My New Year's resolution: Learning to love the nanny state

Time for greens to get over their fear of big government 29

In a recent post, Ron Steenblik wrote:

Indeed, I am generally a skeptic of heavy-handed market manipulation.

A perfectly reasonable position for environmentalists in general to take, especially after the history of Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Corn, etc. using their power with the state.

Not to dump on Ron -- who only provided the most recent example of this general skepticism -- but greens in general need to get over their suspicion of the state; in particular, they need to move beyond the small-government, market-focused ideas deeded to us by some of our brightest lights (the Amory Lovinses of the world.)

Let me start off with a few obvious disclaimers: Yes, I recognize that environmentalists have been poorly-served by big government -- ethanol in the U.S., tar sands here in Canada, nuclear and big hydro dams all over the world -- and like Ron, I think a certain amount of skepticism is warranted. And yes, where possible, I would prefer market-based solutions to our problems.

I'm open to evidence that market solutions can work, but I think we're about 20 years too late for incremental reforms. Look around, people. A chunk of ice the size of Manhattan broke off from Ellesmere Island in the Canadian north earlier this year. Manhattan. Floating away. Al Gore is calling this a climate crisis, and who am I to argue with Al Gore?

There are lots of things the market does spectacularly well (he says, typing words onto a flatscreen monitor), but responding to massive, systemic crises simply isn't one of them. Everybody recognizes this when it comes to other spheres of human activity -- nobody talks about market-based strategies for national defense, after all. If global warming is a crisis, we need to respond to it the way we would respond to other crises of the same scope. When Carter called for the "moral equivalent of war", he was on to something.

Nevertheless, I am skeptical of the massive, state-led, Apollo- and Manhattan-style dreams for sustainability. Fortunately, there is another paradigm available, one that's already part of the environmental lexicon: development. As in, "sustainable development." When it comes to sustainability, the entire world is Sierra Leone. We are all in the Green Third World, and we will need to figure out development models that can bring all of us -- "wealthy" North and poor South alike -- in to a sustainable economy.

Here, the insights of development economics are extremely useful, specifically some of the dissident views on the failure of purely market-based solutions in the third world. I've written about this a bit before, but it's probably put best by former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz:

Yet history shows that in every successful country, the government had played an important role. Yes, governments sometimes fail, but unfettered markets are a certain prescription for failure. [my emphasis]

An even stronger argument is made by Cambridge Economist Ha-Joon Chang, who points out that today's market-loving powers were yesterday's worst protectionists:

The historical picture is clear. When they were trying to catch up with the frontier economies, the NDCs [now-developed countries] used interventionist trade and industrial policies in order to promote their infant industries. The forms of these policies and the emphases among them may have been different across countries, but there is no denying that they actively used such policies. And, in relative terms (that is, taking into account the productivity gap with the more advanced countries), many of them actually protected their industries a lot more heavily than what the currently developing countries have done.

Chang is just one of many economists who have strongly argued against the laissez-faire model of development, based on shockingly uncouth use of a thing called "historical evidence." The market alone has never provided a strong impetus to growth -- it takes competence, foresight, and vision on the part of government to craft proper development policies. This is obviously true for the old, unsustainable form of development. Why would it be any different for sustainable development?

Better still, "development" is not fear-based, the way a crisis-driven mobilization would be. (You all should have read David's pieces on fear by now!) Environmentalists can make a good argument for a strong government hand in sustainable development without evoking Hiroshima, Communism, or even 9/11. What we need is not a new nuclear bomb or 100,000 bombers. What we need is the green Japanese Miracle, or the "30 glorious years" in America and Western Europe.

There's a final reason why environmentalists shouldn't be afraid to grab the mantle of development and big government: If we don't, someone else will do it for us. You can already see Washington pushing more coal, more nuclear, more oil shale, for God's sake. At the end of the day, we aren't going to win this argument by being against government. Instead, arguing for green development allows us to fight on their turf -- deploying the power of the state for our own ends.

John McGrath is an intinerant student and sometimes reporter currently living in Toronto, Canada. He mainly writes about Canadian and International Politics from an energy and climate perspective

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. randino Posted 10:10 am
    31 Dec 2006

    Counter currents.You can see counter currents against laissez faire all around. You have the revolt against the Robert Rubin wing of the Democratic Party, signalled by the election of people like Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Within China there has been a rise of a New Left, that while largely confined to universities is making its influence felt and it is sceptical to hostile to laissez faire, and very insistent on environmental protection. Seems even pig headed Communist bureaucrats in China listen to intellectuals. I think it is part of the culture that has been around for a few thousand years. You have the fact that the traditional WTO trade initiatives aka "unleash the fury of the ruling class" have gone nowhere over the past several years. Even Pat Buchanan (ye gods!) says that the era of free trade is over with.
    What is very interesting, principally because Washington DC has become a great sucking black hole over the past six years, is you see a vitality on the grass roots level unseen in years. The place to be in environmental politics today is the city, or state level. Now here is where you see the return of the activist state, the state as the "tribune of the people".
    Just some of my two bits.
    randino

    Randy Cunningham

    Permalink

  2. Ron Steenblik Posted 5:55 pm
    31 Dec 2006

    A clarificationJust to clarify my earlier comment in another post, the context was Rick Gray's proposal to increase the federal excise tax on gasoline by $1.00/gallon, and at the same time institute a complex system of ration cards. The latter would require a new, large bureaucracy and therefore, in my view, be more heavy-handed than an alternative means to provide relief to consumers, such as through a tax rebate (e.g., $360 a year per adult in the case of Mr. Gray's proposal).
    Of course government can be a force for good. The question is, if the system mainly serves special interests, how does one make it more the servent of the public interest (not that defining that is always easy)?
    Getting elected officials to give priority to the public good and less to private interest is a process that takes time. At the federal level it could take a long time. There are, to be sure, many Washington-based NGOs trying to keep tabs on corporate welfare and regulatory loopholes. But theirs is a daunting task. As Brian J. Finegan wrote in The Federal Subsidy Beast, the predilection for pork is bi-partisan. There is no longer a Democratic or Republican Party, he wrote, only a Subsidy Party. The late economist, Mancur Olson, had earlier predicted as much. A strong supporter of democracy and free enterprise, he nonetheless foresaw that "economic sclerosis" -- the clogging of a country's vital organs by subsidies, tax breaks and regulatory favors to special interests -- would be what would eventually precipitate the decline of capitalist societies.
    A vital element of reform is more transparency on public spending -- which is coming, thanks to a recently passed law. But the ship of state has a huge amount of momentum behind it. To quote Roger Daltrey: "Smile and grin at the change all around", and hope "We don't get fooled again."
    What worries me in this post, and Randy Cunningham's comment, is the aversion I sense to more open trade. There are aspects of the current multilateral trade regime (a.k.a. the agreements administered by the WTO) that sorely need improvement, such as the Agreement on Agriculture. But trade (which existed before there was such as thing as a nation state) has brought much good to the world. Developing countries in particular know that their bargaining power in a rules-based, international system like the WTO is likely to be much greater than in a world in which trade is governed by bilateral deals with dominant trading partners.
    Environmental criticisms of trade are often misplaced. Maintaining that international trade is intrinsically bad, but implicitly implying that trade within borders is good, strikes me as arbitrary. Is it better for the environment to favor products transported long distances by truck in your own country while discouraging imports of the same product, transported by (much more efficient) ships, from another country? If C02 emissions associated with that transport are the concern, a tax on those emissions would be a much more targeted instrument than a trade barrier.

    Permalink

  3. GMB Posted 8:35 pm
    31 Dec 2006

    You Don't Have A Warming Problem"but greens in general need to get over their suspicion of the state; in particular, they need to move beyond the small-government, market-focused ideas deeded to us by some of our brightest lights (the Amory Lovinses of the world.).."
    Why?


    You don't have a warming problem. There is absolutely no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
    Big government would still a grave danger and a really stupid way of doing things if you did have a problem. But you don't have a problem,
    If you did have a problem (you don't) but if you did the cheapest way to deal with it would be straight tax substitution to  a CO2 tax and reductions in tax elsewhere in the context of reducing the size of government.


    Of all the posts I've seen so far this takes the cake of being the most irrational.
    Since it is wrong on all points of the argument.
    Now you guys just have to stopit. Come up for some evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
    And if you cannot try and bring this scientific fraud to an end.

    Permalink

  4. John McGrath Posted 2:17 am
    01 Jan 2007

    Sorry Ron...My post really wasn't intended to be directly connected to your post, except for the very limited quote.  I agree with your comment entirely, and I personally have no aversion to international trade - rather, it's been the use of international finance (the World Bank and IMF cartel) to deform development that bothers me.
    Trade is, of course, natural.  But that doesn't mean the "market" (the system within which trading occurs) has some natural or holy shape.  The government has the right to impose taxes domestically - and tariffs internationally - in order to meet social ends: less pollution, more development, etc.

    Permalink

  5. Laurence Aurbach Posted 5:34 am
    01 Jan 2007

    losing NemoFor responses to climate crises, the most effective federal actions will be a) carbon taxes and limits; b) efficiency standards; c) large infrastructure investments, as Gar Lipow has been describing; and c) R&D, especially the commercialization of carbon sequestration processes for coal, and all renewable energy technologies. Policymakers need to take a comprehensive look at the obstacles, market failures and externalities that are preventing a swifter move to a decarbonized economy.
    In response to GMB -- I suppose "catastrophic" is in the eye of the beholder. After all, the human race has survived massive climate change in the past. If all the coral reefs of the world died off, I would consider that a catastrophe. And that is virtually certain to happen with the status quo.
    The experts on catastrophe, the global insurance industry, are finding plenty of evidence for action: in their balance sheets.

    Permalink

  6. GMB Posted 7:00 am
    01 Jan 2007

    But Losing Nemo? Why?If CO2 was a bad thing you would be right. But why would you do any of that stuff?
    There isn't the least bit of justification for it.
    No use building a rational free-enterprise approach on top of a scientific fraud.
    CO2 is good. And we live on a planet that lurches towards catastrophic cooling. Not catastrophic warming.

    Permalink

  7. Laurence Aurbach Posted 7:48 am
    01 Jan 2007

    R.I.P. Nemo"If CO2 was a bad thing you would be right. But why would you do any of that stuff?"
    Why indeed? I guess it's because I've had too much of a good thing -- CO2.
    "And we live on a planet that lurches towards catastrophic cooling. Not catastrophic warming."
    I was surprised to learn that Al Gore agrees agrees wholeheartedly with that assertion:
    Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

    Permalink

  8. GMB Posted 8:20 am
    01 Jan 2007

    You Got An Argument Their Champ?Couldn't find any actual argument beneath the mindless smugness.
    Looks like I'll have to repeat myself to stop you throwing people off  the scent.
    CO2 is good. Gaia eats CO2 and shits life. The planet, with its current configuration of continents has a tendency towards catastrophic cooling. Catastrophic unless we are talking about sea-creature who tend to thrive during glaciations due to the extra oxygen absorption.
    There is no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming and no evidence that we have nearly enough CO2 let alone too much, for the further invigoration of the natural world.
    We could have three or four times as much and we might expect a further invigoration of the natural world and this would make it easier for us to maintain biodiversity.

    Permalink

  9. Laurence Aurbach Posted 9:18 am
    01 Jan 2007

    dust to dustGMB, you said: "I'm waiting for an authentic counter-attack so I can counter-attack back."
    I'm not looking for a fight, I'm looking for more truth and common sense. If we could have three or four times as much CO2 with only beneficial effects for the planet, that would be tremendous good news. Please don't keep the trail hidden. Reveal your evidence, research, and sources.

    Permalink

  10. GMB Posted 9:43 am
    01 Jan 2007

    It Is Good NewsIt is good news because plants respond positively to these higher CO2 levels without ill-effects.
    If we got 10 000 ppm (ie 1%) then thats more ambiguous. Since you can kill insects with that amount and some plants act kind of strange.
    So thats the good news and the bad news ie EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THE LIKELIHOOD OF CATASTROPHIC WARMING is entirely lacking.
    You look like someone whose put in a lot of effort to get out bad news that doesn't happen to be true.
    Why not put out the good news that is?

    Permalink

  11. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 11:21 am
    01 Jan 2007

    I agree and disagree....It's not about the size of government intervention, but whether it's smart and effective- that being said, I think most "big-government" interventions can easily turn out bad, but if you consider taxing carbon a "big" intervention then I think that's a smart and effective. To be continued...
    J.S.

    J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

    Permalink

  12. GMB Posted 11:30 am
    01 Jan 2007

    It Would Be Smart And Effective.......On three conditions.


    It was a tax-substitution and not a tax increase.
    It was only on oil until we had made sufficient progress in our efforts tot substitute away from oil and:
    THERE WAS A REASON TO DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.


    Dude. I appreciate what you are trying to do here. But you can't build a super-structure of reasonableness on top of a scientific fraud.
    This is a planet that for the last 39 million and particularly the last 3 and a half million years has had a bias for catastrophic COOLING not warming.
    And we ought not impose even $1 of costs until we get some evidence that things have swung the other way.
    Which by the way is entirely unlikely.

    Permalink

  13. Jason D Scorse's avatar

    Jason D Scorse Posted 11:46 am
    01 Jan 2007

    GMB...are you trying to suggest that the findings of the IPCC are bunk? That you don't believe there is a warming trend? That you don't think we have something to do with it?
    For the record, I'm not a climate change alarmist, I don't think the world is going to end, I don't think climate change is going to be the worst thing we have ever faced, but I do think it's real and needs to be addressed and I think the evidence is pretty strong- not definitive- but within the realm where we should act.
    J.S.

    J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

    Permalink

  14. wiscidea Posted 12:54 pm
    01 Jan 2007

    GMB...So your skeptical about whether CO2 is causing global warming... but if there is any doubt, it seems the responsible conservative thing to do is to reduce our emissions until we know it is safe to return to burning fossil fuel. Our entire economy is based on fossil fuel, but it is also based on the current climate and distribution of biological resources (lumber, fish, agricultrual land, freshwater, et cetera). I don't undertand why a responsible conservative person (or liberal person, any peson) would want to mess with the system that created and maintains their wealth and lifestyle. We not talking about putting a small community or small nation at risk. We're putting the entire biosphere on the table. No moving to a different continent if we mess things up. There is nowhere else to go. Our backs are to the wall. You are either a fool or must have a really great plan for you and your descendent to ride out the changes we  -- as a technologically advanced species of 6 billion people living in every available niche on Earth and tapping our resources to the limit -- have NEVER faced before. There might be a severe population bottle-neck approaching... are you sure that you or your descendents will survive?

    Permalink

  15. GMB Posted 12:57 am
    02 Jan 2007

    WHAT IS PRUDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT?"So your skeptical about whether CO2 is causing global warming... but if there is any doubt, it seems the responsible conservative thing to do is to reduce our emissions until we know it is safe to return to burning fossil fuel."
    The prudent and conservative thing is to go with either one of two options........ or a compromise between the two if the two relevant tendencies are working against eachother.....
    That is to say prudence can be found in either of the following:


    Not imposing costs on anyone and encouraging the maximisation of economic liberty and voluntary capital accumulation.
    Setting policy to go against the natural catastrophic-cooling-tendencies of the planet.


    Since to do 1 appears to be in furtherance of 2 also.... It follows that to ascribe to option 1 is THE VERY PATH OF PRUDENCE.
    You see. We have a planet that for a long time now has had a continental layout that favours catastrophic cooling.
    Now were we on this planet 70 million years ago then I would likely be advocating minimisation of government but maximisation of carbon-tax in the funding of that minimal government.
    But this is clearly not the appropriate risk-minimisation strategy now.
    We have to stop thinking of Mother Nature as always right. When in point of fact she's a Nazi-bitch-Goddess.
    Or it might be that she's kind and caring with regards to temperature.
    But having the Antarctic where it is amounts to a design-fault in terms of heat-regulation.
    Or it might be that she likes to play favourites. And that during the last 39 million years its see animals that are her favourite children.
    But either way we have to see her straight. And not as some avenging Yahweh who always punishes us to the seventh generation when we go against her covenants.

    Permalink

  16. atreyger Posted 1:32 am
    02 Jan 2007

    GMBThe suggestion that CO2 is going to up the growth of plants is dubious on a global scale at best. In case you are not aware of the limiting nutrient concept: it basically means that any other nutrient can be increased until you're blue in the face, the only one that really matters is the one that is limiting the growth. CO2 is not a limiting nutrient in majority of cases, which has been shown in several ecosystem based experimental (not modeling) studies. So in reality, CO2 is not going to get absorbed and as it is being put out from under the ground where it was merrily sequestered for millions of years, the rate at which it is increasing is quite 'unnatural' (I don't really like that word) and definitely unprecedented. And CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', which warms the planet.
    You can deny all you want, but it's causing global warming. You do not matter.

    Permalink

  17. GMB Posted 2:00 am
    02 Jan 2007

    It Aint The Least Bit Dubious.No thats not right.
    You see you have to take notice of the effect of CO2 on three things.
    Water, Nitrogen and trace elements.
    Water.


    Easier to collect. Because if in the first instance if CO2  does cause SOME warming and therefore extra precipitation it will increase the efficiency of rain. Making water easier to collect for a society with substantial capital goods.
    Increases the water-productivity of plants by reducing transpiration.


    Nitrogen...
    Plants tend to enrich the soil with Nitrogen  when growing in a CO2-rich environment.
    3. Trace elements.
    Well of course the agriculturalist will have to replace these. Because he's always creaming the plant matter off. Thats all cut and dried.
    But in the natural environment these trace elements move hither and yon by sheer Serendipity. And are most likely to stay put, at least for the most part, with the rotting of the leaves and the crapping of the animals and such.
    So nature will be more robust for sure. But there is a sort of saturation point where everything is entangled with the other. You won't find a great more productivity coming out of the rainforest for example.
    But it will be easier for the fringes of the high-productivity areas to spread.
    Which will make our job easier should we choose to invest in biodiversity.

    Permalink

  18. GMB Posted 2:08 am
    02 Jan 2007

    Rolling Thunder of ErrorLets go through it one error at a time:
    "CO2 is not a limiting nutrient in majority of cases...."
    Yes it is.
    " which has been shown in several ecosystem based experimental (not modeling) studies...."
    several hand-picked out of several thousand
    "... So in reality, CO2 is not going to get absorbed..."
    Well yes more of it is. Not all of it. We want some left over to help counteract the planetary bias towards catastrophic cooling.
    ".. and as it is being put out from under the ground where it was merrily sequestered for millions of years, the rate at which it is increasing is quite 'unnatural' (I don't really like that word) and definitely unprecedented...."
    And a good thing too.
    ".. And CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', which warms the planet...."
    Well you don't have the data for that. But I think thats probably right and I'm the optimistic sort.
    "You can deny all you want, but it's causing global warming. You do not matter."
    This is what the psychologists call LEFTIST PROJECTION. In fact it is YOU who are the denialist-alarmist. And being as you seem to have a sheep-live disposition your opinion will make no difference one way or another.
    Now the fact is though. You have no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
    Yet there is mountains of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global cooling.
    Deny all you want. But thats the state of the science so far.

    Permalink

  19. Ron Steenblik Posted 2:11 am
    02 Jan 2007

    Are all plants nitrogen-fixing?GMB, I can imagine that nitrogen-fixing "plants enrich the soil with nitrogen when growing in a CO2-rich environment", but do you mean to suggest that all plants do? If so, could you please point us to a source for that claim? That would be an important piece of news, indeed.

    Permalink

  20. wiscidea Posted 2:13 am
    02 Jan 2007

    GMBI have to question your definition of "biodiversity". You seem to equate it with sheer quantity of biomass. As Earth's climate warms and becomes more uniform, there will be loss of certain ecosystems. This is especially true today when the rate of climate change, fragmentation of habitat, and reduced distribution of members of each species reduces the ability of species to shift in response to climate change (an option previously available, except during extreme disruptions such as meteor impacts). There will be few islands of habitat for them to withdraw to and ride out fluctuations in climate. If you are correct, Earth's climate warms, and life flourishes, there might be an increase in biomass, but there will be considerably fewer species available to rebound during periods of cooling (which are inevitable).

    Permalink

  21. amazingdrx Posted 2:23 am
    02 Jan 2007

    No argumentYou have no argument.  No evidence.  Only a rant.
    In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
    When you get an argument with some evidence you will get a debate.  Until then, watch the Gore movie and "Who Killed The Electric Car".
    Watch them over and over.  Turn off foxnews and Limbaugh.  swear off Drudge.  Get your mind right.
    Hehehey.  

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  22. GMB Posted 2:27 am
    02 Jan 2007

    The Tendency Is There"GMB, I can imagine that nitrogen-fixing "plants enrich the soil with nitrogen when growing in a CO2-rich environment", but do you mean to suggest that all plants do? If so, could you please point us to a source for that claim? That would be an important piece of news, indeed."
    The tendency is there. I mean I wouldn't expect every tree or blade of grass to start acting like lupins.
    But on average the tendency is there.

    Permalink

  23. GMB Posted 2:30 am
    02 Jan 2007

    You aint talking to me are you amazingdrx?Surely not?
    You being an evidence-free-zone and all?
    Now that would be mindless and hypocritical.

    Permalink

  24. GMB Posted 2:38 am
    02 Jan 2007

    ACTIVE OR PASSIVE?"I have to question your definition of "biodiversity". You seem to equate it with sheer quantity of biomass."
    No I don't.
    "As Earth's climate warms and becomes more uniform, there will be loss of certain ecosystems."
    You are taking a passive approach here. And a presumptive one. Because its more then likely that mid-century the planet will be cooler even if it heats up again later on.
    "This is especially true today when the rate of climate change,.."
    You might want to check that again. This time see if the data includes ocean air and the Southern Hemisphere and averages out for Antarctica and minuses out any urban heat islands.
    After all that who knows. The rate of change might not be as nasty as you think and will almost definitely come back the other way because it tends to oscillate back and forth.
    "...fragmentation of habitat, and reduced distribution of members of each species reduces the ability of species to shift..."
    Right. I suspect that a lot of this would happen if we froze. Or got warmer. Or stayed the same.
    But more CO2 will make for a more robust natural world independent of the temperature of that planet.
    And therefore will make it easier for us to invest in biodiversity in the active sense.

    Permalink

  25. amazingdrx Posted 2:43 am
    02 Jan 2007

    A does of your own medsAny evidence at all?  has fox or drudge commissioned some study we haven't heard about?  please cite it if so!  
    I didn't think so.
    Murdoch and ailes aired a global warming special instead.
    Wouldn't you think if there were some countervailing evidence that the 10s of millions in cash for propaganda doled out to AEI and CATO and the like would have funded at least one peer reviewed study that puts doubt to global climate change theory?  With all that big coal and big oil lobbying money couldn't they find at least one scientist willing to destroy his reputation for cash?
    One, not even one?  Against all the peer reviewed research on the other side.
    All we get is rants.  

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  26. GMB Posted 3:01 am
    02 Jan 2007

    You Won't Because You Can't.You won't come up with any evidence for catastrophic global warming, because you can't. Because there is no such evidence.
    Those are good shows that you're mindlessly bagging but no doubt somewhat beyond your ken.
    But even the dimmest amongst us (I'm talking to you fella) ought to be able to see a pattern from this relentless argument-from-smugness not buttressed by any real evidence.
    Forget peer review. Its a crap idea.

    Permalink

  27. sunflower's avatar

    sunflower Posted 3:06 am
    02 Jan 2007

    Google - GMB trollRead GMB at the bottom of this...

    Requiem for a GMBism?.

    Permalink

  28. GMB Posted 4:32 am
    02 Jan 2007

    Still no evidence Troll?So you've got not evidence for your mindless sheep-like behaviour.
    So its down to name-calling now you pathetic gutless little moron.

    Permalink

  29. GMB Posted 4:35 am
    02 Jan 2007

    Still No Evidence Troll?So you've got not evidence for your mindless sheep-like behaviour.
    So its down to name-calling now you pathetic gutless little dumb-leftist-bully-by advocate of the status quo mental weakling.
    But thanks for bringing my old stuff up.
    Its all good stuff.
    And a good sermon can stand a second and third repeating.
    I'd reccomend any of the old stuff.
    But its all before I investigated this particular subject.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement