Showing posts with label Devil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Devil. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Satan Is Good, God Is Bad: Our Shifting Moral Compass and Why Atheists Are Throwing the Devil Under the Bus


I went to Skepticon 5 expecting a group of heretics that would get a kick out of my inversed reading of Milton’s Paradise Lost, which claims that Satan is the hero of the story (which was actually the mainstream reading before it became the “mistaken reading”, and is now coming into vogue again by top Milton scholars).


I was surprised to find that Satan makes atheists uncomfortable. Atheists already have a huge image/perception problem, with the religious proclamations that people can’t be good without God and that therefore all atheists are “evil.” Christians already think of atheists as nearly synonymous with Satanists; hence atheists have an uncomfortable relationship with Satanists and don’t want to be associated with the Devil.


Even more so than the term “Atheist”, “Satanist” has an immediately powerful negative connotations. And on the one hand, I definitely think that those people who wish to create a secular political and social force big enough to stand up to religious groups that are trying to make their faith-based beliefs govern the private lives of the rest of us, need to think about how they are perceived because it does impact the message being shared.


But there is still a very good reason to rescue Satan from his eternal cell of automatic-guilt; punished for a crime he was created to commit, as essential to the Christian plan of salvation as Jesus himself, and stereotyped into a boogey-man of evil and terror in order to frighten people into the arms of God.


Why should we give Satan a second chance, a new trial?


Why should we listen to his voice at all?


Because the term Satan is a wall, a barrier, a defense.


Religious people used to use the words “God” or “Holy” or “Divine” to sanctify their beliefs and values, and those terms were unquestionable. Why? can be answered by “Because God said so.” Humanists, atheists and skeptics have trampled this apparent barrier, forging through the taboo protecting sacred topics from inquiry and doubt, and demanding answers through rational discourse. As a result, Christians and the religious have lost one of their most precious defenses – the appeal to the tautology that God and Holy and Divine are automatically synonymous with the term Good – and inviolable, because “Good” is a universally positive statement that no one can disagree with or question.


But the flip side of this same theme is that of Evil, represented by Satan. Christians will call atheists “Satanists”, and atheists have to struggle to prove that they are not evil, they are not Satanists, that in fact they have positive moral values. But strangely, the literary figure of Satan has always represented some of the same values that humanists and atheists champion – like freedom, equality, the right to choice, to representative politics, the right to bear arms and rebel.


Trying to distance itself from Satan, who is actually an ally and forerunner to the movement, a powerful influence on the development of the very values humanists proclaim, is a failed project and appears disingenuous. Atheists are already quick to judge God and remove his protective labels of “Good” by identifying and criticizing the depravity of his actions recorded in the Bible and other literature – why shouldn’t they take the obvious and natural next step of taking a deep and penetrating look at the devil and questioning the common social assumptions concerning his actions? Shouldn’t the religious identification of Satan with evil values automatically lead atheists to question its validity and predict that Satan – as the polar opposite of the God they deny – represents the values that they hold dear?


Instead, atheists and Christians alike continue to condemn Satan as evil and allow the traditional stereotype that he is a liar, untrustworthy, sinful, etc. to stand. But if our society agrees universally that Satan represents negative values, isn’t it all-too-easy for everyone to continue making the counter association between God and Good values? Somehow Satan, God’s nemesis and opposite, has been completely cut off from the moral discussion concerning belief in God, and while God’s virtuousness and existence is being challenged, Satan’s deviousness is not.




disinformation



Satan Is Good, God Is Bad: Our Shifting Moral Compass and Why Atheists Are Throwing the Devil Under the Bus

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Katy Perry"s Dad Calls Her a "Devil Child" And Asks People to Pray For Her

Featured Video: Conspiracy Theorist News and Updates –



Katy Perry’s Dad Calls Her a “Devil Child” And Asks People to Pray For Her Subscribe to http://www.YouTube.com/MarkDice http://www.Facebook.com/MarkDice http…
Video Rating: 4 / 5



Katy Perry"s Dad Calls Her a "Devil Child" And Asks People to Pray For Her

Sunday, October 6, 2013

The Devil Comes Home to Cal State Northridge


I have received a number of communiqués asking me to take a position on David Klein, a fellow CSU Northridge professor who finds himself in hot water with Jewish anti-defamation groups.  He uses university resources to showcase the movement to boycott and sanction Israel.


Why would my opinion matter?  Well, our controversies have a few faint parallels:  he is Jewish and criticizes Israel, while I am bisexual and oppose same-sex parenting.  We hold unpopular opinions and look like traitors to our own communities.


Some people want me to justify my continued employment at Northridge, given that fellow conservatives are calling for Klein to be punished.  Others want me to defend Klein’s freedom of speech, given that Provost Harry Hellenbrand has been truly stellar at protecting my academic freedom — it is because of Harry that I still have a job.


I’ll get to all that after I tell you a tale, Hawthorne-style.


Remember the gullible Puritan?


A classic Hawthorne short story is “Young Goodman Brown,” in which a Puritan sets out one night, still a hopeful newlywed, but comes back a ruined man.  He ventures into the forest late at night.  He sees all the people from town worship the Devil.


“With excellent resolve for the future,” Brown sets out while the sun is setting.  But the text shows a different man entirely by the tale’s end:


Be it so if you will; but, alas! it was a dream of evil omen for young Goodman Brown. A stern, a sad, a darkly meditative, a distrustful, if not a desperate man did he become from the night of that fearful dream. On the Sabbath day, when the congregation were singing a holy psalm, he could not listen because an anthem of sin rushed loudly upon his ear and drowned all the blessed strain.



What he sees breaks his faith forever.


Call me Ishmael…on second thought, call me Middle-Aged Goodman Brown


In 2008, I drove a U-Haul 2,549 miles from Buffalo to Los Angeles, to begin a professorship at Cal State Northridge, in the department of English.  As I rolled through the gorgeous red canyons of Utah, I was the most pitiable of all things: a believer.


Perhaps I was lulled too much by university websites, always plugging lecture series, roundtables, and grants.  I thought that the gospel of academic freedom was real, and professors could pursue truth without censorship.  I thought the CSU was going to protect the free exchange of ideas.


In very little time, unfortunately, I saw the witching hour.


I was not even finished moving into my office when Obama’s face was plastered everywhere.  It was election 2008; for me, the season in Hell.  At the mere mention of Sarah Palin’s name, seven colleagues at a table literally foamed at the mouth and moaned that only someone mentally retarded could respect such a “self-loathing bimbo.”


I’m like Goodman Brown, only I called the Devil out


I confessed that I admired Palin to a colleague, and he immediately compared me to Hitler.


Afterwards, strange things began to happen.  People became rude during cursory social interactions.  Application after application for course release, teaching support, and other benefits came back rejected.  Everything I sent to the department newsletter vanished into cyberspace.  I couldn’t get on committees, I was summarily removed from faculty groups like the Center for Sex and Gender Research, and I received bizarre communications at the rate of about one per week, which began with “it has come to my attention” and ended with some threat to punish me for the slightest deviation from the most picayune and arcane university regulations.


Within fourteen months of starting the job, I’d been hectored directly at a department retreat and denounced on the faculty listserv.  A trio whom I’ll call the Marxist Brothers — one devoted to a lifelong crusade against the ghost of McCarthy, another obsessed with African-American literature, and another the darling who compared me to Hitler — started having closed-door meetings with my chair, and the fun began.


Suddenly one of the Marxist Brothers unveiled a play about a Puerto Rican academic who narrowly avoided being jobless in budget cuts by working in intelligence and going to Afghanistan.  The dean assured me that this was purely a coincidence and couldn’t have anything to do with me — the only Puerto Rican in the department, the only person working in intelligence, and, as the college’s only faculty reservist, the only one facing deployment to Afghanistan.  I was expected to take it in stride when the reading of this unwritten play was unexpectedly scheduled for nine days before a symposium I had organized on campus about gender and national security.


Friendly outreach to Gender Studies and Queer Studies was of course met with hostility and denunciations, even recriminations.  I received threatening e-mails two days before the symposium, and a few days after the Fort Hood shooting, but the university police denied my requests for help because they felt that Fort Hood was a freak occurrence with little connection to a conference on campus that had been denounced, protested, and sabotaged by students and faculty, to which a host of military and intelligence professionals were invited.


By my third year on the job, I’d had people carve threatening lines over the Army stickers on my door, tear my American flag, and throw flyers at me.  Still no luck with the department newsletter, although it was useful to know each time the Marxist Brothers had an interview with local media (no promo is too big or too small!), published a poem on a former student’s blog, or chaired a roundtable.  It was made clear to me that I was not allowed to use university resources for anything political.  Such was the law, they said.


My colleagues could invite keynote speakers from Code Pink, host conferences called “Queering Religion,” advise the Young Democrats in the midst of campaigns, offer Marxist courses like “the Social Gospel” or “the African American Left,” and found whole departments based on “social justice,” but none of these were seen as violating Cal State’s code about using state resources to advance a political agenda.  The most recent university-wide awards went to the Marxist Brother who wrote the anti-war play and another literature professor who wrote a book claiming that John Milton was an atheist.


By contrast, anything I did, on the job or off, that alluded remotely to my not being a leftist counted as political and was therefore grounds for complaint and possible sanction.  I brought Shirley Jones and Mickey Rooney to campus using a small grant that I got outside Northridge, and these events were never posted on the university homepage calendar of events, no matter how many times I sent the press releases to the appropriate offices.  Instead, on the CSUN homepage, I’ve seen video clips defending same-sex marriage and reports of an art professor who built tiny replicas of Wall Street and set fire to them in celebration of Occupy.


The Marxist Brothers, along with potentially hundreds of nameless others who may have been behind the constant stream of “it has come to my attention” messages, complained about things on my Facebook page, tweets, blogs hosted on blogspot, listserv postings, private e-mails, conversations with students, conversations with colleagues — with the hint that because I was an employee of Cal State Northridge, I might be violating California state law.


By my fourth year on the job, I had lawyers.  I’d been accused of things (and found innocent, of course) by the feminists, the Latinos, the pacifists, and of course, who can forget the gays?  I was still receiving the weekly “it has come to my attention” e-mails.  By my fifth year, there were online petitions against me and national campaigns by gay rights organizations that pressured Northridge to take action against me.  My e-mail account was subject to a public records act request.  All communications with my dean, chair, or other university official were being screened by counsel, and I was avoiding campus for fear of being stabbed, shot, stuck in an elevator with the Marxist Brothers, or stalked by a Central American Studies professor who had goaded people to film me being “racist” for YouTube.


By the end of my fifth year, I had been tear-gassed in Paris and attacked by a mob in Brussels.  Gay activists had gotten me on GLAAD’s blacklist and Google-bombed my name and place of business.  Pressure from gay activists who knew where I worked forced a French university to bar me from presenting at a conference.  Members of my own family had been approached and pressured to denounce me publicly.  I trusted nobody, taught online classes as much as possible, never used university e-mail, did no business with the bookstore, made no applications for grants, and almost never publicized my affiliation with California State Northridge.  Having cultivated a following in England and France, I advocated for children’s rights elsewhere and thought of nearly anything dealing with Northridge as a waste of my time.


Essentially, I am a ruined man, like Goodman Brown.


What do I think about David Klein?


Those who wish to compare my case to his are engaging in a false equivalency.  I knew the Devil and called his bluff years ago.  The perennial pitfall of those on the left is that they make deals with the Devil, to give indulgences to themselves that they deny to rightists.  Then, when the Devil asks for his due, they don’t have much to say.


Professor Klein was one of the faculty who protested against my symposium on gender and national security in November 2009 and incited a cohort of students to come and harass people.  I respect his right to do this, but I suspect that such behavior from me would have ended in my dismissal the next day.  I had to adhere to an almost unattainable standard of purity from day one, to avoid being not only fired, but possibly assaulted.  I don’t think Professor Klein ever worked under such legal stricture.


To be marginalized on campus because you are on the far right is very different from being marginalized because you are on the far left.  When you are on the far left, there are still natural allies on campus — just enough to make you feel entitled.


Professor Klein insisted on using a university website to present information about his views on Israel.  He is a math professor, academically more removed from his activism than I am from same-sex parenting.  Yet I never used university resources to promote discussion of same-sex parenting.


I regret that people at Cal State Northridge must be subjected to so much stress and conflict over Professor Klein’s viewpoints.  I am grateful to Harry Hellenbrand, the provost, for protecting me from what was probably one of the most vicious backlashes survived by any professor alive today.  Cognizant of how lucky I am to have received tenure, I do support Klein’s right to free speech and think he should be able to use university servers as he sees fit, because the state of California pays us very little for the work we do, and in my mind, he has earned the right to use those resources.  But I reject the analogy of my situation to his.


Mostly, I mourn for the campus’s lost innocence.  Salem has been begging for the Devil to appear since as long as I’ve been there, and he’s come home.  I sleep with a clear conscience.


Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.  The views expressed here are his and do not reflect the official position of Cal State Northridge.




American Thinker



The Devil Comes Home to Cal State Northridge

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Sympathy for the Devil


Gordon Ramsay Gordon Ramsay attends the Fox All-Star Party on Aug. 1, 2013, in West Hollywood, Calif.

Photo silhouette by Slate. Photo by Jason LaVeris/FilmMagic/Getty Images




We have reached a certain unanimity about the middle-aged white men who dominate our small-screen landscape: that Breaking Bad’s Walter White is a walking Greek tragedy refitted for the never-ending Great Recession, that Louis C.K. is our existential bard of morality and ethics and how to be good, and that Gordon Ramsay is Satan in a chef’s jacket. Everyone hates Gordon Ramsay. If a Ramsay-hater feels her resolve fading, she can simply consult Grub Street’s useful “20 Most Despicable Things Gordon Ramsay Has Said and Done, Ranked.” Everyone has ample opportunities to hate him, too, as Ramsay hosts roughly two-fifths of the Fox television lineup (including MasterChef, Hell’s Kitchen, Kitchen Nightmares, and Hotel Hell), is owner-proprietor of approximately one-sixteenth of the world’s dining establishments, and has insulted, screwed over, and/or instigated feuds with about one-eighth of the global foodie elite. His bellowing omnipresence has also made him obscenely rich and therefore still easier to hate: Ramsay pocketed $ 38 million in 2012 alone, making him Forbes’ top-earning celebrity chef, and according to Ad Week, Ramsay “has delivered north of $ 185 million in sales for Fox” just in the past year, including advance commitments for his latest show, MasterChef Junior, which premieres Friday.




That Ramsay is so reviled and yet so popular is no paradox. His on-air personality fulfills the same sadistic Schadenfreude that powers so much of reality TV. As with Simon Cowell, the fundamental contradiction at the heart of Ramsay’s charisma is that his sadism is intended to help beleaguered line cooks become the very best line cooks they can be. This is Ramsay’s sacrifice to the novice chefs of America: His name is no longer synonymous with sublime cuisine but with throat-shredding tantrums bouncing off the walls of a disgusting pantry full of moldering food in the bowels of an exurban strip mall’s second-most-popular family restaurant. His appeal partly rests on the assumption that Ramsay has to be standing in that disgusting pantry not just for a paycheck but because he thinks he can help these people clean up their pantry and accounts and wait staff and relationships with one another. The man could be literally anywhere else in the world right now, doing anything, and likely earning money for it, but there he is, waving a slimy block of congealed ground beef at the hapless owner of the Fiesta Sunrise in West Nyack, N.Y.




That’s sad, because nobody remembers anymore that Gordon Ramsay is a great chef. He used to collect Michelin stars the way Kanye West collects Grammys. His lucrative decline from culinary enfant terrible to apoplectic mass-market jester is rooted in the same quality that made him such a phenomenon—the same quality that he urges all of his victim-students to nurture in themselves: his insane, carnivorous notion of a work ethic. The man cannot stop working, and so he has taken what could have been an impeccable brand and worked it to death.




Ramsay came to prominence in the U.K. in the 1998 Channel Four documentary miniseries Boiling Point as a young, terrifyingly ambitious chef in single-minded pursuit of a third Michelin star. His perfectionism was surpassed in intensity only by his astonishing verbal abuse of his staff—all of whom, by the way, had just quit their jobs in solidarity with their tyrannical boss to follow him to his new, eponymous restaurant. (The show waits nine minutes before unleashing Ramsay’s first-ever televised shit fit, triggered by a glimpse of a bright blue Band-Aid on a waiter’s finger.) The Ramsay of Boiling Point was frequently appalling, but he was also an underdog worth rooting for: a true up-by-his-bootstraps success story, having traveled from a bleak council estate through some of the toughest kitchens in England and France (his mentor was the even screamier Marco Pierre White) to, by the mid ’90s, the gig as head chef at Aubergine, the London restaurant so exclusive it famously turned away Madonna. Ramsay would be denied that third Michelin star for another three years, a tortuous wait depicted in the 2000 sequel Beyond Boiling Point. As is the case with so many monomaniacs, though, finally harpooning his white whale wasn’t an entirely positive development for Ramsay; he could find nothing left to chase but fast-track empire-building and cheaply produced reality TV.




Not that all of that cheaply produced reality TV was terrible—quite the contrary, at least with the programs Ramsay made in the U.K., including the genuinely food-centric The F-Word, the frequently charming travelogue Gordon Ramsay’s Great Escape, and especially, the original incarnation of Kitchen Nightmares. Premiering in 2004, the U.K. Kitchen Nightmares provided an intimate, borderline meditative look inside businesses with a fighting chance of survival helmed by not entirely delusional owners. (The central quandary in the episode set at an upscale restaurant in Inverness is that the food is just too fancy.) The editing and sound are far less concussive than in their American counterparts, while Ramsay’s seismic eruptions feel more like natural phenomena; he achieves a fond rapport with many of his charges, even easing into the role of ad-hoc therapist.




The problem with even the best Ramsay TV, though, is the problem with all of Ramsay: There’s just too bloody much of it. Even Fox, the Ramsay Network, can’t handle the full Ramsay. Network head Kevin Reilly passed on a U.S. version of his British hit Gordon Behind Bars, in which Ramsay teaches cooking, small-business skills, and old-fashioned diligence in a south London prison; Reilly explained to the New York Post, “We have a lot of Gordon on the air right now.” Yet Gordon Behind Bars is a show after Rupert Murdoch’s heart—less a Jamie Oliver–ish endeavor to improve prisoners’ diet and job prospects and more an expression of Ramsay’s umbrage that Britain is too soft on her sedentary, TV-watching convict population: “I thought we were a nation of grafters,” Ramsay told the Guardian by way of explanation. “I thought we had the spirit of working harder than anyone.”




Ramsay is a grafter through and through, and that’s both the key to his kingdom and his tragic flaw. He is a man who can’t say no. Even taking into account his haul of lucre for Fox, Ramsay’s past few years have been a study in failing upward: His London gastropub Foxtrot Oscar got caught serving premade “boil-in-a-bag” meals; he lost his longtime contract with Claridge’s hotel in London; he faced a class-action lawsuit by employees of his Los Angeles restaurant the Fat Cow; and endured a string of closures in London, Las Vegas, Prague, Dubai, Melbourne, Qatar, Doha, and Cape Town. What’s damning about that list isn’t that Ramsay has botched or closed so many restaurants in so many cities, but that he had that many restaurants open in the first place, while also fronting and managing a television fiefdom.




Imagine an alternative scenario: if the 1998-vintage Ramsay, flush off his Aubergine triumph, had looked to the 10-years-older, multi-Michelin-starred Thomas Keller as a role model. It wasn’t until four years after the opening of the French Laundry that Keller opened nearby Bouchon, and it was a decade before Keller opened Per Se and Bouchon turned into a (modest) franchise. Keller has published a few cookbooks, dabbled in olive oil and dinnerware, pops up on television to roast a chicken now and again, and that’s about it. He and his food could scarcely be more revered, and that’s not just because he’s a genius. It’s also because Thomas Keller has been an exquisite conservationist of his own brand, which is to say you’ll never see Thomas Keller in a Specsavers ad.




A staunch Ramsay advocate would counter that Ramsay is a populist, but being a man of the people should not mean having to smell all the rancid meat of the people’s kitchens, or even having to smile indulgently at the people’s precocious children preparing brasserie-ready meals in MasterChef Junior, which is a good look for Ramsay only insofar as there’s little chance he’ll start yelling at a 9-year-old for serving a too-rubbery octopus salad. He seems a little exhausted, a little checked out in MasterChef Junior, which is also a good look, as it summons the faintest hope that Ramsay might check out altogether for a little while and give us the chance to miss hating him. I can’t help but wonder if Ramsay ever feels a twinge of regret for allowing the bacteria of America’s most infernal dining establishments to poison his reputation. Because when others see Gordon Ramsay throwing an elk quesadilla at another man, they see a clown. When I see Gordon Ramsay throwing an elk quesadilla at another man, I see a clown, too, but also a tragic figure—a crying-on-the-inside clown, a clown who throws the elk quesadilla out of anger at his pupil but also, perhaps, anger at himself.





Slate Articles



Sympathy for the Devil

Monday, July 15, 2013

For Obama"s climate plan, devil is in the details







President Barack Obama wipes away sweat during a speech on climate change at Georgetown University on Tuesday, June 25, 2013, in Washington. Obama is proposing sweeping steps to limit heat-trapping pollution from coal-fired power plants and to boost renewable energy production on federal property. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)





President Barack Obama wipes away sweat during a speech on climate change at Georgetown University on Tuesday, June 25, 2013, in Washington. Obama is proposing sweeping steps to limit heat-trapping pollution from coal-fired power plants and to boost renewable energy production on federal property. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)





President Barack Obama wipes his face as he speaks about climate change, Tuesday, June 25, 2013, at Georgetown University in Washington. The president is proposing sweeping steps to limit heat-trapping pollution from coal-fired power plants and to boost renewable energy production on federal property, resorting to his executive powers to tackle climate change and sidestepping the partisan gridlock in Congress. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







(AP) — Frustrated by a recalcitrant Congress, President Barack Obama has vowed to take climate change into his own hands. Now he has to deliver.


Three weeks after giving an ambitious speech to outline his proposal, the president begins the arduous task of executing it. Obama’s plan is a complicated mix of rule-making and federal permitting that’s tough to encapsulate in a neat sales pitch — and may be even tougher to put into action.


By pledging to use his authority under existing laws, Obama freed himself from the need to sell the plan to skeptical lawmakers whose support he would need if he had to push a major climate change bill through Congress. Even so, he still needs public support to help shield vulnerable Democrats already facing criticism over the plan; their fate in the 2014 elections will determine whether Obama can accomplish much of anything during his final two years.


“While he can do some stuff on his own, he can’t do others,” said Jim Messina, Obama’s 2012 campaign manager. “Congress needs to act on some of these things.” Messina is now chairman of Organizing for Action, the group formed from Obama’s campaign to advocate for the president’s agenda.


The centerpiece of Obama’s plan is imposing the first-ever limits on carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. This will require each state to draft its own compliance proposal, placing a major component of Obama’s legacy largely in the hands of governors and state policymakers, many of whom are deeply skeptical about the plan and what it could mean for local economies.


Obama knows the clock is ticking. Most of what he has proposed will take years to carry out, and he only calls the shots through 2016. So his aides, Cabinet secretaries and allies are fanning out, trying to start putting the plan in place as soon as possible.


The president took some steps almost immediately after unveiling his proposal. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz overhauled an $ 8 billion loan-guarantee program, one that had largely sat dormant for 5 years, to spur new technologies. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell approved a wind project in Arizona that the administration says will power up to 175,000 homes.


And the Environmental Protection Agency quickly sent a reworked proposal for emissions limits on new power plants to the White House.


When the Obama administration first proposed the limits last year, the energy industry balked, arguing the EPA was being heavy-handed because it used the same standard for natural gas as for coal. The industry argued this would mean a moratorium on new coal plants because the technology needed to retrofit plants to meet the standard isn’t commercially available or cost-effective.


The new version of the rule hasn’t been publicly released. But a senior White House official said the limits will now use different standards for natural gas and coal, essentially bowing to claims that the original rule was ill-conceived. The official was not authorized to divulge details about the rule ahead of its release and spoke on condition of anonymity.


Other steps have yet to be taken. The White House and the EPA are focusing on finishing the rules for new plants before they turn to the far trickier proposition of regulating existing plants.


Coordination and outreach to the 50 states won’t ramp up until the fall, the official said. Obama’s team insists it is confident it can convince states to go along with Obama’s plan.


Heather Zichal, Obama’s top energy and climate adviser, said important steps are being taken even in Republican-led states such as Texas and Utah, where local leaders have been confronted firsthand with drought and other environmental challenges blamed on climate change.


“The conversation outside the (Washington) Beltway is much different than the conversation inside the Beltway,” Zichal said. “You will see us trying to connect those dots.”


But don’t expect Obama to try to sell the plan in the same ways he did with immigration and health care. With climate change, Obama can’t fly around the country rallying Americans to demand their House members and senators vote yes on a bill. That’s because there isn’t one.


Even so, Obama has signaled he wants Americans engaged on the issue. He’s deployed his “Energy Cabinet” — Moniz, Jewell, his agriculture and EPA chiefs and others — around the country to explain what the administration is doing and why. The White House said Obama, too, will be part of that effort, although it hasn’t said whether he’ll travel or make big speeches to tout the plan.


Obama’s aides see parallels with gay marriage, arguing there’s been a dramatic shift in public opinion on climate change that benefits their side.


On some levels, they’re right. When AP-GfK asked Americans in November whether global warming, left unabated, would become a serious U.S. problem, 80 percent said it would — about the same as in 2009. In those three years, though, those who doubt climate change has been occurring have become less certain about it. In 2009, 52 percent of those who questioned climate change said they were sure it was false. In 2012, that figure dropped to 31 percent.


For Obama’s supporters, criticizing those who doubt climate change has become something of a sport — a rallying cry for the Democratic base the same way Obama’s so-called “war on coal” has become a conservative mantra. Organizing for Action, Messina’s group, is calling out every member of Congress who doubts the planet is getting warmer.


The challenges ahead are easy to spot. The authority Obama is invoking comes from the Clean Air Act, a labyrinthine 1960s-era law that’s never been used to regulate heat-trapping gases from existing power plants. The law says EPA must publish guidelines and give states time to create their own plans to meet those goals. Then the EPA gets to approve or reject those plans, setting up likely confrontations with Republican governors and some coal-state Democrats who want nothing to do with making life harder for local industry.


But if states simply refuse to propose their own plan, EPA gets to write the plan for them. It’s a heavy lift with echoes of Obama’s health care law, under which Washington will operate new insurance exchanges in more than half the states, after states refused to do so themselves.


“There’s absolutely no precedent here,” said Jeffrey Holmstead, who ran the EPA’s air and radiation division under President George W. Bush. “The EPA has been given the task of fitting a very large square peg into a very small round hole.”


___


AP Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.


___


Reach Josh Lederman on Twitter: http://twitter.com/joshledermanAP


Associated Press




Politics Headlines



For Obama"s climate plan, devil is in the details