The secret – which Matt Drudge told, of course – is out: Britain’s rash and handsome Harry has fought behind Afghanistan’s front lines for the past two months. Now Britain is yanking her royal son from the Helmland and bringing him home.

The prince, a military academy grad and third in line to the British throne, couldn’t serve with his troops in Iraq so he cut a secret deal to go to Afghanistan instead. Red-headed bad boy and “playboy prince,” he’s always had a wicked flair his slightly balding, boring older brother William lacks. (William’s contribution to the Afghanistan fight: A letter saying Princess Di would have been proud.)

And this time, the world’s reaction is not to frown on the recklessness of a guy once dumb enough to dress up like a Nazi for a costume party. Kathryn Jean Lopez gushes on The Corner, “Prince Harry seems like such an impressive young man,” not just because of his bravery but also because he seems miraculously cured of his booze thirst. John Noonan writes on The Weekly Standard blog, “This kind of leadership impresses me no end.” Human Events writes, “Prince Harry the hero puts Europe to shame.” The Morning Journal says,“A prince obviously doesn’t have to do such things.” Allan Mallinson’s pride is palpable: “Well, now Cornet Wales can look every soldier in the eye. Indeed, he can look the whole country in the eye. And his gritty determination to do his bit ought to have recruits clamouring at every barracks gate.”

In an embarrassingly-timed column today, Abe Greenwald claims that democracy is superior to monarchy because good looks correlate with high intelligence: “Our radiant, twinkling, and smoldering candidates are clear indications of the health of our democracy.” Greenwald proves his point by unforgivably ignoring William and Harry’s good looks, choosing instead to compare our potential leaders with the unfortunate-faced Prince Charles. “Erase the great experiment of America,” he says, “and we’d be poised to kneel at the throne of this dull and cowardly man who makes Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich look like Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.”

But Britons are allowed to be a little smug today: Erase the great American experiment and you could have some national pride in a prince who makes American worthies look, well, cowardly and dull. Commanders-in-chief usually conduct wars so far removed from the fight it’s like playing a computer game — push a button, make some sterile, artificial gore. Years ago, though, the men in charge of starting wars actually fought them. It didn’t lead to fewer wars, but it may have made for bigger, braver men.

As fanatically loyal as his young fan kingdom may be, Jack Johnson falls squarely into that category of laid-back, happy-sounding adult pop that thrives on the shameless reworking of Oprah/Dr. Phil/Your Next Door Neighbor platitudes and equally populist, everyday emotions.

This music continues to have irresistible appeal, based on its a) generally quite talented musicians; b) beginner-level listening complexity; and c) undeniable effectiveness as the soundtrack to monotonous daily life. The songs end up invading our consciousness so thoroughly that we’d like even the best of them to disappear and never see daylight again. Try flipping on the car radio, shopping in Borders, or eating in a restaurant without hearing Corinne Bailey Rae’s cute-but-beaten-to-death “Put Your Records On.” There’s nothing like corporate radio channels to ruin a good easy-listener.

Through no fault of his own, overplay has brought out the more obnoxious characteristics of Jack Johnson’s several hits (anyone still love “Upside Down,” “Banana Pancakes,” or “Middle Man”?) So it makes a bit of sense that he would “shake it up” on Sleep Through the Static—his phrase for, I guess, the addition of piano and random horns. I will resist the temptation to compare this artistic “turn” to Iron & Wine’s acoustic-poet-turned-folk-band on The Shepherd’s Dog; Johnson hasn’t come anywhere near reinventing himself, and his embellishments, ironically, take him a step closer to his timeless-but-tiresome adult-pop contemporaries.

That’s not to say I’m panning this record, but having to grasp for something to say (either in praise or criticism) is not a great sign. There is a lot to like about the spirited, lilting “Monsoon,” which mimics the melody of Tim McGraw’s “Watch the Wind Go By,” thows in a nice helping of bluesy piano, and returns to Johnson’s signature evocation (“If the moon can turn the tides it can pull the tears/And take them from our eyes/Make them into monsoons”). Johnson’s personality meets Wilco’s guitar proficiency on “They Do, They Don’t,” which features reverberating riffs, some cool jazz percussion, and a momentary descent into some (almost) folk rock.

Jack Johnson is virtually impossible to hate—Sleep Through the Static included — but no one will fault you for being entirely indifferent. After all, this is music no one has to buy or otherwise seek out. Whether it’s in Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, Ruby Tuesday, or all of the above, it will find you soon enough.

If you’re not a subscriber of WORLD — or if you are one and are just impatient and can’t wait for the next issue to arrive in your mailbox — head on over to WORLDMag.com to check out the March 8/15 issue, hot off the server. Here are some highlights:

Cover story: As we approach the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the conflict, Mindy Belz examines the Unfinished Business that is the war in Iraq.

Remembering William F. Buckley Jr.: Marvin Olasky describes how the founder of the National Review gave conservatism wit and a rudder.

Movie review: Megan Basham reviews Vantage Point, which she notes is able to follow the terror war and succeed as entertainment.

Veepstakes: Mark Bergin analyzes the race for the No. 2 spot on the Democratic and Republican presidential tickets and the significance these choices represent.

Michael English: Lynn Vincent reports that after years of false starts, this Christian vocalist is back with a message of redemption.

Plus: a recap of last week’s Oscars, a look at a new book on the Great Depression, an analysis of the transfer of power in Cuba, and much more.

For all you non-subscribers out there, we’d love to have you join our family of readers. Click here for more info.

A bit paradoxically, John McCain’s growing pack of endorsers presages a rocky road for the presumptive GOP candidate, whom many conservatives still have trouble rallying behind. On Thursday, McCain picked up the backing of former Secretary of State James Baker, and on Wednesday of another, more controversial John—Pastor Hagee, a well-known megachurch televangelist and pro-Israel author.

The Hagee endorsement could help McCain’s standing among evangelicals, but the pastor of the 19,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio has made what critics say are anti-Catholic comments. Catholic League president Bill Donohue yesterday spoke out against Hagee, saying he’s “waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church.” Hagee has indeed referred to the Catholic Church as “the Great Whore of Revelation 17,” the “antichrist system,” the “apostate church.” (Mike Huckabee likewise received flak for speaking at Hagee’s church in December.)

Donohue’s joined media pundits in saying Hagee represents for McCain what the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan represents for Barack Obama, a problem Tim Russert tried to highlight during Tuesday night’s Ohio debate, drawing in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s minister at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago who has praised Farrakhan. “Why is Louis Farrakhan deemed by our political establishment to be so radioactive as to not be fit for good company—black candidates are required to repudiate his support even when they haven’t sought it and denounce his views even when they’ve never advocated anything close to those views—but John Hagee is a perfectly acceptable figure whom mainstream GOP politicians are free to court without any consequences or media objections?” Glenn Greenwald writes in Salon.

At the opposite end, McCain lost the support of backer Bill Cunningham, a popular talk-show host in Cincinnati who styles himself after Rush Limbaugh, after McCain repudiated Cunningham’s repeated use of “Barack Hussein Obama” and disparaging comments during a crowd warm-up. (McCain was entering the rally as Cunningham went into his screed.) Afterwards, McCain said he wanted “to dissociate myself with any disparaging remarks that may have been said about” Obama. Cunningham also called Obama “a hack, Chicago-style Daley politician” whom the media would eventually “peel the bark off” and reveal “sweetheart deals” he received in Chicago. Cunningham, often and ardently denounced by critics as a right-winger, then bizarrely said Tuesday on Fox News that he is “going to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president because she would do a better job in the Oval Office.”

The political thriller Vantage Point explores a terrorist attack in Salamanca, Spain through the unfolding perspectives of witnesses, accomplices, and victims. Upon first observation, the President of the United States (William Hurt) is assassinated when opening an international summit on terrorism… or is he?

We quickly learn that the man shot in the public square doubles for the President; additionally, the terrorists who shot the presidential double set off two bombs. Is this public destruction or do they have a subtler plan?

Dennis Quaid plays the heroic Secret Service agent who spearheads the discovery of the truth, but he by no means carries the film. Instead, the film retells the first twenty minutes of action five times, each from one individual’s ‘vantage point’ that provides new information. Multiple retellings of a narrative are always difficult to execute, requiring the viewer to wade through previously-told, superfluous information in order to discover those moments that propel the plot. This movie increases the audience’s frustration in the narrative by visually rewinding each perspective before moving on to a new analysis. By the second rewind the audience sounded restless, and by the fifth I heard laughs of annoyance.

Free of sex and surprisingly tasteful in its depiction of violence (rated PG-13 for the violent subject matter and some language), Vantage Point nevertheless fails to thrill. Plot holes abound, driven by inconsistencies of character and action. The movie asks us to believe that every president has a double but that no Secret Service agent wears a bullet proof vest, that a special services officer is more intimidated by five lone terrorists than he is by the collected forces of the President’s security guards. Ultimately the array of illogical plot points overpowers the film, making more of a comedy than a thriller.

“Fast Break” by Edward Hirsch

In Memory of Dennis Turner, 1946-1984

A hook shot kisses the rim and
hangs there, helplessly, but doesn’t drop,

and for once our gangly starting center
boxes out his man and times his jump

perfectly, gathering the orange leather
from the air like a cherished possession

and spinning around to throw a strike
to the outlet who is already shoveling

an underhand pass toward the other guard
scissoring past a flat-footed defender

who looks stunned and nailed to the floor
in the wrong direction, trying to catch sight

of a high, gliding dribble and a man
letting the play develop in front of him

in slow motion, almost exactly
like a coach’s drawing on the blackboard,

both forwards racing down the court
the way that forwards should, fanning out

and filling the lanes in tandem, moving
together as brothers passing the ball

between them without a dribble, without
a single bounce hitting the hardwood

until the guard finally lunges out
and commits to the wrong man

while the power-forward explodes past them
in a fury, taking the ball into the air

by himself now and laying it gently
against the glass for a lay-up,

but losing his balance in the process,
inexplicably falling, hitting the floor

with a wild, headlong motion
for the game he loved like a country

and swiveling back to see an orange blur
floating perfectly through the net.

(from Wild Gratitude, 1985)

The Washington Post reported yesterday on a new federal study which reveals that more than 1 in 100 Americans are incarcerated, the highest percentage in U.S. history, and greater than that of countries like China. Faced with the rising costs of keeping more and more people in prison, states are considering experiments with alternative sentences for non-violent offenders.

My grandfather was a Gideon, and used to take Bibles to the local prison, where he visited with the inmates. I never went with him. I wondered why he did it, why he had such concern for them. The only people I knew about who’d gone to prison belonged there. They were grown-up versions of the bullies I had to face in grade school. I didn’t think about why they were there, any more than I thought about why bullies picked on little kids like me. I only knew that I wished more than once that our school had a prison, too.

I wonder if anyone in an official capacity, amidst all the criminological studies examining incarceration rates, and recidivism, and cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies, will ask why so many young men — for these are largely the population we are talking about — are committing crimes. Think about it: we live in one of the most prosperous nations on earth, such that even our poor have, except in the most extreme cases, a standard of living well above that of a substantial portion of the world’s population. We have enormous liberty, as well. What’s more, women are more sexually available now than at any other time in history. The present-day U.S. should be a young heathen’s nirvana.

But still there is this great ache, or some despair, or some deep need, that drives young men to steal, and attack, and rape, and murder. It drives them to poison their own bodies. What is it?

I hope you didn’t read this far for an answer, because I haven’t a definitive one. I do recall Charles Colson telling a story about providing prisoners in his ministry with cards and stamps before Mother’s Day, so that those who wanted to could send their mothers a small token of their affection. The response, he said, was overwhelming — so much so that when Father’s Day approached, he decided to make the same offer. That second time, however, there were few takers. These broken men — many of them ruthless criminals — jumped at the chance to send a token of love to their mothers. But they had nothing, most of them, to say to their fathers.

Do you think there’s a connection between that sad reality, and the rising prison population? And if so, what can be done? More specifically, because we can likely count on governments to avoid this hot potato the way presidential candidates avoid direct statements, what can churches do?

John McCain had a slip of the tongue yesterday, almost calling himself a liberal:

“I’m a proud, conservative, liberal Republi- Hello! Easy there,” McCain said, laughing along with his audience at Texas Instruments Inc.

He corrected himself immediately. “Let me say this: I am a proud, conservative Republican, and both of my possible or likely opponents today are liberal Democrats.”

But was it really a slip, or merely a reflection of the state of his political heart?

What is art?  It’s not just a question philosophy professors asked confused students.  It’s not just a punchline in a graduate seminar.  It’s a question that wealthy people ask themselves so they can have a better idea of how much to pay. 

Art paralysis: It is a widespread and often crippling malady, striking everyone from the new college grad in his or her first apartment to the super-rich banker, lasting anywhere from a few months to a lifetime. How many are affected is not known, perhaps because the victims are often too embarrassed to come forth. Who wants to admit that “I’ve had these posters since college, I know that as one of the American Top 10 Orthodontists I should get some real art, but I don’t know what that means”? Or that “It’s not that I’m trying to make a minimalist statement with these empty white walls, I just don’t know what to buy”? Or “I walk into those snooty galleries in Chelsea and feel like I just don’t belong”?

This problem is common for the rest of us, too.  I know some of us here couldn’t care less about art, or about the world of it, but I kind of feel this latent obligation to have a little art.  I’m a believer.  I work in the arts.  I’ve read all those books about art and creativity and Christianity and how the church needs to embrace the arts and what the Bible says and suggests about art and how art is incarnational and all that.  So, I feel like I ought to be one of the few believers on my block to own a little art.  But I’m poor.  Until I sell the Great American Novel, then, I will have to settle for trading for art.  I’ve helped artists write their “artist statements,” and they always give me something small.  I’ve gleaned forgotten pieces of art from my poor artist friends.  It’s a start. 

But if you still don’t know what art is, and you have the money to care, you can do what these people did and get an art consultant. 

“I am astounded that in this day and age many churches still don’t allow women to preach.”

I heard it again on the radio today and it always feels like fingernails down a chalk board. Never mind the church policy issue for now; it’s the “in this day and age” part that grates.

My favorite line in Disney’s “Sleeping Beauty” comes where the prince announces — to his father’s protestation — that he’s going to marry a peasant girl:

Prince: “Now, father, you’re living in the past. This is the fourteenth century. Nowadays…”

King: “Nowadays I’m still the king, and I command you to come to your senses.”

All debates aside regarding the issue of “true love” versus “arranged” marriages, the script writer has amused and embarrassed us by showing the vacuousness of an appeal to modernity as the royal flush of argumentation. We find it very funny that the prince thinks he stands at the absolute apex of human enlightenment. This is because we believe we stand at the apex of human enlightenment, we of the 21^st century, before whom all were barbarians.

Next time some expert on the radio says she rejects this or that position or tradition because it isn’t “modern” or “progressive,” I would like to hear her interviewer redirect the conversation to more substantial avenues — such as whether the position has merit or is “true.”