Merry Christmas

My blog will return after the New Year. (Gotta love that Rose Parade!)

Huckabee and the state of Xmas

In ancient times, possibly as far back as the Roman empire, the Greek letter chi, which looks like an “X,” became an accepted symbol referring to Christ. It still appears today in the “chi-rho” symbol used by the Catholic Church and in the phrase “Xmas.”

But we wouldn’t be living in modern America if the average person knew that bit of history. On the contrary, it seems most people assume that the “X” is an attempt to wipe out “Christ” from “Christmas.”

Belief, in this case perhaps, is mimicking our modern reality, where Christianity is very much under assault.

Consider the case of presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who made the uncommonly unpolitical decision to issue a Christmas greetings in which he mentions the name of Christ:

“Are you about worn out by all the television commercials you’ve been seeing, mostly about politics? Well, I don’t blame you. At this time of year sometimes it’s nice to pull aside from all of that and just remember that what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Christ and being with our family and friends.”

It didn’t take long for him to be attacked by interest groups, political opponents and frothing journalists. Among the charges of criminality, he was accused of sending a message with a “religious tone,” having “gone too far,” and running for president of “Christian America.” (You know, that evil Nazi-loving segment of society you bump into in church on Sundays.)

My personal favorite, though, was the accusation of a “subliminal message” in the commercial: a cross in the background! I remember in college, having to endure classes where the professors tried to uncover the hidden messages in ads, things like images of naked women in ice cubes, phallic symbols in cologne commercials, etc. Half of the images were just hallucinations on the part of professors desperate to fill an hour, and the ones that weren’t, were just funny. In the case of the Huckabee ad, the cross was apparently just a fortuitous bookshelf, and it must have been placed there by God himself because none of the stage hands will cop to it.

Huckabee is the media’s current GOP candidate of choice, which means they think they can beat him in the press for his religious views, and his values are liberal enough that the editors of the NY Times could tolerate him if he should by some fluke win.

He’s not at the top of my list for president, but I do appreciate Huckabee’s guts at not being afraid to speak the name of Christ in public and not apologizing for it afterwards. As he said while speaking in a church this weekend:

“You can find Santa at every mall. You can find discounts in every store. But if you mention the name of Jesus, as I found out recently, it upsets the whole world. Forgive me, but I thought that was the point of the whole day.”

On that count, Huckabee is facing a hostile world, but he’s in good company with other Christians around the globe:

In this country, atheists are suing to remove references to God from the Pledge of Allegiance, from our money and from our military, but a Southern California teacher who disparages Christians in a public school is given a pass. Meanwhile, Christians living under Hamas must keep the noise down at their churches, amid the amplified hollering of the muezzins, for fear of offending passing Muslims, who have killed Christians as recently as within the past two months. In China, Christians recently were rounded up by the hundreds for “subversion.” In Azerbaijan, Pastor Zaur Balaev is serving a two-year sentence for “conducting an illegal religious meeting.”

So on this Christmas Eve, as the world tries to “X” out Christ, Mr. Huckabee and other believers should bear in mind John 15:17, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.”

But mostly, we should continue to look ahead with the hope symbolized by the arrival of that special child some 2,000 years ago, and continue to hope and pray for the rebirth of this world.

The Archbishop of Can’t-Be: Atheism in the church

In an unexpected broadside to Christmas, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has come out as this season’s high-profile Bible debunker.

In a radio interview, the archbishop was challenged about the rational basis of the Christmas story. Some of the answers Williams gave were obvious and accurate ones, addressing folklore that has accrued to the story over the years but which does not have any basis in the Bible. However, it didn’t take long for him to begin disputing points of the biblical narrative.

Among his points:

It probably didn’t snow in Bethlehem. The region isn’t exactly known for winter sports today, and the Bible doesn’t mention snow. So far, so good.

Jesus probably wasn’t born in December. The Bible doesn’t say when Jesus was born, except for a general time period in Quirinius’ reign.

There were no animals in the stable around Jesus. The Bible says Jesus was laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn. A manger is a feed trough for animals, and in a largely agrarian culture, it would not be unheard of for people to sleep among animals. Could Mary have ordered Joseph to usher the animals out? Possibly. The Bible does not say anything on the subject, animals are just assumed by most people to have been in the stable with the Holy Family.

The Three Kings or Wise Men are just a legend. Here, the archbishop begins to get into trouble, biblically speaking. While it is true that the Bible does not specify “kings” or even that there were three of them, it is quite specific that Magi — a plural of Magus, a sort of Persian priest/astrologer/wizard — saw an unusual star and took it as a sign that the king of the Jews was born. They came searching for him, had some entanglements with King Herod, a Roman puppet, then found the Holy Family and delivered gifts of gold, incense and myrrh. (The three gifts are the most likely reason for the tradition of three kings — one magus per gift.)

The star of the North did not stand still in the night sky. The archbishop is on shaky ground both biblically and astronomically. Stars just don’t behave like that, the archbishop complained. Well, the North star actually does appear to stand still, since it’s aligned approximately with the Earth’s axis. So he’s got that bit wrong scientifically. However, the Bible clearly isn’t talking about the North star. It mentions a “star in the East” that obviously represented some unusual phenomenon and drew the Magi’s attention. After their involvement with Herod, the Magi were then led by the star they had seen in the east, which now went ahead of them. It’s possible this was in a general northerly direction, but clearly, this is an unusual “star.” While the archbishop is right that the stars we know of don’t behave that way, what basis is that to say that the Magi did not see and follow something they classified as meeting the criteria for a “star” under their science? It’s a bit like disputing a UFO report from a top pilot. You may not want to believe it because you’ve never seen one, but the witness seems qualified enough to accurately report what he saw.

The virgin birth is optional. Finally, the archbishop gets to it and merely chucks the whole Christmas story out the window. The virginity of Mary is a prominent and essential feature of the whole Nativity, symbolically and theologically as well as historically. The archbishop said he didn’t think the virgin birth should be a hurdle to someone signing up as a Christian, but I beg to differ. If you are OK with throwing out the beginning chapters of Matthew and Luke, why should you believe anything else in the Bible? According to Sydney’s Catholic archbishop, Cardinal George Pell, “What is important is that the Christ child was and is the son of God. For this belief and fact, the virgin birth is essential. Those who doubt or deny this are departing from essential Christian teaching.”

Highly worrisome about the whole interview is how easily the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Anglican Church, slips into a fashionable “pick-and-choose” type of Christianity. When someone as highly placed and, it is assumed, scholarly as Dr. Williams starts engaging in these sort of games, what are lay people to think other than that the leaders of Christianity are hypocrites who don’t practice what they preach?

Williams is afflicted with the same sort of creeping atheism that has wormed its way into churches around the world, the sort that says, “I’m Christian, but really Jesus was just a nice guy. I don’t want to believe that other stuff because it offends my 21st-century sensibilities.” The essential problem is one of pride, placing our own personal experience above the testimony of people who actually lived in the times in question. It’s modern dogma, requiring just as much faith as any religion, to believe that our 21st century knowledge is superior to that of all previous generations. It’s what I call the “Everybody before me was drunk and/or stupid” theory of history.

And it only leads to one place. If there were no magi, there was no star, there was no virgin birth, then there was no Son of God, no crowds were fed by fishes and loaves, no demons were exorcised, no cripples were healed, no one walked on water, no prophecies were fulfilled, and, finally, no one rose from the dead. Bodies don’t do that, your eminence.

Except, we have witnesses that it all did happen. If the archbishop has now decided he needs to dissect the Bible and underline the unacceptable parts, I would suggest it’s time he hang up the robes and start his own religion.

For those interested in learning about some of the evidence that supports the historicity of the New Testament, I recommend seeing Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, a DVD based on the work of Strobel, a journalist and former atheist who spent two years investigating “the story” behind Jesus and wound up becoming a convinced Christian.

The Christmas conspiracy

It has long been apparent to many Christians in the U.S. that there is a movement afoot to eliminate Christmas, and ultimately Christianity, from public life.

Many people pooh-pooh the very notion. They may think it’s simply overblown religious hyperbole, or they naively believe that such a thing could not possibly happen here. But the truth is, there are many people who actively despise Christianity and are working to suppress Christians. Thankfully, it’s a small minority so far, but it’s there, and it has made slow headway.

Consider a recent resolution from Congress, H.R. 847, “recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.” It passed handily last week. Now how could such a measure possibly add up to repression of Christians when it clearly attempts to do the obvious, you ask? It’s not the measure itself but some of the votes that are interesting.

The vote on H.R. 847 was 372 in favor, 9 opposed, 10 voting “present,” and 40 non-votes. Of the 9 opposed, all were Democrats (three from the Bay Area alone). Of the 10 “present,” 9 were Democrats, and 1 was Republican. Among non-voters, 19 were Democrats, 21 Republican.

Compare that with a similar vote in October, H.R. 635, “Recognizing the commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and expressing respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion, and for other purposes.”

This measure, recognizing members of a religion whose fanatical elements we are presently at war with, also passed easily. The vote was 376 in favor, 0 (that’s zero) opposed, 42 “present,” 14 non-votes. Of those voting “present,” 41 were Republican, 1 Democrat. Of the non-votes, 6 were Democrat and 8 Republican.

One hundred seventy-seven Republicans favored the Christmas resolution, and 152 the Ramadan resolution.

One hundred ninety-five Democrats favored the Christmas resolution, and 224 the Ramadan resolution.

Particularly interesting, of the 18 Democrats who voted against or “present” on the Christmas resolution, all voted yes on the Ramadan resolution, so clearly this was not a concern about separation of church and state.

Could this be construed as an anti-war vote? The Ramadan resolution commends Muslims “throughout the world,” despite the current war, while the Christmas resolution deems “important” that segment of voters the Democrats so often write off as war supporters. If so, then it would seem to underscore the prevailing suspicion among many conservatives, that Democrats will go to any lengths, even praising our war-time enemies and attacking Christian beliefs, to “get back” at President Bush.

The vote tallies also seem to underscore that the Republicans won’t openly oppose Muslims, no doubt for fear of the political backlash, but some Democrats not only oppose Christians but have no fear of openly doing so.

Time to start paying attention. …

Global warming: After the Bali show is over

Well, you can tell that the Bali climate conference is over because it’s snowing like crazy across the United States, just in time to delay the flight home of Al Gore, the man who last week blamed America as the chief culprit behind global warming.

Also, the world’s media are burying a report from U.S. scientists that concludes global warming is not caused by humans.

According to a report being published in The International Journal of Climatology, researchers led by David Douglas, a climate expert from the University of Rochester, went over the available data from satellites, weather balloons, etc. (the same data the U.N. “experts” had available) and conclude that the computer climate models currently in use “greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases.”

Unfortunately, the Journal is a paid subscription, so you’ll have to pony up to see the full report, but here’s a link to the Agence France Press article. Note how the lead announcing the study is followed by five or six paragraphs explaining how it can’t be right before the reporter gets into what the researchers actually found. (I also noticed Yahoo has it filed under “climate warming denial.” And here I thought Gore was an adviser to Google, not Yahoo.)

The media’s love for radical Islam

As a member of the media, I am sometimes asked why American media consistently downplay the threat from radical Islam.

The shorthand version is that the media are dominated by left-wingers who value “taking down” the right above actually offering objective journalism. (A big reason newspapers are dying.)

When I went to school, I was taught that a good journalist was always striving for objectivity, but in the real world, it has never been so. I’ve found that journalists, by and large, consider themselves an important part of the political system, not merely observers. And anything like an ethical quest for the truth is a bit much to expect from a class that, ultimately, is about drawing attention to itself for the purpose of selling ads.

Journalism was always that way to an extent, but I do believe it has become worse in recent years as the political activists of journalism have become entrenched and have exerted their influence through things like speech codes, style mandates and “ethical” guidelines.

Consider the following guidelines for writing about Muslims, issued by the Society for Professional Journalists less than a month after thousands of Americans were murdered by fanatical Muslims in 9/11:

On Oct. 6 at its National Convention in Seattle, the Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution urging members and fellow journalists to take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism and to reaffirm their commitment to:

— Use language that is informative and not inflammatory;

— Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences;

— Seek truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the events in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C.

Guidelines

Visual images

— Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing Americans mourning those lost in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

— Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing rescue and other public service workers and military personnel.

— Do not represent Arab Americans and Muslims as monolithic groups. Avoid conveying the impression that all Arab Americans and Muslims wear traditional clothing.

— Use photos and features to demystify veils, turbans and other cultural articles and customs.

Stories

— Seek out and include Arabs and Arab Americans, Muslims, South Asians and men and women of Middle Eastern descent in all stories about the war, not just those about Arab and Muslim communities or racial profiling.

— Cover the victims of harassment, murder and other hate crimes as thoroughly as you cover the victims of overt terrorist attacks.

— Make an extra effort to include olive-complexioned and darker men and women, Sikhs, Muslims and devout religious people of all types in arts, business, society columns and all other news and feature coverage, not just stories about the crisis.

— Seek out experts on military strategies, public safety, diplomacy, economics and other pertinent topics who run the spectrum of race, class, gender and geography.

— When writing about terrorism, remember to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity.

— Do not imply that kneeling on the floor praying, listening to Arabic music or reciting from the Quran are peculiar activities.

— When describing Islam, keep in mind there are large populations of Muslims around the world, including in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, India and the United States. Distinguish between various Muslim states; do not lump them together as in constructions such as “the fury of the Muslim world.”

— Avoid using word combinations such as “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim extremist” that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity. Be specific: Alternate choices, depending on context, include “Al Qaeda terrorists” or, to describe the broad range of groups involved in Islamic politics, “political Islamists.” Do not use religious characterizations as shorthand when geographic, political, socioeconomic or other distinctions might be more accurate.

— Avoid using terms such as “jihad” unless you are certain of their precise meaning and include the context when they are used in quotations. The basic meaning of “jihad” is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself.

— Consult the Library of Congress guide for transliteration of Arabic names and Muslim or Arab words to the Roman alphabet. Use spellings preferred by the American Muslim Council, including “Muhammad,” “Quran,” and “Makkah ,” not “Mecca.”

— Regularly seek out a variety of perspectives for your opinion pieces. Check your coverage against the five Maynard Institute for Journalism Education fault lines of race and ethnicity, class, geography, gender and generation.

— Ask men and women from within targeted communities to review your coverage and make suggestions.

I really love the part about including “radical anti-abortionists” whenever we cover terrorism.

Journalism in this country needs a good shake-up. We should start by scrapping the hypocritical PC “ethics” codes.

Global warming and a papal warning

It’s always interesting to watch how a public figure can say something and the media only hear what they want.

The rumor’s been going around the news wires that Pope Benedict has “launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence,” as one paper put it.

The account continues, saying the pope suggested that “fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.”

Be still, my beating heart.

Much as I would love to hear those words from the pope, that’s not what he said, and the rewriting of his message seems to be in keeping with the media’s attempts to portray anyone religious as a crackpot opposed to liberal “science”.

Which is especially surprising in the case of the pope, who is one of the most level-headed, politic figures you could find in religious circles.

What the pope did write, as part of his message titled “The Human Family, a Community of Peace,” was that in regards to environmental concerns, “It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.”

He further wrote that to further the cause of world peace, nations should avoid “the path of unilateral decisions.”

This is the state of the global warming debate. Even merely recommending caution, reason and discussion will get you branded a lunatic by the liberals.

On the other hand, while it’s good that the pope sounded a needed note of caution during the U.N.’s global warming conference on Bali, it’s hardly a stirring vindication of either side of the global warming issue. And it’s nothing really that this pope or his predecessor hasn’t said before.

The environmental message was just one aspect of the larger message of peace, in which the pope also addressed the need to protect the family as a covenant between man and woman, the greater human community, the world economy and nuclear disarmament.

It was, as expected from the Vatican, a very scholarly, middle-of-the-road call to greater niceness through enhanced morality.

I love the pope, and he seems to be a very learned person. I can even get behind his message.

Yet I can’t help but yearn for a leader of my church who actually leads by moral authority, who is willing to take on the villains of this world and who speaks without first calculating political ramifications. Someone, in other words, a little more like Jesus.

Read the pope’s complete message here.

Hillary Clinton: We won’t let you take it with you

New York Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton vigorously defended the inheritance tax during an appearance in San Francisco with multi-gajillionaire Warren Buffett.

Clinton said the estate tax, which will be temporarily repealed in 2010 then return to a 55 percent top rate in 2011, represents “what kind of society we are.”

According to Hillary’s speech, that “kind of society” is a meritocracy:

“The estate tax has been historically part of our very fundamental belief that we should have a meritocracy, that we do not want a system — where we expect people to make it on their own — to be, over time, dominated by inherited wealth. That we do believe that people should have to get out there and make their way, to a great extent.”

… Like those self-made Kennedys, Rockefellers and Kerrys in Congress, to name a few.

“It’s not as though people will be destitute,” Clinton added. (Except for the ordinary families who lose homes, farms, businesses, etc., because Uncle Sam took just enough of their inheritance to make it impossible to keep what’s left.)

Her presentation included the now-standard Clinton I’m-rich-enough-thanks-to-you-all line: “I am more focused on preventing the repeal of the estate tax and returning to what I think are fairer, more effective tax rates for the wealthiest. … While people like my husband and I have enjoyed a great series of gifts from the Bush administration, that is not what has happened to the vast majority of Americans.”

First, if she and her husband feel they have enough money, I would be more than happy to take some off their hands. I’ll gladly take a cashier’s check, but I prefer PayPal.

Second, my concept of a meritocracy is evidently outdated. I always thought a meritocracy was a society where you could make as much money as you could earn and either keep it or give it to whomever you please. Evidently, Clinton’s concept is that you can keep your money (or at least a fraction of it) until you die and are no longer able to fend off the government vultures, at which time Clinton will be happy to swoop in and feed off your carcass because the government, not your own heirs, is entitled to the fruits of your life’s work.

Clinton thinks that taxing the hell out of grieving families is the way to keep America strong. Call me naive, but I think America is strong enough to survive without robbing widows and orphans, or feeding off the flesh of the dead.

Al Gore’s Nobel speech

SPEECH BY AL GORE ON THE ACCEPTANCE

OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

DECEMBER 10, 2007

OSLO, NORWAY

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.

Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life’s work, unfairly labeling him “The Merchant of Death” because of his invention — dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, “We must act.”

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures — a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: “Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency — a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst — though not all — of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction. The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.

We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.

Even in Nobel’s time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, “We are evaporating our coal mines into the air.” After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth’s average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.

But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless — which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented — and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.

We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: “Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”

In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.

Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth’s climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: “Mutually assured destruction.”

More than two decades ago, scientists calculated that nuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a “nuclear winter.” Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world’s resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.

Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent “carbon summer.”

As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, “Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice.” Either, he notes, “would suffice.”

But neither need be our fate. It is time to make peace with the planet.

We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.

These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.

No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.

Now comes the threat of climate crisis — a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?

Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve with what he called “Satyagraha” — or “truth force.”

In every land, the truth — once known — has the power to set us free.

Truth also has the power to unite us and bridge the distance between “me” and “we,” creating the basis for common effort and shared responsibility.

There is an African proverb that says, “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” We need to go far, quickly.

We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer. They can and do help. But they will not take us far enough without collective action. At the same time, we must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not invite the establishment of ideological conformity and a new lock-step “ism.”

That means adopting principles, values, laws, and treaties that release creativity and initiative at every level of society in multifold responses originating concurrently and spontaneously.

This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun’s energy for pennies or invent an engine that’s carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.

When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, “It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship.”

In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000 people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was described by Franklin Roosevelt as the “Father of the United Nations.” He was an inspiration and hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his commitment to world peace and global cooperation.

My parents spoke often of Hull, always in tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my hometown paper that simply noted I had won the same prize that Cordell Hull had won. In that moment, I knew what my father and mother would have felt were they alive.

Just as Hull’s generation found moral authority in rising to solve the world crisis caused by fascism, so too can we find our greatest opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, “crisis” is written with two symbols, the first meaning “danger,” the second “opportunity.” By facing and removing the danger of the climate crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our own capacity to solve other crises that have been too long ignored.

We must understand the connections between the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty, hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these problems are linked, so too must be their solutions. We must begin by making the common rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle of the world community.

Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions.

This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 — two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.

Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon — with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance — especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they’ve taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters — most of all, my own country —- that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other’s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must. No one should believe a solution will be found without effort, without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge that if we wish to redeem squandered time and speak again with moral authority, then these are the hard truths:

The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do. Moreover, between here and there, across the unknown, falls the shadow.

That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, “Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk.”

We are standing at the most fateful fork in that path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of two futures — each a palpable possibility — and with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the necessity of choosing between those two futures, and the urgency of making the right choice now.

The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, “One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door.”

The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: “What were you thinking; why didn’t you act?”

Or they will ask instead: “How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?”

We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.

So let us renew it, and say together: “We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act.”

Global warming: Al Gore accepts his crown

Former Vice President Al Gore accepted his Nobel Prize for global warming yesterday.

The acceptance speech included the expected excoriations of the U.S. and China, as well as calls for carbon taxes, a worldwide mobilization for “our common future” and many threats of imminent doom.

But the most striking feature of his speech, at least to my ears, was that it only took four paragraphs before Gore brought up his 2000 election defeat:

“Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

“Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, “We must act.”

“The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures — a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: ‘Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.’”

I’ve often wondered how much of this blather Gore really believes. I used to think he was sincere, but the wealthier he grew from this, the more company boards he joined, the more he painted himself as prophet and messiah while lining his own pockets, the more I smelled a rat.

These three paragraphs trouble me even more than did the rest of the speech, which outlined a vision of socialist tyranny if Mr. Gore gets his way. It sounds as if Gore is saying, “Fine, I lost the presidency, but now I don’t need it because I’ve found an even more powerful position.”

And make no mistake, Gore is deliberately ramping up the scare in his speech. I find it highly unlikely that a man as well-educated as him actually believes the Chicken Little nonsense he told the Nobel audience.

Liberals, of course, loved the speech with its promises of global regulations and turning over of civilization.

To me, it just proved that Al Gore is completing his transition from amusingly foolish to dangerously foolhardy.

But judge for yourself. Read the speech here. While you read it, keep in mind the big picture: That all this ballyhoo is about trying to prevent a predicted 1- to 2-degree increase in temperatures over the next 100 years.