What is the difference between “murdering” and “killing”? Is state-sanctioned killing always justified? Does the mere legality of the taking of a life negate one’s culpability in such an act? In an age when the sanctity of life seems to be an antiquated notion, I think we need to seriously consider these questions.

Take abortion, for instance. Since the Roe v. Wade decision, abortion on demand has been considered legal in the United States. Therefore, any woman seeking to murder her…sorry, terminate her pregnancy has been given full license to do so. Does that make it right? Absolutely not.

Those of us who think abortion is murder realize that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority. We know that the Constitution does not allow judges to legislate from the bench. We also know that even if there were no constitutional conflict, abortion would still be murder in the eyes of God.

We can conclude, then, that not all killing done under the authority of government is right. So, what about the war in Iraq?

We are told that we must “support the troops,” and that any criticism of them or their leaders is tantamount to treason. In short, we are being asked to support the killing of Iraqis and whoever else stands in the way of them completing their mission–whatever it may be.

Many Christians have spoken out in favor of President Bush, the troops, and the war. For most of them, all the justification needed can be found in Romans 13, where the Apostle Paul reminds us that we are to “be subject to the governing authorities,” and that “rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.”

But we seem to have forgotten one very important fact: our governing authority is the Constitution of the United States, and not a small group of pompous, over-paid, bureaucratic windbags. We know the president and other leaders in government lied about the threat Saddam posed to our country. We know that the Constitution grants the power to declare war only to Congress, and that Congress cannot cede that authority to the executive branch by passing some meaningless resolution.

As a Christian, I must be consistent in my views. I must see all unjustified killing for what it is: murder. And as far as I am concerned, whether we’re talking about abortion or an unconstitutional war, the state is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ten time ABA All Star and four time ABA MVP, Tom Fadeaway (no relation to Tim Hardaway) today said in an interview on WSL Chicago Sports radio that he hated people who had sex with animals. Radio personality Barry Lirds was talking to Fadeaway about his formative years in the farming country of North Dakota, when the conversation turned to some underground literature on bestiality that Fadeaway had come across during his time at UNDLT.

Lirds — “So that stuff grossed you out pretty thoroughly”?

Fadeaway — “Yeah, just by looking at it I knew I hated people who had sex with animals. That hasn’t changed at all since then. I’m not religious or anything but I love the created natural order so much that I can’t help but hate those who pervert it.”

Lirds — “Well, I would think that’s a perfectly normal reaction to such perversion.”

Fadeaway — “One would think so.”

Though the interview played in prime radio time and was picked up by all the major news services, the reaction to Fadeaway’s comments, unlike the reaction to Hardaway’s comments from last week, has been scant. The Chicago Tribute found in its ‘man on the street’ interviews that 99% of the people polled shared Fadeaway’s hatred for the particular perversion and the people who pursue it. Likewise,response across the country indicates that most people wonder why Fadeaway’s comments are even considered to be newsworthy.

When asked about the lack of public outrage over Fadeaway’s statement, Equinie Huffenmouth, representative from the organization, “We Like Cows” (WLC) went on record as saying that “such insensitivity to our members reflects a lack of appreciation on the part of the public at how mainstream our movement is becoming and how greatly our members contribute to our society.” Huffenmouth went on to say that “he hoped that in 20 years such prejudice and victimization of WLC members as exhibited by Fadeawawy’s comments would be drowned out by a chorus of dissent, thus allowing WLC members to take their rightful place in society along with Homosexuals, Bi-sexuals, Transgenders, and Lesbians as accepted and cherished contributors to our ever increasing culture of sexual freedom.”

Representatives from the ABA went on record defending Fadeaway’s right to free speech.

Though they don’t identify themselves as Republicans any longer, Pieter and Ben are both helping out at the state Republican convention. There are still decent folks in that party who are fighting good fights. Considering our “reconstructionist” affiliations, this may strike some as an ominous sign that the notorious gang of sinister defenders of God’s law is poised for an imminent take-over. Ha! Anyone who thinks so is a political neophyte or a plagiarist, as Hillary Clinton already uncovered the vast right-wing conspiracy, so she need to be given credit.

One of the few decent men in California state politics (and the dearth of decent men in that profession anywhere is disheartening) boycotted some of the major schmoozing time during the event to protest the Governator’s lying, unconservative ways. How I wish those who loved God’s law (as King David, a man after God’s own heart did…see Psalm 119, you can’t miss it, it’s the longest chapter in the Bible) were in a majority in our state capitol, godly men who rule justly and honor God in all they do, beginning with the defense of unborn babies.

Perhaps the conspiracy nuts who see a rabid reconstructionist hiding behind every rock are on to something with their pessimistic outlook. I am inclined to agree that the end is near, but for different reasons. The English language is not only under attack by the postmodernists who redefine every word to suit themselves, but the standards of spelling those words is under assault by those who would further pull the solid standards of linguistics out from under our feet, further undermining any solid foundation on which this culture can plant its feet. How dare that Noah Webster—he not only presumed to give Christian meanings to words, he attempted to standardize spelling! Didn’t he know that some might be called to spell words another way? And can anyone show me the Bible verse which says that all words ought to be spelled a certain way? I have even heard he was a Calvinist who “spearheaded the flood of educational volumes emphasizing Christian Constitutional values for more than a century.” Yikes!

Enough silly talk. There’s enough of that going on in Sacramento this weekend. All that was to show you both the blatant equivocation and the egregious spelling errors in this report about that event:

The governor said his twelve billion dollar health care plan for the uninsured is not a tax. He said it’s a fee. There were several supporters of the governor at the event. ” There is always going to be descension in the party and we welcome voices of descension in the party. It’s good to have debate,” said Anajali Lathi.

Extra credit if you can tell me the proper spelling of the misspelled words and point out the very ironic Freudian slip.

“In traditional societies, an individual person’s entire life was predetermined and regulated from the cradle to the grave. Membership in families, castes, social strata, and a particular people determined the course of a person’s life with little room for personal decisions and development….In traditional societies, stability meant everything, while individuality meant little. 

  

Modern societies place the values of personal freedom above the values of membership and belonging. Tradition no longer shapes life. We live in free choice societies, for we believe that only in its individual persons can a society become creative. This is why we may no longer accept anything as predetermined and prearranged. Every person must be able to determine everything himself or herself; free choice of school, vocation, partner, domicile, politics, religion and so on. We are working on being able to determine our genetic composition as well. Nothing is permitted to be ‘fate,’ not even gender; everything must be determinable…. 

  

Human beings are always rendered controllable through individualization: Divide et impera.” 

  

Jurgen Moltmann — 20th Century Theologian 

Christianity and the Revaluation of the Values of Modernity 

  

Though I don’t agree with everything in this essay by Moltmann I would highly recommend it if you can get a copy of it. He has some fascinating insights into our times as created by Modernity. I might return to this essay for one more quote in another post. 

  

For our purposes here I would like to make a couple observations. 

  

1.) First, I would offer a slight correction to Moltmann’s insight that ‘tradition no longer shapes life.’ Certainly it is the case that tradition as traditionally understood no longer shapes life but if one views the lack of tradition as the new tradition one can more readily understand that tradition still plays a powerful role in the affairs of humans. Whereas our traditions used to help us make sense out of life and give it reason and ritual that was rooted in the respected past, now the tradition of chaos allows modern hyper individualized man to think that he can re-invent himself with every generation. But notice what we are calling the ‘chaos tradition’ is still providing man’s life with ‘reason’ as it informs him that there is nothing in the past that shapes him, and it still provides man’s life with the ritual of the God like act of sovereign self creation and perpetual re-creation as he might so desire. The anti-tradition ‘chaos tradition’ shapes life into anti-life and so becomes the tradition that supports a culture of nihilism. Tradition hasn’t gone away, but rather we have embraced the tradition of anti-tradition and told ourselves that we are free from tradition. 

  

2.) Individuals belong to and are dependent upon their covenantal community environments. Covenantal community environments are to individuals what the native flora and fauna are to endangered species. Take away the original flora and fauna and endangered species must either adapt to a new environment or die. Individuals act in much the same way. If their native covenantal community environments are destroyed they will not suddenly cease to be covenantal creatures that are dependent upon some covenantal community environment but rather will adapt to whatever covenantal environment is left. As such when intimate covenantal communities such as Church, Family, and local community, are broken down by the pace and design of modernity individuals take on the characteristic of the one covenant community that remains, to wit, the Nation State. This, I believe is the phenomena that Moltmann identifies as ‘individualization that leaves people controllable.’ As individuals are stripped of their own covenantal flora and fauna they are rendered controllable because they are now adapting to the only flora and fauna that is left — the flora and fauna of Modernity as supplied by the State through its various agencies. Ironically enough, the building up of a solid notion of the individual can only be pursued where a plethora of indigenous covenantal communities exist with their attendant environmental flora and fauna for individuals to move in and out of.

“Yet it is only in orchestral union with all other cultures of the world that the richness of each component culture playing its own predestined part can truly be appreciated – even as it is only against the background of the basic unity of the Triune God (in whose image Cultural men are created) that the several various Persons of the most high Godhead can adequately be understood.”

 
Dr. Francis Nigel Lee  — Reformed Theologian

The Central Significance of Culture 

 
It seems the Church in the West has lost the ability to comprehend what Dr. Lee is saying here. In our mad rush to show how broad we can be in our attempt at multiculturalism we are forfeiting our section in the orchestral union of which Lee speaks. To stretch Dr. Lee’s metaphor it is as if much of the Western Church, in its attempt to outpace the World to show cultural sensitivity, is working so that the Violin section, while seeking to accommodate the Cello, Viola and Bass section, is attempting to rid itself of Violins, Violinness and Violin culture. In doing so we are doing a disservice to all components of the orchestra with the result that the music played will be far less rich or pleasing.

 
The Church in the West has lost its confidence that it’s culture, generally speaking, and its culture of Worship particularly speaking is worthy of perpetuating. God does not call us to sanitize ourselves completely from our Western Cultural roots in order to be Christian anymore then God calls Ugandans or Chinese to sanitize themselves completely from their respective cultures completely in order to be Christian. Further, just as there is nothing wrong, if one is a Violinist to prefer Violins, similarly there is no shame in Westerners preferring and so seeking to perpetuate and refine Western Culture.

 
Lee is communicating the equal ultimacy of the One and the Many in the quote above. Redeemed man must express the Unity of the Trinity by desiring to see Redeemed cultures harmonize and compliment one another without getting lost in the other. At the same time Redeemed man express the Plurality of the Trinity by respecting and maintaining cultural distinctions that God Himself has set upon the peoples without involving ourselves in hatred for that which is other than us.

 
The contemporary belief that the Western Church is only faithful as it ceases to be Western and embraces a multicultural agenda is not scriptural — particularly when there is nothing Christian about multiculturalism. Historically, Western culture is suffused with Christian categories and so has a rich legacy and majestic pedigree and the whole world will be the less should the multicultural agenda of destroying Western Culture comes to fruition.

 
Though I am be a lesser son of greater Fathers my pride knows no end at what God has done in what is sometimes called Christendom and at other times called Western Civilization. It is my prayer that the much needed sanctification of Western culture will continue so that what is soiled is removed so that what is beautiful may become even more beautiful.

Long live the Violins.

Recently, I posted a quote from Dr. Robert Reich and analyzed it in my commentary. It seems that Dr. Reich is an Assistant Professor of Political Science, Ethics in Society, and, by courtesy, Education, at Stanford University. Somehow Dr. Reich read my piece critiquing his quote and was apparently a bit miffed. First, I had accidentally identified him as the former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration. I hope Dr. Reich can forgive me for attributing his quote to a man with whom he shares a name. Second, in his e-mail to me Dr. Reich implied that I had failed to do the intellectually honest thing by not actually learning what his arguments are, and he complained directly that I had extrapolated what he considered ‘an entire worldview’ from a two- or three-sentence quote. Dr. Reich then generously sent me two short articles he wrote where he elaborated on his convictions of the ‘Civil Perils of Homeschooling’ and on ‘Why Homeschooling Should Be Regulated.’ After reading them, I am compelled to confess that I owe people an apology and that I was indeed intellectually dishonest.

So, in dust and ashes I do repent. I apologize that I misrepresented Dr. Reich. I am sorry that I under-emphasized the danger of this man’s thinking. With tears and sorrow I confess that I was intellectually dishonest by not being rigorous enough in my first analysis and for being far too generous about what Dr. Reich advocates. I trust people will be able to forgive me for not sounding clearly enough the warning against the extremes of his position. So, in order to set the record straight, allow me to try to atone for my error by examining more fulsomely some of the general Weltanschauung errors in Dr. Reich’s thinking, as well as some of his particular errors in respect to homeschooling.

This will be the first of a two-part response to Dr. Reich’s writings. In the opening salvo I will be exposing the inadequacy of Dr. Reich’s reasoning in response to his complaints concerning the over-customization of the education process, his concerns about the potential creation of civic troglodytes that the unregulated homeschooling process might produce, his protestations that the homeschooling process potentially deprives children of freedom, and his observation concerning the possible dangers that parent-controlled education creates. In part two, I will be giving you the analysis of Dr. Reich’s article by four homeschooling students with whom I have the privilege of interacting. I have asked them to use their own critical thinking skills in dissecting Dr. Reich’s approach.

First, Dr. Reich is concerned that homeschooling is an over-customization of the education process. Reich writes,

“Customization threatens to insulate students from exposure to diverse ideas and people and thereby to shield them from the vibrancy of pluralistic democracy.”

As I read this comment I can’t help but observe that our pluralistic democracy did fine for decades without the common school movement that the Unitarians eventually spawned in this nation as they foisted the Prussian school model on America’s children. Second, I also must conclude that the problem here for Dr. Reich isn’t customization but rather customization that isn’t the customization that Dr. Reich desires. Dr. Reich desires to customize education for ALL children in a particular way. We would observe that just because 20 million children receive the same customized education, that doesn’t make it any less customized. The problem for Dr. Reich is not that education is being customized but rather that it is not being mass customized. Third, the very reason that many parents teach their own children at home is so their children will be insulated from exposure to secular humanist ideas and people, and to shield them from the degeneracy of multiculturalism. Dr. Reich doesn’t seem to understand that education is a singularly religious exercise, and that Christians who are epistemologically self-conscious don’t want to turn their children over to people who are intent, whether consciously or not, on catechizing their children into a false religion. Fourth, Dr. Reich seems to understand that modern schools have been one of the institutions that have served as the great leveler for a nation’s citizenry. That is to say, somewhere on the edges of Reich’s consciousness there is an understanding floating around that education’s intent is not primarily to educate but to make good citizens. Reich comments on this,

“…the point I am trying to make here is merely that the state has a legitimate interest in trying to convey some basic ideas about citizenship through schoolhouses.”

When this thought is stripped of its high-sounding sentiment, what is left is that Reich believes the state through the schoolhouse is responsible for bending our children in the direction that the state desires them to be bent. Surely we can see that our enemy, the state, in the name of ‘basic ideas about citizenship,’ can do all kinds of mischief and damage to our children.

Now, the problem the Christian has with this sui generis purpose of education is that the time has long passed since the Christian faith had any input on what constitutes a ‘good citizen.’ In short, epistemologically self-conscious Christians know that the standard that is being used to create a ‘good citizen’ in America’s schools is not one with which they want anything to do. Indeed, I would say we are not far from the time when a ‘good citizen’ translates into being a bad Christian. 

Fifth, I can only guess at what Dr. Reich means by ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy.’ It would be easy enough to find in that phrase a euphemism for ‘multiculturalism,’ but let’s give the good Doctor the benefit of the doubt and contend that what he is getting at is a type of culture and society that existed in colonial America in 1789 where this was a nation with various stripes of Christians who were able to co-exist with one another. If that is what Dr. Reich means by ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy’ then I can only offer my opinion as someone close to the homeschool movement, as well as a Pastor who sees a good number of homeschool families, that Dr. Reich should not worry. Most of our homeschool meetings reflect the vibrant pluralistic democracy about which he is concerned.

If, on the other hand, Dr. Reich is defining ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy’ to mean multiculturalism, and if he is contending that we need to steep our children in that monoculture mindset that teaches that all faiths and cultures are worthy of equal esteem and respect, then we can only remain politely defiant to his solicitations. We freely admit that we are teaching our children the traditions of our Christian Fathers that is styled ‘Christianity.’ This faith that we teach, our Fathers received from the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and in teaching this faith we teach that this one true faith creates a culture that is to be preferred and pursued, by way of persuasion, over all other cultures, including – especially – the monoculture of multiculturalism.

At this point it is clearly seen that one of Dr. Reich’s main concerns is the civic peril he envisions when parents are in total control of their children’s education; but in the end, what this concern boils down to is that Dr. Reich is concerned (threatened?) by the change in society and culture that homeschooling might bring. Certainly, Christian children taught by epistemologically self-conscious Christian parents will likely lead to a re-definition of what ‘vibrant pluralistic democracy’ means, but then that is a conversation for the public square that is long past due. It is my opinion that Dr. Reich is trying to tilt that conversation in his direction by suggesting that home schools should be regulated. Whether that is his intent or not, it certainly will be the effect if his advice is heeded.

In rounding this section off, I need to add that most homeschooled children I know would run rings around their government schooled counterparts when it comes to competency in what used to be called ‘Civics,’ and ‘Citizenship.’ Would to God that government schooled children had a proper foundation in Constitutionalism, for if they did, the conversation for the public square that I mentioned in the previous paragraph would suddenly be tilted in my direction.

Now we turn to Dr. Reich’s next concern, which is that a totalized homeschool environment that is controlled by parents impinges upon the freedom of their children. The good Doctor says,

“Simply put, protecting the freedom of individuals is the main engine of diversity – diversity of religious belief, diversity of belief in general…. The liberal democratic state therefore ought to protect the interest of children in being free, or as I have put it elsewhere, in becoming autonomous adults.”

Beyond the implication that homeschooling adults don’t want to see their children become autonomous adults, there is plenty wrong with this tripe. First, the diversity that Reich makes mention of is a crock. American culture is every bit as homogenous as Japanese culture. If this culture was truly as diverse as Reich makes it out to be, it couldn’t function. If diversity were really what Reich is after then he would vociferously protect unregulated homeschooling since homeschooling creates the kind of diversity that doesn’t conform to our uniform culture of psuedo-diversity. Second, individuals never exist abstracted from some cultural or societal web. There is no such thing as individuals who are socially un-situated or culturally un-contexted. All individuals are colored, shaped, and influenced by some situated community. Hence, we must say that both the kind of non-communitized individualism and the kind of non-socially bonded freedom that Reich intimates is nonsense. So then the question comes down to what community is the best community for a child to thrive? Reich contends that the best community is the state, while the Christian, following God’s Word, contends that the best primary community for a child to thrive in is the family. Now Dr. Reich may take great umbrage at this characterization, but what else are we to conclude? His concern is that a child’s individuality and freedom will be taken from him in a totalized homeschooling situation as is understood when he says, 

 

“Unregulated homeschooling opens up the possibility that children will never learn about or be exposed to competing or alternative ways of life…Parents can limit opportunities for social interaction, control the curriculum, and create a learning environment in which the values of the parents are replicated and reinforced in every possible way.”

Dr. Reich’s suggestion to rescue our poor children from this abuse is by bringing in the state to regulate the parents’ teaching. Read again what we previously quoted from Dr. Reich,

“The liberal Democratic state therefore ought to protect the interest of children in being free, or as I have put it elsewhere, in becoming autonomous adults.”

Now in fairness, Dr. Reich says that he wants to ‘prevent both governmental and parental despotism over children,’ but his observations and his solution presupposes that parents are more inclined to despotism over their seed then government would be over our children. Anybody who is familiar at all with either loving parents or government schools surely must realize what a leaky assumption that is.

Pursuing this ‘freedom argument’ Dr. Reich writes,

“…one of the most effective and least intrusive ways the state has of discharging the obligation to protect and promote prospective freedom of children – a freedom that they will exercise fully as adults – is to ensure that children receive an education that develops them into free or autonomous individuals, that is to say, persons who can decide for themselves how they wish to lead their lives and what sort of values they wish to endorse. Such an education, I believe, requires exposure to and engagement with value pluralism, the very social diversity that is produced in a liberal democratic state which protects individual freedom.”

Again, with this quote Dr. Reich lets his presuppositional slip show. Reich seems to be convinced that the result of parents homeschooling their children will be adults who will not be free or autonomous individuals. I can’t speak for the whole homeschooling community but I find this both condescending and personally insulting. Second, I must admit that I want my children to grow up to embrace my values. I would even go further by saying that it is my job as a parent to make sure they grow up embracing my values. This is a charge that God’s Word puts on me as a parent (Deuteronomy 6:4-7), and only a man influenced by a culture that thinks it can re-imagine itself with every generation, pursuing that agenda by cutting itself off from both its forebears and its progeny, would contend that there is something wrong with children who grow up to freely embrace their parents’ values because they were taught to do just that. Second, it is evident that for Reich the standard by which all things must be measured is ‘value pluralism.’ Beyond the disputation that such a notion is possible, this is a standard to which no biblical Christian can subscribe. Christians do not value ‘value pluralism.’ Finally, for the biblical Christian the whole notion of freedom is circumscribed by biblical categories. For the biblical Christian man can never be free in any sense unless he is the bondservant of Jesus Christ. Consequently, the freedom that Dr. Reich is calling for is just bondage by another name. I am fairly certain that Dr. Reich isn’t going to agree with that premise, and so it is clear the Grand Canyon separates our understandings.

And that brings us to the worldview issues that I promised to deal with at the beginning of this paper. Superficially and quickly speaking, worldviews are composed of the approach to six different issues: Theology, Ontology, Anthropology, Epistemology, Axiology, and Teleology. Now that I have read Dr. Reich’s fuller works, I would say that for all practical purposes, his theology is a kind of Statist approach. I say this because God’s Word has clearly given the responsibility of education to parents. Parents may decide to delegate this responsibility, but it remains their responsibility. Dr. Reich, contending with God, wants the State to be involved in education, yet not only does the Scripture not teach that the State’s sphere of sovereignty extends to the education of children, our Constitution likewise clearly prohibits the federal state from being involved in this area by saying that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’ Dr. Reich would be hard pressed to show where, either in the Scriptures or in the Constitution, provision is made for the state to usurp to itself the sovereignty that belongs to the spheres of the family and the church. Because Dr. Reich is teaching contrary to God’s Word in this area, I must conclude that the god in his worldview is not the God of the Bible. As it concerns anthropology, I would say that Dr. Reich’s worldview teaches that man’s nature is malleable and that education is the tool by which man can progress to full self-realization. Why else would he be so convinced of the need to get the state’s hands on our children? This would be contrary to the Christian worldview that teaches that man’s nature is fixed and sinful and that it can only be changed by a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and redemption. Children therefore must be taught to look for all the treasures of wisdom in Christ Jesus. As it concerns axiology, I would offer that Dr. Reich’s worldview is that the ultimate value is ‘value diversity,’ ‘liberal Democratic States’ with their rich diversity, and individual freedom and autonomy. This of course contrasts with the Christian worldview which teaches that the Christian’s ultimate value is God’s glory, and therefore every Christian, whether child or adult, should be taught to do all they do to the end of seeing God glorified. One implication of this is that in their education, children must be taught to see how the various disciplines only make sense and only reach their apex in wisdom when they seek to glorify our Creator and Redeemer. I will leave the other three worldview issues alone as Dr. Reich’s writing don’t give me solid ground to speak to his position, though given the evidence regarding the first three issues, his worldview is not compatible with a Christian’s understanding.

 

I trust that people will see that I did not wrongly extrapolate on this issue in my first response to Dr. Reich’s remarks.

Allow me to finish by thanking Dr. Reich for sending along his thoughts more richly expressed. To be honest I am not sure why a Ph.D from Stanford wants to bother with a Pastor in Charlotte Michigan but I am always glad to interact with this country’s ‘best and brightest.’

Cross-posted at Buried Treasure.

“Soylent Green…it’s people!” shouted Charlton Heston at the end of the movie, as he was dragged away to be turned into food for the masses. Now the masses are being fed a bunch of hooey, being told…”It’s people!”

It’s people, according to a U.N. panel, which blames global warming “caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels” for the imminent demise of the planet if draconian measures are not undertaken to immediately stop it. The California state legislature is full of bright ideas, calling for a ban on incandescent light bulbs as a bold move to lead the nation in a reduction of “greenhouse gases” (no jokes about dim bulbs, please.)

Yahoo! News explains that the panel used the term “very likely” regarding anthropogenic (our vocabulary word for the day) causes for the purported rise in global temperatures, which we are told “translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels.” We are also told, “There had been speculation that the participants might try to say it is ‘virtually certain’ man causes global warming, which translates to 99 percent certainty.” The percentage system was designed by “top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman,” who in 1997 was calling for “30 Kyotos to cut global warming down to size.” Need I say he’s a government employee?

I’m glad we have those scientists to translate for us.

The objective Yahoo! news reporter threw in this bit of subjective reassurance for skeptical readers: “While critics call the panel overly alarmist, it is by nature relatively cautious because it relies on hundreds of scientists, including skeptics.” I knew we could trust those people in white coats, especially the ones who wear big buttons on their lapels that say, “SKEPTIC.”

Yes, we must accept the authority of the white coats, without question…

If you wear a button that says, “SKEPTIC,” but you aren’t impressed by white coats, and you like to hear both sides of the story, make sure to read this interview with Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University, who is not jumping on the global warming bandwagon. He has something to say about the previous report from the U.N. Science Advisory Group, noting that very few people (except for those who are “dedicated” like him) actually read the whole thing. Wanna bet that the politicos who are going to make some important decisions for all of us based on the latest “findings” won’t be reading more than a summary of the new report?

Singer comments on the supposed consensus on this done deal:

Now, you’ll also notice that people who are skeptical about global warming generally do not have government support for their work. They don’t have to write proposals to government agencies to get money. They tend to be people who have other sources of income. They might even be retired and live on pensions, or they might [have] other sources of income that do not depend on writing research proposals to federal agencies. And if you look at research proposals to federal agencies, you will find that people who write a proposal saying, “I’m going to do research to show that global warming is not a real threat”…they’re not likely to get funding from any of the government agencies.

I’m not holding my breath (even though that would reduce the amount of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere) that any sanity will prevail in this debate. I will confess, however, that we already mostly use florescent bulbs in all our light fixtures, and we operate quite an array of solar panels to reduce our electrical usage.

And green is one of my favorite colors.

(I once again recommend our friend Dr. Robinson’s lecture on global warming. This would make a very timely science lesson.)