Excellent conversation on the show last night about this column from the Wall Street Journal. Fascinating perspective of a mom who wonders why she lets and pays for her tweener daughter to dress so provocatively. But even more fascinating as she reflects on the fallout of her own sexual promiscuity from the 1970's. How does a mom who regrets her own profligacy seek to share the value and meaning of sex as well as the virtue of chastity with her daughter? A very real question for the post-fem, post-pill generation who always assumed that more sex was good but has matured into adulthood and parenthood with regrets and shame. An interesting read to say the least.

On Monday night's show, I mentioned this piece by Timothy Reichert in First Things regarding the pill. It seems particularly relevant given Sen. Barbara Mikulski's push for ObamaCare to subsidize heavily or even give away the birth control pill as "preventive health care." As if pregnancy were a disease or an illness. Contrary to popular opinion (with the media's ignorance of social data), the birth control pill actually harms women and children and places a greater economic burden on them. More single moms, fewer marriages, lower expectations of men, more illegitimate children, more adultery, more divorces, and more abortions. Thus, more women and children living in poverty. All brought to you by the pill and its miraculous promise of sexual liberty without consequences. Reichert does a great job of bringing the data to bear to demonstrate the Mikulski's good (or not so good) intentions accomplish the exact opposite of what she would hope. Read his piece here. First Things is available by subscription only so this link gets you the next best access to Reichert's excellent column.

The tragic suicide of Tyler Clementi at Rutgers University last week has immediately been commandeered by activists of all stripes to suit their causes. By making the issue a gay issue or a hate crime issue, these activists miss the point. Bullies are a part of life. Bullies come on school buses, on college campuses against heterosexual kids, and even in the workplace. We will never eliminate bullies, but we can prepare kids to deal with them. To be a good parent you need a proactive approach to coaching your child to deal with bullies. 90% of parenting is showing up. There is no substitute for time spent asking your child, "How was your day? Tell me about it." Parenting is not something to be outsourced or done remotely. Listening to your child on a regular basis will help you detect signs that he/she is being bullied. Listen first and listen carefully. Get all the details. Then decide how best to coach your child. They likely need you to be a coach more than a fixer. Providing your child with real social skills may be one of the greatest gifts you ever give. Assuming the problem is not already out of hand, calmly talk through ways your child can deal with the difficult person in their setting. Then follow up regularly to hear how things are progressing. If you feel the problem is more serious, speak directly with your child's teacher or school counselor. Clue them in to what you are hearing from your child. Ask for their help and work in partnership with them to address the issue vigorously. Bullies will come, and with your help, bullies will go. And your child will be the better for having learned how to handle this for himself.

The news scrolled across the bottom of my screen and I had to scrub my eyes to be sure I was reading it correctly. “Openly gay actor, Neil Patrick Harris, and partner, David Burtka, expecting twins.” Two men “expecting twins?” How, exactly, does that work? Expecting twins to do what? As I learned more, the facts became clear. Harris, of Doogie Howser and How I Met Your Mother fame, and his lover have retained a surrogate womb to incubate twins. Whose sperm and whose eggs are being used to produce the twins is unclear. In their press statements, Harris and David continually emphasized the word, “normal.” One sentence even had them speaking over each other as Neil begins, “...We get to do it a normal (then David interjecting: normal) way – like people would normally (then David interjecting again: emphasis on the word, 'normal') do.” They used the word “normal” four times within two seconds of audio. Methinks they doth protest too much. How exactly is it “normal” for two men to retain a surrogate womb (for fee, I presume) to birth twins? Perhaps someone can help me understand that. In fact, it is deeply concerning. Intentionally creating the lives of two children and then intentionally denying those children the love of a mother is simply wrong. Indeed it reeks of selfishness. How can anyone bless as normal the decision to deprive two children of experiencing the ongoing, daily unconditional love of a mother? Many families are forced to cope without a mother as a necessary response to exigencies of life. However, Harris and Burtka are doing it on purpose. No person or couple should ever set out from the beginning to deprive children of the presence of their mother. In America today, we often have the conversation regarding how fathers matter. Such a conversation is crucial in a culture where over 40% of children were born to single mothers last year. But now, we are actually having to engage in a conversation on whether mothers really matter. There is nothing normal about this. Mothers are unique. They hold children in ways that men do not. Research demonstrates how a mother's touch nurtures, calms, and soothes. In contrast, a father's touch stimulates and energizes a child. Children need both. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable parts in an assembly line; they complement one another. When both are present, children thrive. Why intentionally set up a child never to have any chance to experience that complementarity from the outset of life? Children have rights. After all, they are human beings, real persons in their own right. They are not pets or accessories. They do not exist merely to make their parents happy or to make them look good in public. In the same statements mentioned above, Harris noted how he and Burtka already work all the time, so he guesses that they will just have to give up sleep. In other words, “We are bringing children into the world on purpose, but we do not have much room for them, nor for a mother. Please celebrate this news with us!” The couple's behavior smacks not only of selfishness but of consumerism at its zenith. Retaining a surrogate to satisfy a desire that they cannot fulfill themselves. Denying the nurturing role of a mother because children in this couple's world revolve around adults and exist to bring satisfaction to the “parents.” Children thrive when they know who their life-giving parents are. They also deserve to know those parents as fully and completely as possible. After all, those parents serve as the primary source of identity, genetics, and self by virtue of their procreative role. Children also deserve to know that their lives were created in an act of love as the foundation from which their existence springs rather than from an act of selfishness sought on the open market or from a sperm catalog or an egg bank. Finally, as impolitic as it may be to point out, the incidence of pedophilia and molestation by homosexual males is dramatically higher than such rates in heterosexual males. Dr. Ray Blanchard's work, as documented in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, suggests that homosexual men are between 6 and 20 times more likely to engage in pedophile behaviors than heterosexual males. Kurt Freund and others have produced similar data in the Journal of Sex Research. I have no reason to imply or suggest that Harris or Burtka will demonstrate such behaviors in their own particular case; however, it is important for our culture to note that placing children (whether by design or by circumstance) in homes led by gay men locates children in the highest risk settings for abuse. It is hard to imagine that anyone would define that as good or healthy. When a child's welfare and future are at stake, adults come second. Harris and Burtka do not seem to get that. This is all about them and what they want and their desire to play a giant game of pretend. We are “expecting twins.” No, really, you are not. Your relationship may be loving and fulfilling in many ways for you, but it is intrinsically incapable of producing a new life. And your selfish actions at the expense of children are anything but normal.

Adam Smith got it right. We human beings, given the chance, act out of our own self-interest. Lebron James proves that point but not for the reason you think. In a story that took on epic proportions because of the slow summer news cycle, Lebron James chose the Miami Heat over the the New York Knicks, the Chicago Bulls, and even his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers for one reason. Not money. Not championships and rings. Very simply, Lebron is looking for love not loot. And all the critics, who have skewered Lebron for the over-hyped way in which his free agency decision arrived, have missed this basic point. If Lebron were merely looking for loot, or even for fame, he certainly would not have chosen Miami. He will end up with less salary there than from any of his other choices. If he were seeking the vainglory of championship rings, Lebron would have selected Chicago, which has a full roster in place with comrades like Derrick Rose, Carlos Boozer, and Joiakim Noah. After all, basketball is a team sport played by five men with a group of reserves to complement them. Chicago has that, and at present, Miami does not. The Heat now have a roster with just four players: Lebron, Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade, and Mario Chalmers. They have no fifth starter, and they have no bench. Their salary cap is nearly expended, so they have little money to find the additional parts of the whole. Teams win championships not threesomes. Just ask Wilt, Jerry, and Elgin. So why in the world did Lebron James land in Miami? Love and family. In April, I enjoyed a nine hour flight to Poland where I would do some teaching and also some sharing of my new book, Confessions of a Mega-Church Pastor: How I Discovered the Hidden Treasures of the Catholic Church. On that flight, I watched every movie that was available on the airline seat viewer. My final foray into obscure video came in the form of a documentary called More Than a Game. I had never heard of it, but nine hours is a long time and I was willing to watch anything. The documentary chronicles the boyhood and development of Lebron James in his hometown of Akron, Ohio. As is well-known, Lebron never had a relationship of any kind with his father. In fact, it is unclear if the identity of his father is even known. I will not bother to comment on the lawsuit filed on the day of Lebron's free agent announcement by a man claiming to be Lebron's father and seeking $4MM in compensation. How one would seek money from a child you never claimed or supported is beyond me, but I will leave that analysis for another time. Nevertheless, More than a Game reveals the innocence and needs that the young Lebron experienced. His need for love, family, and direction were filled by a group of childhood friends with whom he formed such a close bond that they played youth league, AAU, and then high school ball together. Very little change occurred in that group. They bonded, and with the help from a few teammates' fathers, Lebron emerged as the best high school basketball player in America. However, he did not emerge as the leader. Other players in that childhood fraternity led the team; Lebron starred. And there is the crucial difference. Lebron found family and home in that group. He found strong men who helped him along the way. Simply watching that film brought tears to my eyes because the Lebron of the documentary is a boy looking for love, not fame or success. On that team, Lebron did not have to lead; he merely needed to play ball well. His was an unusual role of the star whose performance is complementary. As a result, he found a bond that still exists to this day as evidenced by most of the friends who still surround him. That group from his childhood team IS his family. Lebron became who he is today because of a small group of people that became his family. We all want to be loved. Love and family are powerful motivators. Lebron chose Miami because he can best replicate there that sense of family with his two close friends, Bosh and Wade. These three played together on the 2008 Olympic team. They bonded. More importantly, Lebron will not have to lead. Miami is Dwyane Wade's team. Lebron got enough mantle-carrying in Cleveland. The top dog role does not suit him well. Deep down, he prefers to draft behind the leadership of a stronger personality – his point guard in high school, and now Dwyane Wade in Miami. Lebron is Pippen. Wade is Jordan. All this leads to two crucial points. First, fathers play an indispensable role. It is no accident that lead dogs like Kobe, Jordan, and Wade all had strong fathers in their lives. Lebron did not. As a result, he is still emerging as a man. He is still just 25. He will find warmth and comfort in the presence of Dwyane Wade. He will find the love and family that he has not replaced since leaving Akron and receiving the mantle he was not prepared for in Cleveland. Lebron was thrust into a leadership role at age 18, straight out of high school. He had no father to prepare him. Nor did he have a coach like Dean Smith or Tom Crean. His one consistent touchstone is that basketball family from his childhood, that band of brothers and a surrogate father. Second, Lebron provides an important lesson in Adam Smith thinking. We act out of self-interest, which is not always measured in money. Countless employees decide every day to remain where they are or to take new jobs not for the money but for other reasons. Stability, less pressure, location, or a sense of value and affirmation just to name a few motivators. Self-interest is not necessarily the same as money, greed, or avarice. Many leaders do not understand this point. Money does not motivate most health-care providers. Other reasons like mission or compassion do. Money does not motivate most immigrants. Opportunity, freedom, and hope for a better future do. And money certainly does not motivate Islamic terrorists. Mission and a perverse faith do. Self-interest comes in many forms. Money is merely one of those. Lebron has money and fame; he is looking for love. He hopes to re-create in Miami what he had in high school, a family. The leader Wade and the paternal Pat Riley provide the nucleus of that family. So to the critics of Lebron who see in him a greedy, self-aggrandizing ego, understand that Lebron's childhood poverty and wobbly family has created needs in him that could not be met in Cleveland or Chicago where he would have been asked to serve as the father giving love and leadership. Nor could his needs be met in New York where he would have been in a Cleveland-like role made worse by the glare and pressure of the New York media. Only Miami could offer a complementary role as a part of a loving family. True self-interest prevailed.

I had the best Father's Day ever. No question about it. My two daughters put a great deal of time and thought into celebrating what I affectionately call "the most important day of the year." We had a marvelous time - the gift of an Iphone (cool!), a strawberry cake, Ferris Bueller, and a full day together. But one thought struck me at the end of the day as I got in bed for the night. My older daughter came in and gave me my Father's Day card. They had forgotten it earlier in the day. On one portion, she listed 9 of her favorite memories with me. Without exception, there were no "big moments," like paying for college or taking a big European vacation. Instead, her most powerful memories were smaller moments at times that were significant to her. When she was home sick for the day. When she lost an election. When we had a father-daughter date night. Little things accumulated day by day over time. Not big planned events or trips. In reading her card, I got it. The most important gift a father can give his children is just showing up. Being there, day in and day out. In a crazy, frantic world, the consistent presence of a father in a child's life makes all the difference between stability/love and chaos/fear. It really is much simpler than we often make it.

In response to my show defending the Sunderland family regarding their decision to allow Abby, 16, to try to sail around the world by herself, I got a flurry of emails. Here is my favorite - while reading it, please pray for her safe rescue. Allen, I've been doing solo expeditions since I was 14 years old. I've spent over 2 years on Isle Royale National Park, a month and a half in the Teton Backcountry, over 7 months in the bottom of the Grand Canyon and other trips. It has been the best thing I could ever do with my life. It has made me independent and self sufficient. I have found that if you can deal with what nature deals you, with only your own resources, you can handle anything that happens in the "civilized" world. Abby was very lucky to have parents that would teach her and support her dream. She actually developed and realized a passion to follow that dream. Most kids today can't get off the couch. The subject of her age is a controversy, but people are not popped out of a cookie cutter. Some people are born for adventure and most will never see it or yearn for it. Almost everybody wants to be safe and in familiar territory. A few people want to reach out there into the unknown and learn for themselves. If I had not started solo expeditions at 14 years, I never would have developed the skills to move on to bigger and more astounding experiences. I support her parents decision. Only they, in conjunction with Abby herself, know if she was ready to take on this adventure. I'm sure that she had many frightening experiences before she reached this stage and learned from them. Anyway, I feel strongly about Abby. I pray for her and wish her good luck and fortune. Thanks for bringing this up, Allen, Bob

Blockbuster closed; friends are encouraging us to check out NetFlix. But I have to say - I still love my DirecTV! We have enjoyed how wonderfully cheap and easy it is to get a movie off the dish anytime we want. A pleasure! So this weekend's late-night flicks were: The Proposal. Much better than I expected - but then again, I did not expect much. This makes two Sandra Bullock movies I have watched (The Blind Side was the other) in the same month. I need medical help. The plot is absurd. Bullock plays a high-powered publishing executive who is about to be deported to Canada because she did not maintain her immigration status. She is reviled by her employees but forces her personal assistant to marry her in order to allow her to stay in the USA. Told you it was absurd. This romantic comedy works well despite the banal plot, but then again that is what romantic comedies usually do. But the light-hearted fun easily outpaces the stupid plot and banality. I recommend it - AHS Grade: B- Julie and Julia This one is an odd story. It parallels the life of Julia Child in France and the life of a young woman in Queens who decides to cook all of the recipes in Mastering the Art of French Cooking in a single year. I love Amy Adams. She plays the young woman in Queens and does an excellent job of playing a self-conscious literary wanna-be who grows over the course of a year into the world of adulthood. I am not a big fan of Meryl Streep. I know - call me boorish. She acts well enough but something about her just makes my skin crawl. A little too self-affected and over-praised perhaps. She does a nice job of portraying Julia Child although her story is less compelling and interesting than that of the young woman in Queens who seems more real and authentically revealed. An average movie. AHS Grade: C