What does the Nativity story offer? Let's see...an unmarried woman who would have had no status in her time is asked to take on the improbable role of Mother of God, and accepts. Her fiance, who has to be feeling hurt and betrayed by her unexpected pregnancy, miraculously decides to support her and stand by her. Shepherds, who would have also been considered among the lower classes are invited to bear witness to the birth of the savior of the world. Philosopher kings take off on a highly improbably hunch because their heavenly observations send them cross country to a cruddy stable, hardly the birthplace of the King of the world. So the message of love for all humanity sneaks in the back door of the world, borne out by humble humans doing the best they can to live out what God asks of them. There is truth in the story, whether or not it actually happened that way. Thank you, Mr. Keillor, for being willing to share that truth with a bunch of skeptical teenagers, and with us.

I liked Simon is comparing McNulty to Clay Davis. Davis's courtroom self-justification for "redistributing" the wealth is parallel to McNulty's redistribution of police resources. Will McNulty be as successful as Davis when he has to explain himself? Don't bet on it.

I had a similar experience at my 20th high school reunion in Oklahoma this summer. The person in charge of leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance before our banquet prefaced it by announcing, "Obama won't say the pledge, but WE will." Granted, this is in Oklahoma which is certain to be a red state anyway, but I fear similar scenarios are playing out all over small town America.

The headline should have said "Huge Obama crowd in St. Louis". Both Kansas City on the west side of the state, and St. Louis on the east are expected to turnout hugely for Obama. The question is, can our turnout in these urban & suburban areas overcome the McCain/Palin support in rural or what is sometimes called "outstate" Missouri? I certainly hope so, but I won't be surprised if Missouri stays in the red column on Election night.

I have been thinking the same thing ever since the the "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty" slogan surfaced a few years ago. Why does "randomness" somehow make kindness better? Wouldn't purposefulness be a better adjective to attach to your kind act? Yes, it might require more energy and effort and time to make a purposeful commitment to a kind act, like volunteering regularly at a food pantry. But what is needed is more purposeful, dependable acts of kindness. Kindness on a whim is a half-hearted, minimal investment kind of action. It doesn't draw you into a deeper connection with your community. It doesn't require any self-examination or real change on your part. Don't get me wrong, it's better than a kick in the head, but as a substitute for a commitment to changing things for the better, it falls short.

As the parent of one of these tween girls (age 11 1/2), I think you totally nailed it. I have been surprised in the last few weeks by her intense hatred of Adam Lambert. "He screams too much," was her musical analysis. Although she liked Kris Allen, I think she would have been equally happy had Danny Gokey won. Just so long as it wasn't Adam Lambert.