It’s easy to predict what the response will be to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Walt Disney Company’s latest holiday blockbuster: smiling faces on children of all ages. Rather than recasting C. S. Lewis’ compelling children’s tale along the lines of the Gospel according to Hollywood, producers reserved their creative talent for visually representing the story that Lewis actually wrote.

Lion will effectively demonstrate that, where free enterprise is allowed to flourish, the most profitable filmmaking strategies give people what they want. With 50 million Evangelicals in the United States, the dearth of films representing conservative Christian values in a good light has been unsettling. Now, that is changing. An insightful column in the Economist noted that Hollywood’s delayed response was “thanks to a combination of institutional lethargy and cultural blinkers. But Disney’s support for C.S. Lewis’s children’s classic reflects a realization that the industry needs to learn how to tap into what insiders call ‘Passion’ dollars.”

After viewing Lion, I can say with certainty that Disney has learned to do just that. Significant deviations from the spirit of the story are absent, while many of the tiniest details are included. For example, two—count them: one, two—mothballs drop out of the wardrobe when Lucy opens the door. Also, when the camera quickly pans around Mr. Tumnus’s cave you can catch the titles on his bookshelf, such as Is Man a Myth?

Of course, there are those that will be unhappy with the film. Among them will be avowed atheist Philip Pullman, author of the critically acclaimed children’s series His Dark Materials. Pullman leveled serious charges against The Chronicles and in one instance called the series “one of the most ugly and poisonous things I have ever read.” Some of his other remarks concerning the books are equally or more vituperous. Most of his deep-seated, arbitrary vitriol reminds one of another Lewis character, Wormwood’s Uncle Screwtape, or, in keeping with the season, Seuss’s Grinch who stole Christmas.

This holiday season it appears that Hollywood will be leaving the Grinch out in the cold.

As much as I would love to have the choice to pick what channels I pay for and receive over cable individually, I think Arnold Kling is right: The FCC shouldn’t force cable companies to offer that option. He says, “With some phone companies threatening to get into the TV business through their fiber-optic cables, this point may become moot. It could be that in a competitive market, unbundling will occur naturally. There is absolutely no reason for the FCC to inject itself into cable TV pricing in this way.”

I think there is a good chance that the delivery of information to homes in the US will be opened up in radical new ways in the coming years, which will only increase competition in these types of areas, similar to what is happening with VOIP and cell phones with respect to telephone landlines. If TV over the internet becomes a reality, and I can get internet access through my power lines, cable companies will be forced to make their services more customer-friendly.

It’s a strange quirk, for example, that I get ESPN2 but not any other ESPN channel. I’d love to be able to add ESPN, but I’m not willing to pay the price for the next highest bundle package to get it. In fact, the only reason I have cable TV right now is because it actually costs me less to have than not to, given that I pay for broadband internet access over the cable lines. Signing up for the $13 a month basic cable gets me a $15 a month discount on the internet access. What a deal!

There’s a persistent myth in Europe and America that farms subsidies are needed to protect the “family farm” and all the virtues that accompany rural life. Religious leaders and Catholic Bishops conferences seem to be especially prone to this argument.

Well, that myth is starting become exposed for what it actually is – protectionism by wealthy, politically-influential, corporate farm lobbies.

The EUObserver reports that a new website, FarmSubsidy.org, has been launched today. The website is not yet fully operational, but once it is, it will begin to shed much needed light on this troublesome issue.

Go check out the site, offer comments, and help get this project off the ground.

Europeans are very proud of their democratic credentials, so they should be eager to find out just where their money is going.

The up-side of all this could be freer trade and effective help (as opposed to more governmental aid) for developing countries.

Stay tuned.

Here’s a fair-minded and illuminating defense of C. S. Lewis and his Narnia books in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, against the rather vicious attacks of current children’s book author, Philip Pullman.

HT: Arts and Letters Daily

The Financial Times reports that generous farm subsidies in the United States and Western Europe are increasingly beleaguered. If the US and Europe don’t voluntarily eliminate the unfair advantage their agriculture producers enjoy in the global market, then developing nations are likely to take legal action through the WTO. No one wants to see American agriculture destroyed, but the injustice of developed-nation subsidies in light of the struggles of developing-nation farmers is hard to deny. The ramifications of ag subsidy reform are debatable, but many have argued that it will help rather than hurt smaller farms in the US. We may find out soon.

A section compiled by Matt Donnelly at Science & Theology News calls the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance’s recent formation a continuation of “the recent and laudable trend of faith-based organizations making a serious attempt to grapple with the religious basis for environmental stewardship.”

The section also provides links to their coverage of a number of other aspects of “the intersection of religious belief and environmental protection.”

Oh, come all ye faithful?

Seems like ridding City Hall of Nativity scenes and other religious art is not enough for some people. Now, homeowner associations are getting into the act.

In suburban Detroit, the Samona family was recently notified by their subdivision’s guardians of the common good (and lawn decorations) to remove an outdoor plastic creche. Nothing was said about some other figures on the lawn, including a holiday Minnie Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, and Mr. and Mrs. Claus. The Detroit News wrote a front-page article about the overreaching association watchdogs, and the Samonas were suddenly a cause celebre in Motown.

Of course, the homeowners association backed down, and sent over a holiday gift basket with a contrite letter of apology. But not everyone has simmered down. Here’s what one of the neighbors had to say about the Samonas’ run-in with suburban secularism:

Anthony J. Dickow lives in the same Tollgate Woods subdivision as the Samona family and says the story has “stirred my blood and I am outraged!”

“Let’s say I wasn’t a big fan of Halloween. Why the heck was my neighborhood decorated with all of that nonsense? I didn’t see anyone complaining about that!…. I’m so mad, I plan on going to Wal-Mart after work, buying the largest most elaborate nativity scene and placing it on my front lawn!” Dickow said.

Tis the Season!

The Salvation Army Bell Ringers are now audibly calling us to seasonal charitable giving. But the pleas from multiple organizations for our benevolence—from both unprecedented terrorist attacks and natural disasters to the ever-present needs of our less fortunate neighbors—have been virtually ongoing since 9/11.

However, amidst all the research about how much Americans give and who needs what the most, and the gloom and doom rhetoric of so-called donor fatigue, it is appropriate to appreciate another principle as important as charity–freedom. Apart from any “shoulds” and “oughts,” we may first give thanks that whatever resources we have—including time, goods, and financial ones—are ours to give freely. (The IRS variable is ever-present, so it’s not ALL ours to give, but there is some.)

And notwithstanding the [url=http://www.ncrp.org/press_room/index.asp?Article_Id=73]accusatory finger pointing[/url] of [url=http://blog.acton.org/index.html?/archives/140-The-Best-Kind-of-Charity.html]“social philanthropy” advocates[/url] those with little or generous means are on a level decision making playing field: they have the freedom to give to those individuals, causes, and communities, even in countries of their choosing.

In review of unprecedented disasters spanning September 11 to the 2005 hurricane season, a [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110500276.html]Washington Post headline[/url] blazed “Some disasters compel us to give: Americans reach for their wallets.” And frankly, no where else on the planet do human beings seem so compelled to give and give so generously as Americans. Congressional attention to the [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:8:./temp/~c109CEgfH5]Katrina Tax Relief Act[/url], the [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01780]C.A.R.E. Act [/url] and the recent late night passage of the [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02020]Budget Reconciliation Bill[/url] all attempt to encourage us to give even more to charity.

Tocqueville is among the legion who have articulated this [url=http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/new/review.php?id=26]unique, overwhelming American response[/url] to needs of fellow human beings. And now ‘tis the season to not just give thanks for the resources that we have but more importantly the freedom that we have to use those resources.

Only in a free society is the true dignity of each human person underscored. Free to earn and free to give. And even the decision about what is “good charity” vs. “bad charity” is a reflection of a society that gives us freedom to have and then to exercise those values. End-of-year giving should cause us to reflect on July 4th as well.

In this week’s Acton Commentary, Jay Richards looks at the ingrained tendency of many environmentalists to view man’s place in nature as fundamentally destructive. For people of faith, this is simply bad theology. Jay examines this anthropological error, and highlights the work of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, a new coalition that is working to deepen religious reflection on environmental questions.

Environmental policies founded on faulty fundamentals can lead to disastrous consequences, as Jay points out.

Every environmental policy implemented by government authority, for instance, stems from someone’s views about the nature of man and man’s place in nature. If those views are anti-human, the policy probably will be anti-human as well. Consider the ban on DDT in the 1970s. The ban, which in hindsight we know was misguided, has resulted in the deaths of more than a million people a year. The vast majority of these deaths have been among the poor in developing countries.

Read the full text of “God and Man in the Environmental Debate” here.

The ISA has also published a new paper on environmental stewardship that includes the perspectives of science, ethics and theology. This paper should be required reading for people of faith who are concerned about the environment.

On my drive to work this morning, I began wondering about all those relief efforts that were launched after the December 2004 Tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia. So I started the day at the office by looking for reports/numbers online, trying to find some indication of how money was being spent and what progress was being made. I found a great website called ReliefWeb which has really opened my eyes to the hundreds of other problems around the world that don’t make CNN’s world report for four weeks at a time.

This web page is amazing, really. There is a section dedicated to the Dec. 2004 tsunami that contains various updates (I think there are some 7,000+ reports relating to the Tsunami disaster, and new ones daily) and information on every aspect of the disaster. The page also contains information about who is working on disaster relief, listings of appeals for funding, and training and job vacancies relating to the disaster. A wonderful page, and I recommend that everyone take a look around to see where your donations have gone. (I found a UNICEF one-year update that contains some financial breakdowns for those who are interested.)

I found another page dedicated to the recent hurricane disaster that battered our Gulf coast this summer. Again, updates almost daily, including kudos to various groups and organizations that are providing relief, as well as information about current problems and issues that victims face.