Bull's eye revisited

Some warbloggers are curiously quiet amid the fallout of the Israeli strike in Gaza, which is being questioned by many Israelis. That’s probably because these warbloggers are intelligent enough to see a line being crossed, and if they can’t say anything good about it, choose not to say anything at all. Cowardly, perhaps, hypocritical, perhaps, but understandable.

But you can depend on the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto to defend the indefensible:

We suppose the White House has to distance itself from Israeli military action for diplomatic reasons, but if Americans knew Osama bin Laden was hiding in a particular house in Afghanistan or Pakistan, would we let him go rather than risk killing civilians?

That’s just a perverse argument, because the “risk” of killing civilians when you hit a city block with a missile is, of course, a 100% certainty. I wonder: if Osama Bin Laden were hiding out in the apartment next to James Taranto’s, and the US decides to take him out with a missile rather than let him go, would Mr. Taranto mind?

A better question to ask would have been, if Sharon had known that Salah Shehada was hiding out in a city block full of Israelis, would he have made the same decision? In other words, is a Palestinian 3-year old’s life worth less than an Israeli 3-year old’s? To Sharon, I have no doubt it is, even if he is not fully capable of articulating this to himself.

News reports raise an even more damning possibility: That the decision was made because Palestinian terror groups were on the verge of declaring an end to suicide attacks. To Sharon and his fellow hawks, this was the last chance to hit their number one enemy, before he became legitimized in the eyes of the US and EU by a political process, just like Arafat. And, their thinking went, if taking him out causes these groups to rescind their gesture of normalization, that’s just fine; they prefer fighting their adversary over negotiating. No wonder Sharon called the strikes a “great success”. The civilians? They were an afterthought. It may yet turn out to be Sharon’s political suicide.

Bias watch: Why the New York Post is beneath contempt

Reuters:

Israeli Strike Kills 15, Including Hamas Commander

New York Times:

Israeli Strike in Gaza Kills a Hamas Leader and 14 Others

Washington Post:

Israeli Airstrike Kills 15

Ha’aretz:

100,000 attend funerals of 15 fatalies of Gaza missile strike

Jerusalem Post:

Hamas terror mastermind assassinated in air strike

Wall Street Journal:

Israeli Air Strike in Gaza Kills Top Hamas Militant

New York Post:

BULL’S-EYE

Paragraph in which civilian casualty toll is mentioned:

Reuters: Headline

NYT: Headline

WP: Headline

Ha’aretz: Headline

Jerusalem Post: 1

WSJ: 1

NYP: 8

Transforming the East Village

Sometimes I wonder… Usually, playing word association with the words “transformer” and “East Village” leads directly to Lou Reed’s classic album and that East Village anthem (for me), Perfect Day. Today, it’s a transformer fire on 13th and D. As you can see, the view from my roof is never dull. I was at my computer when my air conditioner suddenly sounded like it went into overdrive. Instead, it was a whole power plant that had gone berserk, just a bit further away.

Apple's (jail)bait and switch campaign

Oh how the fates conspire sometimes. One of Apple’s new Switch ads has the blogosphere abuzz. Ellen Feiss, a student, explains why she switched to a Mac. (“And then, like, half of my paper was gone…. Bummer”). Apparently, a lot of people think she was totally stoned when they shot the ad. It never occurred to me when I first saw it–I know a few people who are like that all the time. You decide.

Of course, with Apple recently deciding to charge a fee for what was previously free email, and a full price for the new upgrade to their operating system, some clever guerilla marketers decided to have a field day spoofing this switch ad.

Trend watch – Post-nuptial agreements

Just seen on CNBC: A segment on the post-nuptial agreement (!) for those who forgot to get a pre-nup. How on earth is the husband (say) supposed to breach the topic to his wife after years of marriage without completely ruining said marriage? And why would anybody in their right mind sign a post-nup? I’d call my divorce lawyer instead, because you know the other shoe is about to drop. Pre-nups are stupid, Post-nups are beyond belief.

Continue reading

World Trade Center update

I agree with Felix that I don’t really like any of the proposals; they remind me too much of Canberra, or Brasilia–mainly because of the unimaginative repetitive blandness these towers exhude. But there are some elements I like, that I hope they will keep in the final proposal:

I like the fact that all proposals reconstitute Greenwich street, a portion of which was erased when the WTC was built in the early 70s. It opens up the whole area, and connects Tribeca to the financial district in a much more organic fashion.

I like the idea of a tunnel for most traffic on West street, with green replacing concrete. This also opens up the whole World Financial Center area to the rest of the city, without the need to commute over an 8-lane highway via one of three pedestrian bridges as was the case before.

I like demolishing the huge damaged black building on the Southern end of the WTC site, as the proposals suggest. I believe it is the Deutsche Bank building, and it is ugly.

But I do not like the Memorial Square proposal Felix fancies. I know he only likes it because he is a sucker for Opera. My problem with it is that the square is surrounded by a “multi-level public arcade” which in effect visually cuts off the whole space from the rest of the city. And these public arcades are reminiscent of the well-intentioned public spaces constructed in the 60s that proved way larger than human scale, and which we shunned.

The proposals are disappointing. Where is our Guggenheim Bilbao? Our Sydney Opera House? Our Sagrada Familia? (Great caption, by the way, to the Sagrada Familia photo.)