Charles Krauthammer writes on Carbon Chastity: The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment.
Environmentalists are Gaia’s priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. […] And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment — carbon chastity — they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.
Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.
There’s no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.
One thing about the Fr. Michael Pfleger story that I don’t see being addressed in the mainstream media is the question of why a Roman Catholic priest can get away with so visibly giving his endorsement to a presidential candidate who supports perpetuating the legal guarantee of abortion-on-demand — something the Catholic Church describes as an intrinsic evil. That doesn’t require Catholic priests to campaign against candidates who support it, or to campaign for candidates who oppose it, but you would think at least some agnosticism (so to speak) would be called for in a public posture towards pro-abortion politicians — especially presidential candidates. In fact, until a couple of weeks ago, Fr. Pfleger was a member of a group called “Catholics for Obama.”
The Chicago Tribune is reporting the following on the reaction of Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George:
Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George on Friday said that Rev. Michael Pfleger, who mocked Sen. Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of her opponent’s South Side church last weekend, has promised the cardinal he will “not mention any candidate by name” in the future.
“To avoid months of turmoil in the church, Father Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning,” George said in a statement. “[He] will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all Catholic priests.
“Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged,” George said. “Words can be differently interpreted, but Father Pfleger’s remarks about Senator Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack. I regret that deeply.”
I would have thought the racial aspect is very much a side issue, as compared to the message Pfleger is sending by vociferously supporting someone so dedicated to maintaining the status-quo on abortion rights. I guess I’m naive in these things.
Bob Dole writes a note to that “miserable creature,” Scott McClellan.
In my nearly 36 years of public service I’ve known of a few like you. No doubt you will “clean up” as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. […]
I have no intention of reading your “exposé” because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You’re a hot ticket now but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?
By letting it be known in interviews that he is considering voting for Barack Obama, I think that Scott McClellan has basically blown any bit of credibility he may have had remaining right up the chimney. He’s not any kind of conservative, obviously, and, put together with the reported content of his book, it’s clear enough that he never really was.
McClellan now says he is “intrigued by what Sen. Obama has been running on about changing the way Washington works.” This is essentially the same reason he gives for his attachment to and support of George W. Bush to begin with, i.e. his plan for a new tone in Washington, for bipartisanship, etc etc. All very well, but bipartisanship in aid of what? That’s the more fundamental question, isn’t it? What do you actually want to achieve at the end of the day? To take two examples: Lower taxes, or higher taxes? Continuing down the road towards things like embryonic stem cell medicine, or moving towards a culture of life? These were issues that led many to support George W. Bush, or his opponent, as the case may be. But for Scott McClellan, if you take his words seriously, it was simply his love of the idea of bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake. Who cares what we do — so long as we do it together! If Obama can “bring people together” (which he can’t, but that’s another story), then Scott McClellan can throw his support to him, even though he’ll be bringing people together in order to achieve his own very liberal agenda — a 180 degree contrast to Bush’s agenda.
If McClellan were presenting himself believably as a principled, serious conservative, with the misgivings about the Bush administration that he has expressed, then he might well deserve a very serious hearing. As it is, his total philosophical incoherence ought to earn his dismissal by serious observers.
Of-course, in reality, he and his story are going to be with us for awhile, and when it all dries up I wouldn’t be surprised to see him get a nice job as a political analyst on television somewhere. That’s if he even needs to work, after the payday for his calculated hit-job.