|
Saturday, July 23, 2005Cicero is pointing out the joys of dealing with our governments here and, from the other day, here. At issue, government data collection and the right to randomly stop and search people.There are those who say these things are the result of excess in the War on Terror. Hooey. The government uses any crisis, real or manufactured, to arrogate power to itself. The GWOT is just the current excuse. When the terrorism issue settles down, they'll be back to designing school uniforms to prevent gang warfare, regulating cell phone usage to prevent traffic accidents and brain cancer and, if need be, determining the size of a full head of broccoli, lest our shoppers be cheated. Things not to lose sleep over: Government bureaucrats getting laid off and winding up on the street when the mission of the expanded agency into which they were hired no longer obtains. Government powers receding in areas where former missions have lost their urgency. Our taxes going down because of actual cost reductions owing to the elimination of vestigial agencies. 
posted by gbarto at 10:39 PM Thank goodness clear thinking prevails!From an AOL story on London police shooting a terror suspect who turned out to be clean: Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, acknowledged that "the police are under tremendous pressure to apprehend the criminals who are attempting to cause carnage on the streets of London,'' but he said, "it's absolutely vital that the utmost care is taken to ensure that innocent people are not killed due to overzealousness.'' [my emphasis]Despite the unfortunate incident, isn't this what the British police were trying to do? Or is letting terror suspects who are acting strangely into the Tube a superior tactic for achieving this result? Had the bobbies fired the right four shots a few weeks ago, things would have been quite different for a couple hundred London families. I would be the last to recommend indiscriminately shooting Muslims - or anyone. The kooks, so long as they're harmless, ought to be left unharmed. But the only way to maintain conditions in which that is the case is to make it less compelling for a policeman chasing a dangerous suspect to feel that in shooting he may be saving twenty, thirty, fifty or a hundred lives. The Muslim Council of Britain needs to take that statement, "it's absolutely vital that the utmost care is taken to ensure that innocent people are not killed due to overzealousness" and deliver it within their own community: 1. You're attending your mosque and a man out front hands you a flier reading "Death to America." You a) nod in understanding and shuffle in, b) are nervous but take it and shuffle in, not wanting to offend the devout, c) find a payphone and call the police. 2. Your son has recently started taking the Koran much more seriously. He wants mom to wear a burka and shut up about doing his Western-oppressing homework. You a) are delighted that Junior has found God, b) hope it's just a phase, c) keep a close eye and talk to the authorities if God causes him to acquire exotic electronics, unusual powders or the friendship of a one-eyed imam from Pakistan. 3. A fellow Muslim tells you of the plight of Muslims in the Holy Land and asks for a donation to help "people who take the problem seriously" do something about it. You a) give him fifty pounds while the two of you trade "Allahu akbars," b) give him a fiver and hope he lets it drop, c) alert the authorities just in case your friend is engaged in the murder of Londoners and not just Israelis. The good imam said, "it's absolutely vital that the utmost care is taken to ensure that innocent people are not killed due to overzealousness.'' If he's serious, as soon as he gets back from the press conferences about the cops, he'll start teaching his fellows that the answers to all three questions are "c" and that a Muslim community that doesn't know that is not taking the utmost care to ensure that innocent people are not killed due to overzealousness.
posted by gbarto at 8:05 PM Thursday, July 21, 2005So a bomb went off in London, a couple others didn't and destruction was at a minimum. Now a few bad guys are in custody.Lucky break? Amateurish copycatism? Or sign Al-Qaeda couldn't put together a good encore? Had all the bombs gone off, even were they small, it would have been worrisome. It would have warned they still could do it, even though they hadn't. Which would probably be smart, since terror - the fear of violence - is a much more potent weapon than actual violence for movements with these guys' resources. Best wishes to the Brits and let's hope tomorrow turns out dull.
posted by gbarto at 11:26 PM Hélène Grimaud: Chopin/Rachmaninov For her latest album (for Deutsche Grammaphon), Grimaud explores, in her own view, the notion of death and transcedence. For the task, she's chosen some lovely romantic compositions, namely the second piano sonatas of Rachmaninov and Chopin, as well as Chopin's Berceuse and Barcarolle. Rachmaninov's Second Piano Sonata poses a tricky issue for pianists: Whether to play the original version or the 1931 revision. Like the Horowitz performance that inspired her love of the piece, Grimaud decided on both, using the structure of the 1931 but reinserting her favorite bits from the original to the extent that they didn't break up the structure of the work. The whole album, of course, is nicely done. The Finale to Rachmaninov's Second dazzles, the Berceuse from Chopin soothes, and so on. But it is Grimaud's presentation of the inevitable Marche funèbre that makes the album. In the liner notes, Grimaud tries to find the words to explain the interlinking of death and transcedence and how they are present in her two composers. But in the third movement of Chopin's Second Piano Sonata, she gives a far more apt demonstration. In between the ponderous ploddings of the opening and closing bars, there is a lilt that reminds us that for the living life remains. A tautology, to be sure, but one that bears reiteration. Grimaud wanted to show that death is a sort of rebirth, a place where we get back to our essence. She wanted to capture something we normally miss. In listening to the Marche funèbre, one ordinarily has little trouble conjuring up visions of old men struggling to move the coffin along, or of widows weeping and the parish priest offering pithy words about heaven. Here, however, we see the little children that don't quite understand, and the older folks who not only believe but know the truth of the priest's platitudes. Here, there is a little bit of life dancing behind the scenes. Very nice.
posted by gbarto at 12:41 AM Wednesday, July 20, 2005Denver Pit Bull Owners in a Panic Over BanDenver's ban applies to any dog that looks like a pit bull. The animal's actual behavior does not matter. [snip] Denver banned pit bulls in 1989 after dogs mauled a minister and killed a boy in separate attacks. The Legislature passed a law in 2004 that prohibited breed-specific bans, but the city sued and a judge ruled in April the law was an unconstitutional violation of local control. Hmm. I wonder how people compare to pit bulls. Faith and Values has a Christian Science Monitor write-up on homicides from August of 2004 which notes: Denver recorded its 49th homicide Aug. 4, which represents a 69 percent increase from the same period a year ago. Tim Twining, chief deputy of the gang unit in the district attorney's office in Denver, says the city has seen a spike in newer and younger gang members. A database currently lists 6,300 members in the area.I haven't found solid 2005 numbers, but some web commenters seem to be indicating that the town hasn't become an urban paradise. So, Denver has a major gang problem. Murders number in the dozens. And local law enforcement is seriously committing resources to round up DOGS that look like they might be dangerous. This on the strength of TWO killings and 20 or so attacks over an extended period of time. The court agrees that the city has the right to go about its business this way. Fine. I'm appalled, but if that's how the city leaders want to run their town, I guess they can. But if I were a Denver citizen, particularly one from a rough neighborhood, I'd be a little bit upset that a city with its law enforcement problems is wasting its money on a) dog-hunting deputies and b) lawsuits to enable their heroic efforts. A hint, then, to Denver residents: If you call 911 and the cops aren't responding fast enough, don't tell them the bad guy's got a knife. Say he has a rottie. By the way, the TurkeyBlogger is not a Rottweiler afficianado. I've been known to wince when one of the ugly things wanders into a dog park where superdog Pascal is at play. But I've known Rotties whose families loved them and who made pretty good members of their human pack. Denver's law is not about dangerous dogs, it's about an easy way to appear to be doing something about a minor issue, rather than taking on the more bothersome task of identifying and taking care of individual dogs - and humans - that have actually proved a danger.
posted by gbarto at 5:57 PM If the Republicans were truly diabolical... Recently, the Supremes said in effect that if something even tangentially touches on interstate commerce, Congress can regulate it (in the medical marijuana ruling). This broad power gives Congress the opportunity to take on abortion, teach a lesson in economics, deflate the push for government run health care and embarrass the opposition. Congress should pass the "Universal Abortion Accessibility" bill, in an effort to ensure that this Constitutionally protected service is available to all. How? By mandating that a doctor's visit or series of doctor's visits that conclude in an abortion may not be billed for more than $25. The bill would naturally include a provision that, in order to prevent bribery, fraud and profiteering through these, forbids acceptance of funds in excess of $25 from either a patient or any outside agency. The government, naturally, would not spend more than $25, no matter how extreme the case, lest physicians either apply for payment for unqualified patients. All of a sudden, Democrats would discover that making something artificially cheap does not make it more accessible to the masses, but completely inaccessible. All of a sudden, Democrats would discover the importance of paying people for the goods and services they provide, including sufficient premiums to cover associated risks (malpractice lawsuit costs, etc.). All of a sudden, Democrats would discover that government controls to keep health care costs affordable are not a panacea after all. And the whole country would be reminded, as the tussle played out, that when politicians from either party offer you something for nothing, you should be suspicious of what you're actually being offered and what it's really going to cost.
posted by gbarto at 12:26 PM Tuesday, July 19, 2005The Instadaughter may have captured it as well as anybody: The latest nominee doesn't look like the wizened old figures we associate with the Supreme Court. If confirmed, he'll probably be there a while.Hope Bush picked well. It sounds, though, like he hasn't done too badly. I like the idea of a guy in trouble with the left and right over different briefs he wrote that may or may not have expressed his opinion but did express the government's position. Ideally, our justices should be able to see both sides of an issue as coherent arguments. While this doesn't mean they won't be biased or activist, it at least suggests the potential for bringing a combination of reason and understanding of the political theory behind our Constitution to their jurisprudence. On the right, some are saying that the worst Roberts could be is the logical successor to O'Connor. On the left, they're beating their tom-toms over fears of far worse. One thing about it: In its own way, it would be healthy to see the left a little less respectful of the Supremes. In fact, we'd all be better off if we were a little more skeptical about all our government institutions. So, there you have it folks: Six short paragraphs and not a solid opinion in the whole mess of it. Maybe I could replace O'Connor... (Actually, for all the pooh-poohing, I've appreciated a few of her dissents of late.)
posted by gbarto at 8:11 PM Monday, July 18, 2005One would love to have something original to say every time a Congressman or Senator makes an ass of himself. But it's such a common occurrence one can hardly catalog all such instances, never mind come up with something new to say about them.Still, Rep. Tancredo has done himself proud with what is fairly or unfairly classified as a "nuke Mecca" comment. A fair portion of Muslims have in one way or another shown themselves to be moral imbeciles by their failure to realize that the 9/11 crowd and the 7/7 crowd aren't their boys. This is a thing to be discouraged. Tancredo's implication is that Muslims, not just Koran-thumping (but not reading) homophobic fruit loops with an unseemly preference for manly company, are the enemy. We should be doing our best to separate the KT (bnr) HFLs (w/usPMC) from those mainstream Muslims who might show the way to a less threatening fellow civilization. Hewitt (who is linked above) was making the point the other day about a right that is sensient and a left that is just angry. Plainly, this is a case where the sentient right can demonstrate that its disgust with Durbin lay in his idiocy, not his party affiliation. We ought pile on until Mr. Tancredo displays sufficient contrition, which if he's smart will be quickly forthcoming.
posted by gbarto at 6:28 PM Sunday, July 17, 2005Did I speak too soon? Below, I note that Rove seems to be pretty much in the clear. Then I stumble across the newest Time magazine cover story. At the start, we learn that Rove is a very bad man and that thanks to Matt Cooper, we all know this. We know, for example, who outed the covert agent name of Valerie Plame. It was the Demon Rove!Reading down, we get this interesting insight into what the "reporters" were thinking: What was the point of Rove or anyone else bringing up Plame in the first place? Was he saying Wilson was tainted by his close association with the CIA, WHOSE ANALYSTS HAD GENERALLY BEEN TOO SKEPTICAL OF THE IRAQI THREAT FOR THE Administration's taste? [found on this page]Easy on the all-caps guys. My ears are ringing and I got it anyway. To their credit, the Time "reporters" do mention towards the end that slick Joe Wilson fuzzed things a bit himself. But it's to their discredit that the less of the story you read, the more you're left with the impression that Rove is toast. At the end of the eighth page (on the net), you may not picture Rove donating a kidney to a homeless man, but he comes across more as just another Washington type. As interesting, by the end the sainted Joe Wilson also sort of comes across as just another Washington type: Later in the conversation, he [Wilson] offers, unsolicited, two copies of his book, one of which he inscribes to Matt Cooper. Asked how it's doing, he says, "Really well," and glances at the spot on the cover where it says THE NEW YORK TIMES BEST SELLER. "And it's going to do even better in the next three months." P.S. Once again it must be asked of an MSM product: Do the editors actually read the stuff they publish? Matt Cooper's "What I told the Grand Jury" offers a much fuller, carefully considered look at what's in play, especially where Rove is concerned, than the cover story. That's probably why it's at the top of the "most e-mailed" list and the cover story is four or five slots down.
posted by gbarto at 11:48 PM I'm too lazy to do too much reading, but AOL's sign in page doesn't seem to be trumpeting the latest nail in the coffin for Rove. Which means not much must have happened on the Sunday shows. Is Judith Miller still in jail? If she is, I'll bet she's kicking herself. Another weekend's gone and she's got five more days to wait if news of her source is explosive enough to be in need of burying. A quick scan of AOL's top news page doesn't seem to contain the name Rove anywhere. We'll see what the week brings, but I think Rove's on his way to being in the clear while the NY Times is left to explain, yet again, just what it thinks it's doing acting like it's an actual news outlet.
posted by gbarto at 10:33 PM |
Archives
|
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Old TurkeyBlog here.
