The Daily Detour

Huckabee: Is it ever right for one person to own another?

Flurried activity seems to be the order of the day of late. And as I've said previously, I can't seem catch myself coming or going. This past weekend was no exception. But we're back for another week of commentary, and the topics begging to be blogged are increasing to the point of inundation. Many of you have offered suggestions, and/or made inquiries, about different topics you would like me to touch on, and I appreciate the input very much. I promise I'm working to accommodate those suggestions and requests as quickly and responsibly as possible. And in the meantime, keep 'em coming.

As I mentioned last week, we were able to go to the Life Centers (formerly CPC) annual "Celebration of Life" banquet here in Indianapolis last Thursday. Governor Mike Huckabee brought the keynote address, which proved compelling. It was a great evening all the way around, and the work that the Life Centers are doing is significant (with literally hundreds of babies saved from abortion this past year alone).

I want to pass along a couple of highlights from Gov. Huckabee's speech that were thought-provoking. One of the first points in his talk which caught my attention was his equating abortion with slavery. I certainly don't want to misrepresent his argument, so I'll do my best to articulate it as accurately as I can. (Next time I need to take better notes, because the fatigue factor with this newspaper route is currently wreaking havoc with my brain. :) He pointed out that the overriding rationale from the pro-choice crowd regarding abortion is centered on a woman's right to choose. That is to say, it is believed that a woman has a right to choose whatever course of action best serves her own interests. In that sense, she essentially owns the child in her womb, because as the abortion lobbies suggests, she has the right do what she wants with her body. I've postulated before that there is a fundamental assumption being made with this rationale that always seems to go unquestioned and unchallenged--namely, that the fetus is indeed a part of the woman's body. And that same question raises itself again here.

From a Christian point of view, there is a clear distinction between the woman's body and the unborn child within her body. To Huckabee's point, the decisions she makes with that child are analogous to assuming ownership over that child--much like one person may own another as they did during the days of slavery. But can we make a case that it is ever morally permissible for one person to own another? We cannot. And as Huckabee pointed out, even the most radically liberal pro-choice advocate would never suggest such a thing.

The other main portion of Huckabee's speech which caught my attention had to do with another point that I've raised here from time to time. He shared a number of anecdotes from the presidential campaign, including the time he was asked by a member of the media, "What is the most pressing issue facing America today?" He unequivocally answered that he believed the greatest issue facing this country was abortion. His rationale for such a position focused on the contention that unless we maintain a belief in the inherent dignity of all people, regardless of physique, race, religion, mental capacity, age, etc., we will begin to sow the seeds of our own eventual demise as a society. I couldn't agree more, and I was reminded of a quote from Drs. Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop which I have referenced here before. It is the opening lines from their seminal book, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, which while written over 30 years ago, is proving as applicable today as it was prophetic then:

Cultures can be judged in many ways, but eventually every nation in every age must be judged by this test: How did it treat people? Each generation, each wave of humanity, evaluates its predecessors on this basis. The final measure of mankind's humanity is how humanely people treat one another.

And indeed, this is the case. How do we treat humanity--and not just the more mature members of our human race, but especially the most vulnerable among us? If some of us have less rights than others, what does that say about us as a people? Taken to its logical conclusion, we have no moral or philosophical means to prevent the next genocide (e.g. Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Darfur, etc.).

As someone once asked regarding this pivotal issue of abortion, "Who determined that the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the child?" Our ability to recognize, and reconcile, this glaring inconsistency is one more critical step toward reclaiming the true worth of all human beings. This recognition is something that Governor Huckabee is championing across the country. It was good to hear him do so last Thursday night. 

Loving every ugly duckling

I had hoped to report on my experience down at yesterday's Tea Party here in Indianapolis, but have to put it off for at least another day until I can download the pictures.

For now, I wanted to pass along a brief thought related to the subject which came up on the comment board on yesterday's post concerning British singing sensation Susan Boyle. Her looks compared to her voice has caused considerable introspection for many people on both a cultural and personal level. What does our reaction to Ms. Boyle say about us and the values we choose embrace?

I'm currently reading the bestselling book, The Shack, . When I get done with it, I'll put up a review on it. But for now, I wanted to pass along this passage which captures the contrast between God's view of people and our own. (My apologies in advance if my efforts at formatting this transcription make it difficult to read. Hopefully you can catch the truth within the dialogue here):

Neither spoke for a time. Stillness had fallen like a blanket, and all Mack was really aware of was the sound of water lapping up against the dock. It was he who eventually broke the silence again.

“Jesus?”

“Yes, Mackenzie?”

“I am surprised by one thing about you.”

“Really? What?”

"I guess I expected you to be more"--be careful here, Mack--"uh...well, humanly striking."

Jesus chuckled. "Humanly striking? You mean handsome." Now he was laughing.

"Well, I was trying to avoid that, but yes. Somehow I thought you'd be the ideal man, you know, athletic and overwhelmingly good-looking."

"It's my nose, isn't it?"

Mack didn't know what to say.

Jesus laughed. "I am Jewish, you know. My grandfather on my mother's side had a big nose. In fact, most of the men on my mom's side had big noses."

"I just thought you'd be better-looking."

"By whose standards? Anyway, once you really get to know me, it won't matter to you."

The words, though delivered kindly, stung. Stung what, exactly? Mack lay there a few seconds and realized that as much as he thought he knew Jesus, perhaps he didn't...not really. Maybe what he knew was an icon, an ideal, an image through which he tried to grasp a sense of spirituality, but not a real person. "Why is that?" he finally asked. "You said if I really knew you it wouldn't matter what you looked like."

"It is quite simple really. Being always transcends appearance--that which only seems to be. Once you begin to know the being behind the very pretty or very ugly face, as determined by your bias, the surface appearances fade away until they simply no longer matter...."

The Bible reminds us that man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). And indeed that is true. Imagine what would change about our relationships with each other if we saw the being behind the appearance, if we viewed people the way God does? The truth is, we would find ourselves that much closer to the very heart of God. 

Indiana House passes feticide bill

This week the Indiana Statehouse voted 95-0 to support a feticide bill which "would impose up to 20 years in prison for crimes that lead to the death of an unborn child at any stage of development." It has previously passed the Indiana Senate on a 40-9 vote. Feticide involves the act of destroying a fetus or causing an abortion.

This legislation has been significantly influenced by the incident that happened last summer in which an Indianapolis bank teller was shot causing the premature delivery of her twin babies, both of whom ultimately died. One of the criteria for considering this whole issue of feticide was the viability" question. We won't be reiterating all of those issues again here, but I must say, it's encouraging to see our Indiana leaders taking such a definitive stand against the murder of unborn children.

On a different note, another issue that is gaining much attention in the Indiana Statehouse is the abuses that have been taking place against animals in puppy mills. Now, having grown up in the country and in the Crane family, I would be the first to support the appropriate protection of animals. After all, this junior "Crocodile Hunter" was always bringing in stray dogs, cats, turtles, snakes, rabbits, and anyone else who needed a home. We had the veritable wilderness zoo down at Crane Acres. :)

That said, I was struck by the seeming irony of the whole puppy mill crusade. While we can be heartened to see the recent action taken to protect innocent children, the fact is, that such protections are not always commonplace in the culture today. We are considered in the mainstream if we fight to "Save the whales" or "Save the puppies", and other animal-rights efforts. But if we choose to "Save the babies," we are painted as right-wing fanatics who are less-than-progressive in our approach to such issues. Beyond that, accusations of being one-issue voters are bandied about (as if working to save children should not be of highest priority).

Saving animals certainly has its place (after all, one would be hard-pressed to make a case for the appropriateness of Michael Vick's dog-fighting enterprise). But, let's not misplace our priorities. Can we not pursue the protection of our most vulnerable of human beings with the same, and even greater, fervency that with which we fight for our animals? Shouldn't we? I'm glad to see the our elected leaders took a firm step in that effort.

"...so people start to see transexual pregnancy as normal."

That's the stated motivation given by Ruben Noe Coronado as to why "he" went public with the birth of his twins. This is not the first time that a "man" has gotten pregnant. In fact, as we've discussed before, this effort first came to the public's attention with the much-publicized pregnancy of Thomas Beatie. Now with Ruben Coronado's pregnancy, the goal toward increasing the "normalcy" of transexual pregnancy is underway.

What do you think? Is this something in which we should simply let people live as they see fit? Or, is there a time for intervening due to larger social considerations? Over and above any particular moral parameters, it seems that a child born into the home of transgendered "father" may be at greater risk in their personal, social, and emotional development.

The struggle with instances such as this is the tension between allowing people to live by the dictates of their own conscience, while at the same time ensuring that their behavior is in conformity to the greater good of the larger society. Thus, there is within the spectrum of morality that cloudy gray area somewhere between right and wrong. How we determine what is right and what is wrong, particularly apart from God's moral Law, becomes increasingly difficult. And this is especially true in our postmodern culture. Moral relativity brings a sliding scale of morality that secures our cultural moorings to the shifting sands of personal preference. Such a "foundation" can't long survive.

Interstate windfall

In these tough economic times, you never know when you'll get your break. And who would think that your local neighborhood drug dealer would make all your dreams come true? That's exactly what many commuters on a southern California interstate thought as they drove down the highway in San Diego yesterday afternoon. A black truck was seen driving down the highway with the police in hot pursuit. Suddenly, a bundle of cash (over $17,000) was thrown out the window into the middle of the road.

What happened next was both expected, if not disappointing, as commuters came to a screeching halt. People jumped out of their cars and rushed to gather up as many of the $20 and $100 bills as they could get their hands on. As one witness reported, "I've never seen anything like this. People were literally risking their lives running into the highway."

This is not the first time we've heard of such stories. In fact, I remember a similar story of an armored car which turned over on a highway and thousands of dollars were spread all over the road. In that instance, people actually thought of it as God's provision for them. And I'm sure many people saw their good fortune in this particular instance as well.

Whenever I hear of these kinds of stories, I always wonder what I would do if faced with a similar situation. There is the question, "What would we do?", as well as, the more telling question, "What should we do?" Is such money simply free for the taking to whomever is willing to play a human version of "Frogger" in order to grab it? To the victor go the spoils?

Or, do we have some moral obligation to return such money that, it could be strongly argued, is not ours to begin with? I would like to think that people in those situations would do the right thing (like the little girl in a previous incident who turned in the handful of change she recovered to a local police station). Interestingly, in watching the CNN coverage of the event, the body language of those picking up the money seemed to display a certain level of self-consciousness. I certainly may be reading more into the footage than was actually there, but I wonder, "If those folks really thought it was okay to take the money, then why does their body language seem to project a sense of self-conscious guilt?" Often, one's conscience reveals one's moral compass.

It's easy to walk through life and assume we are good people, based on how we generally live. But it is those moments of decision when our true character shines forth. I hope, (and if I may be presumptuous, I believe) that I would make the right decision and turn in the the money to the authorities. It certainly would be nice to have the kind of cash infusion into our financial situation that such money would provide. But my own guilt-laden conscience could not justify keeping it.

Either way, the challenge for each of us is to consider those moments in our own lives when we're called to make the difficult choices. It may not be scavenging for drug money on the interstate, but the challenges remain--at work, at home, in our leisure time, etc. How do you respond? How should you respond?

A conversation with Peter Singer

(TDD Note: This post has become much longer than originally intended. But I would strongly encourage you to take the time to read it--and particularly the relevant links--in order to get a clear understanding of Peter Singer and why we all must pay attention to the world he would have us create.)

Truth be told, my time with Peter Singer might not officially count as a formal "conversation" per se, but I did have the opportunity to engage with him at the IUPUI event last Tuesday evening (more on that later...). As I mentioned earlier this week, my dad and I headed to downtown Indy to hear Peter Singer speak. (By the way, I was glad to see at least one of our own TDD readers there. Nate, you can keep me honest, and make sure I'm relating the evening accurately. :)

Mr. Singer was in Indianapolis to promote his latest book, The Life You Can Save, the premise of which is that we all need to be doing more to help alleviate poverty around the world. Given the extent of the evening and the limited space here, I simply want to try to include some of the highlights from my perspective and some of the thoughts I have related to the experience.

As I have mentioned previously, Mr. Singer actually established his career helping the modern animal rights movement gain traction in the 1970's with his seminal book, Animal Liberation. But it is his most recent bioethical positions which have gained him considerable attention and notoriety on the issues of euthanasia and infanticide among others. (In fact, his more recent emphasis on alleviating poverty is somewhat of a new arena for him.) For example, he has publicly written that parents should have up to 28 days after a child is born to determine if that child is viable. And if not, they should have the right to kill the child. Beyond that, he publicly advocates the right to kill the mentally and physically disabled and has had no qualms about presenting his positions in writing. (In fact, after Tuesday evening's event, I went to our local Barnes & Noble and transcribed about 10 pages from his book, Practical Ethics in which he logically articulates his positions on infanticide. For any of you who may not be familiar with his specific positions, I would strongly recommend that you take a few minutes to read these pages from his book--and pass them along to everyone you know. Essentially, he summarizes his infanticide position this way on page 191 of his book, "...the main point is is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.") 

It was no wonder then that there were a small handful of protesters on hand Tuesday night, including a couple of ladies who were in wheelchairs. All were holding placards and silently letting their voices be heard concerning the right to life and dignity for all human beings. When Dad and I arrived at the venue we went over to the protesters and made a point of talking with them, thanking them for their courageous stand, and letting them know that we were symbolically standing with them in their effort.

We arrived early, found a seat up near the front, and watch the room gradually fill to an almost-capacity crowd of perhaps 300-400 in attendance. As one might imagine, it seemed to be a more liberal, and therefore friendlier, audience for Mr. Singer. After his introduction by the head of the main philanthropy group at IUPUI, Mr. Singer spent the next hour making his case that we should all exert a greater effort in addressing global poverty. It was evident that he has spent much time considering this issue, and if you didn't know where he stood, you might have mistakened him for someone representing an evangelical Christian non-profit world relief organization. He talked about the needs, the giving percentages and practical suggestions about how to move forward in this effort. He also highlighted the website he has developed to further this cause.

Given Peter Singer's radical reputation, the evening's topic may have proven a bit anticlimatic for some. After all, who among us would not be in favor of ending poverty? We all were on the same page concerning that issue. It was interesting to note his challenge for people to give 1% of their annual income to address this crisis. This seemed a bit ironic coming from an atheist such as Singer, because if he were taking a Christian position, it would be biblically-sanctioned to challenge people to give 10% (not that Christians are always doing a consistent job of that, but the biblical foundation for a deeper commitment to ending poverty is certainly there.)

Where the evening got the most interesting for me was during the Q & A session following his talk. There were some good questions asked, most of which centered on the primary subject of the evening. I managed to secure a microphone in order to ask him a question that I was wrestling with concerning his overall philosophical consistency. Essentially, I brought the discussion back to the controversial positions has has taken on life and death issues and how all of that fits with his current emphasis on ending poverty. I anonymously referenced Dinesh D'Souza's article in Christianity Today particularly where he writes,

[Singer] argues that we are not creations of God but rather mere Darwinian primates. We exist on an unbroken continuum with animals. Christianity, he says, arbitrarily separated man and animal, placing human life on a pedestal and consigning the animals to the status of tools for human well-being. Now, Singer says, we must remove Homo sapiens from this privileged position and restore the natural order. This translates into more rights for animals and less special treatment for human beings. There is a grim consistency in Singer's call to extend rights to the apes while removing traditional protections for unwanted children, people with mental disabilities, and the noncontributing elderly.

My point to Mr. Singer was that assuming that this assessment of his position was true and that his goal is to elevate the status of animals and simultaneously remove human beings from their currently privileged status in order to better equalize the natural evolutionary continuum, then why should we help the poor? (Mind you, as I explained in my question, I think we should be helping the poor, and I applauded his efforts to do so. But the case has been made by some of my atheist friends that the dangers of overpopulation, as just one example, would make saving all of the poor actually counter-productive to the overall well-being of humanity in the long run. From a utilitarian [the ends justify the means] viewpoint, it may serve us all better to allow those who are on the lower end of the evolutionary continuum to suffer the natural consequences of the evolutionary order.) If Peter Singer's ultimate goal is to promote a utilitarian philosophy and work to create such an equilibrium, then his noble efforts to eradicate poverty seem to elevate the human race to a more privileged status. And more to my point Tuesday night, they seem to go against the overall philosophical positions he has taken concerning any kind of inherent dignity of human beings. 

His answer to me centered on the thread of suffering. It is his goal, he said, to see suffering alleviated. For those at the end of the life cycle, euthanasia is warranted to alleviate their pain. For those suffering from poverty, we have "a moral obligation," as he put it, to reach out and help improve their circumstances. Concerning the killing of infants, suffering is also one of the primary motivations for his position--namely, that by killing disabled infants we are alleviating the potential suffering they would presumably experience in life.

I wish I had the time and space to carry out the conversation I would want to have had with Peter Singer as a result of his answer to me. But this post is already growing longer than you may have time for. Suffice it to say, my final observation of the evening is what affected me the most, as I witnessed the audience's reaction to the justification of his position on killing infants. As he was articulating his answer to me, many of the people sitting around us were knowingly nodding their heads in silent assent. It was a very surreal moment to personally witness the seduction of the masss by this mild-mannered, articulate orator. How could so many in that crowd sit and give him support as he justified the extermination of those infants (and other disabled adults) who are deemed "less-than" the rest of us? Who are we to presume that we have the wisdom or the right to determine which lives are "not worth living"? And what is so insidiously dangerous about Peter Singer is that he is not as big of a pariah as he should be. There are many people who espouse extremely radical positions, and most often they are banished as outcasts to the fringes of society. But not so with Mr. Singer. Instead, he has been given a prominent platform at one of this country's leading universities (Princeton) in which to promote his outrageous views. Tragically, that fact alone is less of an indictment on him than it is on us and the deteriorating culture in which we find ourselves.

As I expected, it was a very interesting experience. I was glad to go, and certainly glad to be able to stand up and even attempt to present an alternative vision of the moral universe. I'm not sure how much good it did, but as I gave a thumbs-up to the disabled protesters in the back of the room on the way out the door, I'd like to think it was an encouragement to them if nothing else. 

UPDATE: Just ran across this article in NUVO, the alternative newspaper here in Indianapolis, which apparently had someone covering the Singer event. The article actually makes passing reference to my question during the Q & A. Glad to know someone was listening. :)

UPDATE: I said that Nate would keep me honest in my assessment of the evening with Singer, and indeed, he has. What I should have written to more accurately reflect Singer's emphasis on alleviating poverty versus his more controversial bioethical positions is that his controversial positions on infanticide and euthanasia have very much overshadowed his other emphasis on poverty. The suggestion that he is best known for his bioethical views was unintentionally overstated on my part. Thanks for the correction, Nate.

Who's right on morality--Peter Singer or the New Atheists?

In anticipation of my blog post about last night's event with Peter Singer, I'm currently putting together some background information concerning him, particularly for those of you who have heard me mention him over the years, but who may not ever actually have seen him or heard his positions on various bioethical issues. In the meantime, I did want to pass along the link to this very interesting article in Christianity Today by Dinesh D'Souza. (I actually had to transcribe this version from the magazine itself, since CT has not posted the original article on its website yet.) In it, D'Souza poses his contention that Peter Singer's extreme positions represent a more accurate and logical extension of the atheist worldview than the "Judeo-Christian moral framework" version being promoted by the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. He makes a compelling case that raises some very interesting ideas for us to consider. (I will be referencing the article again, as it relates to the exchange I had with Peter Singer last night. So it's worth the read in anticipation of that post.) 

An evening with Ravi Zacharias & Co.

As I mentioned briefly on Thursday I was privileged to be able to go down to Atlanta for a large community event with Dr. Ravi Zacharias and RZIM. It was a great opportunity to catch up with my good friends and fellow OCCA scholars, George Hiller and Mark Davies. I had a chance to chat with Ravi for a few minutes and connect with some other friends and colleagues from both RZIM and Oxford, including my fromer professor from Oxford, Dr. John Lennox (who will be debating Christopher Hitchens down in Birmingham, AL next Tuesday--due to the fact that Dinesh D'Souza had to cancel at the last minute) and Ian Smith (the Executive Director of the RZIM office in Oxford and the one primarily responsible for getting me involved in the OCCA program last summer).

The event itself was very well attended (with nearly 4,500 people at the Civic Center). Dr. Lennox was first in the batting order giving his response to the primary question under discussion, "Is faith delusional?". He was then followed up by Dr. Zacharias, and they concluded the evening with a time of Q & A. The entire evening started at 7:00 p.m. and didn't conclude until about 9:30 p.m. And as you can imagine, the rich content was like trying to drink from a fire hydrant. :) Thus, since I wouldn't do it justice to try to bring all of the excellent content to you, we'll just put our Dixie cup up to the fire hydrant and see if we can capture just a few drops. (Given the confines of this post and the fact that I don't expect you to spend the next hour reading it, I'll simply provide a few ideas from my notes. Naturally, there are gaps in my notes that may present an idea in only a limited sense since I'm unable to provide the full context for the comments. Perhaps we'll have more opportunity to get into further discussion on the comment board or in future posts. NOTE: Quote marks represent my personal notes, not necessarily exact quotations from the speakers.)

From Dr. John Lennox:

"Can we ever actually get absolute proof of anything? The New Atheists believe that faith is blind. We can agree with the New Atheists that blind faith is dangerous. But, is Christianity based on blind faith? The argument can be made that it is not."

"The key question in determining just who his delusional: Does God exist? Faith is delusional if God doesn't exist. But what if He does exist?"

"A certain amount of faith is involved in science. Thus, if faith is delusional, then so is science. Scientists have to believe from the beginning that science has an inherent order to it. Otherwise, the study of science becomes pointless."

"How does Darwinian evolution account for religious belief? If it is an evolutionary misfiring, wouldn't/shouldn't it cease to exist?"

"Does there really need to be a dichotomy between either science or faith?"

From Dr. Ravi Zacharias:

"The atheist worldview, based on evolutionary science, ultimately reduces the universe to meaninglessness. The notion of evil correspondingly assumes some notion of good. And good assumes some standard of goodness. From where does that standard come if not from a ultimate moral Law-giver?"

"Quoting Aldous Huxley's idea: 'I have motives for not wanting the world to have meaning...' To assume this world has no meaning frees one to do away with moral restrictions."

"Concerning the existence of God: If you take any physical quantity in the universe and section it, you will never find its origin of existence in itself. This points to the possibility of an external source."

"Whenever you see intelligibility or specified complexity, you will always assume an intelligence behind it. For example, if you saw group of rocks in a field lined up in the shape of triangle, you might be able to reasonably assume that they got through through unintended means. But if, in that same field, you came across a piece of paper with "Dear John, thanks for your letter. Keep in touch.", you will never assume any explanation less than an intelligence behind it."

"Regarding the response to God from the New Atheists: Richard Dawkins has famously compared belief in God to belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Certainly, children believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy when they are little. But there comes a time when they cease to believe in such figments of imagination. What is true, however, if that no person ever comes to belief in the Tooth Fairy when they are an adult. Also, It is interesting to note that the anger with which many of the New Atheists speak against (the imaginary) God you would never speak against the Tooth Fairy (which we know doesn't exist). Perhaps that anger confirms in the truth in the back of their minds--that God actually does exist?"

There was much more, but this should suffice to provide us some spirited conversation. :) All in all, it was a great trip. Special thanks to Dave, or first-rate chauffer around Atlanta, as well as, Ryan for the late night conversation Thursday night. It more than made up for the lack of sleep. :)

The stimulus is upon us...whether we like it or not.

And just like that, we've now officially added another $1 Trillion (with a "T") to the national debt. It's all happening so fast it's difficult to keep up with. Actually, it's not happening as fast as it could have, had Obama not waited the four additional days from its final passage in the Congress to when he signed it into law on Tuesday (as some of you already pointed out on a previous post).

Interestingly, Obama's frantic push to pass the stimulus at all costs doesn't seem to have received the kind of enthusiastic response across the country that one would expect of such a lifesaving measure. Perhaps the American people know something that Obama & Co. don't? Here's just a sampling of the readers' comments in today's "Let It Out" column in our Indianapolis Star:

"It's getting so bad around my house that the tooth fairy left us an IOU."

"Over the past few weeks, it's become very obvious why Congress has such a low approval rating."

"If charter schools are so great, can we have a charter government and pick who to give our taxes to?"

And in the comic section, Mallard Fillmore shows a smartly dressed lawyer testifying before the judge. He says,

"Your Honor, my client merely took the victim's wallet, gave some of the money away, gave some back to the victim...and kept some for administrative expenses... That's not 'robbery'...it's 'stimulus'!"

But with his usual rapier wit, Resident Atheist's imagery captures the situation in which we find ourselves:

I was thinking about the timing, too, Eric. Obama is screaming about the need for action, but waits four days for the photo op?

If he really wanted to make a statement, he should have gotten a picture of himself signing it in his pj's the night it was passed. [Better yet], he could have had Pelosi and Reed there in their robes for a big Democratic slumber party. They could have had humus on flat bread then a pillow fight with big sacks of our money.

All humor aside, this quote from Abraham Lincoln (who, ironically, is being referenced regularly by the Obama administration) captures the insidious forces at work in our nation these days: "America will never be destroyed from outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." This insight from 'Ole Abe has never been more honest.

UPDATE: One of the other overlooked realities of Obama's trip to Denver was referenced yesterday by one radio commentator. He noted the irony that Obama used more gas than the average American uses over 30 years to travel specifically to Denver in order to highlight the supposed environmental crisis we face and the need to pursue alternative energy sources. I wonder if the radical environmentalists noted the irony?

Am I hearing this right?

Instead of watching "Chuck" tonight (as I had hoped), all programming has been substituted with President Obama's prime time address attempting to sell his economic stimulus plan. Again, he was quick to remind us that he has inherited a $1 Trillion deficit. Simultaneously, he went on to challenge the American people that we need to take whatever means are necessary to ensure the future of our children and grandchildren. So, as we referenced briefly last week, the solution to our crisis (and likewise, the way to ensure that our children survive) is to tack on an additional $1 Trillion deficit to what we already have. I'm still struggling to see exactly how that is going to make life better for Caleb, Andrew, Mark, and Emma!?!

And bear in mind, I'm someone who falls into that camp of unemployed workers who are struggling to make ends meet. The danger is that we allow the tyranny of the urgent to force us into believing that we must take hasty and ill-advised action, and worse yet, subvert our core values and principles, in order to meet the crisis. There is no doubt that we are in a crisis. But as I've said before, there is more than one alternative, despite Obama's government-fueled solutions to this crisis. Until he is willing to genuinely entertain other alternatives to national problems, he will not be unifying the country, but rather, only speaking for a certain percentage of the country in a way that promotes disenfranchisement.

Again, the underlying message from President Obama is, "Your government will save you." And that is where I diverge significantly from the basic philosophy of our president. As Ronald Reagan succinctly pointed out, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language: 'I'm from the government and I'm hear to help.'" There is an ancient proverb which captures the tension well: "...the borrower is a slave to the lender." When it comes to getting handouts from the government, we forgot that principle at our peril. 

UPDATE: I must say it has been interesting to watch the Q & A portion of this press conference. It seems that either the media's honeymoon love affair with Obama from the presidential election is done, or the media have finally decided to embrace their role as the nation's investigative watchdogs. But from where I'm sitting, the softball questions have been replaced with a few curveballs. If nothing else, it's entertaining to watch. :)