Donald Trump has made some rather unorthodox picks for his cabinet. Perhaps that is to be expected in light of what he said on the campaign trail. But I still was not prepared for his decision to tap Dr. Ben Carson as his next secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Months ago I suggested to my radio audience that if Donald Trump was elected president, he would likely pick Ben Carson as Surgeon General or perhaps pick him as the secretary of Health and Human Services. Picking him to head up housing and urban development didn’t seem like the right place for his gifts.

Former Governor Mike Huckabee once tweeted that Ben Carson’s best qualification was that he once lived in public housing. That is not true. But it might have been true, if it weren’t for Ben Carson’s mother. Armstrong Williams tweeted that she worked three jobs at a time to keep them out of public housing.

It is true that Ben Carson spent his early years around people who lived in public housing. And in his testimony last month said that he “understood what housing insecurity was.” His rags-to-riches experience will help him sympathize with the millions of Americans who utilize HUD programs.

Of course, he also brings his expertise from serving on the corporate boards of Kellogg’s and Costco. And we shouldn’t forget the time and effort he put into the Carson Scholars Fund that awards students who excel academically and are dedicated to serving their communities.

Dr. Carson has said that government often counts success by the number of people in public housing. He says we should count success based on the number of people we get out of public housing. He will have a $32 billion budget. He might start by asking, if the government gave you $32 billion to deal with poverty and housing, would you use it the way HUD currently uses it?

I am eager to see how he would answer that question.

Hate crime laws have been in the news quite a bit lately. That is why it might be wise to evaluate how effective they have really been in dealing with crime.

Dylan Roof was given the death penalty by jurors in the South Carolina courtroom. They would certainly have given him the same verdict even if he had not been convicted a month earlier of federal hate crime laws.

Four African-American youths have already been charged for hate crimes in Chicago. They face multiple counts of kidnapping and battery because of their gagging, scalping, and torturing a special needs teenager.

On the other hand, you have the Army Major Nidal Hasan shooting soldiers in Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akbar.” We were told that was not a hate crime or even a terrorist act. It was merely another example of “workplace violence.”

A few decades ago, when states and then the federal government wanted to label hate crimes, the concept made some sense. In the criminal justice system, we do have certain factors that can be sentence multipliers. A crime that is premeditated can be given a greater punishment than a crime of passion. Politicians wanted to increase punishments for acts that were considered to be racist or sexist.

The problem with such a designation is two-fold. First, hate crimes are poorly defined and have become politicized. Some of the crimes are considered hate crimes, while others are not. There doesn’t seem to be any consistency. Moreover, additional categories like sexual orientation, disability, and others keep getting added to the criteria of a hate crime.

A second problem with hate crime laws is they seek to punish thought. Conservatives and civil libertarians may not agree on much, but many of them are concerned about laws that not only assess the crime but also the mental state of the criminal committing the crime. The criminal justice system should punish criminal acts not hateful thoughts.

That’s why I think it’s time to rethink hate crime legislation.

Children spend an enormous amount of their day with electronic media. That is what a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation was able to document.

When you add together time spent with television, cell phones, video games, and computers; it essentially becomes a full-time job of more than 53 hours. Needless to say, this is a dramatic increase from over a decade ago. And nearly twice as many now say that they do at least two of these at the same time.

The findings of the survey of over 2,000 young people ages 8 to 18 found that their digital day lasted more than seven hours a day. The primary media inputs were television and music. But substantial amounts of time were also spent on the computer and playing video games.

Although time spent with electronic media is increasing, the researchers did find one area that was decreasing: ink. Daily book readership remained somewhat steady (probably because schools still require them to read books), but reading a magazine dropped 20 percent and reading a newspaper dropped nearly 20 percent.

The survey had a few surprises. For example, the greatest consumers of electronic media were African-American and Hispanic kids who spend nearly one-third more time each day with electronics that white kids. And heavy media users aren’t necessarily couch potatoes. They actually find ways to cram more physical exercise into their lives than light users. While that may be true, I still believe that almost all young people spend too much time with electronic media.

For the last two decades I have been talking about the media storm that surrounds our children and grandchildren. This latest survey of our kids’ digital day shows that they are in the midst of a greater storm than we ever imagined. This should concern parents and educators.

One of the campaign promises Donald Trump made was to remove the Johnson Amendment that has limited the free speech of pastors from their pulpits. A little history is in order.

When Senator Lyndon Johnson was running for reelection in 1954, he wanted to prevent outside groups from interfering in his campaign. The amendment he added back then prevents any 501(c)(3) organization from participating in any political campaign. His goal wasn’t to muzzle pastors, but this amendment has been sometimes used to intimidate pastors and prevent them from addressing any political issue from the pulpit.

If President Trump is able to eliminate the amendment, will pastors be more likely to speak out on the moral and social issues of the day? Michael Brown doesn’t think so. He reminds us that the Johnson Amendment doesn’t prohibit pastors from speaking out against abortion, LGBT activism, and political corruption.

Churches really aren’t facing the risk of losing their tax-exempt status if pastors apply biblical principles in their sermons to the important issues of the day. It isn’t so much fear of the IRS as it is fear of reactions from the congregation that keep many pastors from speaking out.

One survey by George Barna found that nearly all pastors (about 90 percent of them) believe that the Bible does speak to the moral issues of the day. But when you ask if they have actually taught on those subjects, most acknowledge they have not done so. However, when Barna surveyed Christians to see if they wanted their pastors to address these difficult moral and cultural issues, around 90 percent said yes.

This year, Congress and the president may finally remove the Johnson Amendment. Pastors and churches will no longer be able to use this amendment as an excuse to avoid speaking out on the moral and social issues of the day. I hope that pastors will see this as an opportunity to educate their congregation.

As Republicans in the House and Senate move forward with the possible repeal of Obamacare, Democrats have developed a plan to distract lawmakers and the public. They believe they can sidetrack the attempt by demanding Republicans focus time and attention on prescription drugs.

A number of Democratic senators outlined steps they believe must be done to control the price of prescription drugs. Their ideas include setting prices for drugs, imposing price controls, and allowing bureaucrats to determine costs. I think it is unlikely any of those ideas will make it into a repeal and replace bill.

But focusing some attention on prescription drugs is an important part of the discussion. Much of the cost of health care for patients comes from the pills that are prescribed by their doctors. Drug therapy is convenient but also often costly.

People not only face “sticker shock” from their insurance policy premiums, but some also face “sticker shock” over the cost of their prescription drugs. Of course, the two issues are obviously related.

Congress needs to look at the way the FDA approves drugs. Currently there is a great incentive for the FDA to drag its feet and take years to approve a new drug. Even if the drug is very effective, the FDA and the drug companies will get lots of complaints if there are also unexpected side effects.

So FDA often will engage in what is called “nestoring.” This verb comes from Dr. John Nestor who was a regulator for the FDA. I have written about him before because of the fact that he never approved a new drug. He simply reasoned that none of the drugs submitted to his division of the FDA were worth the risk.

Congress should investigate if it is possible to streamline the process of drug approval and reduce the regulatory barriers. Protecting the public from dangerous drugs should be a priority, but getting life-saving drugs to market in a timely and less expensive manner should also be a priority.

The Bible gives us a story of the world told through God’s perspective. That is why the Christian worldview provides the best explanation of the world. It answers questions like: Why am I here? and What is my purpose in life?

Greg Koukl provides a big-picture introduction to the story of the Bible in his new book, The Story of Reality: How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important That Happens in Between. He was on my radio program recently to talk about how this book can answer questions Christians and non-Christians have.

Christians need this book to put the puzzle together. Dump a puzzle at your feet and you will see what the Christian puzzle looks like for many believers. It is a pile of pieces that they have never tried to put together. To make matters worse, some of the pieces come from other worldviews and don’t even fit the puzzle. This book puts the puzzle together.

Non-Christians need this book because it tells the true story of history in a way the makes sense. Greg Koukl anticipates the questions and skepticism they may have about the story and answers those questions with his extensive apologetic background. He reminds them that this isn’t a religious fairytale. It is a true story of the way things really are.

The narrative backbone of the story includes five parts: God, Man, Jesus, Cross, and Resurrection. The book takes you through a theological tour of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. Christians will be able to fill in pieces in their puzzle. Non-Christians will be able to see the big picture and understand why it is important for them to make a decision about the truthfulness of the gospel.

The Story of Reality would be a great sermon series or Bible study for Sunday School classes or small groups. And it is a book to hand to someone who does not understand the gospel and may even think it is irrelevant.

All of a sudden deficits matter now that we have a new president and a new administration. That’s about the only conclusion you can come to with the radical change in perspective from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

Kevin Williamson, in a recent column, reminds us what columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote back in October. He said that future president Hillary Clinton should ignore people worried about deficits and the national debt and engage in “years of deficit-financed infrastructure spending, if she can.” A little over two months later, Krugman wrote that: “Deficits matter again.”

His argument is that the unemployment numbers and wage figures suggest we have returned to full employment so that we don’t need the emergency measures he advocated a few weeks before the election. Of course, those numbers aren’t that different today than they were in October. The real reason is that deficits and debt don’t matter, unless you are a Republican president.

Actually they do matter regardless of who is in the White House and which party controls Congress. You can find newspaper columns I wrote about this when Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton were president. You can even find Viewpoint commentaries I have written and recorded when George W. Bush and Barack Obama were president.

Let’s look at these last two presidents. When Bush came into office, the federal debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left office and when Obama took office it was was $10.63 trillion. The federal debt is now $19.97 trillion. And if you want to blame Congress, both parties are to blame. During that time Republicans controlled Congress some of the time, and Democrats controlled Congress at other times.

I welcome columnists who believe that deficits and debt are important. I just wonder where they were when President Obama and Congress were running up more than $9 trillion in national debt.

Today is the presidential inauguration. Not only is it a time when there is a peaceful transition of power, but it is also one of the few times when Americans can enjoy a little bit of pomp and ceremony.

Even at the beginning, there was excitement and large crowds. George Washington took office in 1789 in New York City to the sounds of ceremonial artillery and church bells ringing. He made his way through the large crowds to Federal Hall to take the oath of office.

Thomas Jefferson was the first president to be sworn in as president in Washington, D.C. By the time of his second inauguration, Jefferson rode on horseback from the Capitol to the president’s house. The procession that followed him eventually grew into the inaugural parade we will see today.

Some inaugurations were quite rowdy. Andrew Jackson opened the White House to the crowd and soon had to deal with a mob scene that almost destroyed the president’s house. Jackson had seen many battles but decided he better flee the house (through a back door or through a window, it is reported). The huge crowd drank heavily, destroyed furniture and china, and even ground cheese with their boots on the White House carpet.

Who the president selects to join him in an inaugural parade can make a statement about his views and beliefs. Abraham Lincoln, for example, invited African Americans to march with him during his second inauguration.

The format for the oath of office can be found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. It is reported that at the end of the oath, George Washington added the words “so help me God.” That tradition continues to this day.

James Monroe was the first president to give an inaugural address to a crowd. Since that time, presidents have used the occasion to speak directly to the American people.

Today is inauguration day: a day where there will be speeches and celebrations. Let’s enjoy this peaceful transition of power.