This item is sooo gratifying.

We did the Boston Gift Show 2 years ago and found a hotel thru Priceline...as we walked up the driveway one night there was a Bentley Sedan that looked as though it had been abandoned in the circular drive...Yup...Bobby Kennedy giving a speech there that night. The doormen just shook their heads.

Jeremiah:

Gratifying because it's true.

Lisa:

Ah, the Kennedy clan, such largesse. Does anybody remember poor abandoned Mary Jo Kopechne?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Kopechne

The more things change, the more they remain the same:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/INDULGE.HTM

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/emissionstrading/papers/paper3/pubs/paper_3.pdf

Selling of indulgences:Catholicism::offsetting carbon emissions:Environmentalist religion

Sammy:

Very interesting point. Did not think of it myself, but gee, it is exactly the same structure, and aims at the same class of people.

I thought of substitutes paid to fight in the War Between the States.

Yopu wouldn't think right away this is a good analogy, because maybe you might thjink something is being offset - therefore maybe substitutes in the civil war come to mind. But I think this might be similiar is that in buying these carbon offsets, in reality they are offsetting nothing! Whatever they count as an offset would happen anyway, without them.

Here is Rush Limbaugh on this - this link is free for now but may stop being free about 5:30 P.M. Thursday March 1, 2007 Eastern Standard Time

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022807/content/algore_a_hypocrite.guest.html

Sammy:

No, I get it. Thnaks for the excellent link. Rush is so articulate and so funny. No wonder the lefties detest him, he punctures them at every turn—with such ease.

I didn't really mean you wouldn't think I thought someone might think. I thought maybe it was possibly an objection but not really.

Rush Limbaugh is doing a lot about this this week. He even took a caller Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama, formerly of NASA over to the next day
*
Link:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022807/content/01125102.guest.html

I think Rush cut him off too much, misunderstood him a bit and Dr. Spencer wasn't quite clear enough in his apeaking.

One of the things that came out this week - in the Goody bags were handed out at the Oscars were gift certificates from a company Terra something worth 100,000 pounds of carbon dioxide or something.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022807/content/algore_a_hypocrite.guest.html

Rush: ...I have this story in the stack. I wasn't going to use it because I thought I'd overdone the whole notion, but look, this is in Page Six today, a gossip column in the New York Post. “Hollywood's wealthy liberals can now avoid any guilt they might feel for consuming so much nonrenewable fossil fuel in their private jets, SUVs, and multiple air-conditioned mansions. This year's Oscar goodie bag contained gift certificates representing 100,000 pounds of greenhouse gas reductions from TerraPass, which describes itself as a "carbon offset retailer." The 100,000 pounds "are enough to balance out an average year in the life of an Academy Award presenter," a press release from TerraPass asserts. "For example, 100,000 pounds is the total amount of carbon dioxide created by 20,000 miles of driving, 40,000 miles on commercial airlines, 20 hours in a private jet and a large house in Los Angeles.”

So Hollywood people were given gift certificates worth 100,000 pounds of greenhouse gas credits or reductions in their goodie bags at the Oscars.

Here is the website for TerraPass:
http://www.terrapass.com

More Rush Limbaugh (Thursday)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030107/content/01125109.guest.html
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030107/content/01125111.guest.html

Today I didn't catcvh it all but it seems Gore owns his own carbon offset company.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11149

I detect the intention to belittle liberals on this blog with what is being said regarding Gore and the Kennedy's. There seems to be a mean spirited attitude in many of the comments. Do you feel this is true?

I really would like to have a meaningful discussion, as you say you want in this blog, with people of conservative leaning ideas to see why they feel and think as they do. How can this even begin when there is joy in someones fallability as in Gores power bill?

Barbara:

Thanks so much for writing. We are open to discussion. Let me just say that we at Seraphic Secret interpret Gore's "fallability" as hypocrisy. But no matter, you will find us quite willing to talk and debate quite respectfully.

Barbara,

Consider that even some liberals take issue with the former vice president's grandstanding on the global warming issue ... that President Bush has "green cred" of his own ... and that there are reasons to challenge the extent, danger, and even the existence of "global warming".

I will happily acknowledge that thousands of individuals "make a difference" every day by recycling, composting, and car pooling, etc. I acknowledge that many professional environmentalists, armed with facts, make significant incremental change in their work. (E.g., I once knew a couple of staff lawyers for Robert Kennedy's Waterkeepers.)

But I just do not trust the big government, big liberal environmental campaign to save the earth. (To me, the massive widespread credence lent to "global warming" is secular liberalism's end run at having its own apocalyptic "End Times" narrative -- its great "destruction myth". They need to believe in it, to have it fill the great psychic, spiritual emptiness left by having repudiated core Judeo-Christian belief.) I do not appreciate MoveOn.org's TV ads with a little girl about to be run over by a freight train. And I certainly do not trust

Frankly, even if some kind of "global warming" exists and consequences have to be remedied or prevented, I trust entrepeneurial free-marketeers to invent functional and feasible solutions.

I urge those who want to improve the environment, and to make more efficient our exploitation of it (yes, we exploit nature -- Karl Marx refers to this, in fact, and offers his compliments) to go Republican. Newt Gingrich announced recently that he is working on a book, "Contract With The Earth." I can't wait.

Exploitation + Conservation = a great "conservative" cause, just waiting to ... bloom.

Remember: you can't hug your child with organic farms.

NY Times reports: Lifelong environmentalist doesn't fear genetically-modified food or nuclear waste.

Thank you for your provoking this comment. I look forward to being "mean-spirited" when the occasion calls for it.

Jeremiah, and or Robert:

What is your definition for Secular Liberals used in Jeremiah's post? Semantics are interesting. I always find it helpful to get on the same page regarding what words actually mean to each person in the conversation.

I would probably define myself as a secular liberal but I do prefer to leave the door open to considering the reasons for and possibly adopting parts of others viewpoints. Is anyone completely liberal or completely conservative?

So what is my definition of Secular Liberal? Secular to me means leaving one's personal beliefs regarding God (basically because beliefs in that catagory differ so much) out of the political discussion. Religious beliefs contribute greatly if not overwhelmingly to an individuals culture however the political body of a nation influences the WHOLE society's culture. That is why I think the founders of this country decided to not entangle the two as had been done previously in Europe. Which brings me to something I wish people would address more. That is "What kind of a SOCIETY do we want to live in? So much of what I read and hear speaks about the ECONOMY and how we should control or tweak that. I don't want to live in a society with just economic values. I want to live in a society with cultural values that support people in a variety of ways in which they can grow and thrive.

I could go off on a lot of other tangents at this point but in the interest of time I'll get back to my definitions. OK, so how do I define "Liberal" which is indeed what I feel I am. First, however, I feel there is nothing elitist about thinking in a liberal mindset and for some reason elite or elitist is
a word that has so often been connected to "Liberals" in these recent years. I think it is a lable to cast negativity to the catagory of liberalism. What do you think? Elite to me means one who feels a step above others in financial means, or possibly intellectual credentials. I also think sometimes people feel morally superior. There are probably people in both camps who fall into all those catagories. Liberal to me means that I feel comfortable with other peoples choices in their own lives as long as they don't force their choices on to my life. Of course when we live in a SOCIETY some of this is enevitable but we need always not to take it farther than nessesary. Basically I do not want to restrict your choices by those of my own. Now my big question. Why has the catagory of Liberal picked up such a negative tone? And I am interested in yours or anyones elses definition of Secular Liberalism.

Barbara

Barbara:

First a word on elitism: When liberals or conservatives deny they are elitists in some way, they are kidding themselves. Why align yourself with a political movement of philosophy if you don't think it's better than everyone else's? Let's all stop pretending we're more in the corner of the "common man," when the truth is, we're pretty darned angry at him when he disagrees with us, and we do feel smarter.

But I would say being a secular liberal these days in America at least has a few requirements:

1) Pro-choice

2) Pro gun control, (or some degree thereof)

3) Pro Affirmative Action (at least in higher education)

4) Pro Gay rights/marriage

5) Anti Iraq war, (obviously this is a relatively new one)

6) Total gender equality

7) Full or almost full acceptance of man's total responsibility for global warming and his ability to reverse that.

Note that almost each and every one of these major definitions of a liberal today are really different from what made an American a liberal
40-50 years ago. I'd say the key elements to being a liberal back then were:

1) Pro civil rights/ending segregation, etc.

2) Pro social security and medicare

3) Pro union rights

4) Pro welfare, (or some major degree of government-sponsored aid programs for the poor)

I think one of the reasons why being a "liberal" was something more Americans were proud of 45 years ago is because most of Americans, (although there was a sizeable minority opposed), were in favor of all the above ideas.

There is MUCH LESS universal support for those seven NEW major liberal beliefs today. At best there is a 50-50 split on things like abortion and gun control. (Gay marriage wouldn't even get 30% of a "pro" vote if they had a referendum today).

This doesn't mean the liberals are wrong about all this stuff, it just means they have embraced more unpopular beliefs than they did decades ago. I think there are a lot of reasons for this, especially the fact that the Democratic party leaders are less connected to the common man than they have ever been in the party's history. (And that's not completely their fault either... try winning an election without being rich in America today).

But the disconnect is real and it's put many American liberals in an intellectually dishonest place. The GOP and conservatives have ALWAYS been the party of big business and lower taxes. This is their heritage. The Democrats are the party of social programs and standing up for the poor and the middle class... not so much the party of gay rights and abortion.

Jake;

Interesting! I think you have very specifically defined choices many liberals make. They are almost all choices I would make currantly and 40 years ago I would have agreed with the liberal choices you referrance to at that time. Why those choices and not the opposites? Because I think they represent more humane positions and my first priority in a society is humaneness. I do realize pro choice may not be a humane position for many people. I have my own questions with that, but in the end I prefer to let that decision be private and personal.

Regarding elitism, I do see your point. However,I do not hear or read about "elite conservatives" so then I have to wonder what is behind the mention of "elite liberals" over and over again.

So, what I want to understand is why do people choose the opposite choices that you have listed under conservative? I am in no way being snide and I hope others won't be either if they choose to respond to my question.

Good grief, I live in Utah, the most conservative state in this country and yet I have not been able to get a conservative thinker to really engage in a sincere discussion with me. I do hear a lot of bashing from both liberals and conservatives toward one another but no sincere and personal discussion.

Barbara

Barbara:

Civilized discourse is not so hard to find... suffice it to say that there are people on both sides of the political spectrum in this country who have a vested interest in convincing others that this country really is deeply divided and losing its civility. In fact, it's only the leaders themselves and the blowhards in the media who are losing decency. I've had a lot of success engaging real people by asking them questions in a way that you have. Give it another try.

It may surprise you to know that I support most of those seven key liberal beliefs I listed... my problem is not those positions, but the importance the Left gives them. Abortion, gay marriage, and even global warming seem like the issues that really concern the leisure class in a time when we face suicidal Islamic terrorists, a healthcare system that's run by insurance companies first, lawyers second, and doctors last, and an educational system in America that's made us the math and science dunces of the world.

I know some Democratic leaders make those REAL issues a priority, but not enough of them. And I think the reason why is that most of them, just like Republicans, just can't relate to those issues because they are either very wealthy or beholden to corporate interests.

The fact that Republicans have taken the leadership role vs. Islamic terror, AND the fact that their indifference to many serious domestic issues is at least not the product of hipocracy, gives the GOP a tremendous electoral advantage year after year. The Dems won the 2006 elections, but until they get a leader with a real ideology that is acceptable to most Americans, they will only win a fluke election once in a while.

Barbara:

Let me try and fill in what jake has not covered: Foreign policy.

The weakness of modern liberals is that most of them have no conception of evil nor how to confront it.

If you look at the websites of the Democratic candidates for Pres in 2008 the War on Terror is barely mentioned.

The Republican candidates feature the War on Terror as their major theme.

The Dems are fixated on so-called global warming other national issues. They are not big on the world scene, preferring the UN to solve the problems of the world. Very odd when you consider that when the UN gets involved, you can rest assured that genocide will happen: Witness Rwanda, Darfur, Serbia, etc.

Dems and liberals believe that "dialogue with Islamic jihadists will solve all problems because , y'know, deep down, we're all the same.

The truth is, deep down, we are not all the same.

Most Republicans understand that the major threat to America, to Western civilization, comes from Islamic killers, not from melting ice-caps.

Evil is quite real and liberals are too afraid or too naive to confront this frightening reality.

Thus, they retreat to Bush-hatred and, of course, moral equivilancy. Hence we are led to believe that America, in its own way, is just as bad as, say, any brutal Arab tyranny. And the logical conclusion liberals draw is that anything America does via foreign policy is, of course, corrupt and self-serving. Which is a modern day blood-libel as far as I'm concerned.

One more crucial note. Anti-Jewish hatred has found a nice comfortable home in liberal American thought. I'm not accusing you, but under the guise of "anti-Zionism" Jew haters are quite comfortable in the liberal precincts. Jimmy Carter's latest book has just endorsed by non-other than Louis Farrakhan—a true out and out Jew-hater.

Finally, let me say this, Liberals in America have become so tolerant that they tolerate the most intolerant extremes of ideology and behavior: Muslim radicals just love the Democratic party. Thye know which political party will breezily sell them the knives to slit the throats of our children.

Jake and Robert:

I like this dialogue. I don't have enough time right now to write much and I will be gone for a few days so I can't comment now as much as I would like to. I will say this: I do agree again with most of what Jake has said. However, because I have a gay son that issue does not seem like a liesure one to me or especially to my son. I would however choose to work on our health care system and the education issue before the gay issue as far as domestic policy's goes. I certainly agree that both eduacation and health care are a mess. When George Bush wanted to infuse the economy with more money and consequently iniatiated the large tax cuts of 2000 I would rather have seen that money go straight into education. I would have liked him to hire more teachers (cutting class sizes) and I would have liked to see all those teachers be paid twice as much as they are now. The more money you pay people the more likely you are to draw top quality candidates. Everyone in our society would have benefited immediatedly as well as as plowing money back into the economy. Everyone benefits from an educated population. Just a thought. I do think global warming is an actuality. I am sorry we bailed on the Kyoto Accords. I do think we are going to have to deal with it.

The international scene seems much more complex. That is an understatement isn't it.
Robert and or Jake---Are you pleased with the way George Bush has handled the reality of terriorism? Would you do anything different than he has done to this point? How would you like to see things happen regarding this huge issue? Robert, why do you think liberals are so trusting that they think there is no evil in the world? That struck me as such a blanket statement. I really am curious why you think that. I don't think that and as you know, I am probably as liberal as they come. I do wish we were not all defined with labels however.

Barbara

Oh, two more items before I dash off.

I have always tried to keep in my consciousness Elie Wiesel's phrase. "Evil exsists when good men do nothing"

I have also thought that Hannah Arendt's book "The Banality of Evil" should be a must read. And, although I will admit that I have not read it yet, it is high
on my list. The title stings, don't you think?

Now I will leave you guys alone for a few days,

Barbara

>> I have also thought that Hannah Arendt's book "The Banality of Evil" should be a must read.

That book has a lot of faults and a wrong premise. Any person who reads that should read:

And the Crooked shall be made Straight: The Eichmann Trial by Jacob ROBINSON (out of print 1965) which is a detailed point by point refutation of Hannah Arendt''s book and a good book in its own right too. I have read that book.

And the Crooked Shall Be Made Straight is available on Ebay for $4.50. But the next copy is $75.

http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?satitle=crooked+made+straight+robinson&submit=Find+It

And the Crooked Shall be Made Straight ROBINSON HC w/DJ $4.95 AL'S ATTIC OF BOOKS AND RECORDS

(SHIPPING ADDS AN ADDITONAL $3.00 TO THE COST)

Robinson, Jacob. AND THE CROOKED SHALL BE MADE STRAIGHT $75.00 Rare Book Cellar

It is $14.9 + $3.49 = $18.44 on Alibris and $15.00 + $3.49 on Amazon.com. the Alibris copy comes from the yankee Peddler book shop. It is slightly higher (a buit over $20 under a slightly different version of the name - Bookfinder.com comes up with 5 variations. It was published by the Jewish Publication Society.

What do you know Another copy just showed up on Ebay for $19.99 plus $3.45 shipping.

Hey, Robert or Jake or Sammy or anybody,

Nobody answered my questions while I was gone. I'll try again. Refer back to my last entry. I am truely curious about your answers to these questions. Give it a shot.

Barbara

Barbara:

The Kyoto Protocols.

1. Those who signed have failed to cut emissions as much as America has cut emissions. Signing treaties does not automatically make things happen. Often they just make things too expensive for business and investment goes elsehwere. Hence, Kyoto Protocols forced much business to relocate and joblessness increased in the countries that signed the Protocols. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

2. Liberals do not recognize evil. Witness their inability to fight the war on terror. They demand hat America surrender in Iraq but redeploy in Afghanistan. This makes no sense. You means there are jihadists in Afghanistan but not in Iraq? Truth is Iraq is the locus of the middle east. Just look at a map. The Dems, who are by definition liberqal or progressive, actually they cannot make up their mind, are basically isolationists. They really don't want to fight any war. Thye have no foreign policy. The only policy they have is to raise the minimum wage. Which is a terrible idea for it puts hundreds of small businesses out of business.

3. In short, Liberals don't understand National Defense or business, but they make lots of noise about being good for little people. But in fact their policies end up being bad for most everybody once you look carefully under the hood.

Republicans think.

Liberals feel.

Barbara, I think it would be best if you would follow each of my daily posts, and react to them individually. That way you can follow each and every thread and get an overview of Conservative thought. You'll find that we're quite generous and willing to talk. Okay?