A surprising new theory to explain the current rise in global temperatures has been posited by a team of mathematicians (hey, if politicians and movie stars can be climate experts, why not mathematicians?).
Their model says the known cycles of the Earth’s oceans — the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, El Nino (Southern Oscillation) and the North Pacific Oscillation — all tend to try to synchronize with each other.
The theory is based on a branch of mathematics known as Sychronized Chaos. The math predicts the degree of coupling to increase over time, causing the solution to “bifurcate,” or split. Then, the synchronization vanishes. The result is a climate shift.
Eventually the cycles begin to sync up again, causing a repeating pattern of warming and cooling, along with sudden changes in the frequency and strength of El Nino events.
Their model predicts that the warming will reverse around 2033, eventually leading to temperatures cooler than today’s.
Whether or not the theory holds up, at least it is an objective attempt to analyze data in a scientific manner, rather than steamroll opposition through hysteria and invective.
Researchers at Purdue University are getting closer to perfecting a process that generates hydrogen on demand, using only water and an alloy of aluminum and gallium.
This development holds promise as that elusive power source that will someday reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while producing almost no polluting waste.
Jaron Lanier has been called a “cyberspace Renaissance man,” an eclectic talent with impressive credentials in academia, music, computer science, and art. The Encyclopaedia Britannica lists him as one of history’s 300 or so greatest inventors. He is also a prolific writer, who frequently explores metaphysical topics dealing with the nature of human consciousness and its relation to the natural world.
One topic that Lanier has addressed is the sharp divide that exists between science and religion. He is no friend of fundamentalist religion, but he deplores the open hostility that intellectuals often display against any and all expressions of religious faith. For example, in a piece he wrote last year, Lanier argues that traditional religionists aren’t the only threat to intellectual vigor:
While the left is frequently associated with college campuses and braininess, it can also spread anti-intellectual sentiment, and the New Age isn’t the only way this happens. I’ve seen recent K-12 math books that focus more on multiculturalism and surface image than on math, for instance. The anti-intellectual component of the American character has been triumphant in the classroom for all too many students. This scares me as an American, because I wonder what the country will do to make money when these kids grow up. The goal should be better informed kids who think it’s cool to work towards honestly understanding the world (which is a quick populist shorthand for doing science.)
In a more recent piece, Lanier takes this line of thought further. He asks,
Why should a scientist show any degree of acknowledgment, much less friendliness, toward topics that are so big or mysterious that they can almost certainly never be addressed experimentally?
Some answers are: Because to pretend to be certain that such big questions don’t exist is to be dishonest. Because noticing what I’ll call “permanent mysteries” evokes wonder. And most important, because people are afraid to die, and they sometimes find hope in the unresolved status of the biggest questions. Take away that hope and you hand victory to whatever creep can give it back.
I don’t agree with all of Lanier’s suggestions for how to bridge the gap between science and faith, but it’s refreshing to hear an intellectual at least acknowledge that faith has a place at the table.
I’m sure that Lauren Caitlin Upton, Miss Teen South Carolina, is a bright, articulate young woman — not to mention stunningly beautiful. But you wouldn’t know it listening to her response to a simple question during the recent Miss Teen USA pageant.
Note the pageant host working hard to stifle a laugh.
After several years of hearing others drone on and on about their fantasy football teams, leagues, players, games, etc., I am finally sticking a toe in the water. I and nine other guys from church have set up a FF league.
Our draft party was conducted tonight. After the first few rounds, I had no clue who the available players were, so they were pretty much blind picks. Still, I came up with a pretty decent team, I think. Peyton Manning (QB), backed up by Matt Leinart; RBs Edgerrin James, DeAngelo Williams, and Adrian Peterson; WR Deion Branch; K Jason Elam; and a scattering of other players that you may or may not be familiar with. Oh, and the Pittsburg Steelers DST.
I will probably do just enough research to make sure I have a legal lineup every week. Beyond that, I’m only in it for the trash talk and male bonding. I’ll report every week on my team’s progress.
This is the sort of blowout you’d expect to see in a youth game — except in youth leagues, the game would be run-ruled to avoid the total humiliation of the losing team. Quick stats on the winning team:
57 at-bats
29 hits
30 runs
Two grand slams
One player entered the game batting .179. By game end, his batting average was .262.
Fortunately for the losing pitcher, he is tagged with only one loss.
Cal Thomas sees two characteristics shared by religious fundamentalists and the current crop of global warming alarmists:
One is the exclusion and sometimes suppression of any and all information that challenges or contradicts the belief one wishes to impose on all. The other is the use of the state in pursuit of their objectives, overriding the majority’s will.
He documents the first trait in some of the sloppy global warming scare journalism that has circulated of late, such as the recent (and discredited) NASA claim that 1998 was the hottest year on record.
The second trait is established by this curious coincidence:
One can get a sense of who is telling the truth about global warming by the company the concept keeps. Most of the disciples of global warming are liberal Democrats who never have enough of our money and believe there are never enough regulations concerning the way we lead our lives. That ought to be enough to give everyone pause, along with emerging evidence that the global warming jihadists may be more full of hot air than the climate they claim is about to burn us up.
The Democrats swept into power in Congress in 2006, largely on the failure of the Republicans to deliver. Now it’s their turn to look like blundering idiots. Public approval of Congress is now at only 17%, an historic low. Bush’s approval rating is almost double that (32%). What went wrong?
Peter Wehner provides a good summary of how the Democrats blew it. He concludes:
Republicans have an opportunity. The anger that was directed toward the GOP is now being re-directed toward Democrats, who are finding that governing is more difficult than merely opposing.
Glenn Reynolds links to two stories about failing health care systems, one in Britain, and one in our own VA hospitals, and asks the probing question: “Hmm. What’s the common factor?”
If you can’t figure this one out, you should lose your right to vote.
According to a recent poll of 13- to 24-year-olds conducted by AP and MTV, nearly three-quarters of young people say their relationship with their parents makes them happy. In fact, no other element of their lives is as instrumental in providing them with happiness as their family — not music, not friends, not money, not alcohol, not even sex.
There was more good news in the survey. Roughly half say that religion and spirituality is important. The vast majority believe in marriage and want to get married some day.
Other interesting details support the “family matters” thesis, but from a negative angle: Children from divorced homes are less happy than those from stable homes; white children are happier than black or Hispanic children — perhaps there is a coorelation with the higher rates of fractured families in those populations?
Of course, Bush and the Republicans have so ruined the country that these happy young people are doomed to a life of poverty, despair, and fear. They just don’t realize it yet. At least that’s the message our politicians and media are working hard to promote.
In an opinion piece in today’s edition of USA Today, Tom Krattenmaker argues that atheists and secularists can be just as dogmatic and close-minded as the religionists they so despise. He describes an email exchange he had recently with a staff member of a humanist organization:
Discussing the relationship between science and religion, I had expressed my view that religion should leave scientific research to the scientists and devote itself, along with the fields of ethics and philosophy, to the mighty issues of the human condition: good and evil, the meaning of life, the nature of love and so forth. To which my correspondent replied: Why would something as inherently foolish as religion deserve a place at the table for discussions of that magnitude?
As someone who has studied religion and attended progressive churches, I was aghast. I had expected an articulate and intelligent advocate for the non-religious worldview to display a more nuanced understanding of that which she stood against.
Krattenmaker — no “right-wing Christian nut” himself — points out that this kind of sweeping generalization is more and more coming to define atheism’s intellectual foundation, as documented in recent bestselling books by atheist authors. If all they can do is flail wildly at the admitted excesses of religion, then what is the reasonable alternative? Especially when history offers just as many examples of secular excesses.
Krattenmaker quotes an earlier piece from atheist Jacques Berlinerblau, who is dismayed at this decline in secular thought:
Can an atheist or agnostic commentator discuss any aspect of religion for more than 30 seconds without referring to religious people as imbeciles, extremists, mental deficients, fascists, enemies of the common good … conjure men (or) irrationalists?
Maybe the problem is not religion or secularism, but a more fundamental trait that theists and atheists share alike: human nature itself. Regardless of how we approach the problem, we’re all grappling with the same issue, i.e., human imperfection and its consequences. That’s why atheists can be just as close-minded and irrational as people of faith. Let’s all just admit it, and set about to discuss possible solutions with reason and respect.
I just saw The Bourne Ultimatum this evening, the final installment of the Bourne Trilogy. It had all the elements that have made this franchise such a hit with moviegoers: action, intrigue, ingenious super-sleuth technology, shocking plot twists, and the requisite car chase. Not to mention, Matt Damon makes a really cool spy. The only negative I would give the movie is the herky-jerky camera movement. The technique was quite effective in the first two movies, but in this episode the wild camera swings were way over the top.
The movie is a huge hit, which raises the question of whether or not there will be a fourth movie. Chris Nashawity holds out some promise, but suggests there may be a hiatus for awhile. There’s one very obvious reason:
There’s the question of what the superspy would do in a fourth film. Robert Ludlum wrote only three Bourne books before he died, in 2001, and then Eric Van Lustbader put out the next two in his stead. In any case, the films have never had much in common with the books, titles notwithstanding. ”I just don’t see what story you could do that would feel right,” says Damon. ”It’s not like you can bump him on the head again and give him amnesia. Someone suggested we could do one where Bourne loses his car keys . . . .” If that’s what they’re coming up with, maybe a break isn’t a bad idea.
UPDATE (8/7/07): NY Post columnist Cindy Adams announces a fourth sequel is a “done deal.” But no quotes to back up that claim.
UPDATE (9/3/07): Judging from the link stats on this blog, there must be a lot of interest in another Bourne movie. Every weekend — when people are most likely to go to a movie — this particular blog entry gets barraged with hits. Apparently folks rush home from the theater and immediately get online to see when the next one is coming out.
UPDATE (12/7/07): Peter Sciretta sees evidence Matt Damon is now open to the possibility of a fourth movie. Quoting Damon:
“If Paul Greengrass, maybe years down the road, was interested in doing another one, then I would do it, too,” he said. “I don’t think either of us completely put the character to bed yet.”
But given the mediocre quality of the last two books, Sciretta thinks Hollywood might be better served to come up with an entirely new plotline for a fourth movie.
UPDATE (12/28/07): For his part, director Paul Greengrass won’t commit to doing a fourth movie — but neither will he rule it out.
I remember at the end of Supremacy you could just feel people coming out of the theatres wanting another one. You could just feel it in the audience and they’re the people who should decide that – not me or the studio or anybody else. If an audience wants another one that’ll be because there are some unresolved questions at the end of this one. They won’t want one if they feel that the story has come to its end.
So what is it, Bourne fans: Do we want a fourth movie?
UPDATE (6/25/08): Producer Frank Marshall has announced that shooting of the fourth movie will begin in the summer of 2009, with release scheduled for 2010. The story line will be something original involving South America — nothing based on any of the books that followed the Robert Ludlum originals.
We have frequently quoted Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, and former NASA climatologist, on the subject of global warming. His recent primer on the whole global warming debate was especially good.
Dr. Spencer has followed up that piece with a report on the current status of the GW debate. He offers cautious hope that the tide is turning in the scientific community.
I’m happy to report that we skeptics have been getting a steady stream of new recruits. In the last year or so, more and more scientists have been coming out of the closet and admitting they’ve had some doubts about this whole global warming thing.
In fact, chances are that your favorite TV weather person is a closet skeptic (unless it’s Heidi Cullen). But please observe the “don’t ask – don’t tell” rule. Most broadcast meteorologists are not ready for the public embarrassment that would accompany their outing.
And lastly, I have been heartened by new scientific intelligence that we skeptics have been gathering. I can predict there are more surprises to come, with some pretty powerful tactical weapons yet to be deployed. Climate scientists are beginning to question long held assumptions – which is almost always the first step toward a major scientific discovery. So stay tuned.
He also describes some embarrassing errors that have recently been uncovered regarding how climate data is collected, errors that significantly undercut the whole basis for the current scare.
After an abortive attempt to resume riding my bicycle to work last week, I had a successful ride today. After so long out of practice, my legs are a little stiff, but it felt good to be riding again.
However, peddling home in 99 degree weather wasn’t much fun.
Some liberals are making noises about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, a relic of a bygone era of broadcast media. This campaign is fueled by the complaint that talk radio is dominated by conservatives, and that’s just not fair. So the government needs to step in and level the playing field.
There are two reasons why this is a bad idea.
First, how could such a rule possibly be enforced with any credibility? How could you sort out all the disparate radio voices up and down the political spectrum and categorize them into tidy little boxes of “conservative” and “liberal” (or whatever)? Put Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, and all the rest of the “monolithic conservative” broadcasters in the same room, and I guarantee you would have a donnybrook of a debate on all kinds of issues. (Which, of course, you wouldn’t have with a room full of liberals, who specialize in squelching debate.)
And who would be responsible for determining what is “fair” or not? Do we really trust a government bureaucracy to do a well-balanced job of that? The unenforceability of this Doctrine is one reason it was killed years ago.
Second, “fairness” is really not the issue here. That’s just a smokescreen for the real agenda, which is more sinister. As Tom Finnigan notes:
The health of any democracy rests on the freedom of people to unabashedly criticize their elected officials. While the alleged aim of speech regulation is to preserve choices for the public, a better explanation is the inherent tendency of authority to snuff out threats to its power. The desire to suppress dissent is not limited to Democrats. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) recently complained, “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”
That statement should send chills down the back of any civil libertarian. Liberals may be slow to defend conservative talk radio hosts. But they should remember that talk radio is meant to entertain, as well as inform. Arguing a point in a colorful, spirited manner is a far cry from being “hateful.” More importantly, allowing the government to shape political debate could lead to the purging of all anti-Establishment opinions—left, right, or upside down—from the airwaves.
Think about it. Why is this discussion focused solely on talk radio? Why shouldn’t the Fairness Doctrine be applied to newspapers (mostly liberal) or television broadcast networks (mostly liberal)? While we’re going that direction, let’s bring publishing houses, news magazines — even internet blogs like this one — under the scope of this rule. Force every information outlet to the same standard of bland “evenness,” so that nobody, and no idea, has the upper hand. And remember, who will enforce this absolute control of information flowing to the public? Why, The Government, of course.
Which is precisely why the founding fathers enshrined freedom of speech as the bedrock of our civil liberties. What part of the first amendment to the Constitution do people not understand?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Enjoy your freedom of speech — while you still have it.
Glenn Reynolds calls attention to a new book by Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg that promises to change the tone of the global warming debate. Amazon.com has a guest review by bestselling author — and global warming skeptic — Michael Crichton. Crichton concludes:
In some of the most disturbing chapters, Lomborg recounts what leading climate figures have said about anyone who questions the orthodoxy, thus demonstrating the illiberal, antidemocratic tone of the current debate. Lomborg himself takes the larger view, explaining in detail why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems we face.
In the end, Lomborg’s concerns embrace the planet. He contrasts our concern for climate with other concerns such as HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, and providing clean water to the world. In the end, his ability to put climate in a global perspective is perhaps the book’s greatest value. Lomborg and Cool It are our best guides to our shared environmental future.
I repeat: The current hysteria surrounding global warming will someday be taught in universities as a good example of how not to do science.
Bruce Bartlett in the L.A. Timesnotes a growing, if grudging, respect for Hillary Clinton from some of the major voices on the right: Kathryn Lopez, Rich Lowry, and William Kristol. Despite all the Hillary hatred in the past, they are beginning to see her as the least liberal of the Democratic candidates.
On economics, Clinton seemed likely to be a rerun of her husband’s administration: fiscally conservative, free-trade-oriented, pragmatic. She confirmed my conclusion in a May 29 speech on economic policy. In it, Clinton said, “There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets.” That’s about as good as any conservative can hope for from a Democrat.
Clinton’s voting record also shows that she is far from the most liberal member of the Senate. According to the National Journal, she ranked 32nd last year, with a rating of 70.2 (100 being perfectly liberal). Obama, by contrast, was significantly more liberal, with a rating of 86.
Conservatives “are coming to terms with the growing likelihood that she will be our next president and concluding that maybe it is something they can live with.” Of course, this may be less a measure of Sen. Clinton than a commentary on how far to the left the Democratic Party has moved in recent years. Still, it’s scary to think that “President Clinton” may be the best outcome conservatives can hope for in next year’s election.
Here’s another awesomtastic performance by my favorite Chapman Stick player, Rob Martino. Take a close look at his fingers about 00:50 from the end. Wow!
A violent thunderstorm moved through our area Wednesday night, knocking out power for several hours. When it finally came back on, our internet connection was gone. A call to AT&T tech support was fruitless, so they sent a technician out to investigate. Turns out my DSL modem apparently got blitzed in the storm. So — a trip to CompUSA to pick up a new modem/wireless-router combo unit, a few minutes to hook it up, and presto, we’re back on line.
This may have been a blessing in disguise. The connection speed with the new unit appears to be faster, and the wireless connectivity with the other PCs in the house appears to be more stable.
John at OPFOR offers his top ten war movies of all time. Of the ten, I’ve seen only four: Patton (#1), Saving Private Ryan (#3), The Longest Day (#8), and Bridge on the River Kwai (#10). He didn’t put Band of Brothers on the list, but only because it’s a mini-series, not a movie. I’ve seen that one, too.
In looking over the list, it occurred to me that the picks I have seen also happen to be the only World War II movies on the list. (Okay, if you don’t include Alexander Nevsky, a Russian production from 1938).
My list would also include Gettysburg, The Patriot, and Lord of the Rings.
Hey, he didn’t say the wars had to be real wars, did he?
We recently commented on the success of the new Dangerous Book for Boys, a celebration of everything that makes up boyhood. The success of the book has ignited a lot of discussion about how we’re raising our boys these days.
Dan Hall recounts the story of how, back in 1958, at the tender age of 13, he and a chum were dropped off by their parents at a lake outside Detroit for four days of camping, fishing, rowboating, and general adventure-seeking — by themselves. Today, the parents could be accused of child endangerment for such a thing.
Hall bemoans the loss of this kind of boyhood rite of passage, and applauds the current discussion on how we’re short-changing our boys in today’s risk-averse culture.
The authors are right: Over the past few decades, we have focused on the dark side of masculinity: aggression, the tendency to take dumb risks, false machismo. Perhaps that is one reason boys are falling behind girls on any number of social and academic measures. Their book points to a brighter side: self-discipline, wry humor, quiet determination, and curiosity about everything. Let’s send the pendulum swinging back in that direction.
In a special election held yesterday, Sedgwick County voters decisively rejected allowing casinos here, by a margin of 56% to 44%. A related proposition to allow slot machines at the local dog track was also defeated, although by a much narrower margin.
Sedgwick became the only county to reject expanded gambling of the six counties eligible for a casino and slots under the state’s new expanded gambling law.
The vote clears the way for Sumner County, which approved a gambling referendum in 2005, to pursue a casino without any competition in the south-central area.
The folks in nearby Wellington (Sumner County), which lies between Sedgwick County and the Oklahoma line, are cheering. They can have the casinos, with the social problems that come with them.
The defeat not only keeps casinos out of Sedgwick County, it will apparently reduce even the current level of legal gambling that goes on in the county. The owner of the local dog track says he will close the operation within three months.
People complain about Wichita being a boring, unexciting little town. If a casino is their idea of excitement, I’ll take that label as a compliment.
College campuses are hotbeds (so to speak) of casual sex. The result is an epidemic of emotional and physical health problems, especially among young women. Yet college health officials are in a state of denial about the issue.
Instead of declaring war on the hook-up culture, Grossman says, political correctness decrees that campus doctors pretend the problems it causes don’t exist. If they do acknowledge them, they risk being fired—which is why Dr. Grossman originally published this book anonymously. After all, doctors are not supposed to be judgmental. But as Grossman points out, doctors pass judgment all the time when it comes to other health issues.
“We ask about childhood abuse, but not last week’s hookups,” she writes. “We want to know how many cigarettes she has each day, but not how many abortions are in her past. We consider the stress caused by parental expectations but neglect the anguish of herpes, the hazards of promiscuity, and the looming fertility issues for women who always put career first.”
When it comes to sexual harassment and date rape, campus health professionals are eager to help. But they don’t support groups for women who want to practice abstinence or who are suffering the after-effects of an abortion.
We ought to get angry about this. The secular world is engaging in something they often accuse Christians of—living in a “false reality.” But anyone who ignores a mountain of medical evidence is not only living in a false reality, they’re endangering people’s lives.
For more on this subject, see an excellent interview with Dr. Grossman at National Review Online, and an earlier book review by Mona Charen.
Ion Mihai Pacepa was a two-star general in Romania’s foreign intelligence service until 1978, when he defected to the U. S. Eventually he became an American citizen. When the Soviet bloc collapsed in the late ’80’s, Pacepa played an indirect role in the overthrow of Ceauşescu in Romania. A prolific writer, he has exposed a great deal of the plotting and intrigue that the Eastern Bloc countries engaged in during the Cold War to destroy the credibility of the U. S. across the globe.
Which is to say, the man knows a thing or two about how to undermine America.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Pacepa compares the efforts of his former comrades in the Soviet Bloc with the political enemies of our current President–enemies right here in America. He is appalled at the reckless manner in which these leftists attack the leader of the free world.
As someone who escaped from communist Romania–with two death sentences on his head–in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a “liar,” a “deceiver” and a “fraud.”
Pacepa does not pretend to be an expert on the war in Iraq, but he knows a strategy for defeat when he sees one.
Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America’s commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O’Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a “deserter.” And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”
He appeals to an unlikely source–fellow immigrants–for support in turning out these loons and electing leaders, of whatever party, who are proud of America and are willing to work together for the common good.
If America’s political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win.
UPDATE: One of Pacepa’s earlier pieces in National Review Online documents numerous examples of the dirty tricks that were so effective in smearing America during the Cold War. I found this quote especially timely:
KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. One of its favorite tools was the fabrication of such evidence as photographs and “news reports” about invented American war atrocities. These tales were purveyed in KGB-operated magazines that would then flack them to reputable news organizations. Often enough, they would be picked up. News organizations are notoriously sloppy about verifying their sources. All in all, it was amazingly easy for Soviet-bloc spy organizations to fake many such reports and spread them around the free world.
After a long hiatus from riding the bicycle to work, I decided to get back in the saddle this week. So I got up early this morning, pumped up the tires, and took off down the road. Ah, it felt good to be peddling again!
Then it happened. About halfway to my destination, the rear tire went flat. It wasn’t a blow-out, but it was definitely flat — and not ridable. I had no choice but to turn around and walk the bike back home. Three and a half miles. What a way to start a Monday morning. Fortunately, I had left early enough that even after walking back home and taking a shower, I still made it to work before 8:00 a.m.
On my lunch hour, I went to the bike store and bought a good quality portable tire pump. I replaced the tube this evening, and mounted the pump, so hopefully I won’t have that experience again.
“Only Time” was originally released on Enya’s 2000 CD, A Day Without Rain. It became a big hit in its own right, getting a lot of radio time. It was released as a single in 2001, right after 9/11.
The quality of her music videos has markedly improved from her earlier efforts.
Michael Yon is a former special forces soldier who has spent the last few years—mostly on his own dime—embedded as a journalist with American and British forces in various regions of Iraq. He has witnessed the Iraq war in a way that no other journalist has: out in the fields of battle, among the towns and villages of the ordinary Iraqis. His reporting on the war far surpasses that of the MSM.
Consequently, when Yon speaks to the current state of affairs in Iraq, his comments deserve a close listen. He notes three key areas in which Iraq today has changed from Iraq in the past:
1. Iraqis are uniting across sectarian lines to drive Al Qaeda in all its disguises out of Iraq, and they are empowered by the success they are having, each one creating a ripple effect of active citizenship.
2. The Iraqi Army is much more capable now than it was in 2005. It is not ready to go it alone, but if we keep working, that day will come.
3. Gen. Petraeus is running the show. Petraeus may well prove to be to counterinsurgency warfare what Patton was to tank battles with Rommel, or what Churchill was to the Nazis.
The MSM prefers to concentrate on the latest suicide bombings and assassinations. But if Yon is correct in his assessment, we’re approaching a tipping point in Iraq that bodes well for the future.
I’m not a big Harry Potter fan. I’ve seen several of the movies, but since I’ve not read a single book in the series, most of the plot lines go over my head. Still, it’s hard to be a student of modern culture and not at least be aware of the Potter phenomenon.
Commentator Jeffrey Weiss, however, apparently is a big Potter fan, and he sees a distinctly Christian message in the Potter story, one that may surprise the Christian critics of the series. Themes of self-sacrifice, resurrection, and the cosmic battle between good and evil are every bit as Christian as the fiction of C. S. Lewis.
Many readers who finish the Potter saga will conclude, perhaps to their surprise, that Harry’s world is at least as Christian in its essential underpinnings as is C.S. Lewis’s “Narnia.”
