Gentle Reader -- You are welcome to peruse my web-based journal. I assure you that my contributions to this medium will be both infrequent and inconsequential. Read on!

PLANTS

Lewis Black, from Nothing's Sacred (via Kos):

In my lifetime I have gone from John F. Kennedy to John F. Kerry, and from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush. If that's the evolution of leadership in this country, in just a few more years we'll all be voting for plants. Which might not be so bad. After all, thanks to their ecological purpose in this world, at least plants try to clean up the air. And that would certainly be an improvement over what we've got now.

That's all. posted by Carlton at 3:15 PM

AIR FORCE ACADEMY, REVISITED

Here's another article regarding the scandal of religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy. Wht's that you say? What scandal? Well, I think it's scandalous. The author of a new (partisan) report states that this is the worst situation of this type that the military has seen in decades:

Some of the examples cited are bothersome:

The report's authors were told that cadets who refused to attend chapel after dinner were marched by upperclassmen back to their dorms in a ritual called "heathen flight." They found that teachers introduced themselves as "born again" Christians and invited students to be saved as well. A history instructor ordered students to pray before a final exam, the report said. And a Christmas greeting in the base newspaper said Jesus was the only hope for the world; it was signed by 300 people, including 16 heads or deputy heads of academic departments, nine professors, the dean of faculty and the football coach.

And some are just weird:

During a chapel service, [Academy Commander] Weida reportedly told cadets the New Testament parable about building a house on a rock. The story is meant to convey the importance of a solid foundation for one's faith.

"Gen. Weida then instructed cadets that, whenever he uses the phrase 'Airpower!' they should respond with the phrase 'Rock Sir!' thus invoking the parable," the report said. "Gen. Weida advised the cadets that, when asked by their classmates about the meaning of the call and response, the cadets should use the opportunity to discuss their Christian faith."

Read the whole thing. I got it from L.A. Times via Smirking Chimp.

I've already said some things about this. When your religious group unquestionably dominates (the Christians themselves estimate that they make up 90% of the student body at the AFA), there are only two reasons to attempt to convert or stamp out the remaining nonbelievers: paranoia (Enemies! Where are my enemies!) and sadism (This'll show that Jew/Muslim/atheist to reject the holy healing love of my Savior! Hold him down, Jim-Bob!)

The point of this post is this: I think that this religious intolerance in the military is not just out of step with American ideals of diversity. By discouraging non-Christians from attending our military academies, we are shrinking the pool of recruits for our officer corps. That hurts our military. (Unless you think that being a Christan makes one a better soldier/sailor/airman/Marine, in which case I can't help you.)

But here's some more: There is something idiotic about requiring non-believers to go to church. I attended church very regularly for the first twenty years of my life (three times a week!), and infrequently afterwards. I no longer attend church. It didn't work for me. Whether right or wrong, saved or eternally damned, I am very comfortable in my secular lifestyle. If preaching and witnessing would have made me a Bible-thumping Christian, it would have done so by now. Church holds very little attraction for me -- I think the weekly hour would be better spent reading, or sleeping, or spending time with friends, or posting here, or even watching television (if there's something good on).

Beyond that however, forcing everyone to attend church indicates a certain disregard for what people actually believe -- the reality, you might say. In a non-compulsory church world, you only get the people who really want to be there (whether to worship or because of the cute girls is harder to know). In a compulsory church world, however, it's impossible to determine who is there because of real conviction and who is there because of the requirement/consequences of non-attendance. Attending church doesn't make you Christian, but it sure does make you SEEM Christian. If you are Christian and making the rules, seeing every butt in a pew, Atheist Muslim and Jew, means that you don't have THINK about all those non-believers out there. And it's much more comfortable not to have to think about people who think and believe different things from you. posted by Carlton at 1:54 PM

SOME PEOPLE KNIT

So, I've been posting like mad for a week or so, now. You may ask yourself, as I do, why I am doing this. The answer, frankly, is that I DON'T KNOW. I'm not working, my crappy novel is a stone's throw from being done (in draft) and I'm just about to get married. I guess leisure time + anxiety = writing a lot on Planet Carlton. Does anyone really care? Does anybody really know what time it is?

I'm told that blogging is good for your career, though I've yet to see any dividends.

As long as I'm posting, some stories about me (ME! ME! ME!)

The only person I ever met from Mongolia (to my knowledge) was a beautiful woman named Unadarya -- who I guess wrote this, although I have no way of knowing. I met Undarya through Franziska (she of the burning question: Auf dem Weg zu einer europäischen Innenpolitik: Fortschritte durch den Verfassungsvertrag?) in Budapest. Undarya gave me one of the few nicknames I've ever had -- she called me "RCC," which in her mind stood for "Remarkably Consistent Carlton. Apparently, to her, I maintained the same expression and tone of voice no matter what the topic, whether I was remarking that someone's mother had just died or that the tea was ready.

The only other nickname I've ever had was one that I gave myself. I was on a bowling team in college, and I suggested that we all give ourselves "tough bowling nicknames" (I was there for comic relief, since I couldn't bowl fer shiz). I started us off by saying, "Everyone should call me 'Skull.'" Years later, a select few people still call me that.

The name of this blog comes from something that a woman said to me during my year studying in Swansea -- where I met Franziska, interestingly enough. Lindsay and I were friends, and one day she asked me how I was by saying, "How's the weather on Planet Carlton today?" That's about the only conversation I really remember having with her. She has since died, of course -- one of the few people I have known to pass away -- so there will be no more conversations. But it stuck in my head.

Boy, dumb and rambling post. Maybe something more later! posted by Carlton at 5:34 PM

MOVIE REVIEW: KUNG FU HUSTLE

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This was one funny flick. Maybe it caught me in the right mood, because the thing is pretty darn silly, but I laughed and laughed. At a movie in subtitles.

This movie gets three crowns (out of five). Go see it. posted by Carlton at 2:29 PM

DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY

Via Washington Monthly, a site I read every day, and Obsidian Wings, a site I rarely read, comes the story of the amendment process for the new abortion parental notification bill (CIANA) in the House. Seems the bill makes it a crime to transport a minor across state lines in order for her to have an abortion. (Well, OK -- I don't agree with it, but I see some justification.) The bill was proposed by Republicans, naturally, and some Democrats offered amendments that seem pretty reasonable: common carriers (like bus drivers) wouldn't be subject to the bill, and a minor's grandparents wouldn't be subject, either. (If you start to consider situations in which a bus driver would have to make sure that all underage females on his bus are not pregnant, and that some minor girls are impregnated by their fathers and turn to other family members for help, you can see where these amendments are coming from.)

But NO! Not only were the amendments shot down, but the Republicans rewrote the descriptions of the defeated amendments:

DEMS: a Nadler amendment allows an adult who could be prosecuted under the bill to go to a Federal district court and seek a waiver to the state’s parental notice laws if this remedy is not available in the state court. (no 11-16)
GOP REWRITE: Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have created an additional layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill. By a roll call vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Nadler amendment to exempt a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and civil provisions in the bill (no 12-19)
GOP REWRITE: Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were grandparents or adult siblings of a minor. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated.

Thas' jus' nasty. read the whole post. Funny and snarky!

ADDENDUM: My quick take on fights like this is that they are so dirty because the Republicans are operating from an inherently dishonest position. Most Americans agree with the idea that "abortions are a bad thing and should be discouraged, but there are some circumstances in which they should be allowed." The Republicans, then, try to squeeze their entire "outlaw abortion" agenda into regulating the "some circumstances when they should be allowed." See, if you make those circumstances so narrow that no one can possibly fit into them, it's just as good as outlawing it altogether!

So when the battle comes down to actually trying to do what the Republicans say they are trying to do, they flip out -- because positively establishing when abortons are legal is NOT what they want to do at all! Nice! posted by Carlton at 2:12 PM

A BAND APART

Some time ago, Molly and I sat in a bar and made up the names of several bands, as well as the names of each of their latest albums. Here they are:

Spermicide: Death to all Sperm

This is the first album from a young hardcore band that hardly knows what hit them. The individual members are very talented -- success in the form of a major tour and major-label recording contract, came with a blind mailing of their first demo CD, before they had played a single live show together. Perhaps as a result, Spermicide is having trouble keeping the band together. The bassist wants to get into hip-hop producing, the drummer wants to go back to college and get his MBA, and the lead singer is already itching for a solo deal. Some say that, with the individual members so talented, it would almost be a shame to keep them together, when each perhaps could do more on his own. Years down the road, people will listen to this album and say, "Wow, the president was in a pretty good band!"

The Cranks: We've got Good Taste

This is the seventh album from a once-promising alternative rock band that has hit some rough times. After several tours and a few genuine hits, the band fell apart in the middle 1990s after some money squabbles and a night of drug-fueled wife-swapping. A few years down the road, however, the band realized that their need for money was stronger even than their intense dislike of each other. Strangely, this antipathy, combined with the de-tox of the two two major songwriting members and the band's collective need for income has re-fueled the bands creative engine, producing a 15-track album in three short months that critics have called their best ever.

The Ugly Mothers: Jaws of Life

The twentieth live album from what has been called "The Best Bar Band in the History of the World," Jaws of Life is more of what the Mothers' fan base of drunken fratboys and middle-aged former fratboys crave: beer-soaked pseudo-blues featuring odes to dollar draft night and threesomes with college girls. This band is nothing if not consistent; they have been working the same formula and the same three guitar licks for the past seventeen years.

TrackDaddy: TrackBack -- The Best of TrackDaddy

Filed under "World Music" at your local records store, this CD is a "greatest hits" compilation from an artist who had no hits -- no recordings at all, in fact. TrackDaddy (born Darryl Ibrahim, of an African American Mother and a Syrian father), is widely known to have been influential and on the scene at the genesis of what would come to be known as hip-hop. As an homage to TrackDaddy's influence on this musical style, this CD compiles tracks by old school artists such as Grandmaster Flash and Fab 5 Freddy on which TrackDaddy worked as an uncredited producer. A companion disk includes interviews with several artists, each of whom discusses the contribution TrackDaddy made to their music. Also, each reflects on the loss to the world of hip-hop caused by TrackDaddy's death at the age of 26 in a Detroit movie threater shooting during the premiere of Back To The Future in 1985.

Babycake: Babycake

This is the debut album from 13 year-old tween star Babycake, perhaps better known as the African-American girl with the winning smile on the PBS show Zoom. Protests by parental groups (specifically to the blatent sexuality of the first single, "Put it in my Booty") are sure to make this pre-fab, Pro-tooled record an instant hit, if not worth a listen.


Whiskey Kings: Ace, Deuce, Trey

The three remaining members of indie-rock giant Monster X, after a yearlong hiatus following the death of lead singer Sky, re-emerge as neo-hipster trio Whiskey Kings in this poorly-timed release. While everyone in the music world wishes them well, and the CD does contain at least two listenable tracks ("Check out my New Bowling Shoes" and "Flat-top Shack" in particular), this band seems to be trying to catch a ship of Rat Pack retro nostalgia that has already sailed. Did Brian Crest, the songwriter of the group, get inspiration from a copy of the "Swingers" sountrack from the bargain bin at Wal-Mart? The bowling-shirt, fifties-diner aesthetic just feels off at this point in time. We wish them well, and better luck next time.

Marginal: Oleo Marginal

Another blistering dance recease from mysterious basement mixmaster Marginal, tracks from Oleo Marginal have been ripping up the clubs in New York and L.A. for weeks before the official release date. That's the way Marginal seems to like it -- DJ's in both cities report receiving early mixes of tracks #6 and #8 (which is how they will be titled on the CD) via email for their own use and feedback. The mysterious artist, who has thus far refused to appear in public or be interviewed in person or on the telephone (he conducts a few interviews each year by online chat) has a habit of "spin-testing" his tracks on the dance floors of major venues.

The question on everyone's lips, however is this: is the picture of the portly African-American man with the Afro, Coke-bottle glasses and the reel-to-reel tape recorder on the CD cover really the man himself? A representative for his record label is nocommittal. "This is Marginal's record," he said, "and Marginal approved the cover artwork, as he does with all creative matters. You can draw your own conclusions."

ETA: A new release from indie darling Parcel Post showed up in our Inbox today. Apologies to all their fans who wrote and called wondering where the summary of their new CD "Nicely Packed" might be. posted by Carlton at 10:54 AM

TRIUMPH OF THE SUCK

I may be beating this into the ground, but it is very important to go back to where it all began, the inspiration of the Suck Report. Here they are:

The Sucky Trinity:

Matchbox Twenty (I'm gonna push you around -- and then I'm going to bring Carlos Santana back from the dead so I can make him suck, too.)
Counting Crows ('Round here -- all our songs sound the same. And our lead singer is a bald scummy greaseball.)
Dave Matthews (Crash! Into mediocity!)

Before all the DM fans come after me with torches and pitchforks, I just want to say -- get over it. I don't like your dude. I must have been trapped in an underground lead-lined bunker when the aliens came and used their mind rays on all of humanity, and when I came out everyone liked Dave Matthews. There's no other explanation. ("My God, Spock, this music!" "What is it, Captain?" "It's, it's . . . not very interesting!")

By the way, early reports are that the latest episode of Enterprise . . . wait for it . . . did NOT suck. In fact, it apparently RULED. Not that I'd know. I gave up on that show a long time back. But check out TwoP if you don't believe. posted by Carlton at 9:57 AM

WELL WELL WELL

Oh, I can't help but post something about this (especially since my comment over at Greg's place disappeared with his revamp):

Guckert made more than two dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings. On many of these days, the Press Office held press gaggles aboard Air Force One—which raises questions about what Guckert was doing at the White House. On other days, the president held photo opportunities.

On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out.

The whole thing is here.

So, what do YOU think that this gay "military stud 8" uncut" prostitute/journalist was doing at the White House on days when there were no briefings? Which is to say, that he had no journalistic reason to be at the White House? I mean, I could make the OBVIOUS inference, but that would be so, so OBVIOUS. I mean, maybe his grandmother was sick, and he was bringing her hot soup, and she lives at the White House. Or maybe he is a forgetful soul, and he was always leaving his Cross pen that he got for high school graduation from his favorite aunt in the briefing room, and he kept going back to get it, and not wanting to bother anyone didn't check in with White House security and nobody cares because it's just the White House and any old body can walk in there and wander around. Maybe he's trying to be a prostitute/journalist/house painter and he was practicing on the White House.

I'm just wondering if I should include this in the Suck Report. I want to hear more about this -- really, I do.

(It's not the gay-ness, it's not even the prostitute-ness, it's the hypocrite-ness.) posted by Carlton at 11:57 AM

GEEK TRICK

I link, for your perusal, the Geek Heirarchy. And be sure to check out the "frequently paraphrased questions" section. A selection:

As a Ren Faire person, am I more or less geeky than someone who writes fanfic?
This sort of conundrum is the very essence of the complex web of status and discarded candy wrappers that is the Geek Hierarchy. Your position as a fan of science fiction literature (a category which includes nearly all geeks to some extent or another) puts you above fanfic writers, but fanfic writers can say the same to you. Embracing this paradox will lead to understanding of the Geek Nature.

posted by Carlton at 11:02 AM

THE SUCK REPORT: ABLE TO LEAP TALL BUILDINGS IN A SINGLE SUCK

Here's a pic of the new Superman costume. I'm not saying it sucks, itself, but it could be a small cog in a larger machine of suck.

Oh and here's that milquetoast Clark Kent, who never seems to be around when there's any action. posted by Carlton at 10:54 AM

THE SUCK REPORT: THE NEW FACE OF SUCK

It's John Bolton! Even the British hate him! posted by Carlton at 10:51 AM

SACHMO'S LOST RECORDING

Discovered! (Caution, sound file.)

I've heard that a number of other bands have recorded this song, as well. In a non-ironic way. That's as funng as anything. posted by Carlton at 1:12 PM

GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE

This article contains the sweetest two words that I have read in a long time. I knew they would come up eventually, of course. But to read then NOW was such an unexpected pleasure that I thought I'd share them with you fine people.

"We're in the lame-duck period," said John Zogby, an independent pollster. "Each day that passes, the duck gets lamer. The window (of opportunity) has passed. If he wasn't able to come off the voting (in Iraq) and turn it into more of a popular mandate, I don't know what he can do."

Lame duck. Ahhhhhhhh. That song is number ten with a bullet. There's even some truth to it: the centerpiece of Bush's policy plan for the second term, demolishing Social Security, has been a big dud, and the Schiavo thing has been frankly scary for a lot of people. And THEN, if the whole John Bolton nomination gets derailed . . . well, each setback turns down the gas under his aura of invincibility a little bit more.

That's not to say that Bush is actually a lame duck right now. His party still controls the Congress, of course. But until now, their relationship has been all about them giving him what he wants, because he was so strong that riding his coat-tails was a sure path to maintaining power. But if his star begins to set, the Congress may remember that there are things that they want from him, and the Republicans on the Hill are not a unified block of foot soldiers when it comes to their own interests.

And finally, it must be said that the Chief Executive is never powerless, even if the Congress is totally against him. He can issue executive orders, set policy for the military and any of the administrative agencies that do so much of the governing around these parts. (And John Zogby isn't the Oracle at Delphi, either.)

But Lame Duck. It's got a beat, and I can dance to it. posted by Carlton at 12:04 PM

SO WHAT'S MY POINT?

What's the point of that dumb last post? Just this: Anti-intellectualism means never having to explain yourself. Conservatives generally, and religious conservatives in particular, have moved pretty far away from the idea that “having thought and read about a subject means that your opinion might have more weight.” Instead, they have bought heavily into the “just know” school of life. Does God hate gay people? I just know that he does. Does God favor white people over people of other ethnicities? I just know that he does. Is George Bush a good, brave, patriotic man who cares about the little guy? You guessed it. Unfortunately, people who just know things tend not to know much of anything, because knowledge that comes out of the air like that (or worse, from the pulpit of First Baptist) is generally incompatible with verifiable facts and things you might learn in school. (Unless it’s a Christian Academy or homeschool!) posted by Carlton at 9:22 PM

FIRST PRINCIPLES

Here, again, is the First Baptist Church statement of "What We Believe" (with comments):

What We Believe...

About God

God is the Creator and Ruler of the universe. He has eternally existed in three personalities: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are co-equal and are one God.
(Genesis 1:1, 26, 27; Psalm 90:2; Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Corinthians 13:14)

Who? Huh? Wha? Right out of the gate, we're getting hit with several defined terms. I feel like I need a glossary just for the summary. Co-equal? Is that like the three branches of government? Which one is in charge of the Post Office?

So, starting out, we get an idea of what this document is, or rather what it is not. It's NOT a guide for the totally uninitiated -- If I'm sitting at home thinking, "My people have always worshiped trees and spirits of the Earth. Yet the President sure does talk about this God fellow quite a bit. Perhaps I should investigate," I'm not going to learn much here. So maybe if you're starting out as, say, a Catholic, this will make some sense to you.

About Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is co-equal with the Father. Jesus lived a sinless human life and offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of all people by dying on a cross. He arose from the dead after three days to demonstrate His power over sin and death. He ascended to Heavens glory and will return again some day to earth to reign as King of kings and Lord of lords.
(Matthew 1:22-23; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1-5, 14:10-30; Hebrews 4:14-15; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; Romans 1:3-4; Acts 1:9-11;
1 Timothy 6:14-15; Titus 2:13)

Um . . . not much more helpful. "Co-equal" has reared its ugly head again. Admittedly, this is a pretty thorny theological question -- what does it mean that Christ was supposedly God and man at the same time? But here we have the question raised with no real attempt at any kind of an answer -- so if I knew enough to understand the question, I remain unenlightened, and if I don't know enough to understand the question, I'm still flummoxed. Either way, it's probably off to Craigslist Missed Connections with me (Missed connection: Useful Information)

About the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is co-equal with the Father and the Son of God. He is present in the world to make us aware of our need for Jesus Christ. He also lives in every Christian with power for living, understanding of spiritual truth, and guidance in doing what is right. He gives every believer a spiritual gift when they are saved. As Christians, we seek to live under His control daily.
(2 Corinthians 3:17; John 16:7-13, 14:16-17; Acts 1:8; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Corinthians 2:12, 3:16; Ephesians 1:13;
Galatians 5:25)

I'm just going to ignore the "co-equal" thing here. So the Holy Spirit's job is to make us aware of our need for Jesus Christ (previously mentioned). He will give me a gift when I'm saved. "Saved?" As far as living under His control, that makes the Spirit sound like either 1) my shift supervisor at Arby's, 2) Joseph Stalin, or 3) the Ferengi in that episode of Star Trek: TNG that gave Captain Picard that artifact that interfered with his brainwaves and made him think he was still captain of the Stargazer. I don't think any of those are meant here -- but if I don't know that already, I won't learn it here!

About the Bible

The Bible is God’s Word to us. It was written by human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it is the truth without any mixture of error.
(2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 1:13; Psalm 119:105, 160, 12:6; Proverbs 30:5)

This is actually pretty useful. Let's go ahead and give that I know the Bible is a book that Christians are always reading, but I don't know what the heck it is. And the "no error" thing, which I personally think is pretty retarded, is an actual belief that would separate the FBC Christians from other Christians. Full marks. (Extra points would have been given if this entry had mentioned that the strange code at the bottom of each of these entries referred to sections of this Bible, and that the code refers to book, chapter, verse -- but since this is technically a page about "belief," it's not absolutely necessary.)

About Human Beings

People are made in the spiritual image of God, to be like Him in character. People are the supreme object of God’s creation. Although every person has tremendous potential for good, all of us are marred by an attitude of disobedience toward God called “sin.” This attitude separates people from God and causes many problems in life.
(Genesis 1:27; Psalm 8:3-6; Isaiah 53:6; Romans 3:23; Isaiah 59:1-2)

Hey, a term is defined! "Sin" = and attitude of disobedience. Gold Star!

About Salvation

Salvation is God’s free gift to us. We can never make up for our sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s offer of forgiveness can anyone be saved from sin’s penalty. When we turn from our self-ruled life and turn to Jesus in faith we are saved. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.
(Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1)

Oooh, a step back. "Salvation" is never quite defined here, although we are told how to get it: turn from "self-rule" to "Jesus in faith." I understand all of that except the part in quotation marks. There is a real question here: if I'm not supposed to rule my own life, and instead let Jesus do it, how does that work? I checked out a bit of that Bible book, and it doesn't really say much about me in there. Does Jesus talk to me? Does he have an agent who releases statements on his behalf? Didn't I read above that he was gone and wouldn't be back until later?

As far as that last sentence goes, every word except "the moment" is part of a phrase that needs serious clarification.

[Skipping "About Eternal Security"]

Eternity

People were created to exist forever. We will either exist eternally separated from God by sin, or eternally with God through forgiveness and salvation through Christ. To be eternally separated from God is Hell. To be eternally in union with Him is eternal life. Heaven and Hell are real places of eternal existence.
(John 3:16, 5:11-13; Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:15; Matthew 1:8, 2:44, 46)

Wha? Here is a sentence that eats iself: "Heaven and Hell are real places of eternal existence." If you say "Heaven and Hell are real places," that's a pretty bold statement. But you don't. They are real places "of eternal existence." Which means they aren't "real" places, that you can get to on foot or by rocket sled or dirigible. Putting aside the fact that the writer of this has rhetorically failed to link the terms "Heaven" and "eternal life" so that I'm left wondering whether I need to worry about whether "Heaven" is a real place (and "eternal life" supposedly begins when I "accept Jesus," so I'm confused again. Do I go to Heaven when I accept Jesus? While I'm still alive?)

My biggest problem with this paragraph is that it is entitled "Eternity" but does not tell you want it means by eternity. Is this talking about what happens when you die? I didn't see the words "die," "death" or "afterlife" anywhere in this document. And I used the Ctrl+F function!

Wow, that was so much fun that I'm a little queasy. posted by Carlton at 8:11 PM

ALTER EGOS

Not me.

Not me either.

Definitely not me.

Not me -- but comfy! posted by Carlton at 8:00 PM

MAN-EATERS

Regarding my last post about the courts and the Christians: at least two forces are at work here.

1. Like the tiger that has once tasted human blood is forever after a man-eater, these religious fundamentalists have now tasted real political power and liked it. Now that they have gotten a little bit of their agenda passed, and have the people's elected servants competing to see who can sing hymns the loudest, they figure that now is the time to transform America into Afghanistan. I don't blame them for thinking that, either.

The fact is, however, that many if not most of the politicians pandering to the religious right do not really care much about these issues. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney do not care about outlawing gay marriage, or outlawing abortion, except in the way that a miner cares about his pick and shovel. At some point, this fact is going to come to light, and somebody is going to be discomfited. Either these politicians are going to be pushed into doing something that they really don't want to do (like actually passing some kind of court-busting legislation) or the religious right is going to have to hear the word "No."

2. The second factor is the radical movement's need to Destroy Its Enemies -- controlling two branches of government, they now have to look to the third for more enemies. No enemies, no one to destroy, no movement. Question: Once they finally damage the courts beyond repair, what's next? I guess it's the universities, or maybe the entertainment industry, or maybe all non-Christians. Or maybe bloggers. posted by Carlton at 4:02 PM

ANTI-JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

So the right-wing crazies have come up with a great new idea for getting rid of judges who make decisions based on, you know, law, and not some incredibly narrow reading of ancient texts: cut off their funding.

[Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council] said that he had attended a meeting with congressional leaders a week earlier where the strategy of stripping funding from certain courts was "prominently" discussed. "What they're thinking of is not only the fact of just making these courts go away and re-creating them the next day but also defunding them," Perkins said.

He said that instead of undertaking the long process of trying to impeach judges, Congress could use its appropriations authority to "just take away the bench, all of his staff, and he's just sitting out there with nothing to do."

For the Congress' ability to make or break the courts, I think that they are looking to this section (if they are looking to the Constitution at all):

III.1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

It is true that this passage does make the federal courts that are inferior to the Supreme Court creatures of the Congress, although it doesn't say anything about Congress getting rid of any of them. But if Congress can make them, they can probably abolish them as well. We could easily do without any federal courts at all below the Supreme Court. All cases could be decided by the state courts, and anything that couldn't be so resolved would get kicked upstairs.

That, however, is beside the point. It's not like this is a strategy that the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate, hence the "Compensation not to be diminished" sevtion of the above-quoted paragraph. We need courts, period, for our society to function, and we need them to be independent from outside influences. We can no more do without the courts, period than we can do without Congress. As my Civil Procedure professor told us in my first semester of law school, the "inferior" federal courts are really the best courts that we have, have the best judges and are much more predictable and reliable than state courts.

(Actually, she said: "Imagine you had the choice of being in Federal District Court or in state court in a place like Mississippi. Which would you prefer?")

To these right-wing anti-judicial activists, I quote 1 Corinthians:

For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.
That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

What Paul knew, and those Christians in my readership should know, is that organizations like churches and governments need all their organs to function. If the Congress breaks the courts, and they can, they break the Congress as well. posted by Carlton at 1:13 PM

T MINUS 29

I tried to post something about this yesterday, but Blogger would not cooperate.
A month from yesterday, Molly and I will be married, in a small ceremony in New Orleans. Hooray! posted by Carlton at 9:58 AM

THE SUCK REPORT: LATE BREAKING SUCK

This just in:

Boston Marathon hangers-on, those people who come to Boston because of the race, hang around Back Bay wearing official Boston Athletic Association tracksuits and security badges that are color-coded by how awesome they are, drinking beer and smoking cigarettes and clogging up every restaurant, bank, bar and convenience store in the city for the entire WEEK, even though the race is just ONE DAY . . .

They SUCK.

(Thanks to interpid on the scene reporter Molly.) posted by Carlton at 11:19 PM

ASPIRATIONS

This blog is turning into a Sarah Vowell love-in lately, but this isn't about her, exactly. I mentioned in my last post that some part of me wanted to greet her personally when I saw her, because it's easy to feel like you know her after listening to some of her stuff.

I have certain artistic aspirations with my writing, which may or may not ever come to fruition. Until tonight, I had no particular aspirations as far as fame is concerned. It's always seemed to me that Fame was the rotting corpse handcuffed to the beautiful maiden Fortune: to get the latter, you often have to take the former as well. But tonight, an actual concrete goal for Fame jumped into my head.

Here it is: At my desired level of fame, I can introduce myself to people I think are doing cool things, and they will have heard of me. posted by Carlton at 11:08 PM

Q AND A IN HELL

Speaking of Sarah Vowell, as I was just a few posts ago (boy, they really rack up when I'm not working . . .), it so happened that she was reading and speaking at Northeastern University tonight, which is not far from my home. So I went.

Sarah was reading from her new book, Assassination Vacation. From what I heard, it is interesting and amusing in a Vowell-y way, which is a very particular brand of interesting and funny -- few actual gut-busters, but a high level of hey cool throughout. I'd buy it, except that I'm, you know, unemployed.

I left a few minutes into the question-and-answer period. I've always hated question-and-answer periods, ever since I was required to attend Forum lectures at USM. It seems like people regard this as an opportunity to show how great they, an audience member, are in relation to the speaker. This one was no different.

Actually, this one was worse. Sarah's stage presence is very unassuming, and she's friendly and funny and conversational, both in writing and speaking. Also, her writing is very personal, and it's easy to feel like you know her after just a little while. For example, when she walked into the auditorium some minutes before the start of the event, a little part of me wanted to wave, thinking "There's Sarah!" Then the rest of me remembered, "She doesn't know me from fuck!" and I felt dumb.

Then we got to the Q and A. Sarah is very non-threatening (I won't say cute, but someone might use that word in an alternate universe in which that word is OK) and you feel like you can roll up on her and badger her about, oh, whatever happens to be on your mind. The crowd was that hip NPR-listening crowd, the ones that look like they were on their way to a City Council meeting to complain about insufficient recycling but stumbled into an Interpol concert instead. "People in Massachusetts are smart," I thought. "Not like those dumb stupidheads in Mississippi."

The first couple of questions were borderline. One was follow-up on another piece Sarah had written, a relatively famous one about her rural parents' visit to New York at Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, nothing had happened by way of follow-up. So it went like this:

Questioner: Anything happen?
Sarah: Nope.

It went downhill from there. the next question was whether she'd seen a certain movie, which was topically similar to the subject matter of her book. She hadn't seen it. But she was cool about it.

The NEXT question was whether she had read a certain book which sounded topically DISSIMILAR to the subject matter of her book.

Sarah: I haven't read it.
Questioner: Well, I have, and let me tell you, it was so interesting . . .
[continues in vein of annoying friend co-incidentally in same checkout line in supermarket]

FINALLY came the question which forced me to leave. Actually it was the PREFACE to the question, in which the audience member tried to "riff" on a joke that Sarah had made in an off-hand way about forty-five minutes before. Repeating the joke wouldn't be worth it, but here was the result:

Sarah: Huh?
Questioner: You know, what you said before.
S: Huh?
Q: Forget it. I guess I've lost the moment.
S: Um, I didn't understand what you said.
Q: Just forget it.
[Sound of Carlton's pounding feet and auditorium doors swinging closed.]

I would have stayed. I enjoyed the reading. But these people drive me INSANE. posted by Carlton at 10:16 PM

NEW LINK: SCUM AND HONEY

Read about the adventures of Sharona and all the characters in orbit around her. posted by Carlton at 10:04 PM

A QUICKIE

Tom DeLay is all over Justice Kennedy lately. To wit:

[DeLay] pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated.

"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."

That's interesting. Putting the Internet aside, international law is specifically mentioned in the Constitution in at least two places:

I.8.10: [Congress shall have the power] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

And, specifically relating to Kennedy's situation:

III.2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority . . .

Treaties being a big source of international law, don't you know. My IL professor in law school explained (I think, if I got it right) that these two phrases can be seen to incorporate at least some of international law into the law of the United States. (This includes the UN, whose charter is a big treaty, to which we are a party.) If so, it would be perfectly right and proper for a Supreme Court justice to look to that law. Even if he did so on the Internet.

Fool. posted by Carlton at 2:06 PM

SPEAKING OF THE CRAZY MEL GIBSON MOVIE

When that movie came out, my parents' (Southern Baptist) church got caught up in the frenzy. The church rented out the local movie theater for a couple of showings, so that anyone who wanted to go see the movie could do so for free. I remember that my mother was debating whether or not to go -- all her friends were going, and she didn't want to be left out, but she wasn't sure that she wanted to see something that violent. (Very junior high school.) I urged her not to go --not because of the religious content of the movie, actually, but because I didn't think she would enjoy it. I don't know whether she went or not, but she never mentioned it again.

Maybe the First Baptist Church of Hattiesburg will do the same for "Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy?"

(Funny, when I looked up the FBC website, I went to their "About Us" page. There may be a blog post in the future about it -- the short version is that it is a mishmash of neo-Christian doubletalk that must be impenetrable to any non-believer. And typos! Pity anyone going there trying to learn something.) posted by Carlton at 11:19 AM

HOW CAN THEY COPE?

Another example of how our Christian brothers and sisters are being brutally discriminated against -- can you believe that they should be prevented from espousing their faith (and, as naturally follows, abusing and denigrating those of other faiths) at the Air Force Academy? The place is practically a church!

The article is about a spate of complaints from non-Christian cadets in recent months, ranging from epithets ("filthy Jew" being popular) to a bizarre drive among the students to get everyone on campus to see The Passion of the Christ.

But the kicker is at the end, when a spokesperson for Focus on the Family (also based in Colorado Springs, interestingly) responds to an account of the complaints:

Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy at Focus on the Family, denounced any acts of bigotry but said it was Christians who were facing discrimination.

"If 90% of cadets identify themselves as Christian, it is common sense that Christianity will be in evidence on the campus," he said. "Christianity is deeply felt and very important to people … and to suggest that it should be bottled up is nonsense. I think a witch hunt is underway to root out Christian beliefs. To root out what is pervasive in 90% of the group is ridiculous."

Yes, of course -- you make up 90% of the cadet population, and yet YOU are the one facing all the discrimination. Why, you might have to sit in class with a filthy Jew and not be able to express your contempt for him . . . until AFTER the class was over! You should feel threatened! Your beliefs are being "rooted out!"

When you control everything yet still seek to punish those who differ from you, there has to be a reason. Two spring to mind: paranoia and sadism. Honestly, nothing would make these people more unhappy than having all the unbelievers on campus convert enthusiastically to Christ. Then you wouldn't know who your enemies were! And there wouldn't be anyone to punish! posted by Carlton at 11:02 AM

ZUT!

Your Inner European is French!

Smart and sophisticated. You have the best of everything - at least, *you* think so.

posted by Carlton at 4:51 PM

AARGH

You May Be a Bit Narcissistic ...

Yeah, you're a bit fixated on yourself. But you're so great, you can't help it! You're a bit obsessed with your own fame and success. And you'll push past anyone who stands in your way.

posted by Carlton at 4:49 PM

HUMPH

Your Linguistic Profile:

55% General American English

30% Dixie

10% Yankee

5% Upper Midwestern

0% Midwestern

posted by Carlton at 4:24 PM

ADDENDUM TO PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER

This article provides some support for my claim that a certain slice of the pharmacist community secretly is eager to meddle in their customers' lives, whatever the pretext:

"This is going to be a huge national issue in the future," said Paul Caprio, director of Family-Pac, a conservative group that urged pharmacists in Illinois to ignore Governor Blagojevich's rule. "Pharmacists are coming forward saying that they want to exercise their rights of conscience."

They WANT to exercise their right! (Pharmacists: We can DO that? Just tell 'em to fuck off? AND tell her she's a godless slut at the same time? All right!!!!!)

For equal time to every other pharmacist in the universe:

"As far as being a health care professional, I don't think I should be injecting my moral values on other people," Rod Adams, a pharmacist at the Colorado Pharmacy in Denver, said in an interview last week. "Obviously a morning-after pill is a personal choice that someone has to make. They've already made that choice when they come in here, and I don't think - I'm not a counselor - I don't really think that's my job."

Well, that position seems so . . . so REASONABLE, and it invoves people doing their jobs and not interfering with others' medical and sexual lives --- this, friends may even be the RIGHT ANSWER!

The answer is: That's not my job.

And, just to add a little legislative weirdness:

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, have introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which would allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense certain drugs as long as another pharmacist on duty would.

The Kerry-Santorum Let Pharmacists Annoy Their Customers (As Long as There's No Real Effect) Act of 2005. That's one for the ages. posted by Carlton at 10:45 AM

THE SUCK REPORT

I'm introducing a new feature here at Planet Carlton: The Suck Report. This column will appear every week without fail, or whenever I feel like it with fail. My aim in creating this feature is to document all the things in our world that contain that none-too-elusive element, Suck. (SK on the periodic table.) I intend to report on things that have always sucked, like Matchbox 20, and things that formerly ruled, or were at least OK, but which now show the unmistakable sheen of suckitude. I sort-of intend for this to be restricted to pop culture topics, but whatever. If it sucks, it's on the list. Elton John's last fifteen albums? Suck. Genocide in Darfur? Well, that sucks, too. But you see how it's different.

Anyway, here's a PARTIAL DEFINITIVE LIST of Things That Suck:

Have Always Sucked (since the beginning of time or their inception, whichever is shorter):
Enterprise (although we tried to like it)
Dave Matthews
Dave Matthews fans (oops, did I say that out loud?)
Pop-ups advertising smiley faces (who the hell wants smiley faces?)
Bill Frist
Service at CVS (local drugstore)

Have Begun To Suck in the Recent Past:
Pharmacists who won't fill birth control prescriptions
Carnivale (yeah, at least it's dead now, but it really went downhill)
Fametracker (without forums, you are just a husk)
Milk purchased at the hispanic grocery store next to my house (Put in the refrigerator, motherfuckers!)

Do Not Suck:
Steve Buscemi

(More to follow . . .) posted by Carlton at 6:57 PM

NEW LINK

I introduce the world, or whatever part needs introducing and reads this page, to Whiskey Bar. Link at left. I actually don't know much about that guy, but he's got something interesting going on every time I go there. So go there. posted by Carlton at 6:54 PM

PRESCIENCE

On Deadwood last night, Al emerges from another character's hotel room. The hotel manager, E.B. Farnum, looks at him and asks, sarcastically, "Have we a new Pope?"

I don't know when this episode was written and filmed, but that was certainly serendipity in action.

Speaking of television shows, I seem to have only two on the air right now, the above-named Deadwood and Lost. All of my other beloved programs are on temporary hiatus, or are pushing up daisies. Maybe now I can finally get some serious crocheting done. posted by Carlton at 6:23 PM

AND HE WILL MAKE STRAIGHT YOUR PATH

I was driving around in Cambridge the other day, searching for the only art store in Eastern Massachusetts to carry a $2.31 piece of plastic known as an Ames Letting (Lettering?) Guide, when I heard an interview with (the wonderful) Sarah Vowell on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross. Sarah discussed her life growing up in Muskogee, OK (where beads and Roman sandals won't be seen), and moving to a college town in Montana as a teenager. Specifically, she discussed her experience growing up in the Pentacostal church, and how she eventually lost her religion, so to speak, and how it's much more complicated to be a moral person without the fear of hell to mostivate you.

I was touched by this interview, because Sarah's account mirrored my owm experience very closely. I was taught to believe that the only road to true happiness and fulfillment in life was to put yourself in harmony with God's plan for your life. It was nice to think that God had a plan for me, and that someone cared about the most trivial aspects of my life, down to the clothes I wore or what music I listened to. (Apparently, God preferred Christian rock like Petra over the Beatles -- hard to believe, I know.) Going to church provided helpful structure for me growing up, and was one of the few ties that I felt to the community surrounding me. I didn't have much in common with anyone else, to be sure.

But it all fell apart eventually. I never did figure out the Plan, and so I began making decisions based on my own insight. I certainly made a few mistakes. And, as Sarah reported, I feel the loss of my faith very keenly, despite all the negative things associated with the Baptist Church. I miss the music, I miss the structure, I miss the sense of certainty that everything really was happening for a reason. Those things -- especially the sence of certainty -- are lost to me forever. That's the way it has to be, I guess.

How long do you listen to a radio that plays only static?

By the way, the Sarah Vowell interview can be heard (I think) here. posted by Carlton at 9:57 AM

A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER

Just a brief not on the current crisis regarding pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control: to the extent that this is really happening, I am appalled. We depend on pharmacists to dispense medications, and pharmacisists who do NOT dispense medications are worse than useless. They are an impediment. Need it be said? (The worst thing I've heard of is a pharmacist not only not dispensing the birth-control medication, but taking the prescription and refusing to give it back to the customer.) I'm not certain how much this is really happening, however. Not much, I hope.

My only real observation here is that people shouldn't wonder WHY pharmacists are doing this. Being a pharmacist is not a terribly exciting job, and a pharmacist is pretty low on the medical food chain. The pharmacists are DYING to make some decisions. They are LONGING for the chance to look into a customer's face and say "No." If the current system leaves you without autonomy, it's very tempting to believe in the existence of a higher law that DEMANDS that you take control and start arbitrarily screwing with other people's lives. Better still, this position lets the pharmacist contradict both of his masters, the customer and the DOCTOR. ("Those idiot doctors! If that OB-GYN ever came down here to Rite-Aid, I'd sure as heck give him what for. This is what I think of your MD, Dr. Morning-After!") posted by Carlton at 9:39 AM

ANSWERS, FINALLY

My answers to these burning questions.

1. You're stuck in Farenheit 451. Which book would you burn? (Note: in looking through other pages, I see this question listed as "What book would you be?" which I think means, in the F451 context, "Which book would you internalize to the extent that you identify yourself with it?" Kevin Drum interprets it to be "Which book would you save from burning?" I'll go so far as to shorten the question so that everyone agrees: "Which book?")

I don't think I would burn a book, in the sense that I wouldn't try to eliminate a book from the world. I think the 150,000 copies of Sean Hannity's Deliver Us From Evil purchased by the Heritage Foundation to put him on the best-seller list would probably be better used as fuel. As would A Charge to Keep. (What a dumb title!)

If I were to internalize a book, it might very well be A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, which was my favorite book when I was a youngun. I read it a bunch of times. I'd love to see a faithful adaptation of the book into a film, by the way -- every one that I've seen thus far has been a light comedy. Some (The Bing Crosby version) are better than others (The Martin Lawrence version). But the book is dark comedy, about the failure of technology and the utter venality of human nature.

2. Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?

I thought about this, and I have to say Alisande, or Sandy, from said Connecticut Yankee. Twain writes her as an airhead, but his narrator is clearly besotted with her. I dug it when I was a kid.

3. What is the last book you bought?

The Forest for the Trees, by Betsy Lerner. This is a book about writing from the point of view of a woman who was both a professional editor and writer's agent. I read it, and then gave it as a gift to Amy, who is starting an MFA program. It's much better than most books on writing, most of which deserve to be binned, if not burned. (Hmmm, maybe I should rethink #1 . . .)

4. What are you currently reading?

I finished Big Bad Love by Larry Brown (A Mississippian), and I am halfhearedly trying to get into The Brothers Karamazov. It looks good, but I read a section and then went a way for a while, and when I came back I couldn't remember who anyone was!

5. What are the five books you'd take to a deserted island?
Not copping out with survival books (ala Greg) I guess I'd pick as follows:

1. The Bible. By Various. Or by the infallible hand of God, depending on your view. (Must be difficult to catalogue.) I sometimes enjoy reading the Bible, and you have to admit that it packs the most bang for the buck, as far as books go.

2. The Brothers Karamazov. By F.D. Looks like it would while away many an hour!

3. Winesburg, Ohio. By. S.A. Greg introcuced me to this book in college, by insisting on reading it out loud while I was reading something else. Thanks, Greg!

4. Moby-Dick. By H.M. I might actually get through it this time!

5. I'd take a book of European History. I don't know which one, but a long, detailed one that's not too difficult to read.

I'd trade all of the above books, however, for a computer hooked up to the Internet and something to write on.

OK, I guess this is a kind of blog chain-letter, so all of you with blogs should go and answer these questions there. Or else, uh, misfortune will befall you. Pray to St. Jude. posted by Carlton at 12:42 PM

HITS

I've been getting a surprising number of hits in the last couple of days, something on the order of 15 a day. I can't tell who these people are, of course, but usually I know enough about my readership to identify everyone. Greg is my reader in Germany. I know what company Molly's office uses for an ISP. There are only so many people I know at Boston University these days.

But Denmark? Singapore? Anyway -- to all my new readers, welcome. I'm sure you'll stop reading long before my next hiatus of several months. posted by Carlton at 1:33 PM

ADDENDUM

The things I wanted to mention in the last post but didn't -- they were actually the point of the past post, but I got distracted:

1. I can't understand how conservative Christians can say that they are being discriminated against, especially since their pawns control the Congress and the White House. They are only discriminated against in the sense that they are being treated just like everyone else, which must feel uncomfortable when you think you ought to be able to put anyone who doesn't agree with you in the stocks and throw stones at them. (Then, if they don't repent and admit that you were right all along -- the gallows!) Yes, there are some situations in which you are prevented from expressing your religious beliefs: at a public school, in public buildings, in the public courthouse (sense a pattern?). But the same rules apply to the Muslims and Jews and atheists of the world as well, which must burn you up. No one is trying to prevent Christians from reading their Bible or attending their churches or putting up their Christmas trees.

2. Many of those in the Christian Right movement speak of "taking back" their country -- by which they mean my country too, I guess. These people are living in a fantasy world. For one thing, the idea of a time in the past in which the United States was uniformly Christian, with everyone attending church and being polite to old ladies and being tepidly heterosexual -- that's what I call fantasy. This magical time and place is estimated by its adherents to have existed sometime around the McKinley administration. In reality, however, it appears on the map near the Garden of Eden and Santa's Workshop. (Apologies to people who believe in those two things.) What can you say to people who are longing, nay insisting that we return to the values of a time and place that never existed?

We could give them control of the government (oh wait, we already did), we could give them a censor power over the airwaves, we can give them the right to restrict what pharmaceuticals and medical procedures are available to us based on some arbitrary system of squaring 21st Century technology with six-thosand year-old texts and medieval papal writings. We cannot, however, force people to believe what they do not believe, desire what they do not desire, to feel pain as joy. We can, however, force people to publicly deny themselves, to pretend, to lie -- but only for so long.

What the Religious Right people are demanding is that they be allowed to live without their particular set of illusions ever being challenged. They demand conformity to an ideal that is at best arbitrary, and at worst, misguided and damaging. That, unfortunately, we cannot give them.

Oh, the rants of the unemployed! posted by Carlton at 11:53 AM

RADIO GAGA

I had the misfortune of tuning in to an NPR talk show this morning about the GOP's move to demonize the judiciary. I wasn't familiar with the host, a woman (who may have been subbing for the normal host). The two guests that I heard were also women, and they were a federal district court judge and some conservative, who may also have been a judge (like I said, I didn't listen for very long).

The host and the guests were doing a pretty good job running through the basic points of this debate: Article III establishes an independent judiciary, the recent violence against judges had nothing to do with politics, many of these judges were appointed by Reagan and Bush I. Then the conserva-guest jumped in with her pre-programmed talking points bomb: (I paraphrase)

I'm a member of the so-called Religious Right, and I have to say that the only group that can legally be discriminated against these days is Christians. We aren't allowed to pray, we aren't allowed to use the word 'God,' we aren't allowed to express our faith at all. And meanwhile, in Florida, Terry Schiavo is murdered, murdered, by a probate judge and a Sherriff's deputy. Murdered!

The NPR host breezed past this statement, probably because it wasn't exactly on topic for her program (although maybe it was?), and no one challenged it before I got sick of the whole mess and turned the show off. I hope that someone, over the course of the next few minutes, raised the point that the "murder" question has been pretty decisively put to rest by the people who determine questions of what is and isn't murder. At the very least. Putting aside the fact that that Florida judge is probably elected (which does screw with the whole "unaccountable judiciary" angle, huh?), letting someone throw around the word "murder" unchallenged is pretty low.

But to get into this issue a little bit: The dark, radical forces that control the GOP have taken control of the White House and the Congress, they must now turn their war machine on the judiciary. Why? Because the energy that sustains this movement, that keeps it going and attracts new members, is its need to Destroy Its Enemies. If it can't find enemies to destroy, it will fall apart. When all the Democrats are gone, or marginalized (as is almost the case now) the movement will turn on its own members who are not radical enough. To prevent that from happening, the movement needs villains that can't be defeated. They need Cobra Commander to escape at the end of every episode, so they can fight him next week. The judiciary, however, can be broken.

One way of fighting this movement is to ask it what it wants. What do hey really want? If our entire judicial system is broken, what do they propose that we do about it? Should we get rid of all judges? Should impeachment be a five-minute procedure that can be initiated by any card-carrying member of the GOP or member of the Christian clergy? This movement needs to Destroy Its Enemies, but in this case, its new enemies are people who are necessary to make society run. There are only so many columns one can break before the roof comes crashing in.

Oh, the joys of unemployment. posted by Carlton at 11:03 AM

THE BOOK MEME

I've seen this floating around on blogs which are much better-maintained and more popular than mine, but I thought I'd imitate my betters with the book meme.

Here are the questions:

1. You're stuck in Farenheit 451. Which book would you burn? (Note: in looking through other pages, I see this question listed as "What book would you be?" which I think means, in the F451 context, "Which book would you internalize to the extent that you identify yourself with it?" Kevin Drum interprets it to be "Which book would you save from burning?" I'll go so far as to shorten the question so that everyone agrees: "Which book?")

2. Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?
3. What is the last book you bought?
4. What are you currently reading?
5. What are the five books you'd take to a deserted island?

Answers, perhaps, later. posted by Carlton at 10:50 AM

SILLY WOMAN

Quoth Elizabeth George, prolific mystery writer:

"Whether the readers like the book or don't like the book, I always like to think my intentions are to grow as a writer," she says at her home in Huntington Beach. "If I were governed by what I thought the reader wanted to read, then I would run the risk of writing formulaic books that the reader would soon grow tired of."

What's this all about? Apparently some strange and usatisfying "plot twist" at the end of her latest book, which negatively affects a major character. I don't read mysteries, let along Ms. George's, so I haven't the foggiest notion what this is about. (I'm guessing that someone dies.)

But here's a woman, putatively one of the most successful mystery writers around, taking a sharp turn off of the path that made her a success. I think it means that she's just tired of writing the same freaking characters over and over again. Conan Doyle killed Sherlock Holmes, after all.

If anyone knows anything about this, I'd love to hear. posted by Carlton at 11:52 AM

JEWELL CASE

I'd just like to note that this fellow Eric Rudolph has pled guilty to setting a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. Some of us may remember that, at the time, much was made of the idea that the security guard who found the bomb and helped clear people from the vicinity could be a suspect. The idea was that, in order to draw attention to himself and garner paraise as a 'hero,' this security guard made a bomb, put it in a backpack and left it in the middle of the crowd, just so that he could find it himself and get the credit. Good story! Just not true.

His name was Richard Jewell. He lived with his mother. He had a spotty employment history. He's not particularly good-looking. He's poorly educated. Of COURSE he's guilty! Except that he wasn't. But that didn't stop the FBI and the media from staking out his every move for 88 days, ruining his reputation, his employment prospects, his life.

When this was happening, I remember blaming the whole cock-up on the FBI. They definitely suffered from WGTG ("We Got the Guy") Syndrome -- once a likely suspect appears, all efforts are focused on proving his guilt, and none (or few) are dedicated to finding OTHER suspects. Why would you keep looking? We Got the Guy!
In his statement, however (in the above link), Jewell seems to blame the media more than the FBI. That makes sense -- the FBI should have investigated him, after all. He could have set the bomb, for the above reasons or for other reasons. The media was hungry for a name, however, and when they got wind of Jewell (either through leak or observation) they went wild. Then the FBI felt the media pressure, too, and I believe got forced into a WGTG mode. They didn't want to admit that they were investigating an innocent guy (although they do so all the time, and rightly so) -- or something.

I think both media and FBI (and of course, Mr. Jewell) were the victim of an even more pernicious problem: a desire for narrative. "Guy sets bomb so he can find it himself" is a perfect story -- it makes sense, involves motvations that are both reprehensible and understandable, and gives us a villian who is less dangerous than conteptible and silly. Eminently satisfying. "Random guy set a bomb" is not so satisfying, as a narrative, and is unsettling at a basic level. "Random guy" might as well be "goblins" or "the Devil." And "random guy" (aka Eric Rudolph), definitely wanted to hurt people. To stop abortion. Or something like that. posted by Carlton at 10:54 AM

EVERY DAY I WRITE THE BOOK

I recall an interview I read with the actor Jeremy Piven, who revealed that he was writing a screenplay. He said, "Yeah, I'm writing a screenplay, but I don't want to talk about it. I don't want to be the guy who stands around talking about the screenplay he's writing."

I've found that when you're writing something, people don't really want to hear about it. If people REALLY care about you, they want to know about it's place in your life -- how it's going, are you having trouble, have you given up yet and have you found a real job, etc. Most people don't even care that much, and they shouldn't. If you're a writer, your job isn't to tell people about what you're writing. It's to write the damn thing and try to get people to read it.
Plus, many books/stories that are otherwise great reads will sound like ass if you try to describe them in the wrong way. Like before they are finished. Like this one.

But yes, I'm almost finished with the book I'm trying to write. How is it going? Terrible. I mean, the draft is amlost finished, but it's terrible. But it's almost finished! But it's terrible! It's a giant pile of crap, like the one Laura Dern sticks her hand in in Jurassic Park. But it's almost done! But it's terrible! posted by Carlton at 11:10 AM

HOW TO DISMANTLE A CAR STEREO or
I STILL HAVEN'T FOUND WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR (A RADIO STATION THAT DOESN'T PLAY U2)

Actually, I don't have anything against U2. I don't like them, partucularly, although they have a couple of songs that I have enjoyed: "Desire" and "One" spring to mind. They have a kajillion songs, after all. One or two of them should be pretty good. I can't think of U2 song that I HATE, because they are pretty inoffensive, musically. They don't rock, they don't swing. They don't take a lot of risks. Musical Velveeta. And that's fine, since a lot of people seem to like it.

So what's my beef? I can't get away from them. The radio in my car has six preset stations, and #1 is our local NPR affiliate, WBUR. The rest are local "contemporary" stations. When I'm driving around, I sometimes play the "low long before I hit a U2 song" game. That is, I start at NPR and hit the "up" button to page through the stations. How many pressed of the button does it take to hit U2? An average of three. They are ALWAYS ON. I don't mind Velveeta, and I might even choose to eat a slice every so often, but it's being served with my musical meal every single day.

This fellow feels the same way.

I have a memory frm the 7th grade, in Band class, of this guy Stephen Pitts talking about how he was really upset because his favorite band, U2, had sold out. This was in 1984, folks. I decided at that moment that if a prick like Stephen who played the French Horn and bleached a circle of his hair at the top of his head liked U2, that I didn't want any part of them. And I don't. So get them off my radio. posted by Carlton at 10:30 AM

LOST INFORMATION

So, I enjoyed the last Lost very much. Boone died (snif!) -- but I'm glad he died, because we need SOMETHING realistic to happen on this show. I mean, you have a really bad accident on a low-tech tropical island with no modern medical facilities (Dr. Jack's healing puissance aside, he's giving blood transfusions with a SEA URCHIN, for goodness' sake), you will most likely die. Plus, he was pretty much a boob who couldn't do anything right, and there's only room for one of us in the world.

One thing bothers me, however. In the episode where he had his accident, the one where Locke sends him up in the dangerous plane wreckage that is apparently suspended in a tree along with our disbelief, Boone flips on the plane's radio and gets a response. This surpises him, and me too, not in a good way ('cause I totally didn't believe the radio would work).

Anyway, Boone has a litle convo with whomever is on the other end of the radio, the actual substance of which is the subject of raging mini-controversy. Apparently it was so garbled during the broadcast that no one could figure out what was said, including the closed-captioning people, and when the clip was posted on the Web somewhere, they had gone back and redubbed the radio voice with a different voice just to confuse everyone. Personally, I don't care what it said, because I'm not really trying to figure anything out. I'm not certain there's an actual overarching plan, so I'm just enjoying the ride.

But, see, it doesn't matter what was said, and this is where my problem is. Boone died without telling anyone about his conversation (I think), so NO ONE knows what he said and what the voice on the other end said. That little scene was witnessed by no one who is now living, and it has evidently been cut out of the collective knowledge of our castaways. As viewers, we have been privy to more information than any one character has, but we usually just see what happens to the characters. Regular viewers, then know everything that every one of our castaways have seen, with the exception fo all the backstories. We can put together the clues that they can't. But now, we know something that no living castaway knows.

I call shenanigans! posted by Carlton at 4:56 PM

PARADISE LIST

So Scott has posted a partial list of "essential" texts for the Frosh year. I han't figure out how to permalink to his post, so you should go read it there -- link at left. I'm, just going to address the "movie" portion.

What is at work here, I think, is the irresistable impulse towards re-creating oneself. This list reads like a great weekend film festival -- that could have taken place in 1995. No, I haven't checked all the dates, but how many items on the list appeared in the last 10 years? ("Baseball," for example, came out in 1994, and I think that may be the most recent item.) This list really boils down to a "Things I liked when I was your age" list, which is fine, but hardly "essential." I could have lived my life very comfortably without ever having seen "JFK," however -- and I could use that time back, actually, if I could get it. And man, "Annie Hall" gets on my nerves -- but I only saw it about five weeks ago for the first time, so that should tell yousomething about me.

My problem with this list is that it puts the list makers firmly in the "old fogey" category -- that is to say, frozen in our own time, just as the freshmen are frozen in theirs. This list of movies is hardly the 20 or so BEST movies of all time, or critically most important, or the most visually or thematically groundbreaking. If you are in your early 30s right now you almost certainly saw "Ferris Bueller," probably in the theater, but is it worth assigning to an 18 year-old as an essential text? Is it worth assigning at the expense of "The Philadelphia Story" or "Stage Door" or "Bridge on the River Kwai" or "The Limey" or "Gone With the Wind?" Or is it just a funny movie that came out when we were fourteen?

The danger here (if there can possibly be a danger in making a list of movies that we like) is of assuming that, in order to get the "essential" freshman experince, we assume that it must duplicate, or at least reflect, our freshman experiences. The fact that we collectively failed to come up with a movie made in the last 10 years does not mean that nothing "essential" came out in that time, but perhaps that this group has matured past the time when most formative experiences take place. Which is a depressing thought, really.

I'm not actually trying to be difficult about this list, and I appreciate the impulse behind the making of it. The idea that these texts are somehow essential, however, confuses me -- especially when considering how may of them I have not seen/read/heard. Am I somehow lacking several essential experiences? (Some would say yes, there is something lacking about me.) But think about it -- if we had asked our professors in college what the essential texts were, woul any of them have mentioned "Ferris Bueller" -- a film that had been out for several years when I was a freshman? I wonder.

And anyway, the Shawshank Redemption should definitely be on there. posted by Carlton at 8:44 AM

IDIOT SCHOOL

Idiots. Lined up for graduation.

I'm not hostile to the idea of camping out for a movie/concert/show per se. Seven weeks seems like kind of a long time, although that's a question of degree, not kind.
But for a movie that is statistically very likely to suck the way this one will . . . that's dumb. George Lucas has made 2 1/2 good Star Wars movies, out of 5. The others? Bloated timewasters.

I mean, I'm going to see this movie, eventually, and almost certainly in the theater. I hate to see these people wasting their lives on this shit, however. I would prefer that they waste their lives in some other way. It's clear that their lives will be wasted no matter what (I mean, whose life isn't?) -- but STAR WARS?

The Star Wars franchise has become a giant Skinner Box: "Maybe if I press the lever THIS time, the food pellet will come! OK, maybe THIS time! OK, THIS time! It came out of here once, I swear! And it was a really good food pellet! I loved it! OK, THIS time! posted by Carlton at 8:19 AM

LOST

Really good episode this week, as opposed to last week, which was meh. I won't discuss any of the particulars, since to do so would cause Greg to get all pouty. posted by Carlton at 9:17 PM

SAY HELLO TO BOB KERREY FOR ME

A friend of this web page has recently been accepted to a prestigious MFA program in New York City (for poetry, I believe). This is great news; I knew a lot of people in the MFA program at Indiana University, and they uniformly enjoyed it. So good for her! posted by Carlton at 5:47 PM

MERELY FRESHMEN

Scott, of "Scott's Blog" fame, has asked for suggestions for a list of "essential books, movies and music for the Freshman year," presumably so he can give this list to his students. I'll recast the question in my own words, which is: "What should Scott tell his freshmen to watch, read, hear and think?"

I don't mean to be snarky, but this is an inquiry that begs a blow-off answer: "Aha! Zee question ees eemposseeble!" It's certainly pretty hard for ME to answer, since I'm not in touch with too many college freshmen and I don't know what's on their collective mind. Also, I think it's hard to tell a student what he should do (read, think, etc.) without knowing what he or she has already done (read, thought, etc.). Maybe I say, "Pulp Fiction!" and he replies, "Saw it ten times already!" With all these cultural texts never more available than they are right now, it is more plausible that the freshman has already seen Jackie Chan's entire catalogue of work than ever before, so what is the use of my recommending it?

I think this inquiry is certainly valid, however, since Scott proposes the creation of this list in response to a request from his students. THEY want to know what they should watch, read, hear and think, and they want to hear it from someone whose opinion they respect (Scott, apparently. Hi Scott!). That's one of the reasons one goes to college, after all, to pay well-educated people to tell you what to do. The other is to make gigantic piles of money (!), which can only be done with a college degree, of course. They are crying out for guidance, some of them, so they shall have it. (Some of them are crying out for Chee-tos, but we can’t help them.)

I think this is best expressed as a set of principles, rather than as a list of texts:

1. Seek out new things. It's amazing how early some people become conservative about what they "like" and "dislike." In case you haven’t noticed, the “like” list is composed entirely of things that you have tried. Resist the urge to canonize your own sacred texts: “I listen to/read/watch these and none other!”

2. Don’t let anyone discourage you from liking something. Anyone who tries to control your aesthetic choices is trying to control you. If you like “Charmed,” then watch “Charmed,” no matter what your friends say (even though it sucks).

3. Meet as many different kinds of people as possible, and learn what they like. Perhaps no one in your fraternity listens to Lucinda Williams, and maybe you’d love her and listen to her your whole life if you just found out who she was. Seek out people who are knowledgeable in particular areas and let them show you what they have learned. (But don’t let them control you, see above.) Some of these people are professors, some are workers, some are fellow students.

4. Figure out what people are talking about. Sooner or later, one of your liberal-arts profs will drop the F-bomb in class: “Foucault.” Write down names and phrases (the ones the prof puts in “air quotes” during the lecture) that you hear and are not familiar with. Make a list and give them a Google. You don’t have to read Discipline and Punish to know that it’s a book about theories of punishment and prisons. Knowing that one little fact will make other conversations make more sense.

5. Don’t be defined by any one text. There’s more to life than Tolkien, or the Matrix movies, or Pride and Predjudice (You know, the one with Colin Firth, where he's all smoldering, and you know he just wants to get with Miss Bennett, and . . . ). My neighbor in the dorm freshman year was obsessed with the movie Ghostbusters II. Yeah, he was cool.

6. Try to create something of your own. Some people are more creative than others. But everyone is a little creative, at least. Instead of reading/watching/listening, try writing/drawing/recording sometime. Participating in art may change your enjoyment of art dramatically.

Those being my principles, here is a list of texts: (Serving mostly to show the gaps in my own cultural literacy.)

Listen to:
Some collection of Beatles songs.
OK Computer, Radiohead
Harvest, Neil Young
Some collection of Johnny Cash hits, must include “Ring of Fire”
BloodSugarSexMagik, Red Hot Chili Peppers
Document or Life’s Rich Pageant, REM

Read:
Winesburg, Ohio, Sherwood Anderson
At least one long Russian novel, preferably Crime and Punishment or Anna Karenina
The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway
Some poems. It doesn’t matter what, as long as they are printed in a book. (If you like them enough to read more, and you are a boy, that means you are deep, and arty girls will like you. Or you are gay, and arty girls will still like you. If you are a girl, and you like the poems enough to read more, you are undateable, unless you are a lesbian.
“De Profundis,” Oscar Wilde

Watch:
The Third Man
Pulp Fiction
Citizen Kane (just once, you only need to see it once)
Blazing Saddles
Casablanca
Psycho
Run Lola Run (that way you can say you’ve watched a German movie!)

NOTE: By the way, if you are still with your high school sweetheart, just go ahead and break up. Save the rest of us a semester of listening to you whine. posted by Carlton at 11:09 AM

RIP Karol

As some of you may know, I am a member of a deadpool (known as the "Buddy Deadpool," for some unknown reason). Here is an excerpt from the bulletin sent out by the moderator on the death of the Pope:

Today we mark the passing of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, born
Karol Josef Wojtyla. We do not make fun of the Pope's death, even
though we at Deadpool HQ are a bunch of thoroughly agnostic lapsed
Protestants (because, you know, some people care).

In case anyone needs journalistic proof of this event, and has been
performing a Houdini-like "Escape from Buried Coffin" stunt for the
past few days, here's the CNN link:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/02/pope.dies/index.html

As deaths of public figures go, a Pope's passing is pretty special.
It is august. When you consider that the papacy as an office dates
back about two millennia, and that the Catholic Church is very big
on ritual, and that there are something like a billion people in the
world who belong to this religion, and that some percentage of those
people believe that this man was literally God's representative on
Earth, and that the papacy may only be filled when the previous
holder dies, you get the picture. There are procedures. There is a
way this is done.

For example, there is a particular Vatican official, the camerlengo,
who is in charge of determining that the Pope is actually dead. His
duty is to approach the Pope's bedside, call him three times by his
first name, and to strike him on the forehead with a silver hammer
that is specifically for this purpose. The hammer is inscribed with
the crest of the individual pope and his motto (in this case, "Totus
Tuus," meaning, cryptically, "All Yours").

It's unclear whether this is a last effort to try to wake the Pope
up or to make certain he is dead – but the result is the same either
way. When they get the hammer out, Padre, you're done. The current
camerlengo is named Cardinal Eduardo Martinez Somalo (not Maxwell,
thanks for asking), from Spain, and the ritual is performed in the
presence of the Master of Papal Liturgical Ceremonies, the Cleric
Prelates of the Apostolic Camera and the Secretary and the
Chancellor of the Apostolic Camera. No, we don't know what their
names are.

Once the Pope is determined to be dead, the camerlengo removes the
papal ring from the Pope's finger and smashes it, so that no
documents may be forged after the Holy Father is dead. We've read
that the same silver hammer is used, and that it is done at that
moment, but sources disagree and the Vatican doesn't talk about it
much. So, it's not only a centuries'-old sacred tradition, it's a
secret and shadowy centuries'-old sacred tradition. You can't buy
that with money.

Here's some more juice:

The camerlengo locks and seals the private apartment of the pope.
In the past looting of papal apartments by his staff, the cardinals
or the Roman populace was a common custom. Today popes are
more concerned that their private papers not get into the wrong
hands. If the pope writes a will, the executor he appoints will take
care of his private property and his private papers. This executor
is answerable only to the next pope . . . No autopsy is performed,
which can lead to wild media speculation if the pope dies suddenly
as occurred with John Paul I.

And don't even get us started on the conclave, the meeting of the
College of Cardinals, in the Sistine Chapel, and the voting and the
smoke, and the three different sets of clothes, etc. Put it this
way: when the Pope dies, wheels start to turn.

For more info, here are some sources:
http://www.americamagazine.org/papaltransition.cfm
http://encarta.msn.com/guide_popewhathappens/What_Happens_When_the_Po
pe_Dies.html

A good article appears in the September 2004 issue of the Atlantic
Monthly, but you have to subscribe to get it online.

posted by Carlton at 5:45 PM