President Obama had not taken a question from a New York Times reporter in his previous press conferences, so what did the Times‘ Jeff Zeleny ask last night when he finally got his chance?

During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office? Enchanted you the most from serving in this office? Humbled you the most? And troubled you the most?

Enchanted? Man, this sure is one tough press corps. Can you imagine someone from the Times asking President Bush what enchanted him the most while in office? Maybe but only if they phrased it something like this: “President Bush, which mistake you have made has enchanted you the most?”

Striking fear into my own heart was the president’s assertion last night: “We are off to a good start, but it is just a start.” Oh may the next 1,300-plus days of this presidency pass quickly. That, of course, is wishful thinking, forgetting that ultimately God is on the throne. Here on Earth, however, the assertions from Obama are breathtaking, and particularly so last night in regard to interrogation techniques used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and (but a few) other high-level terrorists:

“Could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques?” the president asked, seeming to know the answer. “And it doesn’t answer the broader question: Are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?”

Are we safer as a result of having dropped a bomb on Hiroshima? Are we safer as a result of lowering the speed limit to 55 mph on some highways? Are we safer for limiting liquids on airplanes?

Such questions cannot be answered in the hypothetical, unless, of course, you are God. By mortals they can only be answered in the aggregate, and the aggregate on the safety of Americans since 9/11 is that, yes, we are safer as a result of a whole range of security measures (that could include the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists) put in place following the attacks on New York and Washington.

But since this administration and this congressional leadership see themselves fully up to the task of answering a hypothetical, they might try one proposed by the former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, writing in Sunday’s Washington Post:

In surprisingly good English, the captive quietly answers: ‘Yes, all thanks to God, I do know when the mujaheddin will, with God’s permission, detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States, and I also know how many and in which cities.” Startled, the CIA interrogators quickly demand more detail. Smiling his trademark shy smile, the captive says nothing. Reporting the interrogation’s results to the White House, the CIA director can only shrug when the president asks: “What can we do to make Osama bin Laden talk?”

Scheuer calls this a worst-case scenario now possible since the publication of the Justice Department interrogation memos. His point underscores the reality that Obama in feeding the memo controversy is willing not only to go after Bush and Cheney but an array of military and intelligence leaders, analysts, and other experts who spent years before and since 9/11 tracking and thwarting terrorist attacks on the United States.

The former CIA official actually likens Obama to Bush as “a genuine American Jacobin,” with both former and present commanders in chief “seeing the world as they want it to be, not as it is.” And so as the political farce plays out in coming weeks—and farce it is, else Democrats, for whom the memos are old news, would actually be moving toward prosecutions rather than wringing their hands over the prospect of them—Scheuer concludes that “Americans can be confident that both parties will play politics to the hilt while letting the nation’s safety take the hindmost.”

If you’re wondering what to do to avoid swine flu, here’s what Vice President Joe Biden recommended on Today this morning:

“I would tell members of my family—and I have—that I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now.”

What about flying on airplanes, especially to Mexico?

“It’s not just going to Mexico, if you’re in a confined aircraft and one person sneezes it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. I would not be at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway.”

That didn’t set well with American Airlines’ spokesperson Tim Smith:

“To suggest that people not fly at this stage of things is a broad brush stroke bordering on fear mongering.”

It also didn’t please James May, president of the Air Transport Association, who sent a letter to Biden expressing his displeasure, nor did it make U.S. Travel Association President Roger Dow happy:

“Elected officials must strike a delicate balance of accurately and adequately informing citizens of health concerns without unduly discouraging travel and other important economic activity.”

Of course, two hours after the vice president made his remarks, his office offered a clarifying statement:

“The advice he is giving family members is the same advice the administration is giving to all Americans: that they should avoid unnecessary air travel to and from Mexico. If they are sick, they should avoid airplanes and other confined public spaces, such as subways.”

“There is no profile,” says Columbine expert Dave Cullen, speaking of school shooters in his new book, Columbine. What’s more, most of the myths we believed about Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold have been disproven. They were not racist Goths, hell-bent on retribution for being tortured by bullies or teased by jocks. But they were one thing: angry. Filling their journals with hatred and rage, both boys showed an inordinate amount of frustration toward what they perceived as a system that was set on turning them into non-thinking zombies. They turned this wrath toward themselves in fantasizing about suicide, and toward others in delighting at the prospect of large-scale annihilation, and toward God in scathing diatribes against Him.

The occasion of the 10-year anniversary of the Columbine massacre, which was last week, is perhaps a good time to reevaluate the Harris/Klebold murders and ask, once again, the question without answer, “Why?” Why would two boys from affluent, stable, two-parent homes build bombs in the basement and storm into a school with sawed-off shotguns?

Both sets of parents agreed to meet with the victim’s families to answer to the best of their ability these sorts of questions. I can only imagine what went on behind those doors, the difficult position those mothers and fathers were in, trying to explain what went so very wrong with their sons when they themselves were wracked with guilt and, most likely, wondering the same thing. Perhaps when the records of these conversations are unsealed in 2027, we will all have more clarity.

One thing is for sure, though: These boys felt an overwhelming sense of hopelessness. While claiming no religion, tough guy Eric, leader out of the two boys, wrote a journal called “The Book of God,” in which he spilled his venom by the page. Humans were pathetic automatons, too stupid to think, bound by self-imposed laws that kept us silently agreeable all the way to our deathbeds. He resented medicine that kept the weak or sick alive and fantasized of a world filled with nuclear holocaust, biological warfare, and death.

Dylan, the more sensitive of the two, did claim faith in God. Even though his family was not active in church, he considered himself deeply religious and occasionally went on holiness sprees where he denied himself alcohol, removed video games like Doom from his computer, and stopped mocking other kids. He did this to cleanse himself but felt angry that God never seemed to fulfill His end of the deal. In his mind, God turned into a brutal master, set on torturing Dylan, much like He did Job. Filled with anger and self-hatred, Dylan began to crave death, just like Eric did.

Since 1999’s attack, police and psychologists have been busy trying to write how-to guides to help authorities identify threats. One hundred percent of school shooters have been male, most came from solid two-parent homes, and most did not “snap” but planned their attacks well in advance. Only half were involved with video games and less than that were interested in violent movies. What then drives a child to such level of darkness?

Judith Warner, a New York Times blogger, in her recent ironically titled “This I Believe,” claims to be content with “. . . a very abstract sense of faith—or religion, or God, or whatever you want to call it. . . .” A little Judaism here, a little Episcopalian there, a sprinkling of Unitarianism to top it off seems to work for her. She mentions that, according to Newsweek, having such a cobbled together faith is becoming more and more common.

Apparently, any parent unevolved enough to actually teach their child to follow their faith is doing more harm than good. To prove her point, Warner quotes Darwin: “It is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, while the brain is impressionable, appears almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason.”

In other words, the best thing we can do is let our children pick for themselves what is good, lovely, and true and hope for the best. Kind of like packing the house with Sour Patch Kids and doughnuts and hoping the kids eat salad. Reality hits here: Left to themselves, with no exposure to God, what child would choose faith? They are immature, self-seeking, and often oblivious to that which is outside their experience. And many postmodern parents, like Warner, believe that teaching, showing, or God forbid living a life of faith, might produce that worst of scenarios: the child following it. What a disaster. No independent thought. No individual reasoning. Just an animalistic, instinctual, zombie-like mimicking of Mom and Dad.

This last week I witnessed just such unacceptable behavior. Sitting hour upon hour (abuse!) with their parents, children filled the sanctuary of our Easter service, listening and watching with wonder as each element of the service unfolded. I overheard parents whispering quietly, pointing to this or that, explaining why we cross ourselves, what the Bishop is doing now, and . . . with a parent’s voice singing softly in their ear, children were indeed learning tunes and words and Scripture and, even unaware, learning firsthand what a life of faith, belief, and worship looks like.

Just a few years and miles away from Columbine, I sat in a required ninth grade unit study on death and dying. We were reading books like Shirley MacLaine’s Out on a Limb and Kubler Ross’ On Death and Dying, dressing Barbie dolls in black funeral garb and conducting grave rubbings at our local cemeteries. Teen angst and changing bodies notwithstanding, the lesson was crystal clear: Moving toward the light was OK. Finding God was not.

It is in this state that Harris and Klebold found themselves in the months preceding the murders and their own deaths. Dylan wanted meaning, something bigger than himself to live for, a purpose, a point. In the absence of religious instruction or guidance, he honed in on Eric, who offered him just this, but with an evil twist. Cleansing himself turned to cleansing the population of scum. Seeking God turned into seeking attention. Sick as it was, he now had a purpose, something to live for, hope.

Whatever the case, we are amiss, even as believers, to think that we can let go, create a non-religious environment, and wish for the best. Kids need to hear hope. They need to know that they were created for a purpose. They need reminding that God numbers the hairs on their head, knows their frame, has their names written in the Book of Life, and that He counts their tears and puts them in a bottle.

Maybe when the thumbscrews of life start turning, when our kids are asking the tough questions, and questioning their existence and God and parents and their purpose and what is the point and why should I and why shouldn’t I and all matter of other things, they might be able to reach back into the corners of their minds and sweep into the light a knowledge of the God who has been there all along.

Under a new restructuring plan proposed by General Motors this week, the automaker is weighing a deal with the government that would give majority ownership of the company to good ole Uncle Sam in exchange for forgiving $10 billion in federal loans.

Although the deal is far from a sure thing, the proposal has already raised concerns:

The Obama administration has said it isn’t interested in running an auto company, but with that big of a stake, some analysts say the government would probably be tempted to push its own policies on such issues as alternative fuel vehicles and unions. And that could affect the types of cars that roll off GM’s assembly lines.

“The fear here is that a company owned by the government would move toward the do-good results, not the bottom line,” said Gerald Meyers, a University of Michigan business professor and former CEO of American Motors Corp.

Michael Ettlinger, vice president for economic policy at the Center for American Progress, said he doesn’t believe that over the “long-term the federal government is interested in running companies.” But, historically, once the government gets involved in affairs, it has a hard time letting go–so would this case be any different?

Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past” (1 Samuel 15:32).

We are a people locked in time. There is an upside to that and a downside, and they are the same: We tend to forget. Or to put it more precisely, we may vaguely remember the event, but the emotional component has a short half-life. This is a good thing in that trauma diminishes after a while and we can function. But it is a bad thing when it corrupts righteousness. Feelings may dull; justice should not.

Agag is about to find out that not every human being succumbs to the corrupting potential of time passage.

The Amalekites had treated the fledgling nation of Israel shabbily in the wilderness and God had them targeted for destruction. King Saul was therefore ordered to take no prisoners, and especially to do away with Agag. Saul disobeyed. The prophet Samuel showed up some days later. When he summoned Agag into his presence, the captured warlord came with confidence, figuring that the heat of battle anger had passed by now. He didn’t know Samuel and he didn’t know God. Samuel slew him—for it wasn’t about feelings but about God’s will.

The current political atmosphere in Washington has been one of “dialogue” and reconciliation—with Cuba, Venezuela, Iran. The question bugging me is whether the impetus for this desire for thaw is justice or merely a mood, the psychological phenomenon that Agag was banking on (mistakenly, in Samuel’s case).

Gideon Gono, the central bank governor of Zimbabwe, admitted last week to siphoning private and foreign bank accounts into his country’s ailing ministries. His plea for his job was a page from old Agag’s playbook. Gono said it was time “to let bygones be bygones.”

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.

For the past few weeks I’ve been on a mission to clean out the clutter in our home. The impetus was mostly due to our church’s annual rummage sale this Saturday, to which I contributed a van load of odds and ends.  

In the midst of all this cleaning out, I found an odd assortment of things I had forgotten we had accumulated:

• a food scale for measuring exact portions;
• a device that enables you to safely slice a bagel in half;
• three tablecloths for a round table–an item that we no longer own;
• and two original Nintendo Game Boys.

Of course, these items are not nearly as strange as some of the things my parents had in their garage sales–items like a preserved piranha fish statue and a tarantula book weight (both compliments of my uncle from his travels in South America).

What are some of the oddest things you’ve accumulated over the years and later cleaned out?

Good morning!

Today’s quote is from an American author: “I watched Titanic when I got back home from the hospital, and cried. I knew that my IQ had been damaged.”

60 Minutes. Jay Leno. Speeches around the country. Three primetime press conferences. Magazine covers. I hear about President Obama every few minutes since I live in Washington, but do others outside the D.C. bubble feel like they’re hearing too much from the president? There’s been talk that he is “overexposing” himself.

From my perspective: the news cycle is 24 hours long now, and the appetite for information on the internet is insatiable. So it seems to me that the White House is simply surfing the information wave.

Speaking of an insatiable appetite for information….WORLD is tweeting the president’s news conference going on right now. He’s addressed the Freedom of Choice Act, Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democrats, and waterboarding – which he says is torture.

I haven’t seen anything about this reported in the mainstream media, but WORLD’s Emily Belz was on the scene yesterday covering North Korea Freedom Week activities in Washington, D.C. For the first time, the event, which attempts to call attention to human rights abuses in North Korea, had the vocal support of South Korea. Emily writes:

South Korean elections last year ushered in a new president, Lee Myung-bak, who is conservative and promised to draw a curtain over past administrations’ “Sunshine Policy” of peaceful coexistence with North Korea. Last fall, the government set up a commission to investigate human rights abuses in its northern neighbor, the sort of confrontational move the government had previously avoided. Then, for the first time, the country signed a United Nations resolution condemning North Korea’s human rights record.

The new leadership has emboldened South Korean groups to speak out more forcefully about what some are calling the greatest violation of human rights today. Thirty defectors from North Korea gathered for the rally as well—the largest number ever for North Korea Freedom Week in Washington.

South Korea’s ambassador for human rights, Jhe Seong Ho, came and spoke out at the events for the first time.

“We should not be ashamed to raise the North Korea issue,” he told me. “There is a widespread opinion that raising human rights is very confrontational or anti-spirit of unification. It is a wrong perception. Without improvement of North Korea human rights you can’t deal with unification of South and North Korea.”

Read Emily report in its entirety here.