Prophetic Musings

I'm actually going to leave my opinion of global warming out of this. Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. I think it's pathetic and here's why.

According to Alfred Nobel's will, which established the five Nobel prizes, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". The prize committee determined that Al and the IPCC were worthy of this due to "their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Now unless one is going to make the argument that Gore and the IPCC worked for fraternity between the nations by getting out their version of global warming, this is a complete joke. Talk about climate change has nothing to do with establishing peace. Making a slideshow presentation didn't abolish or reduce a standing army, nor hold or promote a peace congress. So, why has this prize been awarded to Gore and the IPCC?

The world has gone crazy.

Jay Tea and Kim are talking about this over at Wizbang!.

Glenn thinks he's fitting.

PJM is talking about it too.

PowerLine says the Peace Prize has been off the rails for 20 years.

With the new addition on the way, our house is going through a bit of a shuffle. First, a little history on our house. It's not huge by any means, at least not by modern American standards. When we bought it, I wanted to make sure we had a four bedroom house so that each of the kids could have their own room and I could have an office. That was August 2004. Fast forward to three years later, and the baby needs a nursery. So, all my stuff is getting moved out of the office.

Where is it moving to? Glad you asked.

(Click on the pictures to embiggen)

Welcome to my new closet. The majority of my stuff is now in the bedroom closet, including the desk I'm typing this out on right now. Collette hung up a bunch of my stuff in there. You can see my laptop, my one eared Mickey lamp, one of my guitars, and my diploma on the back wall.

The back wall has my weather station console and the thermometer/barometer that I got from my grandparent's house.

Right next to me is my book/amp/video shelf. I haven't plugged the amp in yet, but I think it's in a cool spot. The top of the drawers is where I chuck the stuff in my pockets when I get home.

Is it a little cramped? Kind of, but I think it's wonderful. It was Collette's idea to move me in here, and I didn't think it would work, but she made it happen. (Which you shouldn't have, due to your delicate condition!) It's nice sitting in here and not on the other side of the house if I'm writing or working on something late at night. I can see my wife sleeping in bed and know if she needs anything.

Ashlee gets my office. She's going to paint over my K-State purple walls with Tinkerbell green. She told me that she could only paint half the walls, but I told her it's all hers now, so she can paint it whatever color she likes. And by saying "she can paint it" I mean "I will paint it". Alex stays in his room and the nursery goes in next to our room.

There are still things to do, but we'll get it done before the baby gets here. Hopefully. Life isn't fun if it isn't changing.

Best description I've ever read of the banal idiocy that is Teletubbies.

What are the Teletubbies, you ask? Multicolored, androgynous, possibly homicidal Muppets with speech impediments and farting problems who pop out of the ground after getting instructions from a smiling baby whose face has been superimposed on the sun, then jump around, wobble into each other and giggle for no reason. Twice per show, they break away from the Teletubbies to show a group of English kids learning from a female teacher named Debbie who has scary Austin Powers-type teeth. Then the show ends with the Tubbies popping back into the ground as the smiling sun baby grins in approval. That's the whole show.

Now, can someone explain Boohbahs to me?

My weather station is back up and operational now. The temperature may still be off a little, but if I get time this week I'll fix that. Just click the Weather Underground image over on the right side of the screen to see it.

First, check out this story.  A group of engineers built a 21 foot long replica of an X-Wing from Star Wars. It was rocket powered, built with the intention of actually flying the thing.

So, yesterday they actually flew it. The video is here. Let's just say the take off was spectacular.

It was a cool idea, and I'm sure it was fun, but the only thing I can think of when watching it is a quote from Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons.

While reading a comic and loudly lecturing Aquaman on his romantic choices, the Comic Book Guy sees a missile bearing down on him and comes to sad terms with his impending death. He utters, "Oh, I've wasted my life."

I just hope it's right, though I'm not quite sure how you would quantify "tons". I'm expecting a deluge. Hopefully I'm not disappointed.

Got this from Drudge this morning. A group called the Heartland Institute wants Al Gore to debate one of their experts on global warming. Al won't have anything to do with them. A quote from one of Al's people.

"The debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if there is one," said Kalee Kreider. "It does not make sense for him to engage in a dialogue with them at this time."

Um, no. The debate hasn't shifted. The debate should still be going on. Face the music Al.

The New York Times ran an opinion piece written by Dr. James Dobson today (found via DMN Religion Blog) where he speaks about a meeting that was held last weekend with more than 50 pro-family leaders. I want to add my opinion to what Dr. Dobson says. First, let me say (again) that I respect the work he has done within the Christian community, but I'm beginning to disagree more and more with his political ideas.

REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.

I would like to know who was on this "Jedi Council" of Christian leaders. Furthermore, if this meeting was no secret, then tell us who was there. I'm sure that many of the attendees would gladly put forth this information, but I would like to know who these "leaders" are? It strikes me as hubris that these people would feel that they make the decisions for the rest of American Christianity, that we should just fall in lockstep with what these people say. Of course, I also know that some people will do exactly that because we aren't thinking for ourselves anymore. We've fallen into groupthink, and we need to stop it.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

So we are reduced to electing a president based on a single issue? Nothing else that the person might say could change our minds, but as long as he is against abortion, then he's ok? Why is this the case? I absolutely agree that women should not have an abortion and that the Supreme Court overstepped it's bounds in Roe v. Wade, but I also think that it is that woman's choice to have the abortion. She has to live with the consequences of what she has done. Does that mean I condone abortion? Absolutely not, but I'm not going to tell someone what they can or can't do. The minute I presume to do that, I've forfeited all my rights to keep them from telling me what to do. Also, along the lines of what I mentioned earlier, I would love to see a list of who agreed and who didn't. As Christians, we should expose all things to the light, shouldn't we?

The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.

Good, because it's a bad idea. If Christians splinter off into a third party, at least right now, then the conservative vote will be split, ushering in another Clinton White House. Again, I refer you to The Anchoress' post from yesterday for a better explanation of why this is a bad idea.

Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

I agree with Dr. Dobson on this point. I do believe that a president should be committed to traditional moral values and beliefs. If we have a list of 90 core values that we want, and a candidate meets 89 of them but doesn't agree on abortion, he's still a pretty good candidate in my opinion. When someone finds a popular, electable, Christian presidential candidate, you let me know. Until then, let's focus on what we have. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to an election with the candidate you have, not the candidate you want.

The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.

I completely disagree. I'm not compromising my principles in my support of Fred Thompson at all. I feel that I would be compromising my principles by voting for Rudy Giuliani, but if the general election comes down to Hillary, Rudy, and some third party Christian, I'm voting for Rudy. It's called the lesser of two evils (not saying anyone is evil, it's just an expression). If you think that Rudy would abandon our cherished beliefs, you need to be introduced to Hillary again. To abandon them would require them being held in the first place.

One other clarification is germane, even though unrelated to the meeting in Salt Lake City. The secular news media has been reporting in recent months that the conservative Christian movement is hopelessly fractured and internally antagonistic. The Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, for example, that supporters of traditional family values are rapidly “splintering.” That is not true. The near unanimity in Salt Lake City is evidence of much greater harmony than supposed. Admittedly, differences of opinion exist among us about our choices for president.

Another perfect example of groupthink. Just because 50 people get in a room and achieve near unanimity on something doesn't make it true for the rest of the population. One of the symptoms of groupthink is illusions of unanimity and I think that Dr. Dobson and anyone else who believes that this is not happening are suffering from it. All of Christianity is splintered, that's why we have various denominations and sects. The Calvinists don't agree with the Armenians, the Emergent/Emerging people don't agree with the more traditional people. We're all offshoots of something else anymore. Political positioning is fracturing conservative Christianity, though not hopelessly. We are united in Christ and under the God of Abraham, but while on this planet we are far from united politically.

That divergence is entirely reasonable, now just over a year before the national election. It is hardly indicative of a “splintering” of old alliances. If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.

And if the "cohesion of pro-family advocates" is too apparent in 2008, then on January 20, 2009 we will be hearing the first inauguration speech of a woman president.

Again, I love what Dr. Dobson has done in the Christian community and with Focus on the Family. I think we do need to stand up for what we believe is right, but we have to understand the implications of what we choose to do politically. If electing someone that I don't agree with means that someone I really don't agree with doesn't get elected, it's an obvious choice for me. Electability is important in today's climate. We know far more about these candidates than voters did in the 1950s, even up to the 1970s. There will always be some plank on their platform that we disagree with. We have to find the candidate that we disagree with the least. For me, that's Fred Dalton Thompson. Not everyone agrees, but that's fine. It's America.

On a related note, Instapundit linked this about Fred Thompson from The Corner which I thought was wholly appropriate. Read the whole thing, but the last line was especially telling.

Hannity then asked: "Would you want to have a conversation with Dr. Dobson?  Do you think that might help?"

I have no idea.  I don't particularly care to have a conversation with him.  If he wants to call up and apologize again, that's ok with me.  But I'm not going to dance to anybody's tune.

You tell him Fred.

Allah at Hot Air is talking about it too.

Tiger Woods is a phenomenal golfer. OK, so that really isn't news to anyone, but the reason why is what really makes him stand out. Tiger is driven to be the best and when he sets his mind on a goal, almost no single golfer can beat him. The worst thing to do is make him mad, because then he really turns it on. Tiger has golf skill beyond compare, but it's his focus and desire to win that makes him nearly unbeatable. Why is he driven this way? Possibly because of his father, but probably that's just an innate gift of his. Tiger has the ability to shut out the world and have a single purpose. Woe to those who come between him and his purpose.

How many people do you know who can focus in on a single task or goal and follow it through to completion? It's usually the most driven among us that have that ability. Their competitive desire allows them to put everything else behind them and focus solely on the task at hand. I'm not that way, not usually. I have my moments of being "in the zone" where I can block out distractions, but they are few and far between. I'm interested in far too many things to be focused on any single thing.

I struggle right now to read the Bible. With all the events that go on in life, some things get pushed into the background. However, we choose what goes there. Every day we make a choice of what to do. Do we sleep or pray? Read the latest novel or the Bible? How important is our relationship with God to us, and does it show in what we do? I've heard many times that in order to find out how spiritual someone is, look at his checkbook. Personally, I think a person can give thousands to churches or charities and be a complete jerk. If you really want to find out how spiritual someone is, look at their calendar. What do they do with their time? Find out where their focus is and you will find what is important to them.

None of us can keep up this kind of focus for long, sometimes maybe no more than 10-15 minutes at a time. Everyone has down time and needs to relax. Some watch a movie, some read a book, some write, others work on cars or create art. All of us need that recharging time. But, what are we recharging for?

What if each one of us could spend our time in prayer with the same singularity of purpose that Tiger plays golf? How much could the world change? How much would we change? What if we mauled anyone who stood between us and our time with God? There's a song by Delirious? called Take Off My Shoes which describes this. The first verse of the song says:

I’ll take off my shoes, I’m coming in,
Untie this rope, I’m staying with him,
Love of my life, I’ll live and die,
Just for the moments for my king and I.

Can we live this way? Can we push away our own wants and desires to spend our time with God? Life barges in constantly with interruptions, but we have to be willing to untie the rope that keeps pulling us away from the Holy of Holies. Turn off the cell phone, unplug the computer, hide the remote, put the kids to bed, and find God.

Wish I had the ability to have written this myself, but I can't. J. Peter Mulhern has an excellent essay on why FDT will be elected next year.

On a related note, The Anchoress has a great article about why a Christian third party is a bad idea.

She hits the nail right on the head. As I've stated before, we're electing a President, not voting for Senior Pastor.

(h/t to Instapundit here and here)

Well, duh.