Jonathan

David Aaronovitch writes:

Or, to put it another way, where was the Muslim Association of Great Britain’s picture of the victims of Saddam, circulated some time during the long years of his oppression? What might we have demanded to be done in Congo if only it were safe enough for film crews to get pictures back of the horrors there? Mr Damazer, I worry about what happens when we believe that what we see is all there actually is, about what you might call TV-solipsism. The undiscovered boys in the Bosnian graves are every bit as dead as the photographed Iraqi boy.

This argument is not an attempt to drum up support for the invasion of Iraq, or the future invasion of anywhere else. In almost all cases, talking, negotiating and compromising are better than the unpredictable and extreme violence of war. In almost all. But just as there are armchair warriors, who run none of the risks that they recommend for others, so there are armchair pacifists whose commitment isn’t tested by the threat to family or friends. Just other peoples’ families and friends.

We still depend, even in the days of Trisha and trauma counselling, on men and women who will, if necessary, die on our behalf. And I must express my astonishment and gratitude that they will.

(via InstaPundit)

I’ve made some changes to the blogroll. Most of what was there, is still there, but I moved some links and created a category for Chicagoania.

(Source: Brickell Post, November 2003. Emphasis added.)

This kind of shit should be illegal if it isn’t already. It’s certainly unethical, though I’m sure it goes on everywhere. These guys are always whining about under funded this and that, but somehow there’s enough to spare for lobbying on the taxpayers’ dime.

Oh, do you want to know what these terribly important ballot items would do?

– #76 would effectively extend for 15 years the city’s current lease, to a restaurant, of a parcel of waterfront having one of the best views in town. Nothing wrong with that in principle, and the restaurant would be required to make substantial capital improvements, but you have to ask why the city doesn’t just sell the land to the highest bidder, and use the proceeds to cut taxes or retire debt, instead of staying in the property-management business. Because what usually happens in these situations is that the city managers, who don’t have any profit incentive (much less risk of missing meals if they screw up), give away the store to the people they’re doing “business” with. Which brings us to the next provision of this ballot item: the city would provide, as part of the package, two consecutive five-year renewal options for the lease. In other words, the restaurant gets an option to lock in, for the next twenty-five years, a lease deal that it will probably amortize within the period of the initial lease, if not earlier. Then the restaurant gets another ten years at lease rates determined long before anyone could possibly predict the real-estate values that will be current then. Not much risk for the restaurant, but the taxpayers stand to forgo a great deal of revenue if land and lease values go up. (The restaurant is adjacent to large tracts of run-down municipal land that can probably only increase in value.)

– #78 would increase the annual salaries for county commissioners, who currently are paid at a part-time rate of about $6k per year, to $58k per year. So instead of spending most of their time with their law practices, commissioners will now be paid to spend more time spending their constituents’ money.

– #80 is a parking-tax increase. (It’s framed as a “continued parking surcharge.”)

Remind me again who, besides pols and bureaucrats and their business cronies, benefits from passage of these measures.

UPDATE & CORRECTION: The raise specified in ballot item 78 is for city rather than county commissioners. It passed, as did the other two ballot measures.

Phillips also links to this excellent Spectator piece.