Plug the blowout with Sarah Palin?


Some wag started a group on FaceBook, “1,000,000 Who Want to Plug the BP Oil Spill With Sarah Palin.”

Vicious.

Sarah?  How’s that “Drill, baby!  Drill” thing workin’ out for ya?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010 at 11:53 pm and is filed under History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

20 Responses to Plug the blowout with Sarah Palin?

  1. Jim Stanley's avatar Jim Stanley says:
    June 13, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Hi Jono!

    Thanks for a thoughtful, articulate reply. There is much meat there and I appreciate it. To be candid, I need to digest it and think through it. You’ve made some excellent points.

    For the present, let me offer a few ideas that are not so much counter-arguments as a simply different perspective.

    I could not agree more that Christians are not, by nature, any more selfish than non-Christians. Indeed, if we have seen anything historically, it is that Christianity — for all its sins and foibles — has done monumental good in the world. I’m not familiar with any rescue missions run by Scientologists! (Perhaps there are, and I am ill informed.) Point being, I believe the world is better for the presence of Christians and the Christian religion…on balance. We have much to repent for, but I like taking history as a whole and owning the good with the bad. My concern is that one segment of Christianity — namely, fundamentalist Protestantism and, to a lesser extent, fundamentalist Catholocism, have (over the past 30 years or so) staked out some disturbing territory. Even a cursory glance at the “bestsellers” at the local Christian bookstore or a look/listen to what passes for Christian TV and radio these days is all about health, wealth, success and conservative American triumphalism.

    Now, to the matter of what Jesus taught, I will have to agree AND disagree. He certainly did teach individuals to voluntarily give, share and sacrifice. You’re spot on. And you’re right, not just from a theological perspective but from a psychological one as well. Giving cannot be giving if it is coerced. So we’re on the same page there.

    But both the prophets and Jesus were unequivocal in expressing God’s expectation that government be a player in the cause of relieving human suffering, doing justice to workers and the poor and liberating the oppressed. Jesus speaks, in St. Matthew’s Gospel, of a judgment at the end of days in which “the nations” are gathered before Him. The specific word He uses is nations (“ethnos” in the Greek), which clearly refers to a group judgment. Jesus is judging systems and groups. Of greater significance is the fact that these groups are either saved or damned solely on the basis of works. Now, I concede there are members of the Christian faith who believe in and practice this doctrine. But individuals, the Bible clearly teaches, are saved exclusively by faith in the shed blood of Christ. St. Paul says we cannot save ourselves, no matter how good our works are. So we have a choice to make here. Either Jesus was teaching something directly contrary to what is taught in the rest of the New Testament or He was referring to the salvation or damnation of governments, systems and groups. (And again, the Greek word for “nations” here is ethnos, which should be highly instructive for us.) How are groups damned while individuals are saved? What might that look like? How much of this was allegory rather than doctrine? I’ve no idea. In so many respects, I am still trying to figure out what the questions are…to say nothing of having answers! :-)

    But Jesus is not alone in calling governments and people groups to account. Jeremiah makes clear that the kings, rulers and officials (he’s careful to use all three words in chapter 22) are punished for ill-treatment of the least and the last…and rewarded for doing justice. Curiously, he specifically mentions the treatment of workers along with widows and orphans. Ezekiel thunders about how God judged Sodom (its people and rulers) for being “arrogant and overfed, and for disregarding the poor and oppressed in their midst”. Odd that you seldom hear that passage cited when Sodom is discussed in most Evangelical or Fundamentalist churches these days. Amos holds both Israel and the surrounding kingdoms responsible for enacting laws that cheat the poor of justice. Isaiah condemns lawmakers who pass legislation to rob to poor. And God further uses Isaiah to invite both individuals and the rulers to be repairers of cities and healers.

    Perhaps this whole dichotomy between individualism and collectivism is the problem in a nutshell. The Tea Party, Ayn Rand, and most conservatives (in both parties) place a very high value on individuals. We liberals tend to place a very high value on the collective. In Scripture, God seems to make demands of both. Perhaps the reason both conservatives and liberals fail so successfully (!) is that we haven’t yet figured out how to integrate the two.

    I’m still trying, myself. Please do pardon my verbosity. I am, more or less, thinking out loud here. Thanks very much for helping me along in the process! Jim

    Like

  2. graemebird's avatar graemebird says:
    June 12, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    Wanting the maintenance of some fairly high level of government spending, far more than what Rand would have wanted is not ipso-facto irrational.

    But surely wanting the maintenance at its current level is! How can it be otherwise? Surely we want to get the total parasitism level down. Parasitism can be split into four branches

    1. Government spending.

    2. Fractional reserve banking payola and the income derived from dealing with the distortions this causes.

    3. Generally rigged markets.

    4. Excessive big corporate salaries derived from the long-term effects of costs that fall more heavily on small business, leading to the bigshots being able to vote themselves higher salaries.

    Surely we want to work on reducing the parasitism factor in all of these.

    Supposing we want to end any taxes to retained earnings. Suppose we want to get to a position of growth deflation that precludes fractional reserve parasitism. Supposing we want to raise the tax free threshold so that no-one truly struggling has to suffer from payroll or income tax. Supposing we want every government body to always be in surplus.

    Doing all the above would require massive spending cuts. The need for massive spending cuts ought to be bipartisan, supposing both sides were rational.

    Like

  3. Jono's avatar Jono says:
    June 12, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Jim,

    I am not surprised that many in the TP are Christian ( and white) probably because they make up ‘Middle America’ , who are the people who going to pay baby pay. Still its reductive reasoning to argue that opposition to expansion of Government and its debt ( and the tax hikes required) is purely “selfishness” and “personal greed” ,and hence forth Randian in nature. I would use the term ‘self interest’ rather than the emotional moralistically loaded way like ‘greed’ to describe it. I am sure that is a factor ( perfectly valid after all – or is it?), but so is concern for their children and grand children visavis paying down the future debt, then are political reasons – resistence to the selectively taxing of a nominal GOP constituency to benefit (bribe) Obama’s agrieved ‘poorer’ constituency. Then there’s ideological – belief in captialism and its efficiency in creating wealth and real wages. Then there’s the economic reasoning that increased taxation reduces economic activity i.e. small businesses will downsize, investment will be reduced. Reduced investment then slow real wage growth. Then there is historical – that increased taxation and wrong headed gov intervetion prolonged the depression. Then there is philsophical , that a large intrusive government is a threat to freedom and encorages dependancy. Then there is commonsense – that increased taxation is about proportioning an existing ‘pie’ and is not about growing and creating wealth and jobs. Government sector creates no wealth! The priorities are wrong.

    Then there are the teachings of Jesus/God with regard to Government policy. Bible makes no mandate whatsoever for a government to take the position of redistributors of wealth. Neither did Jesus compel or force His followers to give their wealth away. Giving was to be voluntary and done cheerfully from the heart.Under the conditions of fruitfulness from private enterprise, and a low taxation regime, citizens begin to give. Americans give more than all other nations combined. And of all Americans, Christian conservatives give the most.

    So do the utterences of some TP’ers resemble Randians ..I am sure they do. I am sure that some TP ers are Randians and just want to make money and give nothing back. But to infer that Christians are the same mindset as Randians, that they are greedy and selfish because they oppose Obama ( and Bush) Government policies is off mark. You also presuppose that those less well off will benefit from the additional taxation – this is arguable. But lets say that it is true , then at what level of taxation is it Christian-like to oppose without looking like a frigging greedy selfish hypocrite?

    If you describe Christians as Randian-like, selfish and greedy ( and hence hypocritical) then you are doing so in bad faith . They have legitmate concerns with Obama’s policies that should be objectively heard without being marginalised and dismissed.

    Like

  4. graemebird's avatar graemebird says:
    June 12, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    You didn’t cite an unbiased source. You cited Annenberg’s factcheck. Where Soetoro is concerned you couldn’t get a more biased source.

    Now lets get this straight Jim. While Bush’s deficit spending has been appalling, Soetoro’s deficit spending is far worse.

    Now could we at least lock in that fact. Because if you are incapable of locking that fact in, you are hardly capable of dealing with more complex issues.

    Like

  5. Jim Stanley's avatar Jim Stanley says:
    June 12, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    You know, Graeme, a little courtesy goes a long way. I cited unbiased sources. I am not sure why you felt obligated to insult me. I have read all your posts in this thread and in another, where you blame environmentalists for millions of deaths. But I have yet to see you cite a reputable reference to back up your claims. They interest me and I welcome your participation. But you’ll really have to do better than to simply say, “I am right therefore you are wrong.” That’s not really how it works.

    I do wish you all the very best and still hold we can have — all of us — a substantive discussion.

    Jim

    Like

  6. graemebird's avatar graemebird says:
    June 12, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    So what are you talking Jim? The past six months only, and you are saying absolute numbers rather than the unemployment rate.

    How much jobs growth does it take to keep the unemployment rate steady? Its like playing tennis here, but Barry doesn’t need to clear the net. “Barrack” didn’t create these jobs. The job growth is pitiful and he’s getting in the way of a more substantial recovery. The recovery you want is like the recovery that Harding facilitated by spending cutbacks. The same policy as Harding lead to Australia getting out of the depression by 1932, despite vastly reduced exports.

    Like

  7. graemebird's avatar graemebird says:
    June 12, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    “I’d recommend visiting http://www.politifact.com or factcheck.org and doing a bit of research.”

    Well you ought not have recommended it because you are being an impertinent git.

    We can all get this straight for starters. Bush was appalling with deficits. Soetoro is even worse.

    Now are we clear on this matter?

    Secondly. Soetoro’s deficit spending has thrown tens of millions of people out of work. This is clear apriori and confirmed empirically. Of course I am aware that this contradicts idiotic Keynesian anti-economics.

    Like

  8. graemebird's avatar graemebird says:
    June 12, 2010 at 7:55 pm

    Ed you are a incompetent historian. The deficit was going on under Bush, and was vastly worse under Obama. This is a fact, there is no getting around it. Bush was bad on this score. Soetoro is worse on this score. This is the history of it. There is no use denying it Ed.

    Like

  9. Jim Stanley's avatar Jim Stanley says:
    June 12, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Hi Graeme!

    Thanks for your response.

    I’d recommend visiting http://www.politifact.com or factcheck.org and doing a bit of research. Employment has steadily increased over (I believe) the past six months under President Obama’s watch. The aforementioned economic substance doctrine is an actual White House policy the President enacted is meant to cut back on the “creativity” of some U.S. taxpayers (typically the fabulously rich) in evading taxation. It’s not a perfect policy and not nearly draconian enough. But it will restore an estimated 4 to 5 billion dollars to federal coffers over the next decade. The prior administration was deeply committed to keeping every possible tax loophole in place for the wealthy and for corporations.

    But like I say, check out those two sites. There’s plenty of criticism on both of them for the Obama administration, so they are hardly partisan.

    Meanwhile, if you can provide us with some substantive evidence that my claims are incorrect, I welcome them. I’ve been wrong plenty of times before, so I welcome correction.

    All the best to you!

    Jim

    Like

  10. Ed Darrell's avatar Ed Darrell says:
    June 12, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    Obama has thrown tens of millions of people out of work with deficit spending. So he’s even worse than Bush in his final year.

    Being upside-down there in Australia has affected you somehow. The deficit spending you talk about was done by Bush. Obama’s spending is minuscule compared to the huge bank bailouts Bush undertook. Obama’s spending on Iraq and Afghanistan is minuscule compared to Bush’s.

    Plus, Obama’s reversed the tremendous plunge into unemployment Bush started.

    In the end, deficit spending by the government has saved jobs, not cost them. The real estate crash, and banking troubles on top of it, crunched credit. That is what killed jobs.

    And that was all Bush’s doing.

    Throwing millions of people out of work is not the same as creating jobs.

    Do you even get news from the U.S. down there? You don’t seem to have anything more current than 2008.

    Like

  11. graemebird's avatar graemebird says:
    June 12, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    These people can drill oil without screwing it up. Nothing could be easier for them. If you look at this case, very cheap equipment, that could have prevented this, was not employed. Plus they ought to have been ready to stop any problem that occurred should they f— it up. A one hundred million dollar investment minimum for the latter. I’ve heard that it was 250 000 dollars for the former preventive equipment.

    Nothing wrong with drill baby drill. Its really just a problem of these guys being unwilling or unable to fix the problem. Whatever investments that are needed to clean up the problem needed to be made in advance. Thats a one-time expense. So when they finally decide they want to cap it, then we will see what it took. And that is what is needed in advance. Whether that be a huge, heavy cone or pyramid, with a hole and a pipe-fitting on top, or whether it be something else, so be it. But you want the fail-safe equipment in advance. You want the equipment to deal with the problem, ready to roll, after the fact.

    Its not too much to ask, and its not even a big investment for these people. Further to that it could easily be a joint investment for a number of companies.

    Like

  12. graemebird's avatar graemebird says:
    June 12, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Lets take your first point. Obama has thrown tens of millions of people out of work with deficit spending. So he’s even worse than Bush in his final year. Throwing millions of people out of work is not the same as creating jobs.

    In virtually every case, but for pure rhetoric, he’s been like Bush only worse.

    Like

  13. Jim Stanley's avatar Jim Stanley says:
    June 12, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Graeme,

    For starters.

    But beyond that, how about reversing the job creation trend in this country? How about taking steps to end the war of choice in Iraq? The troop drawdown there hasn’t been as swift as I had hoped, but if the previous administration had been given a third term, I doubt very much there would have been any progress in that direction. Obama’s advocacy for the economic substance doctrine has been most significant and is the direct antithesis to Bush. The prior administration did nothing on health care except pass prescription drug legislation that even many Republicans now admit was a cluster****. I may not be pleased with the fact that Obama missed the boat on single payer and waffled on the public option. But what he did shepherd through Congress is unequivocally an improvement on the Bush doctrine of “I’ve got mine, now you get a fourth job or die.” Obama has rolled back the inane ban on stem cell research. He increased the VA budget. He fully funded the “Violence Against Women Act”, which Bush refused to do. He fullfilled a campaign promise to rebuild schools in New Orleans…schools the prior administration ignored. He raised fuel economy standards. The list is really quite lengthy. Obama is a gigantic improvement over Bush, who was easily the worst President in American history.

    That said, I believe President Obama had the chance to be a President in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt or, domestically anyway, Lyndon Johnson. I think he has settled for a more Clintonesque Presidency, sans sex scandals. I’ll take it. But I hoped for better.

    Thanks for weighing in!

    Like

  14. graemebird's avatar graemebird says:
    June 12, 2010 at 3:52 am

    ” Many of us, though we consider him a vast improvement over his predecessor….”

    In what possible way? Diction?

    Like

  15. Jim Stanley's avatar Jim Stanley says:
    June 11, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    Jono,

    Hi there! Thanks for participating.

    Also, thanks for pointing our President Obama’s closeness to corporate interests. Many of us, though we consider him a vast improvement over his predecessor, are concerned that he has definitely been more of a corporatist than a liberal. The same could be said of far too many Congressional Democrats. So applause to you for figuring that out.

    As to the “facts” I spoke of, simply put, I mean to say that the majority of tea party members self-identify as Christians. Tea party organizers and participants aren’t the least bit shy about elevating selfishness and personal greed to a sacramental level. The old saying, “I’ve got mine, Jack. Now root, hog or die” is a far more apt mantra for the Tea Partiers than “Don’t Tread On Me”.

    Now, if you wish to dispute this, I would commend to your consideration the raft of interviews given by TP’ers and TP-endorsed candidates about protecting their interests and suggesting a “sink or swim” approach to those in our culture who are “the least and the last”. Indeed, there seems to me to be an equation of selfishness and muscular, American Christianity at almost every TP event I have been to or seen covered. One really needn’t attend an event, however. A quick review of Glen Beck’s war on the social justice teachings of Jesus would be sufficient.

    If you’d care to further discuss how you believe the teachings of Jesus and the prophets are or are not in line with the Tea Party movement or its ideological godmother, Ayn Rand, have at it. Welcome aboard!

    All the best,

    Jim

    Like

  16. Jono's avatar Jono says:
    June 11, 2010 at 2:00 am

    “Once again when something ****** up happens in this country..the primary responsibility lies with the Republicans.”

    Of course that goes without saying in the netherworld you inhabit and its true to you even when the Obama is Prez, and they control both houses … !! At best both parties have their snouts in the trough , but the Democrats have been rising a bit more dollars than the GOP and out spent them 3 to 1 last election. Wall street and corporate America are all in Obama’s pocket ( or visaversa). The GOP only has small business and middle america – which Obama is desperately trying to shrink. But heck, I am still waiting for the commander and chief to rise above and lead and leave the empty politician persona behind. no luck yet.

    “Interestingly, fundamentalist Christians just hate it when you show them how their beliefs regarding public policy are far more in line with Rand’s teaching than with the teachings of Jesus. But facts are facts.”

    Could you give one of those facts … or is this more of a belief of yours than a fact?

    Like

  17. Jim Stanley's avatar Jim Stanley says:
    June 10, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    I saw that. I much prefer the other group — “Plugging the Gulf Oil Leak with the collected works of Ayn Rand.” Seems even more apropos, especially since she really is the godmother of me-first Libertarianism.

    Interestingly, fundamentalist Christians just hate it when you show them how their beliefs regarding public policy are far more in line with Rand’s teaching than with the teachings of Jesus. But facts are facts.

    Like

  18. Nick K's avatar Nick K says:
    June 10, 2010 at 11:42 am

    Oh you mean like how Bush and company had their mouths on the fat asses of the oil companies and led the deregulation charge that allowed BP to get away with letting this catastrophe happen?

    Once again when something ****** up happens in this country..the primary responsibility lies with the Republicans.

    Like

  19. Jono's avatar Jono says:
    June 10, 2010 at 3:23 am

    “Well she’s now calling for strict government oversight and regulation.Cue the right wing calling her socialist in 5….4….3….2….1”

    nar , she’s just against oil companies buying off the Democrats with donations so that they can drill baby drill at unsafe depths. Hey , maybe Obama can swim down there and stop the flow ..he can control the tides cant he? Could be part of his Actions not words philosophy…when will he talk to BP’s CEO. Perhaps he’s waiting for another payment.

    Like

  20. Nick K's avatar Nick K says:
    June 10, 2010 at 1:20 am

    Well she’s now calling for strict government oversight and regulation.

    Cue the right wing calling her socialist in 5….4….3….2….1

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.