Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

OIL SPILL: No one but God should own energy

Letter by Alfred K. LaMotte, Steilacoom on June 1, 2010 at 11:17 am with 34 Comments »
June 9, 2010 9:06 am

Laissez-faire capitalism, which means corporate power unchecked by regulatory government, is running on empty. A dwindling elite sucks fumes of debt from a bankrupt middle class addicted to unsustainable consumerism, while our natural environment perishes.

Laissez-faire capitalism was based on lies, lies that gave us the 19th Century robber barons, the Great Depression, and Reaganomics’ short-lived but disastrous euphoria.

What were the lies? That enlightened self-interest can replace the ethic of community; that stock holders who invest only for money will sacrifice profit for worker and environmental safety; that private corporations will regulate themselves; that government is the enemy of the people, when in fact it is we, the people; and that the invisible hand of the free market is the hand of God.

But the biggest lie was the obscene notion that anyone but God can own our natural resources. We the people, as stewards of the earth through collective government, may manage natural resources in a “commonwealth.” But no private corporation has the right to own them and sell them to us: neither as coal, oil, timber, water or wind-power.

Such pride is equivalent to Eve’s sin in Eden: she wanted to be like God. The hubris of owning what only God creates must end in a fall, like the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico.

This tragedy is a clarion call to nationalize our energy companies.

Leave a comment Comments → 34
  1. larsman says:

    Partial agreement, but which of the other hundred or so countries that are drilling not just in in the gulf, but on any promising medium, will agree to acquiesce to your conclusion, it’s NOT just the U.S. you know. So before any Polyanna makes the absurd suggestion to involve the “Untied Nations” (purposely misspelled), we, the U.S. had better be able to quickly respond to these eventualities regardless of which party causes them. It is part of our govt.’s constitutional mandate, like why you have a spare tire in your trunk…

  2. Yeah, like the government can be trusted with God’s stuff.

  3. Speaking of God flamotte, I thought we were supposed to keep God at bay when it came to government.

    I wonder where the outcry is at Nancy Pelosi recently saying that it is government’s job to make sure “The Word” meaning Jesus Christ as she explained it is heard and obeyed.

    That’s right, The Speaker Herself said it. I heard it. Why no outcry?

    Or is it that Nancy and flamotte and their cohorts can be trusted to know what God wants for America so it’s okay for them to invoke His/Her Spirit for political purposes.

    Perhaps somebody here can explain it to me?

  4. Volks253 says:

    Letting industries to “self regulate” is what has gotten us in so much trouble.
    When will the right admit they are wrong?

  5. readingthelatest says:

    Wow- the bat’s were busy in there….

    Who’s God, by the way? There are so many now it’s hard to keep them straight. Maybe that’s why there is a crisis- because the Gods were wrestling for control of the energy and knocked over the rig. Then Zeus saw an opportunity to take control and struck the damaged rig with lightning- causing the BIG explosion.

    And then Mephistopheles, whom we all know lives in the center of the Earth, seized control of the leaky pipe so that all mankind would know who the supreme ruler is. And for spite, fuel prices will soon average $6.66 a gallon…. (the last part was said on behalf of Pat Robertson…)

    This horrible leak has little to do with God and a whole lot to do with the mega-profit oil companies hording their funds. With all the money earned in the last decade, I find it reprehensible that not one of these companies has developed a containment procedure. Everything they have tried as been conceptual- and unproductive. We’ve been drilling for 100 years- and yet we don’t know how to stop it or clean it up.

    Those fishermen and shrimpers in the Gulf couldn’t care less about fuel prices- they can’t even earn a living now.

  6. Still waiting for an explanation as to why it’s okay for Pelosi to invoke Jesus as her inspiration, and it’s okay for flamotte to use God to further his political agenda…but it was blasphemous and unconstitutional when George Bush dared to talk about his prayer life.



  7. nwcolorist says:

    Sozo, I had to google “Pelosi Jesus” after I read your post. But, sure enough, there she was, coyly talking about Jesus Christ, although not mentioning him by name.

    Think about it. If the leader of the godless liberals is talking about God, the Dem’s outlook for the mid-term elections must be getting real grim.

  8. aislander says:

    It’s perfectly obvious that flamo’s god is government. The headline says that “no one but God should own energy” and flamo concludes with a call to nationalize energy. QED…

  9. Yes, aislander, I noticed this. A little slip of the pen perhaps.

    nwcolorist, if you see the whole thing, you will hear her reference the Gospel in which The Word clearly means Jesus Christ…”The Word made flesh.”

    And you aren’t going to hear much about it anywhere on the mainline, I can promise you.

  10. Great topic for your next class at Evergreen Collgege Flamotte. I’m sure that all of the wizards will be impressed. BTW how are you heating your home these days?

  11. still waiting…

  12. LuckyCharm says:

    sozo, how about an exact quote, and the context in which it was made?

  13. Novelist3 says:

    The readers of this letter didn’t get it…

    But it’s pretty clear when you read it.

    “No one but God should own energy.”
    “Nationalize our energy companies.”

    Thus, to make our government own the energy companies is to equate the head of our government (as only God should own energy) as God.

    The letter writer is thus calling our current president, Barak Obama, God.

  14. LuckyCharm says:

    I think the original writer’s intent has been misconstrued. I took it to mean that, like air or water, oil is a natural resource that doesn’t “belong” to any private corporation, but is sometimes managed by a government agency for the common good. If a private company found a way to extract the oxygen out of the air so that they could sell it back to you at a profit, would you be okay with that?

  15. “The letter writer is thus calling our current president, Barak Obama, God.”

    And surely, that would be the God, Allah.

    Novelist, maybe you should attend one of Flamotte’s classes and learn the difference between deductive reasoning and devious imagination.

    And woe betide to every one of you self-righteous, arrogant, religious hypocrites that sit in judgement of another individuals relationship with God.

  16. Novelist3 says:

    “If a private company found a way to extract the oxygen out of the air so that they could sell it back to you at a profit, would you be okay with that? ”


    They already do that.

    In Tacoma, Praxair does it. Only it’s not just oxygen- they also take out the argon and nitrogen and sell it back to you. Liquified compressed oxygen has a plethora of practical uses.

    Cirrus’s comment is just going to be ignored, since it’s worthless.

  17. LuckyCharm says:

    Novelist, I don’t know of any private company — not that they wouldn’t if they could — that is extracting the breathable elements out of the air only to be able to sell it back to us to make a profit. I don’t know what this Praxair outfit is doing, but obviously there’s still enough oxygen left for everybody to keep breathing at no cost. If that were no longer possible — if the very air you breathe had to be purchased — would you consider that ethical? Would that even fall within our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, for a government to allow that to happen?

  18. Novelist3 says:

    Again, Lucky-


    Look it up.

    God, sometimes I feel like I’m arguing with mating cats here.

  19. donjames says:

    Apparently much to Freddy’s delight, God already “owns” substantial energy resources in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, China, Venezuela, Russia… (Maybe that should be “Gods.”) How’s that workin’ out for ‘ya, flamotte?

    My guess is it would be okay with any interfaith chaplin, socialist nee communist new Quaker.

  20. beerBoy says:

    Novelist’s comment about the letter is accurate. The “logic” of letter is bizarre.

    However…..Novelist is supporting the concept of the “imperial presidency” when he equates “the government” with “Obama”. It seems that the letter writer’s “god” that justifies nationalizing energy would be pantheistic in nature – represented by the executive, legislative and judicial branches and…..if you believe that the government represents the people…..ultimately the entire electorate.

  21. It appears that the inevitable will happen; that we will ultimately damage this planet to where it will no longer support human life.

    I’m not sure if this is what Fred means when he brings God into the discussion, but this planet is our life support. We have a responsibility to ourselves, not the planet, to protect it. This rock doesn’t need us. We need it.

    Maybe this is the pride he refers to; the notion that we own these resources and can survive mismanaging them.

  22. LuckyCharm says:

    Novelist, I’m not talking about companies that bottle oxygen for people with specific medical needs. So far, nobody’s billed me for the air I breathe, which unlike oil, requires no special harvesting methods. You could say that we pay for breathable air indirectly through taxes that support government agencies charged with managing pollution so that the resource is available to all who need it, but even that supports the idea that the same government should do likewise with our oil.

    BTW Polago, I love this: “We have a responsibility to ourselves, not the planet, to protect it. This rock doesn’t need us. We need it.” Right on.

  23. I’ll make it real easy for you LC:


    Whether the lib/progressives on this site want to admit it or not, folks like flamotte use God when it suits THEIR notions of what is right and wrong which might be okay if they didn’t eviscerate everyone who interprets God’s word in a different way.

    That’s why Pelosi’s recent gaff is so nauseating.
    And amazing that she was talking about applying gospel truths to public policy (to a group of Catholics mind you) and I’M STILL WAITING FOR ANYONE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA to do to her what they would do to a conservative Christian in Congress who suggested that we use the Bible to shape public policy.

    For the record, if you watch the video of this, have a barf bag handy.

    Most reasonable Christians in my circle understand that we were made stewards of the planet, our home, and that we can choose to manage it well or we can choose to rape and pillage.

  24. P.S. I’m wondering how the pro-life RC’s in that crowd like Nancy’s application of the gospel to the question of abortion.

    She’s in awe of the “Word” — but somehow I think she didn’t read the 139th Psalm, or she did what many others do with the Bible and just conveniently skipped a stone over that passage.

  25. cirrus…I hope flamotte reads your admonition here:

    And woe betide to every one of you self-righteous, arrogant, religious hypocrites that sit in judgement of another individuals relationship with God.

  26. aislander says:

    sozo wrote: “For the record, if you watch the video of [Pelosi invoking the Gospel], have a barf bag handy.”

    In her every public utterance, Pelosi saves bulimics the labor of putting their fingers down their throats…

  27. LuckyCharm says:

    sozo, I don’t know why you keep trying to bring a speech Nancy Pelosi made to a Catholic group into a discussion of nationalizing oil resources, since she never even approached that topic, but I’m guessing it has to do with lumping everybody who you feel espouses the “Democratic agenda” into one entity, so that each member of that group is answerable for the words and actions of every other member, especially if two of them happen to mention a deity, no matter the context. Very Beckish, I must say….

    But as far as Pelosi’s comments, I don’t know why she chose to bring up the question of her favorite word. Personally, I would look at someone who asked me that and say, “What? Why would you ask, and why do I have to have a favorite? Do you mean lyrically, or in its connotations? Right now, or yesterday when I was deciding what to have for dinner? Or maybe when I stub my toe?” Sheesh, what a question. And kind of a strange answer, although I can sort of see where she was going with all that. She was trying to appeal to their religious sensibilities in language they could understand, and assure them she was trying to be faithful to their common values in the execution of her political duties. Okay, fine — I have no problem with that, as long as she (or any other political leader) bears in mind that while their personal convictions may spur them to honest, ethical, compassionate conduct, their chief responsibility is to ALL of their constituents, many of whom don’t share particular tenets of their faith. And many sincerely devout people simply disagree on the question of whether abortion should be legally prohibited. Jesus certainly never spoke out against it. Nor did He speak out against excessive taxation or homosexuality, or defend the people’s right to bear arms, or denounce Canaanites (who were supposed to have been exterminated centuries earlier by God’s command!) who came seeking favors that supposedly were rightfully only for the Jews. If Pelosi was referring to Jesus, it stands to reason that she’s saying she tries, insofar as possible, to allow His teachings to guide her work. How well she’s succeeding at that is an entirely different question, and different people will have different opinions on it, just as they did with Bush, but at least that’s what she appears to be saying to that crowd.

  28. sozo – you do know that Pelosi is a Catholic…..?

  29. bBoy, I assumed she was a Catholic, didn’t know it as fact. Doesn’t change anything I’ve said or asked.

    And Lucky…I brought it up not because of the oil spill controversy but because flamotte opened the door to God and public policy.

    Don’t rewrite the script, please. She didn’t say what you indicate here. She made it very clear that “The Word” and adherence to it should directly influence public policy; even alluded to Judgment Day.

    Bottom line, she was out politicking as usual. If she were any more transparent she’d be the glass in a Windex commercial, and I don’t mean transparent in the good way. I mean she’s not fooling anyone.

    Well, I guess she is fooling some. She’s not fooling anyone with an ounce of discernment.

  30. LuckyCharm says:

    Of course she was politicking — she didn’t get to where she is today by not being a politician. And undoubtedly she was invited to that conference in her capacity as House Speaker, so not to speak of politics would have been highly unusual and unexpected. I hardly think she was invited on the basis of her deep spiritual reflections.

    Personally, I find her comments rather cheesy (did she write that speech herself??), but not scandalous. And they were cryptic enough that anybody could read almost anything they want into them, good or bad. But then again, who am I to criticize? If I were a prominent politician invited to speak at a religious conference, I would have a hard time, too, finding a way to incorporate both elements into my speech. Of course, since they did invite her, it was probably for exactly that purpose — to hear about how her faith informs her political decisions. And hopefully she delivered on what they wanted. I wouldn’t place huge importance on any of those remarks, myself.

  31. beerBoy says:

    sozo – I am disgusted by ANYONE who attempts to justify their political opinions through their deity – not just Democrats.

    I haven’t heard or read Pelosi’s comments but you made special mention of the fact that they were given to a group of Catholics I responded. Since you are not a Catholic, Pelosi is, and I was raised Catholic, I think you would be best not making comment whether or not comments are appropriate for Catholic audiences.

  32. Pelosi was a victim of “too much foot in the mouth syndrome”. It was obvious to me that when she realized she was off-track, she tried to ad-lib her way out of it by mouthing meaniningless words and trying to get herself out of the trap she found herself in.

  33. Well, frosty, she clearly got herself into a verbal mess and looked the fool as she attempted to grope her way out.

    bB, her comments were hardly “Catholic” but in fact represented a broad belief of all who actually embrace the Trinity as Godhead. I know enough theology to know that much.

    And Lucky, the reason she looks like an idiot is that she attempted to do just what you seem to think a politician is supposed to do…contrive some connection where there really is none. I’m guessing it was some speech writer’s attempt at appealing to Christians and it failed miserably.

    You really crack me up LC. How very generous of you not to find any fault with Nancy’s blending of state and religion. I’d love to hear your reaction if it had been Sarah Palin or George Bush.

    Pathetic attempts to feign sincerity always fail in the absence of authentic belief and passion. She delivered this nonsense with the same frightful automaton demeanor she always possesses–the only exception of course being when she allows her mask to slip when she is ticked off.

    Finally Lucky, both you and bBoy attempt to come off as open, intelligent and unbiased…above the fray…when in fact you are right down here in the fray with everyone else. The lens you use to “read” events distorts everything accordingly. Own it, please.

  34. LuckyCharm says:

    sozo, there’s a time and a place for everything. Tailoring one’s remarks toward a particular group during a particular conference is one thing. Sprinkling Bible verses among the slides during official war briefings is quite another. Pelosi was speaking on a personal level, not expounding on any particular national policy issue in relation to her beliefs. Every political leader has done so at one time or another — we expect it of them, in fact. Would an avowed atheist ever rise to political prominence in this country? Not in our lifetimes, I don’t think. I had no problem with Bush’s claims to be Christian — what I objected to was his use of national resources to further his faith agenda.

    Just another example of right-wing broad-brush thinking — if I object to waging war on Iraq based on any kind of religious grounds, I must also condemn a political figure’s remarks to a religious gathering if they mention faith and politics in the same breath. What if Pelosi had said the opposite? “I have strong personal faith, but I never let that faith enter into anything I do on the job.” Do you think the righties would be singing her praises then?

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0