Thanks to Mark for the tip.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Dan Coffey asks state of Indiana to declare his 1st district council tenure “a disastrous era.”
In an interview with the Banner-Gazette, veteran 1st District city councilman Dan Coffey disclosed that following an intense overnight consultation with Dial-A-Psychic, he has asked Governor Mitch Daniels to declare Coffey’s two-term council tenure a disastrous era, and for the state to provide monetary relief and crisis counseling to those New Albany residents most damaged by Coffey’s comically ineffectual career in local politics.
“I haven’t gotten all the information,” noted the Wizard of Westside, “but then again, I never do. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut, and get out there and help the little people in their time of digress.”
CM Coffey added, “even though I’ve always said that I’d rather double dip than quit, my record in 2006 indicates that we just have to do more to make sure that future electoral damage can be prevented.”
He vowed to inhabit a grocery cart in a drainage culvert located within a colleague’s council district as a form of public penance until a successor can be appointed or magically conjured from the funny papers, as CM Coffey himself once was.
Meanwhile, from the State House, Gov. Daniels confessed to having received Coffey’s letter.
“How could I forget,” said the governor. “Usually the ones in crayon are from kindergarten kids, not adults, and besides that, the postage was due. It wasn’t what I’d call a major move, to be frank.”
Gov. Daniels acknowledged forwarding the request for relief to the Republican National Committee's damage control unit, currently on Red Foley Alert. When informed that CM Coffey is a registered Democrat, not a Republican, Gov. Daniels relied, “Oh, really? How could you tell?"
"Maybe we’d be better off leaving him where he is.”
“I haven’t gotten all the information,” noted the Wizard of Westside, “but then again, I never do. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut, and get out there and help the little people in their time of digress.”
CM Coffey added, “even though I’ve always said that I’d rather double dip than quit, my record in 2006 indicates that we just have to do more to make sure that future electoral damage can be prevented.”
He vowed to inhabit a grocery cart in a drainage culvert located within a colleague’s council district as a form of public penance until a successor can be appointed or magically conjured from the funny papers, as CM Coffey himself once was.
Meanwhile, from the State House, Gov. Daniels confessed to having received Coffey’s letter.
“How could I forget,” said the governor. “Usually the ones in crayon are from kindergarten kids, not adults, and besides that, the postage was due. It wasn’t what I’d call a major move, to be frank.”
Gov. Daniels acknowledged forwarding the request for relief to the Republican National Committee's damage control unit, currently on Red Foley Alert. When informed that CM Coffey is a registered Democrat, not a Republican, Gov. Daniels relied, “Oh, really? How could you tell?"
"Maybe we’d be better off leaving him where he is.”
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
In the American political realm, I’m a conscientious objector.
I’m a political conscientious objector in the sense that contrary to widespread belief, there is no Constitutional sanction for the two-party system, and consequently, I refuse to accept a dual monopoly that I perceive as being consistently detrimental to the American public interest.
Apologists praise the two-party system for its supposed tendency to filter extremism and hew to the centrist middle ground – and I scoff at it for the same reason. To paraphrase the newly rehabilitated Barry Goldwater, extremism in pursuit of progress sometimes is no vice.
Unsurprisingly, I’ve neither the rampant warm fuzzies for the tribal allegiances therein, nor great affection for the implicit and explicit divisions of power maintained by the status quo that both parties have an obvious vested interest in maintaining.
That said, it is undeniable that I’ve voted Democratic far more often than not, reserving my periodic third-party (or no party) protest votes for those situations where the conceptual futility of the two-party system is so patently obvious, but the outcome of the race sufficiently preordained, that my protest vote is not wasted.
That’s because philosophically and temperamentally, there is nothing in conservatism or fundamentalism for me, as witnessed by a recent Economist observation that nine of ten born-again whites support the war in Iraq. For reasons like this and other personal considerations, the pragmatic choice generally has been the Democratic candidate.
There have been exceptions, and so it goes … but not happily.
Regular readers of NA Confidential know that my periodic outbursts of anguish at the renewed prospect of trudging to the polls to vote “against” the greater of two mediocre frauds rather than “for” a genuinely principled platform have grown more frequent with advancing age. I’m increasingly resentful of an institutionalized monopoly of power that cannot, by its very nature, provide a reasonable outlet for my beliefs and for the beliefs of numerous others like me.
You’ve witnessed abundant proof of my disaffection during the past week.
Like Lear on the storm-tossed heath, I’ve bellowed and raged at a Democratic congressional challenger whose apparent eagerness to occupy political ground firmly to the right of center encourages me in absolutely no way whatsoever – and the concurrent knowledge that the incumbent Mike Sodrel’s political world view is even more antithetical to my personal beliefs leads yet again to the numbing realization that I inhabit an inhospitable climate dedicated to providing me with little or no political choice – except once again to vote against Sodrel by voting for the only candidate with a realistic chance of beating him.
And that's Baron Hill.
These perfectly legitimate qualms aside, it of course remains true that the enemy of my enemy is indeed my friend, and by this logic, I’ve persisted in believing that a sense of satisfaction might yet derive from “fellow traveler” status with relation to the local branch of the Democratic Party, and that perhaps local independents might yet partake of some measure of political sustenance accordingly … and yet it is this perhaps forlorn hope that has been the most cruelly dashed of all.
Even an educated, youthful and reformist local Democratic leadership slate has been unable or unwilling to stand on specifics, instead allowing the traditional vacuum of ideas to persist and to preserve the local political party as little more than a fraternal club, one devoid of stated platform, coherent principle or any real plan beyond a willingness to draw the requisite number of paychecks once in office.
And just look where long decades of that variety of planning has taken New Albany. 3rd District councilman Steve Price may be a nonentity, but he didn’t create the mess. He inherited it, and not unexpectedly, hasn't the slightest clue as to how it might be improved.
But don’t give me the knee-jerk objection that local Republicans would do much better. They, too, have ample opportunity to stand for some doctrine applicable to the street where you live, and they, too, steadfastly refuse to provide local vision in comprehensible form.
Over the long post-war era of underachievement, Republican officials have failed as spectacularly as Democrats, and like their opponents, they’ve been rewarded for non-accomplishment by continuing to participate in the division of spoils made possible by the two-party system – truly the devil we know, but bringing us to a juncture where meritocracy might as well be a discredited Balkan feudal system of government.
Oddly, and tellingly, the personal and professional achievements of the sitting Democratic leadership slate powerfully refute the oft-repeated notion that local politics is somehow immune from the organization, planning and vision that are required of all of us in everyday life. You can bet that Randy Stumler, a teacher, conducts class with a carefully prepared lesson plan. Tony Toran’s church sermons are anything but streams of random consciousness without ultimate purpose. Marcey Wisman’s heroic work with insufficient resources as city clerk is the stuff of systemization legend.
All we independents and contrarians ask is that these same obvious and admirable skills be put to the task of transforming their party into a thinking entity with vision, one capable of slightly more than the bare minimum required to win elections – namely, a party capable of performing at a higher and more relevant level of skill and achievement once in office.
For those proceeding to the seemingly reasonable argument that a tactical alliance with independent non-Democrats holds no electoral benefit for the Democratic Party itself, need I point to the steadily growing Republican sentiment in Floyd County, something that inevitably is leaking into previously unassailable Democratic bastions in New Albany, themselves increasingly filled with rental properties that do not house reliable voters? Verily, the old realities are yielding to the new … and the new are requiring a different bedside manner than good old boy network that previously sufficed, and which continues to cough up Coffeyesque demagogues like so many feline hairballs.
To repeat, it is my earnest wish to be able to vote for the Democrats, and not merely against the Republicans, and I suspect there is a small and growing cadre of urban independents who agree.
But we must be given a bone in the shape of something strategic – it need not be everything, at least at first – to indicate a Democratic pulse, to show Democratic vision, and to display Democratic leadership, and lacking such a sign, it's worth remembering that although it is probably unlikely (yet not impossible) that the city’s independents will soon defect en masse to the Republican Party, the days of the lock-step are going quickly … and the prospect of sitting on our hands on Election Day becomes ever brighter.
Something, guys.
Just something.
---
Previously in NA Confidential: Bluegill's Meet The New Boss...
Apologists praise the two-party system for its supposed tendency to filter extremism and hew to the centrist middle ground – and I scoff at it for the same reason. To paraphrase the newly rehabilitated Barry Goldwater, extremism in pursuit of progress sometimes is no vice.
Unsurprisingly, I’ve neither the rampant warm fuzzies for the tribal allegiances therein, nor great affection for the implicit and explicit divisions of power maintained by the status quo that both parties have an obvious vested interest in maintaining.
That said, it is undeniable that I’ve voted Democratic far more often than not, reserving my periodic third-party (or no party) protest votes for those situations where the conceptual futility of the two-party system is so patently obvious, but the outcome of the race sufficiently preordained, that my protest vote is not wasted.
That’s because philosophically and temperamentally, there is nothing in conservatism or fundamentalism for me, as witnessed by a recent Economist observation that nine of ten born-again whites support the war in Iraq. For reasons like this and other personal considerations, the pragmatic choice generally has been the Democratic candidate.
There have been exceptions, and so it goes … but not happily.
Regular readers of NA Confidential know that my periodic outbursts of anguish at the renewed prospect of trudging to the polls to vote “against” the greater of two mediocre frauds rather than “for” a genuinely principled platform have grown more frequent with advancing age. I’m increasingly resentful of an institutionalized monopoly of power that cannot, by its very nature, provide a reasonable outlet for my beliefs and for the beliefs of numerous others like me.
You’ve witnessed abundant proof of my disaffection during the past week.
Like Lear on the storm-tossed heath, I’ve bellowed and raged at a Democratic congressional challenger whose apparent eagerness to occupy political ground firmly to the right of center encourages me in absolutely no way whatsoever – and the concurrent knowledge that the incumbent Mike Sodrel’s political world view is even more antithetical to my personal beliefs leads yet again to the numbing realization that I inhabit an inhospitable climate dedicated to providing me with little or no political choice – except once again to vote against Sodrel by voting for the only candidate with a realistic chance of beating him.
And that's Baron Hill.
These perfectly legitimate qualms aside, it of course remains true that the enemy of my enemy is indeed my friend, and by this logic, I’ve persisted in believing that a sense of satisfaction might yet derive from “fellow traveler” status with relation to the local branch of the Democratic Party, and that perhaps local independents might yet partake of some measure of political sustenance accordingly … and yet it is this perhaps forlorn hope that has been the most cruelly dashed of all.
Even an educated, youthful and reformist local Democratic leadership slate has been unable or unwilling to stand on specifics, instead allowing the traditional vacuum of ideas to persist and to preserve the local political party as little more than a fraternal club, one devoid of stated platform, coherent principle or any real plan beyond a willingness to draw the requisite number of paychecks once in office.
And just look where long decades of that variety of planning has taken New Albany. 3rd District councilman Steve Price may be a nonentity, but he didn’t create the mess. He inherited it, and not unexpectedly, hasn't the slightest clue as to how it might be improved.
But don’t give me the knee-jerk objection that local Republicans would do much better. They, too, have ample opportunity to stand for some doctrine applicable to the street where you live, and they, too, steadfastly refuse to provide local vision in comprehensible form.
Over the long post-war era of underachievement, Republican officials have failed as spectacularly as Democrats, and like their opponents, they’ve been rewarded for non-accomplishment by continuing to participate in the division of spoils made possible by the two-party system – truly the devil we know, but bringing us to a juncture where meritocracy might as well be a discredited Balkan feudal system of government.
Oddly, and tellingly, the personal and professional achievements of the sitting Democratic leadership slate powerfully refute the oft-repeated notion that local politics is somehow immune from the organization, planning and vision that are required of all of us in everyday life. You can bet that Randy Stumler, a teacher, conducts class with a carefully prepared lesson plan. Tony Toran’s church sermons are anything but streams of random consciousness without ultimate purpose. Marcey Wisman’s heroic work with insufficient resources as city clerk is the stuff of systemization legend.
All we independents and contrarians ask is that these same obvious and admirable skills be put to the task of transforming their party into a thinking entity with vision, one capable of slightly more than the bare minimum required to win elections – namely, a party capable of performing at a higher and more relevant level of skill and achievement once in office.
For those proceeding to the seemingly reasonable argument that a tactical alliance with independent non-Democrats holds no electoral benefit for the Democratic Party itself, need I point to the steadily growing Republican sentiment in Floyd County, something that inevitably is leaking into previously unassailable Democratic bastions in New Albany, themselves increasingly filled with rental properties that do not house reliable voters? Verily, the old realities are yielding to the new … and the new are requiring a different bedside manner than good old boy network that previously sufficed, and which continues to cough up Coffeyesque demagogues like so many feline hairballs.
To repeat, it is my earnest wish to be able to vote for the Democrats, and not merely against the Republicans, and I suspect there is a small and growing cadre of urban independents who agree.
But we must be given a bone in the shape of something strategic – it need not be everything, at least at first – to indicate a Democratic pulse, to show Democratic vision, and to display Democratic leadership, and lacking such a sign, it's worth remembering that although it is probably unlikely (yet not impossible) that the city’s independents will soon defect en masse to the Republican Party, the days of the lock-step are going quickly … and the prospect of sitting on our hands on Election Day becomes ever brighter.
Something, guys.
Just something.
---
Previously in NA Confidential: Bluegill's Meet The New Boss...
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Our freedom to screech, or a fairy tale by the Grim Sisters.
I couldn't make it, Bluegill couldn't make it, and Lloyd couldn't make it ... and there was no on-line report this morning at the Courier-Journal's site ... so I suppose we're waiting for Maury and the afternoon Tribune for a report on last evening's city council meeting.
When something appears, it will be linked here.
Meanwhile, here's a fairy tale for your approbation.
----
A short time ago in a land considerably closer to ours than those who value some semblance of propriety would prefer, a fading but still quite angry troglodyte discovered that through the wonders of computer technology – an intricate science developed by the same highly educated and talented men and women whom the troglodyte most detested – she could magically disseminate her petty grievances and frustrations in a far more efficient fashion than Herr Goebbels’s one-time employer ever imagined back in the troglodyte’s youthful heyday.
And so, “Freedom of Speech” was born with the help of a virtual C-section, but although the embittered former governmental patronage employee ached and yearned to humiliate her betters and to scoff at those aspects of human existence that consistently eluded her limited understanding, she was tormented by the notion that a lifetime of personal insecurity and an utter absence of academic achievement might act as impediments to her narrow ambitions – until, in a flash, she realized that in the blogosphere, anonymity was common, and for reasons unknown, even accepted.
Why, she could be anything and anyone she chose to be! Emboldened by the purely egalitarian ideal that imaginary credentials need not be buttressed by pesky annoyances like truth, the troglodyte imagined herself on the catwalk, threw open the phone booth door, and emerged as Professor Erik, a college professor of economics and political science, a PhD holder who immediately began writing blog screeds with the syntax and vocabulary of a fifth grader.
Oblivious to the incongruity, the newly fashioned Erik surveyed her work and was pleased, and yet one important piece of business remained to be done. The troglodyte’s vitriolic and often slanderous attacks were bound to generate discussion among readers, but the thought of having to consider opposing views made her shake with trepidation. What to do?
Fortunately, there was an easy way for the founder of “Freedom of Speech” to subvert the dialogue that lies at the heart of truly genuine freedom of speech: She clicked the handy “no comments allowed” button at blogger.com. A quick glance in the cracked rear view mirror confirmed the troglodyte’s freshly minted self-esteem, and with her smudged, autographed photos of Erin Brockovich, “Dallas’s” Larry Hagman and the late Herve Villechaize (Tattoo) at her side, Professor Erik sat and composed a posting blaming the mayor for the Kennedy assassination, global warming and a pothole in the street outside.
Pleased, she disabled the spell check, gathered her souvenirs, and went off to bed.
The anonymous Erik’s circle of readers might have remained small and insignificant were it not for the pressing need to enlist a stalking horse for the future political aspirations of local businesswoman Auntie V, who needed to prepare the ground for her candidacy while still maintaining her mentor Rove’s obsession with plausible deniability.
“I’m no blogger,” piously proclaimed Auntie V, who made a beeline to press flesh with the blogging trog.
And so it came to pass that an unlikely alliance between the anonymous and superannuated troglodyte and the glamorous, facsimile Coulter poster woman was forged, and they were happily inseparable, loudly gossiping during city council meetings, passing notes to fellow council travelers from the 2nd and 3rd council districts, and behaving like giddy schoolgirls who’ve skipped class, borrowed daddy’s Corvette, and gone to drink Black Widows at the Tiki Bar – where Auntie V naughtily scratched the words “Jimmy G, you work for me” in the wooden bar top with a stiletto dripping blood.
But late one night, the troglodyte had a nightmare. It began innocently enough; she dreamed she was Miss Jane from the “Beverly Hillbillies,” dressed in Erik’s academic robes and carrying textbooks about the Laffer Curve as she chased a panic-stricken Jethro (who bore a suspicious resemblance to the 3rd District councilman) down Main Street … when suddenly, operatic music she’d never, ever heard before boomed and seethed, and a black-clad Auntie V emerged from her icy mansion, stiletto in hand, and began plunging it – into Miss Jane's chest!
All the while people stood on the street and laughed. "What a maroon," commented a carrot-chewing Bugs Bunny. David Hasselhoff just nodded his head, turned, and walked away. Jethro darted into the junk shop across from the Parthenon and began haggling over Matchbox prices with the proprietor. The Valkyries quit playing, packed up their instruments, and hailed a passing chariot.
Erik awoke in a cold sweat.
Had she been used? What was that sound … Jacob – Jacob Marley?
No, it was the television set. Instinctively, the troglodyte reached for her remote control, raised the volume, and saw that it was an infomercial. A cherubic Donny Osmond sang:
And they call it puppy love
Oh, I guess they'll never know
How an aging heart really feels
And why I love her so
Relief flooded over the drenched blogger at this sign from a merciful God that Auntie V really did love her, and that everything would be all right. Erik donned her ragged slippers, shuffled to her desk, booted up the creaking vintage Compaq, and saw the words form on the screen:
Everyone in the community knows that the real credit should go to Auntie V for saving us from Al Qaeda, curing polio and running the sewers on time.
(to be continued after this brief purge from our sponsor)
When something appears, it will be linked here.
Meanwhile, here's a fairy tale for your approbation.
----
A short time ago in a land considerably closer to ours than those who value some semblance of propriety would prefer, a fading but still quite angry troglodyte discovered that through the wonders of computer technology – an intricate science developed by the same highly educated and talented men and women whom the troglodyte most detested – she could magically disseminate her petty grievances and frustrations in a far more efficient fashion than Herr Goebbels’s one-time employer ever imagined back in the troglodyte’s youthful heyday.
And so, “Freedom of Speech” was born with the help of a virtual C-section, but although the embittered former governmental patronage employee ached and yearned to humiliate her betters and to scoff at those aspects of human existence that consistently eluded her limited understanding, she was tormented by the notion that a lifetime of personal insecurity and an utter absence of academic achievement might act as impediments to her narrow ambitions – until, in a flash, she realized that in the blogosphere, anonymity was common, and for reasons unknown, even accepted.
Why, she could be anything and anyone she chose to be! Emboldened by the purely egalitarian ideal that imaginary credentials need not be buttressed by pesky annoyances like truth, the troglodyte imagined herself on the catwalk, threw open the phone booth door, and emerged as Professor Erik, a college professor of economics and political science, a PhD holder who immediately began writing blog screeds with the syntax and vocabulary of a fifth grader.
Oblivious to the incongruity, the newly fashioned Erik surveyed her work and was pleased, and yet one important piece of business remained to be done. The troglodyte’s vitriolic and often slanderous attacks were bound to generate discussion among readers, but the thought of having to consider opposing views made her shake with trepidation. What to do?
Fortunately, there was an easy way for the founder of “Freedom of Speech” to subvert the dialogue that lies at the heart of truly genuine freedom of speech: She clicked the handy “no comments allowed” button at blogger.com. A quick glance in the cracked rear view mirror confirmed the troglodyte’s freshly minted self-esteem, and with her smudged, autographed photos of Erin Brockovich, “Dallas’s” Larry Hagman and the late Herve Villechaize (Tattoo) at her side, Professor Erik sat and composed a posting blaming the mayor for the Kennedy assassination, global warming and a pothole in the street outside.
Pleased, she disabled the spell check, gathered her souvenirs, and went off to bed.
The anonymous Erik’s circle of readers might have remained small and insignificant were it not for the pressing need to enlist a stalking horse for the future political aspirations of local businesswoman Auntie V, who needed to prepare the ground for her candidacy while still maintaining her mentor Rove’s obsession with plausible deniability.
“I’m no blogger,” piously proclaimed Auntie V, who made a beeline to press flesh with the blogging trog.
And so it came to pass that an unlikely alliance between the anonymous and superannuated troglodyte and the glamorous, facsimile Coulter poster woman was forged, and they were happily inseparable, loudly gossiping during city council meetings, passing notes to fellow council travelers from the 2nd and 3rd council districts, and behaving like giddy schoolgirls who’ve skipped class, borrowed daddy’s Corvette, and gone to drink Black Widows at the Tiki Bar – where Auntie V naughtily scratched the words “Jimmy G, you work for me” in the wooden bar top with a stiletto dripping blood.
But late one night, the troglodyte had a nightmare. It began innocently enough; she dreamed she was Miss Jane from the “Beverly Hillbillies,” dressed in Erik’s academic robes and carrying textbooks about the Laffer Curve as she chased a panic-stricken Jethro (who bore a suspicious resemblance to the 3rd District councilman) down Main Street … when suddenly, operatic music she’d never, ever heard before boomed and seethed, and a black-clad Auntie V emerged from her icy mansion, stiletto in hand, and began plunging it – into Miss Jane's chest!
All the while people stood on the street and laughed. "What a maroon," commented a carrot-chewing Bugs Bunny. David Hasselhoff just nodded his head, turned, and walked away. Jethro darted into the junk shop across from the Parthenon and began haggling over Matchbox prices with the proprietor. The Valkyries quit playing, packed up their instruments, and hailed a passing chariot.
Erik awoke in a cold sweat.
Had she been used? What was that sound … Jacob – Jacob Marley?
No, it was the television set. Instinctively, the troglodyte reached for her remote control, raised the volume, and saw that it was an infomercial. A cherubic Donny Osmond sang:
And they call it puppy love
Oh, I guess they'll never know
How an aging heart really feels
And why I love her so
Relief flooded over the drenched blogger at this sign from a merciful God that Auntie V really did love her, and that everything would be all right. Erik donned her ragged slippers, shuffled to her desk, booted up the creaking vintage Compaq, and saw the words form on the screen:
Everyone in the community knows that the real credit should go to Auntie V for saving us from Al Qaeda, curing polio and running the sewers on time.
(to be continued after this brief purge from our sponsor)
Monday, October 02, 2006
One fine Sunday spent "street spam" sharkin'.
Street spam sharkin’ is a fun and relaxing hobby. You get to go outdoors, walk or ride the bicycle for a bit, then come away from it knowing that you’ve contributed to the beautification of the urban environment.
I took advantage of Sunday’s brilliant autumn weather to try out my brand new street spam removal facilitator.
I took advantage of Sunday’s brilliant autumn weather to try out my brand new street spam removal facilitator.
It’s a veritable masterpiece of simplicity, and one made necessary since the city’s street spammers began lifting their illegal and tacky contributions higher than earthbound sharks like myself are able to leap.
My first cast was in the perfect spot – near the point of leverage between sign, staple and utility pole.
There – he’s taken it! Don’t let him get away … don't worry. Got him!
Believe me, this beauty’s not going anywhere -- except into the hamper with the others.
I caught seven big ones in less than an hour (and 12 kilometers traveled).
They’re a breeze to filet, and almost boneless.
I recommend pan frying with olive oil, flour, salt and a pinch of Thai red curry seasoning.
Just add bread, and the finished product should look something like this:
But remember that when you’re out street spam sharkin’, don’t touch ‘em if they look like this (photographed at the aquarium at the corner of Market and Pearl).
They’re all boney and mud veined, and I’m always afraid the smell of hypocrisy will rub off on my hands and clothes. Take the high road, and leave the bottom feeders alone.
Happy street spam sharkin' to all New Albanians ... and don't forget, it's a city council Monday!
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Tim Deatrick to serve as chairman of the Stormwater Board.
It may come as a surprise to some readers, but NAC heartily congratulates Tim Deatrick, who has been selected by Mayor James Garner to serve as chairman of the city’s newly formed Stormwater Board.
Stormwater board’s reign arrives; Mayor chooses former sewer employee as chairman as meetings begin (New Albany Tribune story).
It is well documented that the senior editor and Tim have had considerable differences of opinion in the past, but it remains that we’ve known one another for quite a long time – more than long enough for me to understand that while Tim undoubtedly possesses talent, dogged persistence and a solid educational background, he’d probably be the first to concede that he hasn’t always found the position best suited for matching his skills to the job at hand.
However, I believe that the stormwater chairmanship is just such a breakthrough position for Tim, one that will allow him ample opportunities to prove the depth of his abilities to the skeptics, and in truth, I think he’ll perform quite well. Good luck to Tim, and to the Mayor, “good call.”
----
William Safire I’m certainly not, but since last weekend’s heavy rains – an unexpected immersion in which cost the Confidential household its primary motorized vehicle – I’ve been pondering the origins and usage of the phrase, “an act of God.”
Hitherto, I’ve understood an “act of God” as the universal disclaimer used by insurance companies as shorthand for “we won’t pay.”
Strictly speaking, if such a downpour as the one we witnessed last weekend can be classified as an “act of God,” and if the idea of God is meaningless unless it incorporates the notion of all-powerful infallibility, then doesn’t it logically follow that there isn’t a single workable strategy that might be undertaken by puny, temporal human beings in order to defend themselves against torrential precipitation handed to them as the plat de jour by an omnipotent master chef?
If so, shall we dissolve Tim’s stormwater board, lift our freshly packed mud huts atop stilts, and begin offering sacrifices?
Hmm, I guess that wouldn’t do much good during tornado season …
Stormwater board’s reign arrives; Mayor chooses former sewer employee as chairman as meetings begin (New Albany Tribune story).
It is well documented that the senior editor and Tim have had considerable differences of opinion in the past, but it remains that we’ve known one another for quite a long time – more than long enough for me to understand that while Tim undoubtedly possesses talent, dogged persistence and a solid educational background, he’d probably be the first to concede that he hasn’t always found the position best suited for matching his skills to the job at hand.
However, I believe that the stormwater chairmanship is just such a breakthrough position for Tim, one that will allow him ample opportunities to prove the depth of his abilities to the skeptics, and in truth, I think he’ll perform quite well. Good luck to Tim, and to the Mayor, “good call.”
----
William Safire I’m certainly not, but since last weekend’s heavy rains – an unexpected immersion in which cost the Confidential household its primary motorized vehicle – I’ve been pondering the origins and usage of the phrase, “an act of God.”
Hitherto, I’ve understood an “act of God” as the universal disclaimer used by insurance companies as shorthand for “we won’t pay.”
Strictly speaking, if such a downpour as the one we witnessed last weekend can be classified as an “act of God,” and if the idea of God is meaningless unless it incorporates the notion of all-powerful infallibility, then doesn’t it logically follow that there isn’t a single workable strategy that might be undertaken by puny, temporal human beings in order to defend themselves against torrential precipitation handed to them as the plat de jour by an omnipotent master chef?
If so, shall we dissolve Tim’s stormwater board, lift our freshly packed mud huts atop stilts, and begin offering sacrifices?
Hmm, I guess that wouldn’t do much good during tornado season …
Saturday, September 30, 2006
A periodic reminder: NA Confidential's mask-free policy on reader comments is explained.
Newcomers, please take note.NA Confidential believes in a higher bar than is customary in the blogosphere, and follows a disclosure policy with respect to reader comments.
First, you must be registered with blogger.com according to the procedures specified. This is required not as a means of directing traffic to blogger.com, but to reduce the lamentable instances of flaming and personal attacks on the part of the anonymous.
Second, although pen names are perfectly acceptable, the senior editor (yours truly) must be informed of your identity, and according to your preference, it will be kept confidential.
To reiterate, I insist upon this solely to lessen the frequency of malicious anonymity, which unfortunately plagues certain other blogs hereabouts.
You may e-mail me at the address given within my profile and explain who you are. Failure to comply means that your comments almost certainly be deleted -- although the final decision remains mine.
Thanks for reading, and please consider becoming a part of the community here, one that is respectful of the prerequisites of civilized discourse, and that seeks to engage visitors in dialogue.
Roger
Friday, September 29, 2006
REWIND: An important book on human reason and the failure of faith? Not on the bestseller list at Wally World, we can be sure.
There are times when it's easiest to hit the archives for a rewind, and tonight is one. Given the gist of the week's conversations, here is a book worth reading (from 12/20/2005).
My friend, sometimes collaborator and fellow longtime Open Air Museum curator, Joe, has come in from the gloaming after a characteristically lengthy sabbatical from the scene – and with a topical, incisive Christmas reading recommendation gleaned from C-SPAN's book talk.
It’s “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason,” by Sam Harris.
As an enticement to run right out and purchase the book, which I almost literally did yesterday at Desperations ... er, Destinations Booksellers, Joe provided this excerpt, which can be viewed along with other snippets of text at the author’s web site:
Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.
According to reviewer Natalie Angier of the New York Times:
“The End of Faith" articulates the dangers and absurdities of organized religion so fiercely and so fearlessly that I felt relieved as I read it, vindicated, almost personally understood… Harris writes what a sizable number of us think, but few are willing to say in contemporary America … This in an important book, on a topic that, for all its inherent difficulty and divisiveness, should not be shielded from the crucible of human reason.
Perfect timing, Joe, and thanks for the tip. I'm up to page 40 already.
When I’m finished, she’s yours …
Thursday, September 28, 2006
UPDATED: Citizen Hill: Splitting semantic hairs, and the appeasement of superstition, as campaign platform.
9:00 a.m. Friday: The discussion has been wide-ranging, so I'm leaving this posting on the marquee until later this evening. Please feel free to join in, subject to our usual rules pertaining to disclosure.
---
Never underestimate the ability of politicians to disappoint. It’s Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football all over again … and I’m lying on the wet ground, looking up at the sky, and vowing not to fall for it another time.
Having grudgingly accepted the painful notion of casting my ballot for Democratic challenger Baron Hill as the least harmful of three suited annoyances in the 9th District Congressional race, he’s once again publicly hurrying to express agreement with the practical consequences of the incumbent’s right-wing cultural bias, while insisting that subtle differences in reasoning somehow constitute an viable alternative.
In a letter to the editor of the Tribune – one presumably published in newspapers throughout the district – candidate Hill hastens to assure us that his position on marriage is precisely the same as Mike “Hot Wheels” Sodrel’s:
Simply put, I believe that marriage is sacred and is a right only between a man and a woman. In the Indiana legislature, I sponsored the law to define marriage as existing between one man and one woman, and I would support a federal law to do the same. The people of the 9th District know that I am a man of my word, and they know that I will work to return strong Hoosier family values to Washington — values such as honesty, integrity and faith.
But we must look elsewhere for the specific reason why Hill expects us to believe that this shameless pandering on the topic of marriage is dissimilar to Sodrel’s. In Sunday’s Courier-Journal, Hill explained:
"I could support a federal law defining marriage as that of a man and a woman," Hill said. "But I don't want to use the Constitution as an instrument to ban gay marriage. That's not what the document is about."
Groundbreaking stuff, eh?
Baron Hill is opposed to Mike Sodrel and others of his reactionary ilk in their evangelical quest to “use” the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage, but Hill supports the “use” of federal law to achieve exactly the same outcome.
Such a federal law would ban gay marriage, wouldn’t it? Now, let’s think hard; is that really an alternative?
Somehow I’m reminded of the medieval practice of dunking criminals in nearby streams to determine innocence or guilt. Survive the attempted drowning and be guilty (and subject to immediate execution), or conversely, be proven innocent by dying in agonizing fashion (and, well, be just as dead as before … but blameless in the eyes of God).
Once again, something (gay marriage) that should be one of the great non-issues in the history of American moral and political skullduggery is being deployed – this time by a Democrat – as a convenient straw man suitable for a good, sound thrashing. I can hear the applause of the fundamentalist yokels, and imagine Hill’s pulse racing as he calculates the number of votes to be gleaned from stooping to this rank level of prejudice.
How does any of this constitute a choice come election time?
When it comes to the reigning GOP political and governmental philosophy of “fright makes right”, particularly the contrived chimera of “family values” as a magic wand to frighten the populace, what can possibly be the benefit of a Democratic challenger seeking so transparently to emulate a repugnant Republican incumbent – and deploying regrettably vapid sophistry to espouse look-alike principles that differ only in the realm of semantics, not the everyday world of reality?
For those so inclined, why not vote for the more authentic of the two bearers of conservative hoo-hah, the unalloyed internal combustion mogul Sodrel, whose famously incorrect thinking has the sole merit of being absent the degradation implied by Hill’s cynical electoral calculation?
Here’s the skinny: I want very much to be for candidates like Baron Hill, but just as our local Democratic Party seems institutionally incapable of providing the barest minimum of succor to a thinking man, Hill’s recent pieties are a reminder that the two-party system and the mechanics of power sharing that it has spawned simply may not be capable of redemption.
As always, we’re left to hold our noses and vote against the greater of the two threats.
Which I’ll still do, but not gladly … and with a good measure of resentment.
---
Never underestimate the ability of politicians to disappoint. It’s Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football all over again … and I’m lying on the wet ground, looking up at the sky, and vowing not to fall for it another time.
Having grudgingly accepted the painful notion of casting my ballot for Democratic challenger Baron Hill as the least harmful of three suited annoyances in the 9th District Congressional race, he’s once again publicly hurrying to express agreement with the practical consequences of the incumbent’s right-wing cultural bias, while insisting that subtle differences in reasoning somehow constitute an viable alternative.
In a letter to the editor of the Tribune – one presumably published in newspapers throughout the district – candidate Hill hastens to assure us that his position on marriage is precisely the same as Mike “Hot Wheels” Sodrel’s:
Simply put, I believe that marriage is sacred and is a right only between a man and a woman. In the Indiana legislature, I sponsored the law to define marriage as existing between one man and one woman, and I would support a federal law to do the same. The people of the 9th District know that I am a man of my word, and they know that I will work to return strong Hoosier family values to Washington — values such as honesty, integrity and faith.
But we must look elsewhere for the specific reason why Hill expects us to believe that this shameless pandering on the topic of marriage is dissimilar to Sodrel’s. In Sunday’s Courier-Journal, Hill explained:
"I could support a federal law defining marriage as that of a man and a woman," Hill said. "But I don't want to use the Constitution as an instrument to ban gay marriage. That's not what the document is about."
Groundbreaking stuff, eh?
Baron Hill is opposed to Mike Sodrel and others of his reactionary ilk in their evangelical quest to “use” the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage, but Hill supports the “use” of federal law to achieve exactly the same outcome.
Such a federal law would ban gay marriage, wouldn’t it? Now, let’s think hard; is that really an alternative?
Somehow I’m reminded of the medieval practice of dunking criminals in nearby streams to determine innocence or guilt. Survive the attempted drowning and be guilty (and subject to immediate execution), or conversely, be proven innocent by dying in agonizing fashion (and, well, be just as dead as before … but blameless in the eyes of God).
Once again, something (gay marriage) that should be one of the great non-issues in the history of American moral and political skullduggery is being deployed – this time by a Democrat – as a convenient straw man suitable for a good, sound thrashing. I can hear the applause of the fundamentalist yokels, and imagine Hill’s pulse racing as he calculates the number of votes to be gleaned from stooping to this rank level of prejudice.
How does any of this constitute a choice come election time?
When it comes to the reigning GOP political and governmental philosophy of “fright makes right”, particularly the contrived chimera of “family values” as a magic wand to frighten the populace, what can possibly be the benefit of a Democratic challenger seeking so transparently to emulate a repugnant Republican incumbent – and deploying regrettably vapid sophistry to espouse look-alike principles that differ only in the realm of semantics, not the everyday world of reality?
For those so inclined, why not vote for the more authentic of the two bearers of conservative hoo-hah, the unalloyed internal combustion mogul Sodrel, whose famously incorrect thinking has the sole merit of being absent the degradation implied by Hill’s cynical electoral calculation?
Here’s the skinny: I want very much to be for candidates like Baron Hill, but just as our local Democratic Party seems institutionally incapable of providing the barest minimum of succor to a thinking man, Hill’s recent pieties are a reminder that the two-party system and the mechanics of power sharing that it has spawned simply may not be capable of redemption.
As always, we’re left to hold our noses and vote against the greater of the two threats.
Which I’ll still do, but not gladly … and with a good measure of resentment.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
A “must read” for Wednesday: LEO’s Stephen George on 8664 … “is there cause for hope?”
A case for the future: 8664 IS STILL AROUND, AND WITH MORE SUPPORT THAN EVER. IS THERE CAUSE FOR HOPE?, by Stephen George (Louisville Eccentric Observer).With the Courier-Journal in active opposition to the grassroots vision elucidated by the movers of 8664, it’s left to LEO to assume its proper place as media outlet for the alternative – as Stephen George’s cover story today makes abundantly clear.
It’s this week’s local media must-read.
The measure of a world-class city is most often taken in its downtown. There is no way to accurately say whether 86-ing I-64 from downtown will be the economic boon (Tyler) Allen and (J.C.) Stites contend it will be. Likewise, it’s also impossible to assure Louisvillians that 14 years or more of major highway and bridge construction downtown — with the end result an urban zoo even more populated by automobiles — will kill the huge momentum Louisville has right now to reinvigorate our city’s heart.
With so much at stake, though, isn’t an open mind at the very least prudent? When suggesting an alternative to a $2.5 billion transportation project with so much potential for both efficiency and disaster is considered an impediment, do we not proceed then at our own peril?
Previously at NA Confidential:
8664: It’s never too late to start all over again.
-and-
UPDATED: 8664: On bridges (real & imaginary) and vision.
Mark your calendars: NA Confidential’s Harvest Homecoming Parade fete, Saturday, October 7.
For the third year running, NAC’s friends and fellow travelers will monitor the progress of the annual Harvest Homecoming Parade from the porch of the senior editor’s Spring Street homestead.
The parade begins at noon at New Albany High School, and will pass NAC’s impromptu reviewing stand a short time later. As in times past, the format is strictly open-house; stay for a few minutes, or all day. It's your choice. There'll be no protocol.
However, there will be a pot of vegetarian chili, and a semi-professional grilling master (Jason) on duty to cook sausages and other meats (provided) to taste.
Those planning to make a day of it, please bring beer snacks or suitable sides. Small batch sodas from Milwaukee’s versatile Sprecher brewery will be on hand, as will a selection of draft beer courtesy of the New Albanian Brewing Company.
We encourage walking and bicycling; parking places are limited (none on the street), so if you drive, be creative – and arrange a designated driver.
Walk-ins are welcomed, but for the purpose of planning, all I ask is that you provide a tentative and non-binding RSVP.
Hope to see many readers on the 7th …
The parade begins at noon at New Albany High School, and will pass NAC’s impromptu reviewing stand a short time later. As in times past, the format is strictly open-house; stay for a few minutes, or all day. It's your choice. There'll be no protocol.
However, there will be a pot of vegetarian chili, and a semi-professional grilling master (Jason) on duty to cook sausages and other meats (provided) to taste.
Those planning to make a day of it, please bring beer snacks or suitable sides. Small batch sodas from Milwaukee’s versatile Sprecher brewery will be on hand, as will a selection of draft beer courtesy of the New Albanian Brewing Company.
We encourage walking and bicycling; parking places are limited (none on the street), so if you drive, be creative – and arrange a designated driver.
Walk-ins are welcomed, but for the purpose of planning, all I ask is that you provide a tentative and non-binding RSVP.
Hope to see many readers on the 7th …
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
From the NYT: "What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat."
I seldom reprint articles from other sources, but today’s an exception.
Without express written permission, here is “Threat Assessment,” from the September 10, 2006, New York Times Sunday Book Review. The author is Martin Walker, “editor of United Press International and a senior fellow of the World Policy Institute at the New School.”
WHAT TERRORISTS WANT; Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat.
By Louise Richardson.
312 pp. Random House. $25.95.
Karl Rove’s observation that virile conservatives march forth to defeat their terrorist enemies while epicene liberals seek to understand them was memorable for its partisan venom. Yet the fact is, without making a thorough effort to comprehend the motives, fears and capabilities of Al Qaeda’s militants, we can hardly hope to defeat them.
Modern terrorists — whether operating in the United States, Europe or the Middle East — have sought to understand us and the vulnerabilities of our open societies. It is high time we sought to understand them. Louise Richardson, a lecturer at Harvard, has now produced the overdue and essential primer on terrorism and how to tackle it. “What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat” is the book many have been waiting for. Richardson’s approach is clear and simple, and is deeply informed by the personal insights of one who, as a student in Dublin, was briefly recruited by the political wing of the I.R.A. She has since organized seminars and war games that have brought together academics, former terrorists and those she calls “activists.”
It may be objected that there is a fundamental difference between Al Qaeda and the I.R.A., a European national independence movement with Christian roots that was prepared to use terrorist tactics as a rational means to achieve a political end. The I.R.A. wanted to bomb its way to the conference table, while Al Qaeda seeks to blow up the table as a symbol of Western cultural oppression. The I.R.A. usually abjured suicide attacks since its militants wanted a sporting chance of experiencing victory (the death of Bobby Sands and his compatriots by hunger strike was an exception). By contrast, Al Qaeda is commonly seen as a nihilist group with no negotiable objectives; with an ideology that embraces and glorifies suicide bombings; as so many mad dogs who can only be hunted down and killed.
Richardson points out that this is a dangerous misconception. Al Qaeda is neither unique in its organization nor unprecedented in its scale and reach, or in its readiness to inflict mass casualties. The Aum Shinrikyo perpetrators of the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway, for instance, hoped for thousands of deaths. With admirable clarity and deep erudition, Richardson suggests that like all terrorist movements, Al Qaeda requires three components: alienated individuals, a complicit society or community, and a legitimizing ideology. Its troops are motivated by some mixture of three key goals: revenge, renown and reaction from the enemy.
Richardson goes on to argue that the policies of the Bush administration have provided Al Qaeda with great renown and monstrous overreaction — precisely the stimulants it needs to prosper. By declaring “war” on terrorism, the White House has defined the struggle against Al Qaeda essentially as a military problem, best managed by the Pentagon. This flies in the face of all available evidence from successful antiterror campaigns. These include the British operations in Malaya in the 1950’s, the penetration of Shining Path by the Peruvian police, the defeats Turkey has inflicted on the Kurdish P.K.K. and, most recently, the co-option of the I.R.A. leadership into electoral politics through the cooperation of the London and Dublin governments.
These successes have a number of features in common. They were led primarily by police intelligence units working in very close coordination with other arms of the state, including the military and the judiciary, as well as local economic development teams. Government officials all came to understand that they were faced with what was fundamentally a political challenge, and that the prime objective was to separate the terrorists from their base in the community. This meant addressing the grievances of that base seriously, and it meant cooperating with moderates in that community who might have shared some of the terrorists’ goals but shrank from their tactics.
A successful counterterrorist campaign, Richardson explains, seeks to empower and legitimize the nonviolent moderates, thus isolating the terrorists. Success requires governments to hold the moral high ground, convincing the undecided that the state and its agents are the good guys, who enforce democratic principles and civil liberties even among their own troops and police officers. In other words, with an effective antiterrorist policy there would be no Guantánamo, no detention without fair trial, no secret wiretapping programs and no “renditions” of suspects to friendly but foul regimes that practice torture. Intelligence organizations would operate under clear and strict judicial guidelines, with transparent political oversight.
In its determination to display resolve, Richardson says, the Bush administration has so far failed to learn these lessons. She points out that most governments go through an initial phase of draconian measures with full public support, a second phase of polarization, when liberals bleating about human and civic rights are treated as semitraitorous wimps, and a third phase that comes with the understanding that the tough tactics are not working as expected and that (as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seems to have realized in Iraq) they are creating new terrorists faster than the old ones can be killed or neutralized.
This third phase leads to a reassessment, and then to a search for ways to divide the enemy and exploit the merest hint of division or ideological argument. Probably going further than this administration can yet swallow, Richardson recommends discreetly opening negotiations with Ayman al-Zawahri, the ideologist of Al Qaeda; it’s known that Zawahri had gently scolded Al Qaeda’s man in Iraq, the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for killing Iraqi Shiites in order to foment a civil war. And there may be rivals of Osama bin Laden whom the administration could reach out to — in any event, it would be helpful to insert such a worrisome worm of suspicion into Al Qaeda’s leadership. Richardson suggests that British intelligence was so adroit at developing informants and fomenting splits in Northern Ireland that there was a period when the I.R.A.’s counterinfiltration teams killed off more of their own militants than the British did.
Al Qaeda, for its part, has already shown itself quite adept at the tactic of dividing the enemy, exploiting differences between Washington and its European allies. And if senior figures in the Bush administration are even bothering to read bin Laden’s speeches, they should have noticed that he condemns the United States for its rejection of the International Criminal Court and for turning a blind eye to the profiteering of the Halliburton Company. As Richardson points out, this suggests that bin Laden has taken to heart “Lenin’s key contribution to terrorist strategy ... the importance of exploiting every fragment of local alienation for its own ends.”
Richardson’s weakest point is that she does not fully address the most profound problem Washington faces. Domestic politics and wider geostrategic considerations have locked the United States into a seemingly unquestioning support for Israel and for unsavory but pro-Western regimes that will make it very difficult to win over moderate Arab opinion and isolate the terrorists. Still, improving America’s image overseas is not rocket science: witness the transformation among Indonesians after the magnificent relief effort that Washington led following the great tsunami. Now that many Americans as well as a number of officials inside the administration are going through the third phase of reassessment, the campaign against Al Qaeda can, perhaps, begin to succeed.
Without express written permission, here is “Threat Assessment,” from the September 10, 2006, New York Times Sunday Book Review. The author is Martin Walker, “editor of United Press International and a senior fellow of the World Policy Institute at the New School.”
WHAT TERRORISTS WANT; Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat.
By Louise Richardson.
312 pp. Random House. $25.95.
Karl Rove’s observation that virile conservatives march forth to defeat their terrorist enemies while epicene liberals seek to understand them was memorable for its partisan venom. Yet the fact is, without making a thorough effort to comprehend the motives, fears and capabilities of Al Qaeda’s militants, we can hardly hope to defeat them.
Modern terrorists — whether operating in the United States, Europe or the Middle East — have sought to understand us and the vulnerabilities of our open societies. It is high time we sought to understand them. Louise Richardson, a lecturer at Harvard, has now produced the overdue and essential primer on terrorism and how to tackle it. “What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat” is the book many have been waiting for. Richardson’s approach is clear and simple, and is deeply informed by the personal insights of one who, as a student in Dublin, was briefly recruited by the political wing of the I.R.A. She has since organized seminars and war games that have brought together academics, former terrorists and those she calls “activists.”
It may be objected that there is a fundamental difference between Al Qaeda and the I.R.A., a European national independence movement with Christian roots that was prepared to use terrorist tactics as a rational means to achieve a political end. The I.R.A. wanted to bomb its way to the conference table, while Al Qaeda seeks to blow up the table as a symbol of Western cultural oppression. The I.R.A. usually abjured suicide attacks since its militants wanted a sporting chance of experiencing victory (the death of Bobby Sands and his compatriots by hunger strike was an exception). By contrast, Al Qaeda is commonly seen as a nihilist group with no negotiable objectives; with an ideology that embraces and glorifies suicide bombings; as so many mad dogs who can only be hunted down and killed.
Richardson points out that this is a dangerous misconception. Al Qaeda is neither unique in its organization nor unprecedented in its scale and reach, or in its readiness to inflict mass casualties. The Aum Shinrikyo perpetrators of the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway, for instance, hoped for thousands of deaths. With admirable clarity and deep erudition, Richardson suggests that like all terrorist movements, Al Qaeda requires three components: alienated individuals, a complicit society or community, and a legitimizing ideology. Its troops are motivated by some mixture of three key goals: revenge, renown and reaction from the enemy.
Richardson goes on to argue that the policies of the Bush administration have provided Al Qaeda with great renown and monstrous overreaction — precisely the stimulants it needs to prosper. By declaring “war” on terrorism, the White House has defined the struggle against Al Qaeda essentially as a military problem, best managed by the Pentagon. This flies in the face of all available evidence from successful antiterror campaigns. These include the British operations in Malaya in the 1950’s, the penetration of Shining Path by the Peruvian police, the defeats Turkey has inflicted on the Kurdish P.K.K. and, most recently, the co-option of the I.R.A. leadership into electoral politics through the cooperation of the London and Dublin governments.
These successes have a number of features in common. They were led primarily by police intelligence units working in very close coordination with other arms of the state, including the military and the judiciary, as well as local economic development teams. Government officials all came to understand that they were faced with what was fundamentally a political challenge, and that the prime objective was to separate the terrorists from their base in the community. This meant addressing the grievances of that base seriously, and it meant cooperating with moderates in that community who might have shared some of the terrorists’ goals but shrank from their tactics.
A successful counterterrorist campaign, Richardson explains, seeks to empower and legitimize the nonviolent moderates, thus isolating the terrorists. Success requires governments to hold the moral high ground, convincing the undecided that the state and its agents are the good guys, who enforce democratic principles and civil liberties even among their own troops and police officers. In other words, with an effective antiterrorist policy there would be no Guantánamo, no detention without fair trial, no secret wiretapping programs and no “renditions” of suspects to friendly but foul regimes that practice torture. Intelligence organizations would operate under clear and strict judicial guidelines, with transparent political oversight.
In its determination to display resolve, Richardson says, the Bush administration has so far failed to learn these lessons. She points out that most governments go through an initial phase of draconian measures with full public support, a second phase of polarization, when liberals bleating about human and civic rights are treated as semitraitorous wimps, and a third phase that comes with the understanding that the tough tactics are not working as expected and that (as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seems to have realized in Iraq) they are creating new terrorists faster than the old ones can be killed or neutralized.
This third phase leads to a reassessment, and then to a search for ways to divide the enemy and exploit the merest hint of division or ideological argument. Probably going further than this administration can yet swallow, Richardson recommends discreetly opening negotiations with Ayman al-Zawahri, the ideologist of Al Qaeda; it’s known that Zawahri had gently scolded Al Qaeda’s man in Iraq, the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for killing Iraqi Shiites in order to foment a civil war. And there may be rivals of Osama bin Laden whom the administration could reach out to — in any event, it would be helpful to insert such a worrisome worm of suspicion into Al Qaeda’s leadership. Richardson suggests that British intelligence was so adroit at developing informants and fomenting splits in Northern Ireland that there was a period when the I.R.A.’s counterinfiltration teams killed off more of their own militants than the British did.
Al Qaeda, for its part, has already shown itself quite adept at the tactic of dividing the enemy, exploiting differences between Washington and its European allies. And if senior figures in the Bush administration are even bothering to read bin Laden’s speeches, they should have noticed that he condemns the United States for its rejection of the International Criminal Court and for turning a blind eye to the profiteering of the Halliburton Company. As Richardson points out, this suggests that bin Laden has taken to heart “Lenin’s key contribution to terrorist strategy ... the importance of exploiting every fragment of local alienation for its own ends.”
Richardson’s weakest point is that she does not fully address the most profound problem Washington faces. Domestic politics and wider geostrategic considerations have locked the United States into a seemingly unquestioning support for Israel and for unsavory but pro-Western regimes that will make it very difficult to win over moderate Arab opinion and isolate the terrorists. Still, improving America’s image overseas is not rocket science: witness the transformation among Indonesians after the magnificent relief effort that Washington led following the great tsunami. Now that many Americans as well as a number of officials inside the administration are going through the third phase of reassessment, the campaign against Al Qaeda can, perhaps, begin to succeed.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Abortion rights and the predictability of Winking, Blinkin and Nod.
(Sorry about the title spelling error this morning)
If the weekend rains and flooding weren’t sufficient to induce suicidal depression, a brief glance at Sunday’s Courier-Journal provided much encouragement to begin drinking at a reasonable hour – say, breakfast.
A Michael Kinsley column traced the origins of the Bush regime’s Orwellian “victory” chants in Iraq, while a news story reported findings strongly suggesting that the Iraq invasion has helped to expand terrorist recruitment, which makes thinking people wonder whether the current vogue of advocacy for meting out similar punishment to Iran is going to be accomplished by robots, a return to the draft or the employment of our second-favorite bogeymen (illegal aliens) as Hessians of the moment?
There was the Reverend James Dobson’s DC conference urging America’s tax-exempt churches to “get involved” with politics – presumably not affairs of the agnostic or secular variety, but ways to make those of us resistant to rampant superstition march instead to the beat of the Christian drummer.
By the way, why does the Tribune insist on running this man’s family advice column?
Which brings us to the most disconcerting article of all, a front page piece examining the frantic efforts of not one, not two, but three candidates for Indiana’s Ninth Congressional District seat to take the most stridently “pro-life” (I use the term loosely on purpose, the better to promote thoughts on how one proposes to protect life by slaughtering Iraqis, Iranians or, for that matter, Lebanese) position as a prelude to the November election.
On the surface, Democratic challenger Baron Hill’s espousal of a legislative alternative to abortion, one that would increase educational efforts and make birth control more widely available to those most in need of it, seems fairly sensible, particularly since it has been attacked with characteristic haughtiness by the incumbent, Mike “Big Wheels – Small Mind” Sodrel, whose “GOP as friendly Uncle Torquemada” anti-abortion campaign platform is sufficiently repugnant to make most other competing ideas seem tame.
Sorry, but in Hill’s typically leaden hands, the seemingly sensible is quickly transformed into the usual pandering and anti-abortion demagoguery by another name, all part of an ongoing effort to flail the centrist blue dog until it yelps in agony, sensing its increasing proximity to the general vicinity of Karl Rove and the other Republican haywire theocrats stroking Dick Cheney’s pacemaker as they confuse the Constitution with the Bible, Haliburton contacts, or both.
While the presence of Libertarian academic Eric Schansberg in the congressional race has been refreshing, and he’s shown a fine aptitude for the disruptive planks of the customary third-party playbook, his abortion position reflects an inability to escape the limitations of personal Christian fundamentalism – with predictable future consequences for women. However, with the shared monoploly of our two-party system stacked against him, Dr. Schansberg has no chance of winning.
Independent voters might well find a greater range of choice on outdated Politburo electoral lists than that to be seen among these three candidates for Congress.
Meanwhile, as the Northrup/McConnell machine commences the predictable sliming of John Yarmuth over on the Louisville side of the flood plain, we’re left to ruminate on the fate of political candidates who’ve made the mistake of thinking aloud -- or in Yarmuth's case, ruminating in print over a long period of time.
Politics as a graveyard for ideas? Sounds consummately American to me.
Wonder what the Bubbas are, uh, "thinking"?
If the weekend rains and flooding weren’t sufficient to induce suicidal depression, a brief glance at Sunday’s Courier-Journal provided much encouragement to begin drinking at a reasonable hour – say, breakfast.
A Michael Kinsley column traced the origins of the Bush regime’s Orwellian “victory” chants in Iraq, while a news story reported findings strongly suggesting that the Iraq invasion has helped to expand terrorist recruitment, which makes thinking people wonder whether the current vogue of advocacy for meting out similar punishment to Iran is going to be accomplished by robots, a return to the draft or the employment of our second-favorite bogeymen (illegal aliens) as Hessians of the moment?
There was the Reverend James Dobson’s DC conference urging America’s tax-exempt churches to “get involved” with politics – presumably not affairs of the agnostic or secular variety, but ways to make those of us resistant to rampant superstition march instead to the beat of the Christian drummer.
By the way, why does the Tribune insist on running this man’s family advice column?
Which brings us to the most disconcerting article of all, a front page piece examining the frantic efforts of not one, not two, but three candidates for Indiana’s Ninth Congressional District seat to take the most stridently “pro-life” (I use the term loosely on purpose, the better to promote thoughts on how one proposes to protect life by slaughtering Iraqis, Iranians or, for that matter, Lebanese) position as a prelude to the November election.
On the surface, Democratic challenger Baron Hill’s espousal of a legislative alternative to abortion, one that would increase educational efforts and make birth control more widely available to those most in need of it, seems fairly sensible, particularly since it has been attacked with characteristic haughtiness by the incumbent, Mike “Big Wheels – Small Mind” Sodrel, whose “GOP as friendly Uncle Torquemada” anti-abortion campaign platform is sufficiently repugnant to make most other competing ideas seem tame.
Sorry, but in Hill’s typically leaden hands, the seemingly sensible is quickly transformed into the usual pandering and anti-abortion demagoguery by another name, all part of an ongoing effort to flail the centrist blue dog until it yelps in agony, sensing its increasing proximity to the general vicinity of Karl Rove and the other Republican haywire theocrats stroking Dick Cheney’s pacemaker as they confuse the Constitution with the Bible, Haliburton contacts, or both.
While the presence of Libertarian academic Eric Schansberg in the congressional race has been refreshing, and he’s shown a fine aptitude for the disruptive planks of the customary third-party playbook, his abortion position reflects an inability to escape the limitations of personal Christian fundamentalism – with predictable future consequences for women. However, with the shared monoploly of our two-party system stacked against him, Dr. Schansberg has no chance of winning.
Independent voters might well find a greater range of choice on outdated Politburo electoral lists than that to be seen among these three candidates for Congress.
Meanwhile, as the Northrup/McConnell machine commences the predictable sliming of John Yarmuth over on the Louisville side of the flood plain, we’re left to ruminate on the fate of political candidates who’ve made the mistake of thinking aloud -- or in Yarmuth's case, ruminating in print over a long period of time.
Politics as a graveyard for ideas? Sounds consummately American to me.
Wonder what the Bubbas are, uh, "thinking"?
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Fred and Ginger, or stray thoughts on form and function.
Most of us associate the city of Prague with numerous examples of architecture representative of “old Europe,” but as with any modern city, the truth of the matter isn’t so simple even if a larger proportion of venerable buildings have been preserved there than in other, less fortunate (read: war damaged) European locales.
Sadly, the pre-fabricated concrete contributions of the socialist era, though functional, cannot be said to contribute to any aesthetic beyond that of the ham-fisted and totalitarian. Since a majority of Czechs reside and work in these still largely gray, formless blocks, and will do so for quite some time to come, one senses that the best hope for their redemption is to apply a coat of paint and wish for a high level of prosperity within the forthcoming Euro currency zone that will permit frequent holidays abroad.
Note that NA Confidential has long advocated the same cost-effective and colorful solution (paint, not vacation) for prevailing local monstrosities like Riverview Tower, which persists in appearing as an ominous relic of the discredited Bloc rather than an attractive part of the civic skyline.
Sadly, the pre-fabricated concrete contributions of the socialist era, though functional, cannot be said to contribute to any aesthetic beyond that of the ham-fisted and totalitarian. Since a majority of Czechs reside and work in these still largely gray, formless blocks, and will do so for quite some time to come, one senses that the best hope for their redemption is to apply a coat of paint and wish for a high level of prosperity within the forthcoming Euro currency zone that will permit frequent holidays abroad.
Note that NA Confidential has long advocated the same cost-effective and colorful solution (paint, not vacation) for prevailing local monstrosities like Riverview Tower, which persists in appearing as an ominous relic of the discredited Bloc rather than an attractive part of the civic skyline.
See: Paint and public art as progressive ideals -- why not in New Albany?
This blog remains a strong supporter of the ideals of historical preservation, which in Prague’s case must be considered the city’s tourism bread and butter -- and might be here, as well. At the same time, we look to nearby urban areas like Columbus, and note the record of success when blending the modern with the historic.
A superb example of this recognition exists on a street corner in Prague, by the majestic Vltava River.
An excerpt from Meghan Walsh's piece in the Journal of the International Institute sets the table:
While working in Prague this past summer, I met Vladimir Milunic, the Czech architect who collaborated with Gehry on one of his latest projects, an office building for the Dutch insurance company, National Nederlanden, to be completed in December 1995. The project, a bold, curved structure that resembles a pair of dancers in motion, is affectionately called "Fred and Ginger" by American architects, and tancinsky dum (the dancing building) by Czechs.
While I was away on holiday, Chris Morris of the Tribune offered a report on the space crunch at the City-County Building: Spaced Out; City-County Building out of room. Here are excerpts.
(Ted) Heavrin, president of the Floyd County Council, said the best way to solve the overcrowding issue at the City-County Building is for the city to find its own building, which would allow the county to take over the current government center. That scenario recently occurred in Jeffersonville …
… County Councilman Randy Stumler would like to take Heavrin’s idea to the next level. He said a new government center needs to be built as part of the Scribner Place project and transform the current building into a criminal-justice center.
Stumler said the county should establish a timeline.
Kudos to Randy Stumler for his consistent advocacy of this position, and in fact, it sounds suspiciously like something that might become part and parcel of a genuine -- dare we speak the word in public? -- platform, should his Democratic Party ever be permitted to birth one.
And so, a dancing building, or something like it, as the city’s center of operations on the right bank of the Ohio?
A man can dream, can’t he?
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Yep, we had some rain.
Thanks and best wishes to the family that stopped and gave us a ride last night after D.'s car broke down following an unexpected encounter with 12 standing inches of flood water.
I drove her to class at U of L this morning, and one of the streets next to campus appeared to have a lake about the size of Patoka spread through it.
Ever notice how these severe weather events are coming more quickly and often than before? Thank heavens we have Dick Cheney's assurance that global warming is no more than a figment of Al Gore's tortured imagination.
I drove her to class at U of L this morning, and one of the streets next to campus appeared to have a lake about the size of Patoka spread through it.
Ever notice how these severe weather events are coming more quickly and often than before? Thank heavens we have Dick Cheney's assurance that global warming is no more than a figment of Al Gore's tortured imagination.
Friday, September 22, 2006
UPDATED: Bravo! Fortissimo! Author! Keep those cameras rollin', rollin'.
When you're driving down the highway at night
And you're feelin' that wild turkey's bite
Don't give Johnny Walker a ride
Cause Jack Black is right by your side
You might get taken to the jailhouse and find
You've been arrested for driving while blind
--ZZ Top, from "Arrested for Driving While Blind."
---
Note: Those damned high school students filled the cheap seats in the rear filming area – that’s just gotta stop. I really need to keep my back to the wall.
---
Perhaps having previously visited NA Confidential, one of the students said she was expecting to be entertained, but in truth it was a civilized meeting by prevailing city council standards, with the usual outbursts and acrimonies surprisingly muted.
I’ll leave it to the local newspaper writers to provide the play by play, and move directly to the color commentary. When their stories appear, updates will follow below.
Speaking of the media, during the evening’s most heated discussion – sewer department salaries – there was a five-minute recess, and the Courier-Journal’s new man on the job was pulled into the corridor by none other than our local Greenway Commission representative.
When he returned to his seat, I leaned over and asked him to check his wallet.
No, really.
Previously, Ms. Bolovschak’s customary leadoff public speaking time had ended on a strange note when she inexplicably bobbled an easy, choreographed lob pass from 3rd District councilman Steve Price on the topic of her role in bringing the Greenway check home from Indy. The fumble occurred after several of her political shot attempts were savagely blocked by city controller Kay Garry, who wisely chose not to risk a technical foul with undue celebration.
Once again rebuffed, and with considerable force, Ms. Bolovschak took her seat, only to suddenly spring to the podium again during the communications from public, i.e., non-Greenway officials, prompting a flabbergasted gavel from council president Jeff Gahan and a gasp from the direction of Sigmund Freud’s grave.
Moments later, as Mayor Garner finished a brief statement during his speaking time, a female voice from the back row was heard to say, “you’re welcome” – and it wasn’t from Professor Erika, who talked through much of the meeting and was consoled by Cappy Dick.
So, as predicted here yesterday morning, the price of admission included a floor show … and, for once, not from the Siamese Councilmen.
However, let’s not forget the Priceless Quote of the night:
“It’s been told to me, that compared with other cities … we have a two-headed monster … it will become insolvable eventually.”
I think Mr. Price was referring to salaries of police and firemen.
But he may have been talking about Sybil.
---
Council OKs $16.1 million budget; Some New Albany workers get raises, by Matt Batcheldor (short shelf life for Courier-Journal links).
The New Albany City Council approved a $16.1 million budget for 2007 last night, overcoming differences over longevity pay for some city employees and the salaries of sewer department workers and Building Commissioner Ron Hartman.
And you're feelin' that wild turkey's bite
Don't give Johnny Walker a ride
Cause Jack Black is right by your side
You might get taken to the jailhouse and find
You've been arrested for driving while blind
--ZZ Top, from "Arrested for Driving While Blind."
---
Note: Those damned high school students filled the cheap seats in the rear filming area – that’s just gotta stop. I really need to keep my back to the wall.
---
Perhaps having previously visited NA Confidential, one of the students said she was expecting to be entertained, but in truth it was a civilized meeting by prevailing city council standards, with the usual outbursts and acrimonies surprisingly muted.
I’ll leave it to the local newspaper writers to provide the play by play, and move directly to the color commentary. When their stories appear, updates will follow below.
Speaking of the media, during the evening’s most heated discussion – sewer department salaries – there was a five-minute recess, and the Courier-Journal’s new man on the job was pulled into the corridor by none other than our local Greenway Commission representative.
When he returned to his seat, I leaned over and asked him to check his wallet.
No, really.
Previously, Ms. Bolovschak’s customary leadoff public speaking time had ended on a strange note when she inexplicably bobbled an easy, choreographed lob pass from 3rd District councilman Steve Price on the topic of her role in bringing the Greenway check home from Indy. The fumble occurred after several of her political shot attempts were savagely blocked by city controller Kay Garry, who wisely chose not to risk a technical foul with undue celebration.
Once again rebuffed, and with considerable force, Ms. Bolovschak took her seat, only to suddenly spring to the podium again during the communications from public, i.e., non-Greenway officials, prompting a flabbergasted gavel from council president Jeff Gahan and a gasp from the direction of Sigmund Freud’s grave.
Moments later, as Mayor Garner finished a brief statement during his speaking time, a female voice from the back row was heard to say, “you’re welcome” – and it wasn’t from Professor Erika, who talked through much of the meeting and was consoled by Cappy Dick.
So, as predicted here yesterday morning, the price of admission included a floor show … and, for once, not from the Siamese Councilmen.
However, let’s not forget the Priceless Quote of the night:
“It’s been told to me, that compared with other cities … we have a two-headed monster … it will become insolvable eventually.”
I think Mr. Price was referring to salaries of police and firemen.
But he may have been talking about Sybil.
---
Council OKs $16.1 million budget; Some New Albany workers get raises, by Matt Batcheldor (short shelf life for Courier-Journal links).
The New Albany City Council approved a $16.1 million budget for 2007 last night, overcoming differences over longevity pay for some city employees and the salaries of sewer department workers and Building Commissioner Ron Hartman.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
From Bohemia to Babel: Yes, it's a city council Thursday!
I’ve joyfully awakened two mornings running to orchestral music by Dvorak, the Czech composer. Twelve days in Bohemia play just these sorts of tricks, and even though the Czech lands have changed drastically in the century since Dvorak’s death, the country’s pastoral vistas still have a way of conjuring spontaneous Slavonic dances.Back home in New Albania, ongoing efforts to lift our once vibrant city out of its prolonged period of ennui and institutionalized neglect have cleared another hurdle.
New Albany to start on greenway; City gets $1.2 million state grant for path, by Matt Batcheldor (short shelf life for Courier-Journal links).
Work on New Albany's portion of the $41 million Ohio River Greenway is to begin next month using a $1.2 million state grant the city received yesterday ...
… Mayor James Garner said a contractor for the project will be chosen next week. Garner has spent this week in Indianapolis trying to expedite the grant before a Sept. 30 deadline for federal matching dollars.
Not unexpectedly, there is another side to this story, one that you can read here, as presented by my friend New Alb Annie. Unfortunately, it remains that persistent and disingenuous public choreography on the part of Ms. Bolovschak, our Greenway Commission member, has a tendency to distract (and detract) from her energetic good works. That's too bad. Who is right, and who is wrong? Who gets credit, and who doesn’t?
Who’s on first, anyway?
As we await the verdict, perhaps the cameras will again be rolling, the teleprompter merrily humming, and Professor Erika absently doodling in crayon at tonight’s second of two September city council meetings. A brief preview is offered by the Tribune’s Eric Scott Campbell:
Longevity incentives proposed for nonunion city employees.
How long will it take for 1st District councilman Dan Coffey to say, “It’s the first I’ve heard of it”?
Will 3rd District CM Steve Price’s “no” votes make any sense at all?
What are the odds that the council Democrats’ continuing divisiveness will yet again permit lone Republican Mark Seabrook to float wisely and gently above the fray even as he prepares for an election battle with Floyd County Demo party chairman Randy Stumler, who has consistently refused to discipline the pathologically wayward Gang of Four?
Let’s just hope that the meeting doesn’t keep us past Bistro New Albany’s last call. Progressive pints -- and in a pinch, Dvorak -- can be relied upon to soothe the dissonance engendered by the pettiness of local politics.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Bistro New Albany scores early and often in this week's LEO.
LEO’s out, and the Bistro New Albany is the subject of a rave review by veteran Louisville food and dining writer Robin Garr.
LEO's Eat 'N' Blog With Louisville Hot Bytes: Drop your Kentucky prejudice and head to Bistro New Albany
With its intact blocks of sturdy, historic office buildings and its lovely rows of stately Victorian mansions, N’Albany seems to have just about everything a city could want — with the possible exception, unfortunately, of a busy, vibrant street scene after the sun goes down.
But here and there, lately, there’ve been distinct signs of a renaissance, and none more vivid than the arrival of Bistro New Albany, a lovely dining room that’s been earning a growing cadre of fans since it opened in May.
Congrats, guys. I’d been planning the meet D. for lunch tomorrow … can we perhaps reserve a table and get in ahead of the crowd?
And now for the (social) hangover.
I biked from the suburban Vienna pension to the underground, loaded the bike on it, and debarked a kilometer from Westbahnhof station. The bike was loaded onto an express train for a seven hour journey to Frankfurt central station, walked around the corner to a waiting hotel, then walked back the same route early this morning. I put it on an S (suburban) train, and got off at the airport. The bike was repacked, with a switch in Cincy. Back in Louisville, there was a theoretical possibility of finding TARC connections to New Albany, and without the case, I might have pedaled home.
But you know the rest of the story: Diana picked me up, and home we went. How much again are we planning on spending to build more bridges for more traffic, and more sprawl requiring more bridges ...
One more thing before I collapse into delirium: Jeff Gillenwater is a saint, and his work here for the past three and a half weeks speaks for itself. Dinner and drinks for Bluegill and Karen at Bistro New Albany are on me, all night, as soon as a date opens up. After all, we can walk home -- even without a truly civilized country's public transportation.
P.S.
Calling Tabitha ... what's the story in Thailand?
But you know the rest of the story: Diana picked me up, and home we went. How much again are we planning on spending to build more bridges for more traffic, and more sprawl requiring more bridges ...
One more thing before I collapse into delirium: Jeff Gillenwater is a saint, and his work here for the past three and a half weeks speaks for itself. Dinner and drinks for Bluegill and Karen at Bistro New Albany are on me, all night, as soon as a date opens up. After all, we can walk home -- even without a truly civilized country's public transportation.
P.S.
Calling Tabitha ... what's the story in Thailand?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Community Legacy, One Window at a Time
New Albany has won Historic Southern Indiana's Community Legacy Award for 2006 in recognition of its historic preservation efforts including the addition of downtown New Albany’s Historic District, the East Spring Street Corridor, the New Albany National Cemetery, and the Old Pike Inn to the National Register of Historic Places and the establishment of the East Spring Street Neighborhood as a local preservation district, among other acheivements.
The award will be officially presented tomorrow in a short ceremony at the Scribner House at 4:00 p.m.
For the first time in decades, the folks at Lambert Distributing will have a chance to catch a glimpse of the action from their third story windows on Main Street, owing to their recent efforts to clean up the 1830 building facade as reported back in July by The Tribune's Eric Scott Campbell.
Nice.
The award will be officially presented tomorrow in a short ceremony at the Scribner House at 4:00 p.m.
For the first time in decades, the folks at Lambert Distributing will have a chance to catch a glimpse of the action from their third story windows on Main Street, owing to their recent efforts to clean up the 1830 building facade as reported back in July by The Tribune's Eric Scott Campbell.
Nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
