Daily Archives: July 26, 2005

Le Tour De Potter II

This entry was posted in Harry Potter on by

I still have a few hours of the last stage of the Tour de France to watch but did, last night, finish Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
Wow!
For those of you who have not yet finished the Half-Blood Prince I have a suggestion: read from the beginning of chapter 25 through to the end in one sitting. Turn off your phone, stock your favorite reading location with an adequate amount of your preferred reading beverage and plenty of tissues, put up a do not disturb sign and read straight through.
Jaquandor should have plenty of time to re-read the series before volume 7 as it looks like it will be sometime in 2007 before we see it:

MA: Have you started?
JKR: Yeah. Realistically, I don’t think I’m going to be able to do real work on it until next year. I see next year as the time that I�m really going to write seven. But I’ve started and I am doing little bits and pieces here and there when I can. But you�ve seen how young Mackenzie still is, and you can bear actual witness to the fact that I do have a very small, real baby, so I’m going to try and give Mackenzie what I gave David, which is pretty much a year of uninterrupted �me time,� and then I’ll start writing seriously again.

I’ll be joining Jaquandor re-reading the series and will likely start in 3-4 months and read in a more studious manner than my recent 4-5 week binge as I know I missed a lot. In fact, I think I’ll re-read V6 again before restarting the series.

Bow Down to Leo?

This entry was posted in Constitution Economics Libertarianism Supreme Court (US) on by

Feddie at Southern Appeal argues that this endorsement by Leonard Leo should resolve the issue:

Dear Ann Coulter and all other Roberts doubters: If the following statements by Leonard Leo don’t make you feel extremely secure with President Bush’s nomination of John Roberts to the SCOTUS, then nothing will:

Well, I’m a cipher roberts doubter and this surely doesn’t make me reconsider. Amongst other things Leo argues that:

Even though Roberts has never ruled on an abortion issue, Leo says Roberts opinions on other hot political topics show “a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government.”

Seems a bit oxymoronic and certainly the last thing I want to see from the court is a presumption of deference to the political branches of government. An independent judiciary that properly recognizes the restrictions that must be put on government action if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and, yes, our economic well being are to survive is just fine, thank you!