Not a joke. Watch this.

So this made my Monday. A follower on Twitter hipped me to this clip from a recent Graham Norton show where Norton interviews actor Mark Ruffalo, one of my all-time faves. The clip begins with Norton referencing Ruffalo's legendary niceness and then brings up an old blog post of mine. They then reenact the script of the conversation I wish Mark and I had had, lo, those seven years ago.



The Jody mentioned is Becky's sister. Amazing that Mark remembered her name! But Jody is a memorable person.

If you're interested in my original post, which also includes a re-creation of how I remember the conversation actually going, you can go here.

That was before gospel wakefulness corrected my fear of man, by the way. ;-)

But I've had the signed boarding pass he gave Jody to give me on my office bulletin board for the last 7 years.

I met a new friend for lunch a few weeks ago and the topic of the polygraph came up. In the particular instance we were talking about, the polygraph had revealed a deception. My friend, naturally curious, said, “So those things work?” Ironically, my short answer was no. My long answer is below. . . .

I have lots of experience taking polygraph exams. Over the past several years, I’ve taken probably 20 of them, maybe more.

The polygraph -- popularly known as “the lie detector” -- is a device that measures certain physiological responses like blood pressure, respiration, etc. The theory is when people lie, those physiological responses change. The problem with the theory is it has no scientific validity.

In a landmark 2003 study titled The Polygraph and Lie Detection, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) states:

Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. Although psychological states often associated with deception (e.g., fear of being judged deceptive) do tend to affect the physiological responses that the polygraph measures, these same states can arise in the absence of deception. Moreover, many other psychological and physiological factors (e.g., anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses. Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results.

From my experience, I can say that the polygraph as truth verifier is somewhat accurate. In other words, if someone takes a polygraph and passes, there’s a decent chance that they’re telling the truth. On the other hand, the polygraph as lie detector (what it is popularly known and used for) may be only slightly more accurate than flipping a coin -- and there’s no true way to substantiate even that level of accuracy. As a scientist friend of mine told me, “There are simply too many variables.” In my own experience over the years, the polygraph was exactly 50 percent accurate.

Anecdotally, if I had to put an overall number to the accuracy of the polygraph, I’d give it 65 percent. Furthermore, the more someone is educated on polygraph procedure, and the more inquisitive someone’s mind may be, the more likely the machine will give false results by finding a truthful person to be “deceptive.” To put it more bluntly, the polygraph may be more accurate -- or, at the very least, more effective -- on simple-minded people, but again, the very foundation of polygraphy (linking deception to certain physiological responses) is ill-conceived. The previously mentioned NAS report states, “The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception.”

While it may have some efficacy within certain contexts, the illusion of “lie detection” is too great a power and is often abused by authorities who choose to rely on it. Thus, the fruits of polygraphy are false accusations, job losses, family disruptions, unfounded distrust, and an overall laziness by those who choose to employ the machine.

By and large, the polygraph as lie detector simply doesn’t work as advertised.

I don't know anything about polygraphs, and I don't know how accurate they are, but I know they'll scare the hell out of people. -- Richard Nixon

In an attempt to better accommodate the personality of the modern air traveler, here are some recommended rules for traveling apt to provide a harmonious assimilation.

1. When going through terminal security, a TSA agent will likely be shouting simple instructions about what to remove from your person. Do not obey him. He is speaking to the crowd, not to you. He will give these instructions directly to you when you try to pass through the metal detector. Don't forget to act surprised, because "you didn't know."

2. When boarding your flight, do not immediately find an empty seat and sit down. That would just be silly.

3. You are allowed one carry-on bag and one personal item aboard the plane, so feel free to bring your steam trunk and/or hope chest onto your flight. Yes, if shoved hard enough, your footlocker from your time in the armed forces should fit neatly in the overhead bin. Try turning it lengthways.

4. While the flight attendant is going over the customary contingency plans and locations of the emergency exits, everyone should completely carry on conversations that drown her out. This makes her feel good inside.

5. No electronic devices may be used until the plane has reached its cruising altitude. This rule does not apply to you.

6. No cell phones may be used on the plane during any portion of the flight. But you may use yours because you are a very important person with very important calls to make to other, less important persons you need to give instructions to that you'd like others to overhear.

7. When the beverage service commences, order a bloody mary. You can't get these anywhere else, or at least we assume, since we only see people drinking these on airplanes.

8. If you are a morbidly obese person, check in for your flight late so you can get one of those prized middle seats. The laps of your companions on either side will make excellent arm rests. And wear a sleeveless shirt.

9. If your neighbor is wearing headphones and has his eyes closed, he is signaling to you that he'd like to have an in-depth conversation about your adorable/successful grandchildren and/or your idiot/overrated coworkers.

10. If you need a reading light, press the button overhead with the image of a person holding a drink tray. Nobody knows what that button with the image of a light bulb on it does.

11. As soon as your plane lands, turn on your cell phone and make a call. People have been waiting -- dying even -- to hear from you. Two hours is too long to go without contact from you.

12. Unfasten your seatbelt upon landing, before the seatbelt sign is turned off. This makes your flight crew feel heard and respected.

13. As soon as your plane reaches the gate and the seatbelt sign is turned off, immediately stand up in the aisle. Then complain about how long it takes for the jetway to connect to the plane door. Then roll eyes and sigh when people do not teleport out of your way. This is completely normal behavior.

14. If you experience any delays or inconveniences during your trip, due to any thing, including but not limited to bad weather, treat every airline employee you meet with utter contempt and exasperation. They are all out to ruin your life.

15. When making your way through the airport terminal, make sure to really saunter around. Meander like the dickens. At no time and for no reason should you walk in a straight line at a brisk pace or in any other way give evidence that you're actually going somewhere.

It has arrived. And I'm glad.

If a documentary is what it takes to get people (especially parents, teachers, coaches and administrators) to take notice, then so be it.

Me? I don't need to see the movie. Unless you want to see me weep for 90 minutes straight, don't show it to me. I think the movie is really for people who don't realize how bad bullying really is, which, in my biased perspective, is almost everyone. I had trouble watching the trailer without crying. If you have seen the movie, please comment here and let me know what you thought. The filmmakers seem to want to encourage bullied kids too, but I don't know that it would do that. It's the response from parents and teachers and maybe even other kids that would encourage a bullied child. They know how bad it is already. They just want others to know. And by the way, it's not so simple as just telling someone one. Believe me. That's why I think this movie is so important. The evil of bullying really has to be seen to be believed.

I've been reading the reviews ...and the reviews consistently point out two things:

1- "Eye-Opening" - the movie only shows one child actually being bullied on camera. They followed this kid, Alex Libby, around for a year (the child you see in the trailer) and the students got so used to the cameras, they bullied him on camera. At one point, the filmmakers couldn't be passive observers anymore, so they showed the footage to the parents and administrators. The 4 other kids talked about are:
-an eleven year old boy who killed himself because of bullying.
-A seventeen year old boy who killed himself because of bullying
-a girl who threatened people on a bus with a gun because of bullying
-a lesbian teenager who is interviewed on camera about her experiences being bullied for being gay.

You do get to see an administrator tell two kids to apologize to each other and shake hands. You know how to spot the bully? The one who apologizes with a smile. the administrator then lets the bully walk away and chews out the bullied child for not similarly apologizing and shaking hands.

So I think it's good that this movie shows the utter cluelessness of so many adults about what's really going on.

2- "The Rating Controversy" - Of the reviews I read, most of them spent half or more of their space talking about Harvey Weinstein's stupid battle with the MPAA. The MPAA rated it "R" because of 5 swear words spoken to Alex by the bullys. The Weinstein company is mad about it because they are saying that means kids won't see it. So they appealed and lost the appeal by one vote. Weinstein's response? He released it without a rating. This means that many theaters won't show it due to policies about showing unrated films. Wrong choice, Harv. Let it be rated "R". Do you think that's going to stop kids from seeing it? Really? It may limit it a little while at the theater, but once it goes to DVD and HBO and Netflix, you really don't need to worry. Today's parents are going to let their 7 year olds see it. (either through permission or inatttention)

It bothered me that so much press was spent griping out the rating. The point of the movie is to draw attention to a great evil. Let's just focus on that.

This theme of parental difficulty in getting satisfactory responses from those in authority positions in schools is one of "Bully's" constant refrains. Adults are portrayed as clueless and ineffectual, reduced to either "kids will be kids" platitudes or hand-wringing sentiments such as, "This is an awfully complicated and difficult situation."

When it comes to showing what some kids go through on a daily basis, "Bully" concentrates on the situation of 12-year-old Alex Libby of Sioux City, Iowa. Ironically, precisely because the Sioux City school board takes the bullying problem seriously, it allowed filmmaker Hirsch broad access to East Middle School and to the buses where much of the bullying of Alex takes place.

Since the kids on the bus were used to treating Alex with impunity and because Hirsch shot with a small Canon 5D Mark II, no one held back from hitting and cursing Alex just because a camera was present, which is where the footage that gave "Bully" its R-rating comes from.

Hirsch clearly developed a strong rapport with Alex, a bright, aware kid with an awkward manner who seems to confide in the filmmaker more than in his own parents. Alex is desperate for friends, and he doesn't want to make waves, so he spends quite a bit of time trying to downplay the extent of his bullying, until Hirsch takes the unusual step of showing adults some of the footage he has shot. LINK

I am glad that the filmmaker, Lee Hirsch, who was himself bullied, is on a crusade with this film to get the message out.

“You have an inherent human right to not be bullied and to be safe at school,” Hirsch said during a pre-screening in Chicago. “Keep knocking on doors until you find someone who will fight for you. That is your right. The film is intended to create a whole lot more empathy and awareness. ”">LINK

The following quote ends on a positive note, so read on.

“It’s a very personal film,” Hirsch told NBC News. “I was bullied when I was a kid. So it’s like that project that you carry with you in your pocket and you say ‘One day I’m gonna make this film when I have the guts and I have the courage.’”

One of the stars of the film is Alex Libby, who was 12 at the time of the filming. He is pretty courageous too. Alex is seen being punched, poked and ridiculed on the bus. “They push me so far that I want to become the bully,” he said in the film. At one point during filming, Hirsch was so worried about Libby’s safety, he decided to stop shooting and give copies of his tape to the school and Libby’s parents.

When Libby’s parents confronted school officials they were essentially told not to worry. But they were right to worry, just as so many of us parents do. “I didn’t tell them what was going on, which was my mistake,” Alex told NBC News the other night at the Los Angeles premiere of the movie. “I should have told someone. I wish I would have told someone. But I didn’t until Lee came along.”

Alex Libby’s parents were with him on the red carpet in LA and all three attended the screening I was at in New York. I told Alex’s dad how much he reminds me of my own young son. Philip Libby told us the film had brought Alex out of his shell. “Before it started he was in a deep place that we just couldn’t reach him – and Lee and the film and the whole process has just kind of brought him out of that darkness and broke him out of his shell and gave us our son back,” he said.

Indeed, Alex himself says his life is much better now, thanks to a new school in a new state. And he’s proud to be a part of a film that might help other kids. “I’m glad I’m actually making a difference. It’s amazing. I mean, I was always the shy kid, back when I was in middle school. I would never thought I’d be this kid who’s out there trying to change something. But breaking from my shell has been an awesome experience. I realized how awesome I am,” he said.

Yeah, Alex. You are awesome. :-)

I wish every bullied child would be able to finally figure that out.

I've got a desperate plan . . .

Rev. Harrison stands firm against our Government's meddling in the consciences of people of faith. Well done - respectful, clear, and eloquently plain-spoken.



[H/T Ray Ortlund]

Inspired by two (seemingly) unrelated pieces I read online this morning.

1- Should Women be allowed in Combat?
I just heard on the news this week that women will now be officially allowed combat roles for the first time in the U.S. Military. This is because in the past 10 years of the "War on Terror", there have been woman who had to take on combat roles by necessity, even if that wasn't their primary role.

In response, Rick Santorum just re-articulated the two basic and traditional arguments against it:

As one reason, Santorum cites “the emotions of men.’’ The White House hopeful says there is the potential that men will not be focused on their combat mission but on what he calls a “natural instinct’’ to protect a woman.

Santorum also questions having women in combat roles because of what he says are “all sorts of physical issues’’ relating to the capabilities of men and women.

I include this quote from him not because I want to discuss Santorum on this thread, but because I expect, for the first time, these two traditional arguments to be mocked and scoffed. He had the audacity to say them out loud and to many these arguments will seem outdated and sexist.

I don't think they are. I think these are timeless and timely arguments. I have never served in the military, but for various reasons I've been blessed with many, many close relationships with those who have. And every soldier I've ever talked to about it re-articulates the two arguments above.

I remember in particular my Junior ROTC instructor, an army ranger who voluntarily served two tours of duty in Vietnam say, "Combat is bad enough with men, your brothers, dying all around you. But still it is a totally different experience to see a woman with her face blown off. There's just something naturally ingrained into men. You have to protect her...and then you will compromise the mission. You won't be able to focus on what you need to do."

It's been over 20 years...and I still remember the soft tone that this very tough man took and the horror I felt, when he said, "woman with her face blown off".

Combat is ugly, ugly business. And yes, it's far uglier when women are a part of it.


2- Why are Hollywood portrayals of women in the role of men always tragic?

From the Plugged-In review of the new movie "Albert Nobbs" about a woman who spends her life pretending to be a man.

A postscript: While addressing the issue of historical gender disparity so profoundly illustrated in Albert Nobbs, I feel compelled to make an observation about its modern incarnation in movies. What happens when one gender plays the other? When men put on a dress and lipstick, the intended effect is almost always laughter. Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie. Tyler Perry's turns as Madea. Adam Sandler as brother and sister twins in Jack and Jill. John Travolta as Edna Turnblad in Hairspray.

When women play men, however, the outcome is more often tragic. Sooner or later, we've been taught to anticipate, these vulnerable women's well-cloaked secret—usually under layers of femininity-disguising clothes—will be revealed. And their worlds will explode. Or end. The most prominent example of this (before Albert Nobbs)? The story of Brandon Teena (played by Hilary Swank), horrifically illustrated in 1999's Boys Don't Cry.

I thought of a couple more examples that the reviewer, Adam Holz, didn't mention.

Men as women: Tom Hanks' TV sitcom - Bosom Buddies, Tony Curtis in "Some Like it Hot", Martin Lawrence in "Big Momma's House", Two Wayans brothers as "White Chicks", Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire, Barry Watson in Sorority Boys, "Juwanna Man". I'm sure you all could think of more, or look it up. All of them are comedies and not just comedies, but madcap ridiculous comedies.(or at least are supposed to be.)

Women as men: First of all, there aren't as many. There were two comedies, "Just one of the Guys"(1985) and "She's the Man" with Amanda Bynes. (2006) But these are exceptions, and even those had serious undertones and sections. Usually women disguised as men aren't funny. It's usually serious, but more often tragic. Barbara Streisand as "Yentl"; The Ballad of Little Jo, in which a woman must dress as a man to survive in the west, when she is found out post-mortem the pain is expressed as violent anger. In "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" Eowyn dressed as a male soldier so that she can ride into combat, though she performs admirably, her little foray still ends with violence and sadness.

These are serious movies, and the storyline of "woman disguised as a man" never ends well and almost always tragically (both in the dramatic and emotional sense.)

Even Hollywood with all it's liberal sensibilities can't seem to quite escape from...

(yes, I'm going to go ahead and be bold enough to say it)

...our God-given gender roles.

Engineer captures video footage of what appears to be a woolly mammoth crossing a Siberian river. These creatures have been thought to be extinct since about 2,000 B.C.



This is a large animal thought extinct for thousands of years, now spotted. Along with historical notes like that mountain gorillas weren't discovered until the early 1900's, this gives more hope for some day discovering definitive evidence of the existence of Sasquatch.

In a recurring Groundhog Day tribute of their own, the editors of National Review annually post Jonah Goldberg's excellent 2005 paean to the classic Harold Ramis movie, Groundhog Day. Here are the closing paragraphs of Goldberg's article, A Movie for All Time.

Ultimately, the story is one of redemption, so it should surprise no one that it speaks to those in search of the same. But there is also a secular, even conservative, point to be made here. Connors’s metamorphosis contradicts almost everything postmodernity teaches. He doesn’t find paradise or liberation by becoming more “authentic,” by acting on his whims and urges and listening to his inner voices. That behavior is soul-killing. He does exactly the opposite: He learns to appreciate the crowd, the community, even the bourgeois hicks and their values. He determines to make himself better by reading poetry and the classics and by learning to sculpt ice and make music, and most of all by shedding his ironic detachment from the world.

Harold Ramis and Danny Rubin, the writers of the original story, are not philosophers. Ramis was born Jewish and is now a lackadaisical Buddhist. He wears meditation beads on his wrist, he told the New York Times, “because I’m on a Buddhist diet. They’re supposed to remind me not to eat, but actually just get in the way when I’m cutting my steak.” Rubin’s original script was apparently much more complex and philosophical — it opened in the middle of Connors’s sentence to purgatory and ended with the revelation that Rita was caught in a cycle of her own. Murray wanted the film to be more philosophical (indeed, the film is surely the best sign of his reincarnation as a great actor), but Ramis constantly insisted that the film be funny first and philosophical second.

And this is the film’s true triumph. It is a very, very funny movie, in which all of the themes are invisible to people who just want to have a good time. There’s no violence, no strong language, and the sexual content is about as tame as it gets. (Some e-mailers complained that Connors is only liberated when he has sex with Rita. Not true: They merely fall asleep together.) If this were a French film dealing with the same themes, it would be in black and white, the sex would be constant and depraved, and it would end in cold death. My only criticism is that Andie MacDowell isn’t nearly charming enough to warrant all the fuss (she says a prayer for world peace every time she orders a drink!). And yet for all the opportunities the film presents for self-importance and sentimentality, it almost never falls for either. The best example: When the two lovebirds emerge from the B&B to embrace a happy new life together in what Connors considers a paradisiacal Punxsutawney, Connors declares, “Let’s live here!” They kiss, the music builds, and then in the film’s last line he adds: “We’ll rent to start.”

Read the whole thing.

I think Groundhog Day is one of the best movies ever made. I remember watching it on VHS with my wife, years ago; though it does not have an explicitly Christian message, the movie is brimming with redemption. Watching it for the first time surfaced in me an exquisite sense of joy. (And, in my one beef with Goldberg over this article, I thought Andie MacDowell was plenty charming).

If you haven't already watched Groundhog Day, I highly recommend it. If you have, get with the spirit of things and watch it again (and again, and again, and . . .)

Do you have any predictions for 2012?

I'm going to posit a few:

1. Here's a bold prediction: Barack Obama will not win re-election.

No, I am not underestimating the man. He's very, very good at campaigning, he is personally popular (though his current job approval ratings are pretty low). And, though I disagree with most of his policies, I believe he is a smart and talented politician.

But . . .

I don't think you can underestimate how bad the global economy is looking. There are just too many downward pressures: the financial ailments of the Eurozone, the instability in the Middle East, our large debt burden. For most voters, the economy is the biggest issue right now, and I don't expect it to improve very much between now and November 2012, though I hope I'm wrong. If it hasn't improved, I think Obama is done.

As a side prediction, Obama will replace Joe Biden as his running mate with someone else - perhaps Hillary.

2. Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination and will be elected President. This is, of course, a corollary to my first prediction, and if I'm wrong on #1 I'll get a twofer fail. Regarding Romney, like him or not, he will be the most palatable alternative to Obama for most Americans. And they will vote for him, if things don't improve significantly in the economy.

3. The New Orleans Saints will beat the Pittsburg Steelers in the Superbowl. I'm never right about sports predictions, but I had to try. I'm assuming Big Ben's ankle gets better. And I realize that the Packers are having a great year. But what the hay.

5. Blo will post on Thinklings at least once in 2012. Hey, a guy can dream.

So, what do you think? Do you have some predictions, or want to take me to task for mine? Have at it in the comments.

Well, my technical issues resolved themselves quicker than I expected, thankfully. Thinklings has been upgraded to Bloo version 1.35 (as yet unreleased, but just about ready to be set loose).

Here's what's new in this release:

• Bloo now supports full comment moderation
• The comment thread subscription is enhanced. For instance, you can now cancel your subscription to a comments thread - every comment email you receive has a link which, if clicked on, will unsubscribe you
• Added two new spam Captchas: Bloo Captcha (which we've been using here for awhile and which is currently in force for Thinklings comments) and Google's reCaptcha service.
• Private Site, a new Bloo extension SnapOn, which allows you to set your entire blog private, meaning that only logged-in users can see it
• Max Links Spam Filter, also a Bloo extension SnapOn, in the Spamicide collection. Spammers, we hates them. we hates them forevah!!
• Emails coming from the system now look better (or that's the theory)
• Fixed a bug that caused comment counts to show no comments when viewing posts by category
• Performed various other bug fixes and architectural improvements

For some of you who have been thinking about starting to blog, and want to go the less-travelled road, you might think about giving Bloo a try. Be part of something small! (As you can see, marketing and snappy slogans are not my forte)

The Queen's Christmas message this year was very good. You can read the full text here, but below is the conclusion:

Finding hope in adversity is one of the themes of Christmas. Jesus was born into a world full of fear. The angels came to frightened shepherds with hope in their voices: ‘Fear not’, they urged, ‘we bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the City of David a Saviour who is Christ the Lord.’

Although we are capable of great acts of kindness, history teaches us that we sometimes need saving from ourselves – from our recklessness or our greed. God sent into the world a unique person – neither a philosopher nor a general (important though they are) – but a Saviour, with the power to forgive.

Forgiveness lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It can heal broken families, it can restore friendships and it can reconcile divided communities. It is in forgiveness that we feel the power of God’s love.

In the last verse of this beautiful carol, O Little Town of Bethlehem, there’s a prayer:

O Holy Child of Bethlehem

Descend to us we pray

Cast out our sin

And enter in

Be born in us today

It is my prayer that on this Christmas day we might all find room in our lives for the message of the angels and for the love of God through Christ our Lord.

I wish you all a very happy Christmas.

Amen.

Doug Wilson over at Blog and MaBlog reflects on the death of Christopher Hitchens. An excerpt:

Those who hold to the gospel of Jesus Christ must always remember that the good news of Christ is set against the backdrop of the bad news -- we are all of us sinners, and we all need cleansing and forgiveness. Christopher Hitchens did not need to come to Christ to have his arguments refuted (although that would have happened). He needed to come to Christ to have his sins forgiven.

There will be a CanonWIRED clip out shortly, in which I caution Christians against two errors -- and both of them are errors of speculation. The possibility of last minute conversions must never be turned into actual last minute conversions. No one is wished into Heaven. There have been too many unbelievers preached into Heaven at the funeral, and we ought not to give way to the false tenderness of that impulse. At the same time, the likelihood that Christopher never called on Christ should not be turned into a hard-line dogmatic statement, followed by "good riddance." No one is wished into Hell either. We ought not to greet the news of Christopher's death the way he greeted the death of Jerry Falwell's, for example.

The bad news is that we are all under judgment. The good news is that the one who has faith in Jesus may be forgiven. We must unashamedly declare these terms to the whole world -- but declaring the terms of judgment (which Scripture requires us to do) is not the same thing as playing the Judge ourselves. We leave the soul of Christopher Hitchens (and he did have a soul, despite all his arguments) in the hands of God, who will do nothing but right.

All of this is of course consistent with the affection I had for Christopher. Our prayers and condolences are with his family and friends.

"Yo, yo, Santa, hold up, I'ma let you finish, but everyone knows I have the best handouts of all time."

On this day in 1963 the world lost C.S. Lewis. (Aldous Huxley also died the same day, but both deaths were overshadowed by the assassination of President John Kennedy.) Every year on this date, I've run some variation of a tribute to the greatest Christian writer of the twentieth century, but this year a little something different. A list of what Lewis has taught me over the years:

1. Wonder. My first introduction to Lewis was not the Chronicles of Narnia, actually, but as a child, Out of the Silent Planet. It was completely weird and wonderful. When I got to Narnia shortly thereafter -- I was about 8 or so, probably -- I consumed each book one after another lustily, like a compendium of Turkish delight. Lewis' space capsules and English manses and wardrobes and attic spaces grabbed ahold of me, broadcasting where my neurons were tuned, man. I was the kid who saw a treasure map on the back of a box of Cap'n Crunch cereal and was convinced it led to buried valuables in my Brownsville, Texas neighborhood. Reading the Space Trilogy (well, the first two books when I was little, the third well into high school) and Narnia was like warp speed.

2. Reason. Even Lewis's fiction is chock-full of logic. "Don't they teach that in schools any more?" the Professor says to the Pevensies when they don't believe Lucy's fantastic story. Lewis's faith was full of wonder but was, also, entirely reasonable, and in the 80's when the apologetic industry was dominated by Josh McDowell and burgeoning creation science (Lee Strobel hadn't hit the scene just yet), I was ingesting The Abolition of Man and Mere Christianity. And probably the most influential non-fiction work of his for me is his collection of essays named after "God in the Dock." The article "Myth Became Fact" is one of my all-time favorite short pieces, fiction or non, and offered a complementary weight to one of my favorite lines in Perelandra, which I quote probably way too much in all the stuff I write. (Ransom understood that myth is "gleams of celestial beauty and strength falling on a jungle of filth and imbecility.") Lewis helped me make sense of this polytheistic, pluralistic world. His classic trilemma in Mere Christianity just made sense. His own logic and reason is not airtight of course, but he approached Christianity not just as a worshiper but as a thinking worshiper, and he therefore becomes an invaluable asset for relentlessly scrutinizing young men and women who are sorting out their faith.

3. Artistry. Homeboy could flat-out write. And when he wrote, he exulted. In his own words:

"when the old poets made some virtue their theme, they were not teaching but adoring, and . . . what we take for the didactic is often the enchanted."

When I was in the first grade, my class filled out these little booklets that chronicled our favorite subjects, foods, games, etc. and one of the questions was "What do you want to be when you grow up?" My six year old hand wrote Author in that blank, and through a series of adolescent aspirations and a call to vocational ministry I have never not wanted to be a writer of books. Lewis threw gasoline on that childish ambitious fire, and he showed me over and over again what words can do. His writing was show and tell for me, displaying in so many beautiful, confident ways how literary pursuit is worship.

We are the 100%.

We are not in a battle against flesh and blood. But all we like sheep have gone astray, so we forget that. We are consumed with greed and covetousness and set ourselves against others made in the image of God.

We forget our brothers in need, we envy and rail against those who have what we desire. We place our hope in men and systems and media and money and rage.

You can divide yourself from others and categorize yourself as a 99 or a 1.

I'm in the 100% that need Jesus.

In the eyes of our legal system, Jerry Sandusky is to be considered innocent until proven guilty in court. But as Sandusky begins to speak out about the charges against him, there is a peculiar dysfunction in his moral reasoning, and he assumes we will make it after due consideration of the "facts" as he presents them.

This is what I mean: Jerry Sandusky hopes we will believe that he did not sodomize or otherwise perpetrate sexual violence against little boys but "merely" showered with them, engaged in naked horseplay with them, etc. This is a classic mistake of unrepentant sinners, and most if not all of us commit it quite frequently. It is called "meeting the sin halfway," a way of nodding to an accusation but denying it with a kind of "it was all a big misunderstanding" dodge.

Sandusky believes his story is more believable than the accusations. But it's not even more believable than his innocence. What he doesn't understand is that, if he were to claim he didn't even know these boys, it would be more believable than to say he showered with them and wrestled with them in a gym all alone after hours but there was no sexual component to any of it. There is no way to see this behavior as appropriate or decent or respectable. Should we believe his denials as they have been issued, we should still believe him to be a very stupid pervert.

I believe the charges against Sandusky will be proved true. His sin will out. But if he wants to lie about what happened, he should have gone all in. His obfuscation is just a way to paint a face on his sin, and it won't work. Partial confession is no confession.

The other day I was at work, standing in one of the areas that has TV broadcasts running. I saw this story highlighted on one of the 24-hour news stations:

"President Obama signs executive order cutting government waste"

A number of people were nearby as well and we all started laughing. I mean, really, is that all it took? An executive order? We're saved!!!

All kidding aside, I think there is a profound moral component to the way a government spends money. I also believe that committing our grandchildren to suffocating debt is immoral. The American government has, for decades, spent more than it takes in, but I thought that the recent unprecedented deficits - deficits over a trillion dollars that make past overspending look like pocket change - coupled with the mind-numbingly scary sovereign debt crisis around the world would wake us up as a country. I was wrong. There have been no significant spending cuts seriously and realistically enacted by our congress or proposed by our executive branch. What's strange is that private businesses deal with this all the time. When they face a debt crisis, they cut spending. Our government seems incapable of this.

Meanwhile, the party I don't generally vote for is performing the kabuki theater of "stimulus", "super" committees, and executive orders outlawing bad weather and the post-Christmas blues. The party I generally vote for can't find anyone in our entire 300,000,000+ population who has the experience, gravitas and ethics to have chance of being elected president.

And I don't think anyone on either side is really serious about dealing with the immorality of our over-spending.

The reason, of course, is that we electorally punish them when they behave responsibly.

"Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us." - P.J. O'Rourke

P.S. The upshot of all this is I'm beginning to check out politically. My consumption of, for instance, political blogs and news has gone down dramatically in the past few months, and I'm happier for it. But I will pray, and I will vote, and I hope you will too. I think doing those things is important.

First of all, yesterday was Thinkling Phil's birthday! (You may know him as Shrode.) Happy (belated) Birthday, Phil!

Also:
My new book Gospel Wakefulness is now available. (Apparently Oct. 31 was a "soft" street date.) It is now for sale via Amazon, B&N, LifeWay, etc. Cheapest price I've seen lately is at WTS Bookstore. It's also available in e-versions.

If you're so inclined to buy it, thank you and I hope you like it!