You mean Karl Rove's a vampire?

I mean, it would explain alot...

...a reverse hyper-adrenal vampire!

Some of it is what I would call baptizing policy recommendations, as if there were a Christian view on tax policy or missile defense. These are questions of prudence and judgment on which reasonable people disagree.

That sounds a little flat coming from someone who helped the Bush administration make it nearly impossible for anyone to have a reasonable disagreement on anything. I'm amazed this guy was ever part of our government, let alone the Bush White House. Hell, most Democrats (or, um, "progressives") could stand to have that tatooed on their retinas.

Gerson knows he is going to hell and trying to hedge his past sins.

Kevin, you oftimes make me consider issues in ways that I prefer not to or I'm to lazy to. And you do it in a calm and logical way that keeps me coming back. For chuckles I usually go over to The Poor Man or J. C. Christian. But your little digs at Republicans and their lapdogs, lately, have been hysterical. "Karl Rove must be spinning in his casket" is the perfect metaphor for the perfect a__. You should advertise your witicisms as in, "Political Animal - not with humor."

Shoot. I meant "now with humor."

Don't get too excited, Kevin. So many liberal bloggers and pundits are falling over themselves to publicize and congratulate Christians and evangelicals whose support of the wing-nut agenda stops just short of summary executions for failing to attend Sunday services that I'm starting to suspect it's a giant Rove-built trap. Every time one of these fake liberals pops up, the Democrats relax their vigilance. I've seen a dozen of them promoted in the last month alone - and the Monthly is one of the worst offenders.

Repeat after me: These people are not our friends. They are just waiting for the chance to stab us in the back. Stay far, far away.

"BAPTIZING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS"

This is a very good idea. Good policies can only be brought about if we look at it with a Christian point of view and not with a secular liberal atheist point of view like Michael Moore has. This is why Chrisians support George w Bush. His War on Terrorism is correct in the Christian point of view because it is necessary to stop the spread of Sharia and Islamofascism which would destory the right of Christians to practice their religion. Similary, in the Christian point of view, we should support Israel's War on Terrorism against Hezbollah because God gave the Jews the right to control that part of the world. It is only by looking at things from the Christian point of view can we have moral policies which would better the world.

I would like to become un-baptized, but I think it involves killing a chicken, which would not be right.

"I'm shocked -- SHOCKED! -- to learn that there is gambling going on here."
--- Captain Louis Renault
Prefect of Police, Casablanca, Morrocco

I must say, that this interview has been refreshing in the sense, that it was after a long long time that I read a Republican who seemed to be thoughtful and to have struggled with ideas and policies.

I think that the quality of the speeches he wrote (sans looking at their substance) supports this.

I would still disagree with him on most of the issue, but still. Very noteworthy.

I think the evangelical community recognizes they have been betrayed repeatedly by the GOP (e.g. Ralph Reed). Some leaders also recognize that the GOP control of the government is about to end so they can't align themselves too much to a single party. If they don't want to be left alone, then they have to start dealing with Democrats.

Also, there are many liberal Christian groups competing with the Religious Right these days. Aligning too strongly with the GOP (and it's culture of corruption) means that they could lose out with increasing competition.

What a load of crap.

. . . it's still slightly stunning to see a major player in the Bush administration advise evangelicals not to become "too closely associated" with any political party.

Really? Seems to me he's merely counseling a more subtle approach, as seen in many of the speeches he wrote for GWB.

When dealing with hyperChristians, always bear in mind 1 Corinthians 9:20-23:

. . . unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some . . .

They consider that their license to lie.

I agree with the posters above who advise caution. Comments from evangelicals about breaking from the Right have appeared so often in so many places recently that it looks coordinated. A PR gesture to sanitize Republican images. Republicans are still crony-capitalist, gangster, swindler vivisectionists**, and evangelicals helped put them in power.

The current spate of rhetoric could be genuine revulsion at Republicans, but I doubt it. It would take a political seismic shift like the making of Reelfoot Lake.

**or smarmy bad-haired Ralph Reeds.

"Karl Rove must be spinning in his casket."

Don't I wish. Him and Dick Cheney. And throw in David Addington for good measure.

I think Sullivan's take on it was horror at how far Bush's former chief speech writer was from the Sullivan's ideal of limited government. Gerson clearly has accepted the conclusion that government (and particularly the federal govenrment)is the correct body to answer to many of the problems facing the world today. As a proud liberal, I agree.

"but it's still slightly stunning to see a major player in the Bush administration advise evangelicals not to become "too closely associated" with any political party. Karl Rove must be spinning in his casket."

Seems like good advice. I wonder if any Dem would tell the NAACP that they shouldn't become "too closely associated" with any political party... somehow I doubt it.

Seems like good advice. I wonder if any Dem would tell the NAACP that they shouldn't become "too closely associated" with any political party...

I missed the announcement that NAACP has become a religious organization out to convert all the nonbelievers.

Or may be it was the announcement that the evangelicals' main agenda now is to promote the interests of the white race.

"but it's still slightly stunning to see a major player in the Bush administration advise evangelicals not to become "too closely associated" with any political party. Karl Rove must be spinning in his casket."

Mike Gerson, formerly George Bush's chief speechwriter

Maybe that's why he's "formerly" GB's chief speechwriter!

"I think the evangelical community recognizes they have been betrayed repeatedly by the GOP (e.g. Ralph Reed). Some leaders also recognize that the GOP control of the government is about to end so they can't align themselves too much to a single party. If they don't want to be left alone, then they have to start dealing with Democrats."

You mean the same folks that take every opportunity to bash and make fun of them?

There's really no political reason for the religious to be on the right, other than the fact that they are constantly being attacked from the left.

"Or may be it was the announcement that the evangelicals' main agenda now is to promote the interests of the white race."

You mean the NAACP is a racist organization?

...but I think it involves killing a chicken, which would not be right.

Unless it's a secular chicken; then it's ok.

Rats fleeing a sinking ship are just rats in search of another ship.

to stop the spread of Sharia and Islamofascism which would destory the right of Christians to practice their religion

Excellent idea. Next up: how do I keep these Christians from destroying my right to practice no religion?

Actually, while the rats are regrouping, maybe mainstream christians will have the courage to speak up and push an agenda that doesn't include estate tax cutting, ANWR drilling, Halliburton defending, SCOTUS asassinating, etc.

Sullivan's attitude becomes clear if you search his blog and read the material relating to "Christianist" policy. He regularly excoriates those who claim a religious mantle for their political views. His indignation, I think, is more because it is execrable religion than because it is unwise politics.

I thought one of Jesus's parables was proof of the free lunch supply-side thesis known as the Laffer curve. Something about a loaf of bread and a couple of fishes feeding the masses - just as long as Paris Hilton did not have to worry about the Estate Tax.

It doesn't matter what he says.

The marching orders come from well financed right-wing groups like 'the institute on religion and democracy'.

Religion is being used by economic elites to advance their cause.

True people of religion, true christians should distance themselves from politics.

Mixing the two corrupts the two.

penalcolony nails it!

I can't tell if that is actually Al saying what he believes or someone parodying him.

There's really no political reason for the religious to be on the right, other than the fact that they are constantly being attacked from the left.
Posted by: Freedom Fighter on July 31, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Well, maybe if the religious right didn't exist solely to use public policy to destroy everyones' sex lives and water-down our science curriculum with horseshit, they wouldn't be such an easy object of ridicule. When your leaders do things like blame 9/11 on the feminists and gays, you make yourself look ridiculous. When Christianist leaders align themselves with monsters like Charles Taylor just because they are Christians surrounded by a lot of Muslims, they show themselves to be immoral and tribal. When the leaders claim they can leg-press an entire ton of weight just due to drinking a shake, they show themselves to be liars. When they support the idea of Greater Israel just to bring about the Second Coming so that Jesus will kill all non-believing Jews, they show themselves to have genocidal fantasies.

The religious right doesn't exist solely to use public policy to destroy EVERYONE'S sex lives, just yours, Reality Man.

You mean the NAACP is a racist organization?

I don't. Do you?

"Karl Rove must be spinning in his casket."

Please, please show me the proof, I want to know for sure if the witch is really dead or not!

"Similary, in the Christian point of view, we should support Israel's War on Terrorism against Hezbollah because God gave the Jews the right to control that part of the world."

You haven't read much of your Bible, have you, Al?
In fact, the opposite is true: God took away the Jews right to "control that part of the world" for failing to keep His covenants.

What Mooser said.

The last time I was in Israel, I looked out the window of the bus and saw an ultra-conservative standing on a streetcorner in Tel Aviv with a sign that proclaimed "Torah law forbids a Jewish State."

Can we all maybe pitch in a buy ourselves a new Fake Al? This one is so childishly predictable and verbally feeble, it's not even fun to pick on him -- he's the kid in the mental wheelchair on the edge of the playground, spitting at the others for the chance of attention, no matter how negative. Good thing Freedom Farter is around to humiliate himself for our entertainment.

Hey, is Karl Rove still dead? I think he's still coming out at night.

Kenji;

I havwe ten bucks to contribute to that purchase.

"Well, maybe if the religious right didn't exist solely to use public policy to destroy everyones' sex lives and water-down our science curriculum with horseshit, they wouldn't be such an easy object of ridicule."

Is creationsim being taught in school worse than making human caused global warming official public policy?

BTW, who's sex lives have been destroyed?

Is creationsim being taught in school worse than making human caused global warming official public policy?

In a word: YES.

The first is pseudoscience and the second is verifiable.

Freedom Fighter:

"Ruined" to them = anyone who is not happily married and monogamous, they think we are coming after their sinful lusts.

Freedom Fighter wrote: Is creationsim being taught in school worse than making human caused global warming official public policy?

Are you stupid or are you a moron?

"The first is pseudoscience and the second is verifiable."

Verified not by facts, but consensus. Explain again how that's any better than creationism?

"Are you stupid or are you a moron?"

That would be the answer you get when you ask a creationist for validity of creationism. It would appear, human caused global warming is the left's creationism.

"Verified not by facts, but consensus. Explain again how that's any better than creationism?"

Man, where do you begin with a statement like that?

Doesn't say much, I suppose, for the quality of science education in our schools...

In fact, the opposite is true: God took away the Jews right to "control that part of the world" for failing to keep His covenants.
Posted by: Mooser on July 31, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

In fact, there's ample precedent for this kind of policy.

Eden.

Disappearing ice sheets are verifiable. Rising atmospheric temperatures are verifiable. CO2 levels are verifiable.

Human activity has increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of fossil fuels, plus a few other trace gases. There is no scientific debate on this point.

Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

Disappearing ice sheets are verifiable. Rising atmospheric temperatures are verifiable. CO2 levels are verifiable.

Human activity has increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of fossil fuels, plus a few other trace gases. There is no scientific debate on this point.

Global temperatures have risen .5 degrees (centigrade) in the last 25 years. This is verifiable.

Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

Gimme some irrefutable facts like that about creationism.

Sorry about the double-post. Didn't think i hit the button the first time.

Well? Freedom Fighter, I'm waiting.

Still waiting...

Off topic: McCains 18-year-old son just enlisted in the Marines.

Is creationsim being taught in school worse than making human caused global warming official public policy?

Heh. I've always wondered if FF was just a parody of a typical Reich-winger. And now I know.

Nobody can say so many incorrect things in so few words without trying.

Touche.

Karl Rove must be spinning in his casket.

wishful thinking hehe kev?

Mooser: God took away the Jews right to "control that part of the world" for failing to keep His covenants.

True, but then they stole it fair and square, twice, once after 40 years wandering in the desert (you'd think they could find the place in less than 40 years just by walking in a straight line till they find the edge of the Sinai and then turning along the coast) and again in 1947.

Since FF has no answers, I'm going to carve a notch in my Environmental Biology textbook and go make dinner.

So as Hostile sez, this is psot-heart-attack Mike Gerson's semi-mea culpa Lee Atwater style? On the other hand, he isn't saying anything other than middle of the road sensible Christian speak for what role ideology should play (read: none, or none-too-powerful). Of course, his role as speechwriter (as "Christian" demagogues are fond of reminding us, words have power) has cloaked the wolf in the Lamb's clothing, and it sure has been sickening.
Sigh. I miss Pale Rider

I am not disputing that temperatures are 0.5 deg warmer on average than it was a century ago, but you have not demonstrated this is caused by humans. Afterall, average temperatures of the Earth had been a lot hotter and also colder long before humans arrived.

According to Richard Siegmund Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT who served on the 11 member panel National Academy of Sciences Climate Change Science report: "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends or what causes them" and "we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."

He also wrote: "As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger -- that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this."

"Although warming at Earth's surface has been quite pronounced during the past few decades, satellite measurements beginning in 1979 indicate relatively little warming of air temperature in the troposphere. The committee concurs with the findings of a recent National Research Council report, which concluded that the observed difference between surface and tropospheric temperature trends during the past 20 years is probably real, as well as its cautionary statement to the effect that temperature trends based on such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the climate system"

Seems human caused global warming is more about politics than science, thus the striking parallel to Creationism.

Afterall, average temperatures of the Earth had been a lot hotter and also colder long before humans arrived.

Eh? long before? Which of the 7 days and nights qualifies as "long before humans arrived"?

Amazing what the idea of possible losses in November will do. Fake vote on the minimum wage increase, FDA acts like it's going to approve OTC Plan B, and now the evangelicals are making noises about the Republicans not having the one and only hotline to the Messiah.

Hedging their bets, boys and girls, hedging their bets.

Yellow Dog wrote "Repeat after me: These people are not our friends. They are just waiting for the chance to stab us in the back. Stay far, far away."

It's not clear if by "these people" Yellow Dog means Christian fundamentalist evangelicals or members of the Bush administration, or what, exactly, but I think he means the former.

I reject this kind of thinking — the kind of thinking that created Nixon's Enemies List.

Senator Dianne Feinstein did not get the House and Senate to pass the California Desert Protection Act of 1993 by thinking this way. She got the House and Senate to pass the Desert Protection Act, which was first introduced more than seven years earlier by Sen. Alan Cranston, by winning strong bipartisan support for the legislation.

That is how politics works: You win much more by including than by excluding. George Bush and the Republicans understand this. Liberals should understand it too.

Seems human caused global warming is more about politics than science

Whether humans caused global warming is largely irrelevant. What's relevant is whether our habits will exacerbate or accelerate the current warming trend, and whether changes to our habits will mitigate any ill effects.

That is how politics works: You win much more by including than by excluding. George Bush and the Republicans understand this. Liberals should understand it too.
Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on July 31, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

I think what YD meant to say was:
"don't turn your back on these slippery bastards. They'll grab power, convince you to compromise to share the power, then as soon as you trust them, they'll bend you over and fuck you in the keister."

. . . or something like that.

I mean; Mr. Rubinstein, is the recent Min-wage/Paris Hilton tax "compromise" a good example of bipartisanship? Two bucks for minimum wage earners, $91 million for Paris Hilton?

Seems human caused global warming is more about politics than science

only "seems" that way to idiots such as yourself--not the vast majority of scientists who actually know what they're talking about.

"only "seems" that way to idiots such as yourself--not the vast majority of scientists who actually know what they're talking about."

Scientists can't predict the weather a week from now, how can they predict what the weather will be like 100 years from now? Wasn't the big doomsday concern back in the 1970s one of global cooling... or was it the population bomb? So much pseudoscience hysteria, so little time...

Scientists can't predict the weather a week from now, how can they predict what the weather will be like 100 years from now?

It's ignorant statements like this that makes me worry about the future of intellectual capital in the USA. My gawd, what the heck are we teaching kids nowadays? That every system is linear? Begeezus.

Just Google "global warming" and give a cursory glance at the links. The preponderance of the scientific data shows that I am a hell of a lot more likely than you are to be correct on this one. I'm more inclined to trust the Union of Concerned Scientists than I am to trust you on this one.

The record el Nino of 97-98 - the fact every year for the past decade has been reported as "One of the hottest on record" - the heat wave that we are currently experiencing - the fact that for the first time ever, every single state in the lower 48 had temps over 90 this month (with the sole exception of North Dakota) - Too many observables to be sheer coincidence.

Do the math on this one - literally.

...baptizing policy recommendations...

A cool phrase to describe what Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye pioneered years ago. They published Tim LaHaye's code of minimum moral standards to serve as a litmus test for politicians, a code dictated by the Bible. The code included such things as:

-Do you favor capital punishment for capital offenses?

-Do you favor the removal of tax-exempt status of church-related schools.

-Except in wartime or dire emergency, would you vote for government spending that exceeds revenue?

-Do you favor a reduction in taxes to allow families more spendable income?

-Do you favor a reduction in government?

-Do you favor more federal envolvement in education?

Pretty weird what some people can get out of the Bible. Jerry baby is a hugh GWB fan in spite of the fact the GWB grade too spectacularly well on this "moral" list.

I have a problem with Biblical Literalists.

To those who would try to convince me that the bible is the literal word of GodI have but one thing to say, I'll keep it brief, and that is this:

If you want to couch the debate in this framework, may I suggest that you return to a college that specializes in a classical education, and study your Ancient Greek and your Ancient Hebrew really hard for a few years, and pore over the original texts. Go to the middle east and live in the Holy Land for a while. Interact with the cultures and study their history. Do these things, and then we'll talk.

Everyone who has read any Henry James, or Somerset Maugham, or Jane Austen, or F. Scott Fitzgerald - knows that language is a living entity that changes and evolves(!) over time. In addition, anyone who has taken even a semester of a foreign language knows that no translation is ever quite 100% accurate. It is a short step for me, an admitted non-christian (there go my hopes of being elected to Congress and thus having a retirement plan) to determine that the bible in English, especially in modern translations such as The Living Bible, and bibles edited for content can not possibly be the literal word of God. For example; The Catholic bible has books of scripture that have been omitted entirely from the King James, or Protestant, version of the bible.

Even if I could accept that every single author of the original texts were writing under the enchantment of the "Holy Spirit," what about the translators? Divinely guided, or just ordinary fellas with no charismatic phenomena going on in their midst? (If you take the challenge I offered earlier, you can let the world know definitively if you fell under a spell while you were translating.)

I appreciate, hell, I envy the ability that some people seem to have to walk on faith. It makes life a lot easier if the hard questions can just be dismissed as "unknowable." But I don't have that. My mind does not rest once a question is posed, until empirical data confirms or denies an answer.

I know there is no geologic evidence for a "great flood." I know that the fossil record dates to billions, not thousands of years. I know that the bible lists a whole lot of prohibitions that the literalists choose to ignore. They wear blended fabrics, eat bottom-feeding fish, eat pork and shellfish, play football even on Sunday - and this involves touching a pig which is another prohibition. They don't sell their daughters into slavery. They willingly and fervently pledge their allegiance to the flag, but the very first commandment of the "big ten" forbids this very act that they hold most dear. These convenient oversights bother me. If the bible is indeed the literal word of god, are they not - literally - damned for these transgressions?

Meant to say: GWB does not grade too spectacularly well on this "moral" list.

"So much pseudoscience hysteria, so little time..."

I don't think this epigram means what you intended it to mean.

"I don't think this epigram means what you intended it to mean."

Par por the course for that particular poster.

It's not surprising to me. If the Republicans become completely enmeshed with the crazy fundamentalists it's going to be electoral suicide because their base will demand outrageous things. Things that are so outrageous that they will be extremely difficult to hide.

Freedom Fighter:

"There's really no political reason for the religious to be on the right, other than the fact that they are constantly being attacked from the left."

First of all, as a progressive Christian I find this statement highly offensive. Not all "religious" are on the right! Sheesh!

As for attacks from the left, there are some people on the left who are very anti-religion, true. But there are also many like me who are religious.

One of the HUGE differences between progressive Christians and those who specifically self-identify as rightwing Christians, is that we progressive Christians accept other people. If they are fundamentalists, fine, as long as they don't try to shove their religion down others' throats. People who have no religion are fine as well. We believe that all people have their own path, and it is not up to anyone to tell someone else what his/her path must be.

As for your lengthy citation from Richard Lindzen, he is being paid by one of the petroleum institutes and is widely considered in the scientific community, which generally respects him, as riding some sort of weird hobby horse when it comes to global climate change.

Scientific consensus can indeed be wrong, but with global climate change consensus is an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT. It's too complex for any one investigator. Many different aspects have been investigated and are being investigated, and reported in the scientific literature. In other words, this is not a topic that a Pasteur or even Marie Curie can investigate all alone in a lab somewhere.

Many different measurements go into the consensus that global climate change, with a trend toward global warming in the majority of places, is happening. And that a significant portion is anthropogenic and that portion can be ameliorated. Global Citizen above referred to some of the areas of investigation.

I have a close personal friend who works in the University of Arizona Tree Ring Laboratory. He and colleagues have confirmed global warming by studies in bristle cone pines in Norway, said pines more that 4000 years old. He knows some of the people doing the ice core sampling in Antarctica and knew of their findings and told us, his circle of friends, a good year before the findings made their way into the public press.

Today with electronic publishing and computerized literature databases available worldwide, new investigations and discoveries are disseminated very rapidly. Then other scientists can build upon them.

And one of the things they do is attempt to replicate studies using the same methodology. If no one else is able to replicate a particular study, the results begin to be called into question, and given today's rapidity of communications, the questionable studies are quickly discredited.

Consider the Korean scientists who announced that they had developed a whole new cloning technology. They fudged the results and less than 6 months later were widely discredited.

In other words, scientific consensus is necessary to investigate complex phenomena, and peer review and rapid dissemination of information and the fact that bogus studies DO get discredited, means that there are built-in failsafes which didn't used to be the case.

And as new information keeps coming out, it is all reinforcing that global climate change is real and it's here. We Americans need to create a Manhattan Project to get off fossil fuels, through funding and tax credits for investigation into ALL alternatives, biofuels, solar, wind, nuclear, or whatever. Not only would this be good for the environment, it would enable us to get out of the insane cluster fuck that the Middle East, and our policies toward it have become.

The thing that unhinges me most about the whole Global Warming Debate is that it is playing out against a war in the mideast, one of who's legs is oil.
Tell me again why we shouldn't import less of it, burn less of it, pollute less with it, and not diversify the energy sector as a housekeeping/national security measure?
It seems that the American Enterprise Institute claimed that we would spend over $200 billion in the first few years of implementing the Kyoto Treaty.
Now, we seem to be spending it on Iraq...

And oil prices have tripled since the AEI released those figures.

Off topic: McCains 18-year-old son just enlisted in the Marines.

Crap. Bill Richardson needs to adopt, drug, and enlist a handsome and buff 18 year old ASAP.

"There's really no political reason for the religious to be on the right, other than the fact that they are constantly being attacked from the left."

Ah bs.

Religions aren't on the Right.
Religious leaders are.

Because authority figures thrive on authoritarianism.

Duh.

Osama_Been_Forgotten wrote "I think what YD meant to say was: 'don't turn your back on these slippery bastards. They'll grab power, convince you to compromise to share the power, then as soon as you trust them, they'll bend you over and fuck you in the keister.' . . . or something like that."

Your point is well-taken; there are any number of times that House and Senate Republicans have used bait-and-switch techniques to trick Democratic leaders with pseudo-bipartisan compromises, only to disappear the compromises later.

However, Kevin Drum's item was about "evangelicals" and "the Religious Right." Yellow Dog said "These people are not our friends. They are just waiting for the chance to stab us in the back." It's reasonable to infer that "these people" means "evangelicals" and "the Religious Right," not House and Senate Republicans pretending to work bipartisanly with Democrats.

That's great!!

The thing that unhinges me most about the whole Global Warming Debate is that it is playing out against a war in the mideast, one of who's legs is oil.
Good !!

http://www.ggji.info/sitemap.htm

Quoting Lindzen

For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

That's a great quote from Lindzen if one notes that it's irrelevant. Why? Because it's a straw man attack. nobody has been predicting long term trends. What scientists have done is present a range of scenarios and models from current knowledge. Scientists do this all the time. The IPCC's report puts a rise of between 1.4C-3.5C at the 95% confidence level. So, it's a verrrry good bet that we've got a minimum of another 1C rise ahead of us.

Lindzen wears 2 hats. His science hat (he was one of the authors of the IPCC report) and his advocacy hat (he hates the idea of AGW and has offered lots of theories -- shot down, alas -- to counter it.) What lots of AGW septics have done is to hitch a ride on Lindzen's back, but as is usual with such efforts, they fail to mention that Lindzen's scientific work has failed to puncture the theory of AGW. So, they quote mine. If quote mining were only as broadly beneficial as hard rock mining. (Instead, it's merely profitable to a handful of polemicists.)

"...but it's still slightly stunning to see a major player in the Bush administration advise evangelicals not to become "too closely associated" with any political party."

Unfortunately, he waits until he's out of the Administration to make this point. I'm sure he was fine with it collecting the fat paycheck, though.

我向大家推荐:中国 十字绣 网，打造十字绣领域专业搜索平台，提供全球十字绣品牌公司及产品展示。光学镜片 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的光学镜片,丰富光学镜片行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找镀膜企业信息请访问 镀膜企业 网，各种镀膜企业应有尽有。上海 滤光片 公司专业生产滤光片产品，欢迎选择滤光片。鲜花 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的鲜花,丰富鲜花行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 饰品 吗？请到中国饰品网来寻找饰品。要想寻找不锈钢台面信息请访问 不锈钢台面 网，各种不锈钢台面应有尽有。要想寻找冲压件/拉伸件信息请访问 冲压件/拉伸件 网，各种冲压件/拉伸件应有尽有。您想要了解 自动门 吗？请到中国自动门网来寻找自动门。上海 楼梯 公司专业生产楼梯产品，欢迎选择楼梯。上海 藏獒 公司专业生产藏獒产品，欢迎选择藏獒。北京 上海健身器材 厂向广大客户提供上海健身器材产品及上海健身器材服务。航空障碍灯 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的航空障碍灯,丰富航空障碍灯行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找贴纸相机信息请访问 贴纸相机 网，各种贴纸相机应有尽有。北京 太阳能热水器 厂向广大客户提供太阳能热水器产品及太阳能热水器服务。北京 缝编无纺布 厂向广大客户提供缝编无纺布产品及缝编无纺布服务。北京 肠衣 厂向广大客户提供肠衣产品及肠衣服务。北京 除垢 厂向广大客户提供除垢产品及除垢服务。要想寻找首饰信息请访问 首饰 网，各种首饰应有尽有。缝编无纺布 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的缝编无纺布,丰富缝编无纺布行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 不锈箱水箱 吗？请到中国不锈箱水箱网来寻找不锈箱水箱。厂房 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的厂房,丰富厂房行业资讯助您成交。家居装饰 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的家居装饰,丰富家居装饰行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 肠衣 吗？请到中国肠衣网来寻找肠衣。要想寻找毛刷/制刷信息请访问 毛刷/制刷 网，各种毛刷/制刷应有尽有。珠宝首饰 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的珠宝首饰,丰富珠宝首饰行业资讯助您成交。北京 缝编无纺布 厂向广大客户提供缝编无纺布产品及缝编无纺布服务。中国 LED灯 网，打造LED灯领域专业搜索平台，提供全球LED灯品牌公司及产品展示。中国 除垢仪 网，打造除垢仪领域专业搜索平台，提供全球除垢仪品牌公司及产品展示。上海 鞋垫 公司专业生产鞋垫产品，欢迎选择鞋垫。北京 紫砂 厂向广大客户提供紫砂产品及紫砂服务。上海 首饰 公司专业生产首饰产品，欢迎选择首饰。要想寻找大头贴信息请访问 大头贴 网，各种大头贴应有尽有。

The IPCC's report puts a rise of between 1.4C-3.5C at the 95% confidence level. So, it's a verrrry http://www.ggka.info/sitemap.htm good bet that we've got a minimum of another 1C rise ahead of us.
Good!!