Just Getting Warmed Up
We all know that Barack Obama is in favor of change. Less clear has been exactly what it is he wishes to change. For most of the campaign the assumption has been that Obama wants to change government. He speaks often, for example, of the need to take power away from the “special interests” (which is no doubt why he supported the ethanol mandate). But based on some of his statements, it seems his ambitions may run higher than that. Perhaps Obama wishes not merely to change government, but to change us:
Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.
I might humbly suggest that getting other countries’ OK as to where we set our thermostats isn’t leadership either (except, perhaps, in a globalized version of Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin‘s use of the term).
Obama’s talk of “new technologies” and controlling thermostats put me in mind of a story from a couple of months ago, when the California legislature was considering installing devices in people’s homes that would allow the government to set people’s thermostats for them:
Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages.
The law provoked some understandable outrage, and was ultimately defeated (which, if I understand California’s system of government correctly, means that in a couple of years the California Supreme Court will hold that the law is constitutionally required), but it was not without its defenders:
Ralph Cavanagh, an energy expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview that at a time of peak electricity use, “most people given a choice of two degrees of temperature setback and 14th-century living would happily embrace this capacity.”
Well, gosh, if the choice is between letting the government control thermostats, and being reduced to a 14th century standard of living, then who could object? Likewise, I’m sure that Mr. Cavanagh, if given a choice between being flayed alive and giving me $1000 would gladly give me the $1000. But I won’t expect to be receiving my check any time soon.
When Senator Obama spoke of using new technologies to combat global warming, he probably didn’t have the California proposal in mind. He was no doubt thinking of something much more sensible, like the aforementioned ethanol. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for using technology to combat global warming. But stories like the above make me skeptical of the government’s ability to pick which potential new technologies have the most promise, or which methods of adaptation are the best.
Comments are closed.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for using technology to combat global warming.
As long it does not require anything of ME ME ME personally, right?
We just got an SUV, set the AC to 72 and eat what we want. We also have a gun. Pry my cold dead fingers from the AC :P
Obama’s nanny state will be headed by Nurse Ratched.
Well, yes, the thermostat idea is nothing but ridiculous. You can’t assume that everybody is going to be OK with a thermostat at 72 or 65. For health reasons, some people need the thermostat colder than others.
That being said, I agree 120% with what Obama said in Oregon. As you point out, it would be unfair to link Obama’s statement with the law that California wanted to pass. As someone who works in the energy business, I find it rather ridiculous that the same people that are complaining about gasoline prices are driving heavy trucks everyday. For some reason, we want things to improve for us, but we are not willing to make any sacrifices. Well, that’s not reality and we may need $6/gal of gas to realize that. And that is just gas prices… So, Obama, at least on this topic, is right on target. We need to change our lifestyles if we want to be credible to the world.
You are in fine rhettorical flourish before the weekend.
I believe speaking of thermostats and SUVs was an analogical construct. One of the bigger issues in the Kyoto negotiations was how much to allow China and India to develop, because it wouldn’t make sense for the U.S. to basically have a pollution warrant by virtue of being first. He is right to say that we will not be able to tell poorer countries that they may not develop while we remain developed and at the same time save the planet.
I have never understood people’s offense at calls to modesty. As St. Paul said, there is nothing wrong with eating meat offered as sacrifice to idols, but you shouldn’t do it if it will cause your brother to sin.
Gerald, where did Obama say anything about controlling thermostats? This is linking two stories that have little to do with one another.
It’s also clear that the California proposal is meant to apply to emergency situations of power shortages. This isn’t a matter of the govt controlling temperatures in opposition to your personal (liberal) comfort levels. More disgusting fear mongering from Republicans liberals who care only for their own personal access to luxury and those who brag about their luxurious and deadly toys. (Did you blog about your new SUV yet, Gerald? Can we see pictures?)
Senator Obama has stressed personal responsibility in many instances. Just because he notes that the behavior of Americans should change doesn’t necessarily mean that he intends government to change us. I guess we’ll see.
That bit about the California Supreme Court was hilarious. I think I will appropriate it for future use.
“Senator Obama has stressed personal responsibility in many instances”
But not for those who would be “punished” by having a baby.
Michael, you’re so easy :o)
A Honda Pilot is hardly a ‘luxurious and deadly toy’. It’s neither expensive nor ‘deadly’ – it’s got airbags everywhere, 4WD etc. It’s a family car. We’re going to hopefully have kids soon, family visiting frequently etc. Our other car is an ancient Honda (can’t kill a Honda). Kayaks don’t walk themselves to the lake. It actually gets very good gas mileage for the size. Most people around here (50 miles east of San Francisco) have kids and thus don’t drive Smartcars. Besides, what people drive is nobody’s business. The anti-SUV (not to mention global warming) hysteria is pathetic. With family and hobbies, a regular sedan isn’t big enough. Not to mention that it’s just sweet to drive, sitting high up is wonderful, 4WD gets you to Lake Tahoe in winter. Now excuse me while I turn on the AC :o)
This attempt to represent a politician who has ALWAYS emphasized local, grounds-up initiative as an old-style “liberal” represents you conservatives’ total failure to comprehend just what kind of “liberal” he is.
As someone who believes, however, in the efficacy of governmental intervention in a number of situations, but who also considers himself a late-blooming “libertarian conservative” (but more of a Tory than a Republican), I’m heartened by your cognitive dissonance regarding Obama–probably the most “small government” and libertarian (as well as fiscally responsible) Democrat to run for President since John F. Kennedy.
It means that he and his movement will very likely OVERWHELM you and the tired old “flip-flopper” and war-monger that you’ve put up as your Presidential candidate this year. You and your fellow “conservatives” will have a long time in the wilderness to figure out what happened to you, as well as to put your movement back together on a more ethical footing.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church in America should start, right now, trying to figure out some strategies on how to convert the Obama movement to some more traditional concepts of the “sanctity of life.” They are, I believe, susceptible of being converted on a number of these issues (such as partial-birth abortion); you just need to learn how to talk to them in a tone that indicates you respect THEIR concerns–such as environmentalism, unjust and reckless war-making, the erosion of separation of powers, and the injustice to the poor of astronomical medical costs.
Digby-
Part of me hopes you’re right. It would be nice to, once and for all, dispel the notion that a true liberal is capable of serving as president.
My guess is that if Obama is elected, he’ll be even worse than Carter, and Republicans will easily recapture the White House in 2012 and hold it for the next three to four presidential terms.
So, commence with the burning of Rome, I say! I make enough money to ride the next four years out. Thankfully, we lawyers tend to do well financially regardless of whether the economy is in the tank. That’s probably why so many lawyers are dems. :)
My guess is that if Obama is elected, he’ll be even worse than Carter, and Republicans will easily recapture the White House in 2012 and hold it for the next three to four presidential terms.
LOL. Best laugh I’ve had all week.
I make enough money to ride the next four years out.
I’m going to be paid for what I do in Euros, starting in August, so I bet I “ride the next four years out” better than you do.
If McCain is elected, and the half-a-million-dollar-a-minute war continues, and the gigantic crisis in American education continues to be addressed by idiocies such as “No Child Left Behind,” and the “Reaganomic” evisceration of the middle class continues here, in the form of tax breaks for the ultra-rich, then even my few tens of thousands of Euros will be worth more than your hundreds of thousands of devalued dollars paid to you as legal fees.
I make enough money to ride the next four years out. Thankfully, we lawyers tend to do well financially regardless of whether the economy is in the tank.
The arrogance in this thread is astounding.
MI-
I am just being honest. I’ll be o.k. whether McCain or Obama wins. Lawyers designed the “game,” and set it up where we do just fine regardless of the country’s economic health. If my stating that fact is arrogance, then so be it.
The people that will suffer from Obama’s inexperience and incompetence will be the very people he claims to care about, not people like me.
1. I agree with those who believe that Obama was merely referencing leading by example and not looking to enact laws to mandate such actions – at least not yet.
2. feddie, you assume that the GOP will survive the wreckage that will be left by Bush and McBush and be sufficiently intact in 2012 to field a candidate much less to win an election.
3. My ol’lady practices bankruptcy law, so it would be nice if the Republicans were to win and to continue running the economy into the ground, but I doubt that will happen.
In other News McCain has stuck up for Comprehensive Immigation reform today. Certain Elements of the Far Right have gone bonkers. I look forward to to the next entry on here that gives Kudos for McCain for speaking up for a very Catholic issue.
Sorry I am tad frustrated!!!!
Lawyers designed the “game,” and set it up where we do just fine regardless of the country’s economic health. If my stating that fact is arrogance, then so be it.
Insofar as you are gloating about how your participation in “the game” (fascinating you admit it and call it that) protects you, simply by virtue of your profession (“*Shrug* Won’t affect me none”), yes, that is arrogance.
…not people like me.
People like me, people like them. You’re something else.
Michael-
I enjoy practicing law, but I recognize and freely admit that our system of governence is set up in a way the greatly benefits lawyers. Like I said, that’s just a fact of life. There are downsides to any profession, as I am sure you know.
And by people like me, I simply meant people of upper middle class incomes. I am not happy that people who make less than I do will suffer under an Obama Administration, but that may be what it takes to make people realize that folly of looking to Mother Government to solve all of our problems and embracing radical leftist policies.
Fed – Yes maybe your wisdom will trickle down to all the lowly folks who just don’t see it the way you do.
I am not happy that people who make less than I do will suffer under an Obama Administration, but that may be what it takes to make people realize that folly of looking to Mother Government to solve all of our problems and embracing radical leftist policies.
Only a fool would say any of the above and think it true.
Michael J. – Let me ask you unrelated to Obama – You do not see anything troubling regarding the government mandating that they control your home during times of “emergency”
Who decides what’s an “emergency”?
Who decides when they can dictate turning off your refrigerator? Your heating in cold climates? Dictating that you can’t have a fireplace?
I Was going to bring up light bulbs, but I remembered that they did dictate that you have to use toxic lightbulbs that give people seizures…
Who decides where it ends?
Regarding Obama:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK”
Why not? How is asking their permission for what we do in our own homes “leadership”. What exactly do you think he means when he says that? You threw it out there that Obama didn’t say anything about controlling thermostats… Then why exactly did he say that we can’t keep them where we want?
You do not see anything troubling regarding the government mandating that they control your home during times of “emergency”
Who decides what’s an “emergency”?
I’m guessing that in a state of national emergency involving so-called “terrorists,” then you would be just fine with the government taking control of your home, calling the shots, deciding it’s an “emergency,” etc. You know, like when the Bush administration decided that Saddam’s WMDs constituted an “emergency” and started a war for no reason.
Then why exactly did he say that we can’t keep them where we want?
You are the kind of fool that Blackadder obviously sought to encourage with this mindless post, linking Obama and the California proposal. The way I read his quote is that we can’t continue to do these things and think that there will be no repercussions. If you want to read other things into the quote, that’s your business, but it’s foolish and dishonest. Likewise, if you want to presume that those of us living in North America, particularly the u.s.a, can go on living any way we want to in complete disregard for human lives around the planet, then you’re a sad case.
The sad case is to think that me driving an SUV makes anybody else’s life worse. You’re the modern Puritans – soon SUV drivers will have to wear a big red S. Of course we’ll go on living the way we are, while creating more alternative sources of energy – around here, there are many windmills, for example (Altamont Pass). There is no going back.
Wow Michael J. For one who thinks he’s so enlightened you sure are a sucker. For the record, I completely disagree with the hypothetical “national emergency”.
You are also turning a blind eye to what the logical conclusion of what Obama said, and what you said he said. The man said we can’t continue to do certain things. Obviously, if he is implying a solution to this “problem” he will seek to implement his vaunted “change”
Even if I went with what you said, and he just meant there would be “repercussions” Why would he bring up that fact unless he was trying to say he would offer a solution
Even if I went with what you said, and he just meant there would be “repercussions” Why would he bring up that fact unless he was trying to say he would offer a solution
So you are actually saying that we North Americans do not need to change our lifestyles in light of social, economic, and ecological conditions throughout the world? Finding solutions, making needed changes, is bad?
Gerald – Please post pics of the SUV and your gun(s).
“So you are actually saying that we North Americans do not need to change our lifestyles in light of social, economic, and ecological conditions throughout the world? Finding solutions, making needed changes, is bad?”
Michael J. You’re making quite an assumption. Like Gerald said, other parts of the world could easily be at the same level as us “North Americans”
Gerald – NEVER post pictures of your gun(s). It’s never a good situation. If you do decide to at some point or on some site, make sure your serial numbers are edited out. It’s not unheard for some jackass to phone in to a police department saying the guns you posted were stolen, or to say that you have a “machine gun”.
Tim,
Speaking from personal experience?
Mark – Nope, despite your snide question, I have not had such an experience.
Like Gerald said, other parts of the world could easily be at the same level as us “North Americans”
So what?
Tim, please post pictures of your gun(s).
So what? If it’s simply a matter of “so what” for them toaccomplish what the Western world has accomplished, then why do we need to change anything.
Michael J. Please post pics of your dwelling place, significant other, your license plate, your class schedule, and where you keep your money. OK?
Oh, and for what it’s worth, I drive an SUV too! It gets 14 city and 18 highway.
Several African countries are experiencing rapid economic growth. So are India and China. It’s that weird ‘pie’ thinking that assumes a finite amount of wealth that prompts odd thinking like ‘we have to cut back’. Wealth is created anew all the time, there isn’t a given, finite amount that has to be spread around.
Tim, my Pilot gets better mileage. Clearly I am morally superior to you ;o) Heh. I hope it’s not immoral to transport kayaks.
Does it help that our ancient Accord gets really good mileage ? That’s what we drive for regular errands :P Surely it must be an indulgence of some kind to drive an old car.
Gerald Augustinus, that’s a very strange Eighteenth Century attitude for you to have (for someone named after the philosopher-theologian of the Christian Church)–namely that the world and everything in it are infinitely promising and infinitely renewable, rather than sinful and fallen.
I would suggest that, without even thinking about it seriously, you suscribe to the heresy of “Americanism,” which, in truth, is a subtle version of Calvinism, because it posits that we should “smile, be happy”–and use up the world’s resources–because it is, after all, a fallen, sinful world, of which we are, by virtue of original sin, unworthy stewards.
You think you are a devout, and perhaps, even, a scholarly Catholic, whereas, in actual fact, your spiritual culture (MUCH more important than fine, esoteric points of doctrine) is profoundly warped by the American historical experience, which is in permanent rebellion against the ANTHROPOLOGY of the Catholic and Apostolic Church (i.e. her definition of human nature and her formulation of what personhood is for–personhood is for SELF-SACRIFICE, and, very often, self-sacrifice of a COLLECTIVE nature; such is the spirit of the Crusades, such is the spirit of the Orthodox Church, which insists that man is “damned separately, but saved in unison with his brothers and sisters”; such is the spirit of the great monastic movements of the medieval period).
My grandfather, who is a renowned photographer, is named August. That’s a main reason for the name. St. Augustine I’m not really fond of anymore, after having read his weird writings about sex. He clearly had some serious psychological issues re: sexuality and women. Aquinas was actually the ‘liberal’ on these issues.
As you may know, I ‘dissent’ on homosexuality, support civil marriage/union for gays, which Catholics aren’t supposed to, so I don’t claim to be a good Catholic. And yes, I do value the American historical experience. I do value family, individual rights and freedoms. Outside of the family, all collective notions are far too dubious for me.
Resources such as wind power can’t be used up, by the way. And yes, I do believe in the power of the human spirit, as much as I am aware of its dark side. Overall, today’s world is much superior to days when, eg, women were little more than property.
I very much favor the American experience over the old ‘throne and altar’ model.
Btw, isn’t Augustine’s dreary outlook quite early-Lutheran and Jansenist ?
Several African countries are experiencing rapid economic growth. So are India and China. It’s that weird ‘pie’ thinking that assumes a finite amount of wealth that prompts odd thinking like ‘we have to cut back’. Wealth is created anew all the time, there isn’t a given, finite amount that has to be spread around.
Digbydolben is right, you are a dreamer, a liberal utopianist even. Even if “new wealth” is created all the time, this says nothing about where that wealth goes. Noting the “rapid economic growth” of the “several” African countries means nothing if it obscures the distribution of that wealth, and the increasing poverty of the world’s majorities.
Reality, Gerald. Become acquainted!
I’m a classic-liberal libertarian conservative :P There really isn’t a party for me, I just loathe the Democrat Party more. On the Republican side, I am not fond at all of the Dobsons, Robertsons and so forth. But, all things considered, I still find the GOP preferable by a longshot. In general, I’m always misunderstood since I don’t fit into any box. Well, other than “gun-nut who drives a ‘luxurious and lethal toy’”, of course.
That said, re: Africa – I point you to a very interesting WaPo article on increasing wealth in Africa and how the IMF is losing influence. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052303187.html
St. Augustine I’m not really fond of anymore, after having read his weird writings about sex. He clearly had some serious psychological issues re: sexuality and women. Aquinas was actually the ‘liberal’ on these issues.
Who didn’t have “weird” views on sexuality and women at the time? Augustine actually had a more favorable view of women than most people at the time.
Outside of the family, all collective notions are far too dubious for me.
Including the Church, apparently?
I very much favor the American experience over the old ‘throne and altar’ model.
Both of these options suck. Why not the option the early Church chose?
Btw, isn’t Augustine’s dreary outlook quite early-Lutheran and Jansenist ?
I suppose it would be, according to Lutheran and Jansenist interpreters of Augustine.
Gerald,
What color did you choose for your Pilot? I’ve always been a fan of that automobile, but drive an older Civic still. It really is not an SUV–the mileage is rather good, if I recall correctly. One of my friends had an older model.
In general, I’m always misunderstood since I don’t fit into any box.
I’m a classic-liberal libertarian conservative :P
Sounds like you know exactly what box you fit in. It’s a well-established box.
Michael, point me to others in my ‘box’, it’d be interesting to find out about new people. Thomas Sowell I agree with on many things, eg.
Mark – a gorgeous metallic blue :) It is a sweet car, drives like butter.
Gerald – Seriously? You don’t know any other “classic-liberal libertarian conservatives”?
Michael, I wasn’t referring to just the political aspects when I spoke of boxes. Also, I was wondering whether you knew writers I hadn’t been aware of.
But, eg, my support for gay marriage doesn’t fit in with the GOP. Heck, Obama doesn’t support it.
Heck, I even agree with you at times, eg that mountain-beheading thing in WV. My wife has family in Charleston. We even stricly recycle :)
I’m a classic-liberal libertarian conservative
And that’s actually NOT a “conservative” in Burkean OR Roman Catholic traditions.
Although somewhat “queer,” I OPPOSE your support for so-called “gay marriage”: marriage, in the history of Western Christendom, is a SACRAMENT, not a legal fiction.
The interest of the State in these kinds of living arrangements are served ONLY through taxation, and I, therefore, support calling ALL licenses given under such a category ones for “civil unions.” They should be given out ONLY to relieve the tax burdens of those supporting “dependents”–including stay-at-home spouses (of either sex).
I realise that there are some in this ersatz, post-Christian nation who believe that such a position tends to undermine the “institution of holy matrimony,” but I maintain that that institution was smashed to pieces ages ago by heterosexuals who were hell bent and determined to justify their practice of “serial monogamy” by instituting divorce, thereby making marriage vows moot. Therefore, because the institution of heterosexual, monogamous marriage is no longer, historically, clearly identifiable with “Christian marriage,” it is, quite rightly, a violation of “equal protection under the law” for “gay” couples to be denied the right to the same barbaric institution that heteros have access to–although, as Elizabeth Taylor once half-joked, I cannot conceive of WHY they’d want any part of it!
you are correct, am definitely not a Burkean :) words change their meanings over time. This is why I said classic-liberal as opposed to liberal, which in today’s American context means something quite the contrary.
Marriage is another such word – it can denote a Catholic sacrament, a civil institution and so forth. Gay marriage has no impact on the Catholic church (unless, improbably, the state would demand it perform them), but, nonetheless, the church campaigns against gay marriage AND civil unions. I find that a rather nasty position.
“With family and hobbies, a regular sedan isn’t big enough. ”
Gee, someone should have told my and most of our parents that many years ago. And here they thought that they actually were going places and doing things in the family sedan.
Silly people. How DID we all ever survive without Urban Assault Vehicles?
Jimmy – I believe my parents survived with a VW Rabbit up until the third kid!
“My guess is that if Obama is elected, he’ll be even worse than Carter, and Republicans will easily recapture the White House in 2012 and hold it for the next three to four presidential terms.”
Unfortunately, the effects of government policies tend to be delayed and indirect, such that people often don’t draw the connection between the policy and the bad effects it causes. If Obama or McCain institute some form of cap and trade system, for example, this won’t reduce global warming but will only serve to raise fuel prices while enriching a few privileged companies, but because the connection between this policy and the higher prices won’t be obvious, I don’t expect either of them to pay a political price for it.
Wow – Michael and Jimmy – I guess in your nostalgia you forgot the humongous station wagon V8s and full size vans that were quite popular in the time frames I’m guessing you’re talking about. I know that’s what my family had when I was growing up. I doubt that either of those autos from a bygone era got as good of gas mileage as my evil SUV does now. I know for a FACT, that they put out far more pollution…
Michael J. I’m still waiting on the pictures of the items from your personal life. Please post them for the world to see…
I’ve never concerned myself with what other people drive. Apparently, it’s a new hobby in the ultra-moralistic mindset that gives any religion a run for its money.
Out here, in a suburban/rural area (got cows just a mile away), most families have an SUV or minivan. Just like most people live in big houses, our 3000 sq ft are pretty much standard – for the price of a San Francisco one-bedroom, mind you. Which is why San Francisco has the fewest child ratio in the nation, whereas here, just 50 miles away, children abound.
Our Honda Pilot isn’t exactly an H1 Hummer. And what’s with the ‘lethal’ and ‘assault vehicle’ crap ? Are you worried I’ll run over your Smartcar? =)
Don’t be hatin’ suburbanites yo. Rather, embrace the comfortable lifestyle. Safe neighborhod, new houses, infrastructure, trees, mountains, lakes, pastures, Lake Tahoe and Yosemite close by – it’s wonderful. I grew up on the beautiful outskirts of Vienna, among vineyards and forest, my wife grew up on a huge piece of land in rural Ohio. We’re no city slickers.
Now excuse me, I got a Red Sox game to go to. No worries, going to dubious Oakland, we’re taking the Accord, not the Pilot.
I guess in your nostalgia you forgot the humongous station wagon V8s and full size vans that were quite popular in the time frames I’m guessing you’re talking about. I know that’s what my family had when I was growing up.
Yes, Tim, lots of things are popular at various points in history that conscientious people should avoid. So you make the point that these vehicles EXISTED. Irrelevant. Again and again I am forced to ask you: what is your point? as you make absolutely no sense.
I’ve never concerned myself with what other people drive.
Sure you do. You solicited opinions on your website.
Out here, in a suburban/rural area (got cows just a mile away), most families have an SUV or minivan. Just like most people live in big houses, our 3000 sq ft are pretty much standard – for the price of a San Francisco one-bedroom, mind you.
So… you’re keeping up with the Joneses?
It’s great that you have such a keen sense of how “most people live” in the “suburbs” — er, what you are calling a “rural” area. Sounds pretty accurate. (Um, no.)
Don’t be hatin’ suburbanites yo. Rather, embrace the comfortable lifestyle. Safe neighborhod, new houses, infrastructure, trees, mountains, lakes, pastures, Lake Tahoe and Yosemite close by – it’s wonderful. I grew up on the beautiful outskirts of Vienna, among vineyards and forest, my wife grew up on a huge piece of land in rural Ohio. We’re no city slickers.
Suburbs = “the country”? “We’re no city slickers”?
Are you serious?
“The Cafeteria is Closed”? “I don’t claim to be a good Catholic”?
What planet are you from?
“What planet are you from?”
Michael I,
Reading the above comments about life style, one can only wonder about the integrity of their commitment to the unborn. How can a commitment based on such intellectual muck have integrity? It can’t.
“The Cafeteria is Closed”? “I don’t claim to be a good Catholic”?
Cut and Paste Religion. This is what it has been all along. It’s otherwise known as narcissism and hypocrisy. Pro-Life? Absolute Baloney!
Michael J. What is your point?
You pointed out that cars existed… What’s your point? You make absolutely no sense, other than to call other people not Catholic.
Please provide proof that Gerald and myself are not as good of Catholics as you with your parents’ vw rabbit, and whatever the hell you drive now.
Oh, Obama would freak, considering I keep my thermostat at 68 through the summer here. He can kiss my a** though because I have a 95% efficient air conditioning… I guess that makes me a good Catholic using the measures you like to employ?
“among vineyards and forest, my wife grew up on a huge piece of land in rural Ohio. We’re no city slickers.”
Suburbs = “the country”? “We’re no city slickers”?
Are you serious?
Michael J. – Reading is fundamental. Did you even read what the man said, or were you just too busy trying to find a way to call him not Catholic enough. I’d figure since you were in Grad school you would have understood. There is definitely a theme in your posts.
Timmy – I said nothing about you, or Gerald, being a “bad Catholic.” But you seriously neglect serious aspects of the faith — and gloat about it.
Did you even read what the man said, or were you just too busy trying to find a way to call him not Catholic enough.
Yes, I did. He used the term “suburban/rural.” Can YOU read?
I’d figure since you were in Grad school you would have understood.
Anti-intellectualism as no place in Catholicism.
That is, “has no place in Catholicism.”
Mikey – Then why don’t you practice what you preach. The fact you are in graduate school means you should be able to read simple sentences. Pseudo-intellectualism has no place in Catholicism either. The fact you are in graduate school does not make you an intellectual. You have no knowledge of me or my educational background but I was at least able to read and comprehend the sentences above.
I hope your educational background led you to crack up when you read this sentence, then, as I did:
Out here, in a suburban/rural area (got cows just a mile away), most families have an SUV or minivan.
Suburban/rural area/everyone has an SUV”I gots cows!” Priceless.
The fact you are in graduate school does not make you an intellectual.
Whether or not you consider me an intellectual has no bearing on whether or not you have an anti-intellectual attitude.
But Tim, it’s not like Michael is studying a science ;o)
And yes, it is a combination of suburban and rural here. New subdivisions in the classic suburban design, complete with baseball, soccer, basketball areas, lovely designed sidewalks with lots of trees in the midst an agricultural area with tons of vineyards, farms, orchards and cows. Livermore alone has over 30 vineyards. The immediate area could also be called an exurb I guess. While ethnicities are very diverse – many Indians (ie the country) for example – subdivisions, due to the similarity in houses, tend to feature people of similar income levels and family structures – you won’t find a lot of singles here, since all houses are very big. Singles usually live closer to or in the big cities. Similis simili gaudet. I spent one year living smack dab in a city, that was enough for me.
“I hope your educational background led you to crack up when you read this sentence, then, as I did:
Out here, in a suburban/rural area (got cows just a mile away), most families have an SUV or minivan.
Suburban/rural area/everyone has an SUV”I gots cows!” Priceless.”
No it didn’t lead me to crack up, because I understand exactly the areas Gerald brought up. Maybe you just laugh at things you don’t understands?
Farmland and woods 40 minutes from the nearest “urban center” with new “suburbs” built right smack dab in the middle. In case you didn’t notice, freeways have enabled people and businesses to move further out from the wastelands that government handout policies have created in U.S. cities.