Obama's Call to Rebuild

You're a little late for that -- that was going on regularly in the 1980s, long before conservatism was effectively discredited (this very blog and the last two election results should have confirmed that). Indeed, back in those days it was easy to find conservative opinion in most mainstream media; in fact, in some cases they even solilcited it (because it was relatively new and thought that doing so would bring in new readers). Besides, that's not the real issue here -- because of the arrogance and cloistered thinking of conservatives, they are the ones that need to break free and consider that, maybe they were fundamentally wrong. A simple "I disagree" is not an argument because it doesn't give any understandable reasons; you have to persuade, not simply state.

I'm just making clear the fact that you are castigating conservatives for not doing something that liberals also do not do. That's a double standard, by definition, whether you find it irrelevant or not.

I just demonstrated to you that what you said is a bald-faced lie.
Conservatives simply wanted their views accepted as gospel, no commentary or
criticism accepted, but the real world doesn't work like that.

In this case the burden of proof is on you, not me, and you so far have proven
absolutely nothing. Conservatives complain even now that they're never
respected in mainstream society; in fact, they are still everywhere. Why,
Bill Kristol until recently wrote a column in the New York Times, and their
own publications had even gone mainstream.

Besides, in the process we've lost the main thrust of this thread. You don't
agree with Obama's agenda. Fine -- put forth a cogent counterargument that
hasn't already been discredited by the news of the last three years and maybe
we'll listen. Don't expect worn-out conservative/Republican talking points to
be taken seriously by this audience; we're savvy people who have heard them
all before.

Judithod:
I understand the registration rush! I teach at a community college, and so many students seem to wait until the last minute to register for classes.

To get to the end of the thread so you can reply directly to a comment, go to the Options button at the top of the thread, right under the blog. You have two options; either go to Community Page, which lists all comments in order in the same way most other blogs do it, or under the "sort thread by" drop-down, select "Newest first." Either way, you should be able to respond directly to a particular post. ("Newest first" does put the comments out of order, but at least you can usually find and reply to the comments near the bottom of the thread.)

Sure, we can agree to disagree--no problem there. But before I sign off, I have a few observations. Forgive the length; I'm still formulating some of these things in my mind.

First, it's not really true that the jury is still out on climate change, if what you mean by that is the theory that global warming is largely caused by human activity--mostly fossil fuel consumption. In fact, it's rather amazing at the level of consensus that climate scientists have achieved, given that scientists are skeptical by nature and don't normally agree on much unless the evidence is overwhelming. In the case of global warming, the evidence has become more convincing all the time; human cause of global warming is about as certain as anything can be in science. And those scientists who still publicize their doubts are for the most part either one or both of the following: either they're not climate scientists, i.e., not real experts in this very specialized field, or they're compromised by being in the pay of Big Oil or some other vested interest--in a similar way that the scientists who were hired by the tobacco companies to "demonstrate" that smoking isn't a health hazard were compromised.

Second, to say that scientists have bought into climate change as a research cash cow is also to misunderstand how research scientists work. In their research, they go where the evidence leads them. As far as a cash cow for the government is concerned, since proposed revenue from the cap and trade is likely to be offset by proposed income tax cuts, I don't see how one can make that argument.

Third, I have a theological reason for believing that a pending ecological disaster might be imminent:
"And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, and I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

"And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations...the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

"And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. "--Genesis 9: 8-12; 16-17

Note that God's post-Flood covenant was not only with Noah and his family; it was with "every living creature"; another way of looking at it is that the covenant was with the earth itself. I believe that for much of the last 200 years--the industrial age--humans have been engaged in wanton destruction of the earth--God's Creation. As we know, God is "slow to anger" and incredibly (from a human point of view) longsuffering. Nevertheless, if things get serious enough, God will be aroused to action. I think things are getting serious and that God is remembering his covenant with the earth, which means he may soon act in vengeance against those who have so wantonly destroyed his Creation-- and to a large degree, that means us Americans. Unless, of course, we repent and change our ways. If not, then we can expect God remember his covenant with the earth and act decisively against its destroyers. He will "measure out to them what they are measuring out to the planet." (Credit is due to the Rev. Ed Schroeder for this insight.) If that happens, things won't be pretty. I don't know, of course, whether climate change might become God's vengeance on us for consuming his Creation unjustly, but it could be.

Finally, even if climate change is less likely to occur than the climate scientists are saying, there are solid, compelling reasons for moving away from destructive fossil fuel use and a consumerist economy. I don't have time or space to go into details here right now, but I've alluded to some of those reasons in my previous comments.

As promised, this will be my last correspondence on this topic, at least for now.

Peace and blessings,
D

Buckeye Don & Squeaky--Disqus won't let me get to the correct spot to respond to you so hope you find this! Sorry to be so tardy in responding. I interview applicants for admission to a college, and a couple kids always push the limit, right up to the March 1 deadline. I appreciate the link and your comments, Buckeye Don, and your comments as well, Squeaky. Right now, we probably can't bridge the gap, and we'll probably have to agree to respectfully disagree. From my viewpoint, too many respected scientists are stepping forth with facts that dispute popular assumptions or models about global warming. Just to name a few, these scientists include John Theon, James Hansen's boss at NASA; scientists at University of Alabama Huntsville's Earth System Science Center; David Evans, Australian Greenhouse Office (1999-2005); Reid Bryson, University of Wisconsin climatologist. Frankly, I believe that global warming has become a research cash cow for certain scientists and that it's about to become a cash cow for the federal government. Significant data indicate that the earth has cooled since 1998 and, in fact, 2008 was cooler than 2007 in spite of a rise in carbon emissions. The jury is still out on global warming, and I don't believe we should restructure our economy on the bases of disputed assumptions.

The speech had some positive points, but the overall direction of President Obama makes me less hopeful and I don't think I am alone on this. Many of us who provide in this world are looking for less government spending and more indiviual accoutability.

I was also taken back by the political bias I sensed in this article.

Well said, Don. I hope we choose to move away from fossil fuels voluntarily.

Judithod and Squeaky:

Here's a really good summary of the REAL science behind the climate issue.

I think Eric77 was being sarcastic--but it wasn't directed as a slam towards you, but towards Kevin.

"We need to get beyond partisan political "truths" and examine scientific findings beyond what Al Gore and Jim Hanson have touted. "

Agreed--which is why I will ask you what actual climate scientists are saying about climate. Have you studied the IPCC reports?

As a geologist, I can tell you that the Earth was far different than we know it today than it was in the Cambrian. For example, there were no land plants to suck up the CO2 in the atmosphere. Not only that, the area of land mass was far smaller than it is today. So to say that CO2 levels were far higher in the Cambrian than they are today is like comparing kumquats to cats.

And again the statement "I do not want bad policy" is abundantly clear and sufficient. And you can avoid a semantic war about the meanings of "succeed" and "fail" and the many implied and inferred meanings in all the chatter expressing desires for Obama to fail.

Which liberals have said "Hey, the other side has some good ideas that make sense."?

"I don't believe anyone would have expected that kind of vision from
Gov. Jindal. Do Republicans have no vision of their own to offer? "

I repeat, conservatives don't believe government can fulfill visions of hope. I don't think he said "it's my money", even though you have it in quotes, not that it is unreasonable to note that it is in fact our money, and not the governments, that Obama will be using to try to provide hope for us.

Republicans, or, at least, conservatives, have a vision to offer for government. You just don't agree with that vision. That doesn't make it not a vision.

What's your point here? With all the scare quotes I have no idea who you're talking about. Plus your grammar is such a mess you refer to "'purist conservatism,' which represents the views of most people" -- which I know you couldn't actually mean.

At any rate, it seems to me that LBJ had a definite interest in power. Or was the Great Society a "purist conservative" project?

LV

It's not irrelevant. You criticized conservatives for never saying that the other side makes sense. Liberals (however you want to define them) don't either.

You consistently apply a double standard, and then appeal to your own authority when asked to defend it.

My point is that conservative leadership has always had zero interest in anything but power for its own sake, not caring whom it stepped on or even destroyed in the process. Its whole MO was and still is based on hatred of and resentment toward the "other" -- even noted conservative strategists have admitted such -- because doing so is an excellent way to get votes. In other words, the old cliche that "hate sells" still applies.

That's why you have folks here who bellyache about anything that Jim Wallis says or does that they don't agree with, complaining that he isn't being "non-partisan." Well, he is non-partisan, but even at that I'm sure he understands that some people, only interested in propping themselves up as leaders and thinkers without any practical agenda, have no real interest in addressing issues, let alone finding workable solutions. They would just as soon keep the poor and powerless just as they are because they derive no benefit -- if anything, they would lose -- from empowering people they really see as adversaries. That is frankly unbibilical, among other things.To answer another question LBJ did have an interest in power, but he also used it for the good of the downtrodden. He knew that when he did the right thing in signing the Voting Rights Act he was sabotaging his political career, let alone the Democratic Party's dominance in the South. This would never have been done by a man interested only in power.

Anyway, I didn't listen to Jindal's speech on Tuesday. Indeed, I almost didn't have to because I already knew that he supported a number of the old conservative Republican talking points that events have discredited. You would think that "brilliant" people would think that, "Well, this didn't work -- let's try something new"; however, they appear to be so emotionally tied to their anti-government agenda they can't allow it to be seen as ineffective or actually harmful. That's not the attitude of healthy people.

People tied to an "anti-government agenda" could hardly be said to be obsessed with power, could they? And if you want to consider which party is more obsessed with power, you might begin by looking at which party is more invasive on a domestic, rather than a international, level. Which party, for instance, was it that sentenced citizens to 20 years in prison for opposing WWI? Which party put Japanese-Americans in internment camps? Which party wants to use tax-payer dollars to subsidize abortion clinics? And with other domestic issues--homeschooling, trade-licensing, etc.--which party do you think will sooner pass regulatory measures? I rest my case.

"Even conservatives know that is a completely false statement."

You're all over the map. If it's completely false, then you should be able to refute it with a quotation, or (preferably) several of them.

No. Are you even reading my posts? I asked for an example of a liberal who ceded that conservatives have some good ideas.

Are you referring to Rush?

You're a little late for that -- that was going on regularly in the 1980s, long before conservatism was effectively discredited (this very blog and the last two election results should have confirmed that). Indeed, back in those days it was easy to find conservative opinion in most mainstream media; in fact, in some cases they even solilcited it (because it was relatively new and thought that doing so would bring in new readers). Besides, that's not the real issue here -- because of the arrogance and cloistered thinking of conservatives, they are the ones that need to break free and consider that, maybe they were fundamentally wrong. A simple "I disagree" is not an argument because it doesn't give any understandable reasons; you have to persuade, not simply state.

I just demonstrated to you that what you said is a bald-faced lie.
Conservatives simply wanted their views accepted as gospel, no commentary or
criticism accepted, but the real world doesn't work like that.

In this case the burden of proof is on you, not me, and you so far have proven
absolutely nothing. Conservatives complain even now that they're never
respected in mainstream society; in fact, they are still everywhere. Why,
Bill Kristol until recently wrote a column in the New York Times, and their
own publications had even gone mainstream.

Besides, in the process we've lost the main thrust of this thread. You don't
agree with Obama's agenda. Fine -- put forth a cogent counterargument that
hasn't already been discredited by the news of the last three years and maybe
we'll listen. Don't expect worn-out conservative/Republican talking points to
be taken seriously by this audience; we're savvy people who have heard them
all before.