Merry Christmas

Luke 2 contains the Biblical narrative of the birth of Christ which is most commonly read at Christmas. At some point this Christmas, Christians would do well to re-read this passage and meditate on its meaning. A full exegesis of those fifty two verses would be too long for a blog post, however we can begin to examine one verse in particular, in this short space.

Luke 2:14 (ESV) - "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"

This verse is about the vertical relationship between God and man. Not the horizontal relationship between men as it is often misquoted as "peace on earth, goodwill towards men".

The angels are declaring the birth of a Savior, born so God can reconcile men to himself. The peace is among those that God is pleased with. Those that have been reconciled to Him through their acceptance of His Son as Lord and Savior in their lives.

By all means, have peace among your fellow men. However, please insure that you are among those with whom God is pleased. If you have not asked Christ into your life as Lord and Savior, please consider doing so this Christmas. It will be a gift you accept with eternal significance.

Merry Christmas!

This Wasn't On The List

There are a lot of things to get done at Christmas. Most of them are self imposed. Tasks such as helping my wife decorate the house for Christmas, buying gifts for immediate family and serving in Christmas ministry opportunities are all typical examples. To make sure they all get done, putting things in a list works well at our house.

Earlier today I completed the purchase of something that wasn't on any of those lists, prior to the start of this week. The purchase involved a new (rebuilt actually) one of these:


For those that may not recognize it, this is a Honda transmission. Not exactly what most people think of first in terms of giving and receiving at Christmas time, but there it is. In our case, it was exactly what we needed after our van started having major problems shifting out of second gear.

Since we bought the van, all our service has been done at Metro Honda in Union county. They've always seemed a cut above the typical dealer service experience, but until now we've not needed anything other than routine maintenance. This was a lot bigger. Long story short, they earned our trust and gave us great service. We'll definitely continue going there, hopefully for a lot smaller items, in the future.

There's probably a larger set of thoughts here on trust, planning, control and flexibility but those will be an exercise left to the reader. Right now, I'm just happy to have the van back and be able to get back to things on the original list!

Not While Driving

I stumbled across a product that I didn't even know existed earlier this evening - a "car desk". The concept seems valid for people who work out of their vehicles. However the implementation as shown below is what got me thinking:

In a society where companies are sued for serving hot drinks, it just seems like a matter of time before someone tries to drive with their car desk still in place. Now in fairness, the company marketing the product does provide the following warning on it's web site: For safety reasons, never use this product while driving. What business model makes the risk generated by this product viable? Not one I'd choose to operate.

The standard disclaimer definitely applies here: I have no association with this company or its products.

How Much Is Enough?

The EPA has declared carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide?!!! Before examining the politics and science behind this, lets set some perspective through a simple question: Is this a good or a bad thing? Seriously. Some may state that it is really a complex question, with too many factors to consider.

One test I like to apply in situations where a simple question isn't so easy to answer, is to "test it at the extreme". Often there is clarity in extrapolating the action in question to a larger scale. So for example, if carbon dioxide is a pollutant, pollutants are bad and we want to eliminate all of them - what happens if we eliminate all the carbon dioxide?

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring substance on the Earth. It is required for all plant life. If it is completely eliminated, all plants die. If all plants die, no more oxygen is produced and we die. Sounds like a bad thing to me.

Not so fast you say? Its not that simple? Just reduce it by some amount? To all those questions, I would respond - how much is enough?

This is not a science question. This is a political question that will claim science as its justification. We will now be faced with the question of who do we trust to set that amount? The answer will drive governmental fines, penalties and fees (taxes). Fairness and justice will be tossed around as ideals not to be opposed, upon fear of character assassination. The funds collected will be redistributed to those "in need".

The basis of the original question has now changed from CO2 to dollars.

Domestically, the EPA bureaucrats, government funded scientists and elected politicians will now attempt to create new regulations to transfer funds from the private sector to the government. On the global level, the Copenhagen Climate conference is attempting to function as a world government and transfer wealth, using a similar rationale.

It might again be a good time to ask - how much is enough?