Book: I enjoyed the movie version of Girl with a Pearl Earring and now can say that the novel is good as well. I took the book on CD approach and found the performance well done, though perhaps in a voice that sounded older than the narrator's under thirty years (she is a serious sort, older than her years in some ways as a teenager, so that might balance things out). At seven discs of about eight hours, it was also a good length. The story, probably unknown to many (including I) who saw the movie, is largely a work of fiction -- the true "girl" is unknown, though some think it was the painter's daughter. The author's website has some useful background information.
One thing that stands out is that though the book does a good job dealing with the issues of class divide and the mixed feelings of a girl about to be eighteen, there is a certain timelessness. The book took place mainly in 1660s Holland, and mention of a plague and the place guilds and such had in the story along with Vermeer himself, of course, does give one a rough sense of time and place. But, the book as a whole could have taken place over range and times and places. The inner core of the story of a girl growing up, making it almost a young adult book in some ways, underlines the fact. BTW, interesting face, but there is no body to the bit of torso shown below it.
Politics: One can take Charles Krauthammer only so seriously, but when Russ Feingold basically says the same thing -- Edwards is a johnny come lately phony -- you really need to take notice. The charge only goes so far -- Feingold alone among the senators voted against the Patriot Act, and Clinton was pretty supportive of going to war (Kerryesque hedging inserted here by apologists) as well. And, Clinton was elected in 2000 while Obama served in state politics. Edwards' six years in federal service + experience running for president and vice president (a core fact ignored by CK) is not overly paltry next to that. Of course, CK doesn't think years fighting for the rights of litigants counts as public service.
But, yes, Edwards has little governmental experience, and voted like a Bush Dog in various respects when holding that North Carolina seat. Surely, he was influenced by the conservative nature of the state and his amateur status did not provide the wherewithal to take the chance to move more to the left. This only takes one so far. OTOH, so many have moved from the early days of the Bush Administration. Edwards was already pushing a populist message in 2004. The idea that he learnt something from his early years in D.C. and the excesses of the Bush Administration is not too radical.
It only takes a bit of a leap of faith and support of his message, again pushed four years ago, to believe his development was an honest one. If not, many out there are dishonest. Many now want to get out of Iraq, now find giving too much discretion to executive dangerous, now find conservative economic policy problematic. If Edwards leaves something to be desired, and sure he does, so does the country. I'd toss in that I simply cannot be sure what Obama would have done if actually a senator in 2002. Sen. Durbin, his fellow senator, could have served as a guide. But, Obama also hooked up with Sen. Lieberman. And, I have found other fault with him. So it goes.
Abortion: A good resource on the issue underlines the class issues that are raised when abortion rights are attacked. It reminds of those who dismiss federally supported abortion rights, since hey, most states would protect them anyway. Apparently, those who want to overturn Roe really are just doing so because they are concerned about federalism. Or, the millions of women in those "few" states that won't be supportive of abortion rights, particularly those most in need of protection, do not quite count.
Also, as to the concern about abortion being immoral. This implies that the alternative -- forced pregnancy -- does not have negative consequences. It turns out there sometimes are cases where no choice is without problems, the moral path being the one on balance the best bet. This often arises -- like some suggest, let's put aside the fiction -- that voter id laws deal with the problem of voter fraud. This is deemed enough to end debate, end of discussion. The ultimate problem here is that even if there is a government interest there, the means are problematic because of the way it infringes constitutional rights.
Life is easier, I guess, when you only look at a small aspect of the issues.