US News & Comment

Last week J.K. Rowling stated to an audience in New York’s Carnegie Hall that, “I always saw Dumbledore as gay.” This information was given in response to a question from an audience member and has sparked a flurry of discussion among Harry Potter fans. Rowling has also revealed that she crossed out a section of the screenplay for the film “Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince” where Dumbledore speaks about his love life and wrote a note simply stating that Dumbledore is gay.

In response to criticism, Rowling said, “He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him.”

The problem is that Dumbledore is no longer Rowling’s character. With the publication of the 7 Harry Potter novels, Rowling has given Dumbledore–along with all of the other wizards, witches, and muggles who inhabit their pages–to anyone who chooses to take the time and energy to read them from the page and into their imaginations. This means that Dumbledore belongs to all of us. And he is whatever any of us choose to make him.

The difference between a fictional character and an actual person, is that the character only exists as the imagination paints him. An author or filmmaker can give us an outline–sometimes a very detailed outline–but there is always room for us to fill in characteristics of our own.

Perhaps few people are as enthusiastic about this literary licence as I am. For instance, as a child I had an extreme admiration for the Star Wars character Han Solo. Among other things, I imagined that Han Solo was a talented pianist who turned to music whenever he was deeply troubled. As a young adult I read several novels written about the early life of Han Solo. Before reading them, I knew I would reject everything in these novels that did not fit in with the character’s history that I had stored in my memory for so many years. Today, I remember little of the novels I read. But I cannot forget the story I built in my own mind.

Now, Rowling may claim ownership of her characters in so far as she has legal rights to protect her intellectual property. She also has the right to say whatever she wants about them. And she can say what she thought about as she was writing about them. But she can no longer dictate what, or who, Dumbledore is. Her words are written and published. And as they are read, Dumbledore is turned into millions of Dumbledores based on the finite amount of words written about him.

Some may have always seen the character in the same light as Rowling. Some may choose to alter their picture of this character based on the Rowling’s opinions. Some, like the screenwriter of her movies, may be contractually obligated to change their view. And to many others, it will simply not matter. But for me, I disagree with Rowling. I choose to paint this character for myself and in my mind he is untainted by the brush strokes of others.

Share This

NPR Reports (and has an audio interview) that HHS Secretary loves to blog.

He takes his blogging quite seriously: writing from his Blackberry at all hours, responding to comments and making sure to post several times a week.

According to the article it seems to be a pretty popular destination.

In August, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt became the first cabinet secretary to have his own professional blog, which HHS says receives hundreds of visits per day.

Share This

Today Pete Stark (D-CA) offered an apology for his inflammatory remarks made about President Bush and the troops on the floor of the House last week.

While his remarks were indeed filled with offensive hyperbole, his premise is merely an echo of the arguments of other Democrat Congressmen, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This is particularly unsettling considering that the President submitted a supplemental spending bill of $196.4 billion to Congress to fund the war on terror during 2008. And Democrats want to behave like my 3 year old and refuse to give him any money, because he didn’t give them any money.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-sends-updated-iraq-supplemental-to-congress-2007-10-22.html

It is time that people, and political leaders, in this country remember why the government was established in the first place. A little read and often ignored document from our nations history begins with a statement of exactly why the founders felt that a national government was necessary. It states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

No where in this preamble does it mention funding health care for anyone–even children. It does not mention social security, food stamps, medicare or prescription drug benefits. In fact, it does not commit government to provide any individual need besides liberty and justice.

It does, however, reference the general welfare and common defence. These are items that concern every citizen of this nation. And this includes defending all citizens from random and savage attacks of radical, hate-filled terrorists.

This same document names the President of the United States the Commander-in-Chief of the military. He is charged with the protection of the entire country from foreign threats. Whether the Democrats like it or not George W. Bush is the elected President of our country and endowed with these constitutional powers. And no matter who wishes to deny it, our country faces a threat from terrorists of various organizations who wish only for our complete destruction.

Most of President Bush’s two terms has been spent guarding against any further attacks on our soil. He has made tough decisions that have included putting our military in harm’s way so that all children here can play, learn and grow without the fear that they will be blown up. Perhaps he, and other Republicans, can be forgiven for feeling that this is a cause less open to partisan debate than insuring 10 million children whose need is questionable.

Comparing money for the S-CHIP program, which is not even a legitimate function of the government, to money needed for national defense, which is one of the primary functions of the federal government is ridiculous. And withholding money from the men and women who are protecting our security and liberty for political revenge is outrageous and irresponsible. Not to mention, it does no good for anybody’s children.

Share This

When I first heard the news about King Middle School offering contraceptives to pre-teen girls I was livid. I imagined a school nurse handing out prescription drugs willy-nilly to any curious girl who walked through the door. I thought with horror of my own brief experience with birth control.

I was 23, married and had just suffered a traumatic miscarriage after a brief pregnancy packed with life-threatening complications. The pills nearly sent me over the edge. My most vivid memory is of sitting in a restaurant with my husband and being hit by a wave of despair so complete I was drowning in it. For no reason tears began flowing down my cheeks and into the salad. A few minutes later I was better. But over the next couple of days the despair returned again and again.

During that time I consulted with my husband, my mother, my mother-in-law, a friend and my doctor. I got off the birth control pills and the violence of the mood swings subsided. (Being a woman and still in possession of most of my hormones, I couldn’t get rid of them completely.)

I was appalled, however, at the thought that young girls, still adjusting to the changes of puberty would be subjected to the possibility of side effects similar to mine without being properly informed. Were people so desperate to push the notion of safe sex that they would endanger the mental well-being of children?

Then, however, I did a little research. I went to King Middle School’s website. (see http://king.portlandschools.org/) I read the letter written by the principal explaining the reasoning behind the decision to offer contraceptives. I read the policies of the King Student health center. What I found was not what I feared. It was much more subtle and disturbing.

As it turns out, the King Student Health Center was established in a partnership between the public schools, the Public Health Division, and Maine Medical Center. It had a a pediatrician, a nurse practitioner, a dental hygienist and clinic assistant. Students must have a signed parental permission slip before using the center services. Parents are encouraged to accompany their child on the first visit to the center. Thereafter, parents are welcome to come in with their child but they do not need to come when their child is seen. Parents are also welcome to call or come in to discuss their child’s health.

However, the duty that physicians have to share information with parents remains rather vague. It is clear that the records at the clinic are subject to the confidentiality laws that apply to other medical facilities. Records will only be released with written consent from a parent or legal guardian. Students are allowed to seek services for “reproductive health, mental health, or substance abuse without requiring parental notification.”

This is a glaring example of what is worst about public schools and government health care. The fact that a child can seek medical attention and a parent is merely invited into the proceedings as a removed, but potentially interested, party is appalling. And that the invitation is rescinded when the consultation involves such sensitive and personal issues as drugs, sex and metal well-being. It is a classic example of the devaluation of the role of parents and the family unit by government programs.

Now, I understand that there are parents who have no interest in raising their children. I understand their are parents who have a difficult time finding the time and money necessary to give their children all that they think they need. But in creating “laws” and “programs” and health center policies to cover for negligent or struggling parents simply undermines the rights and responsibilities of all parents. Nor do these programs ultimately help the children.

Unlike parents or a family, the government cannot provide the love, compassion, discipline or moral foundation that a child needs to become a stable adult. All too often we seem to be willing to trade in these fundamentals in order to allow the government to provide useful, but ultimately less important services like secular education or medical care.

Allowing a school to be a co-conspirator in handing out birth control, no matter how responsible the procedures in place for it’s distribution, is placing the role of school and government above the role of parents and family in the life of a child. While this may be the natural course of hierarchy in some dysfunctional families, it is not a position that any government agency should aspire to nor be allowed to claim under any circumstances.

This should be a dire warning to all who hold their children and families dear. This is merely a glimpse of what we will face if we allow Hillary Clinton or any other politician institute nationalized health care. At that point there will be no parental permission slip necessary. There will be no alternative to the government provided doctor. And the list of what the doctor is not required to share with parents will only grow longer and longer.

When I faced the horrible side effects of prescribed birth control pills, I turned to my parents and other members of my family. The relationship developed with my family was at least as valuable, if not more so, than the advice of the medical professionals. To rob our children of the opportunity to develop these relationships is inexcusable. And, as illustrated by King Middle School, all that is necessary for liberals to take this away from them, is for us to sit by and let them.

Share This