There’s a nice opinion piece in yesterday’s Brown Daily by Joshua Skolnic, on his recovery from Clinton infatuation. I wonder if this repentence is spreading?

Yet another reason to be thankful that the Clinton Administration is no longer the administration. The oddly misnamed Madeleine Albright channels the Euroweenies.

“First of all they (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) are very different from each other,” said Albright, who was Secretary of State in the Clinton administration.

Of course they are, but their similarities are much greater than their differences, and those similarities are more than sufficient to justify Bush’s characterization of them.

In the case of Iraq, Albright said the United States had been trying to contain President Saddam Hussein since 1991 and strong action was necessary. However, the situation with Iran was more complicated and the United States needed Tehran’s help in dealing with Afghanistan.

You mean help, as in not undermining the new government? They don’t seem interested in offering that kind of help. Perhaps a new government in Tehran would be an improvement?

Looking at North Korea, Albright said it was a mistake to walk away from that communist state. The United States has attempted to hold talks with North Korea about its weapons program but that process has gone nowhere.

No kidding.

I wonder why. Could it be because the folks who run the place are duplicitous Stalinist monsters, with no interest except their own power, and are only marginally sane? Nawww.

“When we left office, we left the potential of a verifiable agreement to stop the export of missile technology abroad on the table. I think it’s a mistake to walk away from that. We know that North Korea is dangerous but lumping those three countries together is dangerous,” she said.

In what way, Maddie? Just because we lump them together rhetorically doesn’t mean that we have to follow exactly similar policies toward them. I know it’s hard for you to understand, but it’s actually possible to deal with them together rhetorically, while still handling them separately, in an appropriate time and manner for each.

Anyway, I’m not sure why anyone in the current administration should be interested in your opinions on this, or any other matter. They’re kind of busy right now, cleaning up the mess that you left them.

King Abdullah of Jordan seems to be on board.

I’m wondering just what Powell promised him behind closed doors. A guarantee of defense against Iraq and Syria?

Undoubtedly.

The Arabian Peninsula?

Possibly.

Be afraid, House of Saud. Be very afraid…

I had my biggest day ever yesterday for hits–over 3000 (twice the previous day’s total), thanks to the Instapundit. Half of them were on my post about the Euroweenies.

I’m trying to imagine what a thrill of power it must give Glenn to sit up there on Olympus, hurling down thunderbolt-like links–able to bring servers to their knees with a few flicks of his fingers…

I just hope he continues to use it for good, and not evil.

Just one more–for you Ozzies who are interested in your own space activities, I see that they now have a web page up for the Christmas Island launch facility.

Over at Samizdata, Tom Burroughes asks:

Here’s a poser for today – Have any fellow bloggers come across an example on a television drama programme in the UK which has ever portrayed a businessman or woman in straightforwardly good light, with no qualifications, ifs or buts? I haven’t. Check out the average British soap shown mid-evening to see what I am getting at. It is pure negativity towards any activity remotely creative or positive. And of course we soak it up because when coming home from a hard day at the office, factory or wherever, our mental faculties are at their least sharp.

It’s not just the UK. I’ve had a long-standing theory about this, but never taken the time to do the statistical research necessary to validate it. I think that one of the reasons that film and television writers seem to despise capitalism and business is that they themselves work for one of the most vile and cutthroat industries on the planet, and they extrapolate that experience to conclude that all businesses and businesspeople are like the ones for whom they toil. Rarely will you see a realistic story about an industrial concern, because the writers have absolutely no experience or familiarity with such a business.

Think about it. When a business is depicted on television, is there some sort of pattern as to what kind of business it is? I think so. When the kind of business is not crucial to the premise of the show (e.g., LA Law, NYPD Blue), but is merely a backdrop for the stories to play out, they are predominantly businesses that would employ people who write for a living–newspapers, entertainment industry, advertising.

Especially advertising. Cast your mind over sitcoms over the past three decades, in which the work environment plays a key dramatic (or comedic) role, and I suspect that you’ll realize that the protagonists work at ad agencies out of all proportion to the number of people who do so in real life. Examples: Bewitched, Thirty Something, etc. (One notable exception that occurs to me, which was really out of character, was that Fred MacMurray in My Three Sons was an aerospace engineer in Southern California. I still think that’s neat.)

Assuming that this is correct, and not just an impression, I suspect that it’s because television writers, in order to make ends meet between sought-after television or film-writing jobs, work at such places, because there’s much more demand for it, and it engages a similar talent. It’s easier to write what you know, so it’s natural for them to use such businesses as a foil for their comedy and drama. And in conversations that I’ve had with friends and acquaintances in that business (and in the entertainment industry), the common theme is how terrible it is to work in such places, and how scum almost invariably rises to the top. And this isn’t surprising, because firms like that, which are in the very business of creating fiction and image, will value and reward people who are good at that, particularly in selling themselves. And such people, in fact, may not be good at very much else.

In a company that manufactures a physical product, incompetence, lack of realism, and management inability can quickly result in tangible, measurable failure. On the other hand, an entertainment or advertising firm will often promote those who excel at unreality, even if they have no ethics or management capability. So it’s not surprising that such a place can be a terrible place to work. And if television and film writers’ only exposure to the business world is in such businesses, perhaps it’s not surprising that they portray business in such a bad light.

Not to mention a new NASA Administrator.

Last year, when Dennis Tito showed up in Houston to train for his flight, the door was almost literally slammed in his face. Mark Shuttleworth (could they have come up with a better name? The irony is that he’ll be going up on a Soyuz) has been welcomed to Johsnson Space Center with open arms.

It sounds like he’s setting a good precedent for public space travel.

Andy Borowitz says that Bill Clinton has started a new annual speech tradition.

And speaking of theological lawsuits, here’s a real one. A woman successfully sued a church for breach of contract when she didn’t meet Jesus.

America…what a country.

It’s interesting (at least to me) to note that the Administration has made the Peace Corps subsidiary to the Freedom Corps. Looks like they’ve got their priorities straight.