AmericanPapist Comments
No wonder most of the press puts down Papa Benedict. His words are those of concern, but not dispair, and that seems to be what the extremists hate. Benedict is just reminding us of who's really in charge, and what duty really means. Sorry Gaia, Papa's still ready to join your camp yet!
I meant NOT ready.
I sent this same type of commentary out to friends today, (albeit a more simple version ;-), where I simply linked the two articles and said "here, compare THIS to THIS and, oh by the way, here is the actual text." One always has to lower one's IQ points by 100 when reading MSM reporting on religious stuff. It's just another example of the Ginger factor!!
This isn't about ideology. It's about protecting the resources and earth God has given us. I don't see why that's taken to be such a big left-wing scandal. The Pope, after consulting with experts on the matter, recognizes that this is an immensely important problem that everyone should care about regardless of ideological stripe, but yet not everything should be sacrificed to it.
So the Pope calls for us to take care of the earth. It seems like Americans are the only industrialized people who aren't interested. It takes an act of God for mileage standards to be increased because the idiots in Detroit have such a strong lobby; it'd be political suicide for a $1 gas tax to be implemented that would reduce consumption but also pay for education and Social Security. Hell, even environmentalists here in Kansas oppose a wind farm so as to protect some special kind of grass or to protect the view or to keep a few birds from getting killed by the blades of turbines, and its the left-wing that opposes nuclear energy, so the problem comes from radicals on both wings of the spectrum. I'm pretty certain that opposition to environmental efforts isn't about ideology; it's about laziness and a belief that being stewards of the earth is inconvenient. I think the Pope expects a little more from humanity.
I should clarify that caring for the environment isn't about ideology; obviously, though, the Daily Mirror has an ideology to push (but what publication doesn't?), but considering that it's a publication that should be taken about as seriously as what you'll find in the New York Post, it's not worth mentioning.
Thomas, regarding the sentence "Further international agencies may need to be established", it may be interesting to compare it to the German version, whích, since the Holy Father writes practically all of his texts himself, may be presumed to be the original. There, the sentende is "In case it should be necessary, the institutional offices on the international level may be added to". ("Falls nötig, können die institutionellen Stellen auf internationaler Ebene vermehrt werden".) I wonder why the English version differs. Noting this, I compared other versions. The Spanish is like the German ("Si fuera necesario, se pueden aumentar ..."), as are the Italian ("Si possono aumentare, se necessario, ..."), the Portuguese ("Podem-se aumentar, se for necessário, ...") and the French ("Si cela est nécessaire, on peut accroître ...").
Another case of, "Breaking news! Pope turns out to be Catholic. Film at 11."
UK Daily Mail
or
UK Daily Mail>/i>
?
oops
the second should of course be
UK Daily Mail
Nathan, how dare you criticize the "idiots in Detroit", they are Democrats, so they are not subject to any criticism whatsoever. Just kidding. In my view, Benedict, once again, shows his depth, and that he is not Al Gore, a real dummo. Except for the sincere believers, the Global Warming Crusade has nothing to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with creating massive tax increases and bureaucracies for politicians to exploit. They don't give a damn about the earth any more than they care about the poor. It's all about power and booty.Tom
TJM-
Make that a Global Warming Jihad...
After reading the John Allen article, it reminds me of how I sometimes can't help but wonder if the Vatican indulges in a bit of the European anti-Americanism on occasion. Does that come across to anyone else?
Yes, John, it does. But it's not dogma so I don't worry about it. The Holy See is situated in Europe and largely staffed by Europeans. The charisms given to the Holy Father and his helpers do not include objectivity in all matters. No big deal.
Raising gas mileage standards are a lot more complex than Nathan realizes.
It takes a a lot of gas to move the big, soft, armored cars at 75 mph which Americans so love.
What did the English during the Suez crisis (1950's) do when their gas supplies were short? They simply taxed the bigger motored cars more. The more the cc's or horsepower, the higher the taxes. Many interesting cars, like the Morris Minor were developed. And best of all, Sir Isaac Isigonis, designed the funnest car in the world in 1958! It got 50 mpg with the primitive technology of the time. And it is easy and cheap to repair and it is the best-handling car, I've ever driven-the Morris or Austin Mini.
It also makes everyone happy and jovial to just look at one and especially after driving it! Unfortunately, the insurance lobby got its import banned to the US in 1967.
Also, Nathan, we spend too much of our household budget as it is on gas. We simply cannot afford a tax increase. We also cannot afford to buy a new car or even a used car.
So in effect, you are saying that poor people will have to do without jobs, since they can't afford to pay the gas to get to their job and thus will have no wherewithal to sustain their family.
Have you seen any trains, buses, or subways in the country or in any but the largest cities here? So how are people going to get to work? The housing in the cities is too expensive for the large Catholic family and it is too dangerous for children.
It is an unjust measure and those who are rich and child-poor will still be able to drive the biggest gas-guzzlers they want, even with such a tax. It is in the end an anti-child measure.
Mentioning how a guy designed a 50 mpg vehicle on primitive technology in the 1950s is depressing. That's better than any mass-produced American-made car today. America is a country of innovators--or so I thought--and we've got the same fuel standards as we've had since 1985. Why is the Tesla Motor Company able to come up with an awesome electric car that goes 0-60 in four seconds and can go 250 miles on a single charge but GM can't? It's not hard to raise fuel standards. We just don't want to. We put a man on the moon in less than ten years because our government said to. If our government forced our companies to get their acts together, I'm pretty confident that vehicles making 50 mpg would be pretty easy to accomplish.
If people don't like the idea of taxes on gas, then back higher fuel standards. The weaker energy legislation that passed the Senate today will save consumers $22 billion (I'm assuming per year; the article I read didn't give time table). Can you imagine what the stronger House version would have saved consumers? But damn it, we shouldn't tax those oil companies an amount that matches 1.1% of their profits or give tax breaks for renewable energies. In speaking of "renewable" sources of fuel, I'm from a farm state, and people shouldn't support ethanol. Not only are the environmental benefits negligible and the dent on our oil consumption just as small, but it makes food more expensive--which couldn't be more anti-child, I must say. But again, we have to take care of the farm lobby, and ethanol is essentially a subsidy, which in turn hurts poor farmers in Africa and elsewhere. European farmers are equally guilty of receiving unfair subsidies.
TJM properly notes that this is all about power and booty. From Detroit to oil companies to the farm lobby. I'm probably leaving out others, too. But we also have to point the finger at ourselves. Like LvB says, Americans have some irrational love affair with big vehicles, and we complain about high gas prices but we don't ask our Congressmen to take measures that will actually solve our energy problems, which would in turn hinder the spread of radicalism abroad. I really don't want to believe that I am naive to think that self-centered Americans can rise to this challenge and be willing to sacrifice to conquer it.
Sacrifice what? I don't see what the big deal is about having big cars or high HP motors. If people want them, and are willing to pay the price, all the more power to them. You know, "live and let live" -- all that good stuff.
I don't understand the fuss about high fuel efficiency standards either. If the free market calls for it, fine, but I don't see why the government has to hold our hands for everything we do.
Commenting by HaloScan
