Padre Antonio Soler (1729-1783) was one of those remarkable historical figures whom we of the twentieth century might find almost unbelievable when regarding what we would call the "output" of his career. In his life he produced: more than 200 sonatas for harpsichord, 6 quintets for string quartet and organ, and 6 concertos for the rare combination of two organs. In addition there were: 9 masses, 25 church hymns, 5 requiems, 60 psalms, 13 Magnificats, 21 pieces for the service of burial, 5 motets, 12 Benedicamus, and 132 villancicos. This is only a partial list - there are many more known works, as well as a controversial treatise on harmony (the Llave de la Modulacion, or "Key to Modulation") and, strangely enough, a mathematically adept treatise on currency exchange rates.

From his title you have already deduced that he was a monk (a Hieronymite, to be exact) [...]

A long day indeed it was for the Hieronymite monks, beginning with office hours at 5AM and progressing through a series of masses, lessons, recitations of the Stations of the Cross, and finishing at midnight with maitines. In light of this heavy schedule, it is remarkable that he managed to compose so many musical works. As if all of these duties and musical endeavors were not enough to occupy his waking hours, he also found time to invent a tuning box that he called an afinador or templante, which used plucked strings to divide the 9:8 tuning ratio into 20 equal parts. So one might, with some degree of legitimacy, state that this innovative monastic was one of the earliest microtonalists. [...]

Blogdialians, see Blogmail for an example.

The Power of Nightmares
Wed 20 Oct, 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 60mins

Baby It's Cold Outside In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams weren't true, neither are these nightmares. This series shows dramatically how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended. Together they created today's nightmare vision of an organised terror network. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. The rise of the Politics of Fear begins in 1949 with two men whose radical ideas would inspire the attack of 9/11 and influence the neoconservative movement that dominates Washington. Both these men believed that modern liberal freedoms were eroding the bonds that held society together. The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay. But in an age of growing disillusion with politics, the neoconservatives turned to fear in order to pursue their vision. They would create a hidden network of evil run by the Soviet Union that only they could see. The Islamists were faced by the refusal of the masses to follow their dream and began to turn to terror to force the people to 'see the truth'.

I'm so sorry about the clearly ignorant responses you received from some American voters in your Operation Clark County effort. Personally, I thought it to be a marvelous idea, and with you, hoped for the best.

My family history in this country goes back to the Early 1700's. Many times, I look around this country and ask, "What the hell happened?" I respect my English and French heritage and find myself frequently looking to "the homeland" for ideas of how to live.

America and many Americans, are SO VERY immature, politically, socially and educationally. It is oft times, embarrassing on the world scene.

Please, be certain that you don't think we are all such neanderthals.

Jenny M [...]

Reading all of this bile and adolescent hatred coming from my fellow Americans is actually making me feel sick. I am a dual citizen of the US/UK, and have lived in the UK for ten years. This spring I am returning to live in the US, together with my British husband and two young sons, and reading this all makes me wonder if we've made the right decision. (like I was saying!!!! ./a) Thank god it's to Madison, Wisconsin, which has a long history of being tolerant, and (dare I say the 'l' word?) liberal.
The Guardian was indeed silly to take on this campaign, and as a writer in Seattle said, it showed a serious lack of understanding of the US electorate. They hate being told what to do, especially by foreigners. They've also misjudged the general anger and jingoism of the Bush supporter (what they have to be so angry about I don't know - as they 'won' and their leader has managed to do all the destructive things he's planned for years to do). My parents and myself all voted for Bush last time, and all of us are voting Kerry this time. Even my dad, who is usually very much against the Democratic agenda, and prefers Indepedents in most cases. We all recognise the arrogance, the fiscal disaster and appalling warmongering of this man and his cabinet.

I myself signed up to write in this campaign but decided against it. In the end, though the world has so much to lose if Bush gets back in, it's none of their business.

Many of my British friends have told me they don't discuss who they're going to vote for with their partners, let alone strangers. Maybe that's not true for hyper-political types in journalism. I do fear that, in the end, this will only do irreprable damage to the Kerry campaign. My family, the US, and the world has so much to lose if Bush gets back in again.

Dame Pauline Neville-Jones

The former diplomat and head of the joint intelligence committee, who clashed with Mr Dyke and former BBC chairman Gavyn Davies about the corporation's strategy during last year's Iraq dossier row with the government, is to step down from the board of governors at the end of this year.

Dame Pauline said she was leaving the BBC 12 months before the end of her current term as a governor because otherwise it would mean retiring "at what will be a crucial period of discussions and decisions" about BBC charter renewal at the end of 2005.

"As the BBC approaches the final phase of decisions about its future, it will be important for those involved to be established in post and ready to take responsibility for implementation of the outcome," she said.

"I therefore believe the BBC would be better served to have a new international governor in place well in advance of December 2005 to provide continuity throughout the final phase of the charter renewal process."

The BBC chairman, Michael Grade, praised Dame Pauline's contribution to the corporation during her seven years as a governor.

"The BBC has benefited from Pauline's vast intellect and deep wisdom on a whole range of important issues, including governance, the BBC's independence and ensuring the BBC provides value for money to licence payers," he said.

Mr Grade also praised her for championing the cause of the World Service.

Despite these achievements, however, Dame Pauline's time at the BBC is likely to be remembered mainly for her controversial role during the Iraq dossier affair.

Posh lady who 'led revolt' against Dyke

In his recently published biography, Inside Story, Mr Dyke accused Dame Pauline and fellow governor Sarah Hogg - who left the BBC earlier this year - for heading the boardroom revolt that led to his departure from the corporation following publication of the Hutton report in January.

However, the suspicion that she has left under pressure will linger, given Mr Grade's determination to separate the governors from BBC management.

Mr Dyke, who advised Mr Grade to reform the governors, initially got on well with Dame Pauline but felt that she betrayed him in the 24 hours following the publication of the Hutton report, claiming she gave him her support but when the crunch came she withdrew it.

Mr Dyke said he never trusted Dame Pauline because she was "incredibly ambitious". He nicknamed her and Ms Hogg the "posh ladies".

He claimed the board behaved like "rabbits caught in car headlights" and called for the departure of the governors who voted against him.

"I hope the six current governors who voted against me - Dermot Gleeson, Merfyn Jones, Fabian Monds, Pauline Neville-Jones, Robert Smith and Ranjit Sondhi - will realise they bowed to pressure from a political thug called Alastair Campbell. They got it seriously wrong and they should accept that. They should resign. The BBC deserves better," Mr Dyke wrote in Inside Story.

She told Gavyn Davies he was wrong

However, others will remember Dame Pauline for her rigour and independence from management.

She was one of the only governors to tell Mr Davies he had got it wrong when he rushed out a statement last July following an emergency governors' meeting giving support to Andrew Gilligan.

In no uncertain terms she told him he was wrong to have produced a statement and said the governors should have launched an investigation into Mr Campbell's complaint before acting. Some believe had the governors followed her instincts the Hutton inquiry would never have been necessary.

BBC documents released to the Hutton inquiry revealed that Dame Pauline urged Mr Davies for "a full review" of "the question of systematic bias on war coverage", ahead of the July 6 board meeting.

But Mr Davies said a review "could greatly damage the BBC" and would allow Mr Campbell to "drive a wedge between governors and the executive [of the BBC]".

However, Dame Pauline stood her ground and insisted the BBC needed to demonstrate its independence from management.

"We are in a tight corner and the best route forward is certainly not obvious... [we] have somehow to maintain the confidence of management while not looking its patsy to the outside world," she wrote in an email to Mr Davies.

In the days before the July 6 meeting, Dame Pauline argued against a "kneejerk reaction" to Mr Campbell's allegations of bias and instead urged a considered approach, even though it may have caused the governors to alter their previous backing of the BBC's coverage.

Dame Pauline joined the BBC board of governors in January 1998. She later applied unsuccessfully for the vice-chairmanship, losing out to Lord Richard Ryder, and chairman's job, which went to Mr Davies.

Before joining the corporation, Dame Pauline spent 33 years in the diplomatic service, becoming one of its most senior female diplomats, including three years as political director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and five years on secondment in Brussels. She was leader of the British delegation at the Dayton peace conference on Bosnia in 1995.

Born in 1939, Dame Pauline entered the diplomatic service in 1963, aged 24, and remained until 1996, when she quit, accusing it of sexism after being snubbed for the job of ambassador to France.

From 1996 to 2000, she worked as managing director of NatWest markets. [...]

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1330967,00.html

Well I never!

My HTMLized links to governor names obviously.

http://comment.silicon.com/0,39024711,39125057,00.htm

Devil's Advocate: Does the UK need ID cards?

October 19 2004

by Martin Brampton

Or is there some greater goal here?

Whether or not you believe in the benefits of ID cards, the campaign for
them in the UK may well be a cover-up for deeper seated agendas such as a
national database - and a redefinition of all public sector services, says
Martin Brampton.


UK Home Secretary David Blunkett figures in this year's silicon.com Agenda
Setters poll because of his advocacy for schemes such as ID cards for all. A
question worth asking is whether the ID card is driving the need for a
database of all citizens, or vice versa.

Usually, the assumption is that ID cards are justified and that to make them
practical, a huge database has to be built. IT people then run around
thinking about the practical issues. Ian Watmore, recently appointed head of
the new e-government unit, thinks there should be an end to information silo
culture in government.

Is the ID card justified? If the construction of a huge national database is
required solely to support ID cards, then there is certainly a very large
cost at stake. There are also considerable concerns about personal privacy
and community relations.

The cited benefits are tenuous. The favourite justification for almost any
government scheme nowadays is that it combats terrorism. Yet the recent
bombing in Madrid that caused serious loss of life was actually carried out
by Spanish citizens, who had perfectly genuine Spanish ID cards.

Other justifications include cutting fraud and crime. What is ignored is
that ID cards create a whole new business for organised crime through the
sale of forged cards. In countries where cards are in use, this has
happened, sometimes on a massive scale. Only the most sophisticated, and
therefore costly, cards would be proof against forgery.

Indeed in countries that have ID cards, nobody has ever offered proof that
the cited benefits can be realised. And there are proven drawbacks, with
minority ethnic groups being required to produce ID card disproportionately
often. Without proven benefits, what can be the justification for the cards?


Now suppose the real goal is the database and the ID cards merely a
political ploy to justify the cost of a huge IT project that would never be
accepted on its own merits. Then we would need to ask about the real reasons
for building an all-embracing database of personal information. Is a desire
to eliminate a silo culture an end in itself or is there another political
goal behind the enthusiasm?

For comparison, we can look at the rules as they are applied to commercial
businesses by the information commissioner, who has been severely critical
of government plans. To some degree the individual is protected by the
fragmented nature of the business sector. The data protection rules then
restrict each business, requiring it to gather only information that is
needed for its immediate business and demanding that it ask permission.

In the past, government has been somewhat similar, in that each part of
government has kept its own records and the records have related only to the
relevant aspect of the individual's life. So the NHS has records on just
about everybody but the information has been confined to strictly
health-related matters and has mostly been kept confidential. Achieving this
has led to considerable complexities as the NHS attempts to share data with
outside organisations that have a legitimate interest in health matters.

But if government policy is reflected by Watmore's statements, it seems a
new view is prevalent. No longer is the public sector to be seen as a bundle
of services and enterprises, each of which exists to provide some public
good. Instead, the public sector is to be seen on the model of a
conglomerate, with Watmore as group CIO.

The consequences of such a view have implications far beyond the confines of
mere IT efficiency. It is one thing to suggest that different arms of
government should avoid inconsistency and undue overlap. It is quite another
to see the public sector as a monolith. Without far more genuine public
accountability than is presently available, it risks creating a system where
huge power is concentrated in the hands of an unresponsive executive.

Does government need to have extensive information on every individual? Or
is the citizen entitled to live independently of government, revealing only
what information is needed in particular circumstances? That is the real
question, even if government is reluctant to ask it.

Monday October 18, 2004 7:16 AM

AP Photo DCSW101

By JUDITH KOHLER

Associated Press Writer

DENVER (AP) - Bob Elderkin's vote would appear to be a sure bet for President Bush on Nov. 2. He is a hunter, part of a conservative-leaning group of outdoorsmen that is 38 million strong and avidly supports gun rights.

But after backing Bush in 2000, Elderkin and some like-minded outdoorsmen say the Republican won't get their vote again because of his environmental policies.

``I can't vote for Bush knowing what it's going to be like the next four years,'' said Elderkin, a retired Bureau of Land Management employee in western Colorado where natural-gas drilling is booming. ``With John Kerry, it's an unknown. As far as Bush goes, it's going to be `Katie, bar the door.'''

RAF Fylingdales is being upgraded with new technology

American interceptor missiles are to be stationed on British soil after Tony Blair agreed a secret deal with the United States, it has been reported.

The Independent on Sunday says Downing Street has agreed in principle to a Pentagon request to base missiles at RAF Fylingdales in North Yorkshire.

Here is a scenario from my adopted hometown: a month ago, I was travelling on a double-decker bus. A well-dressed woman boarded with her son, respectable in his school uniform. Ahead of her was an elderly American woman, who said, "I beg your pardon, I didn't mean to bang into you." This prompted a tirade from the Englishwoman - let's call her Lady E. "I rejoice every time I hear of another American soldier dying! You people are destroying the world".

The American - let's call her Mrs A - fought back: "I personally am not destroying the world." This only provoked Lady E more, and she screamed into the American's face: "I wish every one of you would leave this country and not set foot in it ever again." Mrs A began crying. "Thank you for ruining my trip." Lady E lunged at the American and began to shake her. I jumped up and shouted for the driver to stop and for her to leave the woman alone, prompting Lady E to come over and grab me. "Another bloody American! You are scum." Thankfully, the woman next to me pushed her away. I left the bus. Mrs A sat sobbing.

Did I imagine this? No. Was the Englishwoman a crazy? No.

I don't like what is happening in Britain, and am dismayed at the level at which anti-Americanism has peaked in recent months. Does anyone say "George Bush" or "Donald Rumsfeld" or "Dick Cheney" when they fly into these tirades? No. In fact, the visceral, in-your-face America-hatred goes back long before the days of the Bush regime.

When Bill Clinton was president, I attended a human-rights conference at my local synagogue in St John's Wood. During the tea break, I asked a man at one of the booths for a leaflet. He heard my accent and launched into a red-faced screeching session about the evils of American empire and of the "nazism" and "fascism" promulgated by the US. A black man came over and began shouting about America having "invented slavery" and a delicate elderly lady joined the fray to bellow about the Zionists running America and the "genocides" perpetrated by Americans since the days of William Penn. I wondered why I had ventured out on a Sunday to be with like-minded people concerned about human rights, only to be reduced to a gibbering jelly as an ugly, strident crowd grew around me. [...]