main page
"To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
|
click here for a bigger sunset
One small voice in the proud tradition of FreeBlogging*
Saturday, May 31, 2003
posted by gbarto at 7:18 PM:
Olympic Bombing Suspect NabbedRookie cop arrests Eric Rudolph, the fugitive charged with the 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta; Rudolph was found sifting through a trash bin in the mountains of North Carolina
Ah, for the good old days, when our bombings were done by domestic crazies. Well, except for the first bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the Cole and the bombing of our African embassies and the bombing of our troops in Saudi Arabia...
Hmmm... Clinton has bemoaned that the war on terror has given Bush a stature boost that the placid times of his administration denied him, but was the administration that blew up the Waco compound over weapons violations and accusations of child abuse (founded) incapable of locating a cause for action in the bombing of buildings on US soil and of our people around the world? In my recollection, the Clinton administration chose to lobby cruise missiles and declare victory rather than risk the entanglements into which Bush has got himself in his efforts to truly crack down. Clinton, I think, was afraid of the responsibility that taking up such a charge would entail.
Anyway, there is a sub-head:
Richard Jewell Attorney: Arrest Doesn't Undo Harm
Jewell is the man who, despite having bungled everything he'd ever done, briefly emerged as a hero in the bombing, then was accused by the FBI of plotting it to make himself look like a hero. And the attorney is correct; Jewell is one of the many who experienced the kind of hatchett jobs that became de rigeur for our government during the Clinton years. His treatment is a reminder of how cynically that administration moved, but also of how cynical and dangerous the FBI can be. It is fitting that a rookie cop caught the real suspect, for it reminds that FBI is not all it's cracked up to be. It's just another bunch of law enforcement agents under the pressures their mission and their institutional culture bring to bear. Which is why if we're serious about keeping the war on terror from becoming the war on us, the libertarians among us will chant the name of Richard Jewell every time we're told that the FBI is so great that it doesn't matter if the rules apply to them or not.
While we're on this point, I'll refine my formula for determining whether it's appropriate for the government or a branch of government to get a new power:
- If you supported Clinton, write a 10 page paper on why you think Richard Nixon should have had this power.
- If you like Bush, write a 10 page paper on why you think Bill Clinton should have had this power.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 12:15 AM:
A Dog's Life has some worthy comments on classical. He even notes:...no one needs to know anything about harmony or orchestration to enjoy Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky and Wagner...I'd make a Wagner joke, but I don't think anyone could fail to be impressed by, say, the Ride of the Valkyries. As for Mendelssohn, I talked about him here last night, in reference to a marvelous CD you ought to have if you appreciate Shostakovich, Mendelssohn or just great violin music. As for Tchaikovsky, everybody knows the Nutcracker Suite and the 1812 Overture, but he also wrote some gorgeous symphonies, including #6 (Pathétique). There's another, and I want to say it's the third or fourth, that is even more beautiful, almost as lush as Mendelssohn. I'll try to track it down later.
* * *
Friday, May 30, 2003
posted by gbarto at 11:33 PM:
French news headlines:Le Monde: Bigwigs of the World Meet in St. Petersburg at the celebration of that city's 300th anniversary ahead of the G8 summit.
Le Figaro: St. Petersburg, first postwar summit.
Libé: Bush and Europe sing tune of reconciliation.
Ouest-France: Evian welcomes the bigwigs of the world. For the G8.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 11:07 PM:
China Denies It Hid Extent of SARSBeijing says it warned of illness in February; WHO clears Singapore
Hmm. That sort of runs completely and totally against everything revealed in yesterday's Wa Po story.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 4:40 AM:
Review. Hilary Hahn. Mendelssohn: Violin Concerto. Shostakovich: Violin Concerto No. 1.
Before starting in earnest, I must confess a few prejudices. I've been a fan of Hilary Hahn since her debut album, Hilary Hahn plays Bach, recorded when she was 14 or so. That album revealed a very promising artist; her interpretation of the chaconne from the Third (?) Partita, in particular, showed that while she would need time to develop, she had both the skill and the understanding of music necessary to go places. The second prejudice I must confess is that Shostakovich is my favorite composer and his Violin Concerto No. 1 is among my three or four favorite pieces of classical music, along with Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 17, Mendelssohns' Scottish Symphony and Shostakovich's own Piano Concerto No. 1.
Having exposed my biases toward Hahn, Shostakovich and particulary his Violin Concerto, and even Mendelssohn, it's time for the big question: Did all three come together as well as a fan of them would wish? Pretty well. Of the Mendelssohn piece, I don't have a lot to say except that it's breathtakingly beautiful in its conception and this recording captures that. Don't know the piece? Of course you do. Its opening bars have been featured in the commercials for just about every "Best of Classical Music" tv offer ever aired. Like all of Mendelssohn, it is blissfully romantic in that lush, lovely way that makes you want to dance across an overgrown meadow in the afternoon, then with night sleep among the grasses while awaiting Shakespearean fairies. Even the Scottish Symphony manages to slip in a balmy afternoon in the fields, which I understand is more than you can say of anything else Scottish. Hahn and the orchestra, as I say, capture this quite nicely; the violin playing is smooth and rich, then lilting, as appropriate; the orchestra sings along in a most delightful way and what one finds is bliss.
The Shostakovich Violin Concerto is trickier for me to decide upon, perhaps because I already had a favorite recording, that done by Lydia Mordkovich and the Scottish National Orchestra (conducted by Neeme Jarvi). Mordkovich was a pupil of David Oistrakh, who debuted the work and to whom it was dedicated. She learned it from him, which leads one to assume that she had the inside scoop on how it was to be played. And her presentation is much sharper, much more strident, than others. Many passages that trend syrupy in other recordings are clear, focused, and razor sharp, making the listener feel the bow strike the strings as Mordkovich attacks succeeding measures. This, I think, better captures the tone of the work, which was, after all, composed during a time when Shostakovich was unsure how Stalin's personal front page denunciation (in Pravda) of him and the type of music he was writing in would play out.
The typical Hilary Hahn album reveals that she does her homework before playing a piece. As with all her albums, she has done the liner notes and these tell the story of the piece quite nicely. Her playing follows suit. Hahn's presentation of the Violin Concerto is not nearly so harsh as Mordkovich's, but it is sharp all the same, and if it trends lyrical, it at least is not sappy or saccharine; she and the orchestra have not softened many edges but merely drawn out to the fullest the musicality of what's there - as best as this amateur can deduce. And there's a bonus that makes this recording one to have. Hahn notes of the second movement:
[It is] a whirling dervish scherzo (rarely played at the tempo indicated in the score)...In this recording, it is played at tempo and it is a wonder to behold. Typical recordings, including Mordkovich's, offer up a mysterious scene where things spring up out of nowhere, but because the playing is slower, the dervishes tend to plonk about, only occasionnally flitting. Hahn's spin up out of the music and dance amusingly about before twirling back away out of sight in a madcap dance. This, I'm sure, would have pleased Shostakovich, who could not see fast music played fast enough (when he played his music at the piano, the fast sections went by with blinding speed and the final recordings tended to be several minutes shorter than those by other artists). I know it pleased me. On the other hand, Hahn's cadenza runs a little too smoothly in places; the violin starts to sing before realizing this is not the place nor the time for that and there is a slight awkwardness that follows as she lunges into the next rather brusquer section. This bothered me on first hearing, though having heard the section three or four times I find myself comparing the passage to Mordkovich's presentation less and simply enjoying it for what it is more. On the whole, I'm happy, particularly because of the way the scherzo came out. So then, three and three-quarter stars for a wonderful album.
Update: On fifth hearing, I've gotten used to the cadenza from Shostakovich's Violin Concerto No. 1. Again, a strong recommendation for this recording.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 4:02 AM:
Strolling through blogland:Lots of stuff going on at Dr. Weevil's, including Iraqi playing card updates.
Common Sense and Wonder isn't sure about Canada's quarantining of a high school.
A Dog's Life has an interesting read on the Rick Bragg mess at the NYT (motto: All the news that we can copy down.).
Den Beste has a nice explanation of why you can't map political positions on a one-dimensional axis (i.e. a line). Favorite comment:
Once I start looking at myself on this kind of basis, it becomes easier for me to explain why I oppose Jerry Falwell and Noam Chomsky equally. I'm conservative (within the context of the US) and they're both revolutionaries. I'm liberal and they're both elitists. I'm a realist and they're both idealists. I'm tolerant (or I like to think I am) and they both believe in conformism.I used to refer to myself as conservative because I'm an American with something like an 18th c. European liberal outlook and it was too much trouble getting into the minutiae of what that entailed; it was the regular trotting out of Falwell as an example of "conservative" that led me to give up the label and drift about as a "moderate libertarian" until I found Postrel's term, "dynamist".
* * *
posted by gbarto at 3:46 AM:
French news headlines:Le Monde manages to stop talking about France's shutdown long enough to announce America's Embarrassment: Iraqi Arms, or rather their lack.
Le Figaro also on the US beat with George Bush: "I can pressure Sharon," which should have been obvious enough, given that he has even now made two countries' governments shrivel up and disappear into history. That this revelation came from an interview to which Le Figaro was the sole French newspaper invited may explain why Le Monde has its more hostile angle.
Libé: Annemasse: between fear and initiation into a new world. All about anti-globos getting ready to play their anti-part at the G8.
Ouest-France: Exams: Luc Ferry promises firmness - in assuring they'll be given and students will have a fair opportunity in taking them.
* * *
Thursday, May 29, 2003
posted by gbarto at 2:04 PM:
Wanted, for Murder:
Chinese Government
From the Washington Post's
A 'Superspreader' of SARS
How One Woman Touched Off Beijing Outbreak
TAIYUAN, China -- She had been running a 104-degree fever for nearly a week, and the city's best doctors were stumped. They suspected the 27-year-old businesswoman was suffering from a new flu rumored to have appeared in southern China, but knew nothing about how to treat it. So the patient and her family decided to go to Beijing...
Neither she nor her companions wore masks, gloves or other protective gear on the journey. And when she checked into the People's Liberation Army No. 301 Hospital after midnight on March 1, the staff seemed equally uninformed and unprepared. The hospital placed her in a general ward with other patients, she said, and the doctors and nurses took no special precautions while examining her.
Thus did the world's worst outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome begin. Yu passed the virus to her family and friends, to other patients and doctors and nurses, who then spread the disease to countless others in Beijing, eventually undermining the government's coverup and prompting a crisis that has shaken the ruling Communist Party. As of yesterday, SARS had infected 2,514 people in Beijing and killed 175 of them.
The dead include Yu's parents. When she went to the hospital, she told them she'd been in Guangdong. They'd never heard of the strange respiratory disease they'd had problems with down there. Not surprising. The government had covered it up and banned all reporting. Her husband tried to warn a state-run newspaper. The person listened sympathetically but said he couldn't report on it.
In their efforts to keep China from looking bad, they have so far killed 175 people in Beijing. They have sent a local epidemic abroad to possibly kill countless more. All in an effort for an all-powerful state to try to pretend that it can control the forces of nature as easily as it can put bullets in the heads of those who question it. The SARS problem makes clear - again - that communist "people's" governments don't give a damn about the people, only their power. Which is why you cannot have an honest discussion about communism without bringing into the debate this simple fact: Communism kills.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 1:44 PM:
Says Marcus, 5000 have been quarantined for SARS in Toronto, but that hey, the WHO says it's okay. I can see the campaign now: Come to Toronto, a beautiful, world class city. And with 5,000 people locked away in isolation, we've got lots of extra hotel rooms. Restaurant reservations? No problem...* * *
posted by gbarto at 1:37 PM:
Interesting "sociology experiment" posted at Natalie Solent. A prof put a Clinton/Gore sticker on his door and went two years without a complaint. A Bush sticker drew complaints within weeks. Says he, there was a failure of tolerance. Says Natalie, there was a failure of conciousness - the profs didn't necessarily object because it was Bush; they were just so myopic they didn't even register Clinton/Gore as being a sentiment that needed discussion.I'd say that contrary to appearances, Natalie's hypothesis is the more devastating. Professors make their living watching how the world works through the prism of an academic discipline and drawing conclusions from their observations. Accusing a professor of bias is no great shakes. Accusing professors of unconscious selective observations suggests, however, that they're ability to do one half of their job is in doubt.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 2:15 AM:
French news headlines:Le Figaro: Ongoing Conflict Threatens Bac. That's the exam that means academic life or death for French students who want to go to college. It may be screwed up by grownups fighting over, among other things, retirement. Talk about focusing on the past and ignoring the future. It's almost too apt.
But Libé reports it won't come to that... everyone hopes. Their headline is The Bac, which the government has announced will take place; reps for teachers say they hope it won't be affected. It's scheduled for June 3rd.
Ouest-France: Retirement Reform Launched despite Street.
Le Monde: Evian Under Heavy Surveillance for G8 Because the anti-globos promise to be out.
* * *
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
posted by gbarto at 4:37 AM:
Warning: There's a lengthy ramble below that was written late and night and it shows. If you want an amalgam of jumbled notions, read on. If you'd like to skip to the French news, click here.* * *
posted by gbarto at 4:23 AM:
Wow. Marcus is in high gear in his attack on David Horowitz. And some measure of the attack is justified. When Horowitz and others go around fearing a theocracy, they are being silly, if not downright asinine. For the left to spout such drivel is de rigeur; for a quasi-libertarian right to fret about it, however, is a sign that they have switched to that part of the libertarian current that takes itself as seriously as the communists used to.For a little perspective, it's worthwhile to reflect on the 35th anniversary of Rolling Stone. Some of this is stolen from a perfectly good San Jose Mercury News piece for which I can't find the link. But the gist of the article was that Rolling Stone rejected the left and the right, because they both were about government doing and standing for things. Said the article, Rolling Stone's philosophy of "do your own thing" evolved into "start your own business." As a result, people tuned out on what Washington was doing, which may be bad for what the Capital can thus get into, but good because no one is listening anyway. I.e., what if they held a government and nobody came? Noted the article, while Bush's inner circle is from the old right, the young up-and-comers are more likely to fit the Rolling Stone mold.
A logical extension of this Rolling Stone idea is what Rush Limbaugh hath wrought: A place where small business owners call in and complain about the way government is screwing up their ability to start and run their own businesses. Rush brought rock and roll full force into the movement born in what Terry Keenan (at least) loves to refer to as the go-go '80s. It had already been referred to as rock-and-roll Republicanism (notwithstanding the Lee Greenwood theme music) because of the presence of such luminaries as PJ O'Rourke. It seems to me that in the last few years, another top-notch comic writer, Dave Barry, has joined this current. This strain of Republicanism drifts libertarian, focusing on economic rather than social issues. And it is this strain that the David Horowitzes attempt to argue must be placated. But this part of the movement is not part of the movement, by and large. It is not people who vote Republican because they've found a party that stands exactly where they do. It drifts Republican because the Democrats are so inimical to what they stand for, which is getting up, going to work and being left alone, all while taking for granted that someone will make sure the house is still standing when they come home. Their opinion on abortion is that it is icky, possibly wrong and not something they want to get dragged into an argument on, particularly with their college roommate who had one or their Catholic neighbor who kept the baby and put it up for adoption. On public education, they are supportive because they might not be able to afford private schools for their kids, but they are not shills for the teachers' unions. On drugs, they are heartily opposed, generally, and favor maximum penalties for everyone except the neighbors' son who always seemed like such a nice young man that he couldn't have meant any harm. In short, they are people who could trend socio-con, if only they didn't have friends, parents, children, etc, whose lives are more interesting or difficult than theirs. This is particularly the case where homosexuality is concerned.
Since homosexuality came out of the closet, a lot of people have had occasion to meet gay people. On close inspection, one discovers that they eat the same foods, drive the same cars, frequent the same restaurants (if not bars) and even pay the same taxes as the rest of us. For some of us, including yours truly, that last alone is enough to declare the subject off limits to the government on principle. For many, including yours truly, there is also the experience of discovering the astonishing lack of horns, cloven hooves and other things which makes one wonder what the hell the bigots of a few years ago were jibbering about; which leaves one convinced of the full humanity of homosexuals and thus repulsed that someone would deny that humanity in the case of Bill at work, John from the club or Mary-Frances who's such a pleasant neighbor. The country has better things to do with its time than fret about this, and those who want to make a big issue of it are going to be up against a combination of libertarians like me who are flat out opposed and people like those described in the preceding paragraph who may have their doubts about the whole thing but who, because the issue has become personalized, cannot take a hardline stance against homosexuality, lest they hurt a friend, family member, friend of a family member, etc.
This is as good a place as any to pick up the theocracy question. I think Cicero is over the top in his prescriptions for society. David Horowitz is over the top in fearing that Cicero's contingent will get anywhere. Honestly, this is as embarrassing as the ultra-gun freaks who are afraid constraints on private ownership of nukes will lead to tyranny and the lefties who think that if you can't kill a kid before it reaches the age of reason, a patriarchy hitching up women to be breeding machines will be just around the corner. The point that Horowitz misses is that Bush is not an aspiring theocrat. He's an amiable guy whose life got straightened out by people who spend a lot of time thinking about a higher power and who determined that his higher power is Jesus. I wouldn't go so far as to declare myself straightened out or particularly sane, but otherwise I'm in roughly the same place as Bush - a believing Christian who does his best as best he can. And if someone's life is going in the crapper, I'm going to recommend some approaches to life that derive from the understanding of the world I've reached from that. Bush, here, is not an ayatollah. He is, in fact, like every politician - he draws on what he's seen work. And if you're Bush and you've seen yourself go from a potential embarrassment to a once-hailed family to the President of the United States, from a guy whose wife just might walk to a very happily married man, from a guy who felt and looked like hell to a guy in pretty good shape, you're gonna want to share that. Bush is like the Congressman who, on improving constituent service with color coded filing, wants a regulation to make the whole government use it since it worked so well for him: going overboard can turn out to be a mess but applying the principles learned from the experience may make for better government, something I'm not so libertarian as to oppose. Bush's church-state interaction is not about state control of nor establishment of religion. It's about making something that worked for him more readily available to others. And if the government is going to be in the business of helping in these spheres at all, our focus needs to be on what works and making it available - not compulsory, but available - to those who would partake.
Should the government be in the business of making good men? Short answer: No. But - and here's the rub - it must provide its citizens the means to exercise their rights, which is what good citizens do in a democracy, lest those rights fall into desuetude. One of the embarrassments of our age is the way that school has been turned into work preparation. I say this as one whose classmates were wont to arrive in classes late or leave early in order to work co-op jobs at McDonalds (!) which ought to be criminal. Do we need to get back to the basics? Damn straight. Uh... what are the basics? What are you saying? They are, of course... The Bible, which rooted man as a special creature, however convolutedly so in tracts like Leviticus; Plato, who did one of the first serious thought experiments about government; Aristotle, for his consideration of how power works; Macchiavelli for the same; Locke, for his theoretical models of self-governance; Montesquieu for laying the blueprint for our version of separation of powers; Jefferson for his elegant summation of Locke in the Declaration; Madison and others for the mighty Constitution they created; Mill for his refinement of notions of liberty; Bastiat for his early vision of what moderate libertarianism would become. Throw in, for good measure, Hobbes, Rousseau, Sade, Marx, to show other routes we might have taken and stimulate debate as to why we didn't. Toss in de Tocqueville, Lincoln, Hamilton and so many others so that those who are willing to learn can more fully grasp why we do things the way we do and those who aren't can be forced to understand that it's more complicated than just what sounds good. This may not make us perfect, but it is the best and only true justification for public education. But if teaching math, psychology, sociology, philosophy and smatterings of chemistry, physics, etc. are necessary to understanding the raw material that led us to conclude that questions about an anthropocentric worldview rendered divine right of kings silly while similarly derived beliefs in man's specialness meant that social Darwinism (Sade, et al) had to be avoided, even as belief in something was necessary to avoid the mess Hume made and the bleak picture Nietzche painted, then these areas will have to be covered. In other words, I, personally, think education ought get back in the business of making renaissance men and renaissance women who can hold government's feet to the fire but elevate and celebrate such projects in self-government as emerge able to withstand their careful scrutiny. But that's my own hobby horse and I'll say no more of it here.
This essay, I fear, becomes more scattered as the hour advances, so I'll be moving to wrap up. But the essential point I would make is this: Cicero and Horowitz both posit extremes and assert the importance of satisfying them. As I've argued above, things are squishier than that. Even I, whom Marcus at least thinks pretty libertarian, have streaks of support for government in me and even a belief or two about places where government can certainly serve us well and maybe even ennoble us. The libertarians who don't are... libertarians. They aren't supporters of the Republican party because voting for it would mean backing a big business/big-religion - big government conspiracy they abhorr. The socio-cons may be more reliably Republican, but those who are likely to walk over gay rights already left when the abortion message got watered down. What the party really needs to be watching is not me - I'm staying - nor the extremes represented by Horowitz and Cicero - the purists in their camps are small in number and too committed to their own agendas to be reliable supporters. The GOP needs to be watching the rock-and-roll Republicans who came of age in the '60s and forward - the people who want to be liberal so their kids will think they're cool, conservative so their kids will be protected and moderate so that if their kids screw up they'll be ok. These are the people who will vote for Bill Clinton if George Bush doesn't understand their concerns but vote for George W. Bush if Al Gore doesn't understand their concerns. They trend Republican because their top issues are a mortgage to pay off, a car loan to manage and the hope that economic liberty will help them with these. They can go Democratic if mom's nursing home is expensive or junior's college education seems out of reach. They support the drug war when it protects their kids and oppose it when it jails them. Apply that yardstick to every other policy of consequence and you've got a snapshot of the new crop of relatively converted Republicans. They are not ideological, but nor are they cynical pragmatists. Rather, they believe in too much. They are not David Brooks' bourgeois bohemians. They are wannabe bourgeois wannabe bohemians. They wanna be cool. They wanna have fun. And they want to know, when they're done with that, that their kids are tucked in safe at night and their businesses ready to hum in the morning.
What's the answer to this? Well. There's this reformed alcoholic who really thinks people shouldn't drink, but can't bring himself to get too harsh when his college age daughters do - even if they're underage. He wants lower taxes so the little guy can afford to stay in business, but he wants the government to start paying for seniors' prescriptions, wants churches to have more money to help out during a downturn - as long as they don't get all preachy about it. His daughters went to public school but he wants others to have the chance to go to private school if they don't live in as good a district. He talks tough on crime but worries about saving souls. His name is George W. Bush. You can argue that his is not a coherent program - and many do - but it is very much in tune with the inner conflicts experienced by all the rock and roll Republicans who want to be cool but aren't so sure their daughters or their daughters' friends should be.
Bush's job right now is to reassure both Cicero and Horowitz that his heart is with them in many ways. Fortunately, it is. With both of them. But the bigger question is whether Cicero and Horowitz are smart enough to understand this, or whether they will get so busy trying to score points that they hand the whole ball of wax to another unapologetic statist like Clinton. As this debate unfolds, Bush sits astride a major political group that doesn't even know it's a political group. If he's to succeed, they never will. They'll just continue to think they're ordinary folks with pretty good family values but that understand you've gotta be tolerant. And that Bush seems to get that, not like them party folk. Bush is doing his best to tame this group so that some of Cicero's values will again be honored, but not so much that Horowitz' shrieking becomes justified. If the distractions of Cicero and Horowitz cause him to fail, he's got a nice ranch in Texas and a couple million bucks to maintain it with in the aftermath. What will blogger Marcus and pundit Horowitz have, though, to show for their efforts?
* * *
posted by gbarto at 2:06 AM:
French news headlines:Le Monde: Raffarin determined; Unions disappointed. Which is to say that things have changed more and less than expected from yesterday. The government is hanging on. Can they keep it up? If so, it will be the biggest news since Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers. And potentially as important for facing some sanity upon France.
Le Figaro is feeding me lots of error messages but little text.
Libération: Raffarin lets go of nothing. Same subject as Le Monde.
Ouest-France: Raffarin: No pulling back from reforms.
So there you have it. Education and other unions are up in arms over retirement and more. The government is letting them walk out, letting them protest, letting them raise hell with the country and the economy. But it isn't giving in to the union demands, isn't begging the unions to accept all they're asking for and more to get a little peace. Raffarin and co., starting with François Fillon, are standing firm. And though the TurkeyBlog has had major problems with the régime's foreign policy, for this we salute them. Certainly, if France is ever to seriously compete with the US, it will need to work these reforms and the government seems as hell bent on pushing its agenda here as on the world stage. Bonne chance.
* * *
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
posted by gbarto at 7:53 AM:
Violence Precedes Peace TalksIsraeli troops kill teen day after Sharon says West Bank occupation must end
But referring to "occupation" is pretty damn significant. The times - are they a changing?
* * *
posted by gbarto at 12:41 AM:
A Dog's Life has two nice items on France abroad. It seems their attempts to rival the US have not gone well for them, nor reflected well upon them.I would say that France's problem is the same that Bob Dole had with Bill Clinton in '96. Whatever he's for, I'm against, is not an agenda, not a plan, not an outlook. It's not even much of a policy. In defining itself against the US, France blew it, because it could never be sure what it stood for until the US had taken a position, hence the confusion over what UN Res 1441 was supposed to do. France felt, plain and simple, that it would give France leverage over the US. But to do... what? To protect Hussein? To protect TotalFinaElf? Or just to spite the US? Their decision to contain the US for the sake of proving France was a player created a situation in which we set the direction of the debate and determined the stakes. In the end, we embarrassed the source of France's reputed power, showed France powerless, and continue to make things miserable for a country shouting to be noticed. But once Paris took its decisions, its only way to live up to its declared intention to contain us was to send troops to Iraq to defend Hussein... and actually defeat us. Considering that Chirac's support came from youth desiring, perhaps, the neutralization of the US, but especially that they not get dragged into a war, this meant that Paris had to bow out. Which is why Le Monde fronts it if Chirac gets to talk to Bush for five minutes while the White House issues a statement which barely stops short of denying a call took place. Of course, much to France's chagrin, this leaves it trapped the same place it was before: George Bush does what George Bush does while Chirac, again, tries to prove he's powerful by the way France stacks up against the US, since he cannot point to what it stands for or makes happen on its own.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 12:26 AM:
French news round-up:Le Monde leads with Teachers Mobilized, Government Squeezed, about the ongoing brouhaha over retirement reform; teachers are also ticked about decentralization and are trying to piggyback that cause.
On Le Figaro, the headline is Raffarin Ready For Dialogue but Not Concessions. But the real news is over in the AFP latest news box: Turks Have a Tendancy to Exaggerate the Size of their Sex Organs. Glad we don't live in a society like that...
Libé: Raffarin's Calendar for Putting Down the Challenges. Also, The Ordinary Corruption of Paris under Chirac. Forty-five business and government officials judged by public tribunal.
Ouest-France: Education: The Subjects That Stump. I.e., what is the Raffarin government to do about teachers who are now on their 8th strike this school year?
* * *
Monday, May 26, 2003
posted by gbarto at 1:57 PM:
Instapundit (as if you haven't been there already) has lots of great stuff on trouble at the New York Times. As Glen would say, "Heh."* * *
posted by gbarto at 1:54 PM:
I see by this note on Natalie Solent that I'm sort of repeating myself below. But do visit her site, not for my stuff (which you can get here, after all), but for her commentary on guns in England and fascinating discussions with Captain Heinrichs.* * *
posted by gbarto at 1:30 PM:
Temblor Hurts 54 in JapanHurt? Hurt? Not killed? Not in the thousands? In a 7.0 quake?
But in Algeria, 6.2 killed 2,200. Perhaps because of something like this:
Algerian Officials Pledge Construction Probe After Quake
BOUMERDES, Algeria — Diggers and bulldozers began demolishing buildings damaged beyond repair by last week's devastating earthquake as the government pledged Monday to investigate why so many new apartment blocks collapsed so easily.Incidentally, they say that unlike previous disasters, Muslim fundamentalist groups in recruit mode have not shown up in large numbers to distribute help, both a good thing and a bad thing.
We are thus again left with that awful revelation that ought serve as a wake-up call to every person who romanticizes the simplicity of the third-world and who scorns our cold, uncaring Western world and its "fascist capitalist" model. These quaint third-world government and social systems kill. Western capitalism allocates to every person the possibility - however remote - of being wealthy one day, gives every person a vote in pitching the bastards out of office and a God-given right to raise bloody hell if they're upset about something. And things happen. San Francisco, 1906 (?), happens and we begin thinking about public responses to earthquakes. Seismic technology comes and we start watching for them, figuring out where they're likely to happen, then, in time, designing buildings that sway with them. Kobe happens and Japan begins building those kinds of buildings. And so, 7.0 in Japan injures 54. 6.2 in Algeria kills 2,200. What's the difference? The awful, capitalist model of Japan values people enough to build these expensive buildings and, its recession notwithstanding, generates the money needed to do so.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 1:14 PM:
Girl Hospitalized After Being Put in Washing MachineCould an insanity plea not work? Could you be healthy and make this mistake?
Surveillance camera footage shows the woman placing the child in the washer and calmly turning it on (or as calmly as grainy surveillance camera footage can capture). But it also shows her and others wrestling to get the door open before a deputy broke the glass with his billy club.
I do wonder why the washer wouldn't open and how long, in lawsuit-happy America, it will take the mother's attorney to announce a suit against the washing machine maker. It will be ridiculous, of course, but not that ridiculous. After all, there are plenty of cartoons of stuffed animals being put in the washing machines (e.g. the numerous discussions between Calvin and Hobbes about how the latter gets his baths) and I'm surprised some children haven't got around to trying out this dangerous little number yet.
Returning to the mother, it is unclear if she was acting maliciously, unthinkingly or if she just plain blanked out, then suddenly said, "Hey, where'd Emma go?" We'll see if she needs a long time with some very calm and reassuring people who can help her feel more like herself, or maybe somebody better, or if prison is determined to be appropriate. I expect that in Gray-Davis land, it will be the latter, because it's something that sounds absolutely horrible and that California politicians will be eager to exploit.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 4:19 AM:
French news headlines:Le Monde: Retirement: François Fillon sticks to his positions. The Minister for Social Affairs said his proposals were not at the moment open to negotiations, thank you very much, notwithstanding the hundreds of thousands who marched by his office. If he can wait this out and stick to his guns, he'll be the first French government official to do so since... Louis XIV?
Le Figaro: Retirement: The "No" shows his determination. Same story as above.
Libé: Just to stick to the theme, we'll run Libé's number two headline: Fillon on front line remains inflexible.
Ouest-France: 500,000 "Nos" to Fillon's plan. The cops say 360,000 demonstrated; the organizers claim 730,000. Either way, it's a small percentage of the population of France - hell, even of Paris - but a lot of people in the streets all the same.
* * *
Sunday, May 25, 2003
posted by gbarto at 8:50 PM:
Source: Al Qaeda in Iran Had Role in Saudi BlastsIntercepts show senior members of bin Laden's network in Iran were communicating with operatives in Saudi Arabia, a senior U.S. official said
Surely the Iranians are working very hard to round up and harshly deal with any culprits. After all, they ought be most eager to get off that Axis of Evil list. If not, it may be time to start very seriously funding the student movements and bringing in top of the line Voice of America transmitters. Just for encouragement's sake, of course.
If it turns out they were directly helping the groups, that is another matter entirely. In that case, surgical strikes in Tehran would seem to be called for.
One of the nice differences between Iraq and Iran is that having been ruled by theocratic thugs, those who are antsy in Iran are probably not itching for a government that gives fuller expression to the Shiite conception of Islam. That is to say that Iran could prove much easier than Iraq to deal with because those most resentful of the current regime are not aspiring tyrants seeking their God-given right to rule others, they're students and other educated folk who want the freedom to live their own lives. Could it get nasty? Of course. Would dealing with Iran be fun? Surely not. But unlike Iraq, those who believe in democracy and justice are not all in exile; there are people on the ground who could be of help. But - and this is a very big but - all of this discussion is a bit premature. A bit. In a few months it may not be, however, so keep watching.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 3:27 AM:
Here's Spinsanity on another screwed up NYT story, this one by Mo Dowd.Said Bush:
Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they are not a problem anymore.Dowd quoted:
Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. In either case, they are not a problem anymore.Dowd's version makes it sound like Al-Qaeda's not a problem. In fact, it's Al-Qaeda operatives who are dead or jailed who are not a problem, which would seem to be self-evident. Dowd's misquote is the sort of thing that would get any grad student's ass kicked for lousy documentation and flimsy argumentation. But at a paper where you don't even have to leave New York to get a midwest dateline, standards are lower, I guess. (via Instapundit)
* * *
posted by gbarto at 3:06 AM:
Natalie Solent wanted to tell people how to type in Bjørn Stærk's name but couldn't because it just kept converting it. Here is what you type:Bjørn Stærk
The way you display these html codes that start with an ampersand is to type & instead of the ampersand, so the coding engine won't process it as a directive.
By the way, if you're looking for a way to display a special character, it's not all-inclusive but the WebMonkey's Special Character Page is pretty good.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 2:37 AM:
French news headlines:Le Monde: Protesters converge on Paris. For the protest against proposed retirement pension reforms that is. In France, there's a much bigger government run pension system, which allows people to retire as young as 50 and pays much more generous benefits than Social Security, which is why it's near bankruptcy. But if Social Security is the third rail of American politics, it is powered by 9v batteries compared to in France. Which is why a majority of the French are said to favor the demonstrations that have been shutting down the country, one section at a time, and which are expected to usher in a resurgence of even more debilitating strikes, walkouts and work actions.
Ouest-France is in weekend mode; no news on the front of their website, but there is this review concerning Henriette Walter's "animots" and how they have revealed France's interest in its language and the history of that language. "Animots," incidentally, sounds like "animaux" (animals) but ends with the word for... "words" ("mots"). It's kind of like if you did a book on how we describe animals in English and called it "The Birds and the Bes".
* * *
posted by gbarto at 2:19 AM:
Algerians Fix Anger on GovernmentCrowd throws debris at nation's president as quake toll tops 2,000
On the one hand, there are limits to what the government can do. On the other hand, they found a lot of resources awfully quickly to put on a nice show when Chirac's visit was arranged, making one wonder why buckets and shovels were the tools of first resort in this disaster. That we do differently over here is a testament not only to our technology, but to having a truer free market system that can generate the wealth needed to do this right and reinforce the value of individuals enough to have it taken as a given that doing so is worth it.
* * *
posted by gbarto at 2:15 AM:
Report: Sex Abuse 'Pervasive' in Refugee Camps Housing Millions of Women, KidsThis has been around the blogosphere for a while but it's good to see it getting higher level attention.
And who's doing the abusing? Well, relief workers, among others.
In America, we joke about the dreaded phrase, "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." But the UN takes it to a whole other level with its role in this.
* * *
French Elections, 1st round
Second round special page
Second Round Results Map
The TurkeyBlog main page contains only the 20 most recent entries.
To go further back, check the archive in the right hand bar.
