Thanks to the 4 people who voted and the 3 who left comments (I'm sure those 3 also voted) on whether or not you think God is still judging the nations. I know I have more readers than that so maybe I should have included a "I do not know" option so you could have added to the conversation.
Even with the small response here at MP, the conversation has continued offline on this whole God still judging the nations discussion. As a result, this interesting question has raised it's ugly head.
In Romans, we are commanded to obey our government. As such, were our forefathers very, very wrong to engage in the Revolution? Afterall, it was an uprising against the government resulting in war? Which resulted in a complete over turn of said government.
So, was the Revolution wrong in God's eyes?
Is God still judging America for those actions?
Leave some comments, vote in the poll and let's see what we all think about this.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Politics and Culture
"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Culture and politics are intimately related. And the current economic crash we appear to be on is proof of this. The financial recklessness that engulfed Wall Street and Main Street both didn't come from nowhere, and it wasn't imposed on us from on high. No, the politicians that allowed this to happen came out of a culture that enabled it. Politicians aren't created in some lab or basement or factory and come out minted 100% whole; they are human beings who are produced by the culture they serve, and as such reflect the strengths and weaknesses of that culture.
How many politicians of either party could have hoped to have been elected to national office over the past quarter century by preaching thrift, self-discipline and self-sacrifice?
Already we can see our tendency is to blame other people for this confrontation with limits. It's the Chinese and Indians. It's the oil companies. It's Bush/Cheney. It's the Islamofascists. It’s like heavy traffic. Heavy traffic is always other people. When you say 'traffic was terrible' you’re never talking about yourself. Well, folks, the traffic is terrible. But the last thing we should be doing is building more roads.
Here's what I don't get about conservatives (i.e. me). We are able to recognize the danger in Big Government; our understanding of the fallenness of human nature makes us rightly suspicious of the concentration of power in the hands of the state. But what makes us so willing to disbelieve that concentrating so much unchecked power in the hands of financiers will lead us to paradise? Is the financier any less human and more angelic than the government bureaucrat? Is he less susceptible to greed, to envy, and to all the ordinary vices that deform human character and cause us to behave in foolish and reckless ways? Law and culture are two gifts of civilization to help us order our liberty, and put constraints on individual action. Too much constraint, and you stifle life, growth and creativity; too little, and you have shipwreck.
God's Judgement on the Nation cont. 2 (poll)
I've put a poll up on this subject, vote on it.
Add to the conversation as well in the combox.....
Add to the conversation as well in the combox.....
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
God's Judgement on the Nation cont....
Wouldn't you know it........
Following a reference from one of my buddies in response to reading "God's Judgement on the Nation" he lead me to a couple resources he knew of that would perhaps answer some of the questions I proposed in that post.
The issue came up not long ago in an Mars Hill Audio Journal interview with Prof. Steven Keillor, author of a book called "God's Judgment." Unfortunately, if you click on the link you have to pay for the podcast or other form of media you'd like to use to hear it. I didn't get to hear the podcast but was given the highlights and the following link with an excerpt from a critical but largely favorable review of the Keillor book, which appeared in Books & Culture and was written by Prof. Brad Gregory of Notre Dame:
I won't get into the details of Keillor's theory of how we can discern God's purposes in historical events -- the B&C review does this nicely. Bible Girl's column, though, was a good reminder as to how rarely many of us serious Christians ever think about God's judgment with regard to national events -- and how unbiblical that is. In the Mars Hill interview, Keillor explicitly discusses the temptation to read divine purposes into the events after the fact, or perhaps to justify wars and other events. But just because it's common for people to do such a thing doesn't mean that we should dismiss entirely the idea that God uses dramatic events to chastise nations and to teach them something about their behavior.
We all remember Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's pronouncement right after the 9/11 attacks that the event was God's judgment on America brought about because of the actions of the abortionists and gays. When I heard that, I was enraged and furious. Some time later, though, I had to confront the possibility that they were right, that the events of that day were, in some sense, permitted by God as a judgment upon America. I think that given the symbolic power of the attacks, a far stronger case can be made that if -- if -- the God of the Bible intended those attacks as a judgment, the symbolic meaning of the targets would lead us to conclude that He was trying to teach us a lesson about the corrupting power of wealth and materialism (the Twin Towers), and about American militarism (the Pentagon). That interpretation wouldn't suit the political purposes of the Revs. Falwell and Robertson, but it makes a lot more sense to me. See the difference?
It seems to me no bad thing for American Christians to think more rigorously about how our nation measures up to the Biblical standard, and how God might be speaking to us collectively through historical events to call us back to obedience and fidelity. We so often assume that our national aspirations and intentions are consonant with the Almighty's, and that's a profoundly hubristic assumption. So many US Christians support the idea that spreading liberal democracy is a fulfillment of the Great Commission, a sort of divine "mission civilisatrice " for the world, that we don't even stop to consider how God might see what we do. Even the Chosen People fell away from the divine will, and suffered for it. Why shouldn't we?
In the Mars Hill interview, Keillor said that one reason we modern Americans are uncomfortable thinking about interpreting history in this way is that we are opposed to the idea of collective guilt. We judge individuals, not groups, in our legal system. We expect God's judgment to conform to that model. But insofar as the Bible is a reliable testimony of God's literal historical dealings with humanity, we are imposing our own model on Him, and it's baseless. He does judge nations. Neither the United States nor righteous Americans are immune.
So: laugh at Bible Girl if you want to, but whether or not you agree with her conclusion, she's standing on firm Biblical ground in asking the right questions.
Following a reference from one of my buddies in response to reading "God's Judgement on the Nation" he lead me to a couple resources he knew of that would perhaps answer some of the questions I proposed in that post.
The issue came up not long ago in an Mars Hill Audio Journal interview with Prof. Steven Keillor, author of a book called "God's Judgment." Unfortunately, if you click on the link you have to pay for the podcast or other form of media you'd like to use to hear it. I didn't get to hear the podcast but was given the highlights and the following link with an excerpt from a critical but largely favorable review of the Keillor book, which appeared in Books & Culture and was written by Prof. Brad Gregory of Notre Dame:
Those of us skeptical of Keillor's aim [to show that it's possible to argue seriously that God intervenes in history -- my note.] need not accept his premises in order to see the force of his arguments. His claim that the Bible offers a divinely revealed understanding of history can be tested (albeit never proved) by its analytical power in interpreting major historical events. Keillor seeks "to correlate known causes of the event with known categories of divine holiness and judgment" as disclosed in Scripture, well aware that such interpretations can be perilous and are often abused:
We must beware of presumption in claiming to know the mind of God. But the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, where the inability to know for sure morphs into a refusal to ask questions that cannot be known with certainty and then into a dismissal of the category of divine judgment.
In short: if God's purposes are such and such, then certain events are plausibly understood as his judgments in the flow of human history.
I won't get into the details of Keillor's theory of how we can discern God's purposes in historical events -- the B&C review does this nicely. Bible Girl's column, though, was a good reminder as to how rarely many of us serious Christians ever think about God's judgment with regard to national events -- and how unbiblical that is. In the Mars Hill interview, Keillor explicitly discusses the temptation to read divine purposes into the events after the fact, or perhaps to justify wars and other events. But just because it's common for people to do such a thing doesn't mean that we should dismiss entirely the idea that God uses dramatic events to chastise nations and to teach them something about their behavior.
We all remember Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's pronouncement right after the 9/11 attacks that the event was God's judgment on America brought about because of the actions of the abortionists and gays. When I heard that, I was enraged and furious. Some time later, though, I had to confront the possibility that they were right, that the events of that day were, in some sense, permitted by God as a judgment upon America. I think that given the symbolic power of the attacks, a far stronger case can be made that if -- if -- the God of the Bible intended those attacks as a judgment, the symbolic meaning of the targets would lead us to conclude that He was trying to teach us a lesson about the corrupting power of wealth and materialism (the Twin Towers), and about American militarism (the Pentagon). That interpretation wouldn't suit the political purposes of the Revs. Falwell and Robertson, but it makes a lot more sense to me. See the difference?
It seems to me no bad thing for American Christians to think more rigorously about how our nation measures up to the Biblical standard, and how God might be speaking to us collectively through historical events to call us back to obedience and fidelity. We so often assume that our national aspirations and intentions are consonant with the Almighty's, and that's a profoundly hubristic assumption. So many US Christians support the idea that spreading liberal democracy is a fulfillment of the Great Commission, a sort of divine "mission civilisatrice " for the world, that we don't even stop to consider how God might see what we do. Even the Chosen People fell away from the divine will, and suffered for it. Why shouldn't we?
In the Mars Hill interview, Keillor said that one reason we modern Americans are uncomfortable thinking about interpreting history in this way is that we are opposed to the idea of collective guilt. We judge individuals, not groups, in our legal system. We expect God's judgment to conform to that model. But insofar as the Bible is a reliable testimony of God's literal historical dealings with humanity, we are imposing our own model on Him, and it's baseless. He does judge nations. Neither the United States nor righteous Americans are immune.
So: laugh at Bible Girl if you want to, but whether or not you agree with her conclusion, she's standing on firm Biblical ground in asking the right questions.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Round 2
What in the h is in the water down in Tampa!?!?! Both 12's and both 13's pulled out victories...unreal. This means we are guaranteed at least 2 double digit seeds in the sweet 16. We could have 4, which isn't a lot, but no matter what 2 of them will be 12's or 13's...that's crazy.
Well, my Elite 8 (and Final 4) for both brackets are still alive. I did lose a couple sweet 16 teams (UCONN and Vandy) but almost everyone lost UCONN (except my wife...of course she took San Diego, just like she took Siena and W. Kentucky...however, Zona in the elite 8 wasn't too good and a Final 4 of Tenn, Wisco, Texas, and UCLA with Wisco beating UCLA was probably her downfall...but crazier things have happen).
I was right on my 2 "for sure" giant killers of Western Kentucky and Kansas State, but my other maybes weren't even that close. Winthrop lost by 31 (even though they were tied at halftime), Cornell lost by 24, Baylor by 11, Oral Roberts by 19, and St. Joe's was the closest with 8.
I'm still covinced Xavier and Duke are overated (I have both losing in the next round) and they both almost proved me right (that's what March Madness is about...it's the "almost" and the "Giant Killers").
Looking at just the seed number, my next wave of upsets are Notre Dame, MSU (sorry Corey, they DO NOT suck), Marquette, West Virginia. This means in both my brackets I have these 4 teams making it to the sweet 16 by beating a team seeded higher than them.
I also like Purdue and Kansas St.
One thought I've been going over is that I'd like it if we could get a couple of us together on a blog and "live blog" as the tourney plays on. Maybe next year. I think that'd be cool, to see our progress and emotions through the tournament. It would be some work and require some time, but I think it wouldn't be too hard to do. Just keep the post creator open and every 5-10 minutes provide some random thought/update.
Maybe I'm crazy....this makes 2 nights in a row I'm up past 10:30 nevermind the fact past 12:30....and that's just crazy!!!
A special for those that missed it or just to re-live it. (Accoring to Michele that was out loud scream at TV, followed by jump off the couch number 37 so far...I think half of those came during the MSU game anyway)...
Well, my Elite 8 (and Final 4) for both brackets are still alive. I did lose a couple sweet 16 teams (UCONN and Vandy) but almost everyone lost UCONN (except my wife...of course she took San Diego, just like she took Siena and W. Kentucky...however, Zona in the elite 8 wasn't too good and a Final 4 of Tenn, Wisco, Texas, and UCLA with Wisco beating UCLA was probably her downfall...but crazier things have happen).
I was right on my 2 "for sure" giant killers of Western Kentucky and Kansas State, but my other maybes weren't even that close. Winthrop lost by 31 (even though they were tied at halftime), Cornell lost by 24, Baylor by 11, Oral Roberts by 19, and St. Joe's was the closest with 8.
I'm still covinced Xavier and Duke are overated (I have both losing in the next round) and they both almost proved me right (that's what March Madness is about...it's the "almost" and the "Giant Killers").
Looking at just the seed number, my next wave of upsets are Notre Dame, MSU (sorry Corey, they DO NOT suck), Marquette, West Virginia. This means in both my brackets I have these 4 teams making it to the sweet 16 by beating a team seeded higher than them.
I also like Purdue and Kansas St.
One thought I've been going over is that I'd like it if we could get a couple of us together on a blog and "live blog" as the tourney plays on. Maybe next year. I think that'd be cool, to see our progress and emotions through the tournament. It would be some work and require some time, but I think it wouldn't be too hard to do. Just keep the post creator open and every 5-10 minutes provide some random thought/update.
Maybe I'm crazy....this makes 2 nights in a row I'm up past 10:30 nevermind the fact past 12:30....and that's just crazy!!!
A special for those that missed it or just to re-live it. (Accoring to Michele that was out loud scream at TV, followed by jump off the couch number 37 so far...I think half of those came during the MSU game anyway)...
Thursday, March 20, 2008
March Madness Time
Well, here goes another attempt at prognosticating the future, college basketball style.
2 brackets this year
Brack et#1
Elite 8
North Carolina, Tennessee, Kansas, Georgetown, Memphis, Marquette, UCLA, Purdue
Final 4
Tenn, Kansas, Marquette, UCLA
Kansas over UCLA for the Champ
Bracket #2
Elite 8
NC, Tenn, Kansas, G-Town, MSU, Texas, UCLA, West Virginia
Final 4
NC, Kansas, Texas, UCLA
NC over Texas
Now, the obvious one awesome element to the Madness are the Giant Killers (lower than 10 seeds who spring upsets on the "Giants"). With playing 2 brackets I switched some up here and there but a couple remained consistent in both brackets:
Kansas St over USC
Western Kentucky over Drake
The other Giant Killers I liked but not enough to put in both brackets:
Winthrop
Baylor
Cornell
Oral Roberts
St. Joe's
I also have Duke losing in the 2nd round in both brackets and the South bracket looks to be the one where I think the most "madness" will happen.
2 brackets this year
Brack et#1
Elite 8
North Carolina, Tennessee, Kansas, Georgetown, Memphis, Marquette, UCLA, Purdue
Final 4
Tenn, Kansas, Marquette, UCLA
Kansas over UCLA for the Champ
Bracket #2
Elite 8
NC, Tenn, Kansas, G-Town, MSU, Texas, UCLA, West Virginia
Final 4
NC, Kansas, Texas, UCLA
NC over Texas
Now, the obvious one awesome element to the Madness are the Giant Killers (lower than 10 seeds who spring upsets on the "Giants"). With playing 2 brackets I switched some up here and there but a couple remained consistent in both brackets:
Kansas St over USC
Western Kentucky over Drake
The other Giant Killers I liked but not enough to put in both brackets:
Winthrop
Baylor
Cornell
Oral Roberts
St. Joe's
I also have Duke losing in the 2nd round in both brackets and the South bracket looks to be the one where I think the most "madness" will happen.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Desperate plea to y'all
So what's the problem?
I've had 18 posts this year here at MP. And 13 comments to go along with those 18.
10 of those posts didn't even get a comment, so that leaves 8 posts to receive 13 comments.
One of those got 4 comments, and that was on the 1 year birth of my son, so it's to be expected to get the obligatory congrats. So that leaves 7 posts with 9 comments. 2 of those came from me so 7 posts with 1 comment each.
It's not like I've spent my time boring you with my mundane day-to-day life and a running diary of my life. There has been some fluff stuff that probably doesn't warrant a comment at all. But some stuff has been really meaty and posted, on purpose, to ellict a repsonse.
Here's the title to some of my posts:
Consrevative Christian
Gimmie some of that new old time religion
To pass on the faith, live it....with discernment
Animal Husbandry
And one I really thought would spark some dialogue was the last one I did:
God's Judgement on the Nation
I do have readers here who I talk to face-to-face about many of things or sometimes my blogging is a result of those opinions and discussions and I post stuff here to get specific responses from some specific people. Those I do not see face-to-face.
But I've gotten nothing lately.
So, basically Why?
This whole ploy of mine, may be desperate, but I enjoy posting something and getting a response. It's part of the reason I do this. Don't get me wrong, I, like all other bloggers blog for myself. But I eagerly anticipate responses.
Is everyone in agreement with me on everything so why say something?
Am I too confrontational? I disagree sometimes and can do so vehementlly, but I never personally attack anyone.
I don't offer anonymous comments because I weed out the crap from people who spam comments with advertising. It's not because I'm afraid or worry you'll crash the conversation (although there hasn't been much lately). But I can change that.
Is the material just plain horrible?
I've put a poll at the top of the page with all kinds of options...vote away, comment here....let me know. You can select multiple choices, so if you have multiple reasons, go ahead....I'm going to take the feedback and see what I can do about it.
Please....
I've had 18 posts this year here at MP. And 13 comments to go along with those 18.
10 of those posts didn't even get a comment, so that leaves 8 posts to receive 13 comments.
One of those got 4 comments, and that was on the 1 year birth of my son, so it's to be expected to get the obligatory congrats. So that leaves 7 posts with 9 comments. 2 of those came from me so 7 posts with 1 comment each.
It's not like I've spent my time boring you with my mundane day-to-day life and a running diary of my life. There has been some fluff stuff that probably doesn't warrant a comment at all. But some stuff has been really meaty and posted, on purpose, to ellict a repsonse.
Here's the title to some of my posts:
Consrevative Christian
Gimmie some of that new old time religion
To pass on the faith, live it....with discernment
Animal Husbandry
And one I really thought would spark some dialogue was the last one I did:
God's Judgement on the Nation
I do have readers here who I talk to face-to-face about many of things or sometimes my blogging is a result of those opinions and discussions and I post stuff here to get specific responses from some specific people. Those I do not see face-to-face.
But I've gotten nothing lately.
So, basically Why?
This whole ploy of mine, may be desperate, but I enjoy posting something and getting a response. It's part of the reason I do this. Don't get me wrong, I, like all other bloggers blog for myself. But I eagerly anticipate responses.
Is everyone in agreement with me on everything so why say something?
Am I too confrontational? I disagree sometimes and can do so vehementlly, but I never personally attack anyone.
I don't offer anonymous comments because I weed out the crap from people who spam comments with advertising. It's not because I'm afraid or worry you'll crash the conversation (although there hasn't been much lately). But I can change that.
Is the material just plain horrible?
I've put a poll at the top of the page with all kinds of options...vote away, comment here....let me know. You can select multiple choices, so if you have multiple reasons, go ahead....I'm going to take the feedback and see what I can do about it.
Please....
Monday, March 10, 2008
God's Judgement on the Nation
This is some interesting stuff I came across and has me really thinking just what it is I believe.
Bible Girl, aka Julie Lyons, is a white Pentecostal who keeps a blog at the Dallas Observer (Dallas' weekly Alt-mag). From what I can gather she worshipes at a black church. And as you will see, she apparently has a history of being fearlessly honest in her writing.
She's got a column about why, even though she remembers a Nigerian pastor prophesying in 2001 that after the Bush years, God would give America a black president, and even though she's a pro-life D will not consider voting Republican until the GOP gets serious about what she regards as racial justice, she will not vote for Barack Obama. The reason? Abortion. Excerpt:
More
So, does God still judge nations?
I mean her explanation is unusual. She based her conclusion in large part on her reading of the Bible, and its clear testimony that God intervenes in history to judge nations that fall away from His will. She is withholding her vote from Obama because of her very real conviction that God's judgment will fall on this nation if it fully embraces the legalized extermination of unborn lives (nearly 50 million of whom have died at the hands of abortionists since Roe v. Wade was legalized in 1973).
For non-believers, it is obviously foolishness to make a political decision based on fear of God's judgment. But do believers really have the option not to consider it? Abraham Lincoln didn't think so. His Second Inaugural Address framed the Civil War as God's judgment on America for the sin of slavery. Excerpt (again):
I don't think Lincoln was speaking figuratively. He really believed the Civil War was an act of divine judgment. Anyone who takes the Bible seriously as a record of God's dealing with His people in history cannot escape the testimony in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) of God withdrawing his protection from Israel in response to its stiff-necked behavior. God sent the Prophets to call Israel back to holiness. And when that didn't work, He allowed chastisement to humble his Chosen Nation.
If we believe that God dealt with Israel that way, why wouldn't he deal with us, and with any other nation, that way?
Bible Girl, aka Julie Lyons, is a white Pentecostal who keeps a blog at the Dallas Observer (Dallas' weekly Alt-mag). From what I can gather she worshipes at a black church. And as you will see, she apparently has a history of being fearlessly honest in her writing.
She's got a column about why, even though she remembers a Nigerian pastor prophesying in 2001 that after the Bush years, God would give America a black president, and even though she's a pro-life D will not consider voting Republican until the GOP gets serious about what she regards as racial justice, she will not vote for Barack Obama. The reason? Abortion. Excerpt:
It is interesting how Scripture virtually ignores a king’s political or military accomplishments. Jeroboam II, for example, presided over a time of great prosperity and influence for Israel. Yet the Bible dismisses these things in a few brusque sentences. Jeroboam II ultimately failed in keeping God’s commands, and he was judged to be evil. Because he called evil good, he caused the people to do evil as well. End of story; over and out.
Which brings me to abortion again. I’m one of those people who was never passionate about this issue until I had a child of my own -- kind of like the folks who don’t care about famine in faraway places until they see the pictures of starving children. God touched my conscience one day concerning abortion; today I passionately oppose it and call myself a pro-life Democrat.
I see it as an elemental thing: the value of life. You couldn’t identify an issue that cuts to the core more than that.
I won’t say I’m the deepest thinker on this subject. It’s just simple to me. I will put no other god before me, neither will I play God and make decisions reserved solely for him. Every time man has been given the power to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die, hideous things have resulted.
The Middle Passage. The Holocaust. The Nazis’ extermination of the mentally retarded and gypsies. Genocide in Armenia, Rwanda, Darfur. The executions of innocents in Texas and other states. Abortion.
More
Yet I can’t escape the words of Kings. God will judge a leader by one thing: his faithfulness to God’s Word on matters for which the Christian position is clear.
No, that’s not a fashionable concept these days. It won’t win me many friends in the circles I travel. I do understand that we don’t live in a theocracy; our nation is governed by a constitution. As voters, we deal in a continuum of hope and reality. We don’t get everything we want.
Well, whoever said the world would understand or approve of followers of Jesus Christ?
I believe that Barack Obama will be our next president; the hand of God is upon him. If you read Kings, though, that can cut many ways.
But I will not give him my vote.
So, does God still judge nations?
I mean her explanation is unusual. She based her conclusion in large part on her reading of the Bible, and its clear testimony that God intervenes in history to judge nations that fall away from His will. She is withholding her vote from Obama because of her very real conviction that God's judgment will fall on this nation if it fully embraces the legalized extermination of unborn lives (nearly 50 million of whom have died at the hands of abortionists since Roe v. Wade was legalized in 1973).
For non-believers, it is obviously foolishness to make a political decision based on fear of God's judgment. But do believers really have the option not to consider it? Abraham Lincoln didn't think so. His Second Inaugural Address framed the Civil War as God's judgment on America for the sin of slavery. Excerpt (again):
The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?
I don't think Lincoln was speaking figuratively. He really believed the Civil War was an act of divine judgment. Anyone who takes the Bible seriously as a record of God's dealing with His people in history cannot escape the testimony in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) of God withdrawing his protection from Israel in response to its stiff-necked behavior. God sent the Prophets to call Israel back to holiness. And when that didn't work, He allowed chastisement to humble his Chosen Nation.
If we believe that God dealt with Israel that way, why wouldn't he deal with us, and with any other nation, that way?
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Bummer
Unfortunately the HTML banner tag has got to come down.....
Mike Huckabee formally withdrew from the Republican race and endorsed John McCain. Good for him. He got blown out in Texas last night -- exit polling showed that more Texas Evangelicals voted for McCain than for Huck. I didn't want it to end this way, of course, but it has, and Huckabee's withdrawal was graceful and honorable. "I'd rather lose an election than lose the principles that got me into politics in the first place," he said. I loved his paying tribute to the little men and women who sacrificed for his campaign, "a voice for the hard-working people who lift heavy things every day." It was heartfelt, and his marvelous exit speech reminded me why I fell for Huck in the first place -- and why I hope this isn't the last we see of him.
By any measure, Huckabee accomplished so very, very much, and on little more than his ability to give a great speech, and to convince people of his authenticity. He outlasted the mighty, multimillion-dollar Mitt Romney campaign, and in fact was critically important in derailing it. Had he remained after tonight, he would have come off as a crank and a dead-ender. By going out on a high note, and pledging to do everything he can for the GOP this fall, he's done a lot to ensure his continuing influence in the party.
I'd like to ask Huck backers (and anyone really) what should our man do now? He'll be a formidable campaigner for the GOP this fall, that's for sure. But assuming he doesn't get the vice presidential nomination, what about after the election?
Rumor has it he may try and run in the Senate race in Arkansas (deadline to file is Monday). Some have suggested he could succeed James Dobson as the voice of Evangelicals. Maybe McCain picks him as a member of the Cabinet? Maybe he goes back to church, starts preaching again and we never hear from him again.
Mike Huckabee formally withdrew from the Republican race and endorsed John McCain. Good for him. He got blown out in Texas last night -- exit polling showed that more Texas Evangelicals voted for McCain than for Huck. I didn't want it to end this way, of course, but it has, and Huckabee's withdrawal was graceful and honorable. "I'd rather lose an election than lose the principles that got me into politics in the first place," he said. I loved his paying tribute to the little men and women who sacrificed for his campaign, "a voice for the hard-working people who lift heavy things every day." It was heartfelt, and his marvelous exit speech reminded me why I fell for Huck in the first place -- and why I hope this isn't the last we see of him.
By any measure, Huckabee accomplished so very, very much, and on little more than his ability to give a great speech, and to convince people of his authenticity. He outlasted the mighty, multimillion-dollar Mitt Romney campaign, and in fact was critically important in derailing it. Had he remained after tonight, he would have come off as a crank and a dead-ender. By going out on a high note, and pledging to do everything he can for the GOP this fall, he's done a lot to ensure his continuing influence in the party.
I'd like to ask Huck backers (and anyone really) what should our man do now? He'll be a formidable campaigner for the GOP this fall, that's for sure. But assuming he doesn't get the vice presidential nomination, what about after the election?
Rumor has it he may try and run in the Senate race in Arkansas (deadline to file is Monday). Some have suggested he could succeed James Dobson as the voice of Evangelicals. Maybe McCain picks him as a member of the Cabinet? Maybe he goes back to church, starts preaching again and we never hear from him again.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
An Inconvenient Conference
This weekend, my family and I (or should I just say my family?) travelled to Cedar Springs (15 miles or so North of Grand Rapids) to visit some college friends and to partake in the festivities of a first birthday party for their son Ethan. Good times for sure.
But during the festivities, I believe it was channel 8 news ended up on the TV and the weatherman proceeded to tell the viewing public that February 2008 was going to go down as the snowiest ever for Grand Rapids and only had 16% sunshine the whole month.
What a truly incovenient month it has been for Grand Rapids and really the whole left coast of Michigan. And I can tell you that Metro Detroit has not been much better at all. Probably right on the same track. And again today, 3-6 inches of snow.
It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming" conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.
But stampedes and hysteria are no joke -- and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming "crisis."
They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a global warming crisis.
Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.
A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.
Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?
A new and very different conference on global warming was and is currently being held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th -- weather permitting.
It is called an "International Conference on Climate Change." Its subtitle is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.
They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.
There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.
The theme of the conference is that "there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming."
Many of the participants in this conference are people who have already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate change.
These include authors of such books as "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels.
This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the other side of the story -- for those old-fashioned journalists who still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than promote an agenda.
The subtitle of the upcoming conference -- "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" -- is also the title of a British television program that is now available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking of the current "global warming" hysteria.
Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would be freezing every night.
There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications and extrapolations of these temperature readings.
The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.
The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.
Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.
The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is.
So why has no one heard about this conference? Why no news or reporting or a daily update from cable news networks? Why no "panel of experts"?
Because, it's a true inconvenience for those who have a big stake in global warming hysteria to show up at the conference in New York, and unfortunately that includes much of the media.
But during the festivities, I believe it was channel 8 news ended up on the TV and the weatherman proceeded to tell the viewing public that February 2008 was going to go down as the snowiest ever for Grand Rapids and only had 16% sunshine the whole month.
What a truly incovenient month it has been for Grand Rapids and really the whole left coast of Michigan. And I can tell you that Metro Detroit has not been much better at all. Probably right on the same track. And again today, 3-6 inches of snow.
It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming" conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.
But stampedes and hysteria are no joke -- and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming "crisis."
They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a global warming crisis.
Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.
A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.
Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?
A new and very different conference on global warming was and is currently being held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th -- weather permitting.
It is called an "International Conference on Climate Change." Its subtitle is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.
They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.
There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.
The theme of the conference is that "there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming."
Many of the participants in this conference are people who have already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate change.
These include authors of such books as "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels.
This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the other side of the story -- for those old-fashioned journalists who still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than promote an agenda.
The subtitle of the upcoming conference -- "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" -- is also the title of a British television program that is now available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking of the current "global warming" hysteria.
Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would be freezing every night.
There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications and extrapolations of these temperature readings.
The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.
The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.
Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.
The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is.
So why has no one heard about this conference? Why no news or reporting or a daily update from cable news networks? Why no "panel of experts"?
Because, it's a true inconvenience for those who have a big stake in global warming hysteria to show up at the conference in New York, and unfortunately that includes much of the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
