cal Thomas,
The sooner you realize that you yourself are defining your own moral standards, via your particular interpretation of your so-called holy book, the sooner you'll be in touch with the reality all around you.
Whose moral standards indeed.
May 9, 2008 7:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 19:30
if you put your hope in a man you WILL be sorely disappointed. why do you think there are so many unhappy athiests out there and on this forum! talk about kicking yourself in the nuts. an athiest on a religious forum. my sides hurt from laughing at them so much. i gotta get off here before i bust my gut.
May 9, 2008 5:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 17:20
Brambleton - very simple. While democrats may control the war budget, they don't want to be seen as failing to support American troups, and there is no exit strategy or contingency plan in place for an abrupt end to a 5 year old war. That cannot be fashioned without republican and White House cooperation.
I fully expect such developments as these will be coming in the very near future. And to reiterate, as to a change in plans for the continuing occupation of Iraq - clearly there will be no cooperation forthcoming from republicans or the Whitehouse until a changing of the guard is complete after November.
The democrats in Congress are by no means blameless for this war - many supported the war in the beginning as we all know, and it seems as though people like myself, who were completely against the invasion of Iraq as being groundless, without merit and certainly without precedent, were quite in a minority in those days.
Times have changed and public attitudes have reversed themselves. What was once clear to a minority, is glaringly obvious to the majority today. Support for the war in Iraq is all but gone, but eventual extraction maneuvers will not be simple or without continuing casualties.
And let's not forget the Blue Dog democrats - that's over 40 democrats that usually vote with republicans on any and all issues related to the war in Iraq - and are at minimum conservative voters on many other issues as well.
But the times, they are a changin'........
May 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 16:24
Anonymous,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Congress in charge of war funding? And if that's true, why hasn't the Democratic controlled congress made good on their promises to stop the war?
Isn't it about time for Dems to stop whining that they don't have every seat in Congress, as well as the Presidency, and start standing up for their convictions? If they knew they couldn't end the war without a change in the White House, why was it the focal point of their platform two years ago?
If you can't enact "change", don't lie about it during election season.
May 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 15:29
Well, here's an inherent problem in Rev. Thomas' assertions:
"The key is discovering whether a presidential candidate has a core set of principles from which he (or she) will not deviate except under the most extreme of circumstances."
Which, in practice, is code for 'public conservative Christian piety' ..which we should know hardly guarantees integrity.
To my experience, people who espouse an absolutist code, but permit themselves deviations from it 'under extreme circumstances' ...tend to find a way to find or manufacture such 'extreme circumstances.' ...And then of course, they can justify anything they want to do.
I'm much more concerned with consistent (and acheivable) *ethics and standards.*
That's one thing that kind of bothers me a bit about those who deal in absolutes. They demand.... 'Only people who believe in absolutes are fit citizens or leaders: Absolutes, except, except, except. I get exceptions from my absolutes when I want to torture, *you* don't get exceptions from my demands when you want equal treatment under the law.'
What we get, then, is deceit, hypocrisy, and repression of the freedoms of the 'little people.'
You, sir, decry 'moral relativism,' try to demand religious absolutes, and yet, of course, excuse yourself and those you support from those very absolutes when it probably would most count.
This, to me, doesn't commend a religious test for office, even if done through the press and pulpit. It shows exactly why there *shouldn't* be one.
It may be fine for Christian belief and practice to insist that believers try to live by absolute standards which one humanly cannot, but it's a poor standard for electing a government.
Those 'exceptions' just keep getting bigger, there. It also tends to make people think that sexual peccadilloes are more important than massive deceit and failures in the actual business of government.
" Moral character is important, though people sometimes define such things according to their own moral standards."
You talk like that's not how it works. Whether you cling to absolutes or not.
Absolutism (with exceptions for the 'constant state of emergency,' of course,) isn't 'moral character.'
What I look for is in fact, principles, and integrity. Not an insistence "There are no grey areas for you, but I reserve the right to declare them for me."
Character is *coping* with things that seem to be grey areas, not insisting one's authority is justified when the 'rules' don't seem to apply.
May 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 12:31
No politician would ever get elected if he or she does not bend the truth in order to tell too many people what they need, and want, to hear. Far too many people in our society can not handle the truth.
However, to make up a story such as the Bosnia sniper incident fabricated by Sen. Clinton and repeatedly presented with a straight face and no hesitation reveals a practiced liar who can rarely be trusted to tell the truth about anything.
May 9, 2008 12:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 12:09
What?:
At the supposed time Jesus lived a goodly percentage of Jews named their sons Jesus. What they all said or didn't say would be impossible to determine. Enough monkeys with enough typewriters will say everything eventually. There was probably enough Jews named Jesus to say everything at the time with others taking up any sklack.
The key word is not Jesus, it's Christ. No one was named Christ because Christ is not a name, it's an office like president or mayor or fireman. There's a lot of Christs floating around today. They are known as reverends, an office. No one is named Jesus Reverend.
Jews named Jesus are hard to find any more. Try Latinos if you need to know what folks named Jesus have to say. There's enough of them to have probably said everything already. The righteous are worried sick about how many folks named Jesus they have for neighbors. You can find a righteous one to point Jesus out if you can't locate Judas. There was but one Judas so I hear. Last I heard he was hanging out at the white house.
Good luck.
May 9, 2008 11:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 11:45
Since the democrats in Congress don't have a super-majority, the remaining congressional GOP and the White House operating in unison have been successfully obstructing democratic efforts on a number of legislative fronts since the democrats assumed a simple majority - we hear this cannard about the ineffective democrats in Congress without hearing the rest of the story.
Come November, that problem will hopefully be remedied - with a democratic POTUS and a more significant numerical democratic majority in both Houses, we could expect to see very significant changes in both domestic and international policies - we will see a rather quick end to our present full-scale military operations in Iraq, although a pull-out of any magnitude would probably take a year to 18 months in any event.
We will see this happen should democrats take legislative and executive control of the government - otherwise, we'll continue on in the same fashion for years to come and would probably expand our military presence throughout the Mideast with McCain in charge - and with no overriding vote in Congress to stop him.
May 9, 2008 11:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 11:34
"Could be he actually said that he would have been better portrayed by some actor other than Ustinov."
OK, now you are just being silly.
No one could have done a better job than Ustinov.
May 9, 2008 11:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 11:03
Looks like the days of the Clinton machine are done for - although Bill should be credited with a number of positive achievements while president. Nevertheless, the majority of folks clearly want a major change from the days of old.
Perhaps we should temper our expectations with Obama - the racial business will turn out to be
absolutely insiginificant once he's elected, and of that I'm convinced. People will make too much of it as usual, of course - but it's unimportant in the scheme of things. He appears to be both competent and highly intelligent, and I'm convinced he will have the interests of the people at heart during his incumbency.
You've got to give the guy at least the first term to get this presidential business organized -and much that is upside down in government must be put rightside up. Bushco has used a wrecking ball with impunity, and considerable damage has been done.
McCain simply has to be discounted as a viable contender - he has no observable qualities that inspire confidence in his ability to manage White House affairs any more effectively than GWB. McSAME's one distinguishing potential feature - OLDEST elected president in US history, should that imponderable nightmare ever take place.
No, we have to give the nod to Obama at this juncture in time....our future really depends on it.
May 9, 2008 10:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 10:19
Brambleton:
While I don't find particular solice in what Fate writes, neither do I find your alternative very appealing.
In short, you suggest that we're hopelessly lost in our sin, we should just "give up" and resolve ourselves to the predicament, and know that our efforts are all in vain. That there is some "myth of progress," and that those of us who disagree are "hopelessly naive." (Sounds to me like you're sitting on the front porch waiting for the rapture.)
And finally, we should be appreciative of this fact, because we can ultimately focus our intent on some other new world where the gods have made it all right.
It is illogical to conclude that "Only in the Christian story do we find any sense that the problems of the world are solved..." and then claim not to appeal to some utopia, and then to categorically dismiss all human attempts at progress to be "in vain."
Thankfully, there are people who don't think this way, who are eager to improve our situation in this world, currently, and who are not relying on some otherlife to even the scales.
And fortunatley, many of them are of voting age.
May 9, 2008 10:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 10:14
Someone previously stated:
>>Although there is signicant doubt that Jesus' actually said,
>>"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea", Mark 9:42,
Hmmm
Lets put a secular twist on it to show the bias in the statement above:
Although there is significant doubt that Nero actually said as his famous last words:
''Such an artist dies in me''
Who knows that he acutally said that? Was I there? Were you there? Was John Doe there? Could be he actually said that he would have been better portrayed by some actor other than Ustinov.
Ya just never know.
Give it a think.
May 9, 2008 9:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 09:58
Fate,
Your ramblings about the evil Republican empire are both hilarious and absurd. To think that the issues you discussed aren't operating on both sides of the aisle is hopelessly naive.
Cal is correct on one point that most secularists can't discern. It's called the myth of progress. Politicians appeal to it and encourage us to believe in it. "Vote for me and things will get better!" "Vote for Change you can believe in."
As N.T. Wright stated, "Politicans are like people trying to row a boat toward the shore while the strong tide pulls them further and further out to sea. Because they are facing the wrong way, they can't see that their efforts are in vain, and they call out to other boats to join them in their splendid, shore-bound voyage."
The myth of progress fails because it underestimates the nature and power of evil itself. Only in the Christian story do we find any sense that the problems of the world are solved, not by evolving toward some golden future or utopia, but by God going down into the dark and rescuing humankind from its despair.
May 9, 2008 9:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 9, 2008 09:44
The temptation to take campaign money from big oil tests the "character" of candidates. The morality standard for that has already been established by evangelicals. This would be a good place to mention they get their morals from a hoax or better yet from the true story of Moses selling his soul. But I won't.
I will point to a solution to the energy crisis, a real character tester for the next administration. A bushel of corn can be used to make ethanol or, it can be used to feed a cow or pig even. Doing so turns it into three things, food, fertilizer usable to grow more corn and, what is now being wasted natural gas. There is the distinct possibility that natural gas, the portable energy is the real solution to the oil squeeze. Will the next administration have the character to do it or will big oil own it like what seems to be the case with the present one?
Natural gas is natural, naturally. And, we need import none of it. All other gas is un-natural, perverted, lacks character. Of course character is the measure of one's morality.
May 8, 2008 4:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 8, 2008 16:50
Global warming is one of those, "what we want to hear" areas destined to become a big issues this election. It's a measurable reality.
But what is causing it? Learned scientist say it's the green house effect from burning fossil fuels. Not all scientists of course like not all believe the pope really represents Jesus.
The earth heating could be caused by something as simple as fire. Fire is an age old way of heating things. I did a mental calculation based upon world oil consumption, numbers I get only because there's a crisis. It's a fire without rival needed to burn that much oil every day.
The fire we're talking about is a set of tiny fires so numerous they could be said to be infinite. The number of individual combustion's inside cyliders of automobile engines at any given moment is a staggeringly large number. And they are at near 3,600 degrees centigrade, godawful hot, another way to say it.
Where does all that head go? Into the atmosphere of course. Could it be that the outside of the house can be heated as well as the inside? When we're talking a degree more or less, the answer is yes. Mother earth cannot exhaust the heat into space as fast as we keep making it. We will keep making it as long as the oil holds out and there's at least a 100 year supply at today's usage levels.
There's no doubt about it, the polar ice caps will melt. CO2 is not the cause but rather a symptom. What happens after the ice caps are gone needs a little more thought just to make a guess. First wild guess--farming in Antarctica.
People need all the livable land they can get. Those who own the land will be the Lords of earth. Hello Medieval times.
May 8, 2008 11:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 8, 2008 11:22
Cal wrote: "All politicians tell people what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear."
False. Not "all" politicians do this, just the ones you support.
Cal wrote: "Too many care about themselves and perpetuating their political careers more than promoting the general welfare."
See above response.
Cal wrote: "If that is their goal, a certain diagnosis of their character has already been made."
Yes, its called republican ideology.
Cal wrote: "The key is discovering whether a presidential candidate has a core set of principles from which he (or she) will not deviate except under the most extreme of circumstances."
Like "compassionate conservatism"? Like "we should not go out and do nation building"? Like "Afganistan has no good targets, lets bomb Iraq instead"?
Cal wrote: "Moral character is important, though people sometimes define such things according to their own moral standards."
Totally agree. That's how Brownie was considered to be "doing a heck of a job". That's how Libby got his sentance commuted because he was a "good man". That's how this president could do all he could to help Wall Street weather the financial crisis storm but is about to veto a bill to help homeowners who are living in homes they can no longer afford due to being sold bad mortgage terms. That is how those who call themselves christians can support the death penalty. That is how Gonzales was able to go to Ashcroft's bedside and ask him to sign a paper which would have amounted to illegal authority. That is how evangelicals can support this president who has brought this nation to its knees as long as the president supports their religous causes. Yes, morality is relative Cal, we see it every day.
By the way Cal, your columns are getting shorter and shorter. They must be paying you by the column and not by the word. They certainly could not be paying you for any significant content. Have a nice day Cal.
May 8, 2008 9:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 8, 2008 09:04
Garyd:
Pay attention. I said that before it happened. The easiest prediction to make is the world will eventually run out of "free" from nature oil.
I also said that the administration has done it's best to make the oil shortage as painful as possible because the tree huggers are in the way of drilling in Alaska in particular. Are you willing to sacrifice a few acres of frozen wasteland for 50 cent gas? Gas at any price? I am.
But wait. There's a complication, catch 22 type thing. It's called global warming. Do you care if New York City and Washington DC go under water and half the country gets churned up in tornado's? Should we care if it's not us? Sorry about that but the greenies win again.
Can you do ratios? During the 1960's gas was 30 cents a gallon and oil was 5 dollars a barrel. Now oil is 125 dollars a barrel. What is the "parity" price of gas? Try $7.50 a gallon.
Before gold was discovered in the black hills of Dakota whiskey was a nickel. After gold was discovered it rocketed up to 50 cents. What role should the government have played to get the price of whiskey back to where poor folks could afford it?
Is whiskey any different to oil? The government didn't get involved in the high price of whiskey. Should it have? Grant's VP hadn't been the president of a whiskey company that got big government contracts to deliver whiskey to "our hero" soldiers running the Indians off land theirs by treaty, hint hint.
Don't like using whiskey for comparison? Worse happened to food in the black hills. I was being gentle.
May 7, 2008 10:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 22:44
Thanks for informing me that you know almost nothing about about oil bgone with or without Iraq oil prices world wide were likely to spike. The refusal of the US green weanies to countenance drilling for oil anywhere in this country or near any of it's shoreline guaranteed that as did the emergence of India and China as big time competitors in the world oil market.
May 7, 2008 10:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 22:17
We've drifted significantly off the subject which is about character and morality.
Religion defines sin. Sin defines religion. Morality is the lack of sin. Character is the goodness of one's morality. According to the president who I heard say, "we are all sinners" no one must be of perfect morality and in turn perfect character since religion is the base. None of these have any place in politics unless it's a theocracy.
We've had a pseudo theocracy for the past 7 going on 8 years now with evangelicals, religion operators along side defining sin and in turn what is moral thus establishing the character of the candidates. We've elected their candidate, "born again" Bush twice on the basis of character and morals.
Is it an "honest" thing to blame a Democrat congress for the present mess? Does any religions not include lying as a sin? They got one thing straight, sin leads to hell. They failed to warn us that hell is where one finds it and not necessarily after one dies.
When Bush took office, 2001 oil was $30 per barrel. It shot past $120 recently. Does the adventure in Iraq have anything to do with lying, oil, character or morals?
One last question. What will the 87 million "boomers" getting ready to retire that planned to sell their houses for retirement money do now? How about the real sad cases, those that got the head start? They have taken out mortgages and used the money to buy a gas guzzling yuppimoblie or worse yet a 5mpg RV planning to take lots of trips once they retired? I guess they can live in their RVs.
May 7, 2008 4:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 16:48
Brambleton, one last comment and then I'll sign off and make room for others.
What I hope to learn about in the next several years is whether or not it will be better to focus, if we are indeed concerned about the good of the society, on "family income," or institute policies that short of being handouts, benefit low-wage workers and their families more directly than simply a minimum wage increase.
The more I think about it, I'd encourage you to read John Bowe's "Nobodies," specifically the section about Saipan, where there is an "experiment" of how an economy operates without any of the market "parachutes"; an economy championed by many of our Republican colleagues as a representation of how "good" things could be without the influences of any overseeing governmental intervention. It has influenced my thinking about how, left to it's own devices, our pure-hearted capitalistic consumerism can be devastating to entire peoples, so I have to agree with you on the point that minimum wage increases are a far cry to the beginning of the end of poverty.
May 7, 2008 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 16:07
Brambleton:
I didn't think it would be that difficult for you but then you make my point by not getting it. For the past 30+ years the word "liberal" has been used like the word hippy for lack of a more thoughtful analogy. It's a put down. You do know what that is?
Will Obama be labeled an elitist? Does the average NASCAR fan know what an elitist is? Not a chance but they know there's something terribly wrong with them, too wrong to vote for one -- just like liberal.
Carl Rove types can put an ice cream eater in the same empty spot in their heads. They're laying in bed thinking themselves to sleep working on it right now.
What do you expect from a Democrat congress with a thin majority in the house and take broadway Joe Liberman away for Iraq in the senate for a tie that you never got from a significant majority Republican congress? Can they mend 7 years of damage without any help from the white house? NASCAR fans are bone heads but not that dumb.
What web site you talking about? Cal knows all about that already and so do all the candidates. Just thinking about it makes the pope's head hurt.
May 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 15:35
"It's the skin color, stupid."
Daniel- its a good thing you are NOT in the lion's den. Better reread the Biblical story and amend your words..
Its not about race or color (although that card is being played over and over again) Its about substance and experience. BO has little to none.
He claims he will accomplish great things for our country- but the fact is he is a political neophyte and has never proven himself as a leader.
Talk is cheap. Color is veneer. Show me his capabilities by his years of faithful service as a public servant. I want to evaluate the choices he's made in the past before I will believe he can lead and achieve change.
May 7, 2008 2:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 14:19
Brambleton:
I cannot find my original source--I'll continue to look. In brief, it said that about 14 million people had a more direct advantage with increases, and that about another 14 million benefited from the increase in other ways advantageous to livelihood.
I did find a similar number, 13 million, at the Economic Policy Institute site, which also described, but didn't number, the other members of society that stood to benefit from minimum wage increase.
And yes, some states (I read 28) were already on the ball regarding increases above the federal minimum, although that reads that 22 states don't have such minimum standards in place, and those workers are relying on federal minimums, or are just doing without.
I respect and read George Will, but do understand that he is a champion of the free-market don't- touch- it economy. I'm an economics major, although I have spent my career doing something else and have much to relearn, but I have noted in almost 50 years here on this earth that the free-market economy (that good old "invisible hand") doesn't seem to "take care of the least of these" type-folks. I've read some other revealing things recently, including John Bowe's "Nobodies," Joe Baegant's "Deer Hunting with Jesus," and Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickled and Dimed" that give a pretty good picture of those food servers that you seem to so easily dismiss. Not to mention those written by Republicans, (John Dean, Ron Suskind's interviews of Paul O'Neil, Peter Peterson, and a host of others.)
I think we can agree on your disclaimer. Although I think that the efforts of the voting public were not in vain, despite Bush being in "charge," because it sent some specific messages to all politicians that they weren't necessarily secure in their domains. Processes will take time and much effort to repair, and it will be a daunting task for the next Congress and President. And it is definitely about processes. This "gut feeling" administration has about ruined us as a nation.
I hope we haven't stretched ourselves beyond repair.
Finally, I agree that we have many more daunting tasks ahead of us as a nation, but I have never been impressed that an inordinate amount of time was spent on the minimum wage increase. And I think I might have been with you on "why in the world is the government involved in bailing out home owners, or for that matter the stock market?" Can you imagine what would have happened if Bush's Social Security privatization into the stock market were to have occurred, and how much even lounder he'd be proclaiming from his pulpit "Those Congress people (ie Dems) need to fix this mess, and hurry up to boot!!!"
People say he's a hidden genius, but I've yet to appreciate that.
May 7, 2008 2:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 14:02
Brambleton, thanks again for your response.
I read the figure last night, and I'll have to find the source.
I have lots to discuss and will be back, but have to earn MY living for a few hours. Until then, touche'!
Suffice it to say that, reading through some of your comments, we might have much more in common than in opposition. Look forward to more dialogue.
May 7, 2008 1:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 13:05
Steven,
Disclaimer - "Until President Bush is removed from office, all of our rhetoric about bringing the troops home and ending the Iraq war is moot. We cannot and will not be able to complete this task. In fact, the one item we do have control over, war spending, will continue to go unchecked as well. To that end, we will devote all of our attention to the federal minimum wage and bailing out greedy homeowners - at a cost of $2 billion to the taxpayers."
As far as the minimum wage, a few comments.
(1) It should be repealed in its entirety. I know that sounds drastic, but if you spent some time reading about it, I think there's a decent chance you might come to the same conclusion. As George Will stated, "Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices. Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly.
(2) I have no clue where you picked up your 28,000,000 number, but it's wrong. The U.S. Department of Labor indicates that in 2005, 1,900,000 million people were earning wages at or below the minimum (that's a whopping 2.5% of ALL hourly workers). More than HALF of the 1,900,000 are ages 25 or less and more than a QUARTER are between 16-19. READ: STUDENTS and other part-time workers.
(3) About 3 of every 4 workers earning the minimum were employed in food preparation and service industry. READ: WAITERS WHO EARN TIPS.
(4) 29 States, representing 70% of the nation's workforce, have set minimum wages well above the federal standard.
I'm sorry, but there are way too many bigger issues confronting this country than the federal minimum wage. A wage whose time has passed. Of course, what better way to say that you're for the "little guy" and that "looking out for the downtrodden" than to raise wages for the least of us.
Puh-leeze. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice? Uh-oh.
May 7, 2008 12:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 12:48
Bgone,
I guess I should feel relieved that I was spared your typical "Jesus is the Devil" rant and the self promotion of your website. Of course, I don't know if this is much better.
That being said, I read your thread twice trying to gleen anything informative from it. For the most part, all I could read was, "blah, blah, blah, excuses, excuses, excuses, blah, blah, whining, blah, blah, more excuses." I did manage to find a couple of items to which I will respond:
1) "Bush will veto and they don't have an overriding majority." I see. So why bother to fight for something you believe in (or campaigned on) because President Bush will veto it anyway? And if the Democratic led Congress controls funding, why does the President continue to get billions of $$$ for the Iraq war?
2) "The congress gets credit for everything Bush tricks them into doing." Also, "If they came out in favor of ice cream the Repubs would blast the air ways with that in a way to convince the lame brain voters that only idiots are in favor of ice cream." Wow. You certainly have a low opinion of the Democrats in Congress. They're too stupid to know when they're being tricked and too pathetic to fight for their cause with the American people.
You're probably right in that I'm naive about a number of things. The more you learn, the less you know. But I know this: Maybe Congress doesn't have enough of a majority to bring the troops home under the current President. But I would have more respect for them if they stood up for the principles they so loudly championed a couple of years ago. Maybe if they cared more about doing their job instead of keeping their job, they wouldn't lie down and let President Bush walk all over them.
Not a sermon, just a thought.
May 7, 2008 11:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 11:59
Brambleton:
You are so naive it defies an adjective. The Dems margin in congress is so low they can't go to the bath room without losing it. If they came out in favor of ice cream the Repubs would blast the air ways with that in a way to convince the lame brain voters that only idiots are in favor of ice cream.
It's like the word, "liberal" making it completely unnnn-fashionable. Just saying "he's liberal" was enough to not vote for him in the past, if you're part of the "in" crowd. The new word is, "elitist." Only those one would never invite to a party will vote for one of them, whatever that is. Want a really good put-down? Call them elitists. Puts them two levels lower that a moles belly button. And you don't even need to know what an elitist is.
The congress is doing nothing because of two things. Bush will veto and they don't have an overriding majority. And, that will be used with the, "only an idiot" would think of doing that by McCain even though it was Bush's idea in the first place. The congress gets credit for everything Bush tricks them into doing, and the congress is controlled by elitist Democrats.
What has the president proposed? Only that which idiots would propose. The idea is to get the congress to "bite." Then McCain can point to them as stupid Democrat proposals.
Liberal and right-to-life are out with elitist and moral taking their places. It's politics as usual. The one that "tags" the other with the key idiot, (only idiots don't know better) words wins. It's the process of turning idiots into stupid jerks.
Those damning key words like liberal are gobbled by young "naive" voters. Obama has the majority of young voters and can get that going for him this time. Like, McCain is one of those stuffy conservative evangelicals that eats ice cream. Would you invite one of them to your party? And, of course from the historical record, there are "Regan Democrats" who seized the opportunity for idiots to "get with the in crowd" and advance to the level of stupid jerk.
May 7, 2008 11:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 11:10
Brambleton, first of all thanks for the feedback.
again with all due respect,
Disclaimers? Would this be what you had in mind: "Please elect me, although, you need to read the small print: ...nothing I say or do may actually come to pass. In large part, it will depend on if the Republican party and my party can come to terms that Americans want accountability in government processes. We require a certain percentage of votes to make things come to pass. We are in a terrible predicament. If you suffer heartburn, headaches, or bodily aches, please consult your doctor before voting for me."
Minimum wage on President Bush's agenda????? Please give me the details. When was that going to happen, given 6 years in power, with a purely mechanical rote Republican Congress and virtually not a single veto during that stretch?
"All their time and effort???" on one piece of legislation?? Do you comprehend the damage that's been done over the last 7 years, and the job that's current and ahead? Do you believe we don't have a "broken government?" Are you aware of the challenges we as a nation face to undo the damage that's been done over these years? (Read John Dean's book Broken Government, or any number of others written by Republicans.) Going from a 2 to a 5 day workweek was only one of the things that was necessary to increase the time to "fix" things.
A small percentage who benefited? Is (I've read the figures at about 28 million people directly affected by minimum wage increase) that insubstantial? Who do you think these "insubstantial" people are?
Anti-Republican sentiment? Do you think the "Dems" are responsible for that? You don't imagine that we are able to see for ourselves, without the influence of the "Dems," that we have categorically and almost comprehensibly lost those very "values" that the "values party" insisted we cherish, and that landed the GOP in a position to rule over the last 7 years? Do you think it takes "smear campaigns" to get the attention of the American public that we're on a substantially wrong path?
Accountability is exactly what we haven't had during Republican rule.
And it still bothers me that someone might think that raising the minimum wage was political pandering that was a waste of time, and yes I think it's arrogance. My family has lived on substantially less than yours, obviously.
May 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 10:56
Steven,
I've read the transcripts from a number of Obama's speeches and they are very short on details. That said, I will spend some time on his website and see if I can discern anything further.
In regards to Congress, I think a number of your remarks are right on point. However, here's the problem - when Dems were whipping up this frenzy of "change" and anti-republican sentiment, they didn't add any disclaimers that, if elected, they wouldn't actually be able to make any changes. You can't yell and scream that you'll bring the troops home if elected and then turn around and whine that the President is pushing you around.
Here's a question: If the Dems control Congress, why can't they just tell the President "No" on his war funding requests? Isn't that what they were elected to do?
Finally, what sickens me is that, given the issues that surround tens of millions of Americans, given the lives and livelihoods that are at risk, the Democratic controlled Congress spent all their time and energy on a piece of legislation that (A) was already on the agenda of President Bush, and (B) helped a micro-fraction of people in need.
It's not arrogance, it's called accountability.
May 7, 2008 9:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2008 09:37