about Clay Bennett...
The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...
An extremely accurate representation of the 4th branch of government. Small wonder that Congress has been called a "Parliament of Whores." I don't believe that Government of BP, by Koch Brothers and for ADM is what Lincoln had in mind.
Let the games begin!
Quite appropriately, it's a fat cat!
The Ward Crutchfield branch.
Oh, Clay, that's a good one!
Excellent!
THE CHELSHIRE CAT is the cat of the Lobby Duchess. . . Alice meets it shortly after she arrives in Wonderland . . . She finds it in a tree. . . It grins all the time and disappears and reappears whenever it likes. . . Sometimes it disappears and leaves its grin behind. . . . The Chelshire Cat teaches Alice the “Rules of Wonderland” . . . It gives Alice insight as to how things will work while she is in Wonderland.
ALICE: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
CAT: That depends a good deal on where you want to get.
ALICE: I don't much care where.
CAT: Then it doesn't matter which way you go.
ALICE: . . . So long as I get SOMEWHERE
CAT: Oh, you're sure to do that . . . if you only walk long enough.
ALICE: But I don't want to go among mad people.
CAT: Oh, you can't help that . . . we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
ALICE: How do you know I'm mad?
CAT: You must be . . . or you wouldn't have come here.
The legislative branch with a blight destroying it, dead leaves and splintered bark, would also be appropriate.
this one is accurate. both parties have whored themselves out to lobbyists......both, john....
if you want to name names..the democrat list is quite long and stinks just as bad...
you can blather on all day about the koch brothers...but it would be a lie to say corruption has ruined only one party.
Most 'toons generate controversy with varied opinions normally driven by party loyalty. It will be interesting to see anyone defending lobbyist. Members of congress are influenced by their lobbyist influenced staff, directly by lobbyist, the national RNC and DNC that are influenced by contributions by the top bidders, the media and the small group of power brokers in local party leadership positions. They depend on those sources to influence their constituents then use poling to see how their constituents are responding. Are they compromised?
Is this going to be the rare day where we will actually have calm discussion? Both parties are guilty of having the lobbyists influcing their vote...and hopefully someday soon that can stop...but I sure am not holding my breath....Blue is a good shirt color but it does nothing for the face!
One of your best Clay. Everyone should copy this and send it to every Congressman, Senator, the President...or maybe just fly over the capital and drop them by the thousands.
Beautiful! Well done, Clay!
Seamonkey - you are trying to create an argument where one does not exist.
L4F - how do you get from strict construction of the Constitution to the conclusion that lobbyists are part of government? And, note that the system only works for those with the capability of buying votes. That may be consistent with your understanding of libertarian principles - it is not consistent with the principles articulated in the U.S. Constitution.
I think that cat grew fatter when the Supreme Court made that fateful Citizens United decision. I wonder if there isn't a little cat perching on the judical branch as well.
mtnlrl: Wtf? Chelshire cat, really?? Try Cheshire cat...
John_Proctor's comment about the fouth branch of government got me thinking about our traditional fourth branch. Where has the media been? It seems like they focus more on fluff and opinion now and investigative journalism is mostly ignored.
Has the public just gotten so cynical that news of another corrupt politician just doesn't get noticed?
4th Branch of Government = the Federal Reserve
Leaf, Yolu are correct. Some judges paling around with the Koch brothers.
Undoubtedly no mistake that the legislative branch is the one the cat is most comfortable and pleased to be resting on, for it is by the manipulating the servants of this branch does the corporate dollar twist the arms and gain their pleasure in getting laws passed to their own desires with total disregard to giving consideration to the rest of the populace as to how their lives will be affected. It's nothing more than corruption. It's bribery against the will of the greater part of the citizenry to benefit the powerful few and forcing us to accept it, like it or not.
The supposedly innocent one you sent from here, more often than not, becomes one of the game players once there. Too bad too many decisions are made about power and money, rather that right and wrong. When a system becomes so engrossed in corruption, those newly elected that think they are going to change things when they get there are soon to discover that if your going to survive there you'd better learn to play along to get along, or lose support on issues that you want to push through. It's a dirty game.
No wonder that God told us as good soldiers of Him, not to get caught up in the affairs of this world. Our war is not against flesh and blood, but principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. The cat is not grinning with you, he's grinning at you; it's an evil grin!
Remember my dream? Outlaw lobbyist. Outlaw all political donations. Federal financing for all elections with set amount per seat. Limited campaign season to 6 weeks. Term limits for congress.
I had this dream some time ago but I've had some nightmares since!
Leaf wrote,
"Where has the media been? It seems like they focus more on fluff and opinion now and investigative journalism is mostly ignored. Has the public just gotten so cynical that news of another corrupt politician just doesn't get noticed?"
--- The public has also become stupid, lazy, and shallow. Most would much rather hear about the latest 'news' about Brangelina, Lady Gaga, and Charlie Sheen. Idol worship is alive and well; the 100+ channel god has a prominent shrine in most people's homes. As with most religion, no thinking is required.
L4F - you contradicted yourself. In so doing, you also made my point - the system only works for those who can afford to play and who get a payoff from their contributions. And, among those who lobby, the system works even better for those who are positioned to buy earmarks and then receive a payback plus bonus from the earmarks.
As you initially stated, lobbyists are very much a part of our government. They draft much of the legislation that is debated by congress. And, many of the lobbyists - especially those with offices on K Street - are in fact, paid by government. Perhaps not directly, but from the kickbacks, excess profits etc. etc. that result from their manipulations of our system of government.
Speaking of stupid....
L4F wrote,
"Consider the infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Indian Casinos paid him millions to represent them and to advance their agenda. Is that wrong? No more wrong than the treehuggers doing the same."
--- Just where is all this 'big money' that is coming from "tree huggers"? Please tell me so that I can get some of it! While my work has always had plenty of support from the public, the media, most of the business community, and scientists in the field, most of the funding has come from our own pockets (obviously limiting our impact). For most other small local groups the story is much the same; people work long hours for free and scrape together whatever small funds they can. I have also worked for a very large environmental organization (as has one of my sons); the situation in larger groups is not much better; raising money to accomplish even the most basic goals of public education is a constant struggle. The far right has a delusional view of the influence of most non-corporate special interest groups. We are a tiny ripple being swept away in a tidal wave of corporate millions just trying to get our voice heard. "Treehuggers" buying influence? LOL!
~` "GOPs Midicare plan Fails".. The assumption that the deficit is somehow the top priority for most American Voters has never been the case. While it is touted as a Top priority by the Talking Heads and Pundits, it is NOT the most important issue, not even close for voters,nor is the "THE CRISIS" as pressing as the "Paul Ryans" makes it out to be.
`` Cut Medicare? If cuts be needed , cut Fraud and Waste across all Goverment Programs. Cut First and Foremost Foreign Aid and disproportionate Financial support of the UN, World Bank, Military Defense of most all our affluent allies and trading partners, farm subsidies, Energy company,and most of all TAX FREE STATUS for most NON- FOR- PROFITS including filthy Rich Ivy League and other Private Colleges and Universities. Cut Medicare...NO!!!
~` The Republicans, LiBertards do not have Americas best interest in mind. They have shown this over and over. Their intentions are to Starve the Goverment of funds "American Safety Nets" 'till its DROWNED in a bathtub.
The Federal reserve is what should be Drowned, killed NOW!!!
hambone said... Leaf, Yolu are correct. Some judges paling around with the Koch brothers.
---and the others paling around with George Soros.
i'm not starting anything..john...both parties are stinkin' up the joint...that's my point.
read michael barone's column in the washington examiner from yesterday..check out all the entities that have gotten waivers from obamacare.....the democrat party is corrupt at the core. so is the republican party...look at the way the republican party heirarchy attacks it's own when someone in the party wants to really make an effort to clean things up and not just get along with the other party...the bush family influence/the country club republicans want the status quo..as do the democrat party higher ups......obama is no kind of a reformer...he's completely in bed with lobbyists. he's not capable of reform and doing the right thing because he only cares about power and maintining power.....and reelection.....same old crap..no different.
dpb said: "Wtf. Chelshire cat, really?? Try Cheshire cat. . . "
Sorry to offend you, dpb. “The Chelshire Cat” is a childhood nickname of a cousin. Her given name is Chelsea. She used to tattled a lot but could be bribed. I guess it was one of those subconscious things that slip out occasionally. Hopefully, she doesn’t see this. If so, I suspect I’ll have to come up with a way to appease her one more time.
MtnJohn said:"Note that the system only works for those with the capability of buying votes."
Indeed, MtnJohn, it cost a lot to “petition” our representatives.
Reported Lobby Expenditures 2010: 3.50 Billion
Registered Number of Lobbists 2010: 12,997
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/
It is foolish to expect politicians to do what needs to be done as long as getting re-elected pays more!
Hambone said: Remember my dream? Outlaw lobbyist
Yes, but as we all know lobbying is protected in the Constitution. I especially like a couple of the "transparency" ideas that Bob Kaiser expressed on Bill Moyers Journal a few years ago, along with every natural citizen's dream of the public financing of elections.
EXCERPT BILL MOYERS JOURNAL, February 20, 2009:
ROBERT KAISER: . . . it's . . . important to say that lobbying is protected in the same First Amendment to the Constitution that you and I like for its journalistic implications. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is right there in the First Amendment. And that's lobbying. And that's true that big government means big spending, means big opportunities, means business for lobbyists. So, it's inevitable. There's no way to stop it.
But it can be much more transparent than it's been. We can see people, what they're doing, much more clearly than we've been able to do so far. There are reforms that are possible. But we're never going to make people into pure, you know, Christian gentleman. It doesn't happen that way.
BILL MOYERS: So, is there any way, realistically, you think that this could at least be tamed?
ROBERT KAISER: Obviously, public financing of elections would have the most dramatic impact. It's very hard to imagine how that would come to pass. But there are ways it could come to pass.
BILL MOYERS: It has in some states. Arizona, for example.
ROBERT KAISER: Exactly. Our new Secretary of Homeland Security, the former Governor of Arizona has said very articulately on the record, what a difference it made to her to be able to run for re-election without raising any money. That she didn't feel indebted to anybody. And that's a liberating thing.
I have an idea that would be fun, and I think very significant. If you required every official in the government to report, which we can do now, technologically, on the internet, at the end of the business day, every day. "Here are the lobbyists I met with today. And here's what we talked about."
BILL MOYERS: Ah.
ROBERT KAISER: Just a daily file of, you know, real transparency. That would have a huge impact.
Excellent cartoon.
Doctors used to get wined and dined by drug company reps, taken on junkets, etc. Then laws were passed to keep the reps from giving the docs anything. Even a pen. They can still talk to the docs, just can't give them anything.
Funny how congress can make those rules for doctors but not for themselves.
In 2007 there were 17,000 lobbyist in washington D.C.
Libertarian4Freedom...17,000 lobbyist...you named 12 lobbyist..hmmmm that means there 16,988 he didnt name.....hmmm notice how he skipped big oil...and banks and insurance...and all the other 16000 plus lobbyist hmmmmmm this money is going into some pockets.....boy if that not the old saying when a man choke on a flea...BUT SWALLOW A CAMEL..LOL LOL LOL....THIS GUY WILL GO TO ANY EXTENT TO PROTECT THE RICH AND GREEDY....SO WILL SEAMONKEY ,TDERNG....YOU WOULD THINK THEY ARE BEING PAID BY THE RICH AND GREEDY TO DEFEND THEIR UNDER-HAND DEALINGS LOL LOL LOL
THANKS TO REPUBLICAN HERO RONALD REAGAN....(the man own children dont agree with his policies)Ronald Reagan jr. knew his father was a SNAKE-OIL SALESMAN... dont that tell you something about him(Reagan)....After losing 2times running for President he was desparate the 3rd times and the Man would do anything...he wanted the job too badly....the old geezer sold the country away to rich and greedy(hes the GOD FATHER OF SELL-OUTS)
It's like watching midgets wrestle.
Rides on corparate jets. Lodging in 4 star hotels. food and drinks. Free entertainment. Gifts of all kinds,
Are these covered under the first amendment ?
L4F, re: 3:06pm post;
Have you asked yourself about that 1.5 BILLION dollars on vague "single issue" spending? Maybe this is a clue.... (2009 figures)
"A number of industry sectors notably stand-out as the deep pocket and influential lobbyists. The pharmaceutical and health industry spent an estimated $266.8 million lobbying on health care reform—this happens to be the largest amount ever spent by a single industry in a one year period of time. Business associations spent $183 million on federal lobbying. Oil and gas lobbyists spent $168.4 million. The insurance industry spent $164.2 million.[...]the electric utility industry spent $144.4 million. To recap, the top five industry sectors in terms of spending were the following:
The single largest institutional lobbyist was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an association that represents roughly 3 million businesses in various industries, which distributed $145 million for lobbying activities at the federal level. [...] 2009’s figure of $145 million spent on lobbying activity by the Chamber of Commerce marks a 6% increase over 2008 figures."
http://corporatejusticeblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/lobbyists-spend-record-35-billion-in.html
This doesn't even mention spending by the chemical industry. They spent millions to fight regulation to ban harmful BPA from infant formula and baby bottles...
"...at the last minute, Republicans bowed to pressure from the chemical industry, as a result of which BPA-laden baby bottles will remain on the shelves of American stores as a “safe” product."
http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvon/2010/11/chemical-industry-lobbyists-spend-millions-to-keep-harmful-bpa-in-baby-bottles/
...and tens of millions to defeat chemical plant security legislation...
"In 2004, the Homeland Security Council estimated that an attack on a single chlorine facility could kill 17,500 people, severely injure an additional 10,000 and result in 100,000 hospitalizations and 70,000 evacuations."
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/chemical-industry-has-more-mon/
If I had more time, I could go on.... formaldehyde, pesticides, etc. The list is virtually endless. A HUGE amount of money goes into fighting regulation and protecting profits at the cost of human health and the environment.
Hmm, let's do the math and see how the equation is balanced.... lobbyist spending:
Oil & gas industry (168.4 million) + chemical industry (well in excess of 100 million) vs. environmentalists (3.8 million). Yep, those darn "treehuggers"... always pushing their weight around!
Thanks for helping me prove my point, L4F. You're a peach!
http://www.tcfrank.com/books/the-wrecking-crew/
Canarysong said: "The single largest institutional lobbyist was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an association that represents roughly 3 million businesses in various industries, which distributed $145 million for lobbying activities at the federal level."
I read that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce became a fully functional part of the partisan Republican machine" after CEO and president Thomas J. Donohue took office in 1997.
The U.S. Chamber's 2010 budget is approximately $200 million, but as a trade organization, its donors can remain anonymous. . . the New York Times reported in October 2010 that half of the Chamber's $140 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 big-money donors, many of whom enlisted the Chamber's help to fight political and public opinion battles on their behalf (such as opposing financial or healthcare reforms . . . regulations).
And according to James Carter, executive director of the Green Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is "dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce
Mountainlaurel wrote,
"...the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is "dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries."
--- Thereby greatly multiplying the power and influence of those polluting industries. Quite a racquet! Recently the Chamber has also been pushing the religious right's anti-gay 'social agenda'.
Wining and dining, use of corporate jets and facilities, paid vacations are not protected by the first amendment. This goes way beyond free speech and regressing of grievances. Congress has the option of revising their rules or regulating lobbying. Don't hold your breath until they do that. Neither party has a lock on being influenced by lobbyist. Lobbyist also spend a lot at the urging of congress influencing voters. Lobbyist often spread their favors about evenly between the two parties. Would term limits help?
Voters are naive that believe the filthy rich members of congress with both parties comprised of individually wealthy members in the power positions are interested in helping those that are not wealthy. I would not be surprised to see them vote themselves a golden parachute like some sorry CEOs get in case they are not elected again.
There has a lot of rhetoric about how terrible negative campaigning is but we will see more than ever in the 2012. Obama can't run on his record and win the republicans don't have anything positive. Both parties will be throwing as much dirt as possible on the other. Lobbyist and special interest will spend a record amount helping them in their mud slinging. Granny in a wheel chair over the cliff is probably one of the tamest we will see.
canarysong,
We know the problem. What is the solution? Both parties are corrupt. Would you shut down all oil companies, chemical producers, auto makers, food processors that use chemicals? I can ride a bicycle but I need tires for it and those rubber makers use petroleum and they pollute when making tires. I have before and I can again grow food but I need a tractor or tiller and some times fertilizer is needed and possibly some pesticides. I assume I can get imported products Those I do work for will be out of business so I will need to look to the government to take care of me, I kind of like that idea.
You and Mntl have converted me. Those in the health care business must do it with zero profit. People need to invest their money and operate without profits for the good of mankind. Those in any business that make things that create wealth need to move on to another country. We will only accept service providers that are not excessively profitable. Who should I vote for to make this happen and to make sure I am provided a comfortable living? No more 60+ hour work weeks for me.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute write 90 percent of Republican talking points, with the remaining 10% by the American Bankers Association....if you listen, you will hear them repeated ad nauseum in DC, then at the state level through the state offices of the same national organizations. It is very helpful to the Republicans to get on and stay on message (i.e., puppets on a string, particularly in the House), but it is also very dangerous to the republicans because often times a fool (in Congress) cannot spot a fool (from a lobbyist organization). But, this will continue until politicians debate the issues while simultaneously responding to Yes/No questions with a lie detector and public display of the results.
canarysong,
Without manufacturing and petroleum ff we get in a war we can all throw our I-pad at them, I don't have one but I will apply through the government program for one. Heck we could feed them fast food until they die of obesity. We need to think outside the box and quit thinking in such a traditional uncreative way. We need to quit thinking there is not an indefinite supply of money. We need to accept there is always enough money. We need to quit thinking people should provide for themselves and provide for those that can't and accept that the government can provide for all of us.
What an idiot I have been, thank and a few others for opening my eyes. I will go to the next local meeting of democrats and see if they will accept someone that has been a registered independent, Republicans have nothing to offer so why not go for the one promising me an easier life.
Harp - Would you shut down all oil companies, chemical producers, auto makers, food processors that use chemicals? That is exactly what they want. Here is what Patrick Moore former co-founder of Greenpeace says about this group:
"The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall . . . added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas."
"To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology. I remember visiting our Toronto office in 1985 and being surprised at how many of the new recruits were sporting army fatigues and red berets in support of the Sandinistas."
“Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
“Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
“These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. “
Canarysong said: "Thereby greatly multiplying the power and influence of those polluting industries. Quite a racquet! Recently the Chamber has also been pushing the religious right's anti-gay 'social agenda."
Speaking of money, corruption, and politicians, I just read on TPM’s web site that saintly representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Tom Cole introduced legislation titled "Keeping Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011" that would ban the federal government from collecting or using information about the political expenditures of federal contractors, allowing them to keep their political donations to third party groups secret.
Seems to me if you wanted to keep politics out of federal contracting you would increase transparency not banish it. But, perhaps, this is what the Republicans feared. The TPM article also says the legislation appears to have been introduced in response to a leaked draft of an executive order the Obama administration was considering which would have mandated federal contractors disclose their donations to third-party groups.
Fortunately, the good government A-Teams are slamming the Republicans's opposition to a measure they say would increase transparency:
"Precisely when disclosure is most important -- at the time in which the Supreme Court has unleashed a flood of unlimited corporate money into our elections -- we no longer have a meaningful disclosure law in place," Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen said in a statement. "Corporate money is flowing into our elections at record levels, but very little about the sources of this money is being disclosed to the public."
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/house_gop_fights_to_keep_federal_contractors_donat.php?ref=fpa
Harp wrote,
"Would you shut down all oil companies, chemical producers, auto makers, food processors that use chemicals?"
--- No. I would have them NOT falsify safety data to secure EPA approval for their products (several major manufacturers have been indicted for this); I would have them NOT withhold information on health risks from consumers for decades after their discovery; I would have them NOT sell products containing ingredients that are banned in other countries due to confirmed risks to health and the environment.
"I can again grow food but I need a tractor or tiller and some times fertilizer is needed and possibly some pesticides"
--- If you use proper management practices, NO synthetic fertilizers or pesticides are needed. I garden and have always been 100% organic. I know several commercial growers that do the same.
"You and Mntl have converted me. Those in the health care business must do it with zero profit. People need to invest their money and operate without profits for the good of mankind. Those in any business that make things that create wealth need to move on to another country."
--- Enough with the snarkiness... Green businesses can be (as many ARE) extremely profitable. A number of experts have written books suggesting that the road to the U.S. recovering its competitive position as a leader in the global economy depends upon developing green industries (see 'Natural Capitalism', Hawkin, Lovins, & Lovins - there are others but I don't have time right now to look them up).
"Republicans have nothing to offer so why not go for the one promising me an easier life."
--- If by an easier life you mean one in which you are less likely to develop cancer, or liver, kidney, reproductive, or central nervous system damage from the products that you buy or from the effluence from nearby industry, then yes.... you will be slightly better off in a Democratic-controlled system. But unfortunately, they have lots of room for improvement as well.
Rick1,
I have been working in the environmental community off and on for 25 years and I have never witnessed what you describe. In my circle of activists, those that take extreme positions are shunned by other environmentalists because they do more harm than good. Meticulous fact-checking, reasonable compromise, and respect engender co-operation and success, hostile fanaticism does not. If you have been led to believe that environmental extremism is the norm, you are mistaken.
Is clay returning to his glory days before the TFP?
Two great cartoons in a row! The only way I could think to make this cartoon better would have been to have the cat so big that it was straining the entire tree and threatening to uproot it.
Whether a democrat or a republican, government collusion with labor and industry leads to corruption and poor government. The corruption runs so deep now that it may take a complete collapse before any real reform is possible.
Are you out of debt? Do you have your stash of precious metals and real property? Hopefully you are not deeply in debt and solely invested in the US dollar and the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Rick1 said: Here is what Patrick Moore says . . . Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
I'm not sure I understand your bottom line, Rick1. Are you suggesting the issues we face involving air pollution, poisoned groundwater, oil spills, dirty drinking water and contaminated food products with cancer causing chemicals are actually the fault of these Marxists and Sandinistas and not the fault of the coal companies, the oil corporations, and the food manufacturers? If so, I'm not buying it. What about you? Who do you think is responsible?
mountainlaurel,
I think we all can agree that we need to continue to work to protect our environment in an informed and responsible way.
The progressives are trying to elevate environmental issues to crisis status whenever possible, not necessarily to improve the environment, although that may happen on occasion. The crisis is necessary for an opportunity to grab power.
CO2 and "man-made global warming" are a good example. There is no basis for the hysteria gore and company would have us panicking over. They have distracted us from real environmental issues and are doing the environment harm by misdirecting resources.
canarysong said... "The public has also become stupid, lazy, and shallow."
Is it possible that the public has become numbed by a constant flood of crises and is looking for escape? I get dozens of emails every day about the latest government outrage and have to admit I delete most of them without reading. There is just not enough time in the day, and I might be called a political junkie. My son has taught me to watch the Comedy Channel, sometimes you just need to disengage to keep your sanity!
I suspect the deluge is intentional.
Canary,
Which party established the EPA? They are not adequately funded, staffed or trained. Congress has failed to provide or support appropriate regulations nor have they provided adequate power to enforce. I am sure you are aware some states have very effective and active environmental agencies. Chattanooga has one of the most effective local agencies in the country and have been recognized for their work. I don't agree that the democrats are any better in this area than the other party. Again, they both have too many members with no grasp of the need in Safety and environmental regulations. There are businesses operating that should not be while others are burdened with unnecessary regulations and reports. Agents depend too much on filed reports. More trained and credible agents are needed with an obligation to audit. There is technology that could be used to monitor emissions remotely.
What I was really hoping for was an easy life where the government provides everything for me and I can quit working so much. I think I prefer being independent and aggravating the hell out of both parties. I will not make the mistake of voting for Obama again nor will I vote for the republicans representing me in the house and senate. Looking at the current candidates I may not vote at all since it won't matter a lot who prevails. I hope someone shows up that understands the fair tax proposal, can explain it to people and is committed to transitioning to it with a good enforcement plan.
Safety requires in person audits. I recently walked through an operation and logged over 20 worker safety and protection violations in less than two hours. They were all corrected in three days. Management wasn't aware of the violations nor did they realize the agencies would assist them without penalty if requested and recorded deficiencies are corrected.
BRP wrote,
"Is it possible that the public has become numbed by a constant flood of crises and is looking for escape? .....sometimes you just need to disengage to keep your sanity!"
--- Point well taken, BPR. There is definite merit to your statement. If we each didn't have our own way to 'decompress' we'd go crazy for sure! Comedy Central is a pretty good choice.
Unfortunately, far too many people let their lives pass them by as they spend an average of 5 hours per day docile and zoned out in front of the plug-in-drug. Some of these are the same people growing obese as they complain that they "don't have time to exercise". What could people accomplish if they only watched, say, 2 hours... or if they (gasp!) turned it OFF two or three days a week (no news, either!)? Read books? Trips to the park? Lift weights? Pilates? Ride a bicycle? Grow flowers? Play a board game with their kids? Volunteer work? Take up woodcarving? Bake brownies from scratch? How about an exhibit, lecture, or concert? Maybe even audit a course at the university? Or how about just sitting in the backyard with a cold drink listening to the crickets chirp? Wow! I would love the gift of a few more hours in my day for LIFE.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/24/business/fi-tvwatching24
Harp wrote,
"They [the EPA] are not adequately funded, staffed or trained. Congress has failed to provide or support appropriate regulations nor have they provided adequate power to enforce."
--- Very true.
You were also very correct, canarysong, when you said:
"--- The public has also become stupid, lazy, and shallow. Most would much rather hear about the latest 'news' about Brangelina, Lady Gaga, and Charlie Sheen. Idol worship is alive and well; the 100+ channel god has a prominent shrine in most people's homes. As with most religion, no thinking is required."
The only trifling thing I would point out is that your last sentence seriously detracted from the whole...even if it is/is not/may be correct.
Are you obsessing on religion as lkeithlu does?
Religion is certainly not the only thing that might [or not] require "no thinking". For instance, blindly voting/not voting for someone because of their skin color, their party, their hair style, or any of a myriad of personal characteristics having little to nothing to do with leadership.
ahhhh yes our benevolent friends at the EPA
"The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued 946 pages of new rules requiring that U.S. power plants sharply reduce their (already low) emissions of mercury and other air pollutants. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claims that while the regulations will cost electricity producers $10.9 billion annually, they will save 17,000 lives and generate up to $140 billion in health benefits.
There is no factual basis for these assertions. To build its case against mercury, the EPA systematically ignored evidence and clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda, which is to punish hydrocarbon use."
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3937
Fire away
Here is a thought provoking factoid indicating how far this nation has drifted:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/may_2011/46_rate_obama_s_leadership_style_as_good_or_excellent
Realize that Dear Leader has done what he pleased without regard for constitutional requirements, mandates, and prohibitions; leaving our borders completely undefended from invasion is only one. Ignoring the Equal Protection clause of the Tenth Amendment is another. Establishing czars not responsible to the voters or Congress. Draining our resources in foreign countries. There are others.
Approval of his leadership style means people admire his forthright acts which bypass Congress and thereby making them rather superfluous. In short, they would prefer he had a free hand in running the country. Effectively becoming a tyrant.
canarysong,
Richard Nixon, a republican, established the EPA. Strengthening of regulations and authority have been erratic and not party specific that I can tell by their history. Clinton seemed to have his don't ask don't tell philosophy with the EPA. Bush senior was supportive but Bush Jr. wiped out any progress senior brought about. Lobbyist are in touch with and influencing both parties. Barney Franks thinks lobbyist are an important part of the political process, wonder why?
I keep waiting on someone to realize that growth of our GDP will cure many problems. I would like to see both parties acknowledge that social security is not an immediate issue, it is at least 20-25 years in the future. Keep that issue separate from the general budget crisis. AARP's position is that the current social security ponzi scheme works for about 25 years and will still be able to pay 75% of current benefits at that point.
Medicare, medicaid and prescription insurance should be kept separate from social security retirement. Medicare, medicaid, prescriptions are all major drains exceeding revenue. States are stretched to the limit and some are near default due to these programs. Increased taxes and premiums or reduced benefits are the only right answers. Both parties lump retirement and health care together which is not appropriate.
Rolando wrote,
"Religion is certainly not the only thing that might [or not] require "no thinking". For instance, blindly voting/not voting for someone because of their skin color, their party, their hair style, or any of a myriad of personal characteristics having little to nothing to do with leadership."
--- I agree with you; I could have pointed out a myriad of other examples, all true. Here is why one of my pet peeves continues to reveal itself...
Despite a couple of sincere attempts to join the ranks of the faithful, I have really been an unbeliever for as long as I can remember. Faith can't be forced. I used to be content with keeping those thoughts to myself. No longer.... As the religious right in this country becomes more and more vociferous and forces their beliefs into government legislation affecting education, access to women's health care, and pokes their noses into other people's bedrooms and family relationships, THEN I feel myself compelled to start speaking up. 'Live and let live' has to go both ways. Those who publicly quote scripture and religious leaders to support their opinions, and reference their faith in everyday conversation need to be willing to accept agnostics/atheists when they reference their own perspective. Sometimes these references will be positive (as mine occasionally have been), and sometimes they will not. Either way, freedom of expression cannot go only one way. Many Christians are careful not to offend Jews and Catholics; some are also respectful of moderate Muslims. But Buddhists?....odd (western practitioners silly)! Hindus?....very strange! Jains?....who?? Atheists?....seemingly, we are not deserving of any respect whatsoever. If a group of people is called an abomination, stubborn, selfish, immoral, and downright evil long enough, then eventually they will start speaking up.
This phenomenon is being seen everywhere.... the rise of the 'New Atheists' and the tremendous popularity of their books; secular student groups forming at college campuses (and recently high schools) across the country; atheists for the first time forming groups to socialize and to promote secular values; billboards throughout North America (and the U.K.) putting a human face on the many non-believers who are your neighbors, coworkers, your children's teachers, your doctors, sometimes your own 'in the closet' family members.
I guess we should thank the religious extremists... without their increasingly vocal push to put religion into public life and policy, atheists would have remained a very silent minority. As I understand it, one of their 'duties' is to spread the 'word of God' and pull in converts. They are instead creating a backlash. In the U.S. the fastest-growing religious category is "no religious affiliation". While not all of these are unbelievers, many of them are. The religious right is just going to have to deal with our presence....
OK Canarysong, I'm coming out of the closet. I'm an Atheist. Perhaps more accurately a non-theist. I have never had an emotional need to believe in a higher power. I'm happy and moral. I don't fear non-existence, and I seem to be less fearful in general than most believers.
I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs, but I must admit I don't trust the judgement of true believers. However, I don't think that the majority of church goers are true believers, so it's really only the Bible thumpers who earn my mistrust.
Libertarians4Freedom said... "So what? Lobbyists have always been part of government"
Not like they are today. Didn't lobbying become a big thing with the New Deal, when government decided they were going to get into everybody’s britches and everybody then figured out they needed a voice in government?
It seems to me that lobbying is necessary only when government is overreaching. Since our government is overreaching you cannot stop lobbying and probably shouldn't. Politicians are not smart enough to properly manage everything they have taken on and need people to tell them what to do. A better plan would be to send the "central planners" home and return to a limited government.
Very well said, Leaf. Maybe it will help those who feel that 'something must be wrong with them' because they are not able to fall into ideological lockstep with those around them. Nonbelievers need to know that they are not alone; there are many of us. Labels are unimportant. Take your pick.... non-theist, unbeliever, freethinker, skeptic, rationalist, secularist, humanist, atheist, or if you want to be outrageous, how about infidel or heretic (my personal favorite - it originally meant 'one who is free to choose'). I recently started referring to myself as an atheist simply because religious extremists have tainted the word with such negativity that I decided that I want to reclaim it and try to restore it to it's proper place (in whatever small way I can).
BRP Are you a lobbyist? Are you really trying to tell us that the only lobbying that ever occurs is by patriotic guys in three-corner hats who just don't want their tea taxed? That it doesn't include loggers who want the old-growth trees on publicly owned land for $5 an acre? Or people who want Halliburton to get no-bid contracts for shadowy services?
Do you really expect us to believe that before the new deal every robber-baron in the US was a lily-white gentleman who didn't use influence and money to, for instance, drive American natives off their land, or settlers out of train right-of ways? You must think we are simpletons.
BigRidgePatriot said: "They have distracted us from real environmental issues and are doing the environment harm by misdirecting resources."
And what are the “real” environmental issues from your perspective, Big Ridge Patriot. I’ve been visiting TFP’s board for a least six to seven months now, and I can’t recall any time that you’ve ever expressed a concern about any specific environmental issue. The same applies to some of your pals like Francis and SeaMonkey. The only exception would be Harp3339, and I do recall him complaining a few times about trash and dog-poop in some of our parks and vacant lots, but this is about it. Again, I’m curious . . . What are the “real” environmental issues?
It isn't so much Christian vociferousness, canarysong, as defensiveness. Christians have been discriminated against for so long and are being minimized in favor of other religions that they simply must speak out. For instance, the so-called [and manufactured] "separation of church and state" only applies to Christians today. Our courts are recognizing -- and following -- sharia law over our constitution -- the very thing you so competently speak against. This favoritism is not good.
We are still an overwhelmingly Christian nation...especially with the millions of Mexicans coming aboard [gov't figures give it as roughly 54 million today]. Legislating against Christians and Christians alone is counter-productive and down-right discriminatory.
The Bible basically teaches respect and tolerance ["love", if you will] for the beliefs of others -- whether its believers follow it faithfully [so to speak] is not the issue; all Muslims do not follow their Koran faithfully, either.
Jesus said to shake the scoffing village's dust from your feet and move on. Mohammad basically said to kill them before moving on...or so I am told. Bit of a difference in the teaching of tolerance, if actually true.
And yes, government has no business sponsoring any one religion to the exclusion of all others. Nothing but a misguided SCOTUS interpretation of our constitution outlaws its influence...it is merely another form of lobbying that happens to be supported by over roughly three-quarters of the American people. About 10-15 percent of our people are either non-believers or indifferent, around 1 percent are Muslim...just behind Judaism.
Leaf said, "Or people who want Halliburton to get no-bid contracts for shadowy services?"
Or perhaps Howard Hughes contract to reach down and pick a sunken Russian sub off the ocean floor to recover nuke data?
Sometimes only one contractor is competent to conclude a particular mission...especially a "black" one.
Rolando said: "It isn't so much Christian vociferousness, canarysong, as defensiveness. Christians have been discriminated against for so long and are being minimized in favor of other religions that they simply must speak out."
Please, Rolando. How can you say Christians are being discriminated against when 78% of the population in the U.S. are Christians? To date, the only population that seems to be determined to undermine the right of others to build their churches and practice the faith of their choice has been some of these more radical fundamentalist christian organizations.
Rolando said: "Christians have been discriminated against for so long"
Huh? Rolando, do you hear voices? Are they telling you to hurt anyone? Do you think black helicopters follow you?
Rolando,
There is so much in your post that I would like to address in detail; some is a misunderstanding of the point that I was making, some is inaccurate information, and some of it I think is downright ridiculous. However, I need to get to some business appointments and won't get back until tonight. I will come back to THIS thread late tomorrow morning; meet me to continue if you like...
But for one quick thing... The figures that I have seen from several recent studies give the number of people in the U.S. claiming 'no religious affiliation' as between 16 and 20 percent (I can give you those links tomorrow). As I said, not all of these are non-believers, but then again, quite a number of non-believers do not feel comfortable identifying themselves as such and still will label themselves with the religious sect in which they were raised. My elderly mother, for example, has never believed in a god and raised me in a secular home, but if you ask her what she is, she will still call herself what she was christened as when she was a baby (in her words "Well, you can't just be 'nothing'!). By any count, there are FAR more agnostics/atheists in this country than there are Jews or Muslims, and the number is growing... following a trend throughout the developed world toward secularism.
The U.S. overwhelmingly Christian? Yes... so what? That doesn't give Christians license to turn the world's first nation with a secular constitution into a theocracy.
Just yesterday in Bosnia the Serb (christian) general was arrested and will be tried by the World Court for rounding up 8000 men and boys (muslim) and killing them, while his army raped thier women.
Who's discriminating on who?
Libertarians4Freedom said: "We don't need big government! We don't need the EPA!"
In all due respect, I believe if it were up to Liberatarians like yourself the U.S. wouldn’t even have penal codes and a criminal justice system, L4J. The fact is there is a need for a Environmental Protection Agency in the same way there is a need for a criminal justice system. You can’t arrest a criminal for committing a crime if there isn’t a law identifying what is and is not a crime. It wouldn't be fair. The same is true when it comes to environmental issues – limits and guidelines need to be identified. It's the fair thing to do.
See you tomorrow, canarysong, to continue our discussion. I admit I used wikipedia for the down-and-dirty numbers; I plead expediency.
The numbers differ within wiki -- which is to be expected since it is reader-input.
Percent of population means nothing to government discrimination; after all, look at how well our elected officials listen to us.
hambone -- one word ... sources?
mtnlrl; sticking my two cents worth in...
If there isn't a law against something, it isn't a crime to do it. That's the way our country's laws are set up. If it isn't a crime you cannot be tried.
But EPA doesn't work that way; it doesn't need a law against doing something; those folks punish non-crimes. Perhaps solely because someone there thinks some action is "unfair" so they act against it, law be damned. Stopping coal-fired generating plants, for instance. Closing Lake Mono because some fish might die -- thereby killing farmers' livelihood and dismissing their petitions With a "Humph", no doubt.
Leaf said... "Are you really trying to tell us that the only lobbying that ever occurs is by patriotic guys in three-corner hats who just don't want their tea taxed?"
No Leaf, I did not come anywhere close to saying that. I said I thought that lobbying was practically non-existent before the New Deal and overreaching government. The patriotic guys in three corner hats were pretty much taking care of their own business and not making carriers out of politics.
I am not saying that government does not have a role in protecting citizens from each other. That is not what it has come to though.
With a government that gets involved in EVERYTHING do you really think a politician would have a clue on how to vote half the time based on his own knowledge?
That is the fundamental flaw of central control and planning. Capitalism enabled the industrial revolution and the explosion of technology because it freed individuals to specialize and make informed decisions with a perfectly unbiased measuring stick, the market. We have a long way to go to figure out how to properly regulate activity in the free market without trying to control it. The human race has tried and failed at central control for thousands of years but has only worked for a couple of hundred years to refine the government / capitalist relationship.
Libertarians4Freedom said: "But EPA doesn't work that way; it doesn't need a law against doing something; those folks punish non-crimes."
The Environmental Protection Agency works exactly the same way, L4F. Chemicals, pollution, oil spills, poison groundwater, contaminated drinking water can and do impact the lives, health, and welfare of the human species. Corporations and their share holders have a responsibility when it comes to the public, and it is the job of the EPA to assure these people are acting in responsible manner. The EPA’s rules, regulations, and penalties are simply part of the process of holding corporations accountable for activities that are endangering the health of the public.
mountainlaurel said... "And what are the “real” environmental issues from your perspective"
One that is near and dear to my heart is water quality.
The Tennessee River is a good example. It would be nice if you could eat fish taken from below Chickamauga dam without poisoning yourself!
The reef die-off in the Florida Keys and Bahamas is another one. When I started diving 20 some years ago there were Elkhorn coral "forests" forming barrier reefs all over the Northern Bahamas. They stood out of the water at low tide. Now they are virtually non-existent.
Ouch, this stings...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7ZCsfyaOGdw
rolando, one word everywhere.
BigRidgePatriot said: "The Tennessee River is a good example. It would be nice if you could eat fish taken from below Chickamauga dam without poisoning yourself! . . . The reef die-off in the Florida Keys and Bahamas is another one."
Worthy issues, BigRidgePatriot. If you keep this up SeaMonkey is going to come along and call you a progressive. (Just kidding, BRP.) Of course, there are reasons for the reef die-off and why you can’t eat fish caught below the Chickamauga dam, but I’m sure you’re aware of this. What I don’t understand is why you work to undermine the EPA and the kind of environmental regulations that would prevent issues like the coral reef-die off and the contaminated fish in TN's river from developing in the first place - it just doesn't make sense to me.
As O thought, hambone...nowhere; or perhaps, unsupported.
SeaMonkey, I certainly cannot disagree with you about both parties who have been lobbied to by the same people. This is why there is not any arguing about there not being any difference between the parties. Thankfully, not all of the people in Congress have "sold their souls."
mountainlaurel said... "What I don’t understand is why you work to undermine the EPA and the kind of environmental regulations that would prevent issues like the coral reef-die off and the contaminated fish in TN's river from developing in the first place"
I support some environmental regulations but often the EPA gets carried away and puts an agenda ahead of science and analysis. Again, the CO2 example.
You know, they could do a great deal to improve EPA effectiveness if they would just adopt a simple law... Anyone who knowingly and intentionally dumps toxins into the environment (this is the tricky part, making sure the toxin list is only populated with toxins) suffers severe consequences. You don't need hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations and regulators to enforce this. Really, you would not even need the EPA.
Say, for example, someone ordered toxin laden waste routinely dumped into the TN River from a factory Chattanooga. I would have no problem with penalties up to and including life in prison or the death penalty. Someone who would do something like that could be more dangerous than someone who commits a single murder. Make the punishment fit the crime. Make the punishment very visible to the public.
mountainlaurel, I am flattered...but that was me you quoted.
You said, "...it is the job of the EPA to assure these people are acting in responsible manner."
That is my point -- the EPA operates and controls by fiat -- or whim, if you will. They make their own rules, regulations and penalties out of sometimes flawed cloth...they are NOT responsive to the public at large and do as they durn well see fit, right or not. It is their way or the highway.
In short, just another bureaucracy without voter control...which is fine, I guess, as long as they go your way [or mine, et al].
I am a very strong believer and supporter of the rule of law. Biased opinions and esoteric interpretations of what the law says and means are not acceptable...nor is the opinion of an appointed bureaucrat about what is "right" for someone to do or what a corporation "owes" the public. The marketplace does that...as does the Legislature.
Personally, I think the media is much more powerful than the lobbyist. The Lobbyist tries to sway those elected. The media sways many of those that vote by selective reporting and slanting the news in favor of their interest.
You live up to login, sage1. It gets even worse when the major media are owned by a few.
I agree sage1,the media can influence an election and since the media is about 6 to 1 liberal they can get someone elected who is not nearly qualified to do the job.The media can and does create controversy where there is none if the candidate is someone from "the other party".They will downplay negative information on their favorite and blow up all out of proportion a misquote or perceived misquote of a candidate from the other party.There is little non-biased reporting in todays media.
rolando, Who is Ratko Mladic ?
And what is he charged with ?
“I didn't get my inspiration from Karl Marx; I got it from a man named Jesus, a Galilean saint who said he was anointed to heal the broken-hearted. He was anointed to deal with the problems of the poor. And that is where we get our inspiration.
“We have the power to change America and give a kind of new vitality to the religion of Jesus Christ. And we can get those young men and women who've lost faith in the church to see that Jesus was a serious man precisely because he was concerned about their problems. The greatest revolutionary that history has ever known”
Rolando said : “The EPA operates and controls by fiat -- or whim, if you will. They make their own rules, regulations and penalties out of sometimes flawed cloth...they are NOT responsive to the public at large."
Since the EPA is an agency that pretty much operates according to the “whims” of U.S. politicians whose environmental policies often reflect the “whims” of corporate lobbyists who are being paid by some corporation that is contributing BIG dollars to a politician’s campaign so the politician will see things according to the “whims” of their corporation, I don’t think your critique is a fair assessment of the EPA, Rolando. Indeed, if you think the EPA operates by "whim," you should put the blame where it belongs, which would the politicians, the lobbyists, and the corporations. . . but I suspect you know this already. . . . Have a nice evening, Rolando.
BigRidgePatriot said: “I support some environmental regulations but often the EPA gets carried away and puts an agenda ahead of science and analysis.”
So you’re telling us the Environmental Protection Agency has an agenda that has nothing to do with pollution, exposure to dangerous chemicals, oil spills, poison groundwater, contaminated drinking water, etc.? Lord help you, BigRidgePatriot.
Oh, c'mon, mtnlrl, the EPA is at the forefront of setting all kinds of regulatory standards, requirements, reports, and anything else dealing with the environment. It does this based on its own ideas, interpretations, and wishful thinking; a few such unilateral extensions of its authority are:
-- Air quality standards review
Arbitrary changes in limits of various "pollutants" without a scientific basis
-- Global warming
In December 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson approved a draft of a document that declared that climate change imperiled the public welfare - a decision that would trigger the first national mandatory global-warming regulations.
-- Greenhouse gas emissions
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution under the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) for the first time on January 2, 2011.
-- Mercury emissions
The EPA's inspector general had determined that the EPA's regulation of mercury emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees. The EPA had suppressed a study it commissioned by Harvard University which contradicted its position on mercury controls.
-- Environmental justice
Administrator Christine Todd Whitman arbitrarily changed EO 12898 by removing the requirements for government agencies to take the poor and minority populations into special consideration when making changes to environmental legislation, and therefore defeating the spirit of the Executive Order.
Just a few taken from wikipedia but should show the agency's penchant for unilateral action based on a whim and without proper research.
But yes, they are also influenced by politics...and are getting more so each day. It is past time to rein them in.
The EPA is indeed placing an agenda ahead of their original basis of using scientists and proper research methods to make decisions, mtnlaurel. That agenda is now to stop relying on scientists and the scientific method and start relying on non-scientific people, reports, and methods. It also uses untrained and unaware politicians to bolster its wild-eyed proposals, regulations, and fiats.
Rolando said: "They are also influenced by politics...and are getting more so each day. It is past time to rein them in."
Spoken like a true lobbyist. . . . Do you work for BIG Oil or King Coal or the Koch-A-Teels? I know you're not working for the benefit of the rest of us. . . Have a good day, Rolando.
Libertarian4Freedom....you mention you will fight for the right to create and keep your wealth...Notice you said Create LOL LOL...i fight for the right of middle-class American keeping what they have earn....this is where we differ
You said something about stealing(who telling you that lie)...Look like income gap continue to widen between the middle class and rich and greedy(maybe you can contribute that to 17,000 lobbyist working in the rich and greedy interest......LOL LOL....) look like the middle class is being heisted....
You used the term distribution...well let me see...I agree with you again on distribution.....money is being siphone from the middle-class to rich and greedy.....
Libertarian4freedom...i couldnt reply immediately because my computer crashed...maybe the lord was looking after you fool!..you never respond with a message with accuracies...you always lie and parch words........cant beleive you lying about middle-class stealing from rich and greedy...one thing for sure you will do anything and tell any lie to protect the rich and greedy LOL LOL
For the benefit of Posters....see my comment May 26 4:37....and Libertarian response may 26 4:53 LOL LOL this idiot make up lies because he cant defend his arguments without concocting and forging lies LOL LOL
You are the true protector of the Rich and Greedy!! LOL LOL
Canarysong said:
“As I said, not all of these are non-believers, but then again, quite a number of non-believers do not feel comfortable identifying themselves as such and still will label themselves with the religious sect in which they were raised. My elderly mother, for example, has never believed in a god and raised me in a secular home, but if you ask her what she is, she will still call herself what she was christened as when she was a baby (in her words "Well, you can't just be 'nothing'!). By any count, there are FAR more agnostics/atheists in this country than there are Jews or Muslims, and the number is growing... following a trend throughout the developed world toward secularism.”
Great points. Your mother’s words reflect a lot of wisdom. The statement makes another, though perhaps unintended, point. Western agnostics/atheists are Judeo-Christian agnostics and atheists. You can’t live without a moral code. And you can’t create a new one in a couple a hundred years.
It has only been in the past 100-150 years that westerners identify themselves by their nationality. For 300 years or so prior to that, they mostly identified themselves by their family name by their Christian denomination, or as Jews. Before that, simply as “Christians.” For better or worse, that is our cultural and moral tradition. To deny it is not be more authentic. It is simply to deny history.
The word “secularism” demands some un-packing. The good sort, the sort that distinguishes religious institutions from the institutions of civil government, is slowly spreading to non-western societies. The bad sort, the sort that sees religion as something threatening and best kept secret if kept at all, is still pretty much confined to Western Europe and coastal North America. Our failure to understand this is costing us credibility and hospitality abroad.
Rolando... Are you still around? I am trying to get control over a monster headache today (so far the headache is winning). The next step might be a sharp axe! I will still try to get back to our discussion when things improve; please check back....
wwwtw... I would also like to respond to your post..... Meet you later?
Okilee-dokilee neighborini
Still here, canarysong. These weather fronts one after the other are deadly for the sinus cavities. About the only thing my wife finds that works is time...that and throwing the cat across the room [just kidding on that one]. Pampering her helps too.
See you on the flip side.
PS -- You are in my prayers. [smile] Really. Hey -- it can't hurt.
My day was wonderful, mountainlaurel. Thanks for asking. [No day is bad when you are riding a Harley.]
And no, I am not a lobbyist. Exactly what makes you believe I am not working for the good of the country? Are you an EPA employee? You've certainly taken a deep draught from their kool-aid jar.
Did you even read the wiki entry? Down there where they address contentions? They have done and are doing some very dirty tricks, little of it science-based or reviewed...not very people friendly at all.
"Our minds are made up so stop annoying us with science and facts" seems to be their motto these days...particularly since Dear Leader assumed the helm, although Bush had a hand in it, too.
Rolando, thanks for the good thoughts; I hear prayer can be very therapeutic (for the person who is doing the praying, anyway...).
Before I forget to mention it, I got a kick out of your little essay on grammar snobbery. It was very fun! Although I am not error-free myself, I can be a bit of a "snob" sometimes when confronted with someone who makes too many obvious errors. How hard is it to at least use spellcheck and take a moment to proofread? Oops, I think I split my infinitive there!
You said...
"Our courts are recognizing -- and following -- sharia law over our constitution -- the very thing you so competently speak against. This favoritism is not good."
--- That's a pretty outrageous claim. If that is true, it certainly is NOT something that I would find defensible. Do you have evidence?
"Legislating against Christians and Christians alone is counter-productive and down-right discriminatory.
--- I agree; I wouldn't support this either. Again, do you have evidence?
"The Bible basically teaches respect and tolerance ["love", if you will] for the beliefs of others..."
--- Really? The bible also says:
~ "If you hear that in one of the towns which Yahweh your God has given you for a home, there are men, scoundrels from your own stock, who have led their fellow citizens astray, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," hitherto unknown to you, it is your duty to look into the matter, examine it, and inquire most carefully. If it is proved and confirmed that such a hateful thing has taken place among you, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword; you must lay it under the curse of destruction - the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot, offering it all to Yahweh your God. It is to be a ruin for all time and never rebuilt. (Deuteronomy, 13:12-16)
Rolando,
Just for the record, hambone said....
"Just yesterday in Bosnia the Serb (christian) general was arrested and will be tried by the World Court for rounding up 8000 men and boys (muslim) and killing them, while his army raped thier women."
You doubted his statement since he didn't cite a source. I happened to see the story referred to later in an interview (Rachel Maddow interviewing a former governor of Pennsylvania(?) who is now a political analyst for MSNBC). The former Serbian general committed these atrocities in 1995 and then 'disappeared'. Bosnia has been petitioning for inclusion into the E.U. but has been rejected because of the continuing failure to capture and prosecute this general. It turns out that he has been 'hiding' in plain sight all this time in a major Bosnian city, attending lavish social events, entertaining, and being well-known at local restaurants. Nice.... I guess they weren't trying very hard to apprehend him. (I didn't want poor hambone to be thought of as someone who just makes things up!)
wwwtw... You wrote:
"Your mother’s words reflect a lot of wisdom."
--- I have to disagree. She said this not with calm certitude but with flustered confusion. Labels and living according to expected norms are very important to her. If she had been raised in this country she would surely be an obedient church-goer like her neighbors, but like many older Europeans, she has let go of both the practice and the belief of the old religion but not the self-identity. That is certainly her right, but I see no particular wisdom in it.
"Western agnostics/atheists are Judeo-Christian agnostics and atheists."
--- There is no question that agnostics/atheists are influenced by the culture in which they were raised. If they were raised in a non-religious home then there was still the influence of their grandparents' or great-grandparents' religion, or that of the surrounding community. I know that I have been influenced by every person that has ever touched my life and every book that I have ever read, whether I agreed with them or not. (BTW, I am also an Easter bunny 'atheist', a Santa 'atheist', and a Tooth Fairy 'atheist' - there are many myths from my childhood and my culture that I don't believe in. Forgive my loose use of the word 'atheist', but you get my point.)
"You can’t live without a moral code. And you can’t create a new one in a couple a hundred years."
--- Several points here: first, as previously acknowledged, no one exists in a vacuum. Much moral guidance will be absorbed from the surrounding culture and from the family that has been shaped by it. That does not mean that every part (or even the implicit basis) of it will be accepted. Next, it is interesting to note the cross-cultural similarities among moral codes throughout history.... Everywhere in the world, regardless of the religion, the basics are the same: do not kill; do not steal; honor your parents; etc. Why is this? Science may have some answers...
New discoveries in neuroscience suggest that there may be physiological bases for and evolutionary advantages to the formation of morality in human beings. Some books on this and related subjects include: 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris; 'Good Without God' by ; and 'The Science of Good and Evil' by Michael Shermer. I didn't do a literature search; I'm sure there is much more. (Also interesting... 'The Believing Brain' by Michael Shermer')
Finally, a belief in a supernatural creator is simply not necessary in order to live a compassionate ethical life. Both ancient tradition (Buddhism) and modern science support that conclusion.
wwwtw, continued....
"The word “secularism” demands some un-packing." .... "The bad sort, the sort that sees religion as something threatening and best kept secret if kept at, is still pretty much confined to Western Europe and coastal North America."
--- Wow, talk about judgmental! If you have not lived in Europe you are not in much of a position to understand the culture, much less to pass judgement on it. For the most part, the western European countries that are the least religious (the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia) are also the ones that have the lowest violent crime rates, the least poverty, the highest life expectancy, the lowest infant mortality, relative economic and political stability, the most progressive energy policies, the highest environmental standards, less economic disparity between the rich and the average worker, and the high reported levels of happiness. Hmmm, secularism doesn't seem to have had a bad influence that I can see.
Defining the idea that faith and religious expression is a private matter best kept within the home and church(etc) as "bad" is simply a reflection of your own bias; you have no right to project that onto another culture. Just because YOU see letting go of religion as "bad", that does not make it intrinsically so.
~As I mentioned before, one of the factors that is swelling the ranks of the vocally non-religious in the U.S. is a resentment of the religious right's assertion that they hold the one and only right answer to how people should think and how they should live, and they seem determined to impose it on us all. In the early 1990s Walter Truett Anderson said (in his book, 'Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be'), "the real clash is not between two religions or between two truths. It’s between those who can see more than one truth and those who cannot." Modernity has not only brought us scientific understanding of natural phenomena that people used to explain through religion, it has also brought us into contact with the wisdom traditions of other cultures. There are, indeed, a variety of 'truths', or better stated, according to Indian spiritual tradition, "One truth, many names.". Those with more rigid ideological mindsets often seem to see such fluidity and 'borrowing' as a threat (for example, the fundamentalist Christian demonization of Buddhism and yoga). Or perhaps the perceived threat is simply modernity itself and hardening dogma is an attempt to hold onto a rapidly disappearing and highly idealized past (I'm guessing here, I don't claim to understand the fundamentalist Christian mind).
Whew! Proofreading be damned... I'm going to bed!
Oh, no... here comes my fear that I've hurt someone's feelings. About that "tooth fairy atheist" comment - I'd like to say that while I may not feel any particular respect for religious beliefs, I still respect most of the people that hold those beliefs, as well as their right to hold them. I hope that is clear...
I don't use spellcheck, canarysong. If I did, my "snobbery" post would never have gotten through...the whole thing was red-underlined. Besides, spellcheck inserts the wrong words, confusing "there, their, and they're", for isntance. Or "read, red".
Point was, minor mispellings [sic] and poor grammer [sic] do not reduce comprehension. But they do give those who need a handle on which to hang their need to look down ones nose at other folks...and thereby feed their ego.
And yes, personal prayer (another word is -- had the word and lost it [getting old is not for sissies] introspection, study, contemplation, etc?) is or can be quite therapeutic. It can help one to accept the inevitable and find closure. [To say nothing of eliminating the need for an axe or throwing the cat against the wall. I trust your headache has eased this morning?]
Don't worry so much about offending other people, canarysong. Giving unintended offense is inherent in life itself.
I wasn't doubting hambone's word, per se. There are many claims made here; my training has been to go to the root of a statement; "he said/she said" are legion.
An accusation was made against someone being tried in the world court [a laughable term -- world kangaroo court would be better]. If memory serves, its prosecutors wanted to try every American soldier in Iraq, et al as war criminals.
Determining sources for war crimes trials, et al, is paramount to reach true justice. So who made the claims about the 8,000 deaths? How reliable were the sources? Did they have an axe to grind? What was their motive? It appears the EU is using inclusion as a political football against Bosnia.
Perhaps Bosnia does not consider the general a war criminal and refused to "arrest and prosecute" him for what it -- as a sovereign nation -- sees a non-crime at the whim of a corrupt, politicized "world court"...until it was made a condition of inclusion -- the "good of the people" of the EU again won over the individual. [Sounds familiar, somehow. Didn't we fight a major war over there against just that?]
Rolando,
"...spellcheck inserts the wrong words..."
Yes, but sometimes the results can be really funny. Last night it came up with one that I almost left as is just for the absurdity of it; I can't remember what it was...(?)... you're right, getting older is not for sissies. (One time it changed "rutilated quartz" to "mutilated quartz" which I suspect would be something else entirely. ;-) ) I often think that spellcheck costs me more time than it saves, but I don't want to give up its entertainment value! Check out the hilarious website (and now a book, too) called 'Damn You, Auto-Correct!'.... You did make your point quite clearly in that grammar post, and it was a good one. Thanks for the 'perspective adjustment'.
My headache finally eased later last night; it was (felt like) a killer! I should have tried meditation. I haven't developed the habit of using it for pain management even though I know that research has shown it's efficacy for that.... just can't think past the pain.
I really can't comment on Bosnia pro or con because what I heard on that interview is the limit of what I know about that situation.
I'm rushing off for an early all-day event, but I will try to answer any comments on this thread tonight; have a great weekend, all (maybe that should be y'all)!
BTW, I'm still concerned about hurting feelings; that truly is not my intent. When I said that I have no particular respect for religious belief I meant that, as a non-believer, I hold religious belief in a position of respect that is no greater than any other type of belief; to me there is nothing that sets it higher in esteem than someone's beliefs regarding politics or something else non-religious.
Quoting the Old Testament to support your argument, canarysong, is like citing English common law in court; each was and is part of our modern Bible/Law but are not all that pertinent. The new has fulfilled the old, included its important points, but essentially replaced it.
Most non-believers [I use that term generically and in the most general sense] choose not to accept that replacement...I suspect because it cripples their main arguments against Christianity.
Finally, the New Testament is a series of goals -- ideals, if you will. Meeting those goals/ideals can be a challenge...but we try.
"Meditation"! That's the word -- thank you.
Actually, the bombing of a Christian nation in favor of a Muslim sub-population therein, was a good example of the US Government punishing Christians while supporting Islam. If effectively caused a mass-migration of Christians from their own country. It got to the point of our troops being assigned individual Christian families to escort and protect wherever they needed to go. Bad karma, that.
One thing I learned as a "mid-level gov't bureaucrat", canarysong, is "Never explain, never apologize". That and the six Ds -- discrete, discrete, discrete, deny, deny, deny. [smile]
[I was called that by a feature writer for the L.A. Times a decade or two back. He didn't like it because I kept referring him to the Freedom of Information Act. :o)]
Rolando...A mid-level gov't bureaucrat...and a republican....that mean you have a GED!.... or worst....graduated from liberty Univ. or Regent Univ.
canarysong said...
"Oh, no... here comes my fear that I've hurt someone's feelings. About that "tooth fairy atheist" comment - I'd like to say that while I may not feel any particular respect for religious beliefs, I still respect most of the people that hold those beliefs, as well as their right to hold them. I hope that is clear..."
I can appreciate (believe it or not) your sensitivity toward the feelings of those whose ideas you would challenge. My feelings are not hurt. I have been otherwise occupied since yesterday, so I will have to delay a response for another day or so.
If I had a GED, dippity-do, I would have said so. I doubt you even have that level of education.
As to the two Univs you mention, never heard of them...you, no doubt, have been denied entry there more times than you have teeth...you know, three or four times.
You are so easy...and so boring. Say 'Good Night, Gracie' and take a nap, my child.
Give you a hint gomer,,,,Pat Robertson and Jerry farwell, ooops!
So easy and so bo-o-o-ring.
So you DO have less than three or four teeth and NO GED! Amazing. Yet you still waste our air by breathing.
So now you are touting religious colleges? Good idea, that. They beat the pants off public ones, hands down.
So is thats why Tennessee Temple closing its doors??? BUTT HEAD....Let Uncle Chet teach you a little lesson Gomer....Religion , listen to you fool...religion LOL you sound mideast...LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, REGENT UNIVERSITY ARE A JOKE LIKE YOU bozo....I CAN SEE THE NEXT NOBEL PRIZE WINNER IN MEDICINE COMING OUT OF THOSE SCHOOLS...BUT ANYONE STUPID TO PLACE A MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE FROM EUREKA COLLEGE CANT BE HOLDING A FULL DECK
Or login with:
New Account