Theocratic United States?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Igby

I often wonder why Bush isn't criticised more for his evangelism-cum-dispensationalism, apcalyptic rhetoric and messianistic self-image.

OMGosh! Cowtowing to the fundamentalists is a good part of what got him elected in the first place.

Originally Posted by Igby

Someone else also mentioned the low value which seems to be given to science by the Bush administration, as far as global warming is concerned. In regards to that, I think this is a case of Bush and Cheney being from where they're from, and the careers they used to have. They are oil boys, through and through. As soon as those two are out of office, regardless of whether the GOP or Dems win in '08, energy reform will be implemented, and properly implemented.

If the Dems gain the majority in house and senate later this month and then they all get off their asses and do the work we pay them for, we may not have to wait for a new president. Division of powers remember? I know it's a novel suggestion, but how 'bout if the legislative branch starts legislating!?

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Turtle

The Constitution grants freedom of speech, not expression.

Such freedom is prefaced on not violating other Constitutional law. Having a Bible, a prayer, or any invocation of religion or its tenets in Congress is respecting those articles and so in violation of the Constitution.

So you're saying they were forced? How?

Originally Posted by C1ay

I do not expect my representative to pray as part of his/her official duties. He/she can do that on their own time. Prayers should not be part of the official start of a congressional seesion....

It would be unconstitutional to ban it.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Igby

As soon as those two are out of office, regardless of whether the GOP or Dems win in '08, energy reform will be implemented, and properly implemented.

This is one of my favorite types of statements. All the world's problems are the fault of one or two people? (Yes! So vote for me!)

Originally Posted by Turtle

OMGosh! Cowtowing to the fundamentalists is a good part of what got him elected in the first place.

Bush is my hero. No matter what you think of his policies, you can't accuse him of seeking popularity with his decision-making. Titanium testicles, yessir.

[Igby]

In this case, the two guys in charge of the executive are to blame for the lack of progress.

You know my favourite kind of statement? The ones where people twist perfectly logical sequences of words, give them an entirely new meaning, then attack them with some kind of reducto ad absurdum one-liner.

Why hasn't energy reform been implemented, then, Southtown? And does US energy reform really mean "the world"?

OMGosh! Cowtowing to the fundamentalists is a good part of what got him elected in the first place.

What I mean is that I don't understand why he isn't criticised about his apocalyptic rhetoric as much as his idiotic comments. The overwhelming majority of critics are not members of the religious right who voted for him. It annoys me when he's characterised as "stupid", since he's clearly not. "Religious fundamentalist" is much more appropriate, and it's a much worse characteristic for a President who is as competitive and stubborn as Bush. Stupidity doesn't have an agenda. Religious fundamentalists do, and Bush's first veto proved that.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Southtown

This is one of my favorite types of statements. All the world's problems are the fault of one or two people? (Yes! So vote for me!)

Southtown, that is an exageration at best and dishonest at worst.
Igby's statement was that the lack of work on the issue of the enviornment has a root cause of Bush. Not that all the world's problems are due to Bush.

[Southtown]

Yes. I have to exaggerate to illustrate the absurdity hidden in subtlety. I am asserting that the logic is similar. By doing so, I am inviting Igby to prove me wrong by backing his claim.

[Igby]

Her claim.

The claim is that the leaders of this administration are not committing themselves to energy reform because of their belief in the supremacy of fossil fuels above all others.

In 2004 the Pentagon sent this analysis of the potential implications of global warming to the White House in response to Bush's claims that climate change was a hoax. That the Pentagon would send such a document to the White House shows that certainly the "root cause" is in the top of the executive, as Zythryn aptly put it. This document is a plea to Bush to act on global warming, and a warning of what will happen if no action is taken.

Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol was due in part to pressure from Exxon-Mobil, as this article asserts.

Despite pleas from energy companies to Bush to overhaul energy policies in the light of global warming, Bush refuses to do so (link). The most likely changes I can see making to energy policy would be sharing technologies with other countries and massive subsidies for nuclear power and ethanol. I know that on some air force bases they've asked staff if they would use E85 in their cars if it was available on-base, and maybe some big ups for hydrogen. Chances of a carbon tax: zilch.

With the scientific evidence for global warming, the assurances from industry that clean energy will be worth big bucks, the majority of Americans supporting cutting carbon emissions, and Bush's own words and history regarding energy and global warming, what other possible conclusion could I draw?

Australia and the US have the worst energy use reputations in the developed world. Australia didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol because our Prime Minister can't bear to agree with the Opposition or Greens party on any issue. The US didn't because the two heads of the executive are convinced oil is still the way of the future.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Southtown

Yes. I have to exaggerate to illustrate the absurdity hidden in subtlety. I am asserting that the logic is similar. By doing so, I am inviting Igby to prove me wrong by backing his claim.

So you mislead the reader of your argument in order to show them the truth

Is it your position that the president of the USA, who appoints people to head the various departments of our government (such as the enviornmental protection agency) does not have the influence to shape and direct our policies?

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Igby

In this case, the two guys in charge of the executive are to blame for the lack of progress.

You know my favourite kind of statement? The ones where people twist perfectly logical sequences of words, give them an entirely new meaning, then attack them with some kind of reducto ad absurdum one-liner.

Why hasn't energy reform been implemented, then, Southtown? And does US energy reform really mean "the world"?

I guess it was an out-of-place, cynical comment. Sorry. And I was wrong to think that you were arrogantly accusing a pair of people for causing global warming.

What do you mean by energy reform, exactly?

Originally Posted by Igby

Her claim.

Sorry about that, also.

Originally Posted by Igby

The claim is that the leaders of this administration are not committing themselves to energy reform because of their belief in the supremacy of fossil fuels above all others.

I don't see how you can substantiate that presumption.

Originally Posted by Igby

In 2004 the Pentagon sent this analysis of the potential implications of global warming to the White House in response to Bush's claims that climate change was a hoax. That the Pentagon would send such a document to the White House shows that certainly the "root cause" is in the top of the executive, as Zythryn aptly put it. This document is a plea to Bush to act on global warming, and a warning of what will happen if no action is taken.

That document addresses the effect of global warming (gw), not the cause. How can it suggest where action is needed if no causes of gw are laid out? It's simply a scare tactic meant to provoke an uncalculated response.

Originally Posted by Igby

Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto Protocol was due in part to pressure from Exxon-Mobil, as this article asserts.

1) That article doesn't show that letter from Exxon-Mobile. How do we know what it meant. It could have been a completely objective analysis of Kyoto repercussions to their business. How is coersion evidenced?

2) The government works for the citizens (even business owners) and we have a constitutional right (even an obligation) to petition our government. Again, the fact that a letter was sent is not by itself undesirable.

Originally Posted by Igby

Despite pleas from energy companies to Bush to overhaul energy policies in the light of global warming, Bush refuses to do so (link). The most likely changes I can see making to energy policy would be sharing technologies with other countries and massive subsidies for nuclear power and ethanol. I know that on some air force bases they've asked staff if they would use E85 in their cars if it was available on-base, and maybe some big ups for hydrogen. Chances of a carbon tax: zilch.

It's a little more complex than two people deciding to overhaul power production. A cheap road to better fuels is only part of it. A company will only profit as fast as people like me can buy new hydrogen cars. And both have to make their bills in the mean time. The transition cannot bankrupt either companies or consumers without crashing the industry. And the power industry will take every other industry with it.

Furthermore, alternatives aren't really alternatives. Hydrogen must be produced. That takes fossil fuels. Fossil fuels->electricity becomes fossil fuels->hydrogen->electricity. And you can't completely substitute with hydrogen because energy out = energy in - overhead. Ethanol farms that run on ethanol use about 60% of what they produce and require large amounts of land. Same with wind and solar. They both take a lot of real estate which must be factored into any practical energy reform. Do we even have enough land to satisfy the country's energy appetite?

Back to the tax solution. How is a tax supposed to reform anything? The gw scare could be manipulated as a financial conduit by the less-fiscally-conservative politicians. Remember that letter from the Pentagon? What motivated them if they had no cause for gw outlined? Taxes don't inherently fix anything, nor do they constitute energy reform.

Originally Posted by Igby

With the scientific evidence for global warming, the assurances from industry that clean energy will be worth big bucks, the majority of Americans supporting cutting carbon emissions, and Bush's own words and history regarding energy and global warming, what other possible conclusion could I draw?

I'm not convinced that we cause gw. Perhaps you could help me with that.

Originally Posted by Zythryn

So you mislead the reader of your argument in order to show them the truth

Is it your position that the president of the USA, who appoints people to head the various departments of our government (such as the enviornmental protection agency) does not have the influence to shape and direct our policies?

You ask if the pres and vp have influence? Of course. Autonomy? Hell no.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Southtown

So you're saying they were forced? How?

Hardly. I'm saying that the congress people (clumsy but necessary gender inclusive phrase ) are in effect 'the government' and so in that capacity only secondarily citizens. By having religious articles in use by 'the government', particularly for the purpose of establishing the moral authority for making laws is a direct violation of the Constitution . No Bible, no Koran, no Egyptian Book of the Dead, no such things belong in those hallowed halls. Trot them out and thump them all they like on their spare time outside, but not in. Don't tread on me.