Author: ssw15

I had no idea a certain population was that upset by a trend of commercialism that allegedly takes “Christmas” out of Christmas (ex., in ads, selling “holiday trees” instead of “Christmas trees”). Personally, I think if that if stores want to censor themselves (i.e., they seem to be aiming for inclusiveness by saying “celebrate holidays” instead of “celebrate Christmas”), heck, go ahead. It’s a concern when the government censors us, not when Walmart censors (gasp) itself (like I give a crap). (Then again, people forget that the government’s not supposed to endorse any particular religion while trying to be as inclusive as possible). The op-ed by Adam Cohen notes:

Religious conservatives have a cause this holiday season: the commercialization of Christmas. They’re for it.

The American Family Association is leading a boycott of Target for not using the words “Merry Christmas” in its advertising. (Target denies it has an anti-Merry-Christmas policy.) The Catholic League boycotted Wal-Mart in part over the way its Web site treated searches for “Christmas.” Bill O’Reilly, the Fox anchor who last year started a “Christmas Under Siege” campaign, has a chart on his Web site of stores that use the phrase “Happy Holidays,” along with a poll that asks, “Will you shop at stores that do not say ‘Merry Christmas’?”

This campaign – which is being hyped on Fox and conservative talk radio – is an odd one. Christmas remains ubiquitous, and with its celebrators in control of the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and every state supreme court and legislature, it hardly lacks for powerful supporters. There is also something perverse, when Christians are being jailed for discussing the Bible in Saudi Arabia and slaughtered in Sudan, about spending so much energy on stores that sell “holiday trees.”

What is less obvious, though, is that Christmas’s self-proclaimed defenders are rewriting the holiday’s history. They claim that the “traditional” American Christmas is under attack by what John Gibson, another Fox anchor, calls “professional atheists” and “Christian haters.” But America has a complicated history with Christmas, going back to the Puritans, who despised it. What the boycotters are doing is not defending America’s Christmas traditions, but creating a new version of the holiday that fits a political agenda.

The Puritans considered Christmas un-Christian, and hoped to keep it out of America. They could not find Dec. 25 in the Bible, their sole source of religious guidance, and insisted that the date derived from Saturnalia, the Roman heathens’ wintertime celebration. [….]

Christmas gained popularity when it was transformed into a domestic celebration, after the publication of Clement Clarke Moore’s “Visit from St. Nicholas” and Thomas Nast’s Harper’s Weekly drawings, which created the image of a white-bearded Santa who gave gifts to children. The new emphasis lessened religious leaders’ worries that the holiday would be given over to drinking and swearing, but it introduced another concern: commercialism. By the 1920’s, the retail industry had adopted Christmas as its own, sponsoring annual ceremonies to kick off the “Christmas shopping season.”

Religious leaders objected strongly. The Christmas that emerged had an inherent tension: merchants tried to make it about buying, while clergymen tried to keep commerce out. [….]

This ethic found popular expression in “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” In the 1965 TV special, Charlie Brown ignores Lucy’s advice to “get the biggest aluminum tree you can find” and her assertion that Christmas is “a big commercial racket,” and finds a more spiritual way to observe the day.

This year’s Christmas “defenders” are not just tolerating commercialization – they’re insisting on it. They are also rewriting Christmas history on another key point: non-Christians’ objection to having the holiday forced on them.

The campaign’s leaders insist this is a new phenomenon – a “liberal plot,” in Mr. Gibson’s words.[….]

Other non-Christians have long expressed similar concerns. For decades, companies have replaced “Christmas parties” with “holiday parties,” schools have adopted “winter breaks” instead of “Christmas breaks,” and TV stations and stores have used phrases like “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings” out of respect for the nation’s religious diversity.

The Christmas that [Fox’s Bill] O’Reilly and his allies are promoting – one closely aligned with retailers, with a smack-down attitude toward nonobservers – fits with their campaign to make America more like a theocracy, with Christian displays on public property and Christian prayer in public schools.

It does not, however, appear to be catching on with the public. That may be because most Americans do not recognize this commercialized, mean-spirited Christmas as their own. [….]

And, Cohen notes how even Fox News still made the “error” of saying “Holiday Collection” instead of “Christmas Collection.” Honestly, let’s just celebrate and let each individual decide for themselves what’s the meaning of the holiday they’re celebrating (after all, Hannukuh is falling in the middle of the 12 days of Christmas this year). And, instead of wasting time on rather pointless boycotts, why not work on helping those in need and spreading goodwill and charity?

An early review of “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” sounds pretty positive.

Caffiene isn’t bad for you. At least, the natural kind found in coffee, tea and so forth. I think scientists are still trying to figure out the stuff in sodas.

Are we paying too much for bar review (and is a certain bar review company engaged in an monopoly?). Hmm. Fascinating article, I have to say!

And, last but not least, a story on the Rockefeller Christmas Tree’s star:

[….] Last year the old fiberglass star, decorated with gold leaf, was replaced by a 550-pound crystal star from the Austrian company Swarovski, a firm that, fittingly enough, hails from the country that bestowed upon the Christmas world the melody to “Stille Nacht” or “Silent Night.”

But for an object that sits so high astride such a plump Norwegian spruce, sometimes size and sparkle, dazzle and weight just aren’t enough to grab the viewers’ attention. So this year the nine-and-a-half foot star has been fitted with a secret weapon, a glowing light-emitting diode implant that will signal that the star is alive.

Perhaps the star was in need of an electric boost after so many years looking down as the tree’s 40-foot girth accumulated an increasing array of ornaments; most recently strobe lights have become a feature among the thousands of five-watt bulbs. After all, isn’t the star – the symbol of the light that guided wise men to Bethlehem – somehow more important than the fat tree it sits atop?

The Rockefeller Center Christmas tree is more than just a symbol of Christmas for New Yorkers alone. Through television and film it has become one of the defining images of Christmas around the world, towering over gawkers toting red and white shopping bags and Yuletide skaters performing loops on the ice below.

Undoubtedly, the star is more than just a souped-up Christmas decoration to the team at Swarovski; it’s a work of art that it takes very seriously indeed. And in future years the team hopes to adjust the star’s L.E.D. settings to enhance the effect in varied light and weather conditions. [….]

Thursday night’s “ER” was actually interesting – Neela and Gallant get married. Aww. How nice. I like watching the tv characters I like take actual steps in their tv lives. Hopefully nothing bad happens to Gallant once he’s back in the army…

The Oprah Winfrey visiting Dave Letterman episode was curiously interesting. The hype got too much, I thought, but I did end up watching it. I liked how Dave tried to make a sincere conversation, and Oprah seemed pleased about that. Although, honestly, one wonders about what the heck was really going on with their “feud.” Was it really the whole Oprah-Uma thing, or Dave refusing to go on Oprah’s show (or his wanting to be on her show, but she didn’t invite him or his wanting her on his show, but her refusing? I don’t know). Slate’s Dana Stevens discusses the whole thing in an interesting manner. She also notes what really makes Dave such a curiously fascinating character – and no less so with Oprah:

It would have made for far better television if Dave and Oprah had discussed their obvious temperamental differences and how these affect their approach to their craft. Where she sees her show as a “mission” (a word she used in last night’s interview), mingling feel-good philanthropy with a near-pathological messiah complex, he is a deeply cynical, almost nihilistic figure, whose air of cold detachment only grows as he mires himself deeper and deeper in the world of show-business artifice. In fact, this abyss inside Letterman—the fact that, as he said almost proudly last night, he “isn’t close to anyone”—is the only thing that still makes him interesting to watch.

Oprah takes her save-the-world thing way seriously; Dave is bemused by it. That was certainly a fascinating part of the interview. And, to take it further, compare Dave to his late night rival – the big difference with Dave Letterman and Jay Leno – Dave obviously doesn’t care; the good interviews he does come when he’s interested in his guest (otherwise, it’s just a dumb interview with a dumb guest), whereas Jay kisses ass far too much for my comfort (and his jokes, while funny, don’t take the weird quirk direction Dave does). I’m not saying Jay Leno is bad or unworthy (the guy lasted as long as he did – he knows what he’s doing) – I just prefer Dave over Jay, but can see why most people prefer Jay. Dave is harder to swallow; Jay isn’t. But, if you get Dave, the payoff’s quite interesting. Oh well. At least it was nice to see Oprah on late night (well, she was obviously doing it to promote “The Color of Purple” musical that she’s promoting, but she knows how to be a showman (showwoman?) and to mix business and show business properly).

Newsday’s Verne Gay likes the new Nightline. He has a point – it’s live, which makes it more interesting (Ted Koppel has taped Nightline for quite awhile, so it wasn’t nearly as spontaneous as it used to be) and sticks with news. So, he feels it’s a respectable start. Ok, sure, there’s always room to grow. I’ll give the new Nightline that much of a benefit of a doubt. I just wished the transition would have been a bit more smoother, that’s all.

Oh, and by the way – the news media and on-line providing the audio recordings of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the abortion law case this week was really fascinating stuff. And, I got to love those courtroom drawings they showed on tv to go with the audio – they were hardly caricatures, but they seemed to capture what it must have been like during the oral arguments. They may never allow cameras in the Supreme Court to show its inner workings, but it remains very interesting stuff.

Congratulations on renewing your domain, FC; may we continue enjoying the website!

The passing of Stan Berenstain, the co-creator of the Berenstain bears.

The new Nightline: well, it’s only been a few days. Cynthia McFadden from the Times Square studio; Martin Bashir did a story on deaf high school football players (very nice story from the Brit who did far too many Michael Jackson documentaries for my comfort); and Terry Moran from Iraq (doing a nice job so far as I can tell). ABC ditched the old Nightline theme song (boo! How can they do that and still call this show Nightline?) and I don’t really like McFadden. She’s a better anchor for Nightline than, say, George Stephanopolous, but she doesn’t give me a Nightline kind of feeling, even when, last night, she tried to interview the Roman Catholic priests about the Vatican’s policies on homosexual priests (McFadden’s no Koppel). I actually get a better feeling from Bashir (well, working on that; his interviews of Michael Jackson still haunt me – and not in a good way) and Moran (I’ve seen him enough to accept him, but I’ve yet to feel an air of proper authority or confidence in him). I do not like the multi-story format – too much to cover in a short period of time. Pick one or two – not three.

Oh, and last night brought back one Nightline veteran John Donvan (thank goodness! and what happened to the rest of Koppel’s crew?) – he did a story on the pro-life Christians who are praying, in front of the Supreme Court, that the justices will go their way. I miss the old veterans (heck, even Chris Bury, who had to put up with a lot in New Orleans during the Katrina disaster). And, I don’t like too much change too soon. Check out David Bianculli’s review in the Daily News; he pretty much voiced my concerns:

The trio of stories, while commendable in subject, were less so in scope. McFadden’s piece, the one most typical of a classic “Nightline” report, had her questioning priests on opposite sides of the debate about gay clergy. The interview, handled live, could have gone somewhere, but never got the chance. After five minutes, with the gay priest from Albany champing to respond to his colleague’s charge that homosexuality was “a disorder,” McFadden shut down the discussion.

“I’m sorry,” she said, “that’s going to have to be the last word for tonight.”

I’m sorry, too. I would have loved to hear his response. [….]

Dividing the “Nightline” turf by half, rather than thirds, would be a better compromise, if the new regime is insistent on picking up the pace. The correspondents shouldn’t mind waiting their turn, if the resulting rotation provides time for deeper, better reports.

Lock down the camera, and slow down the segments, and the new version of “Nightline” (at 11:35 p.m.) will deserve to retain its time slot – and stand a better chance of building on that proud journalistic tradition.

Hmm. Will ABC News listen to the critics and make adjustments accordingly?

And, speaking further about TV – last night’s “House, M.D.” – has to be the best episode of the season so far. All of Dr. House’s insane mistakes catch up on him (sooner or later, no one was going to tolerate his habit of not personally seeing patients and blackmailing colleagues to save lives); series continuity: we learn that Dr. Chase’s dad did pass away, and it may explain why Chase has been a strange one the last several months (and that House did honor Chase Sr.’s request that Chase not know Chase Sr. was dying of lung cancer) (and, if the timing of the flashbacks are correct, Chase’s mental instability – due to grief of losing an estranged father and issues of faith and things like that – came in the middle of House’s being pissed with him for giving in to Vogler, the ex-hospital CEO/antagonist – making Chase one seriously stressed m.d.); Dr. Foreman’s clueless (does he not realize that he’s the one turning into House, not Chase?); and Dr. Cameron’s really dim (didn’t she realize everyone would know she slept with Chase?); and Dr. Wilson and Dr. House really need real lives (playing with their quarters for a little paper clip field goal kicking with their thumbs – ok, I’m not describing the scene adequately, but it was a very funny scene). I like it when “House” gets into a wacky storyline arc – it can get hairy, but everyone gets a bit of character development, for better or worse.

This past Friday night, I should mention, had a fascinating Charlie Rose interview of Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit and Law and Economics fame. Such a great interview!

The new “Nightline” is coming…

Saw “Rent” yesterday. I thought it was a pretty good musical movie. The fact that it had the original cast (or most of them anyway) was great too – beautiful voices and very attractive cast. And, yeah, some of the cast is looking a little long in the tooth to still play characters in their twenties, and it’s not a perfect movie (no plot, as one person said – but it’s a musical, and musicals are always going to be weak in plot). I liked the NY Times review by A.O. Scott best:

In other words, “Rent” is occasionally silly, often melodramatic and never subtle. Every song swells toward bombast, and every theme, musical or narrative, is underlined almost to the point of illegibility. [“Rent” creator Jonathan] Larson’s attempt to force the marriage of rock and Broadway often sends the worst of both genres into noisy collision, as if Meat Loaf and Andrew Lloyd Webber were reworking “Exile on Main Street.” Certainly, the musical traditions of the show’s native ground – home to the Velvet Underground, the Ramones, Sonic Youth and so on – are hardly audible in its tunes. But to raise such objections – or to chide “Rent” for its childish politics or its simplistic and instantly obsolete vision of the New York demimonde – is to think like a them.

Yes, Bohemia is dead. Its funeral rites are pronounced by Mr. Larson’s best song (“La Vie Boheme,” quoted earlier), a wondrously nonsensical catalog of tastes, ideas and attitudes ranging from microbrewed beers to Kurosawa movies, with a toast along the way to “Sontag and to Sondheim and to everything taboo.” But the passage of time, which has left almost nothing taboo, has also inoculated “Rent” against the disdain of hipsters who might find it woefully unsophisticated. Its idea of Bohemia is not realistic, but romantic, even utopian. Openhearted to a fault, it stakes its integrity on the faith that even in millennial New York, some things – friendship, compassion, grief, pleasure, beauty – are more important than money or real estate.

It never hurts to be reminded. Precisely because some of the specific concerns of “Rent” have become dated, the truth at its heart is clearer than ever. It is undeniably sentimental, but its sentimentality might serve as a balm to those of us, in New York and elsewhere, who sometimes find ourselves living in the long, tuneless sequel. Who would ever want to see a show called “Mortgage”?

Nice points. Although, I do wonder if the Red State folks may stomach “Rent,” but it’s been around almost 10 years, so what can one really say? Just sit back and enjoy the visuals and the music.

The passing of Pat Morita, a.k.a. Mr. Miyagi of “Karate Kid” and Arnold of “Happy Days.” Fascinating obituary by Associated Press, noting:

For years, Morita played small and sometimes demeaning roles in such films as “Thoroughly Modern Millie” and TV series such as “The Odd Couple” and “Green Acres.” His first breakthrough came with “Happy Days,” and he followed with his own brief series, “Mr. T and Tina.”

“The Karate Kid,” led to three sequels, the last of which, 1994’s “The Next Karate Kid,” paired him with a young Hilary Swank.

Morita was prolific outside of the “Karate Kid” series as well, appearing in “Honeymoon in Vegas,” “Spy Hard,” “Even Cowgirls Get the Blues” and “The Center of the World.” He also provided the voice for a character in the Disney movie “Mulan” in 1998.

Born in northern California on June 28, 1932, the son of migrant fruit pickers, Morita spent most of his early years in the hospital with spinal tuberculosis. He later recovered only to be sent to a Japanese-American internment camp in Arizona during World War II.

“One day I was an invalid,” he recalled in a 1989 AP interview. “The next day I was public enemy No. 1 being escorted to an internment camp by an FBI agent wearing a piece.”

After the war, Morita’s family tried to repair their finances by operating a Sacramento restaurant. It was there that Morita first tried his comedy on patrons.

Because prospects for a Japanese-American standup comic seemed poor, Morita found steady work in computers at Aerojet General. But at age 30 he entered show business full time.

“Only in America could you get away with the kind of comedy I did,” he commented. “If I tried it in Japan before the war, it would have been considered blasphemy, and I would have ended in leg irons. “

I linked to the Cnn.com’s version of the AP article, which also included a fascinating video clip of Pat Morita.

The passing of Hugh Sidey, the Time magazine writer/Presidential historian.

Newsweek has a cover article on Charles Darwin, the man behind the theory of evolution. Fascinating article. Almost made me want to pick up my old copy of “Origin of Species” from college to recapture that feeling of “wow, what is this Victorian era guy saying?” (the operative word behing “almost”).

Law.com still won’t take a break this holiday (good for them) – posting this article on Justice O’Connor’s speech on judicial independence, and on the ABA and studies on appellate judges.

Today’s NY Times editorial – great thoughts:

We often find it hard to be as thankful as we should be these days. For so many Americans, it is no longer a question of having too little or having enough. It’s the difference between having too much and having way, way too much.

It is too easy to forget, amid this abundance, that all across America a different kind of Great Depression is still going on. The old stories would have been told very differently – if they were told at all – if they had been tales of growing up poor in the midst of wealth. There was no shame in the collective poverty of the Great Depression. There is no shame in the poverty Americans suffer today. The shame adheres to those who do nothing to change it.

Perhaps it isn’t necessary to have gone hungry in order to be thankful for eating well. In a land of economic entitlement, gratitude may be almost too old-fashioned to sustain for more than this one day. But then there is something to be said for an old-fashioned holiday like this one. For a moment, we grasp how rich we are, how close we feel to the ones around us, and we give thanks before it all seems merely normal again.

Be thankful for what you have; health, family, etc. Wish for peace on earth.

John Kerry is elected… as jury foreman.

PBS this week:

Tuesday night – Nova had “Storm That Drowned A City” – to look at the science behind the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Fascinating viewing, but didn’t really tell us that much new – unless you were really curious to check out the computer graphics of how the storm surge undermined the levees.

Plus, Frontline had “The Storm” – the politics behind Hurricane Katrina. I highly recommend it – makes you feel all the outrage all over again. And, see the history of FEMA. It’ll be re-broadcast again at a local PBS station near you, so do watch.

Tonight, I’m catching the rest of the “In Search of Myths and Heroes” – British host Michael Wood takes a look at the history and historiography behind great myths – Queen of Sheba, King Arthur, Shangri-La, and Jason and the Argonauts. Really cool, as Wood visits different places – literature and history mixed together, the creation of myth and the layering of myth due to the course of history. His enthusiasm is infectious.

At some points, Wood’s journeys are caught up in the politics that keep 21st century traveling no better than that of years ago – ex., Wood had a bit of trouble looking for the ancient city that could have belonged to the Queen of Sheba in the Middle East; but he managed not to be totally turned away because people don’t hate Brits (imagine if he had been an Ugly American? Or maybe it was the vestiges of colonialism – the natives of the countries he visited probably wouldn’t bat an eyelid over a Brit traveling around and getting curious since they’ve seen that type for years). Cool stuff.

Don’t over eat on T-Day! Or is that my wishful thinking at this time of year?…

NJ Asst. US Attorney gets into trouble over his blog, since he never got permission, violating the US Attorney’s office policy to get permission before speaking to the media. Creepy. Be very careful when you’re on-line and you’re an attorney. Or, at least, don’t talk about work, like this guy talking about the federal judges…

I saw “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” on Saturday. Mike Newell, the director of “Four Weddings and a Funeral” and other stuff, got to be the first British director with the HP franchise, and he made it feel very British indeed. I kept thinking that Prof. Dumbledore would burst out “There Will Always Be An England,” what with the cinematography capturing the British landscape. “Goblet of Fire” – Book 4 – is the path to real sad stuff, so of course Movie 4 is sad. But, good movie – tight; none of the annoying excesses of Book 4; and the cast did well, even when there was still not enough time to give everybody lines (Alan Rickman as Prof. Snape, amusingly pissed with the students; the cute Cedric Diggory character; and so on). I felt that actor Michael Gambon was settling nicely as Dumbledore – he’s a bigger guy and bigger presence. I felt the grandfatherly side of Dumbledore (but his agenda still puzzling as ever…). And, of course, poor poor Harry. How much can one put a kid through?

I also liked how the movie continues the portrayal of the previous books and movies of a diverse Britain – people of various colors and races coming together to learn and so on. Picking up on FC’s point on Asians in the HP movie: I never thought that Cho Chang (played by Katie Leung) was Scottish – so that’s an interesting twist. The Patil twins (who aren’t actually twins after all, but they were in the book, so maybe they’re fraternal twins as far as the movie’s concerned?) – well, their storyline was consistent with the book indeed – Harry and Ron didn’t treat them that well as their dates to the ball (well, geez, they’re only 14 and have no clue as to how to treat girls!).

Ted Koppel’s last night is Tuesday night on Nightline. Charlie Rose did a nice interview of him Monday night.

Monday night late night tv had George Clooney on David Letterman (funny and charming, as usual – Clooney, I mean, not Letterman); Wentworth Miller on Jay Leno (sigh – so cute and so intelligent – Miller, I mean, not Leno – Miller’s a Princeton alumnus, though… 😉 … ).

So it goes…

Today’s Sunday edition (11/20/05) of the comic strip “Stone Soup” had a “Herstory” bit – proposing we not accept the theory of relativity as that of Einstein’s but that of Einsteins’ – since Albert’s first wife, Mileva Maric, was the mathematician who did the calculations for Albert back in 1905. She had to give up their first child for adoption (since she was born out of wedlock), care for their schizophrenic son, and put up with his general lack of responsibility and adultery. Plus, when he got the Nobel Prize, he gave the money to her (well, that might have been more because of the divorce settlement, for all we care). Mileva Maric was all but forgotten. I thought this edition was educational.

But, the trend in the historiography of science is apparently to reconsider and acknowledge women scientists. PBS’ Nova had a recent docu-drama “Einstein’s Big Idea: The Story Behind E=mc2” was a bit overdramatic (in between the talking head moments, were recreated scenes of young Albert Einstein in love with Mileva Maric, until he leaves her behind; and the lives of his predecessors on the theories of energy, mass, speed and so on – including a French noblewoman, who was a mistress of Voltaire, cut down at the height of life because of – what else? – childbirth and a successor – a Jewish Austrian scientist who never got the credit for the theory of energy in those little atoms (leading to the nuclear bomb). Although this episode didn’t have great critical reviews from the pro tv critics, I ended up watching it. I thought it was a bit overdone (I mean, really, sex and science?), but fascinating. Heck, Nova even already did an episode on Maric (which I don’t remember watching, maybe parts of it, but it was awhile ago).

This week, I did watch this week’s “Nova” – “Newton’s Dark Secrets.” Ok, so Sir Isaac Newton was the man behind the theory of gravity and invented calulus and all that stuff. But, apparently, he was seriously weird – he got into alchemy (perhaps as an alternative way to approach his study for truth and understand nature and to have power over nature – but still weird ); was a young man who had energy and invested it in scientific study (probably to avoid – umm – sex – was he a prim Puritan?); and suppressed his personal religious beliefs, knowing it did not comply with mainstream thinking at that time (Newton, a professor of Trinity College in Cambridge University – whose seat is now that held by Stephen Hawking – did not believe in the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – rather blasphemous at the time). Again, I didn’t like the recreated docudrama parts. But, the revelations of new research and understanding of Newton the man of that time (rather than how we developed the myth of Newton) has been fascinating.

Last week was the Downtown NY Alliance’s Restaurant Week – $20.05 prix fixe at selected downtown restaurants. Friends/colleagues and I tried out Les Halles Downtown and Steamers Landing. Les Halles had great French food; Steamers Landing specialized in seafood – and has an incredible view of the Hudson (right next to the World Financial Center). I like these restaurant weeks, trying out places I really wouldn’t try otherwise for pricing reasons!

NY Times’ Alessandra Stanley observes that the American release of the new “Pride and Prejudice” movie has a different ending than the British release of the same movie:

IT was perhaps a little embarrassing to learn that the British producers of the latest “Pride and Prejudice” released a different ending for American audiences: a swoony moonlit scene of Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy in dishabille, kissing and cooing in a post-coital clinch. [….]

The loudest protests didn’t come from patriots taking umbrage at the concession to New World prurience. Strict Jane Austen constructionists rose up to lament the sexed-up ending as blasphemy. Elsa Solender, a former head of the Jane Austen Society of North America, said that the boudoir scene “has nothing at all of Jane Austen in it” and “insults the audience with its banality.” The current president, Joan Klingel Ray, a professor of English at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, agreed. “One of Jane Austen’s greatest talents is that she presents sexual tension with such subtlety,” she said in an interview on Friday, as the movie, which had its premiere here a week ago, went into wider release.

And they have a point. The smooches and sappy, made-up dialogue between Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen are more reminiscent of Barbara Cartland’s work than Jane Austen’s. [….] One of the less vaunted joys of Austen is that she is one of the greatest writers in the English language who also happened to write witty romance novels. Women enjoy the love stories in Austen the same way men read Hemingway for the hunting and fishing: it provides guiltless pleasure.

The entire romance novel industry was founded by imitators who tried to adapt and adulterate Austen’s work, starting with Georgette Heyer, who is to Regency romance what Patrick O’Brian is to naval action adventure. [….]

The different endings caused a trans-Atlantic stir, but also a backlash. The film’s director, Joe Wright, chose to cut the final kiss for the domestic market after test audiences in England complained, but kept it for the American market, figuring, not wrongly, that Americans are saps with a lighter allegiance to literary accuracy. Or as he put it, “I guess, in America, you just like a little more sugar in your champagne.”

Some critics in the United States and Britain sneered at the ending (in The New Yorker, Anthony Lane, who is British, called the movie’s brooding romanticism a “Brontëfied” Jane Austen), but most were more indulgent. And Austen fans in England who got wind of the American version were incensed that they had been denied a final kiss.

Yeah, that would be my trouble with current Regency romances – they’re no Austens. It’s more the sex and romance and relationships, rather than social observation and excellent writing. Well, we’ll see what the next version of “Pride and Prejudice” will do. (am I at least glad I’ve read the book a long time ago). I know to keep the stuff separate – I’ll read those Regency romances, sure, but if I want Austen, she’s the classic.

Some stuff…

Cliff Sloan, publisher of Slate and a former law clerk of Justice John Paul, writes on the new biography of Sandra Day O’Connor by Joan Biskupic. Sounds like it’s a good read.

Slate’s Michael Kinsley has a view of the British democracy, which really is different from American democracy even if we derived something from it. Kinsley says:

Laws, including constitutions, are supposed to have sharp edges. Even without the help of clever lawyers, they define what is permissible in the process of defining what is impermissible, and they send a strong message that if it’s not impermissible, it’s OK. By contrast, a bone-deep desire to be left alone, a tolerance for eccentricity, a quick resentment of bullies—these are qualities that Britain has more than America, I think. And they may be more important.

Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria notes that Europe really needs to make a change – after all, what do you do when your country has a population of minorities? Zakaria notes:

One country has moved in that direction, with notable results. Britain has over the past 20 years redefined its identity. In a remarkable discussion in Prospect magazine last April, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown explained his definition of British identity: “A belief in tolerance and liberty, a sense of civic duty, a sense of fair play, a sense of being open to the world.” When pushed as to whether these were really in any meaningful sense “British,” Brown persisted, saying, “[These are] the ideas that underpin our history. We were talking about liberty and opportunity long before America was established. And America is based on British ideas… And if you look at British history, then the fact that four nations eventually came together means that Britishness could never be based on ethnic identity.”

Britain has not solved this problem. But it is searching for a solution that honors the past, embraces the present and prepares it for the future. One cannot say as much for the rest of Europe.

So, Kinsley and Zakaria feel Britain is a model of something? Hmm.

A chilly November couple of days.

And the fall movie madness… Harry Potter. Rent. Ooh.