Joel Stein is a humorist. Also, having seen him on TV, he looks like an enormous dork.

Basically, I wouldn't worry about the opinion of someone who has wet dreams about being Dave Barry.

---

Re Austen -- Sense and Sensibility especially is a scream the second time around, when you realize how completely wrong certain characters get it.

And for Austen fans, if you get a chance, you might want to check out a '30s movie called Quality Street. It's set during the Austen era, featuring Katharine Hepburn as a 30YO woman who pretends to be her niece to get male attention -- very successfully, I might add. (I haven't seen the end of it yet, but the first half or so is recommendable.)

---

I am Susan.

Well, no, I'm really Beverly, but I agree with what Susan says. So, solidarity!

---

Joel Stein is a humorist.

Well, I kinda figured he was trying to be funny. Trying being the key word here. And I guess he succeeded, insofar as I'm way too busy laughing at him to feel insulted.

---

Joel Stein is a humorist.

Has he read the job description for that?

---

Joel Stein the guy that used to be on the back page of Entertainment Weekly? It's too bad that bugmenot is unacceptable use.

---

The transcript from last night's Scarbrough Country includes an exchange about Harry Potter that is just mindboggling to me:

...Muggles everywhere wait for the next “Harry Potter” book, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” which comes out midnight on Saturday.  But there are those who say these “Potter” books are no good, they should be banned.  And some are even out there saying they should be burned, because they promote a pagan witchcraft ideology.  With me now, we have Caryl Matrisciana.  She's producer of the documentary, “Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged, Making Evil Look Innocent.”  Also with me, we have Steve Zeitchik.  He's senior news editor at “Publishers Weekly.” Let me start with you, Caryl.  What is evil about “Harry Potter”? 

CARYL MATRISCIANA, PRODUCER, “GODS OF ENTERTAINMENT”:  Well, I don't think Harry Potter is evil.  He is a fictional little boy.  He is a 11-year-old witch in book number one.  He is now a 16-year-old in book number six that is due out at the end of this week.  He is a witch along with 350 other witches at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.  He does lots of naughty things.

SCARBOROUGH:  Is he dangerous to kids? 

MATRISCIANA:  Well, I think there are certainly moral and ethical problems.  I mean, Harry lies and he cheats and he steals.  And his teachers say that that's OK and they turn a blind eye.  And so, there is a little bit of indoctrination.  There is definitely vulgarity, vulgar humor, rather gross murders and killings, and, of course, the children that are walking around with headless ghosts and all sorts of eerie and scary things that can scare children. So, I think one has to certainly see there has to be an age appropriateness to “Harry Potter.”  And when you get children as young as 6 years old being able to listen to the books and the stories and have rather ghoulish and horrible images that linger through their nightmares, then, of course, there are those sides of—there are dangers in that. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Do you think—some are out there saying this book should be banned, it should be burned.  Are you among those? 

MATRISCIANA:  No.  I think what I take issue with is, it is a book on a very accurate portrayal of witchcraft.  Warner Brothers said of movie number one that it was accurate portrayal of witchcraft.  And, certainly, the lessons that are taught in Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry are all about the occult, paganism, a lot of things that are taught and practiced by witches. And we have got to remember that, in 1986, the Supreme Court did make witchcraft a legal religion in the United States.  It is an IRS tax-exempt religion.

 

STEVE ZEITCHIK, “PUBLISHERS WEEKLY”:  Right. 

MATRISCIANA:  There are Wiccan chaplains in the military, so it very definitely is a bona fide religion.  And so for this now to be...

SCARBOROUGH:  And you are just saying that these books push the religion.  Steve, let me ask you, do you think “Harry Potter” pushes the occult?  Do you think it pushes witchcraft on unsuspecting 6-year-old, 7-year-old, 8-year-old kids? 

ZEITCHIK:  Well, a couple of things. First of all, I don't think it does that.  I mean, I think, Caryl, you are totally right to say that there's accurate portrayal here, but it's certainly not of witchcraft, as much as it as accurate portrayal childhood.  I mean, people steal and lie and thieve in childhood, as they do in real life.  And to the degree that this book reflects any kind of untoward or vulgar activity, as you put it, it's merely reflecting the ambiguity of the world as we know it.  And I think that's probably why so many people relate to it.  So, no, I don't think it promotes witchcraft at all. 

MATRISCIANA:  Well...

MATTHEWS:  Let me ask you, Caryl, I have got a 14-year-old boy that is going to want to see the next movie that comes out.  I took him to—I guess he was 10 when the first one came out.  Am I being irresponsible as a parent? 

MATRISCIANA:  No.  I think the issue, what I take issue with is that this book (continued...)

---

( continues...) very accurately portrays obviously a religion.  And it is being read aloud in our classrooms across America, when other religious books have been banned from the classroom. 

SCARBOROUGH:  OK. 

MATRISCIANA:  So that's my issue and that is my concern. 

SCARBOROUGH:  So, you are saying you can't read the Bible, which promotes Christianity, but you can read “Harry Potter,” which you say pushes witchcraft? 

MATRISCIANA:  Well, it's a very, very accurate portrayal of witchcraft.  It also encourages the children to go into Wiccan Web sites in the classroom.  The teaching aids that come along with it do encourage children to learn more about witchcraft. And, certainly, if they are allowed to do that, in all fairness, on all religions, then let's have that in the classroom.  But are all religious...

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Steve—what do you say to that, Steve?  If this book promotes the occult, if it promotes witchcraft, then why are we letting our kids read it in school? 

ZEITCHIK:  Well, there's a couple of issues here. First of all, I am not convinced that it promotes witchcraft.  If there's elements of witchcraft in it, you know, there are elements of religions and of—I mean, you read—you read “To Kill a Mockingbird,” you want to talk about something unsavory, “To Kill a Mockingbird” has racism in it.

And “Night” by Elie Wiesel has brutality and anti-Semitism in it.  Certainly, there are unsavory things in the world.  And we still read them in our classroom.  In fact, we encourage our children to read them, because I think it will ultimately help them understand the world better.  If the message—look, if the underlying message of this book is not one that any person or parent or principal agrees with, then they should not assign it, the same way they should not assign other books.  But the idea that somehow this “Harry Potter” phenomenon, because of its very success, is indicative of an anti-religious crusade or that it somehow connects to a separation of—or a violation of church and state to me just seems totally absurd. 

---

I liked his earlier ones Days Between Stations and Rubicon Beach.

I agree with Hec's assessment of Steve Erickson. Very cool writer. Days Between Stations is a bizarre and wonderful book.

---

No. I think the issue, what I take issue with is that this book very accurately portrays obviously a religion. And it is being read aloud in our classrooms across America, when other religious books have been banned from the classroom.

"very accurately portrays"? The weird candy and magic items "very accurately portray" wicca? Huh.

---