I'm Schizophrenic, and So am I
by R.C. Sproul Jr.

Times are hard for the pro-life movement. A rival to the National Right to Life Committee is being hatched, this one actually affirming the Right to Life, that it is never right to kill an unborn child. What scraps we get from our "pro-life" president are being snatched up like, well, like scraps given to a starving person. We watch with expectation to see if Sandra Day O'Conner will retire, forgetting that she was appointed by the most "pro-life" president since Roe v. Wade, and conveniently forgetting that W expressly denied that he would use the abortion issues as a litmus test for nominating justices.

The tastiest crumb just recently hit the floor. The AP reports it this way: The Bush administration handed abortion opponents a symbolic victory Thursday, classifying a developing fetus as an "unborn child" as a way of extending prenatal care to low-income pregnant women. The plan allows states to extend health insurance to fetuses—or even embryos—from the moment of conception by enrolling them in the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

So let me see if I get this straight. As far as the federal government is concerned, states may provide health insurance for unborn children, but they may not prosecute doctors who murder those same unborn children. I wonder if you can get life insurance. The question is, which side of this equation is compassionate, and which side is conservative?

This is the fruit of decades of compromise. Perhaps more deadly fruit lies ahead. While the National Organization of Some Women worry about what this will mean for their cause, I'm concerned with what it will mean for the elderly. If affirming personhood and giving health insurance doesn't mean that the state recognizes your right to live, what of all the elderly on Medicare? Yes, we'll cover your medical expenses, and our conservative president hopes soon your medication, but that doesn't mean we'll keep anyone from killing you. Welcome to our brave new world.

All Fit News We Print
by Laurence Windham

Good morning, it's Friday, February 7th. I'm Bob Edwards and this is All Things Considered (from a liberal standpoint) In other words, welcome to our slant of all we think you should consider. The sad problem with all of us and the media is that we really do want to know what is going on. We want the whole story. And they just don't deliver. For example, did you hear about the recent shooting at a law school here in western Virginia? Fact: a depressed and deranged student came to the campus and opened fire with a handgun. Fact: several students were injured with some fatalities. Fact: The gunman was subdued by fellow students until the police arrived. Fact: the students who stopped the rampage before there was more bloodshed did so by brandishing their own handguns. Now it's Quiz Time boys and girls. Of the tour facts mentioned above, which one was not included in 98% of the news agencies reports to the public? Right. The righteous use of firepower. How could such an important part of a story be omitted? Can you imagine reporters asking the young men who went into harm's way how they managed to subdue the assailant. "Well, we ran to our cars, got our pistols, and ran back, drew down on him, and told him to drop his weapon." "And what was his reaction when he found himself staring into the business end of your guns" "Well, he put his gun down" "He didn't keep shooting helpless people?" "Uh, no." The Reporter, (to himself) "not much of a story here. Too bad one of them wasn't a gay soccer player. The story might have been a good one."

Go On, Take Your Money, Enron
by Jonathan Daugherty

I was sold a pretty sad story the other day. Well, they tried anyway. It is, in fact, the only story that can compete with the "war" and the Olympic games going on right now. They told the story of the thousands of faithful employees who have "lost" their life savings due to the devaluation of their 401(k) plans since the collapse of Enron. That would be a little bit like me saying that I lost $20 million in the state lottery this last Saturday (even if I had put a federal reserve note down). A wise man, Franklin Sanders, once taught me that retirement funds such as these are not yours until you actually cash them in. Until then, they are only promises that if things go like "x", you may cash it in for "y", after "z" amount of time, maybe. The story didn't mention the lack of wisdom of these people in depending on the stock market to keep all of one's savings. Nor did the story mention the great amount of risk these poor people embraced in choosing for their funds to depend completely (or nearly) on the value of stock from a single company. Stocks are not cash. If they were, all of them would lose value every day.

I am not saying that no one was lied to. But I am not sure we should expect honesty from corporate executives either. Corporations are anti-covenantal. They exist only by law and government license. Their purpose is none but to get out of responsibility. And the governments they pay for are, more often than not, all to happy to oblige them.

There is a sad story though. And it includes thousands of honest workers who had real contracts with Enron and to whom Enron owes thousands and millions for completed work. They are being told that the corporation is "bankrupt" and that there is not a single dodger in Houston who has the least bit of honor to keep his promises.