Approaching the end of 2005, do you know what season it is? Yes, that's right--It's political posturing season! Post your favorite indications that Sen. Schmuck or Gov. Dufus are breaking party lines (an early indication of "free thinking" in a candidate, since members of a politcal party can only think freely two years out).

So, here's he idea: you read over the description (and perhaps look into the research) and tell me if our contestant today is: 1. crazy or 2. candidate

Contestant: Bill Frist (R-TN), a good all-around Nazi, pro-life, anti-Schaivo (said she wasn't in a veg. state), thinks AIDS can be transmitted through sweat and tears, sponsored legislation to remove any legal liability from handgun manufacturers, etc. Anyway, he came out for stem cell research today.

I've been having a protracted email discussion about this, so I thought I'd comment here.

I have been forwarded from several people the following letter of protest from MoveOn:

In the past weeks, Republicans and Democrats have called on President Bush to nominate a moderate for the Supreme Court -- someone who would honor the legacy of independent Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But last night, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts, a far-right lawyer and corporate lobbyist, to fill her post on the Supreme Court.

We've got to stop Roberts. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.

Now, I like MoveOn. It's a good group. But, the line between fact and inflamatory rhetoric may have been crossed here. I have several points.

First, it is true that can be accredited (in some way) to stating that Roe should be "overturned," but in a very loose sense. The line in question was part of a brief written for Rust v. Sullivan, a case about the constitutionality of Health and Human Services provisions that (amongst other things) diverted federal funds from abortion counseling programs. The time this case was before the Supreme Court, Roberts was serving as Deputy Solicitor General (for then Soliticitor General Ken Starr), and argued the case on behalf of the Federal Government. So, in this sense it may be that we can ascribe this quote to arguing the case on behalf of his client, in this case, viz., the Department of Health and Human Services under Bush (41). The brief in question also had seven listed authors besides Roberts, so it is difficult to attribute this quote to him directly.

Rust v. Sullivan is the "the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion." The email also says that he *won* it, which means that the court found no violation of first, fourth and fifth amendment rights by the Department of Health and Human Services. But all this does not change the fact that being a lawyer, like any profession, is a job. Most lawyers (not just late night TV ambulance chasers) have bosses and it comes with the job in the legal profession to argue for your client, but whether one happens to believe the arguments in question are another matter.

Take another example. MoveOn tells us that "he opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops." While in private practice at the firm Hogan & Hartson, Roberts argued in the case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association on behalf of the National Mining Association in support of the legality of mountaintop removal. I'm not saying he's a great guy for doing so. But I'm not going to be so quick to comdemn him for arguing these cases when he was in private practice, as it is very likely that he was vigorously defending his client. An evaluation of a judge can only be made on the basis of his decisions, not the cases he happened to have been assigned at a given law firm.

Now, he may be a "far-right lawyer." He is a strict constructionist. But, he's no Bork. I'm actually rather encouraged that he went on record during his confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals saying that ""Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land...There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Characteristic of Supreme Court nominees is the unpredictability of their decisions. Some of the more liberal sitting justices were appointed by Republicans (for instance, O'Connor, a Reagan nominee). I'm more interested in how he will decide as a judge, not what (perhaps) crappy jobs he had on the way up. It's like saying that someone who used to work for Wal-Mart must necessarily agree with their corporate
policy.

Bush won the 2004 election. We're all fucked every which way. But, I don't think that this is the worst of all possible candidates. I'm going to wait to see what the media can dig up on him . . .

John G. Roberts, eh? Let's wait and see what he's all about . . .

It appears that my flippant and terse remarks on the release of the new Harry Potter book have inspired some very thoughtful comments by jason. Not expecting any reaction whatsoever, perhaps I should clarify some minor "critical license" taken by my good friend and colleague.

The scope of my question is well-taken by jason., but my comments were not so much a critique of the current situation in terms of children's literature, but in terms of literary styles and trends in general.

jason. argues that the Potter books play a pragmatic role insofar as it encourages younger readers to read. As an educator, I fully believe that anything that encourages reading is good, and a similar phenomenon occurred twenty years ago (and has re-emerged) in terms of Tolkien and the "Lord of the Rings" series. But there are startling differences in the nature of the subject between Toilken and Rowling.

Jason writes: "Perhaps the most charitable position that may be taken on this very day, when the latest Harry Potter novel is due to be released at midnight, is that 'at least Americans are reading something.' That something needn’t be Joyce, who would likely go over the heads of many of our eight-year-olds, but as long as it encourages them to read more in a day than just a cereal box, I don’t think we should be as harsh to judge even the most widely appealing of small-'l' literature."

The simple fact is that dissertations are being written on the books. An upcoming "scholarly" conference at the University of Reading testifies to its acceptance as literature (and I use the term loosely). It is to these people that I ask: "where's the Joyce?"

I have no problem with Children's literature. I do have a problem that seniors majoring in Education can't write their way out of a dependent clause, let alone know what one is. Nor, for that matter, can they accomplish the simple task of reading and then explaining what they've read. Hume is "too hard" and philosophy is "too boring." If it doesn't concern boy-wizards or J. Lo., they turn off. And then they pick up "The Da Vinci Code," or "The Celestine Prophesy" or "Harry Potter" and feel that all novels are literature. Nothing could be further from the case.

My comments concern not the lack of literacy as such, but the lack of cultural literacy. When Rowling replaces Hemmingway or Dostoyevski, we all lose. Call me an elitist; I am. Call me pissed off at my last batch of student evaluations ( "more group work"?!?!?). But, next time you're in a mall bookstore, look at the philosophy section. It's like a formula: Nietzsche, Rand, Pirsig, and (maybe) a book or two on Buddhism. There is no substitute for the study of the classics, whether in philosophy, literature, economics or political theory. And those who don't read them because they're "too hard" or "too boring" always have Harry Potter and a few "Oprah List" books on their shelf.

Yes, jason., something must get them started. But "start" presupposes that one progresses. I agree that one can't start out reading "The Infinite Jest" or "Finnegans Wake"; my point is they never get that far. We do not live in a culture where it is encouraged to challenge oneself, explore one's horizons, to question the presuppositions learned at knee of parent and priest. It's now G. W. Bush's America, the culture of Fox News and reality TV, and this nation is taking a strong and obvious anti-intellectual turn. In this sense, my argument is that the Harry Potter phenomena is a symptom of a more rampant and terminal disease, for which I can discern no simple panacea.

The new season of both Stargate and Battlestar Galactica has begun today, and I couldn't be happier.

I've been watching the O'Reilly Factor recently (when I need a good laugh) and his recent pastime has been to chide media sources for what he perceives to be "Anti-Americanism." His targets are the usual "liberal media" sources, The New York Times, BCC, Der Speigel, etc. His complaint against the NYT, for instance, is a semantic one. A recent article referred to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi as a "Jordanian fighter," more likely than not for any other reason than for jouralistic flow. Yet, O'Reilly took to the air, stating the New York Times is "sanitizing terrorism" for not stating explicitly and redundantly that Zarqawi is a "terrorist."

I know that the vast majority of O'Reilly's followers need things explicitly spelled out to them (c-a-t . . . "cat"), but I do not see how this stylisitic criticism amounts to Anti-Americanism. Nor, for instance, when the BBC refers to the suspects involved in the London attacks (accurately, no less) as "bombers."

I wonder if there really is such an orchestrated effort to "sanitize terror," or if O'Reilly has sunk to the point of wrapping himself in the flag such that he can then grandstand against anyone who might disagree with him; or, perhaps, he's a paranoid old fool.

Perhaps O'Reilly might be more comfortable with the monosyllabic "bad man" as a definite description of anyone who might commit acts of terror.

The new Harry Potter book is being released this Friday, and the media is blitzing it. It will most likely sell several million copies in its first few days.

Harry Potter is the literary version of Friends. But at least Friends has Coutney Cox (yumm). So, when will it be that the American public can get excited about anything besides insipid pulp? Where's the Joyce? Where's the Hawthorne? Where's the fucking Quine?

Not all reading is good just because it's reading. You might as well pick up this week's issue of Redbook. It's probably more interesting. And it's got a quiz.

Newsweek got their hands on an email from Matt Cooper specifying Karl Rove was the leak of the identity of the CIA operative. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove said last year. So, now we know he's a liar, too. Your turn, Mr. President: send him to jail, where he belongs.