SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (502097)12/2/2003 11:05:08 AM
From: calgal  Respond to of 769670
 
Paul Greenberg






Fellow feeling
newsandopinion.com | PROVIDENCE, R.I. A distinguished panel is discussing New England, but I'm sitting here thinking of the South. In particular, a sultry night in June years ago at Wildwood, the annual summer arts festival in Little Rock.

It was the night I attended an outdoor forum on the semi-serious question: Is there still a South?

As I stood there in the gazebo, glazed in sweat, swatting away at mosquitoes the size of Razorback hogs before a crowd armed with funeral-home fans, I realized it was clearly a rhetorical question.

Certainly to the audience. Who would come out for such a debate - half Chatauqua lecture, half picnic on the grounds - except those who, as an article of faith, believed there was, is and always would be a South?

John Shelton Reed, the sociologist of the South from Chapel Hill, the veritable de Tocqueville of Dixie, was there to argue the case for the everlasting South. Hodding Carter of the Greenville, Miss., Carters was there, too. Then known as Young Hod to distinguish him from his father, the legendary editor, he was the best sport on the panel; he'd agreed to risk life and limb by taking the negative, and having to argue that there was no longer a capital-S South in these homogenized, Americanized and generally globalized times.



But even Young Hod, at the end of the evening's festivities, fell to his feet, tent-meeting style, and repented, confessing that Oh, Yes, There Is Still a South! He was forgiven all his sins on the spot. The prodigal had returned!

The region under discussion this morning couldn't be more different from the South, yet the topic has a familiar resonance for a Southerner: Does New England still matter?

The South and New England remain the most distinctive of American regions, although they have little in common except their distinctiveness. Each is an exception to the bland American rule. Each is always disappearing and always there. And each shaped, and still shapes, the American ethos.

Each is the other side of a coin that's always about to go out of circulation yet keeps showing up in American transactions.

Both regions still matter, but not in the way they once did. Each changes every generation while holding on to the firm faith that they haven't changed at all. In both, paradoxes abound.

I ask Judson Hale, the editor of Yankee magazine, if there is still a New England. He replies, in both Southern and New England fashion, with a story. He tells of the New England Yankee who still has his great-grandfather's ax. But, he pointed out, the handle has been replaced four times and the ax-blade twice. And he poses the philosophical question: Is it the same ax?

Editor Hale's answer: Yes. Because it's the concept that matters, like the concept and therefore the reality that is New England.

Just as there is the idea and therefore the reality of the South. (Just trade in the ax in Judson Hale's story for great-grandfather's sword.)

It's not an easy trick to pull off, keeping an idea real while it's changing all around you. To quote David Shribman of The Boston Globe on how New England pulls it off:

"The United States is increasingly a nation of ambiguities painted in a dull wash. New England, in contrast, is vivid and distinct, a region of sharp lines. . . . Defying the demographics, and the odds, New England hangs on to a strong regional identity and performs a magic act, becoming more like itself even as it changes utterly."

Which may be the only way New England resembles the South. How do both carry off that magic act? Through will, imagination and habit. What the South does through literature, laconic New England does with the fewest words possible.

What old New England does with homespun simplicity, the old South achieves by courtly gesture. Both Boston and Charleston have worked their way into the national character - each very differently.

And just what is this New England cast of mind? It can be described but scarcely defined. It's frugal, proud, individualistic, hard-working, wry . . . all the traits it takes to survive a New England winter. When it comes to shaping a culture, climate is still all.

The mix of individual eccentricity and community feeling that is the New England town meeting is the essence of democracy, yet it defies the great god Demos. The notion of The Masses is as alien to New England as it is to America itself. In that way, too, New England has shaped the American ethos as the South was never able to.

Yes, there is still a New England under all the change. Because, like the South, it is not only a geographical designation but a state of mind. It's a matter not only of latitude but attitude.



To: calgal who wrote (502097)12/2/2003 11:05:20 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Nat Hentoff





The invisible Supreme Court

newsandopinion.com | Supreme Court Justice David Souter has said "the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body." But the Supreme Court — which decides cases that affect millions of Americans — is not his court. It's ours.

In Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia (1980), where two reporters challenged a judge's decision to close a murder trial to the press and public, Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for an 8-to-1 majority of the court about the necessity for open courtrooms, said: "People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing."

Thomas Jefferson wrote that, "there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and, therefore, unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court."

The U.S. Supreme Court will not permit televising of its oral arguments. Accordingly, most Americans — if pressed — do not even know the names of all nine of the most powerful people in this country.



By watching oral arguments, as I have at the court, you not only learn about the cases, but also about the justices — the acuity of their questions, their temperaments, and how they often criticize the other justices in the guise of the questions they pose to the lawyers before them.

On July 6, when two of the justices — Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer — appeared for nearly half an hour on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, this rare sighting of members of the highest court in the land was heavily reported by the media. It was so unusual because the justices are shrouded in such secrecy that even in the transcripts of their oral arguments, the justices are not identified by name as they ask questions.

Columbia Journalism Review reporter, Karen Aho, in the September/October issue, noted that "in 1996, a Radio-Television News Directors Foundation study found that only 4 percent of people who got their news from television could name the (Supreme Court's) chief justice." Years before, I was in Justice William Brennan's chambers just after the release of a National Law Journal survey, which showed how many Americans knew the names of the justices.

Justice O'Connor, then the only woman on the Supreme Court, was named by more than 20 percent of those surveyed. But only 5 percent knew of Justice Brennan. When I mentioned that, Justice Brennan chuckled and, referring to another member of the court, said "Harry Blackmun got only 1 percent!"

Justice Brennan told me he wanted cameras at the oral arguments because the citizenry at large knows so little of what the court does, and therefore does not understand as much as it should about the effects of the court's decisions.

So why are justices still hiding from us? One reason is that they cherish their privacy. Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Canadian publication Lawyers Weekly a few years ago:

"David ... can go to the supermarket and do his shopping, and no one will notice." How nice for Justice Souter!

And I once heard, on television, the late Justice Byron White say, during an appearance at a seminar, "It's very selfish I know," but, he added, he preferred anonymity.

The reason some other justices often offer as to why they keep cameras out of their courtroom was given to law students at Stanford University: "They say they are not a part of a national entertainment network."

And in the Sept. 15 Washington-based Legal Times, William Suter, the head clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, who strongly opposes televising oral arguments, told reporter Jonathan Ringel that "he feared late-night comics such as Jay Leno would try to use television images to make fun of the justices, which Suter said would be 'degrading to the judiciary.'"

More degrading to open constitutional democracy is the Supreme Court justices' extreme distance from the rest of us. Leno would at least get more people aware of the court; and C-Span has pledged to carry the oral arguments in full. Many other television stations would give enough time to respectfully allow Americans to get to know the court.

Dahlia Lithwick, Supreme Court correspondent for Slate online magazine, wrote in The American Lawyer: "Imagine if Congress or the president conducted themselves like so many stealthy vampires — all in darkness and a swirl of black cloth." But Justice O'Connor urges us to "try and understand the ideas that gave the Constitution life."

Why, then, Justice O'Connor, can we not sit via television in your, and our, courtroom?