The discussion up to now has been a bit muddled, as many people fall back on old methods of general “who’s best/worst” labeling. I have tried to suggest an alternative method for evaluating the performance and capabilities of Presidents, emphasizing that each President has areas of relative strength and weakness. The next step in setting up the contests, is to evaluate each of the five areas of responsibility, relative to each other for the same President. That is, we already know the top and bottom for each, but now need to assign a place for the other three. Because my “season” will be starting soon, I am leaving that alone for now, but I wanted to mention it so it would be known.
After this is done, we can turn our attention to the terms of office. Since George Washington first took office in 1789, we can count 55 terms for our Presidents, giving us 55 sets of responsibility priorities. As with the Presidents, the five areas of concern are these:
[] Responsible Attention to Military Threats and Needs
[] Responsible Attention to the Economy
[] Responsible Attention to the Balance of Branch Authority
[] Responsible Attention to the U.S. Constitution
[] Responsible Attention to Advancing/Protecting American Interests
And as with each President, the emphasis varies of needs. For each term, there is a principle need, and the other four areas have lesser importance to the moment. During the Civil War, for example, the state of the economy was useful but not at all as important as the military aspect. On the other hand, the 1928-36 terms did not face an immediate military threat, but the economy was in great need. At other times the need has been for a President to expand his office to meet the needs which Congress and the Courts could not meet, and at still other times the context of the Constitution was primary in need. So today’s article opens the question of which category of responsibility was most and least important during each term. Bear in mind that I am talking about the 55 4-year terms, regardless of whether a President may have served for more than one term, or whether a four-year term may have seen more than on President (like Gerald Ford filling out the last part of the 1973-6 term).
The “season” starts on Monday, so all these preliminaries are moving towards resolution in comparison. Don’t ask me how long it took to work up the “schedule”.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
‘England Expects’, No Longer
Historians have longed agreed as a consensus, that the greatness of Great Britain was brought to bear by its navy. The Royal Navy has been the scourge of pirates, rogue despots, and various pretenders to world power for centuries, yet the events of this month have demonstrated a pathetic cowardice which was heretofore unknown to Parliament with regard to Jack Tar and his mates. Yet Whitehall has swallowed the anchor and scuttled the pride and patriotism of the Andrew, all in hopes of placating a worthless pissant of a man who cannot properly shave himself, much less lead a regional power. The shame of the situation was made clear this week past, when it was revealed that the HMS Cornwall, the escort ship which could easily have prevented the kidnapping of the sailors, was ordered not to interfere, to allow innocent sailors to be seized in Iraqi waters by the Iranian raiders. One can scarely imagine a less British sentiment, notion, or resolution.
But even worse for the long-term look, is the savage and foolhardy destruction of the Royal Navy's budget and capabilities; one need look no further than the five-year moratorium on promotions to be imposed on all British naval officers. The intent is clearly to drive the most qualified and professional officers out of the service, an act so dangerous to the safety of Britain and so malicious against her citizens' welfare, that it may properly be called traitorous.
If the next Nelson is to come, he shall not be found in England, for England has abandoned her history and her greatness, by scorning her navy.
But even worse for the long-term look, is the savage and foolhardy destruction of the Royal Navy's budget and capabilities; one need look no further than the five-year moratorium on promotions to be imposed on all British naval officers. The intent is clearly to drive the most qualified and professional officers out of the service, an act so dangerous to the safety of Britain and so malicious against her citizens' welfare, that it may properly be called traitorous.
If the next Nelson is to come, he shall not be found in England, for England has abandoned her history and her greatness, by scorning her navy.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Major League POTUS – The Hard Part, Part I
It’s been an interesting few days, as readers come to grips with my outline of how Presidents may be compared to one another on something like even ground. A lot of off-topic sniping and character bashing has been going on, which I removed to clarify the discussion. I have to say again, that while expression of opinion is fine, for this topic the gutter stuff is not going to be allowed.
Which brings me to the really hard part of today’s post, a condition which I suspect will sharply limit the number and depth of valid responses. It comes down to my contention that every single President, regardless of what else we can say about them, had certain qualities which helped them ascend to the office. They were also all human, meaning that they all had blind spots, weak areas, and personal foibles to some degree. Once again, this is not an attempt to say that all Presidents are the same, or that one given President may not soundly thump an opponent in a match-up; it is simply an observation that people tend to paint leaders in solid colors, bright or foul. Such glorification or demonization detracts from the worth of examining the Presidents, and diminishes these men to caricatures.
So, for this part, the instruction is this: Consider the five areas of Presidential Responsibility which I described yesterday.
[] Responsible Attention to Military Threats and Needs
[] Responsible Attention to the Economy
[] Responsible Attention to the Balance of Branch Authority
[] Responsible Attention to the U.S. Constitution
[] Responsible Attention to Advancing/Protecting American Interests
With those in mind now, for each President (or as many as you care to note) list the category where he was strongest and the one where he was weakest. It is possible that the “strongest” category could still be one where you are not impressed with the man, and in the “weakest” category you may happen to believe that this President was strong, simply not as amazing here as in the other areas. But this exercise, in addition to helping folks discover some of the more intricate details in evaluating Presidents, may also serve to help folks see the men in more than one dimension. As an example, one of the more commonly mocked Presidents, if he is remembered at all, is Millard Fillmore. Fillmore became President upon the death of Zachary Taylor in 1850, and he is often pilloried as a man who did not stand up against Slavery. However, on closer examination Fillmore, who opposed slavery but suffered from a lack of influence with Congress, understood better than most people the peril of his position. Even in 1850, the South was discussing the possibility of secession, or what amounted to the same thing, the refusal to follow Federal law. This was the reason for the drafting of the Compromise of 1850, which was tied to the crucial decision to admit California as a state to the Union. Fillmore understood that as things existed in 1850, the United States could not withstand a Civil War, and the Union could not hope to compel the South to remain in or rejoin the Union. He needed time, and a build-up of the Union Army. Few Whigs understood Fillmore’s wisdom, and the decision helped break the party. But Daniel Webster, writing of Fillmore’s resolve, wrote “I can now sleep of nights”. Understanding this facet of a man unfairly considered ignoble, is a key step in comprehending the work done by all the Presidents.
Which brings me to the really hard part of today’s post, a condition which I suspect will sharply limit the number and depth of valid responses. It comes down to my contention that every single President, regardless of what else we can say about them, had certain qualities which helped them ascend to the office. They were also all human, meaning that they all had blind spots, weak areas, and personal foibles to some degree. Once again, this is not an attempt to say that all Presidents are the same, or that one given President may not soundly thump an opponent in a match-up; it is simply an observation that people tend to paint leaders in solid colors, bright or foul. Such glorification or demonization detracts from the worth of examining the Presidents, and diminishes these men to caricatures.
So, for this part, the instruction is this: Consider the five areas of Presidential Responsibility which I described yesterday.
[] Responsible Attention to Military Threats and Needs
[] Responsible Attention to the Economy
[] Responsible Attention to the Balance of Branch Authority
[] Responsible Attention to the U.S. Constitution
[] Responsible Attention to Advancing/Protecting American Interests
With those in mind now, for each President (or as many as you care to note) list the category where he was strongest and the one where he was weakest. It is possible that the “strongest” category could still be one where you are not impressed with the man, and in the “weakest” category you may happen to believe that this President was strong, simply not as amazing here as in the other areas. But this exercise, in addition to helping folks discover some of the more intricate details in evaluating Presidents, may also serve to help folks see the men in more than one dimension. As an example, one of the more commonly mocked Presidents, if he is remembered at all, is Millard Fillmore. Fillmore became President upon the death of Zachary Taylor in 1850, and he is often pilloried as a man who did not stand up against Slavery. However, on closer examination Fillmore, who opposed slavery but suffered from a lack of influence with Congress, understood better than most people the peril of his position. Even in 1850, the South was discussing the possibility of secession, or what amounted to the same thing, the refusal to follow Federal law. This was the reason for the drafting of the Compromise of 1850, which was tied to the crucial decision to admit California as a state to the Union. Fillmore understood that as things existed in 1850, the United States could not withstand a Civil War, and the Union could not hope to compel the South to remain in or rejoin the Union. He needed time, and a build-up of the Union Army. Few Whigs understood Fillmore’s wisdom, and the decision helped break the party. But Daniel Webster, writing of Fillmore’s resolve, wrote “I can now sleep of nights”. Understanding this facet of a man unfairly considered ignoble, is a key step in comprehending the work done by all the Presidents.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
What Makes A Good President? Maybe, Not What You Think!
I mentioned that my approach to matching Presidents against each other in competition would be somewhat radical. This is, in part, because I mean to challenge the common assumptions made, and for that I must begin with the criteria which is so often used in comparing Presidents.
I did some looking around, and I found the following six words used the most often to describe an effective President:
Honesty
Integrity
Intelligence
Leadership
Judgment
Patriotism
These are all good, desirable qualities, but there is a glaring problem with any of them. They are all subjective values, determined by how the grader feels. That’s a big red flag for me, and one reason why time often changes the position which Presidents occupy. And it gets no better when you look at professional historians. A site called “History News Network” examined President George W. Bush, mainly in terms of whether or not he is the “worst President ever” or merely just a “failure”. The article is no better than a smear job, obvious when one notes that the qualities of famous failures are subdued in favor of slamming the current Commander-in-Chief. The historians were every bit as biased and subjective as popular polls have been, with the exception that the worthy folks at George Mason University attempted to present their tilt as an objective finding. But that is neither here nor there, for our purposes. It means for us to consider, carefully, how we shall avoid the same blunder in measuring these men. The historians used a largely negative yardstick, measuring all Presidents in such categories as “economic damage”, “imperialism”, “dishonesty”, and “arrogance”. All words which can be, and are, liberally applied to paint a selected target in foul colors. Such a circular argument is useless on its face.
I also eschew the complex examination. That is, if great detail matters, one should endeavor to read some of the many fine biographies of Presidents, but the sheer volume of information would be unwieldy in the extreme here. So, I have determined to walk through five basic qualities of Presidential responsibility, and to try to set out some standards for certain levels in each skill. These five areas are determined by the needs of the United States through its Presidential History (since 1789, that is). They are:
[] Responsible Attention to Military Threats and Needs
[] Responsible Attention to the Economy
[] Responsible Attention to the Balance of Branch Authority
[] Responsible Attention to the U.S. Constitution
[] Responsible Attention to Advancing/Protecting American Interests
With apologies to Mr. Gore, I am afraid that “green” activism is not a mark of a responsible President of the United States. With apologies to Ms. Clinton, I must contend that advancing Socialism is not in the best interests of the Nation. With apologies to Rev. Sharpton, I observe that the President of the United States is not obliged to show preferential treatment towards a racial minority, and is in fact obliged to rather oppose racial, gender, or cultural bias in his performance and decisions. The careful reader will observe that the responsibilities of the President of the United States are, in some ways, much different than the responsibilities of the Congress of the United States and of the Judiciary of the United States, to say nothing of the state, county, and local levels of government. There is, admittedly, still a risk of subjectivity in even these more-clearly defined areas of duty, but at least we can establish certain benchmarks for these categories before we assign values to individual Presidents. And as I mentioned earlier, each of these areas will differ in their weight of significance according to different conditions and times.
Next, defining the benchmarks.
I did some looking around, and I found the following six words used the most often to describe an effective President:
Honesty
Integrity
Intelligence
Leadership
Judgment
Patriotism
These are all good, desirable qualities, but there is a glaring problem with any of them. They are all subjective values, determined by how the grader feels. That’s a big red flag for me, and one reason why time often changes the position which Presidents occupy. And it gets no better when you look at professional historians. A site called “History News Network” examined President George W. Bush, mainly in terms of whether or not he is the “worst President ever” or merely just a “failure”. The article is no better than a smear job, obvious when one notes that the qualities of famous failures are subdued in favor of slamming the current Commander-in-Chief. The historians were every bit as biased and subjective as popular polls have been, with the exception that the worthy folks at George Mason University attempted to present their tilt as an objective finding. But that is neither here nor there, for our purposes. It means for us to consider, carefully, how we shall avoid the same blunder in measuring these men. The historians used a largely negative yardstick, measuring all Presidents in such categories as “economic damage”, “imperialism”, “dishonesty”, and “arrogance”. All words which can be, and are, liberally applied to paint a selected target in foul colors. Such a circular argument is useless on its face.
I also eschew the complex examination. That is, if great detail matters, one should endeavor to read some of the many fine biographies of Presidents, but the sheer volume of information would be unwieldy in the extreme here. So, I have determined to walk through five basic qualities of Presidential responsibility, and to try to set out some standards for certain levels in each skill. These five areas are determined by the needs of the United States through its Presidential History (since 1789, that is). They are:
[] Responsible Attention to Military Threats and Needs
[] Responsible Attention to the Economy
[] Responsible Attention to the Balance of Branch Authority
[] Responsible Attention to the U.S. Constitution
[] Responsible Attention to Advancing/Protecting American Interests
With apologies to Mr. Gore, I am afraid that “green” activism is not a mark of a responsible President of the United States. With apologies to Ms. Clinton, I must contend that advancing Socialism is not in the best interests of the Nation. With apologies to Rev. Sharpton, I observe that the President of the United States is not obliged to show preferential treatment towards a racial minority, and is in fact obliged to rather oppose racial, gender, or cultural bias in his performance and decisions. The careful reader will observe that the responsibilities of the President of the United States are, in some ways, much different than the responsibilities of the Congress of the United States and of the Judiciary of the United States, to say nothing of the state, county, and local levels of government. There is, admittedly, still a risk of subjectivity in even these more-clearly defined areas of duty, but at least we can establish certain benchmarks for these categories before we assign values to individual Presidents. And as I mentioned earlier, each of these areas will differ in their weight of significance according to different conditions and times.
Next, defining the benchmarks.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Men Among Men – Scoring the Presidents
I have read a few requests to explain how I am going about the games between our Presidents. To answer, I would begin by noting that there seem to be generally three methods used when comparing Presidents. The first style is to write about a President one likes, then sketch out thin and lifeless comparisons of other Presidents to make the chosen one look really good. While sometimes these essays can provide good background on a certain individual, they are useless in terms of presenting a fair look at the field. The reverse of this method is also common, where a President disliked by the writer is described in terms to make anyone seem better in comparison.
The second method is a bit more organized and balanced. The graders assign values for each President in a set number of qualities, tally them up and the highest grade is the winner. This was a popular method for many years, and was used by such notable historians as Arthur Schlesinger, Wikipedia, and popularity polls. There were and are, however, fatal flaws in this method as well, not least the clear bias of the graders, the assumption that each quality is equally important to the President’s job, and that a President would perform the same in other conditions as in his actual time and circumstance. This fails the common sense test.
The third common method is one which I have used myself; setting Presidents alongside each other and asking folks to discuss their accomplishments and disappointments. Such discussions are seldom popular, in some degree due to the poor level of history retained in the craniums of many Americans, and there is often no clear winner, as each person tends to hold to the President he or she originally preferred, but such discussions have improved understanding of the President’s job, the complexity each Chief Executive faces, and they have helped the discerning realize the difference between an attractive quality to a candidate, and an essential attribute we need in any potential President.
But the debate rages on, albeit in limited circles, and this year I am suggesting a somewhat radical alternative. It is my contention that to properly match up Presidents, we must see them compete in a variety of circumstances and conditions, which is why my “schedule” uses a “Home & Away” method to compare Presidents. I would establish five key sections of Presidential competence measures. I also believe that the frame of time available, from 1789 to 2007, should be broken up into 4-year segments, each of which would highlight one of the five competence areas as its critical focus.
I would also, to be blunt, do away with marble statues and monuments at the outset. That is, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and their like, often enter comparisons with an unreasonable advantage – many people are afraid to criticize them, as if there was something disallowed about not revering a ‘Founding Father’, or constantly praising ‘The Man Who Saved The Union’. No, I am not saying that the favorites have not earned their laurels, but I do see a habit of presuming that the first sixteen Presidents are so far ahead, say, of the last sixteen that no valid comparison is possible. I dissent with that notion. George Washington had an iron will, but he also had a bad temper. Abraham Lincoln also responded harshly at times to criticism, as Mr. Taney could tell you. I rather suspect one reason we do not see candidates in their mold anymore, is because I doubt such men would have the sort of temperament to endure the Primary season, convention, debates and then the General campaign, with the media all the while trying to keep the media from mangling their message beyond all sense. Andrew Jackson once killed a man in a duel; imagine what CNN would do with that in a candidate today!
It’s my take that the same things which are a strength in one situation can be a liability in another case. So it will be interesting, I think, to work out the match-ups and see where they take us. As always, comments are welcome, although I admit I have not yet set up merchandising opportunities.
For no reason in particular, I am setting the “pre-season” rankings by using Wikipedia’s ranks. As they play out, the records will move our guys up and down. Here is the starting Top 10:
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Harry Truman
8. Andrew Jackson
9. Dwight Eisenhower
10. James Polk
The second method is a bit more organized and balanced. The graders assign values for each President in a set number of qualities, tally them up and the highest grade is the winner. This was a popular method for many years, and was used by such notable historians as Arthur Schlesinger, Wikipedia, and popularity polls. There were and are, however, fatal flaws in this method as well, not least the clear bias of the graders, the assumption that each quality is equally important to the President’s job, and that a President would perform the same in other conditions as in his actual time and circumstance. This fails the common sense test.
The third common method is one which I have used myself; setting Presidents alongside each other and asking folks to discuss their accomplishments and disappointments. Such discussions are seldom popular, in some degree due to the poor level of history retained in the craniums of many Americans, and there is often no clear winner, as each person tends to hold to the President he or she originally preferred, but such discussions have improved understanding of the President’s job, the complexity each Chief Executive faces, and they have helped the discerning realize the difference between an attractive quality to a candidate, and an essential attribute we need in any potential President.
But the debate rages on, albeit in limited circles, and this year I am suggesting a somewhat radical alternative. It is my contention that to properly match up Presidents, we must see them compete in a variety of circumstances and conditions, which is why my “schedule” uses a “Home & Away” method to compare Presidents. I would establish five key sections of Presidential competence measures. I also believe that the frame of time available, from 1789 to 2007, should be broken up into 4-year segments, each of which would highlight one of the five competence areas as its critical focus.
I would also, to be blunt, do away with marble statues and monuments at the outset. That is, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and their like, often enter comparisons with an unreasonable advantage – many people are afraid to criticize them, as if there was something disallowed about not revering a ‘Founding Father’, or constantly praising ‘The Man Who Saved The Union’. No, I am not saying that the favorites have not earned their laurels, but I do see a habit of presuming that the first sixteen Presidents are so far ahead, say, of the last sixteen that no valid comparison is possible. I dissent with that notion. George Washington had an iron will, but he also had a bad temper. Abraham Lincoln also responded harshly at times to criticism, as Mr. Taney could tell you. I rather suspect one reason we do not see candidates in their mold anymore, is because I doubt such men would have the sort of temperament to endure the Primary season, convention, debates and then the General campaign, with the media all the while trying to keep the media from mangling their message beyond all sense. Andrew Jackson once killed a man in a duel; imagine what CNN would do with that in a candidate today!
It’s my take that the same things which are a strength in one situation can be a liability in another case. So it will be interesting, I think, to work out the match-ups and see where they take us. As always, comments are welcome, although I admit I have not yet set up merchandising opportunities.
For no reason in particular, I am setting the “pre-season” rankings by using Wikipedia’s ranks. As they play out, the records will move our guys up and down. Here is the starting Top 10:
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Harry Truman
8. Andrew Jackson
9. Dwight Eisenhower
10. James Polk
Monday, March 26, 2007
Major League POTUS 2007
Oddly enough, there seems to be some mild interest in my 2007 match-ups between Presidents. For here, I will simply outline how the "League" works, and later I will post how each contest will be decided.
In early years of these match-ups, I simply posted Presidents one-on-one matching certain catagories of work and reputation, counting each equally and assigning a score. While there is a certain value to that system, it lacked what I wanted in this sort of thing, so I have revisited it. In terms of qualities, it seems to me that while a President does establish his name in certain ways, what is important at one time and place may be less important somewhere else. It is even possible thet a President who stands out in his own term, may have done a poor job in another time and condition, and vice versa. So, my Presidents will have "Home" games, where the conditions match their actual term of office, and "Road" games, where they are judged by the standards of another President. I have also set up a schedule based on two "Conferences", with three "Divisions" in each Conference of 7 Presidents each, set up chronologically. Since Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, our 43 Presidents are acually 42 people, which fits neatly. After 2008 this will be a problem, but for now no big deal.
Each President will play a home-and-away with each President from the "other" Conference (21 Presidents for 42 games), two home-and-away with each President in his own "Conference" but different "Division" (14 Presidents for 56 games), and four home-and-away with each President in his own "Division" (6 Presidents for 48 games), for a total of 146 games. This will play out in a fashion similar to the Major League Baseball season.
If you find this intriguing, just check back every so often and have a look. If it bores you, you may simply ignore any title which refers to MLP or "Major League Presidents".
Thanks!
In early years of these match-ups, I simply posted Presidents one-on-one matching certain catagories of work and reputation, counting each equally and assigning a score. While there is a certain value to that system, it lacked what I wanted in this sort of thing, so I have revisited it. In terms of qualities, it seems to me that while a President does establish his name in certain ways, what is important at one time and place may be less important somewhere else. It is even possible thet a President who stands out in his own term, may have done a poor job in another time and condition, and vice versa. So, my Presidents will have "Home" games, where the conditions match their actual term of office, and "Road" games, where they are judged by the standards of another President. I have also set up a schedule based on two "Conferences", with three "Divisions" in each Conference of 7 Presidents each, set up chronologically. Since Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, our 43 Presidents are acually 42 people, which fits neatly. After 2008 this will be a problem, but for now no big deal.
Each President will play a home-and-away with each President from the "other" Conference (21 Presidents for 42 games), two home-and-away with each President in his own "Conference" but different "Division" (14 Presidents for 56 games), and four home-and-away with each President in his own "Division" (6 Presidents for 48 games), for a total of 146 games. This will play out in a fashion similar to the Major League Baseball season.
If you find this intriguing, just check back every so often and have a look. If it bores you, you may simply ignore any title which refers to MLP or "Major League Presidents".
Thanks!
Making the Grade 2007
George W. Bush, in my opinion, has done a fine job as President, certainly top ten in terms of meeting his duties of the office and accomplishing the most important jobs. Some folks would agree with me, though to a different degree, while others would disagree with me. And some brain-dead vipers would be so consumed by their hatred of Dubya, that they would be unable to accept even the slightest of his successes.
Why mention this? Those people who have known me for years, know that every so often I like to compare Presidents in ranks, usually by a form of competition. And as the NCAA Basketball Tournaments wind down, my mind has once again found itself pondering POTUS match-ups. I do not intend to inflict that condition on anyone unasked, which is to say I will have the competition up on Stolen Thunder later this spring, but for now I am simply asking the reader, once again, to consider what it is that makes a President a failure or success.
The test is not one of popularity. I like whom I like, but that proves nothing in any objective sense. And it should be obvious that politicians in general seek to do what will make them popular, which is one serious reason why significant challenges go unanswered for so long – it takes real guts to try to address what has no easy answer, what does not promise immediate rewards, and which can usually only succeed where the leader in charge is selfless and humble to a degree scarcely found in people who run for elected office.
I would also say that accomplishments are not of even weight. A good President will understand that what solves the day’s problems is not as good an answer as one which solves threats to the generation. This is one reason why Reagan is properly acknowledged as so much greater a President than many who came before him; his actions – though controversial at the time – strengthened America and advanced her interests far beyond the moment. This is also why Clinton’s legacy will stand against him – he sought what worked for the season, never considering long-term effects of his decisions.
What I am throwing out for today, is discussion about which five Presidents you think have done the best job (let’s leave off failures for this discussion) and why, and then note which people today seem to have the most qualities in common with the great Presidents. If you see no such contender worthy of comparison, please note what you think might be useful in bringing such a person to consideration. This could be a useful tool is helping filter the dreck from the quality candidate, and less than a year from the primaries, such an exercise could be vital for both parties.
Why mention this? Those people who have known me for years, know that every so often I like to compare Presidents in ranks, usually by a form of competition. And as the NCAA Basketball Tournaments wind down, my mind has once again found itself pondering POTUS match-ups. I do not intend to inflict that condition on anyone unasked, which is to say I will have the competition up on Stolen Thunder later this spring, but for now I am simply asking the reader, once again, to consider what it is that makes a President a failure or success.
The test is not one of popularity. I like whom I like, but that proves nothing in any objective sense. And it should be obvious that politicians in general seek to do what will make them popular, which is one serious reason why significant challenges go unanswered for so long – it takes real guts to try to address what has no easy answer, what does not promise immediate rewards, and which can usually only succeed where the leader in charge is selfless and humble to a degree scarcely found in people who run for elected office.
I would also say that accomplishments are not of even weight. A good President will understand that what solves the day’s problems is not as good an answer as one which solves threats to the generation. This is one reason why Reagan is properly acknowledged as so much greater a President than many who came before him; his actions – though controversial at the time – strengthened America and advanced her interests far beyond the moment. This is also why Clinton’s legacy will stand against him – he sought what worked for the season, never considering long-term effects of his decisions.
What I am throwing out for today, is discussion about which five Presidents you think have done the best job (let’s leave off failures for this discussion) and why, and then note which people today seem to have the most qualities in common with the great Presidents. If you see no such contender worthy of comparison, please note what you think might be useful in bringing such a person to consideration. This could be a useful tool is helping filter the dreck from the quality candidate, and less than a year from the primaries, such an exercise could be vital for both parties.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Why The Democrats Are Still Angry
There is just no pleasing the Democrats these days. They have taken control of both chambers of Congress, they have several candidates for President who seem to be doing well in the polls, and they even managed the combo of getting Mr. Libby convicted where there was no crime, while people on their side up to their ears in dubious undertakings are enjoying wealth and power unscathed. Yet the mood in Donkeytown is still one of anger and bitterness. And there are three good reasons why this is so.
The first reason is, of course, President George W. Bush. The Democrats have hated him for years, most since he first laid hand on the Bible and took the oath. I remember hearing threats that he would be impeached from the spring of 2001, not that there has ever been the slightest rational reason to pursue that course. Dubya has been called every name the Left can come up with, denigrating every possible human characteristic, and in recent times there has been a chilling thirst for blood from the Left, as many on that side have publicly pronounced a hope for his death by assassination. Yet he has not only managed to avoid the vast majority of traps set by the Left, and won re-election in 2004 by the first clear popular majority since his father, Mr. Bush has steadily demonstrated that he is not concerned by the opinion the Left has of him. He fears and serves the Lord, he loves and serves the United States, and he loves and protects the ideals he has sworn to uphold. George W. Bush sleeps well at night, knowing he has done his best to do what was right, not what was easy.
The President also rests well, in the knowledge that he has a trump card in his plans: Karl Rove. The Libby affair, like so many cartoonish plans from the Left, began in Democrats' plans as a way to get at Rove. Unable to accept the better qualities of President Bush, Democrats have assigned the strength of his victories to his advisors, chiefly Karl Rove. The attention given to 'get Rove' has thrown the Democrats off opportunity and into confusion more than a few times. Also, abilities, Rove will certainly play an important role in the 2008 election, whether as a valuable advisor to a serious candidate, or also as foil to Democrat strategies.
There is also one crucial reason why the Democrats have never been as eager as their rabid-frothing sector to impeach Bush, besides the fact that such an attempt would be a brazen frame job on completely false charges: It would lead to increased authority for Richard Cheney. If Democrats were somehow able to remove Bush from office, Cheney would become President, and there is no question that Dick Cheney would not be soft on the Left. The Democrats have begun to consider another nasty possibility; the deft politician has no desire to run for the Presidency himself, but like Bush is determined to protect America from its enemies, and if the Democrats attempted to smear the President with a campaign to weaken the Republican position in the 2008 campaign, the weak field of candidates presently available could well inspire Cheney to do one of two things - lead from within as a strong center to the party, or if necessary run himself. Don't laugh, but this is genuinely a fear in the DNC. Under nominal circumstances, a Cheney campaign would be insignificant, unlikely to develop the momentum needed to win the GOP nomination. However, if the Democrats changed conditions through a direct assault on the Bush White House, the mood among Republicans - and the voters as a whole - would change, and the new dynamics would create demand for new conditions. Even if his participation was limited to advising the party and a selected candidate, Cheney's experience and political ability could be devastating to the Left, and they know it. Cheney is the bear the Left must let sleep, for fear of his teeth.
Knowing this, the Democrats proceed in their futile rage, which is good news for America.
The first reason is, of course, President George W. Bush. The Democrats have hated him for years, most since he first laid hand on the Bible and took the oath. I remember hearing threats that he would be impeached from the spring of 2001, not that there has ever been the slightest rational reason to pursue that course. Dubya has been called every name the Left can come up with, denigrating every possible human characteristic, and in recent times there has been a chilling thirst for blood from the Left, as many on that side have publicly pronounced a hope for his death by assassination. Yet he has not only managed to avoid the vast majority of traps set by the Left, and won re-election in 2004 by the first clear popular majority since his father, Mr. Bush has steadily demonstrated that he is not concerned by the opinion the Left has of him. He fears and serves the Lord, he loves and serves the United States, and he loves and protects the ideals he has sworn to uphold. George W. Bush sleeps well at night, knowing he has done his best to do what was right, not what was easy.
The President also rests well, in the knowledge that he has a trump card in his plans: Karl Rove. The Libby affair, like so many cartoonish plans from the Left, began in Democrats' plans as a way to get at Rove. Unable to accept the better qualities of President Bush, Democrats have assigned the strength of his victories to his advisors, chiefly Karl Rove. The attention given to 'get Rove' has thrown the Democrats off opportunity and into confusion more than a few times. Also, abilities, Rove will certainly play an important role in the 2008 election, whether as a valuable advisor to a serious candidate, or also as foil to Democrat strategies.
There is also one crucial reason why the Democrats have never been as eager as their rabid-frothing sector to impeach Bush, besides the fact that such an attempt would be a brazen frame job on completely false charges: It would lead to increased authority for Richard Cheney. If Democrats were somehow able to remove Bush from office, Cheney would become President, and there is no question that Dick Cheney would not be soft on the Left. The Democrats have begun to consider another nasty possibility; the deft politician has no desire to run for the Presidency himself, but like Bush is determined to protect America from its enemies, and if the Democrats attempted to smear the President with a campaign to weaken the Republican position in the 2008 campaign, the weak field of candidates presently available could well inspire Cheney to do one of two things - lead from within as a strong center to the party, or if necessary run himself. Don't laugh, but this is genuinely a fear in the DNC. Under nominal circumstances, a Cheney campaign would be insignificant, unlikely to develop the momentum needed to win the GOP nomination. However, if the Democrats changed conditions through a direct assault on the Bush White House, the mood among Republicans - and the voters as a whole - would change, and the new dynamics would create demand for new conditions. Even if his participation was limited to advising the party and a selected candidate, Cheney's experience and political ability could be devastating to the Left, and they know it. Cheney is the bear the Left must let sleep, for fear of his teeth.
Knowing this, the Democrats proceed in their futile rage, which is good news for America.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Tom DeLay – An Example of What is Wrong with the Right
Tom Delay, former Congressman and much-feared “Hammer” for the Republican Party, has written a book. A disappointing whine of self-pity, actually, and nothing worth your time, attention, or money. In brief, DeLay wrote a warped, bitter perspective on the present political condition, a paranoid delusion where he is at no fault but everyone else, from opponents to his (former) closest friends, is to be blamed. I find myself troubled to discover that a man who did so much to help lead the 1994 Republican Revolution, should now prove to be so petty, disloyal, and shallow.
I wrestled for a while about what to write here. Tom DeLay did a lot of good for the nation and for his district while he was a Congressman, and for that he deserves respect and thanks. But that hardly excuses his present conduct and arrogance, so common among many men and women on the Hill. But there is a point where Republicans, especially, should remember not only their worth and value but also their limits and responsibilities, including the so-often-ignored duty to take orders from the leadership for the advancement of promised legislation, and party discipline in order to prevent the opposition from playing divide-and-conquer in order to gain power. Of course, even though I was saying this last year, it was ignored in preference of personal feuds and individual empire-building. DeLay’s lie that President Bush is “compassionate … but no conservative” is not only popular among men inclined to excuse their derilection of duty, but also those many people who love a television camera more than remembering their promises to their constituents.
The Democrats do not seem inclined to do a better job of governing than the Republicans, but that is hardly the goal we should seek. Reaching, then defending a party consensus for the nation’s needs is more than just a nice idea; it is the essential mission which must be pursued right now. And unfortunately, before that can happen the GOP needs to sit its members down, point out Tom DeLay, what he was and what he has become, and explain clearly that the DeLay of 1994 helped create greatness, while the DeLay of 2006 helped tear down the party. It is well past time to clean house of egotists and unaccountable mandarins.
I wrestled for a while about what to write here. Tom DeLay did a lot of good for the nation and for his district while he was a Congressman, and for that he deserves respect and thanks. But that hardly excuses his present conduct and arrogance, so common among many men and women on the Hill. But there is a point where Republicans, especially, should remember not only their worth and value but also their limits and responsibilities, including the so-often-ignored duty to take orders from the leadership for the advancement of promised legislation, and party discipline in order to prevent the opposition from playing divide-and-conquer in order to gain power. Of course, even though I was saying this last year, it was ignored in preference of personal feuds and individual empire-building. DeLay’s lie that President Bush is “compassionate … but no conservative” is not only popular among men inclined to excuse their derilection of duty, but also those many people who love a television camera more than remembering their promises to their constituents.
The Democrats do not seem inclined to do a better job of governing than the Republicans, but that is hardly the goal we should seek. Reaching, then defending a party consensus for the nation’s needs is more than just a nice idea; it is the essential mission which must be pursued right now. And unfortunately, before that can happen the GOP needs to sit its members down, point out Tom DeLay, what he was and what he has become, and explain clearly that the DeLay of 1994 helped create greatness, while the DeLay of 2006 helped tear down the party. It is well past time to clean house of egotists and unaccountable mandarins.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Prayers For The Edwards
John and Elizabeth Edwards announced today that Elizabeth's cancer has returned. The biopsy results have been confirmed, and so despite surgery and radiation treatment, the Edwarsd will once again have to find this monster.
Despite strong political differences with Mister Edwards, my own recent good news about my own cancer reminds me that not everyone is lucky in their fight, and that everyone who must go through this battle deserves prayers and support.
Despite strong political differences with Mister Edwards, my own recent good news about my own cancer reminds me that not everyone is lucky in their fight, and that everyone who must go through this battle deserves prayers and support.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Medical Update
It has been a busy two weeks!
Two weeks ago, I was training the guy who would be replacing me while I was out on FMLA leave, for surgery and convalescence. My schedule was full of preparations, as I readied myself for a series of tests on the 9th of March, to be followed by consultation on the 12th with Dr, Lambert at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
The tests on Friday March 9 were long, detailed, and uncomfortable. But they were worth it for the news I got the following Monday. Dr. Lambert sat me down next to my wife Mikki, and informed us that - at this time - surgery is not necessary to treat my cancer. Essentially, what happened is that Dr. Thomas got everything in my surgery on November 7th, and what was left has not appreciably grown. They can treat it with chemicals, and in July I will have another CT scan at MDA and a laparascopic exam to see what's going on in there. Dr. Lambert hastened to warn me this is not 'cured', but it is very good news. Both Dr. Thomas and Dr. Foote has insisted that major surgery was inevitable.
Just one more reminder about doing your own homework, and ALWAYS get a second opinion.
Two weeks ago, I was training the guy who would be replacing me while I was out on FMLA leave, for surgery and convalescence. My schedule was full of preparations, as I readied myself for a series of tests on the 9th of March, to be followed by consultation on the 12th with Dr, Lambert at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
The tests on Friday March 9 were long, detailed, and uncomfortable. But they were worth it for the news I got the following Monday. Dr. Lambert sat me down next to my wife Mikki, and informed us that - at this time - surgery is not necessary to treat my cancer. Essentially, what happened is that Dr. Thomas got everything in my surgery on November 7th, and what was left has not appreciably grown. They can treat it with chemicals, and in July I will have another CT scan at MDA and a laparascopic exam to see what's going on in there. Dr. Lambert hastened to warn me this is not 'cured', but it is very good news. Both Dr. Thomas and Dr. Foote has insisted that major surgery was inevitable.
Just one more reminder about doing your own homework, and ALWAYS get a second opinion.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
A Bad Sign From the GOP
People who know me can tell you that I am by no means a man of significance. The mailman has to think about whether I am worthy to receive mail addressed to ‘occupant’, for instance. So I should have known from the start that a letter addressed to me from the Republican National Committee would be something other than earth-shaking. But what I read was very unsettling.
The letter, of course, was basically a form letter. I noted that although it claimed I was part of a “select group of Republicans”, it did not bother to greet me by name. It seems that I have been selected as “a representative of all Republicans in your voting district”. Well, that sounds ‘special’, but wait and see.
Like everything from the RNC these days, it included the standard plea for money, making me think of all those charities that tell me that my “small donation” will make such a difference. The RNC informed me that money from me will somehow “rebuild and reunify our Republican Party”. Just how they got me confused with Bill Gates I guess I will never know. But to the meat of the letter; the “census” included an urgent plea to let the leading Republicans know how we “grassroots” Republicans feel. You know, “grassroots” like something they feel they can wipe their feet on. I don’t recall the RNC asking for my input when it mattered, but oh well. There were twenty-six questions on the “census”, and few of them were worth the ink and paper. The RNC divided the questions into sections titled “Homeland Security Issues”, “Economic Issues”, “Domestic Issues”, “Social Issues”, and “Defense Issues”. They also asked if I had voted in the last several elections, the only useful questions in the set.
Why am I so sure the questions were useless? Here are some of them:
“If Democrats try to gut the USA Patriot Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans in Congress fight back?”
If there is a single Republican in the House or Senate who does not already know the answer to that one, things are far worse than I thought!
“Should President Bush’s successful income and capital gains tax cuts be made permanent?”
Hmmm, ‘should the taxpayers keep more of their own money’? Would the RNC kindly explain why this was not done during the years we had the majority in both chambers? Was this a tough decision, too?
“Do you agree that we must stop illegal immigration?”
Are you telling me that there are Republicans in favor of illegal immigration?
“Should we fight Democrat efforts to impose Clinton-era cuts in the Pentagon’s budget?”
I’m afraid to ask why this is even a question.
Seriously, if those kinds of questions are what the RNC is wondering about, then our leadership is as stupid as Harry Reid is corrupt. And that is plain scary.
The letter, of course, was basically a form letter. I noted that although it claimed I was part of a “select group of Republicans”, it did not bother to greet me by name. It seems that I have been selected as “a representative of all Republicans in your voting district”. Well, that sounds ‘special’, but wait and see.
Like everything from the RNC these days, it included the standard plea for money, making me think of all those charities that tell me that my “small donation” will make such a difference. The RNC informed me that money from me will somehow “rebuild and reunify our Republican Party”. Just how they got me confused with Bill Gates I guess I will never know. But to the meat of the letter; the “census” included an urgent plea to let the leading Republicans know how we “grassroots” Republicans feel. You know, “grassroots” like something they feel they can wipe their feet on. I don’t recall the RNC asking for my input when it mattered, but oh well. There were twenty-six questions on the “census”, and few of them were worth the ink and paper. The RNC divided the questions into sections titled “Homeland Security Issues”, “Economic Issues”, “Domestic Issues”, “Social Issues”, and “Defense Issues”. They also asked if I had voted in the last several elections, the only useful questions in the set.
Why am I so sure the questions were useless? Here are some of them:
“If Democrats try to gut the USA Patriot Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans in Congress fight back?”
If there is a single Republican in the House or Senate who does not already know the answer to that one, things are far worse than I thought!
“Should President Bush’s successful income and capital gains tax cuts be made permanent?”
Hmmm, ‘should the taxpayers keep more of their own money’? Would the RNC kindly explain why this was not done during the years we had the majority in both chambers? Was this a tough decision, too?
“Do you agree that we must stop illegal immigration?”
Are you telling me that there are Republicans in favor of illegal immigration?
“Should we fight Democrat efforts to impose Clinton-era cuts in the Pentagon’s budget?”
I’m afraid to ask why this is even a question.
Seriously, if those kinds of questions are what the RNC is wondering about, then our leadership is as stupid as Harry Reid is corrupt. And that is plain scary.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Reluctant Virtue of Severus Snape – Part 2, AVR
In my post on Sunday, I observed that the question of Snape’s loyalties really depends on his actions beginning with the discovery that Lord Voldemort was returning. We know from the second prophecy and the statement by Voldemort himself, that he had no followers from the time he was physically vaporized as his killing curse rebounded on him in October 1981, to the time he compelled Wormtail to make him a new body, in early 1995. As Wormtail’s process evolved, the Dark Mark – the brand on the arm of each and every Death Eater minion of Voldemort – began to become more and more visible, and when Voldemort gained possession of his new body, the mark burned hotly on every arm, demanding the immediate return of the Death Eaters, to swear renewed fealty and service to the Dark Lord. We know this courtesy of the cowardice of Igor Karkaroff, who was at that moment the Headmaster of the Durmstrang institute. Igor twice confronted Severus regarding the imminent return of Voldemort, an event which filled Igor with fear. We know, from the pensieve memories Harry has been able to see, that Igor Karkaroff reduced his time in the Azkaban prison by giving up the names of a number of Death Eaters, something which would cause him a lot of trouble at any Death Eater reunion, and endangering his skin so far as the Dark Lord is concerned. I find it interesting, that Karkaroff thought he could speak with confidence about this to Severus Snape, since Severus was one of the people whom Igor tried to implicate (Dumbledore had already cleared Severus with the Wizengamot, through evidence we readers have not yet learned). I cannot tell from the text whether Karkaroff believed his friendship with Severus was strong enough to get past that, or whether Karkaroff was simply that desperate. But for here, it tells us that the Death Eaters had time to decide their response several months before it was time to deliver in person. This makes Severus’ decision significant; the fact that Severus delayed his return by two hours after the other Death Eaters on purpose, and that purpose tells us something about the mind and character of Severus Snape. You see, there could be only three reasons why Severus Snape would intentionally delay his return; to set himself apart from the other Death Eaters in the mind of Voldemort, to speak privately with Voldemort [yes, Severus wanted to be face-to-face with Voldemort!], and to deliver Dumbledore’s message to Voldemort without interference. Crazy as that sounds, this was part of a strategic plan.
The next strategic decision for Severus Snape comes in the fifth book, ‘Order of the Phoenix’. Here too we see Severus doing things that make no sense if he was truly loyal to Voldemort. Severus meets with the Order, but we observe that Dumbledore comes to and goes from the Order’s headquarters without direct contact with the Order as a group; if Severus’ orders from Voldemort were to spy on Dumbledore, then he should have been tailing Dumbledore, but he does not. At the end of OOtP, when Harry and five classmates from the D.A. set out to the Ministry to rescue Sirius Black, it is Severus Snape who calls in reinforcements from the Order. And I can promise you that this was never part of any order from Voldemort. Not only would Voldemort never give up a chance to kill or capture Harry Potter if he could, the whole point of Voldemort’s plan at the Ministry was to collect the prophecy, which Snape’s actions directly thwarted. There is no possibility whatsoever that Severus Snape was working for Voldemort when he called up the Order.
Next: But What About Murder?
The next strategic decision for Severus Snape comes in the fifth book, ‘Order of the Phoenix’. Here too we see Severus doing things that make no sense if he was truly loyal to Voldemort. Severus meets with the Order, but we observe that Dumbledore comes to and goes from the Order’s headquarters without direct contact with the Order as a group; if Severus’ orders from Voldemort were to spy on Dumbledore, then he should have been tailing Dumbledore, but he does not. At the end of OOtP, when Harry and five classmates from the D.A. set out to the Ministry to rescue Sirius Black, it is Severus Snape who calls in reinforcements from the Order. And I can promise you that this was never part of any order from Voldemort. Not only would Voldemort never give up a chance to kill or capture Harry Potter if he could, the whole point of Voldemort’s plan at the Ministry was to collect the prophecy, which Snape’s actions directly thwarted. There is no possibility whatsoever that Severus Snape was working for Voldemort when he called up the Order.
Next: But What About Murder?
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The Reluctant Virtue of Severus Snape – Part 1
On July 21 of this year, the seventh and final book of the Harry Potter series written by J.K. Rowling will be released. This book has the highest expectations of all the series, as fans of the “Boy Who Lived” will demand answers to their many remaining questions, not the least of which is the true allegiance of Severus Snape.
There have been four large groups formed with regard to that question; those who believe Severus Snape is basically evil, those who believe Severus Snape is basically good, those who believe Severus Snape is simply out for himself, and those who admit that they have not decided. No wonder, really. The six books written so far each show scenes and statements which at times indicate evil, at other times indicate goodness, at times indicate selfishness, and anyone who thinks about Rowling’s Potter stories understands that many times the true meaning is not what appears on the surface.
This article simply looks at the available evidence, laying out what we know to give us a few bits of solid indication for guidance. Some of the things I note here, I will have to show in more than one context, as they could serve more than one meaning on their own, but there are some points which may surprise folks if they consider them all together. Hopefully, this will be useful in clearing some of the fog.
The first thing to understand about the Severus Snape contentions, is that we have two distinctly separate periods of time to address; the period before Lord Voldemort returned in bodily fashion at the end of “Goblet of Fire” (GoF), and the period after that. The reason this is so, is because we have two clear evidences that Voldemort did not have allies until his recovery of a body, except for a dismal few. The evidence for that comes from two places – a prophecy by Sibyl Trelawney, and statements by Lord Voldemort himself.
First, the prophecy. We all know that Sibyl Trelawney has a reputation as a self-serving fraud. For instance, she predicted at the Yule dinner once that whoever was the first to rise from the table would be the next person of that group to die, but although Harry and Ron both rose at the same time, it turned out to be Dumbledore (who did not rise at all) who died, at the end of “Half-Blood Prince” (HBP). But on two occasions, Sibyl made predictions which Rowling clearly indicates are true. The first one is a prophecy we actually do not hear completely until the fifth book, but which is treated by the major characters as true, not least because several parts of it appear to have been confirmed. The other prophecy, later in the timeline of the books but which actually appears first, is presented in this way:
From the “Prisoner of Azkaban” (PoA), page 324:
But Professor Trelawney didn’t seem to hear him. Her eyes started to roll. Harry sat there in a panic. She looked as though she was about to have some sort of seizure. He hesitated, thinking of running to the hospital wing – and then Professor Trelawney spoke again, in the same harsh voice, quite unlike her own:
”THE DARK LORD LIES ALONE AND FRIENDLESS, ABANDONED BY HIS FOLLOWERS.
The prophecy went on to predict certain other events for the story which did come to pass, but this first line is the salient one for here, since it means that whether or not they were allied with Voldemort before, they are not his followers at this point. This does not make them good by default of course; in the course of the story we still see individuals who return to Voldemort, and even a few who remain devoted to him but were physically prevented from seeking him (the Lestranges, I mean). But in the context of this discussion, it means that whatever his mind and motives during the first three years of Harry’s years at Hogwarts, Severus Snape was not working for Voldemort during that time. He certainly could have joined Voldemort again after Voldemort summoned his Death Eaters in the graveyard scene in GoF, so this fact does not decide the question of Severus Snape’s loyalty, but it does close a number of doors to decide that question for the purpose of the resolution of the series. The events prior to GoF can shed light on the character of Severus Snape. But they do not speak to his allegiance; only the last three books can do so.
The next witness to this condition of fact is none other than Lord Voldemort himself. When he rose again in power at the end of GoF, Voldemort was not at all happy about how long it took the Death Eaters to get back to him, specifically that except for a single devoted follower who sought him out, a cowardly follower who came back to him after years of hiding, and a few loyal followers locked in prison, his “loyal” followers basically ran off and forgot about him. From GoF, pages 647-8:
”I smell guilt,” he said, “There is a stench of guilt upon the air.”
[ snip]
“I ask myself … why did this band of wizards never come to the aid of their master, to whom they swore eternal loyalty?”
[snip]
“And I answer myself”, whispered Voldemort, “they must have believed me broken, they thought I was gone.”
That explains a lot, actually. And again, it does not commit Severus Snape to the side of Albus Dumbledore, nor even to himself, except that it does strike, if a small one, against the notion of his loyalty to Lord Voldemort.
So from this we have a separation of sequence, and may sort out the significant events not only by date, but also by what they affect. So far as Severus Snape is concerned, then, I divide our timeline into two sections: Before Voldemort’s Return (BVR), and After Voldemort’s Return (AVR). And since they weigh more strongly, I will first address the AVR events, those described in the last three books. I will discuss those significant events in my next post.
There have been four large groups formed with regard to that question; those who believe Severus Snape is basically evil, those who believe Severus Snape is basically good, those who believe Severus Snape is simply out for himself, and those who admit that they have not decided. No wonder, really. The six books written so far each show scenes and statements which at times indicate evil, at other times indicate goodness, at times indicate selfishness, and anyone who thinks about Rowling’s Potter stories understands that many times the true meaning is not what appears on the surface.
This article simply looks at the available evidence, laying out what we know to give us a few bits of solid indication for guidance. Some of the things I note here, I will have to show in more than one context, as they could serve more than one meaning on their own, but there are some points which may surprise folks if they consider them all together. Hopefully, this will be useful in clearing some of the fog.
The first thing to understand about the Severus Snape contentions, is that we have two distinctly separate periods of time to address; the period before Lord Voldemort returned in bodily fashion at the end of “Goblet of Fire” (GoF), and the period after that. The reason this is so, is because we have two clear evidences that Voldemort did not have allies until his recovery of a body, except for a dismal few. The evidence for that comes from two places – a prophecy by Sibyl Trelawney, and statements by Lord Voldemort himself.
First, the prophecy. We all know that Sibyl Trelawney has a reputation as a self-serving fraud. For instance, she predicted at the Yule dinner once that whoever was the first to rise from the table would be the next person of that group to die, but although Harry and Ron both rose at the same time, it turned out to be Dumbledore (who did not rise at all) who died, at the end of “Half-Blood Prince” (HBP). But on two occasions, Sibyl made predictions which Rowling clearly indicates are true. The first one is a prophecy we actually do not hear completely until the fifth book, but which is treated by the major characters as true, not least because several parts of it appear to have been confirmed. The other prophecy, later in the timeline of the books but which actually appears first, is presented in this way:
From the “Prisoner of Azkaban” (PoA), page 324:
But Professor Trelawney didn’t seem to hear him. Her eyes started to roll. Harry sat there in a panic. She looked as though she was about to have some sort of seizure. He hesitated, thinking of running to the hospital wing – and then Professor Trelawney spoke again, in the same harsh voice, quite unlike her own:
”THE DARK LORD LIES ALONE AND FRIENDLESS, ABANDONED BY HIS FOLLOWERS.
The prophecy went on to predict certain other events for the story which did come to pass, but this first line is the salient one for here, since it means that whether or not they were allied with Voldemort before, they are not his followers at this point. This does not make them good by default of course; in the course of the story we still see individuals who return to Voldemort, and even a few who remain devoted to him but were physically prevented from seeking him (the Lestranges, I mean). But in the context of this discussion, it means that whatever his mind and motives during the first three years of Harry’s years at Hogwarts, Severus Snape was not working for Voldemort during that time. He certainly could have joined Voldemort again after Voldemort summoned his Death Eaters in the graveyard scene in GoF, so this fact does not decide the question of Severus Snape’s loyalty, but it does close a number of doors to decide that question for the purpose of the resolution of the series. The events prior to GoF can shed light on the character of Severus Snape. But they do not speak to his allegiance; only the last three books can do so.
The next witness to this condition of fact is none other than Lord Voldemort himself. When he rose again in power at the end of GoF, Voldemort was not at all happy about how long it took the Death Eaters to get back to him, specifically that except for a single devoted follower who sought him out, a cowardly follower who came back to him after years of hiding, and a few loyal followers locked in prison, his “loyal” followers basically ran off and forgot about him. From GoF, pages 647-8:
”I smell guilt,” he said, “There is a stench of guilt upon the air.”
[ snip]
“I ask myself … why did this band of wizards never come to the aid of their master, to whom they swore eternal loyalty?”
[snip]
“And I answer myself”, whispered Voldemort, “they must have believed me broken, they thought I was gone.”
That explains a lot, actually. And again, it does not commit Severus Snape to the side of Albus Dumbledore, nor even to himself, except that it does strike, if a small one, against the notion of his loyalty to Lord Voldemort.
So from this we have a separation of sequence, and may sort out the significant events not only by date, but also by what they affect. So far as Severus Snape is concerned, then, I divide our timeline into two sections: Before Voldemort’s Return (BVR), and After Voldemort’s Return (AVR). And since they weigh more strongly, I will first address the AVR events, those described in the last three books. I will discuss those significant events in my next post.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Adventures in Medicine Update
Moo.
Today I got a good sense of what it is to be cattle. While the process made a sort of sense at the intellectual level, and it was a good thing to get several things out of the way at once, the experience was less than satisfying for me. Having promised to write a straightforward (if somewhat sporadic) journal about what it is to have cancer, today’s events require a mention, because if you should find yourself battling a serious disease, it is very likely that you too will encounter the same sort of obstacles.
I drove down to the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Medical Center (or MDA) this morning for a series of tests, to track the progress of my tumor growth. Since the plans for my treatment have up to now assumed the continued indolent state of my tumors, these tests would serve as important indicators. I noted earlier this week to my wife, that my work required me to be in the office by 8 AM, but for these tests I would need to be present to check in at 7 AM. A small thing, but also an early warning that my ‘day off’ for the tests would hardly be a relaxing one.
The first obstacle, besides traffic in the area of the Medical Center (a number of hospitals all sit within blocks of each other, creating a location convenient for medical professionals, but decidedly unfriendly to patients and their families), is parking. There are several large parking garages, but they are expensive, difficult in places to navigate, and there never seem to be a lot of spaces available. To say nothing of the fact that everyone seems to be impatient, so that as you try to squeeze your car into a place you finally locate, cars are flying past you and quite nearly clipping your end off. Not the best way to begin the morning.
Once I made my way into the main building, I found my way easily enough to the 7th Floor, where the Gastro-Intestinal office is located. I then wasted a few minutes looking for someone with whom to check in, because the person who ought to have manned the front desk was absent. I found a nurse who helped me with al my paperwork and it went smoothly, but again I should remind the reader that several times in my appointments, I have found that the medical profession is not always altogether punctual.
There’s no reason to go too much into the details of my blood work, the x-rays, and my several CT Scans, except to observe that I spent six hours with what amount to a temporary faucet in my arm, to expedite the collection of blood and the insertion of an IV solution. In addition, when I showed up at the location for my CT Scan, I first discovered a collection of overworked and absolutely dispirited staff who quite clearly no longer thought of the patients as people, but very much like cattle. And when my name was finally called to go to the rooms for my actual scans, the nurse who greeted me and flushed my vein attachment took my paperwork and set it down in the wrong place, so that the staff forgot about me for 45 minutes. By itself this was no big deal, but in addition to the other events of the day, it struck me as just a bit less than professional, and another indicator of why we were referred to by our “patient number” as often as by our real names.
At this point I must hasten to note the truly professional standards to which MDA normally performs. The blood work was done well and quickly, even though my veins played hard to get. So too, the X-ray portion was smooth and seamless, as if it were no difficulty to navigate several dozen people an hour through that one office. I should be deficient and misleading if I did not compliment those offices on their fine work. The actual performance of the CT Scans by the technicians was thorough, professional in its detail and attention to the task, and I have every confidence that the results of these tests will be comprehensive and suitable to the needs of the doctors. I also would note that the nurse in the GI office who handled my paperwork was polite and fast, even though she was doing someone else’s work. On the whole, then, I accomplished what I set out to do, and most of the staff I met were courteous and professional. I would even go so far as to say that the problems I encountered were singular and limited to the individuals directly charged with the task, rather than a systemic problem. But it also needs to be observed, that even so fine a place as MD Anderson has areas where they fail at times, and where they could stand to pay attention to problems. And of course, we patients need to be aware that these aggravations will come along to bump us along the way.
Moo.
Today I got a good sense of what it is to be cattle. While the process made a sort of sense at the intellectual level, and it was a good thing to get several things out of the way at once, the experience was less than satisfying for me. Having promised to write a straightforward (if somewhat sporadic) journal about what it is to have cancer, today’s events require a mention, because if you should find yourself battling a serious disease, it is very likely that you too will encounter the same sort of obstacles.
I drove down to the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Medical Center (or MDA) this morning for a series of tests, to track the progress of my tumor growth. Since the plans for my treatment have up to now assumed the continued indolent state of my tumors, these tests would serve as important indicators. I noted earlier this week to my wife, that my work required me to be in the office by 8 AM, but for these tests I would need to be present to check in at 7 AM. A small thing, but also an early warning that my ‘day off’ for the tests would hardly be a relaxing one.
The first obstacle, besides traffic in the area of the Medical Center (a number of hospitals all sit within blocks of each other, creating a location convenient for medical professionals, but decidedly unfriendly to patients and their families), is parking. There are several large parking garages, but they are expensive, difficult in places to navigate, and there never seem to be a lot of spaces available. To say nothing of the fact that everyone seems to be impatient, so that as you try to squeeze your car into a place you finally locate, cars are flying past you and quite nearly clipping your end off. Not the best way to begin the morning.
Once I made my way into the main building, I found my way easily enough to the 7th Floor, where the Gastro-Intestinal office is located. I then wasted a few minutes looking for someone with whom to check in, because the person who ought to have manned the front desk was absent. I found a nurse who helped me with al my paperwork and it went smoothly, but again I should remind the reader that several times in my appointments, I have found that the medical profession is not always altogether punctual.
There’s no reason to go too much into the details of my blood work, the x-rays, and my several CT Scans, except to observe that I spent six hours with what amount to a temporary faucet in my arm, to expedite the collection of blood and the insertion of an IV solution. In addition, when I showed up at the location for my CT Scan, I first discovered a collection of overworked and absolutely dispirited staff who quite clearly no longer thought of the patients as people, but very much like cattle. And when my name was finally called to go to the rooms for my actual scans, the nurse who greeted me and flushed my vein attachment took my paperwork and set it down in the wrong place, so that the staff forgot about me for 45 minutes. By itself this was no big deal, but in addition to the other events of the day, it struck me as just a bit less than professional, and another indicator of why we were referred to by our “patient number” as often as by our real names.
At this point I must hasten to note the truly professional standards to which MDA normally performs. The blood work was done well and quickly, even though my veins played hard to get. So too, the X-ray portion was smooth and seamless, as if it were no difficulty to navigate several dozen people an hour through that one office. I should be deficient and misleading if I did not compliment those offices on their fine work. The actual performance of the CT Scans by the technicians was thorough, professional in its detail and attention to the task, and I have every confidence that the results of these tests will be comprehensive and suitable to the needs of the doctors. I also would note that the nurse in the GI office who handled my paperwork was polite and fast, even though she was doing someone else’s work. On the whole, then, I accomplished what I set out to do, and most of the staff I met were courteous and professional. I would even go so far as to say that the problems I encountered were singular and limited to the individuals directly charged with the task, rather than a systemic problem. But it also needs to be observed, that even so fine a place as MD Anderson has areas where they fail at times, and where they could stand to pay attention to problems. And of course, we patients need to be aware that these aggravations will come along to bump us along the way.
Moo.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
The "Twenty-Eight"
The conviction of Mr. Libby has sent Liberals into fits of ecstasy, many of them now voicing hope that having convicted one innocent man, they can set their sights on greater targets. The proof of the last several years has shown that a Liberal can commit felonies without worry, while an innocent Conservative can be railroaded unless he is quite careful to watch his steps. Small wonder such worthy individuals as Condi Rice have declined to seek elected office, but that’s for another time. My point for this article is to address the condition of those remaining Americans who refuse to be swayed by media propaganda and the expedient lies from the likes of McCain and Reid and Pelosi, who stand behind their commitments and their elected President. A sneering Liberal in the comments one one site derisively tagged us as “the few, the proud, the 28%”, implying that President Bush only has a 28% Approval Rating. That is, like so much from the Left, a false claim and shows a bit of the malice which colors everything from the DNC and the MSM these days, but even so I will claim that label as a badge of honor. Not that I am as good as a United States Marine, to which the rest of that phrase alludes, yet there is something to the core of that comparison which defines a condition of honor which the miscreant missed in his chortling.
Some time back, I made a statement that Liberals could not be engaged productively in a discussion about National Security. In noting that fact now, I need to be clear that this does not disqualify people with Liberal perspectives, in political terms, from holding valid perspectives and presenting useful thoughts. I would go so far, and I know this will offend those who are easily offended, as to say that fewer Liberals than Conservatives can hold onto firm and consistent ethical positions across the spectrum. There is a reason for that, and one which Conservatives should consider.
Life works sometimes like a hot furnace, burning away dross and a fair amount of skin. In the process, many people quite naturally try to avoid the flames and protect their feelings at the cost of hardening assumptions into committed principles, which errors sometimes lead to greater cost. Also, there is a pervasive sense among many people that violence is always wrong, that the majority (or at least the appearance of a majority) is always right, or that we must subordinate the missions of the greatest among us to the will of the weakest among us. The obvious hypocrisy that such people never hesitate to call the police for their own protection, that they will try to change the definitions of victory whenever they realize they have lost a battle, and that they will put their personal ideology ahead of even the US Constitution whenever they stand to lose something, is a matter which such folks reject out of hand. This does not mean that the obvious is true, but rather that we must test claims and assumptions, in that very fire of consequence and cost I mentioned. Defeat has a cost, but it teaches lessons as well. And between 1932 and 1994, the Conservatives in America were forced to learn many such lessons, but they resulted in Ronald Reagan and the 1994 Revolution. In that same time, many Liberals suffered no losses of consequence, and so they never firmed their principles into anything stronger than the personal character of individual leaders, whose substance gradually fell to the mockery of “leadership” we see today in the Left.
It is not really hard to see what happened to the Left; just look at what passes for their leadership. They are, to the last person, wealthy and obsessed with their personal privilege, convinced not only that they are entitled to special privileges but that this is the natural order of things. The aristocracy in pre-Revolution France was never so arrogant. And this, be sure, is also a problem for some on the Right. When in the past two decades has John McCain done hard labor? Could you even imagine Chuck Hagel working a 40-hour week for a paycheck? Does anyone seriously believe that John Boehner has done his own driving, his own taxes, or mowed his own yard in the last ten years? One problem Republicans had in the 2006 elections had nothing to do with President Bush, but everything to do with how out-of-touch Majority Leader Frist and Speaker Hastert were with the average American. They had gotten too insulated, and became convinced that they did not need to answer to anyone, and so found themselves – in the end – rejected by the people they forgot about, who turned out to matter.
Conservatives and Liberals who are elected to office are often protected by the system in place, and by groups which act to protect and promote their special interests. But the Conservatives have fewer such crony groups, largely because the Democrats had more time in power to attract such people. The largest unions, for example, came to support Democrats not only because the Democrats molded their legislative priorities to match union demands, but because the Democrats/Liberals were clearly in power for so many decades, and so paying money and privilege to the Left was the way to prime the pump for payback to the unions.
Conservatives also benefited from the fact that their support groups were more willing to re-examine their ideals and goals, and many of their groups were committed to justice far ahead of expediency. This is one reason why the military gradually became stronger and stronger supporters of Republicans; not because the GOP was perfect by any means, but because the Democrats were less and less committed to the ideals to which soldiers swear fealty. The same for religious groups, who often tested their support for a candidate by how well his voting record was aligned with their ideals. This meant of course, that sometimes Conservatives lost ground because they could not lock in support for groups they needed, but it provides an essential moral compass which is missing from the Left.
Doing the right thing is not often easy, and it often comes at a cost. So it is hardly surprising that not everyone can commit to it, or that such commitment would be sporadic even among well-meaning people. And it is not surprising that so many, on the Left and the Right, may find it easy to fall back to habit rather than carefully consider their course and commitments, and then stand by them for the duration of the promise. The media and the Liberals have done a rather effective job of preventing folks from hearing what President Bush has done right in Iraq, or in the Economy, or in Judicial Reform, or in so many other areas of his job. Lies and slander are the currency of the day for so many who pretend to hold Truth as their ideal. When an arrogant liar like Gore can be lauded and lionized for false claims and hypocritical behavior regarding his own demands, while the President’s clear policies are mis-stated and mocked if they are considered at all, it is no surprise that many folks would fall away and say they do not approve of him, even when the other party provides no effective answer for how they would meet the challenges of the nation.
I stand with the President, as a Republican and a Conservative, and as I always have. I do not change my mind because the weather gets rough. And unlike many who will lie and equivocate later when asked about their support and commitment, I will always be able to look querants straight in the eye and confirm that I never wavered. If few stand with me, those few have passed a test most people fear to even face.
Some time back, I made a statement that Liberals could not be engaged productively in a discussion about National Security. In noting that fact now, I need to be clear that this does not disqualify people with Liberal perspectives, in political terms, from holding valid perspectives and presenting useful thoughts. I would go so far, and I know this will offend those who are easily offended, as to say that fewer Liberals than Conservatives can hold onto firm and consistent ethical positions across the spectrum. There is a reason for that, and one which Conservatives should consider.
Life works sometimes like a hot furnace, burning away dross and a fair amount of skin. In the process, many people quite naturally try to avoid the flames and protect their feelings at the cost of hardening assumptions into committed principles, which errors sometimes lead to greater cost. Also, there is a pervasive sense among many people that violence is always wrong, that the majority (or at least the appearance of a majority) is always right, or that we must subordinate the missions of the greatest among us to the will of the weakest among us. The obvious hypocrisy that such people never hesitate to call the police for their own protection, that they will try to change the definitions of victory whenever they realize they have lost a battle, and that they will put their personal ideology ahead of even the US Constitution whenever they stand to lose something, is a matter which such folks reject out of hand. This does not mean that the obvious is true, but rather that we must test claims and assumptions, in that very fire of consequence and cost I mentioned. Defeat has a cost, but it teaches lessons as well. And between 1932 and 1994, the Conservatives in America were forced to learn many such lessons, but they resulted in Ronald Reagan and the 1994 Revolution. In that same time, many Liberals suffered no losses of consequence, and so they never firmed their principles into anything stronger than the personal character of individual leaders, whose substance gradually fell to the mockery of “leadership” we see today in the Left.
It is not really hard to see what happened to the Left; just look at what passes for their leadership. They are, to the last person, wealthy and obsessed with their personal privilege, convinced not only that they are entitled to special privileges but that this is the natural order of things. The aristocracy in pre-Revolution France was never so arrogant. And this, be sure, is also a problem for some on the Right. When in the past two decades has John McCain done hard labor? Could you even imagine Chuck Hagel working a 40-hour week for a paycheck? Does anyone seriously believe that John Boehner has done his own driving, his own taxes, or mowed his own yard in the last ten years? One problem Republicans had in the 2006 elections had nothing to do with President Bush, but everything to do with how out-of-touch Majority Leader Frist and Speaker Hastert were with the average American. They had gotten too insulated, and became convinced that they did not need to answer to anyone, and so found themselves – in the end – rejected by the people they forgot about, who turned out to matter.
Conservatives and Liberals who are elected to office are often protected by the system in place, and by groups which act to protect and promote their special interests. But the Conservatives have fewer such crony groups, largely because the Democrats had more time in power to attract such people. The largest unions, for example, came to support Democrats not only because the Democrats molded their legislative priorities to match union demands, but because the Democrats/Liberals were clearly in power for so many decades, and so paying money and privilege to the Left was the way to prime the pump for payback to the unions.
Conservatives also benefited from the fact that their support groups were more willing to re-examine their ideals and goals, and many of their groups were committed to justice far ahead of expediency. This is one reason why the military gradually became stronger and stronger supporters of Republicans; not because the GOP was perfect by any means, but because the Democrats were less and less committed to the ideals to which soldiers swear fealty. The same for religious groups, who often tested their support for a candidate by how well his voting record was aligned with their ideals. This meant of course, that sometimes Conservatives lost ground because they could not lock in support for groups they needed, but it provides an essential moral compass which is missing from the Left.
Doing the right thing is not often easy, and it often comes at a cost. So it is hardly surprising that not everyone can commit to it, or that such commitment would be sporadic even among well-meaning people. And it is not surprising that so many, on the Left and the Right, may find it easy to fall back to habit rather than carefully consider their course and commitments, and then stand by them for the duration of the promise. The media and the Liberals have done a rather effective job of preventing folks from hearing what President Bush has done right in Iraq, or in the Economy, or in Judicial Reform, or in so many other areas of his job. Lies and slander are the currency of the day for so many who pretend to hold Truth as their ideal. When an arrogant liar like Gore can be lauded and lionized for false claims and hypocritical behavior regarding his own demands, while the President’s clear policies are mis-stated and mocked if they are considered at all, it is no surprise that many folks would fall away and say they do not approve of him, even when the other party provides no effective answer for how they would meet the challenges of the nation.
I stand with the President, as a Republican and a Conservative, and as I always have. I do not change my mind because the weather gets rough. And unlike many who will lie and equivocate later when asked about their support and commitment, I will always be able to look querants straight in the eye and confirm that I never wavered. If few stand with me, those few have passed a test most people fear to even face.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Democrats and Justice
Well, now it's official.
A Republican accused of a crime can expect Justice from a D.C. jury in 2007, to about the same degree a black man accused of a crime in Alabama could expect Justice in 1907.
A Republican accused of a crime can expect Justice from a D.C. jury in 2007, to about the same degree a black man accused of a crime in Alabama could expect Justice in 1907.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
The Stakes of the United States Presidency 2008
In just about a year, the two political parties of significance in the United States will effectively decide their candidates for the Presidential election of 2008. When that happens, a large part of the participation of regular people in the decision will end, and the remainder of the election campaign will devolve to no better than an artificial process – political Velveeta, so far as the results matter. There will be no way to redeem the quality of the remaining pair from which we must choose, so now is the time to press hard questions and for clear quality of character and integrity.
For some reason, the media seems intent on ignoring the fact that many enemies of America are becoming more dangerous. North Korea and Iran certainly have nuclear weapons to some degree, a number of terrorist groups have been chasing them, China is ramping up a strong renovation of its military, especially its ability to deliver ICBMs and SLBMs. Also, a number of countries which have claimed friendship with the United States have been discovered dealing with America’s enemies for strategic resources and economic gain, usually personal gain. The scope and depth of the strategic international threat could scarcely be growing more quickly than it is now. Yet few media outlets seem interested in addressing this matter, and still fewer Presidential candidates.
The clock is running.
For some reason, the media seems intent on ignoring the fact that many enemies of America are becoming more dangerous. North Korea and Iran certainly have nuclear weapons to some degree, a number of terrorist groups have been chasing them, China is ramping up a strong renovation of its military, especially its ability to deliver ICBMs and SLBMs. Also, a number of countries which have claimed friendship with the United States have been discovered dealing with America’s enemies for strategic resources and economic gain, usually personal gain. The scope and depth of the strategic international threat could scarcely be growing more quickly than it is now. Yet few media outlets seem interested in addressing this matter, and still fewer Presidential candidates.
The clock is running.
Friday, March 02, 2007
What It Is, To Be Christian
Interesting. It’s harder to make a case that Christianity is a success, than it is to defend against the charge that it’s a failure. That is, I think, because there is a sort of middle ground where something is clearly worthwhile to a point, but difficult to sell as a universal solution. I do believe that Christianity is good and worthwhile for anyone who would accept it, yet I certainly stop short – well short – of suggesting that it should be imposed on folks. And saying that everyone should accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, especially when combined with insinuation that non-compliance means torture and agony, certainly heads down that road towards oppressive installation of a theocracy. So I would like to start by qualifying what I mean, personally anyway, when I talk about Christianity.
For me, Christianity is about being Christian, which in turn means to be a follower of Christ. Follower as in, I like where He’s going and what He’s done, so I am following Him in order to be more like Him and go where He goes. Fair enough?
One of the odd bits about being Christian, is that it’s different for everyone from each other Some folks seem to enjoy a deeply personal relationship with Christ, while others have a more, formal I guess would be the word, relationship. Some folks experience miracles while some seem to have a pretty common-sense experience. God seems to have as many facets to His nature and character as we human beings do. Tempting as it is to try to describe what the “True Christian” looks and acts like, that too is a variable, and I would not try to diminish the hand of God in so great a thing as how He works among us. But I digress, as I tend so often to do.
I would describe, from my perspective, Christianity as “the Greater Life”. It’s that dance which begins when we accept that we cannot ever be all we want to be on our own effort, but that there is a plan for us to be greater than we ever imagined. Not “great” in the sense of physical wealth or influence among men, but in finding meaning in our identity and becoming something of which we would otherwise only be able to dream, in detached and wistful moments. For me it began, really, with gratitude. When I am not grateful, I am ill-suited to my condition and situation, but when I accept grace and hold it loosely in thanks, then I am raised up to something and someone worth the effort and the moment.
Christ made that possible, and that is how I would explain the success of Christianity.
For me, Christianity is about being Christian, which in turn means to be a follower of Christ. Follower as in, I like where He’s going and what He’s done, so I am following Him in order to be more like Him and go where He goes. Fair enough?
One of the odd bits about being Christian, is that it’s different for everyone from each other Some folks seem to enjoy a deeply personal relationship with Christ, while others have a more, formal I guess would be the word, relationship. Some folks experience miracles while some seem to have a pretty common-sense experience. God seems to have as many facets to His nature and character as we human beings do. Tempting as it is to try to describe what the “True Christian” looks and acts like, that too is a variable, and I would not try to diminish the hand of God in so great a thing as how He works among us. But I digress, as I tend so often to do.
I would describe, from my perspective, Christianity as “the Greater Life”. It’s that dance which begins when we accept that we cannot ever be all we want to be on our own effort, but that there is a plan for us to be greater than we ever imagined. Not “great” in the sense of physical wealth or influence among men, but in finding meaning in our identity and becoming something of which we would otherwise only be able to dream, in detached and wistful moments. For me it began, really, with gratitude. When I am not grateful, I am ill-suited to my condition and situation, but when I accept grace and hold it loosely in thanks, then I am raised up to something and someone worth the effort and the moment.
Christ made that possible, and that is how I would explain the success of Christianity.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The Meaning of Death
Howdy folks, it’s been a weird week, and that means it’s time again to come up with something different on the blog. I’ve got some political notions in my head, but nothing really original, and most attempts to be brilliant are nothing brilliant at all. But something that happened Monday got me to thinking.
I was giving an annual review to my employees, and in the middle of one, while the employee was discussing her notion of what she planned to do to improve her results this year, I had an - 'image', I guess I will call it.
I felt just like I did as I was being wheeled in for my appendectomy back in November last year, only this time it was for my upcoming surgery at MD Anderson. I saw, in my mind but in a perception seemeingly of its own volition, the team of doctors waiting for me. They set me on the table, the anesthesia began -
and that was it. Not the end of the image, but as time passed I realized that in this image I died on the table. No white light, no happy or frightening recap of my life, no end credits or music.
Just black silence, and the sense that this was all there would be.
Now, I do not for a minute believe that what I saw was a real "vision", nor do I think I was hallucinating. I will be chewing the matter over in my head for a while, but I began to think about that. I was worried that I might be ready for those fashionable jackets with the sleeves which tie in the back, and should look for a comfortable and affordable tailor. But some good friends explained that it was very likely just a panic attack.
But to the topic at hand. Barring a radical departure from the known Laws of the Universe, we all will die sometime. With that in mind, we all wish to live Life to its fullest, although we don't fully understand that ideal. We also want to make a difference, to be glad of our choices and decisions. We all have decisions to make, with real consequences and real development of our lives decided by our choices. When we die, we don't want it to be anytime soon, but since it must happen, we want to go in such a way that, well, we will be missed. The higher order of person wants to go without leaving problems or pain for someone else, which is one reason why a person should never commit suicide.
We also understand that some people die in ways which, well, are magnificent. Men who die in battle, firefighters and policemen and medics who die while saving others, martyrs (the real ones) who die in the name of Peace and Justice and who build Hope for many through their sacrifice, are a sort of people difficult to understand completely, yet whose honor is so wondrous that all who see it cannot help but salute in some way. All who are truly human, sense and applaud the person who does something greater than should be possible. In a smaller, yet similar, way, we note the work of authors, composers, and creators of different sorts who bring something truly good into being. And this does not touch the subtler masters of Life, like truly good and wise parents and the True Friend. Death serves, in a strange fashion, to illuminate the greatness of such people.
Death also serves a function without which we should despair of Life. Inevitably, there is a friction to Life, some of it physical but most of it emotional and psychological. Every loss, every defeat, every serious wound leaves its mark and over Time it becomes a great difficulty to continue in anything like a normal fashion. Like Frodo at the end of the Lord of the Rings saga, it is too much to bear, and there must be an answer which serves to relieve the soul of its burden. As much as we love our families, our friends, and all the blessings which the Good Lord bestows on us, there is a time when it is meet for us each to leave the stage. Where to, we do not know, but we are bound for that journey nonetheless, as much in hope as in obedience to greater forces than we control.
I was giving an annual review to my employees, and in the middle of one, while the employee was discussing her notion of what she planned to do to improve her results this year, I had an - 'image', I guess I will call it.
I felt just like I did as I was being wheeled in for my appendectomy back in November last year, only this time it was for my upcoming surgery at MD Anderson. I saw, in my mind but in a perception seemeingly of its own volition, the team of doctors waiting for me. They set me on the table, the anesthesia began -
and that was it. Not the end of the image, but as time passed I realized that in this image I died on the table. No white light, no happy or frightening recap of my life, no end credits or music.
Just black silence, and the sense that this was all there would be.
Now, I do not for a minute believe that what I saw was a real "vision", nor do I think I was hallucinating. I will be chewing the matter over in my head for a while, but I began to think about that. I was worried that I might be ready for those fashionable jackets with the sleeves which tie in the back, and should look for a comfortable and affordable tailor. But some good friends explained that it was very likely just a panic attack.
But to the topic at hand. Barring a radical departure from the known Laws of the Universe, we all will die sometime. With that in mind, we all wish to live Life to its fullest, although we don't fully understand that ideal. We also want to make a difference, to be glad of our choices and decisions. We all have decisions to make, with real consequences and real development of our lives decided by our choices. When we die, we don't want it to be anytime soon, but since it must happen, we want to go in such a way that, well, we will be missed. The higher order of person wants to go without leaving problems or pain for someone else, which is one reason why a person should never commit suicide.
We also understand that some people die in ways which, well, are magnificent. Men who die in battle, firefighters and policemen and medics who die while saving others, martyrs (the real ones) who die in the name of Peace and Justice and who build Hope for many through their sacrifice, are a sort of people difficult to understand completely, yet whose honor is so wondrous that all who see it cannot help but salute in some way. All who are truly human, sense and applaud the person who does something greater than should be possible. In a smaller, yet similar, way, we note the work of authors, composers, and creators of different sorts who bring something truly good into being. And this does not touch the subtler masters of Life, like truly good and wise parents and the True Friend. Death serves, in a strange fashion, to illuminate the greatness of such people.
Death also serves a function without which we should despair of Life. Inevitably, there is a friction to Life, some of it physical but most of it emotional and psychological. Every loss, every defeat, every serious wound leaves its mark and over Time it becomes a great difficulty to continue in anything like a normal fashion. Like Frodo at the end of the Lord of the Rings saga, it is too much to bear, and there must be an answer which serves to relieve the soul of its burden. As much as we love our families, our friends, and all the blessings which the Good Lord bestows on us, there is a time when it is meet for us each to leave the stage. Where to, we do not know, but we are bound for that journey nonetheless, as much in hope as in obedience to greater forces than we control.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Party of the Demented
David Remnick, writing in the “New Yorker”, has done a service to psychologists; he has demonstrated not only a cause for the now-infamous “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, which has inspired countless luminaries to spew the most vacuous yet vitriol-laced screeds against the President seen in the past half-century, but also demonstrated the depth of insanity to which BDS sufferers not only sink, but indeed cling, preferring their malicious delusion to the truth, no matter what.
In the column, entitled ‘Party Talk’, Mr. Remnick gushes with prolonged and wholly undeserved praise for failed Presidential candidate Al Gore. After hinting that a Gore Presidency beginning in 2001 would somehow have been fantastically better in results than the real-world version (and fantasy is a key component to Remnick’s thoughts), Remnick falls back on a convenient lie, saying: “It is worse than painful to reflect on how much better off the United States and the world would be today if the outcome of the 2000 election had been permitted to correspond with the wishes of the electorate.”
While Gore did win a greater percentage of the Popular Vote in 2000 than Bush, it was a small amount, but more to the point the “wishes of the electorate” are constitutionally established through the results of the Electoral College. Not only is Remnick claiming that we should have ignored the Constitution of the United States, he is claiming that the electorate of thirty states which preferred Bush to Gore should have been ignored.
Remnick, having started lying, smoothly moves on to the next big lie, claiming that “the attacks of September 11, 2001, would likely not have been avoided, though there is ample evidence, in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, that Gore and his circle were far more alert to the threat of Islamist terrorism than Bush and his.”
I will say bluntly, that no such evidence existed, or exists now. Al Qaeda engaged in a declaration of war against the United States in 1995, and the Clinton-Gore Administration took no specific action at all to address the threat from Osama bin Laden whatsoever. It is, again, a typical tactic of the Left, to throw out a lie and hope it is unchallenged.
Personally, I have to say I see a bitter irony that a man unwilling to address the threat of Global Terrorism, to such a degree that he pretends Gore’s timidity would be preferable to Bush’s decisiveness in the Middle East, should try to claim that an election long proven to have been decided to have been both valid and Constitutional, should be the case to claim that “the historical damage is too profound.”
So why bring up Gore again? His reputation in the Democratic Party, circa 2004, should have been lesson enough, but no. Remnick and other minions gush about Gore’s “quality of judgment”, never mind his episode of campaigning for funds at Buddhist temples, that his campaign to coerce selected nations to be punished for unproven charges in climate change somehow makes him a man with “visionary leadership”. And of course, to Liberal minds the nomination for an Academy Award and the Nobel Prize (in demagoguery) makes him all but a front-runner.
When the Republican Party deserted President Bush in 2006 because they wanted to play up their own egos, the voters saw little difference between the corruption of the Right and the corruption of the Left, and put the Democrats back into power. I was worried that the Democrats would learn the lesson the Republicans ignored, and that we might see an honest, sane, candidate from their party in 2008. When so many of the left see the pompous, self-serving Al Gore as qualified in any way, they seem to me to be repeating their blunders of the last two Presidential campaigns, and thank God if they do it again. Provided of course, that the Republicans can ignore their strong desire to present a buffoon of their own.
In the column, entitled ‘Party Talk’, Mr. Remnick gushes with prolonged and wholly undeserved praise for failed Presidential candidate Al Gore. After hinting that a Gore Presidency beginning in 2001 would somehow have been fantastically better in results than the real-world version (and fantasy is a key component to Remnick’s thoughts), Remnick falls back on a convenient lie, saying: “It is worse than painful to reflect on how much better off the United States and the world would be today if the outcome of the 2000 election had been permitted to correspond with the wishes of the electorate.”
While Gore did win a greater percentage of the Popular Vote in 2000 than Bush, it was a small amount, but more to the point the “wishes of the electorate” are constitutionally established through the results of the Electoral College. Not only is Remnick claiming that we should have ignored the Constitution of the United States, he is claiming that the electorate of thirty states which preferred Bush to Gore should have been ignored.
Remnick, having started lying, smoothly moves on to the next big lie, claiming that “the attacks of September 11, 2001, would likely not have been avoided, though there is ample evidence, in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere, that Gore and his circle were far more alert to the threat of Islamist terrorism than Bush and his.”
I will say bluntly, that no such evidence existed, or exists now. Al Qaeda engaged in a declaration of war against the United States in 1995, and the Clinton-Gore Administration took no specific action at all to address the threat from Osama bin Laden whatsoever. It is, again, a typical tactic of the Left, to throw out a lie and hope it is unchallenged.
Personally, I have to say I see a bitter irony that a man unwilling to address the threat of Global Terrorism, to such a degree that he pretends Gore’s timidity would be preferable to Bush’s decisiveness in the Middle East, should try to claim that an election long proven to have been decided to have been both valid and Constitutional, should be the case to claim that “the historical damage is too profound.”
So why bring up Gore again? His reputation in the Democratic Party, circa 2004, should have been lesson enough, but no. Remnick and other minions gush about Gore’s “quality of judgment”, never mind his episode of campaigning for funds at Buddhist temples, that his campaign to coerce selected nations to be punished for unproven charges in climate change somehow makes him a man with “visionary leadership”. And of course, to Liberal minds the nomination for an Academy Award and the Nobel Prize (in demagoguery) makes him all but a front-runner.
When the Republican Party deserted President Bush in 2006 because they wanted to play up their own egos, the voters saw little difference between the corruption of the Right and the corruption of the Left, and put the Democrats back into power. I was worried that the Democrats would learn the lesson the Republicans ignored, and that we might see an honest, sane, candidate from their party in 2008. When so many of the left see the pompous, self-serving Al Gore as qualified in any way, they seem to me to be repeating their blunders of the last two Presidential campaigns, and thank God if they do it again. Provided of course, that the Republicans can ignore their strong desire to present a buffoon of their own.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Harry Potter and the President of the United States
I have not been feeling well this week, so I have been enjoying myself at a forum to discuss the ‘Harry Potter’ books. No, this is not going to be an article about my latest Harry Potter theory, though I am working on a few of those. What I am thinking about for here, is how people love to make noise, even when they do not have the first idea about what they are discussing.
The Harry Potter site I mean is the “Chamber of Secrets” site, named for the second book in the series. A fan can lose themselves for a very long time in the threads of essays, discussions, links and such. The forums fall into a variety of categories, but the liveliest by far is “Divination Studies”, where fans can discuss ideas about what will happen in the last book. This is also where goons try to bully people into accepting their opinion as fact, and where know-it-alls build empires of impressed minions. I love the place, because some very bright and thoughtful people present great ideas, but you sure run into a lot of dull and nasty types as well. All in all, very much like a political blog.
But it also struck me, how when someone reads an opinion they disagree with, how some of them are not content to simply say they disagree, they try to shout down anyone who does agree, to tear down anyone who wants to explore the topic, and attack anyone who supports their target. That struck me as very much the way that the Left goes after President Bush and anyone who stands by him.
There is one distinct difference, however. The people running “Chamber of Secrets” find the trolls irksome and are trying to control them. The same cannot be said for media personalities who could put the nation’s welfare ahead of their personal vendettae, but who will never do so.
The Harry Potter site I mean is the “Chamber of Secrets” site, named for the second book in the series. A fan can lose themselves for a very long time in the threads of essays, discussions, links and such. The forums fall into a variety of categories, but the liveliest by far is “Divination Studies”, where fans can discuss ideas about what will happen in the last book. This is also where goons try to bully people into accepting their opinion as fact, and where know-it-alls build empires of impressed minions. I love the place, because some very bright and thoughtful people present great ideas, but you sure run into a lot of dull and nasty types as well. All in all, very much like a political blog.
But it also struck me, how when someone reads an opinion they disagree with, how some of them are not content to simply say they disagree, they try to shout down anyone who does agree, to tear down anyone who wants to explore the topic, and attack anyone who supports their target. That struck me as very much the way that the Left goes after President Bush and anyone who stands by him.
There is one distinct difference, however. The people running “Chamber of Secrets” find the trolls irksome and are trying to control them. The same cannot be said for media personalities who could put the nation’s welfare ahead of their personal vendettae, but who will never do so.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
I'm Not Dead
Hullo, sorry I have not posted since last Friday. I kept trying to come up with witty insights, but instead I wrote such utter dreck that even I knew better than to post it.
This particular post is not to make any wise or clever insight; I'm franklty tired and likely to be very, very boring. I will warn you ahead of time, that my next few posts are very likely to be Potterish, although I can't help but comment on the ANS syndrome - I mean, it's a really slow news week, when CNN and Fox both feel compelled to announce the latest gossip on the corpse and court fight of Anna Nicole Smith. You'd think we could find out about Darfur, or have a good laugh at Al Gore's 'Global Warming' expedition in glacial setting, or maybe consider the threat from Iran and Syria ... but instead it's lawyer time.
Sheesh, no wonder I'm fatigued.
More soon, next time with a litte more focus, I promise.
This particular post is not to make any wise or clever insight; I'm franklty tired and likely to be very, very boring. I will warn you ahead of time, that my next few posts are very likely to be Potterish, although I can't help but comment on the ANS syndrome - I mean, it's a really slow news week, when CNN and Fox both feel compelled to announce the latest gossip on the corpse and court fight of Anna Nicole Smith. You'd think we could find out about Darfur, or have a good laugh at Al Gore's 'Global Warming' expedition in glacial setting, or maybe consider the threat from Iran and Syria ... but instead it's lawyer time.
Sheesh, no wonder I'm fatigued.
More soon, next time with a litte more focus, I promise.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Cancer Gossip
My support group is pretty cool, like an exclusive club. Well, it’s actually an ‘exclusive club’ because to participate you have to either have the specific PMP form of cancer, something a lot like it, or be the caregiver [usually family] of a PMP patient. But it’s a great group, for a number of reasons, which – to my surprise – now includes some scoops of gossip. I say ‘gossip’ because it’s the kind of information that I cannot certify but find interesting all the same. I don’t mean it in the mean story-telling way that gossip so often entails.
We are, as a group, a bit disappointed in the interest drop by a certain celebrity, who seemed interested in spreading the word getting people informed on PMP, but which interest died out suddenly. More pleasant was the reaction of His Royal Highness Prince Charles, of the House of Windsor and Heir to the Throne of the United Kingdom. One of our members had the good fortune to meet the Prince and his wife the Lady Camilla over in England this month, and His Highness showed a gracious and sincere interest in learning about PMP and its treatment. As we are something of a ‘poor step-child’ in terms of people knowing what PMP is and what one has to do to fight it, attention and support from a luminary of Charles’ magnitude is greatly appreciated, and welcome news indeed.
For those interested, I will be having more tests done on March 9. The whole set, in fact, in order to track the growth and movement of my tumors – like a creepy set of pets, saying it like that. Blood tests for cancer markers, several x-rays, then two CT Scans, all of which is likely to annoy my insurance company. This will be done on the premises of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (or MDA), and the next business day I will have a consultation with Dr. Lambert about my specific condition and the course of treatment. I know the general situation, but the date of my surgery, and just how much cutting needs to be done will be determined by then. As a precaution, before then I will have to make sure all my paperwork is in order – taxes, my will, medical power-of-attorney, et cetera – because as sure as I forget something it will be important.
I am not sure yet how that will affect my blogging. After the surgery I will be in MDA for some time, then after they release me I will need to recuperate at home. That will be a difficult time, as I am never comfortable just sitting around doing ‘dead mime’ impressions. So I figure while I will have to sit around at home, I will still be as busy as I can make myself, which means you poor readers might very well get more blogging, but of a variety of topics and quality. I shall do my best, but if I get too far from the sure anchor of Reason I would be obliged if you point that out to me. Ranting about Liberals, however, will in no way indicate a mental deficiency, so far as I am concerned.
Thanks again to everyone for their continued good wishes and as always, thanks for reading and for your comments.
We are, as a group, a bit disappointed in the interest drop by a certain celebrity, who seemed interested in spreading the word getting people informed on PMP, but which interest died out suddenly. More pleasant was the reaction of His Royal Highness Prince Charles, of the House of Windsor and Heir to the Throne of the United Kingdom. One of our members had the good fortune to meet the Prince and his wife the Lady Camilla over in England this month, and His Highness showed a gracious and sincere interest in learning about PMP and its treatment. As we are something of a ‘poor step-child’ in terms of people knowing what PMP is and what one has to do to fight it, attention and support from a luminary of Charles’ magnitude is greatly appreciated, and welcome news indeed.
For those interested, I will be having more tests done on March 9. The whole set, in fact, in order to track the growth and movement of my tumors – like a creepy set of pets, saying it like that. Blood tests for cancer markers, several x-rays, then two CT Scans, all of which is likely to annoy my insurance company. This will be done on the premises of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (or MDA), and the next business day I will have a consultation with Dr. Lambert about my specific condition and the course of treatment. I know the general situation, but the date of my surgery, and just how much cutting needs to be done will be determined by then. As a precaution, before then I will have to make sure all my paperwork is in order – taxes, my will, medical power-of-attorney, et cetera – because as sure as I forget something it will be important.
I am not sure yet how that will affect my blogging. After the surgery I will be in MDA for some time, then after they release me I will need to recuperate at home. That will be a difficult time, as I am never comfortable just sitting around doing ‘dead mime’ impressions. So I figure while I will have to sit around at home, I will still be as busy as I can make myself, which means you poor readers might very well get more blogging, but of a variety of topics and quality. I shall do my best, but if I get too far from the sure anchor of Reason I would be obliged if you point that out to me. Ranting about Liberals, however, will in no way indicate a mental deficiency, so far as I am concerned.
Thanks again to everyone for their continued good wishes and as always, thanks for reading and for your comments.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Harry Potter and the List of Survivors
SPOILER WARNING – this article contains speculation about future events in the final novel of the Harry Potter series, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”. Do not continue reading if you are not interested in such speculation.
Rowling, after a fashion, has not only told us who will live, but also told us how Harry can "vanquish" Voldemort without becoming a murderer.
The following characters from the stories have been wished "Happy Birthday" on JKR's site (alphabetcial order):
Dobby
Dudley Dursley
Filius Flitwick
Hermione Granger
Rubeus Hagrid
Neville Longbottom
Remus Lupin
Draco Malfoy
Minerva McGonagall
Harry Potter
Tom Riddle
Severus Snape
Pomona Sprout
Arthur Weasley
Bill Weasley
Charlie Weasley
Fred Weasley
George Weasley
Ginny Weasley
Molly Weasley
Percy Weasley
Ronald Weasley
Now, by itself that's just a list of characters, but we know it's an incomplete list. What else is interesting, is that it's not just a list of good guys, because the list includes Draco, Dudley, and Snape. And it includes no character who we know is dead: Albus Dumbledore is not mentioned, nor is Sirius Black, nor Cedric Diggory, nor Moaning Myrtle nor any of the ghosts, nor Peeves. It becomes pretty clear that if you die, you're not on the list. That means that if Jo has wished you "Happy Birthday", it means you will see them through the end of the books.
This also means we need to consider significant characters who are presently (as of the end of HBP) alive, yet are not wished "Happy Birthday" by Ms. Rowling:
Bellatrix Black
Michael Corner
Vincent Crabbe
Colin Creevey
Dennis Creevey
Aberforth Dumbledore
Petunia Dursley
Vernon Dursley
Mundungus Fletcher
Justin Finch-Fletchley
Florean Fortescue
Cornelius Fudge
Gregory Goyle
Fenric Greyback
Kreacher
Luna Lovegood
Ernie MacMillan
Lucius Malfoy
Narcissa Malfoy
Mad-Eye Moody
Ollivander
Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail)
Rufus Scrimgeour
Stan Shunpike
Rita Skeeter
Horace Slughorn
Zacharius Smith
Nymphadora Tonks
Sibyl Trelawney
Delores Umbridge
Winky
This does not mean that all these people will die, of course; some are not important to the story (note that I did not mention characters who have graduated or who have no reason to appear in DH). But it does give one a few ideas.
Perhaps the most interesting thing, is that both Harry Potter and Tom Riddle are wished "Happy Birthday", which seems strange until you notice that "Lord Voldemort" is not mentioned. As we have seen in the cases of Severus Snape and Draco Malfoy, it is entirely possible to be nasty and mean without going all the way to evil beyond redemption, and Tom Riddle might be described the same way - he became evil when he became Voldemort. So, and this is a stretch I admit, what if Harry finds a way to "vanquish the Dark Lord" in accordance with the Prophecy, but "the other" which is mentioned in the prophecy is - really - the battle between Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort?
You see, the prophecy line, "neither can live while the other survives" has bothered me for some time, because both Harry and Voldy have been around together for years - sure they have had clashes and are headed for a showdown, but I notice that Riddle ends where Voldemort begins. And if that means what I think it does, that is also what Dumbledore was trying to do instead of kill Voldemort: Dumbledore tried, and Harry will succeed, in changing Voldemort back to Tom Riddle. That is the 'fate worse than death' from Voldemort's point-of-view, it would keep Harry from being a murderer, and oh yes, it would explain why Harry's blood in Voldemort was so significant - just as Riddle-to-Voldemort was a gradual process, so too is the return trip. I don't know the details, but Jo has
Rowling, after a fashion, has not only told us who will live, but also told us how Harry can "vanquish" Voldemort without becoming a murderer.
The following characters from the stories have been wished "Happy Birthday" on JKR's site (alphabetcial order):
Dobby
Dudley Dursley
Filius Flitwick
Hermione Granger
Rubeus Hagrid
Neville Longbottom
Remus Lupin
Draco Malfoy
Minerva McGonagall
Harry Potter
Tom Riddle
Severus Snape
Pomona Sprout
Arthur Weasley
Bill Weasley
Charlie Weasley
Fred Weasley
George Weasley
Ginny Weasley
Molly Weasley
Percy Weasley
Ronald Weasley
Now, by itself that's just a list of characters, but we know it's an incomplete list. What else is interesting, is that it's not just a list of good guys, because the list includes Draco, Dudley, and Snape. And it includes no character who we know is dead: Albus Dumbledore is not mentioned, nor is Sirius Black, nor Cedric Diggory, nor Moaning Myrtle nor any of the ghosts, nor Peeves. It becomes pretty clear that if you die, you're not on the list. That means that if Jo has wished you "Happy Birthday", it means you will see them through the end of the books.
This also means we need to consider significant characters who are presently (as of the end of HBP) alive, yet are not wished "Happy Birthday" by Ms. Rowling:
Bellatrix Black
Michael Corner
Vincent Crabbe
Colin Creevey
Dennis Creevey
Aberforth Dumbledore
Petunia Dursley
Vernon Dursley
Mundungus Fletcher
Justin Finch-Fletchley
Florean Fortescue
Cornelius Fudge
Gregory Goyle
Fenric Greyback
Kreacher
Luna Lovegood
Ernie MacMillan
Lucius Malfoy
Narcissa Malfoy
Mad-Eye Moody
Ollivander
Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail)
Rufus Scrimgeour
Stan Shunpike
Rita Skeeter
Horace Slughorn
Zacharius Smith
Nymphadora Tonks
Sibyl Trelawney
Delores Umbridge
Winky
This does not mean that all these people will die, of course; some are not important to the story (note that I did not mention characters who have graduated or who have no reason to appear in DH). But it does give one a few ideas.
Perhaps the most interesting thing, is that both Harry Potter and Tom Riddle are wished "Happy Birthday", which seems strange until you notice that "Lord Voldemort" is not mentioned. As we have seen in the cases of Severus Snape and Draco Malfoy, it is entirely possible to be nasty and mean without going all the way to evil beyond redemption, and Tom Riddle might be described the same way - he became evil when he became Voldemort. So, and this is a stretch I admit, what if Harry finds a way to "vanquish the Dark Lord" in accordance with the Prophecy, but "the other" which is mentioned in the prophecy is - really - the battle between Tom Riddle and Lord Voldemort?
You see, the prophecy line, "neither can live while the other survives" has bothered me for some time, because both Harry and Voldy have been around together for years - sure they have had clashes and are headed for a showdown, but I notice that Riddle ends where Voldemort begins. And if that means what I think it does, that is also what Dumbledore was trying to do instead of kill Voldemort: Dumbledore tried, and Harry will succeed, in changing Voldemort back to Tom Riddle. That is the 'fate worse than death' from Voldemort's point-of-view, it would keep Harry from being a murderer, and oh yes, it would explain why Harry's blood in Voldemort was so significant - just as Riddle-to-Voldemort was a gradual process, so too is the return trip. I don't know the details, but Jo has
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Arrogance and Amnesia – How the Republicans Gave Away the 2006 Election
I saw yet another column on why the Republicans lost the 2006 Mid-term elections to the Party se refugier dans une panique, long even by my standards. Folks, it’s really very simple, if sobering – the Democrats succeeded in poisoning the Republicans against themselves, so that voters were essentially told to either support the President or their Congressman. This does not mean, by the way, that President Bush was opposed to the Congress, or even that most Congressmen objected to the President’s work and priorities. Unfortunately, however, certain demagogues in the GOP – most notably Frist, Tancredo, McCain, Brownback, and Hagel – pressed their colleagues to support their turf wars rather than the nation’s needs and the party’s duties. Others, notably Hastert, Snowe, Foley, and Chafee, managed to disgrace the party’s image while allowing the Democrats to even appear to be morally superior. In the end, the most notable Republicans visible to the public in Congress betrayed the troops, the nation, their President, their party, their constituents, and their duty.
Only Democrats win under conditions like that, simply because they have much more experience at lying through their teeth to save their hides.
The problem now, however, is not only the damage done in giving over power to a collection of miscreants and immoral narcissists, but also the lingering poison in the Republican atmosphere. In one political blog which used to be a major player in the Blogosphere prior to self-immolation last year, the leading column writer (by volume) blasted the President with personal insults and unsubstantiated accusations. When I commented that the writer was acting very much like a Liberal in that regard and not at all like a Republican, he sarcastically thanked me for not considering him a Republican. And that sort of attitude is growing all too common – self-indulgent individuals of bad temper and no sense of duty to the President, who somehow think that assisting the Liberals and the Democrats by spiting the Republicans and Conservatives who try to maintain order and focus, will result in anything but disaster.
Only Democrats win under conditions like that, simply because they have much more experience at lying through their teeth to save their hides.
The problem now, however, is not only the damage done in giving over power to a collection of miscreants and immoral narcissists, but also the lingering poison in the Republican atmosphere. In one political blog which used to be a major player in the Blogosphere prior to self-immolation last year, the leading column writer (by volume) blasted the President with personal insults and unsubstantiated accusations. When I commented that the writer was acting very much like a Liberal in that regard and not at all like a Republican, he sarcastically thanked me for not considering him a Republican. And that sort of attitude is growing all too common – self-indulgent individuals of bad temper and no sense of duty to the President, who somehow think that assisting the Liberals and the Democrats by spiting the Republicans and Conservatives who try to maintain order and focus, will result in anything but disaster.
Potterthink - That Curse on the DADA post
(If you're not a Harry Potter fan, sorry this one will make no sense)
I've been thinking about Book 7, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", and a few dinks in the noggin about things that will happen. Today I want to discuss the curse which Voldemort placed on the Defense Against the Dark Arts (DADA) position. At first glance it would seem that bad things should happen to the DADA teacher, to make him quit, maybe kill him, but in actual fact the curse was much more sinister, and that tells us things we need to know, about Voldemort's power and what might happen in 'Deathly Hallows', or DH as I will call it.
First, a brief summary on the six DADA teachers we have seen, and what happened:
1 - Professor Quirrel, a modest and humble man. Quirrel seemed like a gentle teacher and a friend to the students, being antagonized by the villain Snape. But in the end, it was Quirrel who was the villain, having been possessed by Voldemort. He tries to kill Harry, but in the end dies.
2 - Professor Lockhart. Lockhart was exactly what he seemed to be, an incompetent blowhard. But in the end, Lockhart was willing to try to blank the students' memories to protect his ego and reputation, but in the end lost his memory and position.
3 - Professor Lupin. Lupin was a very good teacher, but he had a problem which led to his exit. Professor Snape, along with circumstance, exposed him as a werewolf, after which he could not longer stay and teach at Hogwarts.
4 - Professor Moody. "Mad-Eye" Moody would have been an excellent teacher, and at first it seemed this was precisely the case. In the end, however, Moody was not Moody at all, but Barty Crouch Jr. taking Moody's form through the use of Polyjuice potion. That, and the small matter of being a Death Eater out to bring Voldemort to power and kill Harry Potter along the way, brought Crouch Jr. to a grim end.
5 - Professor Umbridge. Not. A. Nice. Person. Or. Teacher. At. All. Does not understand teaching, or how to defend against the Dark Arts, and was quite willing to bully and torture children. Towards the end of the story, she picked a fight with the Centaurs, and ended up in the hospital.
6 - Professor Snape. Cruel, contemptuous of Harry, and in the end killed the Headmaster, if appearances are at all correct. Fled the scene as a man wanted for murder.
Scoreboard? Two of the six ended up dead, two more in the mental wing of the hospital, another unable to find work or a place in society, and the last running from the law and our hero.
Ouch.
What's interesting though, is that three of the teachers saw circumstances change, another two were a plain bad choice by Dumbledore, and the last one was either a good guy who was undone by his situation, or a man Dumbledore should not have trusted. I see, speaking under my know-it-all hat, Voldemort's influence there, not only affecting good people in nasty ways but clouding Dumbledore's judgment.
And there I can see a plot device in the first part of DH; Voldemort working to set Harry's allies against each other, and the question is how they defend against it. And that makes Lupin more important than before - Lupin is the one professor of DADA who finished no worse off, really, than he started, especially in his mind and morals. I smell a theme there, and one which could teach Harry vital skills he needs for his showdown with the Dark Lord.
I've been thinking about Book 7, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", and a few dinks in the noggin about things that will happen. Today I want to discuss the curse which Voldemort placed on the Defense Against the Dark Arts (DADA) position. At first glance it would seem that bad things should happen to the DADA teacher, to make him quit, maybe kill him, but in actual fact the curse was much more sinister, and that tells us things we need to know, about Voldemort's power and what might happen in 'Deathly Hallows', or DH as I will call it.
First, a brief summary on the six DADA teachers we have seen, and what happened:
1 - Professor Quirrel, a modest and humble man. Quirrel seemed like a gentle teacher and a friend to the students, being antagonized by the villain Snape. But in the end, it was Quirrel who was the villain, having been possessed by Voldemort. He tries to kill Harry, but in the end dies.
2 - Professor Lockhart. Lockhart was exactly what he seemed to be, an incompetent blowhard. But in the end, Lockhart was willing to try to blank the students' memories to protect his ego and reputation, but in the end lost his memory and position.
3 - Professor Lupin. Lupin was a very good teacher, but he had a problem which led to his exit. Professor Snape, along with circumstance, exposed him as a werewolf, after which he could not longer stay and teach at Hogwarts.
4 - Professor Moody. "Mad-Eye" Moody would have been an excellent teacher, and at first it seemed this was precisely the case. In the end, however, Moody was not Moody at all, but Barty Crouch Jr. taking Moody's form through the use of Polyjuice potion. That, and the small matter of being a Death Eater out to bring Voldemort to power and kill Harry Potter along the way, brought Crouch Jr. to a grim end.
5 - Professor Umbridge. Not. A. Nice. Person. Or. Teacher. At. All. Does not understand teaching, or how to defend against the Dark Arts, and was quite willing to bully and torture children. Towards the end of the story, she picked a fight with the Centaurs, and ended up in the hospital.
6 - Professor Snape. Cruel, contemptuous of Harry, and in the end killed the Headmaster, if appearances are at all correct. Fled the scene as a man wanted for murder.
Scoreboard? Two of the six ended up dead, two more in the mental wing of the hospital, another unable to find work or a place in society, and the last running from the law and our hero.
Ouch.
What's interesting though, is that three of the teachers saw circumstances change, another two were a plain bad choice by Dumbledore, and the last one was either a good guy who was undone by his situation, or a man Dumbledore should not have trusted. I see, speaking under my know-it-all hat, Voldemort's influence there, not only affecting good people in nasty ways but clouding Dumbledore's judgment.
And there I can see a plot device in the first part of DH; Voldemort working to set Harry's allies against each other, and the question is how they defend against it. And that makes Lupin more important than before - Lupin is the one professor of DADA who finished no worse off, really, than he started, especially in his mind and morals. I smell a theme there, and one which could teach Harry vital skills he needs for his showdown with the Dark Lord.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Professional Friction
Well, here we are more than three months since my appendectomy and the discovery of my anomalous growth, more than two months since I was first diagnosed with Pseusomyxoma Perotonei, more than a month and a half since I was first referred to Dr. Laura Lambert at the University of Texas Medical Branch, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center … and I am still waiting as my ”case is under review”. Mentally, I appreciate the complexity, but after being told not to waste time in dealing with my situation, the delay is a bit frustrating, especially since so many unknowns remain. I need to see Dr. Lambert in an official sense (we have spoken by telephone) before I will know my surgery date, the specific procedures which will be necessary, and before I begin to discuss my situation with my insurance company’s “Care Coordinator”, which is a critical step. I will also need documentation from Dr. Lambert for my FMLA leave from work, and to get my home ready for the post-operation changes in my lifestyle, and to plan for whatever specific rehabilitation will be required. It’s a bit frustrating, all this waiting.
The thing is, it really cannot be avoided. M.D. Anderson is a big place with a lot of patients and providers, but a whole lot more prospective patients who are trying to get in. One of the disadvantages of going to a top-rate place for Cancer treatment, is that everyone wants the best. Also, with as many types of Cancer as there are, and the risk of misdiagnosis and the serious consequences if an error leads to the wrong action, a preliminary review is very important to the process. I was fortunate enough to speak with a Registered Nurse in the Gastro-Intestinal section, who confirmed that my records are complete, that my designation as Doctor-Referred is now correct, and that Dr. Lambert is reviewing my information along with two other doctors. This helps doctors determine some of the finer points and answer early questions, I think. So as much as I hate to wait, it makes sense, and I have been promised by a number of people that once I am in the system, the results of all these preliminaries will show in the success of the treatment.
Knowing this, I find that I am forced to reconsider my opinion of Congress. Like the staff at MDA, the people in Congress and their staffs are generally well-intentioned and hard-working, and the results we see are more to do with the conditions under which they operate, than from a true negligence on their part. Certainly, Congress has its share of ne’er-do-wells, but on the whole they are doing their best with difficult conditions and inconstant support. I’m not so naïve as to ignore deliberate dishonesty, but just maybe I will be a little slower to start with that judgment as an assumption.
The thing is, it really cannot be avoided. M.D. Anderson is a big place with a lot of patients and providers, but a whole lot more prospective patients who are trying to get in. One of the disadvantages of going to a top-rate place for Cancer treatment, is that everyone wants the best. Also, with as many types of Cancer as there are, and the risk of misdiagnosis and the serious consequences if an error leads to the wrong action, a preliminary review is very important to the process. I was fortunate enough to speak with a Registered Nurse in the Gastro-Intestinal section, who confirmed that my records are complete, that my designation as Doctor-Referred is now correct, and that Dr. Lambert is reviewing my information along with two other doctors. This helps doctors determine some of the finer points and answer early questions, I think. So as much as I hate to wait, it makes sense, and I have been promised by a number of people that once I am in the system, the results of all these preliminaries will show in the success of the treatment.
Knowing this, I find that I am forced to reconsider my opinion of Congress. Like the staff at MDA, the people in Congress and their staffs are generally well-intentioned and hard-working, and the results we see are more to do with the conditions under which they operate, than from a true negligence on their part. Certainly, Congress has its share of ne’er-do-wells, but on the whole they are doing their best with difficult conditions and inconstant support. I’m not so naïve as to ignore deliberate dishonesty, but just maybe I will be a little slower to start with that judgment as an assumption.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Judgment
Well folks, I have been thinking about religions. Every so often, I look around in my beliefs and I wonder whether I believe what I do because I know it’s true, I think it’s true, I’d like it to be true, or – shudder – I don’t know how I came to believe it. That is, I try to be honest about my beliefs and their source.
My religious choice is Protestant Christian, specifically evangelical and fundamentalist as I consider it. I phrase it that way, because more than an occasional person has told me that I do not fit their idea of a fundamentalist. Well and good, I think, although again honesty commands me to consider that while they may be slapping a hasty label on fundamentalists, I should also be careful in how I describe myself, if I mean to be clear in my statements. I am certainly an individualist – I believe that God made billions of specific individuals, and so any generalization makes the mistake of missing His immaculate detail. I also believe that the scope of God can hardly be comprehended by any human, but we may hope to see a miniature of His design by broadening our perception to consider the greatest number of perspectives possible.
It’s usually impossible for me to write a small column, but for practicality’s sake I must try my best, or I shall lose my own attention in my explorations here. So for this article, I limit the matter to the question of judging a person.
One of the biggest problems I find as a Christian, is that non-believers do not understand Judgment. They point to verses which warn us not to judge, then claim that we must therefore tolerate any sort of sin. Some go so far as to say that if judgment is wrong, then even God must not judge; these people end up denying the Sovereign Lord the right to send anyone to Hell, and demand a universal right to Heaven, simply because they choose not to accept any semblance of Justice which might involve a permanent consequence. Others actually have problems with the doctrine of forgiveness. They point to a certain monster of recent or historical evil, and demand that we explain how a truly just God would allow such an evil person access to Heaven, while denying “deserving” humans that happiness. Again, the problem comes from someone promoting their own opinion to a place superior to God Almighty, but it does present the question to believers, and we would do well to sort out why we believe as we do.
Part of the problem is that non-believers do not understand that we must choose to accept Salvation, that it does not come automatically, because God is not a slavemaster or some kind of puppeteer. It also should be understood that Salvation does not come from saying the ‘right words’, but from making one’s heart right with God. Already we see that a perfect judgment is impossible for men, but available to God the Father.
The next part of the problem lies with the character of the resolution; Heaven or Hell. All or nothing, which we instinctively flinch at considering. This is because we all tend to believe in the superstition that we should receive rewards for the good we do, but punishment for the bad. Sound fair, right? Especially if we believe that most people are basically good, and that we mostly want to do the right thing. A full heaven of ‘good’ people, with only a few bad ones, politically correct in their sins, going to hell, like politicians and telemarketers.
The problem with that shows up in the accounting. Let’s say for argument that it’s right to say that most people are good-natured and try to do right. The problem is, every good thing we do is made possible by God. He gave us the means, the talent, the opportunity and the decision to do right. By a balanced measure, when we do right we are just doing what we should be doing, nothing more. That’s not to say that God is not pleased when we do the good things, but it’s not right to say we should be presenting a bill to God for those things which He alone made possible, with some demand that we receive reward for doing what our duty and created purpose demanded.
And that in turn makes our debts that much worse. We already owe God for the blessings He gives to us each day, and the tools and opportunity He gives us for doing right. If we are so ungracious and mean that we also take what He gives us without praise to Him, but we even work wrong with those gifts, how much greater is our debt!
In the end, we all of us are debtors who cannot hope to pay what we owe.
Here is the mystery. God knew that no man born in the line of Adam would pass such a test, and so God worked that into His perfect plan. If any one man could live perfectly, it would condemn all the rest by the measure. So, since all men have sinned, we all stand united in our need. Which brings us to Jesus the Christ. Jesus took upon Himself not only the weight of living the perfect life as an example (made possible by the Grace of God), but also bore our sin in order that none of us should be burdened by it. It is, in the end, utterly impossible to understand unless you accept it. A logic greater than anything Man can design, and therefore the one proof not only of a Sovereign God, but of the compatibility of Love, Justice, Mercy, Truth, Hope, Faith, and Eternity.
My religious choice is Protestant Christian, specifically evangelical and fundamentalist as I consider it. I phrase it that way, because more than an occasional person has told me that I do not fit their idea of a fundamentalist. Well and good, I think, although again honesty commands me to consider that while they may be slapping a hasty label on fundamentalists, I should also be careful in how I describe myself, if I mean to be clear in my statements. I am certainly an individualist – I believe that God made billions of specific individuals, and so any generalization makes the mistake of missing His immaculate detail. I also believe that the scope of God can hardly be comprehended by any human, but we may hope to see a miniature of His design by broadening our perception to consider the greatest number of perspectives possible.
It’s usually impossible for me to write a small column, but for practicality’s sake I must try my best, or I shall lose my own attention in my explorations here. So for this article, I limit the matter to the question of judging a person.
One of the biggest problems I find as a Christian, is that non-believers do not understand Judgment. They point to verses which warn us not to judge, then claim that we must therefore tolerate any sort of sin. Some go so far as to say that if judgment is wrong, then even God must not judge; these people end up denying the Sovereign Lord the right to send anyone to Hell, and demand a universal right to Heaven, simply because they choose not to accept any semblance of Justice which might involve a permanent consequence. Others actually have problems with the doctrine of forgiveness. They point to a certain monster of recent or historical evil, and demand that we explain how a truly just God would allow such an evil person access to Heaven, while denying “deserving” humans that happiness. Again, the problem comes from someone promoting their own opinion to a place superior to God Almighty, but it does present the question to believers, and we would do well to sort out why we believe as we do.
Part of the problem is that non-believers do not understand that we must choose to accept Salvation, that it does not come automatically, because God is not a slavemaster or some kind of puppeteer. It also should be understood that Salvation does not come from saying the ‘right words’, but from making one’s heart right with God. Already we see that a perfect judgment is impossible for men, but available to God the Father.
The next part of the problem lies with the character of the resolution; Heaven or Hell. All or nothing, which we instinctively flinch at considering. This is because we all tend to believe in the superstition that we should receive rewards for the good we do, but punishment for the bad. Sound fair, right? Especially if we believe that most people are basically good, and that we mostly want to do the right thing. A full heaven of ‘good’ people, with only a few bad ones, politically correct in their sins, going to hell, like politicians and telemarketers.
The problem with that shows up in the accounting. Let’s say for argument that it’s right to say that most people are good-natured and try to do right. The problem is, every good thing we do is made possible by God. He gave us the means, the talent, the opportunity and the decision to do right. By a balanced measure, when we do right we are just doing what we should be doing, nothing more. That’s not to say that God is not pleased when we do the good things, but it’s not right to say we should be presenting a bill to God for those things which He alone made possible, with some demand that we receive reward for doing what our duty and created purpose demanded.
And that in turn makes our debts that much worse. We already owe God for the blessings He gives to us each day, and the tools and opportunity He gives us for doing right. If we are so ungracious and mean that we also take what He gives us without praise to Him, but we even work wrong with those gifts, how much greater is our debt!
In the end, we all of us are debtors who cannot hope to pay what we owe.
Here is the mystery. God knew that no man born in the line of Adam would pass such a test, and so God worked that into His perfect plan. If any one man could live perfectly, it would condemn all the rest by the measure. So, since all men have sinned, we all stand united in our need. Which brings us to Jesus the Christ. Jesus took upon Himself not only the weight of living the perfect life as an example (made possible by the Grace of God), but also bore our sin in order that none of us should be burdened by it. It is, in the end, utterly impossible to understand unless you accept it. A logic greater than anything Man can design, and therefore the one proof not only of a Sovereign God, but of the compatibility of Love, Justice, Mercy, Truth, Hope, Faith, and Eternity.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
The Laws of Grace
More on this later, but here is my basic thought for today.
Men generally do not like rules and laws and ordinances. Sometimes this is because those laws and rules are unreasonable or unjust, but sometimes it is because Man is unreasonable and unjust. So, at some point we all break the law. If not the statutes enacted by Man, we certainly break trust with God.
Yet God is kind to us. Every day we receive renewed life and strength, every day we receive a thousand blessings most of us never notice. Even though there is a final justice to be answered for everything we do, yet even that is held in abeyance, to allow repentance and redemption. And to allow those who will scorn even the last chance at hope the opportunity to enjoy what blessings they will accept from the Lord, however ungraciously.
When we are redeemed, those of us who shall accept that gift, we are redeemed by God Himself, and through no merit of our own. Even those few good things we do, are only possible because God gave us the power and opportunity and motive to do them, so at best we sometimes do what we were meant to accomplish, and only sometimes. We are sporadic in joy.
Yet even that is a beginning, and God delights in being good to us, and in leading us to our best hope. So while we all who love God wish to obey His laws, it is ultimately a different set to which we align our lives. While the material man struggles to comply with requirements and conditional behavior, the man in Grace simply lives in joy and grateful thanks. We cannot do better than serve God with the same delight He has in us, and to reflect that joy to our fellow human wherever we find them.
Men generally do not like rules and laws and ordinances. Sometimes this is because those laws and rules are unreasonable or unjust, but sometimes it is because Man is unreasonable and unjust. So, at some point we all break the law. If not the statutes enacted by Man, we certainly break trust with God.
Yet God is kind to us. Every day we receive renewed life and strength, every day we receive a thousand blessings most of us never notice. Even though there is a final justice to be answered for everything we do, yet even that is held in abeyance, to allow repentance and redemption. And to allow those who will scorn even the last chance at hope the opportunity to enjoy what blessings they will accept from the Lord, however ungraciously.
When we are redeemed, those of us who shall accept that gift, we are redeemed by God Himself, and through no merit of our own. Even those few good things we do, are only possible because God gave us the power and opportunity and motive to do them, so at best we sometimes do what we were meant to accomplish, and only sometimes. We are sporadic in joy.
Yet even that is a beginning, and God delights in being good to us, and in leading us to our best hope. So while we all who love God wish to obey His laws, it is ultimately a different set to which we align our lives. While the material man struggles to comply with requirements and conditional behavior, the man in Grace simply lives in joy and grateful thanks. We cannot do better than serve God with the same delight He has in us, and to reflect that joy to our fellow human wherever we find them.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Rowling Quotes Which Affect Book Seven (“Deathly Hallows”)
My apologies in advance to those people who have no interest in the ‘Harry Potter’ stories, but I do love a good mystery, and J.K. Rowling is a cracking good author. For those who do have an interest, Accio Quotes has a handy way to check all sorts of things, and from there I present the following list of quotes which are relevant to the upcoming ’Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’, the last book in the series which is going to be available July 21.
“Key things happen in Book Two [“Chamber of Secrets”]. No one knows how important those things are … yet.”
- Interview with IGN.com, 2002
“Harry was very well protected until the end of Book Four [“Goblet of Fire”], which is the end of an era for him.”
- Interview with CBC Hot Type, 2000
“The fourth [“Goblet of Fire”] is a very, very important book. Well you know because you read it, something incredibly important happens in book four and also it's literally a central book, it's almost the heart of the series, and it's pivotal. It's very difficult to talk about and I can't wait for the day someone's read all seven and I can talk completely freely about it. But it's a very, very important book.”
- - Interview with cBBC Newsround, 2000
“MA: Does the gleam of triumph [at the end of “Goblet of Fire”] still have yet to make an appearance?
JKR: That's still enormously significant. And let's face it, I haven’t told you that much is enormously significant, so you can let your imaginations run free there.”
- Interview with the Leaky Cauldron, 2005
“David Moulds for the News of the World - How does Aunt Petunia know about dementors and all the other magical facts she knows?
JK Rowling: Another very good question. She overheard a conversation, that is all I am going to say. She overheard conversation. The answer is in the beginning of Phoenix, she said she overheard Lily being told about them basically.
Is that true?
JK Rowling: Yes. The reason I am hesitant is because there is more to it than that. As I think you suspect. Correctly, but I don't want to say what else there is because it relates to book 7.”
- Interview with ITV, 2005
“Peter: ... and I was wondering, are we going to learn a lot about Harry's mother?
Lydon: Will we?
JKR: yeah, you will. Erm - it's - errr - yet again kind of the - in - you won't find out ... OK, in book three, you're absolutely right, you find out a lot about Harry's father. Now, the - the important thing about Harry's mother - the really, really significant thing - you're going to find out in two - in two parts. You'll find out a lot more about her in book five, or you'll find out something very significant about her in book five, and you'll find out something incredibly important about her in book seven. But I can't tell you what those things are, so I'm sorry, but they - yes, you will find out more about her, because they're - both of them are very important in what Harry ends up having to do.”
- Interview on WBUR radio, 1999
[the question everyone should be asking, according to Rowling] “Why did Dumbledore have James’ invisibility cloak at the time of James’ death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak?”
- “NAQ” from Rowling’s website, 2004
“There are two questions that I have never been asked but that I should have been asked, if you know what I mean. If you want to speculate on anything, you should speculate on these two things, which will point you in the right direction. The first question that I have never been asked—it has probably been asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me—is, “Why didn’t Voldemort die?” Not, “Why did Harry live?” but, “Why didn’t Voldemort die?” The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn’t he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not die—I will put it that way. I don’t think that it is guessable. It may be—someone could guess it—but you should be asking yourself that question, particularly now that you know about the prophesy. I’d better stop there or I will really incriminate myself. The other question that I am surprised no one has asked me since Phoenix came out—I thought that people would—is why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the ministry. I know that I am giving a lot away to people who have not read the book. Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason.”
- Interview at Edinburgh Book Festival, 2004
[Not really related to the story, but it caught my eye!]
“I have a very violent rabbit”
- Interview with Scholastic Chat, 2000
“What did the Potter parents do for a living before Voldemort killed them?
A. I'm sorry to keep saying this, but I can't tell you because it's important to a later plot. But you will find out later! ”
- Interview with Scholastic Chat, 2000
[about whether the Lestranges were sent after Neville to kill him]
“No, they weren’t, they were very definitely sent after Neville’s parents. I can’t say too much about this because it touches too closely on the prophecy and how many people knew about it, but the Lestranges were not in on the secret.”
- From Rowling’s website, 2004
“I keep killing all my favourite members of the Order of the Phoenix, but there is one member of the Order of the Phoenix that you have not yet met properly and you will ¬¬ well, you know that they are a member, but you haven't really met them properly yet and you will meet them in seven, so I am looking forward to that.”
- Interview with ITV, 2005
“Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses?
JKR: Good question - yes, a few of them, but that information is sort of restricted - you'll find out why…”
- Interview, BBC Red Nose Day chat, 2001
“JKR: No, it's just studying. The Department of Mysteries is all about studying. They study the mind, the universe, death…
MA: Are we going back to that room, that locked room?
JKR: No comment.”
- Interview from Leaky Cauldron, 2005
“The final chapter is hidden away, although it has now changed very slightly. One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die ...”
- Interview with R&J, 2006
[about how readers will respond to the final book] “ I think some people will loathe it, some will love it, but that's the way it should be.”
- Press Conference at Radio City, 2006
“ Yes, I do know what's going to happen in the end. And occasionally, I get cold shivers when someone guesses at something that's very close, and then I panic and I think, "Oh, is it very obvious?" and then someone says something that's so off the wall that I think, "No, it's clearly not that obvious!"”
- Interview with BBC Radio4, 2005
[upset at an Italian cover, which shows Harry without glasses] “Don't they understand that they are the clue to his vulnerability?"
- Interview with ‘Reader’s Digest’, 2000
“And if you were offered a post as a teacher at Hogwarts what subject would you most like to teach?”
“Oh I think definitely Charms - I see that as the most imaginative bit of magic because you're adding properties to an object.”
- Interview with cBBC Newsround, 2000
Now the tough part - waiting for July!
“Key things happen in Book Two [“Chamber of Secrets”]. No one knows how important those things are … yet.”
- Interview with IGN.com, 2002
“Harry was very well protected until the end of Book Four [“Goblet of Fire”], which is the end of an era for him.”
- Interview with CBC Hot Type, 2000
“The fourth [“Goblet of Fire”] is a very, very important book. Well you know because you read it, something incredibly important happens in book four and also it's literally a central book, it's almost the heart of the series, and it's pivotal. It's very difficult to talk about and I can't wait for the day someone's read all seven and I can talk completely freely about it. But it's a very, very important book.”
- - Interview with cBBC Newsround, 2000
“MA: Does the gleam of triumph [at the end of “Goblet of Fire”] still have yet to make an appearance?
JKR: That's still enormously significant. And let's face it, I haven’t told you that much is enormously significant, so you can let your imaginations run free there.”
- Interview with the Leaky Cauldron, 2005
“David Moulds for the News of the World - How does Aunt Petunia know about dementors and all the other magical facts she knows?
JK Rowling: Another very good question. She overheard a conversation, that is all I am going to say. She overheard conversation. The answer is in the beginning of Phoenix, she said she overheard Lily being told about them basically.
Is that true?
JK Rowling: Yes. The reason I am hesitant is because there is more to it than that. As I think you suspect. Correctly, but I don't want to say what else there is because it relates to book 7.”
- Interview with ITV, 2005
“Peter: ... and I was wondering, are we going to learn a lot about Harry's mother?
Lydon: Will we?
JKR: yeah, you will. Erm - it's - errr - yet again kind of the - in - you won't find out ... OK, in book three, you're absolutely right, you find out a lot about Harry's father. Now, the - the important thing about Harry's mother - the really, really significant thing - you're going to find out in two - in two parts. You'll find out a lot more about her in book five, or you'll find out something very significant about her in book five, and you'll find out something incredibly important about her in book seven. But I can't tell you what those things are, so I'm sorry, but they - yes, you will find out more about her, because they're - both of them are very important in what Harry ends up having to do.”
- Interview on WBUR radio, 1999
[the question everyone should be asking, according to Rowling] “Why did Dumbledore have James’ invisibility cloak at the time of James’ death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak?”
- “NAQ” from Rowling’s website, 2004
“There are two questions that I have never been asked but that I should have been asked, if you know what I mean. If you want to speculate on anything, you should speculate on these two things, which will point you in the right direction. The first question that I have never been asked—it has probably been asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me—is, “Why didn’t Voldemort die?” Not, “Why did Harry live?” but, “Why didn’t Voldemort die?” The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn’t he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not die—I will put it that way. I don’t think that it is guessable. It may be—someone could guess it—but you should be asking yourself that question, particularly now that you know about the prophesy. I’d better stop there or I will really incriminate myself. The other question that I am surprised no one has asked me since Phoenix came out—I thought that people would—is why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the ministry. I know that I am giving a lot away to people who have not read the book. Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason.”
- Interview at Edinburgh Book Festival, 2004
[Not really related to the story, but it caught my eye!]
“I have a very violent rabbit”
- Interview with Scholastic Chat, 2000
“What did the Potter parents do for a living before Voldemort killed them?
A. I'm sorry to keep saying this, but I can't tell you because it's important to a later plot. But you will find out later! ”
- Interview with Scholastic Chat, 2000
[about whether the Lestranges were sent after Neville to kill him]
“No, they weren’t, they were very definitely sent after Neville’s parents. I can’t say too much about this because it touches too closely on the prophecy and how many people knew about it, but the Lestranges were not in on the secret.”
- From Rowling’s website, 2004
“I keep killing all my favourite members of the Order of the Phoenix, but there is one member of the Order of the Phoenix that you have not yet met properly and you will ¬¬ well, you know that they are a member, but you haven't really met them properly yet and you will meet them in seven, so I am looking forward to that.”
- Interview with ITV, 2005
“Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses?
JKR: Good question - yes, a few of them, but that information is sort of restricted - you'll find out why…”
- Interview, BBC Red Nose Day chat, 2001
“JKR: No, it's just studying. The Department of Mysteries is all about studying. They study the mind, the universe, death…
MA: Are we going back to that room, that locked room?
JKR: No comment.”
- Interview from Leaky Cauldron, 2005
“The final chapter is hidden away, although it has now changed very slightly. One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die ...”
- Interview with R&J, 2006
[about how readers will respond to the final book] “ I think some people will loathe it, some will love it, but that's the way it should be.”
- Press Conference at Radio City, 2006
“ Yes, I do know what's going to happen in the end. And occasionally, I get cold shivers when someone guesses at something that's very close, and then I panic and I think, "Oh, is it very obvious?" and then someone says something that's so off the wall that I think, "No, it's clearly not that obvious!"”
- Interview with BBC Radio4, 2005
[upset at an Italian cover, which shows Harry without glasses] “Don't they understand that they are the clue to his vulnerability?"
- Interview with ‘Reader’s Digest’, 2000
“And if you were offered a post as a teacher at Hogwarts what subject would you most like to teach?”
“Oh I think definitely Charms - I see that as the most imaginative bit of magic because you're adding properties to an object.”
- Interview with cBBC Newsround, 2000
Now the tough part - waiting for July!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
