News 'n' Views Online

God Bless You, President-Elect Obama

Three weeks ago today, Barack Obama was elected president of the United States.  I voted for John McCain (actually, my vote was more against Obama and for Sarah Palin).  If the election were held again today, I still would not vote for Obama.  He has done little to allay concerns I had by the people he is picking to be a part of his administration.

Having said that, it is hard to miss the excitement his election has generated around the world.  For our own country, the significance of electing a black man president is especially noteworthy.

I'm not going to focus on the issue of slavery in the United States.  That evil was dealt with long before I was born.  Those who seek to use it to gain some leverage today are not to be taken seriously.  There is, however, a current reality which must be acknowledged and that is racism--and the racism that particularly concerns me is that which is found in many white Christian circles.

I have visited hundreds and hundreds of Baptist churches in my lifetime, and I must say that the number of African Americans that I have seen in them has to be somewhere in the range of .0000000000000000000000000000000000001% (I know, I know, that estimate--which is simply based on my own limited experience--is no doubt exaggeratedly high).  Countless white American Christians, who sing and preach of God's love for all humanity and invest countless dollars in missions endeavors to people of color around the world, would be scandalized and outraged if a black person showed up at their churches and would not walk next door to share the Gospel with a person of color.  Shame on them and shame on all of us!  May God reprove the wickedness of racism and the even greater wickedness of often twisting Scripture to defend that racism.  May many more follow the example of Bob Jones University, that has publicly acknowledged and repented of its racist policies of the past.

May God bless you, President-Elect Obama.  As a white person, I can only grasp a small idea of the joy your election has brought to millions of my black fellow countrymen and I rejoice in this historic moment for that reason.  May he guide you, give you wisdom, strengthen you and save you through Jesus Christ His Son.  May he use you to help break down racial barriers (those that have been erected both by whites as well as blacks).  May you understand that He is King of the universe and that earthly rulers are, at best, only supporting actors.

Thank You, President Bush

I voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.  He wasn't a perfect candidate but by far the best of the choices we had on the ballot.

There are numerous criticisms that could be made concerning President Bush.  I'd like to say, however, how grateful I am to him.  I'm thankful he has fought to keep our country safe (in case all of the ingrates haven't noticed, no planes hijacked by terrorists have been crashed into American cities recently), I'm thankful he appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, I'm thankful he's been a man of character and class in spite of the unbelievable, unbearable attacks of which he's been the target.

A couple of Wall Street Journal articles express my feelings pretty well.  Here's the first one, "Why I'll Miss President Bush":

President Bush will soon be heading home and for many that day cannot come soon enough. Count me among those who will miss him and his bedrock decency.

He had a rough road from day one. His first inauguration struck me as a portent. I was there, shivering in the grandstands on Pennsylvania Avenue. At the exact moment the president heard "Hail to the Chief" for the first time and was announced to the audience, a sleet storm descended from the skies.

It has never let up.

Through it all Mr. Bush kept his head up and soldiered on. He took the criticism in stride. I remember riding with him in his presidential limousine to the Washington Hilton for a speech. A woman standing at an intersection directed an obscene gesture at him that I had hoped he missed. The president waved to her and with a bemused look said to me, "Did you see what she did?"

Many other Americans, particularly the "values voters" who helped elect him twice, will miss him because of what he achieved: Samuel Alito and John Roberts on the Supreme Court, children in schools that now are better because they are accountable, African women who now have medicines for their HIV-infected babies, and religious charities that are finally being treated by government as partners instead of rivals.

I remember coming to the West Wing one morning before the daily 7:30 senior staff meeting and seeing Mr. Bush at his desk in the Oval Office, reading a daily devotional. I remember the look of sorrow on his face as he signed letters to the families of the fallen. When he met with recovering addicts whose lives were transformed by a faith-based program, he spoke plainly of his own humiliating journey years ago with alcohol. When a Liberian refugee broke into tears after recounting her escape to freedom in America, the president went over and held and comforted her.

Little acts behind the curtain like these inspired intense loyalty by staff members. They spoke of someone never too busy or burdened to care -- like when he took time on Air Force One to call my wife when she was sick. The president's true character rendered his media image pure caricature.

Mother Teresa was asked at the end of her life whether she was discouraged because after decades of caring for the dying and destitute in Calcutta little seemed to have changed. She replied, "No. God doesn't call me to be successful. God calls me to be faithful."

History will decide whether George W. Bush was a successful President. But he was faithful. He had a charge to keep and he kept it.

Here's the other article I'd like you to read, "The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace" (written by a man who interned with John Kerry's legal team during the 2004 election):

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Election Eve 2

I sit here thousands of miles away from the USA on election eve 2008.  As an American, I must confess that I'm quite down because it seems the majority of American voters will vote (or have already voted in early voting) for the "change" Obama offers--though no one seems quite sure what that entails.  Some who apparently are thinking more clearly than others don't seem to think it entails anything good.

This is not simply another election.  I don't believe there has been another election this crucial in my lifetime . . . or my father's (who was born in 1924).  My opinion is that this is the BIG ONE, although, as Amos might say, "I am no prophet neither am I a prophet's son" (Amos 7:14).

I wonder how much we American Christians have truly sought the Lord's face about this election.  Big things, national things, global things, eternal things are in play.  I must say--not with pride but with shame--I am not the 1000th part of the man of prayer I should be.  A phrase from a song I hadn't sung for many years came to mind recently.  Part of one of the verses of Bill Harvey's "I Want that Mountain" goes thus: "I saw the Giant of Prayerlessness upon the mountain high; he laughed so hard at my unbended knee."  I wonder how much laughter is ringing up from the pits of hell at millions of unbended American Christian knees.

A few weeks ago, a weekly prayer meeting was set up for missionaries to gather to pray about the USA and the election.  I am not exaggerating when I say that participation was extremely low.  A missionary friend of mine made the observation (I'm paraphrasing) about how easy it is to get a group of missionaries to go golfing for 6 hours and that it was sad that it was so hard to get them together to pray.

"Lord, teach us to pray."

As I commented at the beginning of this post, as an American I'm gloomy about this election and the likelihood of Obama becoming our president.  As a Christian, however, I am quite optimistic.  Events are running right on God's eternal schedule.  Things are going as planned.  His hand is steady on the rudder.  Soon, we'll leave behind this land of our pilgrimage and dwell with our King and Father eternally.  "The kingdoms of this world [will soon] become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever" (Revelation 11:15).  Amen!  Amen!  Amen!  "Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Revelation 22:20).  Until then, may we be faithful, obedient and live for His glory.

Election Eve 1

Living outside of the USA is an interesting experience.  On the one hand, we love our country and are concerned about the 99.9999999999999999999999% negative coverage of Bush and McCain.  On the other hand, we are here not primarily as Americans but as citizens and ambassadors of a greater, eternal kingdom.

I prepared some information last week for a Chilean couple, who are friends of ours, about my position on Obama.  As an American and--more importantly--as a Christian, I wanted them to understand my reasonings.  Here (translated into English) is the document I wrote for them:

McCain

1. More than a vote for McCain, my vote is against Obama.  In fact, some months back I had decided not to vote this year.
2. McCain is a man with an established character--we know who he is and what he represents (whether we always like it or not).  When he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he refused to be released before other prisoners who had been in the prisons of North Vietnam for a longer time.

Obama

1. Obama defends abortion to such an extreme that he fought against legislation to protect babies that survive abortions (infanticide).  He supports partial birth abortion.  Among African American women, the ratio between abortions and live births is 472 to 1,000.  Abortion has as its victim the weakest and most defenseless of society.  It is believed that up to 90% of Downs Syndrome babies are now aborted.  Proverbs 6:16-19: "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
2. Obama believes the United States Constitution has fundamental flaws.
3. Obama believes the government should practice the redistribution of wealth (socialism).  Even so, he does not concern himself with his own poor relatives: his aunt Zeituni (about whom he writes in his book Dreams from My Father) lives in a Boston slum and his half brother (George Hussein Onyango Obama) lives in Kenya and claims to live on less than 1 dollar monthly.  Obama's campaign has raised over 600 million dollars.
4. Obama would fill up the Supreme and federal courts with leftists that, instead of guiding themselves by the Constitution, would dedicated themselves to redesigning society.
5. Obama has had very close dies to people of doubtful reputation.  He was a member for 20 years of the church of Jeremiah Wright, the racist and radical pastor.  He is a friend of William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Weatherman Underground terrorists of the 60's (In fact, his political career began in the living room of this couple.).  He is a friend of and has received money from Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a corrupt businessman.
6. Obama is the most liberal (leftist) senator.
7. Obama is a young man who is not prepared for such a large task.  He has zero executive experience (aside from his own political campaign).  He has never directed a company, has never been a mayor, has never been a governor.  We know almost nothing about him and what we do know is troublesome.
8. His presidential campaign has accepted fraudulent donations.

The Media

1. In general, the media have declared war on McCain and have offered their unconditional worship to Obama.
2. The media literally are attempting to steal the election.  They want to impose their candidate on us.  It has been suggested that, had the media not been so unconditionally dedicated to Obama, McCain would be 20 points up in the polls.

The Sovereignty of God

Daniel 4: 28-37: "All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.  At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon.  The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?  While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.  And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.  The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.  And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:  And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?  At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.  Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase."

Obama's Courts

One topic that has gotten far too little attention is what would happen to our nation's judicial system under an Obama presidency, aided and abetted by a Democrat Congress (with, possibly, a filibuster-proof Senate).  Steven Calabresi, a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor of law at Northwestern University, has an alarming article in The Wall Street Journal on this issue.  Here's the article, titled "Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution":

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation's most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama's extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes -- and he is quite open about this -- that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

The Election

The current election cycle has prompted me to end my blogging hiatus.  I recently e-mailed an essay on “Presidential Character” to a number of people. (For those interested, that essay can be read here.)  One of the recipients of my e-mail responded to me, which led to a brief e-mail exchange within the space of a couple of hours.

I’ll share our e-mails with you (leaving out some details which might identify the other gentleman). I believe many things are at stake in this upcoming presidential election. No doubt, future generations will someday look back on this moment as a watershed—for better or for worse—in our nation’s history.

The first response I received from this particular gentleman to the essay I sent out was the following:

Bro. Philip,

I have been a loyal Democrat for 47 years.  Your email does not sway me to switch horses.

My response to his response was . . .

Bro. _____,

Knowing you (what little I do know), there are 2 possibilities regarding your e-mail:

1.        You’re joking. (If so, I’ll chuckle with you.)

2.        You’re serious. (If so, I’m appalled.)

Sincerely,

Philip

His response to my response to his response was . . .

I don't believe in divorce. McCain is divorced. I don't subscribe to adultery. McCain is an adulterer. Sorry to rattle you but I am serious.

My response to his response to my response to his response to the essay I e-mailed him was . . .

Bro. _____,

I don’t believe in adultery and divorce, either. In fact, I don’t believe in sin at all—but that doesn’t keep me, or you, or anyone else from sinning.

I believe McCain is remorseful over those sins of adultery and divorce, as evidenced by his reply to Pastor Rick Warren regarding his greatest moral failure (“My greatest moral failing, and I have been a very imperfect person, is the failure of my first marriage. It’s my greatest moral failure.”).  Besides that point, however, instead of simply dwelling on what he did a number of years ago, we need to focus on him and Obama now.  One of them—unless God has decreed otherwise—will be our next president.

I do know that I prefer McCain (even though he wasn’t my first choice by a long stretch) over Obama for a few basic reasons:

1.        Obama unashamedly defends and promotes the murder of babies.  Notice the words of Proverbs 6:17-19 (emphasis mine): “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”  I can think of no human beings more innocent than unborn babies.  God hates (the Bible’s, not my, choice of words) abortion and abortionists—and those who defend this bloody, barbaric practice in the name of “choice” (certainly not the baby’s “choice”).

2.        Obama sat for 20 years under the “preaching” of Jeremiah Wright (who also performed his wedding ceremony and baptized his children).  We have all heard of his insane rage and hatred of this country as he desired God to “damn America.”

3.        Obama is married to a woman who has proclaimed that “for the first time in [her] adult life [she is] proud of [her] country.”  The only thing, therefore, she is proud of about the USA is that her husband is running for president.

4.        He is the friend of unrepentant (key word) terrorists who fought our own country in the 1960’s in bombing and other kinds of attacks.

5.        He is a socialist who promotes class envy and the redistribution of wealth.

6.        I could go on but I have other things to do.  Furthermore, if those 5 reasons aren’t convincing, none will be.

No doubt this won’t change the mind of someone who is unswervingly loyal to a party, but I did feel the need to respond.  That’s all I’ll say in this exchange.

Sincerely,

Philip

He did not respond to my response to his response to my response to his response to the essay I e-mailed him.

Kids or Pets?

When I was a child and/or teenager (a loooong ago), I remember my missionary father commenting on the growing number of couples who seemed to love animals more than children. In fact, more and more couples were deciding not to have kids and, instead, "adopt" pets. To my dad, that kind of misplaced "love" came under the category of "unnatural affections" of the Romans 1 variety.

Now, let me hasten to say that my dad (who will turn 83 this month) is no hater of animals. He grew up on a farm in South Mississippi among sheep, cows, mules, chickens, dogs, cats, a pet squirrel, etc. Until the Lord called him into the ministry, one of his goals was to raise Black Angus cattle.

Growing up on the mission field, my siblings and I were always allowed and encouraged to have animals as pets. From Brazil and on to Paraguay and Chile, some of the Rogers kids had—at one time or another—rabbits, chickens, a sheep, a horse, monkeys, parakeets, ducks, quails, canaries, dogs and surely other kinds of creatures which I have doubtless forgotten. Even though we were taught to care for and treat them properly, we always understood that animals are animals and people are people. (Now that’s profound!) Animals had their place—outside (except for the canaries). We also understood that some of the animals could at times find their ultimate destiny on our dinner plates.

Several decades later, the situation which concerned my dad about affections being transferred from children to animals has grown exponentially worse. Besides being obvious in the set of people that has no problem killing babies while saving spotted owls, whales, eagles, seals, rodents, etc.,* it has also seen an insidious growth among couples who simply cannot go to the trouble of bearing and rearing children. (*By the way, please let me hasten to say that I have no problem with and indeed am a supporter of correct management and conservation of our fauna. Since "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof" [Psalm 24:1, King James Version], His children are expected to be good stewards of His creation.)

Al Mohler takes note of this sad and unnatural phenomenon on his blog in "Dogs – ‘Children of the New Millennium?’" (Sorry, Al, but I have to say that my dad beat you to it a long time ago in his cutting edge analysis of society’s downward slide.) Please click here to read Mohler’s article.

Some "Inconvenient Truths" about Al Gore

An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s "documentary" on global warming won an Oscar at the Academy Awards Sunday night for "Best documentary feature." The failed presidential candidate—who still hasn’t gotten over his 2000 defeat (In the film, he declares, "I am Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States of America.")—has now become Hollywood’s current darling in the environmental arena.

It is not unusual anymore to hear on a fairly regular basis about another one of Gore’s headline grabbing "initiatives" to save the planet. One of the most recent was announced on the 9^th of this month when Gore and Sir Richard Branson (chairman of the Virgin Group) offered $25 million to the person who comes up with a way to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

The DVD of An Inconvenient Truth is advertised on the web site of Climate Crisis (the organization behind the "documentary"). In the interest of being ecologically friendly, we are told that:

The DVD will be packaged with no excess materials, so as to make the smallest environmental footprint possible. Packaging will include 100% post-consumer waste recycled paper, inks and coatings formulated to emit virtually no volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere, no inserts, no laminates and no plastic. The package was manufactured by Ivy Hill. The back of the DVD package will direct teachers to www.climatecrisis.net where a free downloadable educational guide will be available.

What the film "(in)conveniently" leaves out are some interesting details about Gore’s personal somewhat-less-than-environmentally-friendly personal habits in certain areas. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has done some investigating into Al Gore’s electric and natural gas bills and has turned up some interesting facts. In an article titled "Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own ‘Inconvenient Truth’" we are informed that "Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average." Read on (emphasis is mine in the piece):

Last [Sunday] night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

In the comment section of the Climate Crisis blog, one reader offers a number of suggestions on how to reduce the consumption of electricity (he and his family "were able to reduce our electrical consumption from 500 kw-hr/month down below 200 kw-hr."). I strongly urge that gentleman to take what he has learned and use that knowledge to educate Al Gore on conservation and kindness to the environment.

Slavery Is Alive and Well

Two hundred years ago today, William Wilberforce achieved the first major victory in his anti-slavery campaign when Britain’s House of Commons outlawed the slave trade. Even though slavery is now illegal in most countries of the world, it is probably safe to say that it is even more of a scourge than it was in Wilberforce’s day. World Magazine puts the issue into perspective with an article titled "Let my people go". In the story line preceding the article, the writer—Priya Abraham—makes the astonishing statement that the lives of modern slaves are "worth far less than any colonial era slave." Read on (emphasis in the piece is mine):

Premila’s parents sold their daughter for $18 on her 18th birthday. The buyer, from hundreds of miles away, said his Indian village had no good women to marry so he had to buy a wife. He took Premila as a concubine, then sold her into 10 grinding years of prostitution in two cities before rescuers returned the shattered woman to her home.

Premila is a modern slave, one of 27 million in the world today. Two hundred years ago, slaves were relatively scarce, expensive, and publicly owned by men holding title deeds to them. Today, they are plentiful and cheap like Premila—and much harder to spot.

This week Western countries celebrate the life of William Wilberforce, the pioneering abolitionist who labored 20 years to end the British slave trade, a fight he won on Feb. 23, 1807. Today’s abolitionists are no less tenacious but find their work is different: Unlike in Wilberforce’s time, slavery is illegal almost everywhere. Yet modern slavery flourishes because corrupt governments and law enforcers do not enforce the law.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the U.S. Department of Justice offers a number of incredible statistics regarding human trafficking and slavery:

• "Human trafficking is the third most profitable criminal activity, following only drug and arms trafficking. An estimated 9.5 billion is generated in annual revenue from all trafficking activities, with at least $4 billion attributed to the worldwide brothel industry."
• "Each year, an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 men, women, and children are trafficked across international borders (some international and non-governmental organizations place the number far higher), and the trade is growing."
• "Of the 600,000-800,000 people trafficked across international borders each year, 70 percent are female and 50 percent are children. The majority of these victims are forced into the commercial sex trade."
• "Each year, an estimated 14,500 to 17,500 foreign nationals are trafficked into the United States. The number of U.S. citizens trafficked within the country each year is even higher, with an estimated 200,000 American children at risk for trafficking into the sex industry."

May we not have the typical reaction of "Oh, that’s terrible!" and then continue our self-centered existence. Let us make our voices heard to those in government and lend a helping hand to those near us. Psalm 82:3-4 (King James Version) urges us to . . .

Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

Helping our fellow human being is not a political issue; it’s a Christian one. May believers realize that "pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit [relieve] the fatherless and widows [and, we may add, as does Psalm 82:3, all 'the afflicted and needy'] in their affliction" (James 1:27, King James Version).

Grow up!

People have begun to take notice of the effects that treating kids and teens like eternal babies is having on our society. More and more people whose date of birth would lead us to expect a certain level of maturity from them are simply refusing to "act their age." One is tempted to shout "Just grow up!"

An article in London's Telegraph by Michael Bywater titled "We’re all big babies" deals with this issue. In a humorous manner, he compares modern society with his grandfather’s world. Notice this excerpt:

My grandfather was born in 1888 and he didn’t have a lifestyle. He didn’t need one: he had a life.

He had a hat and a car and a wife and two sons and a housekeeper and a maid and a nanny for the children, and the housekeeper had a dog and the dog had a canker and lived in a kennel.

My grandfather read Charles Dickens mostly. Sometimes they went on holiday. His house was furnished with furniture.

There were some exotic things in it, brought back from exotic places. The most exotic things were African carvings and Benares brassware. The African carving had been brought back from a war, possibly the Boer one.

The brassware was brought back from Benares by my grand-father’s friend Dr Chand, who lived next door but was a Brahmin from Benares.

Dr Chand didn’t have a lifestyle either. Nobody had a lifestyle then, because there was nobody to tell them to, and anyway they were too busy having lives.

They were grown-ups. They went about their business. In my grandfather’s case, it was seeing patients and making them better, where possible. In Dr Chand’s case, it was the same, because he was a doctor too.

I suspect that my grandfather’s life was real in a sense that my father’s life hasn’t quite been, and my life is not at all.

The crucial difference is my grandfather’s lack of self-consciousness, and that self-consciousness is a hallmark of the perpetual, infantilised adolescents we have all become, monsters of introspection hovering twitchily on the edge of self-obsession, occasionally aware that the life that exists only to be examined is barely manageable; barely, indeed, a life.

It is a preparation for a life. The consistently introspective life of the Big Baby is as much a simulacrum as life on Big Brother.

To keep the simulacrum going we need help. And we need that help because that help is available.

It’s the old paradox. We need distraction from our fragmented and solitary lives because the distractions available to us have rendered our lives fragmented and solitary.

And we need lifestyle advice from magazines and websites and newspaper supplements and health advisers and personal trainers precisely because we are being nagged about our lifestyle all the time by magazines and websites and newspaper supplements and health advisers and personal trainers…

If one of the markers of adulthood is autonomy, then one of the preconditions of autonomy is being left alone.

My grandfather wasn’t nagged. Once he turned 21, he was a man, and a grown-up, and nobody battered him round the clock with opportunities he was missing, miseries he didn’t know he had, aspirations ditto, inadequacies doubly so.

Nobody told him about being good in bed, grooming tips, what his car said about him, what he should have to eat, how much he should drink, what his house said about him, how Benares brassware was so over, where he should go on holiday, what this season’s must-have product would be, how his suits should look.

He knew some of these things, and didn’t care about the others because nobody was drawing them to his attention. He knew what his suits should look like: trousers, waistcoat, jacket, all made out of the same material.

He knew about grooming: you shaved. He knew what he should eat: breakfast, lunch, dinner. He probably had no idea that good-in-bed even existed, or that furniture did anything except furnish, or that where he went on holiday was of any significance, or that his car said anything about him at all, except ‘Oh, here comes Dr Bywater, I recognise his car.’

But the Big Babies have no such autonomy, and are harangued to death; nor have they learned the adult trick of simply ignoring the fishwife-and-huckster voices. Instead, Baby tries to comply.

At the end of his rather lenghtyl article, Bywater offers a section on "How to be an adult." I’ve included it here for your enjoyment:

Don’t be affronted Being affronted (or offended, or complaining about ‘inappropriateness’) is no response for a grown-up. Only children believe the world should conform to their own view of it: a sort of magical thinking that can only lead to warfare, terrorism, unmanageable short-term debt and the Blair/Bush alliance

Mistrust anything catchy, whether it’s the Axis of Evil, advertising slogans, or blatant branding (‘New Labour’). Catchiness exists to prevent thought and to disguise motive. Grown-ups can think for themselves

Ignore celebrities, except when they are doing what they are celebrated for doing: acting, playing football et cetera. Skill does not confer moral, political or intellectual discrimination. (Except in the case of writers. Writers know everything and can lecture you with impunity.) If a celebrity is not celebrated for doing anything but being a celebrity, smile politely but pay no notice

We should not assume that market forces will decide wisely. The market is rigged by manipulation and infantilisation

Consider our own motivations. We may rail about being treated like children, ordered about, kept from the truth, nannied and exploited… but are we complicit in it? Could the reward actually be infantilisation itself?

Autonomy is the primary marker of being grown up. Babies, children and adolescents don’t have any. We don’t want to be in their boat

Suspect administration Its purpose is to free the organisation to do what it’s meant to do: but the triumph of the administrators - the lawyers, the accountants, the professional managers – means that too many organisations now believe that what they are meant to do is administer themselves. This is a profoundly infantile attitude

Do not love yourself unconditionally. Such love is for babies and comes from their mothers. Ignore fashion, particularly in clothes. You don’t want to look like a teenager for ever

Never do business with a company offering ‘solutions’ as in ‘ergonomic furniture solutions which minimise the postural strain associated with sitting’ (chairs) and ‘Post Office mailing solutions’ (brown paper). The word suggests we have a problem, but since we are grown-ups, that is for us to decide

Denounce relativism at every turn. Shouting ‘not fair’ is childish. Demanding respect without earning it is childish. Don’t fear seriousness. Babies aren’t allowed to be serious

Watch our language. Is there really much difference between a six-year-old in a fright-wig and his father’s waders shouting ‘I'm the Mighty Wurgle-Burgle-Urgley-Goo’ and an ostensible grown-up demanding to be called ‘Tony Blair’s Respect Tsar’?

Hide Grown-ups are not required to be perpetually accountable, while the instincts of government and big business, both of which are, almost by their nature, great infantilisers, are to keep an eye on everyone all the time

Eat it up There is nothing more babyish than having dietary requirements

Never vote for, do business with or be pleasant to anyone who uses the words ‘ordinary people’