Blogcritics Author: David Flanagan

Obama And The Art of Throwing Loved Ones Under A Bus

David Flanagan — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:55:50 EDT

Good politicians will do anything to win. Senator Obama is no exception.
For supporters who tuned in last week to listen to Senator Barack Obama's A More Perfect Union speech, it was very likely encouraging to hear him take on, finally, the issues raised by his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Statements Pastor Wright has made over the years while preaching from the pulpit of Senator Obama's church have dogged his...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Yet Another Shake-up In Evolutionary Theory

David Flanagan — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:36:58 EDT

Is the Theory of Evolution a fact? Is it silly to even ask such a question when, in most textbooks, we refer to Darwinian Evolution, and other branches of evolution, under the umbrella title of "Theory of Evolution"? Can a theory be a fact?According to the late Stephen Jay Gould -- Harvard professor and leading spokesperson for evolutionary theory right up until the time of his death in 2002 -- Evolution, while still a theory, is also a fact. Is it me, or is this approach faintly reminiscent of former President Clinton parsing the meaning of the word "is" in front of a grand jury?Gould goes on to assert that "'theory' often means 'imperfect fact'--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess." Unfortunately, there are no dictionaries in existence today which would describe a theory as "imperfect fact." Rather, dictionaries describe theory as a "proposed explanation," or a "group of general propositions." And, as if the waters were not murky enough with this statement, Gould elaborates, saying that "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."Gould believed that in the "fact" of evolution, and often asserted that the only unknown about evolution was the exact mechanism. While many have never heard this explanation by Gould, this line of reasoning has been widely quoted and used by proponents of evolution to support what they believe. But this is not a scientific argument, rather, it is a philosophical one. Which is why Gould then tries to offer a relevant example showing how something can be a fact while still having a theoretical component.What relevant example does Gould offer? Gravity of course. As we well know, an object dropped from a building will drop at a rate, based on it's mass, that can be reproduced over and over, no matter how many times the object is dropped. Based on observation and applied mathematical principles, we know that gravity is predictable, even though we don't know exactly how or why it works the way it works.As Gould rightly asserts, "Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome." That is a fact, but then Gould tries to borrow on this example to insist that "humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." In other words, evolution is like gravity, we know it is real, we just don't know exactly how it works.But this is a flawed example, mainly because Gould implies that we've observed evolution taking place over and over again, just as we see gravitational effects in action whenever we drop something. But have we?Supporters of evolution would argue that we have indeed observed this phenomenon, but there's a bit of bait-and-switch going on here. We can see micro-evolution in action, also known as "adaptation," but macro-evolution, the shifting of one species to a new and entirely different species has never been observed.The most famous example of micro-evolution, and the one used by Darwin himself when he first postulated the theory of evolution, is that of the Galapagos Finches who, during a long drought on the island, saw a surge in the size of their beaks (as the Finches with shorter beak died off). The Finches with larger beaks were able to more readily crack open seeds. Finches with shorter beaks could not. In the mind of evolutionary proponents then, this is evolution in action. A species adapted to a climate change by weeding out the Finches with smaller beaks and conferring an advantage on those with larger beaks. If you postulate a million such changes over man thousands of years, you could, theoretically, get an entirely new species.However, the vast majority of researchers ignore the fact that, after the drought subsided, the average beak size for Finches returned to pre-drought norms. This adaptation was temporary as are most adaptive behaviors. This can be labeled "natural selection," as Finch beak sizes are "selected" based on rainfall conditions in the Galapagos, but, ultimately, this selection even is a zero sum game. To then extrapolate that out and say, "this is how all life came to be" is not scientifically sound. Evolution, then, seems to be correctly identified when we use the term "theory" rather than a law -- as we do with gravity -- because we see no direct evidence of micro-evolutionary changes leading to macro-evolutionary changes.Please understand this essential fact; when evolutionary proponents talk of a missing link, they are understating the problem considerably. It's not just one link we're missing. Instead, there are billions of missing links. Has anyone ever observed the transition of any species into an entirely different and distinct one? The answer to this is a resounding "no."But proponents of evolution assume their theory is "fact," then work to piece archaeological, biological, and medical finds so as to prove it. So, for example, if two species look similar and show similar traits, but one seems slightly more advanced, it is often assumed that the simpler species is the precursor to the more complex one.And some recently-released findings underscores this tactic. Last week, the Washington Times reported that "new research by famed paleontologist Maeve Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors."Up until very recently, it was assumed that Homo Habilis evolved into Homo Erectus, which then evolved into Homo sapien. As the article goes on to point out, "those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper to be published in the journal Nature tomorrow."Of course, proponents of evolutionist are quick to assert that this critically important find does not call into question the theory of evolution. Bill Kimbel, science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, was quoted as saying that "All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories." What questions are being asked, then? What new theories are researchers coming up with? Even researchers like Kimbel admit that, unfortunately, this makes their job more difficult. Rather than an evolutionary tree, now the thought is that perhaps there is an "evolutionary bush." But how does that work? The evidence to prove this may never be uncovered, yet researchers like Kimbel insist that evolution is still a fact. At the very least, this shows how un-scientific scientists and researchers can be, insisting that something which has never been observed and whose mechanisms scientists have admitted they do not understand is real. And with additional discoveries, it appears that the job of proving this theory grows increasingly more difficult, not less."We know it's a fact," they say, "we just can't prove it yet." Fine, then call it a theory and stop trying to insist that evolution is a fact. Rather than searching for evidence so as to prove the theory, observe with an open mind. The current approach to evolutionary research is not only un-scientific, it is counter-intuitive.How so? Well, what if a person was given a 500-piece puzzle and asked to assemble that puzzle with no clue as to what the puzzle would ultimately show them. Would it be best for that person to assume they know what the picture was, then go about assembling the puzzle to produce that exact picture? Not only would that approach likely produce an incredibly flawed picture, it would certainly take much longer to complete and would contain numerous inaccuracies.As a matter of fact, my example can be scientifically tested. Set up two groups of randomly selected individuals, each with a 500-piece puzzle. With the first group, give them the box cover with the picture of the puzzle on it. Then allow them to assemble the puzzle and measure the average length of time it takes an individual in the group to complete the puzzle as well as the number of mistakes they make in assembling the puzzle. Then take a second group of randomly selected individuals and give them the same puzzle, but with the WRONG picture on the box cover. Tell them to go ahead and use the picture as their guide while they assemble the puzzle. Again, measure the average time it takes for individuals in the group to complete the puzzle as well as the number of mistakes made while assembling the puzzle. With the second group, it is likely that somewhere along the way participants will realize they have the wrong picture. But how any mistakes will they make along the way, and how long will they have delayed the completion of the puzzle because they thought they knew what they were assembling before they began? Does that sound familiar to you? It sounds like the modern approach to evolutionary research to me. When pieces do not fit, they are ignored. When mismatched pieces fall out of place, the original set of assumptions is almost never questioned. Even worse, when some researchers do have the temerity to raise questions, they are shouted down by the group. Even Gould admitted to this tendency. In an article written in 1981, he wrote "that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology." In a moment of frank honesty, Gould goes on to say that "if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost."Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening today. Faced with an increasing recognition that evolution explains far less than originally believed, many evolutionists have instead reverted to a dogmatic insistence that evolution is science and anything else is "creationism." So, when faced with the concept of "irreducible complexity," close-minded evolutionists call it "creationism." If you disagree with any facet of evolution, you're a creationist. If you try to publish work that in any way challenges evolutionary theory, it is summarily rejected. But this approach can't work forever. Eventually enough scientists will leave the dogma behind for the open road of research and discovery. As Gould underscores, the "intellectual excitement" of scientists and researchers should not be quenched just to avoid being critiqued. So, let's go back to the original question; is evolution a fact? Well, if you're an evolutionist, I guess it depends on what the definition of "fact" is; right?

Movie Review: High School Musical 2 Tries Too Hard To Recapture The Magic

David Flanagan — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:10:02 EDT

WARNING: This review may contain spoilers. High School Musical 2 will air on Disney Friday evening, August 17, 2007. Soon Disney's long-awaited sequel to High School Musical, High School Musical 2, will air for millions of viewers of all ages. The original movie drew about 7.8 million viewers and I think it is safe to say the sequel will easily top that number.My daughters, ages 4 and 7, were late-comers to the original High School Musical movie. We first saw the movie in February of 2007 through the "On Demand" video service of our cable TV system. Personally, I never intended to really watch the whole video, but found myself drawn in by the story, the characters, and the wonderful music, which kicks off within minutes of the video's start.High School Musical is charming, fun, energetic, wholesome, and entertaining from beginning to end. Not only do we now own the DVD, we purchased the movie on iTunes and the album as well. Now my oldest is planning a HSM party for her birthday this coming January.So, while I welcomed the thought of a sequel, I also had my doubts. Sometimes you just get lucky with a movie. You come up with a concept, sell it, produce it, air it and suddenly realize that it has that unique mix of elements that makes it an instant classic. So what do you do when the green light comes for another movie? Try as hard as you can to capture all the same elements as before and hope it works again. Unfortunately, the sequel tries too hard. It will not live up to the expectations of fans, though many of those fans will love this sequel anyway. The story picks up at the tail-end of the same school year in which the original movie left off. It is one minute until school ends for the summer and anticipation builds by the second.The bell rings, papers fly, and the cast kicks in to their first song of the movie. From there, the movie winds into a story that seems to get a tad too complicated at times. Ryan and Sharpay's parents own a country club and Sharpay, in her effort to win Troy's affections, orders the manager, Fulton, to hire Troy on. Fulton hires Troy, but also hires all of Troy's friends and teammates, including, of course, Gabriella. From there, the storyline gets even more complicated. Friendships are strained, Troy and Gabriella's wonderfully innocent relationship is strained, and the incredibly manipulative Sharpay seems willing to cast even her brother aside in order to get what she wants.In this sequel, Sharpay reaches new levels of obnoxiousness. She is so manipulative and selfish that now, when I want to make my girls stop and think about what they're doing, I say to them, "You're acting just like Sharpay!" So far, that line has worked quite effectively.All that said, this is a decent movie. Yes, the plot gets overly complicated and the music is not quite as good as the first movie, but this is still a movie that I would recommend.People will enjoy the movie, viewership will be higher for the sequel than it was for the original, and, ultimately, I expect we'll see a High School Musical 3 in 2008. And I have a feeling that the third movie will be better than the second.Can anything top the first movie? Probably not. But set your expectations properly and you'll enjoy High School Musical 2.

Harry Potter Hacked?

David Flanagan — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 20:14:02 EDT

Reuters is reporting today that a hacker "who goes by the name 'Gabriel,' claims to have taken a digital copy of author J.K. Rowling's seventh book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, by breaking into a computer at Bloomsbury Publishing Plc." As many Potter fans are aware, the details of the final book have been carefully guarded by author J.K. Rowling and her publishers. With the release of Deathly Hallows less than a month away, anticipation and excitement continue to grow, with fans eagerly awaiting the opportunity to finally know what happens to Harry and other lead characters from the series. Rowling fueled fans' excitement some months ago when she said that two of the main characters from the series would die in the final book. In May, Rowling posted a message on her site stating she could see the "first distant rumblings of the weirdness that usually precedes a Harry Potter publication." Rowling asked fans who might somehow learn the details of her final book not to publish them for others to read. J.K. stated that her desire is for readers "who have, in many instances, grown up with Harry, to embark on the last adventure they will share with him without knowing where they are going." I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. And it's quite likely the vast majority of Potter fans agree as well. Why would anyone want the endings of both the book and this monumental series spoiled when the release of the final books is less than a month away? After years of anticipation, reading what happens in a series of posted spoilers on the Internet will almost certainly ruin the final book for you. And it could potentially ruin the series as well. This blogger is a "hater" when it comes to spoilers, and I've spoken out against this horrible habit before. Two posts in particular, Just say NO to spoilers!, and Help! Star Trek has fallen and can't get up!, make this clear to readers. Think about this: if Gabriel truly did hack into a computer and steal the book, then he or she has committed a serious crime. Definitely, Gabriel should be thrown in jail and Rowling's publishers should sue for damages. The self-alleged criminal, Gabriel, is very pointed in his desire to damage Rowling and her publishers. Gabriel says unequivocally that "We make this spoiler to make reading of the upcoming book useless and boring." This person wants to ruin your experience, and they want to damage 10 years of very hard work on the part of J.K. Rowling. Does anyone truly think J.K. began writing expecting to become a billionaire? She began writing because she had a story and characters whom she desired to bring to life. Now Gabriel is trying to get a tiny bit of fame by damaging 10 years of hard work. This is a criminal act and, if they truly did steal a copy of Rowling's final book, Gabriel needs to be treated as the criminal he truly is. If a copy was stolen, it is more likely Gabriel worked for the publisher rather than they were able to hack into their computers. In most cases where data in one form or another is stolen, leaks occur from the inside. But this is a personal theory. Ultimately, we may find that loser "Gabriel" was just telling a huge lie to get some attention, or to promote a pet theory. Regardless, I think fans everywhere need to avoid spoilers of any kind. The best reaction to people such as Gabriel is pity and contempt. Pity that they should be so immature and reckless, and contempt for their thoughtless actions. It is not "cool," or "admirable" in any way to do what loser Gabriel claims to have done. What we can know with certainty is this; Gabriel is either a thief, a liar, or both. Any way you look at it, this person is, without a doubt, a loser. And if you read spoilers stolen illegally from Rowling, then you're a loser too.

One Christian's Perspective on The Harry Potter Series

David Flanagan — Fri, 11 May 2007 18:38:25 EDT

On July 21, 2007, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, the last book of the wildly popular Harry Potter series, hits the stores. The release of the seventh book marks the end of a ten-year journey for fans all over the world. To date, the first six books of the series have sold more than 325 million copies and have been translated into 63 different languages. For the last book in the series, publishers have already announced they'll print a record-setting 12 million copies, just for distribution in the United States alone. Of course, the books are also becoming, one at a time, major motion pictures. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is scheduled for release on July 13, about a week before the final book goes on sale.So, to say that anticipation is growing among fans is an understatement. Take a bit of time to visit Potter-oriented blogs and you'll see that fan anticipation is growing exponentially. Understandably, fans are expressing both exhiliration at the prospect of having so many of their questions answered by the final book, and sadness at seeing the series come to its final close.And in the midst of the wild sucess enjoyed by this series, there has also been ongoing controversy surrounding it as well. It's ironic that, while the individual books in the series have all enjoyed high best-seller rankings, they also suffer high rankings on "banned" lists as well. Author J.K. Rowling even mentioned the fact that, in 2006, her books featured prominently on the year's list of most-banned books.As an evangelical Christian, I have listened to the "Harry Potter debate" unfold in our community since shortly after the release of Sorcerer's Stone. What surprised me was the fact that there were such strong feelings on both sides of the issue within the Christian community. I remember listening to a debate moderated by James Dobson on his show, Focus on The Family.Dobson didn't take a position; rather, he sat back and listened to his guests debate back and forth regarding the value vs. the danger of some of the themes in the book. These books do, after all, prominently feature the practice of witchcraft, with most of the story taking place at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.What could be clearer than this? The Bible condemns the practice of witchcraft. In Deuteronomy 18, versus 10 and 11, for example, we're told, "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead."What most people do not know, and what God is addressing in Deuteronomy, is the practice of witchraft in Canaan, which happened to commonly include ritual human sacrifice. As Deuteronomy tells us, and archeology has confirmed, newborn infants were often burned alive as sacrifices to their gods.Witchcraft was unacceptable then and it is unacceptable for believers today. I believe that and, ultimately, know that practicing "witchcraft" or "Wicca" as many call it today, is fundamentally (no pun intended), a rejection of God. That said, I know quite a few people who are Wiccans, including one who is a High Priestess, and I'm happy to count them as friends. I disagree with what they believe, they know I disagree, and we have some good debates regarding our beliefs.But I digress...The important question then is whether or not it is clear, based on Biblical exhortations, that Christians should avoid this series of books? Believe it or not, the answer is not a clear "yes" or "no." As I mentioned previously, there are devout Christians who adamantly oppose this series and those who who wholeheartedly endorse these books. So, where do I stand?It just so happens that I am one of those who wholeheartedly endorses this series. In order to explain my reasoning as well as my recommendations to fellow Christians who may not yet have read these books yet are considering it, I think it is necessary to step back a number of years to the time when I first learned to love reading.It was 1975, I was ten years old and was in the fourth grade at Germantown Elementary School in Annapolis, MD. One day I walked over to the library during a break in classes to see if I could find something interesting to read.When I entered the library, it was very busy, with the librarian frantically working to get books back on the shelves as quickly as students were pulling them off. I thought to myself, "the librarian should know what is worth reading," so I walked over to her, standing near a particular shelf of books with her book cart, where she was diligently creating order out of chaos.I asked her, "Could you help me find a good book?" She gave me hardly a glance. Instead, she looked quickly up to the nearest shelf, grabbed a book, and placed it in my hands. "Here," she said, "this is a good one." I looked down and read the title, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. I thanked her and walked off.I vividly recall opening the book to begin reading it later that same day. I remember because the book captured my attention quickly and I remember reading about a little girl named Lucy, who entered a wardrobe thinking it a good hiding place during a game of hide-and-seek with her two brothers and sister. Trying to hide as completele as possible, she walked farther and farther into the wardrobe, until she found herself in a quiet wood with snow falling all around.When I read this, my eyes widened and I said out loud to myself, "it's a magical wardrobe!" I was, no pun intended, enchanted. And my love of reading in general was greatly enhanced because of this wonderful book. Over the next few years I read all seven books in the series and loved every one of them.Now, many know that the author of those books, C.S. Lewis, was a good friend of his fellow Oxford Professor J.R.R. Tolkein, and was one of the greatest Christian apologists (defenders of the Christian faith) of the 20th century. His friend Tolkein had helped him move from devout atheism to devout Christianity. Lewis was a prolific author and the body of his work includes fantasy, sci-fi, Christian theology, and some biographical works.Lewis wrote the series we know today as The Chronicles of Narnia because he wanted to write a children's series that would help readers to feel the power of the Christian story. He did not write these books in an allegorical manner; rather, Lewis literally inserted Jesus into his Chronicles as Aslan, a great lion who created Narnia, was sacrificed on the Stone Table by the White Witch, and rose again to free his people from her tyranny.Through this mode of story-telling, Lewis hoped to teach a story readers likely already knew, but in a different way. For me, the strategy worked perfectly. Growing up, I longed to know the Aslan of those stories. And one day, mid-way through college, I met him in the person of Jesus, whom I gave my life over to and whom I today call Lord and Savior.But as a child, I read these books over and over again, longing to visit Narnia, and longing most of all to know God the way Narnians knew Aslan. A personal relationship with a Lord who saw through them, understood all the weaknesses of those who loved him, and loved them anyway with a love that transcended all understanding.It was many years before I understood that this is exactly what Jesus offers, a personal relationship. So, the Chronicles of Narnia gave me that first taste of what God really offered, not staid religiosity, but a personal walk with the creator of the universe.The lesson I ultimately learned from this experience was that stories, even ones which include magic, can still teach important moral lessons. And because of my love for these books, I was encouraged to read other series; including The Lord of The Rings. And, while J.R.R. Tolkien consciously presented a clear "good vs. evil" message, he did not overtly or covertly insert a Christian theme into his books.Regardless of the fact that both Tolkien and Lewis were devout Christians, there have been ongoing debates over the fact that protagonists in both series understand and, at times, employ magic to accomplish their goals. So, is the use of magic in the context of a fictional story a bad thing? Many Christians, and I include myself among them, do not believe so.Understanding this, one can better understand why there are many Christians like myself who have enjoyed the Harry Potter series. And in may ways I believe that this series is as significant as The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings.I did not begin reading the Potter books until late in 2005, seven years after the first book appeared. But then a co-worker began to loan me the books on tape and CD. I was so enchanted -- again, no pun intended -- by the books that, I finished listening to books one through six in the space of just about four months, the entire time thrilling at the quality of each of the books and the awesome narration skills of Jim Dale.I listened to the books while driving to and from work each day. With a 100-mile-per-day round trip, I was, at that time, a prolific audiobook consumer. And during those months of listening to the Potter books, I was never so happy to be stuck in traffic.Despite my own love for these books, other Christians might ask if there are worthwhile themes in this series from a Christian perspective? The answer is a definite yes!From a high-level perspective, some of the most important themes relate to love, family, friendship, loyalty, forgiveness, and even redemption. Specifically, we see the constant and overarching theme of love.Professor Dumbledore, the Hogwarts Headmaster, expresses the belief that love is more powerful than any magic several times, and tries to teach Harry that this is his only hope of defeating his arch-enemy, Lord Voldemort. Dumbledore is the personification of love, just as Voldemort is the personification of hate.So, you can see while we do not hear the words "good vs. evil" much in the series, we constantly see the theme of "love vs. hate." And the benefits of love and the consequences of hate are constantly, and quite effectively, portrayed by Rowling.The hate-filled Lord Voldemort loves no one, trusts no one, and confides in no one; not even his closest followers. Voldemort is utterly without mercy, eliminating anything and anyone who gets in his way. As you read about him, you see his psychotic personality. A genius, but one who is utterly controlled by his hate, fear, distrust, and ambition.In contrast, Dumbledore is ever-loving, always forgiving, and seeks always to influence his students in a positive way. In the sixth book of the series, Half-Blood Prince, Dumbeldore shows love and compassion even to one of his students who is threatening to kill him. Dumbledore believes in the power of love and lives his life in a manner that is consistent with his beliefs. And as Rowling hints throughout the series, Dumbelodore's insistence on the power of love will somehow be the key to victory over Voldemort and his followers.Another well-expressed theme in the series is the value of family. Harry Potter's parents were ruthlessly murdered by Voldemort when he was just an infant, and his non-magical relatives do not treat Harry well while raising him. So the family of one of his best friends from Hogwarts, Ron Weasly, takes him in and treats him as one of their own.Ron Weasley is one of seven children, a family which is poor in monetary terms but incredibly rich and alive with their love for each other. And Ron's parents show great love and devotion to Harry, showing Harry, and readers of the series, the joy and value of family.Here, Rowling does a phenomenal job of communcating something that many of us never understand, that a loving family life is worth far more than a mountain of gold. You feel right down to the depths of your soul what the young Harry Potter understands; he would gladly give up every ounce of his family's personal fortune to have his parents back.Overall, I think it difficult for anyone to argue these books are "devoid of value," as some claim. Like the Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings, the Harry Potter series is full of important values and lessons, only in the backdrop of a magical world.Does this mean that I recommend the Potter series unequivocally? No, I do not.Rather, I think that, for parents who are concerned, they should read through the books before their children and decide for themselves if they wish to let their children read them or not. For adults who feel the content, despite the positives, is too dark or too oriented on witchcraft, then I recommend they not read the series.Just as in every community, there are varying levels of opinion, I think it important for both Christians and non-Christians to respect those who might respectfully disagree with the themes written into the Harry Potter Series. And I place an emphasis on "respectful disagreement."In the end, this is a story, not a biography, and the events of the story are fictional. That said, what a wonderful experience this has been for fans of the series! A story this engaging and compelling does not come along very often, and we've had the opportunity to watch both the characters and the tale itself unfold and develop over the past ten years.It has been a great ride, and in July of this year, we'll see the conclusion of the series with the release of Deathly Hallows. Like other fans, I'm excited and sad to know that the final book is almost here.I wish her all the best and I truly appreciate the work she has done in the creation of this wonderful, inspiring, and worthwhile series of books. What an amazing adventure it has been so far.

Mercenary Media and the Hawthorne Effect

David Flanagan — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:39:04 EDT

As nearly everyone in the United States now knows, On April 16, 2007, around 7:15am, Cho Seung-Hui murdered two students in a dormitory on the campus of Virginia Tech. Two hours later, he entered Norris Hall and began his now infamous shooting rampage.What was Cho doing in the two hours between incidents? Initially, experts thought he might have been biding his time, making plans, and even hiding from authorities.In actuality, Cho spent the time assembling and mailing what Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News termed his "multimedia manifesto." I believe it was more accurately described by Wall Street Journal Opinion columnist Peggy Noonan as the "self-serving meanderings of a crazy, self-indulgent narcissist." Once Cho's package had been mailed, he returned to campus where he chained some of Norris Hall's doors from the inside and began a shooting spree that claimed the lives of an additional 30 students.Unfortunately, shortly after NBC received the package from Cho, they chose to air some of what he had sent to them, knowing that it meant a guaranteed ratings boost in the highly competitive nightly news market. As expected, NBC Nightly News scored a ratings triumph for that evening with a 7.4 rating/15 share, easily beating ABC and soundly trumping CBS.Though NBC executives remain unsure as to why the package was mailed to their network, they defend their decision to air Cho's media. Many question the decision, including Brian Williams who the New York Times reports as saying, "[t]his was a sick business tonight, going on the air with this."Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist and ABC News consultant said, on Good Morning America, "If anybody cares about the victims in Blacksburg and if anybody cares about their children, stop showing this video now. Take it off the Internet. This is a social catastrophe. Showing the video is a social catastrophe." Welner went on to say that Cho's rants do nothing to aid in our understanding of the crime and, instead, validate his delusional behavior. Local police and federal investigators reportedly concur with the final portion of Welner's assessment.Some studies suggest that perhaps Mr. Welner did not go far enough in describing the negative impact of NBC's decision. Research regarding a certain "effect" conducted by Harvard University back in the mid-to-late 1920's, which researchers later dubbed the "Hawthorne Effect," indicates that the short-term ratings boost NBC Nightly News received may translate into a long-term problem for everyone else.Briefly, the Hawthorne Effect is a phenomenon where behavior is influenced and/or changed following new or increased attention from others. The "others" generally refers to researchers who, in 1924 were trying to find ways to positively affect the performance of factory workers. What the researchers found was that any scrutiny of their behaviors and/or working environment inevitably led to an increase in the performance of the factory workers.The initial studies conducted at the Hawthorne Works factory complex ran from 1924 to 1932, but numerous other studies of this phenomenon broadened the definition of the Hawthorne Effect to mean that people's behavior and performance almost always changes following any new or increased attention.The implication here is that a group or organization can increase certain behaviors through the increased attention given to any person or even to a particular phenomenon. Based on this research, there can be little doubt that the mainstream media projects a similar Hawthorne-like influence over anything or anyone it chooses to focus upon.This point was perfectly illustrated during the Oprah Winfrey show on April 18, just two days after the shooting had occurred on the Virginia Tech campus. At one point during the show, Oprah spoke with guests Darrell and Craig Scott, father and brother of Rachel Scott. Rachel was one of the first to be gunned down at Columbine High almost eight years ago. Darrell and Craig have spent the past eight years traveling to different schools to speak with students in the hope of preventing future shootings.During their time on Oprah, both men were emphasizing the choices that are made both by societies and news organizations. Craig commented that his big concern is "the attention and focus that's put on the shooter. 'It's the most bloody, the biggest, the record...' and records can be broken. And I have found students that actually idolize the two shooters at Columbine."Ironically, shortly after Oprah, NBC announced it had received Cho's package. That same evening, NBC chose to do exactly what Darrell and Craig Scott advised against: they placed all -- or almost all -- of their attention on the shooter.In their subsequent reports, NBC noted at least two references to Columbine on the part of Cho, who referred to them at one point as "martyrs." Unfortunately, NBC's decision to focus on Cho and to publish his "manifesto" will no doubt make him a martyr to other disturbed individuals who will, no doubt, try to "break his record."The Hawthorne Effect dictates that the media's focus on the negative behaviors exhibited by Cho and other mass murderers will almost certainly encourage those same behaviors in others. Mass media as a whole generally tends to focus more on the negative and, in this way, may actually be encouraging more negative behaviors. This is good for business perhaps, but bad for society.Based on what we know regarding positive and negative behaviors and our ability to influence those behaviors, it is possible that NBC's decision will help fuel the fire of the next murder spree. Jack Dunphy, National Review columnist and former police officer, called NBC's decision "mercenary," underscoring the fact that airing Cho's tapes, writings, and photos gives him "in death that which was denied him in life: attention, power, and even sympathy."Dunphy goes on to express his belief that, "in America today one need not read them to know there are websites where even now can be found expressions of sympathy for a man whose 32 victims have yet to be buried." Steve Flaherty, Virginia's police superintendent, also expressed his disappointment that Cho's images were broadcast. "I'm sorry that you all were exposed to these images," he was quoted as saying. If we know with such a high degree of certainty that the media in general has the formidable ability to influence behavior positively or negatively, what then does this say of their responsibility?All speculation aside regarding the media's solemn duties to society, it is interesting to note that Cho Seung-Hui, one undeniably troubled young man, was able to manipulate so much of the mainstream media establishment, thus achieving a level of fame that he otherwise would never have expected to gain. How many out there know the names of even a single one of Cho's 32 victims, or any of the names of survivors who managed to escape his killing spree for that matter?Mention the names of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and many would likely know that these are the names of the two boys who gunned down their fellow students at Columbine High, but if the name of Rachel Joy Scott were to be mentioned to those same individuals, would anyone know of this young lady's heroic example? Do you? Unfortunately, the answer is likely to be "no," and now we know how truly serious our problem has become.The innocent and the brave victims of Columbine and now Virginia Tech are quickly forgotten, or were never known in the first place. Meanwhile the worst elements of our society, and their worst actions, are elevated.The upshot of the relevant research on human behavior is this: to focus on depravity is not only to raise awareness of it, but also to create more instances of it in the future; a negative pattern of increasing negativity. This is good for the media business and bad for society.

Free Speech For Me, Not For Thee

David Flanagan — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:46:18 EDT

On April 4, 2007, Don Imus, the famous mumbling radio grump, set his 30-year career as a shock jock back somewhere between five and fifteen years when he described the highly successful Rutgers ladies' basketball as "nappy-headed hos." He was trying to be amusing, yet cutting edge, but wound up being vilified in the media, by community leaders, and, of course, by most politicians. Based on what he said, he deserves every bit of it. To his credit, Imus admits as much.Now a wider debate has begun regarding this kind of derogatory language, and I think it's a debate that is long overdue. What Imus said was abhorrent; as well, it was something you can hear every day if you listen to nearly any of the top 10 rap songs currently playing in the United States.Michelle Malkin, syndicated columnists and Fox News Analyst, noted recently, "Imus gets a two-week suspension. What kind of relief do we get from this deadening, coarsening, dehumanizing barrage from young, black rappers and their music industry enablers who have helped turn America into Tourette's Nation?"How massive is that "dehumanizing barrage" which emanates from the rap community? A search of SongLyrics’ database was quite revealing. Beginning just with the words Imus used on April 4th and running a search of rap artists’ lyrics, the word "nappy" showed up in hundreds of songs. Some of the lines include the following: • "I can't stand no sneaker-wearing nappy head bit_h (word)" - 2Pac: Song lyrics from "Fu__ Friends" • "Violent J won't be ganked by no nappy-headed, bare-footed, crackheaded sewer skank" - Insane Clown Posse: Song lyrics from "Ghetto Zone Lyrics." • "Cuz she's got a gang o' kidz nappy-heads and all dirty and she's gettin pimped by a n___ that's thirty." - N.W.A: Lyrics from "Just Don't Bite It."As for the term "hos," I don't think it's necessary to even go there. Referencing females as "hos" in the rap genre is so common that any given search will likely turn up over a thousand uses of the word. The same goes, of course, for rappers who use even worse kinds of language to describe women and who very often in their videos dress those women up in skin-tight outfits and put them on display like pieces of meat.None of that excuses what Imus said during his show; instead, it underscores some problems in our culture. First, we have a growing number of artists who demean women. Secondly, this demeaning language is tolerated. Finally, tolerance for such language is highly inconsistent.This inconsistency was perfectly illustrated by rapper Snoop Dogg during an interview with MTV where he stated that "Rappers are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money." It sounds as if, here, Snoop Dogg is saying it's okay to demean any woman who has not "made it to the next level," but then he goes on to make his most revealing statement by saying, "we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls... I will not let them mutha-----as say we in the same league as him." In other words, if you're old and white, it's wrong; but if you're black -- and young, I suppose -- it's okay.Unfortunately, the reality of this thinking is borne out by the overall reaction to Imus’ idiotic statement. Imus' career is faltering over what he said while rap artists rake in millions of dollars for saying that and much worse. Coming from Imus' mouth, it is "hate speech." Coming from Snoop Dogg, or 2Pac, or a hundred other artist's mouths, these are "..songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel," as Snoop Dogg so eloquently stated during his interview.What we're learning with this whole Imus flap is that there is a complicated hierarchy of privilege when it comes to the way people in this country define “free speech.” As a white conservative male, I would appear to reside on the lowest rung of the hierarchy; meaning the rules for me are far more stringent than for anyone else.I understand there’s some reason for this given the history of this country and rights that were denied to women and minorities for significant periods of time. I just don’t understand, though, how it is okay for women to demean themselves and for minorities to demean themselves ever! Why should it be okay for anyone to use race or gender slurs ever to insult someone else?Snoop Dogg's comments underscore our stilted thinking when it comes to the meaning of free speech. During the interview, Snoop Dogg sounded more outraged that someone would dare compare his song lyrics and public statements (which are far worse) to an “old-ass” white guy who uses slang invented by the “gangsta rap” culture. I think the translation here is this: What is free speech for me is not free speech for thee.Just yesterday, Mediabistro reported that Joan Rivers, upon exiting an invitation-only lunch sponsored by Arianna Huffington for women in the media, spoke to reporters saying, "You’re better off out here! That was a roomful of bitches in there!" Funny if you're a woman perhaps, but what if a man had said such a thing? What we're dealing with is "gated-speech." There are certain people who can enter into that realm of derogatory speech, but those who do not belong are barred - with dire consequences should they try.Turning Don Imus into a sacrificial lamb is not the path to creating a more civil society. Neither is passing more stringent laws via the FCC regarding what we should be saying and what we should not be saying over the airwaves. In a free society, you should say what you mean and mean what you say. At the same time, is it ever really necessary and useful to bring down a whole class of people based on race, gender, or economic status? This is what we see with Don Imus' statement, and with Joan Rivers' comment, and from Snoop Dogg's interview with MTV, and with hundreds of rap songs that fill the airwaves every day across the country. Am I wrong?

Steve Irwin Was The "Crocodile Champion"

David Flanagan — Mon, 4 Sep 2006 13:24:07 EDT

Terrible news came today in the report of the accidental death of Steve Irwin. Irwin was filming a new nature special with his crew when he was stabbed in the heart by a poisonous Stingray barb off Port Douglas in north Queensland, The Australian reports.They should have called Steve Irwin "The Crocodile Champion," not "Crocodile Hunter." Irwin always showed a passionate love for nature in general and crocodiles in particular. His enthusiasm was infectious and I always considered him to be a great role model for kids as he always tried to instill for all viewers the need to understand and care for their environment. Irwin got himself in a bit of trouble a couple of years back when he was filmed with his baby boy tucked under one arm while he was holding bait out with the other to an aggressive-looking crocodile. There was a surge of complaints when that video circulated. The greatest outcry came from seeing the bait in Irwin's hand and the baby tucked under his other arm. They looked subliminally similar in that they are both just hanging there. Other than that, it appeared to me the baby was in no real danger.I've posted a link to a YouTube video showing not the overblown incident I just mentioned, but a much more touching one and much more indicative of Irwin's love for nature, where he is crying over the loss of a crocodile. This clip shows you why he was more "Crocodile Champion" than "Crocodile Hunter." I'm afraid there was no one like Irwin and there likely never will be. He was an enthusiast, a naturalist, and a great salesperson in that he did more to encourage protection of the environment and wildlife around the world than Al Gore could ever hope to do with his science fantasy disaster film, An Inconvenient Truth. Ironically, some of the so-called "science" behind Truth has already been undercut by another story in The Australian, which mentions that, "[the] world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years." Irwin's strategy of teaching children to love nature and to care for its creatures is, by far, the best possible approach. May his influence continue to live for a long time to come.

Are Democrats Opposed to Democracy?

David Flanagan — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:02:03 EDT

On Tuesday the Washington Post reported that "Critics of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's independent run to keep his job attacked on two fronts Monday, with one group asking an elections official to throw him out of the Democratic Party and a former rival calling on state officials to keep his name off the November ballot." Lieberman staffers have of course identified these moves as dirty politics. But is it unreasonable to ask election officials to throw Senator Lieberman out of the Democratic Party, or is this merely a dangerous request? Henry Lowendorf, of The New Haven Peace Council, underscored the fact that "[t]here was an open vote, and he was voted out. He joined a different party." True enough. Though there are several Democrats in Washington who have openly declared their support for Senator Lieberman, he did lose in his party's state primary race and could technically be thrown out of the party if he chooses to run against the official Democratic candidate. But what if Senator Lieberman is expelled from his party and goes on to win in November as currently expected? Having been summarily rejected by his party, would he be as inclined to caucus with them in the future? Which is likely why John Orman, a Fairfield University poli-sci professor who gave up on his challenge to Lieberman last year, filed a complaint on Monday asking that Lieberman's name not be included on the state ballot. The Post notes that Orman has accused Senator Lieberman of creating "a fake political party." "He's doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot." Certainly he is. And as long as it is legal, why should anyone have a problem with this? It seems to me that Mr. Orman himself was doing anything he could to get his name on the ballot not that long ago. Unfortunately, he raised about $1000 to Lieberman's $3.8 million in the same period of time. Which underscores the fact that Lamont's ability to launch his campaign was due in major part to his ability to utilize his personal fortune to fund his campaign. For all the fervor anti-war activists bring to the table, rarely are there funds attached. As I noted in a recent post, Lieberman will, at the very least be able to match Lamont in dollar-for-dollar campaign spending. But with Lieberman still in the race, Lamont must now run to the center and shed the one-dimensional stigma he gained as the "anti-war" candidate. Lamont won the Democratic primary with only 15% of the voting population in Connecticut, but did so narrowly, and recent polls show Lieberman with a 12-point lead among likely voters. At this point, Connecticut voters know Lamont as well as they do Lieberman, so a 12-point spread will not be easy to erase. And the senator is almost certain to receive a significant level of support from Connecticut Republicans who are well aware of the fact that their candidate has no chance of winning in the upcoming election. Meanwhile, CBS News notes that Senator Lieberman has been retooling his campaign for the upcoming election. A recent statement from the senator notes that his new hires are "not just among the best in their respective businesses, but they bring a deep knowledge of Connecticut from across the political spectrum, which will be essential to our effort to build a broad coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and independents." CBS News outlines the Senator's recent campaign changes and quotes Lamont's campaign spokeswoman, Liz Dupont-Diehl who asks "[t]hese new appointments beg the question: Who is the real Joe Lieberman?" But such comments serve only to underscore the political naivete of Lamont and company. Politicians often make such staff changes, or shuffle staff around to bring in new players with critical areas of expertise. Senator Kerry and Howard Dean did much the same during their primary and general election campaigns in 2003 and 2004. In light of recent poll results -- and naive comments from a certain campaign spokeswoman -- Lamont would be well advised to consider some of his own staff changes. And Speaking of Lamont, some recent changes in his rhetoric beg the question: Who is the real Ned Lamont? As James Taranto of OpinionJournal noted last week, Lamont has done an abrupt about-face on some of the issues, most notably in the area of universal health care, first criticizing and then echoing Lieberman's own stand on the issue within a span of three months. Unfortunately, rhetoric changes will likely not fool voters. Extensive press coverage of Mr. Lamont's during the primary made him a national figure and left little doubt that his is the anti-war candidacy. Despite what Democrats continue to believe, an anti-war message is not the silver bullet election issue they've been seeking. Which is why anti-war activists are now seeking to expel Lieberman from the Democratic Party and, if possible, to keep him off of the ballots in November. Such tactics will likely backfire, further alienating the swing voters whom Lamont so desperately needs if he is to overcome a 12-point deficit by November.

Why Lieberman Will Win

David Flanagan — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:10:28 EDT

Democrats are starting to pressure Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) to step back. It has been reported that Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), is calling on Lieberman to give up his bid for re-election as an independent as a matter of party loyalty. Citing his own Presidential primary loss and subsequent support of the party nominee, Dean told NBC’s Meet the Press that “[t]he way to help this country is to limit Republican power.” Democratic blogger Josh Marshall is also calling on all liberals and progressives to back the party’s candidate, which means throwing support behind the winner of last week’s primary, Ned Lamont. But wait a minute, where were all these loyalist Democrats when Senator Lieberman was fighting for his political life during the Democratic primary? If memory serves, many were loathe to come to his aid for fear of offending the angry left, a group which was actively working to undermine one of their party's most loyal and respected members. So, these loyalists held back during the primary, the Senator lost, and now they want him to show the kind of loyalty that they were unwilling to show? This is a classic double standard.Furthermore, not only did Lieberman see less support during his primary, those who did show up to support him were treated in a manner that was, to say the least, less than courteous. Lanny Davis, special counsel to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, writes that his experience campaigning for Lieberman during the primary exposed him to the hatred and vitriol of many on the left who are reviling the Senator for his decision.As for Lieberman's peers in Congress -- Senators Kerry and Clinton, for example -- most of them offered their best wishes from afar, all the while reminding angry left bloggers that they would "support the winning candidate." I guess you could say they were with him in spirit, right up to the point where he lost. Then not so much after that.Now that the election is over, all of the Senator's "loyal" - but distant - friends back in Washington are urging him to "do the right thing." In other words, Senator Lieberman is being asked to do as party leaders say, not as they do.Yup, that sounds like the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to me.But not so fast. Lieberman warned his party back in July that, if he lost the primary, he would continue on as an independent. It should have been apparent then to DNC leaders that a potential disaster was brewing. And, while Senator Lieberman has assured Democrats he will continue to caucus with them, there is no longer any guarantee, is there?However, if DNC leaders go whole hog to defeat the Senator, and he wins anyway, well, that could spell utter disaster. What if Senator Lieberman decides, for instance, that the GOP would be a nice place to visit... permanently?All this in a year when Democrats seem to have their best chance since their 1994 route of regaining power. Now one man with consistent values, Joseph I. Lieberman, could be the nail in the coffin of their hopes and ambitions for 2006. An MSNBC piece posted the other day spoke of a number of issues that contributed to Lieberman’s defeat, including his support for the Iraq war and his refusal to filibuster to block a vote on Supreme Court Justice Alito’s nomination, among other things. Wait a minute. Were there a number of issues which brought about the Lamont victory? Everything I had heard and read in the press before the election seemed to indicate that the primary was all about Iraq, not a Senate filibuster or anything else. Now, all of a sudden, we have MSNBC reporter Tom Curry telling us that it isn’t? In light of the astounding revelation offered by Curry, I felt it might be useful to go back and see what else this intrepid MSNBC reporter had written. On August 3, about a week before the primary, Mr. Curry wondered whether Joe Lieberman’s political obituary might read “another casualty of the Iraq war.”Unless I'm in need of the Da Vinci code to properly translate this statement, it appears to me that Mr. Curry was singing a different tune before the primary. Just to be fair, I read the entire article and not once did I see any reference to an issue other than Senator Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and his seemingly close ties with the Bush administration.However, to give credit where it is due, Mr. Curry does an admirable job in his August 14 article spelling out exactly why Lieberman has every reason to be confident of a win in November, pointing out that Bruce Bialosky, a leading Republican supporter from California, is attempting to garner financial support for Lieberman from the people on his political list. Bialosky describes Lieberman as a “great American” and characterizes Lamont as clueless.Agreed.Lamont, a political neophyte, is little more than a one-issue wonder. He has publicly and repeatedly asked the question, “Do we want to keep fighting in Iraq or do we want to start bringing the troops home?” And most media outlets transmitted that message faithfully in hopes that Lamont would indeed win in the primary.So, whatever else happens in the larger election come November, Lieberman at least will win another term in office. The very fact that the MSM focused so heavily upon the Lieberman/Lamont race works to the Senator's advantage. Now moderates and conservatives all over the country know what happened, and they are fully aware of the stakes. And because they understand how much we stand to lose should we withdraw from Iraq, moderates and conservatives are far more likely to support Lieberman in the run-up to the November election, and are more likely, in my opinion, to pull the lever for him on election day. Will Lamont enjoy a similar surge in support from the anti-war left? Not likely. They threw everything they had, it seemed, into the primary. Even then, Lamont had to use 4 million of his own money to eke out a win.Candidate Lamont had his day in the sun. Now it's Senator Lieberman's turn. And Lieberman will win.