Pharyngula

Posted by: sangfroid | June 10, 2008 12:19 AM

This sounds quite a lot like his speech earlier in the primaries on religion. The parts about Leviticus and Deuteronomy are virtually verbatim.

Posted by: S.Scott | June 10, 2008 12:27 AM

Most excellent!

Posted by: SteveC | June 10, 2008 12:41 AM

Pretty good, up until the end, when he says, "they don't want faith to belittle, they don't want faith to divide."

Faith is inherently belittling and divisive. It belittles the intellect of those who subscribe to it -- "don't think, just believe." It divides, because those who subscribe to faith invariably see their subscription as a virtue, and thus, those who don't subscribe, as lacking that virtue.

Faith sucks completely and utterly and is without a single redeeming feature.

But to hope for a politician to say as much, and remain a viable politician, is to hope for too much, too soon.

So, good enough, and far better than what we've had recently.

Posted by: woozy | June 10, 2008 12:45 AM

I like the slug at the end.

Not sure he's going to want to repeat the "Sermon on the Mount is so radical that it'd render our military obsolite". We can be sure that we'll be hearing a *lot* about Obama not being qualified to be commander in chief from the McCain groupies.

Good speech all round though. Nice *sane* explanation of the need for secularity from the viewpoint of the faithful. That really ought to counter the fears the fundies are trying to pound into non-fundie faithfuls' heads.

Posted by: travc | June 10, 2008 12:52 AM

He may just do it. He given forms of this speech multiple times already... and I'm willing to bet he is sincere.

Politically, it is a ju-jitsu move (as David Brin likes to call them). Doing something counter 'conventional wisdom' to use your opponents momentum against them. No, this message wouldn't play well to the stereotypical evangelical (who won't vote for Obama anyway), but the majority of people aren't the stereotype. Actually making your argument to them in terms they can understand can win a lot of respect, even when they aren't going to automatically agree with you.

Obama has much bigger problems with 'fear of the unknown/outsider' than 'he isn't religious enough'. Clearly stating his position, even/especially when it isn't a pander position, does more good by addressing the bigger and stickier liability.

Posted by: Brodysattva | June 10, 2008 12:58 AM

This speech makes clear that he's a moderate and reasonable person. Why would you even want him to make a big fuss over these kinds of sentiments and make it more likely that the radical John McCain get elected in his place?

Posted by: keiths | June 10, 2008 1:16 AM

Wow. I can't remember the last time I heard a politician of national prominence speak so sensibly about religion. Let's pray (so to speak) that he gets elected, and that nowhere along the way does he succumb to the temptation to pander to believers.

Posted by: shvarz | June 10, 2008 1:25 AM

Hmm, youtube is not getting emedded. Here's the direct link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M

Posted by: The skepTick | June 10, 2008 1:34 AM

Awesome. That clip made my evening (or very early morning)!

Posted by: Adam | June 10, 2008 1:41 AM

Actually, I think this is the same speech which you complained about a long time ago. The whole speech as a whole is much more religious sounding. And yes, at the "cnn compassion forum" he said the same things.

I like Obama because he takes two opposing ideas and blends them together in a way that doesn't pander too much. Whether Obama is actually religious or not it isn't going to get in the way IMO based upon what I have read and heard from him.

Was the earth created in 6 days? Obama's answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMd4w1rqh3g&feature=related

Posted by: Shaden Freud | June 10, 2008 1:54 AM

#20 Adam,

For good measure, here's Lewis Black's answer.

Posted by: Troy | June 10, 2008 2:29 AM

Unfortunately our political process would not admit agnostics (or worse) into positions of power. The BS of feigning belief is apparently required.

Dean's "I'm tired of listening to fundamentalist preachers!" was like donning a bullseye target for the conservative elements of the media to him as a threat to their powerbase (the 25+ million idiot fundamentalists running around).

Posted by: Bartlettman | June 10, 2008 3:34 AM

@ #9 mims

There's a good reason for that. A friend of mine told me that many strict Christians will continue to tithe to the church regardless of their level of income, even if destitute. A friend of hers is living in a caravan park with 3 kids who she can barely afford to feed and clothe but still gives the 10%. To these people tithing counts as a necessity simply because if an allowance is not made for it, they will tithe to the detriment of their children and themselves regardless. The bill perhaps should have been more specific in allowing only families with dependent children the allowance.

Posted by: scooter | June 10, 2008 3:54 AM

Naaah I doubt it
Contemporary Obama Godspeak and other turkeys slightly edited 4:48

Rev Wright Crap

Posted by: scooter | June 10, 2008 4:30 AM

On the six days question:

In the Beginning

SacriLIBS #3

In the beginning, there was Shaolin monk. God said "Let there be a dick smashing toilet seat!" and there was a dick smashing toilet seat, and it was good. Then God divided the MD 20/20 and made the teddy bears.

He yammered the plants, then the sun, moon and 20GB Ipods to hang in the sky. On the fifth day, he made all the creatures of the teddy bears and your house.

On the sixth day, God made all the animals that live on the land, from the unmodified buffalo to the festering beetle. He also made the first really big pillow, Adam. He took Adam's solar plexus and made him a wife, Dick Cheney. God told them not to eat from the Tree of pound cake or surely they would adjust.

Adam and Dick Cheney lived in the Garden of Erectus until a flying squirrel convinced Dick Cheney to eat the ass-faced fruit and share with Adam. Right away they realized they were suspicious and hid. When God found them, Adam said, "Holy bat balls!" God wasn't impressed. They didn't adjust, but God was angry and sent them away from Erectus.

Eventually, they had two sons, Paris Hilton and Abel. Paris Hilton killed Abel and said, "Am I my brother's bong?"

The End

This is a MAD LIBS page of Bible Stories. I wasted an hour there with my 9 year old son, yesterday. Very addicting, and we both laughed ourselves into exhaustion.

If you don't want to take the time to fill out the section there is the SacriLIB-O-Matic randomly completes the story with previously-used words from SacriLIBS players.

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 4:32 AM

FWIW, Obama makes a lot of points in this speech which I strongly agree with. He's obviously right that it's fairly vacuous to talk of the US as a "Christian nation", even if that were constitutionally correct; not only are there large minorities of Jews, Muslims, nonbelievers, etc., but it's also true that there are a thousand different types of "Christianity", all of which have distinct doctrines. As he said, there's a huge gap between James Dobson and Al Sharpton - and they're both Protestants. What about Catholics, and Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses? So when the hardline religious right says "America is a Christian nation", what they really mean is that they think America ought to be an Evangelical Protestant nation, informed by their particular specific doctrine and reading of scripture. And that's plainly absurd in a multi-religious society.

So I also agree with him that all public policy which is adopted, at least insofar as it affects every citizen of the country, needs to have an objective, secular justification. For instance, I would strongly oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (which Huckabee, inter alia, suggested); because I don't see any secular, material arguments for why gay marriage is harmful to society and needs to be constitutionally banned.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir (ha, inappropriate expression) here. But I don't think any of this is a reason to vote for Obama. Because, his speech on the other thread notwithstanding, I actually think McCain is also comparatively secular in his outlook. He certainly doesn't approach politics from the overtly religious standpoint that President Bush does, and years ago he even called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance". He has pandered to the religious right to some extent - but it's impossible, realistically, to be a successful conservative politician on the national stage in the US without doing so. And bear in mind that Obama has very obvious links to the radical religious left (Rev. Wright, etc.), who seem to me just as scary as the religious right.

Posted by: Kirsty Bruce | June 10, 2008 5:16 AM

This was the final question at the Science Debate....whoops...sorry...my bad, I mean the Compassion Forum - he seems to be channelling much of the speech linked to this thread. I think it was filmed in April.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kNGRAoNB6rw

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 10, 2008 5:45 AM

I have also always thought that the world would be much better off had he won the primaries, instead of Bush, in 2000.

Posted by: rudi | June 10, 2008 6:02 AM

Damned by faint praise: the world would be better off if Bobo the Clown had won the Republican nomination in 2000.

Huh?

I thought he did?

Posted by: Abbie | June 10, 2008 6:06 AM

That is the exact speech- or a written version of it- that made me decide to support Obama.

I blinked and went, omg, someone who gets it.

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 6:12 AM

You're ignoring the fact that McCain's link to Falwell and the religious right is one of both overt political and financial support, while Obama's relationship with Wright includes neither of those, and is a relationship that has been effectively ended. - Fair point, and I accept the validity of that distinction.

If you want to get up in arms about inflammatory statements, you should examine the man that McCain so lavishly praised in 2006 - Falwell had no qualms about blaming 9/11 on the homosexuals of this country, and McCain still sought and accepted his endorsement. - I agree that Falwell's well-known remarks on 13th September 2001 were patently absurd and (in the context of the time) somewhat offensive. (Though he later apologised for them.) All I can really say in McCain's defence is this: would he have got anywhere electorally, had he not sought support from the evangelical right?

As for the comment you made about Jimmy Carter's presidency, you're seriously making yourself look like an idiot. - My apologies, but I don't understand why. Would you argue that his presidency was a success? I accept that it isn't a period in which I have massive expertise (and obviously I wasn't alive at the time), so I'll be glad to accept any corrections to my analysis. But I always understood that his term in office was generally viewed as something of a failure, especially on the foreign policy front.

...while you may have "conceded" a few points, the idiocy of your repeated and redundant assertions about McCain and Obama and your refusal to recognize fact when it is presented to you show me that you are giving our arguments no such consideration. - I am giving your arguments consideration. I do recognise fact, and I have conceded points when I have been shown to be wrong, which has happened a few times since I started commenting here. I'm not closed-minded. If I'm repeating redundant assertions, I apologise for that.

The rest may still feel like troll-feeding, but I'm done. - I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way, because I found many of your remarks (especially on the other thread) to be insightful and interesting, and I've learnt a lot from you. I continue to argue because I believe that a two-sided argument is the best way to arrive at the truth, not because I'm refusing to recognise the validity of your points or the reality of your expertise.

Posted by: Daniel | June 10, 2008 6:28 AM

Liked the retelling of the Abraham story. Religious people seem the most temperate and reasonable when they... don't act like they don't believe it very much.

Can you imagine the consequences if the story had finished with Abraham killing Isaac, and then the Lord resurrects him? Think of how many more child murders there might have been all throughout history.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 10, 2008 6:58 AM

I see someone is still playing with their war-hard-on.

Posted by: SGEW | June 10, 2008 7:32 AM

Unfortunately our political process would not admit agnostics (or worse) into positions of power.

Except for Rep. Pete Stark.

http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html

Stark for President! Or at least V.P.

Posted by: Arwen | June 10, 2008 8:00 AM

Jimmy Carter was given a bad rap. He did many great things for Foreign Policy. As for the hostage crisis and the oil shortage, it is perfectly obvious that the Republicans were in the Saudi's pocket the whole time. Don't you think it is just a little too convenient that the hostages were released the same day Reagan became President (before he would have any kind of chance to do anything) and that the fuel shortage magically disappeared at around the same time (who was the new VP at the time? -- oh, yeah, George H.W. Bush, whose son just "happened" to be an oilman closely connected to the Saudi royal family)? I have no documented proof of what I'm saying of course (because, oh yeah, GHWB was ex-CIA chief). Most every other nation in the world sees Jimmy Carter as one of our greatest presidents... FYI, usually they don't give Nobel Peace Prizes to losers. A lot of who we are as a people today is because of the policies Jimmy Carter put into being.

Posted by: MB | June 10, 2008 8:10 AM

It is too bad Obama makes so little sense when he talks about economics. Otherwise, he'd get my vote over McCain.

A few stupid ideas from Obama: 1. He thought that mortgage companies should be fined for foreclosing on bad loans. This will ensure that no one bothers to pay their mortgage, and plunge the finance sector even deeper into the red. 2. He wants to tax away the oil companies recent profits, even though the are not responsible for the high prices. Where will they get the money to explore and drill for more oil, build new refineries, etc. What will lure others into the field to moderate the prices.

Obama is just an ignoramus when it comes to economics.

Posted by: Kurt | June 10, 2008 8:23 AM

He would never give a similar speech now!!
The man is an extremist liberal. He listened to Rev. Wright's sermons on tape in college. It says so in his book. Democrats are supposed to stay away from crazy religious nuts like Rev. Wright and others he has associated with. There is very little difference between Obama and McCain once you get pass the rhetoric. Many bad leaders in a row- that is how Rome fell.

Posted by: Grimalkin | June 10, 2008 8:34 AM

I love the way his tone of voice is completely different in the first and second parts. In the first part, he's preaching. He's up there, he's excited, he's sharing something he believes in. Then he gets to the second part and he sounds like my nephew trying to apology for pulling my niece's hair. There's no enthusiasm, he's looking down at his paper more, it seems to me that he doesn't really believe this part but he has to throw it in so that the comments from the first part don't get painted with the big bad "secularist" brush.

I would love to see him give a speech like this today. I would feel much more comfortable voting for him if he showed me that he still believes in that first part.

Posted by: J-Dog | June 10, 2008 8:37 AM

Back when Santorem (R-PA) was making noise about ID,(2005?) I wrote an email to Obama, who is my Senator, asking him to bitch-slap Santorem and tell him to shut up, ID is just a new form of creation science. And yes, that is a verbatim quote.

Obama wrote back that while he would not slap Santorem, he did believe in the separation of church and state and understood that ID was just another version of creation science, and would work against him in the Senate.

I have been an Obama fan ever since, and curse my penchant for cleaning out my email box.

Posted by: tonyJ | June 10, 2008 8:41 AM

#8 Woozy
Just for the sake of being an irritant and a pedant the cool critter at the end is not a slug but a mudskipper and they're very cool.
For some reason in this speach Obama sounds like a closet atheist, nope that's hopelessly wishful thinking on my part.
Glad I live in Britain...in a village without a church because no one went to it when it was there.In fact it's been demolished, how cool is that?

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | June 10, 2008 8:50 AM

Walton

As a climatologist I'd be interested to hear your evidence ,or perhaps your references to the "evidence" you have read, to refute that global warming is human caused. Seriously,as Nick Gotts said, you have to realise when you make a sciency type statement of fact on a blog like Pharyngula there is going to be at least one scientist in the field who is just waiting for a "chat" on the subject. Keep in mind though, that regulars will attest, I suffer fools gladly and, whilst I freely admit I haven't taught in the field for about 8 years, I've kept up with my peers research.

Please engage if you wish.

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 9:03 AM

To Bride of Shrek at #62: Thanks for the offer, but I'm a non-scientist, have only a simple layman's view and am entirely unqualified to argue the point with you. You're right, I should have realised that it would be challenged by someone more knowledgeable than myself.

So I won't attempt a debate. However, I would like to ask you, as a climatologist, a couple of questions:

1) Is it not the case that a significant minority of the scientific community accepts that global warming may be substantially caused by natural solar cycles, rather than by carbon dioxide emissions?

2) Is it not the case that the Earth has gone through various "warm" and "cold" phases in the past, due entirely to natural factors, long prior to the industrial era?

3) Is it not the case that in the 1970s, there was actually a "global cooling" scare? Which was sensationalised by the media just like the current global warming scare?

The whole debate, on both sides, is extremely politicised and a lot of people (including most of the media) have vested interests in pushing viewpoints, making it hard for laymen like me to determine what the objective scientific truth actually is. So I acknowledge that I could be talking a bunch of crap. But if I am, please correct me.

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 9:08 AM

He has most certainly been America's greatest EX-President. - I would dispute that. His recent meeting with Hamas leaders was condemned as very dangerous not only by the Bush administration, but by many Democrats with foreign policy experience. Bush's "appeasement" speech to the Knesset was (as you are probably aware) not about Obama, but about Carter's meeting with Hamas. Hamas is an organisation which glorifies and endorses violence, and which has as official policy the stated aim of destroying the state of Israel. It is highly irresponsible for an ex-President to give them legitimacy by meeting with them. Obviously he's a private citizen and he's entitled to do as he wishes, but I condemn his actions.

When he proposed energy conservation, even as mundane as sweaters, he was absolutely right. - You may well be right; I don't know much about energy policy, so I can't argue with that.

If there is a god, Jimmy Carter is on His A-list. - I wouldn't disagree with that. As I said, I think he's a decent guy with integrity (and, of course, is a devout Christian; IIRC, he popularised the term "born-again"). But that doesn't mean he was a fantastic President.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 10, 2008 9:09 AM

Bush's "appeasement" speech to the Knesset was (as you are probably aware) not about Obama, but about Carter's meeting with Hamas.

Oh, for fuck's sake, you dishonest little git.

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 10, 2008 9:13 AM

MB,

2. He wants to tax away the oil companies recent profits, even though the are not responsible for the high prices. Where will they get the money to explore and drill for more oil, build new refineries, etc. What will lure others into the field to moderate the prices.

Oh please give me a break ! Have you taken a close look at the income statements of the oil companies, the traders, etc... ? They have been completely irresponsible, have reaped insane profits, and you just think they should keep on doing the same dirty trick. What a joke what you say.

Hey take a look at this :

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/CFATestimony_HearingonMarketManipulation.pdf
"ENERGY MARKET MANIPULATION AND
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT REGIMES"

- The problem is that both the structure of the market and the behaviors of market players are biased in favor of higher prices and against consumers.

- We have evidence at the micro levels of a pervasive pattern of past abuses and rumors about suspicious behavior in the current market

-In the past two years, the speculative bubble has cost consumers over $1500.

-Congress must recognize that certain commodities are fundamentally different. Energy is at the top of the list of commodities that have special vulnerabilities.

-Vigorously enforced registering and reporting requirements will chase the bad actors out of the commodity markets and the margin and tax policies will direct capital out of speculation and into productive long term uses. Creating a class of idle rich speculators, who are immune to the business cycle, was a huge mistake. Allowing this huge log of money to pump up the volume, volatility and risk has cost consumers dearly.

-We need much more vigorous action to reign in the speculative bubble and return the futures markets to their proper role to improve the functioning of physical commodity markets.

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 10, 2008 9:18 AM

He's giving a speech about religion, as a believer, in a house of worship.

Yeah, he calls for bridging gaps and overcoming prejudice, but he's also perpetuating the idiocy that is religion.

Boooo.

Posted by: SteveM | June 10, 2008 9:25 AM

Re: "global cooling scare"

I too am not a climatologist, but as I understand it, the cooling observed in the 60's and 70's was indeed a real phenomenon due to particulate and sulfer dioxide pollution in the atmosphere. And because of those warnings, a massive effort was put into cleaning up the air and scrubbing ash and sulfer from the air. But we did nothing to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced. So this is not actually a case of "scientists have been wrong before", (which is a logical fallacy anyway) but instead a careful distortion of history by the global warming deniers.

Posted by: dcwp | June 10, 2008 9:30 AM

Sorry, I forgot the text to go with that link. It's a critical analysis of Obama's happy rhetoric toward non-believers. I'm still not convinced that Obama is ready to embrace non-believers as anything more than a voting block to be pandered to with hollow words. But I'm hoping.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 9:36 AM

SteveM,

The "global cooling scare" is total myth, as far as the refereed scientific literature is concerned - there were some popular journalistic articles. The issue is dealt with in detail at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/. The measures that reduced aerosols were not taken in response to warnings of global cooling, but because sulphates cause acid rain and particulates kill people.

Posted by: Cappy | June 10, 2008 9:39 AM

Quick comment on the oil industry: in any other industry, when the price of your raw material goes up, your profits go down. How do we explain record high crude oil prices and super high oil company profits?

Posted by: SteveM | June 10, 2008 9:48 AM

Nick,

thanks for the link and the correction. I was conflating a Nova episode a few years back that reported on measurements taken during the week after 9/11 when all air travel was shutdown over the US. This data showed a definite effect from the elimination of jet exhaust from the atmosphere. As I recall, the episode then went on to discuss the cooling effect of particulates and sulphates and that cleaning up that pollution removed a moderating influence on the warming effect of carbon dioxide.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | June 10, 2008 9:51 AM

And Steve M at #74 pretty sums up any thoughts about the "global cooling" crap that was happening in the 70's/80's.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 9:57 AM

SteveM@82 - I didn't mean aerosols don't have a cooling effect - they (primarily sulphates) certainly do - only that this was not the reason for the measures taken to reduce them. Ironically, the cooling effect of sulphates means that if we stopped all fossil fuel use tomorrow, the immediate effect would be one of warming, and it would take a couple of decades, IIRC, for this to be reversed - one of the reasons the problem is going to be so hard to deal with. This is because sulphates rain out over about a week, while the additional carbon dioxide has a mean residence time of over a century (IIRC again) - hence the post-9/11 effect you refer to. This also means that even if we hadn't reduced sulphate emissions in the 1970s, they would by now have been outweighed by the extra carbon dioxide.

Posted by: CJ | June 10, 2008 10:10 AM

Unfortunately, if you've been paying attention [with Obama] his remarks are totally audience dependent - more than mere political pandering.

Posted by: SteveM | June 10, 2008 10:16 AM

Nick wrote:
I didn't mean aerosols don't have a cooling effect - they (primarily sulphates) certainly do - only that this was not the reason for the measures taken to reduce them.

I understand and appreciate the correction. I was just trying to explain how I came to make an unwarranted leap from the Nova story back to what was being reported in the 70's. I was not disagreeing with you.

I guess my original point was that we have made some major changes to what we put into the atmosphere between then and now and so it is unreasonable for today's deniers to say "science is always changing its story". Yes, the story changes as conditions change. Also, the issue of particulates and sulphates demonstrates that man certainly does have considerable impact on the atmosphere, that we are not an insignificant influence on climate.

Posted by: CJ | June 10, 2008 10:26 AM

Carter was handed a bad economy and with his own party fighting him was unable to accomplish much of what he would have liked in his only term but he did have something we have had since - an energy policy. Who knows where we might be today had he garnered a second term. He acted on principle (grain embargo, olympic boycott) which doesn't sit well with a shallow American electorate. That (shallow electorate), the back door machinations of the Iran Contra kings (Reagan, Bush), Ted Kennedy and the Dem powerbrokers may have cost him an election but it cost us a whole helluva lot more.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 10, 2008 10:28 AM

The militant Atheists nightmare in the June 2006 speech...

Huh?

Just because you live in constant fear doesn't mean everyone else does too.

I'm arguing that this goal would be just as well-served by a McCain presidency. Yes, he has given in to the religious right to an extent; but he could never have achieved his present level of electoral success, within the Republican party, without doing so.

If he doesn't like it, why is he in the Reptilian Party?

That's a completely serious question.

Do you, as an atheist/agnostic, seriously find Wright less frightening than his counterparts on the evangelical right (except insofar as he is much less poltiically influential)?

Emphasis added.

Besides, I agree that Wright isn't right in his head, but he made all those "remarks" after Obama had moved elsewhere, and when they were brought to Obama's attention, he immediately refused any association with them. McCain was publicly "proud", in his own words, of the support by Hagee, and only backpedaled later.

I believe that a two-sided argument is the best way to arrive at the truth

Yet more lies from Faux News. An argument can have any number of sides. It is pretty rare that an argument happens to have exactly two sides.

He wants to tax away the oil companies recent profits, even though the are not responsible for the high prices.

Oh, to a large degree they are. If you don't constantly protect the free market from itself, it disappears and gives way to a cartel. Such as OPEC for example.

Many bad leaders in a row- that is how Rome fell.

Where are the Huns, the Goths, the Vandals?

2) Is it not the case that the Earth has gone through various "warm" and "cold" phases in the past, due entirely to natural factors, long prior to the industrial era?

Of course. But we understand quite well what caused all these swings -- and none of these causes is happening today, except for an increase in CO₂ (a geologically rare event, mostly triggered by flood basalts; it goes without saying that there are no flood basalt eruptions right now).

3) Is it not the case that in the 1970s, there was actually a "global cooling" scare? Which was sensationalised by the media just like the current global warming scare?

Comment 74 is right. The cooling effect of the aerosols was stronger than the warming effect of the greenhouse gases. When the air was cleaned, the warming shone through again...

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 10, 2008 10:31 AM

Comment 78 is also right: that the aerosols were the reason for the cooling was not understood until a few years ago.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | June 10, 2008 10:37 AM

Walton, question for you. Genuine good faith stuff.

How do you decide which science is right? For example, what are your views on quantum physics and why?

Posted by: kryptonic | June 10, 2008 10:44 AM

After reading Walton's posts, I get it now. Ann Coulter and Karl Rove had an illegitimate child!

Posted by: Etha Williams, OM | June 10, 2008 10:48 AM

@#35 Walton --

Yes, he has given in to the religious right to an extent; but he could never have achieved his present level of electoral success, within the Republican party, without doing so.

...

I will be honest; I have always liked McCain, even as early as 2006-07 when the prevailing view was that he had little chance of getting the nomination. I have also always thought that the world would be much better off had he won the primaries, instead of Bush, in 2000. Yes, he seems to have changed, and has definitely moved further to the right; and I do think he's said some absurd things during this campaign. But given his long track record of saying and doing things which I agree with, he isn't going to lose my support that easily.

But since McCain was willing to change his expressed views in order to get the electoral support needed to have a shot at being president, who's to say he won't be willing to similarly pander in his policy once he's there (especially during his first four years)? The fact that McCain's policy views were much preferable before he had a viable chance of being elected is hardly a point in his favor; it shows how flexible his "principles" are, and calls into question how he would apply those principles as president, under pressure from factions and special interest groups important to his position in power.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 10:52 AM

SteveM@90. Sorry, I didn't think you were disagreeing - I was just trying to clarify my previous comment, thinking you'd misunderstood! Now I'm trying to clarify my clarification ;-). Just to be absolutely clear, I agree 110% with your #90!!!

One thing that angers me even more than AGW denialism (and reinforces your points in #90), is ozone layer depletion denialism - something the more ignorant AGW deniers sometimes go in for. The trope here is "Well in the 1980s, scientists were saying we were destroying the ozone layer, and it hasn't happened. Ner-ner-ne-ner-ner!" The actual sequence of events, of course was:
1) Scientists discover unexpected danger from human activity, specifically emissions of CFCs, methyl bromide and other gases.
2) Scientists convince politicians something must be done.
3) Politicians negotiate international agreement (Montreal Protocol) to greatly reduce emissions of stratospheric ozone depleters.
4) Ozone depletion slows, exactly on schedule predicted by scientists.
5) Rightist nutters (e.g. Dubya) start trying to trash Montreal Protocol.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | June 10, 2008 11:08 AM

Ah yes, this is the video that touched off the Obama-as-Muslim-intent-on-ruining-Christian-America campaign.

In typical fashion the conservobots took the section of the video up to the very second after he said this wasn't a Christian nation, and launched said campaign to apparent moderate success. Like the creationists the conservobots also are, they intentionally neglected everything after said moment and ran with the meme.

What Obama says in this speech should be obvious even to anyone with an 8th grade education. That I'm saddled with fellow citizens that have such shallow cognitions of reality remains a point of stress for me...

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 11:14 AM

I have to agree with brokenSoldier and BC - it's time to ignore Walton. He's clearly getting some weird sort of kick out of saying stupid, offensive, or inappropriately revealing things, then apologising, half-apologising or asking for them to be deleted, then repeating the cycle. I don't think he's a troll in the normal sense, but I think those of us whove tried to engage him have inadvertently been feeding his psychopathology. Walton, I have genuine sympathy for you, as I think I've shown, and I repeat my advice to seek medical help, but I've no more to say to you.

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 11:24 AM

To Nick Gotts at #108: I asked for one thing, on one thread, to be deleted. I agree that it was inappropriately revealing. And I'm sorry. But I haven't made a habit of it.

And I haven't knowingly said anything stupid or offensive. I'm sorry if I have.

I'm hurt that the people who've tried to engage me have evidently given up. I was trying to engage in positive and interesting discussion. But evidently I'm so lacking in social graces that I can't manage to do that. And that worries me.

And my "cycle of apologising" has been because I have somehow managed to piss people off with every other post I make. No matter what I say or how I say it, it seems to offend everyone.

So I'm going to apologise one more time. I'm sorry. It is my fault, not yours. I have never been good at correctly judging social interaction. I can only ask everyone to be a little bit tolerant.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | June 10, 2008 11:26 AM

@Walton #101
I am no scientist, and don't have sufficient knowledge to have an intelligent opinion on quantum physics.

Exactly, this is the sensible position assumed by all lay people with regard to complex subjects they have little formal expertise in. As a shortcut, we rely on the expert consensus in these areas.

Short of getting a PhD in climatology, producing a raft of peer reviewed studies and convincing at least 50% of your peers that the current understanding is wrong, one is left with little choice:-)

The view that humans are causing GW has the overwhelming support of the relevant scientific community. Whats a rational lay person to do? Stay reasonably well informed and act on the consensus. Exercise, take vitamin C, drink an occasional glass of red wine and use less energy.

If the scientific consensus on these subjects changes, a well informed lay person should modify (with an eye to the relative up/down sides) their behaviour accordingly.

Given that the IPCC have raised the alarm on this issue 4 times in the past 15 years, that the vast majority of scientists in the relative discipline agree on the substance and trends of the issue, it is now untenable to simply shrug ones shoulders and maintain that the issue is too "politicised". Particularly given that what politicisation there is, is almost all in one direction.

Posted by: SGEW | June 10, 2008 11:30 AM

I can only ask everyone to be a little bit tolerant.

Sorry. Wrote my response before yours came up. So when I say "stick it where the sun doesn't shine," please read it as: those sorts of "studies" have no place in legitimate discourse. The same goes for the AGM deniers (there's a reason why you have a hard time finding actual disputations of the global climate change consensus - there really isn't any).

Cheers.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 11:33 AM

global temps are all over the place until 10 kya, when a regime of stability kicked in - frog

I don't think that's right: we're in a pretty normal interglacial, which in the absence of human intervention, massive vulcanism or whatever, would according to the latest work last either about another 20,000 or about another 50,000 years (the timing of glacial/interglacial switches seems to be set by the Milankovitch cycles in Earth's orbit, and at 20,000 years the conditions will be marginal for a switch).

Every wonder why civilization just emerge 10 kya, even though humans had the intellectual capabilities for it at least 50 kya back? You can't build a city when the damn climate requires you to move it every few decades a hundred miles!

Not sure about that, either. During ice ages there may actually be more usable land, because sea level drops, and no less climatic stability. I'd hazard that it just took that long before the positive feedback between population density and technical progress reached the stage where cities could arise.

Posted by: shifty | June 10, 2008 11:42 AM

As a frequent lurker and fascinated observer of US politics (yes, I like to watch) from the Great White North, I find it interesting that walton points to Jimmy Carter (JC?) as the worst outcome of a democrat becoming president. Others have pointed out that his term wasn't thaaat bad. But what about the Clinton legacy? Is it too soon to talk of that? While he has (and still does) provide much fodder for the comedians with his extra-curricular activities his record was none too shabby as this commenter in the Toronto Star states:

Reporter Tim Harper points out that this "could have been the end of the Clinton era in U.S. politics." What was the substance of the Clinton era in U.S. politics? Well, how about this?

Record budget surpluses.

A manageable trade deficit.

A stock market increase of 8,000 points in eight years.

A 90-cent euro and a 62-cent Canadian dollar.

A $25 barrel of oil.

The creation of an unprecedented 22 million new jobs and an unemployment rate of 3.9 per cent.

Record decreases in welfare caseloads and child poverty.

Peace in Ireland after 850 years of conflict.

Peace in the Balkans without the loss of a single American life.

A higher approval rating on departure than any president since records were kept, in spite of a $60 million Republican attempt to prove that, yes indeed, Bill Clinton was an extraordinarily promiscuous man.

Scary, scary stuff. I wouldn't want to go back to that.

W.H. Joe Watson, Oakville

Walton, if one of the core principles of a republican office is to reduce spending/taxes and be fiscally responsible, I think you should find your current administration severely lacking.

Posted by: Walton | June 10, 2008 11:49 AM

To shifty at #118: Fair points. But I wasn't attacking Clinton, and you've slightly misunderstood what I was trying to argue. My comparison between Obama and Carter was not that they are both Democrats. Rather, I was pointing out that while I concede that Obama is a man of integrity and morals, the same is true of Carter, and he wasn't wildly successful as President. So integrity and morals are not enough in themselves to make a good President.

Indeed, you have in a sense proved my point. Clinton wasn't that bad a President, even from my perspective as a conservative. As you say, he was successful in foreign policy, didn't screw up the economy (though Alan Greenspan also deserves a lot of the credit for economic growth), and was actually more successful than many Republican presidents in limiting the growth of welfare and government bureaucracy. Yet he was the complete opposite of Obama in character, in that he had (and has) no morals or personal integrity, as demonstrated by his disgraceful behaviour with several women.

In other words, I fear that Obama may be more like Carter than like Clinton.

Posted by: Josh | June 10, 2008 11:57 AM

in that he had (and has) no morals or personal integrity, as demonstrated by his disgraceful behaviour with several women

Ahhh...yes. Here we go. Sexual morality is the only thing we need to worry about. It is the one aspect of morality that is worth focusing on, wringing our hands about, and impeaching people over. Ignoring the fact that it always seems to be sexual morality derived from one source that gets peoples' panties in a wad, it continues to astonish me that anyone could imply that Bushco possess anything that sits within the same universe as commendable morality.

Posted by: SGEW | June 10, 2008 12:03 PM

Can't help myself.

I do believe that while Bush has gone wrong in a lot of areas, and his foreign policy has in some respects gone to hell in a handbasket, he does come over as an honest and principled guy who's doing his best to stand up for his country and his beliefs.

Funny, that. Honest? Well, let's punt that question (Was the WMD intelligence/Iraq-Al Queda connection a "failure of due dilligence," rank incompetence, or outright lying? Details, details, details.). Principled? To what principles? (No seriously: what principles do you think Pres. W. Bush has stuck to?)

And, finally, bloody Stalin did "his best to stand up for his country and his beliefs." This is a very poor argument.

Posted by: Etha Williams, OM | June 10, 2008 12:07 PM

@#119 Walton --

I do believe that while Bush has gone wrong in a lot of areas, and his foreign policy has in some respects gone to hell in a handbasket, he does come over as an honest and principled guy who's doing his best to stand up for his country and his beliefs.

Honest? Principled? Really?

This man holds up the US as the leader of the free, civilized world and then use his position in the US government to authorize the utterly barbaric (and not very useful) practice of torture. It's frankly a bit baffling that you can call Bush honest and principled, especially after saying Clinton had "no morals or personal integrity" (he certainly had his personal failings, but no morals/integrity?).

Posted by: SteveM | June 10, 2008 12:10 PM

walton, you are a supremely incoinsistent little fart. When presented with a list of Carter's considerable successes in office, your reply is "I agree he seems like a nice guy, but he wasn't a successful president", and when presented with a list of GWB's profound failures in office your reply is "But he seems like a nice guy".

So you condemn Carter for not being entirely successful but excuse Bush's profound failure because he "appears" to be honest (while demonstrably lying every time he speaks)?

And then presented with Clinton's astoundingly successful presidency your reply is "I agree he wasn't that bad a president"? And as for Clinton's morals, sexual fidelity is not the only measure of one's morality, and given how Bush has treated the Constitution these last 7 years, I'd take Clinton's morality over Bush's anytime.

Posted by: Steve_C | June 10, 2008 12:13 PM

I voted for Clinton. He didn't destroy anything I voted for him for.
I didn't vote for Bush and he did EXACTLY what I expected.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 10, 2008 12:17 PM

disgraceful behaviour

Is there anything that can be done to make the insufferably prim, clueless, logorrheic, and narcissistic Walton just go away? Anything?

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | June 10, 2008 12:21 PM

Politicians are all the same. They feed you what you wanna hear and then they destroy everything you voted for them for.

All absolute statements are suspect, including this one:-)

Seriously Michelle, this kind of world weary cynicisim is little more than a physcological salve to justify your own apathy. There are a near endless list of human achievements brought about by determined civic action, with reforming politicians frequently spear heading change, and every one of these milestones, the end of slavery, womens rights, a peaceful and prosperous Europe to name but a few, were realised despite the sneering cynics.

Cheer yourself up by joining the Obama campaign, I wish I could!

Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 10, 2008 12:26 PM

So a person who condones torture, indeed has even tried redefine torture so that he can allow it, is a decent guy ?

I think Walton must be using decent in a hitherto unknown usage.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | June 10, 2008 12:34 PM

Clinton: Unethical slimeball; pretty good President.

Let me help you out Walton. This is a beautiful example of the kind of baseless assertion that makes people call you names. It's pure Limbaugh/Coulter in tone for a start, and it's also simply wrong.

Something like half the human race indulges in infidelity, and the rest secretly want to. What do you think all those savage biblical penalties are designed to keep in check? So it's almost a norm.

Clinton was a good president, and a decent human being who cared enough about his fellow man to craft policies that pulled millions out of poverty in the US, were instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and were well on the way to balancing the US budget when Bush arrived on the scene.

Personally, I'd provide oral sex to any president (man or woman) who could guarantee the same.

Posted by: Barklikeadog | June 10, 2008 12:38 PM

PZ, I've suggested it in the past and retracted it too, that Walton deserved troll status. I'm coming to the conclusion again that the man is a complete right wing nut-job with little grasp on history (he admits himself he wasn't alive during the Carter years and probably had his history taught by other right wing nut-jobs)or reality. His ability to be erudite does not excuse his insensititvity or ignorance. He is becoming tiresome and is repeating the same horseshit over & over. What to do?

Posted by: Josh | June 10, 2008 12:40 PM

So no, I don't think sexual immorality is usually worth impeaching people over. Nor do I think it's the sole reprehensible form of conduct. But that doesn't make it OK.

I never implied a value judgment related to it. I just thought it was interesting that you think Clinton is an [u]nethical slimeball (based mostly on one issue as far as I can see--my apologies if I'm incorrect there)

and that Bush comes across as an honest and principled guy who's doing his best to stand up for his country and his beliefs. Bearing false witness seems to almost be a hobby with the man.

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 10, 2008 12:41 PM

Walton,

you're a fucking genius, you know that ?

You have a gift, you should become a comedian. I'm serious. I'm reading your comments, and I'm thinking, this guy, if not taken seriously, is really funny.
You should exploit that.

Posted by: SGEW | June 10, 2008 12:48 PM

A point:

I believe that everyone should try and lay off with the ad hominem attacks on Walton. Seriously. Rip apart his arguments, flay his logic, and lay endless scorn upon his sources. By all means. But leave the personal crap aside, all right? I mean, the guy is trying. Kind of. I think.

And, if he is a troll, he shall feed and thrive upon thy insults, and might breed. 'Ware!

Posted by: Kseniya | June 10, 2008 12:55 PM

George W. Bush isn't even fully aware of his own job description.

Posted by: Greg N. | June 10, 2008 12:58 PM

This is a good and refreshing speech.

But the thing is, Obama doesn't care if you are happy to vote for him. He cares only about whether you vote for him. And given the awful, awful alternative, my guess is you will.

Of course, there's always the noble and really only defensible alternative of not voting at all.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 10, 2008 1:04 PM

While I can never fully respect him as a person (due to his lack of moral integrity in his private life)

I do not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq in order to feed Halliburton's profits; that's a conspiracy theory of criminals.

Well, we know for damn sure it wasn't 9/11 or WMDs, we know they were both lies told by the people you support. Oil? Popular speculation, OK, but really, why bother? There are easier ways. Stability in the Middle East? Nope, definitely not that, obviously! What's left, then? As Cassius was fond of saying, cui bono? Well, I say there's only one group who have benefited from the whole sordid tragedy and the profits funneled into the pockets of corporations chaired, or formerly chaired, by the cabal in the Whitehouse, their families and known close associates, are staggering. Not saying anything's provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but absent anything else, it's hardly 9/11 truther shit.

But sure, I'm open to alternatives, why do you think they did it, Walton, eh? I'm waiting for you to push the boat out on the mind-boggling credulity this time.

- Note: For Americans, I realise it's probably pretty annoying and frustrating to have foreigners like me opining on your domestic politics without understanding the subtleties, but unfortunately, your domestic politics is a global issue. I'm sure we'd both be happier if the US election was just a curiosity outside the US, but it's not. No offence to you personally, but your government is broken and your President is a dick, and I'm far more scared of Republicans than "Al-Qaeda". I'm entitled to have and express an opinion, notwithstanding the fact that I have no say, and to strong urges to slap anyone who wants to plunge the planet into 4 more years of senseless slaughter in the head with a clue-by-four.

Posted by: foldedpath | June 10, 2008 1:07 PM

Walton @ #101: So I'm not qualified to evaluate the science itself; but from a political standpoint, I don't see anything wrong with being skeptical of claims which are aggressively promoted by those who have an interest in fear-mongering. It doesn't make me right, but I think my point of view is defensible.

No, it's not defensible, because you only mentioned the motivations on one side. As much as the scientific concensus is aggressively promoted on one side, it's also aggressively rejected by those who have their own agenda and motivations, like avoiding costly controls for industrial pollution, avoiding a reduction in oil consumption (and profits), and avoiding any change in a heavily consumptive Western lifestyle. There are reasons why some don't want to accept the science, even if it's right.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | June 10, 2008 1:10 PM

Walton:

"...Clinton: Unethical slimeball; pretty good President.
Bush: Decent guy (in my opinion*); fairly poor President..."

As more confirmation of Walton's positions was required. Right: Clinton was the unethical slimeball, but poor old Bush was just haplessly mislead in every way, a pawn of malcontents. This doesn't need any further parsing, because it's just not based in reality.

Since you're not American, I don't think you could be any more insulting as a non-citizen. I will refuse to defend Clinton, frankly because your claim is simply stupid on so many levels, especially given Bush the son's entire administration, that it bears no further serious discussion.

Just shut up.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 10, 2008 1:15 PM

Barklikeadog @#140

His ability to be erudite does not excuse his insensititvity or ignorance.

Walton? Erudite? You just gave me the best laugh I've had all day :o)

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 10, 2008 1:17 PM

George W. Bush isn't even fully aware of his own job description.

No way.

George W.Bush has been very good at exploiting the fact that people underestimate him.

That's why he gets away with people like Walton thinking that he's not morally reprehensible because he's a bit dumm, oh he can't have been so manipulative, you know he knows nothing about what is really going on in his own administration, it's all Dick's and Rummy's and Dan's fault, and he never told the CIA to find WMA, the torturing in Guantanamo, how could he, he's just not capable !

When is this false meme going to stop ?

Posted by: Barklikeadog | June 10, 2008 1:21 PM

Walton? Erudite? You just gave me the best laugh I've had all day :o)

You're right Emmet, My Bad!

Posted by: SteveM | June 10, 2008 1:24 PM

No walton, you have completely misunderstood the point I was making. And we are in pretty much complete disagreement. How you can say we agree is "mind bottling".

I am saying that Carter was reasonably succesful as a president. (Not the best, but far from the worst)You however, focus on a few failures and conclude since Carter was a "nice guy", that it isn't enough to be a nice guy to be president.

However, when it comes to Bush, there is a long list of failures and no real successes you can cite at all, yet he is okay with you because he seems to be sincere. And I indeed emphasize "seems". He might be a fun drinking buddy (or was back in his younger days) but I can not possibly characterize him as a "nice guy" in any way like Carter.

What I am trying to get you to see is that regardless of my opinion of Bush and Carter, you are being inconsistent when you condemn Carter's less than perfect presidency because he is a nice guy, yet you excuse Bush's complete failure because you think he's a nice guy.

Further, even if we dispense with the whole "nice guy" issue, you take Carter's few failures and declare him a "poor president", while Bush, who is an overwhelming failure, is just "fairly poor"? You, sir, are an idiot.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 10, 2008 1:29 PM

Walton @#135,

Obama: Decent guy; ?????only hope for peace on earth in the next 8 years.

Barklikeadog @#162, I'm not normally so pedantic, but that little typo gave me such a belly laugh I had to share :o)

Posted by: Kseniya | June 10, 2008 1:34 PM

Walton, in his pursuit of knowledge pertaining to American conservatism and the storied GOP, may be interested in the following statement:

"No presidency that I can find in history has adopted a policy of expanding presidential powers merely for the sake of expanding presidential powers... It has been the announced policy of the Bush/Cheney presidency, however, from its outset, to expand presidential power for its own sake, and it continually searched for avenues to do just that, while constantly testing to see how far it can push the limits. I must add that never before have I felt the slightest reason to fear our government. Nor do I frighten easily. But I do fear the Bush/Cheney government (and the precedents they are creating) because this administration is caught up in the rectitude of its own self-righteousness, and for all practical purposes this presidency has remained largely unchecked by its constitutional coequals."

Those are the words of John Dean, former counsel to Richard Nixon. Dean, I suppose, knows more than a little about the use and abuse of executive power.

If I had to pick a single word to describe the Bush administration, for better or for worse, it would be this: Machiavellian.

Posted by: maureen | June 10, 2008 1:36 PM

Walton @ 120

So if Obama screwed around a bit you'd have more confidence in his ability to be president? That's the logic of what you just said.

I do wish you'd read your own work before you press "post" - could save us all a deal of trouble.

Posted by: frog | June 10, 2008 1:44 PM

NG@145: I didn't mean to imply that the paper was about current stability --- but unless I'm misinterpreting, most of the parameters seem to be unusually stable over the last 10kya. It's easier to see on 100k temperature records, but I can't handily find the ones that impressed me.

If this is a quality of normal interglacials, then we definitely don't want to risk forcing our climate out of it, and into the "normal" chaotic regime. Making things hotter is more likely to have the instability of glacial regimes rather than an interglacial.

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 10, 2008 1:51 PM

Carter = Obama

Not true. Obama is in the pocket of AIPAC. Carter speaks out for the Palestinians.

It's called being a sell-out.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 10, 2008 1:56 PM

Nick Gotts @#169,

I get it, the USA is doing to Iraq what it kicked Iraq out of Kuwait for trying to do, but it's OK because it's the USA doing it and nobody has the military muscle to stop them.

So, they're not just lying war-pimps, they're naïve, incompetent, hypocritical lying war-pimps.

Whew! That's a relief. That's so much better :o)

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 2:00 PM

frog@172 From what I've read, climate scientists don't think climate (as opposed to weather) is chaotic: stick more greenhouse gases in the air and it will get warmer, suck them out and it will get colder. I agree wholeheartedly with your point about the importance of stability - much of a temperature shift in either direction spells likely disaster, because all our systems are adapted to the current climate. Also, wet areas are predicted to get wetter, dry areas drier as things warm up; Andean and Himalayan glaciers will melt, making meltwater unavailable in spring; soils will become carbon sources instead of sinks and undersea methane clathrates may decompose (these last two will accelerate warming); the excess carbon dioxide is also acidifying the seas, disrupting ecosystems; overturning currents will slow as the temperature gradient between poles and equator reduces, possibly leaving large parts of the ocean anoxic and thus producing large quantities of hydrogen sulphide - and quite probably, nameless abominations crawl ing forth from the depths ;-). You could be right, however - I agree with your general point that pushing a complex system with an external forcing often causes chaotic instability.

Posted by: BT Murtagh | June 10, 2008 2:05 PM

Perjury over a marital infidelity never should have been considered in the category "High crimes and misdemeanors" and very few people really think it warranted impeachment.

These, on the other hand, warrant it in spades:

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With
Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of
Aggression.
Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of
Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat
to the United States.
Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other
Countries
Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in
the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign
Captives
Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other
Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX
Imprisoning Children
Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist
Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the
Fourth Amendment
Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the
Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil
Emergency
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global
Climate Change
Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist
Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 10, 2008 2:10 PM

AFAIK, and correct me if I'm wrong, Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for lying about it.

Which is just as absurd when you think about it. Shouldn't people be expected to lie about this?

He's not the bright, energetic gubanatorial candidate he was 16 (?) years ago, but he's no moron.

Sorry, there's no way around it. He is a moron. It's just exaggerated now because he visibly has been drinking more in the last few years than he did in 2000.

In geostrategic terms, the invasion made perfect sense - the error was that the neocons believed their own propaganda and that of the Iraqi exiles, and really thought they'd be welcomed.

As I said: morons, the whole lot of them.

The one big winner of this whole affair are the mullahs that rule Iran.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 10, 2008 2:17 PM

Nick Gotts,

You realise the terrifying implication of what you're saying? The US has invaded Iraq as a geopolitical strategy to steal Iraqi oil under the pretence of "securing" it with Iran being next. I fail to see the difference between that and invading the Sudetenland to steal land under the pretence of "lebensraum" with Poland being next. Only the resource and geography have changed.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | June 10, 2008 2:22 PM

For all others on the board:

Walton's suggestion that he was merely criticizing a single action by Carter...

I was simply criticising a particular action which Carter has taken recently.

..is an evasion typical of his obvlivious tendencies. What he actually said to provoke the discussion on Carter was the follwing:

But Jimmy Carter was an honest, likeable person with a lot of integrity, and we all know how his presidency turned out.

Rather than a criticism of Carter's discourse with Hamas, which was an entirely separate discussion point, brought up well after the discussion had already been started, his original comment was a conceited, presumptuous, and grossly inaccurate attempt at comparing Barack Obama's personality and integrity to the ex-President's, thereby insinuating that honesty, like-ability, and integrity somehow do not factor in to how effective one will be as President.. If you're reading this, take this as proof that Walton has no interest is honest discourse - he merely wants to seem that way so he can continue to pass his stubborn ignorance off as honest curiosity.

p.s.: This is not at all directed at that particular troll, and should in no way be viewed as an effort to engage him in any way - I just wanted to make sure that any late comers to the board can see through his bullshit a little quicker.

Posted by: frog | June 10, 2008 2:30 PM

NG@178: From what I've read, climate scientists don't think climate (as opposed to weather) is chaotic: stick more greenhouse gases in the air and it will get warmer, suck them out and it will get colder.

That would seem strange to me --- unless I'm misinformed, isn't the Younger Dryas exactly an example of chaotic behavior? The glacial was ending, but instead of monotonically warming, you got a nasty, unstable period which was extremely sensitive to small details in geography. Eventually the system was driven/drove itself into a close-to-steady state regime, which is pretty different from the far-from-steady state regime of glacials. I may be wrong about the holocene, but my eyes don't lie to me about the glacials --- they're chaotic.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 2:43 PM

frog@188 - Good point about the Younger Dryas. Most popular theory at present is that it was caused by temporary shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation after the ice dam retaining Lake Agassiz broke, and huge quantities of fresh water flowed into the sea. So the periods of transition between glacial and interglacial, at least, appear to be unpredictable. We're pushing temperatures up, but we don't have any source of fresh water near the North Atlantic comparable in scale to Lake Agassiz... hmm, unless the whole Greenland ice-cap disintegrates. I've reached the limits of my knowledge here I think. I can only say the experts don't seem to be worried about the possibility of instability tipping us back into an ice age, despite The Day After Tomorrow. I have read an SF novel on that theme, but with no discussion of mechanisms - The Ice People by Maggie Gee.

Posted by: Kseniya | June 10, 2008 2:52 PM

Which is just as absurd when you think about it. Shouldn't people be expected to lie about this?

Yes, of course - but not under oath.

But yes, yes - that's part of the absurdity. Not that I condone it, but hey:

A man in a position of great power has a dalliance with a sweet young thing, and when the affair is in danger of being exposed, he attempts to cover his ass (and, perhaps, to protect her honor - though I'm not specifically inclined to accuse Bubba of chivalrous behavior in this case).

This is a story that's played out thousands of times in human history. Right or wrong, neither the act nor the lie are more serious crimes than the deceptions and manipulations that went on under Nixon or Reagan. That the impeachment proceedings occurred at all revealed much about the bankrupt moral and political priorities of the GOP, particularly when viewed in the larger picture of a) the human frailty that transcends party affiliation, and b) abuse of executive power.

Little, apparently, has changed.

Posted by: Josh | June 10, 2008 3:04 PM

and so is the National Guard even

With respect to mobilizations, there is little difference between the Reserve and Active components of the major military branches, especially now. The only real difference in terms of going to war is the periodicity of the deployments.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 10, 2008 3:07 PM

Walton, you are being brainwashed. The people who are feeding you your opinions are not your friends. They do not have your best interests at heart. They are lying to you. They don't give a flying fuck about the truth, as long as lies can be used to their advantage.

Really, look back at the discussions you've been having. You parrot whatever your right-wing heroes want you to say, and then watch as the asinine claims you've been programmed to regurgitate are torn to bloody shreds. How have you not noticed that you are always so very wrong? Did it ever occur to you that you might be using bad sources of information, since pretty much everything you say is laughably false? Did you ever consider examining your assumptions and seeing how well they match up to reality? Other people here have weighed your opinions against the facts, and your opinions have been found wanting. Why can't you figure out how to do this yourself?

I don't think you're quite as stupid as you seem. If you took a minute to think for yourself, you could break through these mental blocks of yours and understand the truth. The problem is that you don't want to understand the truth. On some level even you know that Coulter is a fraud, so why do you still let her influence you? Why do you trust people who have been shown to be wrong so many times?

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | June 10, 2008 3:21 PM

The one big winner of this whole affair are the mullahs that rule Iran.

And that is an exactly correct assessment of what we have done with the war in Iraq - we have quite effectively removed the Sunni majority obstacle to Iran's ability to exert the most effective type of influence over their neighbor.

What people fail to realize is that in their culture, the religious leaders are the ultimate authority, no matter what country they are from. So once Saddam was gone, the Shia majority in Iraq were compelled to seek guidance from their religious superior, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, who just happens to be Iranian by heritage and birth. He holds great influence over the Shia Muslim world, in both Iran and Iraq, and his influence has allowed Iran, who doesn't control him but does - through Ayatollah Khamenei - have a serious audience with him, to further their own interests in the chaos that is the Iraqi political process.

Posted by: Adam | June 10, 2008 3:33 PM

You guys were really hard on Walton. Sure, he's misinformed in many ways but he's not nearly as bad as many right-wing conservatives. He actually is willing to listen to some arguments and seems to be willing to admit he can be wrong, which is more than I can say for most people.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 10, 2008 3:36 PM

phantomreader42@#196

If you took a minute to think for yourself, you could break through these mental blocks of yours and understand the truth. The problem is that you don't want to understand the truth.

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 10, 2008 3:41 PM

Sorry, I meant to type "Walton", not "Lawton"... subconsiously, Wally, I had you confused with the old Planet Bush correspondent from Morning Sedition:

http://www.thesnotgreensea.com/

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 10, 2008 3:49 PM

"You guys were really hard on Walton. Sure, he's misinformed in many ways but he's not nearly as bad as many right-wing conservatives."

Adam, we're also hard on the namby-pamby, middle of the road religionists who are not nearly as bad as many right-wing fundamentalists, even though they are nearly detrimental to women's health and human rights issues. Walton is merely the political equivalent-"not nearly as bad" but, nonetheless, bad.

Posted by: Kseniya | June 10, 2008 4:04 PM

Personally though I'm in the "they were just fucking stupid" camp.

Well! I think you should pull up your stakes, and move over here.

Feast your eyes on this!

(Tip of the iceburg, donthchaknow.)

Posted by: frog | June 10, 2008 4:10 PM

Coriolis: Personally though I'm in the "they were just fucking stupid" camp.

How can you not be stupid, when your ideology is stupid? It's like pointing that Lychenkoism was stupid: of course it was stupid, because doctrinaire Soviet communism was mind-bogglingly stupid. Anything that is in line with a stupid theology is going to be stupid -- at best, they got the stuck clock is right twice a day.

However, that doesn't imply that a hell of a lot of conspiracies weren't going on at the same time -- as we find out every passing day. What's worse than being stupid? Being evil and stupid. What's worse than that? Being evil in order to uphold your stupidity.

Posted by: frog | June 10, 2008 4:15 PM

NG: The way many liberals overlook the sustained, and for the most part highly successful drive for US global supremacy since 1945, under both parties and all Presidents, truly astounds me

The problem is that we're playing the great power politics of WWII --- it's woefully out of date. We learned in WWII that he who controls the oil rules the world. But playing that game today is like trying to out-rail-road your opponent in 1938 (see Maginot line, etc).

We're not even re-fighting Vietnam -- we're trying to refight WWII! That's so stupid, it would leave me speechless if I were capable of it.

Posted by: Andre Vienne | June 10, 2008 4:24 PM

@#168, Kseniya

English wonk here, with backing from a history wonk. (Really, the history wonk did most of the work. I just had the initial objection.)

Machiavellian is giving him too much credit. That implies that through the torturing and other immoralities, he is actually protecting his country. Machiavelli's whole schtick is that morality shouldn't get in the way of doing your job, namely, protecting and serving your nation.

Machiavelli was a fan of republics. Bush... obviously isn't. And a little fun fact, around Machiavelli's time, 'Machiavellian' was used to describe just rulership, and 'Anti-Machiavellian' was used to describe manipulative, deceptive rulers.

I'd say he's more Commodusian or Caligulan, really.

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 10, 2008 4:40 PM

"Longtime Lurker, you just saved me from having to leave a similar comment"

Great minds think alike... so do ours!

Anybody notice how Lawton has once again managed to hijack the thread? Getting back on track, compare Obama's speech to "Rhymes with" Mitt Romney's religion speech, which basically amounted to: "Hey, don't be bigoted against me, 'cos we can join up and be bigoted against 'those people' together!"

Posted by: A1 | June 10, 2008 4:50 PM

If you are happy to vote for any politician, you need your head examined for tumors.

Party loyalists: the biggest tools in the country

Politics/Ideology: dissolves skepticism on contact

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 10, 2008 5:07 PM

Oh, A1, you make the common right-winger/authoritarian mistake of thinking that we are looking for a messiah/big daddy/dear leader. We are not seeking a savior, or even a leader, but an executive- the head of a branch of government co-equal with (ideally, subordinate to) the legislature, and the judiciary.

In other words, ya hump, you are projecting.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 10, 2008 5:36 PM

frog,
I don't agree (though I don't wholly disagree), but before responding properly, could I ask you to expand on your view that control of oil supplies is no longer vital?

Posted by: dan | June 10, 2008 6:10 PM

Coriolis said:
"I don't know that securing oil was really the incentive for this stupid Iraq war... Considering all the costs of this war, simply buying oil would have been much cheaper.."

There was never a better moment in history for the justification of war, as there was after 911.
I remember thinking, on 911, that this was going to be a fantastic opportunity for the Bush administration, if they were so inclined - I can't believe that that is what they decided to do, but the moment was just too good.

Anyway, think of the oil in Iraq - held by a country that is now defenceless (I mean Iraq, not the US). the development of that reserve of oil will now take place under our watchfull gaze, and who do you suppose will be building the pumping stations? Who will build the pipeline? Who will fill the tankers?

Of course it's about the oil, it certainly isn't about the dates (though they are delicious!).

The money spent on the invasion is your money, in taxes. The money to be made by processing the oil will not go to you; but thanks for helping!

Obama wont stop this - he can't, but he can get the OBVIOUS troops out of there - the troops that stay to guard the oil plants will still be there - he says as much.

Coriolis goes on to say:

"... So I don't buy the "had to secure it" argument very much either.

Personally though I'm in the "they were just fucking stupid" camp. It's hard for most rational people to accept that maybe it really was just a stupid act promoted by a bunch of fools (i.e. neocons). But frankly I find that point of view rather more credible then imagining these incompetent clowns actually had some sinister plan with a real purpose."

They stated their purpose - to get rid of Saddam, that was the truth. Their reason - to secure resources that will keep the money flowing for another 150 years; well worth the 4,000+ lives, + 600 Billion of your tax dollars.

Ugh, I hate long posts, and now I'm doing one....

Posted by: frog | June 10, 2008 6:21 PM

NG:

(Note: we means the US here)

Let me turn it around. Oil today (as opposed to fifty years ago) is only vital because we make it so. First, mass use of armaments has become, to some extent, paper tigers --- they are unusable for the most important cases, because they quickly would escalate to unsustainable levels of war.

Second, many of our most essential technologies are not necessarily tied to oil. Fifty years ago, the essential tools were cars, trucks, planes, tanks and industrial equipment (i.e, the internal combustion engine and related technologies). They all ran by far best on oil. Today, communication technologies are as important as tanks --- they don't require oil, except insofar as we've decided to make it so.

If we were to make a concerted effort (as the Europeans have begun to do) to ween ourselves off of oil, we could make much of the dominant technologies independent of oil, and thereby take away leveraging power from our world opponents.

My model is the post-WWI world. Until that point, railroad technology ruled the world. Some nations continued to assume it was so, and made their industrial and military plans based on it (France being a case in point). The US/Britain and Germany recognized that we had moved into the oil era -- Japan had no choice to recognize it, being an island nation. So WWII was about control of the oil supplies --- everyone else was demoted to a second or third rank nation, and the Soviets saw their entire infrastructure destroyed.

In the same way, we are moving past oil. If we insist on planning around oil, we will be demoted by currently second rank states who make themselves independent of oil. Even the Iranians are trying to move away from an oil economy! The Chinese are moving into space, recognizing that control of information is essential. The EU is funding heavily renewables. The Baltic states and India have gotten heavily into communication technologies. Brazil is developing biofuels. There won't be a single bottle-neck, as there has been for the last half-century for oil, and rail lines/steamers for the previous half century and so on going back to 1492. Well, unless global warming makes some new technology essential --- the world has finally reached a kind of technological parity, and we're moving away from the single energy source dominance that has marked human industry since slavery started.

What would have been in our hegemonic interest would have been massive investment in nuclear - that's a technology that's naturally centralized and controllable, but it's too late now for that. We could have made that the bottleneck.

Posted by: Dylan Stafne | June 10, 2008 8:46 PM

Obama isn't perfect, but he's by far best candidate running this election, and a damn good person at that. I'm proud to cast my first-ever presidential vote for Barack Obama.

Posted by: lostn | June 10, 2008 9:26 PM

You won't hear this kind of speech again. If he gave that speech now, he'll lose the election. The godbots have too much power. America is destined to become a theocracy. Sad, but true.

Posted by: CJO | June 10, 2008 9:53 PM

I'm a fucked-up teenager with serious mental and emotional problems.

Then, kid, you're spending too much time here, and presuming this isn't the only place on the toobz you're hanging at, you're definitely spending too much time online. It's only going to make matters worse. Mental problems can often be addressed effectively by competent, compassionate professionals. Emotional problems a) are just endemic to adolescence, so, hey, y'know, I feel for you, but it goes away; and b) are better approached in real life, by fostering mutually beneficial relationships with friends and family, than by inviting abuse from strangers on a blog.

Posted by: amk | June 10, 2008 10:27 PM

A couple of links concerning the proposed US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement:

1 US wants 58 bases, and the right to interpret what constitutes an act of aggression against Iraq.

2 US would be able to arrest Iraqi citizens, conduct arbitrary military operations without Iraqi consent, US soldiers and contractors would have legal immunity - and the US is holding $20bn of Iraq's money as ransom. The US has also already prevented Iraq diversifying its holdings into Euros, costing $5bn as the dollar falls.

That's more than a little imperialistic.

What would amuse me no end now would be China making a counter bid.

Obama's campaign called for the SOFA to be debated in Congress.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | June 11, 2008 1:06 AM

You have direct experience of the area and I don't, but I don't think you're right that religious figures are necessarily the final authority figures in the Islamic Middle East. Rather, they tend to be the last possible refuge of opposition when a brutal secular dictatorship is in place - as in Iran pre-1979, Iraq under Saddam, or Syria and Egypt now.

I can't speak for any area other than Iraq, but during my tour there, I had to provide security for a curious meeting. The congress has reached an impasse and Sadr was in the middle of one of his power plays (meaning that he had loosed his fighters on the country to cause problems in order to get the government to invite him back to the negotiating table in exchange for a truce), and the solution the Iraqi government came up with was to call in the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. Sadr would listen to no one else, and they desperately needed him to call his fighters off. So they called Sistani in, and for the first part of the meeting he met - at the government's request - with the governmental pofficials so they could ask his advice as to how to solve their current situation. In the second, he met with Sadr to get him to stand down.

It is this sort of solution - which was replayed countless times on the local level where I was stationed, involving local mullahs and insurgent leaders - that displayed to me that religious leaders in that culture have the kind of ultimate authority I described in my earlier post. I agree that the over-arching statement I made may not be true in other parts of the world, and i should have qualified the statement much better than I did.

But think about how we would react if, in order to solve a major problem, our government came up with the solution of calling in a religious figure to give that kind of guidance and exert that kind of influence to accomplish our national goals. It is one of the major differences in our culture, and that is something that clearly shows how this administration has mishandled things in that area of the world.

Anyway, I digress... Thanks for pointing the mistake out to me, Nick.

Posted by: Michelle | June 11, 2008 8:24 AM

@Brian#134: Sorry, but no. First, I'm canadian so I don't join any american election things. Second, my apathy is justified. It happens all the damn time here. They shine in your face like a saviour and turns out to be just like the guy you threw outside. And thus Quebec continues its descent to hell, or at least its course towards a big brick wall.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 11, 2008 9:02 AM

negentropeater@239
On the likely revival of socialism - I agree with you that the present crisis may well revive it, and as a democratic socialist, I very much hope you are right.

The USA in a better position than Europe or Japan in case of Oil shortages ?,/I>
Yes, because it already effectively controls much of the supply, could seize the Saudi fields if it had to, and could then monopolize the remaining oil.

On your last paragraph, I don't think you've been paying attention. I'm not advocating the USA invading Iran, I'm saying this makes sense if what you want is to maximise US relative power - by grabbing control of the largest supply of high-grade oil currently beyond its control, but possibly grabbable (i.e. ruling out Russia, which is much too well-armed). Such an invasion would of course be a thoroughly wicked crime, as was that of Iraq.

Why on Earth would anyone want to invade North Korea? They don't have anything worth grabbing!

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 11, 2008 10:13 AM

Hence we could've seized their oil supply easily at any point in the future if we felt it to be neccesary, without getting prematurely bogged down in this mess.

The point is to be able to tie the Iraqi oil industry completely into US technology and management practice (which is already the case for most of the Middle East's oil except Iran's). If the neocons had been right about how easy running Iraq was going to be, Iraqi oil production could now have been considerably higher and the price lower - if the US wanted it to be. The current price rise undoubtedly is due to speculation. Oil consumption hasn't gone up much if at all over the last few months, production has not gone down, the price has soared - and we know where the speculative money has come from.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 11, 2008 11:21 AM

They shine in your face like a saviour and turns out to be just like the guy you threw outside.

Same as the old boss

Posted by: frog | June 11, 2008 11:33 AM

NG: , I'm saying this makes sense if what you want is to maximise US relative power - by grabbing control of the largest supply of high-grade oil currently beyond its control, but possibly grabbable (i.e. ruling out Russia, which is much too well-armed). Such an invasion would of course be a thoroughly wicked crime, as was that of Iraq.

I guess the question we're skirting around --- and the underlying disagreement -- power for whom?

Yes, if the question is "Power for the top 1%", those who can be identified as the state or the ruling class or whatever gloss, then you are correct. If the question is power for Americans, all 100%, then we have been in decline and it will only accelerate.

I guess when I mean America (as an American) I mean all Americans --- while when you say America, you mean the rulers of Americans. Two quite distinct groups.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 11, 2008 11:44 AM

Controls much of the supply ? how is that so, when both George and Dick have tried and failed to negotiate an increase supply with the Saudis ? And how could they seize those fields, a military intervention, in case of shortages Europe, China, Russia and Japan would just sit there quietly ? - negentropyeater

You assume the Saudis could increase supply if they wanted to; so far as easily refined oil is concerned, it's likely they couldn't. They could increase the supply of heavy oil, but the refining facilities to turn that into transport fuel are working flat out. Yes, I think Europe, China, Russia and Japan would just sit there quietly: what could they do?

Posted by: amk | June 11, 2008 12:06 PM

frog,
I've probably linked to this before, but I'll do it again. British economist J A Hobson calculated that British imperial policy 1870-1900 harmed the British economy as a whole, but made a small minority much wealthier and much more powerful. Comparisons with the US today are obvious.

Link

Concerning changes in recent decades: modern media makes people increasingly aware of what is happening, and of course many people are very aware of the history of colonial imperialism in their home countries. As such, any policy that looks imperialistic is going to face a huge backlash, and that same media puts a limit on how brutally it can be put down. Concentration camps may have worked in the past, but are not an option now.

Nick,

And how could they seize those fields, a military intervention, in case of shortages Europe, China, Russia and Japan would just sit there quietly ?

It seems most European governments (even the current French and German) would rather follow meekly behind the US than cut loose. Federalisation would change that, but it would first require politicians in national governments to surrender their own power, something politicians generally don't do.

Posted by: frog | June 11, 2008 12:16 PM

NG: I meant the USA as a state relative to other states - but as even democratic capitalist states in their relations with other states are almost completely controlled by their elites, it comes to much the same thing.

Hmm, then we get into the question of "what is a state?" The elites in the US don't necessarily identify with the US, which is part of the problem of interpreting this Iraq mess, in the same way that in Rome in the imperial period, the Roman state lost interest in Rome.

There is a difference between say Europe and the US - the elites in Europe (outside of the UK), have until recently more strongly identified with their state, and therefore also with the population of the state. Besides local language and culture, WWII whupped 'em big time upside the head and convinced a couple of generations of elites that they and their people eat out of the same bowl (to steal a Teutonism).

On top of that, the elite in much of Europe were decimated, so despite US illusion, even Germany is a much more socially mobile society than the US. Since so much of the elite is only a generation from being in the population, you'll get much more of an identification with that population.

So, if the state has some identification with the welfare of its people, then the state does have interests beyond short-term great power politics; if on the other hand the state is just identified with the elite, who themselves don't identify with the state except as a means for self-aggrandizement, then your great powers analysis make more sense.

In the latter case, I'd expect that the most sensible analysis of Mess-o-potamia is not even in great power politics, but in conspiracies and alliances among the elite -- it's not even the interest of the state relative to other states that's being served, but the interests of corporations and other conspiracies of that ilk who talk in state language, but don't really mean it anymore.

Posted by: amk | June 11, 2008 12:33 PM

Are you suggesting China, Russia (which I could believe) and even Japan and Europe would enter into a proxy war with the US?

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 11, 2008 12:55 PM

"I clearly haven't earned your respect, but I ask for your tolerance, and a second chance. Please?"

Walton, nice appeal to our sympathetic sides, maybe you should take a three-day vacation from this site, and check out websites run by people you would seem to identify with politically. The premier conservatives sites are "Free Republic" , "Little Green Footballs" and "Red State". Check them out, post on them posing as a slightly right of center, centrist Republican, and see what kind of hideous, eliminationist rhetoric you inspire. Come back, and let us know how it goes, and whether you really feel the same way about conservatism... and don't give us any "No True Scotsman" nonsense.

Ideally, you should travel to the States to see firsthand what Reagan-style "government is the problem" conservatism has wrought. Check out the Gulf Coast, travel by Greyhound Bus to Minneapolis to see the fallen bridge, check the areas of the Midwest currently being flooded, and compare the Bush response to Clinton's response 15 years ago.

If you really put some effort into it, I am sure you could find a way to volunteer for a Republican legislator, and see firsthand what the ideology is really about. I can think of at least one conservative Senator who would love to have an insecure 19 year old boy on his staff.

Posted by: amk | June 11, 2008 1:36 PM

Hobson's Imperialism full text.

"Regime change" in Saudi Arabia has long been a neo-con goal. Ledeen names the Wahhabis in his latest WSJ rant. Inventing a motive isn't too hard: Wahhabiism is the most oppressive variant of any extant religion, is the ideological origin of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, is connected with the Salafi jihadis in Iraq, most 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. The kingdom is and always has been an arrangement between a strong-arm monarchy and Wahhabi clerics, and scores worse than Iran on Freedom House's Freedom In The World report.

However, the Western powers still arm Saudi Arabia. Bush promised military aid to help isolate Iran, and Saudi is buying Eurofighter Typhoons from the UK. It already has F-15s and Panavia Tornados. One would have to be crazy to attack it.

Posted by: amk | June 11, 2008 2:02 PM

Further to Longtime Lurker's post:

There seems to be a significant difference between British and American Conservative movements. The latter has been taken over by a paranoid, tribal mentality. Few Barry Goldwater-type conservatives remain with influence. Goldwater himself was said to be involved with John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" book before he passed away. That book was based on the work of Bob Altemeyer.

Speaking of which, I recommend Altemeyer's The Authoritarians to anyone with any interest in politics. The author is a (retired) academic studying personality types that lead to authoritarian regimes, the book is free, is extremely well written (I was engrossed) and contains enough detail and references to seriously test its assertions.

It's been linked to here a few times, but I've not got PZ to link it yet :(

Posted by: Coriolis | June 11, 2008 2:35 PM

Heh, when it comes to personalities that lead to authoritarianism there's always Escape from freedom by erich fromm in the context of hitler&nazism.

I think frog is pointing out one of the fundamental problems with current american politics - that the elite is no longer seriously connected with the majority of the people. And they are pursuing policies that not only hurt the majority but will end up hurting the so-called elite as well, just in a longer timeframe.

The question of how to avoid the buildup of a practical aristocracy in a liberal democracy however is somewhat more of an economic then a political one. Personally I like the idea of largely eliminating sizable inheritance but that has many practical problems in terms of how to implement it.

Oh and it seems alot of people think that when I say our current administration is stupid I am absolving them of guilt. On the contrary - ignorance and stupidity is no excuse. I just don't think they are intelligent and evil (if there are infact such people at all), but rather stupid and evil ;).

Posted by: spurge | June 11, 2008 2:49 PM

"Mellon Scaife's famous remark was about shrinking government enough so that it could be strangled in a bathtub."

No, It was Grove Norquist. The quote was "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years," he says, "to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 11, 2008 2:52 PM

Thanks for the correction, Spurge, these righties all seem to blur together when the blood is "angried up".

Posted by: Neil B. | June 11, 2008 4:24 PM

I think highly of Obama, and this speech in particular. However I'm still a bit peeved about the weird ministers' antics (as well as to whatever degree Obama himself cleaves to conservative Christianity, which as a Unitarian Universalist I don't approve of.) I fear however, that to the highly conservative, an "ObamaNation" would be an "abomination."

(To those who may remember my metaphysical agitations about First Cause issues etc, I count as liberal in practice and in other ways, as if anyone cared. I would be willing to vote for an atheist for any office provided that person was not a militant dismissive activist about it.)

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 11, 2008 4:57 PM

negentropyeater,
On the Saudis:
Do you have evidence that the Saudis could increase production markedly, and/or that the stories of bottlenecks in refining are false? I'm certainly prepared to revise my opinion on these points.
I'd agree that day-to-day, even year-to-year, the ibn Saud clan control supply - they could cut it as they did in 1974; but they are dependent on the US for military hardware, the latter is in a much stronger strategic position than in the 1970s, and in extremis, could indeed take the oil fields and if necessary drive the population out of those parts of the country. Obviously, such actions would be very risky and have a very high cost, but rather than see the economy collapse for lack of fuel, I think that's what the elite would do - and I don't think anyone could stop them, at least in the short term.
Incidentally, I have a book "House of Bush, House of Saud", by Craig Unger (2004), about the ties between the two clans, which I've never got round to reading. Anyone read it?

frog,
I think our disagreements are mainly of emphasis - details below:

In 73, the signals of a fundamental shift became obvious --- but a few tweaks as you pointed out extended the life of the current system (Just like the Soviets in the 60s were able to adapt somewhat -- and even temporarily extend -- but the decline of the overall adaptation should have been evident, and likewise Rome in the 4th century).

We agree that the 1970s were a time of crisis, but I see the recovery strategy as having been more successful than you do - for the reasons I've already set out and need not repeat. That doesn't mean I don't see weaknesses in the USA's geopolitical position, even leaving aside the global problems that could bring our whole civilisation crashing down. Have you read Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and/or Preparing for the 21st Century? Anything in the "World-Systems" literature, especially anything by Christopher Chase-Dunn? From very different political viewpoints, Kennedy and Chase-Dunn (and other World-Systems theorists) argue that there are cyclic aspects to power politics, due in large part to top-rank powers suffering from "imperial overstretch" (Kennedy's term), as they concentrate their resources too much on military power, and lose the technological and economic leadership that initially gave them their dominant position. I think the US was suffering from this in the 70s, was able largely to overcome it by the end of the millennium - look at the way it dominated the dotcom boom - but is now suffering from it anew, principally because the neocons got overconfident, started believing their own propaganda, and invaded Iraq before getting a firm grip on Afghanistan. However, I don't think the US elite (in which the neocons are only one faction, although obviously the most powerful at least until November) have yet failed irrevocably. For a historical parallel, consider Britain after the US War of Independence: a key part of the empire gone, defeat at the hands of a coalition of several other main powers, and then the threat from the French Revolution, which sparked internal dissent and a rising in Ireland. Yet after defeating France in the Napoleonic Wars, Britain's power and prestige were higher than ever, and it remained the world's leading power at least until around 1870. So decline can in some cases be reversed. The USA has far greater natural advantages than Britain ever did, and a far larger share of global economic activity. Incidentally, I'd love to get into the issue of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon blamed the Christians), but that would take us too far afield.

For example, Bretton-Woods was a sign that the US plan for Western Europe had been so successful, that we could no longer dominate them with our productive capacity -- but rather than changing our relationship fundamentally, we just used our currency dominance to extend our advantage temporarily --- and we saw decades of economic stagnation for most of the US population in response.

Agreed, but the US elite, as you've noted, by and large doesn't give a stuff for the American people. (I don't mean no members of it do, but devotion to the commonweal is not the way to do well within the elite.) For clarification, the elite is not sharply delineated, and there are both ideological factions and sectional interests within it. You've suggested that European elites are more patriotic (to use a shorthand) than that of the US. This may well be: elites of different states have different interests, and members of those of second-rank states may tend to identify more closely with their own state and people, because increasing their state's power is the best way for them to improve their position; members of a dominant state's elite may tend to see that dominance as the natural state of affairs, and give more attention to keeping their own population in line.

Another sign is Nixon -- he was a clear sign that the post-WWII pattern of imperial executives wasn't sustainable, but a few tweaks and we got Reagan and Bush, where the imperial presidency was extended while corroding our political system.

Ah, America's last liberal President! (Withdrawal from Vietnam, detente with the USSR, the opening to China, economically interventionist, indexing of social security, school integration, affirmative action, EPA, OSHA, Legacy parks plan...) Of course, all this was a reaction to elite weakness after the trauma of Vietnam, it gave breathing space while the new financial regime stabilised, petrodollars were recycled, and the USSR was lured into Afghanistan. Since the decline and fall of the USSR, the elite have had much less need to compromise either with allies (hence they were able to stuff Japan in the '90s), or with their own population.

So, if the state has some identification with the welfare of its people, then the state does have interests beyond short-term great power politics; if on the other hand the state is just identified with the elite, who themselves don't identify with the state except as a means for self-aggrandizement, then your great powers analysis make more sense.

That's a large part of how I see things. World-Systems theories postulate that elites of "core states" (very roughly, great powers) keep their dominant position in their own society in considerable part by using resources they derive from relations with other states and societies. As I suggested above, elites of a dominant state may be less patriotic than those of their weaker rivals, and all elites have internal divisions.

In the latter case, I'd expect that the most sensible analysis of Mess-o-potamia is not even in great power politics, but in conspiracies and alliances among the elite -- it's not even the interest of the state relative to other states that's being served, but the interests of corporations and other conspiracies of that ilk who talk in state language, but don't really mean it anymore.

Both, I'd say.

Phew! A most stimulating discussion, with you and others. I must now take a few days off Pharyngula, and concentrate on work!

Posted by: Walton | June 11, 2008 6:41 PM

Longtime Lurker at #256: OK, I'll stay off here for a few days and join Free Republic, just to see what it's like. It will be instructive to see whether I'm as disliked in a hardcore right-wing community as I am here.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 11, 2008 7:41 PM

OK, I'll stay off here for a few days and join Free Republic, just to see what it's like. It will be instructive to see whether I'm as disliked in a hardcore right-wing community as I am here.

If you really last for several days, I'd like you to ask to donate your stomach to science. To mine a quote by a certain Dan here on Pharyngula on December 11, 2007, "Yowza! [...] [Freeperville] goes beyond stupid into a realm where even stupid is afraid to show its face."

You'll probably be banned within a few hours at most.

Posted by: amk | June 11, 2008 9:00 PM

The Guardian, June 4th, 2003:

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister [Wolfowitz] said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that[,] economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

This happened at an Asian security summit in Singapore the weekend before.

Clarification:

A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

Link

Wolfowitz quote:

Look, the primarily difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq. The problems in both cases have some similarities but the solutions have got to be tailored to the circumstances which are very different.

Link

H/t littlegreenfootballs.com I feel dirty...

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 11, 2008 9:17 PM

OK, I'll stay off here for a few days and join Free Republic, just to see what it's like. It will be instructive to see whether I'm as disliked in a hardcore right-wing community as I am here.

Call the waaaaaaahmbulence.

Posted by: windy | June 11, 2008 9:31 PM

Cute, really. :-}

Is that the emoticon for "recognising the irony in using that word when talking about a war criminal"? :)

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | June 12, 2008 2:26 AM

But, ironically, once he goes off-message with some of his more reasonable opinions, they'll probably think he's a concern troll.

Yeah, but given his stubborn insistence on keeping those opinions of his that have been shown to be completely false (i.e. McCain is an advocate of secular government, Obama is an appeaser), I have no reason to think that he actually believes any of the more reasonable things he was basically forced into conceding. To me, it seems as if those things like the two statements you mentioned were merely concern-troll utterances meant to make him look like he was an active participant the discussion. Because if you noticed, he hardly ever uttered one of those reasonable opinions without following it up immediately with something like "but I still don't see a reason to vote for him," or some other ridiculous assertion that completely flew in the face of the reasonable comment. That's why I hold firm in the opinion that he was nothing more than a concern troll on this site, and that's why I think he'll fit in quite nicely over there on the right-wing sites.

Posted by: J | June 12, 2008 4:24 AM

Hmm, then we get into the question of "what is a state?" The elites in the US don't necessarily identify with the US, which is part of the problem of interpreting this Iraq mess, in the same way that in Rome in the imperial period, the Roman state lost interest in Rome.
All this insinuation that American "elites" are Servants of Darkness is becoming tiresome. What do you mean by "elites"? The super-rich, presumably? Are you trying to suggest they're all neo-cons (including, say, Bill Gates?), or that maybe most of them are (say more than 50%?), or what? Define your terms.

I find it difficult to see how such negative, sweeping comments about extremely ill-defined groups can be anything more than far-left propaganda.

Posted by: Walton | June 12, 2008 7:16 AM

To brokenSoldier at #282: I can assure you, I am not "concern trolling". I have given only my honest opinion.

Ultimately, I agree with the consensus view on this forum in some areas, while disagreeing with it in many others. I'm not a typical American conservative, but I'm definitely more right-leaning than left-leaning even by American standards. But I can assure you that I haven't been lying about any of my beliefs in order to get people to take me seriously as a participant in the discussion. All of it is my honest opinion.

On the one hand, I accept the probable reality of biological evolution, and oppose young-earth creationism and such nonsense; I support same-sex civil unions, where state legislatures see fit to adopt them (and I think a constitutional amendment about it would be pointless and ludicrous); I see the need for some level of practical restriction on civilian gun ownership; and I am in favour, generally, of the separation between church and state, and of ensuring that all laws which affect individual rights have a secular, objective justification. These are all my honest opinions, not "concern trolling".

On the other hand, I also support tax cuts and a free-market economy; an aggressive stance in the War on Terror; a generally pro-life position on abortion; judicial strict constructionism; and strong opposition to affirmative action. So those are the beliefs which make me a conservative. But that doesn't mean I'm lying about the others.

After looking at FreeRepublic, I decided not to bother - it doesn't look like the intellectual standard of debate is particularly high, and, of course, it has a bad reputation on the internet. Can anyone direct me to a serious right-wing conservative equivalent of this site (i.e. somewhere with a relatively high calibre of discussion)? I imagine there must be one.

I should also point out that I enjoy being here, rather than on a conservative site, precisely because I don't want to "blend into the crowd"; I benefit from having to defend my ideas in the face of reasoned and principled opposition. A discussion full of like-minded people (of any particular affiliation) patting each other on the back is not particularly interesting or productive.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 12, 2008 7:49 AM

shorter Walton (as per usual):
I...I...I...I...I...I...I...I...me...

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | June 12, 2008 8:42 AM

@Walton

This is closest thing to sane right wingers I've come across. Enjoy.

http://noleftturns.ashbrook.org/

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 12, 2008 8:59 AM

After looking at FreeRepublic, I decided not to bother - it doesn't look like the intellectual standard of debate is particularly high

Can anyone direct me to a serious right-wing conservative equivalent of this site

You'll find conservative sites, alright, but the numbers of posts are uniformly pitifully small because their demographic don't read and don't think.

I imagine there must be one.

Look, if the cluetrain eventually arrives at Walton Station, you'll realise there's a reason why the intelligentsia are predominantly "godless liberals". You're not going to find a site with conservative intellectuals seriously engaging with the issues of the day because there aren't any. The GOP don't get votes by rational argument and persuasion, they get them by hammering clichés into the mushy brains of rubes using Faux News propaganda.

They don't need to think about it. They're just right because they're right because they're right. They have absolute knowledge with no grounding in reality. It's grounded in ideology, faith, and dogma. They don't want to be challenged. They don't want to learn or think. Education is weakness. Ignorance is strength. It's not a coincidence that fundies and Repuglicans are aligned, their intellectual dispositions are the same. Listen to the dialogue of the windbags you listen to: they project the way their own minds work onto "leftists" and "liberals" by calling us "dittoheads". They attack universities for being "full of liberal professors" and call researchers "leftist grant-whores". They're anti-education and so profoundly stupid that they don't realise the "solution" to liberal bias in universities: if you want universities to be more conservative, you have to get them to hire more stupid people.

How about a little experiment on candidates' academic achievement: I'll do the first one: McCain barely passed his classes in the Naval Academy. Obama has degrees from Columbia (B.A. in politics w/ major in international relations) and Harvard (J.D., magna cum laude) and lectured constitutional law in U. Chicago.

Yet, somehow, you assert that McCain is "quite clearly a better qualified candidate", then wonder why we pour scorn on you!

Posted by: Walton | June 12, 2008 9:44 AM

Emmet Caulfield at #292: I have to disagree. There is a great conservative intellectual tradition, going back to Edmund Burke, and epitomised today by thinkers such as George Will. Since modern conservatism is so committed to the idea of small government and minimal state interference, I also think we can be said to stand within the libertarian philosophical tradition of J.S. Mill (despite his snide remarks about the conservatives of his day). Not to mention great economic thinkers such as Friedman and von Hayek, whose ideas were at the root of the conservatism of Thatcher and Reagan. So I don't think you can reasonably assert that there is no intellectual depth to conservative thinking. Yes, the right has its propagandists (Limbaugh and O'Reilly being the pre-eminent examples), just as the left has the likes of Michael Moore. But just as I don't judge the thinking of great liberal philosophers (of whom there were plenty) by the standards of Moore, one shouldn't do the same to the right.

I will admit, though, that there are a lot of knee-jerk conservatives, just as there are knee-jerk liberals. The world has plenty of people who are limited in their education and the scope of their thinking. So I will admit that there are plenty of conservative idiots. But that doesn't mean that conservative thought itself is grounded in idiocy.

The GOP don't get votes by rational argument and persuasion - Neither does any mass political movement. Like it or not, the majority of the millions of people who vote do not devote a massive amount of thought to their political decision-making. As much as I hate it, it is the reality of democratic politics in the mass-media age: complex ideas must be broken down into slogans, pictures, simplistic advertising campaigns, etc.

Listen to the dialogue of the windbags you listen to: they project the way their own minds work onto "leftists" and "liberals" by calling us "dittoheads". They attack universities for being "full of liberal professors" and call researchers "leftist grant-whores". - All true, and I'm no fan of that sort of discourse. But it's not like liberals don't also seek to characterise conservatives in disparaging ways. If we could eliminate all these kinds of attacks from all sides of political discourse, it would be great (and you may notice that I have never, in hundreds of posts on this site, used any of those disparaging epithets towards any of you). But unfortunately, political discourse in a democratic age is inevitably full of needless personal attacks.

...you'll realise there's a reason why the intelligentsia are predominantly "godless liberals". - At the risk of making a gross generalisation - and I'm sure one can find plenty of counterexamples - I would contend that, generally, this is because the liberal intelligentsia have not had the types of life experiences which tend to make one a conservative; experiences like building one's own business from the ground up and surviving in the fast-paced commercial world, for instance. Don't get me wrong; I'm not criticising academia as a profession. As a society, we need education. But I am simply pointing out that the fact that liberal views prevail in academia does not mean that the liberal outlook is the only intelligent one. Our society needs entrepreneurs (who create jobs and prop up the economy) as much as it needs educators, and entrepreneurs are almost universally conservative. I would contend that the particular idealistic brand of liberalism which prevails among academics and students (as a student, I'm exposed to it every day) is very attractive, in the abstract, to the intelligent and principled mind - but it is held by few people outside the academic world, and the natural inference would seem to be that the life experiences which one has outside of academia tend to guide one away from doctrinaire liberalism.

How about a little experiment on candidates' academic achievement: I'll do the first one: McCain barely passed his classes in the Naval Academy. Obama has degrees from Columbia (B.A. in politics w/ major in international relations) and Harvard (J.D., magna cum laude) and lectured constitutional law in U. Chicago. Yet, somehow, you assert that McCain is "quite clearly a better qualified candidate", then wonder why we pour scorn on you! - All true. But pure intelligence and academic achievement are not the sole relevant qualifications in evaluating a political leader. In terms of intellect alone, the brightest post-war President was almost certainly Bill Clinton (high academic achievement despite coming from an ordinary background; Rhodes Scholar; glittering legal career). Yet for me, that isn't the ideal background for a leader. I would rather have a political leader who has, for instance, put his life on the line for his country serving in the military, or has built his own business from the ground up through sheer hard work and talent - or has had some other tough, daunting experience which pushed him to his limits of leadership, courage or fortitude. All in all, intelligence alone is not enough qualification to be president. A political leader worthy of respect needs to have faced challenging life experiences which pushed them to their limit and tested their character.

Posted by: Etha Williams, OM | June 12, 2008 9:51 AM

Walton --

Can anyone direct me to a serious right-wing conservative equivalent of this site (i.e. somewhere with a relatively high calibre of discussion)?

I've not had time to look at them in much depth, but some of the blogs on this list look reasonably interesting.

Posted by: Kseniya | June 12, 2008 10:37 AM

Hello, Walton,

but it is held by few people outside the academic world

And you would know this... how?

Anyway, you're wrong.

But I am simply pointing out that the fact that liberal views prevail in academia does not mean that the liberal outlook is the only intelligent one

True enough. But Liberalism doesn't exist only in academia - unless you define is as the kind of liberalism that only exists in academia, when doing so would, obviously, beg the question.

Business-oriented people - entrepentuers and managment - tend to vote Republican. Professionals - a class which includes not just academics, but "a large class of affluent knowledge workers -- teachers, lawyers, architects, academics, journalists, therapists, decorators and so on -- who live and vote differently than their equally well-educated but more business-oriented peers." (From "Bitter at the Top", David Brooks, NYT, June 15, 2004).

Are you ready to claim that teachers, lawyers, architects, journalists, therapists etc. have no life experience? Are you going to say "If they are still liberals, then they have had no life experience of the type that turns one conservative?" I advise against it.

(I hope that's coherent enough... no time to edit, gotta run.)

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 12, 2008 10:47 AM

I have to disagree.

Like it or not, the majority of the millions of people who vote do not devote a massive amount of thought to their political decision-making.

All true, and I'm no fan of that sort of discourse.

But it's not like liberals don't also seek to characterise conservatives in disparaging ways.

I would contend that, generally, this is because the liberal intelligentsia have not had the types of life experiences which tend to make one a conservative;

the fact that liberal views prevail in academia does not mean that the liberal outlook is the only intelligent one.

But pure intelligence and academic achievement are not the sole relevant qualifications in evaluating a political leader.

Posted by: J | June 12, 2008 12:11 PM

Why is it right-wingers can never distinguish between individuals and groups? And don't whine that you're not a right-winger --- if this is "far-left propaganda", you're to the right of almost all thinking politics -- quit with the concern trolling, it really is tiresome.
I'm not a right-winger. Insisting that I shouldn't deny this arbitrary, unsupported charge is simply a dishonest debating tactic.

The fact that I often disagree with dopey leftist agenda-laden nonsense does not make me "to the right of almost all thinking".

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 12, 2008 12:47 PM

Emmet's comments on this thread are certainly worthy of a Molly... "Abbatoir that slaughters lettuce" alone is worth the price of admission.

Now, Walton, you have three days, like a modern day Diogenes. Go out and find a conservative blog in which eliminationist rhetoric, bigotry, and hatred of science do not take center-stage.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 12, 2008 2:17 PM

Frog,
I think it's obvious that you were speaking of the American "elite" with a negative undertone

Well, I won't speak of them with a negative undertone: I'll just state clearly that I regard them as the most dangerous group of people on the planet by far. That doesn't mean they are all nasty as individuals, nor that I cannot distinguish more and less dangerous groupings within them, nor that I have no interests in common with those of them who are sane (such as preventing catastrophic climate change). Collectively, however, they are quite clearly determined to continue hogging wealth and power, and ready to use any level of violence necessary in order to do so. I will do what little I can to diminish their wealth and power.

Meanwhile, J., I note that you have in no way addressed the analysis of their motives and actions some of us have been discussing, but have simply employed typical rightist sneers ("dopey leftist agenda-laden nonsense") as if they were arguments - I assume because you have none of the latter.

Posted by: Walton | June 12, 2008 2:29 PM

Emmet Caulfield at #300:

AFAICT Keith Olbermann is about the closest thing there is to an O'Reilly-like liberal windbag. - I disagree. George Carlin and Bill Maher, from what I've seen of them, are at least as bad as O'Reilly or Limbaugh. Al Franken also seems irritating (though I'm hesitant to judge, since I haven't read his book). And Michael Moore, though he doesn't use the kind of aggressively barbed rhetoric of his right-wing counterparts, is equally guilty of distorting the truth for partisan purposes and deceiving people by over-simplifying complex issues. So there are just as many bad liberals in public life as bad conservatives.

OK, sport, go find the right-wing website teeming with threads 300-800 posts long where the standard of discussion and invective parallels Pharyngula. I'll invade it, post like your mirror image, and see how long it takes me to get banned. - I can't find such a site: that's what I was asking everyone else for, which is how this discussion got started. Given the great intellectual tradition of conservative thought (which I described in detail above at post #294), I find it hard to believe that there isn't a right-leaning website where the intellectual and discursive standard parallels this site. Yet there doesn't seem to be anywhere else, left or right, which really compares.

Don't get me wrong, other than for polemical purposes I wouldn't say "left/godless is smart" and "right/religious is stupid", it's a false dichotomy piled on false dichotomies, but that's the way it is on average and, anecdotally, that's been my experience, present company included! The few smart right-wingers I know are right-wingers for horribly cynical reasons. - So I'm either stupid, or cynical and self-interested. Thanks very much. :-) Indeed, this seems to be the prevailing attitude around here: anyone who professes to be a right winger is either a gullible idiot, completely insane, or deceitful and manipulative (I've been accused of all three so far), because no one who is both intelligent and decent could possibly believe in low taxes, small government and a strong national defence.

To Kseniya at #298. Are you ready to claim that teachers, lawyers, architects, journalists, therapists etc. have no life experience? - Depends what you mean by "life experience". For me, someone doesn't have enough life experience to be a great political leader until they've faced challenges that have pushed them to their mental and physical limits and tested the strength of their character. The most conventional way to do that is, of course, military service, but I wouldn't contend that military service is the only way to do it. A doctor, paramedic, firefighter or police officer is also faced with life-and-death decisions, responsibility, and the need for physical and moral courage, and they are also pushed to their limits in the course of their careers.

Look at it this way. (Sorry to bring personal examples into it again; no doubt Sven DeMilo will again accuse me of being a narcissist. But it's relevant to my argument, and I make no apologies.) I'm studying law at a prestigious university (Oxford), and am reasonably successful at it. Constitutional and public law (exactly what Obama specialises in) is my preferred area. I am capable of getting a good degree and becoming a lawyer or a legal academic (like Obama) - but that won't qualify me to be a great leader. It won't test my mental and physical courage, force me to make life-and-death decisions under pressure, or make me responsible for the lives of others. And until I've been through those tests, I am not qualified to lead a nation. As I keep saying, intelligence is simply not enough. I'm relatively intelligent (although none of you seem to believe this), but I am nowhere near capable of holding high political office and using it responsibly.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 12, 2008 2:47 PM

Somewhat off-topic, but still related to politics and religion:

Basically, arguing against emphasizing personal public piety in politicians:

  http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/godless/index.html

And, Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. __ (2008) has been decided:

R053; No. 06-1195; 6/12/08. Petitioners, aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba., have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, which cannot be withdrawn except in conformance with the Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2; because the procedures for review of the detainees' status set forth in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas, §7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which withdraws federal-court habeas jurisdiction with respect to petitioners, operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.

  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s553pt2.html