Friday, March 07, 2003
Several bloggers have linked to this article from the New Yorker by Simon Schama (author of several damned good books; I highly recommend Citizens, on the French Revolution) on the history of anti-Americanism. It's fascinating and everyone ought to read it, especially since the conclusion of the piece--there's a tie-in with the war on Saddam-- is that Americans somehow deserve anti-Americanism. Now, Schama's text is by no means rabidly America-bashing, he's no Noam Chomsky, but his last section is, to say the least, critical. Now, criticism is good, and this is about the sharpest criticism you're likely to see. It ought to be a good source of challenges for some of us hawks' arguments. I don't think Schama's criticism is too hard to successfully contradict, but it's an excellent mental exercise. And the historically informative five-sixths of the article are typically excellent Schama.
I found an old GeoCities website with a list of "correct social behavior" in Spanish culture. It's not incredibly accurate, so I thought I'd reprint it and add my own comments. The first thing I'd like to make clear is that things are really not all that different from America. If you come to Spain and behave politely and in a friendly manner, but in the way that's natural for you, you aren't going to have too many problems. Most Spaniards outside heavily touristed areas are generally pretty tolerant and understanding with foreigners. If you're there on business, understand that your Spanish colleague is going to have learned all kinds of stuff about American business culture and won't be offended at anything you do as long as you're straight with him. Also, your Spanish colleague will most likely know rather better English than you do Spanish, and so you're likely to talk in English.
My comments are within parentheses.
First Name or Title?: Respectfully addressing others in Spain
First names are acceptable for only close friends, children, and teenagers. (First names are now universal in casual conversation.)
When addressing others, follow Spanish business protocol by using the formal usted mode of address unless invited to use the more informal tú. (True for business and older people. Otherwise use tú unless you hear the Spaniard call you usted.)
When addressing each other, men who are university graduates, businessmen or other professionals often use the courtesy title Don to confer respect. (Yeah, if they're eighty-two years old.)
It is important to address individuals by any titles they may have, followed by their surnames. For example, teachers prefer the title Profesor, and engineers are referred to as Ingeniero. (No. That's Latin America. Here everyone is Señor.)
Whenever you can, address people using their professional titles followed by their surnames. (No.) Professional titles are usually not used, however, when addressing Spanish executives. Basic titles of courtesy (followed by a surname) are always appropriate: Mr. = Señor; Mrs. = Señora; Miss = Señorita.
Public Behavior: Acceptable public conduct in Spain
A wide range of gestures regularly accompany conversation. Don't hesitate to ask if you're having difficulty understanding these gestures, especially since the meanings often vary from region to region. (You ought to be able to figure most of them out.)
Spainiards get a sense of identity from their particular region rather than the country as a whole. (NO! This is ONLY true in Catalonia, the Basque Country, and Galicia.)
Be sensitive to regional differences; making misinformed comments about a Spaniard's region of origin is considered a grave insult (i.e, mistaking a Catalan for a Basque). (What would piss a Catalan off is being mistaken for a Madrileño. Seriously, avoid making misinformed comments about anything, of course. Don't worry about this. they'll understand, though you might get a lecture on how Catalans are different or something like that.)
Handshakes are a standard part of Spanish business protocol. (Yep.)
First-time introductions with Spaniards should be made in a formal manner. Extend a brief but firm handshake, while maintaining eye contact during the meeting. A "Buenos dias," "Buenas tardes," or "Buenas noches" should accompany your greeting. (Just like anywhere else.)
Women sometimes lightly embrace, then touch cheeks while lightly kissing the air. You may also observe a professional woman greeting a Spanish man who is a particularly close colleague in this way. (Women ALWAYS do the kiss-kiss thing with one another, and they generally do it with men, too. Don't make the first move but don't be surprised if you are subjected to the kiss-kiss routine.)
In the company of friends, it's common in for men to hug or pat each other on the back, in addition to a handshake. (Again, don't be surprised if this happens, but don't do it yourself.)
Spaniards may not only stand uncomfortably close, but also pat your arm or shoulder when conversing with you. If you encounter these gestures, moving away will only cause offense. (True.)
One common gesture is snapping the hands downward to emphasize a point. (True, though it's one hand, not both.)
The North American "O.K." symbol (i.e. making a circle of the first finger and thumb) is considered vulgar. (No, that's not true here. That's Brazil where it's rude.)
Spain is a highly religious country (not anymore), and many people will be offended if they hear you take the Lord's name in vain. It's also a good policy to refrain from swearing in the presence of others. (Of course you shouldn't swear, but nobody's going to be offended by an "Oh, my God!" or the like. And don't be surprised if your Spanish colleague starts swearing. Spaniards swear like sergeants.)
When summoning a person, turn your palm down, then wave your fingers or entire hand. (You don't have to do that, they understand the equivalent American gesture just fine. If you see some guy flopping his wrist around, though, it doesn't mean that he's exaggeratedly effeminate.)
If you are in a long lineup, don't be surprised if someone tries to cut in front of you. (When you come to the end of a line, say "¿Quién es el último?" Someone will respond. You are now behind that person and have rights to your place in line.)
Be aware that while Spanish men can be very charming around women, their approaches may be too forward for some people's tastes. For example, when they see an attractive woman walking down the street, they may whistle at her to signal their approval. (If they're construction workers. Respectable people don't do that.)
Before getting into a taxi, be sure to negotiate the fare. (Wrong. The great majority of cabbies are legit, and fares are metered.)
When a public restroom is needed, men should look for a door marked Caballeros, while women should look for a door marked Señoras. In smaller towns, rooms marked "W.C." (for "water closet") are bathrooms used by both men and women. (They often have symbols.)
Business Dress: Guidelines for business dress in Spain
Spaniards are extremely conscious of dress and will perceive your appearance as an indication of your social standing and relative success. (True, in business, and surprisingly true in everyday life.)
Keep in mind that Spaniards typically dress more conservatively than Americans and frequently wear designer clothes. (True.)
Stick with quality, conservative clothing in subdued colours. Name brands will be noticed. (True.)
Dressing con elegancia means that men should wear dark suits and ties, preferably with starched white shirts. Suit jackets should be kept on at all times, unless your Spanish counterpart invites you to do otherwise. (The shirt doesn't have to be starched white. It should be appropriate for business wear in the US.)
Women should dress with elegance and style. The best clothing options for female business travelers include designer suits or business dresses made of high-quality fabrics. (True. Don't be surprised if you see Spanish women wearing sexy clothes that would be inappropriate for business in the US, though. I wouldn't do that myself if I were you.)
Pantsuits for women haven't gained a lot of acceptance here, but wearing "dressy" pants in the evening is fine. (True.)
Shorts are unacceptable in public. (In business, of course; no longer in everyday life, at least if they're conservative khaki or navy Bermudas)
My comments are within parentheses.
First Name or Title?: Respectfully addressing others in Spain
First names are acceptable for only close friends, children, and teenagers. (First names are now universal in casual conversation.)
When addressing others, follow Spanish business protocol by using the formal usted mode of address unless invited to use the more informal tú. (True for business and older people. Otherwise use tú unless you hear the Spaniard call you usted.)
When addressing each other, men who are university graduates, businessmen or other professionals often use the courtesy title Don to confer respect. (Yeah, if they're eighty-two years old.)
It is important to address individuals by any titles they may have, followed by their surnames. For example, teachers prefer the title Profesor, and engineers are referred to as Ingeniero. (No. That's Latin America. Here everyone is Señor.)
Whenever you can, address people using their professional titles followed by their surnames. (No.) Professional titles are usually not used, however, when addressing Spanish executives. Basic titles of courtesy (followed by a surname) are always appropriate: Mr. = Señor; Mrs. = Señora; Miss = Señorita.
Public Behavior: Acceptable public conduct in Spain
A wide range of gestures regularly accompany conversation. Don't hesitate to ask if you're having difficulty understanding these gestures, especially since the meanings often vary from region to region. (You ought to be able to figure most of them out.)
Spainiards get a sense of identity from their particular region rather than the country as a whole. (NO! This is ONLY true in Catalonia, the Basque Country, and Galicia.)
Be sensitive to regional differences; making misinformed comments about a Spaniard's region of origin is considered a grave insult (i.e, mistaking a Catalan for a Basque). (What would piss a Catalan off is being mistaken for a Madrileño. Seriously, avoid making misinformed comments about anything, of course. Don't worry about this. they'll understand, though you might get a lecture on how Catalans are different or something like that.)
Handshakes are a standard part of Spanish business protocol. (Yep.)
First-time introductions with Spaniards should be made in a formal manner. Extend a brief but firm handshake, while maintaining eye contact during the meeting. A "Buenos dias," "Buenas tardes," or "Buenas noches" should accompany your greeting. (Just like anywhere else.)
Women sometimes lightly embrace, then touch cheeks while lightly kissing the air. You may also observe a professional woman greeting a Spanish man who is a particularly close colleague in this way. (Women ALWAYS do the kiss-kiss thing with one another, and they generally do it with men, too. Don't make the first move but don't be surprised if you are subjected to the kiss-kiss routine.)
In the company of friends, it's common in for men to hug or pat each other on the back, in addition to a handshake. (Again, don't be surprised if this happens, but don't do it yourself.)
Spaniards may not only stand uncomfortably close, but also pat your arm or shoulder when conversing with you. If you encounter these gestures, moving away will only cause offense. (True.)
One common gesture is snapping the hands downward to emphasize a point. (True, though it's one hand, not both.)
The North American "O.K." symbol (i.e. making a circle of the first finger and thumb) is considered vulgar. (No, that's not true here. That's Brazil where it's rude.)
Spain is a highly religious country (not anymore), and many people will be offended if they hear you take the Lord's name in vain. It's also a good policy to refrain from swearing in the presence of others. (Of course you shouldn't swear, but nobody's going to be offended by an "Oh, my God!" or the like. And don't be surprised if your Spanish colleague starts swearing. Spaniards swear like sergeants.)
When summoning a person, turn your palm down, then wave your fingers or entire hand. (You don't have to do that, they understand the equivalent American gesture just fine. If you see some guy flopping his wrist around, though, it doesn't mean that he's exaggeratedly effeminate.)
If you are in a long lineup, don't be surprised if someone tries to cut in front of you. (When you come to the end of a line, say "¿Quién es el último?" Someone will respond. You are now behind that person and have rights to your place in line.)
Be aware that while Spanish men can be very charming around women, their approaches may be too forward for some people's tastes. For example, when they see an attractive woman walking down the street, they may whistle at her to signal their approval. (If they're construction workers. Respectable people don't do that.)
Before getting into a taxi, be sure to negotiate the fare. (Wrong. The great majority of cabbies are legit, and fares are metered.)
When a public restroom is needed, men should look for a door marked Caballeros, while women should look for a door marked Señoras. In smaller towns, rooms marked "W.C." (for "water closet") are bathrooms used by both men and women. (They often have symbols.)
Business Dress: Guidelines for business dress in Spain
Spaniards are extremely conscious of dress and will perceive your appearance as an indication of your social standing and relative success. (True, in business, and surprisingly true in everyday life.)
Keep in mind that Spaniards typically dress more conservatively than Americans and frequently wear designer clothes. (True.)
Stick with quality, conservative clothing in subdued colours. Name brands will be noticed. (True.)
Dressing con elegancia means that men should wear dark suits and ties, preferably with starched white shirts. Suit jackets should be kept on at all times, unless your Spanish counterpart invites you to do otherwise. (The shirt doesn't have to be starched white. It should be appropriate for business wear in the US.)
Women should dress with elegance and style. The best clothing options for female business travelers include designer suits or business dresses made of high-quality fabrics. (True. Don't be surprised if you see Spanish women wearing sexy clothes that would be inappropriate for business in the US, though. I wouldn't do that myself if I were you.)
Pantsuits for women haven't gained a lot of acceptance here, but wearing "dressy" pants in the evening is fine. (True.)
Shorts are unacceptable in public. (In business, of course; no longer in everyday life, at least if they're conservative khaki or navy Bermudas)
Thursday, March 06, 2003
James Taranto has a nice piece in OpinionJournal that lays out the case for war in Iraq in language that even a Frenchman can understand. He's not saying anything new, but what he's doing is resuming all the convincing arguments we have in favor of taking a piece out of Saddam. And they are awfully convincing. OpinionJournal also has a bit by some guy named William Shakespeare with some quotes from, like, Chirac and Sean Penn and Donald Rumsfeld. It's hard to understand because it's written kind of weird and has lots of big words. I don't know why they printed it. Fred Barnes from the Weekly Standard has another back-to-basics on the Iraq war article, giving the top ten peacenik arguments and explaining why they're dumb. The Onion explains why all us expats really live in Europe.
War with Iraq will come. The only question is when. The Anglo-Americans show no signs of backing down as they continue their tremendous force buildup in the Middle East. Rumsfeld and Central Command General Tommy Franks (the guy directly in charge of Iraq/Afghanistan operations) promised maximum effort to avoid civilian casualties. Rummy said directly that only a coup d'etat in Iraq can prevent the war now. Franks added that we're going to use nonlethal weapons to mess up Iraqi communications, and that we can deploy the troops who were to have gone to Turkey within the interior of Iraq (seems like that'd have to be in the Kurdish-controlled region). There is talk of 3000 smart bombs within the first 48 hours. That ought to end the war right there; ground troops can then mop up. Powell said that we have intelligence reports that Saddam is moving some of his WMDs to isolated places near the Syrian froniter and that others are hidden inside trucks parked in Baghdad suburbs. How many more smoking guns does anybody need? France, Germany, and Russia seem to want to see a few more; the French and Russians are threatening a veto, again, if the Alliance introduces another Security Council resolution against Saddam. Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder are going to be remembered as a couple of Keystone Kops Blum and Daladier types, just as we know Anglo-Saxon King Ethelred (who spent most of his reign getting booted around by the Danes) as "The Unready" after a thousand years.
Lessee. In history we've got Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, Pedro the Cruel, Bloody Mary, Juana the Mad, and Carlos the Bewitched. How about we call these guys Gerhard the Thick-Headed, Jacques the Crooked, and Vladimir the Spy? Gorbachev is already "Mikhail the Useless" and I vote that Ceaucescu be dubbed "Nicolae the Depraved". Who's got one for Saddam?
Lessee. In history we've got Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, Pedro the Cruel, Bloody Mary, Juana the Mad, and Carlos the Bewitched. How about we call these guys Gerhard the Thick-Headed, Jacques the Crooked, and Vladimir the Spy? Gorbachev is already "Mikhail the Useless" and I vote that Ceaucescu be dubbed "Nicolae the Depraved". Who's got one for Saddam?
EuroPundits has two posts up, an imaginary BBC report on the consequences of the Labour backbenchers' revolt against Tony Blair on the war by Andrew Castel-Dodge and a post about why Aznar has nothing to fear from the Socialists by, uh, me. Sign up if you'd like to join by e-mailing me at crankyyanqui@yahoo.com; the more the better. If you've never written a complete piece before, give it a try and send it in. The only rules are that it's got to have something to do with Europe, it's got to be at least sort of in-depth, it's got to be somewhere between 4-5 paragraph newspaper-column length and 2-page magazine-article length, and we're trying to go for professional style--we're amateurs, of course, and aren't looking for anything like perfection. We'll print anything that's a real attempt at saying something about Europe, so don't be shy.
Wednesday, March 05, 2003
Major Blogging News!
A sinister, self-nominated cabal of Eurobloggers has just unilaterally launched EuroPundits, a new group blog specializing in intolerant, biased, and judgmental in-depth opinion articles with some connection to Europe. So far, the list of conspirators includes Jesús Gil of Ibidem, Cinderella Bloggerfeller, Andrew Castel-Dodge, The Radical Blogger, Nelson Ascher, Eamonn from Rainy Day, and yours truly. Other prospective plotters are encouraged to sign up by e-mailing me at crankyyanqui@yahoo.com. We'd like everyone to contribute, say, two pieces a month. That shouldn't be too onerous. Join the Vast Antieuroidiotarian Conspiracy!
A sinister, self-nominated cabal of Eurobloggers has just unilaterally launched EuroPundits, a new group blog specializing in intolerant, biased, and judgmental in-depth opinion articles with some connection to Europe. So far, the list of conspirators includes Jesús Gil of Ibidem, Cinderella Bloggerfeller, Andrew Castel-Dodge, The Radical Blogger, Nelson Ascher, Eamonn from Rainy Day, and yours truly. Other prospective plotters are encouraged to sign up by e-mailing me at crankyyanqui@yahoo.com. We'd like everyone to contribute, say, two pieces a month. That shouldn't be too onerous. Join the Vast Antieuroidiotarian Conspiracy!
James Taranto links to this story from USA Today on anti-American unpleasantness in Europe. It does happen, though it's not incredibly common. It's a good idea not to talk about politics or about the United States in general with Spaniards unless you're ready for an argument; don't bring up either subject yourself, ever. It's not too common, though, for people to be out-and-out rude if you're well-behaved and friendly. If someone starts in, just say, "I respect everyone's opinion, and I'm willing to listen to yours, but I'd prefer to talk about something else." Most Europeans are basically good folks like you and me and this will bring your interlocutor to his senses and make him realize that he shouldn't take out his frustrations on some innocent tourist. Then talk about how nice Barcelona is or whatever.
Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point, has a thought-provoking piece in the New Yorker about why the CIA and FBI might not have been as incompetent as some thought they were after 9-11. He says it's a good idea that the two agencies should compete and should use different styles and methods of investigation. Check it out.
Monday, March 03, 2003
The Vangua leads off today with the story about Iraq destroying some weapons of mass destruction. Yeah, right. Somebody remind me of when the last time Saddam Hussein told the truth, because I can't think of it.
The Turks can join in or stay out as far as I'm concerned. I imagine the government wouldn't mind allowing the deployment of American troops, but public opinion there is solidly against it and the state is weak enough in Turkey that I can see the government being concerned. On the other hand, the way to prove a state is strong is to act decisively; Turkey's staying out would show weakness. The votes in the Turkish parliament were very close--the last one was 264 in favor of US deployment in Turkey, 250 against, and 19 abstentions. They only needed a switch of three votes to approve the deployment, so I'll bet a vote is tried again and this time it'll be approved.
The Vanguardia's man in Peking, Rafael Poch, who is also their man in Moscow and parrots the Moscow government line, claims that the Japanese are going to go nuclear. There is an American proposal to bring Japan and South Korea under an American missile-defense scheme, and the Japanese are receptive because they are scared as hell of North Korea. Poch claims, of course, that the fear of North Korean nukes is being fomented by Washington and that the missile defense system would really be anti-Chinese, not anti-North Korean. Says Poch, "North Korea would not be a nuclear problem if that country, instead of being included in the 'axis of evil' and as an objective of preventative nuclear attacks by Washington, received guarantees of security and normalization of relations, as was agreed in the 1994 pact."
Jesus Christ. This guy is pro-North Korean.
Anyway, Poch does some scare propaganda, saying that Japan could have hundreds of nukes within six months and that the Americans are behind it all, in addition to the evil missile defense system. What should amaze you is that the Vanguardia is the BEST newspaper in Spain. Can you imagine how horrible the others are? This is why nearly all Catalans are political idiots of one sort or another. Now, they're wonderful people, friendly folks, generous to a fault. But, politically, these people have no common sense whatsoever, with about eight exceptions.
Rafael Ramos in London says that the Observer is reporting that the Americans are spying on the Security Council members and that this is a huge scandal. The Observer got this information from MI6. First, I certainly hope we are spying on all of them, even on our pals in London, because I guarantee you they're spying on us. Nothing wrong with a little espionage between friends. Second, getting caught doing so is very unprofessional. Third, if I were MI6, I would hunt down Mr. Loudmouth with a Pal on the Observer and terminate his employment. With extreme prejudice. Fourth, Ramos reports that Washington is "in full war fever". That's interesting, since he's based in London. This is the guy who, in a piece about how much he loved baseball, identified Don Mattingly as the Yankees' pitcher. For you Brits, this would be like calling David Beckham Man U's goalkeeper while saying you were a huge football fan. He's also the guy who said that in the US you had to go out with a girl ten times before you could get her in bed. All I want to know is how he can be so sure.
Chirac was received by a massive crowd in Algiers on a state visit. Now that's something to be proud of.
There was an enormous demonstration in Valencia yesterday in favor of the government's proposed water plan, which would send water from the Ebro River south to the dry regions of Valencia, Murcia, and part of Andalusia. I don't see what's wrong with it, since I'm satisfied that it would not do any significant environmental damage. Some 600,000 people came out into the streets from all over southern Spain. Now, there have also been big demonstrations, especially in Aragon, against the water plan, and there were, of course, recent big anti-American demos. The Vanguardia raised not a peep about the demonstrators' political motives in these cases, though all of the demonstrations were organized by the Socialists and other leftist groups.
But in this one, which was organized by José María Aznar's PP, the subheadline is "The financial support of the administrations controlled by the PP gave fruit, and the demonstration in favor of the water plan was supported by dozens of thousands of people." Naah, the Vanguardia isn't biased at all in its news reporting. See, Barcelona and Valencia have a rivalry. Valencia is the second-largest Catalan-speaking city, but instead of showing allegiance to Barcelona and Catalanism, it's thrown in its lot with Madrid and Spain--Valencia basically has the choice of which orbit they want to be in, and they've chosen Madrid's orbit. Valencia goes so far in its desire to be non-Catalan that everybody calls the local language valenciano and a good few deny that it's related to Catalan (that is, of course, linguistically nuts, but they love taking the piss out of the Catalans by saying that). The ultra-Catalan Vanguardia just can't stand any of this.
The main focus of the story was not on what the demonstrators were saying, and there are no impassioned articles in the news section saying that the voice of the people must be listened to, as there have been for the demos "against" the oil spill (I thought we were all against oil spills, but the Socialists and the Galician independentistas are accusing the PP of being responsible for this one, which is so far from being true that it is an out-and-out "Big Lie"), against the water plan, and against America. In fact, the Valencian Socialist Party described the demonstration, consisting of some 600,000 people from all over southeastern Spain in support of a government water project, as "intolerable". Nice to know they're impartial in their support of the right to freedom of expression and public assembly.
The Turks can join in or stay out as far as I'm concerned. I imagine the government wouldn't mind allowing the deployment of American troops, but public opinion there is solidly against it and the state is weak enough in Turkey that I can see the government being concerned. On the other hand, the way to prove a state is strong is to act decisively; Turkey's staying out would show weakness. The votes in the Turkish parliament were very close--the last one was 264 in favor of US deployment in Turkey, 250 against, and 19 abstentions. They only needed a switch of three votes to approve the deployment, so I'll bet a vote is tried again and this time it'll be approved.
The Vanguardia's man in Peking, Rafael Poch, who is also their man in Moscow and parrots the Moscow government line, claims that the Japanese are going to go nuclear. There is an American proposal to bring Japan and South Korea under an American missile-defense scheme, and the Japanese are receptive because they are scared as hell of North Korea. Poch claims, of course, that the fear of North Korean nukes is being fomented by Washington and that the missile defense system would really be anti-Chinese, not anti-North Korean. Says Poch, "North Korea would not be a nuclear problem if that country, instead of being included in the 'axis of evil' and as an objective of preventative nuclear attacks by Washington, received guarantees of security and normalization of relations, as was agreed in the 1994 pact."
Jesus Christ. This guy is pro-North Korean.
Anyway, Poch does some scare propaganda, saying that Japan could have hundreds of nukes within six months and that the Americans are behind it all, in addition to the evil missile defense system. What should amaze you is that the Vanguardia is the BEST newspaper in Spain. Can you imagine how horrible the others are? This is why nearly all Catalans are political idiots of one sort or another. Now, they're wonderful people, friendly folks, generous to a fault. But, politically, these people have no common sense whatsoever, with about eight exceptions.
Rafael Ramos in London says that the Observer is reporting that the Americans are spying on the Security Council members and that this is a huge scandal. The Observer got this information from MI6. First, I certainly hope we are spying on all of them, even on our pals in London, because I guarantee you they're spying on us. Nothing wrong with a little espionage between friends. Second, getting caught doing so is very unprofessional. Third, if I were MI6, I would hunt down Mr. Loudmouth with a Pal on the Observer and terminate his employment. With extreme prejudice. Fourth, Ramos reports that Washington is "in full war fever". That's interesting, since he's based in London. This is the guy who, in a piece about how much he loved baseball, identified Don Mattingly as the Yankees' pitcher. For you Brits, this would be like calling David Beckham Man U's goalkeeper while saying you were a huge football fan. He's also the guy who said that in the US you had to go out with a girl ten times before you could get her in bed. All I want to know is how he can be so sure.
Chirac was received by a massive crowd in Algiers on a state visit. Now that's something to be proud of.
There was an enormous demonstration in Valencia yesterday in favor of the government's proposed water plan, which would send water from the Ebro River south to the dry regions of Valencia, Murcia, and part of Andalusia. I don't see what's wrong with it, since I'm satisfied that it would not do any significant environmental damage. Some 600,000 people came out into the streets from all over southern Spain. Now, there have also been big demonstrations, especially in Aragon, against the water plan, and there were, of course, recent big anti-American demos. The Vanguardia raised not a peep about the demonstrators' political motives in these cases, though all of the demonstrations were organized by the Socialists and other leftist groups.
But in this one, which was organized by José María Aznar's PP, the subheadline is "The financial support of the administrations controlled by the PP gave fruit, and the demonstration in favor of the water plan was supported by dozens of thousands of people." Naah, the Vanguardia isn't biased at all in its news reporting. See, Barcelona and Valencia have a rivalry. Valencia is the second-largest Catalan-speaking city, but instead of showing allegiance to Barcelona and Catalanism, it's thrown in its lot with Madrid and Spain--Valencia basically has the choice of which orbit they want to be in, and they've chosen Madrid's orbit. Valencia goes so far in its desire to be non-Catalan that everybody calls the local language valenciano and a good few deny that it's related to Catalan (that is, of course, linguistically nuts, but they love taking the piss out of the Catalans by saying that). The ultra-Catalan Vanguardia just can't stand any of this.
The main focus of the story was not on what the demonstrators were saying, and there are no impassioned articles in the news section saying that the voice of the people must be listened to, as there have been for the demos "against" the oil spill (I thought we were all against oil spills, but the Socialists and the Galician independentistas are accusing the PP of being responsible for this one, which is so far from being true that it is an out-and-out "Big Lie"), against the water plan, and against America. In fact, the Valencian Socialist Party described the demonstration, consisting of some 600,000 people from all over southeastern Spain in support of a government water project, as "intolerable". Nice to know they're impartial in their support of the right to freedom of expression and public assembly.
The Dissident Frogman has a brilliant diatribe completely destroying Régis Débray. If you know who Régis Débray is, then you need to read this. If you don't know who Régis Débray is, do not click here, because, trust me, you're happier not being cognizant of this asshole's existence..
As I said a couple of days ago, the Vanguardia has been frenziedly printing anti-American rants this week. Probably the worst, though, was this one from last Thursday by a guy named Azzam Tamimi, who is billed as "the Director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London and a teacher at the Markfield Institute of Superior Education in Leicestershire". Wow. Sounds impressive, all right. I've only translated a couple of the more offensive paragraphs.
It seems that the influential bureaucrats in Washington, "all the President's men", have three good reasions to start a war for. On one side, there is the oil. The United States has no option but to take over Iraq's petroleum, the second largest reserves in the world, if it wants to avert a national economic disaster. On another side is Israel. The war, according to what some of Bush's advisors believe, is necessary to guarantee that their loyal ally, Israel, continue being the only regional power in possession of "weapons of mass destruction". Whether it's because of the oil or Israel or both things, the war is also George W. Bush's only chance to get elected next year. After looking at all this, Bush seems to have defeat assured if he does not declare war; but if he declares it, according to what he is told, he will be able to count on a good result.
Note that 1) there is not a speck of evidence demonstrating that any of these three assertions are true, and if there is, you didn't learn it from the author 2) the author seems to believe he knows what Mr. Bush's advisors are telling him to do--what's he got, X-ray ears or something?--and that Mr. Bush is the puppet of these "bureaucrats" 3) the American elections aren't for 19 more months and anything can happen politically between now and then, and, by the way, remember the last Iraqi election when Saddam got 100% of the vote? We have REAL elections 4) the author assumes that the United States, being evil incarnate, naturally has not only one but three base motives to massacre poor starving Iraqi babies. Couldn't be because the Americans believe that Saddam Hussein is a threat to their national security, could it? By the way, have you noticed how quickly we've built that pipeline across Afghanistan we fought that war in order to construct?
...Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a densely populated territory. The thirty-six promised hours of saturation bombing that will precede any deployment of ground troops are a quite horrible perspective. The (Iraqi people) fear that, with the objective of minimising their own losses, the American and British forces will resort to the pulverization of all suspicious structures above ground. Millions of Iraqis might be burned alive in the process.
Yeah, just like millions of people got burned alive in Kosovo and Afghanistan and Somalia and Haiti and everywhere else the Americans have sent in ground forces. Even the most extreme America-bashers can't come up with a figure of more than 3000 Afghan civilian dead in the recent war there, 3000 people too many, of course, but probably fewer than in any other six-month period in Afghan history. By the way, according to the World Almanac, Afghanistan's population density is 107 per square mile; Iraq's is 138 per square mile. Major difference there, ain't it? Besides, what 36 hours of saturation bombing? Of course we're not going to saturation-bomb anything. We haven't since the Christmas bombings over Hanoi that drove the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table in Paris. That was thirty years ago.
There are several paragraphs of anti-Israeli slurs, which I'll summarize for y'all: extreme right...pure Jewish state in Palestine...transfer...expulsion...Israeli murder of Palestinians...demolition...destruction...injustices...Israeli occupiers. Then comes this doozy of a last paragraph.
During his recent visit to the United Kingdom, Sheik Yusuf Al Qaradawi, one of the most famous Muslim theologians in the world, declared that up until now he had resisted calls in favor of a fatwa to boycott Great Britain. He explained that his position sprang from his valoration of the British people's position, opposed to the war, and from the hope that the Government will listen to its public opinion and reconsider its decision to line up with the American administration. He emphasized that Muslims should continue differentiating between the American and British positions, unless Great Britain joins the US in the war declared on Iraq. In that case, he warned, Great Britain will also be put on the boycott list.
It seems to me that this paragraph constitutes a threat. It is a blackmailing ultimatum. If you British do not do as Sheik Yusuf and Mr. Tamimi, the author, advise, you will be put under a fatwa. My understanding of the concept of fatwa is that it does not consist of merely a boycott of British products. It seems to me that by using the word "boycott", these thugs think they can beat the law making terroristic threats illegal. I think we are not so dumb.
It seems that the influential bureaucrats in Washington, "all the President's men", have three good reasions to start a war for. On one side, there is the oil. The United States has no option but to take over Iraq's petroleum, the second largest reserves in the world, if it wants to avert a national economic disaster. On another side is Israel. The war, according to what some of Bush's advisors believe, is necessary to guarantee that their loyal ally, Israel, continue being the only regional power in possession of "weapons of mass destruction". Whether it's because of the oil or Israel or both things, the war is also George W. Bush's only chance to get elected next year. After looking at all this, Bush seems to have defeat assured if he does not declare war; but if he declares it, according to what he is told, he will be able to count on a good result.
Note that 1) there is not a speck of evidence demonstrating that any of these three assertions are true, and if there is, you didn't learn it from the author 2) the author seems to believe he knows what Mr. Bush's advisors are telling him to do--what's he got, X-ray ears or something?--and that Mr. Bush is the puppet of these "bureaucrats" 3) the American elections aren't for 19 more months and anything can happen politically between now and then, and, by the way, remember the last Iraqi election when Saddam got 100% of the vote? We have REAL elections 4) the author assumes that the United States, being evil incarnate, naturally has not only one but three base motives to massacre poor starving Iraqi babies. Couldn't be because the Americans believe that Saddam Hussein is a threat to their national security, could it? By the way, have you noticed how quickly we've built that pipeline across Afghanistan we fought that war in order to construct?
...Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a densely populated territory. The thirty-six promised hours of saturation bombing that will precede any deployment of ground troops are a quite horrible perspective. The (Iraqi people) fear that, with the objective of minimising their own losses, the American and British forces will resort to the pulverization of all suspicious structures above ground. Millions of Iraqis might be burned alive in the process.
Yeah, just like millions of people got burned alive in Kosovo and Afghanistan and Somalia and Haiti and everywhere else the Americans have sent in ground forces. Even the most extreme America-bashers can't come up with a figure of more than 3000 Afghan civilian dead in the recent war there, 3000 people too many, of course, but probably fewer than in any other six-month period in Afghan history. By the way, according to the World Almanac, Afghanistan's population density is 107 per square mile; Iraq's is 138 per square mile. Major difference there, ain't it? Besides, what 36 hours of saturation bombing? Of course we're not going to saturation-bomb anything. We haven't since the Christmas bombings over Hanoi that drove the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table in Paris. That was thirty years ago.
There are several paragraphs of anti-Israeli slurs, which I'll summarize for y'all: extreme right...pure Jewish state in Palestine...transfer...expulsion...Israeli murder of Palestinians...demolition...destruction...injustices...Israeli occupiers. Then comes this doozy of a last paragraph.
During his recent visit to the United Kingdom, Sheik Yusuf Al Qaradawi, one of the most famous Muslim theologians in the world, declared that up until now he had resisted calls in favor of a fatwa to boycott Great Britain. He explained that his position sprang from his valoration of the British people's position, opposed to the war, and from the hope that the Government will listen to its public opinion and reconsider its decision to line up with the American administration. He emphasized that Muslims should continue differentiating between the American and British positions, unless Great Britain joins the US in the war declared on Iraq. In that case, he warned, Great Britain will also be put on the boycott list.
It seems to me that this paragraph constitutes a threat. It is a blackmailing ultimatum. If you British do not do as Sheik Yusuf and Mr. Tamimi, the author, advise, you will be put under a fatwa. My understanding of the concept of fatwa is that it does not consist of merely a boycott of British products. It seems to me that by using the word "boycott", these thugs think they can beat the law making terroristic threats illegal. I think we are not so dumb.
Sunday, March 02, 2003
You know, you folks out there who read Iberian Notes are really special people. You're all aboard one of the hottest trends out there: weblogs! You're hip, in the know, ahead of the curve. You've got an attitude, an edge. That's why you drink Raging Cow, the new milk-based drink from Dr. Pepper. That's right, Raging Cow, tastes like Dr. Pepper with milk in it. Delicious and nutritious, for people in the know. Like you!
Saturday, March 01, 2003
Check out this article from today's Vanguardia that they picked up from Agence France Presse.
"Vive la France!"
American pacifists find their antiwar cry
"Where are you from?" asks the Washington taxi driver distractedly as he listens to the news on the radio. "I'm French". He turns around and smiles: "Then the ride is free!" Like him, many Americans have suddenly begun to cling to France, converted in their eyes into the last barrier before the warlike caprices of their government.
While the American media of communication compete in Francophobic commentaries and denounce the "treason" and the "cowardice" of the French, "Vive la France!" has become the pacifists' slogan. Frequently cited in Internet antiwar messages, the motto "Vive la France!" has also appeared on the banners of the recent large demonstrations.
Activists or anonymous citizens, these Americans have generally never trod European soil, but, cornered between the media and a political class now willing to go to war, they cling with hope and emotion to the symbol of France. "It's nice to know, simply, that there is someone, somewhere, who says no to the Bush administration and who makes it restrain itself," says John Catalinotto, spokesman for the antiwar group ANSWER.
This activist, a pacifist "since Vietnam", admits that a few days ago he went out on the streets with an old pack of Gauloise cigarettes as an amulet. While some have called for a boycott of French products, "you can be sure that at this moment there are people lining up to buy French cheese on the shelves of the supermarkets."
From behind the counter of the Bistrot du Coin, a French restaurant in Washington, Florence Lebourg remembers that last week "a group of clients told me that they had come on purpose to stock up on French products in order to support us." And the messages of support that arrive daily at the French embassy have totaled 600 to 1000 since the end of January.
Can any of this possibly be true? I, personally, don't mind people shouting "Stop the war!" I figure that's covered under the freedom-of-speech clause of the Constitution. But if I ever hear about anybody who's American shouting "Vive la France", I will personally severely chastise the miscreant. With one of Jane Galt's two-by-fours.
They're making a big stink right now about the high-speed train from Madrid to Lleída. It's supposed to begin circulating normally sometime this month, and they made four test runs which showed that there are definitely a few bugs in the system. It doesn't look to me like any of the problems are too serious, but they do need to be fixed. This, as far as I know, is typical with big engineering projects--you've got to test them. What we learned with those test trips is that more work is needed. Good. Nobody got killed finding that out and the problem will be solved although there'll be a month's more delay. Big deal--when they get it finished all the way to Barcelona, which may not happen now until 2005, it'll be a major piece of infrastructure that will change a lot of people's lives and people will forget about this. Right now, though, it's another weapon the opposition is using on the PP--first the water plan, then the oil spill, then the education plan, then the antiwar protests, now the high-speed train. The Socialists have got some very tasty weapons that they can use against the government. Good thing they're too dumb and too divided to actually put together a functioning campaign outside Catalonia and Andalusia.
If I were the PP I'd point out that the first high-speed train link (inished in 1991) was not from Madrid to Barcelona and from there to Paris by way of Montpellier, which any idiot would figure is the logical first step. No, it was Madrid to Seville. Now, that's a nice piece of work they did, and it's a good thing we have it, but come on, you connect your first city to your second city and then to the rest of the world. That's your priority. Instead, they connected Spain's first city with its fifth city and the line ends there. Why'd they do that? Pork Barrel City. Felipe González, the Socialist Prime Minister from 1982 until 1996, made damn sure that his hometown, Seville, was going to get a big piece of the infrastructure being put up for the 1992 Olympics and Expo. Córdoba, also in Socialist home base Andalusia, got a station, too, as did Socialist Ciudad Real.
Saddam made some bogus disarmament offer. The Americans said yeah, right. Blix and the French and the Rooskies said something about how this was showing that the inspections were working. Aznar and Blair met in Madrid, reaffirmed their positions, leaned on Mexico and Chile a little, said Saddam was a liar and couldn't be trusted, and generally stood firm. Supposedly the Russians are sending out feelers about how to back down when the crunch comes. Tony and Chema also talked about labor reform in order to combat unemployment. They also said some stuff about the future EU having only one president who would be in charge of foreign policy. I gather this is entirely contrary to what France and Germany want. Meanwhile, Lionel Jospin called on Chirac to use France's veto in the UN Security Council. Real smart, Lionel.
"Vive la France!"
American pacifists find their antiwar cry
"Where are you from?" asks the Washington taxi driver distractedly as he listens to the news on the radio. "I'm French". He turns around and smiles: "Then the ride is free!" Like him, many Americans have suddenly begun to cling to France, converted in their eyes into the last barrier before the warlike caprices of their government.
While the American media of communication compete in Francophobic commentaries and denounce the "treason" and the "cowardice" of the French, "Vive la France!" has become the pacifists' slogan. Frequently cited in Internet antiwar messages, the motto "Vive la France!" has also appeared on the banners of the recent large demonstrations.
Activists or anonymous citizens, these Americans have generally never trod European soil, but, cornered between the media and a political class now willing to go to war, they cling with hope and emotion to the symbol of France. "It's nice to know, simply, that there is someone, somewhere, who says no to the Bush administration and who makes it restrain itself," says John Catalinotto, spokesman for the antiwar group ANSWER.
This activist, a pacifist "since Vietnam", admits that a few days ago he went out on the streets with an old pack of Gauloise cigarettes as an amulet. While some have called for a boycott of French products, "you can be sure that at this moment there are people lining up to buy French cheese on the shelves of the supermarkets."
From behind the counter of the Bistrot du Coin, a French restaurant in Washington, Florence Lebourg remembers that last week "a group of clients told me that they had come on purpose to stock up on French products in order to support us." And the messages of support that arrive daily at the French embassy have totaled 600 to 1000 since the end of January.
Can any of this possibly be true? I, personally, don't mind people shouting "Stop the war!" I figure that's covered under the freedom-of-speech clause of the Constitution. But if I ever hear about anybody who's American shouting "Vive la France", I will personally severely chastise the miscreant. With one of Jane Galt's two-by-fours.
They're making a big stink right now about the high-speed train from Madrid to Lleída. It's supposed to begin circulating normally sometime this month, and they made four test runs which showed that there are definitely a few bugs in the system. It doesn't look to me like any of the problems are too serious, but they do need to be fixed. This, as far as I know, is typical with big engineering projects--you've got to test them. What we learned with those test trips is that more work is needed. Good. Nobody got killed finding that out and the problem will be solved although there'll be a month's more delay. Big deal--when they get it finished all the way to Barcelona, which may not happen now until 2005, it'll be a major piece of infrastructure that will change a lot of people's lives and people will forget about this. Right now, though, it's another weapon the opposition is using on the PP--first the water plan, then the oil spill, then the education plan, then the antiwar protests, now the high-speed train. The Socialists have got some very tasty weapons that they can use against the government. Good thing they're too dumb and too divided to actually put together a functioning campaign outside Catalonia and Andalusia.
If I were the PP I'd point out that the first high-speed train link (inished in 1991) was not from Madrid to Barcelona and from there to Paris by way of Montpellier, which any idiot would figure is the logical first step. No, it was Madrid to Seville. Now, that's a nice piece of work they did, and it's a good thing we have it, but come on, you connect your first city to your second city and then to the rest of the world. That's your priority. Instead, they connected Spain's first city with its fifth city and the line ends there. Why'd they do that? Pork Barrel City. Felipe González, the Socialist Prime Minister from 1982 until 1996, made damn sure that his hometown, Seville, was going to get a big piece of the infrastructure being put up for the 1992 Olympics and Expo. Córdoba, also in Socialist home base Andalusia, got a station, too, as did Socialist Ciudad Real.
Saddam made some bogus disarmament offer. The Americans said yeah, right. Blix and the French and the Rooskies said something about how this was showing that the inspections were working. Aznar and Blair met in Madrid, reaffirmed their positions, leaned on Mexico and Chile a little, said Saddam was a liar and couldn't be trusted, and generally stood firm. Supposedly the Russians are sending out feelers about how to back down when the crunch comes. Tony and Chema also talked about labor reform in order to combat unemployment. They also said some stuff about the future EU having only one president who would be in charge of foreign policy. I gather this is entirely contrary to what France and Germany want. Meanwhile, Lionel Jospin called on Chirac to use France's veto in the UN Security Council. Real smart, Lionel.
I found a Civil War history written in 1917 at the Internet Public Library. I like old histories because 1) they're often very well-written, in clear (if not always concise), straight-ahead, active prose 2) there is often an emphasis on actions and events that we don't pay that much attention to today; for example, most of today's histories of the Civil War focus on the combat and the sociological aspects of the war, to the exclusion of economic, diplomatic, and especially political events 3) you can learn as much or more about society at the time the book was written due to the attitudes expressed as you learn about the historical events treated.
An excellent example is the book from the 20s I found about the Spanish-American war, which makes a big deal about battallions of immune soldiers. I'd never thought about it, but, of course, you're going to want to send guys who are immune to yellow fever to the Caribbean in the pre-sulfa-and-antibiotic age. They were really afraid of disease back then. Another is in the book I found on American diplomatic history, which lays a great deal of emphasis on diplomatic insults and how grievously they were once taken, and on the fact that the United States until the aftermath of the First World War had a significant and quite rabid war'n'imperialism sector of opinion; there were a bunch of morons called the War Hawks in the 1830s and 40s who wanted to go to war with Britain and were looking for any possible excuse to do so. There was always an important party who wanted to annex Cuba, and Grant wanted to annex the Dominican Republic, of all places; Congress voted it down. Another thing that's kind of sad is the always-underlying racism; all writers on the Civil War before the 50s and several later writers simply assume "negroes" are inferior. They also all assume that separation of the races is part of the natural order of things.
Anyway, here's an excerpt about the suspension of civil liberties during the Civil War. It's from History of the Civil War, 1861-1865, by James Ford Rhodes.
In the practical application of the clause of the Constitution, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it,” the Confederate government exhibited the greater regard for the liberty of the individual, and the Southern citizen the greater jealousy of the use of arbitrary power. Lincoln from the first assumed the right to suspend the writ by Executive decree, a right never claimed by Davis. It was generally conceded at the South that Congress alone possessed this power and the privilege was available to the citizens of the Confederacy except when curtailed by express statute. And the Confederate Congress asserted its rights boldly enough, declaring in the Act of February 15, 1864, that “the power of suspending the privilege of said writ … is vested solely in the Congress which is the exclusive judge of the necessity of such suspension.” The war may be said to have lasted four years: the periods of suspension of the writ in the Confederacy amounted in the aggregate to one year, five months and two days, less than one-half of the war’s duration. In the Union the writ was suspended or disregarded at any time and in any place where the Executive, or those to whom he delegated this power, deemed such action necessary. For anyone who in any manner or degree took an unfriendly attitude toward the recruitment of the army, for political prisoners, for persons suspected of “any disloyal practice,” the privilege did not exist. It was suspended for one year, ten months and twenty-one days by Executive assumption and for the rest of the period by the authorization of Congress. 33
The provocation for the use of arbitrary power was, all things considered, about equal in the Confederacy and the Union. In the Union the “disloyal” secret societies were larger and more dangerous, and the public criticism of the administration more copious and bitter. There was, too, the organized political party which made a focus for the opposition and developed Vallandigham, who had no counterpart at the South. But these considerations are balanced by the circumstance that in the South was the seat of war which was never but for brief periods moved north of Mason and Dixon’s line and the Ohio river. “Civil administration is everywhere relaxed,” wrote Judge Campbell as early as October, 1862, “and has lost much of its energy, and our entire Confederacy is like a city in a state of siege, cut off from all intercourse with foreign nations and invaded by a superior force at every assailable point.” Where armies stand in opposition disloyalty may give the enemy aid and comfort so substantial as to decide an impending battle; far from the front it is apt to spend itself in bluster, threats and secret midnight oaths. In the Confederacy there was practically no important place east of the Mississippi river which was not at one time or another invaded or threatened by the invader. The courts, it is true, were open in the South, but, owing to the disorganized state of society, the interruption of trade and the passage of stay laws by the States, they tried few commercial cases but confined themselves to criminal jurisdiction and to decisions sustaining the acts of Congress; or on the other hand to issuing writs of habeas corpus in favor of those who desired to escape military service. 34
The press was essentially free at the North, entirely so at the South, where no journals were suppressed as some had been in the Union. As the Southern papers had little news-gathering enterprise and borrowed a large part of their news from the Northern press, they did not offend the Confederate generals as the Union generals were offended by the publication of estimates of the strength of armies or shrewd guesses of projected movements. Sometimes the Richmond journals, upon request of General Lee or of the Secretary of War, refrained from publishing intelligence that might benefit the enemy, but no compulsion was employed. The right of public meeting was fully exercised in both sections, but the gatherings for free discussion were much more common at the North. 35
Southerners believed that the Federal government had degenerated into a military despotism. At the same time the general belief at the North was that the Confederate government was a tyranny which crushed all opposition. The bases for both these beliefs are apparent. Theoretically liberty seemed surer at the South than at the North, but practically the reverse was true. Few men either in the Union or in the Confederacy had actual need of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; but all able-bodied men at the South, who were not too old, were touched by the universal exaction of military service and all who had property were affected by the impressment of it at an arbitrary price fixed by the government. The Federal government may be called a dictatorship. Congress and the people surrendered certain of their powers and rights to a trusted man. The Confederacy was a grand socialized state in which the government did everything. It levied directly on the produce of the land and fixed prices; it managed the railroads; operated manufacturing establishments, owned merchant vessels and carried on a foreign commerce. It did all this by common consent and the public desired it to absorb even more activities. Frequent requests to extend the province of the general government, of the States and of the municipalities may be read in the newspapers and in the public and private letters of the time. The operations seemed too large for individual initiative and the sovereign power of the State came to be invoked.
An excellent example is the book from the 20s I found about the Spanish-American war, which makes a big deal about battallions of immune soldiers. I'd never thought about it, but, of course, you're going to want to send guys who are immune to yellow fever to the Caribbean in the pre-sulfa-and-antibiotic age. They were really afraid of disease back then. Another is in the book I found on American diplomatic history, which lays a great deal of emphasis on diplomatic insults and how grievously they were once taken, and on the fact that the United States until the aftermath of the First World War had a significant and quite rabid war'n'imperialism sector of opinion; there were a bunch of morons called the War Hawks in the 1830s and 40s who wanted to go to war with Britain and were looking for any possible excuse to do so. There was always an important party who wanted to annex Cuba, and Grant wanted to annex the Dominican Republic, of all places; Congress voted it down. Another thing that's kind of sad is the always-underlying racism; all writers on the Civil War before the 50s and several later writers simply assume "negroes" are inferior. They also all assume that separation of the races is part of the natural order of things.
Anyway, here's an excerpt about the suspension of civil liberties during the Civil War. It's from History of the Civil War, 1861-1865, by James Ford Rhodes.
In the practical application of the clause of the Constitution, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it,” the Confederate government exhibited the greater regard for the liberty of the individual, and the Southern citizen the greater jealousy of the use of arbitrary power. Lincoln from the first assumed the right to suspend the writ by Executive decree, a right never claimed by Davis. It was generally conceded at the South that Congress alone possessed this power and the privilege was available to the citizens of the Confederacy except when curtailed by express statute. And the Confederate Congress asserted its rights boldly enough, declaring in the Act of February 15, 1864, that “the power of suspending the privilege of said writ … is vested solely in the Congress which is the exclusive judge of the necessity of such suspension.” The war may be said to have lasted four years: the periods of suspension of the writ in the Confederacy amounted in the aggregate to one year, five months and two days, less than one-half of the war’s duration. In the Union the writ was suspended or disregarded at any time and in any place where the Executive, or those to whom he delegated this power, deemed such action necessary. For anyone who in any manner or degree took an unfriendly attitude toward the recruitment of the army, for political prisoners, for persons suspected of “any disloyal practice,” the privilege did not exist. It was suspended for one year, ten months and twenty-one days by Executive assumption and for the rest of the period by the authorization of Congress. 33
The provocation for the use of arbitrary power was, all things considered, about equal in the Confederacy and the Union. In the Union the “disloyal” secret societies were larger and more dangerous, and the public criticism of the administration more copious and bitter. There was, too, the organized political party which made a focus for the opposition and developed Vallandigham, who had no counterpart at the South. But these considerations are balanced by the circumstance that in the South was the seat of war which was never but for brief periods moved north of Mason and Dixon’s line and the Ohio river. “Civil administration is everywhere relaxed,” wrote Judge Campbell as early as October, 1862, “and has lost much of its energy, and our entire Confederacy is like a city in a state of siege, cut off from all intercourse with foreign nations and invaded by a superior force at every assailable point.” Where armies stand in opposition disloyalty may give the enemy aid and comfort so substantial as to decide an impending battle; far from the front it is apt to spend itself in bluster, threats and secret midnight oaths. In the Confederacy there was practically no important place east of the Mississippi river which was not at one time or another invaded or threatened by the invader. The courts, it is true, were open in the South, but, owing to the disorganized state of society, the interruption of trade and the passage of stay laws by the States, they tried few commercial cases but confined themselves to criminal jurisdiction and to decisions sustaining the acts of Congress; or on the other hand to issuing writs of habeas corpus in favor of those who desired to escape military service. 34
The press was essentially free at the North, entirely so at the South, where no journals were suppressed as some had been in the Union. As the Southern papers had little news-gathering enterprise and borrowed a large part of their news from the Northern press, they did not offend the Confederate generals as the Union generals were offended by the publication of estimates of the strength of armies or shrewd guesses of projected movements. Sometimes the Richmond journals, upon request of General Lee or of the Secretary of War, refrained from publishing intelligence that might benefit the enemy, but no compulsion was employed. The right of public meeting was fully exercised in both sections, but the gatherings for free discussion were much more common at the North. 35
Southerners believed that the Federal government had degenerated into a military despotism. At the same time the general belief at the North was that the Confederate government was a tyranny which crushed all opposition. The bases for both these beliefs are apparent. Theoretically liberty seemed surer at the South than at the North, but practically the reverse was true. Few men either in the Union or in the Confederacy had actual need of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; but all able-bodied men at the South, who were not too old, were touched by the universal exaction of military service and all who had property were affected by the impressment of it at an arbitrary price fixed by the government. The Federal government may be called a dictatorship. Congress and the people surrendered certain of their powers and rights to a trusted man. The Confederacy was a grand socialized state in which the government did everything. It levied directly on the produce of the land and fixed prices; it managed the railroads; operated manufacturing establishments, owned merchant vessels and carried on a foreign commerce. It did all this by common consent and the public desired it to absorb even more activities. Frequent requests to extend the province of the general government, of the States and of the municipalities may be read in the newspapers and in the public and private letters of the time. The operations seemed too large for individual initiative and the sovereign power of the State came to be invoked.
Friday, February 28, 2003
Amiland links to this article on Spanish diplomacy and Spain's place in the world from the International Herald Tribune. I think it's very good and have nothing much to add, except that I'm not worried about the PP's performance in the upcoming elections. They'll suffer a few losses but nothing huge--a couple of mayoralties and a region or two. The PP will continue to control regional and local governments almost everywhere but the Basque country, Andalusia, and Catalonia.
By the way, the article is seven pages long--you need to click on the almost invisible "Next Page" in the lower right.
By the way, the article is seven pages long--you need to click on the almost invisible "Next Page" in the lower right.
The Vanguardia has recently been publishing a lot of lefty America-bashing by international lefties; today they've got one by Robert Fisk, and they've printed a couple more of Fisk's screeds in the last week or so. It's the same-old same-old. Naomi Klein got a couple of chances, too. Now, I do not agree with anything these two people say. I think they're idiots. However, I do not think they are bad people, nor do I think they are dishonest.
I do not feel the same way about Gore Vidal, though. Gore Vidal is scum. Gore Vidal is what you scrape off the bottom of your shoes after a day walking the streets of Barcelona. Gore Vidal hates Jews with a passion. He is a bitchy, catty, gossipy old queen. If you want to be sickened by amorality, read Vidal's autobiography. He got interviewed by Clarín, the Argentinian paper, and the Vangua picked it up and reprinted it on Wednesday. Here are some excerpts.
About conspiracy theories. We're a country full of accidents. We keep assassinating public men and we never find out who did it. It doesn't seem like we care too much. Then people tell me, "Oh, you're a conspiracy theorist," and start laughing hysterically. There's another extraordinary thing that I pointed out recently on television. Look: the first Bush was with the Carlyle petroleum group; the second, with Harkins Oil; Vice-President Cheney, with Halliburton Oil; Gale Norton, the interior Secretary, is also connected to petroleum. Condoleeza Rice is related with Exxon and Texaco, and the boss of the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld, was Occidental Petroleum's man. While I was speaking, I saw they were already trying to minimize it. So I said, "I'm not going to say there's a conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies. But are you telling me that it is a coincidence that they're leading the US and that we're about to go to war for the oil in Iraq?"
First, we're not going to war for the oil in Iraq. I've already posted about why, as have a lot of other people, and I don't think I need to post it again. Second, it's not unusual that a group of several important people should all have worked in the petroleum industry. It's one of the most important industries of our time. A hundred years ago all politicians had ties with the railroads. Two centuries ago all politicians had ties either with the shipping industry or with plantation agriculture. Third, Vidal shows what a rat he is with his little sally saying that he's not calling it a conspiracy while implying it is. Vidal is accusing the leaders of the United States of conspiring for the benefit of the oil industry. He is saying that they are guilty of war crimes and corruption and abuse of power, since going to war to steal another country's resources is obviously not a just war. But they can't sue him for libel because he weaseled out of making a direct statement of what he is implying. Oh, and fourth, three important men have been assassinated in America since World War II. We know that Oswald killed John Kennedy, Ray killed Martin Luther King, and Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy. Vidal, of course, believes that all three murders were some kind of CIA-Pentagon-Mafia plot. What this means is that he believes that our elected government is a front for the mysterious men who really run things, and that those mysterious men are killers.
Remember: saying "No blood for oil" is saying that the United States, British, Spanish, Italian, Australian, and Eastern European governments are international war criminals. That's a very serious charge to make and I am disgusted that so many people are making it so lightly. But not surprised.
(On September 11) During an hour and a half they knew that the airliners that had taken off from Boston had been hijacked. The FAA followed them on the radar and saw that they were heading for Washington. The FAA has a law saying (my father was once the director and I believe he was the one who made this law) that in case of any kind of hijacking, the air force should intervene within four or five minutes. It didn't. This called my attention. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was a conspiracy. A conspiracy of whom? Why didn't they intervene?
Vidal weasels out of calling it a conspiracy again while implying that there was one--a conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center that resulted in 3000 deaths, presumably so we'll have an excuse to grab the oil. Vidal is accusing the Bush Administration of being a gang of mass murderers. That is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence, which Vidal does not provide.
Vidal goes on to accuse Bush of not having properly organized investigations into September 11, the Democratic leadership of behaving like sheep, the CIA of conspiring with the Pakistani secret services to funnel money to Mohammed Atta, the whole government of "suspending our civil rights", and the British of being Bush's lapdog for political and economic reasons.
I don't think Vidal is an agent of some kind of international conspiracy to defame America. I think he's just an asshole.
I do not feel the same way about Gore Vidal, though. Gore Vidal is scum. Gore Vidal is what you scrape off the bottom of your shoes after a day walking the streets of Barcelona. Gore Vidal hates Jews with a passion. He is a bitchy, catty, gossipy old queen. If you want to be sickened by amorality, read Vidal's autobiography. He got interviewed by Clarín, the Argentinian paper, and the Vangua picked it up and reprinted it on Wednesday. Here are some excerpts.
About conspiracy theories. We're a country full of accidents. We keep assassinating public men and we never find out who did it. It doesn't seem like we care too much. Then people tell me, "Oh, you're a conspiracy theorist," and start laughing hysterically. There's another extraordinary thing that I pointed out recently on television. Look: the first Bush was with the Carlyle petroleum group; the second, with Harkins Oil; Vice-President Cheney, with Halliburton Oil; Gale Norton, the interior Secretary, is also connected to petroleum. Condoleeza Rice is related with Exxon and Texaco, and the boss of the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld, was Occidental Petroleum's man. While I was speaking, I saw they were already trying to minimize it. So I said, "I'm not going to say there's a conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies. But are you telling me that it is a coincidence that they're leading the US and that we're about to go to war for the oil in Iraq?"
First, we're not going to war for the oil in Iraq. I've already posted about why, as have a lot of other people, and I don't think I need to post it again. Second, it's not unusual that a group of several important people should all have worked in the petroleum industry. It's one of the most important industries of our time. A hundred years ago all politicians had ties with the railroads. Two centuries ago all politicians had ties either with the shipping industry or with plantation agriculture. Third, Vidal shows what a rat he is with his little sally saying that he's not calling it a conspiracy while implying it is. Vidal is accusing the leaders of the United States of conspiring for the benefit of the oil industry. He is saying that they are guilty of war crimes and corruption and abuse of power, since going to war to steal another country's resources is obviously not a just war. But they can't sue him for libel because he weaseled out of making a direct statement of what he is implying. Oh, and fourth, three important men have been assassinated in America since World War II. We know that Oswald killed John Kennedy, Ray killed Martin Luther King, and Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy. Vidal, of course, believes that all three murders were some kind of CIA-Pentagon-Mafia plot. What this means is that he believes that our elected government is a front for the mysterious men who really run things, and that those mysterious men are killers.
Remember: saying "No blood for oil" is saying that the United States, British, Spanish, Italian, Australian, and Eastern European governments are international war criminals. That's a very serious charge to make and I am disgusted that so many people are making it so lightly. But not surprised.
(On September 11) During an hour and a half they knew that the airliners that had taken off from Boston had been hijacked. The FAA followed them on the radar and saw that they were heading for Washington. The FAA has a law saying (my father was once the director and I believe he was the one who made this law) that in case of any kind of hijacking, the air force should intervene within four or five minutes. It didn't. This called my attention. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was a conspiracy. A conspiracy of whom? Why didn't they intervene?
Vidal weasels out of calling it a conspiracy again while implying that there was one--a conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center that resulted in 3000 deaths, presumably so we'll have an excuse to grab the oil. Vidal is accusing the Bush Administration of being a gang of mass murderers. That is an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence, which Vidal does not provide.
Vidal goes on to accuse Bush of not having properly organized investigations into September 11, the Democratic leadership of behaving like sheep, the CIA of conspiring with the Pakistani secret services to funnel money to Mohammed Atta, the whole government of "suspending our civil rights", and the British of being Bush's lapdog for political and economic reasons.
I don't think Vidal is an agent of some kind of international conspiracy to defame America. I think he's just an asshole.
Good stuff, as usual, is up at Ibidem. Chicago Boyz also has several good posts up, and these guys are no dummies. Craig Schamp has some Franco-Deutsch jokes that are pretty funny. Merde in France rocks. John Bono always has plenty of good stuff up. This guy is not a bad writer. Check out his archives. The People's Republic of Seabrook is a clever, well-written site. Eamonn from Rainy Day is an Irishman writing from Munich. Check his stuff out.
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Today's Vangua is reporting that Bush said that Saddam's overthrow will lead toward the possibility of "a viable Palestinian state". Bad, bad move, George, if what you mean is that a Palestinian state will be possible with the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority, also known as "that gang of criminals and murderers". Now, if we get rid of Saddam, that'll be one fewer source of money, shelter, training, and weapons for Arafat and his thugs, but it won't change the Arab-Israeli problem one bit. Maybe getting rid of Saddam will force the Saudis to give up funding all the terrorists they have been funding over the years, and that'll force a change in the Palestinian leadership. I dunno. We could speculate all day. But I think linking Gulf War II with the Palestinian problem is not a good idea at all.
The White House is also calculating that the war will cost us $95 billion and we're not likely to get the subsidies we got form the Japanese and Arabs last time. Yeah, right, we're doing it for the oil. Aznar met Chirac in Paris yesterday and the official announcement after the meeting said that the two countries disagreed, but in a friendly way. Tony Blair got hit by a backbench revolt from his own party; a motion of no confidence gained 199 votes out of 659. Almost all the Lib Dems, all the nationalists, a good few left-wing Laborites (rumor has it Gordon Brown is sharpening his knife, but I don't buy it, not over a national-security issue), and a few dumbass Tories like Kenneth Clarke. They're saying this looks bad for Tony. Wait till the war is over before we decide what looks good or bad. And, of course, the most important question is not what fickle public opinion thinks right now but about what history will say in a hundred years. Wanna bet the leaders of the capitalist democracies are more likely to be on the right side of history, especially when the opposition is Schröder, Saddam, Putin, Chirac, and whoever's running China? What a collection of mediocrities. Saddam will be remembered for possessing the evil of Hitler combined with the competence of Mussolini. Putin is no Havel. Schröder is no Adenauer. Chirac is, unfortunately, a Blum or a Daladier. Blair will be remembered as a slick politician who came up trumps when it counted, showing more backbone than anyone figured, a lot like Franklin D. Roosevelt. That's pretty good. I think Roosevelt is overrated, but he did show real backbone against the Axis and is justifiably celebrated for that, despite his other shortcomings.
Dan Rather interviewed Saddam, who didn't say anything we didn't figure he would say. Rather, however, failed to ask Mr. Hussein what the frequency was. He also addressed the Iraqi dictator as "Mr. President", rather than "Kenneth".
Aznar said that he "wouldn't trade security for votes". Well said, Mr. Aznar! Meanwhile, Aznar's popularity has dropped but he's still holding a two-point lead over the Socialists in "voting intention", and the PP always does two or three points better in the real election than the surveys say. This is as rock-bottom as Aznar's popularity is going to fall, since it will rise again after the war is won.
Spain is sending its aircraft carrier, the Principe de Asturias, which carries some 20 Harriers and helicopters, on combined maneuvers with the Italians in the Mediterranean. That gets it several hundred miles closer to the Syrian coast. The carrier is the jewel of the crown as far as the Spanish military goes. In addition, several other Spanish ships are going on antisubmarine maneuvers with those of other NATO countries in the Ionian Sea.
Barça went into Milan last night and came out with an 0-0 tie against Inter, breaking their streak of 11 consecutive victories in the Champions' League. Both teams played highly defensively during the whole game; Vieri was Inter's only forward, and he didn't do anything much. For the Barça, Cocu tore a ligament and will be out at least two months; he'll be replaced by some combination of Gabri, Gerard, and Luis Enrique. Gabri had a good game last night at right defenseman. Puyol, in the middle, got banged in the head going up for a high ball and had to be substituted, since his eye swelled up. He might miss next weekend's Spanish league game against Osasuna. Andersson played competently during the rest of the game. Good thing he's healthy again because they're going to need him; he's a solid defender who they signed from Bayern Munich a couple of years ago right after Bayern won the Champions'. He then got hurt instantly and hasn't played until now. Luis Enrique didn't play, I don't know why, because he's supposed to be healthy again. Riquelme got in the game late and did OK. Saviola didn't do much and Kluivert wandered around aimlessly as if he were a midfielder. Rochemback did OK as a defensive midfielder on the right side. Lots of defense. It was really pretty boring. Imagine an 0-0 hockey game, but with fewer fights.
The White House is also calculating that the war will cost us $95 billion and we're not likely to get the subsidies we got form the Japanese and Arabs last time. Yeah, right, we're doing it for the oil. Aznar met Chirac in Paris yesterday and the official announcement after the meeting said that the two countries disagreed, but in a friendly way. Tony Blair got hit by a backbench revolt from his own party; a motion of no confidence gained 199 votes out of 659. Almost all the Lib Dems, all the nationalists, a good few left-wing Laborites (rumor has it Gordon Brown is sharpening his knife, but I don't buy it, not over a national-security issue), and a few dumbass Tories like Kenneth Clarke. They're saying this looks bad for Tony. Wait till the war is over before we decide what looks good or bad. And, of course, the most important question is not what fickle public opinion thinks right now but about what history will say in a hundred years. Wanna bet the leaders of the capitalist democracies are more likely to be on the right side of history, especially when the opposition is Schröder, Saddam, Putin, Chirac, and whoever's running China? What a collection of mediocrities. Saddam will be remembered for possessing the evil of Hitler combined with the competence of Mussolini. Putin is no Havel. Schröder is no Adenauer. Chirac is, unfortunately, a Blum or a Daladier. Blair will be remembered as a slick politician who came up trumps when it counted, showing more backbone than anyone figured, a lot like Franklin D. Roosevelt. That's pretty good. I think Roosevelt is overrated, but he did show real backbone against the Axis and is justifiably celebrated for that, despite his other shortcomings.
Dan Rather interviewed Saddam, who didn't say anything we didn't figure he would say. Rather, however, failed to ask Mr. Hussein what the frequency was. He also addressed the Iraqi dictator as "Mr. President", rather than "Kenneth".
Aznar said that he "wouldn't trade security for votes". Well said, Mr. Aznar! Meanwhile, Aznar's popularity has dropped but he's still holding a two-point lead over the Socialists in "voting intention", and the PP always does two or three points better in the real election than the surveys say. This is as rock-bottom as Aznar's popularity is going to fall, since it will rise again after the war is won.
Spain is sending its aircraft carrier, the Principe de Asturias, which carries some 20 Harriers and helicopters, on combined maneuvers with the Italians in the Mediterranean. That gets it several hundred miles closer to the Syrian coast. The carrier is the jewel of the crown as far as the Spanish military goes. In addition, several other Spanish ships are going on antisubmarine maneuvers with those of other NATO countries in the Ionian Sea.
Barça went into Milan last night and came out with an 0-0 tie against Inter, breaking their streak of 11 consecutive victories in the Champions' League. Both teams played highly defensively during the whole game; Vieri was Inter's only forward, and he didn't do anything much. For the Barça, Cocu tore a ligament and will be out at least two months; he'll be replaced by some combination of Gabri, Gerard, and Luis Enrique. Gabri had a good game last night at right defenseman. Puyol, in the middle, got banged in the head going up for a high ball and had to be substituted, since his eye swelled up. He might miss next weekend's Spanish league game against Osasuna. Andersson played competently during the rest of the game. Good thing he's healthy again because they're going to need him; he's a solid defender who they signed from Bayern Munich a couple of years ago right after Bayern won the Champions'. He then got hurt instantly and hasn't played until now. Luis Enrique didn't play, I don't know why, because he's supposed to be healthy again. Riquelme got in the game late and did OK. Saviola didn't do much and Kluivert wandered around aimlessly as if he were a midfielder. Rochemback did OK as a defensive midfielder on the right side. Lots of defense. It was really pretty boring. Imagine an 0-0 hockey game, but with fewer fights.
Here's a link to the CIA Factbook for Spain. I thought this was pretty interesting. It contains an extensive list of economic, political, and social data. From here, besides the Spain info, you can access, first, a listing of all countries' statistics on each particular datum--e.g. telephone lines per 1000 people or whatever--for purposes of comparison, by clicking on the second icon (not the open book, the other one) for each datum, and second, the same extensive report on any other country in particular. I suggest that people look up a couple of the Latin American countries and see how their data compare with, say, those of an Eastern European country, an Arab country, an East Asian country, and an African country. Just pick fairly standard countries--say, compare Peru and Hungary and Syria and Thailand and Ghana. See if you can make any generalizations from that. I don't know if I've succeeded. If I do, I'll let you know. I'm sure y'all are waiting with bated breath.
I thought this paragraph was interesting:
Spain and UK are discussing "total shared sovereignty" over Gibraltar, subject to a constitutional referendum by Gibraltarians, who have largely expressed opposition to any form of cession to Spain; Spain controls the coastal enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which Morocco contests, as well as the islands of Penon de Alhucemas, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, and Islas Chafarinas; Morocco rejected Spain's unilateral designation of a median line from the Canary Islands in 2002 to explore undersea resources and to interdict illegal refugees from Africa.
The emphasis is mine.
Other things I thought were interesting were: In 1997 Spain had 9000 kilometers of expressways. Now, Spain is a big country, the size of Texas, but when I first came here, in 1987, there wasn't a four-lane road all the way from Barcelona to Madrid, and the road from Córdoba to Granada was just barely two-lane. This is a major change; here's an important piece of infrastructure that's jumped from high-Third World level to real European level. Since they're still building expressways all over the country, I figure Spain has well over 12,000 km of them by now.
The countries with which Spain has the most international commerce are France, Geramany, and Italy, in order. The US provides 4.5% of Spanish imports and takes 4.4% of Spanish exports; I'd figured it would be more. Latin America provides only 2% of Spanish imports and takes only 4% of Spanish exports; I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the lack of imports from Latin America, because I don't think there are any but coffee--it's hard to find anything Latin American here. I thought Latin America was an important buyer of Spanish imports, though, but they're not.
Spanish electricity production is 57% from fossil fuels, 12% from hydro, 3% from "other sources", and 28% from nuclear plants. I thought hydro was much more important, and I'm surprised at how dependent Spain is on nuclear power. Agriculture provides only 4% of the Spanish GDP, which I find surprising, because of Spain's enormous fruit and vegetable production--it feeds half of Europe--and I'd thought that the traditional Spanish crops, wine grapes and olives, were lucrative crops per hectare. In addition, Spain has huge pork and poultry industries and a large dairy industry; it exports a lot of this stuff to the rest of Europe as well. I keep forgetting that Spain is now a major economic power, with the fifth largest economy in Europe.
By the way, today's Vanguardia is reporting that Aznar has said that he wants Spain to be a "First Division" country; there's a nice soccer metaphor. He's succeeded, as the Vangua publishes a photo of some demonstrators in Cairo holding up a sign that says: "New Axis of Evil=USA UK Italy Spain". Cool! Spain's important enough to get bashed by the Islamofascists! Seriously, I believe that Mr. Aznar is very much enjoying feeling himself a major world leader. Well, he is one now. The anti-PP Spanish press, which is most of it except ABC, has been publishing a flood of editorial cartoons trying to ridicule Aznar's world standing, showing Bush as the sheriff and Aznar as his subservient deputy. For some reason they're all using the same tired image. The truth is that Mr. Aznar has fairly won the esteem and high regard of the American and the British governments, and this cannot but be a good thing for Spain.
I thought this paragraph was interesting:
Spain and UK are discussing "total shared sovereignty" over Gibraltar, subject to a constitutional referendum by Gibraltarians, who have largely expressed opposition to any form of cession to Spain; Spain controls the coastal enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, which Morocco contests, as well as the islands of Penon de Alhucemas, Penon de Velez de la Gomera, and Islas Chafarinas; Morocco rejected Spain's unilateral designation of a median line from the Canary Islands in 2002 to explore undersea resources and to interdict illegal refugees from Africa.
The emphasis is mine.
Other things I thought were interesting were: In 1997 Spain had 9000 kilometers of expressways. Now, Spain is a big country, the size of Texas, but when I first came here, in 1987, there wasn't a four-lane road all the way from Barcelona to Madrid, and the road from Córdoba to Granada was just barely two-lane. This is a major change; here's an important piece of infrastructure that's jumped from high-Third World level to real European level. Since they're still building expressways all over the country, I figure Spain has well over 12,000 km of them by now.
The countries with which Spain has the most international commerce are France, Geramany, and Italy, in order. The US provides 4.5% of Spanish imports and takes 4.4% of Spanish exports; I'd figured it would be more. Latin America provides only 2% of Spanish imports and takes only 4% of Spanish exports; I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the lack of imports from Latin America, because I don't think there are any but coffee--it's hard to find anything Latin American here. I thought Latin America was an important buyer of Spanish imports, though, but they're not.
Spanish electricity production is 57% from fossil fuels, 12% from hydro, 3% from "other sources", and 28% from nuclear plants. I thought hydro was much more important, and I'm surprised at how dependent Spain is on nuclear power. Agriculture provides only 4% of the Spanish GDP, which I find surprising, because of Spain's enormous fruit and vegetable production--it feeds half of Europe--and I'd thought that the traditional Spanish crops, wine grapes and olives, were lucrative crops per hectare. In addition, Spain has huge pork and poultry industries and a large dairy industry; it exports a lot of this stuff to the rest of Europe as well. I keep forgetting that Spain is now a major economic power, with the fifth largest economy in Europe.
By the way, today's Vanguardia is reporting that Aznar has said that he wants Spain to be a "First Division" country; there's a nice soccer metaphor. He's succeeded, as the Vangua publishes a photo of some demonstrators in Cairo holding up a sign that says: "New Axis of Evil=USA UK Italy Spain". Cool! Spain's important enough to get bashed by the Islamofascists! Seriously, I believe that Mr. Aznar is very much enjoying feeling himself a major world leader. Well, he is one now. The anti-PP Spanish press, which is most of it except ABC, has been publishing a flood of editorial cartoons trying to ridicule Aznar's world standing, showing Bush as the sheriff and Aznar as his subservient deputy. For some reason they're all using the same tired image. The truth is that Mr. Aznar has fairly won the esteem and high regard of the American and the British governments, and this cannot but be a good thing for Spain.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
I have a suggestion to make to other Eurobloggers (that is, other bloggers who write about Europe, wherever they live or come from). Let's put together a joint blog that would consist of column-length and -style pieces rather than the informal entries that we usually blog. I'd be willing to contribute a column a week, and if four other people (of course, the more the merrier) want to sign on, too, that'd give us a minimum of five quality pieces a week. People would pay attention, I think; at the very least all our regular readers would be interested and I'll bet we could attract a good few more as a group. Anyone interested?
Possible boring name: Euroblog. Possible more interesting name: Euro Sex Snack Blog. There used to be a dive called the Euro Sex Snack Bar on the Ramblas across the street from the Plaza Real. It was apparently a clip joint with strippers. Once this dumb German guy who was living in the same hostal I was (this was 1988 and he was kind of a dirtbag. He was evading his military service) went in there with no money and ordered like six double whiskeys and tried to leave without paying and they stripped him to his underwear and threw him out in the street. This same guy sneaked a hooker into his room and she stole whatever stuff he had left and the owner kicked him out. Anyway, I personally never went in the Euro Sex Snack Bar. Really. I've never even been in Barcelona's notorious Bagdad Club, where audience participation is encouraged in the stage show, if you know what I mean, and I'll bet you do. The story is they used to have a donkey that, uh, performed live on stage, until the Protectora de Animales showed up and took it away.
Possible boring name: Euroblog. Possible more interesting name: Euro Sex Snack Blog. There used to be a dive called the Euro Sex Snack Bar on the Ramblas across the street from the Plaza Real. It was apparently a clip joint with strippers. Once this dumb German guy who was living in the same hostal I was (this was 1988 and he was kind of a dirtbag. He was evading his military service) went in there with no money and ordered like six double whiskeys and tried to leave without paying and they stripped him to his underwear and threw him out in the street. This same guy sneaked a hooker into his room and she stole whatever stuff he had left and the owner kicked him out. Anyway, I personally never went in the Euro Sex Snack Bar. Really. I've never even been in Barcelona's notorious Bagdad Club, where audience participation is encouraged in the stage show, if you know what I mean, and I'll bet you do. The story is they used to have a donkey that, uh, performed live on stage, until the Protectora de Animales showed up and took it away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
