This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
Those who know me are well aware that I don’t have a strong stand, either way, about climate change as a result of human activities. I never miss an opportunity to speak with people on both sides of the issue, which has yielded an interesting pattern for me.
Without too much generalization, we can all agree that most conservatives do not believe in global warming as a result of human activities, while most liberals do. We can further agree that religion is a strong pillar of conservatism. That doesn’t imply, and I didn’t say, that liberals are not as strong in their religious faith. Do not leave me irrelevant comments.
That said, the entire equation of global warming is a simple one for most religious individuals. God created everything, and gave full dominion of it to his most awesome creation (humans):
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
On the right side of the spectrum are most religious people who believe that because God created everything and because humans are the designated beneficiaries of everything on earth, using earth’s natural resources could not possibly harm it, much less cause its destruction.
In the middle are religious folks who believe that dominion does not imply domination. Hence, it is not only possible to harm the earth, it is the responsibility of humans to protect and preserve God’s creations. On the left side of the spectrum are non-religious people who, of course, believe earth can easily be harmed by humans because there’s no Divine power to stop it.
If you don’t believe in a higher power, then you are well versed in the concept of randomness and evolution. As such, have you ever considered that perhaps it is our natural evolutionary programming and destiny to destroy ourselves and our home? Therefore, there may be nothing we can do to prevent this inevitable conclusion. That doesn’t mean you should remain silent about your core beliefs. It merely implies that all efforts to conserve and preserve the environment may be fruitless at the end in light of humans’ built-in mechanism of destruction. The end may be a foregone conclusion.
If you do believe in a higher power, then you are likely to not worry about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or drilling for oil. Earth is only a temporary home for humans, and we simply do not have the power or the influence to destroy God’s earthly creations. Species go extinct by God’s will, not by humans’ carelessness. Ice caps melt as God desires, not because humans spew CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, there’s nothing to worry about.
Here’s the interesting dichotomy. Religion and conservatism are all about doing the right thing and personal responsibility. The one glaring exception seems to be in the area of environmental movement. In this case, religion appears to give us a free pass.
I found this interesting. On April 22, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) talked about carbon dioxide in the context of global warming, climate change, or whatever it is called these days.
“Carbon dioxide, Mister Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature. Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that — that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.”
“Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful, but there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that Carbon Dioxide is a harmful gas. It is a harmless gas. “
I personally have not decided whether human activity is harmful to the environment. Tag me as indecisive. I don’t care. We simply do not have sufficient evidence, or time line, to irrefutably prove it one way or another, and we never will.
But I’m sufficiently intelligent to know one thing: natural does not necessarily equate to harmless. To think otherwise is just un-naturally stupid.
Do you know what else is natural Congresswoman? Poo. Is poo harmless in your world?
To say that Newt Gingrich, former Congressman and potential 2012 Presidential candidate, has lots of ideas for America is a monumental understatement.
Some of Newt’s ideas are refreshingly radical and yet suspiciously alarming at the same time. He would like to require exercise for school children, extend tax breaks to grocery stores that open in the inner city, give bonuses to food stamp recipients who buy fruits and vegetables, make students walk to school if they live close enough, and lots more. → source
Wow, for a die-hard Republican, he certainly walks a thin tight rope of socialism. Government mandates? Really? I wonder what Boss Limbaugh thinks of all this. Gee, I sure hope Newt doesn’t have to apologize!
Anyway, Newt has a fabulously unbelievable – and to some extent deliciously unthinkable – idea for reforming health care. He believes it’s time to consider paying teenage girls not to get pregnant. → same source as above
Yes, you read right! Pay teenagers to not get pregnant. Ironically, his plan does not include paying teenagers to not have sex. That would be too logical – and admittedly difficult to verify without a chastity belt. Just pay them for not getting pregnant . . . while they inevitably engage in sex.
Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t that what Republicans typify as socialism? Isn’t it an example of government hand-out? Can it not be construed as a type of affirmative action? Doesn’t it circumvent personal responsibility without incentivising by the government? Will it require a bail-out at the end?
Newt also believes that states should consider paying teenage girls who become pregnant to take prenatal vitamins to forestall paying additional health expenses for neonatal care down the road. → same source as above
Pay careful attention to the above paragraph: states should consider . . . Some one please leave me a comment and explain conservatism idea of less government to me. How do we the people end up with less government in our lives if, at the end, we shift regulations and mandates from the federal government to the states?
Talk about a power vacuum in the Republican Party. Actually, it resembles a rift in the Republican continuum.
Technically, Rush is a Conservative. You may not agree with his views but, like it or not, he’s a force in the American politics. He possesses political powers and capital that very few can match. He’s the de facto leader of the Conservative movement in America today. You don’t believe me? Name someone else. I dare you.
But watch out! He’s also a very intelligent, calculating, and revengeful individual.
He’s intelligent because he has invented the right combination of message, insult and vision to have gathered over 20 million die-hard and uncharacteristically loyal listeners. That’s not easy to achieve. No one can match him.
He’s calculating because he can do the math. In clear absence of a powerful, visionary and proven leader, the Republican party is in desperate need of direction. Limbaugh understands, all too clearly, that this is his chance to unite Conservatives and, hopefully, Republicans.
He’s revengeful because he has sent a clear message to all Conservatives and Republicans: you’re either with him or you’re against him. Wow, where have I heard that before! Cross Rush and he will destroy your political future. I listen to him a couple of times a week for about 15 minutes as I go to lunch, and his message has been exceptionally clear. Conservatives must unite and destroy liberalism at any cost.
Even Michael Steele has bowed to him in submission → source
Michael Steele told Politico on Monday: “I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. “It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.”
Rahm Emanuel
I will now pause so you contemplate Limbaugh’s power in amazement.
It is now clear to everyone that proving Rush is the leader of the right has been the Administration’s plan all along.
Rahm Emanuel must be happy; he got exactly the fight he was seeking. It’ll be a very dangerous and dirty fight. Rush is much more adept at it than Rahm.
I admit it. I did not listen to or watch President Obama’s speech on Tuesday addressing the joint sessions of Congress. I did, however, watch the Republican response by Bobby Jindal. I always listen to the opposition response (Democrat or Republican). That’s where I learn more detail, and I use that as my measuring stick. I had no intention of blogging about Jindal’s response. It’s already been blogged to death. But what the heck . . .
Where did Republicans find this guy? He’s as charismatic on camera as John Kerry. His uncomfortable reading of the tele-prompter was as non-engaging as watching Mr. Rogers anchor the nightly news. Mr. Jindal, didn’t anyone inform you that a story about your immigrant parents is now cliche? It’s been doen already by Obama – and masterfully. If you keep talking about it, the Republicans may begin investigating the authenticity of your birth certificate too. The only portion of Jindal’s speech that I could get into was the last few minutes when he spoke about what conservative values mean.
Rachael Maddow’s views are too far to the left for me, but I got a chuckle out of her reaction to Jindal’s rebuttal. She’s really funny sometimes.
But watch out everyone. Rush Limbaugh is mad and he’s not going to take it anymore. During his radio show on Wednesday, 2/25/09, he gave a stern warning to conservatives:
“Because if you think people on our side, I’m talking to you, those of you who think Jindal was horrible, in fact, I don’t want to hear from you ever again if you think that what Bobby Jindal said was bad or what he said was wrong or not said well, because, folks, style is not going to take our country back.”
No Rush. You’re wrong. Style counts. Reagan’s success was not accidental. He had style. He had charisma. He brought people to his side. He spoke elegantly. He didn’t fumble through his speeches. And, more importantly, he fully comprehended the concept and importance of being popular.
By the way, here’s a nice article about 10 things you probably don’t know about Bobby Jindal.
This is why journalists to go Journalism school. This is why plumbers are not journalists.
Did you catch that? Joe said “I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war.” Aside from the obvious fact that Joe is unable to put a coherent sentence together, he’s forgetting why he’s in Israel . . . as a journalist. Oh, excuse me! He’s there as a war correspondent.
OK readers, I hope you’re depressed today. I truly hope that you’re in desperate need of a good laugh because I’m about to cheer you up. Get ready to laugh.
John H. Hinderaker is a lawyer and a conservative blogger at the Power Line weblog. In a recent post titled “The Importance of Being Careful“, Mr. Hinderaker felt compelled to provide President Elect Obama some free advice. Read the following excerpt for yourself and enjoy the irony.
Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn’t raise his standards, he will exceed Bush’s total before he is inaugurated.
I will now pause for a moment and allow you to pull yourselves together. Wipe those tears of laughter off your face.
You must be joking Mr. Hinderaker. President Bush is neither a skilled speaker nor a thoughtful one. Even many Republicans admit that much. To label George Bush as a dynamic and ‘precision’ speaker instantly reveals your own blind partisan and one-sided views.
Please allow me to assist you, Mr. Hinderaker, with presenting your case. Perhaps the message you really meant to convey was that Obama is a skilled speaker, but his message is void of meaning and substance. I’m positive that is the idea you attempted to communicate. However, you presented this thesis in the context of comparing Obama with Bush. In that regard, all roads lead to failure. President Bush is not only a horrible speaker, he lacks the ability to formulate his thoughts in a coherent manner. And worse, he utterly lacks the ability to connect with his audience. President Bush had 8 years to study President Reagan’s style and to learn from it. Bush failed.
Here’s one small sample in a sea of evidence that proves my point.
Joe “the plumber”. I’m so sick of still hearing about Joe the plumber. He even has a Wiki page now. Stop it people. The election is over already.
I won’t be able to forgive McCain or the Republicans for catapulting this irrelevant person and now immaterial concept into the American day-to-day conversation. The anxious Republicans, grasping at any straw in sight during the election season, latched on to Joe the plumber like stink on a monkey. They didn’t seem to care about Joe or his past. All that mattered was that Joe disagreed with Obama’s tax policy, calling it Marxist. For Joe, spreading the wealth around was not an acceptable plan.
Fair enough! But wait! Here’s some news flash the Republicans should have researched first. Joe ‘the Obama-is-a Marxist plumber’ was on welfare. Twice! How pathetic.
How’s that for spreading the wealth? Joe was and is confused. Accepting welfare from the government is spreading the wealth – my wealth, your wealth, taxpayers’ wealth. Well, I for one don’t want to spread my wealth around to anyone who doesn’t appreciate it. Joe is the first to be blacklisted. In fact, I want my portion of his welfare money back.
Hey Joe! Here’s some sound economic advice for you. If you go on welfare, you should shut the hell up. You have no right to talk about spreading the wealth. And here’s another news flash. Joe still has a tax lien of $1,200 against him in Ohio. → Source
McCain, during a rally, called Joe an American hero and his role model. Seriously? Someone should fire McCain’s campaign aids for not researching this well. Oh, wait, someone did fire his aids – the American people.
Also. Remember when McCain was looking for Joe during one of his rallies but could not find him? Well, that wasn’t Joe’s fault. He had told McCain’s aids that he’d be there between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm.
Finally, how is McCain’s approval of government bailout not wealth distribution? Defend it if you can. I dare you.
Dennis Prager, for those of you who don’t know him, is a Conservative radio talk show personality and a townhall.com columnist. At a recent appearance in Minneapolis, he made a very interesting claim. Watch this video.
In case you missed it, Prager said:
Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value . . . The French Revolution said Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. The American Revolution said Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Wow, which country do you live in Mr. Prager?
First, the Founding Fathers of our great country were . . . European! It is no surprise, therefore, to discover that some European ideas and values have trickled into the original vision of the new country that is now the United States of America.
Second, without the concept of equality:
Sarah Palin, as a woman, could not have served along side John McCain as a VP nominee.
Barack Obama could not have run for President, much less win an election.
A fetus could not be granted the same rights as a full grown human. See my earlier post on this.
You are not to enjoy the same rights as someone who is more wealthy than you.
Much of Christianity’s teachings don’t make sense.
God is unfair in his love of humans.
Third, it’s been widely reported that a European socialist once said: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” He went on to become the first Republican-elected President!
Finally, the U.S. Constitution claims the following 2 points:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Notice the order in which the “truths” are presented in the second bullet point. Equality comes first. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are presented after equality as unalienable rights. In other words, equality is so obvious and “self-evident” that it is not necessary to list it as a right.
Perhaps next time you feel the urge to discuss American values, Mr. Prager, you can at least study the U.S. Constitution first.
Posted by jmjorat 
Posted by jmjorat 
To say that Newt Gingrich, former Congressman and potential 2012 Presidential candidate, has lots of ideas for America is a monumental understatement.
Posted by jmjorat 
I admit it. I did not listen to or watch President Obama’s speech on Tuesday addressing the joint sessions of Congress. I did, however, watch the Republican response by Bobby Jindal. I always listen to the opposition response (Democrat or Republican). That’s where I learn more detail, and I use that as my measuring stick. I had no intention of blogging about Jindal’s response. It’s already been blogged to death. But what the heck . . .
RSS Feed This Blog
