A little sanity......

I agree, that Obama really cannot do much on the oil spill.  What he could do is bring more assets to bear - provided there was a plan to use them (the deep sea submersibles).  Just like Bush with Katrrina, his hands are pretty much tied as far as action.  He is not master of his own destiny

The criticism appears to be coming along 2 tacks.  One, perhaps best vocalized by James Carville, is that he is doing nothing.  When he should be at least down there visiting the people and being the head cheerleader.  Obama does not know what oil is, much less how to clean it.  But his lack of any action is a perception problem for people in that they do not think he cares about it.

The second tack of criticism appears to be along the lines of "the left - and MSM - was unfair in its assessment of Bush, so we will return the favor".  Tit for tat.

The latter is just a knee jerk reaction that will have no lasting effect on Obama.  Those who subscribe to it are not going to support him in any case.  But the former is the killer.  It is coming from his side, and that is causing him to lose support.  And his clever way of dealing with it is only going to blow up in his face.  he can blame the feds on Bush, but he has had 16 months to put his own people in charge and a filibuster proof congress to do it with.  And he has failed.  No lawsuit is going to stop the oil flow.  The time for that is after it is over, not while it is gushing.

I'll say this: 

Do not, ever underestimate the environmentalist movement.  They're the left's version of the Christian right.  They can/will turn on Barry if he doesn't react to this how they want. 

And---that could be bad. 

For Obama, or the US?

That is a good analogy.

Yeah, I'd buy that analogy. Their both religious in their beliefs. Al Gore/Pat Robertson, different stories, same plot.

OT: I see Tipper left ol' Al. Wonder who gets custody of the polar bear.

Interesting article. Finally someone who gets it. I think he is responsible for not reacting more strongly to this issue, not for the spill itself (not directly either). To be honest while BP could have avoided this, in the end things like this can and will happen and the difficulty of stopping it should be considered when criticizing BP for not being able to close it. I seriously doubt anyone has a plan for any situation that will work right off the bat every time.

This is the price we pay in order to improve our lifestyles. We are all responsible in a way.

is it male or female?

Transgender... but that' a different topic.

It's worse than that.  Both are totally fuggin' nuts and both are likely to unhinge as soon as their fantasy based view of the world isn't validated. 

Fuggin nuts?  Perhaps, but unhinged?  No, I do not.  Screaming and yelling is not going unhinged.  Blowing up buildings and cars is.  Whether you want to agree or not, so far, society says murder is still a lot worse than rhetoric.  That may change, but is still true today.

Because both Environmentalist nuts and 'Christian' nuts have never murdered anybody? I mean, look, both groups have elements that I would call terrorists, both groups have elements that I would call hate oriented organization, and both groups have moderate tools that think the beliefs have some merit. 

Both are nuts. 

Now you are changing the rules.  No one said anything about absolutes.  We all can find examples of self professed individuals committing violent crimes.  That is not the issue or point.  What is the issue and point is their manifesto.  One side clearly advocates violence as the means to their end (ALF, ELF), while the other side's manifesto advocates turning the other cheek.

Some members of ALF, ELF, Sierra, Greenpeace (yes them too - see their manifesto on violence) refuse to commit violence to achieve their ends.  On the other side, some members of the Christian right resort to violence to achieve their goals.  But in both cases, they are going against their leaders, their manifesto and their body in general.  That is the difference.

Yes.  But the difficulty is that the rhetoric of the 'christian values' types, often times has 'end of the world' type ramifications - hence why it's difficult to get them to back down and the extremism is so pervasive. 

Religious fundamentalists are bad.  They can gussy it up with "we turn the other cheek" and "we're the religion of peace".  I know people desperately want to believe that hardened Christians aren't a bunch of ass backwards cavemen, it's just that they clearly are. 

They may be "ass backwards cavemen" (interesting phrase), but that is not the same as saying the are advocating violence.  That is my point.  And the reason the left actually laughs at (well there are other reasons as well) the religious right, while the center does fear the loony left.

Agreed. 

My point, more or less, is that the Christian fundamentalist leadership is aware that they have a largely stupid and highly volatile constituency.  You'd have to be the former to buy into that stuff, and the latter seems to be a function of other social conditions.  Yet, we don't see a proactive approach to de-stage the "ZOMG END OF DAYS IS COMING" type mentality, which really only has a few results. 

I think the center also fears the Christian right crowd, for what it's worth.  It's not like people I know are inviting the nearest 'Christian' to cocktail parties, emmk?  And it's not like it goes unnoticed that, for the most part, the Christian right has philosophical similarities (violence advocacy, of course) to Islamic Fundamentalists.

Wait, you think religious fundamentalist are nuts.    I think that Atheist fundamentalists are nuts.  Oh wait you don't think they exist. Shows how much you know.  Just check out some of the followers of the paleolithic diet.

From reading through the comments I'd say you have an ax to grind with religion, especially "right wing" Christian Fundamentalism. Yet you don't appear to mention Islamic Fundamentalism. Interesting. If I had to tally up acts of violence by religious groups, I feel reasonably confident that Islamic Fundamentalists, poss the greatest threat, in the world, and a rising threat here in the US. Or do you consider Islamic Fundamentalists to be "right-wing". Just curious since the far left go out of their way to support them or at least make excuses for them. Everyone believes they are the "voice of sanity" ... so where is your spot in the tool shed?

Well obviously, there isn't really an 'atheist fundamentalists' perse, but certainly atheists have extremists that are as aggressive as religious fundamentalists.  If you like the parallel, you could take it with those tools who yap about "In god we trust" on the dollar bill. 

Wow.  What assumptions. 

"YEAH HE SAID BAD THINGS ABOUT MY MEGA CHURCH.  YER A BAD 'MERICAN AND PROBABLY AN ATHEIST AND A LIBRUL!"

Essentially, all fundamentalist means is an individual that gets to the roots (a la gets to the roots of that particular movement). 

I would ascribe Richard Dawkins as an atheist fundamentalist as well as Hitchens. 

Philosophically speaking, the basic philosophy question is that something is there than that nothing is there.  Nothing can sidestep the question of the fact that things do exist and they exist in their present form and complexity.  This all pertaining to the existence of man is not a greater problem than that anything exists at all.  Jean Paul Sartre (you probably haven't heard of him unless you study philosophy) was a current supporter to this thought and wasn't a religious 'fundamentalist' nor was he christian.

This is a flaw in the Atheist fundamentalist movement for they are trying to prove nothing is there.   If you move into the science field, science is always open to new things and trying to explain the world.  If you are coming with a Scientific perspective one should always have an open mind to the possibilities.

Dan, didn't mean to 'hicjack' your article.  I do agree with most of your posts and enjoy reading your posts.  I would be interested in hearing your response to nitro's question if you have an 'ax to grind with religion.

Dan_I

Violence Advocacy?  I think it is the exact opposite.  The far right religious have some kooks, but the movement does not advocate nor condone violence.  In fact they go out of their way to condemn it.

In their own way, they are very conservative (wanting to adhere to centuries old misunderstanding of traditions).  The left loves them for the simple reason they hate America.

Here's where we disagree Doc. I don't believe tradition and conservatism are the same. I'm not a religious person, yet I consider myself a conservative. It's a liberal talking point that conservatives live in the past or don't want anything to evolve.  Nor do I believe state sponsored backwardness is conservatism.

BTW Have you seen Nancy Pelosi's "attempt" to tap into religion with her infamous "the Word" is my favorite word speech? Pathetic.

Not at all.  Born and raised Roman Catholic----20 years of Catholic education, none the less.   

The difference is, I've managed to negotiate what little religious beliefs I maintain  against my political beliefs - in realizing that a 2000 year old document as interpreted by 70 year old white guys in Rome has exactly zip to do with how to best govern a country - but the same document might offer certain value in how to best govern my own personal decisions.  

Call it Chreaster Catholicism or being a Buffet Catholic if you like    

I do have a certain distaste for the fire-and-brimstone-moral-values types particularly those that are involved in the religious activist organizations like FRC, [Insert State] Family Association, whatever.  I find them duplicitous political hacks at the least and outright evil shitheads at the most.  At any rate, those folks only serve to devolve what should be relatively sophisticated Americans accepting of other's values, cultures, personal choices into knuckle draggers.  Not to start the ball rolling down another hill, but I can think of few things more disgusting than the pro-life crowd taking up arms over stem cell research.  It simply requires such a mental cartwheel to equate the two on a practical level (not to say that they're not, in theory similar) and then to believe that the rest of the country should perform perform the same mental cartwheel to put these beliefs into policy:  it's just bad.  It's bad for everybody. 

I mock them, yes; only when they're being stupid.  Take, for example, Nitro's "I don't hate the gays, I just really hate administrative man hours" which is a canard of the highest order.  One would either have to be an abject idiot to believe that, or they'd have to be covering up for twisted homophobic bend.  Of course, people like that will keep the fact that they're not real fond of gay folks 'in the closet' in favor of indisputably thin 'logic'.  I call it out a little harder than most....look...again....I'm from Chicago. We turned this: 

Into an art form.  I know it when I see it.  If the guy doesn't like queer culture he shouldn't be gay.  It's not that much to ask.  Otherwise let those folks serve their country, pay their taxes, own/operate businesses, cut their lawns, and cut you off on the express-way during rush hour. 

I think we're both in the same book, just amiss in semantics.  I've never really liked the term - not in the Dawkins sort of 'not like the term', but more or less that I think that there is a sufficient broadness to the Atheist .  If you're referring to dogmatic, extreme, atheists who you don't invite to parties because they can't shut up and will end up in a martini driven debate with some fuggin' Paulbot libertarian:  I know who you're talking about. 

I don't disagree with you in the core flaws of high energy atheism/ nor would I disagree in principle that Dawkins and Hitchens both aren't missing a few key plot points.  Though, on balance, I like Hitchens because he drinks like a fish, pisses people off, and holds up to the light the fact that the Abrahamic religions are similar.  That even despite Nitro's forest for the trees "YEAH WELL THE CHRISTIANS DIDN"T DO WTC IT WAS THE MUSLIMS AND THE GAYS.  FUGGIN GAY MUSLIMS HAVE NO PLACE IN MY ARMY", the core values of the big 3 are similar.  Despite the operational differences, it's not that difficult to see organizational similarities. 

To put it simply, yes, the  Christian fundamentalist movement is more 'modern' in the sense that Islamic fundamentalism blows shit up far more often, I don't think it is exactly a stretch of the imagination to say that there's a very clear hierarchical similarity between say Mullah Muhammed Ackbar declaring a fatwa's against comedy central meanwhile the Family Research Council declares a boycott against the same. Sure, a boycott is certainly preferred to blowing somebody up.  But both are fundamentally taking action against something that I think most people can agree is ethically appropriate.  Both are selecting what they deem an appropriate weapon, both are selecting an enemy for much the same reasons, and both have a clergy or clergy like individual calling the shots.

Incidentally, about a year ago the wife and I went to a BYOB Palaeolithic style restaurant.  The food really wasn't half bad.  Just saying. 

And that, is the longest comment I hope to leave anywhere:)

What a piece of work you are! It seems some shit for brains can't keep their discussions separate or relevant to their own topic when they are asked a legitimate question. So glad you're the "voice of sanity" LOL.... as long as others agree with you I suppose (which in the case of this topic, I was) . Isn't disparaging critics the Chicago way of shutting them down? But then what do most Americans expect  from Chicago except more of this:

They can't hear anything but their own echo. Of course I'll let the people here, who have read my comments for years, decide my character... not some chump that showed up last month, and was still shitting green when I was serving. You sir are in no position to mock anyone, get your own act cleaned up. Well, it's clear now what the "L" is for in your handle...must be tattooed on your forehead.

You asked a legitimate question.   I gave a legitimate answer.  I even cited some great examples in the process of explaining my answer, one of which was a clarion showing of the duplicitous nature of many of the arguments from moral values crowd, specifically your asinine attempts to cover up the fact that you don't like queer folks.  Just say it.  Administrative man hours? 

OH NOES!  CHICAGO WAY!  STUPID LIB-RUHL!  SAUL ALINSKY COMMUNIST PINKO! SOCIALIST!!!  OBAMA!!! COMMUNISM!!! GUNNA T DESTROY MY COUNTREEEEE!!!  YER MOCKIN MY WAYS!

Whatever will I do?

Which, if I haven't made clear in the past:  means absolutely dick. 

Or what? lulz.

OHHHHH YEAHS SLAM DUNK THAT'S A GOOD ONE!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!11111!!!!  Be honest: is this a bit?    I mean really:  is this just an act?  The lame insults, the "I'M OLD AND I SERVED IN THE MILITARY" routine?  Come on, it's got to be an act. 

Dan, I would like to discuss with you more about religion.  I need to do a few things today and I will just be cutting and pasting my response from your other blogg about here.  I do apologize and L-RD willing if I get the time will respond more appropriately to your lengthy response instead of cutting and pasting a response you have some where else.

Let me make things clear, I don't have a problem if someone is gay.  I do feel that homosexuality is wrong.  My homosexual friends that I hang out with (and this is a fair amount) know my stance and feelings about it.  I would rather hang out with my homosexual friends than some of my christians friends due to that the fact that most of my homosexual friends are real and open.

For marriage, I don't feel that true followers of the Bible (this  being the Tanack and the New Testament) and homosexuality are NOT compatible (as well as Islam and that is another post for another time. Trust me I've had debts about that and yes I've read the Qu'ran and all the Hadiths multiple times.). Homosexuals should be allowed to get equal benefits as married couple.  I am against churches doing gay marriages.  You'll be hard pressed to find a Mosque ever doing one.

The reason I feel about homosexual is due to what I believe as well as if you look at history specifically the histories of Roman Empire, Greek Empire, and the Babylonian Empire you'll see that these empires collasped not because of some external source but due to internal source.  All three countries were falling into the pit of everything is acceptable and major moral decay was going on.

This is why I feel homosexuality is not correct/right/good.  I also feel that pornography is not correct/right/good.  I also feel that prostitution is not correct/right/good.  Don't get me wrong, as a male, I think the naked females body is very beautiful.  I also feel that we were created as SEXUAL BEINGS.  So I am not saying sex is wrong.  What I am saying is that I feel that there are defined parameters (I couldn't remember how to spell that sneaky word) pertaining to sex.  These parameters are defined in G-D's word.

Speaking of G-D's word, isn't that a beautiful word, I mean the word. Nitro, you should get a kick out of that. Pelosie trying to please the chrstians is laughable. 

Dan, I wouldn't consider Pelosie a christian (she may consider herself a liberal christian and probably does).  The agrument would be that I don't know her and how can I make that claim?  I can see in her actions and what she says which would causes me to doubt whether she is.  The thing as well I can see her actions over time and not just a snip it.

People call me judgemental. I just thank them for that compliment.