I see that today, less than a month after Senator Obama told us he was against tapping the nation’s strategic oil reserves, he is now telling us he’s for tapping the reserves.   A major flip-flop, and one that he is trying to cover by accusing Senator McCain of being unduly influenced by “big oil.”

The problem is, right now, most Americans wouldn’t mind seeing “big oil” doing some more drilling.  Bigger oil, it seems to me, would translate into smaller prices at the pump.  This is basic economics, the law of supply and demand, which Democrats do not seem to understand.

Ironically, Democrats continue to tell anyone who will listen that, when President Bush came into office, gas was just $1.50 per gallon. Fair enough. So why not let oil companies drill for more oil to move gas prices down again? And if oil companies truly are against drilling, why is it necessary to keep a congressional moratorium on drilling in place?

Two questions for which I would love to hear an answer.

Obama has been claiming that the reason he’s not moving in the polls is that people are still getting to know him.  At the same time, he’s falsely claiming that the McCain Campaign is trying to make people afraid of him because he “has a funny name,” and because he “doesn’t look like those other presidents on our currency.”

Of course, if the McCain Campaign really did try to introduce race into this election, the mainstream media would be on it in a heartbeat.   Later Obama had to back off of this backdoor claim of racism, saying that he did not believe McCain was racist, just cynical.

So if Obama wants people to see their differences, why not accept McCain’s town hall debate challenge?  If you’ll remember, President Clinton honed and perfected this style of debate, and there were none better.  The AP reported yesterday that Obama has backed away from his earlier commitment to a series of town hall debates and now wants to do the standard three debates, with one vice presidential debate.

John McCain has embraced this format and will spend hours answering voter’s questions, not shrinking from any of the questions thrown at him.  Obama has been doing larger events, taking fewer questions, and basically has been leaning on his media advantage.

But now that his lead has evaporated in record time, what will he do?  Obviously the McCain Campaign’s efforts to reach voters are showing success.  And Democrats in Washington are beginning to worry as well.  You can feel the undercurrent of worry there.

Members of the media and the media elite loathed the McCain Campaign ad released two days ago. What they’ll think of this latest ad, just released by the McCain Campaign, is not hard to guess. The only question is, how much more will they loathe and condemn this latest ad?

Called “The One,” it highlights many statements from Obama which you might think of as “interesting.” Statements such as, “I have become a symbol of America returning to our best traditions;”whatever that means. It evens features a snippet from Obama’s victory speech, given once he had finally clinched the nomination for his party, where he tells a crowd of screaming supporters that someday they will look back upon this as the day where the “rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.”

Following the quote comes a snippet from “The Ten Commandments” starring the late Charleton Heston where Moses parts the Red Sea with the statement, “Behold His mighty hand.” As the Red Sea parts, Obama’s home made presidential seal rises from the waves.

I think it’s safe to say that this new ad makes the previous ad look rather tame. I can’t wait to hear what the media-ocracy has to say about this one.

The loving and focused treatment that Senator Obama receives by the mainstream media is positively shameful. The fact that four news anchors accompanied the Senator on his “world tour,” and newsbreaks throughout the day telling Americans about the latest leg of his trip. CNN even interrupted a show to announce that Senator Obama’s plane had landed safely on the first leg of his trip. Personally, I cannot remember ever seeing a candidate get such four-star treatment.

Meanwhile, McCain has been getting minimal notice in the press. What has been clear, however, is that the media is more than willing to tell us when McCain “disagrees” with Obama. So, when McCain talks about his own vision for the country, he gets no attention. When McCain critiques Obama’s words or actions, he gets attention.

Well, it seems the McCain Campaign has figured this out and rolled out an ad two days ago which threw Senator Obama’s rock-star like status and treatment right back into his face. And it did so very effectively, with nothing in the ad being false or deceptive, but rather giving us a visual view of where this candidate is on the issues.

Of course, the media was livid. And in their anger, they moved this ad up to the top of every media hour, right where you can be sure most Americans who are paying attention could see it.

What has happened since the debate began? If you look at the Gallup daily polling numbers, you find that the first major lead Obama has enjoyed so far in the race, which came on the heels of his world tour, has been erased. For the first time, Senators Obama and McCain are tied at 44% each.

Of course, there is still a great deal of time left in the race and this will change again, but it will be interesting to see if this trend produces any change in strategy from the Obama Campaign. In speeches over the past several days, Obama has been accusing McCain of “inciting fear” in voters over the fact that he does not “look like those others presidents on our currency.” Certainly a less-than-subtle referral to Senator Obama’s race. But other than that, it has been business as usual for Senator Obama.

So is Senator McCain the problem here? I would argue that he is not.

Senator McCain is merely responding in the only way to which the media rewards. The media has consistently rewarded McCain for negativity, therefore he is giving them what they want; what they are willing to respond to.

These media professionals tell you they hate negativity, but, at the same time, they reward it with more attention. So, it is a surprise that we see more from candidates?

The McCain campaigned today released a fascinating new campaign ad highlighting Senator Obama’s “rock star” status as well as his stance on critical issues such as drilling and taxes. Last week the Obama Campaign completed it’s whirlwind tour of Europe and the Middle East with a big campaign speech in Berlin, where some reports indicate over 200,000 German citizens showed up to listen to the senator.

Unfortunately for Senator Obama, the huge media attention he received has yet to translate into any meaningful poll numbers. In most of the battleground states and in general, Obama’s lead is within the margin of error, making the race, in essence, a tie.

Of course, in most recent presidential election cycles when a Democratic candidate was running against a Republican incumbent, the Democratic challenger had large leads in the polls over the summer. This was true of Jimmy Carter when he ran against President Ford, though the race wound up being quite close. It was also true of Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. Normally, those large leads fade and the race evens up when the Fall campaign season begins and people begin paying more attention to the upcoming election.

This statistical dead heat must be troubling at some level to the Obama Campaign, though, according to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, you would never know it from the way Senator Obama has been acting. Mr. Milbank commented today that Senator Obama’s campaign is being run more like a “victory tour” and that “as he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama’s biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris.”

Now the McCain Campaign has taken soundbytes and images from what was supposed to be the decisive moment during the Obama world tour and thrown it right back in Senator Obama’s face. There he is on screen, with 200,000 Germans chanting his name, acting like the president of the world, but what does this mean for average people like you and I?

It’s a pertinent question. I wonder if we can expect an answer from Senator Obama any time soon.

This whole campaign has the look and feel of a huge expectations bubble. Similar to the Dot Com bubble and the Housing Bubble, the expectations hugely outweigh what can actually be delivered by even so skilled a politician as Senator Obama.

We’re told we need to buy into Obama with almost no knowledge of what he’s all about and how he might lead. Senator Obama has been in congress for three years now, and most of that time has been spent campaigning for President. We hear of “hope, audacity, and change.” But hope for what, and what kind of change are we talking about?

Change can be good or it can be bad. Should we just trust that Senator Obama’s version of “change” is going to be all good? Should any politician, Democratic or Republican, be so completely trusted?

The audacious Barack Obama has gone on world tour!  Like the rock star that he is, Obama is off to visit world leaders, our troops in Iraq, and to speak with the people of many nations about his desire to become President of The United States.

Never mind the fact that no presidential candidate has ever done such a thing. Certainly, Presidents go on tour, but no presidential candidate has ever attempted to pull off such a feat.

Obviously, his campaign hopes to make Obama look “presidential.” And being the smooth operator that he is, Obama is likely to pull it off.

Another first is the fact that no less than four network anchors are joining Obama on his world tour. The last time four network anchors traveled with a president on his world tour, much less a presidential candidate was… Never!   Not at least in our recollection.

But there is yet another first coming from this presidential candidate, which Andrea Mitchell of NBC News spelled out recently to Chris Matthews on “Hardball.” In a harsh criticism leveled at Obama, she points out that all the lovely footage of Obama meeting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is staged. Not one bit of it comes from normal media sources.

Instead, it’s footage captured by the Obama campaign and/or the military, then released to look like normal media snippets. Ms. Mitchell calls this what it is; “fake interviews.” If you listen, it comes across quite plainly that Ms. Mitchell is frustrated with the way she and other members of the media are being treated.

So how does Chris Matthews respond to the rebuke at the Obama camp? He ignores everything Ms Mitchell tells him and instead asks Ms. Mitchell about all the “happy,” and “excited” faces he sees on the videos. “Are they there because they really love this guy or what,” asks Matthews in so many words.

Ms. Mitchell replies quite honestly that she doesn’t know. You see, she reminds him, reporters weren’t allowed to be there, so she has no idea how the event was set up. Again she criticizes the Obama Campaign for not letting them do their job, and states that she’s never seen any candidate do this before. Though it’s not included in the YouTube segment, Matthews responds to Ms. Mitchell again by ignoring her and asking yet another softball question about the military perhaps “liking Obama too much.”

The question remains, why would Obama invite a legion of reporters to come with him but not give them access to his events in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Perhaps because it looks great in the press to see a host of members of the press all piling onto his campaign plane to go on tour?

Clearly, it  boosts Senator Obama’s prestige to be seen with this media army which follows him.  At the same time, we’re not sure we’ve ever seen members of the mainstream media so blithely used and manipulated.  Yet another first for the Obama campaign.

Of course, when someone insults, embarrasses, or criticizes Senator Obama, his campaign tends to respond negatively. Ryan Lizza from the “New Yorker,” who penned the article which accompanied the satirical New Yorker cover, discovered this after she was denied access to the “Obama World Tour.” The cover was meant to mock conservative stereotypes, but it wound up making conservatives laugh and the Obama campaign livid.

Now that Ms. Mitchell has said something negative, will she be the next one denied access? “I’m sorry Ms. Mitchell, but your seat on the plane is being taken out for maintenance, you’ll have to go home. And don’t let the hatch hit you on your bottom as you exit the plane.”

The pertinent question is this; are you “in the tank” or “under the bus” when it comes to Senator Obama?  Chris Matthews?  Clearly in the tank for Obama. Andrea Mitchell?  Perhaps no longer so enthusiastic.  In which case, she’ll soon be under the bus with Pastor Wright, Obama’s grandmother, and several former aides.

With Senator Obama, there seems to be very little gray when it comes to these kinds of things. Either get in the tank or he’ll throw you under the bus. What his grandmother ever did to deserve the “under the bus” treatment is a mystery, but we’re sure there was good reason.

I read a great interview today (linked from Drudgereport.com) with Clint Eastwood by The Guardian UK newspaper. You hear a lot of things about Mr. Eastwood here and there in the media, but I give the Guardian credit for what seemed to be a balanced view of a Hollywood legend.

Here’s a relevant excerpt to whet your appetite for the rest:

Eastwood still likes to let his views be known, often forcefully. In 2005, he vowed he’d kill Michael Moore if the documentarian ever showed up at his house, the way he had doorstepped Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. This March he was sacked from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California state parks commission for objecting to the building of a toll road through a national forest. But though he has been associated in the public mind with Republican viewpoints, he’s something of an individualist. “I don’t pay attention to either side,” he claims. “I mean, I’ve always been a libertarian. Leave everybody alone. Let everybody else do what they want. Just stay out of everybody else’s hair. So I believe in that value of smaller government. Give politicians power and all of a sudden they’ll misuse it on ya.”

Well said!  If you want to read the rest of the article, you’ll find it here.

Randi Rhodes, the foul-mouthed, mean-spirited talk show host on the liberal Air America network was suspended Thursday for calling Senator Clinton a “whore,” using the F word as part of her description. You can see her performance on YouTube here.

So why is this such a scandal? After all, it was part of a comedy routine and Ms. Rhodes has been given a great deal of leniency when in comedic mode. For example, there was that comment a couple years back, when, during her radio show, Randi was comparing the Bush family to the Corleones from “The Godfather.”

Randi told the caller that, “the Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn’t his father or his brother … take him out for a little fishing, and let him say some Hail Marys – he loves God so much. … You know, Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee – pow [gunshot sound] – works for me.”

Ms. Rhodes got into a bit of trouble for that statement when the secret service looked into the threat. Randi’s response was to apologize. She told listeners, “I feel bad that anybody would feel threatened by comedy. That’s one thing, but I also feel bad that it wasn’t funny.” Of course, a lot of liberal “comedy” is unfunny, so no big surprise there.

But what do you think is worse, threatening the President of the United States or calling someone a “f@!?ing Whore”? I would think wishing harm on the President as being far worse, yet Rhodes was not even suspended for that remark.

I guess it’s okay to wish death on someone as long as they are Republican, but dare to call a Democrat an inappropriate name and you are toast! An unfortunate but unsurprising double-standard.

I have to apologize and give credit where it’s due in regards to my last post. An article posted to Weeklystandard.com entitled Plagiarism went up late last week and while I had already been thinking along the same lines, the article really inspired me to blog more on this topic. So, if you want to read a very well-written article discussing “style vs. substance” differences in this upcoming presidential campaign, you’ll find it here.

Eight years ago, as the 2000 presidential primaries were heating up and Bush was battling it out with McCain, we were wholeheartedly in the Bush camp and adamantly opposed to McCain. We didn’t like the way he attacked some conservative Christians and we didn’t trust a Washington insider to bring reform to Washington.

While we still support President Bush — and believe that history will look kindly on his efforts against terror and in dealing with the nation’s greatest crisis — we now wholeheartedly support John McCain for President. Why the shift?

Let us count the reasons:

1. In September of 2001, the United States was attacked, with the loss of 3000 lives in the blink of an eye. We are still at war and the enemy — radical jihadists — are just as determined as ever to make 9/11 look like a minor incident. We must continue, even strengthen, the current administrations policies against terror. We know that, if elected, McCain will likely close the Guantanamo detention facility for good and will insure that interrogation techniques for prisoners are closely managed and monitored, yet we also know that he will make life for terrorists even worse than under our current president. As George H.W. Bush (41) was the final nail in the coffin for the Soviet Union, so will John McCain be the final nail in the coffin for global terror.
2. When President Bush pushed through his tax cuts in his first term, John McCain was heavily critiqued for being one of the few Republicans to vote against the tax cuts. His vote was symbolic as he admitted at the time, but his point was that his party was pushing through tax cuts but was not demonstrating enough fiscal discipline to then cut spending. McCain argued vehemently that to do one and not the other was a mistake. We remember being highly annoyed with that “troublemaker” at the time. That said, we believe now that, had the GOP shown enough discipline to follow, McCain’s lead, they may not have lost both the House and the Senate to Democrats in 2006. McCain was right, and the rest of us were wrong.
3. When President Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam in 2003, his strategy, as proposed and backed by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was to go to war “with the army we have.” McCain was an early critic of the strategy, and a vocal critic of the way the war was run. Many conservatives argue that he sounded like a Democrat, but McCain wanted more troops in Iraq, not less. He visited Iraq more than nearly any other member of Congress, and he wanted a surge, not a retreat. So, when President Bush made the very risky decision to implement a troop surge, McCain backed him all the way, despite the fact that the failure of the surge would effectively end his presidential ambitions. Again, McCain was right, and all of his critics were wrong, as the evidence clearly shows. The surge has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, partly because it was accompanied by a change in strategy under General Petraeus.
4. In 1967, on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, McCain’s plane was shot down and he was taken prisoner. Overall, McCain endured five and a half years of imprisonment, with periods of torture during that time. It was made worse for McCain because he refused to cooperate in any way with the North Vietnamese. What many do not now is that, as the son of an admiral, he was offered release after two years, but refused to go without his fellow American servicemen. He stayed with them until they were all released in 1973 following the Paris Peace Accords. Now he has one son at the Naval Academy and another son serving even now in Iraq. They are following both long-standing family tradition and in the footsteps of someone who is truly an American hero.
5. In 2005, McCain was accused of working against Republican interests when he worked across the aisle to create a voting block of Republican and Democratic senators to end the judicial filibustering of President Bush’s federal and supreme court nominees. We remember again that we were highly annoyed with the senator because we saw his actions as a move to preserve a filibustering process that was standing in the way of the President getting his nominees an up or down vote on the Senate floor. But McCain understood that, should the balance of power ever change, Republicans would need that filibuster power to remain relevant in the legislative process. His agreement with the other Republican and Democratic senators allowed the President to successfully appoint strict constitutionalist judges such as Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, and others. In 2007, when the balance of power shifted to Democrats, McCain’s efforts at preserving the filibuster process in the senate proved to be invaluable and, dare we say, almost prophetic. Again, McCain was right, and those of us who criticized him were wrong.
6. On the issue of immigration reform, McCain, along with many Republicans and President Bush himself, backed a compromise plan with Democrats that would have finished the closing of our southern border, toughened restrictions on the employment of illegals here in the US, and provided a path to citizenship for those illegals who were already here in the US and were showing themselves to be productive members of our society. We do not support amnesty, however, conservatives who labeled the bill an “amnesty bill” were wrong. The question we must ask ourselves is, do we really want to see the same situation that we saw with Elian Gonzales — federal officers storming a home with automatic weapons and grabbing a terrified child to deport him — times 12 million? We do not, and we think that most Americans agree with us. This is a nation of immigrants and, while there are many here today who are here illegally, we believe the better solution is a path to naturalization which includes adopting English, paying a fine, and paying taxes. Senator McCain is exactly right to have supported Immigration reform and we believe that, had it passed, it would have been the “Welfare Reform” of this decade, in that such reform is long overdue and sorely needed.

For these reasons and others, John McCain has our wholehearted support in 2008. We believe he is the best candidate for the job, especially over a liberal Hillary Clinton and an inexperienced Barack Obama, both of whom want to increase government spending and weaken the country’s stance on terror. Obviously, there are many in the GOP who are attacking him, calling him a RINO — Republican in name-only — and a person who is too friendly with Democrats. But right wing in this country has sounded an increasingly partisan tone with which I find myself in disagreement. Attacks on McCain are based on bumper-sticker slogans and personal insults. This is neither helpful nor appropriate for a man like Senator McCain, who has been serving his country nearly his entire life.

Ironically, it shows you exactly why the senator is the right person for the job. The fact that he can attract both independent voters and even Democrats shows you why the DNC is concerned about this guy. They know that, of all the candidates out there now on the GOP side, McCain will be the most difficult to beat.

At the same time, Republican loyalists like myself can be certain that, while not a perfect candidate, McCain will continue the war on terror, continue to support the control of government spending, will continue to oppose the influence of special interests in Washington, will continue to appoint strict constitutionalist judges, will continue to support a culture of life, and so many other things that are the core principles of our party, and with which most Americans can agree.

If Romney emerges triumphant and becomes the GOP nominee, then we will enthusiastically support him, but we believe with no doubt whatsoever that McCain is the best candidate. We feel that McCain has lived his philosophy of straight talk, even when it meant a loss of popularity. Americans like that about McCain, and we believe they’ll look for that and for the ability to get things done in Washington in our next President.

Critics have used such titles as “John McPain,” and other even less flattering names. We hope in 2009 to call him “Mr. President.”

It amazes me that so many make so much of so little.  Can you say “obsess”?  Nice try!

I think the Time’s appropriately named Swampland blog taps into the intense obsession rather well.   Imagine worrying over whether or not the slats of a bookshelf behind a 30-second TV ad were meant to represent a secret “floating cross”.  Or wondering if flashing the 1.5 second title of “Christian leader” is a backhanded swipe at another candidate.

When did political ads become a form of Rorschach Test?  Perhaps it’s been that way for a long time, but, really, it’s getting rather silly.

In politics, people think that everything that is said has a hidden purpose.  As Freud once remarked to a student who had asked him if the cigars he always had in his mouth were phallic symbols, “son, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

If you haven’t already guessed, I’m a James Taranto (Best of The Web Today) junkie. I was reading his column today and noticed two interesting things. First, Mr. Taranto also mentioned the Linda Quiquivix incident and, second, he had an interesting second installment regarding a recent op-ed written by Anita Hill, the woman who long ago tried to derail the Supreme Court nomination process for Justice Clarence Thomas with some pretty outrageous accusations.

The long and short of both Mr. Taranto’s posts on the Anita Hill op-ed was the thought which occurred to me of a parallel between Ms. Quiquivix and Ms. Hill. They are both impressively intelligent women, and they both seem to be short on wisdom.

What good is intelligence without wisdom? Intelligence is the tool, wisdom is the application of the tool. Without the latter, you have something (and someone) truly dangerous. Perhaps a truck careening down a highway without a driver is a good analogy. In both cases, Linda and Anita have proven themselves to be a danger to anyone who happens to find themsleves in their path.

Fortunately, Justice Thomas has the wisdom to temper his intelligence. I think he is formidable in both those traits and I admire him tremendously. I’m going to get the audio version of Justice Thomas’ book. I look forward to benefiting from his wisdom.

Linda Quiquivix Update

I received an email just about an hour ago with the following message:

In February 2007 you wrote a blog story on Linda Quiquivix, I noticed in yesterday’s Daily Tar Heel that she was recently arrested for assault with a deadly weapon on a government official.

The message contained a link to the Daily Tar Heel’s Police Log page, which reported:

Graduate student Linda Elizabeth Quiquivix was arrested Thursday for assault with a deadly weapon on a government official, according to University police reports.

Many thanks to the person who wrote to let me know of this. I would be happy to credit the person, but he or she never left anything but an email address, and I have no intention of giving that out without this person’s express permission.

If anyone hears any additional information on what happened, please let me know.

Original Post - Published in February of 2007

James Taranto of Opinionjournal.com’s Best of The Web Today recently called attention to an article by a grad student at UNC, Chapel Hill and contributor to the campus newspaper, The Daily Tarheel. The article was penned by Linda Quiquivix (pronounced kee-kee-vicks), an obviously intelligent and driven young lady.

Ms. Quiquivix’s article is titled, “Know this, future ex-boyfriends of mine,” and it lends credence to my long-held belief that a person can be both highly intelligent and very unwise. Here are a few relevant excerpts from the article:

Friends who know me weren’t surprised to learn that my Zionist boyfriend and I broke up last summer shortly after Israel began dropping bombs on Lebanese children. But the friends who really knew me were surprised to learn that I had even dated a Zionist to begin with.

In my defense, I thought he was just Jewish when it all began - a progressive one who was white but had tendencies for black supremacy. Politically, we aligned well, so I figured that he’d automatically agree with my stance on Israel-Palestine.

Right from the first sentence, her prejudices are clear, and her assumptions regarding the world nothing less than legion. What does it mean to be a “Zionist” or even to be “just Jewish.” And, without going ad nauseam into this whole topic, why is it that Linda feels so strongly about the bombs dropped on Lebanese children but not the hundreds of missiles fired at Israeli children? Missiles which, by the way, continue to rain down on Israelis even to this day from Gaza.

I could probably go on for pages with Ms. Quiquivix’s article, but I think I should cut to the chase. There are two startling trends in this article that I believe reflect the current mental state of left-leaning liberals in the US today:

A massive number of assumptions which left-leaning liberals tend not to question.
The prevalence of double standards which liberals often decry in others but rarely question in themselves (which, if you think about it, is a double-standard in itself).

Let me list out just a few of the assumptions which Linda makes in just this one article:

• You’re a Zionist if you support Israel
• Nations which are more powerful are always in the wrong
• If you’re white, you already have one strike against you
• People who are aligned politically should agree on everything
• If you’re “brown” then you must have anarchistic tendencies
• If you don’t agree politically, you can’t date
• A boy’s primary value comes from his penis
• Boys must be “enlightened” by their girlfriend(s)
• The state represents only the interests of the powerful

A sizable list, wouldn’t you agree? Add to this list the double-standards which Linda seems to proudly display for her readers and what you seem to have is quite a mish-mash of racism, false assumptions, hatred, and just plain naivete. And let’s not forget the fact that liberals often look to the state to solve problems, whereas conservatives tend to look to society. But in her article, Ms. Quiquivix seems to think that the state is the major problem. Now you know why conservatives want limited government. A government that can solve all your problems can also create many many more problems.
For example, why is it alright for Ms. Quiquivix to state that the value she places on her boyfriend is in his penis when, for a male to make a similar comment about a woman’s value being in her sexual organs would likely end in his expulsion from that institution? I guess the saying which applies here is, “where’s the outrage?

In addition, why must the male be “enlightened” by the female? I thought relationships were all about the joys of mutual discovery. Of course, here Ms. Quiquivix displays a very typical egocentric view of the world for someone her age. “The world revolves around me,” is what she is saying. No shocking revelations regarding that worldview.

Finally, an interesting assumption that Linda makes regarding her ex-guy is this; she assumes he was hanging the Israelis flag over his bed to show his solidarity with Israel. Perhaps he hung it there simply to drive her away. You know, sort of like wearing a cross to keep vampires away.

Regardless of the ex-boyfriend’s flag-posting motivations, Ms. Quiquivix is clearly an intelligent, articulate, and motivated young lady. She has traveled already to more nations than I may ever see. Which is why I find it so ironic that she is so naive and unwise.

Again, this is not simply Linda’s problem, but a tendency of left-leaning liberals in general. They expect everyone to share their worldview. If you do not, then you are “bad,” or “evil,” or, a “zionist,” or even “just like hitler.”

We must share their values or be rejected. I prefer rejection.

Pajamas Media member, Andrew Marcus caught some fascinating footage of what I consider to be less than respectful treatment of a member of the military who showed up at a panel discussion entitled, “The Military and Progressives: Are They Really That Different?” The panel was moderated by Jon Soltz, a veteran and outspoken critic of the Iraq war.

Now, there has been much made of this incident by both right and left-leaning bloggers, and I’ll talk on this in a moment, but two other things struck me as I watched the video clip found here at PJM. First of all, there seemed to be VERY few people in the room. I’m wondering if part of Soltz’s angst, which was eventually vented on a fellow Iraq veteran, was partly due to the fact that it was quite obvious to Soltz and his fellow panel members — one of whom was retired General, Wesley Clark — that even those members of the military who oppose the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq are generally disrespected by liberals. Especially very left-leaning liberals like Kos.

Secondly, I have seen many comments on how Soltz closed the panel discussion immediately, and insisted on speaking to the soldier in private, but very few people have commented on the fact that the soldier, after meeting with Soltz in private, acknowledged that he had been threatened. When Marcus asked the soldier what Soltz said in private, the soldier responded that Soltz threatened he was going to try and get him in trouble and have him dishonorably discharged for asking what Soltz deemed to be a political question while in uniform.

Personally, I’m not sure if the soldier did ask a political question. What I can say is that Soltz definitely was acting in an intimidating manner and the soldier was having none of it. He was courteous, clear and concise; and he tried to cite the facts of a recent report showing that progress was being made in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Soltz acted in an angry and aggressive manner towards this serviceman from the beginning, telling him that, if he engaged in political dialogue while in uniform, there was going to be trouble. I don’t think Soltz walked away from this encounter looking very good.

What of Soltz’s contention that the soldier was out of line by questioning his panel while still in uniform? Well, Mike at Lampligher blog looked up the military codes of conduct which might relate to this situation and, after reading Mike’s post, I have to agree with him that Soltz’s accusation is not very convincing. Not unless there were more recent orders issued that might amplify the codes Mike cites. I did hear that the military is trying to crack down on the number of military members who are blogging from Iraq, but that has nothing to do with asking a military-related question during a panel discussion.

I feel quite certain that the conservative media is going to be highlighting this story. Hopefully we’ll hear from Michael Medved on Monday during his show and I would be “shocked, shocked” if James Taranto of Opinionjournal.com’s “Best of The Web Today” didn’t call attention to this in his Monday column.I first learned of this through the Drudge Report, so I think we can expect this to balloon into a major news story before too long. And kudos to Pajamas Media for capturing this incident and reporting on it. I’m very grateful they were there and so quickly published their video.

Finally, let me point out a fascinating tidbit from a debate that Soltz had with fellow veteran Stan Coerr on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, which was then published on PBS’s Online News Hour on September 16, 2004. The debate between Coerr and Soltz was fairly long and detailed; a good read actually.

Towards the end of the debate, moderator Margaret Warner asked of both men if candidate Kerry was making inroads with members of the military and military veterans with some of his campaign promises. Coerr was asked to respond first and here are a few excerpts from his reply:

Margaret, John Kerry’s not making inroads. And let me tell you why. I think most veterans, as I said before, along with the American people, honor what John Kerry did in Vietnam.

What they are unhappy about is what he did when he returned home, using Vietnam as sort of a springboard to political office. His testimony, which we’ve all seen on television before the Senate, about what he thought about the war, leading an anti- war effort…

I can tell you that I have a photograph of myself meeting Sen. Kerry, and the friends that I sent that photograph to think I’m a traitor.

They can’t believe that I would even shake hands with that man, and everyone I know, my peers and those I worked with, are all very strong Republicans and they’re Bush supporters in this specific campaign.

So, you can see that Coerr lays it out plainly. In his opinion, members of the military and veterans in particular are not supportive of Kerry. They are so against Kerry that they think Coerr a traitor for even shaking the man’s hand. What is fascinating, however, if Soltz’s response to what Coerr has just said:

If John Kerry is a traitor, then so am I. John Kerry fought for his right to come home and question his war in Vietnam; 12,000 Americans died after he testified in the senate. And I fought for my right to question this president’s policies in Iraq.

But Coerr never calls Kerry a traitor! He never even questions his patriotism, which is something people on the left love to accuse conservatives of doing. Actually, Coerr specifically said that Kerry’s fellow veterans honored his service but question his commitment to them based on what he did and said after returning from Vietnam.

It was Soltz who applied the word “traitor” to Kerry, by denying that he was any more a traitor than Soltz himself. I find this kind of thing fascinating, not because of all the name calling, but because liberals so often are the ones who apply these labels to themselves by complaining that conservatives are applying these labels. It’s like stepping out in front of a moving car to complain that you are being hit by a moving car.

Liberals consistently fail to understand their own fundamental disrespect for the men and women who serve in the military and conservative’s deep and abiding respect for those same men and women. We would never consider labelling Kerry or Soltz as traitors. They served this country. They risked life and limb to protect us. I’m personally grateful to both men for their service.

But liberals are not so loathe to apply disrespectful labels to America’s best and bravest. And it seems to me that the low turnout for Soltz’s panel on similarities between progressives and the military underscores my point perfectly. Those who lean far left likely hate the thought that they might have anything in common with the military.

Copies of the long-anticipated final book of the Harry Potter series, “Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows” have begun to arrive for some of those who ordered them online. Of course, online booksellers want to compete with brick-and-mortar bookshops, so they must get pre-ordered books to customers at least on the same day a person could walk into a local shop to buy the book, without paying too much in shipping.

Which means that online booksellers must time the delivery of the book through the mail system. I’m thinking this is a process somewhat akin to predicting the weather. For some, of course, books will arrive early.

For fans like myself, of course, this would be like winning the lottery. Imagine getting a copy of “Deathly Hallows” early?

Well, one author, columnist, and blogger, Will Collier, of Vodkapundit.com received a copy of the book four days early! What did he do with the book? Put it up for sale on eBay!

Did Will read the book in advance of selling it? He doesn’t say, but he did manage to sell the book for $250 and got it to the buyer a couple of days in advance of the official release. I won’t spoil the details of this interesting story, which you can read here.

What I will say is simply that I do not consider the resale of a book legally purchased, received, and resold to be a problem in any way. Especially considering the fact that Will did not read the book and then try to post spoilers for his readers. He merely sold the book to someone else.

It wasn’t quite that simple of course, but read the article yourself and let me know what you think. Inquiring minds want to know!

Last night I lined up with what must have been a couple of thousand others to see the midnight premiere of Harry Potter and The Order Of The Phoenix.  And you know what?  It was a lot of fun.

The movie, of course, is darker than the others, but then, so is the book.  Also, much of the richness of the characters expressed so well by Rowling in her books had to be left out as well.  But the elements that went into the movie worked well, and I enjoyed the movie as much as any I’ve enjoyed this year.

Let me tell you something you should know, Evanna Lynch, who plays Luna Lovegood in the movie was a delight!  She nearly steals the whole show.

As I said, I stood there in line with a couple thousand die-hard fans to see the movie.  Actually, I arrived an hour early and the line was already huge, so, being on my own, I kind of snuck myself into the line fairly close to the front.  That way, I was able to get a decent seat.  And only a decent seat, despite the fact that every one of the theatres (there were 11 total) was set up to show the film!

But I digress…

The audience was incredibly excited to see the movie, cheering when the Warner Bros logo came up on the screen with the original Harry Potter score playing in the background.  And every time Luna appeared in the movie, you could just feel the audience’s fascination with her.

I wonder if part of the fascination with Luna comes from the fact that Luna reflects some of the oddness — some might call it “geek-ness” in those of us who are fans of the books.  She is just so different, that even Harry doesn’t know what to make of her.

But throughout both “Order Of The Phoenix” and “Half-Blood Prince,” the character of Luna just adds a whole new element to the storyline.  She is a nut, but then again, so are many of us who are so into Harry Potter, so we have that in common.

Most of us, though, try to blend in, whereas Luna is just too true to herself to ever care what others think.  And Evanna did a phenomenal job of bringing all that to life in the movie.
Another phenomenal performance came from Imelda Staunton, who played the part of Delores Umbridge.  She too was perfect for the role.  Delores Umbridge is, in every way, a fascinating character brought beautifully to life by Staunton.

Not that you like Umbridge.  She’s a mean, sadistic, child-hating, power-mongering semi-sociopath who also just happens to love kittens and the color pink.  If she were your neighbor, you would think she was just the most wonderful person, until she gets herself elected President of your community association and bans pets, pools, laughing children, and Christmas decorations.

It is those kinds of performances, along with excellent performances from the normal cast, that makes this movie worth seeing.  I think this movie outshines “Goblet of Fire,” which seemed to me to be just too fast-paced, like a rock skipping frantically over the waters of a lake, missing most of the water below, then sinking suddenly to the bottom.

This movie does a bit of skipping, but it also dips in a bit, and I think the combination produces the right balance.  I’m not a movie critic (not a professional critic anyway) but I would give this movie three stars out of four.  But go see for yourself and let me know what you think.

Reuters is reporting today that a hacker “who goes by the name ‘Gabriel,’ claims to have taken a digital copy of author J.K. Rowling’s seventh book, ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,’ by breaking into a computer at Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.” As many Potter fans are aware, the details of the final book have been carefully guarded by author J.K. Rowling and her publishers.

With the release of “Deathly Hallows” less than a month away, anticipation and excitement continues to grow, with fans eagerly awaiting the opportunity to finally know what happens to Harry and other lead characters from the series. Rowling fueled fans’ excitement some months ago when she claimed that two of the main characters from the series would die in the final book.

In May, Rowling posted a message on her site stating she could see the “first distant rumblings of the weirdness that usually precedes a Harry Potter publication.” Rowling asked fans who might somehow learn the details of her final book not to publish them for others to read. J.K. stated that her desire is for readers “who have, in many instances, grown up with Harry, to embark on the last adventure they will share with him without knowing where they are going.”
I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. And it’s quite likely the vast majority of Potter fans agree as well.

Why would anyone want the endings of both the book and this monumental series spoiled when the release of the final books is less than a month away? After years of anticipation, reading what happens in a series of posted spoilers on the Internet will almost certainly ruin the final book for you. And it could potentially ruin the series as well.

This blogger is a “hater” when it comes to spoilers, and I’ve spoken out against this horrible habit before. Two posts in particular, Just say NO to spoilers!, and Help! Star Trek has fallen and can’t get up!, make this clear to readers.

Think about this; if Gabriel truly did hack into a computer and steal the book, then he or she has committed a serious crime. Definitely, Gabriel should be thrown in jail and Rowling’s publishers should sue for damages.

The self-alleged criminal, Gabriel, is very pointed in his desire to damage Rowling and her publishers. Gabriel says unequivocally that “We make this spoiler to make reading of the upcoming book useless and boring.”

This person wants to ruin your experience, and they want to damage 10 years of very hard work on the part of J.K. Rowling. Does anyone truly think J.K. began writing expecting to become a billionaire? She began writing because she had a story and characters whom she desired to bring to life.

Now Gabriel is trying to get a tad bit of fame by damaging 10 years of hard work. This is a criminal act and, if they truly did steal a copy of Rowling’s final book, Gabriel needs to treated as the criminal he truly is.

If a copy was stolen, it is more likely Gabriel worked for the publisher rather than they were able to hack into their computers. In most cases where data in one form or another is stolen, leaks occur from the inside.
But this is a personal theory. Ultimately, we may find that the loser “Gabriel” was just telling a huge lie to get some attention, or to promote a pet theory.

Regardless, I think fans everywhere need to avoid spoilers of any kind. The best reaction to people such as Gabriel is pity and contempt. Pity that they should be so immature and reckless, and contempt for their thoughtless actions. It is not “cool,” or “admirable” in any way to do what loser Gabriel claims to have done.

What we can know with certainty is this; Gabriel is either a thief, a liar, or both. Any way you look at it, this person is, without a doubt, a loser. And if you read spoilers stolen illegally from Rowling, then you’re a loser too.

Senator Clinton’s campaign has launched a new site, HillaryHub.com with a Drudge Report-like format in that it does not produce original content but instead simply aggregates content. The key here is that Senator Clinton’s campaign can aggregate the material they choose to highlight, which is a particular advantage.

On the face of it, it is a very good idea. Media companies have, for years now, pointed out how influential DrudgeReport.com has become in breaking stories that otherwise might have received little or no attention. He breaks new stories and he adds momentum to stories that are just breaking in a way that few if any other sites can.

Matt Drudge, of course, is a news aggregator but he picks and chooses which stories to headline, and Drudge’s instincts for stories, in my opinion, seems somewhat akin to the instincts of a George Soros or a Warren Buffet in terms of their ability to both anticipate the market and move the market.

Those are the instincts that Drudge possesses when it comes to his ability to both anticipate the media and move it as well.

So, the question is, can Senator Clinton’s team do the same? Even if they cannot, HillaryHub may still prove both a great strength and a strategic campaign advantage. In terms of giving campaign supporters the best possible take on their candidate, this site is ideal. That said, most campaign sites do some of this already, so it will be interesting to keep an eye on this move to determine the overall strategic value of HillaryHub.com.
At the same time, if the Clinton Campaign seeks to truly aggregate everything, they should have a section or a column for direct campaign releases and information. An aggregator should gather everything, both internal and external to the Senator’s campaign. It should not try to carefully couch campaign information as “other” content.

So, for example, while it is okay to link up with an article written in response to a campaign news release, Clinton’s campaign should not try to show their own news releases on this site ONLY by linking to other media sources. I just think it would make the site look to contrived and less natural, which is something that Senator Clinton should avoid at all costs.

My two cents on that issue.

So, will this prove a winner for Senator Clinton? Will others follow her lead?

I think it will be helpful, though I’m not sure at this point how much. And, definitely, others will follow her lead. They’ll do it in one of two ways. Either they’ll tweak their current campaign sites to aggregate other information HillaryHub-style, or they’ll create a similar type of aggregator site.

The last question in my mind is whether or not this was the right time for Senator Clinton to launch this site so early. Will this give her rivals — Democrats and Republicans — time to copy her efforts and eliminate any strategic advantage?

I guess, on this issue, we’ll have to stay tuned.

There is a very interesting picture up on Drudge Report right now showing a crying Paris in the back of a patrol car. I’m not sure when that was taken, but let’s hope it was today.

What can I say? I have NO sympathy for Ms. Hilton and it doesn’t seem as if anyone else does either. You can hear people talking about her everywhere; in the office, on the street, and with friends. They talk about the beautiful spoiled brat who has never had to take responsibility. Well, right now, it seems she is in the process of being spanked by reality.

I’m very glad to see that the judge who presided over her case and the prosecutor who brought the charges against her are pushing back on the decision to send Paris home to serve detention there. Paris, who thought at first she was going to be allowed to phone into the court was, instead, picked up by the Sherriff’s office. Apparently the Sherriff’s office thought they could disregard the Judge’s order for her to appear in court. I guess the Judge was able to get them to change their minds after he threatened to charge Sheriff Lee Baca with contempt.

So Paris is headed back to jail, reportedly having been escorted out of the courthouse screaming for her Mom. Good for him.

A little time in jail, and a little does of true reality might be just what the Judge ordered. Who knows, maybe some family members are also hoping this experience will teach her a bit of self-control.

We’ll see.

Photo property of DrudgeReport.com.

On July 21, 2007, “Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows,” the last book of the wildly popular Harry Potter series, hits the stores. The release of the seventh book marks the end of a 10 year journey for fans all over the world. To date, the first six books of the series have sold more than 325 million copies and have been translated into 63 different languages. For the last book in the series, publishers have already announced they’ll print a record-setting 12 million copies, just for distribution in the United States alone!Of course, the books are also becoming, one at a time, major motion pictures. As a matter of fact, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” is scheduled for release on July 13, about a week before the final book goes on sale.So, to say that anticipation is growing among fans is an understatement. Take a bit of time to visit Potter-oriented blogs and you’ll see that fan anticipation is growing exponentially. Understandably, fans are expressing both exhiliration at the prospect of having so many of their questions answered by the final book, and sadness at seeing the series come to its final close.

And in the midst of the wild sucess enjoyed by this series, there has also been ongoing controversy surrounding it as well. It’s ironic that, while the individual books in the series have all enjoyed high best-seller rankings, they also suffer high rankings on “banned” lists as well. Author J.K. Rowling even mentioned the fact that, in 2006, her books featured prominently on the year’s list of most-banned books.

As an evangelical Christian, I have listened to the “Harry Potter Debate” unfold in our community since shortly after the release of “Sorcerer’s Stone.” What surprised me was the fact that there were such strong feelings on both sides of the issue within the Christian community. I remember listening to a debate moderated by James Dobson on his show, “Focus on The Family,” which I listen to quite often.

Dobson didn’t take a position, rather, he sat back and listened to his guests debate back and forth regarding the value vs. the danger of some of the themes in the book. These books do, after all, prominently feature the practice of witchcraft, with most of the story taking place at the “Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.”

What could be clearer than this? The Bible condemns the practice of witchcraft. In Deuteronomy 18, versus 10 and 11, for example, we’re told, “Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.”

What most people do not know, and what God is addressing in Deuteronomy, is the practice of witchraft in Canaan, which happened to commonly include ritual human sacrifice. As Deuteronomy tells us, and archeology has confirmed, newborn infants were often burned alive as sacrifices to their gods.

Witchcraft was unacceptable then and it is unacceptable for believers today. I believe that and, ultimately, know that practicing “witchcraft” or “Wicca” as many call it today, is fundamentally (no pun intended), a rejection of God. That said, I know quite a few people who are Wiccans, including one who is a High Priestess, and I’m happy to count them as friends. I disagree with what they believe, they know I disagree, and we have some good debates regarding our beliefs.

But I digress…

The important question then is whether or not it is clear, based on Biblical exhortations, that Christians should avoid this series of books? Believe it or not, the answer is not a clear “yes” or “no.” As I mentioned previously, there are devout Christians who adamantly oppose this series and those who who wholeheartedly endorse these books. So, where do I stand?

It just so happens that I am one of those who wholeheartedly endorses this series. In order to explain my reasoning as well as my recommendations to fellow Christians who may not yet have read these books yet are considering it, I think it is necessary to step back a number of years to the time when I first learned to love reading.

It was 1975, I was 10-years-old and was in the fourth grade at Germantown Elementary School in Annapolis, MD. On one particular day, I walked over to the library during a break in classes to see if I could find something interesting to read.

When I entered the library, it was very busy, with the librarian frantically working to get books back on the shelves as quickly as students were pulling them off. I thought to myself, “the librarian should know what is worth reading,” so I walked over to her, standing near a particular shelf of books with her book cart, where she was diligently creating order out of chaos.

I asked her, “could you help me find a good book?” She gave me hardly a glance. Instead, she looked quickly up to the nearest shelf, grabbed a book, and placed it in my hands. “Here,” she said, “this is a good one.”

I looked down and read the title; “The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.” I thanked her and walked off.

I vividly recall opening the book to begin reading it later that same day. I remember because the book captured my attention quickly and I remember reading about a little girl named Lucy, who entered a wardrobe thinking it a good hiding place during a game of hide-and-seek with her two brothers and sister. Trying to hide as best she could, Lucy walked farther and farther into the wardrobe, until she found herself in a quiet wood with snow falling all around.

When I read this, my eyes widened and I said out loud to myself, “it’s a magical wardrobe!” I was, no pun intended, enchanted. And my love of reading in general was greatly enhanced because of this wonderful book. Over the next few years I read all seven books in the series and loved every one of them.

Now, many know that the author of those books, C.S. Lewis, a good friend and fellow Oxford Professor with J.R.R. Tolkein, was one of the greatest Christian apologists (defenders of the Christian faith) of the 20th century. His friend, J.R.R. Tolkein had helped him move from devout atheism to devout Christianity. Lewis was a prolific author and the body of his work includes fantasy, scifi, Christian-theology, and some biographical works.

Lewis wrote the series we know today as “The Chronicles of Narnia” because he wanted to write a children’s series that would help readers to feel the power of the Christian story. He did not write these books in an allegorical manner; rather, Lewis literally inserted Jesus into his Chronicles as Aslan, a great lion who created Narnia, was sacrificed on the Stone Table by the White Witch, and rose again to free his people from her tyranny.

Through this mode of story-telling, Lewis hoped to teach a story readers likely already knew, but in a different way. For me, the strategy worked perfectly. Growing up, I longed to know the Aslan of those stories. And one day, mid-way through college, I met him in the person of Jesus, whom I gave my life over to and whom I today call Lord and Savior.

But as a child, I read these books over and over again, longing to visit Narnia, and longing most of all to know God the way Narnians knew Aslan. A personal relationship with a Lord who saw through them, understood all the weaknesses of those who loved him, and loved them anyway with a love that transcended all understanding.
It was many years before I understood that this is exactly what Jesus offers, a personal relationship. So, the “Chronicles of Narnia” gave me that first taste of what God really offered, not staid religiosity, but a personal walk with the creator of the universe.

The lesson I ultimately learned from this experience was that stories, even ones which include magic, can still teach important moral lessons. And because of my love for these books, I was encouraged to read other series; including “The Lord of The Rings.” And, while J.R.R. Tolkien consciously presented a clear “good vs. evil” message, he did not overtly or covertly insert a Christian theme into his books.

Regardless of the fact that both Tolkien and Lewis were devout Christians, there have been ongoing debates over the fact that protagonists in both series understand and, at times, employ magic to accomplish their goals. So, is the use of magic in the context of a fictional story a bad thing? Many Christians, and I include myself among them, do not believe so.

Understanding this, one can better understand why there are many Christians like myself who have enjoyed the Harry Potter series. And in may ways I believe that this series is as significant as The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings.

Personally, I did not begin reading the Potter books until late in 2005, seven years after the first book appeared. But then a coworker began to loan me the books on tape and CD. I was so enchanted –again, no pun intended — by the books that, I finished listening to books 1-6 in the space of just about four months, the entire time thrilling at the quality of each of the books and the awesome narration skills of Jim Dale.

I listened to the books while driving to and from work each day. With a 100-mile-per-day round trip, I was, at that time, a prolific audiobook consumer. And during those months of listening to the Potter books, I was never so happy to be stuck in traffic.

Despite my own love for these books, other Christians might ask if there are worthwhile themes in this series from a Christian perspective? The answer is a definite yes!

From a high-level perspective, some of the most important themes relate to love, family, friendship, loyalty, forgiveness, and even redemption. Specifically, we see the constant and overarching theme of love.

Professor Dumbledore, the Hogwarts Headmaster, expresses the belief that love is more powerful than any magic several times, and tries to teach Harry that this is his only hope of defeating his arch-enemy, Lord Voldemort. Dumbledore is the personification of love, just as Voldemort is the personification of hate.

So, you can see while we do not hear the words “good vs. evil” much in the series, we constantly see the theme of “love vs. hate.” And the benefits of love and the consequences of hate are constantly, and quite effectively, portrayed by Rowling.

The hate-filled Lord Voldemort loves no one, trusts no one, and confides in no one; not even his closest followers. Voldemort is utterly without mercy, eliminating anything and anyone who gets in his way. As you read about him, you see his psychotic personality. A genius, but one who is utterly controlled by his hate, fear, distrust, and ambition.

In contrast, Dumbledore is ever loving, always forgiving, and seeks always to influence his students in a positive way. In the sixth book of the series, “Half-Blood Prince,” Dumbeldore shows love and compassion even to one of his students who is threatening to kill him. Dumbledore believes in the power of love and lives his life in a manner that is consistent with his beliefs. And as Rowling hints throughout the series, Dumbelodore’s insistence on the power of love will somehow be the key to victory over Voldemort and his followers.

Another well-expressed theme in the series is the value of family. Harry Potter’s parents were ruthlessly murdered by Voldemort when he was just an infant, and his non-magical relatives do not treat Harry well while raising him. So the family of one of his best friends from Hogwarts, Ron Weasley, takes him in and treats him as one of their own.

Ron Weasley is one of seven children, a family which is poor in monetary terms but incredibly rich and alive with their love for each other. And Ron’s parents show great love and devotion to Harry, showing Harry, and readers of the series, the joy and value of family.

Here, Rowling does a phenomenal job of communcating something that many of us never understand, that a loving family life is worth far more than a mountain of gold. You feel right down to the depths of your soul what the young Harry Potter understands; he would gladly give up every ounce of his family’s personal fortune to have his parents back.

Overall, I think it difficult for anyone to argue these books are “devoid of value,” as some claim. Like the Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings, The Harry Potter series is full of important values and lessons, only in the backdrop of a magical world.

Does this mean that I recommend the Potter series unequivocally? No, I do not.

Rather, I think that, for parents who are concerned, they should read through the books before their children and decide for themselves if they wish to let their children read them or not. For adults who feel the content, despite the positives, is too dark or too oriented on witchcraft, then I recommend they not read the series.

Just as in every community, there are varying levels of opinion, I think it imporant for both Christians and non-Christians to respect those who might respectfully disagree with the themes written into the Harry Potter Series. And I place an emphasis on “respectful disagreement.”

In the end, this is a story, not a biography, and the events of the story are fictional. That said, what a wonderful experience this has been for fans of the series! A story this engaging and compelling does not come along very often, and we’ve had the opportunity to watch both the characters and the tale itself unfold and develop over the past ten years.

It has been a great ride, and in July of this year, we’ll see the conclusion of the series with the release of “Deathly Hallows.” Like other fans, I’m excited and sad to know that the final book is almost here.

I so appreciate J.K. Rowling’s wonderful books. And personally I’m very grateful for the work she has done in the creation of this wonderful, inspiring, and worthwhile series of books. What an amazing adventure it has been so far. I can’t wait to read the final book in the series, both to see it’s conclusion and also to know that I was privileged to watch this series unfold from beginning to end. It has been a great blessing!