NPM: Detroit

Despite a short stint up in the Wolverine backwoods, I've spent over 75% of my life living one block from the city of Detroit. I grew up in a house across the street from my grandparents and I now live in my grandparents old home. Funny how life can work out sometimes.

Anyone paying attention to the News is well aware of the problems with Detroit. I love the city. I love how dirty, grimey, and unpolished it appears to outsiders. I love the view you get driving north on I-75 coming over the Rouge River Bridge and the city skyline appears with the RenCen glistening and the Ambassador bridge in the foreground and the smoke and haze of manufacturing surrounding the beauty. I'm pretty unapologetic of my love for all things Detroit (even Kid Rock and Eminem, but not so much Lions and City Council)

They say New York is the city that never sleeps, well Detroit is the city that never stops working.

That was until they starting bailing out Wall St.

I won't aplogize for this video, and it's as in your face as it needs to be.

“Pardon me if I don’t shed a tear...‘Cause they’re selling make-believe and we don’t buy that here.” - John Rich

Unfortunately, no one's listening.

NPM: Black and White

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. And you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn't agree with you. A camera in the right person's hand can be as powerful as any great work of art or composition. For quite sometime now a niche market has developed within photography focusing on black-and-white and the artistic ability it provides. According to Wikipedia,

"Today black-and-white media often has a "nostalgic", historic, or anachronistic
feel to it."

Who doesn't love black and white pictures? They usually capture a moment that communicates pure beauty. The magic is in there simplicity. Just one snapshot, catching a slice of life, that can sweep through our emotions. Stripped down to bare essentials, everything covered in shades of gray.

It evokes a simpler, much more easier time.

How long before my grand-children look at pictures of my life and "see the story of my life right there in black and white."

What I mean is, many of us nowadays hear the phrase "back in the day" to explain a time when things were easier and a Norman Rockwell moments was more commonplace than a car in the driveway. Dad worked, mom stayed home, and Eddie Haskell was your biggest problem.

But were those times easier?

Did my grandfather find times were great and things were easier as he walked to his factory job every day? Did my grandmother find her life charming and quintessential washing laundry by hand and walking to the grocery store with her kids everyday? Did they view their experiences as Norman Rockwell moments.

So, when will my grandkids pull out some old pictures and see my life in Black and White?

Really, is any time in life ever really simple and completely pure? Black and white? I don’t think so.

”A picture’s worth a thousand words but you can’t see what those shades of
gray keep covered …You should’ve seen it in color.” - Jamey Johnson

I'm on Board

Unless we are anywhere near Somalia or Rush shows up.

NPM

In answer to Corey's comment and to show my support for NPM and to prove just how clueless I can be sometimes, I offer this little diddie....

They said timing was everything, made him...
Want to be everywhere, there's a...
Lot to be said for nowhere
(Eddie Vedder dba Pearl Jam - "MFC" from the album Yield)

Most of you are far more talented in the arts than I am and should have a pretty easy time with this one....

Hopefully

Someday

....and Mike is now with him.



See you on the flip-side buddy.

9 lbs. 6 oz. 22.5" long 8:16 am 10-02-08

NOAH MICHAEL

Still speechless, just like last time

Born a week earlier than the due date, and 1 oz bigger and 1.5" longer than Seth (who was born on his due date)!!! To quote the doctor, "You made the right decision to deliver this baby with a planned C-Section."

Michele is a small woman at only 5' 3", Doc says no way she delivers that baby the normal way.

So Seth now has a big, little brother sort of

The Revolution continues!!!

Watch out world, couple little Maloney boys gonna be running around doing there thing!!

*TEAR-DROP(S)*

Crapping the Bed

Being thoroughly confused to just what in the hell is going on with all this financial meltdown crisis and watching the Stock Market drop 1,000 points in just a couple I've been trying to read a whole hell of a lot and try and figure out to what extent my family will be affected.

By all accounts, with the exception of the 401K, HSA's, and IRA's we have, we should be ok going through this. We only are in debt the cost of our mortgage (which is only 30% of the orignal mortgage cost, so even if our house has lost value, our loss what be percentage points), and in addition to the 10% of pre-tax money we put into 401K's, HSA's, and IRA's we always aim to save an additional 10% of take home pay. No Credit Card debt, School Bills, or Car Payments. So, we are not overborrowed or in heavy debt but we'll need to still do some buckling down if we want to keep on saving. I am pretty convinced, as of now, this is great chance to Buy-Low, extremely Low.

ANYWAY, here are a slew of articles, commentary, and blogs on the situation for you to read if you want. They have helped me to really understand what in the hell is going on.

• Maybe the best and clearest explanation from the WSJ "No end in Sight"
• Doctor Doom from Forbes
• Time Magazine weighing in (with a very lengthy piece) to let you know how massive this perfect storm is.
• From the BBC, which is basically saying see you later to the Clinton Democrats (don't let the door hit you on the way out) and this modern anti-fiscal conservative Republican Party (good riddance!!!)
• And, from the Atlantic it's not all George W's fault.......
• it's ours as Deneen (some good Perotesque charts and graphs) and Larison say (this is succint, to the point, and brilliant)

Please make sure your seatbelts are buckled, your trays are in their upright and locked position and you have a snickers bar (or two) - we're going to be here awhile.

Extermination and War

Chilling piece from Joe Carter in Culture11 about how China and India, among other countries, are exterminating shocking numbers of baby girls in the womb. Hey, if abortion is legal and accepted, what right do any of us have to tell Indian and Chinese mothers they may not kill their baby daughters -- sorry, female fetuses -- because they'd prefer to have boys? Right, feminists?

Beyond the confluence of feticide and sexism, Carter foresees violence in the womb leading to violence elsewhere:

Even if we set aside the moral horror of a world that is killing its daughters, this oft-ignored trend of female feticide could pose a greater threat than many of the high-profile concerns that are touted by the media. For instance, the Chinese government says that by the year 2020 the men in that country will outnumber women by 300 million--roughly the entire population of the United States.

Imagine hordes of men, numbering in the hundreds of millions, who will never be able to have sexual contact with a woman, never be able to marry, and never leave a descendant to carry on their lineage. Think about the level of anger and frustration that will be generated. Now consider the fact that the number of males fit for military service (ages 18-49) in the U.S. is currently and remains steady at 54 million.

Pious Hand Wringing

Further proof that the Catholics are getting it more right all the time and why the Evangelicals flounder and spin their wheels under the banner of "conversation."

Truth hurts, truth divides, and truth is love. Truth is not judging. Truth is compassion and not tolerance. Hurt and divide are the ugly results of truth, the difference is that the glory in truth is to far outshine the ugly. Too many times, we focus on the ugly and not the glory.

The Roman Catholic arhcbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput, is someone I'd be a dummy for when it comes to the issue he writes about in this magnificent teaching document. He sets the Speaker of the House - Nancy Pelosi, a self-described "ardent practicing Catholic" straight about what her Church actually teaches and expects its communicants to believe on abortion. Rarely do religious leaders of any church speak so clearly and forcefully about faith and morality in public life. Here's a characteristic passage:

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

Magnificent. Of course many Catholic Democrats and Christian Democrats will continue to vote and serve the Democratic Party. Earlier he wrote:

But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a "proportionate" reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life--which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

And further

Carter lost his bid for re-election, but even with an avowedly prolife Ronald Reagan as president, the belligerence, dishonesty, and inflexibility of the pro-choice lobby has stymied almost every effort to protect unborn human life since.

In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be "personally opposed" to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse--exactly as it is today. In fact, I can't name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life--not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there's very little action.

"Pious hand-wringing." Exactly so.

Where's the humanity in a "Pro-Choice" stance?

On Vacation

Vacation time

In Traverse City (well actually Leland) until sometime next week. Beaches, vineyards, lighthouses, sand dunes, friends (2 other families splitting the house with us for the week) and the whole family....get me there NOW!!!

The plan is to be back in Detroit on Saturday the 19th, but maybe not. We'll see, we may stay an extra day or two.

I hope to catch up here (Darwinmania and This happens to me a lot are still gong strong, in case everyone last track and any of the What Say Yous are always wide open for everyone) and on everyone else's blog with comments, etc when we get back. Although, based on the last 2 or 3 weeks, hasn't been much...at all. Maybe everyone is on vacation.

Anyway, see y'all on the flip side and keep the faith!

Darwinmania!!!!!

I found this New York Times column zooming around some other blogs and found it to be an interesting look at Charles Darwin and the likely festivities that will surround two important anniversaries soon to be celebrated. And what better group of people to discuss this than all 2 of you:

The party is about to begin.

In a week or so, the trumpets will sound, heralding the start of 18 months of non-stop festivities in honor of Charles Darwin. July 1, 2008, is the 150th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery of natural selection, the main driving force of evolution. Since 2009 is the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth (Feb. 12), as well as being the 150th anniversary of the publication of his masterpiece, "On the Origin of Species" (Nov. 24), the extravaganza is set to continue until the end of next year. Get ready for Darwin hats, t-shirts, action figures, naturally selected fireworks and evolving chocolates. Oh, and lots of books and speeches.

But hold on. Does he deserve all this? He wasn't, after all, the first person to suggest that evolution happens. For example, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, speculated about it towards the end of the 18th century; at the beginning of the 19th, the great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck made a strong case for it. Lamarck, however, failed to be generally persuasive because he didn't have a plausible mechanism -- he could see that evolution takes place, but he didn't know how. That had to wait until the discovery of natural selection.

The author goes on to explain just why Darwin, who wasn't the first to think of natural selection either, deserves the parties that will be held in his honor; and I'd tend to agree, for the most part.

As a Creationist, you'd think I'd have problems with Darwin's theories. Kinda, sort of. Call it riding the fence if you will. But here is the best way I can explain it:

I believe that God made the world and everything in it (I wasn't around during this time, so I really can't speak to the timeline or how long it took God to do all of this); I believe that He directly created the souls not only of the first two fully human creatures on Earth, but that He continues this act of direct creation of the souls of every human being in existence. In other words, the human body may have been formed by evolution (but not from monkeys or even "neanderthal" as in the stereotypical thought that enters everyone's mind when I said neanderthal), but the immortal soul of every human being is not something which developed naturally, or exists as a naturally occurring characteristic of the material existence of humans.

The real conflict between religion and science often comes about when science claims that the ability to demonstrate certain empirical truths automatically disproves the existence of the non-material. This is no less true for the various debates that have arisen about ideas based on Darwin's observations than it has been for other similar conflicts. Those followers of Darwin who say that evolution and natural selection prove that there is no God, as man no longer requires a Creator, or that there is no immortal soul, as such a thing could hardly have evolved and can't be empirically observed anyway, are stepping outside the bounds of science and into metaphysics, where by definition they have no business; the tools of empiricism are useless in the realm of the transcendent realities.

But the strict empiricist doesn't believe that there are transcendent realities. All is physical, all is observable, all is the result of brain chemistry or hormones or the twirl and dance of deoxyribonucleic acid. Love isn't a many-splendored thing, but the predictable and combined result of proximity, the observable qualities of the other that strike the observer's eye as desirable, and the activity of certain physical and chemical processes; beauty may not be in the eye of the beholder, but what does it matter so long as the proper hormonal response is achieved?

And hate is in the gut--literally--and crime located somewhere in the glandular systems, and free will is an illusion that we've evolved to believe in because otherwise the sheer randomness and preprogrammed nature of our choices would drive us to despair--or, at least, to whatever physical/chemical combination "despair" really is.

So for the empiricist, any talk of God being involved in the creation of the world, even if religious believers are quite willing to entertain the notion that it pleased God to set evolution in motion (provided we retain our beliefs about the soul, which the strictest empiricists don't believe in anyway) still isn't acceptable. For certain people whose beliefs in non-creation and the non-Creator are inextricably tied to their beliefs about science and about all of reality, this is not a compromise they can live with--it seems as though they must convert believers to their non-belief, so ardently do they insist that evolution proves that God is not.

It does no such thing, of course. And I can't help but wonder just what sort of biochemical impulses the strict empiricist-evolutionist blames for his unhappiness with the whole notion.

Context

Cheez-it, cheez-it.

One of the worse kept secrets right now is the continued rising price of gas. $4 a gallon right means to me that it costs me $12 a day for one round-trip drive to work (25 mpg, 76 miles round trip). And that's if it's normal and then I do no errand running during lunch or after work. $60 a week isn't too bad and thankfully, Michele and I are in a spot right now where it is affordable for us. None the less, I've been trying to figure out a way to car pool. Back in 2006 and the very early part of 2007 I was able to car-pool with a co-worker. You know back when gas was $2.50 a gallon! We took turns driving weekly back and forth to work. At that time we were working on the same team and were able to hold the same hours. Since then we've both been promoted. Me within my same team and she took a position with a new company that my company spun off. So both our hours kind of increased and she had to trvale more and then we had Seth and I needed to have a car in case I had to run home...so it has fallen apart. Now no one lives close enough to me to car pool.

So, I started looking into the bus system. It is very extensive system in Detroit actually. It's surprising actually. I live in Lincoln Park exit 42 off of I-75 (same house you and JP visited me Gary, way back in the summer of 2001). It's about 8 miles South from downtown Detroit. I work in Auburn Hills, MI (exit 79 off of I-75) about 3 miles from the Palace of Auburn Hills. My normal daily routine is that I leave the house no later than 6:45am (6:30 ideal). Arrive at work by 7:30 and then leave anywhere between 4pm and 5pm. Sometimes I take an hour lunch sometimes I don't. I prefer not to take a lunch and leave as soon as possible so I can be home. I kind of figured the bus thing would result in more time away from home, but would include some cost savings as well as the experience in public transportation. The ability to meet all kinds of people, see some different parts of the Metro Detroit area, even allow me to some work on my laptop as I occassionally have to do at home.

So I started to research the routes and potential pick-up and drop-off points, would I need a ride to the bus-stop or from the bus-stop, how much would I have to walk. All those details.

So what does all this have to do with Cheez-Its?

I'm getting there.

I was shocked at what would be required of me to use the bus system. The best I could find for my trip to work was to leave at 5:13am and arrive to work by 8:06am. This meant I would have to walk a total of 45 minutes, wait for a bus for 13 minutes, and ride 2 different buses for 2 hours combined. And that was just to get to work by 8:06am. But to get to the bus stop by 5:13 meant I'd have to get up at like 4:30am at the minimum. Not that ideal.

Then for my trip home, assuming I can leave after working a straight 8 only (not that likely). I would hop the bus at 4:18 and be home at 7:46.

Basically I would have less than 9.5 hours at home...throw in 6 or 7 hours of sleep and I'm down to a couple hours of awake time at home. My kid goes to bed now at 8:30 - 8:45, I'd see him for an hour a day at the best, thus leaving just an hour with the lovely and talented one and myself.

This idea kind of went out the window almost immediately.

And then I got to thinking....

Sometimes you need context.

Con-text, con-text.

No idea how I remembered this movie, and if you search YouTube you'll find a lot more on this movie. But we've all heard the stories from famous athletes, people on TV, and the kids down the street or in our Youth Groups.

Sometimes we all deserve a slap in the face.

Context, context

Bureaucracy vs. Humanity

In Poland, traditional farmers are being driven out of business because of European Union regulations favoring factory farming. The ironic thing about it is that cultural and culinary trends are shifting in the direction of precisely the kind of traditional farming that they do. But they are going to be wiped out by Brussels' cookie-cutter regulations.

Kirk said that true conservatives have an "affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems." Conservatives ought to be on the side of the Polish farmers. I've no doubt that many who call themselves conservative will sneer at this thought, and say that the Poles should give way to market efficiency. Well: the price of something doesn't always reflect its full cost.

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....

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:

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.

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:

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?

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.

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.

Genius, pure genius

Did you hear what happen Tuesday night across the whole nation...yes the whole country?

From 5:30-8:30 there was a lot of trouble. Feet were tapping tap, heads were aching and foreheads were sweating. Starbucks was closed!!!

NO!!!!!

Yes it happen.

6 weeks ago, Howard Schultz took over the reins (again) as CEO of Starbucks. Since then, he's been on a mission to return the company to its previous form. Tuesday, every store throughout the nation closed for three hours for "remedial espresso training." Or in Schultz's terms, "to teach, educate and share our love of coffee, and the art of espresso."

I beg to differ. This might be about a better cup of coffee, but there's a lot more to it than that, and it's pretty slick.

Shutting down your operation creates buzz. Apple knows this; they do all their online store updates in the middle of the day, and they bring down their whole site as the rumor sites go ablaze in anticipation. Starbucks knows this, too.

When you tell the world you are shutting down for three hours to learn to excel or to make changes, when things reopen, people want to investigate. They'll want to see if the coffee is better and what new tricks the baristas have up their collective, trendy sleeve.

Even more genius, Biggby coffee was offering free coffee at the same time......

If you aren't on the Biggby coffee bandwagon (you may see it as Beaners) time to get on.

I'm telling you, get on board.....

Click here and add to favorites