Calacirian

104 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. Happy turkey day to you… actually, we Aussies don’t do “Thanksgiving”… we’re generally better at cynicism!

   One of the reasons I am so impressed with American ingenuity is thinking back to the Apollo mission days… getting people to the moon and back (with only 1960’s computing power) was an extraordinary feat, achieved because of sheer determination. Any and every problem was overcome by throwing the best minds (and a lot of money!) at these problems.

   I’m beginning to wonder whether the billions of proposed carbon tax would be better spent on throwing a lot of money at incentives for innovation and working out glitches on promising “cleaner energy” prototypes.

   Not that I’m in charge of the world… (thank the Lord!)

   1. Janet on November 27th, 2009 at 12:36 am

2. I’m instinctively a little suspicious of conspiracy theories… eg who precisely the “they” are who want a single world government.

   Channelling my inner Mike Myers….

   “the Pentaverate. The Rothschilds, The Gettys, The Queen, the Pope and The Colonel….

   The Colonel dad? Really?

   Aye…the Colonel..with his wee beady eyes!

   What could anyone possibly have against ‘The Colonel’?

   He puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly…..smarta**”

   THATS who is behind all of the evil in the world!!

   LOL!

   Happy Turkey Day!

   2. Shifty1 on November 26th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

3. Thanks for sharing all that Shifty; I find all your suggestions really interesting. I can understand why the issue gets you hot under the collar.

   I’m instinctively a little suspicious of conspiracy theories… eg who precisely the “they” are who want a single world government. I think international cooperation on global issues (say poverty, education, clean water, fair trade, brokering peace in conflict situations wherever possible etc.) is a good thing… but it’s hard to think of any country/people that thinks dissolving their borders and identity is a great thing.

   It’s certainly been an interesting chat, round and round the mulberry bush we may have gone, but it’s been a fun dance!

   One of my theological beliefs (thanks to Paul and the Corinthians who squabbled over meat offered to idols) is liberty over matters of conscience. I will endeavour to reduce my carbon footprint as a justice issue… who is my global neighbour)… in case man-made global warming is true. If it is not, so much the better.

   Be blessed as you follow your conscience too.

   3. Janet on November 26th, 2009 at 1:15 am

4. Being in the ‘biz, so to speak, I do a ton of “light reading” on emerging technologies for weaning us off the fossil teat. I’ve also spent quite a bit of time looking into what can be done right now, versus what can’t. What can’t be done, at least not without forcing the citizenry of industrialized nations to drastically alter their way of life..and not for the better…is, unfortunately EXACTLY what almost every bit of current protocol is calling for. We can’t simply WISH the renewable generation to immediately replace the fossil-fueled kind. The technologies simply aren’t there to make it cost-effective. It would be extremely short-sighted to legislate the replacement of cheap, plentiful fossil-fuel derived energy with expensive, limited and really unproven renewable technologies.

   Let me lay out a few barriers to the IMMEDIATE (or near term anyhow) implementation of “green energy” policies, from a sort of insider’s perspective. First off, as I’ve stated the technology is not advanced enough yet to make most green energy economically feasible to the average consumer. There are TONS of exciting technologies out there, from solar, wind, geothermal, distributed generation, “pocket” nuclear, wave….it’s all being deampt up. Unfortunately, even the two “oldest” technologies, wind and solar, are still not cost-effective. The average consumer cannot afford to install a solar array on their roof (assuming they live in an area where they have enough sunshine to make it feasible in the first place) due to the up-front cost of several tens of thousands of dollars. Individual windmills….will NEVER get past the zoning restrictions, Homeowner Associations and such to be even a possiblity…not to mention cost).

   Another problem with these technologies is one of land use. In order to replace carbon-based technology, the land required for the same generation capacity is enormous. By way of comparison, replacing 300 MW of existing carbon-based generation, which can fit inside a one square mile parcel, with a 300 MW solar generating station requires 9.2 square miles of land. California recently wanted to build a solar power plant in the Mojave Desert, to both help alleviate the energy crisis in that state caused by their OWN short-sightedness (by banning the importaion of any Fossil-Fuel derived generation, California legislators put environmental extremeism over sound public policy) AND meet demands for an expanding “renewable” portfolio. However, the plans were squashed when state and federal legislators (I’ll leave it to you to guess their political affiliation….) expressed misgivings about the project’s requirement for land and possible ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE! Read that again…a solar power plant was NOT built because the politicans were concerned about the damage to the environment it would cause! All this non-sense led the Gubernator to say “If ve can’t build ze zolar plant in ze middle uf ze Mojave Desert, vere de hell can ve build it?”

   This brings up another point….the unappeasablity of the knot-hole rapist. They hate planet killing fossil-fuels, but have successfully blocked or punished solar, wind, nuclear, tidal and biomass replacement technologies. besides the solar plant mentioned above, they have won law-suits against wind turbine farm operators in the Altamonte Pass of the Sierra Nevadas (migratory birds being to dumb to notice the 100 foot tall obstacles and navigate around them), blocked a proposed wind-farm in the Nantucket Sound (The uber-liberal Kennedy clan blocked that one….since all those windmills would interfere with the views and get in the way of their drunken yachting expeditions), registered opposition to developing tidal generation in the sea bed of the coast of Florida, filed suit to prevent (or in some cases curtail) the trial burning of biomass fuels and successfully prevented a SINGLE new nuclear plant from being completed in the US in over 2 decades. You have to ask yourself….what EXACTLY are they after?

   So what do I think should be done? How about pursuing a smart solution? One that does everything possible to PRUDENTLY trim back our reliance on carbon emitting generation, while encouraging the meteoric expansion in renewable technologies. To begin, remove the disincentives to R & D and clean generation construction that are currently in place. If a utility wants to replace dirty coal or oil generation with clean-caol (and yes there is such a thing!), Natural Gas or proven renewable technology, make that investment a lucrative one. Minimze the regulatory hurdles, and block the frivolous lawsuits from the knot-holers. Secondly, incentivize the re-powering of coal/oil plants with natural gas plants. This is an idea that has been proven to reduce emmissions, while simultaneously providing the consumer with more energy for less cost. My company just replaced 450 MW of oil-fired generation with 1600 MW of cutting-edge gas-fired generation, drastically reducing GHG emissions while maintaining the same thermal footprint on the surrounding wetlands and bay. As an interim measure, this makes sense. But only if the process is streamlined, and incentives are put in place to attract the capital required to accomplish the construction. Next, nuclear has GOT to be central in any carbon-reduction scheme. Unfortunately, nuclear construction is currently so cost prohibitive, and fraught with uncertainty that elaborate schemes have to be developed to attract the required private sector investment. Whether these schemes involve government garauntees of ROI, or regulation allowing pre-collection of some of the cost from the consumer..the public ends up on the hook. Much of the hesitancy on the part of investors could be alleviated if the knot-holers could be prevented from delaying/cancelling projects. As it stand, investors NEED the certainty of a garaunteed return on their money, given the track record of the knot-holers.

   Lastly, create HUGE incentives for the development of new sources of energy. By this I mean get teh government out of the way and allow the free market to work. Quit pushing one technology over the other, allow the marketplace to determine winners and losers. Allow companies and entraprenuers who hit on a winning product to collect BIG. Quit propping up failed ideas and enterprises. Think of how much closer we’d be to the Jetson’s flying cars I was promised as a kid if the internal combustion engine hadn’t been protected by the government for so long! And I’m sure you could think of a LOT better use (from the standpoint of energy technology and getting off the oil teat) for the BILLIONS just given to organized labor via the automaker bailout!

   My point is simple. Rather than MANDATING change RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!! under the false pretense of impending global doom, and forcing we humans to adapt to a new, less comfortable life, base energy policy on a wise, thoughtful and well-planned move away from coal and oil and towards more ‘eco-friendly” (ugh I LOATHE that term!) solutions.

   4. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

5. Ok..let me clear something up….while I do distrust the vast majority of the legacy media, at least herre in the US, and do find them to be hopelessly flawed as you suggest, neither do I trust the “new” media (right or left) to be 100% accurate. I do try and vary my sources of information, because I do agree that to limit the sources of information one is exposed to will stunt one’s intellectual growth. The problem I run into, here in the States, is that I find more and more the legacy media (NYT, ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN…)lets their leftward bias slant their reporting. Many studies (by non-partisan groups like PEW) over the past couple of years bear this out. FOXNews, while still biased, will at LEAST attempt to show the story and let you make up your own mind. (Please not..I said FOXNews…not the commentary shows…Hannity/O’Reilly etc….those are COMMENTARY shows not pure NEWS…I do understand the difference.) I am, by nature, a conservative. I believe in America’s founding principles, as laid out in our founding documents. I believe very strongly in God. I believe in the sanctity of life. I am for a government that stays within the bounds laid out by the framers of our Constitution. I think that the Federal government (through actions of all three branches) has been on an unconstitutional power grab for the past 150 odd years. So when presented with two differing editorial biases, at two competing news outlets, I’m naturally going to drift toward the one that leans to the right over the one that leans toward the left. It doesn’t mean I swear blind allegience to ANY media source as the gospel truth.

   As far as Global Warming goes….I’ve long felt that the “science” of it was somehow off. It seemed incomprehesible and incredibly arrogant to me to think that this planet, which has lasted for however many mellenia you want to believe, is being threatened with destruction by the last 150 or so years of humans. As I’ve mentioned before, I trust God’s creation, so wondorously and fearfully wrought, is a tad more hearty than that! And it’s not that I’ve decided to disbelieve EVERY BIT of sceince ever done in this area.

   Instead, I’m even more skeptical that I was, given the recent revelations. Especially damning in these revelations is the source code for the Hadley CRU’s climate modelling program. That code (and especially the FORTRAN programmers notes) is “troubling” to say the least. I asked before if massaging the data was kosher, and you said it would be fraud…by that definition, using the words of the programmers themselves, the ENTIRE Hadley CRU climate model is fraudulent…and ANY subsequent research that made use of that model, or data from it, is flawed because of that fraud!

   Instead of the science being “settled” as the climate alarmists have been telling us; these revelations should dictate a screeching halt to any and all “climate change” policy unless and until a THOROUGH and complete re-analysis is performed. Preferrably one done under conditions more ammenable to true scientific efforts, and less susceptable to political influence.

   My biggest issue with the whole climate change/global warming alarmism is that I DO beleive there is at least a component of it that combines the absolute worst desires of several leftist fringe elements. First there are the extreme “tree-huggers” (I’ve coined the term Knot-hole rapists for these folks who have gone well beyond merely hugging the trees to…..well you get the idea) who see human beings not as created in the image of God, but rather just another creature here on Mother Gaia, no more, nor less, important than a snail darter. They’ve long held the desire for “population control”. Part of the alarmists overarching scheme is the rolling-back of civilizations industrial progress (especially in the west) to pre-industrial revolution times….with the attendent decimation of the human population.

   Another element I see at work is those who desire a massive transfer of wealth from the industrialized nations to the third-world. They are hand-in-glove with the statists espousing one-world governance. The outlines of the proposed Copenhagen treaty bear this out: creation of a world-wide governing body to implement and oversee the GHG reduction protocols enacted by the treaty, including transfer of wealth in the form of Carbon Penalties from large carbon emitting member-states to the lesser states. I’ll throw in here that the current legislation making it’s way through the US congress has very little to do with saving the planet fromthe depradations of man, and very much to do with a massive expansion of the Federal Governmant’s scope and reach. I know my Biblical prophecy well enough to be VERY intrigued by this. Having kids, though, I have a parent’s natural inclination to want them to not have to live through the bad parts…

   So it’s not so much that I dismiss the possiblity that there might be a component of climate change, IF it exists aside from what is natural cyclical change, that is influenced by man. It’s that I don’t trust that the “settled” science has been obtained through the rigorous pursuit of truth; instead we’ve been presented with a political, ideological position, varnished with the respectability of “science” to give it urgency. I don’t see where it is prudent to enact the various forms of Climate Change legislation and protocols being pushed, condemning humanity to regression, suffering and misery, if the verdict is still out on what if anything NEEDS to be done. As to my ideas on what can/should be done….

   5. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 8:10 pm

6. Actually, we are hooked up to a green power electricity supplier. But I am a hypocrite in that I drive a car… it’s completely impractical to get to my work by public transport. Guilty as charged.

   I’m not sure that developing sources of renewable energy will be as catatrophic as you suggest though. And in fact, sooner or later it will be essential (oil reserves actually WILL run out eventually) so I think it would be smart to invest in new technologies sooner than later. One of the wonderful things about Americans is they are so “can-do”… if there were a will to develop renewable energies, if anyone can, you guys can.

   6. Janet on November 25th, 2009 at 4:19 am

7. SIMPLY proved is not the same thing as “well established”.

   Yes I do check the legacy media, but I find the new media less accurate. Not familiar with Jayson Blair… is it interesting enough to bother with?

   “How about when that “data” is PROVEN to be deliberately skewed? How about when the very modeling programs used to prove global warming are PROVEN to have cheats, or “fudge factors” or whatever they want to call them, BUILT into the code to ENSURE the result?”

   Well, that would be scientific fraud. I don’t think anything of the sort has been unequivocally “proved” yet. Let us wait and see what the results of the leaked emails proves to be.

   “And when the data collected doesn’t support the expected outcome….is it kosher to just “massage” the data to make it fit?”

   Absolutely not. This is scientific fraud also.

   Are you accusing New Scientist of “massaging” all its reports? I think it does try to present a variety of perspectives, and I trust its record more than some of the commentators you are linking to. I’d recommend you take the time to engage with this if you’re interested in the issue.

   Having said all of that, I feel you have absolutely made up your mind that man-made impacts on global warming is a total lie and that nothing will change this viewpoint. It doesn’t seem very productive to discuss this if you don’t acknowledge any possibility that this might have some veracity.

   However, I will endeavour to (finally!) relate back to Sonja’s original post.

   As I noted a little while back, there are some dangers in developing a solid diet of one source of news… I don’t care whether it’s New Internationalist on the left or some opinion magazine of the right. When you limit your reading diet, it’s like eating too much chocolate… enjoyable, but unbalanced and ultimately unhealthy. It short circuits critical thinking, and is a form of indoctrination.

   If you keep feeding the brain with a limited diet, after a time one possible perspective becomes the only reasonable perspective. After a time, you can begin to believe that anyone who things differently is a certifiable idiot for failing to see such a self-evident truth. And then you’re a whisker away from the behaviour Sonja wearied of, where she felt that engagement produced a response of “greater ridicule heaped upon me.” It must be hard to resist ridiculing someone not thoroughly indoctrinated with a particular viewpoint when the one view has become the “only reasonable view”.

   I’m not saying one should not have biases… everyone has them. We all need to be careful of only feeding our biases and not challenging our thinking with different perspectives.

   I’m not having a go at you over this… you are obviously engaging with me! However, you seem to have indicated a couple of times that the legacy media is hopelessly flawed and the new right is the source of truth. Well I say bunkum to that… you will never grow in intellectual dexterity (and dare I say intellectual humility) without engaging with a variety of views.

   7. Janet on November 25th, 2009 at 4:11 am

8. Regardless of whether you believe the Warmists, or the Skeptics..or something in between, the question really is…what are you prepared to sacrifice on the altar of “planet saving”? Are you willing to part with your freedoms, treasure and comfort? Willing to trash the whole industrialized world? Go back to a truly local, sustainable agrarian existence? Willing to give up your A/C in the summer and heat in the winter? Shall we trash all of our fossil-fueled power plants in favor of “renewable” energy? Are you willing to pay a “carbon-tax” on ALL goods and services, so that Australians (and Americans) can send “blood money” to the third world countries?

   My point is….THOSE are all the ramifications of the policies the Warmists want enacted! If you just blindly accept the “settled” science, you have to be prepared to accept the “cure”.

   8. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 3:51 am

9. “Global warming skeptics are paid too… I don’t believe this means they are necessarily wrong (and as stated, I hope to God they are right). But they are a minority.”

   First, they are a minority BECAUSE there was a concerted effort to promote the opposite viewpoint, and supress the skeptics view.

   Second, I’ve already explained why “carbon-emitters” hire lobbyists and their own experts. However, compare the huge disparity in funding for the Warmists vs the Skeptics…which will help explain my first point! Scientists are no more altruistic than anyone else…they are going to go where the money is.

   9. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 3:43 am

10. “Climatology is one of the most complex of the sciences and global warming cannot be simply “proved”…”

    Whoa there…..I’ve been hearing for years that global warming was “established science” and therefore “proved”. Remember…the debate is over? Are you now telling me that it CAN’T be proven?

    “It’s about probability and it’s about data.”

    And when the data collected doesn’t support the expected outcome….is it kosher to just “massage” the data to make it fit? Because that is EXACTLY what Mann (the guy who came up with the “Hockey stick” graph), Jones, and all the rest of these guys did when the data showed a “decline” in temperatures.

    10. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 3:37 am

11. “But the scientific process also involves a world community of scientists reviewing one another’s work. In this respect it has more rigor to it than most other areas of human endeavour. Scientists are generally not paid more personally for developing one stance or another.”

    I think I’ve already laid out a fairly robust case for why a scientist would undertake to MAKE SURE his/her research proves out Global Warming….and yes Janet….money does talk and, for Dr. Jones at least, scientific method walks! If you choose not to even acknowledge this real world scenario……

    11. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 3:31 am

12. “No, I don’t believe it’s fatally tainted, because of the nature of science and the scientific process. Just because a particular government agency pays scientists to do research on an aspect of climate change, doesn’t mean that will guarantee a particular result. In the end, science relies on data.”

    How about when that “data” is PROVEN to be deliberately skewed? How about when the very modeling programs used to prove global warming are PROVEN to have cheats, or “fudge factors” or whatever they want to call them, BUILT into the code to ENSURE the result? What does that do to scientific integrity?

    And what then of the data (and conclusions) developed from the original TAINTED data? All the research which used the results of the CRU climate modelling programs now has to be considered faulty.

    12. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 3:28 am

13. “On the world wide web, anyone can write anything. This is why I regard such sources with greater suspicion and do more cross-checking of facts. Do you think that is reasonable?”

    I do. But the same standard SHOULD apply to the legacy media; rigourous cross-checking of reported facts. Do you view the “facts” told you by the legacy (or left) media/blogosphere with the same healthy skepticism? I’d hope so.

    13. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 3:24 am

14. “I did begin by asking whether you thought the “legacy media” failed to check their facts, and you have illustrated how they have not reported certain stories. ”

    I gave you two glaring examples of legacy media FAILING their journalistic standards in exactly those areas you keep saying are most important. Dan Rather WILLFULLY going to air with the un-verified George Bush National Gaurd documents, and the NYT having to retract EVERYTHING it published under the Jayson Blair byline due to his “factual” errors and flat out plagarism!

    14. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 3:21 am

15. I did begin by asking whether you thought the “legacy media” failed to check their facts, and you have illustrated how they have not reported certain stories. It’s not really the same thing, is it? If you asked me to write a biography of myself and I failed to highlight my age, you could accuse me of being biased and withholding certain facts (true)… but that is a different thing than accusing me of being dishonest.

    I’m not saying the legacy media are unbiased… all magazines have an editorial bent or another. I’m suggesting however they have journalistic standards on matters of fact and around plagiarism, and anyone who violates these standards is putting their job at risk.

    On the world wide web, anyone can write anything. This is why I regard such sources with greater suspicion and do more cross-checking of facts. Do you think that is reasonable?

    Back to my original question: Do you believe that the new right media can be trusted for reliability and integrity? Do you believe the new right media unbiased sources of truth?

    “Are you willfully ignoring the logic of the fact that the “vast mountain” of data supporting the global warming myth, regardless of it’s origin, has been TAINTED by the mere fact that those who CONTROLLED the funding for research DETERMINED the research that got done?”

    No, I don’t believe it’s fatally tainted, because of the nature of science and the scientific process. Just because a particular government agency pays scientists to do research on an aspect of climate change, doesn’t mean that will guarantee a particular result. In the end, science relies on data.

    Is prejudice a possibility? Certainly. But the scientific process also involves a world community of scientists reviewing one another’s work. In this respect it has more rigor to it than most other areas of human endeavour. Scientists are generally not paid more personally for developing one stance or another.

    Anyone who fudges results deliberately destroys their reputation and their career. This is taken very seriously as a result.

    Climatology is one of the most complex of the sciences and global warming cannot be simply “proved”… although the core idea is quite simple (greenhouse gases trap heat and an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would be expected to increase global temperatures). The rate at which glaciers, permafrost and ice sheets are melting in many places and an increase in average global air temperatures suggests this is indeed what is happening. But the complexity of climatology means it’s not like “proving” a mathematical formula. It’s about probability and it’s about data.

    Yes, there have always been hurricanes in the tropics and droughts in places like Africa and Australia. The global warming hypothesis suggests these will increase in frequency and intensity… but it does not “cause” a single event.

    Global warming skeptics are paid too… I don’t believe this means they are necessarily wrong (and as stated, I hope to God they are right). But they are a minority.

    Here’s the conspiracy theory of the other side of the debate!!!!:

    http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/05/who-is-funding-climate-change-skeptics.html

    15. Janet on November 25th, 2009 at 3:09 am

16. I’m going to quote extensively here from a piece by Robert Tracinski over at RealClear Politics on this whole “Climategate”. He puts what I’ve been laboring to say very succinctly!

    “….For more than a decade, we’ve been told that there is a scientific “consensus” that humans are causing global warming, that “the debate is over” and all “legitimate” scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this “consensus” really means. What it means is: the fix is in.

    This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It’s the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being “confused” by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.

    The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.”

    16. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 1:34 am

17. The whole point about the legacy media, at least here in the States, is that it is a bought and paid for hussy for the liberal kookdom. Like you, I could give two craps about “The Breck Girl” and his affair. I could also give LESS than two craps about his poor, sainted wife, standing by her man a-la Hillary circa ‘92. If you don’t have the self-respect to dump the lech when he has PUBLICLY clowned you….don’t show your mug on TV trying to gin up sympathy from the Oprah crowd! The point is that, especially with the two examples (Rathergate and the Jayson Blair saga) so-called “respected” journalistic institutions were caught elevating ideology over integrity (journalistic or otherwise). The “sins of ommission” you alluded to were simply illustrations of how DEEPLY the “lame-stream” media is in bed with the left.

    Are you willfully ignoring the logic of the fact that the “vast mountain” of data supporting the global warming myth, regardless of it’s origin, has been TAINTED by the mere fact that those who CONTROLLED the funding for research DETERMINED the research that got done? Or do you maintain that all of this research occurred in an environment hermetically sealed from the grubby shennanigans surrounding the funding of it?

    Its pretty simple…the MONEY was in doing research proving a link between man’s behaviors and “global warming”, as was the accolades. To persist in trying to disprove this thesis, meant a dearth of funding, ridicule as Big Oil’s stooge, and professional banishment. Which would YOU pick if you were a scientist trying to make tenure and feed a family?

    As far as droughts causing famine in Africa…..uhhhhh..hasn’t that been going on for EVER? ‘Cuz it’s, like, a desert and stuff? And wasn’t there some kind of prolonged drought in US during the earlier part of the 20th century? I think Steinbeck wrote a book about it or something. All snideness aside….my point is that droughts happen. Famine happens. It has since the beginning of recorded history. What makes you think it would be any diffferent today?

    I agree that it’s easy to write totally unsubstantiated crap on a blog and try and pass it off as gospel truth. Or even stuff the writer heard at one time back when the interwebz were in their infancy and was too dang lazy to check (and thanks the opposition for calling him on!) But I’m not linking to other bloggers unfounded accusations. And I sure in the heck haven’t banded together with a few of my right-wing cronies to leak FALSE info about the hijinxs being carried out by the Warmists and then make sure that ONLY blogs supporting our meme get published! American Thinker, PJTV and such may be right of center, but they are definately NOT some dude sitting around in Mom’s basement blogging in his tightie-whities!

    But again….to keep linking to the same SCIENTIFIC WEBSITE to prove that the SCIENCE is there isn’t helpful…especially if you actually consider that maybe ease of funding/greater positive recognition for your work might have had SOME impact on the “overwhelming” research proving the Warmist’s position, not to mention an active campaign to PREVENT dissenting data from being presented.

    17. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 1:06 am

18. http://theshiftyreport.blogspot.com/2009/11/just-cuz-i-think-its-funny.html

    18. Shifty1 on November 25th, 2009 at 12:38 am

19. For clarification… the socialist wrote his article in 2001… it was the conspiracy theory guy who had the silly video of the captured weapons!

    Even if we ignore everything coming out of the UN as hopelessly corrupt, a lot of climate research was done before the issue became politicized, and continues to be done by meteorology departments around the world. New Scientist has good reviews accessible to non-scientists. See:

    http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change

    This site keeps on being updated, and has a huge amount of background material.

    As for your answer to the media question… you seem to be pointing out “sins of omission” not factual errors… they are not the same thing. I don’t follow US politics, so much of what you say is unfamiliar to me, and not of great interest. (eg although I’m sure it’s very sad for his wife, I’m some senator having an affair on the other side of the world doesn’t strike me as terribly big news.)

    Greater criticism, and higher standards, are not necessarily the same thing. For example, ‘the Mt. Pinatubo erruption a few years back released more “greenhouse” gasses into the air than have been released in the entire history of man!’… mmm… well you can say anything on the blogosphere, it doesn’t make it reliable.

    Where I live we keep on having new record-breaking heat waves, the Murray-Darling- Goulbourne systems (pretty much the foodbowl of Australia) are drying up, areas of WA that were farmland 30 years ago are arid, Victoria is setting up a desalination plant because there’s a growing consensus that the prolonged drought we are experiencing is just one more symptom of climate change… etc. etc. Our Pacific island neighbors are reeling from an increase in frequency of hurricanes/cyclones. All coincidence? I certainly hope so, but I’m not convinced it is.

    Australia is a wealthy country and we can import food if need be, much as this might drain the economy. But Africa… if some of the climate change predictions are right the increased frequency of drought there will lead to starvation. As for SouthEast Asia… increased severity of cyclones/typhoons is catastrophic for the poorest of the poor… all the hard work of development washed into the sea.

    All this is important… it will impact billions of people. I really don’t give a damn about people Barak Obama knows or who’s having an affair with whom.

    So I hope to God you’re right and New Scientist is wrong.

    19. Janet on November 24th, 2009 at 11:20 pm

20. “What IS pretty widespread is lobbying by the carbon producing industries:”

    As a proud member of a “carbon producing industry” I’d just like to point out that the “Green” industries have lobbyists also, BUT they have another GIGUNDOUS lobbyist…..(Two if you count Al Gore….seriously..I don’t know how big MY carbon footprint is…but his BUTT-PRINT is freakin huge!)…the UN IPCC. So MOST of the greenies lobbying is done by fiat through the UN and it’s “experts”. So you have all of that $$$ and pressure being exerted on behalf of the greenies to pass planet-saving legislation NOW and damn the consequences ffor individual economies…or even INDIVIDUALS!

    Now your local power company (or gas company, or gasoline company..what have you) is looking at this and saying, the science isn’t “settled” no matter what Al says between bites, and the proposed “solution” will DRASTICALLY alter the way my customers live their life, not to mention take TONS of cash out of my customers pockets….it might be a good idea for us to get some of those lobbyist things of our own to stick up for us and the customer!

    (In the interest of full disclosure…I wish I could say that that’s how most company’s think..but sadly, my company, and most like it, will NOT speak out against the “consensus” of opinion on GW….they hire lobbyists to do two things: try and massage any legislation to minimize its negative impact on the company (and by extension the consumer), and ensure the company is ahead of the curve as far as compliance with the new legislation.)

    And maybe my point is getting lost here. There doesn’t have to be a vast conspiracy at work in the scientific community. Think of it this way..What organization is the “big Dog” as far as the push for fighting Global Warming? The UN and it’s IPCC, right? So, the UN’s political position on Global Warming (and globalization in general) is going to drive it’s focus. The UN determined to fight Global Warming, and further determined that it was man, ESPECIALLY the carbon-pig citizens of industrialized nations, that was the cause. So they funded a study of the causes of Global Warming. The UN FUNDED THE STUDY!!! Is there any surprise that the results proved the UN’s hypothesis? So now we have the IPCC report hich, though it keeps getting ammended to “downgrade” some of the more catastrophic effects of GW, is touted as the “settled science” on the matter, demanding URGENT IMMEDIATE action! Now who was the IPCC’s Cheif Climatologist again? Dr. Phil Jones…he of the incriminating emails. So how does that explain the ‘overwhelming” weight of research proving that man is causing GW? Well let’s say you were a climatologist, looking for $$$ for research. Where do you go to get it? The government? Well here in the US, the government is so keen on collecting as much money in taxation as they can, that they’ll GLADLY fund research that will help them prove the need for “Cap and Tax”; research that is not helpful…uh not so much. How about private enterprise? Again, the “green” industries are ok to take money from, as long as you prove the point they are paying you to prove. If you take money from a “carbon” industry…OBVIOUSLY you have prostituted yourself and therefore the results are not to be trusted. (For proof of this, I’d refer you back to the American Thinker article linked before and their observation that Lindzen recieved something like $20,000 YEARS ago from Big Oil to pay for his services as a consultant. This has been used to TOTALLY NEGATE anything he does, forget the fact that it was a one time consulting gig that happened decades past!) So you can get funding from the government or business…as long as your results prove what they’re paying you to prove. Or you can get money from the UN..same rules apply. So where does the scientist who is skeptical on the whole issue get the funding to conduct research to prove or disprove his hypothesis? Are you starting to see the problem here?

    Let’s just image for a minute, that our skeptical scientist DOES manage to secure “un-tainted” funding. He conducts his research, and, lo and behold, his research bears out his hypothesis. Let’s say his research even PROVES BEYOND A DOUBT that ALL THE OTHER SCIENTISTS were wrong. What’s the next step? Well, he has to have his paper peer-reviewed and then published, right? OOOPs….he’s just disproved all the other scientists who’ve been riding the GW bandwagon! What’s his chance of getting ANYONE to perform a peer-review and NOT trash his work? Not good, I’d say. But let’s say he finds a handful of honest men who do the review, no to get published. ALL of the scientific journals have been touting GW for years….which will be the first to admit that they were wrong, print his article and suffer the back-lash of the rest of the scientific community (who have staked their PROFESSIONAL reputations on the FACT of AGW)who will promptly boycott said magazine? What journal is going to commit suicide like that?

    Don’t tell me it can’t happen…..if the UN’s leading climatologist, and however many of his peers can engage in doctoring results, violating law and the kinds of behaviors the “data-theft” uncovered, I really don’t think my scenario is all that big a stretch. These men and women have put their PROFESSIONAL REPUTATIONS on the line supporting man-caused global warming…..do you really think they’re all that keen to admit they were wrong?

    I’d normally agree that we should just let this play out….but I’m sure that would play into the hands of those who just want these revelations to go away. “Nothing to see here…keep moving!”

    20. Shifty1 on November 24th, 2009 at 10:13 pm

21. Getting back to several posts ago, you didn’t “buy” anything written by a French academic because he was a socialist… but you haven’t yet shown me anything that suggests his facts were wrong about the CIA funding muslim extremists via the Pakistan secret service in Afghanistan. I have verified this from other sources.

    Becuase I never disputed the FACTS he asserted, just the conclusions that he drew. In fact, if you read over my posts, I’m sure I said that the US, through the ISI, most likely DID end up helping to train al-quaeda (and Lord knows how many other groups). But to jump from the FACT that the US backed muslim extremeists in their fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, to the CONCLUSION that this means the US is STILL supplying the muslim extremists, is a stretch to say the least. And before you go all..”He never said that!” You’re right…not in so many words…BUT he did attempt to link some captured munitions from the present day through the ISI-US-Muslim Extremeist link from the past to the conclusion that the CIA is RIGHT AT THIS MINUTE providing muslim extremists with the bullets they are using to kill US troops. THAT’S what I can’t/don’t/won’t buy from the evidence presented.

    In my opinion when you are trying to establish matters of fact, journalistic excellence (reputation for thorough checking of facts and sources) is the more important criteria than whether a journalist swings to the left or the right.

    I agree totally. IMO the legacy media HAS abdicated their duty to bring the public the truth in favor of “shaping” public opinion.

    “Do you truly believe that the legacy media no longer check their facts, but that the new right media can be trusted for reliability and integrity? Do you believe the new right media unbiased sources of truth?”

    The legacy media has been PROVEN to have serious lapses in ability when the fact-checking does not support their case, cause or editorial stance. Want some examples? “Rathergate”, Jason Blair at the NYT, the fact that nary a word was mentioned during the last presidential election over here about candidate Obama’s ties with radical “black-theology” espousing clergy, “ex”-domestic terrorists, shady slumlords, middle eastern “educators” who just happened to support charitable organizations like Hamas, et al. No…we were treated to a non-stop barrage of how incredibly STUPID a) George Bush (who wasn’t running..but whatever), b) Sarah Palin or c) Conservatives in General were! Oh and throw in the ON-GOING deranged “Womb-gate” saga from the poofty little pot-head, the kerfluffle over $100K wardrobe (which was DONATED TO CHARITY after the campaign)..while dead silence greeted the MILLIONS our Glorious Leader spent on the faux greek temple stage for his coronation, while we were told about the “tingling’ leg of one “newsman”…I could go on and on and on. I will say that, for the most part, when the legacy media DOES decided to do a “fact check” on somebody…they leave no stone unturned. Poor Joe the Plumber! OOPs the “Great Communicator” misspoke in an ungaurded (read UNSCRIPTED) moment, and let slip his goal of “spreading the wealth around”, and it the guy he was talking to that gets the microscope jabbed up his rear on the national stage. None of the legacy media even batted an eye, or said “hold on there Sen. O….that doesn’t sound like the American way to me.” Nope, they dug into Joe Wurzlbacher (the fact that I even KNOW this guy’s name is ludicrous!!!) like Oprah and an ungaurded box of Ho-Hos! Oh and Wolf Blitzer can do a VERY thorough job “fact checking” a Saturday Night Live sketch! Only as it turns out…his fact checking wasn’t so “checked”…..LOL!

    If it wasn’t for the “new” media, NONE of those things would have seen the light of day. Does the new media scupulously check EVERY fact? Doubtful…but given the fact that the legacy media are constantly trying to discredit the blogosphere (especially the right side), they DO tend to at least TRY a little harder. When you know the other side will lambast you for even the slightest punctuation error, you tend to want to NOT screw up the big stuff, so as to not look like the idiots you are trying to replace!

    21. Shifty1 on November 24th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

22. Left out the quotation marks in the “if the public is unaware…” etc quote… this is from the link.

    22. Janet on November 23rd, 2009 at 3:02 am

23. I’ve changed my mind on “reading all the emails”… partly because I realised it would take me at least a couple of hours, partly because after 20 minutes or so I started to feel a bit creepy reading other people’s private correspondence. So what I intend to do is give the whole saga some time to play out… as I have said, if they have committed scientific fraud their career is over, and I’m sure the whole affair will be picked over with a fine tooth comb. The truth will come out when all is done and dusted.

    I have been following climate research since the 80’s… long before it became highly politicized. There has always been a range of predictions as to the extent of the effect of man-made global warming, though as I have stated, there’s a weight of evidence behind some impact (FYI… A quick topic search on “global warming” from Science Direct came up with 41 235 articles, so there is quite a body of research out there!!!!)

    The whole business has become heightened because now the issue has become politicized there’s a lot of money involved… some people stand to gain wealth from green energies, and there are massive vested interests promoting the “climate skeptic” message on the other side. I guess there’s temptation to exaggerate one viewpoint or the other whenever big money is involved.

    Is there WIDESPREAD collusion and scientific fraud? I’m very skeptical of that.

    What IS pretty widespread is lobbying by the carbon producing industries:

    http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/global_climate_change_lobby/overview/

    If the public is unaware, more than 1,150 companies and advocacy groups are very tuned in, and they have deployed about 2,810 climate lobbyists to Capitol Hill, an increase of more than 400 percent from six years earlier, according to an analysis of disclosures filed with the Senate Office of Public Records. Spending on the lobbying this year so far in the United States is at least $47 million. Senate advocates aim to build support much as it was achieved in the legislation that narrowly passed the House this summer — by giving a boost to businesses that fear they’ll be hurt by measures raising the cost of the coal that supplies half the nation’s electricity. But the concessions have not won over opponents like Don Blankenship, chief executive of Massey Energy, the largest coal producer in central Appalachia, who forcefully disputes the science of global warming. Although that makes him an outlier in the public debate, his argument that the bill will cost jobs at the same time “it will increase global pollution by moving production to unregulated countries like China” causes worry on Capitol Hill.

    I’ll keep an open mind and see how it all plays out.

    I’d like to question you however on another comment:

    “pretty much ALL of the legacy media is biased leftward to an extent that I don’t trust them to have ANY Journalistic integrity at all.”

    Do you truly believe that the legacy media no longer check their facts, but that the new right media can be trusted for reliability and integrity? Do you believe the new right media unbiased sources of truth?

    Wisdom is more likely to be found by reading widely, not feeding oneself undiluted propaganda of the left or the right. This practice leads not only to a closed mind, but often breeds a lack of humility in my experience.

    (I’m not accusing you of that by the way… more reflecting on a recent web dialogue with a Christian whose moniker meant “Humble Servant”… but was in fact not only one-sided but arrogant, patronising and abusive. It’s not an uncommon pairing… arrogance and a very limited literary diet! I’m always in favour of expanding one’s mind and reading repetoire).

    23. Janet on November 23rd, 2009 at 2:16 am

24. Sigh… is Reuters part of the left-wing conspiracy too? Do the only journalists that check their basic facts belong to right wing papers? Just interested.

    Getting back to several posts ago, you didn’t “buy” anything written by a French academic because he was a socialist… but you haven’t yet shown me anything that suggests his facts were wrong about the CIA funding muslim extremists via the Pakistan secret service in Afghanistan. I have verified this from other sources.

    Editorial bias is one thing, and every paper has editorial bias… including the ones you are linking to. In my opinion when you are trying to establish matters of fact, journalistic excellence (reputation for thorough checking of facts and sources) is the more important criteria than whether a journalist swings to the left or the right.

    No disrespect intended, but if I were trying to establish the weight of scientific evidence, I wouldn’t be polling the general public.

    Anyway, I’ll respond to the rest of your comments after I’ve read all the leaked emails. Enough to say for now if this group of scientists is found guilty of scientific fraud they have just ruined their careers… I don’t (yet) believe the conspiracy is as widespread as you suggest… that the New Scientist reviewers were also in on the conspiracy… that government funded bureau’s of meteorology all over the world are also in on the conspiracy when they record their average temperature data. In short, I’m always suspicious of major conspiracy theories.

    The hypothetical up to one metre rise in sea level isn’t going to cover the earth is it? Growing enough food from change of rainfall patterns, and increased frequency of damaging cyclones/hurricanes etc will have much more human impact if GW does follow the worst predictions. Unless of course you live on a coral atoll or a coastal delta.

    More later…

    24. Janet on November 22nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm

25. shoot..forgot the latest linkage…

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/

    25. Shifty1 on November 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm

26. Not getting any better for the AGW crowd….

    It would appear that as the purloined data is sifted, much of it is being confirmed as authentic (recipients of the emails vouching for them, etc)…and that isn’t good news for them. Not only have the scientists acted unethically and committed what amounts to scientific fraud, but it also appears as though some of them (namely the IPCC’s top dog climatologist Dr. Phil Jones) just MAY have “bent” the FOIA laws. In one email, he opines that he will “delete” certain information rather than handing it over in response to a FOIA request….and wouldn’t you know it, the CRU (Dr. Jones’ Organization) “accidently” deleted some files that were requested under the FOIA some years after the date of the email.

    It’s all ..disturbing..to say the least. Check it out….

    Oh and a thought just occurred to me about the so-called “tabloid” journalism…..you do realize the it was the National Enquirer (perhaps the ORIGINAL sleazy supermarket rag) that broke the story about John Edwards tawdry afair (and the illegitimate child it spawned), carried out while his wife was fighting cancer. All the “respectable” news outlets (notably the NY Slimes)ignored it, or actively tried to bury it, until it got too big (and proved too true) to ignore!

    26. Shifty1 on November 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm

27. “New Scientist did a huge review of all the literature a few years back and found the overwhelming body of evidence was average global temperatures are on the rise. The Lindzen/Choi article is precisely what you expect when thousands of scientists are conducting research around the globe… diversity. Investigate any area of research and you’ll find this is the case. This doesn’t change what I’d call the “weight of evidence”. ”

    At the risk of redundancy…

    New Scientists findings you cite above were CAUSED in no small part by the collusion and cover-up that has been exposed. If the SCIENTISTS are involved in fudging the numbers to prove their thoery, can it be any surprise that ANY exhaustive review of the literature (published by the scientists) WOULD find “overwhelming” evidence of global temperature rise (Since the publishing scientists used numbers they KNEW to be false in “documenting” global temperatures!)?

    And if Lindzen and Choi, and others of their ilk, are simply what you suggest…examples of expected diversity in anyscientific community, why do the scientists with whom they disagree revile them so much? Why are they damned, marginalized, and ridiculed? That alone should give you pause.

    27. Shifty1 on November 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 am

28. Besides….didn’t God promise to NEVER AGAIN destroy the world by flood? And isn’t flooding the biggest doom-n-gloom mechanism of the Climate Change Chicken Littles?

    28. Shifty1 on November 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 am

29. And TIME magazine…same as my objections above. Sorry but pretty much ALL of the legacy media is biased leftward to an extent that I don’t trust them to have ANY Journalistic integrety at all.

    29. Shifty1 on November 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 am

30. “Regardless of the politics… try sciencedirect or New Scientist for extensive research results. I truly have trouble believing there’s this enormous cover-up of the overwhelming evidence that climate change is not occuring. Look for yourself.”

    Actually, the story I linked yesterday is gaining legs as it gets fleshed out. After dinner yesterday, I staggered off to claim my “take” in Mafia Wars. For some unfathomable reason, my blushing bride insists on using AOL as her home page. Care to guess what was the top story on AOL last night? Now, when even AOL/Time/Warner is reporting it as news….. Additionally the AOL page had two interactive polls. The first asked if you thought man had any impact on climate change. You could either pick “None at all”, “Some” or “Yes, a great deal”. The second asked if climate change worried you personally. As of 9pm (EST, with over 20,000 respondents to each poll, the numbers were significantly leaning towards “No man has nothing to do with climate change”, and “No…I personally don’t give a rip about it”. Admittedly, the first question was a bit tighter, with about a 10 to 12 point spread, but on the personal impact climate change had on people, something like 54% were saying they didn’t care at all! This on top of the recent Pew Research Center poll which found that only 57% of Americans believe that the Earth is warming, down from 71% last year. As well, only 36% think man is causing the warming, down from 47% from last year. So the “commoner” is beginning to look at the data he or she can observe and concluding that the Earth really isn’t getting hotter like ALGORE was ranting about.

    American Thinker today is carrying a very good piece by Marc Sheppard: “CRU Files Betray Climate Alarmists’ Funding Hypocrisy”. I’ll link it, but to summarize…..

    The AGW alarmists minimize Lindzen and other “Climate Change deniers” as bought and paid for stooges of Big Oil (or Big Coal..or whatever), yet documents show that the alarmists have recieved, or have made plans to “solicit”, funding from companies heavily invested in doing away with fossil fuels. AND the UN IPCC’s CHEIF CLIMATOLOGIST is in it up to his beady little eyeballs!!

    Mr. Sheppard also makes a VERY good point about the apparant “overwhelming” body of evidence supporting the alarmists position. I’ll quote him: ” And that climate realists are out-funded by alarmists by several orders of magnitude, which leads to the artificial expansion of the number of scientists who appear to support alarmist views. ” As I beleive I at least alluded to, scientists need funding, and when the VAST majority of the cash is being given to research (and the scientists doing such research) supporting a certain point of view…..it’s pretty easy to see where the “overwhelming” numbers of scientists signing on to AGW come from.

    And now to find out that the group who has, by virtue of it’s director being the UN’s head honcho on the subject, assured itself of continued prominence in the fight against “climate change” has been engaged in cooking the books and hiding the truth, so as to keep the coffers full….

    Maybe now we can put aside the ideological considerations, and fund actual unbiased science regarding the climate. I rather doubt that the statists pushing for international control of GHG emitters will be thwarted THIS easily. You can already see the spin….they are trying to downplay the CONTENT of the stolen files and drum up outrage at the horrible crimes committed by those that stole the files…

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html

    30. Shifty1 on November 22nd, 2009 at 8:39 am

31. How about Time magazine?

    The Herald-Sun (where Andrew Bolt is a columnist) ran a series about a close girlfriend of my own best friend… the sheer volume of factual errors we knew about confirmed all my worst opinions of this particular tabloid… it’s one of those pretty girls on page 3, celebrity gossip, football and various beat-ups kind of paper in my opinion… I’m sure you know the sort. Truth is of less interest than a good headline.

    These aren’t usually the kinds of papers that win awards for journalistic excellence. It’s not the editorial policy (bias if you like) so much as journalistic standards that interest me.

    31. Janet on November 22nd, 2009 at 4:35 am

32. Sigh… Reuters for news?

    Andrew Bolt’s a local boy from Melbourne… tabloid journo, far right on everything, walking headline. Happy to wait and see on the outcome of this… but even the worst case scenario doesn’t disprove man-made global warming.

    ‘the Mt. Pinatubo erruption a few years back released more “greenhouse” gasses into the air than have been released in the entire history of man!’

    Citation please? I’ll eat my hat if that’s not a pile of nonsense. Large volcanic eruptions have a well-known cooling effect.

    New Scientist did a huge review of all the literature a few years back and found the overwhelming body of evidence was average global temperatures are on the rise. The Lindzen/Choi article is precisely what you expect when thousands of scientists are conducting research around the globe… diversity. Investigate any area of research and you’ll find this is the case. This doesn’t change what I’d call the “weight of evidence”.

    The whole business of what to do about climate change is highly politicized on all sides… the conservative party (Liberal opposition) here is in complete disarray publicly squabbling between the climate skeptics and the climate change believers. Leaves the government on easy street!

    Regardless of the politics… try sciencedirect or New Scientist for extensive research results. I truly have trouble believing there’s this enormous cover-up of the overwhelming evidence that climate change is not occuring. Look for yourself.

    I do agree with you on hypocrisy… gets up my nose too.

    32. Janet on November 21st, 2009 at 10:22 pm

33. Janet,

    LOL..we’re NEVER going to agree on “acceptable” sources! The source list you suggested has been proven to have a decidedly leftist agenda; conversely, my sources could be said to have a decidedly “rightist” agenda! Most major universities are bastions of liberal idealism, the Old Grey Lady long ago gave up any semblance of journalistic integrety in favor of liberal propaganda. Science journals are not SOOO biased, but in the area of AGW, I’m afraid they’ve either been corrupted, coerced or threatened to uphold the global warming alarmism. Here’s the link to the Lindzen/Choi article

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml

    Ok..so it’s just the abstract..I’m too cheap to pony up the $$ when I can go to the local library and get it for free!

    Incidentally, have you ever heard of the Viscount Christopher Monkton? He was the Iron Lady’s scientific advisor (or some such title). He has put together several very interesting peices rufuting Global Warming. Well worth the read.

    My basic problem with the whole man-made “threat” is simply the ARROGANCE of it. As if the fossil fuels burned in the last century or so could have ANY effect on a planet that has survived for all the preceeding millenia. For instance, the Mt. Pinatubo erruption a few years back released more “greenhouse” gasses into the air than have been released in the entire history of man! And what was the result…..the planet absorbed them with no noticable change in the climate, temperature, sea levels etc.

    For the likes of Al Gore to drone on and on about the “imminent” threat and need for drastic action, while jetting all over the world, owning three palatial mansions (one of which uses more energy than 20 regular folks homes), etc is ludicrous! Think about this…the global warming alarmists say we must act NOW or the planet is doomed, yet they are doing SQUAT personally to curb GHG emissions. They convoy around in SUVs, fly across the globe to attend conferences, and basically muck about with their perfectly hee-yooge carbon footprint, lecturing the rest of us on the danger we present. The upcoming Copenhagen conference, designed to complete a new, binding global GHG treaty (more on THAT rot later…) is a perfect example. If they wanted to truly “put their money where there mouth is”, how about a teleconference…Heck they could’ve signed up for “Go TO MY PC” and held the whole dang thing for FREE! Why fly all over the globe? The real agenda behind the climate alarmiism is simply POWER and CONTROL. Oh and wealth redistribution from the developed nations to the undeveloped ones! Not to mention the big fat Gore-acle is soon to become a BILLIONAIRE from his investment in the “green” sector…investments helped in NO SMALL PART by the alarmism HE FOSTERS!!!!

    Anyhoo, more tomorrow. I’ll leave you with one final pair of links..so you can see if just maybe the “scientists” are in on the scam:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657

    33. Shifty1 on November 21st, 2009 at 5:47 pm

34. Oh, and one more note… there is no such thing as an unbiased source. To me, whether someone is an apologist for the right, an apologist for the left, or is centrist in approach is less important than whether they check sources, cross-reference and have journalistic integrity.

    It’s simply not possible to find sources that don’t have some kind of perspective, or newspapers/magazines that don’t have an editorial policy. Good luck finding one!

    However, having confessed I initially just linked to the first articles that came up in Google, how about we use the following criteria:

    Preference university sites over personal blogs
    Preference newspapers that stake their reputation on investigative journalism (eg the Times, the New York Times) rather than the tabloid press.
    Preference scientific journals (New Scientist, Scientific American, Sciencedirect.com) over some lone researcher on the payroll of an oil company, or a far right columnist etc.

    Sound fair enough?

    34. Janet on November 21st, 2009 at 3:08 pm

35. Oh, do give me the link. I’d be interested in the research you have uncovered.

    My first degree was in science, and to me the argument is fairly simple… carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. However complex climate may be (and it is VERY complex) an increase in average global temperatures would be expected as a result of higher proportions of greenhouse gas.

    The effect of this is not uniform… ie you would expect some places to cool and some places to heat as global weather patterns/prevailing winds/ocean currents shift. Lots of other factors are interacting too… the ozone hole in the Antarctic, clouds cover, solar activity, etc. etc.

    New Scientist is a really good source for summaries of the research, and it presents both sides… the fact is the overwhelming weight of research is supporting the overall global warming, with interesting localised effects.

    35. Janet on November 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm

36. I remember reading (believe it or not) a Reader’s Digest article from 1980 that stated the collapse of the Soviet Union was ultimately inevitable because the population growth of its Southern provinces (all the “stans” etc!) would lead to internal instability.

    Anyway, my thought is not so much that everyone “should have known” this… my argument is more that arming militia crosses a moral line. There’s little moral difference between arming muslim guerrillas in the grand fight against Communism, and arming muslim terrorists in the grand fight against western imperialism. You might think there is a big difference, I don’t see it.

    36. Janet on November 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pm

37. It’s a useful site isn’t it?

    I’ve found another rich vein of resources… many universities have huge online libaries. Here’s one REALLY long link from the Australian National University.

    http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ir/pubs/keynotes/documents/Keynotes-1.PDF

    This is set in a bit of a time capsule (papers written shortly after 9/11) but I think their point of interest is the reflections on not just using a hammer and seeing every problem as a nail… but developing the idea that international law, assistance in policing, economic justice that doesn’t breed dependency, well managed aid and development (modelled on the Marshall plan for Europe:the program would be directed ‘not against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos’.) and broad-based cooperation involving Muslim countries… ie, a whole swag of tools in the kit-bag… would be likely to be less counter-productive in dealing with terrorism than lobbing in missiles.

    Only to be read if you’re REALLY keen, but I’m happy to cut/paste/summarise.

    37. Janet on November 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm

38. Well maybe I spoke too soon about your source…

    I was poking around historycommons website and got into the nuts and bolts of how it works. Like you said, sorta like wikkipedia, but “with a more scholarly bent”….or something like that. True, according to the website, anyone can become a contributor simply by registering. BUT…..each contribution is then edited for content. Still not a big issue….fact-checking and all, right?

    So I went looking a bit farther to see who can become a content editor. According to the site: “Any qualified individual—an experienced contributor, professional editor, academic, journalist, graduate student, etc.—can become a content editor.” Ok, with the exception of “experienced contributor”, the rest of these appear to be legit, right. I mean, on some sites, I would be an “experienced (long-standing) contributor…..even if I have nothing more than an OPINION about the subject at hand. But the rest seem harmless enough….

    Until you track back to the parent organization to see what they are all about. HistoryCommons is run by the Center for Grassroots Oversight (“CGO”), an organization that is fiscally sponsored by The Global Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. The Global Center’s webpage tells you all about their causes and beliefs….and clues you in on their political leanings. Since one of their missions is to “To develop television and radio programming with an international and educational perspective that is socially responsible, informative and entertaining, dealing with such topics as worldwide human rights, EARTH RIGHTS and environmental issues.” (Capitilaization for dramatic effect mine!) Uh….”Earth rights?!?!” Ooooooo-kaaaaay! So their “leaning” is definately left-ward. So what you say?

    Well, part of the job of the content editors is to ” reject, approve, or edit and approve, submissions.” Are ya starting to see the problem? The content editors are free to “modify” and print, or reject out of hand, ANY submission made. That might not be a very unbiased source of info.

    I’m running an experiment to see. I’ve registered and posted some “contrarian” studies in the Global Warming section…well documented and sourced, but making the case for the opposition to global warming alarmism. We shall see if my posts make it through the process unscathed! I’ll let you know.

    38. Shifty1 on November 21st, 2009 at 1:05 pm

39. Oh and I’m enjoying the history commons site!

    39. Shifty1 on November 21st, 2009 at 11:23 am

40. Janet,

    Since Sonja hasn’t booted us, I assume we’re good to go. Just read the MSNBC peice (which I would normally dismiss as MSLSD is the same “news” organization that employs Olberman, Madow and Matthews….each of whom have 100% sold out ANY journalistic integrity they may have once possessed.) Moran makes several good points, most of which are right in line with what I’ve been saying. The whole “making a deal with the devil” bit. Since none of us can know the future, it’s hard to know which former “ally” will turn out to be Public Enemy #1 down the road.

    Orrin Hatch is kind of a moron, if he is being quoted correctly and in context here. I see the overall point….providing funding and other support to hasten the downfall of the USSR, with it’s huge nuclear arsenal that threatened, literally, ALL of the world’s people, is of greater OVERALL value than the damage Bin Laden’s follower did on 9-11. I just can’t believe he’d be so politically inept as to say that in public! Even if it IS the ugly truth (weighing the potential for global nuclear annihilation against the loss of life on 9-11…what several BILLION vs a couple thousand?), it’s definately not something you’d think an American Senator would voice!

    I still fail to see how the war in Afghanistan could have been prevented here. True, the US could have chosen NOT to fund the mujahadeen, via the ISI. However, everything I’ve ever read on the subject credits that support, especially the Stinger missles, with at least hastening the Soviet defeat. So, it’s likely that without US intervention, the war would have turned out differently. Sure, Bin Laden might not have created al-quaeda and the Taliban might not have gained control of Afghanistan, but it would likely have been under Soviet control, or at least occupation. Not an allowable scenario either, is it?

    And this is the first place I’ve ever heard the accusation made that the CIA KNEW FOR A FACT that the USSR was doomed as early as the mid 80’s, but chose to keep it a secret. I can’t imagine, given the amount of public abuse they took over the failure to predict the collapse of the USSR, that they would have bitten the bullet on that one. What IS plausible, given the political nature of Mr. Gates (for whom I’ve lost a fair amount of respect for his actions since the Ft Hood terrorist attack) is that a minority faction of analysts were RIGHT in predicting the USSR’s instabilty back in the day, and this is their way of “paying back” the system that didn’t believe them. I’ve simply NEVER seen any assertation that the CIA was anything but caught flat-footed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. So I can’t buy the conclusion Mr. Moran would have us reach in his peice, that the CIA willingly and deliberately withheld information they were CERTAIN of in order to somehow prolong the Cold War; thus thye are to blame for modern islamist terrorism. I know what you’re going to say…that the CIA would have had a vested interest in prolonging the Cold War, and I agree…it’s just that NOTHING in the historical record hints that, had he been given the “facts” (as claimed by Mr. Gates), Reagan would have EVER turned down the heat. IF the CIA was sure the USSR was collapsing, logical minds would have concluded that being RIGHT on that collapse would have proven better for the instituion’s continued relevance that looking like idiots.

    40. Shifty1 on November 21st, 2009 at 11:17 am

41. One of the links from this:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/

    Preventable war? I think so, if you go back far enough.

    41. Janet on November 20th, 2009 at 1:25 am

42. Just been looking at this:

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a86operationcyclone

    One of the good things about this site is the extensive linking to other references, so you can do a lot of cross-checking. Like Wikipedia it has a lot of contributors, but it has a more academic slant to it.

    There seems to be quite a swag of evidence the CIA trained a lot of “freedom fighters”, including Osama Bin Laden ironically enough.

    Happy to keep looking for other academically skewed sources that are acceptable to you.

    42. Janet on November 18th, 2009 at 11:45 pm

43. Sure… try to get some sleep too eh? You do post at funny times for someone from the US of A!

    43. Janet on November 17th, 2009 at 5:19 am

44. I’m gonna have to take a break and do a bit of work myself. I’m off work for the next couple days, and not too sure when I’ll get back here (I always seem to be too busy on the honey-do list to keep up with blogs…and now with the Lil’ Missie playing Middle School Basketball..I’ve even less time!), but I will return by the weekend at the latest! I’ve enjoyed our conversation and hope it continues! If Sonja kicks us off we can take it up on my blog!

    44. Shifty1 on November 17th, 2009 at 4:59 am

45. No, I do agree with you on that… further investigation definitely warranted.

    I do wish to add that I didn’t set out with this agenda, and I’m not anti-US myself at all… the US is our closest military (and politcal) ally, and there is still much gratitude here that the US saved our skins in WWII.

    But I started Googling CIA because it IS pretty well accepted (as you’ve admitted) that the US supplied weapons and training to various groups in Afghanistan… and started finding more and more horrifying allegations.

    They may be just a load of rubbish, and I hope that to be true. I will do some research myself and discipline myself to look for reputable journalists and university research OK? Need some time to think.

    But I say as a friend not a foe… the “means” really DO matter… because when you are the leader of the free world encouraging other countries to improve their human rights, their governance, and their civil liberties, one’s moral authority makes the world of difference. Do as I say, not as I do, breeds hostility and resentment… not Shalom.

    I probably should also pause here and wait to hear from Sonja, who is no doubt sleeping missing out on the explosion of posting on her blog space….

    45. Janet on November 17th, 2009 at 4:53 am

46. There is a massive moral difference between assisting an allied nation whose army acts in a disciplined fashion under a legitimate government (say the US to the UK in the first part of WWII), than there is arming a rabble of guerrillas (say in Afghanistan) don’t you think?

    Not in practice, no. And not when you’re arming EITHER party to oppose evil ideologies (Nazi facism and Communism)

    “And teaching others how to conduct torture??? Or does the end justify the means?”

    Do you buy that? That the Nicarauguans were such bumbling, backwards dolts that they had to be TAUGHT how to torture people?

    “Incidentally, I’m not claiming that either Phil Gasper or Stockwell have good motives or that they are good people. I’m asking whether their claims can be proved or disproved.

    Thats the crux of the biscuit isn’t it? Both are making all kinds of wild accusations that can only be dis-proven by divulging classified information. Although in Vassar’s case, slightly less so. Vassar’s not telling unprovable facts so much as he drawing unwarranted and difficult to disprove conclusions. His whole ideological bent is skewed towards the USSR, so ANYTHING the US did to slow the march of communist world domination was evil, imperialistic and unwarranted. Stockwell’s assertations would require declassifying methods and sources, which tends to get real people killed.

    It’s not the end of the argument to say: “Oh, I don’t need to take any notice of what they say because their motives are bad.”

    No, but I shouldn’t blindly believe they’re being totally forthright either. It’s not enough to say, case closed because this professor and that ex-spy says this is how it all happened.

    46. Shifty1 on November 17th, 2009 at 3:49 am

47. And I did read the links (even the odious socialist one..holding my nose the entire time). And still see no logical correlation between the US’s support for the mujahadeen, or even the Taliban in the early to mid-1990s, and the conclusion that the CIA is somehow secretly arming the Taliban today.

    AND….all the “skullduggery” the Socialist site gets all up in arms over with regards to Carter “secretly” aiding the mujahadeen BEFORE the Soviet invasion is poppycock. A US president, authorizing aid to an anti-communist resistance movement is in perfect keeping with long standing American doctrine. The Afghan government was leaning heavily toward communism, in fact was VERY cozy with Moscow….I’d be more upset if Carter had NOT authorized the aid. Though I can’t beleive that sanctimonious pansy gussied up the stones to do it…..

    47. Shifty1 on November 17th, 2009 at 3:37 am

48. There is a massive moral difference between assisting an allied nation whose army acts in a disciplined fashion under a legitimate government (say the US to the UK in the first part of WWII), than there is arming a rabble of guerrillas (say in Afghanistan) don’t you think?

    And teaching others how to conduct torture??? Or does the end justify the means?

    Your link focuses on the later period of the Taliban… have you read Phil Gasper’s article explaining how various extremetist mujahideen were recruited even prior to the USSR invasion? (Precursors to the Taliban).

    Incidentally, I’m not claiming that either Phil Gasper or Stockwell have good motives or that they are good people. I’m asking whether their claims can be proved or disproved. It’s not the end of the argument to say: “Oh, I don’t need to take any notice of what they say because their motives are bad.” (I was reading CS Lewis about that the other day in fact…)

    48. Janet on November 17th, 2009 at 3:31 am

49. In regards to #52…don’t forget…we also backed Saddam’s Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war too! Don’t you remember the hay the anti-war crowd made of those old pitures of Dick Cheney all palsy with Saddam back in the 80s?

    And why does your source (The EVER so unbiased Global Policy Forum)say that the US backed Saddam…

    “In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as “a horrible orgy of bloodshed.”

    According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.

    Little attention was paid to Qasim’s bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that “freaked everybody out” according to a former senior U.S. State Department official.

    Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of “real power,” according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was “the most dangerous spot in the world.”

    Qasim overthrows the legitimate Iraqi monarch in an “orgy of blood”, joins the regional pact opposing the USSR, then pulls out of the pact, cozy’s up to Moscow and begins tranforming his government into a communist one. Again..the Truman Doctrine.

    49. Shifty1 on November 17th, 2009 at 3:25 am

50. A couple things about the Stockwell info…

    First, it’s dated. He’s talking about the Contra’s…again 70s and 80s stuff.

    Second…You have to take this stuff with a grain of salt. IF Stockwellis who he claims to be, and has done the stuff he claims to have done, then he signed a non-disclosure agreement. Such a document would impose SEVERE legal and financial penalties for disclosing these kinds of things….if they were true. The fact that he wasn’t arrested and locked in a deep dark hole should make you wonder about the veracity of his tales. There is another “author” who has done something similar. Richard Marcinko was a Navy SEAL and the first CO of Seal Team 6 (the counter-terrorist squad). He has made quite a lucrative second career writng “psuedo-biographical” memoirs of his exploits. Except he had to change the names, places, and details to: a) protect real live feild operatives and SEALs, b) stay within the boundaries of his non-disclosure agreements and c) make his books interesting. If Mr. Stockwell’s tales are true, then he has put lives at risk by telling, and is a traitor.

    Third….the overall scheme of what he’s describing is the Truman Doctrine, or the Marshall Plan. Both are long-standing American doctrines that were formulated as a response to the USSR’s program of exporting Communism throughout the world. Basically the Truman Doctrine said that, as the leader of the free world, the US would ACTIVELY seek to contain the spread of communism. The Marshall Plan was the plan to provide aid to the countries of Western Europe to fight the spread of communism there. As part of the Truman Doctrine, the US did train and equip anti-communist forces is countries all over the globe. Did we have to choose poor bedfellows at times..sure. Could the folks we backed have been ruthless swine? Absolutely. BUT…and it’s a big but….the alternative was to let the USSR spread their totalitarian utopia all over the globe unopposed. Or risk global thermonuclear war to stop them. Again..realpolitick.

    50. Shifty1 on November 17th, 2009 at 3:14 am

51. Sorry Janet,

    I’m not buying any of it. The more I look through even the stuff on Alex Jones’ site, the more it’s all looking to be single-sourced from the Socialst guy. AND it jumps to totally illogical conclusions: The Taliban is pictured with CAPTURED US ammunition and all of the sudden the CIA is SUPPLYING ammo to the Taliban to use against US troops? How do you make THAT jump logically?

    As far as where the Taliban came from, it seems they emerged out of the mujahadeen who were fighting the Russians. It’s well documented that the US backed the mujahadeen, so technically, the US did help create the Taliban. However….not like Mr. Socialist Review man paints it. For a history of the Taliban…

    http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

    Again Janet, this is an example of realpolitick. The Russians invaded Afghanistan in the 80s. The West was actively fighting the Cold War against the Soviets. The West (mostly the US) provided arms, cash and training to the forces (such as they were) that opposed the Soviets. EXACTLY like the US did in the late 1930s and early 1940s to the forces opposing Hitler’s Germany. It happens all the time, all over the world. Like I said before, sometimes the group you ally yourself will today will turn and shoot you in the face tomorrow.

    So to answer your question…did the US train and arm nasty mysogynist terrorist groups in Afghanistan or not? NO! Since neither the Taliban, nor al-queada existed back then…we couldn’t have trained and armed them. We DID train and arm a native resistance force to opposed the USSR’s invasion; elements of that force later morphed into nasty mysogynist terrorist groups.

    51. Shifty1 on November 17th, 2009 at 2:57 am

52. Oh, and please do actually read the links, don’t just “skim”… they will explain why the US armed the Taliban… according to the writer anyway.

    52. Janet on November 17th, 2009 at 2:51 am

53. Holy cow this is depressing… guess who allegedly helped Saddam Hussein come to power too… hadn’t heard of this before…

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169/36419.html (and connected background papers)

    What was that question about which wars were unavoidable? Sheesh…

    53. Janet on November 17th, 2009 at 2:49 am

54. Actually, while you’re at it, check out whether these kinds of claims from John Stockwell are true or not… because the more I’m searching the net about the CIA, the angrier I’m getting:

    http://www.serendipity.li/cia/stock1.html

    54. Janet on November 17th, 2009 at 2:09 am

55. I’m not suggesting the socialist review doesn’t have biases, but none of us are without those. I’m asking you to cross-check whether the academic who wrote the article is factually correct or incorrect. You seem to like doing research… well, did the U.S. train and arm nasty mysogynist terrorist groups in Afghanistan or not?

    Check with whatever reputable sources you like.

    55. Janet on November 17th, 2009 at 1:50 am

56. Oh and the other link….The International Socialists Review?!? Yeah THATS an unbiased source with no absolutely no axe to grind with the US!!!

    56. Shifty1 on November 16th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

57. Agreed…it’s Sonja’s call.

    “… but Iraq was not invaded because he was an unpleasant dictator, but because of WMD’s.”

    And as I stated before, just because George Bush didn’t get his picture taken standing in the middle of a warehouse full of nuclear warheads, chemical munitions and mobile bio-warfare labs, doesn’t mean that NO WMD was uncovered. Also, just because Katie Couric (or ya’lls equivalent)didn’t tell you about the weapons caches that were found, that doesn’t cahnge the fact that there were caches discovered!

    Again, go back to my point about how Bush got lambasted for “allowing” the attacks of 9-11 to happen…since he “knew” about them from that one briefing from his National Security team. Then contrast the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of the world’s intelligence agencies were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD, but that he was actively seeking to expand both his production ability and stockpile. Ask yourself, if YOU were charged, morally and legally with safegaurding the lives of 250 million or so people, less than 20 months after the 9-11 attacks…which way would you choose? Choose to beleive the handful of naysayers (including the very same UN who had been proven corrupt and ineffective at handling this situation for over a decade)..or the professional intelligence agencies of the world? That is a no brainer, as far as I can see. Heck even the UN was forced to concede that their sanctions weren’t working and stood little chance of succeeding….in fact, several member states (the ones who were getting paid off by Iraq….France!) were PUBLICLY opining that maybe it was time to do away with the sanctions and allow Iraq to do whatever it wanted. So you err on the side of caution, because if you don’t, and you’re wrong, you wake up to a mushroom cloud over New York City, or an epidemic of Anthrax spreading through Sydney! Even the “Bush lied” meme has been thoroughly debunked. He may have chosen which information he gave the most weight to, probably according to the reasoning I outlined above, but the fact was that he NEVER made up anything…..he never lied.

    “of course, if you were Kurdish or said something dreadful like “I don’t like Saddam” you might die for it… ”

    Or if you were the husband/father/brother of a girl one of Saddam’s delightful little boys took a fancy to. Or a member of the Iraq Olympic team that whichever of the sons that “oversaw” the team decided was somehow not working up to “potential”, or a government official (especially if you were involved in one of Saddam’s unauthorized “extra-cirricular” programs) or that officails family. Or just somehow ended up on the wrong side of any of the inbred Tikriti Mafia…

    As far as sponsoring “terrorism”, I checked out your links above. The Alex Jones site is okay, but remember…he’s a HUGE conspiracy theorist….Illuminati, Pentaverate (The Rothhhschilds, The Gettys, The Queen, The Pope and Colonel Sanders…..that’s a line from So I Married an Axe Murderer..should be slurred in a heavy Scottish accent). Also, skim reading I could find no explaination as to WHY the US supposedly backed the Taliban. My guess is that, like with the mujahadeen during the Soviet invasion, heck like the USSR in WWII, alliances were made with the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it works out, but most often not. Heck the fact that the US didn’t do anything to the Taliban until AFTER they allowed OBL and his merry men to stage the 9-11 attacks out of their country argues AGAINST America as a bully. We didn’t take them out the minute they started repressing their women-folk and loping the heads off the infidel INSIDE THEIR OWN BORDERS….cuz it’s their country. When they start exporting that junk….now it becomes everybodys problem. If memeory serves, the US tried the whole Diplomacy route with the Taliban, regarding their treatment of their citizens, prior to 9-11. Its not like we said..”hey go ahead and treat everyone but the male muslims in the country like farm animals, we could care less.” Then all of the sudden, on Sept 12, 2001 we changed our tune to “Oh no you di’unt…Bad Taliban!” We were pretty much “Uh your treatment of women and religious minorities sucks, and if you want to have a place at the big kids table, you beter straighten that out!” all along!

    It’s gonna sound callous, but this is how the game is played. ALL nations independently determine their own National interests, then look for the best way to meet those goals. You make the best alliances you can, to get the bestoutcome you can for you countrymen. Does that mean that countries NEVER back the worng horse? Not by a long shot. Does it mean that backing someone in a certain situation, over a more repugnant (to your national interests) group, mean that you as a nation “own” whatever the people you backed become? I don’t know…both the US and Australia “backed” Stalin over Hitler…are both countries guilty of the millions of murders Stalin committed? Are we, somehow, communists?

    57. Shifty1 on November 16th, 2009 at 11:51 pm

58. Well, why don’t we let Sonja make the call? She may find the sparring interesting… on the other hand, she may find it tiresome and rather we left her in peace.

    I don’t personally agree with the “peace at any price” approach either… there is a place for defence IMO.

    I don’t think anyone’s claiming that Saddam was a nice guy… but Iraq was not invaded because he was an unpleasant dictator, but because of WMD’s. As stated previously, you can’t invade every undemocratic and unpleasant country, and as also stated earlier, there would have been more moral auhtority for a full invasion in the first Gulf war… I don’t personally believe the point of no return had been passed in the second Gulf war. It should also be noted that life for ordinary Iraqi’s was for the most part OK under Saddam’s regime… of course, if you were Kurdish or said something dreadful like “I don’t like Saddam” you might die for it… but most ordinary citizens were safer then than now.

    But changing tack again… what do you do as a citizen of a country which actually HAS sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan and other places? I don’t think it’s possible to get terribly self-righteous about it.

    58. Janet on November 16th, 2009 at 9:46 pm

59. Perhaps we might consider relocating…out of respect to Sonja’s bandwidth…and patience. I’m enjoying this discussion though, so….your blog or mine?

    59. Shifty1 on November 16th, 2009 at 9:03 pm

60. Me…Ummmm…I’m technically AT work, but to say I was working would kinda be stretching the concept of “work” a bit thin! Oh well somebody’s gotta make sure that when Aunt Agnes gets up in the middle of the night for a nip of gin, the lights come on when she flips the switch!

    I agree about being president…not so much! Too much soul-selling to get a job that ages you faster than a meth-head, keeps you up nights and only pays $400K. It’s to the point where I almost don’t trust the motives of anyone who goes seeking the job!

    I hear what you’re saying about having a full toolkit, and agree. I think the problems arise when the handy-man either doesn’t know which tool to use for a particular job, or falls in love with his favorite tooll and uses it regardless of the situation. Its all in knowing which tool to use when. I mean I love me my cordless reciprocating saw..but it’s not much use in stopping the faucet from leaking! You also have to know when it’s time to admit the tool you originally grabbed isn’t working, and move on to another one. Presidents, especially left-leaning ones tend to NEVER want to admit that the diplomacy tool isn’t working anymore and go rooting around for a better one. Most of that breed (the leftists) will never grab the big ol’ sledge hammer of the Military, but would rather spend eternity chipping away with the tack hammer of Diplomacy. (C’mon..ya gotta love the whole toolbox theme here!) Unless of course the Serial Molester in Chief needs to distract everyone froma certain un-laundered blue dress….

    Additionally, you have the armchair Mr. Fix-it’s on both sides of the political aisle that are going to criticize whichever tool a president uses. If he opts for diplomacy….he should have used force. If he opts for force…he should have used diplomacy. Again..who needs THAT headache for $400K? With 24-hour, live-streaming on demand coverage of EVERYTHING, no one takes a longer, historical view of the decisions made today. How will future generations view the ouster of Saddam? American aggression? Or will the fact that 40 some million people were freed from a tyrannical despot and his twisted kids be the fact that outweighs all else?

    That is the main criteria I use to determine whether I agree with a decision: does it promote or curtail freedom? I am all for promoting freedom….in all forms. I am against ANY kind of curtailing of freedom.

    As far as your point that the UN didn’t think it had enough info onn WMDs to justify invading Iraq…the UN (especially under Kofi Anan) would NEVER have had enough info. Even if Udday Hussien himself had ridden a Nuclear-tipped missle into Tel Aviv, a-la Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove, the UN would still have had reservations. France, germany and Russia (who all hold veto power in the Security Council) all said at the time that NO amount of proof would make them ok a military option. And as time went by we found out at least ONE of the reasons for this….$$$. Remember the Oil-For-Food scam, where Saddam was basically giving cash money to members of various European governments and the UN (including Kofi Annan’s SON) for them to look the other way while he sold oil for profit..not food! IMO the UN is a worthless sham…no a traveshamockeery! Thouroughly corrupt, blatantly anti-semetic, anti-American and anti-capitalist bunch of despot/terrorist appeasers…and incompetent to boot! And this is the body that leftists want to place in charge of ALL world afairs?! No thanks! Don’t even get me started on the lying, bullying, fear-mongering attempts to loot the pockets of successful countries the world over (including the “Land Down Under”) over the farcical “global warming”, no wait “Man-made global warming”, no hold on…”climate change” CRISIS! All I can say is “Chicken Little”!

    I’ve always wondered about the term “peace-maker”. I’ve had, ahem…discussions, with liberal Christians who use this beattitude to excuse virulent pacifism. Is it being a peace-maker to appease a brutal dictator like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Saddam….etc in order not to have to fight a war? How about appeasing (or negotiating) Islamists? I’ve always felt that an intregal part of being a peace-maker is in swiftly and decisively dealing with those who have proven themselves to be the ENEMY of peace! Its not making the peace to continually give in to the demands of a group of people who insist on “negotiating” their demands by strapping explosives on themselves and blowing up busloads of school kids. Not to mention that when those “demands” include the erradication of an entire nation…..who are you kidding? So while I agree with your overall philosophy that force shouldn’t be the de facto first response to every situation, I think that at times, fulfilling our call to be peace-makers can require us to remove some of the opponents of peace from the gene pool permanently!

    60. Shifty1 on November 16th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

61. Oh dear… thought I’d do some background searches on the well-known fact the CIA trained and armed the Taliban… yep, this was another avoidable war had their been decent international behaviour in the first place.

    http://www.infowars.com/cia-asset-taliban-gets-u-s-ammo-to-kill-american-soldiers/

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

    Just thought I’d check in with Sonja as we’ve gone somewhat ballistic on this thread… we can relocate elsewhere if you like.

    61. Janet on November 16th, 2009 at 8:15 pm

62. G’day mate back! But what are YOU doing at such an unearthly hour? It’s quite a civilized time here… 8.00 pm, Monday.

    Look, I wouldn’t want to be the President of the United States… it would be a cow of a job. I personally think everyone was jumpy and looking for someone to blame for 9/11, and less than fully rational decisions were made as a result. The UN certainly didn’t find the evidence of WMD compelling… the evidence wasn’t strong enough.

    Terrorism creates a very difficult terrain… probably all countries “harbour” terrorists… to what extent their activity is aided and abetted is also a shadowy matter. Don’t forget was the CIA who armed the Taliban in the first place. As the saying goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It’s not an issue of black versus white: there’s shades of grey everywhere and blood on a lot of hands on all sides.

    I don’t think there are any simple answers to this… as a follower of Jesus, “blessed are the peacemakers” is a statement worthy of careful reflection. To me this suggests our first impulse is peacemaking: our last impulse is force. The real world is a minefield where we need to tread carefully… but our instincts should be toward peace wherever possible.

    They say when your only tool is a hammer you see every problem as a nail. I think we need to invest in a diverse “toolkit”… not only weaponry, but diplomacy and aid and justice and governance assistance and peacemaking skills… to make the world a safer and more just place. I don’t suggest throwing all weapons out of your toolbox, but don’t have them as your only tool, and invest heavily in the alternatives.

    62. Janet on November 16th, 2009 at 4:07 am

63. Janet….
    regarding post #40…I couldn’t agree more! I live in the States (not gonna tell which one…but I don’t need no stinkin’ snow shovel!) and have felt for years that the standards of acceptable public behavior have been in free fall. I’ve got kids in the cesspool that is the public school system, and I’m telling you something…..I would NOT want to have to be a kid nowadays. Life was so much easier back in the days of parachute pants and mullets! Daily you read/hear about the heinous crimes committed by ever younger sociopaths. And the adults are little better. Here in the “missing tot” capital of the universe, it seems like every time you turn around, some little girl has gone missing, and Nancy Grace gets to do weeks of breathless, grating specials jumping to all the wrong conclusions in that smarmy voice that just drives me insane….but I digress. Used to be the little girls ended up being found dead in the empty lot next door to the double-wide the neighborhood kiddie-diddler lives in, but just today Mrs Shifty was telling me how the authorities in North Carolina arrested a woman who pulled the “I wuz asleep an somebody done came in an snatched my child” schtick, when they figured out the pathetic lady actually SOLD HER 5 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER to other people for use as a prostitute! Seriously?!?
    So I totally agree with the whole being careful of the messages we send…but I still say boys playing “soldier” or “cowboys and indians”…don’t get me started on the whole “that’s so un-PC” crap… or “cops and robbers” is not inherrently bad. Now if little Biffington Codswallow Stuffbritches III is insisting on playing “The Rape of Nanking” version of soldiers….ya might have a problem!

    63. Shifty1 on November 16th, 2009 at 3:41 am

64. OK, so we’re saying the same thing regarding men and women. Your last paragraph quite aptly summarized my point….since we can’t really know what “pre-fall” gender roles were intended to be, EVERYTHING in speculation. And since we live in a fallen world, better to just deal with reality as it is….

    Now on to the other issue. First, I’m amazed at your mention of Paul’s admonition to live peacably under whatever government we find ourselves under….I had actualy typed that in my respone in #28, but felt it was a bit off-topic for the point I was trying to raise! What’s that saying about great minds….:)
    As far as a legitimate nation-state calling for the destruction of the West….Iran. Although that kinda stretches the definition of “legitimate”, given the shennanigans surrounding the recent “election” over there! But Achmidiawhattheheckever has definately called for the destruction of the “Great Satan”, Israel, etc. Further, I would submit that ANY nation that knowingly harbors, aids or abets terrorist groups whose stated purpose is the destruction of the West fit into that category.

    Israel does an amazing job defending herself. But up until the current administration, the US has always been solidly in Israels corner. If we weren’t actively helping (providing weapons systems, training etc), we were at the very least not actively undermining their efforts. Unfortunately, that is changing. Now the US is joining the crowd chastising Israel for every move they make to deal with the security of their nation.

    As far as the whole WMD deal, I’d ask you to consider this. The President is briefed daily on known or suspected threats to the US. During the first 8 1/2 months of his presidency, George Bush was presented with ONE briefing that mentioned that islamic terrorists funded by OBL wanted to use commercial airliners as weapons. Since no one had ever done this before, and since it was all “rumor” and “conjecture” at that point, it was dismissed as low-priority. After 9-11, when news of that briefing came out, he was CRUCIFIED because he “knew” about this before it happened and didn’t stop it. On the basis of one briefing citing “unsubstantiated” rumors….
    Conversely, when considering whether Iraq’s SELF-PROCLAIMED WMD capability existed, and could threaten the US, Bush had EVERY credible “spy” agency in the world telling him that Iraq did indeed posess WMD….MI-6, CIA, DIA, heck even Russia and France! In addition Saddam’s regime let all their neighbors know they still had the WMD, and the regime’s actions viz the IAEA inspectors seemed to suggest they were hiding something. Given the MOUNTAIN of credible evidence, and the mole-hill of naysayers who suggested that Saddam MIGHT not have WMD capability, Bush did the prudent thing and went with the “worst case” scenario. Had he waited, and weapons supplied by Iraq were used against the US or anyone lese, he would have been impeached…and rightly so for dereliction of his duty.

    And….it’s not like there was NO WMD material found in Iraq. True, we never found a fully funtioning bio-weapons lab, or a ICBM field…but we did find plenty of chemical-tipped artillery shells, weaponry, including delivery systems that had been forbidden to Iraq by UN resolution and tons of other stuff, mostly in small caches scattered throughout the country. Just because Bush couldn’t stage a photo op standing in a huge pile of Chemical weapons, nuclear warheads and a couple of those mobile bio-weapon labs, or that a world media largely invested in de-legitimizing everything Bush did failed to report the WMD finds that were made, doesn’t mean that he was wrong about it.

    None of which answers the question what would even MORE “diplomacy” have done to prevent the Iraq invasion? Were not 12 years of the world’s “premier” diplomatic establishment’s efforts enough…well they would have been except for the whole pesky Oil-For-Food corruption gig? Was not, what, 15 seperate UN Resolutions enough? Where do you draw the line? What would have made Saddam suddenly see the light and reform after almost a decade and a half of doing whatever he wanted with no consequenses?

    Afghanistan, under the Taliban, gave aid, support and shelter to al-quaeda. The Afghan government allowed the terrorists free access to their country to set up training camps and bases of operation, which were used to train the jihadists. After 9-11 this made them the prime target for the efforts to rid the world of the menace of the islamic terrorists. How does that Proverb go….”Can a man hold hot coals in his lap and not get burned?” or even better “bad company corrupts good character”.

    A couple further points…
    As far as where to draw the line regarding state sponsors of terrorism, I like the Bush Doctrine. If you are a nation who harbors, aids or abets any of these shadowy criminal enterprises, especially if those enterprises pull off terrorist attacks, then you are just as culpable. In realpolitick terms, larger nations…oh say China and Russia probably can get away with more than say Yemen, or Syria or North Korea. Just reality. (Although since the ascendency of our Glorious Leader, Emperor Barack I, pretty much anyone BUT Israel can do whatever they want and the US won’t say a word!)

    And I agree with you on the whole “old fashioned spying” thing. Unfortunately, no western government has adequate assets on the ground to do a good job of this. The resons for that are varied, but in the US at least, the roots stretch back to the Bay of Pigs and the Congressional witch-hunt that followed. The CIA was gutted, and everyone who was left sort of hunkered down and tried to escape notice. Couple that with the emergence of all the whiz-bang new technology, and the decision-makers pulled back from HUMINT (intellegence derived from real flesh and blood people…spying!) to SIGINT (Intellegence derived from intecepted “signals” – telephone, radio, cell phone, email..)and satellite imagery. And it takes a looong time to re-build those human assets and networks, especially in a part of the world where the natives don’t look like you do! For a much more detailed treatment of this check out “See No Evil” by Robert Baer. That festering turd of a movie “Syriana” is loosely based on Baer’s life and work.

    Thanks for the discussion…and I figured out why you’re the only other person besides me posting at such God-awful hours…g’day mate!

    64. Shifty1 on November 16th, 2009 at 2:40 am

65. Oh, one more of your comments I didn’t pick up on…

    I agree that soldiers in battle have to be “desensitized” to violence and obey commands automatically. Their training is of course in the context of military command and is highly disciplined. This desensitization is one of the many costs soldiers have to bear.

    However, desensitizing an entire population to violence… indeed, celebrating it… is something else again. I don’t know about where you live, but where I do we’re seeing a disturbing increase in a number of violent crimes, including sexual violence, involving younger and younger people.

    When not only our soldiers (necessary) but also our youth and children (scary) start acting without empathy, and indeed, with relish in violent acts, there is something very disturbing going on.

    I don’t want to give simplistic answers to complex problems… but I do think we need to think very, very carefully about the message we convey about the value of other human beings, and somehow convey the idea that violence is an absolute last resort, not a glorious activity.

    65. Janet on November 16th, 2009 at 2:28 am

66. So many points… for starters, there’s no real possibility of dialogue with networks of terrorist cells… it is unambiguous criminal activity. Dialogue with legitimate government representatives and NGO’s involved in nation building, improvements in governance and policing are the only realistic possibilities. We have room to improve on these fronts. I can’t think of a legitimate nation state whose constitution swears to destroy Western civilization. Enlighten me if one does exist.

    I agree with you that if Iraq was to be conqured at all, it should have been done properly in the first Gulf war.

    The fact is though, the US really shot its credibility in the foot with Muslim nations by invading Iraq the second time because “we have clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction”. (Oh, oops, you were right, there weren’t any). When the Al Queda propraganda warns that the evil West is plotting to take over the Muslim nations by force, it can actually help their cause.

    It also damaged its credibility in (my parody of) the Afghanistan situation:

    “Hand over Osama Bin Laden”
    “We don’t know where he is”
    “Hand him over or we’ll invade” (boom, boom)
    “Oh you’re right… he is hard to find”.

    I don’t get it. Old fashioned spying may well have been more effective at tracking down Osama Bin Laden than war. Cheaper, smarter, less violent, less loss of international credibility.

    Most of the masterminds of 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, not from Afghanistan, which is a notoriously difficult spot to control anyway because of its geography and history. It simply wasn’t the only hot spot for terrorist activity… but where do you start with such a slippery cell network? As I said… energy in old fashioned spying/intelligence/international policing is probably money better spent.

    As for the other comments… Israel does an impressive job of defending itself, don’t you think?

    It’s not realistic to conquer every unpleasant undemocratic country that abuses human rights (and perhaps has resident terrorists) through agressive war, is it? China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Libya… gosh, where does the march of agressive warfare stop? Other ways forward need to found. Of course, if such a country were to attack your country or an allied country, you would need to exercise military defence… but that’s a different issue.

    I think it more pragmatic to dialogue with nations more often… Indonesia and the Philippines are examples of countries that have transitioned from dictatorships to democracies… one predominantly Catholic, one predominantly Muslim. It’s possible. Not everything has to be solved down the barrel of a gun. The more we find alternate pathways, the better. I do not believe alternate pathways solve everything, or that warfare can always be avoided… but much warfare can be.

    Thinking back to biblical times, the Roman Empire was in many ways quite harsh and cruel… but Paul still recognised it as God-ordained. I believe this is because for most people most of the time, even very imperfect governments are preferable to anarchy, to feuding warlords, and to chaos.

    As for the women and men issue…

    What is clear from pre-fall times is that killing of all kinds (including killing animals) was not part of God’s original intention. Your “husband ruling over you” was one of the curses as a result of the fall.

    There is virtually no biblical information about what gender roles would have looked like before the fall, apart from Eve helping Adam and being “flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone”. We really can only speculate what that might look like in detail, and I don’t really intend to, because we live after the fall. So there doesn’t seem much point exercising my imagination about roles.

    66. Janet on November 16th, 2009 at 12:47 am

67. “We live in post-fall times, and the examples of women God has raised up for His purposes in post-fall times is legitimate.”

    Not to prove “original intent” it isn’t. All it proves is that God CAN use fallen humans to accomplish his purposes….it says absolutely nothing about what roles he originally intended each sex to have.

    67. Shifty1 on November 15th, 2009 at 11:51 pm

68. Please elaborate on how EXACTLY more time, patience, understanding etc would help when dealing with people who have sworn to destroy western civilization and replace it with a world-wide caliphate? How would more dialog help? How would mor eunderstanding help? The war in Afghanistan was a DIRECT result of the attack on 9-11. The base of operations, training camps and safe havens for the al-queada was in Afghanistan. We were attacked not by a nation-state who could be negotiated with; no dialog was possible. They are not interested anyway! Unless you are willing to concede the destruction of Israel, the abandonment of a large chunk of the world to a philosophy that marginalizes and virtually enslaves women AND no guarantee of any cessation of hostilities toward the “west”…no dialog is useful!
    Iraq…well I’ll just use your justification for WWII for that one. As you said, “force should have been excercised as soon as treaties were broken”. By that token, the UN should have led the charge to remove Saddam…oh around 1993 or so! Since one of the conditions of the cease-fire agreement that ended the FIRST Gulf War was for Iraq to aloow international agencies to verify the destruction of their WMD and long-range offensive weapon capability, the first time Iraq started playing cutsie with the inspectors, should have been the last. BUT NOoooooo…we had over 12 years of dithering, “diplomacy”, corruption, and endless “resolutions” out of the UN while Saddam thumbed his nose at the world! Seems to me the whole “time and talk” path was given a fair shake….and failed miserably!

    68. Shifty1 on November 15th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

69. My original position was not that men and women were created at the same time, but that they were both created in the image of God and given dominion.

    We live in post-fall times, and the examples of women God has raised up for His purposes in post-fall times is legitimate.

    69. Janet on November 15th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

70. The two current ones come to mind immediately… Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Indeed, I would say most of the wars since 1700 might have been avoided with greater diplomacy… but I’d except World War II (where force should have been exercised as soon as the treaties were broken) and the Napoleonic wars.

    70. Janet on November 15th, 2009 at 10:34 pm

71. As to the men/women post…
    Hold on a minute. Your original position was that God created men and women AT THE SAME TIME and gave them co-responsibility for earth’s stewardship BEFORE the Fall. You quoted Gen 1 to back it up. Now you seem to be saying that the roles we see women taking AFTER the fall somehow validates that point. Isn’t EVERYTHING perverted because of the fall? Including women’s AND men’s purposes, or “work”? To use examples of fallen humans to somehow show what God’s ORIGINAL plan was can’t work!
    That being said, I’m DEFINATELY not advocating the “barefoot and pregnant” philosophy of gender roles. Women can, and have, performed just as admirably as men in ALL jobs, roles, or whatever you want to call it. My point was never to force a role on women based on pre-fallen ideals. I only brought up the time-line point to show that, rather than being created concurrently, men and women were created consecutively. That is man was created first, then woman. In Eden they had perfect fellowship with each other and God. After Eden…not so much! So please don’t paint me as some type of patriachal whatever! Not what I’m sayin’… so put yer knittin needles down!

    71. Shifty1 on November 15th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

72. Janet,

    Your points regarding war being a “neccessary evil” are valid, and I happen to agree with you. What I don’t agree with is the philosophy that because of the “turn the other cheek/love your enemy” teachings of Jesus, that we Christians are NEVER to fight or defend ourselves. Sorry for mistaking your for a follower of that camp, and thanks for clarifying. We were kind of speaking in generalities…War is bad, guns are bad…etc. Getting into specifics clarifies things quite a bit.
    One thing I will say is that as far as using lethat force with a measure of sorrow, in the heat of battle there isn’t much time for sober reflection on the consequences of each squeeze of the trigger. Whether you are a rifleman in an infantry company, or a sailor on a warship, when the bullets start flying, you do what you were trained to do. If you do it successfully, you live to fight on and the enemy does not. Often we are treated to images of soldiers “celebrating” the taking of lie. In reality that is no more than the overwhelming emotional release from survivng a life and death struggle. It is only later that most of us reflect on the fact that our actions brought death to someone else. Same for LEOs. That is why so much money is spent on “after-action” couselling in the civilian sector, and why so many of our returning heros need “psycholocial” help.
    You are spot-on with your observation that believing that ANY country (except the remnant of Isreal mentioned in the Bible) is God’s chosen nation. I have argued long and hard against people who think that somehow America has supplanted Israel as God’s chosen. I beleive that any nation that actively acknowledges and includes God in it’s public life, will enjoy blessings from Him. I also beleive that once a nation turns away from God, the outcome can be read over and over again in the Bible! Honor God and shun evil and your nation flourishes. Shun God, sacrife your children to Molech(abortion), promote ritual prostitution (name your sexual perversion here!) and raise up Asherah poles (what HAVEN’T we raised up to worship in place of God?) on all the high places, and your nation will cease to recieve God’s blessings.
    While I agree that Jesus is the touch-stone of our faith, I’ve got to ask…do you think that Jesus ever taught anything that was contrary to ANY aspect of God’s character? I would agree that you shouldn’t go through life thinking…well God miraculously provided food for the widow and her son when they sheltered Elijah….I’m going to invite that guy on the street-corner shrieking about “Turn or Burn” to come live with my family so WE will have food without me getting a job! (Okay so admittedly not the BEST illustration of this point, but I think you get my drift…) But neither can you ignore the OT as a collection of neat stories about unique events. Remember, Jesus came not to destroy the Law (the OT), but to FULFILL it!
    A challenge for you…can you name ONE war that has occurred since 1700 or so that could have been avoided by greater diplomacy, or more patience, or increased generosity? Or one that resulted from a lack of understanding on ALL parties parts? Or one that could have been prevented if allinvolved had been just a bit more committed to justice? I don’t think you can!

    72. Shifty1 on November 15th, 2009 at 10:11 pm

73. As to the other comment… you are spot on that I was saying BOTH male and female are made in the image of God… not just one or the other. God is relational in His very being… Father, Son, Spirit.

    Men and women are different. However, the bible does not squash women into stereotypical roles that some religious groups advocate… in the scriptures, we see women as rulers, judges, prophets(Judges 4:4, acts 21:9) , businesswomen (Acts 16:14,Proverbs 31) followers/disciples (Mark 15: 40 – 41), apostles (Romans 16:7), witnesses to the resurrection (Mark 16), elders (II John 1:1)… they weren’t just sitting around doing the knitting and cheering on men.

    Men and women are different, and their differences should be celebrated… but we need to be careful that tendencies aren’t narrowed into restrictive stereotyping around rigid roles.

    73. Janet on November 15th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

74. I did not say I opposed all war everywhere. I believe in the legitimacy of having a defence force.

    I am not terribly interested in defending “a culture”… cultures change all the time. I am interested in defending people.

    I find you keep polarising to extremes, (you either glorify war or TOTALLY demonise it, you either celebrate war or oppose ALL WAR EVERYWHERE) which makes it a little difficult to have a clear and nuanced discussion.

    I stand somewhere in the middle. I believe force is sometimes legitimate and necessary for governments in a fallen world… which is why civilized nations have a police force, an independent judiciary, and a defence force.

    This should be balanced with the knowledge that all people are made in the image of God and are precious to him… even the very best of us do not “deserve” His love, but it is poured out freely on all. As such, we use “lethal force” as a last resort, and always with a degree of sorrow, rather than of gloating or celebration.

    Yes, Israel was commanded to destroy the Canaanites because of the extreme wickedness of their practices. I personally think that a unique event, and I’d be very cautious about believing any particular country today to be the chosen force of righteousness… for the Christian, our kingdom is “not of this world”… we are told to not to judge, but to trust in the One who judges justly.

    I didn’t “chide” you about “God will defend us”. I was more pointing out that the Old Testament has a number of unique events, so our touchstone is the clear teaching of Jesus, rather than an interpretation of this or that event.

    A lot of war (not all) could be avoided with greater patience, generosity, a commitment to dialogue, working for justice, endeavouring for understanding… blessed are the peacemakers. I am not advocating either/or, but both/and.

    74. Janet on November 15th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

75. AND….I see what you’re saying about Chapter 1 of Genesis being a broad overview of creation. But let me ask you a question…
    When you get into the nuts and bolts description of the timeline, or sequence of events if you will, of creation, who is created first? Who names each animal? And finally who is it that is created because God realized “it is not good for MAN to be alone?” The passage you quoted describes God in a way that our feeble little minds can sort of, almost comprehend. Since we are made in His image, yet men and women are totally different, what is God’s image? Is it male…if so how are females “made in his image”? Is it female…if so, what about the men? The author is attempting to convey something unknowable to us…that BOTH male and female are part of the image of God! Neither is made “more” in His image than the other. He is NOT saying that God made both at the same time, for the same purpose, which seems to be what you’re getting at.

    75. Shifty1 on November 15th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

76. Ross,
    I disagree…no where in there does she mention or defend the death and resurrection of Jesus in our stead. How did she defend the Gospel? She defended a pacifism theologically, but she most assuredly did NOT defend the Gospel!

    76. Shifty1 on November 15th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

77. Janet,

    Claiming that Jesus did not take up arms against the Roman Empire as the basis for opposing ALL war, EVERYWHERE, at every time is simplistic at best. Jesus did not take up arms against the Roman Empire for one reason, and one reason ONLY: That was not God’s plan AT THAT TIME. God’s plan for that point in time was to provide a path back into relationship with Him, through His Son, to a sinful human race. THAT, and ONLY THAT, is the reason Jesus did not heed the urgings of the Jewish ultra-nationalists among his followers. God had a different mission for Him.
    Make no mistake though, Jesus WILL return to wage war against the “Gentile powers” that oppose Him. And it will be a physical battle, not one fought totally in the spiritual realm. Human beings WILL fight with, maim and even kill each other.
    Also, Jesus himself used physical violence against the moneychangers. Unless of course you beleive that when Jesus fashioned a whip of chords to drive out the greedy usurious cretins preying on God’s people, they just abandonded their place and scattered just because ONE GUY started “going postal” in their midst. Seriously?!? Discounting the fact that these people obviously put the love of money above even God’s holiness, do you really think ONE GUY with a whip could make the entire crowd run away without at least hitting a few of them? C’mon! He also told his disciples (as he was sending them out on the missions feild) to buy a sword, if they didn’t own one. Why would he do that, unless he knew that there were evil men about who only respond to physical violence?
    And while I don’t “take Old Testament stories as the norm for today”. I do know that since God is unchanging, the aspects of His character that He reveals in the OT are STILL aspects of His character. So if He ordained war, or even genocide, in the OT, one of God’s aspects MUST still remain the Warrior aspect. I agree that every combatant in every war has thought they were on the side of the angels, and we really don’t know which wars God will consider just. I do know that He does consider it just to protect the helpless, the aggrieved and those oppressed by tyranny. I’m fairly confident that fighting a war for any of the above reasons, as well as a war of self-defense, are going to fall under the “righteous” wars umbrella.
    As far as Jesus word you refer to above, those are EXCELLENT standards for our individual dealings with other people, however a NATION that tried to operate by those principles would not be an independent nation for very long.
    As far as objectifying or glorifying war culturally, at least in part it is a peice of the process of training warriors to defend a nation or culture. Most everyone is told from an early age that wars (and fighting in general) sucks, but at times it is neccessary. If a culture TOTALLY demonized ALL aspects of war-fighting, and made it taboo, where would the defenders of that culture come from? Seems to me you’d be left with one of the “God will defend us” strategies you chided me about above!

    77. Shifty1 on November 15th, 2009 at 7:46 pm

78. What a beautiful defense of the gospel Janet… very well done

    78. Ross on November 15th, 2009 at 8:23 am

79. I’m not attempting to be politically correct, I’m attempting to be theologically accurate. If you double-check the passage where man is given dominion, it is actually man (humankind) MALE and FEMALE who are given dominion. God blesses THEM and gives THEM dominion for they are created in His image, stewards of His creation. Genesis chapter One is all about imagery of Yahweh as king, who gives His subjects delegated authority.

    26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
    27 So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.
    28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
    29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

    Killing was not part of God’s original design. Even hunting, which seems to have been baptised as a holy right via the American Frontier mythology, was not part of God’s original design.

    The grab for power is part of our fallenness… we are meant to be stewards of delegated authority from God, not rulers in our own right.
    I am not orthodox, so I don’t embrace that theology wholeheartedly. I do call myself a Christian though, which is where I take Jesus’ words about turning the other cheek, returning evil with good, being a peace-maker, being a servant of all, loving your enemy, etc. with a degree of seriousness. As such, I critique cultures that seem to glorify killing others (for a “good cause” of course) with great caution. Most wars were thought to be for a “good cause”… how are we to know which ones the Lord REALLY ordains?
    I would be very careful about taking Old Testament stories as the norm for today… otherwise you could make up some rule about disarming until you are completely outnumbered in order to show your trust in God (Judges 7), or march around enemy cities blowing trumpets before you attack (Joshua 6), or pray and expect God to kill your enemies without your doing anything.(II Chronicles 32) The example for Christians is Jesus, not some act or another in the Old Testament… and he failed to take up arms against the Gentile power that had conquered Israel.

    79. Janet on November 15th, 2009 at 2:22 am

80. Janet,
    If we go back to Pre-Fall roots, you’d have to agree that God’s design for man was to hold dominion over all the earth, was it not? So by creating man to “rule” the earth, God must have built in a mechanism that would cause man to desire that dominion. THAT is what was perverted by the fall…the God-given desire in man to be “ruler” over everything on earth.
    And I absolutely agree that man was not created to kill others. That is just one consequence of the fall. But I still maintain that God “hard-wired” the desire for mastery over all creation within his sphere into man. So while we can decry the perversion of this, we can’t IGNORE it, or pretend that the desire man has to “rule” is inherrently evil.
    And, correct me if I’m wrong, but I can recall NO isntances in the Bible where anyone engaged in a “just” war (a God-ordained war…and yes God himself DID ordain wars and killing!) was required to seek forgiveness for killing. David never had to seek forgiveness for killing Goliath; Joshua never had to seek forgiveness for wiping out entire peoples when God directed him to do it. Your point about Orthodox theology doesn’t account for this. In fact, going back to the Genesis Pre-fall account, we find out that God gave MAN the work of ruling creation and gave WOMAN the work of being a companion to the MAN. SO the implied difference is that men are “built” to exert dominion over creation and women are “built” to provide companionship and help to the man. Pretty un-PC, but there it is. So the differences in the way they are “built” is just one of the many areas of God’s creation perverted by the fall.
    The point is….today’s culture has elevated these perversion ABOVE God’s intended order. You said it yourself, good, balanced, Christ-like roll models are NOWHERE to be found in poluplar culture. Godly values…I would go so far as to say masculininty itself….are demonized, marginalized, ridiculed and torn-down at every opportunity. Those who promote Godly character are targeted for destruction. What is lifted up in the place of Godly and masculine role models? Will and Grace. “Alternative” lifestyles and “families”. Thuggish, sexually predatory “music” stars. Oprah. Rosie. Joy Behar. Barack Obama. Ted Kennedy. “Gender-norming”. These are the people we are told to emulate. Even our “churches” embrace and endorse sin. So when you sign on for the “tolerance” and “acceptance” train you join in with those who are actively seeking the destruction of all that is Godly. After all, aren’t acceptance and tolerance THEIR buzzwords?

    80. Shifty1 on November 14th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

81. Let me add one quote from He-Who-Has-Been-Banned about the fact that this blog is Sonja’s to do with as she pleases, because I think it makes an interesting point. Over at his blog, Mr. BH feilded a comment that said, in paraphrase, that to breeze into a blog and make dissenting comments is akin to overhearing a conversation taking place inside a house and then to barge in the door and berate the housewife for the “stupidity” you caught in the snippet of conversation you heard. There IS some truth to this, as trolls who comment on a particular blog post without doing themselves (and everyone else) the courtesy of checking out the rest of the blog to get a “read” on things, is analogous. However…”A blog, as I see it, is a way people shout out their window at the rest of the world… and oh by the way, I do mean the world, and not just your neighborhood… a blog that allows comments is an ivitation to that world to come into the home to discuss what all the shouting was about…”
    All that being said, I still agree that, as sole property of Sonja, she can run this blog however she wants.

    81. Shifty1 on November 14th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

82. Sonja,
    You are right. I do not know you. I only know what you have written; so it is by these “facts” that I have to form opinions. Could I have mis-read your use of the word “tolerance”, and ascribed to it the currently fashionable definition? Absolutely. I did. I assumed, from the overall tone and tenure of your postings that when you claim to be tolerant of something, you do NOT mean that you “put up with it”…like I “tolerate” Hannah Montanna music in order to spend time with my pre-teen daughter. Rather, I took you to mean that you openly welcomed that thing, and respected it’s differences from your own. Sorry if I assumed in error, but that IS the position of so many “liberal” Christians. To those who share the “new” orthodoxy of liberal Christianity, we should never presume to “judge” any behavior as sinful or even “wrong” because we are told “Judge not, lest you be judged.” So if I wrongly lumped you in with the wrong crowd, based on my gleanings of “you” from your posts, I apologize. I do remain unconvinced that such is the case, but I am open to the possiblity.

    82. Shifty1 on November 14th, 2009 at 9:23 pm

83. Thanks Shifty.. looking forward to the discussion

    83. Ross on November 14th, 2009 at 9:13 pm

84. Ross,
    As you’ll see by my post, I heartily agree (and have from the beginning) that Sonja has every right to run her post as she sees fit. My ONLY point was that by barring anyone who you deem “unworthy” you end up with debate/discussion stifled by fear of moderation.
    Oh and the sympathies on the loss of your dog extend to you also!

    84. Shifty1 on November 14th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

85. Oh, and the reason the argument DOES confuse me because it assumes that only two polarities are possible… you either encourage macho aggressive military glorification, or “sissy-boys”… a sensible middle ground doesn’t exist. Well rounded, wholistic, Jesus-like male role models of masculinity that I believe should be encouraged don’t exist in this simplistic, either-or style of thinking… that’s why I found it such an absurd leap of logic. If that’s the way you see the world, fair enough, but don’t expect it to make a lot of sense to those who see plenty of “middle space” in the world.

    85. Janet on November 14th, 2009 at 8:48 pm

86. @ Shifty1 – We’re not commenting on the ChristianityToday.com website here. This is Sonja’s real estate that she pays for, so if she wants to lock things down to only accepting comments that fit into pink ponies and unicorns land, that’s her prerogative. Would you tolerate me planting an Obama sign on your front lawn? I doubt it. My impression is that she’s looking for good honest debate that’s backed by facts and delivered with character in the spirit of good debate. What I’ve witnessed with Rick, and with many other of the rising Right, is rhetorical propaganda delivered with righteous indignation. It just shuts down debate… similar to bringing guns to an arm-wresting match. Let’s arm wrestle a little and see if we can’t learn to respect each other in the process? Why throw assumptions around and think you know your opponent? Why not get to know them first?

    And yes, Sonja’s husband here. NRA card-carrying member, graduate of John Eldridge’s Colorado Boot Camp. The debate is rich and entirely worthwhile.

    86. Ross on November 14th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

87. I fail to see how tolerance necessarily equals support. Tolerance equals understanding, love, grace, but in no way does it equal support. You really do not know me at all. Please, do go study your logical fallacies, because you do not understand them.

    And … you’re being disingenuous by saying “… all Rick did was point them out …” Rick rather mercilessly pokes fun and hatred at anyone who thinks differently than he does. Which is why he has been banned from my blog.

    87. Sonja on November 14th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

88. I take my view of God’s intended design for human beings from Genesis 1 and 2 (prior to the fall) and see no hint that God’s intended design for men was killing one another… this is a result of the fall and is always falling short of His intent for human beings. I agree it can sometimes be necessary, but never should be glorified, and a last resort not a first. In Orthodox theology, the killing of another human being is sometimes deemed as necessary, (self defence, “just” war) but is always viewed as a sin requiring forgiveness, as a person made in God’s image has been destroyed. Of COURSE men and women are different… that the key difference should be around killing others is cultural, not biblical.

    88. Janet on November 14th, 2009 at 8:26 pm

89. Janet,
    Why does it confuse you that Rick was merely pointing out that the culture of “wussification” (for lack of a better word) of boys, demeaning and belittling men in popular media, demonization of ALL war, guns, hunting, competitive sports and the constant INTENTIONAL blurring of God-created gender lines has LED to the celebration of a perversion of what God created? And Sonja’s comment that she “tolerates” TG homecoming queens leads to the entirely rational conclusion that she supports that entire culture. The tragedy here is that you apparently buy into it too. God made boys and girls diferent. God made each of us as a unique male or female. He didn’t mess up the process somewhere and make a mistake with Jessee Vasold. In fact, reading the article Jessee is so dang confused he can’t pick a gender and stick with it..just whatever floats his (or her) boat at the moment. So by Sonja implicitly endorsing, or technically “tolerating”, this behavior, while at the same time implicity universally condemning war and fighting, she is declaring her beliefs. All Rick did was point them out. No great mental gymnastics are really required to draw the conclusions he did from her own postings.
    And by the way….since when are we Christians supposed to “tolerate” sin?

    89. Shifty1 on November 14th, 2009 at 8:03 pm

90. Sonja,
    I truly am sorry for the pain I know you suffered on th eloss of your dog. I have two myself, and could not bear to think of them not being around anymore. Please accept my sincere condolenses (sp?).
    However, I do disagree that the commenters in question were at all uncivil. Merely offering a dissenting opinion, or pointing out a percieved fallacy in the bloggers line of reasoning does not make for incivility. Morgan, Rick, Chuck and I (and I’m assuming from a quick perusal of the post in question that we are the “rude” commenters) all were entirely civil and rational in our comments on your post. I’ll again suggest you apply the same moderation rules to your answers as you impose on your commenters. Calling John Eldridge’s work “full of secular crap which he thinly veneered with some Bible verses … ” does not strike me as being a particularly logical argument; nor especially Christ-like. I still wonder what exactly about his work you find so destructive of family and un-biblical?
    My point here is that, while you certainly have the right to run you blog as you see fit, only allowing in comments that fit into your pre-determined model of “acceptability” stifles dissent and/or debate. You end up with a blog full of adoring, like-minded commenters, and no discussion of topics. I am assuming, from the topics you choose to blog about that you kind of want to spark discussions on meaningful subjects. You won’t get that by setting rules that basically say “If I don’t like how you say something, or think it isn’t ‘logical’ (by MY definition of the word) I’m not allowing you to comment.”
    Just sayin!
    ps… I WOULD study my fallacies, but since I think my arguments are logically sound, they don’t appear as such to me!

    90. Shifty1 on November 14th, 2009 at 7:42 pm

91. Adam …

    First … the change in moderation policy did not come about because of that one post. It came about because I have felt constrained in my writing lately in an attempt to appease certain commenters. I will no longer be doing that, but will delete and/or block people who cannot be kind and/or gracious when they disagree.

    Second … if you will look carefully at the “turn” you are suspicious of and notice the time/date stamp on them they all came in during the afternoon of Oct. 28. I spent the afternoon and evening of Oct. 28 at the vet with my 8 year old golden retriever. I took him in for follow-up on some gum surgery that he did not appear to be healing from. It turned out to be a vicious form of cancer (hemangiosarcoma) which is also known as “the silent killer.” As it turned out by the time we knew anything, the cancer had metastasized and he was put down on the operating table. He walked out of the vet’s examining room wagging his tail and smiling at me, a seemingly healthy dog. I never saw him alive again.

    So you tell me. Was it the nasty turn of the comments? Or was it that I just did not have the energy to deal with them? Or was it that I just didn’t care anymore? Rude bastards had invaded my virtual livingroom, and so I sent them packing.

    What people don’t seem to understand is this … I am not shutting down disagreement. I am shutting down rude, disrespectful behavior. If you (or anyone else) disagree with something I’ve written, please, by all means, tell me. I’m all ears (or eyes). But do so in a kind, respectful and gracious manner. I love the way my blogger-friend Adam Gonnerman put it: “Any comment that I judge, by my own criteria, to be disrespectful to me or other people will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Debate is okay, disrespect is not.”

    And by the way, the fact that I closed one comment list and not another does not in any way, shape or form, beg any question … at all. Go study your fallacies.

    91. Sonja on November 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am

92. I mean “paranoia”.

    92. Janet on November 14th, 2009 at 5:59 am

93. Having just read over it, no sensible person would “like” the direction that thread was going. I believe there’s a degree of incivility when someone expresses a personal opinion on a blog (glorification of war and violence makes her heartsick) and that is utterly twisted and used as a platform to mock… oh, that must mean she approves of transgender homecoming queens, (???), oh, that must mean she would sit back and do nothing if an evil dictator took over the world (Pardon?… in the real world which evil dictator has the capacity to defeat all nations on earth and the US in particular in a land war??? Any ideas???) It’s a long time since I’ve read such loopy paranioa.

    Anyway, my opinions aside, it’s her blog, and she can do anything she likes with it.

    93. Janet on November 14th, 2009 at 5:58 am

94. I see you closed out the other posting that led to your change in “rules” due to the unfortunate passing of your dog (for which you have my deepest sympathies as a fellow dog owner), but not this one…that begs several questions; the most obvious being…did you close out the other one to shut down the discussion when it took a turn you didn’t like?

    94. Shifty1 on November 13th, 2009 at 10:38 pm

95. Karde, how is having a comment moderation policy “harboring such ill-will?”

    I think most functional people set boundaries around words that “are intended to engender fear and/or use fear to manipulate / which do not respect the dignity and grace of other(s)” Man, that’s the “rule” in my home, and I enforce it. My kids are corrected if they cross that line. Disrespectful guests can toe the line or not come back. This is what healthy boundaries mean I think. Surely this can apply to a personal blog?

    We are guests here on Sonja’s “home” blog… if you have strong objections to her opinions, I’m sure you could write them courteously, and if you can’t, you can write about your opinions on a blog of your own.

    Of course you are not evil… but assuming a moderation policy means “ill-will” actually is quite a leap of logic. Do you let people say anything you like in your own home, no matter how disrespectful it sounds? I doubt it.

    95. Janet on November 11th, 2009 at 12:42 am

96. Good for you!

    96. Jarred on November 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm

97. Ma’am, I’m only passing through.

    I wonder at a place named after the Cleft of Light in Valinor, yet harboring such ill-will towards those who disagree.

    If you have the wisdom of the Valar (or of the One who made them), it would be easy to see why. But if you are yet a mortal living in the light of the Mighty Ones, perhaps that would be a reason for circumspection.

    If you think I am illogical or evil in my opinion, then say so. I only ask.

    97. karrde on October 30th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

98. perfectly understandable.

    98. cindy on October 30th, 2009 at 8:27 am

99. Considering the utter crap I’ve seen people post, or link to, in response to your comments, I’m kinda wondering what took you so long. It’s stuff like that what made me get rid of my comments altogether.

    99. K.W. Leslie on October 28th, 2009 at 12:44 am

100. Good for you, Sonja!

     100. shawn on October 27th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

101. You Go Girl!!!!!!! I have had to delete some comments on my blog at times and once or twice I have directly called someone down for name calling (they apologized and stopped). I don’t mind (even enjoy) connecting with people that I disagree with but it seems there are some that lurk around the blogospher just looking for some place to spew their venom.

     I thought it was hilarious that you linked to “logic”

     101. Liz on October 27th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

102. Coming from you, it’s hysterical!!

     Hahaha … the song is equally hilarious!!!

     102. Sonja on October 27th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

103. I meant “come on” but come one seems to have a deeper connotation that I’m going to ponder.

     Meanwhile a song…
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8onbDZmAwhE

     103. Patrick O on October 27th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

104. Commie.

     

     Oh, come one, coming from me that’s funny. Even if it doesn’t make it to the big board.

     104. Patrick O on October 27th, 2009 at 1:01 pm