Orlando Sentinel movie reviewer Roger Moore was excited to report on the efforts of some Harry Potter fans that want to "change the world" based on their interpretation of Potter character Dumbledore's philosophy of life. He was happy, you see, because the group is all about "global transformation" and spreading global warming fears, gay marriage and the Employee Free Choice Act.
Moore writes abut a group called the Harry Potter Alliance whose website is a sort of Potter fan message board where fans write about what they are doing with their ideas on Potter philosophy. But, it goes "beyond the personal," Moore approvingly says.
The Doctrine, however, goes beyond the personal, discussing how Dumbledore’s values can be translated onto the national and global stage into public policy that legalizes same sex marriage, indigenous people’s rights, the Employee Free Choice Act, and media reform while joining the HPA’s partner NGO’s in their stand against genocide, poverty, prison torture, and global warming.
And sure enough, a look at the website proves that subjects like "LGBT" (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender), anti-capitalism, and global warming abound. There is the rather silly "don't buy new stuff" section that encourages a fan base built on buying new books and movies not to buy "new stuff" in order to screw capitalist companies world wide. There's a race section and a section about "political prisoners" in which the only entry is one detailing how evil the USA is for its policies... and not a WORD is spoken about Russia, China, North Korea, or any number of Middle Eastern countries that kill their own people on a daily basis.
The site was created by a 29-year-old failed actor named Andrew Slack who claims himself a "social organizer and human rights activist." His "What Would Dumbledore Do" website offers a full plate of anti-U.S. and anti-western propaganda for Potter fans to get stirred up about. And it's because the world faces "dark and difficult times," you see? We are, the site's creators sonorously intone, faced with:
- Genocide, Poverty, AIDS, and Global Warming are ignored by our media and governments the way Voldemort's return is ignored by the Ministry and Daily Prophet.
- People are still discriminated against based on sexuality, race, class, religion, gender, ethnicity, and religion just as the Wizarding World continues to discriminate against Centaurs, Giants, House Elves, Half-Bloods, Muggle borns, Squibs, and Muggles
- Our governments continue to respond to terror by torturing prisoners (often without trial) just as Sirius Black was tortured by dementors with no trial
- A Muggle Mindset pervades over our culture-a mindset that values being "perfectly normal, thank you very much" over being interesting, original, loving, and creative
Slack and the girls that help him run the site want fans to get involved. In the "rock the vote" section, for instance, the site urges California's voters to support gay marriage. One of the commenters in "The Common Room" expressed her rage that the Dumbledore character never "came out of the closet" in the kid's books. And money is being raised for Slack's favorite causes from site visitors.
Anyway, what we have here is left-wing indoctrination hiding behind a kiddie book and movie series. Let's hope not too many kids get snared by this false front and get taken in by the propaganda. You know that some people have no lives when they take a movie and/or book and use it as a template for their lives. Too many Star Trek and Star Wars fans have been like that and now Harry Potter can claim the same sort of lonely, sad people, it appears.
It is great to be a huge fan of some bit of entertainment. Fun to go the movies, collect toys and books, go to conventions. But when you start trying to lead your life via the character's claimed ideas, then you have gone too far. Forsaking real, ages old philosophy and religion for some kitchy TV, movie, or book series is an act of foolishness. And it never seems to take too long until some propagandist like this Andrew Slack fellow tries to fit his left-wing ideology into the entertainment in order to lead others toward his own political ideas.
Sadly, the Orlando Sentinel sees no reason not to try to help Andrew Slack snare as many unsuspecting Harry Potter fans as possible.
(Image courtesy of Scholastic Books, American distributor of the Potter book series.)
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Maybe they can also develop
July 6, 2009 - 08:16 ET by Radical1979Maybe they can also develop a website on the philosophy of "The Cat in the Hat" or "One Fish Two Fish".
It's really sad that adults get so caught up in children's literature that it becomes the focus of their lives.
Not so fast!
July 6, 2009 - 15:53 ET by RiharI'm dissapointed that you can't see the value of neglecting children as in "The Cat In The Hat". Why I'm thinking of starting my own website on the philosophy of Thing 1 and Thing 2 and how we're all really Thing 3 deep down inside. It would also include how the goldfish who tries to prevent the slide into chaos that the The Cat in the Hat causes is really just those eeeeevil conservatives who just don't want anyone to have fun.
Message boards will be packed daily with the differences between the book and the cartoon and how that somehow justifies gay marriage and that Israel is the cause of all the world's problems.
This idea doesn't sound silly, does it?
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
Dumblelibs
July 6, 2009 - 08:19 ET by Blogger Guy00001Dumbledore is a character in a fiction book. Doesn't matter to libs that Dumbledore isn't real. All that matters to them is that Dumbledore is a symbol of what they stand for.
Just more of the same
July 6, 2009 - 11:19 ET by mbuelWhen someone doesn't believe in God, they'll believe in anything.
This is just more proof of that adage. The human brain NEEDS to believe in something, and these libs are regularly going off the deep end, where they no longer combine faith and reason to make up their philosophy... they solely rely upon faith.
Faith that the USA is bad. (there is no reason to believe so)
Faith in Man made global warming (again no reason...)
Faith in LGBT. (Reason would suggest many of these people are merely personality disorders. Reason would also suggest, that they still make a choice to live their lifestyle.)
Faith in ANYTHING but God. They've killed God and replaced it with a completely new thing....
"There is nothing new under the sun" - The atheists today are no different than the atheists from 3000 years ago. The pagans then worshipped Gaia, as they do today.
The free market works, Government controls always fail.
mbuel,
July 6, 2009 - 12:00 ET by Agnostic"When someone doesn't believe in God, they'll believe in anything." - I know one thing I don't believe is that you should insult a great deal of people you don't even know with stupid generalizations. The need to believe in something other than one self is a critically important part of the human psyche but the necessity of that belief being in the same deity in which you put your faith is erroneous and dangerous as it leads down the path of many fanatics; both religious and secular.
“Faith that the USA is bad.” – USA has been one of the greatest goods the world has ever known. Others that could compare were much smaller with limited global effect.
“Faith in Man made global warming” – If global warming or climate change were to be occurring there is little that can be done by man to abate the effects. On a completely different but associated by constant reference – I strongly support conservation; true conservation and not the type that uses 20,000 BTUs to save 5,000 BTUs via recycling programs.
“Faith in LGBT. (Reason would suggest many of these people are merely personality disorders. Reason would also suggest that they still make a choice to live their lifestyle.)” - I guess this depends on what you mean by lifestyle. If it is the lifestyle that offends many that is displayed in the streets of SF during parades and other such banalities then I would agree that those who choose such a life have chosen their lifestyle. However, those are only a portion of the LGBT community and it would be unfair to judge all based on the most egregious. One of the worst characteristics of modern Western society is that we allow the media to define norms using the most radical portions of each sub-society.
“Faith in ANYTHING but God. They've killed God and replaced it with a completely new thing.... “– There is nothing new under the sun. God and gods have been killed and resurrected millions of times over the past 6K years and will most likely continue to do so. But in the case of your condescending statements; I don’t think God has as much to with your condemnation of my opinion as your ego.
I mean neither disrespect nor insult but there is no reason to allow such an accusation as to my gullibility to pass uncontested.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
DUPLICATED
July 9, 2009 - 13:51 ET by mbuelDUPLICATED
some answers
July 9, 2009 - 13:48 ET by mbuel"I know one thing I don't believe is that you should insult a great deal
of people you don't even know with stupid generalizations."
-Really? You have replaced faith in God with Faith in Reason. Reason ALONE is fallible. One can Reason that it's too dangerous to participate in any behavior because of statistical and factual probabilities. you have to have a degree of Faith to even walk out of the front door every morning.
The best mode of earthly participation is a sound combination of faith and reason.
"Faith that the USA is bad."
- I AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENT. I was speaking from the left-wing mindset.
"Faith in Man made global warming"
- There is reasonable evidence that the Sun is causing Global Warming not mankind. And I have faith that the Earth was created for us to use, and as such the creator would've ensured sufficient feedback systems to deal with our NATURAL outputs.
That being said, I also think we should conserve, but don't think the government can do that any better than the free markets.
"Faith in LGBT"
- Again due to reasonable evidences of behavior and humanity, one could easily make the following assertations:
1) Homosexual behavior is not natural. (that is not to say that other "animals" don't take part in it. There are lot's of immoral and depraved behaviors that animals take part in that we don't find acceptable for human behavior.)
2) Many self proclaimed homosexuals appear to have various degrees and pathos representative of personality behaviors.
3) Humankind will be HAPPIEST in a natural relationship between a man and a woman and bear children and grand children.
"One of the worst characteristics of modern Western society is that we
allow the media to define norms using the most radical portions of each
sub-society."
-This is fundamentally a straw man. No one lets the media define normal if we did:
1) There would be no shock over Michael Jacksons "odd" behaviors. There STILL is.
2) Homosexuality would be considered a "normal" behavior by everyone in America and around the world.
Neither of these (and many many more) stipulations are true, thus making your statement false.
"God and gods have been killed and resurrected millions of times"
Man made gods have been killed and resurrected millions of times. It's just mankinds way of trying to deal with the programming we have to reach out to higher power without fully understanding how to deal with that.
The real question is if man made God, why not make a God that's friendly and logical? (like Modern Christians are trying to do with their revisionism).
"I don’t think God has as much to with your condemnation of my opinion as your ego."
My "ego" never sought you out to insult you, YOU chose to take offense with my statement.
The free market works, Government controls always fail.
more answers
July 12, 2009 - 08:01 ET by Agnostic“You have replaced faith in God with Faith in Reason.” – Your mind reading skills are slipping because I have the same faith in reason as you seem to propose. As a human my reasoning is fallible and therefore is only a tool and not a thing of faith or something upon which faith can be based. I mean no offense but to point out that we have more in common than in difference but if that is too much than I humbly withdraw my argument.
“The best mode of earthly participation is a sound combination of faith and reason.” – Excellent statement and something should be placed securely above the doors to Congress. However, the necessity of having faith and agreeing with your faith are two different things that need not separate people of open minds and understanding hearts.
I AGREE WITH YOUR SENTIMENT. I was speaking from the left-wing mindset. – Fair enough but you began and continued as the left-wing mindset and people disagreeing with your faith were one in the same. Possibly I didn’t read the appropriate separation in your post so please forgive any inappropriate assumption.
"Faith in Man made global warming" – I would concur only to add that in the media driven world in which we live the loudest wheel gets the most air time. This has always been true to one degree or other but strong leaders in the past have learned to ignore the din of “consensus” and do the right thing. I no longer have faith or IMO have reason for faith in the leadership of this country; both in the government and business world.
“That being said, I also think we should conserve, but don't think the government can do that any better than the free markets.” – The only thing the government can do better than the free market is corruption and to make a mess of things.
"Faith in LGBT" – I don’t see any great problems with your arguments about what is best for humans and the species as a whole. However there is not sufficient proof in my opinion to conclude that homosexuality is a problem to society as a whole unless it becomes so predominate that it effects the birth rate. The problem becomes when society becomes too weak or self-involved to do what is best for society and not what is best for the best lobbyist or best demostrators.
"This is fundamentally a straw man. No one lets the media define normal" - Do you base your opinion of homosexuals on the ones you’ve actually met and invited to your dinner table or on the ones you’ve seen on TV and at public arenas (parades and demonstrations)?
“-This is fundamentally a straw man. No one lets the media define normal if we did…, Neither of these (and many many more) stipulations are true, thus making your statement false.” - We as a society does not just include you and those who believe exactly like you. It includes all those people who lined up for hours to vote for Obama and did not know one thing he stood for in political terms. These people are the first tumbling blocks in the media barrage that ‘normalize’ radical portions of our society. Are they always successful? NO. Therefore you have your examples that allow some to ignore what has happened over the past 55 years in this country. One of the things that also happened about 50 years ago was that televisions became affordable and the TV News broadcasts starting reaching every home. News people had known for a long time that the mundane doesn’t make news so the natural inclination has always been to report outside the mainstream. (in the mid-fifties the news show See-it Now (I think) was given a great deal of credit for discrediting Senator McCarthy – many years later we now know he was sometimes over the top but in actual accusations he was rarely wrong).
“Man made gods have been killed and resurrected millions of times. It's just mankinds way of trying to deal with the programming we have to reach out to higher power without fully understanding how to deal with that.” – Faith! I for one deeply believe people need to have faith.
“The real question is if man made God, why not make a God that's friendly and logical? (like Modern Christians are trying to do with their revisionism).” – Because if man made God then God was created out of mans fears, hopes and need for order. But because man’s logic is fallible he could not create a logical god that withstood time and testing.
I chose to take offense to a blanket statement that included me and attempted to pin me and my beliefs to a political and social belief that I find abhorrent. Perhaps I took it more personal than you intended but some responsibility lies on those directing the insults.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
But when you start trying
July 6, 2009 - 08:22 ET by JasonCBut when you start trying to lead your life via the character's claimed ideas, then you have gone too far.
It sounds to me like they're essentially doing the opposite. They have this worldview and they use the prosaic and mult-faceted world of Harry Potter to justify and allegorize it. Not that that's necessarily better; but I didn't get the sense that they developed these liberalish ideologies because they read Harry Potter. Just my $.02
I agree.
July 6, 2009 - 08:35 ET by motherbeltI don't think they developed the ideology from reading Harry Potter books. I think they are using the books and characters in order to advance their agenda by making it seem cool.
Regarding the "What Would Dumbledore Do?" I don't supposed it occurred to Slack that Dumbledore might just mind his own business and run his school!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Fictional rage
July 6, 2009 - 08:40 ET by KC MulvilleI had to laugh at the part where they claimed that people were angry that Dumbledore didn't "come out."
Fiction, people ...
KC, they only ridicule
July 6, 2009 - 09:19 ET by motherbeltKC, they only ridicule making a fictional character influential when a conservative does it: e.g. Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown.
Then we hear "It's fiction, stupid! Not relevant!"
Well of course Dumbledore didn't "come out." He wasn't gay when the books were written! I agree with Jason that that was a post-production decision by Rowling. IMO, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with the gay community.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Agreed
July 6, 2009 - 10:01 ET by KC MulvilleThe difference with Dan Brown is that Dumbledore's sexuality is utterly irrelevant to the story, whereas the various accusations of murder and "we-all-know-Jesus-was-a-fraud" insinuations were the crux of Brown's story. Brown wrote the book to air those insults, whereas Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't part of the story at all ... it was a detail mentioned after the last book was published.
I don't know when Rowling decided that Dumbledore was gay. As I understand it, she was trying to explain why Dumbledore had no family. But then, every other member of the school staff would also be tagged as gay, since none of them appear to have spouses, either.
There's a lot to admire
July 6, 2009 - 08:45 ET by JasonCThere's a lot to admire about Rowling; she got a whole lot of kids reading who otherwise likely wouldn't have - she can narrate a scene, especially an action one, with the best of them - and she quite literally created a fictional universe which, in my opinion, eclipses any other (Star Trek, Star Wars, LotR, etc.)
Nonetheless, I've always found the " oh, Dumbledore is gay" thing to be somewhat irksome. Not because I have a problem with it - I think there should be gay characters in children's lit - but because Rowling thought it appropriate to retroactively tell us that he was. If you want a character to be a certain way, you have to develop it through the story. You don't have to come right out and make it obvious, but to later on determine that he's gay just because the author says so...that doesn't fly. It would be like if Fitzgeral came back from the dead to tell us that Jay Gatsby was gay and the whole Daisy infatuation was just a cover. It smacks of an author trying to mess with his or her audience. If you want to develop that plot or character point, it should be done in the book. It's not like Rowling didn't have the talent to bring that out within the confines of the story.
Agreed
July 6, 2009 - 09:01 ET by Warner Todd HustonExcellent points, Jason.
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
Once again, Jason, I
July 6, 2009 - 09:12 ET by motherbeltOnce again, Jason, I agree. Well put.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
"I think there should be
July 6, 2009 - 11:14 ET by stratmanWhy?
In what context?
I'd like the know the same
July 6, 2009 - 11:20 ET by Kat Outta the BagI'd like the know the same thing, stratman. Honestly, why should characters in children's lit have any known sexuality?
It depends on the age of the kids
July 6, 2009 - 12:05 ET by Rhymes With RightObviously, "The Gay Cat in the Fabulous Hat" would be an unnecessary inclusion of sexuality in an age-inapproprite fashion.
But when you have books targetted at a n older age group -- and Harry potter is targetted at the upper range of juvenile fiction -- you will find yourself focusing on relationships and sexuality (after all, the Potter books do deal extensively with adolescent themes involving romantic relationships between the main characters). Would, for example, having Neville Longbottom be, as simply one more aspect of the character, gay in the later books have harmed the series? Based upon the conclusion of the last novel (in which it appears everyone else is married with kids), I've wondered if he might be.
On the other hand, HOW one deals with that issue of sexuality is another issue altogether.
But Jason't point is absolutely right -- gay charactes in juvenile literature is a reasonable thing -- when and if appropriate to the age group and the story.
Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu
Rhymes w/ Right, you pretty
July 6, 2009 - 12:29 ET by JasonCRhymes w/ Right, you pretty much put it exactly as I was going to. In books like Harry Potter, as well as classic children's lit by authors like Patterson, Cleary, and Blume, nascent adolescent romance is, to a certain point, just a realistic part of the story. A good half of Half-Blood Prince is devoted to who's "snogging" who. Ginny Weasley was even made out to be a bit on promiscuous side. Now I'm not saying that a gay character needs be the focal point of these sorts of books (though it would certainly be fine with me if that's what the author chose) and it would be a shame if such a character's sexuality was expressed solely through a penchant for loud-print clothing and a swishy lisp and other such obnoxiously-pervasive stereotypes. But yes, I'd like to more of this sort of childrens' fiction demonstrate - without making a big deal out of it - that there are people who, as they reach puberty, realize that they are attracted to those of the same sex. It is very very likely that kids reading those books will at some point have such a person as a friend, co-worker, or family member; or even be that way him or herself. Better, in my opinion, that they are introduced to it in this way than in what seems to be the typical way for the current generation: beginning to notice, around 5th or 6th grade, that "gay" is suddenly the big catch-all insult.
Some people come to realize
July 6, 2009 - 15:06 ET by ckc1227Some people come to realize at a certain age that they are attracted to the family dog, or their brother, sister, father, mother, etc. Should they have one of those characters too?
Probably not, but I don't
July 6, 2009 - 16:42 ET by JasonCProbably not, but I don't put homosexuality on a moral par with beastiality, so it's kind of a moot point for me.
RWR and JasonC: Thank you
July 6, 2009 - 17:25 ET by stratmanRWR and JasonC:
Thank you for your posts. The topic of homosexuality in minor's books is an involved discussion. I wanted to get an idea of your thought processes and your posts provided some reasoned insight.
Your posts motivated me to learn more about this topic, something I doubt I would have done otherwise.
From my quick googling on the subject, I don't think there is a paucity of homosexual books for minors. For instance, Amazom.com's web page for Daddy's Roommate links to other books for preschoolers. Just how many picture books on homosexuality does a 4 year old require? It is a bit surprising to read Publishers Weekly describe this picture book for ages 2 yrs and up. Is this what Dr. Spock and his social engineering has come to?
It also seems that there is an "explosion" of gay and lesbian teen literature. The linked listings seem lengthy and varied. The books are available and the lists are growing.
Do you think that homosexual oriented literature should be mandatory reading in school or suggested reading to all minors by the library? If so, why should homosexuality be singled out over other topics?
As to the Rowling reveal of a gay character in Harry Potter after the entire series was written, what was enriched by this knowledge? More social engineering, and gratuitous at that?
Regardless, kids today are growing up so fast. Sad.
Jason, I thought the same
July 6, 2009 - 09:29 ET by suzycreamcheeseJason, I thought the same thing when I heard the ridiculous news. I didn't believe it for a minute that she set out to make Dumbledore gay. I've read--not studied and pored over like some rabid fans--every book and don't remember anything that stands out that would point to D. being gay from the first novel. I thought it was a copout on Rowling's part and a "look at me I'm so cool for making D. gay!" lame announcement.
I don't care if a character is gay, but, woman, please!
What?
July 6, 2009 - 09:30 ET by someloudthunderSince when was Dumbledore's sexual orientation ever stated in the books? I don't remember reading that!
Anyway why can't people just treat it with a grain of salt. It's a fictional character. His position is just an extension of our real world. There are homosexuals in real life. There are ones in fiction too. It's not a sign of "changing" times. It's just the authors preference. Sure 'left', keep grabbing at straws making a children's book a grand gesture towards the gay community.
Does anyone harold J.R.R. Tolkien for advancing the rights of hobbits by having the main character be a hobbit? Certain not the left.
Gay Wizards?????
July 6, 2009 - 09:39 ET by adamsmithMan, I've studied all kinds of things Occultish, and being gay is about as acceptable in that world as in the Catholic or Fundamentalist worlds...Sex in the occult or out of the Bible is to create the energy needed to create life. Even Tantric Sex, there's no gay crap anywhere in that...Yoni and Lingham, no Yoni and Yoni....
I have nothing against Homos, but it seems of late they're just a bunch of malcontents...What's next if they do get GAY MARRIAGE? The right to copulate in Public? Brainwashing kids to think no other kind of sex exists?
They can have all the agendas they want to be looked at as normal. Kids in school with all the diversity training still call people "fag" and all the rest of the words. Nothing is ever going to change that because being 1% of the human population is never going to be normal for everyone. If I were gay, I'd be sick of hearing about any of this garbage, and just stay home and sodomize my boyfriend or whatever....It's too much already...Shut Up!!!!!!!!
Roger Moore of the Sentinel....
July 6, 2009 - 09:55 ET by Darwin Akbar....is a reliable knee-jerk liberal who loves movies by Michael Moore and Bill Maher and gave good reviews to every one of those anti-Iraq war movies (like "Stop Loss") that nobody saw. I also believe him to be a not-entirely-in-the-closet Israel-hater (he lavished praise upon the slobbering Carter love-fest "He Comes in Peace," called Carter's critics "shrill" and claimed that Carter "won" the debates with his critics that never took place).
Are liberals immature or illiterate?
July 6, 2009 - 10:06 ET by moderncommentaries83Or both?
First, let's address that. I am a big Harry Potter fan and have been since high school. I think they are fun, escapist novels that are cleverly written and really tie up loose ends for better or worse (which I tend to like in the novels I read).
But DUMBLEDORE ISN'T REAL!!!
He's fake. He never existed. Never will. Wizards as described in the book are fiction...fake. They exist on the page and in imaginations. That's it.
Second, the issue of homosexuality and Dumbledore.
As someone who has read ALL the books several times, no where in the cannon is there any contextual evidence that wholeheartedly says that Dumbledore is gay. In fact, if that's the case, Dumbledore would be a prime example of how same-sex attraction can still lead one to lead a chaste life.
Here's what I wrote to a friend who was bothered by this revelation:
Let me stress again point #2. ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S IN THE BOOKS. That's the official canon in Harry Potter. What Rowling wrote in books 1-7 and nothing more is all we can base arguments on. And, as you see, it's very easy to refute the assertion that Dumbledore was always meant to be gay or that it was somehow a good thing for him.
So liberals clearly have no reading comprehension skills if they can't discern that there's no contextual evidence whatsoever to support this nonsense.
The thing that gets me is these are the same people who sneer at conservatives who don't read the Harry Potter books because of concerns over the contents...but they go out of their way to create even MORE controversy by ginning up all this "Dumbledore is gay so if you like Harry Potter you have to support gays!" crap. Pathetic, really.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
jessieH WTF.
July 6, 2009 - 10:33 ET by jessieHjessieH WTF. It's just a movie, people! No wonder WE have such a screwed-up govt. in office.
That's what I said...about
July 6, 2009 - 13:59 ET by balboaThat's what I said...about Angels & Demons. :-)
I'm Stumped
July 6, 2009 - 10:38 ET by sic721There are so many things just wrong about this group and their 'philosophy' I hardly know where to begin. A couple of thoughts just off the top of my head,
"One of the commenters in "The Common Room" expressed her rage that the Dumbledore character never "came out of the closet" in the kid's books." "What Would Dumbledore Do?" Well, I imagine the first thing he would do would be to come out of the closet and wave his wand around, a la Michael Jackson, for starters.
"You know that some people have no lives when they take a movie and/or book and use it as a template for their lives." Spot on, Warner. What a bunch of losers! How could anyone model their lives after a movie or tv show or something. Idjits. Oh well.
Live long and prosper, all.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within."-Cicero
Back...
July 6, 2009 - 12:02 ET by Warner Todd HustonBack in the 70s I was the bigest Star Trek fan in the world. I'd have watched the show 10 hours a day if I could have back then.
But no matter how much I loved the show and dreamed of being in an Enterprise amongst the stars, it NEVER was a way of life for me. I had my religion and family for that.
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
No Surprise that Children drawn to Childish Fantasies
July 6, 2009 - 13:50 ET by Retired GeekLiberals are busily engaged in their life’s work - changing the 'Ridiculous' to the 'Sublime'.
NOTE TO LIBERALS: Sublime is a verb or action; to elevate or exalt especially in dignity or honor, to render finer (as in purity or excellence), to convert (something inferior) into something of higher worth.
What then is the 'Ridiculous' part of the Liberal equation?
Percieved Reality rather than reality, Ignorance, Decisions and Actions based on something other than facts, logic and reason.
Liberals then sound like some of the 'Air Heads' in a beauty contest - "If I win this Beauty contest, my beauty and talents will eradicate World Hunger".
Most children live in a 'Fantasy World', where the World revolves around them and everything in that World is about them.
Fortunately, most children 'Grow Up' and realize that little in the World is suitable even for personal survival, much less their fantasies.
Barack Obama personifies this ‘Perpetual Child’, neither adult nor a child, and his followers are living vicariously in this World of fantasy with him.
Anyone who wants to debate with a Liberal needs to read and study extensively on working with Kindergartners.
Homosexuality Versus Russian Roulette
July 6, 2009 - 14:15 ET by Retired GeekRussian Roulette is a lethal or potentially lethal game of chance, where a single cartridge is placed in a six shot revolver, the cylinder spun (thus the roulette aspect) and the barrel of the revolver is pointed at the head and the trigger pulled.
The participant has a 16.67% chance of 'Winning'. One could argue that 'Winning' to those participating, could possibly be either death or the avoidance of death.
Unbiased Medical Experts generally hold, that the life expectancy of those participating in this lethal or potentially lethal Homosexual game of chance, is reduced by twenty (20) years on average.
Those Homosexuals who survive, are faced with a life of disease, emotional and mental issues, lack of self-esteem, self-worthiness, spiritual darkness and frustration.
Those of us who warn others to NOT choose to participate in such a dangerous life style, are accused of being 'Closet Russian Roulette' players and mean spirited, un-enlightened, un-educated bigots, without compassion or love for individuals who have chosen this behavior.
Homosexual Apologists take the 'Easy Road' and laud and encourage such behavior, because it doesn't cost them anything - 'They Think'.
Homosexuals are like children playing with 'Matches and Gasoline' and any critical thinker or any one with common sense, can easily see that the potential to harm all of Society, NOT just the children is a certainty.
Real love, compassion and understanding, is to warn those participating in the game of 'Homosexual Russian Roulette' not in helping them to 'Play'.