Falling Panda

FRONTRUNNER McCAIN

Wow.  The far-left here in the

US

sure has a lot of hate to dish out.  First and foremost of course they hate the president.  Murderer, War Criminal, Liar, etc….we all know the talking points.  You got nutty professors like Jay Bennish, going on inappropriate diatribes in his geography class, comparing Bush to Hitler, and this “geography” “teacher” got what he deserved.  Good riddance.   All you school kids, start taking your tape recorders to class, you hear? 

The far-left will never like President Bush and will never understand or want to fight The War on Terror.  There’s nothing we can do about that, so let’s just move-on .

The far-left also has it out for Wal-Mart.  Actually Wal-Mart is representative of a greater evil to those on the far-left, that being American corporations and the free-market system.  Fortunately most people understand how beneficial companies like Wal-Mart are to the

US

economy and for those families on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Therefore the mediocre Wal-Mart bashing films and store boycotts are mostly participated in by college students who will see the error of their ways in a few years and leave their pointless pursuit to the next batch of undeveloped minds that graces the halls of academia.

Of all of the things that the far-left is required to disdain in order to get their credentials in the mail from George Soros, a special amount of vitriol is reserved for The Fox News Channel.  Since the network debuted in 1996, there has been a growing chorus among college professors, movie stars and liberal journalists implying that the network slants their news to the right and that they are little more than a mouth-piece for the Bush administration.

The chorus has caught on and the foot soldiers in the far-left movement have been echoing the sentiments for quite a while in their typical low-brow way.  Here’s an example.

On the night that convicted murderer and founding member of the “Cryps” gang Stanley “Tookie” Williams  was executed, Fox, like all of the other cable news networks, had a correspondent outside of San Quentin to cover the execution as well as the anti-death penalty protests which accompanied it.  While the Fox correspondent was doing his report, a group of death penalty protesters surrounded him and began shouting things into his microphone, and holding up signs behind him while he was trying to do his job.  They wrote “Fox Lies” on little slips of paper and held them up next to the reporters head.  They yelled similar slogans at the camera and at one point a huge mean-looking black guy stood right next to the reporter and began staring him down as if he was about to kick his fair and balanced ass.  Of course this guy was just a mindless thug who had probably never even heard of Fox News until tonight, but his fellow protesters did nothing to stop his intimidating tactics and instead continued their juvenile behavior.  Fortunately, like most Fox News reporters, the guy was a pro, and was not distracted.  He kept on going as if nothing out of the ordinary was happening until “Tookie” was finally put down.

Of course this is most likely an isolated incident, but it is a very good example of the mindset and behavior patterns of those who despise Fox News and who believe that it is more of a propaganda tool rather than a legitimate news outlet.

Now, unlike the folks on the left-wing blogs, I am going to attempt to be “fair and balanced” here and say this; Fox News as a network does lean to the right.  Their most popular news analysts are conservatives.  Guys like O’Reilly and John Gibson make no attempt to hide their conservative leanings and they have huge audiences, because they’re smart guys and people enjoy watching them.  However it is important to keep in mind that they do not report hard news.  It is “news analysis.”  Sean Hannity is not a reporter, he is a right-wing commentator, but no one ever claimed he was a reporter.  It is important to know the difference.  CNN has news analysts as well and most of them lean to the left.  But more on that in a moment.

The peo ple who do the hard news for FOX, usually are not criticized, by the anti-FOX folks, due to the fact that they don’t interject their opinion into the news.  They aren’t supposed to and guys like Shepard Smith and Carl Cameron don’t do it.  They may indeed be conservatives off the camera, but when the camera’s rolling they do their job, and keep their opinions to themselves.

In fact, Fox has many high profile reporters who are well know liberals.  For example, Greta Van Susteren, who consistently has the second highest rated show on the network, after O’Reilly, was known for her Democratic leanings before FNC even existed.  Tabloid journalist Geraldo Rivera was a huge

Clinton

supporter, and despite what you may think of his tactics or reporting skills, there is no doubt that he is indeed a high profile member of the Fox News family.

So why all the hatred?  Here’s why.  For years conservatives and many moderates in this country have been bitching about the monolithic liberalism, which has been espoused by the press since the 1960’s.  Poll after poll has been taken regarding the political leanings of those in the journalistic community over the last 50 years and these studies have consistently shown that generally three-fourths of reporters espouse political views that are considered liberal.  In addition to this, journalists have overwhelmingly supported the Democratic candidate for president over the GOP candidate, in every election since 1960.  This is still the case and anyone who denies it is either fooling themselves or they themselves are so liberal that to them, anything that doesn’t echo the sentiments of the Village Voice is considered a right-wing paper.

Before FNC became popular, the only thing close to a right-leaning national news outlet that conservatives had was The Wall Street Journal.  Their editorial page was consistently right-of-center and was the only escape for the 50% of the country, who couldn’t stomach the obvious left wing slant of papers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Boston Globe and USA Today.

It wasn’t just the op-ed section either.  Anyone who was even remotely independent minded could see that the hard news coverage in these papers was slanted to the left in everything from the wording in articles to article placement.

This clear slant wasn’t just confined to newspapers either.  The three major networks where most Americans still get their news today also leaned left.  CBS replaced far-left leaning anchor Walter Cronkite, who still today makes his political leanings well-known to all four people who care to listen, with further left-leaning news anchor Dan Rather. 

In cable news, Ted Turner, no neo-con himself, started CNN.  The left loves to bag of FNC news analysts like O’Reilly, but how many of you remember Jesse Jackson’s short lived news analysis program.  There are only two differences between the shows.  The first is the host’s clear differences of opinion on important issues, and the second is the fact that O’Reilly’s show is the most popular show on cable news, while

Jackson

’s show failed miserably.

In addition to cable, the big three networks and all but one of the major national newspapers the left also had control of the governments news sources.  Liberal voices more than dominated on NPR, while Bill Moyer’s show was left-leaning standard bearer on PBS.

Add to this the BBC and there you have it.  About 95% of all citizens in this country got their news from a source that overwhelmingly favored and wrote coverage favorable to the left-wing of American politics. 

While those on the right could see this obvious lack of balance in the media coverage of the freest nation on earth, there was really nothing they could do about it except complain on talk-radio, the only media outlet that was dominated by conservatives.  Even these shows however, had to break every hour for news updates from the networks that owned the stations which carried their shows and usually these networks were one of the big three.  Even talk-radio was infiltrated by the liberal media.

Things started to change in 1996 when Rupert Murdoch started FOX News.  At first, the left paid little attention to the fledgling network.  Cable news was dominated by CNN and to a lesser extent the uber-liberal MSNBC, and those channels were in no danger of being overthrown by the network which until now had been known primarily for The Simpson’s and Married with Children.

Then came the one-two media events of the

Florida

recount and 9/11.  FNC, which had been gaining slowly for years, suddenly overtook CNN.  When this happened the left went ballistic.  They started an all out assault on FNC which included the constant bashing of FNC personalities as well as a poorly made, inaccurate piece of propaganda called Outfoxed

They set out on a mission to convince

America

that FNC was simply a tool of the right in their continuing efforts to brainwash people into voting for George W. Bush.  Ted Turner started calling Rupert Murdoch names.  Left wing blogs began giving examples of things said on FNC that espoused conservative viewpoints, usually given by news analysts, whose job it is to give said viewpoints.  Editorial pages became even more liberal as if to try and counter O’Reilly, who despite his huge success doesn’t even come close to the circulation numbers for the New York Times or the viewer ship of The NBC Nightly News.  The left was trying to make it seem as if somehow FNC was not a legitimate news outlet.  That they were not playing by the rules.  However their case was hurt by the fact that FNC remains one of the few news outlets which hasn’t gotten into huge trouble as of late for questionable news practices.

The New York Times was sent reeling when Jason Blair, a young affirmative –action hire, admitted to faking news stories. Dan Rather went forward and reported the bogus Bush National Guard story, which was based on fake documents.  Newsweek claimed that soldiers at

Guantanamo

had flushed a Koran down the toilet in order to tick off detainees.  No truth to that either.  CNN’s managing editor Eason

Jordan

claimed that US soldiers in

Iraq

were intentionally targeting journalists, but never gave any evidence to back it up.  He was subsequently sacked.

Meanwhile, FNC has stayed out of trouble and is yet to be accused any of these underhanded practices.  The only thing that FNC’s critics can really say is that O’Reilly and a few other news analysts are conservative.  So what?  These analysts admit to their political leanings.  No one’s trying to pass Sean Hannity off as an unbiased reporter.

Despite FNC’s success, the media is still dominated by the left. Most mainstream media outlets still outwardly refuse to run any stories that make the president look good, like the recent release of audiotapes in which Saddam Hussein discussed how to hide WMD’s from the UN, or any stories that make the left look bad, like when Al Gore went to

Saudi Arabia

and verbally attacked the President.  It doesn’t matter to the MSM if the president’s reasons for invading

Iraq

were justified, or if the former VP is engaging in behavior that borders on treason.  They are going to report, only what they feel like reporting.  If it doesn’t jibe with their political slant, then you’re not going to hear about it.

To be fair, it’s not really their fault.  Like in those in

Hollywood

, most reporters don’t even know how to view a story from a conservative angle. They are incapable of it.

Things are changing however.  As the old guard of liberal journalists like Helen Thomas, Dan Rather and Judy Woodruff begin to fade; a new breed of journalist is emerging and since conservative journalists, who were previously rejected by other outlets, can now go to FNC without fear of retribution for political views which may differ from the top brass, a wider less biased array of voices is starting to come to the forefront of American media.

With the success of FNC other outlets also seem to have discovered that most of the population does not share the average journalist’s political leanings.  MSNBC has hired conservatives like Joe Scarborough and papers like the New York Times and LA Times have begun admitting their past bias and attempting to gain back the public’s trust by adding balance to their news coverage and firing left-wing bomb throwers like Robert Scheer from their editorial staff.

CNN has had to adjust, now that they are consistently in second place.  They have balanced out their coverage a bit, but have also tried to gain traction among liberals with left leaning commentators like Jack Cafferty.   Similarly, MSNBC’s thinking about bringing back Phil Donahue.

You see folks.  FNC was never that far to the right.  It’s just that all of the other news outlets were so far to the left that people forgot what unbiased news coverage was supposed to look like.  Because many of the analysts on FNC do lean right, to a ultra-liberal it seems as if they are out of the mainstream, when the truth is just the opposite.   

FNC’s hard news coverage is as unbiased if not more so than any other news outlet out there, so it would be better if the left just learned to live with it and took some notes on how to run a successful media outlet.  Because when Air America dies out, which will probably be very soon, and the daily newspapers go the way of the dinosaur due to the internet, the playing field is going to be more level than it has ever been before, and while this is not the optimal scenario for liberals, it is for the majority of Americans, who don’t want their news slanted to the left or to the right.  They just want their damn news.

On Tuesday Reverend Joseph Lowery, a former civil rights colleague of Martin Luther King Jr. said the following:

"She extended Martin’s message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions’ way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there,
but Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!".

While on the surface this quote may appear to embody typical left-wing strategy of connecting everything to

Iraq

, it is particularly offensive in this case for two reasons. 

First, President Bush was sitting ten feet away from the speaker.  While this kind of political rhetoric may be deemed appropriate at a rally for Move-On.org, it is highly inappropriate when the duly-elected leader of the free world is right behind you.  And just so everyone knew who it was he was talking about, Lowery nodded at the president when he said that “….weapons of misdirection right down here” bit.  Whatever your views, Reverend, how about showing some respect for our nation’s highest office?

What made Lowery’s comments even more sickening was that he made them at a funeral.  The minister was giving a eulogy for Coretta Scott King, and he used the opportunity to express his own political views. 

I don’t care how strongly you believe in something, it is always inappropriate to use a solemn occasion, especially a funeral, as a soapbox for to advance your political agenda.  The death of an American hero is no excuse to take cheap shots.  Lowery is a minister, so it is especially surprising that he would not know proper funeral etiquette.  Unless I’m mistaken, funerals are a big part of a minister’s job description, are they not?   

The Reverend did not appear to be the only one who lacked knowledge of how to behave appropriately at a funeral.  After Lowery chastised Bush, much of the audience gave the guy a two-minute standing ovation.

As if the participants of the funeral had not already shamed themselves enough, former president Jimmy Carter used his speech to cut into the president as well,  abandoning the protocol that says that former presidents are not supposed to criticize current presidents, which Carter has repeatedly ignored.  Carter used this opportunity to harp on the president for using warrant less wiretaps, and yet if memory serves, Carter didn’t have a lot to say when President Clinton was found to have committed perjury.  Perhaps Carter just couldn’t find an appropriate place, like a high-profile funeral, to express his outrage over

Clinton

’s behavior.

            Lowery’s comments were obviously intended to convey Coretta Scott King’s feelings on certain issues.  While we can be pretty sure that Lowery’s views reflected how King felt about the

Iraq

war and the President, it was still a classless move for the minister to attack someone else in the building, who had come to honor the memory of Mrs. King.

What if George W. Bush had used the occasion of Ronald Reagan’s funeral to attack the Democrats for being weak on national security, or for opposing Reagan’s policies which led to the end of the Cold War?

This unfortunate exhibit of partisanship is simply the latest example of a growing trend among those who are anti-war and anti-Bush.  “Bush-bashing” has become so prevalent these days,  that it is difficult for a liberal to get in front of a microphone for any reason, without saying something negative about the President of the

United States

.  A captive audience is like catnip to them.  Actors, professors, Kanye West, Harry Belafonte.  You can bet, that if a left leaning Democrat has the attention of a group of people, they’re going to take some shots at Bush.  Don’t believe me?  Take a course here at Northridge sometime.

Those who follow politics closely know very well that this is not the first time that a memorial service has gone sour because of the inability of an individual to keep their ideological views to themselves.  After Senator Paul Wellstone’s tragic death in 2002, a basketball stadium was filled with people who wanted to pay their respects.  Instead of a celebration of Wellstone’s life however, the event quickly turned into a Democratic pep rally, during which Republicans who had come to mourn Wellstone were booed and speakers lead the audience in chants of “We will win” referring to the upcoming

Minnesota

senatorial election.  Many believe that this shameful exhibition led directly to the defeat of Wellstone’s replacement in the election several weeks later.

Both Coretta Scott King and her husband dedicated their lives to bringing people of different races and beliefs together.  Rev. Lowery’s divisive comments were at odds with the very things that these two great individuals fought so hard for.  Partisan attacks such as these only serve to alienate a large segment of the population, whose support is imperative in carrying on King’s legacy.

Regardless of your personal beliefs regarding Bush, the war or even Mrs. King, a funeral should be a time to reflect upon the positive aspects of an individual’s life.  Those with conflicting viewpoints should leave them at the door and should under no circumstances use them to score political points or to get a positive reaction from a emotional crowd.  Shame on you, Reverend.

Last week Judge Samuel Alito was confirmed as the newest US Supreme Court justice.  His confirmation vote  of 58 – 42 which fell largely along party lines, was a much needed victory for President Bush and a big loss for the Democrats.  Unlike other legislative defeats however, the Democrats brought this one on themselves and they did it in a way that both added to the already poisoned atmosphere in

Washington

and set a new and unfortunate standard for the confirmation process.

Until recently, nominees to the Supreme Court were judged based on their character, qualifications, intellect and dedication to the tenets of the Constitution, the document which they are employed to interpret.  With the nomination of Judge Roberts and now Samuel Alito, Senate Democrats have demonstrated that they will now base their votes on the nominee’s personal political beliefs.  In other words, you could be the most brilliant legal mind in the world, and be superbly qualified for a seat on the bench, but if your opinions differ from those of Senator Ted Kennedy, you can forget it.

When Bill Clinton was president, his nominees were treated very differently.  Republicans gave both of his liberal nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg a free ride.  They were approved by overwhelming margins with Ginsburg receiving 96 votes and Bryer getting 87.  As we all know, Republicans rarely gave

Clinton

a free pass on anything he did, but the GOP overwhelmingly stayed true to the idea that it is the president’s choice as to who he wants to put on the nation’s highest court regardless of the nominee’s ideological leanings.  That unwritten privilege of the presidency is one of the consequences of a presidential election. As long as the candidate is qualified and is of a reasonably high moral character, the Senate has always honored an obligation to abide by the president’s wishes and approve his nominee.

As soon as Alito’s nomination was announced the liberal Democrats determined that they would try to stop Alito even though they knew that it would be an uphill and almost certainly futile battle.  The reason for this was simple: in one word….abortion.  In their role as the defenders of Roe v. Wade,  the Democrats believed that if confirmed, Alito’s vote would take the court one step closer to overturning the landmark 1973 decision which federally guaranteed the right to an abortion. This decision has come to define the modern Democratic Party and no issue is more important to the party’s base.  This meant that any senator who had any desire to run for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008 had to oppose Alito. Otherwise, if Roe was overturned and Alito cast the deciding vote, a senator’s primary election opponents could point to them and say “Roe v. Wade is no more and that Senator is to blame.” 

The Democrats had to find some excuse to not vote for Alito, and to stop him if possible, so they cracked open their old playbook on how to destroy a Supreme Court nominee.  I think it’s called Borking for Dummies.

Alito is a mild-mannered kind of guy, so they couldn’t attack his temperament as they did in defeating Reagan Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork.  Alito had no history of inappropriate sexual behavior, so that took the Clarence Thomas strategy off the table.  The strategy that many Democrats had used in the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts hadn’t worked either.  Asking the nominee questions related to how he would rule on a given case with a controversial issue involved have been largely ignored by all nominees in recent years. 

The nominee usually chooses not to answer these questions so as to not paint himself into a corner when the time comes to actually rule on the case itself.  When the nominee refuses to answer the question, Democrats (Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid for one) say that as a result of the lack of a specific answer they simply don’t know enough about the nominee to vote for him in good conscience.  This reasoning was incredibly hypocritical in Robert’s case however, because many of the questions he refused to answer were the same ones that Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to answer when

Clinton

nominated her.  In fact, Ginsburg refused to answer far more questions that either Roberts or Alito,   and can you really blame any of these nominees for refusing to answer questions on how they would rule on cases involving controversial topics?  It is obvious that the senators are just baiting them–trying to get them to say something that will give the opposition a real reason for voting against the nominee.

Because this option had been ineffective against Roberts, the Democrats were at a loss. Desperate, they decided to use two old Democratic favorites: class warfare and the race card. 

Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) was the first to use what became the Democratic talking point for the week, saying that in his years on the bench Alito had a history of deciding cases in favor of big corporations and against the “little guy”.  Of course this is ludicrous.  Even if it were true, a judge’s job is to uphold the law. Whether it benefits Bill Gates or Joe Six Pack is irrelevant.  Needless to say, this strategy didn’t last very long.

With time running out, Senators Durbin, Schumer (D-New York), and Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) decided to pick up a handful of mud and let it fly.  In what qualifies as one of the most repugnant examples of political demagoguery in recent memory, the Democrats attempted to paint Alito as racially insensitive. 

Using a group that Alito had once been a part of known as “Concerned Alumni of Princeton” the Senators tried to connect him to an issue of the group’s magazine, in which one of the articles had contained some racially insensitive comments.  Forget that Alito had never read the article, nor did he know the individual who wrote it.  It was guilt by association all the way.  If I subscribed to Sports Illustrated and one issue included an article in there about how great the L.A. Clippers are, does that mean that I love the Clippers?  Of course not, you’d have to be insane to love the Clippers. 

Anyway, the Senators continued to imply that Alito was a racist and were having a grand old time until his wife broke out in tears exposing the questioners as nasty and mean-spirited.  This put an end to the Democratic strategy, as well as any hopes they might have had of defeating Alito’s nomination.

Americans now backed the Alito nomination by a substantial margin.  In contrast to the Democrats, qualifications were what appeared to matter to them, not ideology.  So at this point the Democrats were done embarrassing themselves to make a political point, right? Wrong.

As the confirmation vote approached, Senator John Kerry called from

Switzerland

and alerted the media that he would be wasting everyone’s time by attempting to filibuster the nomination.  Kerry knew perfectly well that he lacked the 41 supportive votes needed to sustain said filibuster, but he went ahead with it anyway. We can only presume that he did this to gain favor with his party’s left-leaning primary voters, and to remind them that he is still available to lose future presidential elections, if they will only entrust him with another nomination.

Finally, on Tuesday the Senate voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court, just in time for the President to show off his victory at The State of the Union address later that evening.

Right now it seems that the Democrats don’t care whether or not a judge is highly qualified for the job, as long as he or she is committed to upholding Roe v. Wade.  Democratic Senators like Harry Reid gave a rather warm reception to Harriet Miers, who’s personal beliefs may have been more to the left’s liking, but she was stopped by Republicans who rightly forced the administration to pull her nomination based on the fact that there were dozens of more qualified judges waiting in the wings.

In addition to this, Democrats don’t seem to be concerned with the fact that many people on both sides of the abortion debate, question the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade.  Support for a woman’s right to choose does not necessarily translate into support for a federal guarantee to the abortion procedure.

Some defenders of the Democrat’s bad behavior will undoubtedly view the minority’s actions as justified in order to draw attention to what they see as the inevitable erosion of our fundamental rights.  But the precedent that the Democrats have now set for opposing Supreme Court nominee’s is a very dangerous one that could dramatically  hinder the President’s ability to do what is required of him in the constitution. 

By opposing a nominee because his political beliefs don’t jibe with the ideology of the opposition party, the president could potentially be forced to find a consensus candidate rather than the one that he feels is the most qualified for the job.  No one, regardless of what party you align yourself with, is well served by forsaking quality in exchange for moderation.  In other words, the absence of a swing vote, is not an excuse to diminish the presidents power, as it relates to one of his most important responsibilities. .

One must also think about the consequences of this new precedent in a bipartisan manner.  The Democrat’s vote against Alito may come back to haunt them if Republicans decide to adopt the same philosophy.  If a Democrat becomes president and the GOP maintains its Senate majority, it is very possible that conservatives will feel justified in using the same tactics that the Democrats have used, in order to stop any presidential nominee with whom their political views differ.  I sincerely hope that the GOP would take the high road and not use these divisive tactics, but in the end they may feel it necessary to fight fire with fire.

The most unfortunate aspect of what the Democrats did to Judge Alito however was how their actions elevated the already bitter partisan divide in both

Washington

DC

and around the country.  In his response to the president’s state of the union address on Tuesday,

Virginia

’s Democratic governor Tim Kaine stated that “Our greatest need is for

America

to heal its partisan wounds and become one people.”  If the Democrats really believe this, it is not evident in their behavior.  This kind of hypocrisy is a perfect example as to why

America

is still unsupportive of the Democratic Party despite congressional scandals and serious reservations about President Bush and his agenda.  If it continues, the Democrats can count on wandering through the political wilderness for many years to come.

When this country’s politically literate, sit down on November 8 of next year and examine the GOP’s unprecedented victory in the 2006 mid-term elections, those who paid attention will be able to pinpoint the precise moment at which the Democrats blew their chances of regaining the House and Senate.  It occurred when DNC chair Howard Dean went on the radio and proclaimed “The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.”

While almost no one knows as much about losing as Howard Dean does, his statement is a perfect example as to why the majority of Americans consistently reject the Democratic party when it comes to questions of  foreign policy and protecting our country from those who wish to do us harm.

For the past five years one of the American left’s favorite pastimes is to claim that George W. Bush has an intellect, equivalent to that of a retarded chimp.  However as Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does” and there is no political figure in

America

today who has said and done as many downright stupid things as Dr. Dean.

Dean’s statement that the war in

Iraq

is un-winnable is not simply false, but it is also a terrible message to send out to our troops and reeks of a kind of pessimism which Americans rarely desire in their political leaders.  Even if you agree with the statement, the last thing the Democrats want is to be viewed as the party of surrender or as a party that has no faith in our military.  However, Dean’s recent rant has opened the door for the GOP to paint the Democratic leadership as advocates of a cut and run philosophy, and they deserve to be painted as such.

Every day the Democrats are sounding more and more like the French, and it’s not just Dean who’s buttering up the croissants.  There is John Murtha of course, who advocated a cut and run strategy, only to flip-flop on his proposal several days later, when House Republicans called Murtha’s bluff and put his idea up for a vote, embarrassing Murtha, who didn’t even vote for his own plan.

Hmmm?  Put a decorated war veteran up on a platform to oppose the war and hope that his glory as a war hero blinds people to his bad ideas.  Where have I seen that before? Oh, that’s right!  Failed presidential candidate John Kerry.  Kerry recently accused US troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children, just like he did during the

Vietnam

era.  Of course, just like his claims during his testimony before the Senate, the recent ones are not backed up with any substantive facts either.  Where are the Swift Boat Vets when you need them?  Like so many on the left, Kerry is trying to paint our troops as the bad guys rather than the insurgence that they are fighting.  No wonder members of the military overwhelmingly supported President Bush in last year’s election.

Then you have House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, now an advocate of “strategic redeployment” which is essentially a cut and run strategy  dressed up to sound like something remotely resembling an intelligent Democratic alternative to Bush’s plan, which is to actually win the war.

These ideas and statements are not coming from left wing nutcases like Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore.  These are coming from, the people in charge of the party.  Dean is the party’s leader, Kerry was its standard bearer last year, and Pelosi is the highest ranking elected Democrat in the country. The only reason why Murtha has been spared from a GOP spanking in the party’s latest commercials in which a white surrender flag flies over images of Pelosi, Dean and Kerry while they make their politically motivated statements, is because hardly anyone knows who he is.

President Bush may not be the most intellectually curious man to sit in the Oval Office, but politically, he has made a great number of smart moves.  And no, you can’t give all of the credit to Karl Rove or Dick Cheney, because when those cameras are turned on and Bush is put on the spot, there is no one there to help him if he says something ridiculous.  He has had his share of missteps, but he has never said anything as dumb as Howard Dean’s recent swipe at the

US

military. 

This is not an isolated incident either.  Dean has had his foot lodged in his mouth ever since he came on the national scene two years ago.  Some of his more poorly thought out comments include:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for…"

On 9/11:

“The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far……is that he (Bush) was warned ahead of time by the Saudis.”

The racially sensitive Howard Dean:

“You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

On  Osama Bin Laden, the guy who admitted to killing 3000 American civilians:

"I’ve resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found……we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

On a man who has not been convicted of anything:

"I think Tom DeLay ought to go back to

Houston

, where he can serve his jail sentence."

And of course:

"Not only are we going to

New Hampshire

… we’re going to

South Carolina

and

Oklahoma

and

Arizona

and

North Dakota

and

New Mexico

, and we’re going to

California

and

Texas

and

New York

! And we’re going to

South Dakota

and

Oregon

and

Washington

and

Michigan

. And then we’re going to

Washington

,

D.C.

to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!"

This last one doesn’t so much show Dean’s proclivity to put his foot in his mouth as it does, his lack of self control.

            The amazing thing about most of these quotes is that they were made before Dean was elected chairman of the DNC.  Even after seeing Dean’s potential as a loose cannon, the Party leadership in all of their wisdom put Dean in charge of the party.  And they say Bush is Stupid?

Despite all of the venom that I have unleashed on Dean in this piece, I don’t think Dean is an unintelligent man. Stupid people don’t graduate from medical school, or Harvard business school for that matter. I do think however, that he is one of the worst politicians to come along in the last 50 years.

Until the Democratic party stops listening to guys like Howard Dean and starts  listening to sensible, not to mention elect able candidates like Joe Lieberman, they will stay in the political wilderness, and Dean’s thickheaded statement regarding the possibility of victory in Iraq is a perfect example as to why they deserve their status as the minority party.

I don’t think that most Democrats would echo Dean’s comments, but I do believe that a sizable portion of them agree with him.  Just because their concurrence with Dean is not based on reality, does not mean that they should keep their opinions to themselves, but if they care about the future of their dying party, they need to tell people like Dean and Kerry to shut-up.

Dean has already done the damage to the Democratic Party that will lead them to another loss in 2006, so even if they get rid of him now, it won’t do them any good.  He hasn’t been a very effective fundraiser either, and that’s the main reason they put him in charge of the party in the first place.  It is time however for the Democrats to cut their losses and try to rebuild their credibility on issues regarding the

US

military and foreign policy.  I’m not saying that Bush hasn’t made his share of mistakes in his handling of the war, but with his approval ratings in the mid-30’s the Dems had a perfect opportunity to frame themselves as a common sense alternative to GOP control of the federal Government, and with Dean’s boneheaded remarks that opportunity has disappeared faster than a glass of Maker’s Mark placed in front of Ted Kennedy.

I don’t know why I’m giving the Democrat’s this advice.  The last thing I want is for them to come back into power while the

US

is threatened by a vicious enemy.  I suppose this is a big thank you to those in the Democratic Party who came to their senses and denied Dean your presidential nomination in 2004.  Even if John Kerry had won last year, I would still thank God every day that Howard Dean was not elected Commander in Chief.

Consider this scenario for a moment.  You have been accused of a crime, by someone.  They take you to court and after a lengthy trial, your accuser has not presented a shred of evidence against you.  The case is dismissed. 

            Sometime later your accuser goes to the judge and tells him that he wants to put you on trial again.  He has accused you of the same crime and has not found any new evidence to substantiate his claim. 

What do you do if you are the judge?  Do you allow the plaintiff to drag you through the mud again even though both he and the judge know that there is no evidence to convict you? Of course not.  You let the busy judge do his job and both you and your accuser go on with your lives.

A similar situation was played out in the US Senate on Tuesday with Harry Reid as the accuser, and the Bush administration as the already exonerated defendant.

Reid and Senator Dick Durbin (famous for recently comparing the US military with that of the Soviet Union and the Nazis) evoked a rarely used Senate rule on Tuesday to once again accuse the Bush administration of misleading the American public during the run-up to the Iraq war and of allegedly manipulating intelligence in order to make a case for the attack.  The reasons that they chose Tuesday to perform this immature stunt was a matter of timing.

Although the Administration suffered a major blow with the indictment of “Scooter” Libby last week, the Democrats were equally hurt by what Peter Fitzgerald did not find.   He found no evidence that Valerie Plame was knowingly exposed by anyone in the administration, nor did he find any evidence that action was taken against her, or her husband in retaliation for anything they might have said regarding Uranium, Niger or Iraq.  In addition to this, the Democrats were not able to bring down Karl Rove and after four trips to the grand jury without an indictment it is not likely that they will. “Scooter” Libby was the only causality of this investigation and it had nothing to do with Valerie Plame, but instead it stemmed from charges that he lied to the grand jury.

While it warms my heart to see that Democrats finally consider perjury and obstruction of justice to be real crimes, it is clear that the outcome of Fitzgerald’s two-year investigation did not turn out the way that most Liberals wanted it to.

The left was hopeful that if Plame’s outing by the administration could be proven, that they could use the indictment as a springboard to once again focus attention on the war in Iraq and re-accuse the President of “fixing” the intelligence that he used to make his case for war to the American people, and subsequently, further damage his already low approval ratings.  Anyone who follows politics knows that this has been a charge that the left has made repeatedly even though it is not backed up by a single reliable source or example.  The facts revealed in the investigation of the

Wilson

case, didn’t help build this case at all. Those of us who paid attention found out that when

Wilson

went to

Niger

, the report he brought back was supportive of the British intelligence, Iraq-Niger-Uranium charge, according to the Senate intelligence committee.  In addition to this, it is not even clear whether or not Plame was a covert agent in the first place, and if she was all of her friends and neighbor’s knew it, probably due to her husband’s tendency to use his wife to attract attention (i.e. Vanity Fair) as well as to get sent to

Africa

. 

Enter Samuel Alito.  His nomination and the overwhelming consolidation of the GOP base that followed easily pushed Libby and his perjury charge right off the front page.  This was no surprise, considering that the charges against him no longer have anything to do with national security or the

Iraq

war. Besides we just had a perjury case seven years ago and it was much more interesting than this one.

Sensing that the Democrats were about to become even more irrelevant than they were before the Libby indictment, Reid and Durbin decided to hijack the Senate without telling anyone and call for more investigations into….that’s right…the intelligence that was used to make the case against Saddam Hussein.

If you thought that the Democratic Party couldn’t sink any lower in the tactics and rhetoric that they have used against this administration, we learned differently on Tuesday.

Reid wants an investigation into whether or not intelligence was “fixed” to make a case against Hussein in the run-up to the

Iraq

war.  While Harry wants it to seem like he’s doing this simply to ease his inquiring mind, in reality, it is a play directly out of Cindy Sheehan’s playbook.

The claims that intelligence was manipulated in order to make the case for war have been investigated.  Once by the bi-partisan Senate select committee on pre-war intelligence and once by the British investigation put together by Lord Butler.  In addition to this the 9/11 committee found no evidence whatsoever of this claim, and yet the Democrats are still making this argument, even with all of these facts stacked up against them.  It would be like me going to game seven of the World Series between the White Sox and the Astros and being convinced that the Baltimore Orioles still had a chance to take it all. (By the way, I know that the Series only went 4 games this year.  It’s just an example.)

An even more ludicrous and unsubstantiated charge made by those on the left frequently, is that Bush outright lied in making his case for war.  Reid alluded to this on Tuesday as has every other Liberal since the

US

failed to find WMD’s in

Iraq

.  Anyone who is even remotely knowledgeable about the

Iraq

war and who has even a shred of intellectual honesty knows that this is bunk. Just ask Bill Clinton, or the French.

These facts force us to come to one of two conclusions.  Either that Reid and the Democrats are incredibly ignorant about pre-war intelligence and the investigations that have taken place over the last three years, or that they simply don’t care.  I like to believe that the Democratic leader is not stupid, so my money would be on the latter.

The Democrats know that their accusations are untrue, and rely on the Kool-Aid drinkers in their own party and those in this country who have not followed the war on terror closely, in order to keep propagating the “Bush-Lied” myth.  Their anger at not being able to win at the ballot box has turned the Democrats into exactly what it is that they are wrongfully accusing the Bush administration of being.  That is, a group of politicians who play loose with the facts in order to accomplish their goals.  In this case the goal would be embarrassing the administration.  Some Liberals dream of impeachment, but that honor is reserved for those Presidents who are actually guilty of something.

Fortunately, not all Democrats have sunken to this level and while the majority of people in this country do not believe that going to war was the right course of action, they also do not believe that they were mislead by the President before we went.

In the long run, I am willing to let the Democrats continue to make their false accusations.  It will only focus the American people’s attention on the Dem’s lack of a clear agenda before the 2006 elections.  In addition to this, if Reid wanted to pick a fight over the Alito nomination it will be much more difficult now.  Tuesday’s stunt increased the bitterness that already existed in the Senate chamber and it will now be difficult for him to hold onto those moderate Democrats who are up for re-election, and are already doing everything they can to distance themselves from their parties left wing.  Moderate Republicans will be more reluctant to cross over now as well.

As I said before, Alito immediately solidified the GOP base, and the base will now be even more unified in their opposition to Reid’s recent demagoguery, in relation to a war that all sensible Americans know must be won.

This case, like Reid, should have been dropped a long time ago, and this consistent repetition of an untrue charge is pathetic, especially for a man in Reid’s high position.  But, I’m willing to let it slide, confident that his stunt will help assure that a qualified nominee gets appointed to the Supreme Court and that the minority leader will stay where he belongs.  In the minority.

In the opening moments of George Clooney’s Good Night and Good Luck, a jazz singer performs an upbeat ditty, the chorus of which exclaims “TV is the thing this year.” 

Indeed by the end of Clooney’s crisp, black and white portrayal of Edward R. Murrow’s battle with Senator Joseph McCarthy, much of which took place on Murrow’s See it Now news program, one realizes that the film is not so much a hit piece on the Senator himself, but rather a commentary on the realization of televisions ability to both condemn and exonerate.

While the political implications of McCarthy’s hearings are examined, the portrayal of his actions and tactics seem to be an afterthought.  The focus of the film becomes Murrow’s use of TV to bring, what he views as, important information to the public which they have not been privy to, as well as his news teams investigative style against the Government, which ruffled feathers at CBS, and eventually led to Murrow’s demotion.

While watching the film it is easy for one to forget that in 1953, TV was in its infancy.  One can clearly see the Senator’s power and authority over those who he is investigating when it is shown on television as opposed to simply being written up in a newspaper or even broadcast on the radio.   The clips of the actual hearings made McCarthy look like an authority figure and an upstanding citizen, while the tactics he used made those who were being interrogated look small and weak.  When Murrow uses his presence on television to challenge the Senator’s evidence, it seems to raise him to the Senator’s level and allows one to clearly examine the facts and come to a clear conclusion.  Nowhere is this more evident than when McCarthy accuses Murrow of being a Communist.  The fact that he says this on TV and the seriousness, with which he makes his claim, temporarily makes the movie watcher wonder if it’s true. For a second it seems as though the movies protagonist has been caught.  Murrow, however uses his control of the medium to put himself on a level playing field with the Senator and exposes the Senator’s baseless allegations for what they are.

            Murrow believes in what he is doing, and his confidence in his cause’s righteousness leads him and his partner Fred Friendly to put CBS at risk of losing their advertisers, in addition to the possibility of their lives being ruined if McCarthy smear tactics work. Murrow and Friendly decide that the truth is well worth the risk and CBS President William Paley seems to reluctantly support their crusade.  Clooney does not do a good job of emphasizing, exactly what is at stake for the network if Murrow fails.  If McCarthy had been telling the truth about Murrow being a communist, one wonders if CBS would even exist anymore.

While Good Night and Good Luck is a fascinating prequel to All the President’s Men in the sense that it examines how media can be an important player in our country’s system of checks and balances, as well as its portrayal of television as a powerful weapon which can be used for both positive and negative purposes, it is not without it’s faults.

While Clooney should be commended for using clips of Senator McCarthy rather than an actor who could bring an inaccurate portrayal of the man whos actions are being documented, he does use examples to help vilify McCarthy which may not be completely accurate and are also left unexplained.

One scene near the end of the film, documents the suicide of one of Murrow’s co-workers.  The reasons for the suicide are left unexplained but it is clear that Clooney is trying to make a connection between McCarthy’s tactics and the death of an innocent man.  Without proof or explanation of the circumstances which surround the man’s death, it is irresponsible for Clooney to allude to a connection, which may or may not exist.

Another questionable portrayal is that of the treatment of Pentagon employee Annie Lee Moss.  It is shown that Senator McCarthy leaves the hearing while she is testifying, making it seem to the viewer that he is embarrassed by her testimony which contradicts the Senator’s accusations.  For those who only know the part of the story about McCarthy’s lies and false accusations the fact that Clooney added this into the film would seem to make sense. No mention is made however of the fact that Ms. Moss was indeed a member of the Communist party and in fact lied about her association with them to the Senate Committee. These facts are well documented in several books including Arthur Herman’s Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of

America

’s Most Hated Senator.  The film is only an hour and a half long however, and one can understand why Clooney leaves out many of the facts that have been uncovered in recent years which validate a great number of McCarthy’s accusations.

All in all, this movie is not about McCarthy or even Murrow.  It is about the power of television, and the realization of this power during a tumultuous time in our nation’s history.  This power was evident in McCarthy’s investigations, Murrow’s confrontation of McCarthy on See it Now, and the Army-McCarthy Senate hearings which were televised on ABC and helped lead to McCarthy’s censure and eventual vilification.

At the end of the film the message that both Clooney and Murrow intended to convey becomes clear, when Murrow emphasizes how important it is that we use TV to “teach and illuminate” as well as to entertain, and if we fail to do so the television becomes little more than “wires in a box.” 

While Clooney’s film may not be terribly exciting, interesting or long it is efficient in its primary goal, which is to show how television and the personalities that were in control of it, changed the way that we in this country do business, and view our public officials.  It is also beautifully made and is worth at least a rental for anyone who is interested in either history or filmmaking.

Ok.  This list only goes from 1975 until today, so don’t bitch at me if your too old to join in. Also, no personal cult favorites that none of us have ever heard of.  I wan’t everyone to be able to participate.

10. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

9. Lord Of the Rings: Return of The King

8. Forrest Gump

7. Back to the Future

6. The Goonies

5. Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

4. Goodfellas

3. The Shawshank Redemption

2. Pulp Fiction

1. The Empire Strikes Back

Honorable Mentions: Braveheart, Return of the Jedi, Napolean Dynamite

Alright Friendsters.  What say you?  Let’s see those lists.

The death of Chief Justice William Renquist last week was a mere blip on the media radar when compared to Hurricane Katrina, the disaster of biblical proportions which devastated the city of New Orleans.  This does not however diminish its significance for the future of this country, or the potential it has to divide an already bitterly divided nation even further.

            George W. Bush’s choice of John Roberts to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor on the bench was a brilliant one, due to his lack of controversial rulings as well as his undeniable intellect and conservative credentials.  These things in addition to the fact that Robert’s was headed for an easy confirmation to the bench made his elevation to the post of chief justice a no-brainer. 

            Senate Democrats, having missed an opportunity to pick a fight with Bush over Roberts first nomination, now seemed poised to use race, and human tragedy as wedge issues, in order to make things tough on Bush and Roberts as well as whoever the new pick is to replace O’Connor.  This is nothing new for the left.  Edward Kennedy and his ilk have never hesitated to use the race card in order to cloud their contempt for conservative ideology.  One would point to the character assassination of Judge Charles Pickering to the US court of appeals several years ago.  Using a ruling which they claimed was not tough enough on a cross burner as proof, they maligned Pickering as racially insensitive.  With this as their reasoning, they successfully filibustered Pickering, who by all other accounts had been a crusader for civil rights during his tenure as a judge in Mississippi.  They ignored this, as well as the wide support he had from blacks in his home state, and the Mississippi state NAACP.  President Bush finally gave Pickeringa recess appointment, but the beating Pickeringtook from Senate Democrats must have turned him off to the process because he left the bench just several months after his appointment.  The unfair treatment of Pickering just goes to show how far Senate Democrats and those on the left will go in order to stop conservative judges who are otherwise perfectly qualified to serve.  The use of the race issue is already being used by Kennedy and DNC chair Howard Dean in order to heap blame on the President for his slow response to the Katrina aftermath, and there is no reason to believe that they won’t keep doing it, regardless of how baseless the accusations are or how hard the President is working to get minority families from New Orleans back on their feet.  The race card is always in the Democrats deck, and they never cease to play it when they can.

          

    In picking a replacement for O’Connor, there are many suggestions coming from Bush’s advisors and GOP senators as to what kind of candidate he should choose.  Some say pick a woman.  Beating up on a woman in nationally televised hearings would be a lot harder for Democrats to get away with than aggressively grilling a male.  While it may not be fair, it is none the less a fact of political life.

Others say Bush should quell the race baiting coming from the left by nominating a minority.  I say, do both. 

There is one candidate who fits both of these criteria and is a brilliant judge to boot.  That is why, if I were in the Presidents inner circle, the name that I would be whispering in his ear would be that of Janice Rodgers Brown.  It is true that the Democrats have already tried once to keep her off the bench with a filibuster, but in closely watched, nationally televised hearings, they would have to give a good explanation as to why they did it.  That is something that I don’t believe they can do.

This week you will see John Roberts run circles around the loaded questions posed by Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy and Diane Feinstien.  We will see just how brilliant he is as both a lawyer and an orator.  Despite this fact he will still have at least 30 Democrats vote against him in the senate.  What happened to the days in which a far more polarizing figure like Antonin Scalia or Ruth Bader Ginsburg were approved with over 90 votes each?  I’ll tell you what happened.  The Democrats started losing at the ballot box.  The judiciary is the only way that they can promote their agenda these days and they will use what’s left of their power in the senate and what’s happening in New Orleans to do just that.

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS MASSIVE SPOILERS ABOUT HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE.  IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK AND ARE PLANNING TO, OR IF YOU HAVE NOT FINISHED READING THE BOOK YET, DO NOT CONTINUE.  IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT HARRY POTTER IS, LEAVE YOUR ADDRESS AND I WILL MAIL A COPY TO YOUR ROCK.

Let me begin by saying that the J.K. Rowling’s latest entry in the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, is a fantastic book.  This being said.  The first two-thirds of book six are the weakest parts of Rowling’s epic so far.  This really isn’t much of a criticism.  I’m comparing the newest book to Rowling’s previous Harry Potter books, and it would be almost impossible to top Prisoner of Azkaban, and Goblet of Fire, the two books that most fans of the series consider to be the best.

It’s hard to fault Rowling for a bit of a lull in the action.  Especially once you read the last third of the book, which is exactly the kind of amazing trip I have come to expect from the series, since I started reading it in 2001.  It should have any Muggle turning pages until they hit the back cover.

It seems that Rowling had a lot to set up for the conclusion of the series, and she uses the first part of book six to do it.  Stephen King did the same thing in book six of his epic Dark Tower series and the book disappointed many readers, but once book seven came out, the complaints subsided.  Rowling’s book seven will be expected to wow everyone.  I don’t envy the woman’s task and the expectations that she is up against.  I do however envy the fortune she has amassed.

Book six is very dark, much of it focusing on how the evil Lord Voldemort came to power.   Despite this change in tone, it seems that Harry has changed quite a bit over the Summer. While Harry was filled with anger and rage in book five, the anger seems to have settled and given way to a new braver Harry.  Harry now takes chances, often stupid ones, and seems to have taken a more hands on approach regarding what he now knows is his destiny.  To destroy Lord Voldemort.

Book six ends on an extremely dark note, with the death of one of the series most beloved characters, Albus Dumbledore, at the hands of Severus Snape, a character who’s motives and allegiances have always been shrouded in mystery.  It was pretty obvious to me about halfway through the book that Dumbledore was going to bite the dust.  Much of the book consists of Dumbledore telling Harry everything that he knows about Voldemort, and by the time of his demise it seemed that Dumbledore had done everything he could to help Harry.  After all, the prophecy says that it must be Harry and no one else, who kills Voldemort.  Regardless of this however, it is hard for this reader to lose Dumbledore.  He was a character that was so well written that I looked forward to his scattered appearances in each book.  His calm, cool and collected responses to even the most perilous situations, as well as his grandfatherly dotage over his students and dry wit.  All of these things perfectly balanced out the fact that he was the worlds most powerful wizard.  Dumbledore may be dead, but don’t expect his influence over Harry to have apparated.  Upon his death a portrait of Dumbledore appeared in the headmasters office at Hogwarts.  In the wizarding world deceased wizards and witches can speak to the living though their portraits as though they are alive. This leads us to:

HARRY POTTER BOOK 7 PREDICTION #1: Harry will correspond and receive advice from Dumbledore by way of his portrait, getting vital information on how to defeat Voldemort.

This is probably a given.  What I find most fascinating about this however is the similarities between Rowling’s Dumbledore and another beloved sci-fi/fantasy character, from another epic tale.  I’m going off on a tangent here, but try and bear with me. 

-Dumbledore is a wise old wizard, who has been fighting the forces of evil for most of his life.  This other character is wise and old, has been fighting the forces of evil for most of his life, and is believed by many to be a wizard. 

-Dumbledore is the most significant link to the orphaned Harry Potter’s past, and throughout the story tries to reveal what he knows about Harry’s family.  Our other character is also the most significant link to our protagonist’s past and our protagonist is also an Orphan (at least he thinks he is.)  The old man helps the protagonist by telling him what he can about his past and prepares the protagonist for the fight against the forces of evil as best he can. 

-Dumbledore shares an unusually strong bond with Harry as does the old man with the protagonist. 

-Dumbledore dies at the hands of the evil forces leaving our young Harry to fulfill his destiny.   The old man dies at the hands of the evil forces leaving our young protagonist to fulfill his destiny. 

-The old man continues to communicate and guide the protagonist, even after his death, by way of a ghost like presence. If my prediction is correct Dumbledore will do the same thing.

Who am I talking about? Anyone……Anyone?  The similarities are staggering.  Rowling also has other parallels to this epic fantasy that I’m referring to, and it often seems that she has intentionally based her stories outline to mirror its story and relationships. A shiny nickle to the first one who can identify the character I’m referring to and come up with any more parallels, between the two stories or any other stories that you believe have significant parallels.  Anyway back to Harry Potter.

Professor Snape also plays a huge role in this next book.  The dark and greasy professor that everyone loves to hate was believed up until book six to be one of the good guys.  He is a member of the Order of the Phoenix, and although he has a strong dislike of Harry he appears to help the good guys whenever he can.  In book six we learn that he is in fact a double agent and it becomes unclear who he is working for, and when he kills Dumbledore near the end of the book, it appears that he is officially a "death eater".  Harry always suspected this, but Dumbledore always defended Snape as a loyal member of the order who had mended his evil ways.  Was Harry right, and Dumbledore wrong?  I’m not convinced.

HARRY POTTER BOOK 7 PREDICTION #2: Snape killed Dumbledore in order to maintain the appearance of a "death eater" in front of Voldemort’s followers who are present at the scene of the murder, however he will aid Harry from inside the "dark lord’s" stronghold, when the time comes for Harry to fulfill his destiny.

When Dumbledore is killed by Snape, the Headmaster is already in pretty bad shape.  His powers are seriously diminished, due to an adventure with Harry only minutes before.  I believe that Dumbledore sacrificed himself in order to maintain Snape’s cover so that he could help Harry.  He knew that he was going to die soon anyway, so he wanted Snape to expedite the process for the good of their cause.

One other thing that caught my attention in Half-Blood Prince was the excess of raging hormones among the Hogwarts students.  Rowling does it tastefully for the most part, but there is a lot of making out, which is to be expected among sixteen year old’s. Ron spends half the book hooking up with his new girlfriend causing massive tension between him and Hermione Granger.  Harry becomes the obsession among many of the Hogwarts girls, but seems to  have feelings for Ron’s sister Ginny, who gets around about as much as any 9th grader in wizarding school can.  The relationship stuff was cute and made me nostalgic for those days of crushes and note passing, but there was just a bit too much of it.  I want wizarding hi-jinks and surprising plot twists.  I think we’ll get more of this in book 7 but we will also get:

HARRY POTTER BOOK 7 PREDICTION #3: Ron and Hermione will finally get together.  About freakin’ time!  I wouldn’t expect a wild sex romp, but they will fall in love and one of them will probably die at the end of the book.

Here are some more predictions for the final book and beyond:

- The book will be over 1,000 pages and the cover will be bright yellow.

- Neville Longbottom gets revenge for his parents by killing Beatrix Lestrange.

- Kreacher the house-elf is accidentally released and starts aiding Voldemort, but is stopped by Dobby.

- Lupin and Greyback get into a huge werewolf fight.  Lupin kills Greyback but dies in the process.

- In a gracious act, Harry saves Malfoy.

If anyone has any other predictions, I’d love to hear them.  But I have questions galore that I want answers to.  Such as:

- What’s up with the new minister of magic Rufus Scrimgeour?   He seems a bit shady.

- Where the hell is Mad-Eye Moody? He was absent for almost the whole book.

- Hardly any mention of Serious Black (my favorite character).  Is their an afterlife for Harry’s godfather?  Is he really dead?

- Who will be the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher?

- Where can I get some Felix Felices? That stuff kicks ass.

After book seven, it will be interesting to see where Rowling goes with her writing, or if she goes anywhere at all.  It would be fun to do a prequel that follows Harry’s mom and dad in their first fight with Voldemort, ending in Harry’s birth. Or, Rowling could pick a character to follow through the wizarding world after Harry’s story at Hogwarts is concluded.  Or she could choose to stop writing and start buying small countries which she could then turn into Harry Potter themed amusement parks.  I’d go.

But alas, I am jumping the wand (sorry).

In conclusion, the sixth Harry Potter book suffers a bit from what I believe to be the author thinking ahead.  If this is the case, then I’ll let it slide, knowing that book seven should be the greatest of them all.  The stakes have been raised.  Many of the people that Harry has loved, have had their lives cut short by the Dark Lord.  I look forward to watching Harry take his revenge.

The Harry Potter series deserves its epic status.  In the future it will stand shoulder to shoulder with Lord of the Rings among sci-fi/fantasy literature, and its story and character structure make The Chronicles of Narnia, seem like a dentist office waiting room copy of Highlights for Children.  Potter’s brilliance lies in its accessibility, something which Lord of the Rings had to a far more limited audience.  There is not another book that I can think of that is read by everyone from small children, to little old ladies, to 26 year old men who really like football.

300 million books sold, worldwide.  Enough for every man, woman, and child in this country. Rowling is now richer than Queen Elizabeth and she deserves every penny. And yet, all of the magic, adventure, money and the incredible impact that the books have had on the world sometimes lead us to forget the most important thing about the Harry Potter books. 

They get kids to want to read.