I can’t believe this is happening again. Another Major Hurricane is barreling towards New Orleans almost 3 years to the day that Katrina did so much damage.

I pulled up images of Katrina’s path, and I took some solace (though very little) in the fact that Gustav isn’t taking the same exact path. Gustav’s is above. Katrina’s is below (and what you can’t see on that image is that Katrina came over Florida, while Gustav came up into the Gulf through Cuba).

I don’t think Gustav is going to reach Cat 5 status like Katrina did, and it might not hit NOLA as directly as Katrina did, so let’s hope that lessens the damage. But no matter where Gustav makes landfall, it’s going to make life messy for a whole lot of people.

Join me in praying for these folks. For their protection, and that they would find real peace in the middle of a real storm.

Chad and Dawn are proud parents of a healthy baby boy this morning!

Meet my newest nephew, Hudson Blake Fisher, 7 pounds, 15 ounces. 20 inches long, and he can run a 4.45 40-yard dash.

They hid not only the name, but the gender from us, for this whole time, but now the secret is out. Congrats, you crazy kids!

First off, here’s an AP article that includes this snippet from Don Miller:

Democrats are “reaching out to us, and I’m not naive as to why — they want our votes,” said Miller, who gave a two-minute prayer to close Monday’s convention session. “But they won’t get them and keep them unless they continue the momentum of adopting policies that promote the sanctity of life.”

Miller cited progress along those lines — including on abortion. His other priorities — poverty, global warming — also reflect a widening evangelical agenda that might benefit Democrats, if not in large numbers in November then in future elections. Miller also said he’d leave the party if some Democrats keep mocking people of faith.

“I’d like to see Obama address that — say that voice is no longer welcome,” he said.

Second off, here’s an interview with Don done by Sarah Pulliam for Christianity Today before he gave his DNC Benediction.

I’m guessing that if you agreed with Don before, you still do. And if you disagreed with him before, you do even more now.

(h/t: The Catablog)

Today is a Good News / Bad News post.

The Good News: Kylie finally learned how to ride her bike this week! (Here’s a video from 3 days ago)

The Bad News: Kylie was riding this afternoon and took a pretty bad spill. She landed face-first on the road and came out of it a little dinged up.

The Final Tally: Lost Teeth – 2 , Stitches in Lip – 2.

(thankfully they were still baby teeth!)

She’s doing fine now and in good spirits. I think she’s actually excited about losing two teeth in one shot. I was at work when it happened, so Erica had to fly solo on the first family trip to the Emergency Room. Nothing worse than not being able to help your kid. But it could have been a lot worse, so we’re thankful for that.

Just another crazy day in life. Anything crazy happen to you today?

Jesse posted this link in the comments yesterday. It’s John Piper’s thoughts on one-issue voting. I thought it was very insightful. Here it is in its entirety:

Investigating dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those who endorse the right to abortion. So then what is my response to the charge of being a one-issue voter?

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.

It’s the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn’t, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.

So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It’s simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those.

When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, “No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.” Subdivision 7 says, “No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal.” The penalty: “A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that “no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law.” Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to “maim, mutilate and kill” a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?

These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.

* * * This article is from A Godward Life, Book I: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life by John Piper (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 1997), pp. 279-280. Used with permission.

What do you think? Do you agree with Piper? If not, where does his argument break down for you?