The Daily Detour

Finding God in Haiti's tragedy

As you know by now, Haiti was hit by a major earthquake earlier this week. Since then, President Obama has been very committed to ensuring that American forces and relief agencies are working overtime on the frontlines in providing the necessary aid to this devastated area. As the relief efforts continue, the early projections are that over 50,000 people may have lost their lives.

Many of us may know people who have been affected by this tragedy. I personally have friends who live and/or have been working down in Haiti. I've had the privilege of ministering down there in 1988 and 1998 as a part of the Free Methodist Church. During that most recent trip in '98, I worked alongside Jack and Jeanne Acheson-Munos. They have since gone back to Haiti as full-time missionaries, to work along with our other close friends, Greg and Gail Ennis (with whom we just had dinner last Friday evening).

During the most recent update I received from the Free Methodist World Missions Department, it was reported that Jack Munos was stuck under the rubble for over six hours. He has suffered multiple broken bones and has since been flown to Guantanamo Bay for surgery and on to Miami. Unfortunately, Jeanne (pictured here) has yet to be found, as are a few other FM missionaries. The situation is dire.

This is just one of the countless stories of both American citizens and Haitian nationals who have been affected by this catastrophe. And the inevitable question is, "Where is God in all of this?" Reconciling natural disasters with the notion of a loving God is difficult at best. We can blame it all on God, or simply chalk it up to the natural order of things, depending on our beliefs. As much as we may want to blame God, it is difficult to know how to deal with these kinds of unbelievable tragedies without God.

I was listening to Dennis Miller's radio program today where they were discussing these very issues. He admitted that he was struggling with this question as well. A caller from Arkansas called in and made the point that we often talk about these kinds of things as being "an act of God." He suggested that we should instead be acknowledging that this kind of tragedy is an act of nature. An act of God, on the other hand, is how we respond to this tragedy. Interestingly, the caller's perspective seemed to resonate with Dennis and he acknowledged that "it gave him a toehold" for beginning to reconcile where God is in a place like Haiti.

There will be ample time to conjecture, and many people have already begun their analysis into the meaning of this tragedy. For now, it is imperative that those of us who are inclined to pray, continue to lift up all of those affected by the earthquake. And all of us can look for ways to offer assistance in what will be a massive relief effort.

UPDATE: One of our TDD readers passed along this information about how you can help: Compassion International, United Methodist Committee on Relief, former President Bill Clinton's foundation, and this article over at FOX News provides some of the means of support. Thanks for the heads-up, Emily. Also, here is a link to the Free Methodist World Missions.

A war by any other name...

In yesterday's paper, I happened upon Charles Krauthammer's compelling article about the state of our foreign affairs, specifically related to our efforts fighting against terrorism. With the thwarted terrorist attack on the NW 253 flight on Christmas Day (thanks to the quick-thinking actions of some of the passengers), the ever-present threat of terrorists cut through the noise of the economy, healthcare, and global warming. Obama & Co may be attempting to downplay the threat of terrorism by forgoing the use of the term "War on Terror", providing a civil trial for the 9/11 mastermind, and the like. But, the threat is real. And but for the failure of the bomb to go off, combined with the vigilance of average Americans, we would be talking not about how "the system worked" (as Janet Napolitano asserted in the immediate aftermath), but instead about the Christmas Day massacre.

I've said repeatedly on this blog (including this post from back August 2007 among others) that we must remain vigilant to the clear and present danger of Islamic radicals seeking to destroy our country and way of life. But unfortunately, it is difficult to question how seriously those at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are taking the threat. In fact, FOX News is polling with this question, "Are you confident in the Obama administration's ability to battle terrorism?" It's a fair and very legitimate question, given the fact that the jihadists are not passing out party cigars that simply blow up in our face.

Some might question the accusation that Obama is not taking our national security as seriously as he should. Consider for a moment, however, how much political capital Obama has expended on issues like stimulus funding, global warming summits, and most significantly, the healthcare debate. Has he exercised half as much focus on the pressing need? One could strongly argue that he hasn't. In fact, Krauthammer summarizes the feelings of many when he writes,

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to play down and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face.

Krauthammer goes on to make the fundamental point:

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not...Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

It is the governing philosophy of Obama & Co. that concerns me, where the reality of terrorism is concerned. If the leadership of this country continues to downplay the threats we face, the next time even concerned citizens will not be able to prevent a tragedy on American soil.

Tis' the season for "Reason's Greetings"

Last Christmas, a number of related atheist groups made international headlines with an orchestrated campaign that ran ads on billboards and buses running in cities like London, Chicago, Washington D.C., and even here in Indiana. It began what is apparently becoming an annual tradition.

There is now an additional campaign taking place in certain cities across the country. Slogans like "Heathen's Greetings" and "Yes, Virginia, there is no God." are finding their way onto billboards, sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

I happpened to run across this very interesting transcript of an interview between Laura Ingraham and Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the co-presidents of the organization. Ms. Ingraham was guest-hosting Bill O'Reilly's show. I did not see the actual interview (because my computer is starting to walk down the green mile) but reading the interview raises some issues to light that are worth considering.

In general, I don't have a huge problem with self-described "freethinkers" buying ads of this nature. I don't necessarily agree with their premise, but I do wholeheartedly believe that the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution extends to all citizens of the United States, especially those with whom I may disagree. That is what makes the governing system in our republic so unique and enviable, is that we have the right to speak up. (And ironically, as I've pointed out here before, that even includes those who bash our Founding Fathers--the ones who ensured that right to speak up.) Such is the essential nature of this wonderful country of ours, and that is a freedom that should be vigilantly protected.

My only real issue with these kinds of efforts by the skeptic community is that they seem more than a bit antagonistic toward those who don't share their beliefs. And I don't always understand why that needs to be the case. It seems to me that there can be (and should be) room for all of us at the table.

Perhaps it's because in many ways the non-religious among us feel as though they have been hurt, offended, or even attacked by the religious devotees. I don't know. But it is interesting to see the reaction by many skeptics toward what they see as the dogmatic nature of Christianity while simultaneously turning a blind eye to their own dogma--dogma about a different set of beliefs, but dogma nonetheless. Isn't the goal to try to be less dogmatic, while still leaving room to hold firmly to those convictions that we believe in? For the Christian, it separates what I call the "non-negotiable" beliefs from the "negotiable" beliefs. And the non-negotiables represent what C.S. Lewis termed "mere" Christianity.

Regardless, I find this particular exchange beneficial in a couple of immediate ways. First of all, it proves very illuminating concerning many of the feelings about, and arguments against, Christianity that many skeptics have. For those Christians who are serious about trying to reach out to their neighbors, the comments made by Ms. Gaylor are essentially what many (if not most) skeptics feel about Christians and Christianity (TDD skeptic readers: please do weigh in here and correct me if this is not the case). The arguments presented by skeptics are not merely theoretical attempts to stir the pot. Real, rational people have staked their lives and future on their sincere beliefs about these things. And they should be respected for that.

Secondly, the exchange here, and the corresponding ad campaign that it highlights, provide a great opportunity to have substantive dialogue about these kinds of issues. (I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Ms. Ingraham or Ms. Gaylor were engaged in that effort, though perhaps the attempt was being made by one side or the other at times.) But we all can certainly seek to explore and understand our differences of belief. And we can thoughtfully engage in the exchange of ideas as we pursue what we all are seeking--the Truth. That is, after all, the reason for any season.

UPDATE: Stephanie Simon over at The Wall Street Journal wrote this interesting article about last year's atheist ad campaign.

Obama trying to walk the fine line between war and peace

It was interesting as Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize last week that the event was often reported by various media sources as "the wartime president" accepting his peace prize. Such was/is the dichotomy that surrounds Obama. And as he gave his acceptance speech, the difficult tightrope he is walking is not lost on anyone, most especially his liberal base. One other writer termed his accept of the Nobel prize as the "Jekyll and Hyde" speech.

There are two issues surrounding Obama's Nobel Prize, received in the midst of his seemingly contradictory foreign affairs. 1. Should Obama have received the prize in the first place?, and 2. How is his reception of the prize reconciled in the midst of his decision to send more troops to the war in Afghanistan?

Concerning the former issue, even the Dalai Lama, himself a Nobel Peace Prize winner for his peaceful opposition to the Chinese rule in Tibet, candidly understated that President Obama's receiving the prize was "a little early". In fact, that is the notion that has plagued Obama since word came out in October that he had won the once-prestigious prize. People were trying to figure out where Obama fit within the pantheon of peace activists like Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and His holiness the Dalai Lama. (It reminds me of Christian Laettner's presence on the1992 Olympic Dream Team with Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Magic Johnson. I've always contended that Laettner was there to serve as the bellhop for the big boys. :)

I would agree with this assessment, that Obama's receiving the prize was inappropriate and undermined the significance of the award. Even the Nobel selection committee tried to justify their decision by admitting that it was given not based on Obama's securing peace but what he will presumably do. And as Obama himself acknowledged in his speech, the award was not for what he has actually accomplished, but what he "aspires" to do. And if he doesn't do it? (This whole event reveals the cult of personality that surrounds Obama and begs so many questions and problems--Namely, how do we measure whether or not he is successful in those aspirations? And, should we get credit for what we aspire to do, even if we don't actually carry it out--like school grades? If the aspiration for peace is the new criteria for the Noble Prize, perhaps every beauty pageant contestant should be considered for the award.)

Furthermore, Obama is making his case for what he calls the "just war" in Afghanistan. Others would disagree. What do you think? Is Afghanistan a just war? Is there any such thing? I believe there is, given the nature of those who use evil to achieve their ends. (But then again, I'm not up for the Nobel Peace prize.) 

UPDATE: This insightful article by Bonnie Erbe over at Politics Daily talks about the discontent of the Norwegians over having given Obama the prize. But more than that, she describes how he has come to embody the consumate politician. As she writes, "If only the Nobel Committee and the American voting public had dug a bit deeper before they endorsed Obama, they might not have been so surprised when he morphed into an unexpected type of president. The New York Times reported in February 2008 that Obama had a history of stretching his accomplishments and playing to his audience of the moment. It would have been easy to see what was coming if only voters had paid more attention to his record as a twister of facts and prince of prevarication." This tendency among politicians is hardly new. The question is, "What are we going to do about it?"

Copenhagen conference goes up in smoke

The big talk this week (other than Tiger Woods) centers on the 2-week long conference on global warming happening in Copenhagen, Denmark. This year's event has garnered considerable attention given the recent exposure of fraud on the climate change issue.

As the UK Telegraph points out, however, it seems the leading proponents of the evils of global warming are doing their fair share of contributing to the crisis that they are warning all of us about. The Copenhagen Conference seems to be going up in smoke--carbon dioxide, that is. The Telegraph reports that there have been 140 private planes and 1,200 limos being used by those who have come to Copenhagen.

Perhaps some may consider this little factoid an irrelevant point of emphasis. But these are the kinds of things that seriously undermine the credibililty of the Goracle and the rest of the "Chicken Littles" in the environmentalist movement. When their carbon footprint for one event--an event intended to reduce carbon footprints no less--is large enough to overshadow the energy usage of a small country, something is amiss. When those who are attempting to lead the movement are unwilling to follow their own admonitions, what does that say to the rest of us? Either those folks are okay with their hypocrisy, or perhaps they know something the rest of us don't about the true reality of the "global warming crisis." Perhaps it's not such a crisis after all. Otherwise, wouldn't those who care the most about this issue being making every effort to combat it? (Why not fly commercial and use public transportation like the rest of the world in order order to reduce the carbon footprint?)

UPDATE: There proves to be a record-breaking carbon footprint that the climate changers have left in Copenhagen after 2 weeks of deliberations about our impending doom. It was to be expected, but as this post attempted to emphasize, the whole affair smacks of "Do as we say, not as we do." Even the liberals are forced to admit that that is ALOT of carbon emissions, but are figuring out ways to justify this unavoidable dilemma. (So as to ease the conscience, and push the movement forward? Perhaps...)

Obama's eulogy at West Point

Last night at our United States Military Academy at West Point, President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech outlining his strategy in Afghanistan. As you may or may not know, General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. military forces in that war, came to Obama over three months ago requesting that additional troops be sent to help in a move similar to the surge which proved successful in Iraq. Obama's speech was his answer--an answer that has many disappointed on both sides of the aisle. For many of the young soldiers sitting in the audience, it was seen as a eulogy suggesting that the real chance for victory in Afghanistan is dead.

Given that Obama has agreed to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal has renewed his vow to take the fight to the Taliban. And because we have such noble men and women in harm's way (with more to come over the next 18 months), we should wholeheartedly support their efforts.

The challenge for someone in Obama's position (that is, someone with a far left base, combined with a country that is middle-right) is how to please everyone. As any leader knows the difficult decisions forged in the crucible of real-life make this desire all but impossible. And yet, Obama is giving it his best effort--trying to please the right by providing a quasi-surge in Afghanistan, while appealing to the left by offering an actual pull-out date of July 2011 (though it will be interesting to see how this date is adjusted as the realities of war--and the 2012 presidential election--affected the President). His is not in an enviable position by any means, but that is the nature of the job as Commander-in-Chief.

It does cause one to wonder, does Obama really want us to win? On the plus side, he did finally agree to send more troops (though not as many as McChrystal said he needed). So, there is the perceived desire to win, or at least, pass the job off to the Afghanis. On the negative side, by setting a pullout date, has he not telegraphed the gameplan? For the Taliban, what's to keep them from simply holding out until the Americans have left and then taking over again, just as they had before we arrived? Nothing of real consequence. (Yes, the Afghan military does have a significant role to play in their own protection, but they will never provide the necessary counter-measure to tyranny that the U.S. military power embodies.)

And so, it raises some significant questions: Are we in it to win it, or not? Why pull out in 18 months? Why not longer? Or sooner? And more significantly, if we are going to pull out, then why send 30,000 of America's best men and women to potentially suffer and die in battle if we are not there to win in the end?

Where war is concerned, I would echo President Reagan's terse response to the question about his strategy in the Cold War: "We win. They lose." In my heart, I truly wish war was not necessary, but the presence of evil in the world necessitates a response--even a response of war at times. And until we achieve that utopia that all of our liberal friends dream of, meeting violence with violence is sometimes necessary (as I've alluded to before). To go in half-heartedly suggests that it is better to have not gone in at all. Our brave men and women (and those we are trying to free and protect) desire so much more than that. The question is whether or not Obama's new strategy will give it to them.

UPDATE: Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates correctly pointed out that failure in Afghanistan will have severe consequences for the United States.

The power of story

Folks, sorry for the delay in putting something up here at TDD. With the holiday festivities and the lingering effects from the Thanksgiving injection of tryptophan, I've been negligent in keeping up with the latest cultural happenings and passing them on to you.

I ran across this commentary by John Harris over at the Politico concerning the power of story, especially as it relates to President Obama. We as people are influenced by stories. From Jesus' parables to the illustrations in a book or speech, we connect with stories. For many people, a person's story reveals points of connection and commonality with those who hear it. (Example: I just finished reading Sarah Palin's autobiography, Going Rogue, and had a spontaneous conversation with a lady at our local coffeshop who emphasized exactly that. In fact, Palin's story is one of the reasons why her book outsold Hillary Clinton's autobiography in just one week.)

Harris insightfully points out that in today's media-saturated age, the politician who gets their story in the minds of the people wins--a feat which the Obama campaign executed with enviable efficiency. (In fact, I'm just starting into David Plouffe's fascinating account of the campain, The Audacity to Win. Plouffe was Obama's campaign manager and one of the chief architects of that historic campaign.)

The interesting thing about people's connection to stories is that people will tend to buy into a well-crafted story--even if that story proves to be more fairy tale than truth. As Harris points out, that is the danger that Obama is running into. A danger that could perhaps be just the creation of the antagonistic opposition, or simply the result of his own making.

Take a look at the Politico's "7 stories Obama doesn't want told" and judge for yourself whether there is merit to them or not. I'm sure that your political persuasion will heavily influence your take on their merit, but they are worth considering regardless. Because the outcome of these storylines can have significant impact no matter which side of the political aisle any of us is on.

UPDATE: Interestingly, the Palin reference above seems to drawn more attention than the main point of the post. Thus, it seems worth noting that HarperCollins reported on Tuesday that Palin's memoir has surpassed the 1 million mark in just two weeks.

FOX News outfoxed...

...by incompetence or stupidity--or both? Hard to say without all of the facts. But it's come to light that FOX News used misleading footage this week showing Sarah Palin "at a book signing" with huge crowds when in reality, the crowds shown were actually from a 2008 rally during the presidential campaign. It could have been attributed to honest mix-up, and FOX News has apologized. The only problem is that this is the second time in as many weeks that the news organization has made the same kind of error.

I have always appreciated the attempts by FOX News to share the sides of a story that would never make it into the same story as told through the liberal MSM lens. Though their more conservative bias is hardly hidden, their mantra of being "fair and balanced" can be seen simply by that role they play in providing a counterweight to the MSM.

This is why, in my opinion, these kinds of errors are absolutely unacceptable. For any news organization, the ability to establish trust with your audience should be paramount to all other priorities. If trust is lost, what is left? And for a news organization like FOX News in particular, doctoring footage or stories to present a slant is especially disappointing. More than that, it is gross negligence. FOX already faces daily criticism from the MSM and the increasingly vocal liberal camps. Which is why there is all the more reason to be extra vigilant with the facts, given the fact that the libs are looking for any excuse to fire the deadly salvo which will cripple the FOX juggernaut.

FOX News is certainly not alone is this tendency to utilize footage to do more than report a story. Though there are many who are reluctant to admit it, the MSM has turned it into an art form. And certainly there are the usual liberal antagonists who continually argue that that is what FOX News does all the time anyway. But the advantage that FOX has held (which has jettisoned them to the top of the news reporting heap as they continue to outstrip the competition) is being the more conservative voice to counter-balance the daily dose of liberal bias being promoted on the MSM channels.

The astute news consumer should be one who filters the news from all sources--be it the MSM, FOX News, or whatever internet site one visits regularly. But if FOX begins to make a habit of this kind of lowbrow news reporting, the trust they have built with their audience over the years will erode. And worse yet, they will be no different than those news organizations with whom they are competing for our attention.

The "jobs saved" numbers were inflated?

Not long ago, the Obama adminstration proudly announced the jobs that they said had been saved through the stimulus recovery plan. Now, however, it seems the Obama administration may have over inflated the statistics. And it's got one Democratic heavyweight hoppin' mad. As Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) stated in no uncertain terms:

"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes. Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now."

Rep. Obey is exactly right. And it is refreshing to see him step beyond the expected partisan bias in order to address the issue straightforwardly. As difficult as hard truth is, we will never determine the road to recovery if we are unwilling to recognize the obstacles in our way. Special thanks to this prominent Democrat for his efforts to do just that. 

Dancing around the Truth

"Okay, enough with the dead horse already, Crane." :) Maybe, but I keep harping on this issue of Truth, because it is so fundamental, especially regarding something as life-altering as terrorist attacks. And it seems others are recognizing it as well.

This excellent article by Michael Goodwin points out how President Obama has been dancing around the harsh realities of the Ft. Hood massacre. (God forbid we call it terrorism.) Furthermore, over at the Culture and Media Institute, Carolyn Plocher and Dan Gainor point out how the MSM has been downplaying the connection between the terrorist act at Ft. Hood and Islam. Can we not call it what it is? How does downplaying the true reality help us in the long run?

This will continue to be a significant issue until the Islamic jihadists decide to lay down their car bombs (which they won't). And with the 9/11 terrorists' trials having been moved from Guantanamo Bay to NYC, the question of Truth will now be put to the test. Amidst the inevitable legal wrangling, let's hope Truth prevails in the end. The families of victims deserve justice, and so does the country.