Has National Review jumped the shark?
I don’t mean to be glib or facetious in raising the question for I love the magazine dearly. NR was a formative influence on my political philosophy and continues to shape my thinking. It introduced me to conservative ideas, policies, statesmen, and writers. Indeed, three of my favorite conservatives—Ramesh Ponnuru, Ross Douthat, and Byron York—still write for the august publication.
But over the past few years (at least that is the time that I began noticing) there has been a shift to what I call "Manhattan Conservatism." Because almost all of the NR staff lives and works in New York City, their concerns and values tend to reflect a NYC/DC-centric urban cosmopolitism. They've adopted a watered-down form of big-tent fusionism in which embracing any non-liberal ideas are enough to earn you the label of "conservative" (a Manhattan Conservative can have the same views on abortion and gay marriage as the liberal intelligentsia so long as they embrace supply-side economics or torturing terrorists). Mention people in Georgia and they are as likely to think of the country in Asia as they are the Peach State. (Indeed, on The Corner last week, several people mocked the Southern state.)
The Manhattan Conservatives' infatuation with Rudy Giuliani is a prime example of how far they are from the mainstream of conservative thought. But when it came time to endorse a Presidential candidate they realized (at least all but Richard Brookhiser) that endorsing a mayor who once "ran as a liberal" would be a bit much.
Instead they chose to endorse the second most moderate candidate in the race: Mitt Romney.
Now to be fair, Romney is not an unacceptable candidate if the criteria is simply to endorse a Republican. But to pass over true conservatives for a moderate is a slap in the face to the magazine's dedicated readers.
Obviously because I work for Mike Huckabee I have my own bias. But supporters of Thompson, McCain, Tancredo, and Hunter all have reasons to be disappointed. Each of these men have conservative bona fides that are superior to Romney.
Here is the case against the endorsement:
Social conservatism
Romney's flip-flops on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage are already so widely acknowledged that that there is no need to catalog them again. I believe that we should welcome converts, though, which is why I praise him for flopping on the right side of the issues. Still, it seems a bit early to believe as NR says that "we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there." I'm sure Planned Parenthood and the Log Cabin Republicans trusted him to stay where he was too.
Foreign-policy experience
Even NR can't overcome the fact that Romney has no more foreign policy experiences than the current front-runners, Huckabee and Giuliani. Instead they claim that "what matters most is which candidate has the skills to execute that vision." What skills would those be? They don't say.
Fiscal conservatism
Romney's fiscal conservatism is wildly overstated and based more on his resume and MBA than on his record. On free trade he takes the same position as Huckabee—a position that NR previously criticized. Unlike McCain, he supports farm subsidies. And he raised taxes—or as he prefers to call them "fees"—as much as any candidate in the race.
However, the most damning indictment against his fiscal conservatism is often touted as his greatest success: The 2002 Winter Olympics.
Romney is justly praised for turning around a failing venture. But what is often overlooked is how much of the taxpayer's money it took to accomplish the feat. As Insight on the News noted in 2002:
The Salt Lake City Games also will siphon about $400 million from the U.S. Treasury -- a significant increase over the $83 million in taxpayer dollars spent at Lake Placid and even more than the $193 million spent on the Atlanta Olympics. Of the federal government's share, $244 million is going toward a massive $300 million-plus security effort that nearly triples what was spent in Atlanta….
Already the subject of a congressional report, the federal Olympics tab was scrutinized in a recent edition of Sports Illustrated, which claimed that the cost to U.S. taxpayers actually is closer to $1.5 billion. In tallying the total cost, the article included $1.1 billion in highway and transportation funds used to speed construction of a light-rail system and reconstruct a major Salt Lake City freeway prior to the Olympics.
The Club for Growth (which not coincidentally was co-founded by NR's President Thomas "Dusty" Rhodes) crucified Huckabee for raising the gas tax 3-cents a gallon to pay for highways. Yet Romney fronts one of the biggest pork projects in history and he's praised for his fiscal prowess. (And in case it is not clear, I would prefer that not one penny from the public coffers be used for The Olympics.)
The Outsider?
The NR endorsement also makes the peculiar claim that Romney can offer an "outsider’s critique of Washington." Romney's father was a Governor of Michigan and Presidential candidate in 1968. His mother was a U.S. Senate candidate in 1970. That isn't exactly the pedigree of an "outsider."
The Campaign
The most laughable line of the entire editorial, however, is that Romney has run a "tightly organized, disciplined campaign." Anyone who has dealt with the Romney campaign knows the truth. Romney has surrounded himself with dirt-peddling, rumor-whispering, truth-twisting, Machiavelli-wannabes. They are the absolute dirtiest group of campaigners on the GOP side of the race.
This is disconcerting because staffers on a Presidential campaign tend to become staffers in a Presidential administration. How they act when they have the pseudo-power of campaign is indicative of how they will act when they have their hands on real power. A staff that will leak dishonest opposition research to the media to smear a rival candidate will have no qualms about leaking classified information to smear a rival bureaucrat or legislator.
While I don’t want to denigrate the entire staff, Romney's camp is comprised of a number of people that can best be described as "men of low character." If he were to be elected his administration would be a failure of Nixonian proportions. (Prediction: His campaign staff will drag him down long before he reaches that stage.)
Romney may be a stalwart Republican but he is only a fair-weather conservative. That is why the endorsement of Mitt Romney by a publication like National Review is simply inexplicable. For them to skip over worthier candidates is a sign that they are out of touch with American conservatism. Perhaps the editors should take a trip across the George Washington Bridge and interact with some voters who don’t live in Manhattan. Had they made the trip sooner they might have avoided making such an unforced error in judgment.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4075
1
Hugh Hewitt and National Review have indeed jumped the shark! Great article - please keep writing more of this!!!
posted on 12.12.2007 7:28 AM2
Already the subject of a congressional report, the federal Olympics tab was scrutinized in a recent edition of Sports Illustrated, which claimed that the cost to U.S. taxpayers actually is closer to $1.5 billion. In tallying the total cost, the article included $1.1 billion in highway and transportation funds used to speed construction of a light-rail system and reconstruct a major Salt Lake City freeway prior to the Olympics.
Accounting quibble here, if $1.1B was spent on a light-rail system and a major freeway you should not count all of it as part of the cost of the games unless they immediately ripped up the rail and freeway once the games were over. If these things have a useful life of, say, 15-20 years, then you should only assign a small portion of their costs to the games.
More importantly, I don't get the criticism here. Romney, from what I understand, was managing the project and the Fed. gov't spent money on it. Was Romney in Congress or the Whitehouse? No, so why is he being blamed that Federal dollars was spent on an Olympics? Using proper accounting it looks like the Fed. cost was more like $400m, not $1.5B but either way what does this have to do with fiscal conservatism? Even at $1.5B Olympics are not held every other day and they are only occassionally held in the US. Why shouldn't money be spent on such a major event?
Also Joe cites much of the increase in money going towards security. Considering this was a major event held after 9/11 what's the point here? Fiscal conservative simply means spending money prudently, not cutting your nose off to spite your face. Considering the massive cost of a successful terrorist attack that was exhibited on 9/11 it would have been foolish not to have heavily invested in security afterwards at major events. If a major attack was pulled off at the games the total cost could have easily exceeded $300m. Remember in 2002 we were still worrying about sleeper cells, where the anthrax attacks were coming from and so on. True we still worry about that today but we at least have had more time to guage the extent of the threat today while then we were still seeking information.
The NR endorsement also makes the peculiar claim that Romney can offer an "outsider’s critique of Washington." Romney's father was a Governor of Michigan and Presidential candidate in 1968. His mother was a U.S. Senate candidate in 1970. That isn't exactly the pedigree of an "outsider."
US Senate Candidate in 1970? Yea he isn't an outsider in the sense that they found him on the street under a bridge but you have to admit this isn't exactly like the Kennedy or Bush family. I don't see being within one generation and nearly 40 years of being almost in Fed office as granting one an 'insider' status in Washington.
The most laughable line of the entire editorial, however, is that Romney has run a "tightly organized, disciplined campaign." Anyone who has dealt with the Romney campaign knows the truth. Romney has surrounded himself with dirt-peddling, rumor-whispering, truth-twisting, Machiavelli-wannabes. They are the absolute dirtiest group of campaigners on the GOP side of the race.
Indeed, then again that's pretty standard for the GOP and Conservatives these days. Face it, the movement's been in intellectual bankruptcy for over a decade now.
Anyway, my favorite fiasco was the 'anti-Mormon push-polls' that Romney got all upset over that appear to have been set up by his own campaign to give him a victim card to play off of. Machiavelli-wannabe indeed!
posted on 12.12.2007 7:45 AM3
Who wants to support any of the Republican candidates that decided to pander on Univision in Spanish. First, English is a requirement to be a citizen so there is no need to speak Spanish to reach voters. Second, if Hispanics are so willing to integrate, they don't want to be pandered to in this way. And if they do want to be pandered to in this way, then we should definitely reconsider letting them immigrate. Finally, why is a Mexican citizen, who wants to see the US become like a Latin American country, allowed to be one of the moderators.
Also, Huckabee supports amnesty. Under his plan, if you leave the country in the 120 days, you will be able to get back in the country it would:
But that pathway to get back here legally doesn’t take years. It would take days, maybe weeks, and then people could come back in the workforce. Interview on FOX News
That sounds like amnesty to me. They don't even pay a fine.
posted on 12.12.2007 7:59 AM4
Excellent post Joe. I have to admit I've been struggling to understand why so many conservatives have been fascinated by Romney and his brand of...moderatism? I also don't understand how Huckabee, a candidate with authentic conservative credentials, keeps getting attacked like he's the former pro-choice Massachusetts governor. Unbelievable. I feel like many conservative voices (Hugh Hewitt, Drudge, NR, etc.) have let their constituents down this election cycle. Thanks for the article.
posted on 12.12.2007 9:01 AM5
Yes, I would consider Romney a 'moderate conservative' and now-a-days what's wrong with an "insider" if you want to call him that? I'd rather have someone who understands politics and the political *system* as opposed to some novice who happens to be a fresh face with "new ideas".
Time will tell if Huckabee can make it down the long road, but McCain, Thompson, etc...they are out of it.
posted on 12.12.2007 9:07 AM6
Are you seriously going to slight Romney on his foreign policy experience and fiscal conservatism? You are working for the Huckabee campaign after all. Not exactly areas of strength for him. Then again, governing Massachusetts or Arkansas would qualify as foreign policy experience. I haven't decided who to vote for. But this is laughable.
posted on 12.12.2007 9:35 AM7
c367t
posted on 12.12.2007 9:36 AM8
c367t
posted on 12.12.2007 9:37 AM9
And in case it is not clear, I would prefer that not one penny from the public coffers be used for The Olympics.
Of course what you are saying here is that you never want the US to host an Olympic Games and you really don't care if we field competitive athletes in most Olympic sports, because you just can't realistically expect to do either without significant public dollars. That's a perfectly respectable position, but it's one I doubt Huck or any other major party candidate would publicly advocate.
I don't really know why NR chose to endorse any candidate at this point in time other than maybe they thought they needed to before the primaries started. None of the candidates on either side offer a really compelling vision of where they want to lead the country and, in reality, none of them are all that conservative. They all support some conservative positions, but none seems to have a really conservative vision. Huckabee's support of the "Fair Tax", for example, is somewhat compelling, but ultimately meaningless, because even if his support for it is serious (something I question), it's likelihood of passage is pretty low and even if it did, the probability of the repeal of the 16th amendment is non-existent. He may as well support a moon made of green cheese.
posted on 12.12.2007 10:08 AM10
I think the plan is for a Guilliani/Huckabee ticket in 2008. That's my prediction.
posted on 12.12.2007 10:15 AM11
Sour grapes, Joe?
posted on 12.12.2007 10:30 AM12
Gilchrist didn't endorse Huckabee because Huckabee is pro-amnesty I promise you that.
I love your blog. This is my first time checking it out. Really good stuff from what I've read so far.
posted on 12.12.2007 10:47 AM13
An outstanding post, Joe. Thank you.
posted on 12.12.2007 11:25 AM14
No, NR hasn't jumped the shark. Endorsing Ron Paul though, would have been jumping the shark!
posted on 12.12.2007 12:16 PM15
Joe,
posted on 12.12.2007 1:45 PMI like how you mention every candidate except you know who. If you are a Christian at least do unto others.
16
I'm getting fed up with ignorant backwoods yokels trying to pretend they're in any way superior to people in big cities; or that the ideas of people in big cities are automatically, ipso facto, tainted and less than "true." Big cities provide better education, more real-world experience, more exposure to a wider variety of people, beliefs and cultures, and more opportunities -- both in meaningful work and in liesure-time pursuits -- than the rural backwaters where the "Christian" "right" get their support. That is, after all, why so many people have always deserted the countryside for the big cities, throughout history: we all know where the action is.
If you're willing to use such catch-phrases as "Manhattan Conservatives" and "NYC/DC-centric urban cosmopolitism" to trash even your fellow conservatives, and pretend they're not "pure" or "true" enough for you, then you have truly abandoned the real world. Did it ever occur to you that those conservatives may have learned something you country folks missed while singing along to Arab-bashing morons and drinking crappy beer out of a can?
Mention people in Georgia and they are as likely to think of the country in Asia as they are the Peach State. (Indeed, on The Corner last week, several people mocked the Southern state.)
First, at least we city-slickers are more likely to know where both Georgias are on a map. Second, Southern states have done a lot of things to deserve mockery from their more educated Northern countrymen -- "cdesign proponentsists," anyone? And third, given all the ignorant mockery and empty self-importance we've heard from places like Texas, do you really think you can complain when you get what you dish out?
In case you pure American country-boys have forgotten, New York took a HUGE hit for the country back in 2001; and as much as I loathe Giuliani, it remains a fact that he actually DEALT with it, while Bush and his Southern Christian chums were pretending no one could have foreseen any of it, then going off and invading the wrong country in "response" ('cause God told him to, remember?) -- with the full-throated support of Southerners who never questioned all that dodgy intel until it was too late.
Oh, and it wasn't a Northerner who praised that act of mass-murder as God's punishment of a "sinful" nation: it was two Southern "Christians" using yet another disaster to justify their mindless hatred of everyone not like themselves.
But to pass over true conservatives for a moderate is a slap in the face to the magazine's dedicated readers.
And you say this based on...what? Did you poll a representative sample of their readers? What percentage of them said thay felt "slapped in the face?"
posted on 12.12.2007 2:51 PM17
Yet Romney fronts one of the biggest pork projects in history and he's praised for his fiscal prowess. (And in case it is not clear, I would prefer that not one penny from the public coffers be used for The Olympics.)
I'm still wondering what exactly Joe's objection is? That the Fed. gov't spent money on security for an event that was a prime target for terrorism (and had been attacked by a domestic terrorist in the past) or is it that Romney is responsible for the Fed. gov't funding a highway and light rail system even though Romney held no Federal office ? If it isn't those two things Joe's Olympics rant simply makes no sense.
If Joe wants to mount an attack on Rommey's budget policies wouldn't the best place to research be his stint as governor?
posted on 12.12.2007 2:53 PM18
Raging Bee,
Whoa, bitter much? There may not be a more provincial and isolated people then those who reside on the little island of Manhattan. The condescention that drips from your post is shared by many coastal elites who have a cartoonish view of the rest of America.
posted on 12.12.2007 3:19 PMOne of America's greatest strengths is the diversity of its regions. I'm thankful to live in a country that gives us good Midwestern common sense, Southern hospitality and politeness, Western live and let live tolerance and the creative dynamism of Northern California/Pacific Northwest. Plus if it wasn't for all those rural and Southern kids, they be drafting the coastal elites kids to serve in the infantry.
19
Joe, why didn't you post the rest of the article that you cited? For those interested, here it is:
Utah politicians and Salt Lake officials counter that both projects were already under way, making any expenditures a fait accompli. "From the government's perspective, those are projects that would have been approved anyway, based on the current transportation requirements out here," says Gillespie.
Despite the enormous cost of putting on the Games, organizers expect to break even. They also plan to leave Utah a $40 million winter-sports fund. If the organizers actually manage to pay what they owe, they'll have Romney -- a frequent critic of Olympic bloat -- to thank. Faced with a $400 million shortfall upon taking over in 1999, Romney slashed about $200 million from the previous SLOC operating budget. Among the cuts: an international youth camp that cost more than $500,000.
Following the Winter Olympics, Romney plans to deliver a series of cost-cutting recommendations to IOC President Jacques Rogge, who recently appointed a commission that will look at ways to alleviate the spiraling size and expense of the Games.
The rest of the article paints quite a different picture of Romney, doesn't it? In fact, it makes me question your integrity. Far from the wasteful, spendthrift you try to paint him as, he comes across as someone who came in late in the process and saved the games by making hard cuts in the budget, not by throwing more money at the problem.
posted on 12.12.2007 3:36 PM20
"Anyone who has dealt with the Romney campaign knows the truth. Romney has surrounded himself with dirt-peddling, rumor-whispering, truth-twisting, Machiavelli-wannabes. They are the absolute dirtiest group of campaigners on the GOP side of the race."
Wow. What a charge Joe. Very uncharacteristic. I would be interested in seeing your evidence. It's hard to "prove" any of what you've written here, but at least provide some examples of how you have come to this broad and nasty conclusion about an entire group of people.
posted on 12.12.2007 3:36 PM21
Chet,
You were awesome when you played for the Tigers. Sweet 'fro and everything.
posted on 12.12.2007 4:06 PM22
I was just talking to U.L. Washington about bringing the sweet puffy back. Thanks for remembering!
posted on 12.12.2007 4:10 PM23
There may not be a more provincial and isolated people then those who reside on the little island of Manhattan.
Most of the residents of that island that I've met have travelled widely to a variety of other countries; and I've seen even larger numbers of people whose language, looks, mannerisms and dress show that they came there from other places. Furthermore, most of the people killed by 9/11 worked for companies with international scope, and some of the firefighters who died there were Muslim immigrants. Those buildings weren't called the "World Trade Center" for nothing. To hear those people called "provincial and isolated" by someone who has obviously never been there himself, is just plain laugh-out-loud ridiculous.
...many coastal elites who have a cartoonish view of the rest of America.
Not nearly as "cartoonish" as the view that backwoods bigots have of everyone more educated than themselves. (Hint: "raghead" and "sand-nigger" are words not commonly used by "coastal elites.")
One of America's greatest strengths is the diversity of its regions.
Diversity which is most overtly welcomed and accepted in big cities, and mindlessly, sometimes violently, rejected in small towns. Oh well, at least I've got you to admit that a large portion of America's strength comes from cities.
Plus if it wasn't for all those rural and Southern kids, they be drafting the coastal elites kids to serve in the infantry.
And if it weren't for all those rural and Southern politicians, we wouldn't currently have to think of drafting anyone. As I said before, New York bore the brunt of the last terrorist attack (in league with other big cities like London, Madrid, Tel Aviv, Paris, etc.), but New Yorkers weren't the ones who came up with the idea that God wanted us to invade the wrong country in response. That brilliant idea came from a Texas twit who never would have made it in a big city, who hides from reality in a mansion he calls a "ranch."
posted on 12.12.2007 4:56 PM24
Raging Bee,
I'm sorry, I got the impression you were a reasonable person who was capable of engaging in good faith debate. It turns out your are hopelessly bigoted. Seriously the amount of hyperbolic invective you just spewed was only a display of your own ignorance.
It always foolish to assume things about someone you haven't met. I've travelled all over this country including New York City. I've lived in places as diverse as Seoul, Seattle, Chicago and Denver. I grew up in Colorado, and was often entertained when I encountered people from the east coast who had some of the most silly, uninformed ideas about the West.
You've made an impressive strawman out of people who suppossedly live in the "backwoods" and then knocked it down with great vigor. Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that your brush may have been a little broad?
The people who made the difference in electing George W. Bush weren't the rural southern voters. Those people can be caunted on to be reliably red no matter who is running. No the people who put the president over the top were the suburban voters in states like Ohio.
By the way, I've heard this charge the Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq, but I've never seen the source for that charge. Care to share it, or is it one of those mantras that get repeated as a shorthand way for a person to identify that he hates the president AND christians too, man.
posted on 12.12.2007 6:00 PM25
Seems to me Joe may be the one who jumped the shark (btw, had to google the phrase to see what the heck it meant--knew it wasn't a term of endearment). I've noticed that Joe is a particularly opinionated guy, which he himself admits is not always a positive trait, but when Huckabee and the race for president are discussed he becomes positively rabid. He starts throwing around insults like indiscriminate hand grenades. He's a solid guy and I'm sure we agree a whole lot more than we don't, but it's hard to get past the bluster sometimes, especially when the next president of The United States is at issue.
I think a much, much, much better critique of Romney can be found at Opinion Journal today. This is the Romney of Process, and it gives me much more pause than anything Joe had to say. I also enjoyed the NY Times piece by Zev Chafets about Huckabee. I thought it a fair portrait of the man, and just more evidence for why I certainly won't vote for him.
I'm not sure who the true conservatives are that Joe references, but I'm not at all convinced Huckabee is one of them.
posted on 12.12.2007 6:40 PM26
Most of the residents of that island that I've met have travelled widely to a variety of other countries;
But have they ever traveled to places like Waco, TX; Green Bay, WI; or San Luis Obisbo, CA. A person can be well traveled, but still be isolated and provincial. When a wealthy, East Coast elite travels to Paris, France or London, England to visit other wealthy elites, does he really gain any perspective on how the "other half" lives or is he merely like a leftist posting at Kos; unlikely to be challenged in his world view?
Not nearly as "cartoonish" as the view that backwoods bigots have of everyone more educated than themselves. (Hint: "raghead" and "sand-nigger" are words not commonly used by "coastal elites.")
I lived in the heart of Blue State America, Killeen, TX, for nearly 5 years (courtesy of my Uncle Sam) and I can't recall anybody using those terms, even though many of the folks I worked and socialized with spent considerable time in the Middle East.
Diversity which is most overtly welcomed and accepted in big cities, and mindlessly, sometimes violently, rejected in small towns.
You really need to get out more. Maybe among the wealthy elites you socialize with this is true (but they do have their own bigotries, don't they? Religious believers for example.). And let's not get into violence, I would feel safe walking alone, at night in just about any small town in Middle America before I would do the same in Washington DC or Los Angeles, CA.
posted on 12.12.2007 6:55 PM27
They are desperately fighting to make sure the movement doesn't jump off the ledge and nominate Huckabee. Who thinks Huck has a shot in the general election? Huckabee is a nice enough man but let's be honest. He has mismanaged his campaign to a point that he cannot compete in a national primary. That is to say nothing of his shameless populist approach to politics. "Vote for me I'm Christian and that's all you need to know." As a Christian I'm ashamed of the way he is handling himself and frankly I find it insulting.
posted on 12.12.2007 6:56 PM28
Is global climate change is a “serious threat and caused by human activity?”
Huckabee, Romney, McCain and Giuliani all say yes. Of course, if these candidates believe that, then action must be taken. Action to limit your freedoms and increase government power.
There are some stalwart conservative Republicans for you.
The big debate news today is that Thompson diplomatically told the moderator to stick it.
posted on 12.12.2007 7:19 PM29
BTW:
It is more apparent every day the the global warming paradigm is a false pagan religion in competition with Judeo-Christian thought. It is disturbing that a seminary trained Southern Baptist preacher would endorse it. Huckabee above all should understand the implications.
posted on 12.12.2007 8:01 PM30
Jeff,
Did Thompson tell the moderator to "stick it" in reference to so called Global Warming? I notice he wasn't in your list. Couldn't agree more with your thoughts about GW.
posted on 12.12.2007 8:54 PM31
It turns out your are hopelessly bigoted.
May I remind you that I'm not the one who started a blog post by trashing "Manhattan Conservatives" and "NYC/DC-centric urban cosmopolitism?" Are you sure you're accusing the right guy?
I've travelled all over this country including New York City.
Then what's your excuse for making statements that someone who's been there would instantly know are false?
When a wealthy, East Coast elite travels to Paris, France or London, England to visit other wealthy elites, does he really gain any perspective on how the "other half" lives...
Why don't you ask someone from the elites? And while you're at it, why don't you ask yourself whether it's really only "wealthy, East Coast elite" types who enjoy the benefits of city life? I don't see huge numbers of lower-income urban residents flocking out to the countryside, in any country.
...or is he merely like a leftist posting at Kos; unlikely to be challenged in his world view?
Adctually, the few times I've been to Kos, the posts there have shown a LOT more diversity of opinion -- not to mention actual knowledge -- than the red-state dittosphere has ever tolerated.
Maybe among the wealthy elites you socialize with this is true...
Not wealthy elites; just more educated elites. (If you want to complain about "wealthy elites," take it to the televangelists in their posh mansions, and ask them what they did to earn all that money.)
...(but they do have their own bigotries, don't they? Religious believers for example.).
Actually, most of them ARE religious believers, and they place a great deal of importance on freedom of speech and religion -- unlike "al Qaeda Pat's" (mostly rural) supporters, who pretend to be deeply religious, then ignore their own Savior's teachings and try to trample everyone else's religious rights. If you actually met the people you pretend to know, you'd understand this.
posted on 12.12.2007 9:24 PM32
Why don't you ask someone from the elites? And while you're at it, why don't you ask yourself whether it's really only "wealthy, East Coast elite" types who enjoy the benefits of city life?
Well, it is probably "wealthy, East Coast elites" that can afford to "travel(ed) widely to a variety of other countries". Those were the folks you cited as being people you've met who reside in Manhattan.
Not wealthy elites; just more educated elites.
So, the people you associate with are poor to middle class, educated elites who also happen to be frequent world travelers? Now, I am just a poor computer engineer with an MBA, so I wouldn't describe myself as educated, but I do know how much international travel costs (doing a fair amount of it myself); so what I want to know is how these poor to middle class, but educated, elites you associate with afford all this world travel? I ask because my poor, uneducated wife (a mere BS in Nursing) might like to get out of the double wide we home school our children in and travel the world, but we just can't figure out how to afford it on my paltry salary as an engineer and her's as a nurse.
posted on 12.12.2007 10:07 PM33
Mike D.
Yes. The Thompson reference was in regards to global warming. The moderator asked for a show of hands of those who believe that global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity.
I'm paraphrasing, but Thompson said that he would not be raising his hand. The moderator asked if that meant that Thompson did not endorse the view. Thompson asked if he could have a minute to answer the question. The moderator said "no." Thompson tersely responded, "Then I am not going to answer the question."
Hopefully the video will be on the web soon so you can see it in context.
posted on 12.12.2007 10:23 PM34
So, the people you associate with are poor to middle class, educated elites who also happen to be frequent world travelers?
Actually, yes, some of them are. Not "frequent" world travellers to be sure, but educated, open-minded, and a good deal more knowledgeable and better travelled than the fools who blindly diss them as "wealthy elites."
(As for how they afford it, it's called working hard and saving money, and looking for the occasional bargain package. I've been to Paris, Britain, Austria, Italy and Germany, and there's PLENTY of Americans there; and they're not all rich snobs in Manhattan penthouses. Trust me, there aren't enough tourists of that sort to justify so many Europeans learning English.)
BTW, here's a hilarious quote from the Huckster trying to pretend God wants him to be President:
"There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people," Huckabee said.
I'm still waiting for that "power" to make me take him seriously...
posted on 12.12.2007 10:48 PM35
Jeff,
That's why I like Thompson. He really seems to be the least pandering of the bunch. Rudy certainly seems like a tell-it-like-it-is-kind-of-guy, but in a way that's more style than substance. I'm hoping Thompson can somehow make it to February 5, because I think he's the most principally conservative one in the race.
posted on 12.13.2007 12:20 AM36
I like Senator Thompson, he has my support. He's honest, smart, and decent. His policies are great.
Go, Fred, go!!
Ucfengr,
The rest of the article paints quite a different picture of Romney, doesn't it? In fact, it makes me question your [Joe Carter's] integrity.
I always give Joe the benefit of the doubt. I don't see Joe lying to make a point.
I do, however, see Joe being sloppy in selection of quotes and narrow-minded in his opinion, but those are probably sins we are all capable of committing. Joe has never held himself out to be perfect, so I'm not about to hold him to standards of perfection.
posted on 12.13.2007 5:40 AM37
Actually, yes, some of them are. Not "frequent" world travellers to be sure,
So, these elite, well traveled acquaintances of your's aren't really all that well traveled or elite. I suspect if we pursued this a bit farther we'd really find that your friends got their elite education at a local community college and that their world travel consists of reading Fodor's travel books.
but educated, open-minded, and a good deal more knowledgeable and better travelled than the fools who blindly diss them as "wealthy elites."
In other words, they agree with you.
I always give Joe the benefit of the doubt. I don't see Joe lying to make a point.
I generally do too, Matthew, but it's hard to in this case. It was a short article that painted a very good picture of Romney, but it looks like he selectively quoted from the article to paint a different picture than the article intended. It's kind of like what he accuses the Romney camp of doing.
posted on 12.13.2007 6:42 AM38
Jeff blogworthy
The big debate news today is that Thompson diplomatically told the moderator to stick it.
That was a great moment. It's worth it for Republican candidates to appear at hopelessly slanted debate venues if they are able to throw it back in their faces. I've been waiting for this to happen and I hope it happens more often.
posted on 12.13.2007 9:33 AM39
So Mr. Blogworthy, when the minister at your church prays with someone to recieve Christ does he ask the person to pray something like:
"I repent of my sins, accept Christ as my Lord & Savior, renounce Satan and thinking about climate change"
posted on 12.13.2007 10:22 AM40
In other words, they agree with you.
This is why people like you remain ignorant: you refuse to accept any idea that conflicts with those you already have; therefore you learn nothing new and remain uneducable by choice; and then prove yourself just as ignorant of "urban elites" as you are of atheists and even your own fellow Christians.
posted on 12.13.2007 11:13 AM41
It's worth it for Republican candidates to appear at hopelessly slanted debate venues if they are able to throw it back in their faces.
Why is it "hopelessly slanted" for a candidate to be asked a yes-or-no question about an issue of concern to many Americans? Simplistic, maybe, but "slanted?" I don't think so -- for better or worse, all of the candidates were bound by the same debating rules, so where's the "slant?"
posted on 12.13.2007 11:18 AM42
Mr. Raging Beee,
I am going to have to agree with ucfengr (I can't believe I'm typing these words....) There is no reason to bash people for where they live.
posted on 12.13.2007 11:24 AM43
JohnW,
What in the world is your point?
posted on 12.13.2007 11:25 AM44
Mr. Blogworthy,
The point is back in Post No. 29 you say, "the global warming paradigm is a false pagan religion in competition with Judeo-Christian thought".
I take it you view concern for the environment and climate change is a kind of false worship of the earth. I disagree with this and think stewardship of God's earth is something for a christian to be concerned with.
posted on 12.13.2007 11:36 AM45
This is why people like you remain ignorant: you refuse to accept any idea that conflicts with those you already have; therefore you learn nothing new and remain uneducable by choice
Accepting for the moment that this is true; it's not, but just for the sake of argument, let's say it is. How does this make me any different from you? What ideas have you accepted recently that conflicted with those you already held?
posted on 12.13.2007 12:16 PM46
ucfengr,
Raging Bee's tempre tantrum reminds me of that famous line spoken by a woman from New Yorks Upper East side:
“I don’t know how Nixon could have been elected; nobody I know voted for him."
Does Raging Bee really think the denizens of Park Avenue, Soho or Tribeca are ever exposed to anything other than self-congratulatory liberalism? In judging people based on where they reside, how is he any different from the people in his imagination that call people ragheads? The mind boggles.
posted on 12.13.2007 12:37 PM47
JohnW,
"Stewardship" is a word which needs to be carefully defined and can have a distinctly different meaning to different people. Stewardship to me means responsible ownership, care or management. The global warming paradigm goes way beyond that to portraying mankind as an infectious parasite on, and a slave to, the earth rather than a manager of its resources.
Just off the top of my head, the global warming paradigm (including radical environmentalism) consists of the following characteristics, among others:
Substitutes the final coming judgment of God on the earth for a sham Armageddon of man's own creation.
Substitutes real sin and its consequences for a Pharisaical hierarchy of meaningless rules and regulations. "Fake sin" as it were. Abortion? great! Homosexuality? Super! Just don't drive an SUV or use more than one square of toilet paper!
Makes mankind a slave to the earth where animals are reverenced above humans. Land must not be used for housing because cutting a tree or displacing an animal is the new "sin."
Makes mankind's conduct subject to the dictates of nature. Weather getting too warm? We must appease the earth god quickly, before it is too late! Shudder Shudder.
Substitutes real patriarch's of the faith for false prophets of doom. Al Gore is our Noah, haven't you heard?
Revives the age-old Catholic practice of "indulgences." Sin too much? No problem, we have "carbon credits" for you. How advantageous for the privileged rich and powerful few. Too poor to afford carbon credits? No matter - bonus points for the abortion of a child (appeasement by child sacrifice) or the decision not to sire altogether. God says "be fruitful and multiply." Gaia worshipers say "Mankind is evil. We must be eliminated so that 'nature' can flourish."
Makes nature the creator and sustainer of itself rather than God's creation, sustained by Him.
Creates a false gospel where man's salvation lies not in Christ, repentance of sin and turning towards God but adopting a slavish devotion to the preservation of natural order.
Maintains that a Utopian home of man's own making can be achieved here and now, rather than recognizing that man is inherently sinful and will not reach his full potential till he finds his home in heaven.
Still don't see it? I could go on but I won't bother. Believe as you will. A good tree does not produce bad fruit.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man -- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
posted on 12.13.2007 12:46 PM48
When the yes-or-no question is qualified by the addition of "and caused by human activity", it becomes slanted toward the false belief that humans are powerful enough to affect the climate change.
posted on 12.13.2007 12:47 PM49
Mr. Blogworthy,
Re Post 47, thoughtful response.
To get a better sense of where you are coming from on this issue, I'd like to ask you a question that might not seem related. Do you think the Left Behind series of books accurately presents the correct Christian world view?
posted on 12.13.2007 1:00 PM50
The fervent belief in human caused global warming among a certain segment of the world's population is proof that when people reject religious belief, there is a vacuum in their soul that has to be filled with something. For post-Christian Europe and blue-state American that vacuum has been filled with global warming. As Jeff pointed out, the adherents in the church of global warming have their own doctrines, creeds and theology. And like any fundamentalists, resist people questioning their faith with vigor. Woe to those convicted of heresy by the global warming.
posted on 12.13.2007 1:11 PM51
To get a better sense of where you are coming from on this issue, I'd like to ask you a question that might not seem related. Do you think the Left Behind series of books accurately presents the correct Christian world view?
Let's assume that Jeff doesn't; how would that effect your view on his response? What about if he does? Why don't you just respond to his post as it sits, rather than try to look for unrelated reasons to arbitrarily dismiss it? His opinion about the Left Behind series is no more relevant to the global climate change issue than your opinion on John Wayne as an actor.
posted on 12.13.2007 1:27 PM52
Uncenger,
Acceptance of the Left Behind theology fundamentally effects a Christian's outlook on the future and importance stewardship of the environment. Why polish the silver on a sinking ship? If environmental degradation is a sign of the rapture coming soon why should a christian worry about it? To the contrary, a christian would be happy about it as God will remove us from the earth, the evildoers will remain and suffer, and finally we will all enjoy a perfect earth for a thousand years.
And if you believe the Left Behind books, it's more important to get people to believe or atleast say the right things about Christ than it is to work for peace and justice. You see, if you are saved than you will escape the tribulation, so there is not much need to even care about what is happening in the world.
posted on 12.13.2007 2:06 PM53
Re: Jeff Blogworthy's #49 - Assuming that all of those points are correct (and I think some of them arguable), whose opinion do they accurately represent? Isn't it possible - nay, plausible - that Christians could agree that global warming is a real occurrence (whether it is anthropocentric or not) without accepting all of the baggage in your points? Why not, as JohnW implied, say, "Hey, we've done a nice job of ruining the planet so far, but why don't we make an effort not to ruin it so much in the future?" I see a lot of guilt by association ("Oh no, don't want to be one of those heathen liberals!") and very little actual argument here. (P.S. I'm not a liberal; I just know a display of empty rhetoric when I see one.)
posted on 12.13.2007 2:23 PM54
Acceptance of the Left Behind theology fundamentally effects a Christian's outlook on the future and importance stewardship of the environment. Why polish the silver on a sinking ship?
Accepting for the moment that this is true (I don't), what in Jeff's response to you indicates that he believes that environmental stewardship is irrelevant because of the impending "rapture"? He says "Stewardship to me means responsible ownership, care or management.", that doesn't sound like "screw the environment, the rapture is coming", does it?
posted on 12.13.2007 2:24 PM55
"Hey, we've done a nice job of ruining the planet so far, but why don't we make an effort not to ruin it so much in the future?"
But have we? I am looking out a window in a suburb of a major metropolitan area in the US and I see trees, clean water and air (well I don't really see the air, but I smell it), deer frolicking, birds chirping, etc. I have done the same in many other cities in the US and seen much the same thing. I am not seeing a ruined environment; actually I am seeing a very nice environment. In fact, I would argue that our present environment is much more pleasant than one you would have experience a century or so ago with its billowing smoke stacks and horses as the primary mode of local transportation.
posted on 12.13.2007 2:36 PM56
ucfengr,
You bring up an excellent point. Only a relatively wealthy society can afford to care about the state of its environment. The surest measuer of the way a society treats its natural environment is to look at its per capita income. Western Europe, Australia, the US and Canada all have place a priority on clean water, clean air, preserving habitat etc. People in Bangladesh, not so much, they are worried about where their next meal is coming from.
posted on 12.13.2007 3:53 PMI think someones eschatology shouldn't prevent them from being a good steward of the planet. I think of the parable of the talents, and believe that God has given us this planet to take care of and be a good steward of.
57
[Quote - all emphases mine]
Some neuro-scientists see evidence that man is genetically hard-wired to be disposed to religious conviction. If this is so, it might explain why among even the French the most secular culture on Earth only 25 percent claim to be atheists and a full 60 percent believe in a spiritual component to life. It might also explain why the environmental movement tends to veer toward a religious, rather than a scientific, sensibility.
This oft-observed aspect to environmentalism in general, and global warmingism in particular, has been shrewdly analyzed in a new book, "The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction," by former University College London Professor David Orrell. Among other things, Dr. Orrell focuses on the similarity between global-warming advocates' powerful predictive urge and the inherent prophetic nature of the religious instinct.
While I suspect that most global-warming alarmists would be offended if they were called pagan neo-animists, in fact, some leading religious scholars have written cogently on the point. For example, Graham Harvey, professor of religious studies at King Alfred's College, England, has written two approving books on the topic: "Contemporary Paganism: Listening People, Speaking Earth," (New York University Press) and "Animism: Respecting the Living World" (Columbia University Press).
As Mr. Graham writes: "This new use of the term animism applies to the religious worldviews and lifeways of communities and cultures for which it is important to inculcate and enhance appropriate ways to live respectfully within the wider community of [non-human animate and inanimate] persons."
Moreover, there has been a conscious awareness that religious fervor would be needed to energize the environmental movement. As Joseph Brean points out in his recent National Post review of Dr. Orrell's book:
"Forty years ago, shortly after Rachel Carson launched modern environmentalism .. a Princeton history professor named Lynn White wrote a seminal essay called the Historical Roots of our Ecological Crises: 'By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.' It was a prescient claim. In a 2003 speech .. Michael Crichton .. closed the circle, calling modern environmentalism 'the religion of choice for urban atheists .. a perfect 21st century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths."
Now, there is nothing wrong, and a lot right, with the human instinct to try to understand man within a larger transcendental context. The arrogant and monstrously dilated individual human ego is the direct cause of much of mankind's suffering throughout our benighted existence.
And while I have my own religious thoughts, I will not disdain any man's search for the transcendent. But a religion should be understood by both its adherents and others for what it is a religion. The trouble with global-warming believers is that probably most of them delude themselves into thinking they are practicing science not religion.
Excerpt - "Al Gore's Remission of Sin; Global Warming as Neo-Animism," The Washington Times, 7 Mar. 2007
posted on 12.13.2007 4:19 PM58
JohnW,
I will point out that, consciously or unconsciously, you are using Lynn White's argument in p. 6 above. You make the mistake of attempting to marry conflicting philosophies, just as those who fail to see that Darwinism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. You apparently think it is only a peculiar Christian "doctrinal problem." You are wrong. The problem lies in trying to homogenize Christianity and paganism.
posted on 12.13.2007 4:39 PM59
How does this make me any different from you? What ideas have you accepted recently that conflicted with those you already held?
Well, the fact that I'm no longer a Catholic, a Communist, an atheist, a one-world-government advocate, a socialist, a born-again Christian, a city-basher, a modernist, or a pacifist, kinda indicates that, yes, I've been a bit more open to new ideas (and old ones) than you've shown yourself to be here.
The fervent belief in human caused global warming among a certain segment of the world's population is proof that when people reject religious belief, there is a vacuum in their soul that has to be filled with something.
Wow, that's brilliant! Throw in something about hedgehogs, crop-circles, and the price of tea in Baghdad, and you'll be a shoe-in for the Non-Sequitur of the Year Award!
(In case you're at all open to discussion on this -- after making environmental policy a religious question -- you may want to consider that many of those who believe global warming is a problem are not atheists. So once again, your transparent (and rather hysterical) attempt to scapegoat those evil atheists falls rather flat.)
posted on 12.13.2007 4:53 PM60
Raging Bee gets an F in reading comprehension.
posted on 12.13.2007 5:04 PM61
The Corner at NRO has linked here now:
Hicks vs. City Slickers [Ramesh Ponnuru]
"If conservatives decide to make the primary campaign turn on that question, they will be doing themselves enormous and pointless damage. They will also make it a drearier and dumber campaign than it already is."
Ramesh links to both this post and to Lisa Schiffren's culturally snobbish screed against Huck.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGNiOGU5MjQwMmU3ZDY4MDlmYWY2YjAyYTQzM2JiODc=
After all the over the top pushing Romney and Guiliani all year and the extreme biased attacks and mocking of Huck all year, its a little late for the NRO crowd after marginalizing us to cry foul against us when we 'talk back' and don't submit like good evangelicals on the GOP plantation.
posted on 12.13.2007 5:12 PM62
Romney gets the endorsement of the NRO and Huckabee gets the endorsement of the NEA, that about sums it up.
(and by the way, the NEA also endorsed Hillary too. It's the first time they endorsed a Republican and a Democrat in the primary.)
posted on 12.13.2007 5:15 PM63
...a Princeton history professor named Lynn White wrote a seminal essay called the Historical Roots of our Ecological Crises: 'By destroying pagan animism, Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects. Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.'
First, Christianity didn't "destroy Pagan animism;" human material needs overruled it. Second, the "roots of our trouble" are not religious; they're the result of using technology to extract resources to meet our material needs, without regard to long-term consequences. And third, the remedy prescribed by today's environmentalists has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the human need to keep our physical environment liveable.
In a 2003 speech .. Michael Crichton .. closed the circle, calling modern environmentalism 'the religion of choice for urban atheists .. a perfect 21st century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths."
First, Crichton is an IDist, which alone proves he's a bit unclear on the difference between religion and science. Also, he can't seem to decide whether modern environmentalism is "atheistic" or a "re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs." This double confusion could explain why he's a science-fiction writer -- and a lame one at that -- and not an actual scientist.
The arrogant and monstrously dilated individual human ego is the direct cause of much of mankind's suffering throughout our benighted existence.
...says the guy whose ego makes him write self-important non-sequiturs and falsehoods about an issue of which he knows nothing. Obviously, he means only the egos of those who have the temerity to disgaree with him.
So here you've taken a clearly practical question of (conflicting) material needs and turned it into a religious dispute, in order to use religious bigotry to shout down adult debate on practical matters. This is so irrational, and so contrary to the observable reality of environmental issues, that nothing you say can ever be considered trustworthy again.
posted on 12.13.2007 5:19 PM64
You apparently think it is only a peculiar Christian "doctrinal problem." You are wrong.
Actually, there are plenty of Christians who really don't have the same "doctrinal problems;" so you really can't pretend that statement is representative of Christian believers as a whole.
posted on 12.13.2007 5:24 PM65
Mr. Blogworthy,
I don't want to prejudge you, so I'll just ask if I've understood your postion correctly. You think it's legitimate for Christians to be concerned about the environment, it's just that people who are concerned about global warming are concerned about something that really isn't an issue and they are guilty of worshipping creation instead of the creator. Al Gore is not really a Christian, but a pagan and a tool of Satan, right?
Could you just humor me and let me know what you think of the theology presented by Tim Lahaye in the Left Behind series of books?
posted on 12.13.2007 5:26 PM66
Raging Bee,
"So here you've taken a clearly practical question of (conflicting) material needs and turned it into a religious dispute, in order to use religious bigotry to shout down adult debate on practical matters. This is so irrational, and so contrary to the observable reality of environmental issues, that nothing you say can ever be considered trustworthy again."
Get over yourself already. Nobody is turning this into a religious dispute. The point a number of people have made is simply flying over your head. Belief in anthrocentric global warming is similar to a religious belief, no one is saying it IS a religious belief.
I agree that the question is a practical one. What is your solution? The first question you need to adress is what temperature should the earth be? I live in Denver which has been everything from tropical swamp, inland sea, icebound plain to its current state of semi-arid grassland. Which climate should it be?
I'm not expecting an answer because you seem incapable of answering a simple question like where your assertion that George Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq could be found.
posted on 12.13.2007 5:33 PM67
Have you done any research into the environmental damage caused by the mining of the poisonous raw materials necessary to make the batteries for those oh-so eco-friendly cars the environmentalists are so hawkish about us driving (while they fly all over the world to do their rock concerts (that use enough electricity to power Baghdad for a month) in their private jets that spew out hundreds of times more Carbon Dioxide than their favorite target the Hummer)? How about explaining the presence of Viking farming colonies in Greenland a millineum ago when it's too cold for them now?
I am. Al Gore appears to be trying to set himself up as the Pope of the Environmentalist church.
posted on 12.13.2007 5:49 PM68
Raging Bee:
First, Crichton said that modern environmentalism is "the religion of choice for urban atheists," not that it is "atheistic." It's a rhetorical use of the term, e.g. some atheists are religious about their environmentalism. Second, even if that were the meaning of his quote, environmentalism could be both atheistic and a "re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs and myths"; the two aren't mutually exclusive by any stretch of the imagination (the operative word there is "re-mapping"). Third, I gather that Crichton is a science-fiction writer because he likes writing and is relatively good at it, not because he missed out on his desired calling of being a scientist. I know you might not think being a writer is as prestigious a position as a scientist, but that doesn't mean that you should badmouth him for doing something he (likely) enjoys. (By the way, I agree that Crichton sometimes espouses bad science or overinflates certain views - c.f. Timeline.) posted on 12.13.2007 5:52 PM69
Isn't Crichton an MD?
posted on 12.13.2007 6:02 PM70
Well, the fact that I'm no longer a Catholic, a Communist, an atheist, a one-world-government advocate, a socialist, a born-again Christian, a city-basher, a modernist, or a pacifist,
So you've recently been a Catholic, a Communist, an atheist, etc., etc. Sounds like you haven't been very mentally stable of late. I would question the stability of someone who had made all those changes even over a decade or two, let alone recently. Maybe this is why you are so "raging", you can't make up your mind.
posted on 12.13.2007 6:16 PM71
I don't want to prejudge you
Oh, John you know you desperately want to prejudge him. That's why you keep harping on the "Left Behind" stuff. If he believes in the "Left Behind" eschatology, you feel you can safely dismiss him as a loon without addressing his post. It's the same way that "he who is filled with rage" can dismiss Crighton, a medical doctor and best selling author as a crackpot because he heard somewhere that he is an "IDer".
posted on 12.13.2007 7:01 PM72
Actually, Uncenger, I am trying very hard not to prejudge Mr. Blogworthy, I'd like to hear what he has to say about Left Behind theology. It would wrong for me to assume what his views are.
What's your view on dispensationalist theology? Do you think it has a positive effect on how Christians approach issues of stewardship of the environment, economic justice, and war?
posted on 12.13.2007 7:57 PM73
Actually, Uncenger, I am trying very hard not to prejudge Mr. Blogworthy, I'd like to hear what he has to say about Left Behind theology.
Right, so you can prejudge him.
What's your view on dispensationalist theology?
One of cautious, skepticism.
Do you think it has a positive effect on how Christians approach issues of stewardship of the environment, economic justice, and war?
I don't know. What was "the Christian approach to issues of stewardship of the environment, economic justice, and war" before the development of dispensationalist theology? Was it better or worse than the present approach? Why?
posted on 12.13.2007 8:52 PM74
I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney, and remain undecided who I will back. That said, it is pretty rich for a Huckabee supporter to question the conservative bona fides of anyone.
posted on 12.13.2007 9:43 PM75
ucfengr: I'm 47 now, and the changes I'm referring to began in sixth grade. The fact that you would cite changes in my world-view as proof of mental instability on my part, speaks volumes about your own attitude toward new ideas and growth. Is that why you make yourself as uneducable as possible? Are you afraid of going insane from too much exposure to the full mystery of God's creation? Do you not trust your God to help you understand it all?
posted on 12.13.2007 10:50 PM76
First, you criticize Romney over the light rail. Sorry, but Trax, as we call it, was already coming. It was a campaign issue in the *1992* governor's race. Federal, state, or local, Mitt Romney was not the one who wasted that money. He took over the Olympics in - when? - 1999, I think.
And speaking of which, those were already coming, too. We got those in 1995.
You criticize Romney for his sleazy campaign staff. Can you name names, or are you just grasping for something?
And, yes, it's true that there were worthy candidates NRO could've considered: Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul. But why should NRO give them much their endorsement? GOP voters haven't ever given them theirs. Maybe they should;ve considered Teddy Roosevelt, too. None of those guys has ever polled above 2-3%. Realistically, the race is wide open for 5 candidates: Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney & Thompson.
Sorry if your sleazy candidate didn't get the nod. I am an ex-Mormon who was raised in the South. I know all about the "Mormons think Jesus is Satan's brother" routine. It's not some obscurely remembered fact Huckabee was trying to recall - it's the sort of red meat amen line the dumbest, meanest Baptist preachers throw out to get people to vilify Mormons. Huckabee has a history of using religion to support or oppose issues, like immigration, enforcement of which he called "un-Christian."
posted on 12.14.2007 2:18 AM77
The fact that you would cite changes in my world-view as proof of mental instability on my part, speaks volumes about your own attitude toward new ideas and growth.
Actually it speaks more about your lack of a sense of humor and poor reading comprehension. If you read my post you would have found that I was asking about ideas you've accepted recently that conflict with current beliefs. Instead you give me a litany of your beliefs starting from the "tooth fairy". Sweet Jebus, do yourself a favor and lighten up, all this "Rage" is not doing you any good.
posted on 12.14.2007 6:15 AM78
I'm 47 now
When I hit my 40's, one of the things I found is that I became a lot more circumspect. Experience tends to do that. I thought this was a fairly universal process, but apparently it isn't.
posted on 12.14.2007 6:23 AM79
...I know all about the "Mormons think Jesus is Satan's brother" routine. It's not some obscurely remembered fact Huckabee was trying to recall - it's the sort of red meat amen line the dumbest, meanest Baptist preachers throw out to get people to vilify Mormons. Huckabee has a history of using religion to support or oppose issues, like immigration, enforcement of which he called "un-Christian."
Thank you, Chris, for summing it up so neatly. "Dumbest" and "meanest" describe the loony Christofascist right perfectly, and they haven't changed (or learned anything) since the early days of the KKK. These people have brought shame and disgrace on the entire Christian religion, dragging us all into backwardness and sullen hatred whenever they could, while REAL Christians went out and risked their lives, fortunes, sacred honor, and even their beliefs, trying to actually do some good for others in response to their Savior's teachings -- only to be dissed and dismissed by the "you can't get to Heaven by good works so why bother?" crowd. They put an idiot in the White House, who then led our country into a totally debilitating and pointless war, and now all they can do is make EVERYTHING a religious issue and shout down reality with phony patriotism, mindless bigotry and know-nothingism.
I hope all the Republican candidates destroy each other. It's what they, and their party, deserve.
posted on 12.14.2007 9:58 AM80
Raging bee
Accuses me of using "religious bigotry to shout down adult debate on practical matters."
I don't see any shouting, and if I am attempting to "end debate" I am obviously not very successful at it. This is some claim coming from the purveyors of "settled" "consensus" "science", defenders of the flame and routers of GW heretics.
Be that as it may, in the next breath Raging Bee asserts (without a hint of irony)...
This is so irrational, and so contrary to the observable reality of environmental issues, that nothing you say can ever be considered trustworthy again.
Heh.
Then he gratuitously asserts my his own authority that Professor Lynn White is ignorant of history and summarily dismisses his view without so much as a single refernce. Lynn White may indeed be full of it, but the authority of 'Raging Bee' doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Lyn Townsend is one of the preeminent founders of modern environmentalism. Like it or not, he is your baby.
posted on 12.14.2007 10:10 AM81
Here's a little gem that kinda puts things in perspective. In response to the Huckster being quoted thusly:
"There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people," Huckabee said.
One blog respondent replied:
Well, if Huckabee has that power on his side, he doesn't need to be running for President, he needs to be going around the world feeding hungry people.
Yet another perfect summation of the moral bankruptcy underlying this sort of religious politics.
posted on 12.14.2007 10:18 AM82
White's main area of research and inquiry was the role of technological invention in the Middle Ages. He believed that the Middle Ages were a decisive period in the genesis of Western technological supremacy, and that the "activist character" of medieval Western Christianity provided the "psychic foundations" of technological inventiveness.
'The "psychic foundations" of technological inventiveness' predate Christianity by about a thousand years, and were visible in the Islamic world as well. None of that was "provided" by Christianity.
Do you really believe, even for half a second, that the Church -- or any other religion or religious organization -- would have stood in the way of the "technological inventiveness" that could have done so much to meet so many real human needs? Do you really believe they COULD have stopped any of that "technological inventiveness" from happening? Do you actually think that the people who had all those useful ideas, and those who needed them, would ever have allowed the Church to tell them they couldn't do it? Of course not: the religious doctrine adapted to suit the needs of the people, as it always does, whether or not anyone pretends otherwise.
It was never a religious question. All the Church did was give the only answer the people would accept, both to keep from being run over by progress, and because, at the time, it was the only right thing a Christian could do.
posted on 12.14.2007 10:40 AM83
The "psychic foundations" of technological inventiveness' predate Christianity by about a thousand years, and were visible in the Islamic world as well.
Those inventive Islamic masters of technology. It is a wonder we can keep up...
You may want to look at the faith of those who made the greatest discoveries and inventions during the last few hundred years. The Christian faith was/is the basis for rationalism.
posted on 12.14.2007 10:53 AM84
Raging Bee,
You still haven't answered my question about George Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq. You've also ducked my question about what the proper temperature of the earth should be. You tend to change the subject rather quickly when you actually have to back up something you asserted.
posted on 12.14.2007 11:26 AM85
As an aside, here are some "technological innovations" brought to us by the Global Warming neo-pagans:
As society regresses further into neo-paganism, we will also regress technologically. Mark my words.
Joe Carter: I apologize for so thoroughly hijacking your thread. I hope some good work has been done anyway.
posted on 12.14.2007 11:27 AM86
oclarki: the points you're quibbling about are peripheral to the points I was making. Even If I conceded all of them (which I don't), my central points would be unaffected.
The Christian faith was/is the basis for rationalism.
Sorry, but the polytheistic ancient Greeks pretty much INVENTED rationalism, at least for the West. And the relentless irrationality of so many so-called Christians here makes your statement all the more laughable.
As society regresses further into neo-paganism, we will also regress technologically. Mark my words.
I mark your words as silly, irrelevant, not at all responsive to what I was saying, and topped off with some transparently ignorant religious bigotry. (Since when was "Raking instead of blowing leaves" a sign of "regression?" I call it "exercise.") You so-called Christians are in desperate need of some competition, just to force you to update your talking-points. Seriously, do you people do ANY fact-checking when your ministers bluster from their pulpits? Or is that not rewarded by your "rational" religious leaders?
Incidentally, if any of you REALLY want to pretend your religion is "the basis" for rationalism, you might want to chew on some bits of rationality from one of your own, St. Augustine of Hippo:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.
– ibid, 2:9
NOTE: this guy wrote all this back in the days when Christians didn't have the power to shout down or forcibly suppress differing opinions and faiths, and therefore HAD to win converts the old-fashioned way -- by making sense. The sooner you guys get shoved back in that position, the better off we'll all be.
posted on 12.14.2007 12:11 PM87
Raging Bee,
Nice attempt at a dodge. So you admit you can't answer my questions. For someone who throws bombs at people for being dishonest, you're on very shaky ground. You asserted that Geoarge Bush invaded Iraq because God told him to. When you are called out on the fact that you are making it up you say it doesn't matter. Why should anyone listen to you when you are knowingly say something so dishonest?
The only person being irrational is you. Everyone else commenting is asking whether the science behind global warming is settled enough to warrant massive economic and political changes. How is that anti-science.
posted on 12.14.2007 12:30 PM88
Brothers, I have seen the light-I have repented of my sins and now see the Lord wants me to take out a big loan and buy a Hummer. It may not seem necessary to me, but I need to do it to show that I, as a christian, reject the lies of the secular humanists and socialists that only want to keep us from our God given american way of life and institute a one world Government.
When I ride my bike for short local trips I am doubting God-I should be driving a big SUV for all trips over one block.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, Blogworthy.
posted on 12.14.2007 12:40 PM89
Those inventive Islamic masters of technology. It is a wonder we can keep up...
Yeah, it's tough. It took us awhile to get the hang of ARABIC numbers and arithmetic, but once we did, we were able to do all kinds of heavy math with it. So the effort did turn out to be rewarding. (Ever heard of something called the "French Renaissance?" It started when Arabic writings on science, math and medicine began to be translated into Latin, shortly after them Ay-rabs almost conquered France.)
Oh, and then there's Gothic architecture, which came from Ay-rabs...and all those cool rugs with the intricate artsy patterns...and music...and belly-dancing...
posted on 12.14.2007 1:11 PM90
Ever heard of something called the "French Renaissance?" It started when Arabic writings on science, math and medicine began to be translated into Latin, shortly after them Ay-rabs almost conquered France.
What, the Muslims tried to conquer France? That can't be right, I thought Islam was a religion of peace. Well anyway, I am sure it was a response to AmeriKKKa's reckless foreign policy, support of Israel, and rampant waterboarding.
posted on 12.14.2007 1:30 PM91
Raging Bee,
I heard George Bush say God told him to invade Iraq so we could steal all that sweet Muslim technology.
Seriously, its too bad that the influence of Islam stopped arabic progress 800 years ago. On the other hand, Christianity in concert with Greek rationalism led to the rise of the dynamic Western culture that dominates the planet to this day.
posted on 12.14.2007 1:32 PM92
Great post; NR also didn't address Romney's support for minimum wage hikes, global warming inititives, gun control, quotes, funding of gay programs in the public schools, hate crimes, "anti-discrimination" laws, and on and on. He is also the father of gay marraige in that he unilaterally carried out a gay marraige edict by the court that was directed to the Legislature, not to the executive branch. He ignored the advice of many conservative attornies in doing this and now we will pay the price for this for years to come. NR also ignored his horrible judicial nominations which included a host of pro-abortion wackos and gay rights leaders like Steve Abany. On fiscal issues, job creation came to a abrupt halt during his administration, due to his support of all kinds of anti-business regulations. And we must not forget his attack ont he Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts and indeed, every tax cut that I can think of. There is really no doubt Romney was the most liberal Republican Governor in America and this was just two years ago. If NR really believes that Romney changed his views on over a dozen fundamential issues, then I have some beach front land in Arizona to sell them. That fact that NR has decided to endorse Romney purely on his campaign rhetoric and not upon his actual actions while Governor, then this demonstrates to me that they've lost touch with the conservative movement.
posted on 12.14.2007 1:42 PM93
...Christianity in concert with Greek rationalism led to the rise of the dynamic Western culture that dominates the planet to this day.
Which "Christianity" are you taking about? The established churches who admit the stupidity of their past resistence to new ideas (such as heliocentrism, evolution, germ theory, etc.); or the backwoods morons who continue to resist the same ideas, and try to undermine science, rational thought, and education in general, just to protect their brittle rigid world-view?
posted on 12.14.2007 1:56 PM94
It’s interesting listening to far right evangelicals promote Huckabee.
Here is a man that has pandered to a religious bigotry within the Christen faith that is unprecedented in American politics. In fact, you have to go to the Middle East to witness that sort of ugliness (think Sunni/Shiite Islamic doctrinal war).
Though beyond his nice guy folksy one liners and his “he’s one of us” glow, you don’t have to dig too deep to uncover a plethora of serious policy problems from his governorship (e.g.high taxation, huge spending, pilfering of taxpayer funds & gifts for his own gain, etc, etc.), past judgments (it seems his faith let out a rapist murderer to again rape and murder) and his utter lack of vision on how he is going to protect this nation against violent jihad (he didn’t know about NIE, then when briefed about the NIE he still thought it was a report released 4 years ago).
Yet, Mitt Romney gives a profoundly beautiful speech on religion where he proclaims his deep love of this country and the founding Christen principles on which it was forged. He goes further to say that he would protect those principles with his Presidency. His speech also tries to lovingly bring together all people of faith.
In fact his whole campaign focus has been to bring together all conservatives so we can win in 2008.
The difference in each man is staggering but heck “he’s one of us”.
God help us from a Mike "The Divider" Huckabee presidency.
posted on 12.14.2007 2:15 PM95
The Christianity that recognized the inherent value of the powerless, the poor and the slave. The Christianity that powered the arts from the middle ages onward. The Christianity that developed the great universities, centers of learning and repositories of knowledge during the middle ages. The Christianity that started institutions to care for the sick and dying.
posted on 12.14.2007 2:48 PM96
Ever heard of something called the "French Renaissance?" It started when Arabic writings on science, math and medicine began to be translated into Latin, shortly after them Ay-rabs almost conquered France.
Actually, most of the translations were from the original Greek. The myth of the great Islamic love of science and learning is mostly a myth. You find brief sparks here and there, but the rigidity of Islam crushed it. Oh, and a good chunk of the "Islamic scientific advances" were due to non-Muslims such as Jews and Christians. The best thing Islam provided was a common language as a transmission medium that bridged Asia to Europe. It did a good job of siphoning off knowledge from other cultures and transmitting. However, after a few generations, Islam crushed any further advancement by those cultures.
posted on 12.14.2007 3:40 PM97
Oh, THAT Christianity -- the one the far-right knuckle-draggers never brag about because a) they never understood its stellar achievements, and never participated in them, and b) they're too busy insisting it's not "true" Christianity