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.
Friday, March 02, 2007
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!
Saturday, February 03, 2007
How About We DON’T Nominate A Loser?
To some folks it will doubtless appear to be nothing but hindsight, but it sure looks to me that the nominees sent up by the Republicans and Democrats are sometimes incredibly predictable losers.
Yes, there were times when certain polls showed John Kerry ahead in the numbers, yet I never saw even one poll where folks expected him to win. Bush started ahead in that category, never really trailed, and frankly it was because everyone figured out pretty early that Kerry was a loser. Why, exactly, the Democrats tabbed him for their mantle is one of those unexplained mysteries.
Not that the Republicans have a perfect record. I mean sure, Bob Dole was a very honorable man with a solid record, but like Kerry there was never a serious sense that he would beat Bill Clinton in 1996. The GOP had other, better, names they could have chosen, but they went with Bob anyway.
And some guys who almost won still lacked those qualities of charisma, wit, and energy that we all look for in a potential President. Al Gore, Gerald Ford, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale … these were “right stuff” guys? Again, I’m not attacking their honor or accomplishments, but really, when did these guys look like they should be leading the pack?
Old news, I know, but it’s relevant when we see the choices we have now. The Democrats are pushing Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore (again), and Barack Obama as their top tier choices. Of those, only Obama can claim anything like freshness, and he does that because he’s done nothing in his one term in the Senate. Yes, John Kennedy was young, but at least he could and did answer specific policy questions.
And the Republicans? John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and so on remind me of a bunch of stereotypical politicos – former notables past their prime, wannabes who never had a “prime” on the national level, and screamers like Tancredo who can’t manage a single thought beyond their one core issue – and that issue is not the defense of the United States. Sorry, but that is a recipe for losing, not leadership. While these men each have their strong suits, there’s not one of them that reminds anyone of Dubya’s caliber, let alone Reagan.
The current state of the Democratic Party makes me slow to suggest that I could vote for any Democrat to be President, but the Republicans had better think long and hard about what we are selling to the American people. Because what we have right now, doesn’t pass the smell test.
Yes, there were times when certain polls showed John Kerry ahead in the numbers, yet I never saw even one poll where folks expected him to win. Bush started ahead in that category, never really trailed, and frankly it was because everyone figured out pretty early that Kerry was a loser. Why, exactly, the Democrats tabbed him for their mantle is one of those unexplained mysteries.
Not that the Republicans have a perfect record. I mean sure, Bob Dole was a very honorable man with a solid record, but like Kerry there was never a serious sense that he would beat Bill Clinton in 1996. The GOP had other, better, names they could have chosen, but they went with Bob anyway.
And some guys who almost won still lacked those qualities of charisma, wit, and energy that we all look for in a potential President. Al Gore, Gerald Ford, Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale … these were “right stuff” guys? Again, I’m not attacking their honor or accomplishments, but really, when did these guys look like they should be leading the pack?
Old news, I know, but it’s relevant when we see the choices we have now. The Democrats are pushing Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore (again), and Barack Obama as their top tier choices. Of those, only Obama can claim anything like freshness, and he does that because he’s done nothing in his one term in the Senate. Yes, John Kennedy was young, but at least he could and did answer specific policy questions.
And the Republicans? John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and so on remind me of a bunch of stereotypical politicos – former notables past their prime, wannabes who never had a “prime” on the national level, and screamers like Tancredo who can’t manage a single thought beyond their one core issue – and that issue is not the defense of the United States. Sorry, but that is a recipe for losing, not leadership. While these men each have their strong suits, there’s not one of them that reminds anyone of Dubya’s caliber, let alone Reagan.
The current state of the Democratic Party makes me slow to suggest that I could vote for any Democrat to be President, but the Republicans had better think long and hard about what we are selling to the American people. Because what we have right now, doesn’t pass the smell test.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Peace and Rest to Molly Ivins, Solace to Her Family and Friends
I never liked Molly Ivins very much. I never met her in person, so I’m talking here about her articles. I never felt inclined to spend money on her books, although I’m told they are much like her articles, only more so. I always found Ivins representative of that self-devoted clique of liberal narcissists in the media who thought they owed no honor to anyone with whom they disagreed, and like the KKK were inclined to shrug off protests from decent folk regarding their conduct – they know better than we common folk, don’t you know?
But Ivins passed away this week, and from breast cancer to boot. Since my own diagnosis I have learned quite a bit about cancer. There is no peaceful, gentle way to die from it. Cancer kills a lot of people, from every demographic group and gender and age, and even the survivors are ravaged by the fight against cancer, and never know for sure that it won’t come back. And in Ivin’s case, the damn thing came back, and she beat it again, and it came back yet again, an evil monster that finally beat her body and stole her life. Cancer has been in the news a lot this past month, actually. In addition to Ivins, Art Buchwald died from cancer, and so did Richard Kelley, President Clinton’s stepfather. Marcheline Bertrand, the mother of actress Angelina Jolie, died from cancer in January, and so did Deborah Orin of the New York Post. Vern Ruhle, pitching coach for the Cincinnati Reds, died from cancer in January along with NASCAR driver Benny Parsons. You get the idea, and we have not touched the thousands of ordinary, decent folks who died from a disease they did nothing to cause and could not hope to stop.
But cancer didn’t beat Molly. Of that I am sure. Ivins, for all my disapproval of her politics and rhetorical tactics, was a fighter, no shrinking violet, and she would hardly sit still and let it beat her. What’s interesting as well, is that Ivins showed an uncharacteristic modesty where her fight against cancer is concerned. Maybe it’s other cancer patients she had in mind, who must fight for their lives without enjoying the fame and fortune of being a well-known author, or maybe it’s just that facing the end of your life as you know it – or worse, your independence – so suddenly is humbling and sobering. No one deserves cancer, and I am impressed with anyone who is not turned into a blobbering case of self-pity when they realize what they are facing. And those who stand up and fight the disease with all they have, cannot help but earn my admiration. Ivins fought hard, every step of the way, and while she died from cancer, it did not beat her.
May God grant you rest and peace, Ms. Ivins, and may all who knew and loved you find solace and know that you won that battle which mattered most.
But Ivins passed away this week, and from breast cancer to boot. Since my own diagnosis I have learned quite a bit about cancer. There is no peaceful, gentle way to die from it. Cancer kills a lot of people, from every demographic group and gender and age, and even the survivors are ravaged by the fight against cancer, and never know for sure that it won’t come back. And in Ivin’s case, the damn thing came back, and she beat it again, and it came back yet again, an evil monster that finally beat her body and stole her life. Cancer has been in the news a lot this past month, actually. In addition to Ivins, Art Buchwald died from cancer, and so did Richard Kelley, President Clinton’s stepfather. Marcheline Bertrand, the mother of actress Angelina Jolie, died from cancer in January, and so did Deborah Orin of the New York Post. Vern Ruhle, pitching coach for the Cincinnati Reds, died from cancer in January along with NASCAR driver Benny Parsons. You get the idea, and we have not touched the thousands of ordinary, decent folks who died from a disease they did nothing to cause and could not hope to stop.
But cancer didn’t beat Molly. Of that I am sure. Ivins, for all my disapproval of her politics and rhetorical tactics, was a fighter, no shrinking violet, and she would hardly sit still and let it beat her. What’s interesting as well, is that Ivins showed an uncharacteristic modesty where her fight against cancer is concerned. Maybe it’s other cancer patients she had in mind, who must fight for their lives without enjoying the fame and fortune of being a well-known author, or maybe it’s just that facing the end of your life as you know it – or worse, your independence – so suddenly is humbling and sobering. No one deserves cancer, and I am impressed with anyone who is not turned into a blobbering case of self-pity when they realize what they are facing. And those who stand up and fight the disease with all they have, cannot help but earn my admiration. Ivins fought hard, every step of the way, and while she died from cancer, it did not beat her.
May God grant you rest and peace, Ms. Ivins, and may all who knew and loved you find solace and know that you won that battle which mattered most.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Press Conference at the Alternate Universe News Network
”I would like to thank the press for attending this conference. I will be making a brief statement, then I will be open for a few questions.
“As you all know, I am a patriot who has fought and bled for our great nation, and the President knows full well the service I have delivered to him and to the Army. So I was appalled to be accused as some kind of traitor.
“This nation knows that I have been three times wounded in battle, and my wife died while I was in service to the nation. I have paid out of my own pocket to supply my men with provisions and meet their needs, for which I was never recompensed by Congress. I earned my promotions through daring and courage on the field; though the President more than once praised my valor and victories, he himself has seldom enjoyed such success as a commander, save when my work made it possible, and he has had the good fortune to escape suffering the sorts of injuries which I and men like me have borne without complaint.
“It is plain to many men like me, that this war we now fight is hopeless, and our best course, likely our only hope, is to plead for negotiation to end the senseless violence which presently tears at our nation.
“Thank you. I will now accept a few questions from the press.”
‘General Arnold, I’m Tory London from the New York Times, and thank you for your service. Do you think President Jefferson is provoking this new war with Tripoli to take attention away from his mismanagement of the economy?’
”I don’t want to speculate about his motives, but you know, it’s something you do have to think about, the possibility that he is sending armed men into foreign countries because he just can’t get over the fact that we really never won that war against Britain.”
‘General Arnold, Forbes Kerry from the Boston Globe…’
”We’re old friends, Forbes, please call me Benedict-“
‘Thank you, Benedict. Some pamphleteers are trying to justify the use of military force by saying we should attack pirates in their lands, rather than wait for them to come over here and attack us. How would you answer them?’
[shakes head] ”That’s just sad, Forbes. ‘Pirates’ is a derogatory term used to marginalize complaints from people who have grievances against the American government, it has no place in civilized debate. And anyone with intelligence would know better than to listen to someone who is not established in the press as you are. I mean, these pamphleteers are just a bunch of know-nothings who like to spout off their ignorance.”
‘General Arnold, I’m Tom Paine and I’m one of those pamphleteers you just insulted. What about men of great standing who publish pamphlets?’
”I know no such ‘great men’. “
‘What about James Otis?’
”Never heard of him”
‘Samuel Adams’
[snorts] ”A loud drunkard”
‘Benjamin Franklin’
“A fat, old drunkard who chases women”
‘Paul Revere’
”A poor horseman with delusions of grandeur”
‘Alexander Hamilton’
”A poor statesman with delusions of grandeur”
‘OK, be that way. What about you trying to sell West Point to the British in 1780?’
”Old news, I did what was necessary to oppose that senseless war.”
‘So you’re not a traitor?’
”How dare you question my patriotism, just because I did not support the war! This conference is over!”
[ stomps away from podium]
“As you all know, I am a patriot who has fought and bled for our great nation, and the President knows full well the service I have delivered to him and to the Army. So I was appalled to be accused as some kind of traitor.
“This nation knows that I have been three times wounded in battle, and my wife died while I was in service to the nation. I have paid out of my own pocket to supply my men with provisions and meet their needs, for which I was never recompensed by Congress. I earned my promotions through daring and courage on the field; though the President more than once praised my valor and victories, he himself has seldom enjoyed such success as a commander, save when my work made it possible, and he has had the good fortune to escape suffering the sorts of injuries which I and men like me have borne without complaint.
“It is plain to many men like me, that this war we now fight is hopeless, and our best course, likely our only hope, is to plead for negotiation to end the senseless violence which presently tears at our nation.
“Thank you. I will now accept a few questions from the press.”
‘General Arnold, I’m Tory London from the New York Times, and thank you for your service. Do you think President Jefferson is provoking this new war with Tripoli to take attention away from his mismanagement of the economy?’
”I don’t want to speculate about his motives, but you know, it’s something you do have to think about, the possibility that he is sending armed men into foreign countries because he just can’t get over the fact that we really never won that war against Britain.”
‘General Arnold, Forbes Kerry from the Boston Globe…’
”We’re old friends, Forbes, please call me Benedict-“
‘Thank you, Benedict. Some pamphleteers are trying to justify the use of military force by saying we should attack pirates in their lands, rather than wait for them to come over here and attack us. How would you answer them?’
[shakes head] ”That’s just sad, Forbes. ‘Pirates’ is a derogatory term used to marginalize complaints from people who have grievances against the American government, it has no place in civilized debate. And anyone with intelligence would know better than to listen to someone who is not established in the press as you are. I mean, these pamphleteers are just a bunch of know-nothings who like to spout off their ignorance.”
‘General Arnold, I’m Tom Paine and I’m one of those pamphleteers you just insulted. What about men of great standing who publish pamphlets?’
”I know no such ‘great men’. “
‘What about James Otis?’
”Never heard of him”
‘Samuel Adams’
[snorts] ”A loud drunkard”
‘Benjamin Franklin’
“A fat, old drunkard who chases women”
‘Paul Revere’
”A poor horseman with delusions of grandeur”
‘Alexander Hamilton’
”A poor statesman with delusions of grandeur”
‘OK, be that way. What about you trying to sell West Point to the British in 1780?’
”Old news, I did what was necessary to oppose that senseless war.”
‘So you’re not a traitor?’
”How dare you question my patriotism, just because I did not support the war! This conference is over!”
[ stomps away from podium]
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Territories 2008
A lot of people say that Florida decided the 2000 Election, in the same way that they say that Ohio decided the 2004 Election. Certainly those states played a role, and the argument can be made that if things in those states had shaken out differently, so would the election, yet in actual fact there were other states which were just as critical, or more to the point, the 2008 campaign may be decided by the location of the key states this time around. It is important to look at every state as a possible win or loss. With that said, I do think we can look at the results of elections in the modern era and get a sense of what states will most likely be in play in 2008. By my calculations [which I will not go into here, except to observe that they are driven by election results and demographic trends], even the District of Columbia has only a 94% chance of landing in a certain fashion, and of the states no state shows greater than 80% chance of going a certain way. Sure, a candidate would like to hold the 80% share, but it does show that ‘certainty’ is a trap which the smart candidate will consider and avoid. Therefore, as a caveat before I go further, I would say I am using three shades of Red and Blue, and none of them absolute.
The deepest properties would be those states or that district which has gone for a certain party for at least the last 10 straight Presidential elections. For the Democrats, that would be the District of Columbia, worth 3 Electoral Votes (EV). For the Republicans, that would be the following states: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Kansas, Alaska, South Dakota, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Those 11 states are worth 63 EV. Mathematically, that rather explains why Democrats who win Presidential races generally do not enjoy landslides.
The next-strongest group would be those states which have generally or clearly favored a party over the last 15 elections, but which also have gone for that same party the last 5 Presidential Elections (or 4 of the last 5, with another election decided by 1% of the vote or less). For the Democrats, that list would be Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New York, Washington, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Those 8 states and 88 EV bring the Democrats up to 8 states, one district and 91 EV.
For the Republicans, that second list would be Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Those 5 states and 72 EV bring the Republicans up to 16 states and 135 EV, half of what they need to win the White House. They also keep the Republicans 44 electoral votes ahead of the Democrats at this point, with 26 states left to count.
The third-strongest group would be those states which have provided 50% or more of the popular vote in at least 9 of the last 15 Presidential Elections. For the Democrats, that list does not add a single state, but for the Republicans, that list adds the following states: Montana, Colorado, New Hampshire, and – oddly enough – Vermont! Those 4 states and 19 EV bring the Republican tally up to 20 states and 154 EV, and create a 63-vote lead for the Republicans with 22 states left to count.
OK, a 22-state field is still a large place, but we now have a true “starting position” for the race. Granted, even I find it unlikely to believe that New Hampshire and Vermont will go Red in 2008, so I will arbitrarily flip them Blue, and that gives us the following positions, regardless of the parties’ nominees:
Democrats: 10 states plus DC, 98 EV: 172 EV still needed
Republicans: 18 states, 147 EV: 123 EV still needed
If we next consider states which went 4-out-of-the-last-5 for a party, here’s what happens. The Democrats add Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Michigan, New Jersey, Maine, and Iowa. Those 10 states and 160 EV bring the Democrats up to 20 states plus DC, and 258 EV, 14 EV needed to win.
For the Republicans, that condition adds Arizona and Georgia, 2 states and 25 EV. That brings the Republicans up to 20 states and 172 EV, or 98 EV needed to win with just 10 states left on the board.
Suddenly it looks like the Democrats have a commanding lead. Presuming we extend the last-5-election counter to allow for 3 of the last 5 with 1 under 1% margin, that puts Florida in the Republican tally, which I am inclined to do because of the positive ratings for Jeb Bush there, and the rotten efforts by the Democrats there. That raises the Republicans to 21 states and 199 EV, 71 EV away from a win with 9 states left to look at.
And that’s your battlefield for 2008. Kentucky, Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Tennessee, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia.
I can winnow that down some more by looking again the histories of those states:
Ohio: 10 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 4 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 8 times, the Democrat 1 time.
Tennessee: 8 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 5 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 6 times, the Democrat 2 times.
Kentucky: 9 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 5 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 8 times, the Democrat 3 times.
Those three states will go Republican, unless something happens which makes all the other histories unreliable. That brings the scoreboard up to this tally:
Democrat: 20 states plus DC, 258 EV, 14 EV needed to win
Republican: 24 states, 238 EV, 34 EV needed to win
Still At Stake:
Missouri (11 EV), 8-5 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 5-3 GOP 50%+
Louisiana (9 EV), 8-7 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 8-3 GOP 50%+
Arkansas (6 EV), 8-6 Democrat in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 7-5 Dem 50%+
Nevada (5 EV), 10-5 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 6-2 GOP 50%+
West Virginia (5 EV), 10-5 Democrat in last 15, 3-2 Democrat in last 5, 7-5 Dem 50%+
So, who can win those five states? That might decide it all.
The deepest properties would be those states or that district which has gone for a certain party for at least the last 10 straight Presidential elections. For the Democrats, that would be the District of Columbia, worth 3 Electoral Votes (EV). For the Republicans, that would be the following states: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Kansas, Alaska, South Dakota, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Those 11 states are worth 63 EV. Mathematically, that rather explains why Democrats who win Presidential races generally do not enjoy landslides.
The next-strongest group would be those states which have generally or clearly favored a party over the last 15 elections, but which also have gone for that same party the last 5 Presidential Elections (or 4 of the last 5, with another election decided by 1% of the vote or less). For the Democrats, that list would be Massachusetts, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Minnesota, New York, Washington, Wisconsin, and Oregon. Those 8 states and 88 EV bring the Democrats up to 8 states, one district and 91 EV.
For the Republicans, that second list would be Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Those 5 states and 72 EV bring the Republicans up to 16 states and 135 EV, half of what they need to win the White House. They also keep the Republicans 44 electoral votes ahead of the Democrats at this point, with 26 states left to count.
The third-strongest group would be those states which have provided 50% or more of the popular vote in at least 9 of the last 15 Presidential Elections. For the Democrats, that list does not add a single state, but for the Republicans, that list adds the following states: Montana, Colorado, New Hampshire, and – oddly enough – Vermont! Those 4 states and 19 EV bring the Republican tally up to 20 states and 154 EV, and create a 63-vote lead for the Republicans with 22 states left to count.
OK, a 22-state field is still a large place, but we now have a true “starting position” for the race. Granted, even I find it unlikely to believe that New Hampshire and Vermont will go Red in 2008, so I will arbitrarily flip them Blue, and that gives us the following positions, regardless of the parties’ nominees:
Democrats: 10 states plus DC, 98 EV: 172 EV still needed
Republicans: 18 states, 147 EV: 123 EV still needed
If we next consider states which went 4-out-of-the-last-5 for a party, here’s what happens. The Democrats add Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Michigan, New Jersey, Maine, and Iowa. Those 10 states and 160 EV bring the Democrats up to 20 states plus DC, and 258 EV, 14 EV needed to win.
For the Republicans, that condition adds Arizona and Georgia, 2 states and 25 EV. That brings the Republicans up to 20 states and 172 EV, or 98 EV needed to win with just 10 states left on the board.
Suddenly it looks like the Democrats have a commanding lead. Presuming we extend the last-5-election counter to allow for 3 of the last 5 with 1 under 1% margin, that puts Florida in the Republican tally, which I am inclined to do because of the positive ratings for Jeb Bush there, and the rotten efforts by the Democrats there. That raises the Republicans to 21 states and 199 EV, 71 EV away from a win with 9 states left to look at.
And that’s your battlefield for 2008. Kentucky, Ohio, Louisiana, Nevada, Tennessee, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia.
I can winnow that down some more by looking again the histories of those states:
Ohio: 10 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 4 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 8 times, the Democrat 1 time.
Tennessee: 8 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 5 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 6 times, the Democrat 2 times.
Kentucky: 9 of the last 15 elections went for the Republican, 5 for the Democrat. The Republican claimed 50%+ 8 times, the Democrat 3 times.
Those three states will go Republican, unless something happens which makes all the other histories unreliable. That brings the scoreboard up to this tally:
Democrat: 20 states plus DC, 258 EV, 14 EV needed to win
Republican: 24 states, 238 EV, 34 EV needed to win
Still At Stake:
Missouri (11 EV), 8-5 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 5-3 GOP 50%+
Louisiana (9 EV), 8-7 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 8-3 GOP 50%+
Arkansas (6 EV), 8-6 Democrat in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 7-5 Dem 50%+
Nevada (5 EV), 10-5 Republican in last 15, 3-2 Republican in last 5, 6-2 GOP 50%+
West Virginia (5 EV), 10-5 Democrat in last 15, 3-2 Democrat in last 5, 7-5 Dem 50%+
So, who can win those five states? That might decide it all.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Russia – The Forgotten Threat
AJ Strata has done Pulitzer-worthy work chasing down the trail of the murderers of former spy Alexander Litvenenko and journalist Anna Politkovskaya, not that the MSM will ever admit it. I cannot do better on the specifics of this case, than to point the reader to some recent examples of AJ’s work here, here, here, here, and here.
But I would also like to expand on the matter to reconsider Russia in the context of Global events. It is commonly thought that if a nuclear bomb were to go off, a la “24”, it would be the work of Islamofascist terrorists, a paranoid fantasy carried to grim climax by the short squat dictator in North KantFeedPeople, or perhaps a mistake resulting from the Greed of Halliburton. Statistically however, by far the most likely source of a nuke going off in an American city is Russia; it is not commonly remembered or mentioned in the media that Russia still has more warheads than any nation after the United States itself, many of them still quite capable of reaching the American homeland. Oh, and did I mention that the Russian Command-and-Control of its Nuclear armament is, well, something less than optimal?
With that happy thought in mind, we now turn our attention to the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, your old friends and mine, the KGB. What’s that you say? There is no ‘KGB’ anymore? Well, that’s actually the problem. You see, the Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki (SVR) – which replaced the KGB after Mikhail “Happy Face Comrade” Gorbachev handed over the Kremlin to Boris “Waddaya Got To Drink” Yeltsin – did not need nearly the numbers of employees that the KGB and its counterpart, the Glavnoe Razvedyvatel'noe Upravlenie or GRU used, to say nothing of some of the darker job descriptions. Many of these goons got kicked to the curb, and found employment with the only organization which desired their special talents and could afford to keep them fed; the Russian Mafia.
The Russian Mafia, or Bratva for short, owns and controls a great deal of modern Russia, and what it does not control it still influences. This brings us almost full circle, because one scenario of the Litvenenko/ Politkovskaya murders is the manipulation of President Vladimir Putin by Bratva. While it has not been proven, neither can such a possibility be ruled out; such is the reach and ambition of Bratva. Bratva gangs have been implicated in the United States in extortion schemes involving NHL players and teams, in suburban New York as long ago as 1975, and for brains and muscle, Bratya likes the ’Sword-and-Shield’ for ideas and daring. Just something else to think about; the likelihood that men with no love for America but a clear lust for influence and money, not only have access to nuclear weapons, but contacts with people who would love to use such weapons on America.
Against that, a hundred Jack Bauers might not be enough.
But I would also like to expand on the matter to reconsider Russia in the context of Global events. It is commonly thought that if a nuclear bomb were to go off, a la “24”, it would be the work of Islamofascist terrorists, a paranoid fantasy carried to grim climax by the short squat dictator in North KantFeedPeople, or perhaps a mistake resulting from the Greed of Halliburton. Statistically however, by far the most likely source of a nuke going off in an American city is Russia; it is not commonly remembered or mentioned in the media that Russia still has more warheads than any nation after the United States itself, many of them still quite capable of reaching the American homeland. Oh, and did I mention that the Russian Command-and-Control of its Nuclear armament is, well, something less than optimal?
With that happy thought in mind, we now turn our attention to the Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, your old friends and mine, the KGB. What’s that you say? There is no ‘KGB’ anymore? Well, that’s actually the problem. You see, the Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki (SVR) – which replaced the KGB after Mikhail “Happy Face Comrade” Gorbachev handed over the Kremlin to Boris “Waddaya Got To Drink” Yeltsin – did not need nearly the numbers of employees that the KGB and its counterpart, the Glavnoe Razvedyvatel'noe Upravlenie or GRU used, to say nothing of some of the darker job descriptions. Many of these goons got kicked to the curb, and found employment with the only organization which desired their special talents and could afford to keep them fed; the Russian Mafia.
The Russian Mafia, or Bratva for short, owns and controls a great deal of modern Russia, and what it does not control it still influences. This brings us almost full circle, because one scenario of the Litvenenko/ Politkovskaya murders is the manipulation of President Vladimir Putin by Bratva. While it has not been proven, neither can such a possibility be ruled out; such is the reach and ambition of Bratva. Bratva gangs have been implicated in the United States in extortion schemes involving NHL players and teams, in suburban New York as long ago as 1975, and for brains and muscle, Bratya likes the ’Sword-and-Shield’ for ideas and daring. Just something else to think about; the likelihood that men with no love for America but a clear lust for influence and money, not only have access to nuclear weapons, but contacts with people who would love to use such weapons on America.
Against that, a hundred Jack Bauers might not be enough.
Monday, January 29, 2007
The ‘Bush Hate’ Influence
Real Clear Politics has been tracking Job Approval ratings for Dubya for quite a while now. While I disagree with their methodology, it can still be an interesting, if untrustworthy barometer for the political weather in D.C. (the District of Corruption).
The present numbers say Dubs is at 33.9% Job Approval. Pretty grim. But there’s a range in there worth noting. More to the point, look who is where.
First off, I personally reject as currently valid those polls which are more than 10 days old, so that gives us the following, revised, spread:
Rasmussen: 40%
Newsweek: 30%
Time: 37%
CNN: 34%
CBS News: 28%
NBC/Wall St Journal: 35%
OK, that’s 34.0%, which is about where RCP shows it, but look at the 12-point range between polls in that same period. Folks, that’s not very much of a consensus, especially when you have to add in the 3.5 +/- point margin of error. If these polls can claim to be accurate, there’s really a nineteen-point range of variance in poll positions. There’s a scientific term for that, but in plain English it means that at least some of these polls are worthless, absolutely not worth your trust.
Just another reminder that some folks in the media are quite willing to lie to you.
As a comment for anyone interested in digging into the details, neither Rasmussen nor Newsweek was willing to release the party identification of respondents along with their press release of the poll results. In the CBS News poll, Democrats polled outnumbered Republicans 444-292.
Just something else to think about.
The present numbers say Dubs is at 33.9% Job Approval. Pretty grim. But there’s a range in there worth noting. More to the point, look who is where.
First off, I personally reject as currently valid those polls which are more than 10 days old, so that gives us the following, revised, spread:
Rasmussen: 40%
Newsweek: 30%
Time: 37%
CNN: 34%
CBS News: 28%
NBC/Wall St Journal: 35%
OK, that’s 34.0%, which is about where RCP shows it, but look at the 12-point range between polls in that same period. Folks, that’s not very much of a consensus, especially when you have to add in the 3.5 +/- point margin of error. If these polls can claim to be accurate, there’s really a nineteen-point range of variance in poll positions. There’s a scientific term for that, but in plain English it means that at least some of these polls are worthless, absolutely not worth your trust.
Just another reminder that some folks in the media are quite willing to lie to you.
As a comment for anyone interested in digging into the details, neither Rasmussen nor Newsweek was willing to release the party identification of respondents along with their press release of the poll results. In the CBS News poll, Democrats polled outnumbered Republicans 444-292.
Just something else to think about.
Stupid, Yet Winning
CNN has a gallery of the dumbest tech failures of 2006, including:
Sony’s exploding PC batteries;
The response by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which addressed such problems by advising laptop computer users to not use laptop computers in their laps;
A promotion with the TV show “The Apprentice”, where instead of promoting the client, General Motors, the team produced an advertisement blaming GM for Global Warming;
A McDonald’s promotion in Japan which gave away thousands of MP3 players – infected with computer viruses designed to steal passwords for hackers;
Amazon.com’s pre-game sales of UCLA’s NCAA Basketball Championship hats - - - the day before UCLA loses to Florida in the actual game;
AirTran’s collapse of their computer systems in June, leading to denial of boarding passes to thousands of customers at the airport, forcing paying customers to miss their flights while the airline ignored the problem;
and of course YouTube, which collected thousands of popular videos without requesting permission from the original site, sent a cease-and-desist demand to a user who found a way for users to save videos to their hard drive from YouTube.
What’s amazing to me, is that in spite of such “accomplishments”, the U.S. is still the model for business success for the world.
Sony’s exploding PC batteries;
The response by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which addressed such problems by advising laptop computer users to not use laptop computers in their laps;
A promotion with the TV show “The Apprentice”, where instead of promoting the client, General Motors, the team produced an advertisement blaming GM for Global Warming;
A McDonald’s promotion in Japan which gave away thousands of MP3 players – infected with computer viruses designed to steal passwords for hackers;
Amazon.com’s pre-game sales of UCLA’s NCAA Basketball Championship hats - - - the day before UCLA loses to Florida in the actual game;
AirTran’s collapse of their computer systems in June, leading to denial of boarding passes to thousands of customers at the airport, forcing paying customers to miss their flights while the airline ignored the problem;
and of course YouTube, which collected thousands of popular videos without requesting permission from the original site, sent a cease-and-desist demand to a user who found a way for users to save videos to their hard drive from YouTube.
What’s amazing to me, is that in spite of such “accomplishments”, the U.S. is still the model for business success for the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
