The Great Mystery

KK sent out the following, in this morning's email:

Graves in Academe, by Susan Kenny, a thriller that Maura lent me, is about a college literature professor, female of course, who uses literature clues to solve a series of murders and other crimes that take place on the campus of her new University posting. (Do you think colleges are the most dangerous places around?)

In an aside she muses at one place; "That was the beauty of literature, of the written word; it existed, created a world elsewhere, another country that one could enter freely and at will."

Oh well, back to The X Bar X Boys at Devil's Canyon...

This reminded me . . .

I was just thinking, a couple of nights ago, that I have gotten tired of most mysteries, at least, the ones readily available as mass-market paperbacks.

The writing is often well-nigh unbearable, and even if the plot seems like something I'd like to follow, the prose puts me off to the degree that I hurl the book across the room.

I started fretting that the only modern mysteries with any literary merit, or at least, without literary demerits, are those set on college campuses or in English drawing rooms.

Now that Raymond Chandler and John D. MacDonald are done, I wondered, am I doomed to the ivory tower for my light reading, condemned to an endless diet of tea and crumpets?

Fortunately, I thought of Robert Crais, Dennis Lehane, John Sandford, and Andrew Vachss. And if there are these four, there must be many more good ones.

Send in your favorites. Thanks!

Ah, Jesus

TC sent me a clipping from the front page of yesterday's LA Times, which I just now got a chance to read. The headline: "Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies."

As with anything sufficiently horrible, I became sickly fascinated, and went off to the LAT's web site in search of the whole article.

As for the title of this post, I do admit to taking the name of the Lord in vain. No matter how many times I call upon Jesus to straighten out his wayward followers, I don't see any response.

One particular disturbing bit from the story:

A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults -- including 80% of evangelical Christians -- agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country."

I can believe that 80% of the wingnuts feel this way, because it seems that every time I hear about some convention that guys like Delay and Frist attend, that's the sum and substance of every speech made, and is, in fact, usually the title of the convention. Fear sells, especially with the dumb. So does hate.

But 64% of all adults?

Assuming the ADL's survey was properly conducted, I am stunned.

To Ruth Malhotra, Rick Scarborough, Stephen Crampton, Gregory S. Baylor, Orit Sklar, and all your drooling ilk who didn't manage to get quoted in the story, I say this: If you feel like you're "under attack" just because the government won't let you discriminate against an already persecuted minority, I suggest you write to your Representative or Senator.

Oh, wait, you can't. Congress is on Easter recess, isn't it?

Some Reading Recommendations

• Amy Sullivan has an excellent piece in the May 2006 issue of The Washington Monthly, called "Not as Lame as You Think." In it, she completely dismantles the idea that the Democrats, especially in Congress, are weak, passive, or ineffective. It's more than a feel-good piece; there are numerous supporting examples. Among other things, it also removes any remaining shreds of belief in the notion of a liberal media. (Thanks to Jonathan Chait for pointing this one out.)

• Paul Krugman and Robin Wells coauthored an article called "The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It," which appears in the 23 March 2006 edition of The New York Review of Books. The piece is putatively a review of three books on this topic, but it is really an excellent summary of where we stand these days. Unlike virtually every other article on health care problems in the US, this piece is neither shrill nor killingly dull.

• For some shorter but equally insightful words, check out Molly Ivins on immigration, Jack Shafer on the underlying causes of media bias, and last but never least, EarlG on this week's Top Ten Conservative Idiots.

Let's Just Barry The Issue and Move On

At my request, KK sent me William Rhoden's piece in today's NY Times, in which Barry Bonds is compared to Jack Johnson. I had read the teaser on the front page, and wondered if the article could possibly be as boneheaded as the teaser made it sound. After all, I used to love Rhoden's work, and I miss reading him, now that he's sequestered behind the TimesSelect wall.

Johnson, if you didn't already know, was the first black man to be the heavyweight boxing champ. Since he had the misfortune to achieve this milestone in 1908, in America, he suffered greatly. He was hounded by the United States government, who created a law (the Mann Act) pretty much just to get him -- Johnson had a white girlfriend at the time. Depending on whom you believe, he may have been forced into throwing the fight that cost him his crown, to a white man.

If you have access to TimesSelect [no longer applicable], here's the link to Rhoden's piece.

Here's my response to Rhoden's piece, part of my reply to KK:

Rhoden writes well enough that the piece wasn't as boneheaded as I had feared from the teaser, but still.

Barry Bonds is not in Jack Johnson's league, from what little I know about the two men. I'll go along, a smidgen, with the suspicion that Bonds is being persecuted, by some in the chattering classes, for being simultaneously black, loud, and ornery.

However, there have been no new laws crafted specifically to hound him. His race and choice of sleeping partners are not the issues, from the government's perspective. Congress did not place him, alone, in front of the cameras. In fact, if memory serves, Bonds wasn't even present at that ludicrous photo op. At most, baseball has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into enforcing rules that seem eminently reasonable, and there is not anything on the horizon to suggest that these rules will be retroactively enforced.

Granted, Bonds has gotten the lion's share of the long-term spotlight, now that Rafael Palmiero is effectively banished, and Mark McGwire has been relegated to the status of "Who? Oh, yeah, that guy with Sammy Sosa . . ."

But what does he expect? He's chasing a hallowed record in a country that pays its top gossip topics top dollar. Welcome to the big leagues, Barry.

A classy man in his situation might have retired by now. A slightly less classy man might just shrug and say, "I played by the rules as they were," and then quietly continue to play ball. Instead, Bonds launches his own "reality" show and continues to play the victim.

Ban him from the Hall of Fame? Append asterisks to his stats? Naw, not me. But, other than that, I've got no sympathy for the guy.

Good Rule-Breaking

We are taught that adverbs (and other modifiers) should be excised from our writing, and that we should prefer nouns and verbs. However, as E. B. White said in The Elements of Style, we should also know the rules, so that when we break them, we do so with grace.

Writing in in the "War Room" blog on Salon.com, the always wonderful Farhad Manjoo shows how it's done.

The post discusses White House spokesman Scott McClellan's attempt to defray accusations that his boss is behind Scooter Libby's leaking of Valerie Plame's name. McClellan's behavior during the press briefing was about what you would expect.

Manjoo characterized it as "ruthlessly opaque."

Pinups for Aliens

For about three-quarters of a century, we (Earthlings) have beamed our television broadcasts to the cosmos. If you've read the hugely enjoyable Contact, or seen the suprisingly good movie based thereon, you know what I'm talking about.

However, despite our best efforts, the tourism board of Planet Earth has failed miserably in its efforts to attract visitors from other worlds, despite the non-stop streaming of advertising that our planet and its inhabitants are truly wacky.

Evidently, Maxim magazine has decided the best way to lure the marks into the tent is by making them come a little closer, and rewarding their courage with a nice static image.

If you have Google Earth installed on your machine, check this out. (Clicking on the link should launch Google Earth and eventually zoom in on the object, um, desired. (Oh, wait. I'm not saying she's an object.))

No word yet on whether the Bush Administration is concerned about the message that this poster sends to the rest of the universe -- I mean, the babe in question does go out with a French guy.

(TheSuperficial.com, a gold mine of pure snark, has the story.)

Lies, Damned Lies, and Republicans

In a piece in the in the business section of yesterday's Times, analyzing the effects of Bush's 2003 tax cuts, it was hard not to laugh at this line:

Because of the tax cuts, even the merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, are falling behind the very wealthiest . . .

That's the funny part. Here's the serious part:

• The average tax bill for those with incomes of over $10 million has decreased by more than $1 million
• Taxpayers with an average income of $26 million pay about the same in taxes as those making less than $0.5 million
• About 1/10 of 1% of all American taxpayers received 43% of the total savings on investment taxes. 70% of the savings went to just 2% of the population.
• Those earning less than $50,000 per year realized an average savings from these investment tax cuts of . . . . . wait for it . . . . . $10

Yes. Ten dollars.

Compounding the lies under which this tax cut was initially pitched, Rep. David L. Camp (R-MI) said the following, on the House floor:

Nearly 60 percent of the taxpayers with incomes less than $100,000 had income from capital gains and dividends.

Practically all people with low-to-modest incomes who get any capital gains or dividends get them in the form of automatic reinvestments in retirement accounts; i.e., money they can't touch now, and which will be taxed as straight income, when they can.

In fact, as the Times points out:

But I.R.S. data show that among the 90 percent of all taxpayers who made less than $100,000, dividend tax reductions benefited just one in seven and capital gains reductions one in 20.

Mr. Camp, who had said in an interview that his figures were correct, said Monday through a spokesman that he had been misinformed by the staff of the House Ways and Means Committee.

So, he lied repeatedly, and then said (through someone else) that he was "misinformed."

Sound like any presidents other Republicans you know?

Euphemism Alert

According to a story in the automotive section of last Sunday's NY Times, California rates certain automobiles as "AT-PZEV's ('advanced technology partial zero emission vehicles')."

Partial zero emission?

That's, um, very unique.

Just The Facts, Man

Sometimes, a sober-sounding sentence gets past the editors, and makes me glad that I occasionally read articles that aren't part of my usual interests. For example, a piece in the fashion section of the NY Times (4/2/06) analyzes the death of Cargo, a men's shopping magazine. When discussing the magazine's readership, it had this to say:

At last count Cargo had 373,727 subscribers, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, which does not break down numbers on how many are metrosexuals.

So much for data mining.

Got Him!

Probably no one else in the blogosphere will bother to note this bit of happiness, so I figured I should at least mention it.

According to today's NY Times (Lead story! Damned liberal media!), the erstwhile bug hunter has himself been squashed.

I haven't been following the saga closely, assuming hoping it was just a matter of time before Delay got brought to justice, but it seems that a second aide to the former House majority leader has recently pleaded guilty to corruption charges, in connection with the Jack Abramoff scandal. Both aides are said to be cooperating with the Justice Department, as is Abramoff himself.

From the Times's story (emph. added):

Bill Miller, a leading Austin lobbyist close to the Republican leadership, said Mr. DeLay called Gov. Rick Perry Monday night. Mr. Miller quoted Mr. DeLay as saying "I don't want to be a distraction" and said he had maintained that his decision to drop out of the race had nothing to do with any pending criminal action.

In an interview Monday night, Richard Cullen, Mr. DeLay's principal criminal defense lawyer, said that his client had been pondering a withdrawal from the race for some time and that "it had nothing to do with any criminal investigation."

Uh huh.

The formal announcement about wanting to spend more time with his family is expected soon.

(Thanks to dubyasworld.com for the image.)

Turn On

It may be a sign of geekiness run rampant to say the following, but . . .

I came across a funny line in a recent issue of The Economist this morning.

In a short piece discussing declining performance in Europe's universities and secondary schools, even compared to the US (*gasp*), one of the targets for blame was the people in the educational systems -- they are apparently highly resistant to new ways of thinking required in a post-industrial economy.

Or, as The Economist would have it:

Q: How many teachers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: What do you mean, change?

(Substitute your preferred stick-in-the-muds accordingly -- I myself blame the teachers last.)

The Truth Is Out There (As Seen on TV!)

Thanks to KK, we now have this additional bit of evidence.

It's discouraging that this is still "breaking news" to some, but we'll try to have patience for the slow learners.

Negative Liberal Media Strikes Again

Today's Week In Review section of the NY Times has an excellent piece, by Jeffrey Gettleman, titled "Redirecting Bullets in Baghdad."

Gettleman writes about Iraq from the perspective of a reporter who has just returned after being away for a year. It's likely that the piece won't surprise you overall, but the degree to which the situation has decayed is really nothing short of astounding.

While Dick Cheney continues to rant that perceptions are being skewed by the media, and things are really getting better, and if only we'd all just watch Fox News . . ., it's hard to believe that even he could rebut this one.

Must read.

Moderation

This is making me crazy.

I'm sure that I had this conversation by email with someone recently, but I can't remember who it was. An exhaustive search on my archived email has proved fruitless.

Anyway, the topic was: Who said this? The quote: "Moderation in all things. Especially moderation."

I vaguely remembered my mother attributing it to Aristotle. My correspondent begged to differ. A search of bartleby.com resolved nothing. We moved on.

So, I'm randomly surfing, and I come across the following:

Everything in moderation -- including moderation. -- Harvey Steiman

Harvey Steiman?

Hoodat?

Ewwwww

There's something kind of disturbing about coming to the end of a big jar of mayonnaise and realizing

• There are many months yet to come before we reach the "Sell By" date
• No one else makes sandwiches in this house

The Power of Thunderbird

No, this isn't a whine column.

I just updated to the latest version of the Mozilla Thunderbird email program. While fiddling with the settings to make it present the way that I like, I opened the menu that allows one to modify the column arrangement for the messages pane.

The last choice is labeled "Restore Natural Order."

Should I click it?

And if I do, how would we feed all of those suddenly jobless Republicans?

Commenting Problems?

Hi, everybody.

If you have recently tried to post a comment on this blog, and had problems with the Verification Word (VW) step, or anything related, it seems that Blogger had a bit of a problem with a bad router recently. (Poetic and photographic details are available.)

Anyway, things seem to be fixed. If you still have a problem, try clearing your cookies, and then repost the comment, it says here.

If that doesn't work, or you don't want to mess with your cookies, this is what worked for me: post the comment, get the error message about incorrect typing of the VW, click the Reload button on the browser toolbar, and click "OK" (or "Yes") in the pop-up window asking about resubmitting POSTDATA. You should get a new VW (along with the error message that you mistyped the last one. Type the new VW. Done. (This sequence will only need to be performed once.)

Feel free to put up a test comment, if you like, and please let me know if you have any problems.

Thanks to Clare for initially noticing the problem.

KVM

I recently ordered a KVM switch. A Keyboard, Video, Mouse switch is a box into which I will plug one K, one V, one M, and two or more computers. Thus, I will be able to have many CPUs happily whirring away at the same time. I won't need to do anything more than push a button to see what each one is up to, and my desk won't look quite so much like Mission Control.

But KVM, in this post, means Kurt Vonnegut Musings.

I was up very late, last night. And then, when I was supposed to start going to sleep, I started reading a new (to me) book by KV.

I woke up today, squinted through the sunlight at the dim digital clock. Shit. 1:42. Oh, well.

I tottered out to the kitchen to brew coffee and peel oranges. Drank and ate same. Then I started feeling really tired, and despite the already advanced hour, I couldn't help but go lie down again. I picked up the book that I had started the night before, read about two more pages, and fell right back to sleep.

I have just woken up, and I feel vastly refreshed, and I am surprised to see that it is still sunny out. I just wandered out to the kitchen to feed the felines, and looked at the clock out there. 12:42.

Now, it's possible that I mis-read the dim clock when I first woke up, and that it really had said 7:42.

But get this: The title of the book that I was reading is Timequake. It concerns the universe contracting for a short bit, so that everyone has to relive the years 1991-2001 over again, doing exactly the same things the second time around.

I was just at the part where the expansion has restarted, 2001 rolls around for the second time, and free will is beginning to take hold again.

+ + + + +

I want to leave you with this fine line:

Then again, I am a monopolar depressive descended from monopolar depressives. That's how come I write so good. -- Kurt Vonnegut

Gore. Not Bore.

There's an excellent article on the American Prospect Online site, "The New New Gore."

If you're like me, you bought too heavily into the MSM portrayal of Al Gore in 2000, and all too quickly, lived to regret that. Al Franken's phenomenal book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, was the first good rebuttal to this image that I came across. Since then, I have been amazed at how much I like the new Al Gore.

Like many people, I have frequently mused over the past five years, "Boy, if he had only been like this when he was running for President . . ." The article in the American Prospect does a really nice job of articulating and exploring this zeitgeist.

Access to the web version of the article is free, and without registration requirements. It's long, but well worth your time.

BTW, I came across the article from a link on The New Republic's web site, where TNR's writer said that the AP article had it wrong about Gore trying to buy TNR at one point. Probably you'd have read right over that, or not cared, but it seems worth repeating.

Bush Urges Democrats To Stand Up And Fight

From the NY Times's coverage of President Bush's recent press conference:

"I did notice that nobody from the Democratic Party has actually stood up and called for getting rid of the terrorist surveillance program," Mr. Bush said. He added, in a formulation similar to his campaign speeches portraying Democrats as soft on terrorism, that "they ought to stand up and say the tools we're using to protect the American people shouldn't be used."

This brings to nearly two the number of times that I have agreed with something that Bush has said.

W's remarks are not entirely true. I suspect someone with Lexis/Nexis access could quickly offer some counterexamples. But the overall sense is correct, and I have no doubt that there is a wide perception of the minority party in just this light.

Time to get up off the mat, Dems. The bully is calling you out.

RFQCC: Notes on Spyware Removal

Request For Questions, Comments, and Criticisms

I have posted some notes on spyware removal (for Windows machines) on my web site.

Please feel free to comment on them, either from the persective of a regular user, or as someone with more smarts on the matter than I have. (There is a link back to this post at the end of the notes.)

As always, I'm also seeking input from the wordsmiths and wessons among you.

Thanks!

YAROCT - Mac/Firefox Tab Key Nav

Yet Another Really Obscure Computer Thing

So, I was ranting to KK about the "broken" Tab key behavior in Firefox on the Mac, in that the Tab key doesn't let me navigate around a given Web page when I'm surfing on my Mac, the way it does when I'm surfing on my PC. Most commonly, this annoyance presents when logging into a site that has text boxes for username and password, and then a button or link that needs to be clicked to actually complete the login.

On the PC, I can almost always tab to this button/link and hit the space bar, and never have to grope the rodent.

So, I go on for like nine pages about this to KK, and having shoved the cart thus, I calm down enough to check on the horse.

It turns out, as a search on the Mozilla forums will show, that this annoyance has been plaguing the developers of Firefox since pre-1.0 days. And by "annoyance" I mean, the gurus are annoyed at stupid users like me ranting about this.

The way to enable Tab key navigation in Firefox on a Mac is not through Firefox > Preferences, but through Mac > System Preferences. That is, click on the apple icon in the menu bar, click on "System Preferences ...," click on "Keyboard and Mouse," click on "Keyboard Shortcuts," and check the radio button labeled "All controls" under the heading "Full keyboard access." Close the preferences window. Restart Firefox. Boom.

Now that I've cleared that up, world peace ought to be a snap.

Zing!

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it's too good to worry about such nonsense as fact-checking:*

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis, Maryland, at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

Thanks for the email, AMP!

---

* Raskin is evidently running for State Senate in Maryland, and this site has the punchline featured prominently on the home page, so maybe this really happened.

Molly Rules. Again.

The incredible Molly Ivins has a piece out called "Enough of the D.C. Dems."

The piece, originally published in The Progressive, is posted on the commondreams.org web site, which doesn't require registration. So, there's no excuse not to read it right now.

This woman can purely write.

Flyover peeps waking up?

Today's Boston Globe has a nice article by Charlie Savage, titled Change of Heartland.

The piece starts off with the numbers:

This month, the Indianapolis Star released poll findings that Bush's approval rating among Indiana voters stood at 37 percent -- a drop of 18 points over the past year. The numbers echoed national polls, but were particularly shocking in a state that has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and where Democratic presidential contenders often do not bother to campaign.

Most of the rest of Savage's article consists of snippets of conversations with people who live in Indiana. Ordinarily, I hate newspaper stories that use the vox populi approach, but this one is different. Savage is not really trying to prove the case with examples (the numbers, after all, speak for themselves), and the quotes are more thoughtful and complex than is usual in this kind of article.

You'll likely have to go through the usual nonsense of registering to read the whole thing, but it's worth it.

Thanks to a Spooky Librarian. Again.

Jinnet, who runs several fine blogs and web sites, recently posted a nice link. How can you not click on something called "Aphorisms Galore!"?

When I clicked on the AG link, I first saw:

Ever notice that "what the hell" is always the right decision? --Marilyn Monroe

Links to Jinnet's sites may be found in her profile. Click 'em and weep.

With pleasure.

Credit Card: Your New Statement

A while back, I posted some remarks about the (don't) tax (the rich) and spend (wildly) guy currently posing as POTUS.

It gets worse.

In an analysis piece in today's NY Times, we learn some details about the Senate's recent unsurprising supersizing of the legal cap on federal deficits.

The analysis piece indulges in the familiar MSM fetish of "balance," and takes pains to point out that some Republican-Lites Democrats are among those who deserve blame for fouling up your future, and your kids' future, and your grandkids' future, and . . .

But you have to read stories like this closely. Especially on Saturday. Sometimes some truth might sneak in:

Almost lost in all the budget and spending activity was that House and Senate negotiators continue to try to hammer out an agreement for new tax cuts that could cost an additional $70 billion over five years.

Anyone with half a brain knows that "House and Senate negotiators" has meant, for the past six years, "guys who talk in rooms to which the minority party is not privy."

Mid-term elections are less than half a year away. Please check your voter registration status.

Ah, crap. Maybe it's a little early for campaigning on this blog. Let's move on to fun stuff. Everybody loves surveys, right?

Survey Says?

My good friend Robert sent me an email today. Mostly, he was chortling about William Shatner's recent History Channel program.

Don't lie. I know you taped it.

Well, at least I hope you did. I don't have cable.

But he finished up with an interesting observation, something at which he has always been especially gifted:

By the way, I have noticed something here in McMinnville, and I am curious to see if it is a subtle trend that is occurring across the country. Although Portland is very much a hotbed of the anti-Bush insurgency, here in McMinnville much of the town is very conservative and redneck. We are just on the Red side of the Red State / Blue State divide being this far out of the big city. What dawned on me one day was that all the W bumper stickers have started to disappear from off of the back of the pickup trucks. Even here in McMinnville, you are more likely to see leftover Kerry bumper stickers than anything related to Bush/Cheney. This was not true even a few months ago.

Have you noticed this too? I am curious if your friends from other parts of the US are seeing a change as well.

As I told him in response:

Since I live in the People's Republic of Northampton, Bush stickers were never apparent around here. The construction guys and other closet Republicans, back in 2004, made do with flags on the antennae and "Support Our Troops" on the bumpers.

We're both curious. How say you? Please leave a comment.

Will These Activist Judges Never Stop?

Check out this story in today's NY Times.

It concerns a ruling by a federal appeals court against the E.P.A. (formerly, the Enviromental Protection Agency, now better referred to as Every Polluter Applauded).

The court disallowed a recent Bush Administration "regulation" that gave power plants and other spewers permission to avoid installing newer emissions controls. The court wrote, "[O]nly in a Humpty-Dumpty world" could anyone interpret the Clean Air Act the way that W and his cronies had.

"We decline such a world view," said the unanimous opinion.

The spin from the energy companies, according to the Times, boils down to support for this regulation because "it would help them expand energy supplies at lower cost to consumers." Given that the regulation was issued in 2003, I can only ask, how's that been working out?

By the way, one of the three judges on the court is Janice Rogers Brown. Yes, that Judge Brown.

---

You can read the full text of the opinion (PDF format), if you're interested in such things as an eight-page discussion about the definition of the word "any."

It Might Not Just Be Me

(This post makes more sense if you read the previous one, "Burnout," first.)

So, I'm driving past the used car lot on my home this morning, and I actually see a guy kicking a tire.

And he looked serious.