God's Politics

God's Politics


Jesse Holcomb: If a Glacier Falls and No One Hears It…

posted by God's Politics

If a glacier falls into the ocean, and no one is there to record it, did it really happen? Perhaps anticipating the question, artist Katie Paterson has created an art installation in which the sounds of Iceland glaciers are recorded through a real-time feed from her cell phone. Audiences that see her cell number displayed at an art gallery in London can call the number and listen, live, to the sounds of large pieces of ice groaning, cracking, and breathing their last.


As global warming changes the landscape and seascape of our planet in a way that feels as permanent as it does ominous, people are already finding ways to remember the natural world as it once existed, or at least bear witness as it changes. In Greenland, glaciers are melting fast, too, reports The Washington Post. One woman marvels at the fact that global warming seems to have left a permanent mark on the island. “Already we are starting our sentences by saying, ‘In the days when it was cold … We’re starting to talk about it like it was history, and it’s only been about five years.”


Human civilization has always found ways to remember what is important to its essence. The Inuits of Greenland use good old-fashioned oral history, and a British art student uses a cell phone. But are these acts of remembrance thinly veiled resignations—signs that we’re giving up hope for the planet? Or, on the other hand, can they help to inspire us? In the Hebrew scriptures, the God of ancient Israel repeatedly called the nation to remember their roots, often as a way of waking them up. Maybe the fact that our ice caps are becoming history should serve as a wake-up call for us.


Jesse Holcomb, a former Sojourners intern, performs content analysis at the Project for Excellence in Journalism and is a graduate student at George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(74)
post a comment
Wolverine

posted July 11, 2007 at 11:07 am


Funny, I was going to ask the same question about Live Earth.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 11, 2007 at 11:18 am


That was funny. I don’t understand the Greenland comment. There has not been any sort of light switch effect attributable to global warming in the last five years.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted July 11, 2007 at 12:22 pm


Someone on this site about 6 to 8 months ago made that statement that Greenland was loosing 100 yards of ice cap a day. That is about to miles a month and so looking at 8 months ago when this statement was make – another 16 miles of ice cap is gone. Sadly – satellite photos does not support this assumption. They did state that it had been going on for over 2 years at the time they made this assessment – you do the math.
There is a cycle to everything in life and we do not know what we do not know. Sorry AL – Lilve Earth was a C- venture at best. Glad you had a great time jetting about in your private plane putting this together. I did enjoy the segment by Ed Bagley Jr – I even took notes.
Have a great day!
.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 11, 2007 at 12:56 pm


Al Gore doesn’t usually take private jets.
p



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 11, 2007 at 1:06 pm


Dear Jesse:
I guess we should have expected the first three who posted here to find ways to ridicule this situation and those who are trying to make us aware of it. And true to form, they have come through for us, haven’t they?
Well, let them continue whistling past the graveyard if that’s what they desire. Maybe they’ll wake up someday.
We saw and heard glaciers breaking up in Alaska last month. It was an awesome sight (in the original sense of that word). The reality of climate change is not lost on the folks who live in the far north, because its effects are more direct and immediate there (as also attested in the Post article you linked).
Thanks for pricking our consciouses and reminding us once again of the fragility of our situation. At least for those with ears to hear.
Peace



report abuse
 

Blake

posted July 11, 2007 at 1:15 pm


Don,
Who’s to say which climate is optimal? The avg. climate in the 1950’s? The 1800’s? Who gets to decide? What’s the climate goal for this movement? Why have they arrived at their avg temp goal (if they have one, which I actually haven’t heard or read)?
These questions aren’t rhetorical. If a change is called for, it must have a direction/goal to change to.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 11, 2007 at 1:26 pm


Blake:
Your questions may not be rhetorical, but they miss the point. The facts are that human activity is changing the climate, and changing it dramatically, as attested by all kinds of evidence that we don’tg have time to go into here. It’s not a case of “deciding” on an optimal climate and then working toward that end; rather it’s a case of minimizing the effects of our impact as much as we can. That’s the goal and direction to aim for.
Yes, climate has been variable in the past and natural variability will continue in the future, but past variabilities do not explain the current changes.
I highly recommend the article that appeared in the July 2 special issue of Newsweek. The title was something like, “Which of the following does not cause global warming.” It’s the best explanation in the simplest language that I’ve seen as to why scientists believe human activity is causing the current climate changes.
Peace,



report abuse
 

Eric

posted July 11, 2007 at 1:44 pm


The problem I have with using art to make a case for political action is the purpose of art. It’s purpose is to move people’s emotions. Making policy using emotion isn’t wise. Policy should be made using facts. Facts may show global warming is a serious problem and that we need to do something about it, but I cringe when I see the case made by something like what is reported on by Jesse.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 11, 2007 at 1:59 pm


Posted by: Don | July 11, 2007 1:06 PM
Well, let them continue whistling past the graveyard if that’s what they desire. Maybe they’ll wake up someday.
My brother lives in Alaska with his wife and they just have a chuckle as people talk about ‘global warming – climate change’ whichever you desire to use. Just because we have not fallen and worshiped and the alter of Gore and climate change does not mean that we do not believe in taking care of the enviorment. We just don’t believe that we need to turn it into a ‘cash cow’ for the enviormentalist or the Gov’t. There are several issues that need to be addressed and Gore and company will not look at possible causes other than what Al is promoting. And yes – Al does fly on private jets most of the time.
Have a great day –
.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 11, 2007 at 2:26 pm


Mod-lad:
On a previous post you challenged Sojo with: “Why do we (sojo) have to denagrate some people in order to write a story?”
You know about sauce for the goose, right? So I’m going to ask YOU: Why do you have to denigrate Al Gore (and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others with whom you disagree) in order to try and make your point?
Last time I checked, Al Gore hasn’t set himself or the global warming cause up as gods to be worshiped. If you haven’t seen An Inconvenient Truth, by all means see it. I’ve never been a fan of Gore politically, but what struck me about the movie was how human he is. Yeah, he could be your next-door neighbor, the kind of person you might ask about his grandkids over the fence.
Oh, and another thing. The movie says nothing about a carbon tax or anything about using this cause to milk the taxpayers for more money. Instead, it gives tips on how we as individuals can take responsibility ourselves for reducing our carbon emissions. Imagine that!
And last time I checked, no, Al does not fly in private jets. One of the scenes in the movie shows him going through the security at the airport. Yeah, even he has to take his shoes off and go through the detector. But maybe someone more familiar with his means of transportation can fill us in on the facts (not that it’s really any of our business, of course).
Peace,



report abuse
 

Blake

posted July 11, 2007 at 2:29 pm


Don,
I appreciate the tone of your comment. I will read that Newsweek article. Thanks for the recommenation.
If I concede that human activity is causing climate change (which I do, it’s obvious, even to those on the right), the question remains, “So what?” And the question is not posed in a dismissive way. Again, it’s not rhetorical.
I grew up in Dana Point, CA (beach town). At some point in time, that area known as Dana Point would have been inland. Today it’s not. And it’s not as a result of pickup trucks or water bottles (thanks mayor Gavin).
Point being, as Christians, we’re called to be good stewards of what has been given to us. Sensibility should be the norm with regards to waste. But…we should also be good stewards of the power we, as voting citizens, impart on others.
This issue could be the biggest source of waste in the modern political discourse (oh, the irony). Using important resources, time, etc. on this issue at the expense of others could be an injustice all to itself.
Blake



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 11, 2007 at 2:39 pm


Mod-lad:
Before I forget. I don’t know where in Alaska your brother lives, but the people who live in the Arctic costal villages in the north and northwest part of the state aren’t laughing. Instead, they’re watching their whole way of life disappear, almost before their eyes and almost literally. Just like the people in Greenland that the Post article talks about.
Later,



report abuse
 

MadHatter07

posted July 11, 2007 at 2:45 pm


moderatelad is right on in my view. The climate of this planet has rarely remained the same for an extended amount of time (in terms of the planet’s history). It is in a constant state of change. Right now, it is probably in a state of warming. The only thing that we as humans can do is to adapt and help each other out as best as possible.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 11, 2007 at 2:52 pm


Blake:
I think the answer to your “so what” is, what can we do as individuals to reduce our carbon emissions. I’ve done some things; I know I can do more. Some of them are probably out of my reach (such as installing solar panels on my roof–I live in Ohio, and we don’t see the sun much from November through April; plus, we’ll be gone from this earth before the cost recovery comes). But I can buy energy star appliances when our old ones give out. Andd we’re replacing as many light bulbs as we can with compact florescents. I try to use natural materials when I make home improvements (or things made from recycled materials–we just replaced some carpet with new carpet made from shredded plastic milk cartons). We recycle as much stuff as we can. We drive small vehicles and I take the bus whenever I can. I’m working on a landscaping plan that uses native plants and won’t need fertilizer or watering once established. I’m planning on installing rain barrels and planting a “rain garden” to divert runoff from our roof so it won’t just run into the storm sewers. We’ve inquired of our utility whether we can buy energy from renewable sources (we can’t, but I’m thinking of some other possibilities). We recently installed an efficient heat pump. And we don’t run it as air conditioning unless it’s REALLY hot.
Not everyone can do all of these things. But we can all do some of them. There are plenty of resources out there that can help us do better.
I’m sure there are other answers to the “so what” question. Maybe others will post some ideas.
Later,



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 11, 2007 at 2:54 pm


MadHatter:
Read the Newsweek article I mentioned earlier.
Best,



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted July 11, 2007 at 3:27 pm


Don wrote:
I guess we should have expected the first three who posted here to find ways to ridicule this situation and those who are trying to make us aware of it. And true to form, they have come through for us, haven’t they?
But then the original article is really kind of void of content, as was the artistic display that inspired it.
After all, the sound of a glacier falling into the ocean does little to heighten our awareness of global warming, really. Glaciers have never been static, they move, however slowly, until the ice falls into the sea.
So Ms. Paterson has called attention to her embrace of trendy causes, but has added little if anything to our understanding of the global climate.
All we get to hear from this is ice falling periodically into the ocean. Any further significance is all up to the listener. As art it’s dull, and as information it’s useless.
Wolverine



report abuse
 

Blake

posted July 11, 2007 at 3:29 pm


Don,
Good suggestions. I’ve done some of those myself (smaller vehicle, change light bulbs, reycle waste), but the question still remains: is it a waste of time, resources, etc. take these measures. If the earth’s climate will always change (as it is now), why spend money on changing it? Don, what if that money was spent on other causes? That’s the dilemna. What if your environmentally conscious decisions are ultimately a waste? What if, at the end of the day, you’re being wasteful?
Again, I’ve hedged my bets somewhat (light bulbs, little truck, recycle), so we’re all in the same boat. I’m just skeptical of those that are calling for total economic and regulatory overhaul for the cause of this issue.
Blake



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 11, 2007 at 3:32 pm


Wolverine:
Interesting that you now write something that has a little bit of content, even if it’s to complain that Jesse’s article has none.
That wasn’t what you did in your first comment, which I was replying to in the comment you quoted above. You only ridiculed the Live Earth concerts. Not much content there, either.
D



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 11, 2007 at 3:47 pm


“I guess we should have expected the first three who posted here to find ways to ridicule this situation and those who are trying to make us aware of it. And true to form, they have come through for us, haven’t they?”
I wasn’t ridiculing. If anything, I would point to the danger of basing our passion w/r/t global warming upon short term weather phenomena. What if we have a 5-7 year cooling period? Do you want people to suddently become disinterested in the issue? And Wolverine’s joke was funny.
The science suggests a far more gradual change than the anecdotal evidence provides, to say nothing of the question of whether or not we can reverse the trend.
“It’s not a case of “deciding” on an optimal climate and then working toward that end; rather it’s a case of minimizing the effects of our impact as much as we can. ”
But that’s six of one, half a dozen of the other. If we do not know the optimal climate, then minimizing our effects (at least via policy, and at enormous expense to our economy) on the environment is not necessarily desirable.
There are other counterarguments to this, of course, but I am unmoved by the “we need to do it just to do it” attitude toward environmentalism. That’s how useless bureaucracies are born.
“Yeah, he could be your next-door neighbor, the kind of person you might ask about his grandkids over the fence.”
Al Gore and Newt Gingrich are two people whose sterotypes are quite different from their actual personality, so I’ll agree wih you on this one.
To the broader point, yes, let’s work on reducing our emissions on a personal level. However, that’s not all environmentalists are advocating. They want policy changes, some of which will be very detrimental to industry (and, therefore, cost jobs).
Many enviros are inclined to shrug and say “so what?” to lost jobs and the like. That is where they lose me. We must balance our policy with the needs of our economy.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 11, 2007 at 4:41 pm


Al Gore doesn’t usually take private jets.
When you have your choice of mansions why would you go anywhere ?



report abuse
 

Russell

posted July 11, 2007 at 4:50 pm


The fact is that we do not know whether humans are causing global warming. We should be good stewards of the planet but not as a result of these fear tactics generated by Al Gore. The hypocrisy behing this whole movement is ridiculous.
And now if I am someone who doesn’t buy into this propaganda I am somehow seen as ignorant and naive. The fact is there is no consensus among scientists. Al Gore has made it seem like there is but another lie from a politician. We are all being dooped.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 11, 2007 at 5:04 pm


Kevin wrote:
“The science suggests a far more gradual change than the anecdotal evidence provides, to say nothing of the question of whether or not we can reverse the trend.”
Russell wrote:
“The fact is that we do not know whether humans are causing global warming.”
Read the Newsweek article.
D



report abuse
 

mark

posted July 11, 2007 at 5:42 pm


Kevin:
“The science suggests a far more gradual change than the anecdotal evidence provides, to say nothing of the question of whether or not we can reverse the trend.”
The science indicates a gradual change (at the moment, anyway – and gradual only if you think on a human timescale, not if you think in terms of geological time), but rapid enough for people to notice that things have changed. And things have changed faster around the north pole than elsewhere.
Meanwhile the last best hope of the climate change deniers has apparently taken a serious battering from an analysis of solar data in the Proceedings of the Royal Society: Lockwood M & Froehlich C, Recent oppositely-directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. I say apparently because I don’t have access to said paper, nor to the summary of their findings in the latest edition of Nature. However, the Guardian provides a layperson’s summary: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2123447,00.html
Of course, I don’t expect this will be the end of the story for those who are more interested in marketing their own ideology (or their own oil) than in the results of serious scientific work.
Mark



report abuse
 

Russell

posted July 11, 2007 at 6:26 pm


Mark,
I read the article that you linked and that is very interesting, however, it does not prove that we cause global warming.
Here are a few I would like you to read:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
See, this is exactly what we should be doing about this issue, debating. This is a THEORY and nothing has been proven.



report abuse
 

Jane

posted July 11, 2007 at 8:03 pm


Humans may not “cause” global warming, but there is strong evidence that we contribute to it. The planet has gone through many cycles of warmth and cold (consider the ice ages, or the “little ice age” in the 18th C). It is logical to think that the earth may be in a warming cycle at the moment;however, that does not mean that the accumlation of green house gasses does not accelerate the process. It is pointless to deny some responsibility when there are steps humans can take to reduce their contribution. The kinds of measures the movement proposes can do no harm, and may, in fact, do good. That seems simple enough.



report abuse
 

Doug7504

posted July 11, 2007 at 8:05 pm


Too bad there’s so much name-calling in this dialogue.
Why not leave the cheap shots and jibes out of it and talk about the issue.
This has become a flashpoint created by politicians for their own gain…but the science is there to back up the conclusions, nay-sayers notwithstanding. Let’s talk about what to do about it…
Personal responsibility is a good starting point. Yes, each of us contributes to the problem, conservative and liberal alike. Here in the West, when the water runs out, which is happening, there won’t be any discriminating between liberal, conservative, white, red, brown, gay or straight, rich or poor. There simply won’t be any more water. And that will be that, end of story.
Here in the US, we live a lifesytle which simply cannot be sustained for the next fifty years. The majority of the world is contributing to our comforts, and what is their payback? Rhetoric, economic manipulation like NAFTA and CAFTA, always backed up by the threat of military might.
The next war we fight will be for water, not oil.
If citizens start working for solutions instead of pointing fingers, we might make some progress in slowing, maybe even reversing, the effects of global climate change. Continuing on the current road as we are, we’re wasting time which we don’t have and getting no nearer to solutions.
This isn’t about private vs. government. It’s about Christian stewardship of God’s world, and whether or not we have the fortitude to step up and try to make change for the bette, for us, and future generations.
Peace.



report abuse
 

Russell

posted July 11, 2007 at 8:17 pm


I totally agree that we as christians should become better stewards of the environment, However, I am not a good steward because of this theory. We are called to be good stewards of the earth through scripture, not man-made global warming theory. This is not a scientific law or rule, it is a theory that has alot of holes. We need to debate and continue to discover facts about this theory, but not just blindly follow this ideology that is being pushed by an ambitious politician.
I love the fact that we can have this debate and hope we will continue to debate facts and not blindly follow what the media wants us to believe. We should be called to recycle and reduce the use of the nonrenewable resources of this planet whether or not this theory is accurate or not, but that doesn’t mean that our gov’t should spend billions of dollars worrying about this theory when we have plenty of other things to focus on.



report abuse
 

mark

posted July 11, 2007 at 8:25 pm


Russell,
I’ve looked through the articles you cite, and there is nothing new there. The first doesn’t address climate change theory as understood by the climatological community but only as popularised by Al Gore. The second produces a list of climate change sceptics – the same names that usually crop up in climate change denial propaganda – but no arguments (apart from the solar radiative forcing theory that has just had the door shut on it). And when the denial industry has to cite biologists and economists as holding a sceptical viewpoint you can tell that they’re scraping the barrel. No disrespect to biologists or economists, but they just aren’t qualified to claim to have an expert opinion on the subject. Nor, on the whole, are geologists or engineers or astrophysicists, though they may have some valid questions and ideas to put forward. Show us someone who can argue seriously with climatologists on their own ground and I’ll take the sceptics more seriously.
I suggest you have a good look at the IPCC reports, Russell – that’s where the scientific consensus lies on this one. Or if you don’t have time to do that, have a look at this rebuttal of the major denial arguments:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462 It comes from a magazine which is read by serious scientists of all disciplines, not from a partisan “news” service.
Oh, and by the way nothing is ever _finally_ proven in science. Theories can be disproved by weight of negative evidence, but no amount of positive evidence constitutes final proof. So your last statement doesn’t mean a great deal on its own. General relativity is still “just” a theory.
But there is a more important point here. Which is more responsible, to take action now even if we aren’t 100% sure that anthropogenic climate change is happening, or to carry on increasing our CO2 emissions because there’s a chance they aren’t doing any harm? To me the second option is gross irresponsibility, especially as it isn’t our creation in the first place.
Mark



report abuse
 

Doug

posted July 12, 2007 at 12:15 am


Global warming is another liberal idea designed to get you do something based on feelings and not on facts. Do you really think your little old lightbulb and car is really going to destroy the world? If you want to give up your freedoms because you feel guilty go right ahead but I for one refuse. Bt the way it is summer and last I checked it is always hot in the summer.



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted July 12, 2007 at 8:43 am


Don wrote:
Interesting that you now write something that has a little bit of content, even if it’s to complain that Jesse’s article has none.
That wasn’t what you did in your first comment, which I was replying to in the comment you quoted above. You only ridiculed the Live Earth concerts. Not much content there, either.

Sorry ’bout that. I was doing the best I could with what I had to work with: a fluff piece about an utterly banal piece of “art” created by an artist who displays neither talent nor creativity.
At least I was brief. But if you prefer I can be briefer:
Blecch!
Wolverine



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted July 12, 2007 at 8:45 am


(reposting to clear up formatting glitch)
Don wrote:
Interesting that you now write something that has a little bit of content, even if it’s to complain that Jesse’s article has none.
That wasn’t what you did in your first comment, which I was replying to in the comment you quoted above. You only ridiculed the Live Earth concerts. Not much content there, either.

Sorry ’bout that. I was doing the best I could with what I had to work with: a fluff piece about an utterly banal piece of “art” created by an artist who displays neither talent nor creativity.
At least I was brief. But if you prefer I can be briefer:
Blecch!
Wolverine



report abuse
 

Wolverine

posted July 12, 2007 at 8:48 am


one more time — what the heck is going on with the html markers?
Don wrote:
Interesting that you now write something that has a little bit of content, even if it’s to complain that Jesse’s article has none.
That wasn’t what you did in your first comment, which I was replying to in the comment you quoted above. You only ridiculed the Live Earth concerts. Not much content there, either.
Sorry ’bout that. I was doing the best I could with what I had to work with: a fluff piece about an utterly banal piece of “art” created by an artist who displays neither talent nor creativity.
At least I was brief. But if you prefer I can be briefer:
Blecch!
Wolverine



report abuse
 

aaron

posted July 12, 2007 at 11:04 am


Global warming is another liberal idea designed to get you do something based on feelings and not on facts.
BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Take the tinfoil hat off dude (seriously, it’s a waste of good metal).
Do you really think your little old lightbulb and car is really going to destroy the world?
If we both drink from the same river, and you live a mile upstream, do you think you walking down to the bank and pissing in the stream is going to affect me much? Prolly not. How about 10 of you? 100? 1,000? 1,000,000? 1,000,000,000? Where do you, in your inifinte wisdom, draw the line? A little perspective please.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 12, 2007 at 1:43 pm


Doug said:
Global warming is another liberal idea designed to get you do something based on feelings and not on facts. Do you really think your little old lightbulb and car is really going to destroy the world? If you want to give up your freedoms because you feel guilty go right ahead but I for one refuse. Bt the way it is summer and last I checked it is always hot in the summer.
Me:
I will remember that when I read UN reports from over a thousands scientists.
p



report abuse
 

Russell

posted July 12, 2007 at 5:13 pm


Mark,
The first links I posted were to show that the examples Al Gore used in his documnentary to prove his theory were not attributed to global warming at all, like Kiliminjaro. He is misusing information.
There is no consensus and the burden of proof is on the people trying to prove this theory, not on the people who are not buying into this ideology.
Here are some more articles. If you want, I can e-mail you more information.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070404203258.5klhwqs4&show_article=1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
Mark wrote:
“Which is more responsible, to take action now even if we aren’t 100% sure that anthropogenic climate change is happening, or to carry on increasing our CO2 emissions because there’s a chance they aren’t doing any harm? To me the second option is gross irresponsibility, especially as it isn’t our creation in the first place.”
I think we should be reducing our pollution. But Carbon Dioxide is what we breathe out, not a harmful gas. It is not irresponsible to be skeptical about an unproven theory which has no consensus among the scientific community. It is irresponsible to believe in a theory that is being pushed by an ambitious politician and has not been adequately proven and forced down our throats like any form of propaganda.



report abuse
 

Grace

posted July 12, 2007 at 5:21 pm


This conversation around climate change and whether or not
a) it exists or is a liberal conspiracy, b) it is a natural phenomena or something human activity has precipitated, and c) we should bother to do anything at all about it, needs to be steered in another direction. Here’s an attempt: our disconnect with the natural world along with our desire to dominate, control, and maximize material comfort and individual freedom, are the real issues that need to be addressed. If we begin to make personal and political choices that reflect another way of being in the world, we will begin to mitigate the effects of climate change.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 12, 2007 at 6:32 pm


What the argument needs to be…
(so much to say — so little time -)
OK – I could have purchased a house twice the size than the one that I am currently in now. But I look at what it would take to maintain that one and thought – no, I would like to do other things with my family other than just pat a mortage and try to heat and cool that sucker. When the temp in the summer is in the 70’s and the is a nice breeze – I open the windows. I am sure that Gore and Edwards spend in one month more than I spend in one year to condition their home(s). Even if I had their money – I would not have that big of a house because ‘YOU CAN ONLY LIVE IN ONE ROOM AT A TIME – HOW MUCH FLOOR SPACE DO YOU NEED?’
I drive an 11 year old van and an 8 year old midsize that I maintain to their best effecincy. I would like to drive a Lincoln Towncar or a Large SUV pulling a ski boat but I do not. I think that transportation should be basic and efficent. I might purchase a boat and a moderate size vehicle to pull it once the kids are out of college and I am retired. BUT I AM NOT DRIVING HOGE GAS HOGS LIKE KERRY AND TELLING OTHERS TO BE MORE ENVIROMENTALLY FRIENDLY WITH THEIR CHOICE OF TRANSPORTATION.’
I really feel that one should be able to have what you can afford – period. I did enjoy earing Ed Bagley Jr talk about what he does when I know that with his income he could support a more lavish lifestyle. He talked to the people and ‘encouraged’ us to do what we can and if we can’t – that OK…just have a goal to do better. He is one that ‘walks the walk’, not just talks the talk.
Billy Graham has done well for himself over the years and could have had a larger home. He still lives in the same log home Ruth built back in the 50’s in the hills of NC. Bill and Gloria Gather have given away 100’s of thousands of dollors over the years to various programs that they believe in and still live in the same house that they purchased when he was a teacher.
I believe that we should take care of the earth but if you are going to convince me that it is so important – you’ve got to do better than Gore and Co as examples as I am doing more than they are personally. His ‘…played on our fears…’ speech should be directed at himself –
Have a great evening – I am off to soccer.
.



report abuse
 

Feargal

posted July 12, 2007 at 8:21 pm


I find many comments in this blog insulting and sub-Christian. In our consumerist world, stepping back, and asking ‘Just what do I need to possess to survive?’ raises very different answers, dependant upon whether you are a US citizen, enjoying the high life, a family trying to survive in Iraq or an itinerant farmer in drought and war stricken Sudan or Somalia. Or perhaps an urban resident in China, struggling to breathe in the coal-fired toxic smudge of an atmosphere.
Put yourself in the other guys shoes, people. I thought that was Jesus own command.
Then come back to talk about how much energy you really need.
Oh, I just watched The Great Global Warming Swindle, and am convinced global warming denialists are the new creationists. Same tactics, same smears, same refusal to do basic research.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 12, 2007 at 10:10 pm


Oh, I just watched The Great Global Warming Swindle, and am convinced global warming denialists are the new creationists. Same tactics, same smears, same refusal to do basic research.
Posted by: Feargal
So I take it the liberal Christians who
politically agree with this fella ,part of Sojourners, accepts the fact God had nothing to do with creating the world , or just helped the evolution process along . But contray opinion or the possibilites is considered to be held by nasty little minds ?
Would have been nice to see a Godly organization promote liberal issues , really would have . Christians over populating the GOP has done little for our culture , this tops it off . Yep , Bible believers are idiots . Good grief .



report abuse
 

Shawn

posted July 12, 2007 at 10:44 pm


This piece isn’t news, and it isn’t really making an editorial point. What is it?
Are editing requirements so LOOSE for any “news” on global warming that any pap will do? How about I write a theme-song with SUV-despising lyrics to the tune of “Girl from Ipanema”, and you can play it as background music while you check out Sojo?
Glaciers have been creaking for billions of years. Anyone who thinks glaciers haven’t been melting in Greenland in the summertime needs an education.



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted July 13, 2007 at 12:23 am


>>>Do you really think your little old lightbulb and car is really going to destroy the world? Doug
No. But multiply my “little old lightbulb(s) and car(s)” and the answer takes on a significantly different perspective. Most people understand this.



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted July 13, 2007 at 9:58 am


The big mistake with ‘climate change’ that I see and others that are more knowledgable than I is that Gore and Co. designed the idea of Global Warming and then search for the ‘data’ to support it. Classical Science is that you develope a premise and then try to disprove it until you arrive at a conclusion to support your premise that more than likely has changed a bit as your discovered what is correct or incorrect. Read James Taylor (not the singer) at Heartland – interesting to say the least.
I believe that in 10 years Gore and Co. will be talking about the coming Ice Age.
Blessings and have a great weekend!
.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 13, 2007 at 10:43 am


Mod-lad, Gore did nothing of the kind. Climate scientists have been trying to disprove (falsify) the theory of global warming and “greenhouse effect” for decades. Gore only reported what the scientists have concluded.
You and the other deniers refuse to look at the evidence. Instead, you attack the messengers, e.g., Al Gore. This is argumentum ad hominem and it’s totally invalid. (And so is criticizing him and other rich-and-famous for their lavish lifestyles. You know as well as I that they only live the lives that most of the rest of us would if we could. Their lifestyles indict all of us, not just them.)
Later,



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted July 13, 2007 at 11:35 am


Posted by: Don | July 13, 2007 10:43 AM
I will be interested in what will be said in about six months when those scientists that are not associated with any gov’t grants start coming out debunking Gore’s movie with the facts. You will never hear this on CNN or the like. There are too many variables that Gore and Co. fail to address or will not address as they must know their theory is flawed.
James Taylor has a very matter-of-fact compelling argument the shows to flaws in Gore’s theories.
Have a great weekend!
.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 13, 2007 at 11:48 am


Mod:
Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth yet? Have you read the July 2 Newsweek article I mentioned earlier on this thread?
If not, you have no basis for criticizing what Gore says, James Taylor or not. Because you have no way of evaluating whether Taylor’s critique is valid or not.
Later,



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 13, 2007 at 1:27 pm


Posted by: Don | July 13, 2007 11:48 AM
I have listened to Gore several times over tha past few years. I will be viewing An Inconvenient Truth as soon as a friend of mine gives me his copy. Gore is not saying anything new that we have not heard before – just that he got to say it on film in a theater. His credibility has been in question for more than 15 years. “Earth in the Balance” please – I suffered through that one years ago. He claimed to be the ‘father’ of the innernet – yeh right? Tipper and Al were the inspiration for the book Love Story – written 3 years prior to their meeting. All these things were said with all seriousness to garner support. If he would lie about these things – do you really think he should be taken seriously?
I am serious about keeping the enviroment in the best condition, handing it over to our children in better shape. I would like for our children to have a world that is safe and at peace, but the bad guys have to be dealt with now. I would like to see families lifted out of poverty and be able to provide for themselves. But our wellfare system does not have that as a goal, as long as they are dependant – they have a job. (and liberals have a voting base) I am working to make Public Education the best it can be but the Dept of Ed is our biggest millstone. The teachers union knows how to set up road blocks against the changes that would allow us to assist students in their success. There is progress and their is congress. I choose progress.
Have a great weekend –
.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 13, 2007 at 1:44 pm


Mod
Yet you choose to take this James-Taylor-not-the-singer seriously. The only James Taylor I’ve ever heard of IS the singer. How do you know he is credible on this issue? What credentials does he have that gives his critique of Gore reliability?
By all means see Gore’s movie. But–and I’ve said this before–you can get ALL the scientific facts about climate change without depending on or trusting in Gore. The scientific evidence of global warming doesn’t depend on Al Gore. It’s out there in scientific journals and papers, and there’s plenty of explanatory information geared toward non-scientists. I know people who could provide you with some titles.
If after you see the movie you still don’t think you can trust Gore’s word, fine. But don’t use that as an excuse to dismiss global warming. Instead, get hold of some other information and read it. Gore isn’t the final word on this topic.
Later,



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 13, 2007 at 6:00 pm


OK, I went to the Heartland site and picked up James Taylor’s great proclamation. Here it is (dated July 9):
“Regarding “Officials discuss health, climate change” (July 2), it is amazing how global warming is becoming this generation’s version of UFOs; anything that a cursory analysis doesn’t immediately explain must be a UFO… or global warming.
Dengue fever is on the rise in Singapore? No need to investigate the cause — it must be global warming’s fault.
New lakes are forming in the Himalayas, providing new sources of fresh water? Claim this is a bad thing and blame it on global warming, even while glaciers are growing in many other regions of the Himalayas.
Crop yields are rising dramatically under warmer temperatures and more atmospheric carbon dioxide? Ignore the facts and claim that global warming is harming crop yields.
The Sahara Desert is shrinking and Central African weather is unusually benign? Ignore the facts and claim that global warming is causing drought and desertification.
Look, it’s a UFO! Or is that global warming?!”
That’s all, folks!
Needless to say, I’m singularly unimpressed. It’s got at least one false analogy (global warming = UFOs), and it gives us no information regarding other explanations for the phenomena he cites.
And THIS is supposed to be more credible than Al Gore???
Gimme a break!
Peace,



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 13, 2007 at 10:15 pm


There are just too many variables to totally buy into the Global Warming idea. Gore has been selling his snake oil for too long. There are just as many credible people of science that have theories with the data to back them up. None of them are trying to pick your pockets to continue to underwrite their ideas.
Global Warming – I’m sorry Climate Change is looking more like a fund raiser for Gore and Co. than actual science.
Have a great weekend – I am going to work in my garden…and I compost.
.



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted July 14, 2007 at 1:09 am


Yeah, try manipulating the soil, Mod, b/c I don’t think it’s working on anybody else here.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 14, 2007 at 9:08 am


Canucklehead:
If earthworms could talk, …



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 14, 2007 at 1:24 pm


Posted by: | July 13, 2007 5:09 PM
Has nothing to do with creationism or intel. design. If I wanted to talk about them I would have brought them up.
Nice slam scientifically illiterate, surely you can do better – please. If you are going to try to shread someone – go for the gold and call them a ‘dyxjubf usuir’ or an ‘aryous laagikw’.
Have a nice weekend!
.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 14, 2007 at 2:04 pm


Sorry, Mod-lad, but creationism and global warming denial do indeed have a lot to do with each other: 1. Same relying on pseudo-science to “prove” their points (case in point: Mr. James-Taylor-not-the-singer’s pathetic attempt to compare global warming to UFO’s);
2. Same refusal to examine and understand the actual evidence that scientists have uncovered and why the evidence leads them to the conclusions they have articulated;
3. Same magnifying of scientific uncertainties (there are very few REAL certainties in science; don’t forget, gravitation is sill “only” a theory. I’m not going to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge to test it, though.);
4. Same invocation of religion (the creation story in the first case; a host of verses in the case of global warming; one being the verse that appears after the flood narrative about summer and winter not ceasing);
5. Same attempt to find scholars (who are usually not experts in the field in question) to play up the uncertainties mentioned in #3 and then use their names loudly to proclaim that “science has not reached a consensus.”
“Scientifically illiterate” was too kind, Mod-lad. It’s more insidious than that; denial of science at any point undermines the basis of our technological society.
Peace,



report abuse
 

aaron

posted July 14, 2007 at 3:51 pm


Nice slam scientifically illiterate, surely you can do better – please.
And yet you didn’t lay out your credentials…and you were the one rambling on about gw denial and groundwater in Florida and stuff…



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 14, 2007 at 5:50 pm


Posted by: Don | July 14, 2007 2:04 PM
Then they all come to the ‘final solution’ of ‘we are going to tax the $%^&* out of you but we are not saying that the money is going to be collected to improve the situation, we might just keep it to continue our personal agendas.
When they show you the situation and refuse to tell you how it can be corrected but are going to take your money anyway. Sounds like a Snake Oil Salesman to me.
As much as I would love to label you like some of you take delight in doing to others – my mother raised a gentleman and I will therefore say nothing.
Have a great whatever –
.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 14, 2007 at 5:54 pm


Posted by: Don | July 14, 2007 9:08 AM
If earthworms could talk, …
I believe that will be in the sequel “An Inconvient Truth – II”. No doubt Tipper might be considered for doing the voice. (tee hee)
Have a great day –
.



report abuse
 

aaron

posted July 14, 2007 at 9:05 pm


my mother raised a gentleman and I will therefore say nothing.
Other than broad-brushing scientists with false labels and agendas of course….



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 14, 2007 at 9:35 pm


Posted by: aaron | July 14, 2007 9:05 PM
Other than broad-brushing scientists with false labels and agendas of course….
What person have I labeled? The only one that I have called out is Al Gore – Father of the Internet and it seems the Wizard of Climate Change.
Global Warming = Taxes?
Please – when confronted in the past with something that had to be changed – the people of the US had the wonderful ability to rise to the occasion. Now we are told that we are going to be taxed on this ‘Theory’ and no one has the stones to tell us how much we are going to pay for this, what the money is going to do once it has been collected and who is going to be in charge of it.
Like I said – Snake Oil Sales’people’ to keep it gender neutral.
Can the coming Ice Age be far behind?
Chicken Little – the sky is falling Turkey Lurkey!
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 14, 2007 at 10:13 pm


What person have I[moderatelad] labeled?
Moderatelad:The big mistake with ‘climate change’ that I see and others that are more knowledgable than I is that Gore and Co. designed the idea of Global Warming and then search for the ‘data’ to support it.
You’re implying that scientists were/are dishonest in their findings and do it only to support Al, even though the findings were there before Al took up the cause. It shows the great scientific illiteracy on your part.
Nice try.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 15, 2007 at 1:25 am


Posted by: | July 14, 2007 10:13 PM
Nice try.
No – what I am saying is that there is enough discussion in the area of science that their data might be incompleat. There are a number of respected members of the community that show that there are other reasons for what we are experiencing that Al and Co will not talk about. There are several that have challenged Al to a debate and he has refused to meet with them. Those that have gotten on the band wagon with Gore are unwilling to engage others on ‘climate change’ It is interesting that a few years ago it was ‘global warming’ but the new montra is ‘climate change’. Interesting change of terminology – so if the warming turns to a cooling – Gore and Co are covered.
Gore has lied about so much and so many are willing to fall in lock-step with him. It is almost like those birds that keep bobbing their heads into the water glass.
Too many variables in the cause for the enviroment – not locking into any one of them just yet – but Gore is one that really is in question – he is more focused on the ‘tax’ than the ‘climate’
Typical Al –
.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 15, 2007 at 2:13 am


No – what I am saying is that there is enough discussion in the area of science that their data might be incompleat.
That’s not what you said at all.
You said, “…Gore and Co. designed the idea of Global Warming and then search for the ‘data’ to support it.”
which is categorically and chronologically wrong. IN the process you libelled a whole bunch of scientists, something you said your mama raised you not to do, gentleman that you are.
Typical moderatelad –



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 15, 2007 at 9:57 am


Posted by: | July 15, 2007 2:13 AM
Whoever you are –
Gore and Co. (and the ‘scientific people behind him) are master designers / manipulators. Even some of them that Al quotes have gone on record that their could be other reasons/vairables in the mix. BUT – Al will never say that. The reason that this looks like it is correct is that the big 4 are totally behind Al, they will not allow anyone that might have an oposing premis to get on their networks. I have never said that what they had to say was totally false – but it is not correct enough to be accepted as gospel either. And when a situation has as a major part of the solution a ‘tax’ on the American people and really no flesh on the tax to tell me where and what it will be used for and if and when it will be repealed once the situation has been resolved – HELLO…does anyone see a red flag here? Do you believe that if the roles were reversed and former VP Dick C. (I know that is music to a lot of ears on this site) was promoting his ‘pet project’ and had the same support – data – solution regardless of what the issue was. Would it get any play on NPR or CNN? NO $%^&* WAY!
Have a great day –
I am going to church and then work in my yard/garden and enjoy Gore Global Warming today.
(same to you)
.



report abuse
 

aaron

posted July 15, 2007 at 12:16 pm


Look, you claimed Al and Co. came up with the idea and looked for data to fit the idea, which is categorically and chronologically wrong. Something you haven’t denied. In your last post you even tried to put scientists in ‘scare’ quotes again. You libelled honest scientists. That you even uttered such a ridiculous claims shows the pseudoscience behind the anti-gw agenda. I’m sure you didn’t come to such an opinion all by your lonesome self and were probably told to think that on a anti-gw website, a sure sign of pseudoscience, which is to deal in misinformation. You’ve demonstrated clearly to me many times your scientific ignorance (unlike you I do have a science degree and in my geological studies I heard about GW long before Gore started boring us with the details in his monotonous drone), so your pseudoscience-derived soundbites that you pick up on websites that tell you what opinion to have ring hollow.
I’ll be the first to admit, Gore is not my choice as a spokesman, he’s too polarizing and would immediately turn people off to the message (like the whole Conservative crowd of which you are one, “moderate”lad being a huge misnomer, I bet you support the “teach the controversy” form if ID too)



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 15, 2007 at 12:47 pm


Aaron:
Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? I, like you, have never been a fan of Al Gore, but I was pleasantly surprised by the way he comes across in the movie. “Monotonous drone” does not accurately describe his performance.
I agree with you that he wouldn’t be my first choice as a spokesperson for anything, because he is polarizing. But face it: the ultra-conservative crowd probably wouldn’t be convinced no matter who the spokesperson was.
Enjoy your Sunday afternoon!



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 15, 2007 at 1:32 pm


Posted by: Don | July 15, 2007 12:47 PM
Posted by: aaron | July 15, 2007 12:17 PM
because he is polarizing
he’s too polarizing

But he is the one that most (I believe 96% or more) revered one that causes many to fall at the Alter of Gore and cut themselves to bleed over this issue. He is the ‘Golden Child’ for Climate Change and the undisputed Savior of the Enviroment.
I am going to see AIT as soon as my friend gives me the disc. They talk about how wise and passionate Gore is on film/tape. Fine – if this doesn’t pan out for him – he can get a job as an actor.
The whole thing ends with the solution being a TAX. When has a tax ever been the solution?
There have been Al Gore’s screaming for the past 1000 years about one thing or another and have been able to convince ten’s of thousands to follow them. (Jim Jones and Kool Aid come to mind but I know there is a better example out there somewhere) The world survived them and we will survive Al. The ‘truth’ is a pure substance to me and you can burry it in a hole, sweep it under a rug, lock it in a closet. It will find a way out and it will be dealt with sooner or later. (Al has a problem with the truth…Father of the Internet – inspiration for Love Story? ALthough Tipper is better looking than Ali M.)
I know that you are good moral people and you have your opinion and you have a right to own those opinions. But you don’t have the right to dump them on others and then tax them to maintain your position.
Later all – have a great day. I am cooking dinner for the family. (gas grill – sorry) Then going to the American Swedish Inistute to see the now collect on artifacts.
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 15, 2007 at 1:47 pm


When has a tax ever been the solution?
I take it you do drive on public roads.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 15, 2007 at 2:25 pm


“The whole thing ends with the solution being a TAX. When has a tax ever been the solution?”
I think I’ve said this before. Gore’s movie says nothing about a tax. At least not that I can recall.
But the real problem isn’t tax or no tax. We can argue about the solution once we’re in agreement about the problem. The real problem is that you deniers want to try and deny that there’s a problem at all.
Later



report abuse
 

aaron

posted July 15, 2007 at 3:52 pm


Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? I, like you, have never been a fan of Al Gore, but I was pleasantly surprised by the way he comes across in the movie. “Monotonous drone” does not accurately describe his performance.
Nope, never saw, have no plans to. Still, I keep imagining Gore saying, “and we’ll take the extra carbon and put it in a lockbox.”



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 16, 2007 at 12:09 am


Posted by: Don | July 15, 2007 2:25 PM
The real problem is that you deniers want to try and deny that there’s a problem at all.
OK – I will look for the link and put it on here. Do you know where a lot of the equipment that Gore is using to underscore his idea of Clobal Warming – sorry Climate Change. Some of it is within 15 feet of asphalt, AC units, trash barrels that they burn in. Do you think that some of these data colleing devices should have been moved away from these items so that you could get a better reading – well?
OK – Al did not talk about the TAX in the movie…but it is the hottest topic that he talks about now and the ‘carbon credits’ are going to hurt the poorest people the most. Kerry/Edwards will not have a hard time paying for their credits.
Al is pissing into the wind and the rest of us are going to get wet.
later –
.



report abuse
 

be free

posted July 16, 2007 at 1:05 am


HAVE YOU EVER HEARD ANYONEONE MENTION THAT:
THE DAILY HIGH TEMP SHOULD OCCUR AT NOON.
THAT IS WHEN THE SUN IS CLOSET TO A TIME ZONE.
THE HIGH TEMP HAD ALWAYS BEEN NOON,
THEN COOLER BY ONE PM,COOLER THAN THAT BY 2,ETC.
UNTIL THE 80’S,
BY THEN THE DAILY HIGH TEMP WAS OCCURRING
AROUND TWO PM.
BY THE 90’S THREE PM,
NOW IN THE 21ST CENTURY THE DAILY HIGH TEMP
OCCURS AFTER 4 PM.
IF THE GREENHOUSE GAS LAYER CONTINUES TO THICKEN
EVENTUALLY THE DAILY HIGH TEMP MAY OCCUR AT SUNSET
ON THE OTHER HAND,IF THE GREENHOUSE GAS LAYER
BEGINS THINNING,THE DAILY HIGH TEMP WOULD
OCCUR EARLIER IN THE DAY
IF IT DISIPATED ENTIRELY,THE DAILY HIGH TEMP
WOULD AGAIN OCCUR AT NOON,AS IT HAD FOR MILLENIUMS.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 16, 2007 at 7:26 am


“Do you know where a lot of the equipment that Gore is using to underscore his idea of Clobal Warming – sorry Climate Change. Some of it is within 15 feet of asphalt, AC units, trash barrels that they burn in. Do you think that some of these data colleing devices should have been moved away from these items so that you could get a better reading – well?”
That’s BS. Pure, unalloyed, unadultderated BS. I can smell it from here.
Read the July 2 article in Newsweek I cited earlier. It tells in plain, clear language why CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, whose lives are dedicated to climate research, not politicians, believe that we humans are contributing to the rise in global atmospheric temperatures.
After you have read that, come back and maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.
Peace,



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted July 16, 2007 at 8:33 am


That’s BS. Pure, unalloyed, unadultderated BS. I can smell it from here.
I have seen the pictures. According to those that origionally set the sights up with the equipment – they were to be a min. of 100 feet away from anything manmade. My brother in Alaska assist one of his friends in monitoring one of these locations up there. It was a mile away from the road and no houses or other sturctures in sight of the equipment.
Maybe what you are smelling is you head located to close to Gore’s #$%^…Just kidding!
Have a great day.
.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 16, 2007 at 8:59 am


When has a tax ever been the solution?
I take it you do drive on public roads.
Posted by: | July 15, 2007 1:47 PM
Sorry. I have to correct myself. The taxes actually go into the general fund so I am not sure which of those funds specifically go to fund the public roads.
Even I make mistakes



report abuse
 

keith freet

posted February 6, 2008 at 8:40 am


what is the past 52 years got to do with this?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.