Joe the stinking Plumber

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/27/081027taco_talk_coll

Steve Coll is so smart it's stupid. You may disagree with his politics, but this guy has some serious game.

how will Obama govern?

Many conservatives fear, even dread the possibility of a Democratic administration and a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate. "Obama will run wild with Reid and Pelosi pushing him" is the common refrain on the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The National Review speculates daily about the far-left taking over America and turning us into some cream-puff socalists (Need we remind them the Bush administration has presided over the largest expansion of government since FDR and the largest market intrevention since the Great Depression?) and The Weekly Standard is convinced we migh as well move to Sweeden.

John Mecham, author of, "American Gospel" wrote in the latest NEWSWEEK the following, http://www.newsweek.com/id/164656 

He argues, "If you compare the Democratic Party to European Labor, in lots of ways [the Democrats] look quite conservative," says Wooldridge. Will a Democratic administration, he asks, "ban handguns? No. Will it throw its weight behind legalizing gay marriage in every state? No. So even if you have, as we will, a Democratic Washington, America will remain a fundamentally conservative country."

Despite all the hysteria, America will not cease to exsist as we know it come an Obama presidency

why i don't believe in american exceptionalism

observing the presidential election has lead me to conclude the battle of ideas boils down to one particular concept. the idea of 'American exceptionalism'. it is an idea that holds America as set apart from the world, a city on a hill, an example for other nations to ascribe to. that somehow, the DNA of our citizens is fundamentally different, and better than that of other people. American exceptionalism has been redefined as patriotism, that to truly support America, to love this country you have to think it is the best place on earth, with the prettiest women, toughest boys and smartest nerds of any nation in the history of mankind.

this exceptionalist view defines how McCain view American and the rest of the world. it is how he and many others (regardless of political party) interpret events and make decisions about the future. this view is not hidden, in fact it is explicitly advocated and that anything less in unpatriotic.  McCain and others argue for American intervention on behalf our better-ness, they argue for our leadership on behalf of our moral standing and they argue for our supremacy on behalf of our set-apart nature.

this is a view of America and the world that i think wrong. America and Americans are simply people, who because of benefits non can claim individual credit for have befallen us opportunity and choice. have America and Americans made better of our opportunity and choice than other nations and peoples? one could make that case. but that does not separate us from the world as in anyway better.

this is the Obama view of America and Americans. that we are in a position to influence the world not because were are fundamentally different but rather because we are fundamentally the same. that our ability to empathize with all people gives us enormous ability to shape the present and the future. moreover, that the world faces challenges that cannot be tackled by a single nation and a single people. but instead we face challenges that call all of humanity to bind to what brings us together rather than the divisions that separate us.

this is a view of America and Americans i think is right. moreover, i think this a profoundly Christ-like view of the world. 

i do not think i as an American am in any way, shape or form different than a french man, an Arab man or a Chinese man. are our cultures different? will we have different values based on where and how were raised? will we view the world differently? yes. and this is where the exceptionalism theory would say, "and our way is right, or better or best".  to that i say no. we are all fallen people, running faulted nations apart of sinful peoples. there is no way to differentiate between the righteousness of Americans versus the sinfulness of another people.

it is important to these two candidates in this frame work. it truly defines how they (and we) see the world. how we craft policies and how we respond to crisis events. if you think Americans are fundamentally better than everyone else McCain is you man. if you think Americans are the same as everyone else Obama is yours.

will climate change cause wars?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,579265,00.html

the unintended conseqeunces of climate change

(Rob, the headline was meant to get your goat...calm down)

It is not going to be a moderate regime.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

the need for environmentalism

http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200810/politics-drilling-us-west-1.html

this isn't as technical as it could be, but is was written for Outside Magazine. but this is a good look at some of the environmental issues facing our region under the next president, who ever he is.

stewardship of our resources will be a major issue in the next 8 years, conservatives (hard core types) will still argue global climate change is a natural occurrence or at least we can't prove human causality plus God gave us dominion of the earth, so let's use it. not only is that idea short sighted, it totally misrepresents why God gave us dominion over the earth. not mention its just throws out good science (science is the problem, remember?). 

when it comes to environment, science and religion i won't throw around the word fact, but i will say, that the consensus of world experts strongly suggests humans have impacted climate change significantly since the industrial revolution (Dickens was on to something). not mention our consumption is at a minimum wasteful and therefore arguably sinful, and by no responsible definition does it represent biblical stewardship.

under the Bush administration public land has been under assault. it doesn't help when oil company execs are shaping our environmental policy (not to say oil execs are trolls, but to say conservation and preservation are counter to their vested interests). the value of clean, clear open space has been devalued as a matter of ideology by conservatives. preserving forests, mountains, plains, wetlands, marshlands, breeding grounds, migration by-ways, have become an unimportant part of living on earth. not that they are liberal causes, they just don't matter.

that is sinful.

longer term stewardship, let alone coherent policy has simply been off the radar, it has been an alien concept since 1994. not to mention the groups that do advocate for environmental  issues have simply become havens for the far left to stash their most militant foot soldiers. 

the Sierra Club was founded by John Muir, the greatest environmentalism and outdoorsmen that this country has known (he was foreign so, he can't the greatest we've had). he would be disgraced by the current composition of the environmental movement in America. but that does not absolve conservatives of responsibility for presiding over a government for 32 of the last 40 years in which the environment and science have been pushed out of sight and out of mind.

are carbons caps, subsides for clean energy and MPG standards really the evils we should be fighting at this point? the other side of these issues escape me. sure there is bad environmental legislation on the books. there is bad legislation of all types on the books. we've had a terrible farm  bill for decades yet it's the bain of no politician, don't fall into the trap that says. "we've been burned by wacko environmentalists before" so anything pro environment is bad.

there are many sensible measure that can and should be in place to preserve and conserve. first, public land should be a tightly held commodity.  second, preserving National Parks, National Forests, State Park and State Forests is as important as any other domestic issue, if not more important. third, conserving our resources through clean energy, responsible drilling and mining, public awareness and sound policy is not optional, it is imperative. and lastly, these are the exact issues in which government should take an active role. while public/private partnerships are ideal, where none can be developed government has the resources and responsibility to take an active role in preserving our environment and conserving our natural resources.

views from the left

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/socialist_charges_from_bailout.html

Gene Robinson speaks for me.