Early signs suggest that the Conservatives want to make this a Harper versus Dion campaign. They’ve been attacking Stéphan for quite a few months now with radio ads. Recently I’ve noticed that some TV ads have been appearing as well. These feature Stephen Harper and make little mention of the Conservative party itself.

Whatever the outcome of this race (and it’s quite likely that the result will be much like the last election), it promises to be a messy one. Here goes nothing!

Focus on the Family Prays for Rain During the Democratic Party Convention

Before the Democratic National Convention, the conservative evangelical christian organization “Focus on the Family” came out with a video which put forward the idea of praying for rain (I would link to the video but it looks like Focus on the Family had YouTube remove it). The thinking was that if God were to send a torrent, it would make it impossible for Barack Obama to deliver his speech before 75,000 people at the open air stadium. As it turned out, the convention was not rained-out. The weather was actually ideal and more people saw Obama’s speech on television than watched the finale of American Idol. But does this mean that God didn’t answer the prayers for rain?

As it turns out, it is the Republican convention that will be delayed, truncated, or canceled due to weather. With Hurricane Gustav bearing down on the Gulf Coast, McCain and his people are reconsidering their plans. After all it would not look too good if the Republicans were all bashing Obama while Gustav bashes Louisiana. Not to mention that all this is happening on the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina–a major symbol of the incompetence of the Republican-led federal government.

I don’t want to make light of what could be a very serious disaster. It looks as though Gustav could be worse than Katrina in terms of the intensity of the storm. That said, what are we to make of the prayers for rain? Does God answer politically-motivated prayers? Do the Focus on the Family people think this is the case? If so, what do they have to say about the apparent back-firing of their request? After all it is the Republican convention that is being affected by the weather, not the Democratic one. I just wonder what it is that they may say about the sadly ironic turn of events. I’m guessing not much since they have attempted to remove all evidence of the video from the internet.

Now it looks like McCain is using a variation of the very same tactic. His recent ad accuses Obama of seeing himself as “the One”, America’s new messiah. Yet McCain himself recently has come out with a poster that depicts him looking more like the second-coming than anything I’ve ever seen hanging on a Sunday School wall.

This pot-and-kettle politics move is usually a pretty effective tactic. After all it allows you to innoculate  yourself from being called on one of your weaknesses by being the first to point it out in someone else. And it seems that the facts rarely get in the way of the perception that is ultimately created. As long as the accusation has an air of truth about it and you say it often and forcefully enough, you’re on your way to some good character assassination.

America guzzles oil by the millions of barrels. If you think about it, at some point this will not be able to continue whether or not you believe in “peak oil theory”. There are things that can be done right away to move in the right direction. Instead the Bush administration has opposed raising the fuel efficiency standards for automakers. That right there is one solid step in the right direction. But no, it seems that the only solution they can see is the one that’s most profitable for their oil buddies, go and drill for more. More money for them, same problem for us.

Yet despite our utter dependence on–and unquestioning trust in–the goodies science give us, there are some areas where we just don’t like what science has to say. Look no further than the issue of climate change, AKA global warming.

The fact is, an overwhelming majority of highly-respected and educated scientists say that climate change is happening and that it is due to the bad stuff we humans are doing–and I don’t mean the rampant fornication, debauchery and general sinfulness of humanity. If those things caused global warming we would have been cooked a long time ago. No, the consensus is that our use of fossil fuels is a greenhouse effect that is warming the planet. You’ve heard the story.

Anyway, the naysayers out there like to call into question the motives of scientist–as if scientists have banded together in some kind of mass conspiracy. But really, do scientists have a lot to gain from spreading misinformation about the climate?! I’m sure they like burning fossil fuels as much as the next guy. Seriously, if anybody is conspiring to make sure that we keep chugging the gas, it’s the oil industry. In the game of climate change, that’s the team with the most to lose. As it turns out that’s also the team that has the big bucks to fight climate change. And I don’t mean fight the problem. I mean fight to make sure people don’t see climate change as being a problem.

Now I can understand that there may be people out there who are generally skeptical about science. They may shun the use of microwaves and prefer horse-drawn carriages to a cars. To those people I say, “thank you”. Their skepticism about global warming, microwaves and cars means that they probably aren’t causing the problem anyway (since they don’t heat TV dinners or drive SUVs). And really anyone who is skeptical about what science has to say is probably generally a cautious person. A cautious approach would be to say, “well I’m not so sure about this climate change thing, but just to be safe we should probably try to do something about it since the worst case scenario is the end of civilization as we know it.”

When it comes down to it, isn’t doing something about climate change a good thing? I mean, I don’t know if you’ve ever stuck your nose into the tailpipe of a running car but it really, really stinks. Having a little less of those toxic fumes in our air would certainly make for clearer visibility over our cities, less asthma for our kids and fewer deaths due to air quality. Making a change would involve encouraging innovation that will create new jobs and industries. This may be bad news for oil tycoons but hey, they’re already filthy rich anyway.

We have science to thank for superglue, calorie-free sweeteners and pretty much everything else we use to live everyday. But not all discoveries of science will be good news for our erectile difficulties. In the case of climate change the news could be very bad. But rather than suddenly mistrusting the experts, we need to unplug our ears and listen to what scientists are telling us. Then we need to act on it.

Think for a minute about what it means to be elite. Without going into a dictionary definition of the word, to be “elite” means to be the best. Isn’t that actually a feature we would want in a president? Don’t we want the leader of the country to be the best our society has to offer?

When you look at other situations, “elite” isn’t a bad word. Athletes want to become “elite athletes.” They’re the ones who get the fat contract and their face on the Wheaties box. “Elite” versions of deodorants or car tires must be better at keeping you smelling clean or gripping in all weather conditions.

But when it comes to the president, people want just a regular guy you would like to hang out with at a bar. Someone you can relate to. Someone kind of like you. But stop and think about this for a minute. Would you really make a good president? Do you think the guys you hang out with at the bar could be trusted to control the most powerful military in the world and make decisions that affection millions of people?

The fact of the matter is, being president is a really tough job. It’s probably a good idea that whoever is looking to get into this line of work has the necessary qualifications, instead of just being someone who would be fun at parties. So bring out the best and brightest for me to vote for–even if that means they won’t be the type to stop by, watch the game and knock back a couple cans of Bud.

Some pointed out that the levy infrastructure had not been properly maintained due to neglect at the highest level of government. Others saw divine machinations at work. In particular Paster John Hagee, among others, saw the deluge as God’s wrath being poured out on the city. After all, it had held gay pride parades and could be seen as pro-gay.

It is true that following the Great Flood thousands of years ago, God promised never to wipe out humanity again. We are reminded of this every time we see a rainbow. This does not, however, mean that God may still selectively wipe out portions of the population. We see an example of this in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah where God destroyed these cities because–you guessed it–they were rife with homosexuality.

Now with much of Iowa covered in water, we must ask ourselves whether gays are, once again, to blame. While the average observer would not think of Iowa as being particularly gay, perhaps there is something we didn’t know about. Only God knows our hidden thoughts. Could it be that Iowa is latently gay? Perhaps there has been much hidden activity in the closets of the Hawkeye State. We may have to wait for Pastor John Hagee to shed some light.