Archives: 2008 November

Oprah Winfrey seems to desire the domination of religious discourse by Universalism. Because of her significant level of influence in both entertainment and political arenas, Christians are being persuaded into converting to her worldview or being less vocal about their own. She referred to Barack Obama as “The One” and was instrumental in his rise to the White House.

Longtime friends, Barack and Michelle Obama, agree with her that there are many “paths” to the “Universe,” which is the metaphysical term for “God” or “Higher Power.” While the Obama’s claim Christ as their own path, their former pastor, and Oprah’s pastor for awhile, The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, not only taught them the scripturally incorrect doctrine of black liberation theology, but also taught that Jesus is NOT the only way of salvation, that there is no hell, and that homosexuals will go to heaven even if actively practicing their lifestyle. Oprah moved on from the church and pursued the New Age philosophies that she now preaches from her television and radio programs and the Oprah magazine.

Once of Oprah’s sources of truth is A Course in Miracles. It purports that sin is fictitious. This concept makes room for behaving however one sees fit. This is relativism of a moral nature. What you call sin may not be sin to me. Therefore, a woman’s right to choose is more powerful than the baby’s right to live in her womb.

The Bible is clear concerning the issues of the life of the unborn child, Homosexual acts, and living together before marriage. Passages relating to these important Christian values are not based on “obscure” scriptures as Barack Obama has mentioned in his book, The Audacity of Hope. Yet, the philosophy of Oprah and Obama is permeating our culture with a vengeance. Traditional Christianity is viewed by these pundits as old fashion, out dated, and ignorant. Christians are being led astray and coerced into silence or compliance by the mere fact of a media or political person’s powerful communication abilities.

Seem suprising that I ask that? Well we do see it all over the media that the climate is shot to pieces. Every day we have a fuel crisis where it’s either too expensive or we haven’t got any left. Solutions that get proposed seem to frighten more than put anyone’s mind at rest (try Chernobyl). Amongst that scaremongering are there and facts and figures that let us work out where we actually are with this?

OK, the bad news is that by 2056 there will be no fossil fuels left. The oil wells will be dry by the middle of the century. This is not good news, because whilst it may not effect us, the generations that follow are going to want heat and light and warmth and energy to do all of the things we take for granted today. What is their option going to be?

Over 2 centuries ago none of this was a problem. As we approached the industrial revolution it appeared we had all of the energy we needed under our feet, and that it would last for ever. You may not of heard of the British economist and historian who was happy to declare this fact, and who he was no longer matters, because he was wrong. We are running out, and fast.

Now you’d think that as a race of people who have limited resources, we’d be more than happy to share what we’ve got around everyone, right? That if you were lucky enough to be born in a region of the world where the majority of the oil was situated then you’d let your fellow man have access to as much of it as he or she needed? Of course not – just look at the conflicts going on at the moment in Iraq – more than a little related to oil.

That’s just for starters. We could make lists of issues and problems cause by the reliance on traditional energy sources, but I think you get the idea. There is a need to change direction and rethink how we power everything, or we’re going to have serious problems.

In a local Alaskan paper today the heading is Back at work, Palin vents a bit over campaign criticism. In the post-campaign analyses, there is little doubt that Sarah Palin will command attention for some time. This will add to her personal stress.

If you look at the research on stress levels of politicians, you will have to read Cary Cooper’s research. He says that within six months there are significantly elevated stress levels for politicians. Before Sarah failed in her vice president race I was predicting her levels of stress.

The research on stress for politicians provides the usual behavioral indicators. Sleep loss, poor appetite, and eating and drinking too much are typical responses. But loss of motivation must be another worrying symptom of political stress.

John McCain and Sarah Palin were not elected so she doesn’t have the normal stress of national office. Yesterday she returned to be Gov of Alaska and that is a new challenge for her post-campaign. On her return from the heady atmosphere of national and international recognition and a frenzied campaign she has to make significant changes.

Sarah impressed many people with her energy and enthusiasm as a campaigner. Part of her role was to be a critic of the Democrats, a role that might create additional stress for her in trying to win back a non-partisan form of government in Alaska.

In today’s paper it was reported that she was asked how she could rebuild bipartisan relationships now that she is back in Alaska. The front page also highlights two different legal views of her role in Troopergate. There is no doubt that the opposition in government will be questioning her husband role in government, travel expenses for her children and ethics issues.

Everyone loves to cut down tall poppies and we will see significant post-campaign criticism that will add to Sarah stress levels and credibility. Her response to unnamed staffers’ criticisms of her is already occurring. She indicated that the comment on Africa as a continent was taken out of context. He said that she responded to requests to purchase clothes and said that all she ever asked for was a can of soft drink.