So there I was, perking along in writerly fashion when — wham! — mononucleosis cut me down at the knees. I spent most of April in bed, but it appears I am now on the mend. For the mercifully uninitiated, mono is caused by the Epstein-Barr virus, which attacks the liver, spleen, and respiratory system. Mono commonly hits people between the ages of 15 and 25. Most people over 35 have been exposed and are therefore immune to the virus. I guess that makes me special.

The first signs of mono are a wicked sore throat, glands the size of golf balls, and utter exhaustion. And when I say exhaustion, I don’t mean tired. I mean feeling-like-roadkill-that’s-still-breathing. For the first week, I was able only to sleep or lie in bed, eyes open and panting, like one of those animals in a documentary that gets shot with a dart.

A person can learn a lot from having mono. I have learned:

• That my husband is a wonderful nurse. I am telling you, from the time my lab tests came back, I didn’t lift a finger. My husband and sons took over everything.
• That I have ace blogging colleagues. They have cheerfully picked up my slack without a single complaint.
• That I have wonderfully compassionate editors who have allowed me all the time and space I need for recovery. (The only pressure I feel is from my Type A self!)

I have also learned a new unit of measurement — the “frasier.” A frasier is equal to 22 minutes, which is the amount of time it takes to watch one DVR’d rerun of Frasier, my favorite TV show, if I fast-forward through all the commercials. You see, when you have mono, your body counts everything as “work.” Taking a shower, reading, getting dressed, even talking on the phone. After expending any energy at all, I had to rest. Often, I measured this rest in frasiers: “After I take a shower, I’ll rest for two frasiers.” (44 minutes.) “In three frasiers, I’ll go nuke a Lean Cuisine.”

See? Marking time without watching the clock. Very convenient.

Though I’m definitely improving, I’m not yet back up to full speed and so I still won’t be blogging for awhile. But I know many of you have been wondering what was ailing me, so I wanted to check in and tell you it’s not terminal, and also to say “thank you!” for your prayers.

Hillary Clinton may have received the endorsement of North Carolina’s governor for next week’s primary, but her rival Barack Obama may have done her one better by getting the implied support of University of North Carolina men’s basketball coach Roy Williams and his Final Four Tar Heel team. Yesterday, while Clinton was hobnobbing with Gov. Mike Easley, Obama scrimmaged with the Heels, at one point missing a layup after driving by consensus National Player of the Year Tyler Hansbrough. When Obama wasn’t getting enough passes his way, Williams yelled out from the sidelines : “You’ve got the future president of the United States wide open.”

In being present at such a pick-up game involving his players during the off-season, Williams was technically in violation of NCAA rules. The NCAA, however, made an exception in this case. “This was a unique situation and not an NCAA issue,” NCAA Media Relations Director Erik Christianson told The News & Observer. “It certainly was a great opportunity for the student-athletes to interact with a presidential candidate.”

It may not have concerned the NCAA, but rumors are now circulating that many of the Tar Heel faithful who are either Clinton or McCain supporters have gone over to the dark side and have become Duke fans.

Over at WORLDMag.com, Alisa Harris reports on the “cynical response” to last Friday’s acquittal of three New York police detectives in the death of Sean Bell:

The Associated Press noted that the detectives’ race—two of the three shooters were black—may have made the reaction less visceral. On NPR’s News and Notes, Huffington Post’s Trey Ellis hit on another problem—cynicism: “The disposability of black male life, unfortunately, has become common.”

Read her entire article here.

Faculty at the University of Georgia don’t want Justice Clarence Thomas speaking at commencement.  He’s just too controversial, even though he’s, like, kind of an important person: “Thomas’s critics, in turn, say they support his campus visits but believe that commencement speakers in general shouldn’t be controversial.”  Controversial, of course, means: Somebody we don’t agree with.  However, the University of Georgia has had a contentious year when it comes to sexual harrassment cases, and Janet Frick - associate professor of psychology – says this is why Thomas is the wrong speaker this year.

The selection of a commencement speaker who was embroiled in arguably the most public sexual harassment case in history – for this year’s commencement – demonstrates neither leadership nor sensitivity.

So, I can see her point.  But wasn’t his confirmation an exoneration of sorts from the whole Anita Hill thing?   

George Will provides what should be the next twelve questions that are asked of Barack Obama at the next debate, whenever that happens.  They are smart.  Here are my favorites. 

• “Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding ‘truly difficult cases’ should involve ‘one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.’ Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors-say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue-matter?”
• “You say John McCain is content to ‘watch [Americans'] home prices decline.’ So, government should prop up housing prices generally? How? Why? Were prices ideal before the bubble popped? How does a senator know ideal prices? Have you explained to young couples straining to buy their first house that declining prices are a misfortune?”
• “Telling young people ‘don’t go into corporate America,’ your wife, Michelle, urged them to become social workers or others in ‘the helping industry,’ not ‘the moneymaking industry.’ Given that the moneymakers pay for 100 percent of American jobs, in both public and private sectors, is it not helpful?”

Read the rest here.

Obama finally broke decisively with his pastor yesterday, after the Reverend Wright has been barnstorming across America with his dog and pony show.  Obama said:

“His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church,” Mr. Obama said, his voice welling with anger. “They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs.”

I don’t guess they’ll be hanging out together at dinner on the grounds.  And, to spare you any more Jeremiah Wright posts today, at least from me, you might enjoy this video of some of his recent comments, as rated by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.  And you might appreciate this unhealthy rant by Jimi Izrael, who is confused about why people should be accountable for their rhetoric:

All indications are that The Rev. Wright is unapologetic.  And Thank God for that.  Because The Wright Question is, if you can’t speak freely and plainly in church without consequence, where are you free? What is your freedom worth if you are not entitled to an opinion you can share-in any matter you like-among friends?

I don’t think anyone was suggesting that Wright wasn’t free to say those things, which constitute hate speech, frankly.  He was simply saying stupid and unfortunate things, and things that we didn’t want a potential U.S. president to be nodding in agreement to while sitting in the pews.

Brandon O’Brien’s Christianity Today column, “A Jesus for Real Men,” is an unfortunate example of opinion offered from cursory knowledge. A little bit of religious history is a dangerous thing. In fact, the overall consensus of O’Brien’s disserts is that he misses the point and innacurately caricatures and revises John Eldredge, Mark Driscoll, David Murrow.

I completely agree. O’Brien’s named “masculinity movement” has been the subject of much conversation over the past 25 years or so because a dying church in America is witnessing the fruit of radical feminism and the warehousing of generations of passive or abusive men.

Here’s recent data from David Murrow:

The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. As many as 90 percent of the boys raised in the church will abandon it by their 20th birthday. On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches. This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands. Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants. The majority of church employees are women (except for ordained clergy, who are overwhelmingly male). [Many only return when their girlfriends or wives bring them back.] More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and 5 out of 6 call themselves Christians. But only 2 out of 6 attend church on a given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.

We must wrestle with the fact that men have checked out of church-life in America.

Leon Podles provides a historical narrative of the masculinity crisis in The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity. Historian Anne Braude’s essay “Women’s History Is Religious History,” in the book Retelling U.S. Religious History readily admits that for quite some time Christianity has been, and continues to be, primarily oriented around meeting the needs of women and their children. Men are not around because American church does not connect.

However, O’Brien, doesn’t get it. The men he critiques are not trying to “re-masculate Jesus,” introduce “greater testosterone” into the church, or use natural instincts to define masculinity. Those are ridiculous assertions. They are addressing the fact that the average man in America simply does not connect with narrow image of Jesus presented in most churches today. The average man doesn’t feel like he fits into the overall ethos of church life since it has been, for far too long, almost exclusively oriented away from bringing men into a broader view of kingdom mission in ways that are unique to callings God has placed on men as they bear the image of God. Moreover, many of the men that do fit into churches organized primarily to meet the needs of women and their children are not the types of men that others look to follow.

O’Brien’s biblical theology is so bad that I’ll have to deal with it elsewhere but his claim that the only time Jesus appears as warrior are his “pre-incarnate” and “post-resurrection” debuts has no biblical warrant and largely misses the reality of spiritual warfare during Jesus life and ministry. Casting out demons is not spiritual warfare? The Kingdom needs warriors who are allied with God to fight against “principalities and powers.” Was Jesus not fighting the devil during his ministry?

Overall, O’Brien wrongly prejudices men against being challenged in good ways because of his own misunderstanding of church history, the reality of the church in America, and a biblical theology that may suffer from a lack of exegetical depth. If O’Brien “got it” a more accurate title to his unuanced opinion would be “The Bible’s Jesus for the Regular Guy.”

If O’Brien knows very little about the writings and teachings of the men he critiques, argues against a straw man, and mishandles biblical theology why should we take him seriously? This would be equivalent an accountant critiquing the Navy’s assessment of what makes a man a good Navy seal.

Three weeks ago, Christopher Ratte and his 7-year-old son, Leo, were enjoying a Tigers game at Comerica Park in Detroit. When Ratte, a 47-year-old tenured professor of classical archaeology at the University of Michigan, ordered his son a Mike’s Hard Lemonade, he didn’t realize that it was alcoholic. But a security guard did and quickly took action, setting off a chain of events that ultimately resulted in the Rattes losing custody of their son.

Almost everyone Chris Ratte met the night they took Leo away conceded the state was probably overreacting.

The sympathetic cop who interviewed Ratte and his son at the hospital said she was convinced what happened had been an accident, but that her supervisor was insisting the matter be referred to Child Protective Services.

And Ratte thought the two child protection workers who came to take Leo away seemed more annoyed with the police than with him. “This is so unnecessary,” one told Ratte before driving away with his son.

But there was really nothing any of them could do, they all said. They were just adhering to protocol, following orders.

And so what had begun as an outing to the ballpark ended with Leo crying himself to sleep in front of a television inside the Child Protective Services building, and Ratte and his wife standing on the sidewalk outside, wondering when they’d see their little boy again.

Although there is more to this story that further illustrates the idiocy with which the case was handled, suffice it to say, the family has since been reunited and Ratte and his wife have filed a complaint with CPS: “I have apologized to Leo from the bottom of my heart for the silly mistake that got him into this mess. But I have also told him that what happened afterward was an even bigger error, and I would like to be able to say to him that institutions, like people, can learn from their mistakes.” Thoughts?

HT: Frank in Phoenix

An unsuspecting high school freshman walks into practice in the basement of Hugh’s house, where my son’s team meets outside of school hours.

“So, where were you Monday, Riley?” asks Coach Yaller.

“I was with my family; it was a special occasion.”

“Oh, what was that?”

“My birthday.”

(A fearful groan sweeps the room, as the other wrestlers begin to slink away and hide their faces.)

“Oh, it was your birthday, huh? Well, happy birthday, Riley. Let me tell you something: The day of Hughey’s birthday, we wrestled. The day Hughey got married, we wrestled. The day Hughey’s father died, we wrestled. What in the &#^%$^& do we care about your birthday!”

Okay, coach Yaller is not Jesus. But the incident did remind me of something:

“…someone said to him, ‘I will follow you wherever you go.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.’ Yet another said, ‘I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.’ Jesus said to him, ‘No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God’” (Luke 9:58-62)

A Republican congressional candidate may have effectively sunk his campaign after he spoke at an event celebrating Adolf Hitler’s birthday.

Tony Zirkle, who is seeking the Republican nomination in Indiana’s 2nd District, stood in front of a painting of Hitler, next to people wearing swastika armbands and with a swastika flag in the background for the speech to the American National Socialist Workers Party in Chicago on Sunday.

Zirkle, who said he didn’t know much about the neo-Nazi group and compared his speech to other politicians appearing at Bob Jones University, has said he will “speak before any group that invites me.” But Porter County Republican chairman Chuck Williams is questioning why he “would stand up in front of a picture of Adolf Hitler when millions of Americans fought against that kind of oppression.” Yes, why indeed.