Copyright © 2007 Frank Lynch.
Copyright © 2007 Frank Lynch.
Me: Frank Lynch Home These are my mundane daily ramblings.
Email: |
You serve the country if you worship at my
shrine. That, essentially, is Mitt Romney's argument for how his
kids are serving the
country. Very cool: Jonah Goldberg and all the other chicken
hawks have a new "out." They can all salaam together: "Oh Wha - -
Tah Goo - - Siam."
Moonlight Mile. It looks like I'll be bouncing up to White River Junction (VT) on Amtrak to retrieve our daughter from camp next week, and in light of the fact that it's a seven and a half hour train back to NYC, I've started planning for her entertainment. I popped into Barnes and Noble for some Dave Barry and Lake Wobegone Days; I hit Forbidden Planet for some Asterix and Obelix comic books... and while at the latter I noticed an inexpensive set of Devo, uh, action figures, a body in yellow clean suit, with interchangeable heads and one inverted red flower pot hat. I was justifying my exorbitant $15 expenditure to Ab talking about "Jocko Homo," their 7/8 tune in a diminished scale. Part of the discussion was that Devo had made the scale and meter obvious, and from there I started talking about the Stones' "Moonlight Mile." "Moonlight Mile" is a completely different effort. It's all pentatonic, but unlike "Amazing Grace" or "Five Hundred Miles," its pentatonic constraints aren't obvious, you really have to sit down and work out the whole song before you understand that there's a unified concept going on. For one thing, the melody is fairly sweeping, it covers a lot of ground. And it's introduced by guitars and bass which give it an Asian feel, too, but the orchestration, the guitars, they're all working within the clearly practiced limitations of the pentatonic scale. You listen to "Five Hundred Miles," and it's like a warm blanket, it's very simple and primitive. "Moonlight Mile" is not in the least primitive, yet it uses no more notes than those in "Five Hundred Miles" or "Amazing Grace." I think I only wanted to share this because it was a family
moment.
The deal with that Anderson Cooper thing... Last week I wrote about something I'd heard Anderson Cooper say the night of the bridge collapse, but I couldn't find the transcript. Well, I found it:
My original recollection was pretty spot on,
and my original argument remains: this was a stupid thing to say,
and an inept effort to retain viewers' eyes at the transition of
two programs. You want warning fatigue? Anderson Cooper, exhibit
number one. If he's not the only person in the US with
plastic sheeting and duct tape throughout his apartment, he's
probably already taped an interview with the guy at Home Depot
who sold it to him.
I see no hoopla here. An article in
the New York Times focuses on guarantees for the WSJ
editorial section's independence from the interference of Rupert Murdoch. Weird, this: it was the
WSJ editorial section which talked about the poor as "lucky
duckies" who didn't have to pay income taxes — the
editorial board of the WSJ is already spot on with much of the
News Corporation's political leanings already. The portion
of the WSJ which needed guarantees of independence wasn't the
editorial board, it was the news section. Paul Gigot, the
head of the editorial board, basically worked for life preservers
for a cadre of writers which never needed them. Oh, I bet the
News Corporation could barely contain themselves in the
negotiations, acting like they were giving something up to grant
Gigot and crew this security.
Calling for an early sunset on the new FISA bill. Well, the Democratic-led Congress caved into Bush and perceived political pressures, and passed a bill giving Bush broader liberties in his wiretap-without-warrants project. It's despicable, of course: under the original program, as it had been legislated, warrants never stopped the government from getting the intel while it was hot — they weren't required to get a warrant until the tapping had been in place for 72 hours, and when warrants were pursued they were practically always approved. In short, there was no reason for Bush to have tried to surreptitiously skirt the law, and similarly no reason to amend the law to allow him to feel as if his practices were legal. None. What. So. Ever. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is already looking at the six-month sunset clause on the bill — reasonably, since we know from tax policy that Bush has no respect for sunset clauses and considers any bill with such a clause as a foot in the door, with no intention of retreating. Pelosi has already sent word to the Senate that the bill needs to be amended as soon as possible, don't wait six months. The tactic is interesting, but I think it will ultimately fall short of its goal, overturning the newly passed amendment. Yes, it's true that the Senate should feel less political pressure on any bill, since in any two year cycle only a third of the Senate is up for reelection. But in spite of that, the Senate did grant Bush more liberty, and repealing what they just passed requires some flip-flopping. (Were Senators voting with their fingers crossed, knowing their planes were waiting?) On top of that, any effort to repeal through the Senate has to be matched by a similar effort in the House. And it's the same situation, except that in the House everyone is up for reelection every two years. Sadly, while I agree with Pelosi that the amendment is
reprehensible, her effort is too little too late. There should
have been all sorts of fire and brimstone here: and maybe the
Democrats in the Senate who were against it should have
filibustered — if 40 Republicans can stop a bill from being
voted on, you'd think 40 Democrats could do the same. Where were
the cots on this one?
Failing to seize the day. Bush is forcing a "show down" over his wiretapping program, insisting that Congress stay in session to pass a bill he will sign. That's his Constitutional right, though it's rarely been exercised. (Perhaps his choice — an extreme choice — represents extremist behavior? I'm not sure we should characterize it that way: the Constitution builds in provisions which are intended for use when the occasion arises. Impeachment is another example.) But in an article in the New York Times, the confrontation is posed as if the pressure is solely on the Democrats:
It seems to me that there's something stuck in Washington's snorkels, and these people should surface. The House and the Senate aren't the ones under pressure. It's the Constitution: Bush is doing everything he can to subvert it: it's as if he's flying a f*ing jetliner into the Statue of Liberty, and crying "heee heee heee" as he does so. The FISA laws which are on the books? Bush wants to skirt around them, when, oddly, they do just fine. When someone wants to change a law which already works really well, well, if you have them over for dinner, count the silverware when they leave. Bush et al are scoundrels, and they want to tear down this country just as badly as the terrorists do. (The difference is that Bush and the terrorists have different views of what the country is, and the appropriate ways to tear it down.) But of course, Bush isn't the only problem.
Representative Slaughter, quoted above, shouldn't be feeling
any pressure. She is in a branch of the government which
is completely independent of the executive branch: the executive
branch has no more power over her branch than hers has over the
executive. This is time for spine: the Democrats in the House are
most definitely not in a vise: rather, the nation faces an
opportunity to renew its values, and rather than being in a vise,
the House is at the front lines. That's how I see it,
anyway.
Such a nothing, a marshmallow, no more
than cotton candy. Bush spoke today in Minneapolis, kind of a
"I feel your pain" speech over the bridge collapse. Read it. It is such a small promise that he made, only
that the Federal Government will work to get the bridge rebuilt
"as quick as possible." And he promises no timelines on that
(which is probably appropriate, given the planning and execution
which projects like this usually take - - think Big Dig, for
example). But on the broader issue of how many bridges in America
face similar risks, and the need to pay more attention to
infrastructure? Bush had an opportunity, literally, to sieze
the day. He could have called out for a national initiative
for renewal, caring for our citizens and such. But nope, not a
whisper. All Bush has proposed is a patch, not an initiative. Of
course, with all our money going to an expensive, non-productive
effort in Iraq, he may feel as if his wallet is a bit pinched.
Can't hype this enough. Ghost Neon
Signs.
There's gotta be a better way to conduct experiments in historical reconstructions. In a post in July, I directed you to a group of shots on Flickr covering an effort to construct a working, egg-shaped, man-powered submarine designed in 1775 (that set of shots is here). Well, a second effort was made today, and they got too close to the Queen Mary 2 cruise ship, and the Coast Guard was not amused. I feel the same way as I did in July: there's something to be said for an impish effort like this, but you have to expect consequences. Maybe Duke Rile fully did... I just wish it could have been, uh, supervised, so that the experiment could have lasted longer and was never suspect. (A little more on the story is over at
Gothamist.)
Anyone besides me think Anderson Cooper was a bit over the top last night? I can't find it on CNN's site, it was in that moment of time belonging to Larry King's time slot, not quite yet Cooper's... The transcript for Cooper's show starts after this point, but there's no Larry King transcript, since the slot was taken by Wolf Blitzer for special coverage... But Anderson Cooper, in his best tabloid form, said words to this effect:
Did anyone else hear him say that? There seems to be a block of time yesterday where CNN isn't providing transcripts, covering the normal slots for Paula Zahn and Larry King. I'd swear I heard him say that, and I don't need to go into why it's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard anyone say in order to keep viewer's eyes. Aaron Brown, where are you!
The increased rate of troop deaths in Iraq. Think Progress has a handy post laying out the monthly deaths of US troops in Iraq, and how it's higher in 2007 than for any prior year. It now stands at 92.9 per month, versus 70.8 per month in 2004. This is of course a higher percentage increase than can merely be attributed to having more troops in Iraq, and the statistic seems further exacerbated by claims that so much of the non-Baghdad Iraq is under control and/or progressing. If progress in other areas is genuine, that means that in terms of US troop deaths the increase is even worse than these monthly averages show. I'd like to know: the NIE said that the war in Iraq has been a
boon for terrorist recruiting. To those who say we're fighting
them there so we don't have to fight them here, what's to prevent
them skimming off some their people to send a flank here?
|
|
