Act of Valor

I'm seeing lots commercials lately for the upcoming movie Act of Valor--"a motion picture starring active duty Nave SEALs!"--and I'm not sure what to think about it.

It's great that they're using real Navy SEALs--I'm sure that adds to the realism of the movie and gives those guys some well-earned recognition. But has Hollywood gotten so lame that they can't find any actors who want to star in a movie where American soldiers are the good guys?

Best News Since Free Biscuit Day at the Chick-fil-a

From Instapundit:

NEWS YOU CAN USE: Study: Eating Fried Food Doesn’t Increase Risk of Heart Disease….

C.S. Lewis Speaks for Me Better than I Do

It's a good think I have C.S. Lewis quotes to explain what I think, otherwise it would never get out. Here's the latest one I've found, posted by Justin Taylor:

For my own part, I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await others.

I believe that many who find that ‘nothing happens’ when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.

Except for me, replace "a pipe" with "Cheetos."

Things Get Complicated

For as long as he coached--and that was a long time--the book on Joe Paterno was simple.

He was a simple man with simple needs, living in a small house near the football stadium, his number publicly listed in the phone book, taking a surprisingly small salary for a big-time college coach. He coached a team that wore simple uniforms and ran a simple offense. He had his fundamentals, and he stuck with them, so much so that he became a symbol for resisting change--the rock unaffected by the river rushing around it.

Now all of a sudden, that legacy has gone from solid to "complicated." As Michael Weinreb writes on Grantland:

We made him extraordinary for being ordinary.

That's what's been so perplexing about these past couple of months, for those of us who grew up around his Penn State football program: The final act of Paterno's career was a fundamental contradiction, a repudiation of all we'd come to believe. We knew he wasn't like us, but he made us think that deep inside he was, and maybe we were naïve for believing it in the first place, but that doesn't make the shock and surprise about Paterno's potential culpability in the Jerry Sandusky child-rape allegations any less real.

Imagine what the eulogies for Paterno would've looked like if the Sandusky scandal had never happened. Would the word "complicated" have appeared anywhere near any of them? Maybe, by the end of the week, when sportswriters were looking for some new angle that hadn't been addressed in any of the thousands of other stories. But it would've been a stretch.

Even worse, imagine what they would've looked like if Paterno had overcome Penn State's--and his own--institutional inertia and done the right thing when he first found out about Sandusky, all those years ago. "Hero to young people." "Wouldn't rest until he saw justice done." "Fatherly protector."

But just a few months after the Sandusky story broke--months making up barely a fraction of the time Paterno has spent at Penn State--"complicated" is the most generous thing you can say about his legacy.

The same desire for simplicity and resistance to change that made Paterno an institution crippled him when it came to dealing with the monstrosity in front of him. By all accounts, Paterno is an exceptionally good and generous man. But when his simplicity was challenged by events, it came out as complacency. He didn't want to shake things up when a shake up was desperately called for.

"You Nasty" Hand Sanitizer

That is all.

Justice Coin

Well, this is odd: a coin to commemorate that assassination of Osama Bin Laden:

With this special TV offer, you'll receive 1 Silver Layered Justice Coin and 1 Gold Layered Justice Coin, 2 Acrylic Capsules, 2 Certificates of Authenticity AND the U.S. Navy SEAL Creed for ONLY $19.95 plus $7.95 S&P. But WAIT - we'll also include the military briefing packet and gold lapel pin for FREE, just pay a separate $9.95 shipping and processing fee. An incredible value!

Why should this great idea be limited to rip-off commemorative coins? I personally think that the picture of FDR on the dime should be replaced with an artist's representation of a SEAL wearing Osama Bin Laden's head as a hat.

The Only Advice Romney Needs

Ace of Spades explains what Romney needs to do to win over conservatives:

He must stop acting as if it's possible to win the well-wishes of the institutional left. Only a fool believes that, and only a man planning to govern from the center would plan for that.

Yeg-xactly. "Only a man planning to govern from the center"--i.e., maintain the status quo--would behave as Romney is behaving. That's why he's not appealing to people who want a radical change from business as usual.

Pharisees in Skinny Jeans

Good quote from Jared Wilson:

My feeling is that the Bible-thumping, starched suit-wearing, hellfire and brimstone religious people taking the fun out of fundamentalism are becoming fewer and farther between, while the church is brimming with self-righteous hipsters and cooler-than-thous. The Pharisees look like Vampire Weekend now.

The Other Kind of Green

In The American Spectator, William Tucker points out that environmentalism is a rich man's game:

In turning down Keystone, however, the President has uncovered an ugly little secret that has always lurked beneath the surface of environmentalism. Its basic appeal is to the affluent. Despite all the professions of being "liberal" and "against big business," environmentalism's main appeal is that it promises to slow the progress of industrial progress. People who are already comfortable with the present state of affairs -- who are established in the environment, so to speak -- are happy to go along with this. It is not that they have any greater insight into the mysteries and workings of nature. They are happier with the way things are. In fact, environmentalism works to their advantage. The main danger to the affluent is not that they will be denied from improving their estate but that too many other people will achieve what they already have. As the Forest Service used to say, the person who built his mountain cabin last year is an environmentalist. The person who wants to build one this year is a developer.

No Need to Hold the Election Now

Well, I guess that settles it: Chuck Norris has announced his endorsement for president:

If you’re ready to keep fighting the good fight and once and for all restore our republic, then I invite you to join my wife, Gena, and I by endorsing, rallying behind and voting for Newt Gingrich as GOP nominee and then president of the United States.

After reading this, Barak Obama announced that he too was endorsing Newt Gingrich.

Your Good Intentions Do Not Make You Any Less Stupid

How much ignorance should you be willing to tolerate from someone who has generally good intentions? I can't tell you for sure, but I know I've reached my limit with this post at Think Christian: "Why Christians must not forget the Occupy movement."

Let's leave aside for a minute the question as to whether the thugs, punks, losers, and sex offenders who make up the Occupy movement are the kind of people with whom Christians should be making common cause. For now, let's just examine the premise of the argument below:

One Christian lady has put a bumper sticker on her car, yet another volley in the bumper-sticker battle between political left and right. Her sticker says this: “Don’t spread my wealth. Spread my work ethic.” She is not wealthy, however. She is part of the famously shrinking middle class. What’s more, she will likely never be wealthy. Sociologist Judy Root Aulette writes that many scholars have observed how the wealthy have a preoccupation with maintaining the boundaries between themselves and others. They are not just going to open the doors and give her access to the great vaults, no matter how hard she knocks. 

With her bumper sticker, however, this woman is making it clear where she stands regarding the Occupy movement. She is taking the side of the wealthy. She has her reasons and she can tell you what they are: she does not want the government to have the power to redistribute wealth, an infringement on her rights; she wants what small wealth she does have to stay where it is. 

In the years leading up to the Civil War, the issue of slavery did not just split our nation, it split the church as well. Before the war, every major denomination fractured over the issue of slavery – a fracture that cracked along the same crooked geographical path that the war’s battle lines would take: North against South. 

Not many southerners actually owned slaves – a few very wealthy plantation owners did – yet they supported the institution in hopes that someday they might be in a position to buy a slave, to start amassing real wealth. For most, the financial realities made their chances of pulling it off so unlikely as to be impossible. 

Many southerners who supported the institution did not say it was slavery they favored, but state’s rights, the right of every state to self-government without intrusion from Washington. 

You might say the long-past issue of slavery has no similarities to the present trouble. I say yes it does, particularly for Christians.

Ok, so we're just saying straight out that free market capitalism = slavery. Before I address this, give me a minute to slam my head in the door over and over again.

Alrighty, I'm back. I don't want to be mean, but this claptrap is so egregiously awful that I can't give the author any credit for good intentions. This is the point where your pious moralizing makes you a tool of evil.

For starters, he says that the woman with the bumper sticker that raised his hackles is not wealthy, not considering that, if she owns a car to put a bumper sticker on, she's wealthier than about 90% of the population of the earth. Quite a lot of Americans own their own cars, by the way, even poor ones, somehow overcoming the brutal oppression of the capitalist system.

He then goes on (after restating the dubious old chestnut about a shrinking middle class) to snottily, condescendingly declare that this woman will never be wealthy. He knows this because some sociologist somewhere said rich people were mean and not interested in giving their money away to her. Because as we all know, that's the only way you get rich in America: you walk up to a rich person's vault and knock on it until they give you some of their money. Bill Gates, Sam Walton, that guy who's always screaming at the refs at Dallas Mavericks games... all just really persistent knockers, and then BOOM, they were rich.

This is the mindset of the Occupy Wall Street types--work ethic means nothing, providing value means nothing. The only way people can acquire wealth is if it's taken from people who already have it and redistributed. This makes an insidious mockery of the system we are blessed to live under--a system that has brought more prosperity to more people than any other mankind has ever devised. And then we go and equate support of that system with support of slavery.

No, here's what slavery is: it's when you labor, but you aren't allowed to benefit from the fruits of your labor. When the wealth you create is instead redistributed--at the direction of your masters--to people who made no contribution to your efforts.

I'm willing to concede that the author of this Think Christian post isn't hoping to enslave humanity (it's a stretch, but I'm trying to be generous). But that's where his argument leads. When you say the freedom is slavery and slavery is freedom, you are at best a useful idiot for slave masters.

I Have So Many Questions about this Story

I normally don't cover the police blotter, but , um... this:

Pinkberry co-founder beat homeless man with tire iron, LAPD says

One of the founders of the popular Pinkberry yogurt chain is accused by police of chasing down a homeless man and beating him with a tire iron.

The incident took place in June 2011 on an off-ramp of the Hollywood Freeway at Vermont Avenue, according to the Los Angeles Police Department. Young Lee was stopped at a light when he was approached by a transient seeking money, police said. 

Words were exchanged, and Lee and another man in the car chased the homeless man and "beat him down" with the tire iron, police Capt. Paul Vernon said.

Some questions, off the top of my head:

• What kind of interaction could occur between the owner of a successful, nation-wide chain of frozen yogurt shops and a vagrant that would cause the former to put his car in park, get out, remove a tire iron from the trunk, chase the vagrant down, and beat him with the tire iron?
• Was the tire iron in fact in the trunk, or was it just lying across Lee's lap as he drove around town looking for bums to beat with it?
• Why is the tire iron such a commonly used tool for beat downs? What about it make people think, "You know what this beat down needs? A tire iron." I've got lots of other stuff in my car that would be better for beating people with. But then again, not everyone is an avid collector of chains, golf clubs, and socks full of wood screws.
• One report said Lee "found the transient's sexually explicit tattoo offensive..." Again, I've seen plenty of offensive tattoos, but none that make me want to chase down a homeless guy and wail on him with a part of my car. How much offensiveness can you cram into one tattoo?
• How can reporters call themselves professionals when they haven't yet provided us with a picture of this tattoo? If I find one I'll be back with an update, and if I'm smart, I'll make it available to you in tshirt form.

I've never been to one before, but I know this much: any future visits to Pinkberry will take on a whole new flavor for me. Will I get a discount if I bring in my own pummeled transient?

Free Porn!

Ha! Just kidding! According to pastor Mark Driscoll, there's no such thing:

But while the majority of searches for porn are for “free porn,” it should come as no surprise that there is no such thing as free porn. Rather, the cost of porn addiction is high—both in terms of money spent and in the emotional, spiritual, and relational costs. 

In terms of money, porn is a $10 to $14 billion dollar industry. This makes is a bigger business than professional football, basketball, and baseball—combined. 

Even worse is the cost of pornography on our relationships and kids. According to the London School of Economics, 90% of children between the ages of 8 and 16 have viewed pornography on the Internet, in most cases unintentionally. Furthermore, according to an April 2006 report in Pediatrics, the average age of first Internet exposure to porn is 11 years old and the largest consumer of Internet porn are 12 to 17 year-old boys.

Justice and Social Justice

Dennis Prager explains what people mean when they say "social justice," a phrase that is used by a lot of people who don't know what they're saying themselves.

What Does Tim Tebow Sound Like on the Field?

Exactly like you think:

Should Christians Vote for a Mormon?

At some point I'm going to have to start paying attention to the 2012 presidential race... aaaaand it looks like that point is right now. Let's kick it off with a question from the Christian Post: Should Christians Vote for a Mormon?

How would a Sunni president have prosecuted the war in Iraq? Would a Shiite view Iran more sympathetically? Would a chief executive who was a Tibetan Buddhist be more sympathetic to the Dalai Lama in his ongoing conflicts with the People's Republic of China? 

Admittedly, none of the current presidential candidates espouse religious commitments so contrary to mainstream America [Don't be so sure. Have you checked the candidate from the Democratic side?-j]. But would their policies be influenced by their religious beliefs? I would hope so. Our Constitution makes no laws establishing or prohibiting religion, a separation of church and state I gladly affirm. However, our culture has interpreted this bifurcation as a separation of faith and state. We compartmentalize religion and the "real world," Sunday and Monday. God is a hobby, a weekend pursuit to be kept private.

Scripture could not disagree more vehemently.

Introverted Like Me

Not too long ago, I read something that opened a window onto my own inner life. I'm not sure if this is the exact wording, but it went something like this: "Being an introvert doesn't mean you don't like people; it just means you respond to people differently. Extroverts get recharged by being around people. Introverts get recharged by being alone."

That had such a ring of truth for me. I had always considered my introversion (introvertedness? introversy? anyways...) as a fault to be overcome. But this new definition opened up the possibility that it was no more a handicap than my left-handedness or my freaky second toe that's longer than my big toe (both of which actually are kind of handicaps, especially where shoe-buying and scissor-using are concerned). It is an incredibly liberating thought, the possibility that this is just my character, rather than a character flaw.

Even more recently, I found this list of 10 myths about introverts, and whoever wrote it knows me better than the best telephone psychic ever. Sister Cleo, is that you?

Myth #1 – Introverts don’t like to talk. This is not true. Introverts just don’t talk unless they have something to say. They hate small talk. Get an introvert talking about something they are interested in, and they won’t shut up for days. [I'll let the previous 200-some-odd posts on this blog speak to whether that applies to me.] 

Myth #3 – Introverts are rude. Introverts often don’t see a reason for beating around the bush with social pleasantries. They want everyone to just be real and honest. Unfortunately, this is not acceptable in most settings, so Introverts can feel a lot of pressure to fit in, which they find exhausting. [Exhausting is exactly the right word.] 

Myth #5 – Introverts don’t like to go out in public. Nonsense. Introverts just don’t like to go out in public FOR AS LONG. They also like to avoid the complications that are involved in public activities. They take in data and experiences very quickly, and as a result, don’t need to be there for long to “get it.” They’re ready to go home, recharge, and process it all. In fact, recharging is absolutely crucial for Introverts. 

Myth #6 – Introverts always want to be alone. Introverts are perfectly comfortable with their own thoughts. They think a lot. They daydream. They like to have problems to work on, puzzles to solve. But they can also get incredibly lonely if they don’t have anyone to share their discoveries with. They crave an authentic and sincere connection with ONE PERSON at a time. 

[Yes and yes. Except I will say that I'm comfortable socializing with more than just one person at a time, as long as it's a small group of people with whom I'm already comfortable, or people who just think I'm awesome. And yes, that is rare.] 

Myth #8 – Introverts are aloof nerds. Introverts are people who primarily look inward, paying close attention to their thoughts and emotions. It’s not that they are incapable of paying attention to what is going on around them, it’s just that their inner world is much more stimulating and rewarding to them. [This is the only one that's wrong--I am in fact an aloof nerd.]

Myth #9 – Introverts don’t know how to relax and have fun. Introverts typically relax at home or in nature, not in busy public places. Introverts are not thrill seekers and adrenaline junkies. If there is too much talking and noise going on, they shut down. Their brains are too sensitive to the neurotransmitter called Dopamine. Introverts and Extroverts have different dominant neuro-pathways. Just look it up. [I don't know what Dopamine is, but if it's what makes me enjoy sitting around in my underwear watching Cartoon Network, then yeah, go Dopamine!]

Myth #10 – Introverts can fix themselves and become Extroverts. A world without Introverts would be a world with few scientists, musicians, artists, poets, filmmakers, doctors, mathematicians, writers, and philosophers. That being said, there are still plenty of techniques an Extrovert can learn in order to interact with Introverts. (Yes, I reversed these two terms on purpose to show you how biased our society is.) Introverts cannot “fix themselves” and deserve respect for their natural temperament and contributions to the human race. In fact, one study (Silverman, 1986) showed that the percentage of Introverts increases with IQ. [I've known plenty of Extroverts that needed to get "fixed" themselves. Having an extroverted personality doesn't necessarily mean that you've got all your crap together, and really, it probably wouldn't kill you to tone it down just a little.]

So I find myself now torn: should I continue to try to fight my inherent introvertedness, or should I embrace it and try to become the best introvert I can be?

What I want to say--what would be easiest to say--is, forget about being extroverted; I am introvert, lean in really close so you can hear me roar! But if this is new perspective on introverts is wrong, then I'm just justifying the things that make me comfortable and living a life that's less than it could be.

Plus, as a Christian, I'm called on to be an influence in the world for Christ. I think it goes without saying that an extrovert is typically going to be more of an influence than an introvert. So if I'm satisfied with remaining an introvert, am I abandoning my Christian mission?

Well, apparently that's something that other people have been thinking about too, because we have this book: Introverts in the Church: Finding Our Place in an Extroverted Culture. Here's part of the summary: "Introverts are called and gifted by God. But many churches tend to be extroverted places where introverts are marginalized. Some Christians end up feeling like it's not as faithful to be an introvert. Adam McHugh shows how introverts can live and minister in ways consistent with their personalities."

I've been uncomfortable with this aspect of my personality for so long that it seems almost too good to be true that I could, all of a sudden, just decide that it's okay after all. But I'm definitely going to be considering the possibility, and giving that book a look-see.

Dick Tracy Called, and He Wants His Hat Back

Every time I see him, I become more convinced that Ben Roethlisberger is really just a Will Ferrell character.

The Santorums, Coping, and Empathy

Mark Steyn notes the foolishness and hypocrisy of the political Left's reaction to how the Santorums coped with the death of their infant son.

Santorum has certainly said and done many crazy things, as have most members of America’s political class, but the “crazy thing” Colmes chose to focus on was Santorum’s “taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home,” whereupon he “played with it.” My National Review colleague Rich Lowry rightly slapped down Alan on air, and Colmes subsequently apologized, though not before Mrs. Santorum had been reduced to tears by his remarks. Undeterred, Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize–winning Washington Post columnist, doubled down on stupid and insisted that Deadbabygate demonstrated how Santorum is “not a little weird, he’s really weird.”

The short life of Gabriel Santorum would seem a curious priority for political discourse at a time when the Brokest Nation in History is hurtling toward its rendezvous with destiny. But needs must, and victory by any means necessary. In 2008, the Left gleefully mocked Sarah Palin’s live baby. It was only a matter of time before they moved on to a dead one.

Compassion is something that's talked about a lot by liberals, but in practice it's handed out sparingly--and conditionally. The weirdest thing to them about Santorum is his consistent and deep opposition to abortion, which makes everything else about him bizarre and contemptible.

By "Small Business" We Mean "Charity"

While watching the seventh game of a really good World Series, I just saw a commercial for a Starbucks marketing push called createjobsforusa.org. It goes like this:

Starbucks is teaming up with Opportunity Finance Network® (OFN) which is a group of community lending institutions set up to provide financing to community businesses that need our help. In donating to OFN, 100% of your donation will help create and sustain jobs in underserved communities. To launch this project, the Starbucks Foundation is donating the first $5,000,000. As a thank you for your donation, you’ll get a wristband to wear proudly as a symbol of your support.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if a business needs donations in order to operate and hire people, then it's not a business, it's a charity. And if a business financing organization needs donations in order to make loans to businesses, then it's not doing a very good job of choosing which businesses to lend to.

At least we've gotten to the point where everyone is having to acknowledge the fact that jobs come from private businesses and not the government. But it looks like we're still not totally clear on what private businesses are for, and why they have to be profitable and self-sustaining. Ah, well... baby steps.