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!

I AGREE

. . . with this.

The fact is, they're all the worst. Rumsfeld is the worst SecDef in American
history. Rice is easily one of the worst Secretaries of State. Rove, for all the
mystique of his dirty tricks, is a miserable Chief of Staff, having allowed
unfettered corruption and leaks in what is supposed to be a period of intense
internal security to pass by for the sake of electoral convenience, which
ultimately failed miserably in 2006. Elizabeth Dole is the most embarrassingly
incompetent leader the NRSC ever had. Christie Whitman's singular act of
significance as head of the EPA was lying about the danger of the air over
Manhattan post-9/11: an act that could potentially give a few million people
cancer in the next two decades. John Ashcroft wasted a couple grand on ten-foot
burquas while helping Rice and Powell ignore the greatest and most fatal
security breach in the history of the United States to a scale so horrific and
neglectful it made his successor's allowance of a few thousand people in New
Orleans to drown while an entire city was wiped off the map look "not as bad."
And all of this is without even getting into Bernie Kerik and Harriet Miers, who
were so unfit for their jobs even right-wingers laughed at them, and Michael
Brown, who at this point has become an adjective.

Another level to this is that, with the possible exception of Powell, each one thinks that he or she is the best ever. posted by Carlton at 3:55 PM

posted by Carlton at 1:45 PM

YOUNG DOCTORS IN LOVE





Awwww . . .

Mr. and Mrs. David L. Morrison of Arlington Heights announce the engagement of
their daughter, Jennifer Marie Morrison, to Jesse Gordon Spencer, son of Mr. and
Mrs. Rodney Spencer of Melbourne, Australia. Jennifer, a 1997 Prospect High
School graduate, received a bachelor of arts degree in theatre with a minor in
English from Loyola University, Chicago, in 2000. She is employed by the Fox
Network's medical drama "House" as Dr. Allison Cameron. Jesse is a 1997 graduate
of Scotch College, Melbourne, Australia. He is also employed by the Fox
Network's medical drama "House." He plays Dr. Robert Chase. , posted 02/18/2007.

They do seem like a nice couple. Good luck to them.

posted by Carlton at 10:53 PM

IT HAS BECOME CLEAR

That House, MD suffers whenever an attempt is made to create a story arc continuing from episode to episode. (See Vogler, Stacy, Tritter) Stick with the standalones, people!

That Battlestar Galactica suffers (and suffers bad!) whenever the writers try to make an episode that exists outside of the continuing story arc. (See Black Market, Hero, The Woman King, A Day In The Life) Stay away from the standalones!

That is all. posted by Carlton at 10:24 AM

MORE COMPARISONS

We've had a lot of presidents, 43 in fact. The current one is . . . pretty unusual. Still, we are slaves to the categorical impulse -- which of these old white men is GWB most like?

Non-fans have drawn comparisons to Herbert Hoover, Warren G. Harding, etc. Bush's relationship to Karl Rove, it has been noted, is vaguely analagous to that of William McKinley to fixer Mark Hanna -- and "New Imperialism" has a very modern ring to it, doesn't it?

The president has compared himself to Harry Truman, and he recently took advantage of the holiday to make some connections between himself and George Washington. Comparisons to Lincoln seem a little forced.

Personally, I like this one: Charles II (Gotta love Wikipedia!)

The Cavalier Parliament opposed the Declaration of
Indulgence on constitutional grounds (claiming that the King had no right to
arbitrarily suspend laws) rather than on political ones . . . The Cavalier Parliament also refused to further fund the Anglo-Dutch War, which England was losing, forcing Charles to make peace in 1674.

If only . . .
posted by Carlton at 9:56 AM

"THERE IS NO GOOD TIMING FOR THIS ANNOUNCEMENT"

No Shinola.

State Farm retreats in Gulf
Won't offer new policies in Miss.
State Farm's decision Wednesday to stop writing new home and commercial policies
throughout Mississippi could prompt other insurers to retreat further from the
Katrina-battered region, industry groups and legal experts say.
State Farm — which insures about one of every three Mississippi homes — is the first company since Hurricane Katrina to stop offering new policies throughout a state in the Gulf Coast area. Its move underscores the precarious nature of the region's insurance. Since the hurricane, insurers have cut back on homeowner policies in affected coastal areas.
The decision Wednesday is one State Farm came to "reluctantly," says company spokesman Phil Supple, partly because of the torrent of lawsuits and rulings in Mississippi since Katrina and the uncertainty of pending legal battles. The move doesn't affect existing policyholders, at least for now. State Farm is the largest insurer of homes in the USA, as well as in Mississippi. Last year, the company wrote about 29,000 new homeowner policies in
the state.

I can't tell if this means just no NEW policies or no renewal of old policies. If the latter, I guess the value of my parents' (uninsurable) house is now exactly zero. posted by Carlton at 3:44 PM

posted by Carlton at 9:36 PM

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

From the Bush's press conference this morning:

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the
Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our
troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was
ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse --
them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And
so we will continue to protect our troops.

What do you mean, "which is worse"? Can this president not see the difference between the government of Iran doing something and some people in Iran doing the same thing? Does it not make a difference?

Almost makes you think that he's made up his mind already, and won't change it no matter what. posted by Carlton at 5:12 PM

CANONICITY

This is an intriguing blog post, if such things intrigue you, about the struggles over "canonicity" in fandoms -- specifically relating to Doctor Who. So if you are interested in Doctor Who, fandom, or struggles over canonicity . . . you're a huge nerd. (Tat tip S. Colbert.)

That new definition of ‘canon’ works fine if you’re dealing with works by one author. It works not at all in any other frame of reference. Doctor Who was created by many people, over a long period of time, and they did not cooperate. There is no authorial authority, and, as I’ll get to in a moment, no council of Bishops.

Etc.

Cornell (a television writer) mentions in passing that the struggle to determine what is "canon" for a mythos is really a struggle for power, which is interesting. I'm sure Harold Bloom got there first with the most men, but I gave up on that kind of thing a long time ago. posted by Carlton at 10:59 PM

SNOW DAY: A TALE OF TWO PHOTOGRAPHS

The weather has kept me at home from work today, and tomorrow too, it looks like. So, I've been trolling around the Internet in my free time. Two images have caught my attention.

The first one is what appears to be a newly-identified picture of Abraham Lincoln as a young man. I can certainly believe that it is Mr. Lincoln, and it's fascinating.

The second picture is one that I stared at for a long time. I can't say much more about it except that I found it moving, angering, sympathetic and exploitative, all at once. Difficult. posted by Carlton at 5:10 PM

FAMEWHORING

Just for laughs, I decided to hunt around and see how many people I personally know who have an IMDb entry. Here's what I came up with:

Emily Deschanel (former housemate)
Erika Leerhsen (I took over her room at hooker st, met her at least once)
Joann Blankenship (friend of the family)
Shea Curry (high school acquaintance. Who knew?)

I'm impressed with myself to get four -- but the fact that they are all women makes me think that there might be a man out there that I am forgetting . . .

Let's make this a meme. How many can you come up with? posted by Carlton at 2:53 PM

COMPLETELY

Posted without comment.

The Rev. Ted Haggard emerged from three weeks of intensive counseling
convinced he is "completely heterosexual" and told an oversight board that his
sexual contact with men was limited to his accuser.

That is according to one of the disgraced pastor's overseers, who
on Monday revealed new details about where Haggard has been and where he is
headed.

The "overseers" also suggested Haggard leave town, take up another line of work.

posted by Carlton at 7:30 PM

BIBLIOPHILE'S DILEMMA

Check this out:

For at least a year and a half now I've been coveting one particular book: it's
a first-edition of a seventeenth-century work, it's in very good shape, and it's
under $1000.00.Now, I don't have $1000.00. In fact, I have many many thousands
of negative dollars on my credit cards. But my expenses should stabilize by
summertime and I'm hoping that, perhaps, by year's end I could be in a position
to buy this thing. The question is, though--is it worth the money?

This is followed by a list of pros and cons. I know where I come down for myself. But for Flavia? posted by Carlton at 4:26 PM

THE TABLE

John Edwards, regarding Iran: It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.

Hillary Clinton, regarding Iran: No option can be taken off the table when dealing with that nation.

Here's the funny thing: I agree with this statement, taken at face value. The president shouldn't say, "We will not attack Iran." The possibility of attack is a powerful lever to use against an adversary. Even if we aren't directly threatening them, we have the power to do it. Promising not to do it doesn't take the power away, of course, but hamstrings us rhetorically.

The second part of the funny thing is this: we shouldn't even consider attacking Iran. Everything I read indicates that to do so, even if we weren't in our current overstretched posture, would be an unmitigated disaster that would set the US back fifty years (at least ) in diplomacy, spark attacks against our interests from all kinds of unexpected corners, and potentially wreck our oil-based economy. There is no pressing reason to attack Iran, unless you are a gambling president who believes that with one more roll of the dice your luck will turn around and everything will be all right. Oh, and you're wagering other people's money.

So here it is: All options must remain on the table. Even the stupid ones. posted by Carlton at 12:52 PM

STUPID, EVIL, CRAZY

Some time ago, around the time that I started this blog, I recall writing that the United States has had stupid presidents, evil presidents, and crazy presidents, but never (before) all three at once. Putting aside the current placeholder, I recently revisited that statement during a long night of insomnia. Which of our Chief Executives were stupid, evil, crazy? For someone so bold in making sweeping statements about Presidential history, my own grasp of it is not particularly strong. In honor of Bush, Jr., I decided to conduct the following analysis based on what I already know, and not to do any research. Or much, anyway.

Crazy: This one is pretty easy. Nixon was crazy -- paranoid, anxious, insomniac (something we have in common). I have heard stories about Carter's inability to delegate -- to such a degree that he felt personally responsible for the schedule for the White House tennis courts -- and the UFO incident. Clinton recently admitted to a sex addiction -- I think in the New Yorker. A few of the early presidents who were considered "drunks" might really have been mentally ill. Short of a psychiatric seance, however, we will never know.

Stupid: Reagan is a gimmie here, having been off the hook with Alzheimers to some degree during his administration -- not exactly his fault, but it counts. The Straight Dope lists Harding and Truman as being "limited" in their intellectual capacities. By some accounts, McKinley was an empty suit propelled along by political fixer Mark Hanna, which sounds kind of familiar. W. H. Harrison was too dumb to wear a coat on a cold day, but his impact was minimal. In The March of Folly, Barbara Tuchman uses the LBJ administration's prosecution of the Vietnam War as a definition of foolishness, although LBJ himself was not an idiot -- a fool, maybe.

Evil: This is tricky. What do I mean by evil? If I mean anti-democratic, then Eisenhower qualifies (with the overthrow of elected governments in Guatemala and Iran). If I mean harmful to innocent human life, then we get Johnson with Vietnam and Nixon again with the bombing of Cambodia. An argument could be made for Truman with the A-bombing of Japan, although I don't feel qualified to judge that one. If I mean corrupt, then we get Harding and Grant (although Wikipedia tells me that Grant did not personally profit from the corruption in his administration, but he failed to prevent it and took little action after the fact). Then, of course, we have to separate the policies of an administration from the individual person -- so who knows?

Whatever definition you use for evil, though, I am confident we've had it.

The point of my original post was that our system here is a strong, stable one, and that it can weather even a large amount of abuse by a Chief Executive. I believed that the system would revert to the mean after whatever monster we elect leaves office. Six years down the road, I'm no longer quite so certain of that. posted by Carlton at 9:32 AM

I AGREE COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION

From WND:

There is only one good reason a virtuous young woman should consider
getting the HPV vaccination. That is if the man she plans to marry has had sex
with other women, meaning he could be infected with HPV or an array of other
STDs. I don't know why a virtuous young woman would want to marry such a
man, but there you go.

Did you hear her? The only reason to get this vaccine against DEADLY CANCER is if you are a whore, or you consort with a whoremonger. Oh, and you need to decide whether or not you're a whore when you are twelve or so, which is when they give the vaccine.

No one who has sex before marriage -- male or female -- should be considered a suitable candidate for marriage by anyone, really. If you're a woman, you'll probably die of cervical cancer. If you're a man, you'll probably give her the virus that kills her with the cervical cancer.
Unless she gets the vaccine, of course. Which she won't, because we won't let her.

And it serves you right.

via TAPPED. posted by Carlton at 3:23 PM

DEFINITIONS, REVISITED

A while back, I posted my view that "civil war," for all that the news media have been mincing around the term, isn't really the right term for what is happening in Iraq. I substituted the word "chaos."

Well, the National Intelligence Estimate agrees with me:

The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately
capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive
Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition
forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term
“civil war” accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including
the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of
the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.

Part civil war, part ethnic cleansing, part internal power struggle, part fighting the Americans, and part unchecked crime. Sounds pretty chaotic, huh? posted by Carlton at 2:31 PM

THE STING

Strong emotions were evoked this weekend, when one of the people who I queried with my sci-fi novel responded and asked to see more. First he asked for three chapters, and then he asked for the rest, along with a detailed synopsis. Some hurdles jumped, without a doubt.

He wrote back to say, "Hmmm . . . initially promising, but you have these seemingly insurmountable problems. Thanks for your time."

Yeah, it stung a bit (and still does), but it was pretty valuable, really. He was good enough to explain what he thought was wrong overall, which is almost like having the thing workshopped. And he was interested enough to ask for it in the first place, and then for more . . . Rather than thinking of myself as a talentless failure (my initial response -- and a pretty understandable one), I prefer to think that this material in this form is not ready. That is easier on me, and also true.

To be honest, I sent the thing out more because I thought that I should than because of my trust in the work. Put it this way -- there are things I like about it, but I really had no grasp of structure or plot as I was writing. I had an idea that the thing was not ready for prime time, but not what was wrong or how to fix it. I was right about the "not ready" part, and now I have some feedback on why. I think it's an overall win for me, despite the sting.

So, I may put this thing aside for a couple of weeks, do other things, etc., then pick it back up for some major surgery. Even if this project never goes anywhere, I have learned a great deal at every stage.

(ETA: the picture is of a devil speaking into the ear of a scholar. And also to remove overuse of the word "initial.") posted by Carlton at 7:28 PM