Staying With Charlie Babbitt

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 15th, 2007 at 2:53 am and is filed under Al Swearengen, Military, Religion, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

15 Responses to “Staying With Charlie Babbitt”

1. caveat bettor says:
   

   Dobson is a big government Keynesian who wants the government to coerce people to behave according to his enlightened agenda. Sounds like Al Gore to me (just a different agenda).

   Anyways, liberty is always desirable next to death. Come over to the Light, Al!

   May 15th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
2. Al Swearengen says:
   

   Al Gore wants to curb the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere, and he’s on par with a guy who makes money off of parents wanting to make their kids ‘not gay’?

   caveat – what about the Clinton years, from an economic perspective, could wall street or yourself not have liked? It’s as if Clinton-Gore didn’t oversee the technology explosion of the 90s…without which (and think of a guy like Ted Stevens having been influentual with a GOP President during that time!) where would we be today?

   Al Gore is not comparable to James Dobson. Keynesian economic theory doesn’t jive at all with our economic policy of the 90s! I can understand how someone would characterize Dobson as Keynesian, but to label any deviation from laissez-faire capitalism as something to the opposite extreme is something I notice a lot of from the right-wing economists out there who tend to get their voice into print more often than others.

   The general idea that environmental damage is not the business of the state to mitigate is what’s at play here. And rather than characterize the simple issue as just that, what we end up with is a debate with scholarly name calling that the hoopleheads don’t understand a word of.

   Truth is, whether it’s carbon in the atmosphere, mercury in the rivers, salmon farms that are unsanitary, natural gas well water (toxic) being dumped into the soil…there will always be someone getting sick and complaining, and then there will always be a politician advocating on their behalf, AND there will ALWAYS be an economic commentator brigade ready to classify that politician as something ridiculously extreme.

   James Dobson managing to successfully engineer a statist boondoggle…say his brand of bibles being the exclusive choice for the government to stock federal penitentiaries with, is a very good example (textbook really) of Keynesian economics, but how Al Gore is suddenly involved in that group is beyond me.

   Or maybe I haven’t read enough George Will to be completely skull-fucked into automatically believing that anything done to affect climate change is going to equal the folding of our (apparantly fragile) global economy.

   caveat – I’ll be on the lookout for your Al Gore stuff, and hopefully we can break down some WSJournal opinion page insanity in the months to come. Once he announces that he’s in the race, I’m sure there will be an abundance of it out there.

   May 15th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
3. caveat bettor says:
   

   Al, you are the passionate wordsmith, and you have my respect.

   Both Gore’s position on carbon and Dobson’s position on gays requires faith, at least from where I observe things. And both of them want to use the coercive power of government to get their way. Therein the equivalence, at least in my feeble mind.

   May 15th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
4. Al Swearengen says:
   

   With “a chunk of ice the size of California melting off of Antarctica” today – I’d suggest that the question of faith in regards to global warming is with the side that says it isn’t happening.

   The difference between someone using government to limit the rights of gays and someone using government to deal with an environmental problem is enormous.

   Crime is an environmental problem that the government is “used” to fix also. Businesses aren’t complaining about government ensuring the infrastructure they rely on to operate is kept in tact. I’m a geek when it comes to the markets and predicting trends, and one thing I count on when analyzing such things is the fierce manner in which money will defend itself from outside forces.

   This is an aspect that is critical for the world economy’s health. But when money is defending itself at the expense of the environment, consumers or government that provides the stability necessary for commerce to take place – it must be controlled by outside forces that have been given the power to do so for a reason.

   The interest of Exxon’s money is well within its rights to publish anti-science literature to temper the government’s will to act on something that will effect the bottom line, but Swearengen the investor and Swearengen the citizen are two different beasts entirely…and while I’d be the first to peg a buy price on Exxon stock if I thought the commodities market was in for an upswing in pricing, I’d also sell that stock without the slightest bit of ill-will felt towards the governments that took the initiative to form a policy to tax carbon emissions.

   There are millions of choices out there to build an investment strategy around. If regulation is going to have an adverse effect on one sector, then it’s time to get out of that sector and figure out something else. Much better to have legislation pass that forces a 2% drop in value of the stock you had to sell, than for 100% of the value to drop when oversight and regulation is lax or non existent (Enron)!

   Or as they say in Baltimore…”It’s all in the game”

   May 15th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
5. Al Swearengen says:
   

   And caveat – thanks for the kind words! I enjoy reading your blog a great deal – - – unique is a rare quality to find in the blogsphere, but your site fits that description, without a doubt.

   May 15th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
6. caveat bettor says:
   

   Al, I concede that there are more recorded instances of ice melting than ice thickening (I haven’t surveyed comprehensively, but I do know of evidence that parts of Greenland and Antarctica have thicker ice now than before).

   I follow the Goddard Institute of Space Science data on global temperatures and agree that the earth’s surface is warmer today than 30 years ago. In terms of what actionable items should be implemented now is a more involved question. (For example, see Becker’s treatment on the ridculously low discount rate used by the IPCC, which is a basic denial of time value, here http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2007/02/global_warming_1.html).

   Al, do you think population replacement is an issue? If so, then shouldn’t all people who are reproductively capable be regulated into birthing and rearing their 2.1 children, as population replacement dictates? Including gays? Just wondering.

   I think that population replacement is a bigger problem than global warming, in terms of the science. The former is certainly more falsifiable than the latter, with respect to Karl Popper.

   So, if we should regulate carbon emissions to some degree, it logically follows that we should regulate population replacement to a greater degree.

   What am I missing here?

   May 16th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
7. bmili says:
   

   This is my first time on your blog Deadissue, ill have to read it more. As a religious conservative with Southern Baptist roots, maybe I can provide some middle-ground insight at what actually goes on down here in the Bible Belt. Dr. James Dobson has had great insight into helping raise children (my mother practically relied on him) and is a major player in the “Christian Right”. However, and this is a side-note, I was talking with my in-laws about where in the past 30-40 years did the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) jump the shark. It has always been my view that the religious right entering into the forray of politics was more of a reaction due to the ideas of liberalism/relativism/humanism becoming more of a political force. Naturally, these idealogies clash. During the late 70’s from what I understood, a small group of influential men began a power grab that ended up with the SBC eventually splitting in two (I would really have to look up the exact facts to be honest). However, the power grab was mainly due to increasingly humanistic take on the book of Genesis. The SBC then in turn began to become much more rigid and demanding of its churches to “toe the line” and to sign its stated beliefs regardless of small variations in doctrine (churches would lose the benefit of being part of the SBC otherwise). The SBC/other fundamentalists then entered into the political fray in an effort to counter the liberal/humanist/relativist agenda. Dr. James Dobson was/is still a part of this movement. However, power corrupts. During reading an op-ed by ex-rep (and I believe ex-speaker) Dick Armey, I found that Dobson had tried to bully Armey into voting a certain way on a tax vote. I do not remember what exactly it was, but I found it to be very odd. But my point is (while providing historical perspective), Dobson may be corrupt as many inside the beltway become and try to exert influence that exceeds boundaries. However, to make an assumption that because we were wrong once= we are repeating the same mistake with Iran is a failure of logic. Logic would state that despite our previous miscalculation about Iraq, that we should still take the threat of Iran seriously. Especially since we know even LESS about Iran. Does Dobson overstate his case? Yes I do believe he does to an extent, but I believe the destruction of Israel would come before 10 American cities were destroyed by Iran. Yet, the possiblity of only one American city being destroyed by terrorists is a much higher probability than the destruction of the nation of Israel.

   May 16th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
8. Al Swearengen says:
   

   caveat: Al, do you think population replacement is an issue? If so, then shouldn’t all people who are reproductively capable be regulated into birthing and rearing their 2.1 children, as population replacement dictates? Including gays? Just wondering.

   I think that population replacement is a bigger problem than global warming, in terms of the science. The former is certainly more falsifiable than the latter, with respect to Karl Popper.

   So, if we should regulate carbon emissions to some degree, it logically follows that we should regulate population replacement to a greater degree.

   What am I missing here?

   I’m not following the comparisons you’re making caveat. In terms of population displacement, are you simply referring to Europe’s trend of less children per household year to year? Are you saying that this trend is a greater danger than the effects of climate change? In what ways in particular (won’t productivity in the future be even more driven by machines than humans?) will the adverse effects compare with something like…drought in Sudan leading to millions fighting over water (for instance).

   If you’re suggesting we insist that every household produce 2.1 babies…I’m not sure that freedom could “ring” amidst all of that.

   May 16th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
9. Al Swearengen says:
   

   bmili, my understanding of the situation that arises and leads to the creation of a Dobson, is right in line with what you wrote here. Thanks for sharing that! My more cynical nature (and my experience for years as a born again christian – I wrote an essay on it a while back:

   Born Again Christianity’s Jihad on America

   That’s the spiritual side of it, but lately I’ve been feeling very secure in that aspect of life, so the branching out of thought on the topic of religion in America has focused mostly on how corporate-based these enterprises truly are. Didn’t the catholics get this right a while back…to develop a top-down hierarchy reliant on the ability to count on the obedience of subordinate priests and bishops, and to peg “church doctrine” on particular issues in a way that ensures the church’s relevance within the politics of its host country.

   Dobson’s brand of this is much more focused on branding and merchandising it seems. The mega-churches…combining God and the mall as I see it.

   Nothing worse than to ignore the most basic ideals contained within the Bible…and one is that a merchant has no business to conduct within the temple…it’s easy to see why this was included in the Gospels, as in Dobson’s case, eventually the spreadsheets decide right from wrong, rather than the scriptures. HE IS the merchant inside the temple, but nobody seems to care or consider it blasphemy on its face.

   However, to make an assumption that because we were wrong once= we are repeating the same mistake with Iran is a failure of logic. Logic would state that despite our previous miscalculation about Iraq, that we should still take the threat of Iran seriously. Especially since we know even LESS about Iran. Does Dobson overstate his case? Yes I do believe he does to an extent, but I believe the destruction of Israel would come before 10 American cities were destroyed by Iran. Yet, the possiblity of only one American city being destroyed by terrorists is a much higher probability than the destruction of the nation of Israel.

   I don’t consider Iran to be the big ugly monster it is made out to be here in the US or in the international arena in general. I compare the democratic system in Iran with the deteriorating smoke and mirrors show in Pakistan, and wonder where we or others actually get our impressions.

   The whole ‘ally’ aspect isn’t completely lost on me. But to insinuate (as our leaders have done for years now) that Iran is going to be bombed and invaded at some point by our military, is really insulting to the entire Iranian population. What could manage to turn promising minds into radical ones better than economic sanctions and threats of annihilation?

   In spite of these conditions for a number of years now, that turn for the worse from within really hasn’t happened. The President of Iran is constitutionally tied to other factions of the government that will never allow him to carry out anything on the scale of what he says about Israel…in fact, if he wanted to keep those British sailors, he’d have been overruled.

   How many Americans understand the truth behind that particular dynamic of Iranian government? Not many I’d imagine. Even amongst “news junkies” I’d bet the percentage who could articulate the role and power of Iran’s president within the government would be very low.

   What we have to get away from is equating the idea of a terrorist with entire countries from the region. There is absolutely no comparison between even the most fundamentalist Islam practiced within Iranian communities and that which the Taliban instituted in Afghanistan in the 90s.

   As for nukes – since Pakistan is the wild wild west, and it has the bomb, along with India – what determines the downside to Iran having one? Are the people of Iran less rational or more fanatic than Indian or Pakistani people? I don’t think it can be argued effectively that they are. Compared with Pakistan especially!

   In fact…if there were some way to measure the amount of religion induced insanity (what we’re defending ourselves against) per capita in both Pakistan and Iran, I’d bet the farm on the more insane population residing in Pakistan, not Iran.

   Somehow though, such a comparison is never made within our media, and Iran is simply referred to in the press as something dangerous, a problem…I’m tired of looking at the world through the corporate media’s eyes. Those are people over there. Families, neighborhoods, careers, etc. We have no business interfering with them, no more than they have any business interfering with any of our families, neighborhoods, careers, etc…

   The press tends to strip away that humanity, and instead brand the entire population with the words of one man…a guy who thinks he’s a rock star, with little power to dictate his country’s foreign policy.

   May 16th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
10. bmili says:
    

    I agree with you on alot of points on the megachurches, just as in politics is local, church is local in order to have true community. I will say however, that megachurches are effective in reaching those that got burned or those that are new to the faith. They help them grow to a point spiritually where they can move on to more fertile grounds. As far as Iran, I think that is where our ideas diverge. I agree that Pakistan is an enemy just as much as the Taliban. Maybe there is some mutual assured destruction keeping them stable. However, I do take Iran to be a threat. We have been in a de facto war against them since the 1970s, Jim Geraghty had a nice roundup of hostilities on National Review a while back. I have yet to see one instance where I should trust Iran. They have publicly stated they wish to destroy Israel. You may take that as rhetoric, I don’t. The other Arab states are not making much noise about this because I believe they secretly wish it so. They know they cannot conventionally destroy Israel militarily. That info (plus some biblical prophecy in Ezekiel and Zechariah) makes me believe firmly they mean evil. I hope I am wrong, I have two younger brothers in the active military right now, but I don’t believe I am.

    May 16th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
11. Al Swearengen says:
    

    I’ve read several of Geraghty’s articles in NR, and can’t remember specifically, but he’s tackled Iran a number of times. His best one contained quotes from Senators with differing views. I became more interested in Brownback in 2003-04 around the time one of his Iran articles was published. Brownback struck me as overly cavalier about whether or not Iran was a democracy, and categorized regime change as something having to do with destiny…

    Without the time right now to get into the particulars of why I’m thinking this way, I think it’s important to point out that on the right there has been a tendency to treat everything in the middle east in a way that always gives Israel a pass, and always singles out Iran and Syria, while glossing over Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

    The geopolitical reasons for this are obvious, as are the historical connections we have had with the two later countries as opposed to the first two, but with the result of these surface treatments in bulk right there in Iraq, I hesitate before taking on any point of view regarding that region of the world.

    Not only are the counterproductive actions and influences of our supposed allies in the region very troubling to me (from the 70s till today), but the uncanny consensus that suddenly appears across the right-wing publications and commentaries…syndicated columns being equally if not more dangerous in this area…and then one of the themes these writers are so sure about becomes a reality, and from that point on (Iraq), they turn from being “serious intellectuals” into shills (no WMDs, still worth it, let’s surge, turning corners and whatnot), and now we’re seeing the transition from shill to cannibal, as each attempts to latch onto a scapegoat or two and have at it.

    The end result of course, isn’t that they were all wrong, or that they were naive (my belief), but rather it was a couple of players who ignored this or that, which allowed the great idea to fail. I think we’re firmly in that area right now, and the cultural aspects we did not understand about the region were especially fatal elements within the strategy and cheer leading prior to the invasion.

    My gut feeling is that those same cultural aspects in regards to Iran, Pakistan, Israel-Palestine, Saudi Arabia are on full display, and as long as the country in question is Iran, there’s a “worst case scenario” that becomes an assumption, and the debate circles around that, rather than all the other factors…those same factors that we ignored prior to Iraq.

    I have a lot of respect for writers in general, and in politics I find myself enjoying the ones who can actually write…and they can be found in several publications on the left and the right. In the case of many words within National Review, I can’t get around the level of uncertainty that really exists, yet is explained away by a level of certainty that “may” exist.

    The human cost in all of these theories is left out completely in most cases. I hope your brothers are alright and close to finishing their time. I was lucky to serve four years in the 90s as a soldier, never having to suffer through a Baghdad summer.

    Thanks for commenting and following up! I enjoy the exchange of ideas more than anything else.

    May 17th, 2007 at 12:06 am
12. Al Swearengen says:
    

    OH – Dobson, mega-churches – on a micro level, the benefits of having them, as you described, are quite real. Where the idea of religion in America breaks off from being an extension of the community, a collective love for one another, is when the institution itself is considered before anything else.

    The evangelical swath is in a terrible situation that it created for itself in this respect, as the institution now has itself an agenda, and recently when that agenda has been changed by one faction or another, the more powerful influences criticize and cast aside those who would…for example, put the environment on the agenda, and give the anti-gay element a rest. This happened recently, and I read it in the paper over a couple of weeks here and there…Dobson was the one cracking the whip, expecting people to fall in line.

    That they didn’t is a good thing, but I equate this mentality of the institution above all else, with the experience we had in my area with Cardinal Law of the catholic church having known of sexual abuse, having covered it up for many years, to then be honored with a high position in Rome…

    That’s symptomatic of the institution now deeming itself more important than the actual religion…and 30 years from now, will most American teens be able to distinguish between the two? Or will “religion” be just as recognizable in terms of bells, whistles and political platforms as it is with actual theological study?

    As a born-again christian, I was programmed quite well, and only until I grew older and roamed the world a bit, did I recognize how pointedly political that programming was. I read the Bible and enjoy it today (Job and Exodus especially), but in understanding the wisdom contained within a few verses, there is nothing about ‘that’ which I can remember from back in the day. It wasn’t about thinking, but rather believing, saying and doing.

    To me, that is a symptom of something other than spirituality…like religion’s answer to working for Wal-Mart.

    May 17th, 2007 at 12:22 am
13. bmili says:
    

    I agree with what you are saying about Iran being the symptom of a larger problem; it is the region in particular (Iran is just the next manifest of it). If i could trust Iran with a nuclear weapon, I would, but I can’t. My brothers are doing great, they have been deployed once already and one will most likely re-enlist, they are both Rangers. I question broad-ranges of consensus myself that appear out of nowhere; but with Iraq, I thought we should have finished the job with Bush I, then with Clinton (he didnt have the political capital even if he had the courage). But we are entering into a new-transitional period of warfare that I often compare to the transition into WWI. I always promote this book but it really is inciteful, Imperial Grunts by Robert Kaplan. It has some of your points in there but also talks about the need of bring counter-insurgency tactics which Petraeus is finally doing. As far as American churches, I think a lot are lost during the period I call “when your faith becomes your own” or real so to speak. They do what they are programmed until they realize what they believe is a sham or that salvation really is by grace. Unfortunately, they never realized that they were in effect trying to be their own saviour, and they burn out/die spiritually. I don’t necessarily think anyone/thing is to blame for it; the parable of the sower’s seed just comes to mind (especially since I have been trying to grow things myself this spring). I enjoy reading Psalms, Lamentations (crazy huh?), Ecclesiastes, 3 John (John the gospel as well), and the minor prophets. But it changes as my life does too.

    May 17th, 2007 at 9:14 am
14. caveat bettor says:
    

    Al: Yes, my theory (not saying it is absolute truth) is that global population contraction will cause more suffering than global warming (unless we eliminate all entitlements, and I am against that). One accompanying liability with productivity innovation is that, well, people will live a lot longer, and they will have more resource demands that may outpace their work value (say from ages 70 to 110). In an ever increasing skill-based economy, people who finished school 50 years ago (think all the newly retiring UAW middle school dropouts) will not be able to contribute production in pace with their consumption.

    It’s not just Europe that has population issues. China and Japan do, too, as well as non-European British Commonwealth countries (neat resource here http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1004878).

    I am against government coercion where free markets are working. In fact I think the governemnt should exist to establish, expand, and defend markets–often this means doing nothing (anyone for redesging Congress as an emergency-only deliberative body)?

    But what Dobson and Gore both want is the government to coerce Americans to behave according to their respective agendas.

    May 17th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
15. Al Swearengen says:
    

    I’m still not buying how you justify lumping them in together, as even the “(what they) both want is the government to coerce Americans to behave according to their respective agendas” argument, is lacking context.

    Being the Ayn Rand geek that I am…my head tends to draw a line in the sand that divides statism from everything else that is capitalistic. Here is how I justify putting them on opposite sides of that line:

    Dobson: Having a product already available and established within the market, seeks to leverage the government in order to increase sales volume. He benefits financially from this happening.

    Gore: Without products already available and established within the market, seeks to leverage the government in order to promote Innovation. He does not benefit financially from this happening.

    It is not only the conflict of interest, where personal wealth is increased through the manipulation of government that defines statism, but also when the government purchases goods they either do not need, or wouldn’t be purchased if the government were a corporation.

    Gore’s policies encouraging innovation is the exact opposite of this, as the government isn’t buying goods or services, but rather making an investment in the market. On completely opposite ends of the spectrum…this innovation is beneficial to the nation’s overall competitive stature in the global economy – AND – comes at a time when other governments AND private entities are already moving the research and development forward. The investment helps to accelerate that process, and if history serves as an example, the investment that is made will help to ensure that US corporations are the ones that secure patents and market share for years to come.

    The global marketplace is buying efficient solar paneling, wind turbines, raw material for ethanol production, etc. There is already a market for these things, and prior to President Bush finally investing money in ethanol production here in the US, we weren’t benefiting from that fact at all. We were missing out and losing a cut of the pie.

    Being a fan of markets, I hope you can take these arguments at face value, as the politics are removed…when dealing with science, as I consider economics to be, politics need not enter the equation.

    And to the statement of yours that I quoted…investment in innovation for green technology and stem cell research is no more “forcing people to behave according to an agenda” than is Apple’s success with the Ipod. The innovation will lead to products that the market can either buy or pass up.

    Unless the government becomes the purchaser of billions worth of solar panels that the market passed up, Gore’s policies do not equal an example of statism. If his policies lead to 50 years down the road, the US leading the world in eco-technology and molecular therapies…well, that kicks the market value of our securities higher, and keeps us out in front.

    Whatever the hell Dobson wants to sell that the government is buying (whether they need it or not) isn’t going to lead to a net gain for you and I 50 years down the road.

    May 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Leave a Reply