Another Day in the Frontal Lobe: A Brain Surgeon Exposes Life on the Inside by Katrina Firlik. (Amazon, B&N, Powell's) I don't have a lot to say about this one. It was fine. Firlik is a neurosurgeon, and writes about her practice. Her book is a pretty good overview of the types of things neurosurgeons do, complete with a few suitably gory tales. There's some discussion of the ethical dilemmas of her work, but I didn't find it to be a particularly deep book. Perhaps I'm just not as interested in neurosurgery, but I didn't find Frontal Lobe as interesting or thought-provoking as, say, Complications by the general surgeon Atul Gawande. It was entertaining enough, though, and Firlik is a smooth writer, so it wasn't a bad read. Certainly recommended if you're interested in neurosurgery, or thinking about going to medical school, but I'd say it's not compulsory for anyone else.

(Previous 50 Book Challenge reviews)

Well, it looks like tonight might finally be end of the line for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Yes, yes, I suppose pixie dust could coat the superdelegats and win the nomination for Hillary, but her real problem is the new media line that it's finally over. She can't overcome that. The media's willingness to play along with her implausible argument that she could still win is the only thing that's kept it going this long.

I have mixed feelings. I voted for her and think she would have made a good president. Although many of her problems on the trail were of her (and her husband's) own making, I think she was treated unfairly at times. She tended to exaggerate the magnitude of the foul blows (in sports, they call this "flopping," and it's as reviled as it is in politics), but that doesn't change that some foul blows were struck.

Her obvious desperation to win shone through in ugly ways. But my sense is that she sincerely believes she has a better chance at beating John McCain than Barack Obama does. If she really thinks that, it's her duty to run as hard against him as the GOP will. (And McCain's noble sentiments aside, this race will get nasty.)

But now what? Has she crippled Obama's chances by pointing out his flaws so well over the last several months? As I said recently, I don't think so. But it would help a lot if, when she eventually endorses him, she affects some humility and apologizes if she went too far. She might not want to come right out and say, "At first, I didn't think he was qualified to be president, but if he can beat me, he can do anything!" But she can figure out a way to get that message across. She should do whatever she can to get the voters who supported her to support him. That will be sufficient penance, I'd think.

And after November, whither Hillary? If Obama loses, she will surely think about running in 2012, but maybe her window has closed. Either way, I think what she ought to do is act as if she'll never run for president again. I think her role model should be fellow senators Edward Kennedy and Joseph Biden. Those men ran for president, failed to get the nomination, and instead devoted their careers to significant legislative accomplishments.

Hillary can do the same thing. She can become chair on an important committee. Maybe she'll even run for Democratic leader one day. It's not like the press will ever quit covering her, and even if the national media abandons her, her constituents in the New York media are loud enough.

Transforming into a real legislator serves Hillary's interests either way -- if she decides to run for president again, she'll have a library of tangible results to point to; if not, it's still an admirable legacy and it keeps her relevant and in the arena. (I'm sure some will say it's evidence that the executive office is a masculine domain and the legislative branch more suited for women, but that's for another day.) In any event, I think Hillary can be a great senator if she wants to be, and that would be my advice for her.

And now the news cycle will spin a few times on "What went wrong for Hillary?", but pretty soon it will come around to nominee Obama. So what's next for him? Time to pick a running mate yet? I'll have a post soon about vice-presidents, so feel free to offer your suggestions in the comments. Obama-____?

UPDATE: What she said. I think I'm in agreement with Erica Barnett here and here and here on how I'm feeling about the end of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Prof. Berman had this post last week noting a Ninth Circuit opinion dealing with some sentencing aspects of a dirty pictures case. There were a few things I found interesting.

First, one of the defendant's conditions of supervised release was that he undergo Abel testing. As the opinion describes it, Abel testing involves showing the subject pictures and asking the subject to rate how arousing they are. The subject is supposed to think the test is actually seeking his numerical grades, when in fact it measures how long the subject stares at the pictures.

I don't think I'm letting the cat out of the bag here. A quick googling turns up lots of discussion on how to "beat" the Abel test. And there's this this New York Times Magazine piece about sex offenders that also revealed the twist. And, let me repeat, the big secret behind the test is right there in the opinion, handily set off as a block quote on page 20 of the pdf. No wonder the opinions notes the test's error rate ranges "from poor to appalling." (The Times Magazine article says "the Abel Assessment is widely considered a strong diagnostic tool.")

This all reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George coaches Jerry on how to beat a lie detector test: "It's not a lie...if you believe it."

I guess there's not much use to challenging this test as a condition of one's supervision if the opinion affirming it tells you how to get around it. Maybe the court thinks the defendant won't read it. Still, it does seem to undermine the efficacy of the test (assuming it's effective on a subject who doesn't know how it works). Maybe that was the idea, in which case I guess there's not a lot of harm in approving it as a condition of treatment. Then again, the guy got a 12+ years sentence, so maybe by the time he is actually out on supervised release, they will have figured out whether the test really works or not.

Second, the defendant in this case used to be involved with the troupe Up With People. I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with that...but it did jump out at me.

Finally, you know you're not going to win on a claim the court describes this way: "Stoterau's appeal raises the following five general issues, which we discuss in turn: ...(5) whether this disposition should be filed under seal or alternatively, whether we should identify Stoterau by a pseudonym in place of his true name."

I think CNN is trying to set the record for consecutive days with the word "incest" on its front page. Good grief.

I've been a big fan of the radio program "This American Life" for a long time, but an episode they aired last month is the best one I've ever heard. "The Ghost of Bobby Dunbar" tells the story of a 1912 kidnapping, and how it affected three families. (A longer description, without spoilers, is available on the episode web page at the link.) It's gripping. I got chills. It's an amazing tale, well told. I urge you, as strongly as possible, to take an hour and have a listen. It's free!

There's so much going on in this news story, I can't even wrap my mind around it all. A couple in New Mexico was watching a porn movie, and the woman thought one of the "actors" was her boyfriend. As in, the guy she's watching the movie with. For some reason, this upsets her, so she grabs a knife and tries to kill him.

First, the man told the 911 dispatcher that the woman "already has battery charges against her," and was apparently under a restraining order. I suppose Movie Night was their way of reconciling. Second, the woman was so incensed that she chased the guy out of the house even while her eight-month-old baby was inside. For that brainstorm, she added a child abuse charge.

What I really don't get is how this confusion arose in the first place. You'd think if the movie star really was the victim here, he would know it was one of his roles when they popped in the dvd or whatever. I'd think you'd really want to know how someone would react to that before you spring your home movies on them.

Also, how could she be so sure? I swear I'm not an expert or anything, but I figured the guys in most (straight) pornos were pretty fungible, unless we're talking Dirk Diggler here. Or maybe the man in the film used the guy's "move."

Finally, I have a suggestion for the woman's defense on these charges. She should claim she intended an honor killing to redeem the man's immorality. What? It doesn't work that way? Oh well...never mind.

(story link via Voucher Ankles)

I'm not a shoe guy. I don't buy shoes very often, and I always go for comfort over fashion. But I did find interesting these two shoe-related items.

1. A very neat article from New York magazine about how bad shoes are for our feet. Worth it just for the illustrations.

2. Bad for our feet in another way, apparently, are Crocs. At least that's what the lawsuits say, according to this post from Above the Law. The suits allege they get caught in escalators, causing injuries to kids. I'm not sure I get this one. Exactly how are these injuries caused? If it's due to the kids' not picking up their feet, or wearing shoes that are too big, that doesn't seem to me to be a Crocs-specific issue.

Midnight Rambler by James Swain. (Amazon, B&N, Powell's) This was highly entertaining, one of the best thrillers I've read in a while. Swain's hero is ex-cop Jack Carpenter, an expert in finding missing persons. He took down the notorious Simon Skell, aka The Midnight Rambler, a serial kidnapper and killer, but went a little overboard making the arrest. His actions and his larger obsession with the Rambler case cost Carpenter his job and marriage. As the novel starts, he's doing some private-eye work to make ends meet, but has generally turned into a beach bum on the outskirts of Ft. Lauderdale.

But one of the victims of the Rambler shows up buried in a back yard, and it appears that Skell will go free. And another woman has been taken. So Jack has to race against time to connect Skell to both cases and prevent the Midnight Rambler from striking again.

Okay, so that sounds a little overdone. But the story was well-paced and well-told. There are some very tense scenes, and some well-written action sequences. I could easily see this book being turned into a movie.

One thing that might help that along is the plethora of product placement in the book. I suppose it's intended to add realism, but it becomes amusing after a point. Although it's not all flattering -- I doubt Disney and McDonald's are happy about their treatment.

A couple of quibbles. First, I wish Jack had been a tad more flawed. As it is, his only real "flaw" is the dammit-I-care-too-much non-flaw. The story would have been darker, but perhaps more interesting, if Carpenter had been suspected of the murders, or at least had a drinking problem, or something. He's a tad too righteous, which is probably why most people don't like him.

Also, the title of the story comes from the killer's obsession with the eponymous Rolling Stones song. He plays it over and over as he tortures his victims. I listened to the audiobook, and I think it would have been a great touch to have the song playing in the background during those scenes. I guess the Stones weren't willing to give up the rights, but it would have been a cool feature. To attempt to address this minor drawback, enjoy the song via the player below.

All in all, though, Midnight Rambler is a taut, gripping thriller with a memorable villain and a protagonist worthy of a series, or at least a sequel. A solid A-. Definitely recommended if you're into the genre.



(Previous 50 Book Challenge reviews)

Milbarge @ 11:12 PM | |

It's not often one sees perfectly flawless logic, so it's worth taking note of. Apparently, according to a South Carolina "minister," the street design of Washington, DC, includes an upside-down pentagram. (The linked article has a map.) The Federal City is thus supposed to be some kind of conduit for Satan. It explains so much!

I wonder if this shocking news will cause the Pope to change his plans for his upcoming visit. Of course, I'm sure plenty of anti-papists see that visit as a sign that DC's Dark Lord Bat Signal is working.

My opinion is that true pagans know that Satan doesn't need a paved invitation. But I think the real lesson here is to never let a Frenchman design your town.

(Photo and subject line from Dragnet. The picture is from when Joe and Pep go undercover as members of P.A.G.A.N., People Against Goodness and Normalcy. The subject line isn't strictly relevant, but it's my favorite line from the movie.)

Via How Appealing this weird and sad story about a man who was charged with threatening several famous black people. It's disturbing and distressing because, if it's true, the guy is evil and/or mentally ill, but one part kind of amused me a little. The indictment used initials for the victims, but the AP didn't have any trouble identifying "L.N." as basketball star Larry Nance and "A.J." as singer Al Jarreau. But curiously, they seemed befuddled by the charge accusing the man of sending a threatening "communication addressed to an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, who is a black person known to the Grand Jury (referred to herein as "C.T."), 1 First St. NE, Washington, D.C." Gee, I wonder who that could be?

It reminds me of the "Simpsons" episode where Lisa goes vegetarian. There are a ton of great lines in that one, but at one point, Principal Skinner gets on the intercom and discusses Lisa's complaints about the school's diet: "Good morning class. A certain...agitator...for privacy's sake let's call her...Lisa S. No, that's too obvious...uh, let's say L. Simpson...."

Perhaps not surprisingly, this gave me the willies.


However, is anyone else a little disappointed it didn't turn into something like this?

I like these pictures of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan just after Ford beat back Reagan's challenge for the 1976 GOP nomination, and moments later when Reagan endorsed Ford. It's by noted White House photographer David Hume Kennerly. (A few more Ford-era shots here; link via TNR's The Plank.) Longtime readers know of my affection for President Gerald Ford, but that's not the only reason I like them. I like how they shows that behind-the-scenes animosities during a presidential campaign can be set aside so everyone can make nice in front of the cameras.

I think the same thing will happen in this year's Democratic race. I don't think Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will ever become bosom chums, and probably won't end up on the same ticket, but they'll say all the right things and the loser will even campaign for the winner. This is why I'm not panicked that the race isn't over yet.

I'll also point to this note that the extended Dem race has added lots of Dem voters to the rolls; that's a positive for the party. And I agree with Matthew Yglesias that most of these people really won't defect to Sen. McCain in November. Most importantly, I think the very tough Democratic race will toughen up the winner -- beating the other candidate for the nomination might be tougher than beating Sen. John McCain. Regardless of the bad blood so far, and regardless of the allure of Sen. Obama's appeal for a new kind of politicking, enough Democrats will want to win badly enough to do what needs to be done. Even if it means voting for Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of that, it boggles me to see people importuning her to drop out, on the notion that she can't catch up in pledged delegates. I guess the principle is that the winner of the popular vote should be declared the winner and simply confirmed by the superdelegates. But how does that make sense when she won the most votes in Texas but got fewer delegates than Obama? I say the superdelegates should feel free to vote for whomever they like (especially whomever they feel will stand the best chance against McCain), regardless of the delegate count. That's why they're there, after all. If the Dems want to change that system after this election, fine. But it's there now and should be allowed to work as planned. It's a somewhat antidemocratic institution, to be sure, but that's not inherently bad. The Senate is a somewhat antidemocratic institution, and most people are fine with it.

Finally, invoking President Ford's 1976 campaign may not be the most pleasant association for this year's Democrats, of course. Ford lost, and it's possible that some of that was owed to Reagan "weakening" Ford. But they way I see it, even with the Reagan challenge, even with the Nixon pardon, even with losing Vietnam on his watch, even with vice-presidential candidate Bob Dole skeezing everybody out a little, even with "Saturday Night Live" mocking him relentlessly, and even with the biggest throw-the-bums-out landslide in ages, Ford still almost beat Jimmy Carter.

I think the truer analogue to this year's Democratic race is the 1968 election. Time will tell, however, whether it's more like the 1968 Democratic race (where the Clinton character, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, beat the Obama-esque combo of Sens. Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy, but the contest tore the party asunder) or the 1968 GOP race (where the Clinton analogue, Richard Nixon, handled the Obamian Ronald Reagan and squeaked by in the general, with Reagan getting a turn a few elections later).