A "Third Way" Around Alameda's Bagpipe Controversy

Rog,

With all of the controversy lately over pro-Scottish propaganda, and fears about increasing Tartan congestion, it's time for some honest, straightforward analysis of where Alamedans stand on the issue of Bagpipe proliferation. Some extremists argue for an outright ban on Bagpipes as the only reliable solution. Other, equally extreme extremists actually believe that we should maintain current levels of Bagpipes, or even encourage higher concentrations of the purportedly musical instruments, as in so-called Tartan-Oriented Development.

As one of the only people doing any real research in this town, I have arrived at a solution that is not extreme at all. In fact, my research shows that the idea is supported by European Union health and safety laws. That is not to say that Alameda should blindly follow the example of other nations, which are in most ways completely unlike us. In this case, however, I can see that decision-makers in Brussels were inspired by my whitepaper entitled "Muffling Alameda's Bagpipes," in which I advocate a cap on the number of homes in Alameda that would be allowed to harbor Bagpipes, and a comprehensive plan of sound-proofing and ongoing earplug distribution to minimize the impact of any increase in total Bagpipes.

It should be clear that "Muffling Alameda's Bagpipes" provides a reasonable compromise - a third way - between the two extremes of Bagpipe eradication and Bagpipe hugging. We might all enjoy the charms that Bagpipe proponents insist they possess, if only the darn things didn't make so much noise! The sooner everyone recognizes the sheer genius of my modest proposal, the better.

Dave Williamson