The Zeitgeist May Be Changing

Zeitgeist = Spirit of the Times.

Why do I think that?

I just read a preview for a new hard-cover novel scheduled for release on August 5 by John Ringo, entitled The Last Centurion. Here’s the two-sentence blurb:

“In the second decade of the 21^st century the world is struck by two catastrophes, a new mini-ice age and a plague to dwarf all previous experiences. An American Army officer struggles to prevent the fall of his homeland – despite others’ efforts to stop him.”

Thank about that. An author thinks a surprising, but plausible plot line for the near future is the occurrence of a “mini ice-age.” It’s a delicious premise, of course. It has all sorts of possibilities for skewering the elites and marveling at their surprise and come-uppance. I can just imagine the dialog: “How much good are your compact fluorescent light-bulbs doing you now?”

Sounds like a good summer read. . . (while contemplating Global Warming!)

• Rob Shearer
  (aka RedHatRob)

This is NOT good . . .

– Rob Shearer (aka RedHatRob)

No Executive Incumbent on the ballot in 2008

and that will be the first time this has been true since . . . class? anyone? Bueller?

Try 1952. That’s right, its been 56 years since we held a presidential election in which neither of the nominees for president was an incumbent in the executive branch.

What does that mean? Not sure. The powers of incumbency are formidable. Media attention, staff assistance, executive travel perks, just to name a few. The prestige of being President or Vice-President is intangible, but obviously significant. Only three incumbent presidents lost (Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush 41 in 1992). Six won. But of the four vice presidents who ran, only one succeeded in being elected president (Bush 41).

Here’s the list (from memory):

1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson
1956 Eisenhower (President) vs. Stevenson
1960 Nixon (Vice President) vs. Kennedy
1964 Johnson (President) vs. Goldwater
1968 Humphrey (Vice President) vs. Nixon
1972 Nixon (President) vs. McGovern
1976 Ford (President) vs. Carter
1980 Carter (President) vs. Reagan
1984 Reagan (President) vs. Mondale
1988 Bush 41 (Vice President) vs. Dukakis
1992 Bush 41 (President) vs. Clinton
1996 Clinton (President) vs. Dole
2000 Gore (Vice President) vs. Bush 43
2004 Bush 43 (President) vs. Kerry
2008 Clinton? vs. Thompson?

I can do the list from memory, because, with the exception of the 1952 and 1956 elections, I have memories of all these campaigns. My political memories are sharp and clear. My belief that there are political solutions to our problems is growing increasingly dim.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

The arrogance of Canute

Most people’s garbled version of the story of Canute is that he was the English king who’s sense of power and entitlement went to his head – leading to the arrogant attempt to command the tide not to come in. As if the tide were at all concerned with the wishes of a puny king.

There’s more than a little parallel with the demands that all of humankind join together to increase our use of bicylces and reduce our purchase of toilet paper in order to stop the earth from warming up. As if the earth and the sun were likely to pay attention to the likes of us.

Weather patterns do change over time. We have had centuries where it appears it was warmer (allowing Greenland to live up to its name) and when wine grapes were grown in Canada (hence the Vikings having called it Vinland). And we’ve had centures when it was colder.

We’ve had some winters / years which were exceptionally & unusually cold. In 1816, the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia caused the “Year Without a Summer.”

What has any of this to do with Christianity? A lot actually.

We are charged to be stewards of all that God has given us charge of. And fallen men have often behaved irresponsibly and marred the physical beauty and usefulness of God’s creation. But it is not difficult to detect in the modern environmental movement a scapegoating of mankind – especially western european, and american societies. There is a repeated and thinly veiled theme that treats man’s mere presence on the planet as evil and corrupting. The implied environmental solution seems quite often to logically require the killing off of most if not all of the human race. And we know who’s ultimate goal THAT is.

Environmentalism has rapidly acquired all of the characteristics of a religion. The development of a mechanism to purchase forgiveness in the form of “carbon credits” makes one want to look around for the 20th century Luther who will denounce the practice of selling indulgences and condemn Pope Algore as the anti-christ. BTW, for a great bit of comedic relief, check out this website, which offers carbon DEBITS for sale – to offset the carbon credits your friends may be buying.

There is an arrogance in the environmental movement. They arrogantly proclaim that the science is settled. The best resource I know of for an overview of the scientific community’s views is an ongoing series of articles being written by Lawrence Solomon of the Canadian Financial Post called, “The Deniers.” He started in November of 2006. The 27th article in the series was published in June of 2007. See especially the 25th article, entitled, “They call this a consensus?” There was no consensus in 1992, when Algore first began announcing that there was. And there’s not one now.

There is an even deeper arrogance in the environmental movement. It is the arrogance that attributes all unexplained climatic change on planet earth to the actions of humans. Skeptics used to laughingly accuse theists of being simple-minded when they attributed to God anything that could not be understood or explained by science. But modern man is rapidly projecting “global warming” as the cause for all that is going wrong on the planet.

The tide came in, despite what Canute commanded. And the climate will continue to change, despite whatever practices Al Gore can demagogue the gullible into adopting. Less toilet paper and more bicycles are not the answer. 

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center

And before anyone starts on the issue of overpopulation, please read the following article which decisively debunks the myths of overpopulation: Too Many People? By Dr. Jacqueline R. Kasun