Notepad

Normal blogging can resume now that I've finished the mandatory annual training on avoiding sexual harassment. (link via Making Light)

* * * * * * * * *

Topic No. 1 for political bloggers today will of course be President Bush's announcement of his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. I don't know much about the guy, but let me just say that I don't think that a man who sold his soul to the devil down at the crossroads really deserves to be considered for a lifetime appointment to the highest …

[Emily Litella]What's that? Oh, that's different. Never mind.[/Emily Litella]

* * * * * * * * *

This weekend, I avoided political controversy at the box office by going to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because a little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men.

This was another of those Tim Burton movies that seemed more fun to look at than to actually watch. Johnny Depp is, as usual, brilliant, although you end up pitying his demented Willy Wonka more than liking him. (And what is is about Burton that makes him enjoy taking beautiful people like Depp and Helena Bonham Carter and making them look so hideous?)

This Wonka never says anything about being the music makers and the dreamers of dreams. And there's no "Good day sir!" And it's a bit odd hearing the Oingo Boingo reunion tour performed by a bunch of CGI oompa loompas.

But at least by going to see the latest version of this classic children's story, I managed to avoid exposing myself to more conservative whining about "liberal Hollywood." More or less.

* * * * * * * * *

Been toying with the idea of canceling my landline phone. I hardly use the thing anymore, but I'm still sending Verizon quite a bit of money every month for … for … well, I'm not really sure for what anymore.

Anybody done this already? What are the downsides?

* * * * * * * * *

Seriously, as of 11:30 this morning, I know relatively little about Judge John Roberts, the man President Bush has nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. I'm sure that over the coming days we'll all learn more about him, and we'll all have more to say then.

For now, though, a word about abortion, or more specifically, about the politics of abortion. Or, even more specifically, about the way battles over the nomination of judges seems to be in large measure driven by the politics of abortion.

Johnson is Bush's pick and early reports say that he is a "staunch conservative" on "social issues." That's to be expected. But what kind of staunch conservative?

I live in Pennsylvania and am therefore represented by a junior senator who thinks that American citizens have no right to privacy. Rick Santorum believes the right to privacy is a "myth." His argument for this claim, such as it is, appears to be that any right not specifically enumerated and explicitly stated in the Constitution — no matter how elemental and basic — does not exist. That's a frightening way to read the Constitution.

Thus, for Santorum, abortion ought to be illegal because it is based on the false claim of a right to privacy. (That's what he argues, anyway. I suspect it's actually the other way around. Santorum starts with wanting abortion to be illegal, is unable to reconcile this aim with the existence of a right to privacy, and therefore arrives at the conclusion that there can be no such thing.)

There are other kinds of social conservatives, people who accept, or even aggressively defend, the right to privacy. They may argue that this right is not absolute (which, after all, it isn't), and that it must sometimes be weighed against competing claims. And they may lean more toward those other claims than I would like. But still, I'd be much happier to learn that John Roberts is that kind of conservative than to learn that he agrees with Santorum.

* * * * * * * * *

That particular cliche — "staunch conservative" — is interesting. Why don't we hear about "staunch liberals"?

Something similar seems to happen with the use of "staunch" to describe religious fidelity. We read of staunch Southern Baptists but not of staunch Unitarians.

I think this is a case of connotation bleeding into denotation. The word "staunch" here seems to be used according to its second adjectival definition, "firm; steadfast; loyal." But this meaning seems to have arisen from the first definition: "watertight; seaworthy." This, I'm guessing, is closely related to its primary definition as a verb: "to stop or check (the flow of blood or tears, etc.) from (a wound, opening, etc.)."

It's this connotation of tightness, a stopping or checking, that lends the word more aptness for describing people who are more conservative.

As a firm, steadfast and loyal liberal, I see this staunch tightness as a kind of up-tightness. "Watertight." Like a frog's ass.

* * * * * * * * *

I found this post from Pretty Fakes due to the linking back to the Left Behind series here. The LB reference segues what starts as a discussion of the new Sufjan Stevens album into a discussion of the (to be pitied) kids at Patrick Henry College and on into a discussion of James Dobson (who probably should be pitied too, but I just can't seem to see around the damage he does to conjure up a sense of empathy here).

The post is actually more interesting than I'm making it sound, so GRTWT.

* * * * * * * * *

If you missed the link in comments earlier, the Left Behind Choose-Your-Own-Adventure story has begun.

Warning: the Neverending Chose-Your-Own-Adventure Story Engine could potentially make the rest of your day much less productive.

* * * * * * * * *

Money magazine has decided, somehow, that Moorestown, N.J. is the very best place to live. (Careful with the Jersey jokes, I was born in Plainfield.)

Moorestown, Money says, "remains affordable." What, then, does "affordable" mean? "A four bedroom home within walking distance of town goes for $400,000 to $500,000, and starter homes can be had for much less."

The median price of a home in Moorestown is $367,412. The median price of a home in all of the cities honored in Money's list of best places is $316,082.

The median price of a home in the United States, in 2004, was $185,200 — which is still beyond what a great many of us can afford (the median family income in 2005, HUD says, is $58,000). But if you want to buy a house in the Best Place to Live, you'll have to pay about twice that.

Thanks for the tip, Money.

* * * * * * * * *

Speaking of Sen. Santorum … the Pennsylvania GOP e-mail list, which brings near daily news about the junior senator, is sent out from someone named Vincent Galko. I keep having this momentary confusion wondering why this guy is so intent on saying mean things about Bob Casey.