All of us are hungry for heroes and as James Bowman points out, mythos has mysteriously gone missing. Interestingly, this missing mythos may factor into November’s election.

In an article in The American, Bowan claims that Hollywood has given up painting inspiring portraits of genuine heroism. Instead, it has turned to wilted depictions of victims, comic book characters, and whistle-blowers, while regularly confusing villains with heroes.

Contrary to what most producers and directors think, the demand for such hero-less movies is low. “The movie industry no longer aspires to portray genuine heroism,” Bowman says, “even though that’s precisely what audiences want to see.” He continues: “American movies have forgotten how to portray heroism, while a large part of their disappearing audience still wants to see celluloid heroes.”

Considering a recent piece in the New York Times, our soldiers may be the most affected by Hollywood’s heroic snub. In it, Lizette Alvarez uncovers disturbing information linking veteran’s violence to alcohol abuse. Bowman would say this is partly due to a lack of role models on the silver screen:

“During and after World War II, real-life heroes themselves often looked to the likes of John Wayne or Gary Cooper to see what a hero was supposed to look and act like. Such men hardly exist anymore, except in old movies.”

No doubt there are numerous other factors (and our soldiers are heroes in many ways). But Bowman does highlight our inherent desire for larger-than-life heroes. Interestingly, this desire may factor into the fall’s presidential election. According to Bowman, “Where there is no hope of a better world, there can be little to distinguish heroes from villains.”

This may be good news for the self-proclaimed candidate of hope, Barack Obama. If he’s able to convince the nation that he can bring change, he may have a heroic baptism come November. Still, a lack of heroics may just be what pushes John McCain over the edge. If, as our own Harrison Scott Key says, “true mythos is hard to come by these days,” John McCain could ride his war hero status all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue.

Barack Obama’s mantra of change has inspired young and old, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. While calls for change have become recycled rhetoric, Obama has convinced many that his promises won’t be relegated to the closet if elected. Some, however, aren’t buying it, including one staunchly liberal demographic—homosexuals.

In a recent ABC News interview, Obama infuriated gay rights advocates when he declared allegiance to the traditional view of marriage. “You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he told Jake Tapper. Like John McCain, he feels states should decide the gay marriage question.

Not surprisingly, the homosexual community responded harshly. The American Spectator’s David N. Bass reports that one lesbian blogger said: “If I hear ‘Marriage is between one man and one woman’ one more time from Obama’s mouth—or any Democrats mouth—I’m going to scream. How is this change? Leadership? Hope? Or do only straight people get to hope?” On the Reuters blog, Peter Henderson quotes one gay rights advocate as saying, “He was a civil rights lawyer. It just seems weird to me that he doesn’t think we should have full civil rights.”

Such a controversy, however, is unlikely to make huge difference come November. Unlike the riff in the Anglican Church over homosexuality, this disagreement among Liberals and Democrats will not bring schism. But it does show us something important: Mr. Obama is not as committed to radical change (at least regarding same-sex marriage) as some believe, or want him to be. As Bass puts it:

This underlines the tension that, for years, has seethed between the Democratic Party bosses and homosexual-rights activists on the issue of marriage. The far left wants strong rhetoric and actions to back it up. Politicians have elections to think about. . . . Obama is hardly the Democrats’ perfect savior. And at least on this one issue, he’s anything but the candidate of change.

On Wednesday, Barack Obama and John McCain decried the Supreme Court’s decision to ban capital punishment for child rapists.  But as McCain denounces the judicial activism seeping from the bench, he forgets that he’s partly to blame for it.

During the Clinton Administration, McCain voted to confirm two of the Court’s leading liberal Justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both of whom sided with the majority in yesterday’s capital punishment case, and also voted against the right to keep and bear arms in Thursday’s hand gun decision.  Still, a conservative voting to confirm liberal Justices isn’t that damning—unless that conservative is on the brink of appointing future Justices.

At Wake Forest’s commencement in May, McCain defended his decision, saying he voted for Ginsburg’s and Breyer’s nominations “for the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise.”

Scrutiny of a president’s judicial nomination can no doubt evolve into petty politics, but voting against a Justice’s appointment surely is not always “disingenuous,” especially if the nominee holds a drastically different judicial philosophy, and no doubt Ginsburg and Breyer do.  That’s why McCain’s website names Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito “as the model for John McCain’s judicial nominees,” not Ginsburg and Breyer.  That’s why his website also promises that McCain will appoint Justices who “understand that there are clear limits to judicial and federal power.”  This week, and in many other decisions, Ginsburg and Breyer proved they have a different judicial philosophy.

The question then remains: How can McCain defend his decision to appoint liberal Justices based on experience, and then vow to appoint future Justices based on judicial philosophy? Did McCain sell out while confirming Ginsburg and Breyer, or are his statements regarding judicial philosophy just rhetoric meant to pander to the Conservative masses?

Historic flooding across the upper Midwest this month left a wake of devastation, leaving 25,000 people in Cedar Rapids, IA homeless and destroying  between two and five million acres of crops across the Midwest.  Food banks charged with helping the victims are just now starting to feel the pinch.

Barb Prather of the Northeast Iowa Food Bank tells WOW, “We’ve been trekking food out for three solid weeks.”  She estimates that, “at minimum, we’ve provided 100,000 pounds of food” — a miracle considering the facility had to be vacated and was down for a week.  Barb Elsasser from the HACAP Food Reservoir in Hiawatha, IA tells WOW they’ve shipped 120,000 pounds of food just in the last seven days.  They average about 100,000 pounds per month.  But she’s bracing for even greater demand: “We haven’t seen a big influx yet.  People are still cleaning up and assessing the damage.  We expect that to come later.”

But oddly, some food banks are experiencing little increased demand.  An overdependence on government assistance may be to blame.

Wisconsin, still suffering from engorged rivers, has had the wettest June on record, with year-to-date precipitation in the capital city of Madison at nearly 28 inches (average is about 15 inches).  But the state’s victims aren’t relying on food banks for help.  “We’re quite shocked,” Gina Styer of Second Harvest of Wisconsin tells WOW.  “We’ve had no extra requests for food and we can’t figure it out.”  So where are the victims? A story out of Milwaukee may provide an answer.

On Monday, FOX reports, paramedics responded to a county office when 2,500 residents began fighting, even tearing down a door, in response to a rumor that they could get free food vouchers.  Rather than giving away vouchers, however, workers were only taking names.  Given a current policy in Wisconsin, however, the feeding frenzy is expected.

According to Styer, Wisconsin residents “don’t have to prove they have experienced flood damage” in order to get food assistance.  Not surprisingly, she said, the Milwaukee mob was probably filled with people looking for a free ride.  But that doesn’t account for everyone.  Which means many are choosing government assistance over other aid.  As the food banks lay full, government lines grow longer.  And for now, Styer says, “we’re just waiting for phone calls to come in.”

“Hi there, my name is Ron Steen. I am selling 2% of my future earnings for a chance to go to college.” That’s how an e-bay auction began in August 2006, in which one high school graduate offered to send the highest investor a check every year for 40 years in return for tuition money. E-bay eventually discontinued the auction, but Steen’s desperation does highlight a problem: college tuition prices growing like weeds.

In a recent article, American reporters Kevin Carey and Frederick M. Hess write, “between 1989 and 2005, college costs had increased at double the rate of inflation.” The College Board, administer of the SAT, says “there’s no escaping the fact that college costs are rising.” For the 2007-2008 year, it reported that, on average, families paid up to “$1,404 more than last year for this year’s tuition and fees.” Suddenly, Steen’s idea of a tuition market may not be so asinine.

The question, then, remains: What if students could convince investors to pay their college tuition in exchange for a fixed percentage of their future income? Such a tuition market could benefit all those involved. More students could afford college without incurring suffocating debt; banks would see fewer defaults; and we’d see increased standards of higher education. But it’s the latter that may be the greatest benefit.

As investors regularly look for “good deals,” colleges across the nation would be forced to lower prices and increase quality. Why invest in a $180,000 Harvard student, Carey and Hess ask, when one could invest $48,000 for a Pennsyltuckey U. student that produces similar, if not better, results (while collecting the same rate of return)?

The concept is tempting because it utilizes one of economics basic, most trusted principles: competition. And in an era where many top universities have sold their souls for cultural relevance, competition might be able to exercise the demons. Ivy League institutions such as Harvard (which has abandoned a common core curriculum) would be forced to once again offer an education instead of just a name. As Carey and Hess put it:

“Investors would steer away from overvalued institutions, making them more expensive, raising red flags, prompting hard questions from investors, and lending real urgency to institutional efforts to cut costs and boost student success.”

A New York Post story reports that young Christians are the newest target of the Obama campaign. Next week, Obama will launch the “Joshua Generation Project,” attempting to court young Catholics and Evangelicals.

A source told the Brody File: “There’s unprecedented energy and excitement for Obama among young evangelicals and Catholics. The Joshua Generation project will tap into that excitement and provide young people of faith opportunities to stand up for their values and move the campaign forward.”

The feeling among Evangelicals, however, is mixed. Mike Farris, president of Patrick Henry College, sent the Obama campaign a cease-and-desist letter, claiming he coined the term “Joshua Generation” and threatening legal action. He told the Post, “I don’t want Obama to win.”

Other Evangelicals have embraced the Senator and his effort. The Post quotes beliefnet.com editor Patton Dodd as saying, “I’m definitely drawn to Obama.” Dodd seems to echo the sentiments of many young Evangelicals just receiving their political driver’s licenses and ready to travel new roads. But while road trips to discover one’s identity are welcomed, some young conservatives are forgetting about essential issues—like abortion.

Abortion, no doubt, has long been a rallying cry for conservatives and Republicans. And too often, a conservative candidate’s stances on issues such as the economy take a back seat to his views regarding abortion. But while abortion shouldn’t be the only judging criteria, it certainly cannot be forgotten. Unfortunately, though, young voters are increasingly ignoring its significance.

A quote by Dodd offers a concerning glimpse into the mind set of Obama’s target audience. “I asked someone about abortion,” Dodd says, “and he said, ‘I’m less concerned with policies that kill the unborn than policies that kill the living.’” Citing this, the Post claims that “issues that were once non-negotiable . . . have been relegated by younger evangelicals to the dustbin of wedge issues.”

To the media, the irony is apparent: Conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and even most young people generally support young life. Barack Obama doesn’t. As The American Spectator reports, Obama has made numerous pledges to advance pro-choice legislation and even refuses “to define as ‘persons’ babies who survive late-term abortions.” Still, “his most ardent supporters” come from “18 to 30 year olds,” which is “the most pro life demographic in a generation.”

In a recent New York Times Magazine article, Michael Sokolove combats the popular statement that women and men aren’t different, and blames a 35 year-old government program for convincing young women that equality should be pursued at all costs.

In his article, Sokolove studies the alarming number of catastrophic knee injuries—specifically ACL tears—among young women. He discovers that “in sports that both sexes play . . . female athletes rupture their ACL’s at rates as high as five times that of males.”

The reason, Sokolove shows, is biological. As boys become men they produce more muscle which strengthens and stabilizes their joints. But as girls become women, they produce more fat which, coupled with increased estrogen levels, makes their joints lax. Additionally, according ACL researcher Steve Marshall of the University of North Carolina, women run and jump in a way that “they don’t absorb the impact of the landing in the same way that males do.” Combined with their weaker joints, the results are increased injuries.

But stating what was once obvious, that women and men are different, is taboo. To do so has become a claim of superiority and an admission of weakness. One woman in Sokolove’s article called his injury discussion an “emphasis on . . . inferiority.” Ironically, this thinking may be the result of a highly touted government program—Title IX.

“Title IX,” says Sokolove, “the federal law enacted in 1972 mandating equal opportunity in sports, has helped to shape a couple of generations of girls who believe they are as capable and as tough as any boy.” And they are increasingly losing the fight against biology. But girls aren’t the only victims; boys too are paying a price.

As Allison Kasaic points out on National Review, Title IX is eradicating male sports programs: “With the current enforcement measures for Title IX, the easiest way for schools to demonstrate compliance is to cut teams to achieve a politically-correct gender balance.”

Girls should play sports, that’s uncontested.* But what are we willing to sacrifice for a false sense of equality? Even feminist Kate Harding wonders:

When star soccer players are blowing out both knees before they finish high school—and that’s not happening to boys at anywhere near the same rate—there’s a difference that needs to be acknowledged here. It’s all well and good to be as tough as any boy on the field when you’re 17, but will it feel like such a victory when you’re 35 and can’t walk?

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Sarah Lueck reports that the 2008 Congressional elections are all but over, with the advantage going to the Democrats. “Republicans are bracing for double-digit losses in the House and the prospect of four or five losses in the Senate,” she says. A look at the current Congress, however, may show the future isn’t so bleak for the GOP.

In 2006, Democrats were pushing a recycled agenda promising change and results. Top Senator Harry Reid declared, “It’s time for bipartisanship. It’s time for open government, transparency, and it’s a time for results.” In an echo of Republicans’ 1994 “Contract with America,” Democrats unveiled “A New Direction for America,” or their “Six for ‘06” campaign: six areas they were committed to reforming.

So how is Congress doing? Just last month Congress made history with its dismal approval rating: it tied Gallup’s all-time low; an anemic 18%. In fact, Congress’s approval sits lower than the President’s, which is 10 points higher at 28%. So how did the 110^th Congressional prodigy turn into a back-room-bar bust? Lies (according to one Democrat) and broken promises.

In the latest issue of WORLD, Cal Thomas reports that veteran Representative Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) admitted he and his colleagues “sort of stretched the facts” regarding their commitment to bring troops home from Iraq. The remarks, captured on YouTube, are disheartening and demeaning. Fred Barnes says that the 110^th has “done nothing that matters,” scathingly calling it a “do-nothing Congress.” The numbers prove that the American people agree.

Not surprisingly, many election campaigns are built on the backs of broken promises. That’s just politics. But sometimes the promises are so big that failure cannot be overlooked or written off. Democrats promised returning GIs, and instead we saw a surge. They also promised cheaper gas, and instead gas has risen by more than $1.60 since they took control, translating into record prices at the pump.

The question now is: Will the American people suffer short-term memory loss come November? The Journal seems to think so. But Congress’s inability to institute “change” is sure to make even the most amnesia-plagued voter think twice. And if Congress’s current approval numbers stay anchored, a landslide Republican defeat may not be so imminent.

In an article for the Wall Street Journal , William McGurn argues that Barack Obama can fix one of the unintended consequences of John F. Kennedy’s presidency: he can once again give those “motivated by religious principles a place in public debate.”

As evidence, McGurn quotes a speech Obama gave two years ago at a Sojourners/Call to Renewal Conference. In his eloquent oration, Obama says:

“Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. . . . To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity.”

While JFK called for an “absolute” separation of church and state and said that a president’s faith should be his own “private affair,” Obama claims his faith is an integral part of his political life. But while this may induce hope for change within a party that has largely approached religion-informed politics with hostility, such hope is short-lived.

While McGurn believes Obama is the religious man’s Hercules, others believe Obama’s recent actions suggest otherwise. In an op-ed in last week’s San Diego Union-Tribune, Ruben Navarrette claims the once-proud member of Trinity United Church of Christ has sold out. With a “sleight of hand reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s,” Obama has become the candidate of political expedience, not the candidate of change. Leaving the congregation that supported him for so long, Navarrette says, “shows [Obama] is a traditional politician after all, and may suggest that his religious convictions are not all that firm.” Such abandonment-under-fire, he explains, is worrisome:

Long gone is Obama’s admirable rhetoric about how he could ‘no more disown’ his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., and implicitly his now-former church, than he could disown his own grandmother. Now, Wright has been disowned. The church has been disowned. And Grandma should watch her back. . . . [Obama’s] supporters are right to worry about the price of the ticket.

Navarrette may have a point: even JFK, in his famous religion speech refused to cave under pressure. “I do not intend to … disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election,” Kennedy said in 1960.

Navarette’s indictment may not mean Obama is unfit to run the country. But in light of Alisa Harris’s article this week highlighting the importance of virtue, it might be an indictment to heed.

Now that every major party has its nominee, the stage is set. Democrats have Obama, Republicans have McCain, Libertarians have Barr, and everyone else has Nader. But if there’s one name in that group which should concern Republicans and McCain most, it’s Bob Barr.

Barr, a disgruntled former Republican, has been gaining steady support. Political analyst Matt Towery told The Washington Times that Barr could “throw a monkey wrench in Republican plans.” Republican strongholds such as Georgia and North Carolina, the article explains, could go to Obama if Barr’s momentum in them continues.

Unlike Democrats and Republicans, who appear fractured, Barr’s momentum is due to a philosophy of unity. Libertarians believe politics isn’t just about a person, it’s about ideas. And while some think Barr cannot unite the party, The American Spectator’s Stacy McCain believes Barr has already seduced the cult-like following of the party’s former poster child, Ron Paul, which is good news financially considering Paul’s record-breaking fundraising history.

Whether Libertarian ideas are true or not, one can’t fault those who hold them for understanding that those ideas, the party, and the movement are bigger, and more important, than the name on the ticket. As one Barr supporter put it, “The Ron Paul movement wasn’t about Ron Paul. It was about a movement.” Those who disagree say that ideas differ drastically with each candidate. Thus, the choice of one candidate over another is really a choice of ideas. While true, for some reason Libertarians have largely sidestepped this issue.

Part of the reason is the party’s age. Compared to others, it is still in its political infancy, and supporters are so desperate for recognition they are willing to put small differences aside to unite for a common purpose. The other reason is its makeup. Many members are disillusioned with traditional party politics and are willing to sacrifice personal policy crusades to work together for change. In many senses, it’s a come-as-you-are party. As Barr puts it:

A lot of people, particularly a lot of younger people, are completely fed up with the system, they’ve seen the corruption of the system that has given us bigger government no matter which party’s in charge, they see the future as fairly bleak under the current system, and they’re ready to vote Libertarian for the first time.

It remains to be seen if “ready to vote” will translate into “will vote.” If it does, McCain has a problem.