If John Edwards announces that he is running for President in 2008 and no one hears it, did it really happen?

Seriously, does this guy thing he has a shot, what with Barak and Hillary sparring this early in the race. Save your time and money Sen. Edwards!

A few comments/quotes from the Erre book I just finished:

This was how I understood "following Jesus": do the good things and avoid the bad things. I knew I was saved by grace, but once I became a follower of Jesus, I thought grace no longer applied. I thought it became my job to become a better person.

I've felt this to be one of the biggest problems facing the evangelical church. As we become "more churched" this seems to be our attitude, that we rise up the church ladder (and earn more love/justice/blessings/protection from God) by cleaning ourselves up, forgetting we are no better than those outside the walls. We have a lot of learning to do in this area, myself included!

It was thought you had to be "clean" before you could come to God. But Jesus called people to come to him and taught that then God would make them clean.

Another fallacy in the church, thinking that we clean ourselves up when we know that it is God that does the cleaning, it is God that turns us around, left to ourselves we are nothing but filthy rags.

We go to church, we give money, and we do all the right things - in the hope that God will never put us in a position where we actually have to trust him.

Oooh - that one hit a little close to him, I'm convicted!

Finally, I like this context as I have been thinking more of late on the differences between Jewish Apocalyptic theology (what the Jews expected from the Messiah) and Christian Apocalyptic theology (what Jesus taught). This lesson from the viewpoint of John is proper (a good preview to this would be to read Matthew 11:2-3, I had always asked myself why John would ask this question, I think the differences in apocalyptic expectations mentioned about and the text below help answer that question):

We discover what it means to overcome when we see the picture of Jesus presented to us in Revelation 5. We are told in verse 5 that "the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed." These exalted titles come from Genesis 49 and Isaiah 11 and evoke a strong militaristic and nationalistic image of the Messiah of David. This is the Messiah the Jews expected, a mighty warrior king who would conquer nations and destroy the enemies of God's people. This is what John heard: he heard about the conquering Messiah. Now, verse 6 says he looked: "ThenI saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain." He heard about a lion and looked and saw a lamb. He hears about a lion that has overcome but sees a lamb that was slain. What he saw was the lamb whose sacrificial death had redeemed the people from all nations (Rev. 5:6,9-10). The Lion was also the Lamb.

I posted the Scripture below late last night after reflecting for a short time on the Erre book I referred to a day or so ago. He wrote a chapter on "The Danger of Theology" which made me skeptical at first but once I read it I felt I agreed with him. His simple premise was that theology is good and necessary but the purpose of it must be to help us know God rather than just know about Him. Again, I agree.

As I've reflected on the Scripture more throughout the day I keep thinking of a man I've respected since I came to Christ and heard him speak, Dr. Chuck Missler. This quote sums him up to perfection. The guy is a genius, I don't know his exact bio but I believe before he was a Christian he worked in the CIA, has connections with Mossad, the stuff he talks about in his speeches is so far over my head I don't even try to understand. His understanding of Scripture and his communication of that knowledge has been a blessing to me. I have the utmost respect for the guy.

But beyond his knowledge, what I really appreciate about Missler is how for him, the focus is always on knowing Jesus more. The prophecy he teaches, the way he breaks down the Word of God, everything about him is meant to help us and him know Jesus more. I've seen him breakdown in tear during his speeches due to his love of Christ and the way Jesus has transformed his life. For Chuck, the Scriptures are about knowing God, not just knowing about Him! Thanks Chuck for being an inspiration to me and countless others!

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

- Jesus, in John 5:39-40, to a group of Jews, probably religious leaders, after his healing at the pool of Bethesda and subsequent persecution at the hands of these Jews regarding his healing on the Sabbath

I began Mike Erre's "Jesus of Suburbia" last night. The title caught my eye at B&N and I read the first chapter, enjoyed it, so I bought it. At the beginning, he makes an interesting historical note regarding Luke's version of the birth of Christ, specifically the mention of Caesar Augustus, that I had not previously understood:

...Soon after this, Octavian receivefd the honorific title Augustus...he came to be known as "Savior" of the empire, bringing "peace" and "salvation." He was called "Lord" and came to be worshiped as a god on earth...His birth was called "good news" and was celebrated by a twelve-day holiday called "advent." Among his titles were: "Cosmic Savior," "Atonement for Rome's Past Sins," and "Inaugurator of the Golden Age of Peace and Security"...The propaganda spilling forth from Rome announced the "good news" of Augustus's birth and that the blessing of Caesar's kingdom was peace...

Remember, this is Caesar August they are referring to. He goes on to connect this to Luke's version of the birth of Christ:

Luke's mention of Caesar Augustus isn't incidental or minor. It sets the whole backdrop for the Christmas story...Luke wants us to know that there is a bigger stage than we realize for the birth of Jesus Christ. In one corner of this massive empire, Luke recorded for us the birth of a new king, ushering in a new and revolutionary kind of kingdom. The world lived under the rule of Caesar Augustus, yet Luke wanted us to know that hundreds of miles away, something so significant was happening that it would shake every empire and affect every life from that day to today...

He goes on to cite the account from Luke 2:8-11, 13-14.

...It was said that Caesar was Savior, Lord, and bringer of peace. His birthday was good news, and his empire was salvation. And here, in a corner of the most powerful kingdom the world has ever seen, shepherds (not priests, not rulers, not the elite) were the first to hear the good news that will be for all people...A different Savior, Lord, and King will usher in a real peace and lasting salvation...It is almost as if all of the titles applied to Caesar were applied to Jesus in order to force people to choose between them. If Jesus has been called one thing and Caesar another, people would have been tempted to believe they could worship both. But when Savior, Lord, King, gospel, peace, and salvation are specific descriptions applied to both rulers, the Christmas story forces us to chose: Who is our lord? Who is our Savior?

I had never heard this angle before, if he is correct in his historical criticism and conclusions, I really appreciate this, it's a story that needs to be told.

Since Lisa will never go to the movies with me, I was going to go to "The Good Shepherd" tonight, alone. She told me it was too weird to go by myself, I said no one else would go with me, she asked if I had asked my good friend Dan to go along? I countered that it may be weird to go alone, but weirder to ask another guy. Which is worse?

A while back I saw an ad for "How Soccer Explains the World" by Franklin Foer and though I had enjoyed the World Cup and had shunned some of my past hatred for this sport, it intrigued me, but not enough to buy it. On a late night journey to B&N Saturday night I found it, read the first chapter, and decided to buy it. Just finished it, solid book, I would recommend it. The author's stated premise is "an unlikely theory on globalization" but really had very few conclusions, at least that I could discern. I enjoyed his story-telling and the broad range of topics he tackled. A few things that struck out at me:

1) I had no idea the deep level of nationalism that still exists in Europe and around the world and the deep-seated hate these ethnic groups still hold for one another. He talked about the Serbs and Croats, Irish and Scottish, Catalans and Spaniards, etc. In America I feel we are shielded from these emotions, but he would interview various people on both sides of the spectrum in these rivalries and the reason for their hate would go back hundreds of years. The history is unbelievable. The conclusion I took from this and what surprised me was that this is a major threat to globalization, these ethnic rivalries and hatred are to subside as we modernize, as economies improve, etc. He writes, "Through the late twentieth century, liberal political thinkers...have blamed nationalism for most of modernity's evils. Tribalism in a more modern guise, they denounce it. If only we abandoned this old fixation with national identities, then we could finally get past nasty ethnocentrism, vulgar chauvinism, and blood fueding. In place of nationalism, they propose that we become cosmopolitans-shelving patriotism and submitting to government by international institutions and laws...

It's a beautiful picture, but not at all realistic...this tradition understands that humans crave identifying with a group...since modern life has knocked the family and tribe from their central positions, the nation has become the only viable vessel for this impulse...

Besides, in theory, patriotism and cosmopolitanism should be perfectly compatible. You could love your country-even consider it a superior group-without desiring to dominate other groups or closing yourself off to foreign impulses...

In theory, but not in reality!

2) He names a chapter "How Soccer Explains the Problem of Islam" and spends a great deal of time providing a history lesson on Iran, including how it was a ver modern nation up to the Islamic revolution in 1979. I had not known that, I guess I had heard of it but not to the level is ascribes. He also discusses how Iranians seek to be modern and Western, something that reminded me of a Time quote I saw quite a few years ago when Clinton visited there post-President and a sign at his speech read, "I hate America, take me there." Seems to sum up the thinking very well.

3) Finally, I was shocked at the amount of corruption that Foer uncovered and discussed. Sure I know that in every society it exists, but how blatant it seemed in modern Europe took me by surprise. One example regards the Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, who in 2003 according to Foer orchestrated the "passage of legislation granting himself blanket immunity from prosecution. He had decriminalized the offense of false accounting, which his company is accused of committing." In the margin I wrote the note, "Europe? Today?" I may expect this as commonplace today in many third-world countries, but not in Europe today, I guess I have too high of expectations for Euro-society. My Kenyan friend Japheth keeps complaining about the corruption in the Kenyan government, and it is bad, but while he views the US and Europeans governments as utopic, I try to tell him that it still exists here, though it may be illegal the politicians find ways around it. I guess I was more right than I thought.

Related to my last post, below, what little respect I had for Saddleback is not out the window. And Fox for that matter as well. I guess an independent news channel can show what it wants and I can make the decision not to stop at its location when flipping through the channels, but showing a service from Saddleback last night, that's too much for me. Then, the cause of my further disdain with Saddleback, as the cameras pan through the audience I have to look at countless ladies and gents with Santa hats on. In church! Easterbrook was all too right when he wrote "Even in modern churches, at this point Christmas celebration is 99 percent secular, 1 percent religious."

TMQ adds a voice to the Christmas discussion:

As We Read in the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Said, "Verily, Take Ye a Tree, and Place Onto It Baubles and Little Electric Lights from CVS …":

Last week Sea-Tac International Airport in Seattle briefly removed, then returned to place, all Christmas trees after being threatened with a lawsuit asserting display of the trees without symbols of other faiths violated separation of church and state. (Sea-Tac is publicly owned.) This raises a common misconception that drives TMQ crazy at this time of year -- Christmas trees are not religious symbols! Yes, you put them up at Christmas time. But ornaments on trees, Santa in the chimney, flying reindeer, chuckling elves, stockings by the fire: good luck finding these things in the Bible! (Though several generally accepted translations contain references to unicorns.) Santa is vaguely based on Saint Nicholas, a third-century Greek bishop renowned for his love of giving presents; the Christmas tree probably descends from the 16th century German custom of trimming a tree to celebrate New Year's. Even so, trees and stockings are no more part of Christian theology regarding Christmas than latkes and dreidels are part of Judaic theology about Hanukkah -- all are communal traditions with their antecedents in sociology, not religious belief. Modern observation of Christmas involves two simultaneous events: religious commemoration of the birth story of Jesus and an entirely secular festival of gift-giving centered on a pleasing children's fable about a kindly bearded sorcerer who loves little boys and girls and leaves them presents while they sleep. Airport Christmas trees and similar decorations have nothing to do with religion, everything to do with materialism. Even in modern churches, at this point Christmas celebration is 99 percent secular, 1 percent religious. This does not sit well with some Christians, including me. Be that as it may, Christmas trees and Santa Claus are not religious symbols! Unless for the church of the National Association of Manufacturers.

I've begun a post backing up my apocalyptic understanding of the world, why I feel the world is spiraling downhill and why those who constantly seek "peace in the world" are crazy. In that, I ran across this today, makes me sick:

In 2002 the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia. This year, the Dutch government decided to expand its euthanasia policy to include newborn babies. Many doctors in the Netherlands have been practicing infanticide for years, even though it was illegal, but the Dutch government has chosen not to prosecute offenders.

This past year, there have been an increasing number of human rights violations in connection with embryonic stem cell research and cloning. In the Ukraine reports have emerged of child trafficking. According to officials, a number of babies have been snatched at birth and used to harvest stem cells, tissues, and organs for sale on the black market. Also, it was revealed that poor Ukrainian women were being paid $200 to get pregnant and have abortions. The aborted babies were also exploited as a source of stem cells - the cells were being used in beauty treatments and ineffective "miracle cures"...

In ten years we are going to be watching movies about this and uttering the words, "Never Again!" But it will be too late for the natives. Can you believe we are letting this happen?

“Some of the passengers were shot by the attackers and others were burnt to death,” a U.N. statement said.

Usually when I receive email links that begin with the following I get skeptical...

Having spent three days with 11,000 professors of religion and Bible at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in Washington DC., I'm glad to be back in the peace of my Californian study. Every year, in the academy, orthodox biblical Christianity decreases in representation, while radical liberalism increases.

...thinking that the disagreements might be centered around some of the non-essentials of Christianity. But further reading of this article from Dr. Peter Jones shows otherwise. If I didn't know better I'd think Jones was crazy, but I've been a big fan of him since I randomly heard him speak of his book "Pagans in the Pews" about five years ago on the radio. I bought the book and greatly enjoyed it. Sometimes I feel many of the arguments of the proponents of the Emerging Church (and I probably include myself here, although I like the questions they are asking and focused on loving people, the theology is going from bad to worse, their biblical literacy and interpretation is brutal, and (especially Wallis) their link with politics is just too much for me) are simply cultural arguments. Not Jones, his defense of the Bible transcends cultural differences and gets to the heart of the matter, that of the struggle/battle of the two Kindgoms present in this world, the Kingdom of Satan and the Kingdom of God. His focus is on the promoting and defending God's Kingdom while pointing out the proponents of the Kingdom of Satan along with their fallacies and evil desires.

I was just ready to begin a post on my disdain with the Christmas holiday when I received the following email from a former professor and am reprinting it with permission.

Taking Back Christmas

Christians mimic culture more than mold it. Not always; but too often. For example, our models for church in the West have frequently reflected the corporate culture around us – many pastors thinking of themselves as CEO’s, church members referred to as “stakeholders”, and marketing methodologies taking higher priority than spiritual attentiveness.

Perhaps the “Christmas season” has suffered the same fate.

Biblically, Christmas was less a season and more an event. That event marked the antithesis of what most of us associate with Christmas today.

We spend a lot of money; Christ was born into poverty. We consider Christmas a “family time”; Mary and Joseph were displaced completely from home and family. We hang lights and ornaments and tinsel; the manger was lined simply with straw. We give inanimate objects that shine, taste good, or use batteries; God gave a person – His Son. We gather in church buildings to worship the Lord; God sent angels to the fields to announce good news.

Everything about the coming of Christ contrasts with the ways in which we “celebrate the season.” The marketing gurus have successfully seduced us to sanctify their plans. Once more we mimic culture with little more than a fleeting consideration of Christ.

I’m no saint in this regard.

My own inconsistencies shine like a floodlight amidst the tiny flashlights of other people. But I desire to be different. And the first step towards change is acknowledgment of the pathology. I need to diagnose and name the disease before beginning surgery.

My disease is sanctified secularism. Christ receives an honorable mention but is mostly excluded. And many of us have become unintentional carriers of this contagion.
The disease drives me to catalogs more than to Christ; it draws me to malls and distracts me with sales. I want presents, not Presence. Give me the latest gadget, not the ancient gospel. Sing about Santa, not the Savior. Open the wallet, but not the home.

Of course I’ll join in the carols, listen to the preaching, and add angels to the tree. It excuses the foundational secularism. However, the Christ-event which calls me to simple gratitude and humility morphs into a season of impulse-spending, binge-buying, and excess. I use sacred terms to justify myself … generosity, thoughtfulness, love, and family. But I let the marketplace, not the Master, define those terms.

I’m not alone.

I suspect the waiting list for this spiritual surgery might be long. Am I a Christmas Grinch? I’m too inculturated for that! But somewhere deep within me an authentic light pierces the darkness and beckons me to meditate more on Him. I’d actually like that. Perhaps you would, too. I know He would.
In HOPE -
David

David Timms serves in the Graduate Ministry Department at Hope International University in Fullerton, California. "In HOPE", however, is not an official publication of the University and the views expressed are not necessarily those of the Administrators or Board of the institution. "In HOPE" has been a regular e-publication since January, 2001.

As you may have noticed, my brother linked a web site in my comments section of a speech by Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Words Committee.

Drudge also posted a similar link to a blog report on the Senate hearing yesterday regarding global warming.

I strongly suggest you read both in their entirety, but if you don't wish to or don't have the time, I wanted to post a few of my favorite comments pasted from Inhofe's speech. He's sure not a fan favorite of the incoming Dem. regime:

Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation...

And it's worked!

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or humanindustrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland...

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear acoming ice age...

My answer is blunt. The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and theprojected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict...

Sounds a lot like the government, the more their big projects fail, the more money they ask for (or just take), or humanitarian aid projects like the Millenium Goals, once this fails in 25 years we'll be right back to the phase one in demanding more money for their projects that don't work.

But more importantly, it is the global warming alarmists who should be asked the question -- “What if they are correct about man-made catastrophic global warming?” -- because they have come up with no meaningful solution to their supposed climate crisisin the two decades that they have been hyping this issue. If the alarmists truly believe that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are dooming the planet, then they must face up to the fact that symbolism does not solve a supposed climate crisis...

But this symbolism may be hiding a dark side. While greenhouse gas limiting proposals may cost the industrialized West trillions of dollars, it is the effect on the developing world’s poor that is being lost in this debate...

The Kyoto Protocol’s post 2012 agenda which mandates that the developing world be subjected to restrictions on greenhouse gases could have the potential to severely restrict development in regions of the world like Africa, Asia and South America -- wheresome of the Earth’s most energy-deprived people currently reside. Expanding basic necessities like running water and electricity in the developing world are seen by many in the green movement as a threat to the planet’s health that must be avoided. Energy poverty equals a life of back-breaking poverty and premature death...

I could go on forever, but the point is that as stated in the WSJ editorial I mentioned a few days ago, balanced criticism is required in this and all issues. One side can't have a monopoly on the issues, and as Sheffield noted in his reporting on the Senate hearings from yesterday and the WSJ emphasized, that is exactly what the left is looking for.

To end, I've asked myself why I am so interested in this, and I believe it comes down to a religious issue. With the rise of the religious left (which I have to give the Dems credit, they learned from the 2004 election that they had to "get religious" to get seats, and they did it) has come the rise of the religious voice on these issues. I have somewhat of a problem with that, not because Christians shouldn't be involved or add a voice to social issues, but because of their linkage with the government (we know that whenever Christians partner with the gov, the Christian voice is drown out and watered down, it happened in the 80's and 90's with the religious right and now it is happened with the liberal left).

Furthermore, I see these issues being used to promote a social gospel akin to what I've been told happened in the 50's, 60's, and70's when missionaries went out and built schools, hospitals, orphanages in the name of Jesus but never actually taught people about Christ (ironically my understanding of recent mission history is that we then went to the other extreme, just preaching to people but not helping their present situation, where is the balance?). They lived in their own little enclaves away from the native people, never immersing themselves into the culture, never teaching, always maintaining control and keeping the native people in check, in slavery, so to speak. Of course, this is a vast overgeneralization, but seems to be a solid summary. Go into many a foreign country today and you'll see mission outposts everywhere, but in many regards very little remnant of the work that they did apart from hospitals and schools. (Jeffrey Tayler mentions this briefly in his book "Facing the Congo," a great story of his real-life journey down the Congo River from the origin to the Atlantic.)

My opinion, if I may, and since this is my blog I guess I may, but I am of the thinking that spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be central to our mission. We can address social issues that the Bible addresses (of which global warming and national health care don't seem to fit) under the umbrella of bringing people under the lordship of Christ. I've heard and read again and again and taken the mantra, if all we are doing if feeding or clothing the people or protecting them from diesease, we are not bettering them one bit. Everything we do must be with the purpose of bringing people to a living relationship with Christ where they are transformed into His likeness. I just don't see that from the new religious left and the issues they've placed front and center on their agenda.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Chuck Missler and his latest KHouse newsletter. While I appreciate some of his suggestions and think them proper, I do not agree with his overall outlook on Christmas. A post in the near future will summarize my thoughts on this holiday.

Christ warned us that he would cause controversy and division. But, while retailers may or may not choose to celebrate the "reason for the season", you and I are still free to express our joy to the world. There are a variety of things that Christians can do to make sure Christ is not forgotten in the flurry of gift buying and cookie baking:

Wish people a "Merry Christmas". Whether you are in the shoe aisle or the checkout line, you can put Christmas back in stores where it has been censored. It's simple, but it's friendly and cheerful, and is far less politically correct than "happy holidays".

Be Christ to people. Is there a single mother on your street? She could use help getting her children presents. What about your neighbor who just got divorced? Bring her cookies or, better yet, ask her to come bake cookies with you. Does your neighbor leave his sidewalk unshoveled? Cheerfully offer to do it for him. Open your doors to people in unconditional love. Let them know they have value. (Christmas is not the only time for demonstrating Christ's love, of course, but people are often more open to it during Christmas than they are during other times of year.)

Invite people to church. There are still scores of people in America who have no clue why Jesus came to earth. They don't understand why we sing "Oh come let us adore him", and Christmas might be the only time they are willing to enter the doors of a church. Many churches put on pageants or have Christmas Eve services that minister to believers and unbelievers alike.
Be of good cheer. Go out of your way to be kind and patient - even in hectic department stores or the mall parking lot. Depression sets in for many people during the Christmas season, and the world has a great need to know the reality of Christ's love. Simple things can bring cheer and hope to a discouraged person's otherwise unhappy day.

Go caroling. Sing praises to God all throughout your neighborhood. Not only is caroling a fun activity for your whole family, but it's a ministry. Christmas is a time of year when singing songs about Christ can bring smiles to the faces of even nonbelievers. In fact, you can invite non-Christians to go caroling with you and have hot cider at your house afterwards. Bring song sheets if you need to.

Decorate your house to glorify Christ. A Dutch woman I visited in Coeur D'Alene several years ago had built a manger scene that took up one side of her living room. It was fantastic. The stable itself stood only about six inches high - she had built the entire thing up on a table. But, she had crafted the land of Judea around it, with shepherds and sheep on the hills. She'd created a trail of sand, lined with miniature trees and bushes, for the wise men to travel down. The scene was creative and impressive in its attention to detail, and it told the Christmas story. Something like that would be great for children to create, whether on a small scale inside or a large scale outside. Families could start small, and every year add more to it.

Write a letter to a missionary. About.com's Mary Fairchild writes: "This idea is dear to my heart because I spent four years on the mission field. Receiving a letter always felt like opening a priceless gift on Christmas morning. Many missionaries are unable to travel home for the holidays, so it can be a very lonely time for them. Write a special Christmas letter to a missionary of your choice, thanking them for giving their life in service to the Lord. Trust me -- it will mean more than you can imagine!"

Jesus may not have been born on December 25, but the Christmas season is the time of year when most Americans celebrate his birth. Every December, therefore, offers a great opportunity to minister to our neighbors and to introduce them to Christ himself. He gave us the greatest Christmas gift of all. Himself.

These are things we need to be doing every day (obviously not wishing people a Merry Christmas, you get the drift), not just because the world decides to celebrate a all-too pagan holiday. Sorry Chuck, I love your work, but I just don't see eye to eye on you with this one. It's a good thing we can agree to disagree.

Suburban poor? What, those with their $200K homes, SUV's, plasma TV's...credited to the hilt...

How are we defining this?

I guess this is old news, and I shouldn't be that interested in this, but I am, it blows my mind:

As reported by the WSJ on Monday, Sens Rockefeller and Snowe sent a letter to Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson and copied all board members that they needed to in essence "start toeing the Senators' line on climate change, or else..." Going on, the review of the letter by the WSJ stated that "But its essential point is that the two Senators believe global warming is a fact, and therefore all debate about the issue must stop." Mind you, this is an elected government official stating this to a private business. How much further can we go?

To end, I like this statement:

In recent decades environmentalists have been wrong about almsot every other apocalyptic claim they've made: global famine, overpopulation, natural resource exhaustion, the evils of pesticides, global cooling, and so on. Perhaps it is useful to have a few folks outside the "consensus" asking questions before we commit several trillion dollars to any problem.

Wait, we used to think that global cooling was a problem, now global warming? Which is it?

The letter can be found here (you need to scroll about halfway down to view).