Is It Warm In Here?

GLOBAL WARMING IS A THEORY.

Did you cringe when you read that? Did you stop and think? Did you wake up? Maybe all three of those responses would be appropriate.

Global warming is a theory, and nothing else. Just like evolution and relativity, theories are in fact unproven ideas that are generally accepted as true by some, and untrue by others. Theories abound in our world, from why the Mets can't win a championship, to why some people always drive slow in the left lane, but in the end, they are only theories.

The "debate" over Darwin's evolution theory was always misled. Rather than forcing proponents of that misguided and totally humanist theory to prove how it is true (arguments such as, 'show us one animal in the midst of evolving' come to mind) and placing the onus upon them, creationists tried to argue their views with superior rationale and proof. In the end, those who generally want to discount God see creation as a theory as well. Of course, they must then examine all the data and see which makes the most sense. If they would do that, they would find that it takes more faith to believe an old decrepit man who doodled on paper, than to believe the one and only God who made all things. Oh, and by the way, the earth is not millions and millions of years old. That too is just a theory. The old "carbon dating" answer is about as reliable as a high mileage Yugo. Anywho, the same ideas should be applied to the so-called global warming debators. No one has to prove it's not happening, because if no one had ever postulated the erroneous idea, it would never be discussed. Warmer? What?

The main thing is this: global warming is a catch phrase assigned to a radical theory that is not clearly defined, other than "the world is getting warmer." How much warmer, and how quickly is hotly debated even among global warming supporters. Most scientists who adhere to this theory can't even clearly define how it has supposedly happened, or what can be done, if indeed anything needs to be done. However, of late, there seems to be a growing consensus among the "warmists" and those who disagree, that it is possible that the earths mean annual temperature average has risen approximately 1 degree in the last 100 years. But even this is fraught with misinformation and grand calculations that must estimate, due to the fact that global temps haven't been tracked or even properly recorded until very recently. So, for any group of scientists to come to a conclusion as to the mean temperature of our atmosphere for one year in 1907 would be tantamount to Michael Moore and Newt Gingrich agreeing on health care.

All kinds of questions and statements are now properly posed in the frenzy of the claims of global warming, including, "is the earth really 1 degree warmer? Even if you can prove this one claim true, is it still warming?" "What real effect will this have on anyone in the next century?" "Would we be better off if it were cooling off?" "If global warming is occurring, and if it's so horrendous, then why are we able to produce 100 times more produce today, than 100 years ago?"
The point is, that a few scientists think that maybe the earth's mean temp has risen an average of 1 degree in the past century, and from there they are spouting off all kinds of dooms-day theories (theories stacked upon other theories is a very unstable place to be) that may or may not correlate to the alleged rise. We might as well be sweating what will happen when that giant asteroid impacts the earth. Actually, that is a greater threat.

AlGore notwithstanding, and all the other tree huggers who have attached themselves to this train of fabrications, they are all missing one very important point:

THE WORLD DOES NOT NEED PROTECTING FROM US

WE NEED PROTECTION FROM THE WORLD

Case in point - just pack your bags, and leave your house for 6 months. Lock the doors, turn off all the electricity, and have no one lined up to deal with the yard. Return in 6 months and what will you find? The yard will be a jungle, vines and vegetation will have taken over your house and deck, and all kinds of critters will have taken up residence inside. It will take you another 6 months to rectify what nature has done in your absence.

Another experiment: just go out into the woods and lay down. Lay down for an extended period of time, for say, 10 days. Don't move and disturb the fragile nature around you. What will happen? You'll be worm food, my friend! You will not have impacted nature -- nature will have impacted you, by starting the process of breaking you down into the basic elements God used to form you.

God created this world with processes and systems. He did so to ensure the survival of the world until it is time for He to end it. And only God will end this world. Sure, mankind can have negative effects upon the world, but in the end, if one day doomsday comes (refer to the 3 "Terminator" flicks) and all humanity is wiped out (which will never happen -- God says so in Revelation), plant and animal life will reappear and will flourish in no time. The character played by Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park said it best when he said, "Life finds a way." He didn't say it this way, but what that means is, God's systems and processes cannot be thwarted by anything man can conjure.

So, are we to pillage and pollute this world? Of course not. Are we to monitor our impact and try to be good stewards, wasting not and finding new ways to limit pollution? Sounds about right. Are we to believe that man is a naturally caustic element on earth, and will by his very presence will eventually spell doom to all that God has created?

If you believe that, I've got some prime swamp land for sale just south of...

Massive past civilizations lie under tons of overgrowth and dirt even today, as yet undiscovered. They are hidden by natural processes and systems that man cannot overcome or conquer. Everything in your life requires constant maintenance, just to extend the life of it. No car lasts forever, and every building will eventually crumble back into the same elements it was made from. This doesn't happen because man is here. This happens because God has always been, and it's the way He created this earth to function. Man is not about to change that.

So, start protecting yourself from the nature God created. Wax that car, put some fresh paint on the house, spray for bugs, use that lotion and sunscreen, and make sure you're buried in an air-tight, waterless vault so that the worms have to work harder to eat you. Oh, and the temp down there remains at a steady 65 degrees, year round.

Principals.....or Elections?

The general's report is in, but.....already, those on the left politically (Democrats, mostly) are wagging their heads in disbelief, disgust, and denial. Surely this surge can't be working, right? Well lefties, it is working, and to accuse the general of "cooking the books" only makes you look more like what you are.

What everyone must come to grips with is the reasons the Democrats are so disenchanted with this Iraq war. Listed below are the top 5 reasons why the left can't find anything good about our current war on terror:

• It is seen as George W. Bush's war. Liberals hate George W. Bush, so they hate the war he is presiding over as Commander in Chief.
• It seeks to liberate people from a dictatorship, to a democracy. Liberals admire dictatorships, autocracies, and other models that give most or all of the power to the government. They won't come right out and say it, but they are all about big government, and the government taking over most of life. That is undeniable.
• Liberal Democrats have a long history of disenchantment with the military. You just don't find many liberal (politically, financially, socially, etc.) generals, commanders, and so on. For at least 75 years, Democratic presidents, senators, and congressmen have done very poorly in military situations. Churchill ensured allied victory in WWII, NOT Roosevelt. It was Johnson that got us into Vietnam, and he is the one that escalated that war. Nixon inherited Johnson's quagmire, and then got tagged with the blame for the whole shin-dig. And let's not forget slick Willie and his debacle in Mogadishu. Made a movie about that one. Funny how they failed to mention his ill fated and limp wristed policy of "presence without intervention." It's like being in a boxing ring, but keeping your hands in your pockets.
• It is win-able. It hasn't been a smooth road, but then again, exactly how long is it supposed to take a violent, 3rd world country with decades of internal war and genocide to turn around to a peaceful, productive democracy? Jury is out on that one, but common sense says more than a few years. Even so, grand strides have been made in restructuring and setting up infrastructure that counts, like businesses, schools, hospitals, and trade. The liberal press has basically reported not a stitch of this, and sadly, the one conservative press outlet we commonly see has done poorly in this area too. Shame on them for not drowing their airwaves with all the true positive stories that need to be shared.
• Finally, it is embarassing for them. Many of the most liberal democrats voted for proceeding with the war. Many of the same had access to the same information as Republicans, and they felt it was warranted. What is rarely shared is the immense amount of time Saddam had to hide and destroy his WMD's (which we know he had, because he used them all the time on people groups he hated, like the Kurds) with all the resolutions that President Bush felt necessary to offer. If he had just drawn the line earlier, even by a week or so, it would have made a huge difference in terms of discoveries and tactical advances. Either way, the liberals went for it, and then had to eat their words and do what they do best: change positions. And now, it's finally out that real progress is being made, and President Bush has no intentions of caving or leaving until he is good and ready. The democrats are once again left trying to peer over a fence that separates the men from the boys, whining, crying, and backstabbing.

Democrats don't oppose the war because of philosophical or religious principals, nor do they oppose the war because they are genuinely worried about our soldiers. They oppose the war because it makes President Bush look like a real commander, a real man willing to take on real issues in a really scary world. They are intimidated and feel left out. They are desperately afraid the American public will see the positive side of all this and, horror of all horrors, elect another Republican next go around. Having a Republican president wage a honest and needed war (and winning it!) makes democrats feel like the geeky, skinny kid who is picked dead last for dodgeball -- left out, useless, and totally out of sorts.

Liberals hate President Bush because he is in office, he is conserative, he is a Christian, and he is guided by principals, not polls. Democrats are not led by principals -- they are led by the consuming desire to be elected, or re-elected. A president like George W. makes them look fake, shallow, and souless, by comparison.

So, as the liberal media (directly tied to liberal politicans, without doubt) continues to try to banter on about how horribly this war is going, and how unfit our President is, be informed enough to brush aside their asceine arguments and get at the heart of what they are saying -- get at their heart -- and realize that they would rather see America "lose" a war, any war, than to see a Republican President be successful.

Where's the Value?

Where did Anna Nichole Smith come from? What did she contribute to society that makes certain elements within the pop culture media desire to Elvis-ize her ad nauseum? I wish I knew.
Turn on your TV and you are overwhelmed with images and stories about Anna, Brittney, even Michael Vick (at least he had a real story behind his name) that seem to go on and on about not much of anything. More time will be spent on this subject in later installments, but for now, a few words about the Vick situation and trial.
Short and to the point: Animals are not people. Animals are not equal to people, in terms of worth, eternity, value, or destiny. Animals are here for our use, not for our worship. God told Adam in the garden of Eden that he was in charge of the animals, and they would be used by man for his purposes. God has a purpose for animals, but that in no way implies that they are equal to us, any more than sand has equal importance to mankind. Both were created by God, but for very different purposes. Oh, and then there's that comment made by God that the secular humanists and tree huggers seem to overlook, "we will make him in our image." The triune God does not speak those words about any other part of creation.
I (and most other sane people) do not see any value in dog fighting, rooster fighting, or other "blood sports" relating to animals. There is no excuse for mutilating animals for financial gain. So, that's a settled argument. However, the other night I saw an interview of a woman who shot her husband and less than a year later, is talking about it on TV, apparently a free woman. No public outcry, no green flag waving protesters lined up to be in the video shot. Yet Michael Vick was castigated and universally maligned as the utmost in criminal depravity, having been a part of dog fighting for wager and financial gain. Everyone who reported on him and the activity he was in purposely cast a dark cloud upon the report, showing their utter contempt.
So, the comment made here is that when some "poor dogs" are "forced" to fight in a ring, it's all hands on deck to destroy the animal (person) responsible. BUT, when one of these "poor dogs" that are bred and designed to be killing machines (they have no other useful purpose in nature or society) mutilates or even kills a human being, people respond in support of the dog. WHERE DOES SUCH MISGUIDED AND INSANE RATIONAL COME FROM?
Believe you me, any dog that bites any human needs to be a dead dog. End of discussion. Fine the owner for complete recompense for any medical bills, and an additional $1,000 for neglect, and wrap it up by burying the biting dog. This makes perfect sense to me, because I value human life far above and beyond any animal life. Humans are made in God's image, animals were made to serve man, and to serve a purpose in the balance of life here on earth. No comparison. Humans are eternal, animals are temporal. Sorry, but "Cujo" isn't "going to heaven."
The aforementioned misguided rational comes from people who find it much easier to show love and affection to a dog (or any other pet or animal), than to another human. There are millions of Americans (I won't comment on people in other countries) who are too cowardly or inept to build meaningful human relationships, and so they channel their love and affection to a dog, cat, bird, etc. This, of course, is sick, improper, and destructive, but rather than take care of their own issues that keep them from reaching out, they reach down to temporary, soulless animals as substitutes, and interestingly enough, they defend their choice with unmatched vigor and viciousness.
Leona Helmsly: does this really require comment? Millions left for a dog? But some in the media said, "well, maybe her grandchildren were mean to her!" I don't think anyone mistook Leona for a big wad of cuddly love, so let's keep that in mind, shall we? Again, choosing an animal over people. Just think what those millions (I actually don't know how much it was, so I am guessing) could do for orphanages in some of the poorest parts of our world. Instead, a stupid, soulless dog with no inherit value is soaking up gourmet meals. Gee, wonder why Brad and Angelina didn't make a public statement about that? Instead of the public crying out at this outrage, they turn their rage upon the grandchildren, assuming that they didn't "deserve" the money, based upon some alleged, assumed conduct unbefitting an inheritance.
OK, so it's easy to get affection from a dog. Feed and water them, and they're yours for life. Cats........well, that's another story. Point being, that animals give in proportion to what they require to hang around, and that's basically little to nothing. They lay in your lap, soak up your heat or A/C, shed nasty hair all over your house (bringing on all kinds of allergies that you try to blame on something else), chew up your valuables, poop on your carpet, and infest your dwelling with fleas. In return, well...........what was the point? Oh, yes - animals are so much better than humans! So why go through the bother to value human life above animal life? So what if God commands us to love one another (note there is no prescriptive charge to love animals), al la 1 Corinthians 13? Shouldn't we just show insane deference to animals, regardless of the command of our Lord or the eternal status of our souls?
Time to wrap this up with a few closing summations and comments:

• Treating animals with impunity and violence for sport or amusement is not being argued here.
• Animals were placed upon this earth to be used of, and serve man, and not the other way around.
• Animals do not have souls. Christ did not die for your cat or dog. He died for you. There may be animals in Heaven, but don't count on seeing Binky there because "he was such a good dog!"
• Human life is above all other life on this earth, as evidenced by the fact that Christ died for people, and for nothing else.
• People who either "can't," or refuse to learn to love and bond with other humans are not solving their problems by bonding with an animal.
• We say nothing while hundreds of innocent, unborn babies are mutitated and killed by doctors through abortion each day, but cry out when a few dogs are killed in a dusty arena.
• God speaks throughout His word about how we are to show love, forgiveness, and grace towards each other. In contrast, only in one or two instances does He give instruction on how to handle someone who viciously mistreats a animal, and even then, the instruction refers to restitution of the animal's owner.
• If your natural inclination is to take the side of an animal, rather than another human being, you have serious spiritual, moral, and relational problems that need to be dealt with. No exceptions. The loose definition of a physcopath is someone who has lost all value for human life. Where are you on that continuium?
• Michael Vick did offer a good apology. He assumed responsibility for his actions. People associated with such activities need to be reprimanded, of course, but we all need to keep our focus upon the big picture, and value human life above all else. Otherwise, we will continue our downward slide towards isolationism and antagonism towards each other, and ultimately, towards the God that created us.