If ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise
Bookworm on Oct 24 2008 at 3:00 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
I was speaking to a liberal friend who thinks that, with the market in free-fall, now is a good time to invest, because there are bargains out there. I think that’s probably true. I don’t believe we’ve hit bottom yet, but there are certainly bargains out there, and anyone who has faith in the long-term abilities of the American economy should snatch them up. Long-term, of course, is a relative concept. Because the two candidates have markedly different tax plans for the investing class, long term could mean a few months, or it could mean years or decades.
It was in that regard that I suggested to my liberal friend that, because there’s a 50% chance Obama will win, he should bone up on Obama’s tax proposals so that he can invest around the consequences. This dialogue ensued:
Liberal Friend (“LF”): Obama’s taxes aren’t going to change anything.
Me: Well, you don’t have to believe me, but I think if you check out his proposed economic policies, you’ll see that he’s going to increase the capital gains tax.
LF: No, he’s not.
Me: I don’t know. And you shouldn’t believe me [he never does anyway], but I also suspect that the tax increases on businesses making over $250,000 are going to affect the market.
LF: No, they’re not.
Me: Well, you should check it out.
LF: I don’t need to. That’s just not true.
Me: [Going futile:] Well, you should check it out.
LF: No. The Democrats aren’t stupid. They’re not going to hurt the economy.
Me: What about the proposal they’ve been considering to take away people’s 401(k) plans.
LF: That’s not true.
Me: It’s true that it hasn’t happened, but it’s also true that they’re making the proposals. And anyway, these taxes and plans from the Democrats aren’t new. They’re the same kind of taxes that were in place under Carter, and that they have been asking for since Bush got into office.
LF: That’s not true.
And so goes the infinite loop of talking to someone who reads only the New York Times, and who claims that all other media sources (other than NPR and the New Yorker) are radical conspiracy theorist right-wing garbage.
I had an interesting, and similar, dialogue with this same friend regarding Sarah Palin:
LF: I was going to vote for McCain, but he made it impossible for me when he selected Sarah Palin.
Me: What’s wrong with Sarah Palin?
LF: There you go, arguing again.
Me: No, seriously, give me a list of things that are wrong with Sarah Palin.
LF: Her position on abortion.
[I let this pass, because this is binary. Either you agree with her or you don't, although I forgot to point out that she wouldn't actually affect abortion policy.]
Me: What else?
LF: She’s a creationist.
Me: That’s a myth. She’s said that she believes in the Biblical creation story, but agrees that evolution should be taught in schools.
LF: No, she doesn’t.
Me: I can show you the direct quotes.
LF: She’s got no experience.
Me: Neither does Obama.
LF: That’s just the kind of stupid thing right wing fanatics say.
Me: Tell me how Obama has more experience than she does.
LF: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with her. She’s a flake. And I’m not talking about this anymore.
What’s fascinating when talking to liberals is the bitter, bitter aversion to facts. I was talking today to a European liberal friend who said that Europeans embraced socialism because they have a bigger social conscience.
I responded that she’d latched onto something very important there, which is the fact that, because Europe lacks the social and economic fluidity that has characterized America since the 17th Century, it’s poor remain poor in perpetuity (a situation only exacerbated by the influx of Muslim immigrants). In America, groups may start at the bottom but, after a generation or two, they invariably float up, precisely because we don’t have the social and economic stratification that has always characterized Europe. This thought absolutely shocked her.
She regrouped a minute later and then said that my premise is false because “look at African Americans.” I explained to her that African-Americans differed because, unlike all other groups in America, the American system essentially imposed on them (in a brutal and horrible way) a European style stratification that prevented any upward movement. I pointed out that, beginning in the 1940s (with the WWII economy) and continuing into the 1950s (with the Civil Rights movement), blacks started the same upward movement as other American groups. That is, once we removed the artificial ceiling we’d imposed on them, they too made social and economic strides. The strides were slow, because prejudice is slow to die, but they were real, and they created a rising black working and middle class composed of nuclear families.
I then explained to her (as I’ve told you) that the death knell for this social and economic ascent was the Great Society, which told blacks to stop working, because the government would pay for them. Being rational actors, blacks gave up bad, low-paying, often demeaning jobs for free money. And being rational actors, they gave up nuclear families and parental responsibility for even more free money. And so began the terrible slide of the African-American community, a slide arrested only when Clinton, under duress from a real Republican Congress, ended “welfare as we know it.”
My European friend listened to all of this and then said, as if I hadn’t spoken at all — “But the blacks would never have succeeded if the government hadn’t given them handouts.” You’ll notice that she didn’t challenge my factual assertions. She just ignored them entirely. They didn’t exist in her mental universe.
The world of the liberal is one made up of blind faith. Anything that might impinge on those shibboleths cannot be allowed to exist within the liberal’s mental universe. There is no “If A, then B, and if B, then C.” Liberals don’t even pretend by creating false syllogisms, such as “If A, then false B, if false B, then false C.” Instead, they just go to “False C” and stick there. It’s very frustrating.
Related posts:
- If ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise
- Wise words about the Fourth Estate
- Canadian nut TV confronts wise woman
Email This Post To A Friend
119 Responses to “If ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I can identify with this, BW. To prove my point to a liberal friend by showing indisputable proof in print would be a mistake if I want to keep my liberal friends. And I do. To some extent or other, their opinions carry a certain righteousness. During a discussion I know that when the righteousness comes out (don’t you CARE about the poor, the earth, etc?), I withdraw because after that it’s all about emotion. Facts indeed are gnats that get in the way. Thomas Sowell recently put it this way when discussing BHO:
“Telling a friend that the love of his life is a phony and dangerous is not likely to get him to change his mind. But it may cost you a friend.
It is much the same story with true believers in Barack Obama. They have made up their minds and not only don’t want to be confused by the facts, they resent being told the facts.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short: “You don’t like him and I do!” she said. End of discussion.”
I’ve said to friends that liberals embrace ignorance as if it’s a virtue. Indeed, I think that is precisely the way they see it (although they will never admit that it is ignorance that they embrace). You see, most of the left has neither a religion nor a guiding set of principles in which to place their faith. I think there is something in the human genome that almost requires that we have something to believe in, something bigger than ourselves. For the left, all they have is an ideal – a nebulous dream of utopia, where no one is a loser in the game of life. To actually believe in such, a person must relinquish his grasp of reality. Ignorance is the only way to keep the faith.
Going futile
That’s funny! I feel the same frustration when trying to talk with someone whose mind is fixed.
I had an interesting, and similar, dialogue with this same friend regarding Sarah Palin:
A couple of guidelines on human psychology and basic propaganda.
Humans will believe anything that they wish to be true if you just nudge them a bit.
Convincing somebody that a dead man is actually alive is very hard. Convincing somebody that wants to believe a dead man is alive that he is actually alive is comparatively much easier. However, there is no way propaganda, regardless of who it convinces that a dead man is alive, can actually make the dead alive once more.
People’s resistance to new ideas are indirectly proportional to how much they fear those ideas. This means that as more people are afraid of Sarah Palin being X, the more people will believe that she is X. However, this is where human psychology comes into play. Fears are never a simple subject matter regardless of which individual is under the microscope here. Human psychology provides us protection from fear via numerous methods but notably the one method we are concerned with is the method of displacement. It is where you remove the fear from your consciousness and place it somewhere else. This works whether it is anger, love, or fear. When a person fears Sarah Palin and all that she truly is and can be, that person can either face his fears and recognize them (which requires moral courage that few fake liberals have) or that person can displace his fears unto somebody else: a caricature of what they truly fear.
So, when you take a look at all that, it becomes very easy to see that people who believe very quickly that Sarah Palin is dumb, inexperienced, and what not are people who really fear the exact opposite. They wouldn’t need to claim such things as true unless they either feared that it was true or they wanted them to be true. SInce it makes no sense for an Obama supporter to Fear Palin being inexperienced and dumb, this means that Obama supporters Want Sarah to be inexperienced and dumb. But why would that want that unless they fear that Sarah Palin is the exact opposite of inexperienced and dumb?
A combination of the human need to desire and the human need to fear that which we cannot control allows propagandists to easily manipulate the minds and feelings of individuals susceptible to a fear of Sarah Palin that they cannot recognize openly. This process of denial becomes an implanted sub-conscious desire and fear that, while repressed, is still impacting on the daily decisions and thoughts of the consciousness.
Used cars salesmen and lawyers both need to find out what a client or opponent wants. When it comes to making deals and convincing people, finding out what they desire and what their fears are provides incredible advantages on the bargaining table. The same is true in matters of propaganda.
This is why inflicting catastrophic stimuli upon fake liberals is the only way to shatter their mental defenses and get them to face their own fears. Currently they are not fully self-aware since part of their thinking is driven by factors they don’t even realize exists. Being self-aware means being aware of yourself, what you desire, what you can do, and the consequences of your actions to yourself. Kill yourself and you will die. People have to at least be able to be aware of the consequences of their own actions on their identities before we can truly call them sentient.
An e-mail from a reader mentioned trying to tell his sister why he was voting against Obama but, when he tried to argue some facts, she cut him short: “You don’t like him and I do!” she said. End of discussion.”
People believe in Obama because it makes them feel safe. When you try to strip away their sense of safety, their mental blocks come up because now you are a threat to their identity.
When you want to break past people’s mental defenses you need to fight fire with fire: emotion with emotion. Only their own emotions can defeat their own emotions, you see. If they can’t find a way through their manufactured emotions then they might as well be sociopaths that cannot be re-educated to function in the real world. A well socialized sociopath can be a good neighbor and community member, but in the one field of his personal morality and integrity he is far gone.
The human psyche is able to function even though it contradicts itself. Thus a serial killer can function as a model citizen in society whereas a person that has internal mental shields against the truth of their own emotions can be a productive citizen and worker and mostly normal in other fields of social attributes. This does not determine their internal health and consistency, however. Inside they can be a rampaging horde of meanness, vileness, and jealousies.
Interesting, what a world of absolutes liberals occupy.
I’ve become increasingly cranky about it, though. I’ve arrived at an age where if there’s going to be a “friendship” lost to a political discussion, then it occurs to me it wasn’t truly a friendship, (certainly not one worth hanging on to), and I have ceased being the one that makes the effort to keep it.
I understand from whence you come, Marguerite; but if I have to devote energy and effort to contorting either the facts or my own intellect (or, most often: both) to hang on to a “friend,” said “friend” can take a hike any day. I’m too old to be interested in doing that anymore, and I don’t.
Somehow or other conservatives are capable of disagreeing and still remaining friends: liberals are not. I don’t know why, though I have long suspected that liberalism is a marker for some sort of disease we just have yet to figure out. Even they can’t possibly believe what they profess to believe without incurring brain damage!
But I no longer tolerate it around me. I do not, believe me, feel that I am depriving myself.
I had an interesting, and similar, dialogue with this same friend regarding Sarah Palin:
I think you already know, Book, that most of the human species are followers with only a small percentage of the entirety being leaders or independent thinkers.
That means, statistically speaking, most of your fake liberal friends are closed minded parochial villagers that would be more at home in the Spanish Inquisition than the European Enlightenment, if you get my drift.
Y (#4)
>> Used cars salesmen and lawyers both need to find out what a client or opponent wants. When it comes to making deals and convincing people, finding out what they desire and what their fears are provides incredible advantages on the bargaining table. The same is true in matters of propaganda. >>
I think this is true and has important implications for conservatives going forward.
It seems safe to assume that the conservative movement is going to reorganize itself beginning Nov. 5th. We’ll fight over defining ourselves and what our direction will be. We’ll put together a coalition (I hope) rather than squabble for four years.
THEN we have to face Y’s point. Simply going out there and demonstrating our facts, and expecting to win the day, is going to fail miserably. Part of message *is* propaganda, and we’re terrible at that. We’re going to have to figure it out.
Same here. I know exactly what you are talking about. It´s frustrating. One wants to connect and be understood. That is why friends who get it and agree on the fundamentals are worth their weight in gold. As for the rest, I am blessed with a good memory. I confront them with whatever they said two years ago which turned out to be utterly wrong. That always scares them because they have no idea what they said last week and don´t want to be held accountable. Must not overdo it, but I won´t bite my tongue either.
el gordo, consistency and a proven track record of being right on one’s assumptions only matter to those that believe that life provides us tests that we can either pass or fail. If, on the other hand, people believe that life is about exploiting the rich and the weak, then it doesn’t matter what you did in the past and how well that went. The only thing that matters is crushing opposition now.
Those that want the truth on some kind of objective standards, like engineers, cannot afford to simply ignore previous mistakes and inconsistencies.
THEN we have to face Y’s point. Simply going out there and demonstrating our facts, and expecting to win the day, is going to fail miserably. Part of message *is* propaganda, and we’re terrible at that. We’re going to have to figure it out.
One of the more effective ways to spread propaganda messages is to load up individuals with certain arguments and answers and then send them out to use these points. Companies do the same thing with their spokesmen. Prepare arguments and statements ahead of time, send their representatives out, and have their representatives repeat the message to those that are listening. This is not such a difficult, large, or illegal thing to comprehend.
What the Left has an advantage, though, is that due to their Bee Hive Mind mentality they are able to repeat their side’s messages on a level of consistency and coordination far beyond what independent thinkers can. Independent thinkers abhor repeating the same message over and over again simply because it works to manipulate people: some originality is preferred. That is the weakness, after all.
Governments focused on securing liberties over consolidation of political and military power are vulnerable precisely because those governments do not have the power or sometimes even the will to consolidate internal defenses against revolutionaries, insurgents, and criminals. They don’t have the power because the system is not designed to give them that power. America is America because America doesn’t want the ease of a Nazi Germany or a Stalinist Russia in crushing internal dissent.
If you are a person that believes in free will, in the value of independent thought, and the worth of unrestricted debate, then the very fact that propaganda works more effectively if everybody repeats the same arguments and gives the same answers, regardless of what each individual thinks of those arguments or the worth of those answers, is completely abhorrent on a sub-consciousness level. It hits to the fundamental philosophies which classical liberals and conservatives hold to just like locking down internal dissent hits the fundamental philosophies of a free nation: just like Truman’s use of the atomic bombs hit upon Truman’s fundamental philosophies on ending war and avoiding civilian casualties. But it is necessary in the end to do such things because security is required for liberty and liberty is required for security. They cannot be 100% pure and abstract ideals people just fluff around like they do with Socialist Utopias.
Advertisement, retail sales, and various other 1 to 1 marketing strategies make great use of this technique of propaganda that sends out people with specific arguments and answers. This provides name recognition since the answers and arguments bring up the names of people, like Bush, who you want known and it also brings up the names of people, like Chomsky, who you use as an example of someone fighting the good fight. This is effective because when your audience goes away from you and forgets he even had that conversation, another person from your propaganda side will talk to him and be able to use YOUR cultivated impression to bolster the same propaganda arguments that you used. This satisfies both repetition of name for brand recognition and it makes people remember the arguments and defenses through the simple process of repeating them. After your audience (target) remembers solidly the arguments you have loaded into the target, that target essentially goes into a state that you may as well call (occupied by the enemy). If you see a person’s mind as a battle space located in a territory then whether you control that territory or not depends upon how much of your propaganda vs the enemy’s propaganda is securely located on that territory. More of your tanks in Tikrit than the enemy’s means that you likely control the city more than your enemies. If North Vietnam’s tanks are rolling into Saigon and the South Vietnam’s tanks are out of gas, it is probably safe to say that NVietnam controls Saigon. This is the reality of propaganda versus its illusion. Yes, propaganda cannot make somebody really dead alive once more but propaganda can create the reality of binding people’s loyalty to them. This creates reality by getting people to do things.
Once you control enough of a person’s thoughts on a specific subject, because all that person has heard on that subject came from you and other people like you, then you have generated a self-perpetuating wave front. You may only be able to talk to 5 to 10 people in your daily life about Bush being corrupt and evil, but those 5-10 people will tell 50-100 people. Those 100 people will then tell a 1000. The propaganda operation is now in full motion much like an advertisement campaign after it has acquired enough “name recognition” amongst people.
A simple difference between how we operate and how the Left operates is that we prefer to come up with our own ideas on things and this necessarily means that we won’t all agree on such things nor will we all say the same things, the same arguments, and the same defenses of the same people.
The Left, however, can grab a subject like Sarah Palin and instantaneously attack her using the same arguments and defend their attacks with the same defenses. This is indicative of a hive mind philosophy and organization. A hive mind is efficient in such limited fields, yes, but it does not compare with the originality, flexibility, and sheer ultimate potential of individuality (having your own identity and your own thoughts and beliefs).
Everybody knows that if people have to wait for orders from the top management to go to the restroom, we are going to have a lot of people with a lot of time on their hands doing nothing but watch the floors be used as a latrine. A hive mind hierarchy eliminates individual initiative the more centralized it is. What matters is not individuals on the Left, as would apply to people like us, but the leaders of the Left. To a certain extent the US Army was right that killing or capturing the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Baathist insurgency would cripple the insurgency. What they forgot was that the Civilian tribal leaders in Iraq far outnumbered the leaders in the Baath party and AQ. Cutting the head off the snake is going to do no good if you leave a thousand other heads for AQ to use exclusively.
The Left’s strategy against us is not so much to kill our leaders as it is to demoralize us as individuals so that our leaders cannot muster the necessary support for required actions. No matter how many times the Left attacked Bush personally, it did not change one iota the fact that Bush still had the power to launch a nuke at Iran and Saudi Arabia. This wouldn’t have changed regardless of how much the public was against or for him. That’s cause they knew the real threat wasn’t from Bush but from talented individuals that could provide Bush the real source of American like: people like Petraeus. If they could force Bush to withdraw because of how American public opinion had turned against the war, the Left could have neutralized our originality and individual initiative by killing Iraq before people like Petraeus could save it. Also, you must consider how much effort we as individuals put into defending Bush and the War against Leftist attacks. How many man hours went into that rather than into figuring out a solution to win the war and protect the righteous in Iraq, eh? Man hours to the Left is cheap. They can get slaves to do it if they can’t get volunteers. Just soak the rich or some such. But us? The totality of our time and energy is far greater than the sum of each separate part. Wasting such a huge percentage of the creative genius of the American people did far more to hurt Bush than any personal attacks they launched on him or his policies. This is cause they know our strength is in our love of liberty and free will while the Left’s strength is the strength of the mob: pure numbers and overwhelming momentum.
If you accept that most of the Left are useful idiots with only a few at the top really pulling the strings then most of our ammunition should be used, not to attack people like Obama or Pelosi by trying to discredit them (because hive minds can’t be discredited of their faith in their Queen and Absolute Monarch) but rather to use all means in our disposal to take them out of power. Once out of power they will be unable to organize their little colony of killer bees. This is the ultimate vulnerability of a hive mind hierarchy. A totalitarian hierarchy always starts collapsing when the top can’t exercise control on the bottom whereas a free nation becomes stronger the less control the top exercises on the bottom.
Winning the “hearts and minds” of individual Iraqis mattered, but not nearly as much as winning the loyalty of the leaders. This is because in any totalitarian or top down hierarchy most of the decision power rests in the hands of the leaders. The individuals don’t have any initiative, really. The same is true of the Sunnis as the Democrats. If we can’t win the loyalty of Democrat leaders, then we are going to have to replace them.
Seeing this through the view of war strategy, I think the GOP party and its loyalists can get far more advantage by targeting and eliminating specific Democrat leaders than trying to win over specific regular joe Democrats away from Obama and Biden. The collapse must start at the top, not at the bottom. You’ll get far more bang for your buck that way.
For example, Russel is running against Murtha, he who outputted the propaganda message, successfully, that the Marines cold bloodedly murdered civilians in Haditha. The truth? It was all fabricated and Murtha knew it, which is why his lies were put in the right place, at the right time, in the right fashion to convince.
If you look at the history of the GOP from 2000-2008, you will see that the Democrats have knocked more Republican leaders from power than the GOP has knocked Democrat leaders from power. How can this be given that the President has the power of the veto and the power of the Executive branch to investigate crime and corruption? How can these Democrats stay in power when the President has the power to veto their pork barrel bills, which the Dems use to buy political power? Cause Bush thought after winning the election that it was time to “heal” the rift. No, the time to reconstruct things is after you’ve killed most of the terrorists and have gained the loyalty, not “love”, of the local population. If you haven’t done that, you need to eliminate more enemy leaders. If you can’t eliminate those leaders fast enough, then and only then should you try to reconciliate by acquiring allies. If you can’t even acquire allies, and Bush couldn’t get allies from the Democrats, then you need to go back to step one and start using the threat of your power to gain you some allies.
The US lucked out partially in Iraq because Al Qaeda misused their power and pushed the Sunni tribes into our sphere after many blunders on America’s part (most of them aided and abetted by Democrat propaganda).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8
Reagan – A Time For Choosing
Ronald Reagan’s speech in support of Barry Goldwater…
We are in desperate need of a Reagan today.
BW,
You can’t talk a liberal out of their liberalism, since liberalism really is a mental disorder!
We all place our faith in something– to liberals, the state offers the answer to their insecurity and fear. And we don’t like our faith challenged.
The movement toward advocacy journalism began in the 60′s and we are seeing a tsunami of biased propaganda drowning out the few calls for balance. Combine the herd instinct of journalism with the idea of fulfilling social good and the toxic combination has resulted in a media whose filter skews heavily to the left.
Complex stories can’t be explained in a two minute broadcast news report, and as this is still the main source of American news, we are being shortchanged by sound bites instead of analysis. Facts are now replaced by editorials.
Given the constant negative reporting by the media filter of anything conservative, it should not be surprising that people hold George Bush in such contempt, and by extension, conservatives (even though we understand he is not one.) But that’s what people have been told.
I’m afraid that the media filter is not going to have a epiphany, realize their culpibility in electing a marxist and come clean. They are in for the long haul, and conservatives will continue to be marginalized. A conservative in the white house? Life is bad and we’re all going to hell. A liberal in the white house? Paradise is only an election away.
Evidence that the tipping point has been reached and the next election will be the first in history when a majority of voters don’t pay income taxes (of course conservatives still cling to the outdated notion that social security taxes are for a different purpose).
Conservatives will need to make alternative education the priority to reverse the trend. And liberals realize how critical controlling the schools are to controlling the country.
Mike,
I sent a donation to Russell. If there is to be any satisfaction in this election it will be sending Murtha back to spend this twilight years living among all those racists he represented for so many years.
Nationally, I’m ignoring the polls. It’s not over yet!
Has anyone noticed that Republicans are switching sides?
Former Governor William Weld of Massachusetts now supports Barack Obama.
ttp://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/weld_backs_obam.html
And now Charles Fried has voted for Obama, saying, “my vote meant that I thought that Obama was preferable to McCain-Palin. I do not consider abstention a proper option.”
Meanwhile, John Elway, two-time Super Bowl champ QB for the Denver Broncos supports John McCain. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/10/24/republicans-for-obama-nfl-stars-and-tv-actors-for-mccain.aspx
Just the facts, folks. No petty emotion.
Helen…
I’m curious. Do you think that socialism or Marxism are good things for a society? or do you think that Obama is _not_ either of those?
Let me put it differently. I think Obama is a Marxist. I think Marxism is destructive to a society. Therefore I think Obama is bad for US society.
You think Obama is _good_ for US society. So I assume that you think that either Obama is _not_ a Marxist/socialist, or you think that Marxism/socialism is something that would be good for the USA.
Which is it?
Helen,
William Weld is a curious case. Colin Powell is *not* a curious case, as it seems you already know, since you didn’t reference him.
In the “big tent” sense of Republicanism, William Weld was not as liberal as, say, Lincoln Chafee of R.I., but he was hardly a conservative. Where, in his endorsement, do you see *anything* of conservatism?
“It’s not often you get a guy with his combination of qualities, chief among which I would say is the deep sense of calm he displays, and I think that’s a product of his equally deep intelligence,” he said.
[...] “Senator Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore America’s standing in the world. We need a president who will lead based on our common values and Senator Obama demonstrates an ability to unite and inspire. Throughout this campaign I’ve watched his steady leadership through trying times and I’m confident he is the best candidate to move our country forward.”
So, yes, Helen, you are correct in stating that Republicans are switching sides, instead of saying that conservatives are switching sides. This is troubling, as it is evidence that the big tent is deflating. I don’t have the insight to put my finger on exactly why, but I believe we can all begin to gain such insight by examining William Weld’s statements above.
Again and again these new-found Republican-leaning supporters of Obama discuss his “intelligence”, his “deep sense of calm”, the idea that he will “transform” or is “transformational”, his “steady leadership”.
Well, I mistrust intelligence without wisdom, and I find Obama most unwise.
I find his “deep sense of calm” to be that of an intellectual who is curiously devoid of any passions; and to indicate a devotion to a doctrinaire (far-left) political philosophy that is the same one that has led to the deaths of millions, and his complete detachment is, in my worst moments, absolutely terrifying. He could preside over the “regrettable” deaths of millions while staring out the window into his garden, still and always in complete, total detachment. (Remember, this *is* only in my worst moments.)
He will transform, and he is transformational, but he will transform America into … what? These Republicans you speak of are placing *quite* a bet, it seems to me, and based on what? Based on what, exactly, in his record of accomplishments? There isn’t anything – and that blind trust is not conservative.
You might point to Sarah Palin at this point as being devoid of such accomplishments as well, but she has articulated clear principles of conservatism and set up just enough of a series of accomplishments for us to see that her actions and accomplishments match her principles.
For Republicans who *claim* to be conservatives, to have placed this trust in Obama is perverse. And therefore the conclusion must be drawn: they may have the label of Republican affixed to their forehead, but they are *not* conservatives.
Helen –
Reading your post makes me think of an article I just read on American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/signs_pointing_to_a_mccain_vic.html
It’s by Steven Warshawsky. Basically, he is arguing that for months, the MSM’s narrative has been that Obama is going to win. He might. But Warshawsky notes that there are numerous “Democrats for McCain” organizations, the PUMAs, etc.
Who knows? I don’t. I think Obama is going to win but I’m not a gambling kind of gal.
But one thing he mentioned made me think and I’m wondering if you are seeing the same thing in your neighborhood. During the 2004 election, I was living in the D.C. metro area and the Kerry/Edwards signs were EVERYWHERE. You could not walk out your door or drive one block without seeing a Kerry/Edwards sign.
I now live in the greater Richmond area. And Helen, there are very few signs anywhere. And I don’t just mean Obama signs, I mean McCain signs as well.
It could be because I’m in downstate VA but I don’t think that fully explains it. Other people in other locals have noticed the same thing.
Are you seeing lots of signs of either party where you live?
I just think it is strange. I mean, we keep being told that this is the most historical election ever and the stakes are high and interest in voting is at an all time high and on and on and on.
All of that may be true but I guess I think it is just a little weird that we aren’t seeing the support out there like we did the last time.
Deana
Mike, I did say Republicans rather than conservatives for a reason. The reason being, we have too many labels. Labels that do not fit the complexity of the human mind and personality, which, in reality, sometimes proves to be inconsistent within the individual. (Can’t wait to see Y. parse that. LOL)
I don’t know that this trend, if, indeed, it is a trend, will come to any logical conclusion, due to the closeness of the election. And I don’t know that Republicans or conservatives or people who go by any other label but support McCain ought to panic. If the trend were reversed, I wouldn’t.
As far as Palin is concerned, compared to Obama’s “deep sense of calm,” she’s a person of emotion but not overly so. The two may be similar as far as experience, but I think they are quite different as far as emotional make-up. Whether gender plays a role here makes for good comedy but may not be that significant.
At any rate, Obama is gaining endorsements. And thankfully, no one suggested that John Elway was a deep thinker.
Suek,
“Which is it?”
I think the socialism label has been done to death.
But as for your near demand that I think like you, please spare me. I think the constitution guarantees me 1) freedom of speech, which implies I first get freedom of thought and 2) the pursuit of happiness, which surely must include the right be oneself.
Helen Losse,
Doe this qualify?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzdiNjQyM2EyYzY2OWM2ZTc3OTYwY2NlN2NkNGI1MDk
The Coming Obama Spending Explosion
http://tinyurl.com/55beph
This certainly qualifies in my mind.
There is no limit on what socialists will spend other peoples money on.
Rockdalain,
So peace is socialistic? This site http://www.usip.org/ has been on my blog for ages under the category “Against racism, poverty and war.”
Now I see how bad this is. We’re going to help people. Oh my.
So, it’s good to have a war department and multiple military blanches to back it up, but it’s bad to talk about our differences and solve problems peacefully?
Hungry people are cool? Maybe if they die from hunger we won’t get to fight ‘em? But where the fun in that? Go War Dept!!!
“It isn’t right. It isn’t fair.” God said, we’d have poor people. How dare us try to stop it.
Please.
Its too early to tell if country club republicans, or should I say cocktail party republicans, are rejecting Palin for her conservative Christian beliefs or her populism.
Both are a danger to the intellectual class, though I suspect it’s her Christianity, which is repugnant to the new secular class of Americans. Whether it’s the vitrol of a dagon or the subtle scorn of an Ozzie, secular intellectuals want to think about all the great thoughts of humanity except their own frailty.
Is this a reaction to the death throes of darwinian evolution as advances in microbiology debunk traditional evolutionary hypothesis?
When Richard Dawkins is more comfortable entertaining the notion of an advanced lifeform depositing the beginnings of our world than the idea of God doing the same, something is troubling the secular class.
Is their faith in reason being challenged?
The sort of populism expounded by Palin may be just as dangerous to this class, and is seen by the popular criticism that she “doesn’t think deeply about things”, as if deep thinking were somehow the holy grail of wisdom. I’m not sure what these same individuals thought of Reagan, but it wasn’t good. Sometimes when staring into the face of evil, deep reflection isn’t needed to realize that evil isn’t a good thing.
Only time will tell.
Helen,
>> I don’t know that this trend, if, indeed, it is a trend, will come to any logical conclusion, due to the closeness of the election. >>
I agree. If you left every other state the way it was in 2004 or this year, and you set in stone only Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida as *all of them either* Democrat or Republican, you’d have elections with no uncertainty nor drama. If those three are guaranteed Democrat, then the election goes to the Democrat, and likewise if you fixed them in place as Republican. So there is no dramatic national shift in either direction over at least the last decade.
I see signs that we’re not so much a center-right country any longer, and I think we *were*. I of course see this potentially looming center-left country as threatening, and I expect you see it as liberating!
If Obama governs from the near-center, ouch. If he lets his inner child ramble, so that the Democrat Congress gets to go wild, well, the near-center left movement will be short-lived. Republicans did this from 1996-2005, and the result has been simply devastating for them/us. To the point where we now have to rebuild on top of what is essentially ashes. The Democrats would face the same problem were you to spin as wildly out of control – *if* you win, that is.
>> As far as Palin is concerned, compared to Obama’s “deep sense of calm,” she’s a person of emotion but not overly so. The two may be similar as far as experience, but I think they are quite different as far as emotional make-up. >>
I think you’ve put your finger on it. All the Republicans shifting to Obama are intellectual and evidence a certain constant detachment. As far as I can see, anyway. McCain and Palin appeal to me because they are emotive, and Palin in particular appeals to me precisely because she *does* offer a passionate and committed defense of conservative principles! Perhaps all I am saying is that I agree with you on this.
““It isn’t right. It isn’t fair.” God said, we’d have poor people. How dare us try to stop it.”- Helen
I suspect that most of the posters here have compassion for those who are suffering.
What they have recognized, and liberals refuse to, is that government does more to trap people in their poverty than to lift them out.
Government doesn’t do compassion, government does pity.
As to the candidates:
“Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made considerably less money than rival Sen. Joe Biden, but the Palin family gave more to charity in the last two years than Biden has in the last eight combined, according to Palin’s tax records released Friday afternoon.
Palin, the running mate of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and her husband Todd reported meager earnings from 2006 and 2007, at least by presidential-politics standards.
In 2006, the Palins paid $11,944 in taxes on $127,869 in income. In 2007, they paid $24,738 on $166,080.
But in 2006, they donated $4,880 to charity, and in 2007, they donated $3,325.
By contrast, Biden (D-Del.), Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s running mate, has donated a total of $3,690 since 1998 despite his higher Senate salary, according to an analysis posted by National Review.”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021684.php
Liberals talk about compassion, as long as it’s with other people’s money.
>>I think the socialism label has been done to death.>>
Ok. I think the racist label has been done to death. Does that mean that it doesn’t exist?
>>But as for your near demand that I think like you, please spare me.>>
Helen, I’m just trying to figure out what you actually _do_ think. As Dennis Praeger says, I prefer clarity to agreement. I really don’t care whether you agree with me or don’t agree with me – I’m just trying to determine what you actually think. Who knows – if I could figure that out, maybe we’d actually agree on some things! but if I don’t know _what_ you’re thinking, I don’t really know whether I agree or not. Is that your intention? to be so vague that no one can determine what your real goals are?
>>“It isn’t right. It isn’t fair.” God said, we’d have poor people. How dare us try to stop it.>>
You have every right to stop poverty. You have the right to donate every penny you have. You have the right to take a vow of poverty, should you wish to do so. You do _not_ have the right to use the power of government to steal from others to accomplish your goals. Heaven does not and never will exist on earth.
Whether it’s the vitrol of a dagon or the subtle scorn of an Ozzie, secular intellectuals want to think about all the great thoughts of humanity except their own frailty.- Brian
I would suggest you go to the movies and watch Bil Maher “Religulous,” which should help you understand the difference between the Catholic view of the Bible vs fundamentalists’ views and why the merger of Church and State is so dangerous.
I’ve never understood how liberals, for all their talk of compassion, can be so compartmentalized about it.
I think of the Vietnam war. When Congress cut off funding to SE Asia, the region quickly dissoved into genocide and recrimination. Yet, I never see any reflection, any angst, over the decision.
The same situation has evolved in Iraq. Stop the war, bring the troops home, regardless if, by most accounts, Iraq would disintegrate into a bloody civil war.
It’s almost like out of sight, out of conciousness.
It’s almost like the left wants “the cause” more than a resolution to “the cause”.
Another example is abortion. As long as we are immune to seeing the physical results of the policy, it doesn’t seem to cause liberals any trauma. Remember when Randal Terry’s group showed pictures of aborted babies in public, the outrage wasn’t over abortion, is was at having to look at the results of abortion.
“I would suggest you go to the movies and watch Bil Maher “Religulous,” which should help you understand the difference between the Catholic view of the Bible vs fundamentalists’ views…”- Ozzie
I’m sure you’re kidding, but I can never detect the slight twist of a smile. You need to practice you’re wryness.
You’re now citing Maher as a source to discuss the theological differences between conservative protestanism and catholicism?
And we’re not back to dominionism are we?
When I want my faith ridiculed, I prefer Hitchens.
You’re now citing Maher as a source to discuss the theological differences between conservative protestanism and catholicism?- Brian
He examines all religions, and does a great job merely by asking questions.
While it’s true that the priests he interviews come off the best, it’s because of thier openess and willingness to answer questions, without shutting down.
The fundamentalists of all faiths are the most rigid and frightening.
I loved the movie. Even better than “Jesus Camp.” If Christopher Hitchens did a movie, I’d probably go see that, too
Ozzie is frightened by Christian fundamentalists.
I know you have mentioned Palin’s literalist views, in which she is attributed with believing the six day creation account (which I don’t know if she actually holds).
Christians do believe that God created matter and directed everything we see.
Fundamentalists believe that Jesus is God, has existed eternally, caused the creation and came to earth in a fully human body (got tired, needed food, etc.)and provided the perfect sacrifice for everyone who accepts it, physically died, and was physically raised to life on the third day in a body that was recognizable and physical, but was not subject to the normal physical laws.
He ascended to heaven where he is our paraclete. At some future time, this world will cease to exist and a new heaven and earth will be established where sin (living apart from God’s intentions) will cease. Baptist catechism describes man’s purpose as “The whole duty of man is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever.”
If catholics believe this, we’re not all that far apart.
“If catholics believe this, we’re not all that far apart. _ brain
Two Cathloic priests were interviewed. The first one, an astronomer, relayed that the Bible was written before science and should never be considered a scientific account of creation.
The other noted that much of what appears in the Bible is nonsense.
From a review:
“One rare moment of much-needed insight comes accidentally while Maher is speaking to a priest outside of the Vatican. (The priest was found on the street. He never actually arranged an interview inside the Vatican.) Maher asks controversial questions that we, the audience are sure the priest will respond to with anger and vitriol.
Instead, he agrees with most of what Maher has to say about the absurdity of Biblical interpretation. . . “
Ozzie is frightened by Christian fundamentalists.- Brian
Not as oridnary citizens, no.
But in places of power? Oh yeah.
This YouTube contains a collage that highlight my concens..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An9vpKTa3vk
As does this article in today’s New York Times
YouTube Videos Draw Attention to Palin’s Faith
“. . . What is known, however, is that Ms. Palin has had long associations with religious leaders who practice a particularly assertive and urgent brand of Pentecostalism known as “spiritual warfare.”
Its adherents believe that demonic forces can colonize specific geographic areas and individuals, and that “spiritual warriors” must “battle” them to assert God’s control, using prayer and evangelism. The movement’s fixation on demons, its aggressiveness and its leaders’ claims to exalted spiritual authority have troubled even some Pentecostal Christians.
Ms. Palin delivered an enthusiastic graduation speech for a class of young spiritual warriors in June at the Wasilla Assembly of God, the church in which she was raised.
As governor, Ms. Palin appointed Patrick Donelson, a pastor and fishing guide who helped found a spiritual warfare ministry, to the only seat reserved for members of the clergy on the state’s Suicide Prevention Council.
Bishop Thomas Muthee, the Kenyan preacher shown on the YouTube video anointing her as she ran for governor, is celebrated internationally as an effective spiritual warrior who led a prayer movement that drove a witch out of his town in Kenya. The removal of the witch, Bishop Muthee says, resulted in a drop in crime, alcoholism and traffic accidents.
Religious leaders in Alaska, including Mr. Donelson, declined interviews, with several saying they had been told by the McCain-Palin campaign not to talk to members of the news media.
Russell P. Spittler, provost emeritus at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., and an eminent scholar of Pentecostalism, said, “Most Christians would accept the view that there are forces and powers in the world that oppose Christian virtues.” But, Mr. Spittler added, “Spiritual warfare makes a religion of identifying demons by names and ZIP codes.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/politics/25faith.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin
>>Not as oridnary citizens, no.
But in places of power? Oh yeah.>>
Strangely enough, that’s how I feel about Socialists and Communists.
Which is why I oppose Obama.
“Instead, he agrees with most of what Maher has to say about the absurdity of Biblical interpretation. . . “”-Ozzie
You’re intimating that the priest interviewed doesn’t believe that Jesus is God. Is that the official teaching of the catholic church, and do you think it represents what a majority of catholics believe?
As to spiritual warfare, I believe catholic priests still perform exorcisms, which is a lot more specific than zip codes.
I’m not charismatic, though there are certainly many charismatic catholics.
I’m trying to get your objection, and it’s hard but let me try again. If Sarah Palin wasn’t charismatic, but followed Christian orthodoxy like the Methodists and as an example like George Bush, you would be OK with her?
I don’t watch youtube videos for analysis.
And let’s not get sidetracked about how bad Bush has been for America. Many irreligious people agree with his overall strategy on the WOT.
You might say his compassionate conservatism, or methodism, shaped his domestic and foreign social policy ($50 billion dollars for Africa AIDS, for example).
People like Helen should be happy with that part of his policies.
I’m more interested in what sort of religious person would be OK for you to occupy the white house.
I work with very smart people. Liberal, yes, but also smart. The most effective “argument” I have had is this:
Our government was designed on the idea of checks and balances. The Executive, the Judicial and the Legislative branches were designed to be rivals. The division of powers was designed to force the branches to compete and to compromise to arrive at a consensus.
With Liberals in control of all three branches, there is no check on the power of the government. There is no veto option, there is no forged/forced consensus.
Then I bring up 401k plans and pensions: having spent the Social Security Trust fund and the Highway Trust fund, they are now looking at your 401k and then your pension. How comfortable are you with a Liberal court, a veto-proof Congress led by a Liberal President?
Helen slithered right out of Suek’s logical question at #16 by decrying labels – lions and tigers and bears – o my!
I’ve done a ton of reading, beginning last year when I found the as yet unscrubbed web site of his church which was downright proud of their racial separatism, anti-American bias. And we know more about Sara Palin’s wardrobe than we know about BHO’s life accomplishments that qualify him for the Presidency. But we do know the radicals that he has hung out with and anyone with a computer can check out that they are radical to this very day and wish to overthrow the uniquely American way of life. (But I did notice that after Jesse Peters from FOX news asked him some pointed questions last week, he called the same police to be his protectors that he tried to kill – or did kill? – in his Weather Underground days.)
So without a background of accomplishment that show me BHO has wisdom and sound judgment I can only look at those who have influenced him and those that he has hung with, where he has worshipped, and what he has said. From that I gather that he has contempt for our founding documents, is devoid of humility/compassion, would allow an infant born alive to die, and has promised to initiate policies that after four years would make the USA look more like Venezuela.
By his own words, BHO has self-identified as either a socialist, a Marxist, or a Communist and I don’t know which. He seems to desire and thrive on racial unheaval.
JM is someone I wish I didn’t have to vote for because he isn’t a true conservative, which is the philosophy I believe would do the most good for the most people. But he loves America and recognizes America is not a mean country. So rather than stay home and pout, I guess I will vote for him after all.
You’re intimating that the priest interviewed doesn’t believe that Jesus is God.- Brian
I am?
One priest said that he thought much of the mythology that is taken for fact is nonsense (That Dec. 25 is Jesus’ birthday, so you have to go to mass, that you’ll go to hell for certain sins, that Jonah spent three days in a fish’s belly, etc.),
The other said that certain stories were told before science was discovered and should not be taken as fact..
In all my years going to Catechism and Mass, I never once heard about the Rapture or read the Book or Revelation.
Fundamantalists believe that the Bible is literally true.
Catholics see it largely as myth.
I am an atheist and I can´t stand the shortsighted fools who would vote for Joe Stalin before they vote for a practicing Christian. Maybe that is because I was such a fool myself, but I was very young back then. Get a little perspective. You are not as smart as you think you are.
If Sarah Palin wasn’t charismatic, but followed Christian orthodoxy like the Methodists and as an example like George Bush, you would be OK with her?- Brian
I’m not OK with George Bush, either.
George Bush said he relied on a “higher power” when making his decisions to invade Iraq, as opposed to his earthly father who, along with Brent Scowcroft, was saying “Dont do it!”
He said that God told him to run for President and said he formed his foreign policy around his beliefs of what God wants.
The Apolistic Congress actually met with White House officials before Middle East policy was set.
In 2000, the Washington Post noted that it was the year when the wall between church and stated started to collapse, and man-oh-man, they weren’t kidding.
I was relieved that George Bush was going away.. But Sarah Palin is WORSE.
Our government was designed on the idea of checks and balances. The Executive, the Judicial and the Legislative branches were designed to be rivals. The division of powers was designed to force the branches to compete and to compromise to arrive at a consensus- Ellie
Have you been comfortable with the amount of power the executive branch has garnered over the past 8 years? What are your throughts on Bush’s signing statements? What do you feel about legisltation designed to neuter the Supreme Court?
The Bush years have been a nightmare for those concerned with the return of the imperial presidency and the loss of civil liberties.
And no president is going to give up that power or go back to the “checks and balances” the founders intended.
Ozzie proves my point: the idea of “checks and balances” terrifies Libs.
>>Catholics see it largely as myth.>>
Well, no. Catholics see the Bible as writings inspired by God, the understanding of which is limited by human frailties – both readers and writers. And translators.
That’s not the same as “myth”.
>>And no president is going to give up that power or go back to the “checks and balances” the founders intended.>>
Presidents don’t have the power or authority to make that decision. Democrat Congress + Democrat President?? yes. Together they can make for a Democrat Supreme Court, and unquestionably have the power.
If Obama is elected, and if Congress swings to a dominant Democrat majority, they will – I believe – change the makeup of the Supreme Court ala FDR’s efforts, and they _will_ end the checks and balances. Maybe forever. It will be the end of the USA as we have known it.
Ozzie proves my point: the idea of “checks and balances” terrifies Libs.- Ellie
What? I asked you pointed questions and this was what you came up with?
I’ve been watching the “checks and balances” fall by the wayside, Ellie, through George Bush’s signing statements, and the Republicann -led Congress’ attempts to neuter the Supreme Court.
The imperial presidency is back.
If you believe that today’s Conservatives are defenders of the Constiution, you haven’t been paying attention.
Well, no. Catholics see the Bible as writings inspired by God, the understanding of which is limited by human frailties – both readers and writers. And translators.- Suek
I’m guessing that you never attended a Catholic College ?
Both my husband and I were raised Catholic and had the same reaction to “Relgilous.”
I’m guessing that, if you were raised Catholic, perhaps you were raised in a different region and were taught differently.
Presidents don’t have the power or authority to make that decision- suek
Have you beem following Bush’s use of “signing statments” ?
BLUE-RIBBON TASK FORCE FINDS PRESIDENT BUSH’S SIGNING STATEMENTS
UNDERMINE SEPARATION OF POWERS
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 2006 – Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, according to a report released today by a blue-ribbon American Bar Association task force.
The Boston Globe:
Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006
WASHINGTON — President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution
The New York Times:
Legal Group Says Bush Undermines Law by Ignoring Select Parts of Bills
WASHINGTON, July 23 — The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed.
In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such “signing statements” far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives.
These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a “line-item veto” and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said.
In signing a statutory ban on torture and other national security laws, Mr. Bush reserved the right to disregard them.
***************************
The House Armed Services Committee’s 2008 report on Bushs’ signing statements: “78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.”
From the report (.pdf)
The Bush Administration’s use of presidential signing statements to indicate disapproval of enacted legislation has generated confusion and has undermined congressional oversight of national defense policy, the House Armed Services Committee said in a report this week
“78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.”
“Signing statements may, if used appropriately, serve a legitimate function as a tool for continuing dialog between the President, Congress, and the public. On the other hand, signing statements may be a mechanism to expand executive authority at the expense of the legislature,” the Committee report said.
““78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.” “- Ozzie
Bush may be a piker when it comes to legislating from the executive branch. This was written in 2001:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/c-execorders.html
Bush may be a piker when it comes to legislating from the executive branch- Brian
Actually, it goes back to Dick Cheney’s experiences in the Nixon and Ford White Houses.
Charlie Savage, who wrote about Bush’s signing statements for the Boston Globe, also wrote the book, “Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy.”
From Publishers Weekly:
Savage, who won a Pulitzer for his Boston Globe articles about the signing statements George W. Bush used to negate legislation limiting presidential authority, gives that issue a key part in this account of the Bush administration’s efforts to increase executive power. Covering constitutional issues as well as the political backgrounds of former White House attorneys like Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, this detailed report traces their concerted effort, from the moment Bush took office in 2001, to [leave] the presidency in better shape than he [Bush] found it. The authorization to use force against Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg. Bush has already gone so far as to declare himself able to negate treaties with other nations at will, Savage reports. He also demonstrates how many of the administration’s most controversial acts have their roots in Dick Cheney’s experiences in the Nixon and Ford administrations. This incisive analysis of congressional and judicial efforts to check the administration’s power grabs adds up to a searing indictment. (Sept. 5)
http://www.amazon.com/Takeover-Imperial-Presidency-Subversion-Democracy/dp/0316118044
Another article on the beefed up powers of the Executive Branch under Bush/Cheney (and how it goes back to his days in the Nixon White House)
Hail to the chief
Dick Cheney’s mission to expand — or ‘restore’ –the powers of the presidency
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | November 26, 2006
ANN ARBOR, MICH. — In July 1987, then-Representative Dick Cheney, the top Republican on the committee investigating the Iran-contra scandal, turned on his hearing room microphone and delivered, in his characteristically measured tone, a revolutionary claim.
President Reagan and his top aides, he asserted, were free to ignore a 1982 law at the center of the scandal. Known as the Boland Amendment, it banned US assistance to anti-Marxist militants in Nicaragua.
“I personally do not believe the Boland Amendment applied to the president, nor to his immediate staff,” Cheney said.
Most of Cheney’s colleagues did not share his vision of a presidency empowered to bypass US laws governing foreign policy. The committee issued a scathing, bipartisan report accusing White House officials of “disdain for the law.”
Cheney refused to sign it. Instead, he commissioned his own report declaring that the real lawbreakers were his fellow lawmakers, because the Constitution “does not permit Congress to pass a law usurping Presidential power.”
The Iran-contra scandal was not the first time the future vice president articulated a philosophy of unfettered executive power — nor would it be the last. The Constitution empowers Congress to pass laws regulating the executive branch, but over the course of his career, Cheney came to believe that the modern world is too dangerous and complex for a president’s hands to be tied. He embraced a belief that presidents have vast “inherent” powers, not spelled out in the Constitution, that allow them to defy Congress.
Cheney bypassed acts of Congress as defense secretary in the first Bush administration. And his office has been the driving force behind the current administration’s hoarding of secrets, its efforts to impose greater political control over career officials, and its defiance of a law requiring the government to obtain warrants when wiretapping Americans. Cheney’s staff has also been behind President Bush’s record number of signing statements asserting his right to disregard laws.
A close look at key moments in Cheney’s career — from his political apprenticeship in the Nixon and Ford administrations to his decade in Congress and his tenure as secretary of defense under the first President Bush — suggests that the newly empowered Democrats in Congress should not expect the White House to cooperate when they demand classified information or attempt to exert oversight in areas such as domestic surveillance or the treatment of terrorism suspects.
Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor, predicted that Cheney’s long career of consistently pushing against restrictions on presidential power is likely to culminate in a series of uncompromising battles with Congress.
“Cheney has made this a matter of principle,” Shane said. “For that reason, you are likely to hear the words ‘executive privilege’ over and over again during the next two years.”
Cheney declined to comment for this article. But he has repeatedly said his agenda includes restoring the presidency to its fullest powers by rolling back “unwise” limits imposed by Congress after the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.
“In 34 years, I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job,” Cheney said on ABC in January 2002. “I feel an obligation…to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors.”
Cheney’s ideal of presidential power is the level of power the office briefly achieved in the late 1960s, the era of what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. called the “imperial presidency.”
Early in the Cold War, presidents began invoking national security to seize greater power from Congress. This concentration of authority peaked under President Richard Nixon, who famously asserted that “when the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” But Watergate reawakened Congress, which passed new laws to regulate presidential power.
Cheney was a close observer of that era. He landed his first job in the federal government in 1969, when Donald Rumsfeld hired him as an assistant at the Office of Economic Opportunity. The antipoverty agency, set up by Congress during the Johnson administration, was unpopular among conservatives, and Rumsfeld’s and Cheney’s job was to help Nixon impose greater political control over the office.. . .
The next year, Cheney became defense secretary under President George H.W. Bush. In his new position, Cheney again pushed for an expansive view of presidential power — most dramatically in late 1990, when Cheney urged Bush to launch the Gulf War without asking Congress for authorization.
For all major overseas wars from 1789 to 1950, presidents obeyed the constitutional provision giving Congress alone the power to declare war. But in Korea and Vietnam, Presidents Truman, Johnson, and Nixon defied this constraint. They asserted that the commander-in-chief had “inherent” power to take the country to war on his own.
Seeking to restore its constitutional role, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973, requiring presidents to consult Congress when sending troops into battle.
After Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Bush sent 500,000 US troops to Saudi Arabia. As they prepared to attack the Iraqi forces, Cheney told Bush that it was unnecessary and too risky to seek a vote in Congress.
“I was not enthusiastic about going to Congress for an additional grant of authority,” Cheney recalled in a 1996 PBS “Frontline” documentary. “I was concerned that they might well vote ‘no’ and that would make life more difficult for us.”
But Bush rejected Cheney’s advice and asked Congress for a vote in support of the war. The resolution passed — barely. Had Congress voted no, Cheney later said, he would have urged Bush to launch the Gulf War regardless.
“From a constitutional standpoint, we had all the authority we needed,” Cheney said in the 1996 documentary. “If we’d lost the vote in Congress, I would certainly have recommended to the president that we go forward anyway.”. . .
In signing statements and legal memos, the administration, with Cheney and Addington as its driving force, has repeatedly used the war on terrorism to advance the idea that the president has vast “inherent” authority to bypass laws enacted by Congress.. .
Cheney also indicated that he hopes to establish further precedents for the expansion of presidential authority. Listing other statutory constraints on presidential power, he said they “will be tested at some point.” When Cheney was asked whether he believed that the pendulum of executive power had swung back far enough in the direction he desired, or whether it needed to swing back further, he demurred.
“I do think that to some extent now, we’ve been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency,” he replied.
for full article:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/11/26/hail_to_the_chief/
“This incisive analysis of congressional and judicial efforts to check the administration’s power grabs adds up to a searing indictment. (Sept. 5)”- Ozzie
One of the examples Savage gives about the power grab and how Cheny exceded his authority is his response during 9/11. After the twin towers and the pentagon had been hit, air command realized there was still a plane aloft and asked for authorization to shoot the plane down. Cheny gave permission, but United 93 had already crashed before action could be taken.
Bush later said he had given Cheny authorization to act on his behalf, but this created controversy for people like Savage.
Had the administration done nothing, they would have been criticized for that.
Here’s a synopsis of Bush’s signings including the administration objection. I’m not a lawyer, but it looks like the administration reacting to Congress meddling in the executive branch to me. Lawyers may want to weigh in on this.
Here’s the summary listing all of Bush’s signings:
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Signing%20Statement%20Chart%20-%20Neil%20Kinkopf%20and%20Peter%20Shane.pdf
Lawyers may want to weigh in on this.- Brian
The American Bar Association already weighed in on this, Brian. This is what they determined:
BLUE-RIBBON TASK FORCE FINDS PRESIDENT BUSH’S SIGNING STATEMENTS
UNDERMINE SEPARATION OF POWERS
“. . . The task force determined that signing statements that signal the president’s intent to disregard laws adopted by Congress undermine the separation of powers by depriving Congress of the opportunity to override a veto, and by shutting off policy debate between the two branches of government. According to the task force, they operate as a “line item veto,” which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional.
Noting that the Constitution is silent about presidential signing statements, the task force found that, while several recent presidents have used them, the frequency of signing statements that challenge laws has escalated substantially, and their purpose has changed dramatically, during the Bush Administration. . . ”
For more:
http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news072406.html
This is one of Bill Clinton’s executive orders signed at the end of his presidency designed to avoid congressional consideration. But Ozzie is apparently OK with this. Bill Clinton signed 30,000 pages of new regulations, subverting the constitution.
Ozzie,
I can’t let the argument by implication stand unchallenged. Frankly, I don’t think that most Catholics would state that the Scriptures are “myth”.
So you know where I’m coming from, and to avoid the almost inevitable “what do you know about it?” challenge, here are my bona fides regarding Catholic and Christian theology…
Born into an observant Catholic family in southern California. Baptized at 3 weeks. CCD from K-6, with weekly attendance at mass, all Holy Days of Obligation, weekday masses when serving as an altar boy. Catholic junior high and high school with religious instruction a part of the daily curriculum. Considered attending seminary, but puberty changed that notion…
I left the church (like so many) during college. Considered myself ‘spiritual’ without having to put up with the harder questions and implications of a systemized theology. Found my way back to Christianity through a series of improbable (for those who don’t believe in an active and living God) events. I currently attend a church that is “bible-believing”, probably similar in many respects to Wasilla Bible Church (I’ve checked out their doctrinal statements and they are similar to the independent, non-denominational church I attend). I currently attend, on average, at least one Bible study session every week, in addition to attending worship weekly. In short, I believe that the Bible is the inerrant and authoritative guide to faith and practice in this fallen world. As a Christian attempting to be obedient to the Great Commission, I work and pray that all will eventually acknowledge this (of their own free will) and experience the saving grace God offers through Jesus Christ.
(Does that make me a fundamentalist?)
In a former life (about 20 years ago) I was an attorney, used to and, IMHO, fairly skilled at textual interpretation.
So, here are my direct questions:
Did you attend a “catholic college”? If so, which one?
Do you believe that Religulous was a fair exploration of the beliefs of the average in-the-pew Catholic?
Did the priests mentioned, in your opinion, represent the beliefs of the average in-the-pew Catholic?
What sample do you rely on when forming that opinion?
Did Mr. Maher, in your opinion, have an agenda that he wished to promote with this project? If so, in your opinion, what was that agenda?
If you acknowledge an agenda in the film, do you, personally, agree with that agenda?
I ask direct questions, because the pattern of response I’ve noticed (not just from Ozzie here, but in many blog comments) is more like a feint-duck-feint style of argument. I really want discussion on the merits of an issue, and that requires honest revelation of biases and agendas, not argument by implication and statements seeming to place one above the fray, then quickly moving on to the next issue without full exploration.
How about it? Direct answers?
“Noting that the Constitution is silent about presidential signing statements, the task force found that, while several recent presidents have used them…”- Ozzie
I’m sure the ABA blue ribbon panel was denouncing Bill Clinton’s signing statements.
Demonstrate their concern by linking to an article by the ABA that condemn those other “recent presidents”, or at least showed concern for the 18% of Bill Clinton’s signings that raised “constitutional concerns”.
Did you attend a “catholic college”? If so, which one? ”
The University of Scranton
“Do you believe that Religulous was a fair exploration of the beliefs of the average in-the-pew Catholic?”
Both my husband and I felt that the interviews with the two priests showed Catholicism in a favorable light, in that neither took a literalist view, and were happy that reason, science and and dissent were championed.
“Did the priests mentioned, in your opinion, represent the beliefs of the average in-the-pew Catholic?”
I’m not sure. In my experience there was a difference between Jesuits and regular Catholics, in that the Jesuits stressed the importance of doubt, and Catholics tend to believe in their relgion because their parents did, but none of the Catholics I’ve ever met believed in the Rapture or in a literal interprtation of the Bible.
“Did Mr. Maher, in your opinion, have an agenda that he wished to promote with this project? If so, in your opinion, what was that agenda?”
Of course he has an agenda. He believes religion is base on superstition and set out to prove that. I believe he was surprised by the priests he interviewed.
“If you acknowledge an agenda in the film, do you, personally, agree with that agenda?”
I think Bill Maher reguarly dismisses the benefits of faith, or that people can believe in God without belleving that a snake literally spoke to Adam and Eve or that Adam and Eve even existed (which is why I think the priests surprised him)
I agree with him, however, that fundamantalism and certainty, when mixed with politics, lead to trouble.
I’m sure the ABA blue ribbon panel was denouncing Bill Clinton’s signing statements.- Brian
This is what they said, Brian:
“The bipartisan task force, composed of constitutional scholars, former presidential advisers, and legal and judicial experts, noted that President George W. Bush is not the first president to use signing statements, but said, “It was the number and nature of the current President’s signing statements which … compelled our recommendations.. .
Noting that the Constitution is silent about presidential signing statements, the task force found that, while several recent presidents have used them, the frequency of signing statements that challenge laws has escalated substantially, and their purpose has changed dramatically, during the Bush Administration.
The task force report states, “From the inception of the Republic until 2000, Presidents produced fewer than 600 signing statements taking issue with the bills they signed. According to the most recent update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George Walker Bush … has produced more than 800.”
The report found that President Bush’s signing statements are “ritualistic, mechanical and generally carry no citation of authority or detailed explanation.” Even when “[a] frustrated Congress finally enacted a law requiring the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report of any instance in which that official or any officer of the Department of Justice established or pursued a policy of refraining from enforcing any provision of any federal statute, … this too was subjected to a ritual signing statement insisting on the President’s authority to withhold information whenever he deemed it necessary.”
“This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy,” said Greco. “If left unchecked, the president’s practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances, that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries. Immediate action is required to address this threat to the Constitution and to the rule of law in our country.”
Oh, and, this yearm The House Armed Services Committee’s 2008 report on Bushs’ signing statements: “78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.”
From the report (.pdf)
The Bush Administration’s use of presidential signing statements to indicate disapproval of enacted legislation has generated confusion and has undermined congressional oversight of national defense policy, the House Armed Services Committee said in a report this week
“78 percent of President Bush’s more than 150 signing statements have raised constitutional or legal objections, compared with only 18% of all of President Clinton’s.”
“Signing statements may, if used appropriately, serve a legitimate function as a tool for continuing dialog between the President, Congress, and the public. On the other hand, signing statements may be a mechanism to expand executive authority at the expense of the legislature,” the Committee report said
If 18% of Clinton’s signings raised “constitutional or legal objections” where’s the outrage?
I guess a constitutional lawyer doesn’t get concerned about abusing the constitution unless it happens more than 20% of the time.
I’m sure the ABA blue ribbon panel was denouncing Bill Clinton’s signing statements. Demonstrate their concern by linking to an article by the ABA that condemn those other “recent presidents”, or at least showed concern for the 18% of Bill Clinton’s signings that raised “constitutional concerns”.- Brian
The ABA didnt become involved until Bush, because of 1) the lack of vetos and 2) the unprecedented volume of signing statements. In 2007, Charlie Savage appeared on Frontline, and reported that from George Washington through Bill Clinton, there were roughly 600 presidential signing statements, while President Bush, at that time, was at over 1,100.
This is what Savage reported:
Well, the other interesting thing was that, while this explosive growth was happening, Bush was also not vetoing any bills. … When the American Bar Association in 2006 studied what was happening after the spotlight started to come on to this, what they concluded was that signing statements were morphing into a replacement for the veto, a much more powerful replacement for the veto.
Why is it more powerful? One, because under a regular veto, the president has to take an entire bill or get rid of an entire bill. … But under a signing statement, the president can selectively take out chunks he doesn’t like. …
The other way in which signing statements are more powerful than a regular veto, according to the American Bar Association, is of course that Congress has an opportunity to override a veto. … It’s one of the core checks and balances on the president’s veto power. But Congress has no opportunity to overrule a signing statement. …
This is the power that the founders never intended the president to have. It’s sort of accreted and grown slowly. It’s picking up steam with the Reagan administration, and then, finally, in the Bush-Cheney administration, the throttles were just thrown open and everyone started paying attention. And the question is, can it be put back in the box again? …
It’s not like Bush was the first to do this. There’s been examples of signing statements challenging laws going way back in our history. But it was rare, very rare. They started to be issued more frequently in the Reagan administration when the [Edwin] Meese Justice Department was looking for ways to expand presidential power. Their idea was not to nullify laws the president didn’t like so much as they were concerned about how judges were looking at congressional history and things that were inserted into the debate when interpreting disputed statutes. … They’d say, “Well, maybe the president’s view should be part of that conversation, too.” …
Courts did not end up paying that much attention to signing statements even after Reagan started issuing them much more frequently. But one by one by one, each of the successive presidencies, including Bill Clinton, who’s a Democrat, kept issuing these signing statements, kept challenging new laws. You had this escalation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/themes/statements.html
If 18% of Clinton’s signings raised “constitutional or legal objections” where’s the outrage?- Brian
That was the finding of the House Armed Services Committee in 2008, not the American Bar Association.
The ABA issued their report in 2006.
Helen,
Perhaps you can help me. My bible does not contain any passages directing the government to aid the poor.
My bible does contain many passages directing individuals to aid the poor.
I just need you to direct me to the passages mandating government action.
As has been said before, your actions via government are little more than theft of my property. Do you really expect me to stand by and allow this?
If you wish to donate YOUR money to aid the poor then by all means do so.
As for me, get your dirty stinking paws off me.
Just channeling my inner Heston.
But the sentiment remains.
Ozzie,
The issue of signing statements boils down to nothing more than opinion.
The ABA task force was entirely opinion.
There are others that believe signing statements to be entirely legal.
Whether you like them or not is no matter. Your opinion counts as little as mine.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php
The statements have existed far longer than you or I.
You are, of course, free to sue over these statements, as is the ABA.
I guess the Supremes can come to a conclusion one way or the other.
But I have yet to see the ABA suit over this practice.
>> “It isn’t right. It isn’t fair.” God said, we’d have poor people. How dare us try to stop it. Please. >>
We’ve got to stop letting liberals get a free pass with this claim that they are for the poor people while we conservatives are not.
The truth is, liberal policies haven’t worked. They don’t work; they never work; and all the good intentions in the world don’t make up for that fact.
If we conservatives work to ensure a fair, level, playing field, and ensure that there is no exploitation going on, then our policies work.
It’s not enough to simply say that our programs are better simply because *we* don’t seize other peoples’ wealth. The truth is, our programs work better for the poor; an easy argument to make when liberal programs don’t work at all.
Don’t believe the hype. It’s all around you, and it’s easy to let it slip into your head and convince you of your implicit guilt of “not caring for the poor”. Don’t believe that hype.
We’ve got to do a far better job of getting the truth out there. Take a look into the structures of your mind: Have you been accepting implicit guilt that somehow you’re not for the poor? I know that I was programmed that way in the past via the incessant drumbeat of liberalism that permeates our entire culture… but that’s one area of programming, at least, I’ve been able to discard.
Ozzie,
Thanks for clear and direct answers. It can only help discussion when viewpoints are honestly disclosed. If statements presented as fact are based on anecdotal evidence, they can be given appropriate weight.
If statements presented as fact are based on anecdotal evidence, they can be given appropriate weight.- Bob
My husband I had similar experiences. I asked him if he ever studied the Bible in Catechism or during all his years as an altar boy and he hadn’t. The Gospels were read during Mass, but that was about it.
I have yet to meet a Catholic who was told that the book of Revelation is the literal word of God and/or believes in the Rapture.
Were you taught about the Rapture as a Catholic? Or that the world is only 6,000 years old and dinosaurs walked to earth with man? I certainly wasn’t. But there are a suprising number of people who believe that since the Bible says so, this is 100% true.
That is not to say that there aren’t fundamentalists in the Catholic Church. Mel Gibson comes readily to mind. But I think he’s scary, too
The issue of signing statements boils down to nothing more than opinion. – rock
Tell that to Arlen Specter and other members of Congress.
From today’s New York Times, in reaction to yet another siging statement:
“. . .Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the move “unconstitutional.” He said Mr. Bush should have vetoed the bill if he did not like the provision, and compared the situation to Mr. Bush’s frequent use of signing statements to reserve a right to bypass newly enacted laws.
“This is a dictatorial, after-the-fact pronouncement by him in line with a lot of other cherry-picking he’s done on the signing statements,” Mr. Specter said in a telephone interview. He added, “To put it differently, I don’t like it worth a damn.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/washington/25legal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
And one of my favorites, from 2007:
Bush has issued 1100 signing statements — almost twice as many as all previous presidents put together — often completely reversing the intended effect of legislation. For example, when Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban torture, Bush announced that this would “make it clear to the world that this government does not torture.” Two weeks later, he added a signing statement to the bill that allowed him to ignore it.
I have a question, and with it I’m going to reveal my fundamental ignorance here.
>> For example, when Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban torture, Bush announced that this would “make it clear to the world that this government does not torture.” Two weeks later, he added a signing statement to the bill that allowed him to ignore it. >>
Regardless of whether you agree that our current interrogation system comprises torture or not… do you agree that it is a military *tactic*? Reprehensible or not, doesn’t it fall under the category of tactics, the same as whether we use our ships to ram enemy ships or fire missiles at them?
If so, then suppose Congress passes a law declaring that our ships (or should I say boats?) may engage the enemy solely by ramming. Would Congress be executing its responsibilities, or would it be interfering?
I simply have never paid enough attention to our history of Congress passing laws regulating the behavior and tactics of our military. I warned you it would be an ignorant question…
“Regardless of whether you agree that our current interrogation system comprises torture or not… do you agree that it is a military *tactic*?- Mike
First of all, I dont see it as current. I think it goes back to the post WWII period and that the CIA has used “enhanced interrogation techniques” learned from the Nazis. (For more, google Project Paperclip, Operation Artichoke, Camp King and Frank Olson for starters).
What is new, however, is that under John Yoo, the definaiton of “torture” has widened.
” I simply have never paid enough attention to our history of Congress passing laws regulating the behavior and tactics of our military. . ” – Mike
I haven’t paid attention to the full history, either, though I have paid attention to some of the CIA programs that arose in the post WWII era (such as MK-Ultra).
I was impressed when John McCain originally stood against the use of torture, but given Bush’s signing statments (i.e that he can torture even if Congress says he can’t), what difference does it make?
“CIA has used “enhanced interrogation techniques” learned from the Nazis.”- Ozzie
Notice how Ozzie manages to undermine every facet of American government.
I wonder where the Nazi’s learned it, from the Inquisition? And they learned it from the Romans, and so forth.
The ability to extract information by the use of pain is hardly a new concept and interesting that Ozzie thinks Americans aren’t smart enough to figure out how to use coercive techniques without the help of the Nazis.
As to the signings, Ozzie has merely thrown up a smoke screen, while interesting, has nothing to do with the election in two weeks. The tension between the branches of government rises and falls, though I would suggest that technological advances has produced the need for a stronger executive branch.
The roots of a stronger executive branch traces back to at least the Johnson administration. Congress used the opportunity to strip the executive branch of as much power as it could in the aftermath of the Nixon mess. President’s since then, including Clinton, have been reclaiming some of that executive authority.
I suppose if you want a weak foreign policy, which is the executive branch authority, you would support the sort of legislative meddling that occurred after Watergate.
At any time Congress has had the power to stop the war in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and chose not to. It’s not that Congress doesn’t have the power to counteract the executive branch, it’s that they find it politically expedient to not do so.
Ozzie, you pulled a brilliant Obama there. A whole bunch of reasonable-sounding stuff, smoothly delivered, that *never* comes close to answering the question.
Obfuscate, obfuscate!
FUD : Fear, uncertainty, doubt. If you can’t baffle em with brilliance, befuddle em with bulls***t.
Try again.
Notice how Ozzie manages to undermine every facet of American government- Brian
Well, Brian. This probably mirrors to our disagreement over religion, too.
My understanding of right and wrong obviously differs from yours, and I believe that what occured via Operation Artichoke and MK-Ultra are affronts to God.
But the again, people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible thought slavery was fine, too. See why I think it’s so dangerous?
“As to the signings, Ozzie has merely thrown up a smoke screen, while interesting, has nothing to do with the election in two weeks. – Brian
Thrown up a smokescreen? I have offered tons of evidence, and have argued, as has the ABA, Arlen Specter and many others, that the President’s use of signing statements = ignoring the Constitution and Congress and undermining the separation of powers.
Yes, Dick Cheney wanted a return to the imperial presidency and got it.
The idea of checks and balances is already quaint.
I just hope you’re as OK with this arrangement under a President Obama as you are under President Bush.
“But the again, people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible thought slavery was fine, too. See why I think it’s so dangerous?”- Ozzie
This statement reminds me why it is dangerous to elect the left, since they have absolutely no sense of integrity, and distort any argument without compunction. Truth must be sacrificed to the Cause.
Christians opposed slavery, both in Britian and America and were a driving force in its end.
And to distinguish a time period where Christians took the Bible literally and then metaphorically and assume Christians who opposed slavery believed the Bible metaphorically is just plain dumb.
This statement reminds me why it is dangerous to elect the left, since they have absolutely no sense of integrity, and distort any argument without compunction. Truth must be sacrificed to the Cause- Brian
I say something you don’t like, and suddenly it’s “dangerous” to ellect “the left” because of what “they” do?
Well, Brian, aside from laughing out loud, I dont believe I’m sacrificing “Truth to the Cause” but just so I have this straight: You don’t believe that the Bible was ever used as proof that God approved of slavery?
The fundamentalists of all faiths are the most rigid and frightening.
I loved the movie. Even better than “Jesus Camp.” If Christopher Hitchens did a movie, I’d probably go see that, too
Oz functions on the same psychological basis that draws people to see car crashes for entertainment value.
I say something you don’t like, and suddenly it’s “dangerous” to ellect “the left” because of what “they” do?
Well, Brian, aside from laughing out loud, I dont believe I’m sacrificing “Truth to the Cause” but just so I have this straight: You don’t believe that the Bible was ever used as proof that God approved of slavery?
I think it wouldn’t matter one way or another to you, Oz, what the Bible was ever used as. So long as you can refuse to make a choice by making the excuse that all choices are equal, you’ll be happy.
As for sacrificing truth to the cause, that would only matter if you cared about the truth more than you cared about feeling happy by watching disasters in play, Oz. Since you don’t, it doesn’t really matter whether you sacrifice truth to the cause or not.
Oz functions on the same psychological basis that draws people to see car crashes for entertainment value- Ymar
Putting a spotlight, as Jesus Camp does, on those who are training children to rise up and take control of government to create a Christian Nation is a wonderful, patrotic thing.
But this might surpise you, Ymar: I don’t like seeing people get hurt, in car crashes, boxing matches, violent movies, or anywhere.
You don’t believe that the Bible was ever used as proof that God approved of slavery?
To translate what Oz means: If the Bible was ever used as proof that God approved of slavery that would mean that Christians approved of slavery and argued for it, thus resulting in people like Sarah Palin (Christian) being a “danger” to America from Oz’s perspective (in addition to the entertainment value of Jesus Camp, which Oz believes Sarah would have the qualifications to run).
That’s really how the logic works for Oz.
The representation of a choice, meaning a path A that leads to consequences different from path B’s consequences, doesn’t exist for Oz for these limited subjects we call religion or politics. Oz knows that to touch a hot stove is different from touching dry ice, but since the consequences are the same (burns), Oz doesn’t really see a point in choosing one over the other. She would rather sit on the fence and be against one choice simply because she has a personal dislike of dry ice or hot stoves depending on her life experiences and prejudices.
This, in the everyday world of human beings, would make zero sense only if people knew the actual differences in consequences from dry ice to hot stoves. Then people could make a decision based upon which is better or worse to do if they are forced into this decision. But nobody in reality can suddenly decide that both choices are equally as bad so they are just going to do nothing, and let the stove/dry ice burn them and be entertained/happy (as Oz has said about this election and the disasters in store for America).
Apply this to politics and religion and you get the same kind of nonsense. Only people who are ignorant of the actual differences in consequences between two different actions and identities could ever say that both are equally as bad so it doesn’t matter if Oz is biased against Republicans because she thinks Republicans and Christians represent the greater danger. And since she believes this, not because she thinks Democrats are fundamentally better but because they are both the same so her decision rests upon personal entertainment values, there is little room for convincing her otherwise with facts or logic.
Since the facts or logic never decided for Oz which was worse or bad relative to other religions or politics, you can’t use facts or logic to change Oz’s fundamental beliefs.
But this might surpise you, Ymar: I don’t like seeing people get hurt, in car crashes, boxing matches, violent movies, or anywhere.
Your tastes tend to favor abstract concepts of suffering: the Iraq War, Vietnam, abortion, socialist economic misery, and the disasters in store for America’s future.
Batman the Dark Knight was a violent movie Oz and you enjoyed it quite well. But the violence was typically emotional not physical, since the physical attacks were never as dangerous as the Joker’s sociopathic morality plays.
So it is interesting that you don’t like to see actual people suffering, Oz, but you won’t lift a hand to help those that are suffering in an abstract fashion that you can’t quite wrap your head around. In fact, you are gleeful at observing such incidents, whether it is in a movie (the Dark Knight) or in reality (the US 2008 election).
What was it you said about Harvey Dent’s fall into corruption and darkness, Oz? That you had a positive experience seeing his suffering because you believe it is true that heroes either live long enough to become what they fight or they die before that occurs?
People who have a healthy empathic sense for tragedy and suffering don’t feel positive or “entertained” even by the suffering experienced by fictional characters, Oz. They feel entertained and positive only when the evil and the guilty suffer. But to you, I suppose everybody is equally guilty.
But, of course, I wouldn’t expect an Obama partisan and anti-Palin dogmatist to try to search for an inconvenient truth, especially about themselves. It’s too dangerous all in all.
Oz is biased against Republicans because she thinks Republicans and Christians represent the greater danger- Ymar
I’m not biased against Republicans. And I’m not biased against Christians. (I was raised as one, in fact)
I’m against the politically active Christians who make up the Religious Right and feel that Republican party lost its way once they began catering to such people.
I feel sorry for John McCain. But he decided to embrace the “agents of intolerance” to get elected, and now he’s stuck with the consequences.
I have offered tons of evidence, and have argued, as has the ABA, Arlen Specter and many others, that the President’s use of signing statements = ignoring the Constitution and Congress and undermining the separation of powers.
The fact that the President can issue executive orders is part of the separation of powers. You live in a reality totally different from the actual one, Oz. And it’s not because you “dislike violence” but it is that you see violence as something different than what it actually is in our universe. So your views on separation of powers and the US Constitution would naturally follow a similar disassociation.
Stop arguing the “evidence”, as you see it, and begin with epistemology, the theory of knowledge, which is the only difference that matters given your views. For another individual with a different epistemology to accept your “evidence” and reasoning would be tantamount to discarding his or her own epistemology and ethics in favor of your philosophical assumptions (fundamental assumptions rooted, in part, in epistemology).
You cannot expect the Chinese and the Iranians to give up their nationality in order to agree with your political views, so why should you expect us to give up our life philosophies in favor of yours simply because you believe your views are right?
I’m not biased against Republicans. And I’m not biased against Christians. (I was raised as one, in fact)
haven’t you realized that some of the strongest atheists are biased against Christianity precisely because they were raised Christian/Catholic?
This is another demonstration of the difference in what you mean by “evidence” and what I mean by evidence. To me it is not evidence that being raised Christian means you are not biased against Christians. Human beings can be biased against anything, and this can occur whether based upon personal experience or personal lack of experience. An individual can believe he knows the truth having only experienced part of the truth or an individual can believe he knows the truth because he is totally ignorant of the truth, in whole or in part. Just because you were raised Christian does not mean you comprehend Christianity or those raised under it: including Sarah Palin.
You are not “biased” against Republicans and that is why you ignore Obama’s corruption, ACORN’s illegal registration (which is a felony if you read the actual voter registration sheets, and aiding and abetting a felon is called another felony), and various other things such as your belief that Republicans and Rove stole the 2000/2004 elections.
Do you not understand that being “biased” means knowingly taking selective parts of information and reasoning in order to arrive at an incorrect or partially true conclusion? And you defend yourself as not “biased” against Republicans while knowingly taking selective parts of information and providing it as slanted evidence against Republicans here from long ago, Oz.
What was it you said about Harvey Dent’s fall into corruption and darkness, Oz? That you had a positive experience seeing his suffering because you believe it is true that heroes either live long enough to become what they fight or they die before that occurs?- Ymar
I said I loved his comment “You Either Die A Hero, Or Live Long Enough To See Yourself Become The Villian,” which, in my English-major mind, expresses the duality of man, which is a theme that runs throughout literature, movies, etc. (Before the Dark Knight, “Star Wars” was the best example, but the Dark Knight has given “Star Wars” a run for its money).
If you really want to understand where I’m coming from, read Joseph Campbell. It’s no accident that George Lucas collaborated with Campbell while making Star Wars, and his “Power of Myth” interview with Bill Moyers remains the best thing I’ve ever seen on TV.
I realize you dont “get” me, though I must say, watching you translate what I REALLY mean, through your own filter, is quite entertaining. In Ymar Land, because I appreciate Harvey Dent’s dissent into darkness (just like Darth Vader before him), I MUST love to watch people suffer and/or crane my neck to watch car crashes.
I feel sorry for John McCain. But he decided to embrace the “agents of intolerance” to get elected, and now he’s stuck with the consequences.
McCain decided to embrace your political and ideological enemies, Oz. That is what he should feel sorry for, if in fact he cares about your loyalty at all. Such a fickle loyalty as yours or those alike don’t really mean much in the long term. You feel good for McCain when he is against torture but when he has an opportunity to become US President and enact his views against torture in Executive Orders, now it is something bad or meaningless because McCain is now the Republican nominee.
You can only feel “sorry” for John McCain if you had any real sense of empathy, Oz. Without that empathy or the desire for the truth you will be unable to differentiate choices and their consequences.
I’m against the politically active Christians who make up the Religious Right and feel that Republican party lost its way once they began catering to such people.
For example, without empathy you are unable to accurately locate politically active Christians, you will be unable to accurately locate the Religious Right, and you will be unable to determine whether the Republican party caters to such people or not.
Without knowledge and the truth, empathy matters not a whit, but even if you had the data on which to make your choices of belief it wouldn’t matter if you lacked the empathy to apply that data to human nature and behavior. Since you are deciding things about human beings it matters a whole lot whether you can accurately feel or predict the emotions and motivations of other human beings. If you cannot because you lack empathy, then you are unable to accurately use data, even assuming that data represents accurate knowledge.
Empathy is about emotions not about data, after all. Empathy is your capability to feel emotions, the right emotions, in specific situations. That was already proven when you demonstrated your views about Iraq, Petraeus, and, surprisingly, the Dark Knight movie.
Putting a spotlight, as Jesus Camp does, on those who are training children to rise up and take control of government to create a Christian Nation is a wonderful, patrotic thing.
As evidence, real evidence, of what I speak, consider this: when you are given a choice between talking about Iraqis and their suffering and something like “Jesus Camp”, you knowingly and selectively choose the less dangerous and less priority problem. It’s the same difference between human shields going to protect Saddam because they want to protect civilians from America’s murderers in uniform. They sort of forgot that between Saddam as a choice and America as a choice, only Saddam would knowingly and gleefully use human shields as sacrificial pawns. They believed the US military was the greater danger to civilians when in fact Saddam was a greater danger to civilians and to the human shields, which is precisely why the human shields refused to go up against Saddam while they previously couldn’t wait to go up against US bombs; they knew that the US military wouldn’t bomb them if they defended hospitals because the US military doesn’t bomb hospitals full of nothing but the wounded and their doctors.
You believe, actually believe, that there are people who are training children in America to rise up and topple the American government. You believe this in the absence of any proof of organization in terms of money and arms shipments. You believe this in the absence of any other corroborating factors such as the impact on such important institutions as America’s election system being sabotaged by ACORN, not the Christian Right (why would the CR rig the election system if they were going to use armed force anyways). This is a belief taken partially on faith by you and partially on biased and selective information. Most of it is based upon propaganda from one source or another and they tend to be similar sources in their prejudices, political positions, and biases (meaning motivation and character). It is not surprising to me that the mob would have connections to racketeering, extortion, money laundering, prostitution, or gambling, Oz: the same applies to the makers and believers in Jesus Camp. There is an overall pattern here, Oz, that is directly contradictory when juxtaposed against what you say Jesus Camp means. Such contradictions are not based upon one evidence or pattern of evidence; it is based upon numerous patterns ranging from the philosophical, issues of virtue, issues of documentation, issues of election corruption, issues of political power, issues of economic woes, issues of logistical capability and sustainment, as well as issues of basic human nature and corruptibility. All of these point out that “Jesus Camp” is not more dangerous and is not more of a priority than the suffering and dangers in Iraq.
But you prefer to choose Jesus Camp over talking about Iraq. You ever asked yourself why if you have all this care for the wounded and the suffering why you feel more affinity to nameless pinpricks in this secure and prosperous nation called the United States of America whereas you feel nothing for those in Iraq, including the Americans in Iraq? Nothing, as in, related to your feelings about Jesus Camp and its dangers.
If you really want to understand where I’m coming from, read Joseph Campbell. It’s no accident that George Lucas collaborated with Campbell while making Star Wars, and his “Power of Myth” interview with Bill Moyers remains the best thing I’ve ever seen on TV.
There’s a categorical problem. You have two categories, primarily the people who you believe knows the “duality” of humanity and those who are dangers and villains like Sarah and people whose religions you don’t like.
And yet, the people who misuse the Power of Myth contains George Lucas and Bill Moyers. They are the ones who can actually create a situation where somebody like Emperor Palpatine seizes emergency powers due to a manufactured crisis that Palpatine himself created.
These people, like George Lucas, knows how to manufacture problems using the duality of human nature yet they don’t know how to prevent such things from occurring. The same is true of Obama but you don’t criticize Obama or George Lucas, you criticize the REpublicans who wish to stop manufactured problems from being created by those like Obama.
In Ymar Land, because I appreciate Harvey Dent’s dissent into darkness (just like Darth Vader before him), I MUST love to watch people suffer and/or crane my neck to watch car crashes.
I’ve already made the definite argument against that in 85.
Btw, it is an interesting word you use “appreciate”. Do you appreciate Dent’s problems the same way Biden would have appreciated Iraq’s problems once they were partitioned according to Biden’s plan? Do you appreciate Vietnam’s fall into darkness and silence because if you had actually seen the suffering of the South VIetnamese it would have made you appreciate it less?
haven’t you realized that some of the strongest atheists are biased against Christianity precisely because they were raised Christian/Catholic?- Ymar
Like fundamentalists Christians, I also wonder who atheists can be so sure that there is no God. How do they know? the truth is that nobody knows waht happens when we die, and it’s wise to be skeptical of anyone who is certain that they have the answers.
“You are not “biased” against Republicans and that is why you ignore Obama’s corruption, ACORN’s illegal registration (which is a felony if you read the actual voter registration sheets, and aiding and abetting a felon is called another felony), and various other things such as your belief that Republicans and Rove stole the 2000/2004 elections.” Ymar
I dont believe that voter registratiom fraud is a felony, Ymar, and I’ve been looking at the 82 cases where real voter fraud occured.
And yes, I’ve also been watching elections closely since 2000 and have concluded that the GOP has engaged in election fraud that is far more widespread and sweeping.
I’m not biased against Republicans as individuals, however.
Btw, it is an interesting word you use “appreciate”. Do you appreciate Dent’s problems the same way Biden would have appreciated Iraq’s problems once they were partitioned according to Biden’s plan? – Ymar
Um, no, I aprreciate Harvey Dent’s problem the way I do Darth Vader’s problem once he gives into the dark side of the force.
Going to the movies must be hell for you, Ymar.
I’m not biased against Republicans as individuals, however.
That’s because you don’t see nor treat Sarah Palin or George W. Bush as individuals. You treat them as something else, using different criteria and standards. Even those with political power are still individuals and when you use a different standard against them then it would make sense for you to grow into error.
I dont believe that voter registratiom fraud is a felony, Ymar, and I’ve been looking at the 82 cases where real voter fraud occur[r]ed.
Forgery and fraud against the government are felonies, Oz. But you don’t believe voter registration fraud is a felony.
Do you live in a state, Oz, that treats forgeries and fraud against the government as misdemeanors? That’d be a great sentence for ACORN operatives.
So the two categories that you have in the end are “real voter fraud” and “fake voter fraud”. Both are frauds in your view but only one category qualifies as “real”. Do you really think that given such biases and misperception of reality that you won’t be able to misjudge individuals, especially when you use double and triple standards depending on the individual in question?
Ozzie
Google Wilberforce, and then tell us again that Christians are fine with slavery!
That’s because you don’t see nor treat Sarah Palin or George W. Bush as individuals- Ymar
It’s OK if people want to believe in the Rapture and End Times predictions and even pray for Armageddon. They can believe in Biblical prophecy all they want.
Self-fullfilling prophecy is my concern. And most individuals who believe in End Times theology dont meet with the Apolistc Congressl to make sure U.S. policy conforms with Biblical Prophecy.
And they dont have access to the nuclear codes.
“But the again, people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible thought slavery was fine, too. See why I think it’s so dangerous?”- Ozzie
“I say something you don’t like, and suddenly it’s “dangerous” to ellect “the left” because of what “they” do?”- Ozzie
I object to the statement because 1. it’s not true and 2. the sentence represents a distortion and equates Bible believers with slavery. Let me explain it to you, even though I assume you knew what you were doing.
People who believe- present tense
thought slavery was fine- past tense
Here’s what you said: Christians today who believe the Bible=Christians who supported slavery in the past who believed the Bible.
I’m sure there were Christians who rationalized the existence of slavery, but the opposition which became a movement which drove the abolition of slavery came from Christians.
These are the kinds of parallelisms and distortions that come from propagandists, of which, Ozzie you are very good at.
Google Wilberforce, and then tell us again that Christians are fine with slavery- Marguerite
Ok. I did. I don’t understand your point.
I argued that the Bible was once cited to make the case for slavery.
Did you think that I meant that all Christians felt that way?
“And I’m not biased against Christians. (I was raised as one, in fact)”- Ozzie
I would suggest that you were not raised as a Christian, since central to being a Christian is an understanding of who Jesus is and what his death, burial and resurrection means.
Since you believe, and apparently were taught that was a myth, the logical conclusions is you were not raised as a Christian, but learned a philosophical system using Judeo-Christian values.
Big difference.
It’s one thing to say, I was taught Jesus is God and Savior and no longer believe it and quite another to say I was taught Jesus is God and Savior was a myth and think others should not believe it either.
“But tell me this–since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ was not raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your trust in God is useless.” I Corinthians 15:12-14
JM is someone I wish I didn’t have to vote for because he isn’t a true conservative, which is the philosophy I believe would do the most good for the most people. But he loves America and recognizes America is not a mean country. So rather than stay home and pout, I guess I will vote for him after all.
Just think of it as voting for Sarah rather than McCain.
Did you think that I meant that all Christians felt that way?
I think it doesn’t matter to you whether all Christians feel that way just as it doesn’t matter to you whether all Republicans are bad people or not. It won’t stop you from working against the GOP and Republicans, conservatives and paleo-conservatives and anti-Sarah religionites.
would suggest that you were not raised as a Christian, since central to being a Christian is an understanding of who Jesus is and what his death, burial and resurrection means. Since you believe, and apparently were taught that was a myth, the logical conclusions is you were not raised as a Christian, but learned a philosophical system using Judeo-Christian values. . -Brian
Bible stories, such as Eve being created from Adam’s rib, were not treated as the Gospel truth, though the Gospels were.
Cathoilicism differs from other forms of Christianity, but it’s still considered Chrisitianity.
As a mater of fact, it’s the original form.
“The idea of checks and balances is already quaint.
I just hope you’re as OK with this arrangement under a President Obama as you are under President Bush.”- Ozzie
While important, this isn’t even a very important part of this election, which is why its a distraction.
Whoever controls the Supreme Court controls the country, since we have foolishly allowed final power to rest in the SC. Many of the founders didn’t support judicial review and it appears the authority was siezed early on and the consequences weren’t realized at the time.
But as policy, I disagree with executive orders that bypass the function of the legislative branch, and agree with presidential signings when the legislative branch meddles with executive authority.
“Bible stories, such as Eve being created from Adam’s rib, were not treated as the Gospel truth, though the Gospels were.”- Ozzie
Now we’re getting somewhere.
You were taught that Jesus is God, that he literally died and was raised to life and is the Savior of all who believe? Catholics believe in miracles since transubstantiation is certainly miraculous.
Here’s where my confusion lies. If you were taught that Jesus is God incarnate, and that he was raised back to life and that he performed miracles including casting out demons– since the Catholic church stills practices exorcism, why is it a bigger stretch to believe the rest of the Bible? Why is it then dangerous to believe all the Bible, as opposed to believing only the part about God transcending time and space in the person of Jesus?
And since your prespective about fundamentalists appears to be formed by movies like Jesus Camp and Religious and other authors that may have biases against these fundamentalists, have you ever entertained the notion that these people may not believe what you ascribe to them, and that accepting that future events have been foretold is not the same as being able to or required to affect these events or is even possible?
I just hope you’re as OK with this arrangement under a President Obama as you are under President Bush.
Fortunately for you, Oz, the GOP has a history of putting the nation’s interests over their personal survival and benefit.
The same cannot be said for your party or your set of ideological travelers, Oz.
If there is nothing greater than man upon which to construct an ethical architecture, then all morality and ethics becomes subjective, a structure imposed upon the weak by the strong. In this way, the Post-modernist view becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They insist morality is a construct (indeed that all reality is a construct, which implies the former) and then proceed to impose their own notions of morality on those who have less power. Such strictly human moralities have been, and retain the capacity to be, monstrous:
For the true believer, who does not recognize his own fallibility and has no G-d against whom to compare himself, his ideology takes on G-d-like powers.
His “true” ideology will usher in a Utopia that heretofore could only be established via the workings of the Deity. Once G-d has been killed off, nothing stands in the way of man taking G-d’s prerogatives for himself. In service to the cause of a Utopian ideal, what is the fate of a mere 25 million to count? Those who put themselves in front of historical imperatives and attempt to hold back a perfect world have only themselves to blame for whatever befalls them. Note the structure of the argument; it is your fault you have to be killed; you are in the way of the perfect future. Thus, the counter-revolutionary can be eliminated just as easily as we would willingly eliminate the Anopheles mosquito that transmits Malaria. (Although with the advent of radical environmentalism, perhaps the mosquito would fare better than the capitalist?)
LInk
Since your reality and epistemology are different from mine, Oz, naturally you would see my threats as your allies and I would see your threats as my allies: not automatically but certainly with more than a 50% correlation.
You don’t think I know where you are coming from. Yet the same is true of yourself for you don’t even know where you are coming from. You deny a need to have entertainment by watching and observing the suffering of others while doing nothing to help them. You excuse this by saying you have an aversion to watching violence. This excuse is meaningless for the psychology that draws people to car crashes and violence is not necessarily one that likes it.
Why is it then dangerous to believe all the Bible, as opposed to believing only the part about God transcending time and space in the person of Jesus?- Brian
It is not dangerous for everyday Americans to believe that the Bible is literally true.
If people want to believe that dinosuars and people walked the earth together, when it was formed a mere 6000 years ago, they can have at it. We should make certain that our leaders aren’t that ignorant though, no?
That aside, it is extremely dangerous to believe that we go to war on God’s command or to combine politics with prophecy, particularly where the Book of Revealtion and End Times prophecies are concerned.
“And since your prespective about fundamentalists appears to be formed by movies like Jesus Camp. . ” Brian
Jesus Camp is just a blip in the bigger picture. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were my introduction to the Religious Right, but I thought they were merely “fringe” figures who provide comic relief by suggesting that Tinky Winky was gay.
Then, I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor about mixing Politics and Prophecy, and all that changed.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p15s01-lire.html
From then on, I started researching the Religious Right and learned about Tim Lahaye and James Dobson and Chritian Nationalists and a host of interconnected groups and started paying attention to the agenda and the legislation that was introduced (and, in one case, actually passed in the House).
There is only one Socialist in the Congress and yet, people are scared to death that we’ll become a Socialist country. Meanwhile, over half of Congress is backed by the Religious Right.
Let me put it this way: Bernie Sanders frightens me far less than the agents of intolerance that make up the Religious Right, who Sarah Palin was chosen to appeal to
.
have you ever entertained the notion that these people may not believe what you ascribe to them, – Brian
I’ve researched peopel like Tim Lahaye and he has an agenda, Brian.
This is what Billy Graham told 700 Club Viewers in 1985:
“I’m for evangelicals running for public office and winning if possible and getting control of the Congress, getting control of the bureaucracy, getting control of the executive branch of government. . ”
And just yesterday, the Anchorage Daily News addressed problems raised by Sarah Palin’s relationship with Rev. Thomas Muthee and the controversial extremist agenda he has endorsed:
Palin blessing echoed extreme strategy
ALAN BORAAS
COMMENT
Published: October 25th, 2008 12:19 AM
Last Modified: October 25th, 2008 03:15 AM
Most who watched the YouTube clip of Rev. Thomas Muthee’s “laying on of hands” ritual protecting Gov. Sarah Palin from witches at least raised an eyebrow. Witchcraft is considered hocus pocus by many Americans but has a distinct cultural context in Kenya and other parts of Central Africa where Muthee is from.
In pre-colonial central Africa witches were a metaphor of instability, so to be accused of witchcraft meant the individual was somehow threatening to the social order. African witchcraft took on a similar meaning after missionaries arrived. In rural areas today social progressives are sometimes labeled witches and their accusers are often fundamentalists who hold to traditional tribal practices and reject progressive gender roles and acceptance of modernity. Witchcraft is taken quite seriously; in May of this year 11 people were burned as witches in rural Kenya. One of those killed was a teacher who represented the influence of modernity to villages.
Just why a church in Wasilla, Alaska, would adopt the language of witchcraft to express their belief in a battle of good versus evil is not clear. But even more revealing was Rev. Muthee’s summary of the principles of what has come to be called Christian Nationalism, which preceded his “laying on of hands” ritual.
Extreme Christian Nationalists not only believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation but that its institutions should be run entirely by fundamentalist or evangelical Christians. They believe they have a mandate to purge our institutions of “humanists” who believe that humans are in control of their own destiny, progressive Christians and non-Christians. They believe there are seven areas of society that must be controlled, the so-called Seven Mountains Strategy: church, family, education, government and law, media, arts and entertainment and business.
Muthee echoed this Christian Nationalist strategy in his Palin blessing sermon, where he stated, “When we talk about transformation of a society, a community, it’s where we see God’s Kingdom infiltrate … seven areas in our society.” Muthee went on to describe his version of the Seven Mountains Strategy and when he got to politics he was praying for Gov. Palin
About 40 percent of the U.S. population describe themselves as fundamentalist or evangelical but not all subscribe to Christian Nationalism. Michelle Goldberg estimates about 10 percent to 15 percent of the U.S. adult population are Christian Nationalists. They are overwhelmingly white and Republican and make up a significant part of the “base” of the party. A number of notable spokesmen of the conservative religious right are associated with Christian Nationalist beliefs, among them Franklin Graham (but not his father Billy), Pat Robertson and Douglas Coe.
Christian Nationalism is a form of American exceptionalism — the idea that Americans are unique because of our heritage. Christian exceptionalism dates back to Puritan leader John Winthrop. Normally exceptionalism is recognized as the unique founding of the United States built on immigrant pluralism and based on Enlightenment ideals. But Winthrop promoted a different type of exceptionalism. In his “shining city on the hill” sermon Winthrop rejected the equality of religious pluralism and affirmed instead that the United States is a Christian nation built on Christian, not Enlightenment, principles and was to be ruled by Christians.
Winthrop’s Puritans also used witchcraft as a means of social control. Many of the Salem “witches” were women breaking from the established gender roles, starting farms of their own and otherwise acting independently. Those 17th century agents of modernity were burned at the stake for their actions, similar to what is happening in Kenya today.
It is therefore remarkably interesting that Gov. Palin used the term exceptionalism in her debate with Sen. Biden and quoted Winthrop’s “shining city on the hill” metaphor as the model for America in the world. (She actually referenced the source as Ronald Reagan, who used the phrase in his last speech as president. Reagan correctly cited Winthrop.)
Nothing she did as governor suggests Sarah Palin would conduct witch hunts or give voice to seditious Christian Nationalists were she to reach the Oval Office. On the other hand, quoting the father of Christian Nationalism and directly participating in a religious rite protecting her from witchcraft that espoused the Seven Mountains Strategy is a reason to ask questions. The real problem is that no national candidate has been so shielded from the press and scripted (and, it turns out, clothed) as Sarah Palin so it’s hard to know what she believes.
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/567096.html
The same cannot be said for your party or your set of ideological travelers, Oz.- Ymar
Given that I’m a registered Independent, I’m guessing that you think I travel with Independent minded people? I never quite follow you, Ymar.
I’m sure you believe wonderful things about the GOP and George Bush, but I dont share your views.
(Does that mean it’s time for you to suggest, once again, that I like car crashes and human suffering?)
Well, according to Ozzie, there you have it.
Christians prevented Israel from giving back the West Bank, which would have brought peace to the land. Wow, I didn’t know I had that kind of power!
Of course, this is only true if you are living in some alternate universe where the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah haven’t called for the extermination of Israel. Funny how reality gets in the way of fantasy.
Well, according to Ozzie, there you have it- Brian
Well, no, Brian, this isnt “it’. That article piqued my interest, and prompted me to study the Religous Right and their clout, even further.
And this artilce on Tim Lahaye http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/5939999/reverend_doomsday/
prompted me to pay attention to Christian Right legislation and read books like “American Theocracy” and listen to interviews with former members of the Christian Right, etc.
I find concerns over Socialism and Marxism laughable, while you obviously find my concerns over the Religious Right silly.
Re: Catholic interpretation of the Bible…
“The Vatican II Council taught that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error the truth that God wanted put into the sacred writings, for the sake of our salvation.” The blanket coverage of the inerrancy of Scripture has been removed. It is now limited to only those things pertaining to our salvation. Baronius, an ancient scholar said that the Bible does not tell us how the heavens go, but rather how to go to heaven.”
From:
http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/what_is_bible/
>>I find concerns over Socialism and Marxism laughable, >>
Marxism was responsible for around 100 million deaths in the USSR. That doesn’t bother you just a trifle?
>>while you obviously find my concerns over the Religious Right silly.>>
That’s a fact. What do you think they’ll do that will be harmful?
Marxism was responsible for around 100 million deaths in the USSR. That doesn’t bother you just a trifle- suek
I’m not concerned that Obama is a Marxist/Socialist, who will to turn America into a Socialist country. We only have one Socialist in Congress, while the Relgious Right is well-represented.
“What do you think they’ll do that will be harmful?” suek
Fulfill their stated goal of tearing down the wall between Church and State and turning America into an official Christian Nation.
I’m not concerned that Obama is a Marxist/Socialist, who will to turn America into a Socialist country. We only have one Socialist in Congress, while the Relgious Right is well-represented.
The truth is not represented by simple labels and categories, Oz. We only have “one Socialist” in Congress or do we have as many socialists as Democrats and they just call themselves Democrats rather than Socialists?
Fulfill their stated goal of tearing down the wall between Church and State and turning America into an official Christian Nation.
First you have to re-instate the wall between Obama and State.
We only have “one Socialist” in Congress or do we have as many socialists as Democrats and they just call themselves Democrats rather than Socialists?- Ymar
Last I looked, most Democrats had been bought and paid for by many of the same corporate interests as the Republicans.
What do you think they’ll do that will be harmful?” suek
Here’s a great article from Foreign Policy In Focus:
America’s Armageddonites
Jon Basil Utley | October 10, 2007
Editor: John Feffer
Utopian fantasies have long transfixed the human race. Yet today a much rarer fantasy has become popular in the United States. Millions of Americans, the richest people in history, have a death wish. They are the new “Armageddonites,” fundamentalist evangelicals who have moved from forecasting Armageddon to actually trying to bring it about.
Most journalists find it difficult to take seriously that tens of millions of Americans, filled with fantasies of revenge and empowerment, long to leave a world they despise. These Armageddonites believe that they alone will get a quick, free pass when they are “raptured” to paradise, no good deeds necessary, not even a day of judgment. Ironically, they share this utopian fantasy with a group that they often castigate, namely fundamentalist Muslims who believe that dying in battle also means direct access to Heaven. For the Armageddonites, however, there are no waiting virgins, but they do agree with Muslims that there will be “no booze, no bars,” in the words of a popular Gaither Singers song.
These end-timers have great influence over the U.S. government’s foreign policy. They are thick with the Republican leadership. At a recent conference in Washington, congressional leader Roy Blunt, for example, has said that their work is “part of God’s plan.” At the same meeting, where speakers promoted attacking Iran, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay glorified “end times.” Indeed the Bush administration often consults with them on Mideast policies. The organizer of the conference, Rev. John Hagee, is often welcomed at the White House, although his ratings are among the lowest on integrity and transparency by Ministry Watch, which rates religious broadcasters. He raises millions of dollars from his campaign supporting Israeli settlements on the West Bank, including much for himself. Erstwhile presidential candidate Gary Bauer is on his Board of Directors. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson also both expressed strong end-times beliefs.
American fundamentalists strongly supported the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. They consistently support Israel’s hard-line policies. And they are beating the drums for war against Iran. Thanks to these end-timers, American foreign policy has turned much of the world against us, including most Muslims, nearly a quarter of the human race.
The Beginning of End Times
The evangelical movement originally was not so “end times” focused. Rather, it was concerned with the “moral” decline inside America. The Armageddon theory started with the writings of a Scottish preacher, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). His ideas then spread to America with publication in 1917 of the Scofield Reference Bible, foretelling that the return of the Jews to Palestine would bring about the end times. The best-selling book of the 1970s, The Late, Great Planet Earth, further spread this message. The movement did not make a conscious effort to affect foreign policy until Jerry Falwell went to Jerusalem and the Left Behind books became best sellers.
Conservative Christian writer Gary North estimates the number of Armageddonites at about 20 million. Many of them have an ecstatic belief in the cleansing power of apocalyptic violence. They are among the more than 30% of Americans who believe that the world is soon coming to an end. Armageddonites may be a minority of the evangelicals, but they have vocal leaders and control 2,000 mostly fundamentalist religious radio stations.
Although little focused on in America, Armageddonites attract the attention of Muslims abroad. In 2004, for instance, I attended Qatar’s Fifth Conference on Democracy with Muslim leaders from all over the Arabian Gulf. There, the uncle of Jordan’s king devoted his whole speech to warning of the Armageddonites’ power over American foreign policy.
Armageddonite Foreign Policy
The beliefs of the Armageddon Lobby, also known as Dispensationalists, come from the Book of Revelations, which Martin Luther relegated it to an appendix when he translated the Bible because its image of Christ was so contrary to the rest of the Bible. The Armageddonites worship a vengeful, killer-torturer Christ. They also frequently quote a biblical passage that God favors those who favor the Jews. But they only praise Jews who make war, not those who are peacemakers. For example, they vigorously opposed Israel’s murdered premier Yitzhak Rabin, who promoted the Oslo Peace Accords.
Based on this Biblical interpretation, the Armageddonites vehemently argue that America must protect Israel and encourage its settlements on the West Bank in order to help God fulfill His plans. The return of Jews to Palestine is central to the prophetic vision of the Armageddonites, who see it as a critical step toward the final battle, Armageddon, and the victory of the righteous over Satan’s minions. There are a couple internal inconsistencies with this prophecy, such as the presence of Christians already living in the Holy Land and the role of Jews in the final dispensation. In the first case, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and other Religious Right leaders tried to pretend that Christians already in the Holy Land simply didn’t exist. As for Jews, they needed to become “born again” Christians to avoid God’s wrath (or, according to some Armageddonites, a separate Jewish covenant with God will gain them a separate Paradise).
Everyone else — Buddhists, Muslims (of course), Hindus, atheists, and so on – are then slated to die in the Tribulation that comes with Armageddon. As described in the bestselling Left Behind series, this time of human misery ends with Christ then ruling a paradise on earth for a thousand years.
Armageddonites know little about the outside world, which they think of as threatening and awash with Satanic temptations. They are big supporters of Bush’s “go it alone” foreign policies. For example, they love John Bolton. They were prime supporters for attacking Iraq. And, with very few exceptions, they were noticeably quiet about, if not supportive, of torturing prisoners of war (only with a new leadership did the National Association of Evangelicals finally condemn torture in May, 2007). Their support of the Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani shows that they consider aggressively prosecuting Mideast war (to help speed up the apocalypse) more important than the domestic programs of these socially liberal politicians.
On other foreign policy issues, they are violently against the pending Law of the Seas Treaty, indeed any treaty which possibly circumscribes U.S. power to go it alone. They want illegal immigrants expelled and oppose more immigration. They fear China’s growth. They despise Europeans for not being more warlike. The UN figures prominently in their fears, and the Left Behind books present its Secretary General as the Antichrist. Domestically, they strongly support the USA PATRIOT Act and all of President Bush’s actions, legal or illegal.
Armageddonites and Fascism
Author and former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges argues that worldview and reasoning of the Armageddonites tend toward fascism. In his book American Fascists, Hedges focuses on their obedience to leadership, their feelings of humiliation and victimhood, alienation, their support for authoritarian government, and their disinterestedness in constitutional limits on government power. Theirs was originally a defensive movement against the liberal democratic society, particularly abortion, school desegregation, and now globalization, which they saw as undermining their communities and families, their values, and livelihood. Their fundamentalism is very fulfilling and, Hedges writes, “they are terrified of losing this new, mystical world of signs, wonders and moral certitude, of returning to the old world of despair.”
Hedges, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, also shows that fundamentalists are quite selective. They don’t take the Bible literally when it comes to justifying slavery or that children who curse a parent are to be executed. The movement is also very masculine, giving poor men a path to re-establish their authority in what they perceive as an overly feminized culture. Images of Jesus often show Him with thick muscles, clutching a sword. Christian men are portrayed as powerful warriors.
The overwhelming power and warmongering of the Armageddonites has inspired some resistance from other fundamentalists, but they are a minority. Theologian Richard Fenn writes, “Silent complicity (by mainline churches) with apocalyptic rhetoric soon becomes collusion with plans for religiously inspired genocide.” Their death-wishing “religion” is actually anti-Christian and should be challenged openly by traditional Christians.
The next election will likely loosen their grip on the White House. However, their growing ties to the military industrial complex will remain. Exposure of their war wanting as a major threat to America and the world may well become as destructive for them as was the famous Scopes trial in the 1920s. But that will only happen if Americans become as concerned as foreign observers about the influence of the Armageddonites.
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4630
Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative. He was a foreign correspondent in South America for the Journal of Commerce and Knight Ridder newspapers and former associate editor of The Times of the Americas. He was for 17 years a contract commentator on third world issues for Voice of America. He is a writer and advisor for Antiwar.com, a chairman of ConservativesForPeace.com, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus. For more articles in the Religion and Foreign Policy strategic focus, visit http://www.fpif.org/fpifinfo/4590.
Ok…I think he’s nuts, too.
“Here’s a great article from Foreign Policy In Focus:”-Ozzie
It seems that Foreign Policy in Focus is run by the Istitute for Policy Studies.
Here’s who IPS is”:
* Institute for Policy Studies (IPS): Throughout its history, this think tank has committed itself to the task of advancing leftist causes. It worked with agents of the Castro regime and championed environmentalist and anti-war positions in the 1960s and 1970s; it declared against the Reagan administration’s efforts to roll back communism in the 1980s; it joined the vanguard of what IPS hails as the “anti-corporate globalization movement” in the 1990s; and, most recently, it has furnished policy research assailing the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Here’s who contributes to IPS:
While battling the murderous scourge of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, the United States simultaneously faces a most formidable foe within its own borders. Determined, well organized, and immensely wealthy, this enemy pours untold sums of money into the coffers of organizations dedicated to ensuring America’s defeat in that war. Yet few Americans are even remotely familiar with this foe, whose benign sounding name — Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG) — gives no hint of the potential national catastrophe that its policies encourage.
Established in 1999, PSFG is an unincorporated association of more than 50 private and public foundations that give a portion of their $27 billion in combined assets to leftist organizations that undermine the war on terror in several interrelated ways: (a) by characterizing the United States as an evil, militaristic, oppressive nation that exploits vulverable populations all over the globe; (b) by accusing the U.S. of having provoked, through its unjust policies and actions, the terror attacks against it, and consequently casting those attacks as self-defensive measures taken in response to American transgressions; (c) by depicting America’s military and legislative actions against terror as unjustified, extreme, and immoral; (d) by steadfastly defending the civil rights and liberties of terrorists whose ultimate aim is to facilitate the annihilation of not only the United States, but all of Western civilization; and (e) by striving to eradicate America’s national borders and institute a system of mass, unregulated migration into and out of the United States — thereby rendering all distinctions between legal and illegal immigrants anachronistic, and making it much easier for aspiring terrorists to enter our country.
Also Open Society Istitute of George Soros fame.
Ozzie, you couldn’t find more left wing propaganda if you tried– then again mayber you are trying.
Ozzie, you couldn’t find more left wing propaganda if you tried– then again mayber you are trying.- Brian
About the author of the piece I posted:
Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative
Actually, he wrote one article for The American Conservative in 2005.
Here’s who he claims to be:
Jon Basil Utley is Chairman of Americans Against World Empire. http://www.iraqwar.org
Mr. Utley is the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is a graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, studied languages in Europe, and lived 15 years in South America. He was in business and then served as a foreign correspondent for Knight/Ridder newspapers. He has served on the Board of Directors or Advisory Boards of many organizations including Accuracy in Media, Council for Inter-American Security, and the Conservative Caucus.
Here’s another article by Utley called An Alternative to the Unending War from October 2001 on a Libertarian website. An example from the article. The war he’s referring to is a general war against muslim extremists:
I think he as a bias against fundamentalist Christians. He also doesn’t think much of neo-conservatives.
Actually, he wrote one article for The American Conservative in 2005- Brian
Once again, Brian, from the piece I posted, which was written in 2007:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4630
Jon Basil Utley is associate publisher of The American Conservative. He was a foreign correspondent in South America for the Journal of Commerce and Knight Ridder newspapers and former associate editor of The Times of the Americas. He was for 17 years a contract commentator on third world issues for Voice of America. He is a writer and advisor for Antiwar.com, a chairman of ConservativesForPeace.com, and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.
Ozzie #72:
>> Yes, Dick Cheney wanted a return to the imperial presidency and got it.
The idea of checks and balances is already quaint.
I just hope you’re as OK with this arrangement under a President Obama as you are under President Bush. >>
Ozzie, I have to ask:
What did you mean when you said “The idea of checks and balances is already quaint”? In particular I’m struck by your choice of the word, “quaint”. What do you mean?
Is the very idea of checks and balances quaint because of what Cheney/Bush have done over eight years? Or is it quaint because our modern society makes it irrelevant? Some other reason?
Thx. I’m interested because I see the idea of checks and balances as the only hope of saving us from the foibles of human nature itself. That much of the misery we see happening around us is because of the absence of checks and balances.
What did you mean when you said “The idea of checks and balances is already quaint”? In particular I’m struck by your choice of the word, “quaint”. What do you mean? Mike
I was being sarcastic, as in the Geneva Conventions are “Quaint.” Remember that?