Gaffe-stepping

Smooth political operator, eloquent orator, and man about town Stephen Harper is at it again. First it was poisoning the well with the "same-sex marriages will ultimately lead to polygamous marriages will ultimately lead to inter-species marriages" argument—which, I think, if unnecessarily, shifted the burden back onto progressives, a silly ploy since its primary intention was to muddle the debate.

(Conservatives don't actually care or aren't really worried about polygamy—in fact, I'd contend, especially with a peculiar evangelist strain of the western genus, that polygamy isn't all to ideologically disagreeable to Conservatives. These particular Conservatives just don't do the Same-Sex Liberal Cosmopolitan dance.)

This time Harper reached into the progressive grab-bag to use the Punitive Liberalism anvil. Naturally, he dropped it on his foot. In a speech to “kickoff” the coming PR tornado surrounding the same-sex debate, Harper criticized the Liberal’s government’s history on human rights, using the examples of the internment of Japanese and the turning away of Jews fleeing from Germany and Eastern Europe.

Mr. Harper said during the kickoff of the same-sex debate that the Liberals are hardly lily-white when it comes [sic] the protection of rights, noting that Liberal administrations were responsible for interning Japanese Canadians and for closing the borders to Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.

"Let us not forget, it is the Liberal Party that said 'None is too many,' when it came to Jews fleeing from Hitler. It is the Liberal Party that interned Japanese Canadians in camps on Canada's West Coast, an act which [former prime minister] Pierre Trudeau refused to apologize or make restitution for."

Understandably, a few people were less than pleased by Harper's comments.

"I don't think that the memory of six million should be exploited to political advantage today," said Harold Troper, a historian at the University of Toronto.

"And I don't think that human-rights [violations] of the past should be used to justify human-rights [violations] today."
Prof. Troper noted that Conservatives at the time did not speak against the policy.

"One could argue that if the Liberals were bad, the Conservatives at that time were either just as bad or worse.

Exactly what point is Stephen Harper attempting to make? That the loyal opposition was mute during these times of deplorable regard for human rights says as much of the Conservatives as it does of the Liberals—if not more. And now, when the debate turns to the extension of civil and legal equality rights to same-sex couples, the Conservatives aren’t mute. The Conservatives are sounding a clarion call for the restriction of civil and legal rights.

One must remember that the issue of religious marriage or ceremony isn’t at issue; religious institutions have never been and will not be compelled to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples: that issue is of their own discretion. The issue is whether couples of the same-sex are constitutionally deserving of the civil and legal benefits that flow from civil marriage—rights that they have been denied thus far.

Via. The Globe and Mail

Easy Love

It's easy to feel boxed in by the standard psychological definition of Love; all the more so during this brief yet amorous month. But, as with most standard definitions, Aristotelian logic doesn’t cut the mustard. Writing in The Philosophers’ Magazine, Peter Goldie complicates our bucolic concept of love:

An emotion – such as Mary's being in love with Paul – is typically complex, episodic, dynamic, and structured. An emotion is complex in that it will typically involve many different elements: it involves episodes of emotional experience, including perceptions, thoughts, and feelings of various kinds, and bodily changes of various kinds; and it involves dispositions, including dispositions to experience further emotional episodes, to have further thoughts and feelings, and to behave in certain ways. Emotions are episodic and dynamic, in that, over time, the elements can come and go, and wax and wane, depending on all sorts of factors, including the way in which the episodes and dispositions interweave and interact with each other and with other aspects of the person's life, so that the complex array of interlocking dispositions can evolve over a long period. (Indeed, they ought to evolve; as the contemporary American philosopher Amélie Rorty nicely puts it, contradicting Shakespeare, love is not love that alters not when it alteration finds.) And, finally, an emotion is structured in that the emotion's unfolding sequence of thoughts, feelings and actions is narratable: it can fall into a kind of narrative structure.

Is it over?

Is the NHL season over? It's hard to tell, even after Gary Bettman’s news conference in which he formally cancelled the 2004-2005 season. Huh? Yes, during his 1 pm new conference Mr. Bettman left open the possibility that the season could still be saved; this, of course, on the condition that the NHLPA accept the NHL's final proposal for a $42.5 million dollar cap.

Speculation is a buzz in this last hour before the Chief of the NHPLA, Bob Goodnow, is scheduled to speak at a press conference. The NHLPA has conceded on two points of negotiation, offering a 24% roll back in salaries and proposing a $49 million dollar hard salary cap. Whether the Players Association capitulates further on the hard salary cap is still an open question.

If the season is finally cancelled, the off-season will invite an interesting drama, as the NHL and NHLPA both seem steadfast in their position. Though, now that the NHLPA has considered playing under a salary cap, negotiation on this point may be fruitful, despite the likelihood of having to accept linkage —linkage meaning the cost certainty between revenues and player salaries.

Funnily enough, my roommate likened the labour dispute to an acrimonious relationship between obstinate lovers. Each party is unwilling to compromise on key issues that under-grid the viability of their relationship. A painful entente must be arrived at before the relationship can be practically engaged. If not, both parties, it seems, must move on—the players to Europe, the owners to replacement players.

Update: It's offically over.

Politics

From today's Globe I hear that two Liberal bills were defeated last night. Although making promises to support the legislation, the Conservative party ended up joining forces with the Bloc and NDP to vote down two Liberal bills aimed at reorganizing the structure of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It's interesting to note that the opposition parties weren't necessarily at odds with the proposed substance of the legislation, instead they saw it fit to punish Liberal arrogance, contending that no real effort at parliamentary consultation was undertook. Nonetheless, since the vote wasn’t of confidence, the Liberals will attempt to reintroduce an amended version of the bill for a future vote.

I'm not sure what this means one way or the other. Either the Conservatives, through some last minutes chicanery, decided to show how tenuous the Liberal minority really is, thus acquiring a modicum of political leverage/capital, or the Liberals, disengaged and cocksure, did a pitiful job in lobbying, negotiating, and counting/courting secure votes. I'd have to concluded that it's a little from column A, a little from column B.

Rap Mogul, Drug Kingpin Surrender to Feds

Best lede ever:

NEW YORK - The hip-hop label behind music superstars Ashanti and Ja Rule was part of a murderous criminal enterprise that protected its interstate crack and heroin operation with calculated street assassinations, federal authorities charged Wednesday.

Blogger Rules

It seems like this blogging phenomenon is picking up steam. Not only are popular bloggers being pursued by corporate America for valuable advert real estate, a growing groundswell of opinion believes that bloggers should adhere to a set of ethics of conduct. Most notable of the concerns is the disclosure of interest.

If, for example, a prominent blogger is being paid consulting fees by a particular candidate or campaign—or even a company—and is, at the same time, blogging favorable for the candidate or campaign, the blogger should disclose to his or hers readership the nature of this relationship. But, I don't think bloggers necessarily have to be bound by objectivity if it's a personal weblog. There is an interesting piece here which speaks more expansively on this issue.

Tort Reform

Tort reform is being breathlessly touted as one of the first things in need of fixing during a second Bush term. Democrats aver that house Republicans, at the behest of big insurance companies, are only moving to cap the rewards in medical malpractice cases to the limit liability of, and protect profitably for, these big insurance companies.

Alternatively, Republicans accuse Democrats of self-interestedly eschewing tort reform because, as they see it, Democrats are disproportionately supported by the Trial Lawyer lobbies—the same trial lawyers, evidently, who pursue frivolous malpractice lawsuits, which, in turn, force big insurance companies to raise insurance premiums. Squeezed from both sides are physicians who are being virtually run out of practice as a result of skyrocketing premiums.

A similar argument was forward by car insurance companies in Canada, claiming that rising premiums correlated with the jump in “soft tissue injuries”. Skeptics viewed the rise in premiums as evidence of something more obvious: Insurance companies poor investment portfolios in the wake of the 2000 tech bust and general market imbalance since 9/11.

What is one to think of this revelation? Are insurance companies raising premiums relative to the actuarial pressures of generous malpractice rewards? Would capping malpractice rewards—tort reform—reduce the premiums paid by physicians?

Judge Richard Posner—a monetarist, a classical liberal, and a University of Chicago Law professor (all the requisite conservative qualifiers)—contends that tort reform, capping malpractice rewards specifically, misses the point:

The relation between malpractice premiums and malpractice judgments is also uncertain. No doubt capping judgments, which is the principal reform that is advocated, has some tendency to reduce premiums, but perhaps not much, because there is evidence that premiums are strongly influenced by the performance of the insurance companies’ investment portfolios.
A better reform would be to permit, encourage, or even require insurance companies to base malpractice premiums on the experience of the insured physician, much as automobile liability insurance is based on the driver’s experience of accidents. That would make malpractice liability a better engine for deterring malpractice—which in turn would reduce malpractice premiums by reducing the amount of malpractice. Capping judgments, in contrast, would reduce the incentive of insurance companies and their regulators to move to a system of experience-rated malpractice insurance.

He goes on to add,

It is always important to distinguish between financial and real costs. Insofar as malpractice liability merely transfers wealth from physicians to (some) patients, aggregate costs are unaffected. The real cost of malpractice liability is limited to the cost of the actual resources consumed by such liability, principally the time of lawyers and expert witnesses (roughly half the total amount awarded in judgments goes to pay lawyers and expert witnesses), unless defensive medicine is assumed to cost more than its benefits in improving treatment outcomes. The real benefit of malpractice liability is its effect if any in deterring medical negligence; reducing that benefit would impose a real cost. Hence it is simplistic to assume that the total annual malpractice premiums paid is a good index of the net social cost of malpractice liability, or that measures to reduce those premiums by capping malpractice liability would result in a net improvement in welfare. To repeat, part of the premiums represent simply a wealth transfer from physicians to the patients who receive malpractice judgments or settlements paid by insurers. The part (roughly half) that pays for lawyers and expert witnesses should be understood as the cost of maintaining a system for increasing medical safety; the efficacy of the system could be improved, I have argued, by experience rating, but not by capping judgments.

In other News...

And in a surprising move of self-restriant, from the network that brought you Who's Your Daddy?, Fox covers objectionable content.

Fox says it covered up the naked rear end of a cartoon character recently because of nervousness over what the Federal Communications Commission will find objectionable.

The latest example of TV network self-censorship because of FCC concerns came a few weeks ago during a rerun of a "Family Guy" cartoon. Fox electronically blurred a character's posterior, even though the image was seen five years ago when the episode originally aired.

Committed

I'm in stiches. I just finished watching Committed, the new NBC comdey which is a blend of Seinfeld meets Scrubs. Though the comdey is sometimes telegraphic, its delievery is refreshingly irreverent.

The Buzz

Apart from the interesting interview with the founders of Google, last Sunday's 60 minutes also introduced North American men to Aishwarya Rai, a Bollywood superstar reputed to be the world's most beautiful woman. Rai, for me at least, comes in a close third behind the Bronx born—Yale schooled—actress Joy Bryant. First, of course, is Toronto native, and McGill graduate, Mia Krishner. Nonetheless, here’s the buzz on Rai:

While Bollywood regularly pops up in buzz and is popular overseas, it hasn't made much of a dent in American pop culture. Almost all searches on Bollywood emanate from the major metros of San Francisco, New York, and Washington D.C. But Indian screen goddess Aishwarya Rai is adding some spice to searches by exporting her acting talents to Hollywood. Searches on the stunningly beautiful actress were up 328% following her appearance on 60 Minutes, where she discussed her career and future in film. Not surprisingly, Rai notches over 70% of her search audience from guys. Those who needed to see more of the glamorous gal sent searches on 'Pictures of Aishwarya Rai' up 366%. Her appearance on the venerable news magazine helped to raise the profile of her upcoming Hollywood debut, Bride and Prejudice. Searches on the upcoming Bollywood-Hollywood mash-up flick were up 45% -- proof positive that India's film industry is starting to merge onto Hollywood's busy freeway.

House Party

"A house divided against itself cannot stand". This was the most prominent phrase in an Abraham Lincoln speech on June 16, 1858, accepting the Republican nomination for Senate (for the state of Illinois). Today welcomes the 109th session of Congress, and the house is divided—particularly the side that disproportionately houses the Republican Majority.

House Republican leaders last night abandoned a proposal to loosen rules governing members' ethical conduct, as they yielded to pressure from rank-and-file lawmakers concerned that the party was sending the wrong message.

The proposal would have made it more difficult for lawmakers to discipline a colleague for unethical behavior and would have allowed Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) to keep his post if he is indicted by a Texas grand jury that is looking into his campaign finance practices

The sudden reversal came amid growing indications of dissension within the GOP. Just before House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's office announced that the measures were being dropped, the chairman of the House ethics committee issued an unusual statement denouncing the leadership's plan.

Ethics rules that were instituted to avoid abuses of power—at a time when the Republicans were beret of it—are now being rescinded in light of the Republican majority in both the House and Senate. The ambitions of grandeur that many cocksure Republicans have recently acquired need not be constrained by rules—or ethics, for that matter. Simply take the example of Tom DeLay(R-Tex.)

The other proposed rule change abandoned by the Republicans last night would have negated an ethics rule that was used last year as the basis for admonishing DeLay three times -- for hosting a golf fundraiser for energy lobbyists before House consideration of the energy bill, for offering to endorse the political campaign of a lawmaker's son in exchange for the lawmaker's vote on Medicare legislation, and for enlisting Federal Aviation Administration officials to help track down Democratic Texas lawmakers who were trying to foil the redistricting plan.

Keep in mind, the rules aren't being changed as an exercise in moral correction; rather, the likelihood of DeLay being indicted have diminished considerably, leaving him the requisite wiggle room to rationalize his transgressions and remain on as House Majority leader.

Via. WaPo

Politics of Idenity

Writing in the Critical Review (Vol. 14, Num. 2-3) Reihan Salam expounds thusly:

…asymmetries in identity and self-representation are very much a “dialogical process,” one that is intimately tied to privileges and institutions secured by the state; they are not autochthonous by any stretch of the imagination. Though cultural collectivities certainly can precede their political articulation, politicized and institutionalized cultural collectivities do not.

Though, for them to be politicized and institutionalized at all, they must precede the articulation of their existence. They become, once recognized and constructed—for a myriad of state-interested purposes—politicized and institutionalized not by the very articulation alone, but as a result of past grievances and an overall disconnection from the avails afforded, it is assumed, other cultural collectives.

Identity Politics founders on the contradictory principles that underlie liberalism: universal equality and the inviolable right to individual freedom. Yet, as is natural with the variety of human cultures, self-interested collectives fortify their inviolable rights to freedom, assuming that a standard of universal equalization is being actualized.

This, however, is not the case. Because, again, the variety of human cultures trends to a heterogeneity of outcomes and, therefore, a heterogeneity and hierarchy of rights to freedom and equality, cultural collectives outside the articulated realm of equality rights will inevitably agitate for particular self-interested concessions.

If Identity Politics are to be denied, it is on the supposition that a variety of human-cultural collectives are also to be denied, which, regrettably, is on the supposition that an ethnic/homogenous, rather than a civic/heterogeneous, national consciousness is more viable as an instrument of statecraft. This cannot be a realistic proposition given that it denies heterogeneity--a variable that is a priori to any honest discourse-theoretic.

Interesting Fact

Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico were offered as war prizes to Mexico, by the Germans, if they declared war on the United States. Shortly after, on April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson demanded from Congress a declaration of war against Germany. The days of neutrality were over and the U.S would enter the Great War.

The Ends of the World as We Know Them

.....Why weren't these problems obvious to the Maya kings, who could surely see their forests vanishing and their hills becoming eroded? Part of the reason was that the kings were able to insulate themselves from problems afflicting the rest of society. By extracting wealth from commoners, they could remain well fed while everyone else was slowly starving.

What's more, the kings were preoccupied with their own power struggles. They had to concentrate on fighting one another and keeping up their images through ostentatious displays of wealth. By insulating themselves in the short run from the problems of society, the elite merely bought themselves the privilege of being among the last to starve.

This is a portion of Jared Diamond's cautionary Op-Ed in yesterdays New York Times. Give it a read.

Crossfire 2.0

I just got around to watching the October 15th Jon Stewart appearance on CNN’s Crossfire. I embarrass easily and usually avoid confrontational situations of all kind--unless of course it's vitally necessary to my integrity. In those moments when it's becomes necessary to stand athwart circumstances and declare "Stop", I am at my most tenacious and cogent. For Jon Stewart, however, he is, at those moments, clinically masterful. Although he strayed from his talking points on a few occasions, Stewart let it be known that Crossfire was hurting the American political discourse and dissolving the credibility of the once vaunted CNN. I think he may be giving them too much credit.

The Transcript of the show is here, and the torrent file (media file) is here, if you should be so inclined. This now gives me an opportunity to plug a post I wrote a while back on this particular issue: the continuing absurdity of Crossfire. Writing on this blog seven months earlier, June 16, I said this of the show:

In its new incarnation, Crossfire has rapidly devolved into a screaming match, pining dueling, crazed hot-heads against each other in what seems to be a battle to the death. Hardly shrinking violets, Tucker Carlson and James Carville have done great work in turning the once staid, cerebral political program into a third rate clown show.(Bob Novak and Paul Begala, the other hosts, are less brusque)

Even with time during the holidays to watch Crossfire, I just couldn’t stomach a whole viewing. But it’s still a semi-must-see for its sheer hilarity—and then grating annoyance, and then self-defeating irrelevance.

Year in Review

[Disclaimer: Since this blog was created in April of 2004, some of the selections are from 03’ because my frame of reference, especially for things I found interesting, is expansive.]

As this year comes to a close and the New Year approaches, I though it’d be interesting to memorialize the things I found fascinating over the past year. Here now is the list:

Biggest disappointments of 2004

The whole tectonic non-sense that Joshua Marshall alluded to never came to fruition. I visit that blog with less frequency now, and plan on doing so in the New Year.

This shouldn’t be on the 2004 list but it was that much of disappointment: Matrix Revolution (2003). That movie was a huge letdown—and will be so for many years to come.

I’m a partisan, so this shouldn’t come as a surprise: The reelection of George W. Bush. But, at the same time, he’s great material.

Best Blog Posts of 2004

John Holbo psychologizing David Frum in this blog post is indispensable. He’s Dead Right. (Circa 2003)

Limited, Inc. on Chess and Sistani: Shakh Mat. Enough said.

(You’d think there’d be more blog posts I found good. But this is it. I’m not even going to plug one of my own blog posts.)


Best Books of 2004(One’s I read in 04’)

House of the Dead; by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

A Problem from Hell: America and the age of Genocide; by Samantha Powers

American Pastoral; by Philip Roth

Irony, Contingency, and Solidarity; by Richard Rorty


Things to watch for in 2005

The American Scene’s Rehian Salam, a brilliantly witty writer.

Lasers and al-Qaida, seriously

SuperVolcanoes. via Bradford Plumer

An Israeli/Palestinian Peace?

Lofi indie rock, orchestral pop, post-punk post emo post-post-post genres of everything.

The stealth strength of weakness; bargaining from a weak position; the meek shall inherit the earth type-stuff.

The Pope dying sometime in May.

The Blog phenomenon loses its cult status when your mom gets her own blog and puts you on her blog roll.

Bush unwittingly turns into an American Revolutionary.

Emmy Rossum; Bio.

Cats.

Peanut Butter.

The collapse of the Greenback and subsequently the American economy, and subsequently the World economy.

Condi Rice comes out of the closet.

Celebrities murdering paparazzi.

Fox's hit show: When Celebrities fatally attack
The paparazzi.

Martha Stewart the folk hero.

Michael Jackson Reality Show.

French intellectuals become Pro-Bush. Seriously.

Flying cars.

Cellphones that are Ipods that are blueberry's that are ditial cameras that are digital camcorders that are DVD players that are laptops that are universal locators that are universal identification.

Love still being as sweet as it was the first time.

Happy New Year.

Tsunami

I just now had a chance to see some incredible footage from amateur video: It's amazing. The continuous flow of water is staggering. At one point, the palm trees measuring at least twenty feet in height are lost from sight, submerged underneath a torrent of water.

On the Contrary.

Dru Oja Jay’s December 18, 2004, article in the Dominion is persuasive to the point of irrelevance. His bone of contention deals with the Canadian Media's coverage of L’affaire Ukraine, in general, and it's tendentiously pro-Yushchenko reportage, specifically. While relegating true injustices like Haiti to the wilderness, which up until recently I hadn't fully appreciated, Canadian Media outlets have elided the unflattering portions of Mr. Yushchenko’s bio, attempting instead to prop him up as a champion for Eastern European democratic reform. Notably, Dru mentions this untoward fact frequently glossed over:

Yuschenko's ties to anti-semitic groups -- Ukrainian neo-Nazis and holocaust deniers -- and far-right partisans have gone similarly unreported. Some have speculated that antisemitic activity, which was strictly curbed by Yanukovych's government, could run amok under Yuschenko.

Dru’s piece agrees with a particular sentiment I've been holding for the last month: Where are all the Yanukovych supporters? I don’t thinks he’s been given the sympathetic ear Yushchenko has been lavished. His appeal to the Supreme Court for a recall vote won’t be realized, regrettably. I think the third time is a charm, since, as Dru points out, the first time my have been distorted in Yuschenko’s favor:

In the last two years, the Bush Administration spent more than $65 million helping political organizations in the Ukraine. Additional funds have come from George Soros, Great Britain, Canada, Norway and the Netherlands, according to the Associated Press (AP). The money was key to funding the exit polls that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election results, which showed Yanukovych as the winner.

So, bucking conventional wisdom, maybe this second Ukraine election was a Western abetted fraud. And if it was, where do we stand? That Western Media Outlets were complicit in the construction of the Orange revolution and Western governments and International Organizations architects of the Orange revolution would be far more damning if it weren’t so patently obvious: They were complicit because they have political and financial interests flowing from the success of the Orange revolution. Dru’s piece is enlightening and similarly thoughtful; but one is left thinking “What’s the point?” Really, what’s the point?

Is He an Island ?

I think this is an admirable Op-ed from David Holcberg of the Any Rand Institute, an admirable organization that espouses admirable principles and not so much supports admirable causes as sullies the intention behind admirable causes. The direction of foreign and developmental aid is one issue entirely; whether or not aid should be given at all is a non-starter: We give because we have empathy for human suffering.

(As to the direction of aid: e.g. in giving aid to Colombia the U.S has shown a “reluctance to attach specific political conditions to the hundreds of millions of dollars proposed to ... ostensibly ... combat drug trafficking [sic].” Whereas aid given to such squalid places like Sub-Saharan Africa may, under a particular Administration, be contingent on the promotion of “abstinence-only programs”, as opposed to programs that promote abstinence, sexual education, and, failing that, instruction on contraceptive use—programs of this comprehensive nature have been successful in East Africa, especially as is the case with Uganda. )

But I digress. As to the admirable that Op-ed, here are some of its more gracious passages:

The question no one asks about our politicians' "generosity" towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?

The reason politicians can get away with doling out money that they have no right to and that does not belong to them is that they have the morality of altruism on their side. According to altruism--the morality that most Americans accept and that politicians exploit for all it's worth--those who have more have the moral obligation to help those who have less. This is why Americans--the wealthiest people on earth--are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it. It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. It is past time to question--and to reject--such a vicious morality that demands that we sacrifice our values instead of holding on to them.

Next time a politician gives away money taken from you to show what a good, compassionate altruist he is, ask yourself: By what right?

I’m overcome with a sense of solidarity—the solidarity in the human condition that awakes in each of us empathy for the other. Nearly 120,000 human beings have tragically vanished from this large archipelago we call earth. Isn’t that cause for reflection on what it truly means to be a citizen of the world, on what it truly means to see ourselves as part of a larger project, on what it truly means to have an interdependent global market that is inversely affected by tragedies of this magnitude? Events cast longer shadows than are perceptible to us at the time. Let’s not act as though altruism now won’t have its benefits in the future. David Holcberg is admirably a douchebag.

Via Truthlaidbear.

Weird, Wild Stuff

I couldn't really take this seriously when I first read it; but then I reflected for a moment: This is some serious stuff if the people perpetrating the act are doing so for nefarious reasons.

Authorities are investigating a mysterious laser beam that was directed into the cockpit of a commercial jet traveling at more than 8,500 feet.

The beam appeared Monday when the plane was about 15 miles from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, the FBI (news - web sites) said.

"It was in there for several seconds like (the plane) was being tracked," FBI agent Robert Hawk said.

The pilot was able to land the plane, and air traffic controllers used radar to determine the laser came from a residential area in suburban Warrensville Heights.

Hawk said the laser had to have been fairly sophisticated to track a plane traveling at that altitude. Authorities had no other leads, and are investigating whether the incident was a prank or if there was a more sinister motive.

Even more, that law enforcement has been unable, thus far, to locate the origins of these lasers and the whereabouts of these perpetrators isn't anything to look at ironically. If the conspiratorial gears are grinding and the seditious chatter falling into abeyance, then these lasers—if they are not puerile gags by puerile minds—portend something much worse.

A memo sent to law enforcement agencies recently by the FBI and the Homeland Security Department says there is evidence that terrorists have explored using lasers as weapons. Authorities said there is no specific intelligence indicating al-Qaida or other groups might use lasers in the United States.

In September a pilot for Delta Air Lines reported an eye injury from a laser beam shone into the cockpit during a landing approach in Salt Lake City. The incident occurred about 5 miles from the airport. The plane landed safely.

I find it disheartening that very little reportage has been dedicated to this possible terror tactic; although, at the same time, I appreciate the need not to whip up irrational fears in the public writ large.