Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditGeorge Bush is certainly not the first American president to try and take advantage of a timely papal meeting to advance himself and his agenda.
Pope Benedict XVI, who arrives today for a high-profile visit to the United States, took his name from Pope Benedict XV, who consulted with Woodrow Wilson when the 28th president was touring Europe with the purpose of promoting a League of Nations.
Bush has no such grand design.
The current president is merely hoping that – by greeting the current Pope Benedict at Andrews Air Force Base, inviting 12,000 people to an outdoor reception with the pontiff and then hosting a Bavarian dinner for the visitor from the Vatican – his own dismal approval ratings might be improved by association with a reasonably popular religious leader.
The initiative has been somewhat complicated by the fact that Pope Benedict will not attend the dinner.
But that won't stop Bush by attempting to bask in the papal glow.
Perhaps the president should try a different approach.
Instead of posing with the pontiff he might want to listen to what this particular pope has to say about global warming, fighting poverty and, above all, promoting peace.
No one is going to confuse Pope Benedict with the caricature of a liberal.
But the pontiff has made the Vatican a leader is seeking to address climate change. Under this pope's leadership, the Vatican announced that it would become the world's first carbon-neutral state.
He has said that the leaders of the world must do much more to feed the poor, fight disease and support the interests of workers rather than the bottom lines of corporations.
And he has bluntly said that Bush's preemptive attack on Iraq and the subsequent occupation of that country does not follow the Catholic doctrine of a "just war."
Before the invasion, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked whether the attack might be considered morally justified under the just-war standard. "Certainly not," he replied, explaining that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save."
After the war began, Cardinal Ratzinger said of the global protest movement to prevent the attack: "it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction."
Rejecting arguments made by the president and many of his supporters that the United States needed to take the lead, this pope argued, "It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world."
It is not secret that George Bush has trouble taking the counsel of those who do not tell him what he wants to hear.
But if this president wants to associate himself with the pope, he should begin by listening to the man who has said, "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war.'"
Of course, no rational observer is going to think that George Bush will be led by Pope Benedict XVI to pacifism. But Bush cannot claim to be taking this papal visit seriously if he will not even entertain a discussion of just and unjust wars.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Why should W listen to the pope? W is history in 9 months. Obama, McCain, Billary ... they should listen.
Posted by sloper at 04/15/2008 @ 07:40am
w will cherry pick the pope's message, like most do, and so will the candidates.
Posted by ultvio at 04/15/2008 @ 08:36am
"today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."
Sorry, Mr Nichols, but you take a point and run to the extreme with it, I'm afraid.
Bush's war may have been a monumental mistake and disaster...but NOBODY is going down the abject pacifism road of "there are NO 'just wars'".
Any Dem tries that will get creamed and I guarentee that even Barack Obama, if elected, will do SOMETHING militarily in the next 4-8 years that is argued as "just war".
No "un-just" or wasteful, incompetent, or badly-planned wars....but for some time to come in future human history, there WILL be a justification for a "just war"....just ones with a little more brains and moral authority behind them.
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 09:12am
but for some time to come in future human history, there WILL be a justification for a "just war"
humans can be such assholes....
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 09:28am
Sometimes war is the only answer
Posted by abell12ct at 04/15/2008 @ 10:07am
future history?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 10:10am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/15/2008 @ 09:28am
Fortunately, Vulcans are beyond such primitive actions....
or is that Canadians?...heheh
BTW...Cutest Canadian out there [youtube.com]!
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 10:12am
ABELL12CT
obviously. yet, i could never fathom
(even though i do recognize the notgoodness that resides within my spirit)
hurting someone. (the last time i fought was when i was 11.)
greedy cowards we are.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 10:12am
Posted by ABELL12CT 04/15/2008 @ 10:07am
And sometimes it's a monumental screw-up by idiots and ideologues.
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 10:13am
Well not only did the Vatican back the wrong horse in WW2 but this German pope knows what it is like to be on the receiving end of Allied military retribution. Not a wonder he is not a fan of American wars.
But wait; (Pope Benedict says in Values In A Time Of Upheaval) "it is clear that the intervention of the Allies [in WWII] was a bellum iustrum, a ‘just war,' that ultimately served the good of those against whose country the war was waged."
But at another time, he says, "war is the worst solution for all sides. It brings no good to anyone, not even to the apparent victors. We understand this very well in Europe, after the two world wars."
I'm sure Bush would fully appreciate the way Benedict handles the topic so masterfully, even though, like some of us, he could find the good pope a little hard to follow but then as Bush knows God tells Benedict some things he may not have told him.
All up, it's hard to see why Mr. Nichols should imagine that these two great Christians will not get along like a house on fire.
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/15/2008 @ 10:15am
Fortunately, Vulcans are beyond such primitive actions....
or is that Canadians?...heheh
Posted by MASK 04/15/2008 @ 10:12am
tryin'...
mr. spock has much to teach us. there's a reason vulcans live to be 250.
Either war is obsolete or men are.
R. Buckminster Fuller, New Yorker, Jan. 8, 1966
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 10:27am
First point: The U.S. has spent roughly $750 billion for the five-year war. Sure, that's a lot of money. But the total cost works out to 1 percent of the $63 trillion GDP over that time period. It's miniscule.
MARYBRETBRAD
no. no. no.
spinneth not.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 10:36am
let's go to the mall, raise the gdp!
let's go to the mall, the war we shall not see!
let's go to the mall and borrow ourselves a war!
let's go to the mall,
if we need cash, bernanke prints us more!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 10:37am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/15/2008 @ 10:27am
Damn space hippies. You can't trust em.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/15/2008 @ 10:45am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/15/2008 @ 10:37am
Last night's episode was rather humorous. "Marshall" had been rebuked at work, and everybody was offering suggestions for how to deal with the boss. "Robin" (in imagined sequence) goes into his office, lays her hand down on a 9mm, and says "Here's the report...are we good now?" and the guy, terrified, goes running.
To which "Ted" says "Gun violence may be the way you handle things up in CANADA...but here in America, we use words!"
And I couldn't help thinking of you, FZ!...heheh
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 11:06am
since when is the catholic church against the war? i haven't seen any catholic bishops out in the streets, much like the buddhist monks have been elsewhere and for different puposes.
the catholic church is a de facto supporter of right wing ideology everywhere....
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 11:37am
And sometimes it's a monumental screw-up by idiots and ideologues.
Posted by MASK
Actually that's true of some part of every war.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/15/2008 @ 11:52am
Bush is a "great Christian" and Ru Paul is a fine example of femininity.
But I'm thankful for Pope Benedict's emphasis on reason and the sophistication of his message. He is a Pope for the twenty-first century.
Posted by Butler at 04/15/2008 @ 12:07pm
Oh, and MARYBRETBRAD, if you believe for a second that the lack of terror attacks in the U.S. has anything to do with the competence of the current administration, you're dreaming.
There's nothing, absolutely nothing short of martial law that can prevent simple acts of terrorism like car and suicide bombings.
Which forces the question: how much of a priority are we for prospective terrorists? If the United States had as many determined, rabid enemies as Bush and company would have us believe, Manhattan would be like a bad section of Israel in a bad month.
Posted by Butler at 04/15/2008 @ 12:16pm
I also used to love the way John Paul would rail against poverty, against corporate exploitation of the 3rd world, against the staggering gap between rich and poor in much of the world
all the while prancing around in gold robes, gold hats, gold shoes, gold gloves, in a city literally made of gold?
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 12:22pm
at least buddhists eat mush for dinner, and clean their wooden bowls with wooden sticks, in the freezing cold, wearing the same woolen robe, in silence, day in and day out.
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 12:23pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/15/2008 @ 12:22pm
It's a business, and business is good.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/15/2008 @ 12:26pm
what does the pope order for breakfast?
Posted by emile duBois at 04/15/2008 @ 12:32pm
that larry kudlow piece is sheer propaganda, and it completely overlooks the united states' undeniably imperialist role in the middle east......
the only "positive" mr. kudlow can cite is that we haven't been attacked within our borders since 9.11, despite the 4,000 dead american soldiers, the scores of thousands wounded, the damage to our credibility abroad, the breaches of the constitution, the torture, the wiretapping, the patriot act, shall i go on?
does anyone really care about mr. kudlow's opinion anyway?
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 12:33pm
It's a business, and business is good
oh, it's a business. thanks for sharing.
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 12:34pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/15/2008 @ 12:34pm
I did'nt say it was a good business.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/15/2008 @ 12:35pm
what does the pope order for breakfast?
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 04/15/2008 @ 12:32pm
Pope-Tarts?
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 12:35pm
Actually that's true of some part of every war.
Posted by ABELL12CT 04/15/2008 @ 11:52am
And the MOST part of this latest war.
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 12:37pm
Posted by MASK 04/15/2008 @ 12:35pm
Underage Tarts.
Posted by Benchrest at 04/15/2008 @ 12:38pm
John Nichols how can you sit there and say President Bush should listen to the Pope when the Catholic church knew their priest were molesting the children for decades and did nothing to stop it?
Posted by ACook at 04/15/2008 @ 12:45pm
"While I disagree with most Catholic positions and dogma, on the issue of war, the Church must be applauded for its stance against most wars."
Posted by FDR42 04/15/2008 @ 11:51am
You applaud a religion that allowed their priests to molest children?
Posted by ACook at 04/15/2008 @ 12:49pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/15/2008 @ 12:22pm
Don't forget the man wears Prada shoes.
Posted by ACook at 04/15/2008 @ 12:50pm
BUTLER, regarding your 12:16 post to MBB, what do YOU attribute the lack of attacks to? Do you have specific info attributing the lack of activity to something else? Do you think 9/11 type catastrophes are just the price we pay every 50 or 60 years for being an open society? Or is it that no anti-bushie can give any credit for anything the current administration has tried to do as amatter of principle.
I consider Bush the first president where the possibility of a real revolution would actually be feasible if he reigned long enough. (Although Hillary might be the second, for different reasons) yet there is obviously SOME connection between our efforts vs the terrorists infrastructure and their lack of activity here. To not see that connection is think is naieve, even if we don't have the details.
Chip
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/15/2008 @ 1:18pm
The RCC actively supported Bush 4 years ago by making Kerry's Catholicism a campaign issue. This pope, then a cardinal, was at the forefront of the effort. And war, torture, attacks on civil liberties, an economy favoring rich over poor, all of these were more than evident to the most casual observer at that time. In 2006, the US Conference of Bishops released a statement attacking the war. They released it several days after the November elections. This pope and his hierarchy have absolutely no credibility on these matters. They supported Bush. As such, they supported his murderous policies.
Posted by jmusolino at 04/15/2008 @ 1:25pm
Posted by ACOOK 04/15/2008 @ 12:49pm |
Was it the "religion" or the "Church hierarchy" who did that, ACOOK?
Might we have a little anti-Catholicism here?
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 1:35pm
Posted by BUTLER 04/15/2008 @ 12:16pm
of course.
the economy could be halted in a day.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 1:38pm
Chip, I honestly don't know what to attribute the lack of attacks to, and I'm sure a number of factors are involved, but it's not as if we were subject to frequent attacks before the Bush presidency, so giving them a lot of credit for the fact that we're not experiencing frequent attacks now probably goes a little too far. That said:
"there is obviously SOME connection between our efforts vs the terrorists infrastructure and their lack of activity here."
Yes, I'll concede that point. At least would-be Afghan terrorists can't be putting too much thought into attacks on U.S. soil if they're being kept busy at home.
That said, the means and supplies necessary for terrorism are readily available, and practically anyone could arrange such an attack without drawing too much attention to him or herself beforehand.
"Do you think 9/11 type catastrophes are just the price we pay every 50 or 60 years for being an open society?"
We have to accept that we're going to be attacked. Sorry. It's going to happen. Even if we were to submit ourselves to martial law out of fear of future threats, no amount of prevention and planning could stop bad things from happening.
We must not lose sight of our principles because of the threat of occasional terror attacks. We cannot eliminate that threat, but we can certainly lose our principles.
Posted by Butler at 04/15/2008 @ 1:41pm
oh boy, here we go again.
every time somebody of a creed that's not "me" does something bad,
it turns out that a bunch of "me's" start screaming,
"everyone of 'them' eats babies and steals our wheat".
"death to the long ears!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 1:43pm
In view of Chip's point, I should also apologize to MARYBRETBRAD for dismissing his/her/their (?) assertion too readily.
Posted by Butler at 04/15/2008 @ 1:44pm
Do you think 9/11 type catastrophes are just the price we pay every 50 or 60 years for being an open society?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 04/15/2008 @ 1:18pm
oh, that's why.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 1:44pm
To not see that connection is think is naieve, even if we don't have the details.
first off, you cannot prove a negative. and simply by asking someone to do so is proof that you really don't know what you're talking about. anyone who claims that the president deserves credit for preventing another 9.11 (by starting a trillion dollar invasion and occupation of a country which had nothing to do with 9.11) unfortunately carries the burden of providing the evidence. the "anti-bush" crowd carries no such burden.
second off, 9.11 could have been avoided had the president, the vice president, and secretary of state heeded the advice of the CIA beforehand.
how is the united states justified in invading and occupying any country it wishes?
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 1:46pm
I don't think Chip intends to suggest that we're being attacked for being an open society, but rather that as an open society we are more susceptible to such attacks (pardon me if I misread your intended meaning, Chip). That seems plain: it's clearly easier to commit small-scale atrocities like acts of terror in a country that affords its citizens more liberties. (Large scale atrocities, like genocide, however, generally require a government's participation or at least complacence).
Posted by Butler at 04/15/2008 @ 1:53pm
I don't think Chip intends to suggest that we're being attacked for being an open society, but rather that as an open society we are more susceptible to such attacks (pardon me if I misread your intended meaning, Chip).
open society or not, why would someone want to fly planes into our buildings and kill innocent people? because they're "crazy muslims"? or because they actually have a good reason to punish us.
just think about it: what the f*ck are we doing over in the middle east the last 50 years? taking over governments, stealing oil and land, bribing rich powerful men, dropping millions of bombs on innocent people.
and why is the msm in complete denial of this fact? everytime ron paul mentioned it during the debates, people would actually laugh, which in and of itself, is proof that most americans are in total denial.
thanks for being so cordial and polite, butler.
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 1:57pm
it's time americans started asking a very poignant question:
why is the united states engaged, for the long term, in the middle east? if it's to prevent terror, then let's be honest about it. let's just say, once and for all, they (arabs) wanna kill us because we're over there f*cking with them.
and let's be honest about another thing: millions of arabs have died on our watch. how many americans have died on their's? 7,000? 10,000?
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 2:00pm
bush deserves no credit whatsoever. not even afghanistan.
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 2:00pm
there is obviously SOME connection between our efforts vs the terrorists infrastructure and their lack of activity here. To not see that connection is think is naieve, even if we don't have the details.
Yes, but the connection is the attack on al-Qaida infrastructure in Afghanistan, plus whatever intelligence we've gained from that. Bush does deserve credit for Afghanistan--but going in was something of a no-brainer, except for the extreme left.
Re Darla's point, it isn't just a question of why al-Qaida wants us out but what they want to put into the vacuum. The "far jihad" as the local Middle East governments as its ultimate targets. Although the Saudi and Egyptian regimes aren't anything to brag about, I doubt that the Taliban-type regimes that the likes of Zawahiri would impose in their place would be a significatn improvement. Such objectives are worth fighting against.
Posted by brunowe at 04/15/2008 @ 2:07pm
"why is the msm in complete denial of this fact? everytime ron paul mentioned it during the debates, people would actually laugh, which in and of itself, is proof that most americans are in total denial."
I'm also very disturbed by this trend. I remember Guiliani calling the idea of a causal relationship between U.S. foreign policy and 9/11 "ridiculous" (or something to that extent).
Posted by Butler at 04/15/2008 @ 2:13pm
Such objectives are worth fighting against.
if this objective were publicly stated and debated, then there would be little support for what is essentially 'nation-building'. and besides, 'nation building' was NOT the stated purpose of either afghanistan (a failed war) and iraq (not only a failed war, but a monumental strategic disaster).
furthemore, if this across-the-board nation building is so necessary to our survival, then why haven't we been militarily intervening in various african states? or eastern european states? or caucaus states? there are numerous flaws to this argument. too numerous too count.
and why can't other countries help foot the bill? why do american tax payers have to foot it?
last, we need to have a deeper discussion about imperialism. why does the united states have the right to do as it wishes?
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 2:15pm
thanks for being so cordial and polite, butler.
Posted by DARLADOON 04/15/2008 @ 1:57pm
thanks for being so blunt, darladoon.
however, there are no good reasons to kill,
only foul ones.
that being said, it is easy to see why people are pissed off.....
and when people are pissed off (i.e. scared shitless)
they reach for the ol' BOOK for solace
and vengeance.
the same solace and vengeance the humans who long ago wrote these BOOKS needed to feel because they were being fucked around with, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 2:17pm
that there are so many americans who believe it is not just our right, but our responsibility, to cure the world's problems.....is proof that we are, indeed, a vast, arrogant, and imperial power.
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 2:18pm
Such objectives are worth fighting against.
Posted by BRUNOWE 04/15/2008 @ 2:07pm
perhaps things would improve if the word "fighting" were replaced.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 2:19pm
Posted by BUTLER 04/15/2008 @ 2:13pm
do the math:
the greater the truth, the fewer the votes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 2:20pm
"perhaps things would improve if the word "fighting" were replaced."
Well said, FZ. And thank you, Darladoon.
Posted by Butler at 04/15/2008 @ 2:21pm
why do american tax payers have to foot it?
Posted by DARLADOON 04/15/2008 @ 2:15pm
actually,
you're not footing the bill with taxes,
but at the gas pump and in the grocery store....
unfortunately, so am i, thank you not very much.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 2:21pm
that there are so many americans who believe it is not just our right, but our responsibility, to cure the world's problems.....is proof that we are, indeed, a vast, arrogant, and imperial power.
Posted by DARLADOON 04/15/2008 @ 2:18pm
it's nice to help.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 2:22pm
Posted by BUTLER 04/15/2008 @ 2:21pm
you too, faceless purveyor of electrons.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 2:23pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/15/2008 @ 2:17pm
FROSTY, again (cuz I know I've asked you this before)....are you an abject pacifist? No war...ever, even if blatently attacked by an aggressor nation? "Pearl Harbor" scenario...and you just shrug it off?
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 2:23pm
it's nice to help.......
dropping bombs sure is helpful
thank you U.S.A!
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 2:27pm
Posted by MASK 04/15/2008 @ 2:23pm
try giving me a punch and you'll see. (nonetheless, i can run pretty fast.)
no, i'm just dismayed by human stupidity.
if i had to choose between killing a frog and you,
the frog would die but it would be a long time before i overcame the revulsion.
call it arrogant or naïve if you choose,
but i just can't fathom being inspired in any way to provoke something as abhorrent as mass killing.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 2:33pm
Your right BUTLER, we can't protect ourselves all the time and its certainly not worth sacrificing our principles to buy a little extra protection. Doing that reminds me of the old theory of "diminishing returns" from economics class. I submit, though, that the infrequency as well as the unprotectability of attacks against us perhaps can also be attributed to our society. After all, who but the hopelessly insane would want to attack a country who televises shows like "American Idol" and "Family Guy" :)
And, yes I was referring to our openess as a problem regarding suseptability. Nice talking to you.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/15/2008 @ 2:38pm
He wants the pope to tell America to abandon an elected govt to Muslim fanatics and fascists
and then....
He has a duty to speak out on an Iran that hangs Bahai Sundays-school teachers, stones women for adultery, and is building a nuclear arsenal while vowing to wipe entire countries off the face of the globe
does mark realize that tehran is friends with maliki?
hmmmm......what to do?
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 2:40pm
Amazing, isn't it? Two mysogynists, sexists, acting as if they represent some MORAL authority? They do because they say they do.......Cut us a break...we are Americans and we are not stupid!
Posted by TypicalFem at 04/15/2008 @ 2:46pm
And, yes I was referring to our openess as a problem regarding suseptability. Nice talking to you.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 04/15/2008 @ 2:38pm
iceland, too, is open.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/15/2008 @ 3:02pm
"After all, who but the hopelessly insane would want to attack a country who televises shows like "American Idol" and "Family Guy" :)"
No kidding. And how could you hate the people who brought you the Simpsons?
Nice talking to you as well, Chip.
Posted by Butler at 04/15/2008 @ 3:06pm
if this objective were publicly stated and debated, then there would be little support for what is essentially 'nation-building'. and besides, 'nation building' was NOT the stated purpose of either afghanistan (a failed war)
It isn't nation-building in the main. It is the suppression of an organization that has declared its intent to kill as many Americans as possible until we give them a free hand in that part of the world. An area that is far too important to us strategically.
Also, Afghanistan is only partly failed. al-Qaida was disrupted if not crushed.
Posted by brunowe at 04/15/2008 @ 3:11pm
DARLADOON I just saw your rather incredulous statement that "millions of Arabs have died on our watch" Wer'd you get that? Howard Zinn? Give me some specifics? And even if such a ridiculous statement were true, do the 10,000 not matter cause they are only 10,000? When our losses reach 500,000 will they then have your respect?
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/15/2008 @ 3:22pm
Frosty, I've been looking at your recent 1 and 2 line posts since you got back from the moon or wherever you went, like the Iceland thing above, and I have just one question:
Exactly where is the location of your Afghan Poppy Fields and how much can I buy from you? :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/15/2008 @ 3:26pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 04/15/2008 @ 2:33pm
Well, then what is YOUR "punch back", if not the micro-scale version of a justifible and truly defensive war?
I'm not picking on you; I don't agree, but respect a pacifist line of thinking (although in some cases, it merely means "others do the fighting FOR the pacifists")....but if you're going to throw out these generalities about "war" and "no fighting"...you'll need to paint a more distinct picture of what you'll accept or oppose.
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 3:36pm
Posted by TYPICALFEM 04/15/2008 @ 2:46pm
Anybody remember "HAMILTONGRAD"?
"As a professor of Women's Studies, I too agree that any vote against Hillary is vote against feminism.... How can any progressive vote for a man ???"----Posted by HAMILTONGRAD 01/20/2008 @ 12:58am
NEVADA WOMEN GIVE HILLARY A WIN (UPDATED)...Posted by John Nichols at 01/19/2008 @ 8:45pm
Is she back???
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 3:37pm
A vote for any of these grown people would clearly be a vote against children!
Posted by Butler at 04/15/2008 @ 3:44pm
A vote for any of these grown candidates is a vote against children!
Posted by Butler at 04/15/2008 @ 3:45pm
As far as I'm concerned, it is all yada yada yada. The Pope will appear smiling with the president and exchange pleasantries at the Papal-Presidential Photo Op; the Pope will celebrate Mass at Yankee Stadium with the assistance of 500 plus priests to dispense communion in less than 20 minutes; the Pope will say the obvious, but nonconfrontational, things Popes always say; most in attendance will be agog, some will swoon; and the Papal Visit will be written off as a great success. Afterward, spinmeisters will explain to us of the great unwashed what the Pope meant by whatever he said. Enjoy.
Posted by jsens at 04/15/2008 @ 3:48pm
"As a professor of Women's Studies, I too agree that any vote against Hillary is vote against feminism.... "
The inaccurate structure of this remark irritates me, particularly when I hear it from those who should know better. I have been voting for over 47 years in Missouri, Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota according to my current residence. I have voted in local, state and national elections, and I have never, no not ever, not one single time, seen a ballot (paper, machine, or electronic,)which included a space to vote against anyone. Voters vote for candidates, not against candidates.
Posted by jsens at 04/15/2008 @ 4:04pm
I have a confession: (sniff)
I hate Lima Beans...Hate 'em!
Last night in the grocery store I saw some Lima beans in the cooler case up ahead.. and I crossed to the other side of the aisle.
Then, at dinner, I put the carrots at the head of my plate and made the lima beans sit at the back.
I guess I'm just suffering from...from... LIMABEANAPHOBIA! :(
(sorry, end of the day)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/15/2008 @ 4:13pm
Posted by JSENS 04/15/2008 @ 4:04pm...and others...
Obviously HAMILTONGRAD was too nutty even for the Hillary'ites, and quickly vanished as a nick (perhaps to return under a NEW identity and less strident?!??!?)...
but it showed, early on if you note the date, the absolute panic and flailing desperation of the Hillary Cult, when it was growing apparent that she was NOT "inevitable" and that Super Duper Tuesday might not be the "deal closer" they (and she) thought.
For all the talk of her "experience" and "ready on Day One as President"....there was little but reactionary responses when "Plan A" (i.e. finish Obama by Super Tuesday) failed and there was no "Plan B".
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 4:24pm
As a Professor of Womens studies, TYPICALFEM, I would expect such a statement.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/15/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 04/15/2008 @ 4:27pm
Wait, CHIP, don't get confused....TYPICAL didn't say that....HAMILTONGRAD did.
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 4:39pm
It is the suppression of an organization that has declared its intent to kill as many Americans as possible until we give them a free hand in that part of the world. An area that is far too important to us strategically
and here is the perfect encapsulation of an imperialist language, used only by arrogant, white, western elitists.
we have no right to be militarily involved in that part of the world. whatsoever.
if we do feel we have a right, we are without doubt imperialists.
DARLADOON I just saw your rather incredulous statement that "millions of Arabs have died on our watch"
sorry for the exaggeration. the point was to show how miniscule american deaths are in comparison to afghani and iraqi deaths, and by extension, lebanese and palestinian deaths.
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 6:02pm
and al qaida didn't even exist in iraq until we showed up!
Posted by darladoon at 04/15/2008 @ 6:03pm
It's amusing to read the attempts of the mentally ill to erode away the usefulness of a potentially productive dialog.
But, that's the internet for ya.
Posted by ryandunn at 04/15/2008 @ 6:15pm
It's amusing to read the attempts of the mentally ill to erode away the usefulness of a potentially productive dialog.
But, that's the internet for ya.
Posted by RYANDUNN 04/15/2008 @ 6:15pm
Or it could be because of inhaling smoke whilst on the internet and not mental illness per se.
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/15/2008 @ 6:39pm
Keep in mind that DARLADOON has declared himself an academic and a logician. He decides which arguments are strong and which are weak.
Posted by MARKCANYON 04/15/2008 @ 7:34pm
Pretty sure she declared herself, a communal living, lesbian, black, jew a long while back.
Play nice with the nazi, Darla.
Posted by Malcontent at 04/15/2008 @ 7:47pm
Posted by RESE 04/15/2008 @ 5:35pm
RESE, for Gosh's sakes, it's MID-APRIL 2008....
shouldn't you be in a "New Reich concentration camp" with all the other "openents" while the rest of us are drafted into the Iranian War or living under martial law?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 8:00pm
Posted by MALCONTENT 04/15/2008 @ 7:47pm
MARKHIMMLER is somewhat of a newbie and didn't realize that DARLA is NIGHTMARE of his Aryan hetero- paranoia!
Posted by Mask at 04/15/2008 @ 8:01pm
New Reich concentration camps...MarkCanyon...it's all coming together!
Posted by Thrawn at 04/15/2008 @ 10:57pm
It is the suppression of an organization that has declared its intent to kill as many Americans as possible until we give them a free hand in that part of the world. An area that is far too important to us strategically
and here is the perfect encapsulation of an imperialist language, used only by arrogant, white, western elitists.
we have no right to be militarily involved in that part of the world. whatsoever.
if we do feel we have a right, we are without doubt imperialists.
Posted by DARLADOON 04/15/2008 @ 6:02pm
And now onto slightly more serious matters...such as the deeply flawed argument that Darla makes here. Is your claim actually that any reason given for action in the Middle East is definitionally imperialist? Even against a terrorist organization that, whatever its reasons, has threatened and continues to threaten us?
Posted by Thrawn at 04/15/2008 @ 10:59pm
The Lord works in strange and Mysterious ways...
I sincerely hope that George W. Bush meets with Pope Benedict on a personal level.
God Bless America!
Posted by ttr at 04/16/2008 @ 01:36am
What's wrong with the Pope's stand on global warming is that every illegal immigrant that wades across the Rio Grande comes from a country where the per capita carbon footprint is a fifth of the per capita carbon footprint in the USA. Every illegal immigrant crossing the Rio Grande comes to the USA with the hope of quadrupling their own carbon footprint: the first priority of each and every one of the immigrants who come into the USA on foot is to own and operate a motor vehicle. Should unskilled immigrants be villainized for their desire to live as Americans? Of course not. But, it should be noted that the consequence of 6 billion people burning two gallons of gasoline daily in an internal combustion engine would be death for the planet. It is not possible to sustain this planet while 6 billion people produce the carbon footprint of Western Europe and Anglo-America. There are only two ways to control the global warming problem: 1) Every human on the planet must accept a 3rd world standard of living, or 2) the population of the planet must be reduced. We have reached the point at which the global standard of living is inversely correlated to the population. Yet, the Catholic Church (as well as several other religious groups) refuses to condone the use of contraceptives for its members. The recent spike in the inflation of prices for food and petrol points to the inescapable fact: the underlying ecological issue of the 21st century is population and we must begin to embrace negative population growth through the encouragement of lower birth rates immediately.
Posted by rexrobards at 04/16/2008 @ 02:04am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/16/2008 @ 02:11am
Two things:
1) What is the error regarding global warming, precisely? The evidence seems to tilt fairly clearly towards human action playing a significant role in aggravating whatever natural global warming would exist. Why wouldn't this matter?
2) How in the world are the "socialist redistribution programs" the pope defends unconstitutional? What part of the Constitution would they violate, exactly? The only thing I can think of is that massive federal welfare programs might be argued to exceed the federal government's power. That's pretty easily beatable, however; have the states do it. One could reasonably argue that massive redistribution is bad policy, but it isn't unconstitutional.
Also...does the Pope actually defend this? My understanding was that he defended an obligation to the poor both on an individual level and a societal/governmental level, both of which have impregnable scriptural foundations.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/16/2008 @ 10:32am
Perhaps you'd like to impose a China policy here and across the globe? Forced abortions after 1 child?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1
That would certainly help the global warming situation.
Posted by abell12ct at 04/16/2008 @ 11:31am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/16/2008 @ 6:10pm
You're right, I generally do tend to be conservative on a lot of issues. For instance, I still think that leaving Iraq is a poor idea, and I still tend to be somewhat wary of active government intervention into the economy, as this caveat should have made clear:
One could reasonably argue that massive redistribution is bad policy, but it isn't unconstitutional.
That being said, let's deal with the individual arguments:
First of all, as I and others like LRJones in Australia have noted and linked, the science is quite inconclusive and climatologists around the world are actually very divided. Quite a number have shown and I agree, that the ability of mankind to significantly impact the global climate is extremely limited to a point of insignificance.
Right, um...this isn't true. Even if there is still some uncertainty within the scientific community, using that as a reason to take no action whatsoever is bad for two reasons. One, relying on unanimity from the scientific community is an impossibly high bar to pass for ANY policy that justifies itself based on scientific claims. Two, even if there is a fair degree of uncertainty, you still have to take into consideration the magnitude of global warming being true.
Let me use an analogy for that last point. Suppose it was the 1930's, and you were deciding whether to test a nuclear weapon (caveating in that you are the only one who will, i.e. no imminent national security threat). 40 scientists come up to you. 30 of them say that this weapon has a high probability of igniting the atmosphere, and 10 say that it will likely be harmless. Would you, a rational actor, test the weapon? Is the mere presence of uncertainty enough to justify taking the risk?
I don't think it is. Here's the thing, though. The percentage of scientists who accept human-caused global warming is distinctly higher than 75%. At that point, why isn't at least some level of action justified?
Next, let's hit the constitutional issue. The question was: "are socialist redistribution programs unconstitutional?" Since you've already conceded that they're clearly constitutional for the states to do individually, the only remaining question is whether they're controversial for the federal government.
Then, you ask yourself one simple question: does redistribution of resources tie directly into interstate commerce? Clearly yes. You don't even need the Court's (admittedly absurdly loose) interpretation of the commerce clause to get that conclusion.
Finally, on the issue of the Pope and helping the poor. We clearly agree that Christianity entails an obligation to the poor, so the only question is what actors bear that obligation. Though, as I said, I am often suspicious of government intervention, the claim that the biblical tradition supports an exclusively individual obligation to the poor is absurd for three reasons. First of all, none of the New Testament even remotely precludes a societal obligation in addition to a government one. Second, government must either be nothing more than an aggregation of individuals (in which case it is unclear why this aggregation of individuals somehow forfeits the obligation they would have as separate individuals actors) or (more plausibly) the government is an institution established by individuals with an obligation to promote the common good. Either one of these means that the government cannot forfeit its obligation to the poor.
Three, and perhaps most importantly, there is positive warrant within the biblical tradition for a belief that government has at least some obligation in aiding the poor. If you'll go back to the Old Testament prophetic tradition, you will see that prophets continually call upon Israel's government to provide justice for the poor. As such, this prophetic indicates an obligation to the poor on two levels. First, the prophets challenge the government, not simply individuals to act. Second, injustice as a concept is understood not simply as an individual "afflication," but rather as a societal malady that must be corrected by the society as a whole.
Finally, I want to touch on your critique of my alleged lack of conservatism. As I have mentioned, I tend to lean conservative as a general principle. However, this does not entail a biblically-based obligation to toe the conservative line. God cannot be easily lumped into the conservative or liberal camp, and I would argue that to do so (and to thereby unjustly confine him) is extraordinarily problematic. Insofar as that's the case, I think that to classify oneself as a categorical conservative or categorical liberal is extremely problematic theologically.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/16/2008 @ 9:00pm
THRAWN 04/16/2008 @ 9:00pm...
10, 10, 9 and 10... the judges were obviously pleased with this posting!
Thanks
Posted by ttr at 04/16/2008 @ 10:19pm