There have been some questions about what Arabs have ever contributed to the world - being neither Arab nor Muslim, nor even very well-versed in the history of the Middle East, I could think of Algebra and the Arabian Nights, for a start.

Also here is a very small list of names to research on Wikipedia:

omar khayyam

al-khwarizmi

khalil gibran

By the way, cbzd - Rushdie does not count, not just because he's British, but he is not of Arab extraction at all.

Hm - My personal preference is for reviews that give you a sense for the overall mood and flavor of a book, along with the subjective experience of the author. While including what some have called "plot analysis" is not a bad idea, surely a review should be more than a paraphrasing of parts of the book.

I may, of course, be mistaken, but this review struck me as written by someone who rushed through the book skipping large sections and, here and there, made some notes on episodes to include in the review...

I did see the spoiler warning and stay away until after I had read the book, though I still don't think giving so much away was a very nice or very necessary thing to do. As Umbridge might put it "Spoilers for the sake of spoilers must be prevented" :-)

I thought that the Deathly Hallows was a superb book - it weaves together many of the loose ends from earlier books. Not every single open question is resolved, but most of the important ones are. And Harry and his friends grow up in this book even more so than in earlier books - discovering that there are many shades of grey between good and evil, that our "heroes" need not be perfect beings in order to earn and keep our respect. The attempt to steer public opinion through control of the media was also very nicely illustrated.

Watching no TV might be best for the under 2 set, but if they're going to watch, some quality control by the producers of these DVDs wouldn't hurt....I once watched, horror-struck, as one of these "educational" DVDs showed bananas sprouting from the top of what was obviously a coconut palm tree.

I am completely baffled by the media reports of Clinton's victory and Obama's defeat - didn't they get 9 delegates each?

Is my understanding correct that there is no "winner-take-all" at work in NH?

It seems to me that in the terms that actually matter, that's a draw, not a victory or defeat. Perhaps someone can explain why pretty much every media outlet is painting this as a win for one and loss for the other, because I truly fail to understand.

I agree that this works both ways - I would certainly not say that Iowa was "no big deal" - both were very significant and also last minute surprises.

I'm not trying to play down the significance of these 2 races, or the potential impact they will have on future races.

My main point is that I feel the media is largely ignoring the fact that this is a VERY CLOSE election - the candidates are at 25 and 24 delegates each, but the media narrative has shifted from the totally wrong "Obama has a runaway victory" after Iowa, to the equally wrong "Clinton has a runaway victory" after NH.

I simply think the media ought to tell the whole story responsibly.

I've watched at least the last 4 or 5 Democratic debates (losing count already), but from a policy standpoint, didn't learn anything earth shatteringly new from either candidate.

I will say that I was struck by the contrast in their manner towards each other. Obama repeatedly praised Clinton, saying he "applauded" her work, that hers was a "fine record" etc. He differed with her only on points of policy, defended himself well, and was gracious throughout, resisting some really good "gotcha" moments he could have taken advantage of (as others have elaborately pointed out before me in these letters)

Clinton on the other hand, completely squandered any positive feeling she had built up, with the cheap shot about xeroxing. For me it was downhill from there. She tried to redeem herself at the end, but I personally had a hard time reconciling that with the last 2 weeks of petty attacks. At least, I was glad to see that she had the grace to return the compliment he made to her at the beginning of the debate (about being honored to share the stage)

Unless, of course, you fail to see the obvious similarity between the following 2 statements -

Obama in the survey you mentioned from last year:

"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Obama to Russert in last Tuesday's debate:

"If I am the nominee, then I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair for both sides, because Tim, as you know, there are all sorts of ways of getting around these loopholes."

Sorry - but this whole thing seems like selective, lazy journalism to me - "agressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee..." and "I will sit down with John McCain..." sounds like the same thing to me - I don't see what "pledge" has been broken here.