CAMPOS: Our runaway military
By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 10:03 a.m., February 13, 2008
Updated 10:03 a.m., February 13, 2008
A few years ago I visited the Huntington Library in Los Angeles, where among other things I saw an original manuscript of an annual budget for the federal government, which George Washington had submitted to Congress.
The most interesting feature of this document was the appropriation for what in those less euphemistic times was called the Department of War. As I recall, it included salaries for 18 employees.
This reminded me that Washington, like most members of America's founding generation, was at best ambivalent about the idea that the United States should maintain any sort of standing army. (This wariness is reflected in the controversial first clause of the Second Amendment, regarding the need to maintain "a well-regulated militia.")
Washington was both an accomplished general and an eminently realistic politician, and even in the late 18th century he recognized that a permanent professional military was becoming a necessary evil of the modern nation-state. But that didn't mean he was happy about the fact.
Consider Washington's Farewell Address to the nation, and in particular the famous passage on the importance of avoiding "foreign entanglements." When reading this speech it's impossible not to be struck both by Washington's eloquence and his foresight. (If you want to get depressed, consider that Washington wrote the address himself, and then imagine what a similar speech actually composed by George W. Bush would sound like.)
Indeed, what would Washington say to his countrymen today, if he were to be informed of the following?
The United States accounts for more than half of the world's total military spending. America spends nearly 10 times as much on its armed forces as the second-highest military budget in the world.
More than half of the federal government's discretionary spending ($625 billion dollars in 2007) is devoted to the armed forces. In real dollars, U.S. military spending has nearly doubled over the last decade.
The U.S. military currently maintains more than 800 overseas bases, in more than 130 countries. We have more than a quarter of a million uniformed troops stationed outside the United States (this figure doesn't count support personnel and military dependents).
Would Washington be happy to discover that, 220 years after he became our first president, the sun never sets on the American empire? I suspect he would be appalled.
What might appall him even more is the fact that there seems to be almost no opposition to any of this from what is considered respectable political opinion. Consider the three persons our political process has deemed fit to vie for the presidency.
John McCain, of course, has based his whole political career around the enthusiastic embrace of unrestrained militarism. For example, he's positively thrilled by the thought of keeping American troops in Iraq for another century, as long as they are maintaining a Pax Americana.
It would be nice to imagine that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama provides a meaningful alternative to the idea that we should maintain gargantuan armies in order to keep the world an orderly place — but that requires a very creative imagination.
Clinton has complained that President Bush isn't spending enough on the military, and indeed her campaign has become a special favorite of defense contractors. Obama provides slightly more hope for a foreign policy that's based on some idea other than that America should be policing the world, but he too has called for more military spending.
All this should lead us to remember another presidential farewell address, by the infamous radical leftist Dwight Eisenhower. "In the councils of government," he warned, "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
February 13, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Another confusing and meandering "column" from Mr. Campos.
At least this time he is nostalgic for smaller government (even if he means a smaller military).
What are we to do with his arguments? America was not a superpower when Mr. Washington was alive. But, we are a superpower now. So, what lesson are we supposed to learn from Mr. Campos?
As we grow, so do our responsibilities. We have expanded beyond the original thirteen states since our founding. So, why wouldn't our military spending increase as well?
We are an empire, the greatest in the history of the world. Our inventions, our values, our character, our desire for freedom, these things require an active and strong military. This is not a bad thing.
But, if Mr. Campos truly is concerned about the size of government, would he support abandoning the idea of a national health care plan? How about abolishing Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid?
"Would Washington be happy to discover that, 220 years after he became our first president, the sun never sets on the American empire? I suspect he would be appalled."
That quote baffles me. Mr. Washington would be appalled that the sun has not set on the American empire yet? Why would he be appalled at that? I think he would be proud that he was the father of the greatest nation on earth. A nation that tolerates, and gives voice to, effete fools such as Paul Campos.
February 13, 2008
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
So, this "the Constitution is a 'living-document'" law professor is now holding to original intent? Do you, Mr. Campos, know what consistency is?
Here's a little history lesson for the professor; but first, a question. Why, up until after the Civil War, were army units referred to by their state? (IE., the fighting 54-th of Massachusetts.) Because at that time the army consisted, mostly, of the President calling up the states' militias "into the actual service of the United States."
The development into a permanently-standing army was, and is, a necessity. At least it remains a legitimately constitutional power, as opposed to federal education, Socialist Insecurity, war of poverty and Mediscare.
We are the dominate power in the world; to forego our military strength, we will also need to give up our economic and political strength as well. Tell me, Mr. Campos, are you willing to plunge the US into a great depression from which we would never arise? Shall we give up our power to a totalitarian regime like the Chi-Coms? Al-Queda? Are you willing to give up sections of our country to the likes of Aztlan?
Just in case reality missed you, being powerful makes you a target of every shallow-minded person and group who wants what you have but doesn't have the character to build it for themselves. You either dedicate part of your strength to physical security, or give it all up - because those others will take it from you as soon as you let your guard down.
February 13, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Well said, Ted. Is Mr. Campos proposing a return to limited federal government? Or is he proposing we keep our large extra-constitutional federal government sans military? Without the military, who would defend the wacko women and wimps in Boulder from being conquered?
February 13, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
The authors of these columns should participate in these forums. Why should they get to have their work posted and that answer for it?
February 13, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
jackwoehr writes:
Welcome to Empire, Mr. Campos. He're's an interesting snippet from the New York Times Magazine 2004-10-17 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/mag...):
<<The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''>>
It's not the Military that is runaway. As Pogo said so many years ago and so truly, "We has met the Enemy, and He is Us."
February 13, 2008
8:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hank writes:
>>>"Would Washington be happy to discover that, 220 years after he became our first president, the sun never sets on the American empire? I suspect he would be appalled."
That quote baffles me. Mr. Washington would be appalled that the sun has not set on the American empire yet? Why would he be appalled at that? I think he would be proud that he was the father of the greatest nation on earth. A nation that tolerates, and gives voice to, effete fools such as Paul Campos.<<<
You are baffled John_II because you dodn't recognize that the phase "the sun never sets" was used to describe past empires with territories that circled the globe - hence it was always daytime somewhere in the empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_empi...
February 14, 2008
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brad writes:
Mr.Campos looks into the past and the men he writes about are Washington and Eisenhower. We don't know how they might act do we they lived in a different time. Washington died over 200 years ago we don't know how he wold have acted with WW1 and WW2 he could have stayed out of both we don't know and Eienhower might have stayed out of both Gulf Wars as well as Washington we need a military to protect us from those that would do us harm for just being americans. What talk to someone who would rather kills than talk to settle something we might have done who knows how long ago.Mr.Campos when Washington lived he did not see the USA grow as it did over time did he were everyone would stay on the East Coast and not move west as people did. Mr.Campos did not define an American Empire so what is it? Haveing troops in other countries does not make a empire when pay those countries money to be there with bases. Unlike Korea which is under UN not the USA just like the conflict it was the UN that sent troops not the USA.
February 14, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brad writes:
By defintion a empire is a state or group of states. So every country in the world would be a empire and not only by ruling another group of countries as Campos thinks.
February 14, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
What no response to Eisenhower??
February 14, 2008
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Thanks for the link, Hank.
I still don't see what is wrong with an American Empire on which the sun never sets. Sounds like something to be proud of to me.
February 14, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
glock27 writes:
Campos fails to quote an earlier sentence in President Eisenhower's speech:
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction..."
Eisenhower was certainly in favor of a substantial and powerful military. Campos has not made the case that we are either spending too munch on the military or subject to the undue influence of the defense industry.
Another D+ paper from the professor.
February 14, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
I would not listen to Rosen if you held a gun to my head.
February 14, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
I find it interesting that every one of the comments posted is more scholarly than the learned professor’s. Perhaps the teacher has something to learn from the students. But what is Campos’ point; that this country has grown large compared to the original 13 colonies? The beauty there is that a small army of citizen soldiers defeated the most powerful nation in the world. But what worked 220 years ago would not un-surprisingly work today. Or that the price of freedom is very costly in terms of treasure and precious lives. That is unless one considers the alternative.
The nation’s security is the one thing that has remained consistently the purview of the Federal govt, which they do rather well, Mr Perfesser. By comparison, how much has the Dept of Education grown in those same years (or HUD, DOE, et.al.)? Where the denominator is 0, division into any numerator approaches infinity, which makes for an impossible calculation for % of growth.
The real problem here is while the cost for national defense is justifiable, why is the federal govt in the education business? When every state has a Dept of Ed why is the federal govt wasting money and interfering with education in the states? All schools and colleges should be self funded or they cannot justify their existence. Federal largesse is why college is exorbitantly expensive and yet we have big salary college professors writing newspaper columns instead of teaching students. Could Campos find work in a truly competitive environment where one has to walk the walk as well as talk the talk?
February 14, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Good points, rjnova.
I think the concept of having a "columnist" post his work and then sit back while others debate it is an old one. Technology gives columnists the ability to participate in these debates. Why shouldn't they participate?
Come down from your ivory tower and defend your work, Mr. Campos. Otherwise, RMN should hire a "columnist" who is willing to actively engage his readers.
February 14, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
glock27 writes:
I suspect that "spencer" is actually Campos.
February 14, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"I would not listen to Rosen if you held a gun to my head." - Spencer
That's a shame, Spencer, because you missed a good deconstruction of this column.
February 14, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
I've actually met Rosen and found him to be a pompous gas bag. Can someone explain to me why people who listen to Rush are called dittoheads? I always assumed it was because they were being told what to say and it is easier just to say ditto.
February 14, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Spencer: Well, if you'd open your mind enough to hear the counter-vailing arguments, you might learn something.
A Dittohead is a listener who agrees with Rush.
"Ditto" or "Dittos" means "Thanks for saying what has already been on my mind; I'm glad that my opinions have a national voice!"
You see, contrary to liberal opinion, studies have shown that the 20 million+ Rush listeners are more likely to have college degrees than not. Talk Radio listeners tend to be well-read and deep-thinking and we only listen to those who are also well-read and deep-thinking; it kinda explains the implosion of Air-America, doesn't it?
I've met Rosen and I'd have to say he's more well-read on politics and economics than most of the college professors I've had in either subject; I actually had an economics professor who hadn't read Adam Smith or even heard of Schumpeter - SCARY.
I'll admit that Rosen can seem a bit of a know-it-all, but it's hard not to be when day after day you argue from logic against those who haven't read much or thought much, but sure can feel a lot.
You know, I get a lot of grief in these blogs to get an education (got one, BA in Poli-Sci, and getting a JD) or to open my mind to liberal viewpoints and think (I did and have rejected the basic premises underlying most liberal positions because of either the shallowness of logic there and/or the utopian belief that a human is perfectable). Instead, what I have found is that those who are most likely to call for others to open their minds are the ones with their minds most closed.
Me, I once had my mind open; but then I had to close the doors and windows and clean up the mess that liberalism left behind. Now I have a neat and tidy mind, absent the liberal junk some of my professors tried to implant there.
February 14, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Mr. Rosen is difficult to listen. But, he is better than listening to FM radio on the way to work. He did a great job shooting down this column today though.
I listen to Rush occasionally. I never understood the dittohead thing.
February 14, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Ditto, Ted_in_Vegas. Great comments.
I think you'll appreciate the discussion on this thread:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
February 14, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Do you remember when Rush claimed that Michael J Fox was exagerating the effects of his Parkinson's disease before the 2004 election. He did these herky jerky movements in the studio. Last night on the Colbert Report they were playing that to some Herbie Hancock music. Hilarious, I find Rush to be a repugnant SOB. It is not just because he is on the right side of issues. I respect Joe Scarbrough and Tucker Carlson. They are capable of reasonable discourse. Just curious Ted, Evolution or Creationism? How about the education levels for the different sides?
February 14, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Spencer,
Mr. Limbaugh may have acted in bad taste by mimicking the movement. But, Michael J. Fox admitted in his book that he purposely stopped taking medication in order to put his movements on display.
That fact combined with the fact the Mr. Fox was supporting the unethical procedure of harvesting human embryos to find a cure for his disease was repugnant. Thank God researchers discovered how to achieve the same results with adult stem cells thus sparing human life.
February 14, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Ted_in_Vegas: You are way too generous in your description of Rush's listeners. I refer you to this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/boo...
His audience is way too large for most of them to be well-read. There just aren't that many Americans that are, regardless of whether they're liberal or conservative. And not everyone who goes to college is well-read. I recall being in a class with a computer science major who didn't have a clue about history (American or any other). And how can they be deep-thinking when their views are never challenged? If you want that you would have to watch shows like The McLaughlin Group, Charilie Rose, Meet the Press, Washington Week, etc. You know, shows that show strong-minded conservatives and liberals to face off on issues in an intelligent way.
February 14, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
SASQUATCH:
"The great post cold-war "peace dividend" that we enjoyed as a result of crushing commuism was cashed in. We got our payoff from that decade of neglect and shrinkage on 9/11/01."
You can thank Dick Cheney for that:
"During his Pentagon stint, the size of the Army was reduced by more than 26 percent, the Air Force by 22 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 10 percent, according to the Pentagon’s official biography of Cheney."
February 14, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
wow...I've never seen so much rationalizing of profiteering by our military industrial complex outside of committee hearings in DC.
you sure you folks on the far right aren't lobbyists for haliburton?
to imply that there isn't BILLIONS of dollars of waste to be cut from our military spending is ridiculous at best and ignorant at worst.
February 14, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Charles B.,
Of course, our military budget was reduced after the cold war. Look at the numbers you posted and then realize that Clinton cut the military even more.
February 14, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bob_the_builder writes:
Charles B
9/11 was not planned while Cheney was Sec of Defense.
February 14, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Civility writes:
Mr Campos Column is similar to the movie "Why we fight". The conservatives may say that it is slanted to the left, but it's amazing how many people in the defense department have spoken about the very same thing. The movie does have a web site at:
www.whywefight.com
I also can't listen to Limbaugh or Rosen because of the adjectives that they use for people who don't agree with them. I really wonder if they believe what they say, and can be so mean and hateful, or if they do that just to boost their ratings. Besides life is too precious to spend time on the negativity that they promote.
February 14, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Great movie, Civility. It is amazing how many voices on the right and in our military, defense and intelligence communities are shouting the same things that Campos is.
February 14, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brad writes:
Civilty
Those on left they don't name call to those that disagree with them? It is not only right-wing radio look at what Air-America,NPR what these people say and the name calling they are mean and hateful to.
February 14, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lol...Rosen? Really? could you folks on the right pick a less credible source?
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issu...
February 14, 2008
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Oh, like mediamatters is a legitimate news source! LOL! (Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid!) Media matters IS to the left what the left thinks Talk Radio is to the right! That is FUNNY!1!!!!!
Anyway, back in the realworld: JOGGLE: I followed the link, there's nothing there on point to this issue. What's your point?
As for Rush mimicking Fox, please keep in mind that when the mass media ran clips of it, they sped up the tape to make it more dramatic and far worse than it really was. (Wasn't the first time those punks distorted truth to advance the liberal agenda...) As for the accuracy, see the above statement that Fox admitted that he exaggerated his condition during the testimony; what you had there was Rush ridiculing the ridiculous for effect.
As for my position in favor of Creation; first, it all comes down to a matter of faith and who your faith is in - God or people in lab coats. As for education level, there are many distinguished scholars of physical science who hold to Creation, so I am not in bad company there. One that I know personally lived near Greeley, Charles Sweeney; he held 13 Ph.Ds in hard sciences (microbiology, astrophysics, etc.), was the leader of the Apollo capsule redesign team (following Apollo 1 disaster) and worked at NASA for most of his career. He is(was?) an Creationist and held weeklong sessions detailing how many thousands of time evolution has violate the laws of science to be true. So does Creation, but creation provided a reason.
February 14, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Ted, I would LOVE to hear any criticism you have of the points raised by colorado media matters about rosen's inconsistencies and inaccuracies
by the way....which is more probably...creationism or evolution? is it possible there is a skydaddy that made the universe in seven days? sure...but is it probable?
not so much...and please don't imply that there is credible debate among peer-reviewed, field appropriate, credible experts on the subject. are there dissenters? sure...but there is a HUGE difference between debate and dissent.
did you ever watch Flock of Dodos as I requested?
February 14, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Ted: My point is that most people are not well-read (and some citizens, like in the article, aren't even minimally educated). There have been recent studies about how people in the US are reading fewer books and others referenced in the article about how we are falling behind other countries in academic studies.
You claim most people that listen to Rush are well-read and I'm telling you that's not possible. You would need a relatively small audience in the US for that to be plausible; perhaps you could say that about the typical audience of Charlie Rose for example.
As for Charles Sweeney, I've met him in person in Denver at some Creationist siminar. When confronted by several graduate students (not myself, I was just a witness) and presented with various studies that used independent methods to determine the age of the earth he simply shrugged his head and said he would have to read them. He didn't have a single reason for why various isotopes of rocks found in various parts of the world would indicate roughly the same age of the world or why a single rock tested based on three different isotopes would indicate the same age. And the guy's ideas are so preposterous that it's difficult listening to one of his presentations with a straight face. Much of the data presented to you in Creationist material is missleading or outright wrong. I could go on with specifics if you like (I used to have a Creationist roommate which is why I know so much about their bull).
February 14, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
"9/11 was not planned while Cheney was Sec of Defense."
Right, it was both planned and carried out while Cheney was Vice-President. What's your point?
February 14, 2008
5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
glen1984 writes:
Campos manages to succinctly explain why we don't want to trust the security or the economy of our nation to liberals. Out of a 3 trillion dollar budget only 625 billion is discreationary and only a little more than half of that is spent on defense and that's too much for him. What we need to do is reduce the nondiscreationary spending by half and triple the amount we're spending on defense. Then we could wipe out the deficit and and invest in our neglected infrastructure all without raising taxes.
February 14, 2008
6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Ted_In_Vegas
"As for my position in favor of Creation; first, it all comes down to a matter of faith and who your faith is in - God or people in lab coats."
I'll take the people in lab coats, since there's no evidence that God exists. Even if he/she/it did exist, he/she/it would seems to be a bit of a layabout, whereas people in lab coats do the heavy lifting required to achieve tangible results and acquire *actual* knowledge.
February 14, 2008
6:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Charles_B: Cheney was Vice-President in 1996 - 2000, when the WTC attack was planned? News to me, probably to Al Gore too! Also, wow, your faith is in people who have been wrong. Wow.
Listen, if God "proved" Himself to you, you could not believe on faith and without faith, you have no hope of salvation. Meaning, if God proved Himself to you, you would them be condemned to hell for eternity because you wouldn't need faith to know that He is real.
Joggle: the funny thing about Evolution is that evolutionary scientists keep changing their "proof" to fit their conclusions. When Charles was approached by these guys, he probably hadn't seen the newest proof - the past proofs already having been disproved - to now where to start unraveling this latest evolutionary ball of yarn. So what? The fact of the matter is that there are highly-educated people who look at the house of swiss-cheese that is evolution and say, "No way."
February 14, 2008
6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
richard729 writes:
There is far more to national security than pumping up a bloated senior military officer corps who undoubtedly became giddy at the propsects of attacking, invading and occupying a broken, mostly unarmed country like Iraq.
What better way to secure their quick promotions to General or Admiral rank than to promote a relatively safe war such as that launched by G. W. Bush under false pretexts that that country possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. I call it safe since the War Forever Republicans seem to get a hoot out of saying that "only" 4,000 U.S. military have been put in body bags over a 5-year period compared with 430,000 U.S. military who died in World War Two during a four year period. The Republican House minority leader, John Boehner, has called these 4,000 deaths of mostly Army and Marine grunts, a "small sacrifice."
Besides, these suits-in-waiting are anxious to rise up through the top tier of flag officer status in order to land sinecures as lobbyists on the boards of the K-Street crowd whose profiteering will continue as long as the sacred cow military receives the lion's share of America's treasury.
But, national security is more than exalting the profits of the military industrial complex that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against. The Republicans have yet to learn from that warning. They will in November.
February 14, 2008
6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
flimflam writes:
Just wondering how many of you here supporting the current size of our military, and our empire, also believe that Al Qaeda attacked us because they hate us for our freedom?
February 14, 2008
6:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Charles B.,
Why do you not see life and the world around us as overwhelming proof of God?
Even something as little as an orange causes me to be astounded at the immense beauty of God's presence. Is that orange really the byproduct of millions and millions of years from a microscopic cell to this wonderful piece of delicious fruit? And, if so, what created this cell? And what created the ability to evolve to something so delicious?
If I were God, and I created such a complex beautiful living world, I would be slapping my godly forehead in amazement that one of my creations would actually utter the words "there's no evidence that God exists".
Our time in this world is so brief. All politics aside, take a look around and appreciate what God has created. Have an orange, Charles B.
February 14, 2008
7:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Why do you not see life and the world around us as overwhelming proof of God?"
I'm just taking a guess here....but I imagine it's because Chuck understands the validity and importance of the scientific method.
"the funny thing about Evolution is that evolutionary scientists keep changing their "proof" to fit their conclusions"
this is a far religious right myth, ted...as we've established before...
February 14, 2008
7:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Ted_in_Vegas: Science and religion are not meant to be opposed. If you believe science to be wrong then there is something wrong with your belief system.
I have watched dozens of creationist videos, been to several siminars and had lengthy discussions with my old roommate. If you think evolution is swiss cheese then Creationism is as bullet-proof as aerogel. Beyond a few lines in a book that is based on the oral traditions passed down for numerous generations there is very, very little evidence to lead one to believe that the earth was instantaneously created (believe me, I've looked at the pitifully small amount of evidence that people like you have tried to amass).
The unabomber is also a very well educated, intelligent guy but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe every word he says. I've made a good-faith effort to listen to both sides of this argument and it is overwhelmingly clear which side is based in science (you know, making observations, testing theories with predictions and more observations, etc.) and which one is not. I would bet that you have not made a similar commitment to try to understand the theory of evolution as understood today.
February 14, 2008
7:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Chuck needs proof that oranges exist?
February 14, 2008
7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
oranges are proof that god exists?
February 14, 2008
7:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
HistoryBuff writes:
Mr. Campos is a good man, but a typical Liberal, blind to the real world. He just can't connect " the dots "...
The dots are, "Pax" connected to "military".
Of all the major nations of the world, we have avoided a major war on our land in modern times; Those are what the connected dots add up to. Liberals just can't see that. Or, won't see that.
Let's keep the military; Let's keep the peace.
February 14, 2008
7:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Yes. Oranges, dogs, trees, water, mountains, dirt, bugs, grass, snow, autumn, space. Oh, yes, and humans.
February 14, 2008
7:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Ted_In_Vegas:
So the planning stopped when Cheney was sworn in? Was he VP when it was carried out?
February 14, 2008
7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Ted_In_Vegas:
"Listen, if God "proved" Himself to you, you could not believe on faith and without faith, you have no hope of salvation. Meaning, if God proved Himself to you, you would them be condemned to hell for eternity because you wouldn't need faith to know that He is real."
Was that your clumsy attempt to offer up ol' Pascal's wager? Shall I point out the teapot in eliptical orbit in response?
The burden of proof is on you.
February 14, 2008
7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
John_II:
It isn't necessary to believe in "God" to appreciate an orange. Your statements--well meaning though they may be--amount to an appeal to emotion and are striking in their arrogance--as though you're offering me a way out of some shallow, meaningless existence you imagine I lead.
What kind of "God" do you believe in? Spinoza's God? The Christian God? If it's the Christian "God", don't you think he'd be slapping his head in bafflement that you have no problem stomping out living souls throughout the middle east in order to steal their resources so that you might maintain your material comforts?
Have an orange indeed.
A simple question for creationists:
Who/What created the creator?
February 14, 2008
8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Charles B.,
I have not even tried to convince you of a specific god, only that one exists.
What I was referring to was more than just emotional appreciation of an orange. Anyone can appreciate an orange. But, can you appreciate its creation and mere existence? There's a difference between saying here is an orange and it is delicious to here is a delicious creation.
As for "stomping out living souls", I disagree with your terminology. What souls were stamped out? Flesh and blood was destroyed, not souls. But, you are asking why there is brutal death in this world. Do you think there is not a planned balance of things in this world? Light to darkness, summer to winter, wet to dry, good to bad, life to death. Everything is balanced and compensated.
But, we do not need to go so far into religious details to simply acknowledge a God and his creations.
I was not intending to suggest you lead a meaningless shallow life. I was merely offering a response to your request for proof of God. I would offer a similar response if you asked for proof that the minimum wage increases unemployment among young workers.
February 14, 2008
9:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
PhuBaiisOK writes:
Campos' appeal to Geo. Washington is valid, but Washington didn't envision the expansion of the United States to mid-Pacific, with a state capitol, Honolulu, 4,685 miles west of then Spanish ruled San Francisco & a mere 3,394 miles east of Tokyo.
One of Campos' complaints is that we've a quarter of a million troops posted abroad. Who's that supposed to impress? Only the young or the ignorant. After all, during the Viet-Nam War, a mere 40 years ago, we had an army of a half million men in Viet-Nam. At the same time we had another half million man army in Europe, mostly in Germany, holding the line against the Soviet Union. We also had 70,000 or so troops in Korea, 30,000 or so in the Canal Zone, & 10,000 or more in the Philippines & another 10,000 or so at Naval & air bases in Spain & Italy.
So, our committment abroad today is tiny in comparison to what it was until recently.
Another of his complaints is that our defense budget is a huge $625 billion, but that's a mere 4/10s of one percent of our $14 trillion economy & easily afforable by us. A Bleed'n Heart Lefty, Campos probably wants to blow the entire $625 billion on welfare payments to illegal aliens and on pay raises to academics.
Presently, the U.S. Navy maintains hegemony over the world's oceans. Does Campos want us to surrender that capability? To whom? To the Red Chinese? The U.S. is now secure from invasion from abroad due to our control of the oceans. To save money to spend on welfare payments we should sacrifice that security? It would be nothing short of insane to do so.
The Left is so out-of-touch with reality it's pathetic.
February 15, 2008
5:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Did anyone listen to Rosen's show yesterday on AM 850 between nine and noon? On it, he debunked just about everything that Campos writes in this column. Turns out, Campos' facts are distortions of the truth. The main points were that Campos focuses on discresionary spending, when as a percentage of total spending, we are, if anything, consuming a lower percentage of federal spending with military. I'm pretty sure, if you want the other side, you can get onto 850 and listen to yesterday's podcast. He also talks on liberal bias in the media, but I think he does that during a later hour.
February 15, 2008
8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
John_II:
The fact that things exist is not a proof for "God", sorry.
I prefer to let it remain unexplained than to make up reasons. Making up reasons only stifles the pursuit of further knowledge.
Regarding stomping out souls, I said that with the assumption you were speaking of a Christian "God". If you're not a Christian than it doesn't apply to you. Of course people don't have "souls"..
February 15, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
All that I was getting at with the education and Evolution was that you can't always judge your beliefs based on peoples education. Ted, you made some comment about Rush listener's being more educated or something. (not my experience at all, don't know college educated people who listen but know plenty without that do)For professionals in the biological sciences there are 115 who believe in Evolution for every one that doesn't. There is no serious debate.
February 15, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
PhuBalisOK: "The Left is so out-of-touch with reality it's pathetic."
Different guy, but definitely on the left--I wonder how out of touch with reality you think this guy is (Joe Biden): transcripts of interviews on Meet the Press here - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10154103/ and here - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381961/
If you want to see people out of touch with reality I should show you the transcript of the head of the Republican National Committee at the time of Biden's first interview back in 2005. That guy had absolutely no clue as to what was going on.
February 15, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
Yeah, it's great that we are a military empire that has to keep its nose in every country of the world to make sure things go our way. The rest of the world thinks so too; witness 9-11.
We love it when Putin's Russia acts the same way. They seem to have notions of empire too- time to slap them down. But then, we shouldn't care what the rest of the world thinks; we're superior to them, and we deserve to rule the world.
Nationalism is egotism writ large.
February 15, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
My alter ego, Spencer, I too know at least two people with university educations that listen. I myself have an advanced degree.
However, you are right, my friend. I don't think there is any correlation with education and political affiliation, nor do I think there is a correlation between Rush listeners and a higher I.Q. or education (or lower for that matter).
February 15, 2008
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And yet, if we rolled over and played dead, like you suggest jconder45, we would all be speaking in Russian.
We act in our own self-interest, and the other countries of the West freeload on our taxpayers, relying on us for defense while simultaneously wagging their fingers at us.
I believe we opened pandoras box, in the West, by allowing our technology and customs into the wrong hands. Now that Iran has the knowledge and will to make weapons-grade uranium, however, somebody on our side had better be able to carry a big stick.
And you might say that Iran decommissioned their nuclear weapons program. To that, I say, weaponizing is the easy part. Enriching uranium, which is what they have thousands of centrifuges doing at this moment, is the hard part. When they are done enriching, believe me, they will have it on one of their "space rockets," aimed directly at us.
February 15, 2008
2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
So your opinion, jconder, is that if we tore apart our military, the terrorists would simply go away and stop hating America and plotting its destruction? Radical Jihadists would throw down their weapons and shout "shucks, there's noone to fight anymore, so we'll give peace a chance."
February 15, 2008
2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
spencerr do you know what a strawman argument is?
February 15, 2008
3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
Jay: exactly
Spencerr: No, because we've built up generations of ill-will with past actions. Besides, it's not just our military presence, it's our sucking up of 25% of the world's resources.
But I will go so far as to say that if we didn't have military bases in places like Saudi Arabia, we wouldn't be such prominent targets.
February 16, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
webviking0579 writes:
Please, military spending right now as a percentage of GDP is only 4%, it reached 38% during WW II, 14% during the Korean War, and 9% during the Vietnam War. From 1975 to 1990 military spending as percentage of GDP was never as low as it is now. Military spending as a percentage of total discretionary spending by the federal government was as high during the Clinton Administration as it is now.
Yet all Paul Campos can do is spout off the same old tired left-wing tropes about military spending out of control. I have news for Mr. Campos, we're in the middle of two wars that have dragged on for 5 and 6 years respectively.
Maybe, just maybe, if we'd taken things a little more seriously, sacrificed more, spent more and fought both these wars right, they'd be over by now.
Somehow I doubt that would make Mr. Campos happy. I wonder if being forced to live under sharia law and paying the jizya (the tax muslims believe all non-believers should pay) would make Mr. Campos happy.
Somehow I doubt that too.
February 16, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Oh Great Mind Reader of the Past. Yes, Mr. Campos can go to a Library and there read the minds of our past ancestors. WOW, what a talent this guy has!! He should have his own TV show. CAMPOS THE GREAT!! Knows all, tells all.
Campos...you need to re-read what you write.
The posters here are correct...come on Campos defend your statements....Not...because you are not able to.
Nuff Said
February 16, 2008
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
My hard-core right wing Republcian brother in law works at Lockheed Martin. He told me that they had an issue with people accessing right wing hate sites out there. (scary) He also bitched about taxes he pays. I asked him where he thought the money came from for all those government contracts.
February 17, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Spencer,
What is a "hard-core right wing Republican"? What is a "right wing hate site"? Is it as scary as a left-wing hate site: www.dailykos.com
"I asked him where he thought the money came from for all those government contracts."
Perhaps, you should ask yourself that question since only half of this country pays income taxes. So,
February 18, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
Paul Compost (a name as odiferous as the crap he vomits forth) strikes again. As usual, there is no recognizable intelligent thought in his drivel, nor does he offer any verifiable evidence to back up his almost comical, putrid vomit.
What is clear, professor Compost shares one thing with that guy from the Wannabe Tribe of Native Americans, Ward Churchill and the majority of professors at Clown U (with apologies to entertainers everywhere): what they don’t know, they’ll make up.
Unfortunately for Paul Compost and the other left-wing nuts (who are equally as bad as right wing-nuts like Limbaugh and Coulter), I still have my right to speak my opinion, just as they do (and it’s worth about as much as yours is), at least until Billary, or Obama take control.
I will grant you this: Bush is an idiot, no questions about it. So was Carter…and damned if I didn’t waste a vote for him, too.
February 18, 2008
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
A hard core right wing hate site is one of those white power deals. You know the skinheads, hate sites. To me it is scary that we have rocket scientists that are interested in that kind of stuff. Point is that government contracts pay big bucks to military industrialist and for someone to bitch about taxes that gets paid by taxes is kind of crazy.
February 18, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
http://www.oversight.house.gov/story....