Sorry, a little reprieve from all things Bronco and poetry.
Strange couple of weeks in the news world, everything from Rosa Park's death and improbable tribute of her Capitol Rotunda "lying in state," to Helmsman Sulu of Star Trek finally coming out of the closet. Of course, the entire Libby affair and the continued Bush mastery over the Press (the story is one of "relief" that no more indictments were discharged--not over the fact that this aide is indeed a liar to his boss and his other subordinates, not over the fact that this debacle has everything to do with how the war was advertised--but all of that would take a Press capable of genuine self-reflection. Funny how Judy Miller is still employed by the The New York Times, as if her departure would free her to become a Fox News Analyst, letting her spit venom at her former employee; the Times and Miller deserve each other).
Of course, there's the whole Miers/Alioti switcheroo. I don't think, as some bloggers do, that Miers was a red herring; I believe Bush sincerely nominated her simply based on his familiarity with her and their common adult/Evangelical conversions. What I find curious in all the commentary so far regarding the new nominee is the absence of pointing out that if Alioti is confirmed, it would mean that all five of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court are Roman Catholic males. I realize that Kennedy is not as orthodox in being either an "originalist" or "constructionalist," but it is very scarey the uniformity of this block. In any event, that Scalia, Thomas, and Alioti apparently like to read the Constitution the way they read the Bible, as literalists, essentialists, and foundationalists, unnerves me.
I'm not talking about the overtuning of Roe v. Wade here (though that seems certain now--which might finally re-invigorate the Democrats, and you'll see plenty of evangelicals making trips to Blue states to have their abortions, too). Their ferver and zeal will cool and constrict our freedoms; it will be a chill that even some of my libertarian friends will sense.
Strange couple of weeks in the news world, everything from Rosa Park's death and improbable tribute of her Capitol Rotunda "lying in state," to Helmsman Sulu of Star Trek finally coming out of the closet. Of course, the entire Libby affair and the continued Bush mastery over the Press (the story is one of "relief" that no more indictments were discharged--not over the fact that this aide is indeed a liar to his boss and his other subordinates, not over the fact that this debacle has everything to do with how the war was advertised--but all of that would take a Press capable of genuine self-reflection. Funny how Judy Miller is still employed by the The New York Times, as if her departure would free her to become a Fox News Analyst, letting her spit venom at her former employee; the Times and Miller deserve each other).
Of course, there's the whole Miers/Alioti switcheroo. I don't think, as some bloggers do, that Miers was a red herring; I believe Bush sincerely nominated her simply based on his familiarity with her and their common adult/Evangelical conversions. What I find curious in all the commentary so far regarding the new nominee is the absence of pointing out that if Alioti is confirmed, it would mean that all five of the conservative wing of the Supreme Court are Roman Catholic males. I realize that Kennedy is not as orthodox in being either an "originalist" or "constructionalist," but it is very scarey the uniformity of this block. In any event, that Scalia, Thomas, and Alioti apparently like to read the Constitution the way they read the Bible, as literalists, essentialists, and foundationalists, unnerves me.
I'm not talking about the overtuning of Roe v. Wade here (though that seems certain now--which might finally re-invigorate the Democrats, and you'll see plenty of evangelicals making trips to Blue states to have their abortions, too). Their ferver and zeal will cool and constrict our freedoms; it will be a chill that even some of my libertarian friends will sense.
Comments