Katrina: Whose Chaos?
So, conservatives spin this as the result of the "liberal media" out of control, liberals spin it as conservative hysteria out of control. I don't think this report is all that surprising, but with all the spinning most everyone seems too dizzy to see what the real lessons are.
In New Orleans' whiter, affluent western suburbs, stories spread after the hurricane of gangs of looters taking over one community after another. No such thing happened. Residents openly described the urban poor as " animals" and indicated they were willing to believe just about anything about them. Once the National Guard arrived in the city, soldiers charged with securing the perimeter of the Superdome warned journalists they would not be safe going inside.
The inside turned out to be chaotic, fetid and stiflingly hot, but very far from the violent hellhole advertised. "It just morphed into this mythical place where the most unthinkable deeds were being done," Ed Bush of the National Guard told yesterday's Los Angeles Times. Only now, one month later, is the record being set straight.
[Andrew Gumbel (in Los Angeles), "Katrina chaos", The Independent [UK], 28 September 2005.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, Plus Ca Change...
Connecticut Civil Unions on October 1
My friend Ron Suresha, who lives in New London, CT, sends me this press release concerning the beginning of civil-unions for same-sex couples in that state. This is cool: when was the last time you saw a press release that read excited? He asks that we circulate, so, as part of the historic record:
Subject: Hartford Municipal Building to be open Oct. 1 for Civil Unions
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:49:00 -0400
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
550 MAIN STREET
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
EDDIE A. PEREZ
Telephone: (860) 543-8500
Mayor Fax: (860) 722-6606
——–MEDIA AND COMMUNITY ADVISORY——–
CITY OF HARTFORD WILL BE PART OF HISTORY!
MUNICIPAL BUILDING WILL BE OPEN OCTOBER 1ST FOR CIVIL UNION CEREMONIESWHEN: Saturday, October 1, 2005 from 9:00a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
WHERE: Municipal Building, 550 Main Street, Downtown HartfordThe City of Hartford will be part of history as it opens its doors to Civil Unions. The sole purpose of this special Saturday event is for Civil Unions. No other City business will be conducted on this day.
Mayor Eddie Perez says, "This is a Civil Rights milestone in Connecticut. This is building on the City of Hartford's long history of officially recognizing domestic partnerships, which began back in 1983."
Those wishing to receive a Civil Union license are to go to the Arch Street entrance of the building. Applicants will be asked to fill out forms and present a valid photo ID. A Social Security card is requested. There's a $30 license fee that can be paid by cash, check, or money order. No credit cards will be accepted.
After the license is signed and certified, Civil Union ceremonies will be conducted in the Atrium. There will be four Justices of the Peace available to preside. There's no fee for the ceremony, but donations will be accepted and will benefit the American Red Cross.
For more information on how to obtain a Civil Union license, please contact Jose Carrasco with the Office of Vital Records at (860) 543-8539. For more information on Justice of the Peace ceremonies, please contact Dan Carey, City Clerk at (860) 543-8580. Members of the media are asked to contact Sarah Barr, Director of Communications at (860) 522-4888 x6217.
In: All, Common-Place Book
To Some Extent
It's fun — indeed, one of my favorite pasttimes — to hear what new catch phrase politicians will come up with next. The phrases don't always catch on, but they keep trying; it seems there's a sort of verbal Darwinism at work.
A notable example of unfortunately longevity was Nixon's "point in time", which finally seems to have withered out of common usage. The Bush League's own amusing malapropisms, "step up to the ball" and my recent favorite, "at the whim of a hat", seemed not to have gained a foothold, alas.
Many of these are reasonably innocuous, but not all, particularly when misdirection and obfuscation are the goal. I'm a little troubled by the sudden popularity of "to the extent that…" — I seem to be hearing / reading all the Bush League first string suddenly using "to the extent that".
It seems that the phrase premiered with the President's own use in his now famous taking of "full responsibility" for the Katrina aftermath: "And to the extent that the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility." Clearly not quite as all-encompassing as Truman's iconic "The Buck Stops Here", but I suppose the President doesn't plan to have the phrase engraved on a little desk plaque either. I amuse myself trying to imagine Truman with a more modern version: "To the extent that the dollar is still worth a full ninty-nine cents, it stops right here, to the extent that it needs stopping."
The phrase was almost with us when, at the recent height of kerfuffle over the role of Rove in the Plame-Name-Game (don't you think the cute little Katrina phrase "the blame game" disappeared rather quickly? Do you suppose the administration has plans to market the board game?), the President had to "clarify" his original intentions in saying that anyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name would no longer be a part of his administration to saying that they would no longer be a part of his administration if they did something illegal, which you have to admit is tantamount to saying "to the extent", so I guess we could see it starting right then and there at that point in time!
Now I see that Don Rumsfeld, another great one for taking full responsibility (remember when he took "full responsibility" for the events at Abu Graib, and it turned out that taking "full responsibility" meant saying "I take full responsiblity" but then nothing else happened, in contrast to the way that it often does for normal, non-governmental, middle-class people who are responsible for things), is talking about responsibility, at least "to the extent":
…this is what Donald Rumsfeld said when asked about the torture: "All I know is that the Army is taking it seriously. To the extent somebody's done something that they shouldn't have done, they'll be punished for it."*
One wonders, naturally, exactly how one measures the extent to which somebody's done something, so that the punishment can be proportioned to the same extent.
———-
*Richard Bradley, "Rumsfeld: What, Me Worry?", The Huffington Post, 28 September 2005.
In: All, Plus Ca Change..., Such Language!
Taxes Buy Civilization
How I look forward to the day when I can again pay my fair share of taxes to a government that uses it to keep buying civilization, rather than trying to destroy it.
[Shakespeare's Sister, "It’s Not Penance Unless You’re Sorry, Though", 27 September 2005.]
In: All, Common-Place Book
Congealed Meal
A treasure from tonight's trip to the library (as mentioned in the previous post) was finding, on the book cart of cheap books for sale, a cookbook* from 1981 called "Favorite Brand Name Recipe Cookbook". I always like these, and this one is just old enough to have some fantastic recipes from a slightly earlier time that simply will not be found in current incarnations of the same concept. It also has weird looking color photos of dishes that look slightly alien.
The thing that really committed me to spending the $1 on this cookbook was spotting the recipe for "Braunschweiger Ring". Although it sounds vaguely euphemistic with the word "ring", those of us who are big fans of congealed salads (as they once were known in the days that appreciated the artificial and technological) will squeal with delight at the thought of finding what is the next best thing to a recipe for liverwurst Jell-O.
And then, much to Isaac's disgust, it struck me on the way home that I probably now had enough recipes in the collection to do an entire congealed meal. Several courses of shimmering elegance, both cunning and smart (as the Sterns# might say). Just imagine this sequence of removes:
- Gazpacho Salad (from the Magic of Jell-O cookbook!)
- Tuna Mold — fish course! — done in the fish-shaped copper mold
- Golden Glow salad, to cleanse the palate
- Braunschweiger Ring, entree, with
- Perfection Salad, vegetable, and
- Tomato Aspic, also vegetable
- Cream-cheese molded salad
- Dessert Jell-O, with fruit
To bed, to dream, perhaps to gel.
———-
*Sometime, when I have the leisure for it, I will write about my uncontrollable compulsion for buying cookbooks, especially remaindered cookbooks.
#One of my all-time favorite cookbooks is Jan & Michael Stern's Square Meals, in which they discuss the craze for "pink parties", in which all the food was tinted pink, as an example of the creative output of a smart and cunning hostess.
Banned Books
Today I learned that this is the week in which the American Library Association promotes "Banned Book Week"; at their website they conveniently provide a Suggested Activities and Action Guide, chock full of ideas.
The same person# also pointed out the article "The American banned list reveals a society with seious hang-ups", by Ben MacIntyre in The Times [Online] of 24 September 2005 , a graceful rumination on the topic — and guaranteed ultimate failure — of censorship. Mr. MacIntyre listed some of the silly recent attempts at censorship in America, including
… perhaps the most remarkable act of censorious foolishness came a few years ago when four members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee called for the rejection of Anne Frank’s The Diary of a Young Girl on the basis that it was “a real downer”.
and then made me laugh aloud with his summary statement:
The American list of opposed books reveals a society still struggling with major hang-ups about sex, race, religion and Holocaust victims who are insufficiently jolly.*
Anyway, Monday night around here is usually library night, since that's what I do more often than not while Isaac is directing handbell rehearsals. So, I had this in mind when heading off to my local, small branch of our county's memorial library system. Without thinking too much about it, I rather presumed that my backwater branch library had probably not even heard of "Banned Book Week", so I was mightily surprised — and impressed! — when I went in and saw "Banned Book Week" posters, and a banner on a table of "Challenged Books".
That was so cool! And I exlaimed as such to all my favorite volunteer librarians who, I suspect, think that I'm basically a flake anyway. However, they seemed pleased by my pleasure at seeing their celebration.
On the table there were two informative lists along with the books. One list was the "Top 10 Challenged Authors of Color", the other was "Top 10 Challenged Books". Many of the books were familiar to me, even if I hadn't read them all, and few surprised me much that they had provoked some narrow-minded people to attack them.
However, I was shocked to see that Maya Angelou was on the list of challenged authors of color, and that I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was one of the top challenged books. "How could this be," I was proclaiming rather too loudly, "this is one of the best books I ever read!"
I guess I'm not surprised that someone (or lots of someones) in some school district (or lots of school districts) somewhere should object to her compelling, poetic about being poor and black in the Alabama of her youth. But such a book it is! I can't think of anyone who wouldn't profit from reading it.
So there: I guess I'm doing my part for Banned Book Week by telling everyone I can to go read Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. You'll be glad you did.
—–
#There it is. Turns out it was Michael Schaub, "Banned Books Week: Saving Waldo and Terabithia from the Radical Right", The Huffington Post, 26 September 2005.
*That was funny enough, but I was further amused when, after a paragraph discussing how censorship is always doomed to failure, he wrote
But ’twas ever thus. In the 1930s Senator Smoot of Utah launched an anti-pornography campaign to the delight of Ogden Nash:
Senator Smoot (Republican, Ut.)
Is planning a ban on smut
Oh rooti-ti-toot for Smoot of Ut.
And his reverent occiput.
Smite. Smoot, smite for Ut.,
Grit your molars and do your dut.,
Gird up your l–ns, Smite h-p and th-gh,
We’ll all be Kansas
By and By.
A Tragic Anti-Hero
When Avedon Carol wrote
If I were a kinder person, I might actually feel sorry for the boy king – he tries so hard to be better than his dad, but he either repeats his errors accidentally or, in trying to out-do him, screws up royally by deliberately departing from the old man's decisions.
she led me to realize that the current president is essentially a tragic figure. One doesn't really want to go so far as to call him a tragic hero since, to quote the Wikipedia article on that topic, "A tragic hero is a protagonist who is otherwise perfect except for a tragic flaw, also known as fatal flaw, that eventually leads to his demise", and one doesn't really see this President as "otherwise perfect".
Perhaps "tragic anti-hero" would be more appropriate. It's not obvious whether his tragic flaw is hubris, although that certainly figures into the mix. More than likely, hubris is central to the actions of those around him, his "loyal friends", who conspire to make him the tragic anti-hero.
Nevertheless, there are ample identifying characterics for a literary, tragic figure: a son, not gifted in any notable way, who lives perpetually in the shadow of a father whose expectations — as the son imagines them — he is unable to meet. He is inexplicably elevated to a position of power for which he is inadequate, by untrustworthy people whom he trusts, people whose motivation is to manipulate him to serve their own nefarious ends. The office, instead of making the man, crushes him. His constituents, who support him blindly, project onto him their own longings without question, believing that his own convictions match theirs when, in fact, he has no convictions of his own. Ultimately, they all turn on him, exposing his tragic flaw, leading to political conflagration and a spectacular failure to triumph as the greatest president in history, his one authentic dream.
Gosh, I'd start writing the opera if John Adams and Alice Goodman hadn't already done such a good job of it with "Nixon in China".
Cowflops of Complacency
"We are not gray grains of oatmeal in a porridge of privilege," said Lloyd Bentsen in his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention. Just so. Also, we are not cowflops of complacency in a meadow of mediocrity. We are not quasars of querulousness in a galaxy of greed. We are not pousse-cafés of presumption in a cocktail lounge of cronyism. We are not BMWs of braggadocio on a parkway of plutocracy. We are not courtesans of callousness in a massage parlor of mendacity. We are not sun-dried tomatoes of sanctimony in a warm salad of wealth.
–Hendrik Hertzberg, New Republic, August 22, 1988
["Hertzberg on the Record", Harvard Magazine: Web Exclusive, January–February 2003.]
In: All, Common-Place Book
Prez Whiz
While doing some research this morning for a different essay, I read this assessment by Hendrik Hertzberg of a phrase in Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address:
In last year’s State of the Union, Bush’s buzz phrase was “weapons of mass destruction,” the threat of which justified the impending conquest of Iraq. This year’s speech subsumed that phrase into the longer, mealier “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities,” a usefully adaptable locution.
For some reason, perhaps to do with the length of the phrase, or its poetic rhythm, or maybe its totally artifical color, it reminded me of my favorite, contrived name for something sold as edible:
American Pasteurized Process Cheese-Food Product
Neither one would seem to suggest ease of digestibility.
In: All, Such Language!
Toe Monsters
The Republican movement against same-sex-marriage is purely a political tactic which feeds off the unjustified fears of easily influenced Americans, as we witnessed during last year's presidential campaign. Gay marriage does nothing to threaten you or your marriage, but the anti-gay right-wing wants to make you feel that way in order to consolidate their power. The Republicans have told you that there's a Toe Monster under your bed and if you don't vote for them, the Toe Monster will get your toes! Ooga booga! You allow yourself to buy into that? Seriously?
[Bob Cesca, "Bigotry In The Name Of Jesus H. Christ", Huffington Post, 24 September 2005.]
In: All, Common-Place Book
Repeal the Second Law?
There is one major achievement of ninteenth-century science — namely, thermodynamics — that neither had significant practical application of which the public were aware nor penetrated the imagination of HMS [= "l'homme moyen sensuel" i.e., "the average man"]. To HMS the subject seems abstruse, and irrelevant to daily life. Moreover, it lacks visual appeal. One can imagine genes and galaxies, and one can handle electronic equipment. The second law of thermodynamics has as much visual appeal as a hymn, and the only mark it has made outside science is the usually totally inaccurate use of the word entropy whenver the speaker wishes to lend universality and depth to an otherwise prosaic statement. The famous prediction of the eventual thermodynamic death of the universe raised some interest at the time but is not now a topic of conversation in pubs. Even in the Deep South, I doubt whether the second law of thermodaynics will raise enough ire to be repealed by a state senate.
[Brian L. Silver, The Ascent of Science (Soloman Press, New York, 1998) p. 131.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, Raised Eyebrows Dept.
Darwinism: Real vs. Social
Darwinism was more readily accepted by the Church in England than it was by the rigid Protestant sects of the New World, a pattern that is maintained by the almost complete absence of present-day controversy [NB: the author was writing this c. 1997] over evolution in Great Britain, in contrast to the continuing clashes between fundamentalists and secular authority in the United States. Nevertheless, social Darwinism was more warmly embraced in the United States than in Europe. Herbert Spencer's banner "the survival of the fittest" proved a rallying point for moneyed laymen, tenured academics, and worldly clerics. Said John D. Rockefeller, "The growth of large business is merely the survival of the fittest," and his conviction was confirmed by Graham Sumner, a professor of political science at Yale, who diplomatically saw millionaires as "the naturally selected agents of society" (you never know who the university's next benefactor will be). The blessing of the Church was bestowed on mammon by Bishop William Lawrence of Massachusetts, who incredibly expressed the opinion that "godliness is in league with riches … The race is to the strong." We could be generous and interpret that as a cry of woe, but it was not. The dinstinctly un-Christian Bishop might have applauded Spencer's opinion, borrowed from Malthus and expressed in Spencer's Man versus the State (1884), that it was not the business of the state to help the poor, whom he implicitly categorized as "unfit."
[Brian L. Silver, The Ascent of Science (Soloman Press, New York, 1998) p. 131.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, Plus Ca Change...
Centuries Old Truths
A month ago I wrote a posting ("Mystery and Creationism") in which I suggested that Christian fundamentalists who feel that their religion is imcompatible with science should take the advice of the late Pope and ascribe the incomprehensibility to mystery, since mystery is theologically acceptable.
In that piece, I quoted someone quoting Pope John Paul II as saying
Truth cannot contradict truth.
which I took to be a perspicacious aphorism that tidily addressed the problem.
Anyway, yesterday I was reading Brian Silver's The Ascent of Science at lunch, when I came upon the following. Let me tell you, the surprise almost caused me to snort a taco through my nose!
For Bacon, reason and common sense were irrelevant to religion: "The more absurd an dincredible any divine mystery is, the greater honor we do to God in believing it; and so much the more noble the victory of faith." Galileo likewise sidestepped the question: "Both the Holy Scriptures and nature originate in the Divine Word . . . .[T]wo truths can never contradict one another."*
Oh dear, whatever are we to make of this! Was the late pope cribbing from Galileo, stealing profound thoughts from the guy whom they so famously persecuted? Did Paul V, when he visited with Galileo, make a note of this penetrating insight of Galileo's and pass it along through generations of the papacy? Did JPII, once he had finally absolved Galilleo of heresy feel it was finally safe to plagiarize? Did he, when writing his "apology" over the mistreatment come across this metaphysical position and decide to resurrect it?
So now I have to look further. It seems that the attribution to John Paul II is from a speech he gave, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth", to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 22 October 1996.# As his theme he took the relationship of the Church to Science over the question of evolution:
I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation?
And, in fact, in the next sentence he gives us an earlier attribution
And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus).
Sure enough, here is paragraph 23 from the "summary" section of that very encyclical**
23. In order that all these endeavours and exertions [related to the study of the Scriptures, which is the topic of the encyclical] may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures – and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being.
This could, of course, be easily misread by anxious fundamentalists to imply that science must be kept from making statements that apparently contradict the Bible, but that's not what it means, and that is not the tradition of the Church in its hermeneutics, either.
Rather, the self-assured response begins with the assertion that "truth cannot contradict truth", and moves on from there to examine any apparent contradictions. That is, the Church accepts scientific truth, just as it believes in the revealed truth of the Bible and asserts that if the two appear to contradict each other, the most likely explanation is that the human mind that sees the apparent contradiction has fallen short in its understanding.
This appears to be where my path stops for now in tracing the connection back from John Paul II to Galileo. At least, I'm stopping here for a break.
———-
*Brian L. Silver, The Ascent of Science (Solomon Press, New York, 1998) p. 25.
#It is in this speech that JPII says there is no conflict between Church teachings and evolution. Although the current Pope Benedict XVI would try to obfuscate the matter, JPII is pretty clear:
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical [Humani Generis, 1950, by John Paul II's predecessor Pius XII] , new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [….] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
My own aside after reading the speech: his carefully crafted metaphysical arguments, built on theological ideas developed over centuries of thought, make modern-day fundamentalists look terribly naive and rather childlike in their antipathy towards evolutionary ideas.
** Providentissimus Deus: "Given at St. Peter's, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate: Leo XII."
In: All, Such Language!, The Art of Conversation
Who Could Have Known?
You may remember the incident earlier this year when a small plane flew unexpectedly into DC airspace and our nation's capital responded to a terrorist red alert. I do, although I think it didn't come back into my mind until Frank Rich referred to "…the cinéma vérité of poor people screaming for their lives".
Those incidents were in my mind when what should float past but a shadowy echo of the President expressing his surprise at the breach of the levees in New Orleans: "I don't think anyone expected that."
Then I realized that, contrary to the vehement misdirections of the Bush-League apologists about the negligent response of our "leaders" in the aftermath of Katrina that we'd seen it all before in miniature. Think back to those exciting moments when we thought that Washington DC was under attack by terrorists:
- The President was riding his bicycle, oblivious to any threat;
- The Vice President rushed to hide out in a bunker; and
- The evacuation plan for the Capitol was "run for your lives!"
Doesn't it sound eerily familiar? The same presidential lack of awareness, the same leadership vacuum, the same level of "preparedness". Didn't we find ourselves, even then, saying "if this had been an actual emergency…"?
A Republican Motto
Today we were driving back from our Saturday shopping, and we talked for a moment about the latest bit of Bush League shenanigans, whatever it was — it's hard to keep track. However, I can say with certainty that it would have had something to do with bilking avearge Amerians in some way to line the pockets of the rich people and corporations who bought this Administration.
With a faint remembrance of conservative ghosts past who crusaded for smaller government coloring our thoughts about this current crop of cut-taxes-and-spend Republicans, we realized we had a new motto for Republicans:
Smaller Government at Any Cost!
Royalty checks to me, please.
Gleick's Newton
Yesterday I finished reading Isaac Newton, by James Gleick (Pantheon Books, New York, 2003), and I was quite impressed by it. Gleick managed to write in what I think of as a "high" tone, a slightly lofty rhetorical style, on the poetic side, and sustain it throughout the book. It's a difficult voice to maintain, but he did it well and it suited the subject.
This was certainly not a detailed, laundry-list sort of biography, nor was it a scientific biography as such. It was more of a character piece, a gesture drawing sketched with ideas. It's as though the concepts and discoveries emanated from Newton and then we saw how they affected the times and people around him, and this formed an outline, a silhouette of this intellectual giant.
Gleick said he wanted to try to place Newton in his time, and he that did very well. I felt as though I was privy to what Newton and his contemporaries were thinking — it was effective narrative. I enjoyed reading the book, and I came away with a much deeper appreciation of Newton than one might expect from less than 200 pages.
To end, a couple of quotations. These I don't mean to be illustrative in any general way; they were just bits that amused me the most.
The first one I take entirely out of context, but I thought the rhythm and diction was sublime. It is Newton he's writing about:
Ceaselss ratiocination disordered his senses. [p. 149]
In this second one, we meet Flamsteed, the Astronomer Royal from whom Newton had obtained some vital data, but with whom he obviously later fell out. I particularly enjoyed the little twisting of the knife that Flamsteed manages at the end with his "againe":
Flamsteed took some small pleasure in reporting rumors of Newton's death [to Newton himself]: "It served me to assure your freinds that you were in health they haveing heard that you were dead againe." [p. 154, spelling original, emphasis added]
In: All, Books, Writing
Science as Nuisance
From the beginning, the Bush White House has treated science as a nuisance and scientists as an interest group—one that, because it lies outside the governing conservative coalition, need not be indulged. That's why the White House-sometimes in the service of political Christianism or ideological fetishism, more often in obeisance to baser interests like the petroleum, pharmaceutical, and defense industries-has altered, suppressed, or overriden scientific findings on global warming; missile defense; H.I.V./ AIDS; pollution from industrial farming and oil drilling; forest management and endangered species; environmental health, including lead and mercury poisoning in children and safety standards for drinking water; and non-abstinence methods of birth control and sexually-transmitted-disease prevention. It has grossly misled the public on the number of stem-cell lines available for research. It has appointed unqualified ideologues to scientific advisory committees and has forced out scientists who persist in pointing out inconvenient facts.
[Hendrik Hertzberg, "Mired", The New Yorker, 22 August 2005.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, It's Only Rocket Science
Effective Governing?
Hurricane Katrina struck at the core of Bush's presidency by undermining the central assertion of his reelection campaign, that he was a strong and decisive leader who could keep the country safe in a crisis.
To paraphrase the favorite question of an earlier Republican president, do y'all feel safer than you did 5 years ago?
But the critical question is whether the damage will limit his ability to govern effectively in the remaining 40 months of his presidency and whether he will successfully rebuild the Gulf Coast and Iraq, let alone win approval for other major initiatives on taxes and Social Security.
"But Doctor, will I be able to play piano after this?"
It's clear that the Bush League is unable to govern, so whether their ability to govern effectively has been affected, I think, is a moot point.
However, there still remains the important question of whether the president will continue to be as effective on his other "major initiatives" that funnel money into the pockets of the rich, both individual rich and corporate rich, those who own stock in this administration. It looks just possible that that ability might be on the wane, for which we can all be grateful — except, of course, the Bush-League stockholders.
Both quotations are from: Dan Balz, "A Bid to Repair a Presidency", The Washington Post, 16 September 2005.
Blurbing Over
I have not written any stories in over a year now. This is a bad thing. I managed to write one that I was reasonably pleased with last year for Ron Suresha's anthology of bi-men stories to be published next year, but that's been my total production ever since I fell out of my routines after my heart attack in January 2004. It's not like I'm out of ideas or anything — far from it! — but more that I have not relearned how to set aside the quiet time to focus my mind and energy on storytelling through writing. Soon, I hope.
Anyway, that story was a rough draft of some characters I had in mind to turn into my first novel, and that mental work is still progressing, albeit not at breathtaking pace. The book does have a tentative title though: Cottonwood, Kansas. I think, though, in time-honored authorial and superstitious fashion, that I'll bide my time before saying anything more about it.
However, thanks to Maud Newton, I could entertain my fantasies a bit with the Blurb-O-Matic, by John Warner, and spend a few moments enjoying the critical acclaim that will meet the book when it is published:
Diseased, uplifted, and thunderstruck! An unforgettable must-read!
A shimmering journey of shark attacks that will leave you dazzled!
A stunning legend of magic and possibility that will leave you overwhelmed!
I was staggered after reading this glittering escapade!
A fuzzy jaunt of the infinite universe that will leave you breathless!
In: All, Curious Stuff, Writing
Rediscovering Lalla Ward
This was one of those hit-me-over-the-head-with-a-brick moments in tonight's reading, one that caused me to exclaim aloud at my computer monitor.
I was reading a not-bad interview* with Richard Dawkins by Jim Holt; most of the discussion was about topics to be found in Dawkin's The Ancestor's Tale, which I happen to be reading and enjoying these past few weeks. This is my first Dawkins book, but not likely my last. I can agree (or at least not be enraged) with the majority of what the "world's most famous atheist", a position I might aspire to, has to say.
Anyway, I was getting towards the end when Mr. Holt wrote this:
At this point, Dawkins' wife, the actress Lalla Ward, shimmered into the lobby to collect him. One could not help noticing that, in her radiant blondness, she is even more attractive than her husband.
Lalla Ward! Nobody ever told me he was married to Lalla Ward!
Now, probably the only reason that I know who Lalla Ward is, is that when I was in graduate school and enjoyed watching "Dr. Who" episodes with my roommate, the hottest babe-companion of the Doctor (Doctor #4 in this case, Tom Baker, not my favorite Doctor by the way) was Leela, who was played by Louise Jameson. According to my roommate at least. I suspect it was because of the rather skimpy leather outfit that she wore.
Anyway, I judged by other criteria when it came to choosing favorite "companions". Certainly near the top of my list, if not at the pinnacle, was Romana II (full name: Romanadvoratrelundar, which I actually could pronounce at the time), played by Lalla Ward. (To be scrupulously honest, I probably had a preference for the first Romana, played by Mary Tamm, no doubt because of her cheekbones, but I had quite a fondness for Romana II.)
Now — now!! — I find out all sorts of things about Lalla Ward (the Honourable Sarah Ward) that I never knew but I suppose everyone else did. Like: she was married to Tom Baker himself for 18 months. And then, that she married Richard Dawkins in 1992, thanks to the catalysis of Douglas Adams.
I really should try to pay attention.
———-
*Jim Holt, "The Man Behind the Meme: An interview with Richard Dawkins.", Slate, 1 December 2004.