Laura's Literacy
This entry was posted on 9/30/2006 2:45 PM and is filed under All Posts,The Lies.
Laura Bush wrote an Op-Ed today for the White House propoganda machine that is the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page. One would think she'd be a little less obviously partisan, like choose USA Today instead, a paper more benign and weightless. Especially for a piece titled "Why We Read: The books that inspired me to champion literacy."
Her entries, limited to five, included obscure, unheralded treasures like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", "Little Women", and the "Little House On The Prairie" series. She approached rehabilitation with "The Brothers Karamazov", then completely threw in the towel with her number one: "Hop On Pop", by Dr. Seuss.
Now I don't mean to pick on Laura (or Dr. Seuss, for that matter). She has always exuded an unusual dignity and grace for someone married to such a terrible person. In fact, she's one of the reasons I think people don't hate our president even more. She makes you contemplate the good in him that could keep someone like her around all these years.
But what gives with this stupid list? This woman was a teacher for three years, a librarian for five, and has made what appears to be a heartfelt effort at education promotion her entire adult life. Why did she feel the need to push books most American children are done with by high school? Doesn't her reading history get a little more interesting than "Hop and Pop"? I bet it does.
This brings to mind a ridiculous contest George W. is performing with his chief enabler, Karl Rove. The president claims to have read 60 books in the last 9 months compared to Rove, who has read a mere 50. Leaving aside Bush's idea that this is what a president should be focusing his time on, does anyone believe the story is true? Or that he read Camus?
I guess my gripe is this: why does the professional educator have to play the dumb one, while her incurious husband gets to run around pretending he's more well-read than she? 
