You guys want to do me a favor? I'm confused about what US states permit what. I've heard in the Spanish media over the last couple of days that a) Massachussetts allows gay marriage and b) California allows gay couples to adopt children. I am embarrassed to say I don't know whether either is true. So I have these questions: Who, if anyone, allows gay marriage? Gay adoption? Medical marijuana? Euthanasia? If so, under what circumstances? Have any states declared English the official language? Do immigrants receive different treatment in different states? What about welfare, disability, pensions, etc? Are there differences in the labor laws?
For you furriners, in the whole US abortion on demand is legal at least through the first trimester. Divorce is easily obtainable in every state. Gambling is legal in some and in different ways--e.g. Kansas has a state lottery, dog racing, and horse racing, but no casinos. Alcohol used to be different in different states, but now it's pretty much the same everywhere. Main thing--gotta be 21.
In Spain this is in the news because people are talking about all this stuff. Right now divorce is a difficult and costly process to go through, so most people who would be divorced in the States are "separated" here. The government wants to legalize gay marriage and gay adoption and that's under debate over here right now, with the usual suspects lined up on each side. Abortion is technically illegal except for rape, incest, danger to mother's health, etc., and so girls get some shrink to say they'll go nuts if they have the kid. No questions asked in London or Amsterdam, though, if you prefer that option. Cannabis and other "soft drugs", which I assume are shrooms and the like, are legal to possess in certain designated quantities and to use in certain designated places (e.g. your house). My impression is that buying and selling soft drugs is illegal, however. It is certainly not too furtive, though. Alcohol and gambling are of course rampant in Spain, and teenage binge drinking is becoming a major problem. It's got its own name, "el botellón".
This teenagers-getting-wasted-till-they-puke stuff is new. They used to drink, but not like this. Teenage drinking used to be five beers on Saturday night. Now it's getting trashed on half a liter of vodka two nights a week and smoking a bunch of dope as well, it's that easy to get and they smoke it openly. There's a major debate right now over euthanasia, especially after the Oscar-winning weeper movie The Sea Inside, based on a real case. Everybody in Spain has seen it.
Comment on drinking. Spain is a country where kids traditionally drank the local wine as part of the diet and so learned young whether they had a taste for it or not. They then learned to control themselves if they did. Enjoying alcohol was great, approved of, celebrated in song and story, but getting drunk was trashy. Half a liter of wine, brandy with your coffee, and if you were pretentious whiskey on the rocks after that, is still not unusual in Spain, and I know several specimens of the middle-aged macho type who can double that easily and only get in one car wreck or so a year. Neither is the morning carajillo or the lunchtime quinto. But you couldn't get loaded, at least more often than at New Year's, San Juan, and the local fiesta mayor, unless you were some hick or bum or town drunk. Now, though, public drunkenness is becoming more and more common. The old Spanish saying, which I subscribe to, is "Bebe poco pero bien." Drink good stuff, but don't drink too much. Enjoy a bottle of quality wine over dinner rather than slamming seven vodka-and-Cokes. Try traditional local prestige products like Mascaró or Torres brandy or Pujol rum, and if you dare, try a copita of Aromas de Montserrat, which tastes to me like eating grass with sugar. Do not try anis.
Careful on cannabis. You're not going to get in trouble with the law for buying the stuff, but you are likely to either get ripped off or robbed if you try to do it at the Plaza Real or on the Ramblas. Don't pay more than €30 for a die-sized chunk. They're making plenty of money on that deal, and it's likely to be wax anyway. It's hard to get them much lower than €30, from what I hear. A better source would be one of the cooler, cheaper discos, the more trashy ones, and the all-night bars. If you're one of that sort of people you'll have no trouble finding one. Just stand around and act fucked up and someone will approach you. But in most other European countries it's as illegal as it is in the States and you can get in real trouble. "Hard drugs", like cocaine, are also as illegal as they are in the US, and if you're idiot enough to be into that stuff you already know the risks you're running.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Monday, March 21, 2005
People interested in the reading habits of the US presidents will like this piece from the Weekly Standard. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5367&R=C49153E). Folk who think Bush is an idiot might look at this paragraph:
Married to a former librarian, Bush likes short speeches and, judging from a recent reading list (Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton, Joseph J. Ellis's His Excellency: George Washington), lengthy books. Early in its first term the Bush White House established an authors lecture series, which enabled the president to pick the brains of David McCullough, Edmund Morris, Martin Gilbert, Bernard Lewis, and Robert Kaplan, among others. Bush has publicly acknowledged his debt to Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy, which distinguishes between "free" and "fear" societies, and exalts Ronald Reagan's moral confrontation with Soviet tyranny. A recent New York Times story described his admiration for Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.
Bush's reading list looks a lot like mine, actually. Or Murph's, if I can ever talk him into reading one of the McCullough books I have. Except I don't actually think Tocqueville was particularly accurate, for want of a better word. Elegant in the mathematical sense, maybe. You can read just about anything you want to into him, sort of like Nostradamus. Or the Bible, for that matter. Or even the Constitution, if you try hard enough.
Married to a former librarian, Bush likes short speeches and, judging from a recent reading list (Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton, Joseph J. Ellis's His Excellency: George Washington), lengthy books. Early in its first term the Bush White House established an authors lecture series, which enabled the president to pick the brains of David McCullough, Edmund Morris, Martin Gilbert, Bernard Lewis, and Robert Kaplan, among others. Bush has publicly acknowledged his debt to Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy, which distinguishes between "free" and "fear" societies, and exalts Ronald Reagan's moral confrontation with Soviet tyranny. A recent New York Times story described his admiration for Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.
Bush's reading list looks a lot like mine, actually. Or Murph's, if I can ever talk him into reading one of the McCullough books I have. Except I don't actually think Tocqueville was particularly accurate, for want of a better word. Elegant in the mathematical sense, maybe. You can read just about anything you want to into him, sort of like Nostradamus. Or the Bible, for that matter. Or even the Constitution, if you try hard enough.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
I posted this at a baseball message board called Baseball Fever. I'm reproducing it just in case anyone's interested.
Let me preface this by saying it's a wild, far-out suspicion based on no proof whatsoever. I came across an online book called In the Reign of Rothstein by a New York reporter named Donald Henderson Clarke, which came out in around 1930. It is about, of course, Arnold Rothstein, the gambler who fixed the 1919 World Series, and of interest to anyone who likes that period.Here's the link:http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...EV7523.0001.001I'm about halfway through the book, and some guy, one of Rothstein's buddies, testified that he lost some $35,000 to Rothstein betting on Pittsburgh in the NL and Cleveland in the AL to win the pennants sometime "in September 1921", and they seemed like pretty good bets because they were several games ahead. Both teams folded and the Giants won the NL and the Yankees won the AL. Rothstein was known around New York as "The Man Who Backs the Giants", which might mean betting on and might mean part-owning, since it looks like Horace Stoneham, the Giants' owner, was all mixed up in stinky stuff with AR.Were those teams, Pittsburgh and Cleveland, in the tank? I went back and took a quick look at the 1921 Pirates. They sure did fold up at the end of the season, and they lost five straight and then two out of three to the Giants. I'm going to do some more research on my own, of course, but I wondered if any of you were interested in this one.
Let me preface this by saying it's a wild, far-out suspicion based on no proof whatsoever. I came across an online book called In the Reign of Rothstein by a New York reporter named Donald Henderson Clarke, which came out in around 1930. It is about, of course, Arnold Rothstein, the gambler who fixed the 1919 World Series, and of interest to anyone who likes that period.Here's the link:http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text...EV7523.0001.001I'm about halfway through the book, and some guy, one of Rothstein's buddies, testified that he lost some $35,000 to Rothstein betting on Pittsburgh in the NL and Cleveland in the AL to win the pennants sometime "in September 1921", and they seemed like pretty good bets because they were several games ahead. Both teams folded and the Giants won the NL and the Yankees won the AL. Rothstein was known around New York as "The Man Who Backs the Giants", which might mean betting on and might mean part-owning, since it looks like Horace Stoneham, the Giants' owner, was all mixed up in stinky stuff with AR.Were those teams, Pittsburgh and Cleveland, in the tank? I went back and took a quick look at the 1921 Pirates. They sure did fold up at the end of the season, and they lost five straight and then two out of three to the Giants. I'm going to do some more research on my own, of course, but I wondered if any of you were interested in this one.
I love Arts and Letters Daily; it's my homepage. It links to just about everything you might want to read, and the articles it calls to its readers attention are as good as anything on the Web. In case you're a furriner, the website is run by the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is the university teachers' trade journal. I just thought I'd go through a few issues discussed in the Nota Bene section.
Here's a piece on the relationship between Sartre and Camus (http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.1/aronson_postel.htm). My first reaction was who gives a crap. My reaction after reading the piece and being reminded of a few things is that Camus was by far the more attractive personality, a nice guy who behaved honorably, and that Sartre was a prick as well as being on the Wrong Side of history. Camus, in his liberal constitutionalism and his French patriotism, was on the Right Side. He opposed the Nazis, Vichy, the Communists, and the FLN, and he actually put his money where his mouth was. For the lowdown on Stalin-loving Sartre, read Paul Johnson's Intellectuals. Besides, Camus was a good writer and a bad but merely naive philosopher while Sartre was an awful writer and a philosopher of evil, of violence, of revolution, of nihilism. Camus is still read. Sartre, except for No Exit, is forgotten, and No Exit won't stand the test of time any more than, say, Marat / Sade.
Here's Timothy Noah bullshitting about the word "bullshit" (http://slate.msn.com/id/2114268). If I understand Noah, bullshit is when you say something without caring whether or not it's true. It's not lying: if you lie, then you are intentionally saying something false. Lies are always false. Bullshit could be either true or false, it doesn't matter. Noah's examples are the stuff that the Bush Administration said before the Iraq War, the stuff about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's trying to buy uranium in North Africa and Saddam's links to international terrorism. All that stuff turned out to be true, of course, but Noah maintains Bush was bullshitting anyway because Bush really didn't care whether it was true or not. Well, here's where Noah begins to bullshit himself. Noah's claim is IT DOESN'T MATTER whether the things Bush said about Saddam turned out to be true, because, assumes Noah, Bush didn't know or care that they were true when he said them. This, Mr. Noah, is bullshit, because you don't know what Bush knew or thought at that time any more than anyone else but Bush himself does. And it is cynical bullshit to label what is usually called "truth"--Saddam did have WMDs, Saddam was trying to buy uranium, Saddam was linked to international terrorists--as "bullshit".
By the way, I'd define "bullshitting" as "talking when you don't know what you're talking about." It's very dangerous to assume that Mr. Bush doesn't know what he's talking about. Several people have already misunderestimated him and look where they wound up.
Now, here's where bullshit hits Camus. Here is a piece by the guy interviewed in that first bit on Camus and Sartre (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050301-054358-9493r). The author claims that Bush misquoted Camus when he stated, "Freedom is a long-distance race." Evidence: That particular quote comes from an internal monologue by a generally unattractive character. Bush took it out of context. Now, come on. Would you claim Bush was misquoting Shakespeare if, in order to illustrate a point, he took a line out of the mouth of such an unpleasant character as Macbeth or Othello or Shylock or Brutus or Antony or Hamlet, all of whom are murderers and half of whom are psychos? Of course you wouldn't. That's why that statement by the author is bullshit; he accuses Bush of ignorance when he actually doesn't know how deeply Bush has read into Camus. I would personally not be surprised if Bush actually has read a book or two by the guy, being married to a librarian and hanging out with all these intellectuals all the time. Camus isn't difficult at all to read, it's not like we're talking Milton or someone like that.
What really pissed me off is the precious line right at the beginning of the piece about how all the Europeans are laughing at us uncultured gringos now. First, a total of zero people until this guy came along knew exactly where that quote came from. Most Europeans are much more interested in soccer and car racing and TV variety shows starring slutty broads with plastic boobs and getting loaded and going to Cuba to screw twelve-year-olds for a dollar than they are in the fine points of analyzing Camus. Second, why should we care what the Europeans think about us anyway? My attitude is if they like us, fine, and if they don't like us, well, that's their problem. If they're determined not to like us nothing's going to change their minds anyway, not even if we find the cure for cancer. (Which we just might do.)
Here's a piece on the relationship between Sartre and Camus (http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.1/aronson_postel.htm). My first reaction was who gives a crap. My reaction after reading the piece and being reminded of a few things is that Camus was by far the more attractive personality, a nice guy who behaved honorably, and that Sartre was a prick as well as being on the Wrong Side of history. Camus, in his liberal constitutionalism and his French patriotism, was on the Right Side. He opposed the Nazis, Vichy, the Communists, and the FLN, and he actually put his money where his mouth was. For the lowdown on Stalin-loving Sartre, read Paul Johnson's Intellectuals. Besides, Camus was a good writer and a bad but merely naive philosopher while Sartre was an awful writer and a philosopher of evil, of violence, of revolution, of nihilism. Camus is still read. Sartre, except for No Exit, is forgotten, and No Exit won't stand the test of time any more than, say, Marat / Sade.
Here's Timothy Noah bullshitting about the word "bullshit" (http://slate.msn.com/id/2114268). If I understand Noah, bullshit is when you say something without caring whether or not it's true. It's not lying: if you lie, then you are intentionally saying something false. Lies are always false. Bullshit could be either true or false, it doesn't matter. Noah's examples are the stuff that the Bush Administration said before the Iraq War, the stuff about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's trying to buy uranium in North Africa and Saddam's links to international terrorism. All that stuff turned out to be true, of course, but Noah maintains Bush was bullshitting anyway because Bush really didn't care whether it was true or not. Well, here's where Noah begins to bullshit himself. Noah's claim is IT DOESN'T MATTER whether the things Bush said about Saddam turned out to be true, because, assumes Noah, Bush didn't know or care that they were true when he said them. This, Mr. Noah, is bullshit, because you don't know what Bush knew or thought at that time any more than anyone else but Bush himself does. And it is cynical bullshit to label what is usually called "truth"--Saddam did have WMDs, Saddam was trying to buy uranium, Saddam was linked to international terrorists--as "bullshit".
By the way, I'd define "bullshitting" as "talking when you don't know what you're talking about." It's very dangerous to assume that Mr. Bush doesn't know what he's talking about. Several people have already misunderestimated him and look where they wound up.
Now, here's where bullshit hits Camus. Here is a piece by the guy interviewed in that first bit on Camus and Sartre (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050301-054358-9493r). The author claims that Bush misquoted Camus when he stated, "Freedom is a long-distance race." Evidence: That particular quote comes from an internal monologue by a generally unattractive character. Bush took it out of context. Now, come on. Would you claim Bush was misquoting Shakespeare if, in order to illustrate a point, he took a line out of the mouth of such an unpleasant character as Macbeth or Othello or Shylock or Brutus or Antony or Hamlet, all of whom are murderers and half of whom are psychos? Of course you wouldn't. That's why that statement by the author is bullshit; he accuses Bush of ignorance when he actually doesn't know how deeply Bush has read into Camus. I would personally not be surprised if Bush actually has read a book or two by the guy, being married to a librarian and hanging out with all these intellectuals all the time. Camus isn't difficult at all to read, it's not like we're talking Milton or someone like that.
What really pissed me off is the precious line right at the beginning of the piece about how all the Europeans are laughing at us uncultured gringos now. First, a total of zero people until this guy came along knew exactly where that quote came from. Most Europeans are much more interested in soccer and car racing and TV variety shows starring slutty broads with plastic boobs and getting loaded and going to Cuba to screw twelve-year-olds for a dollar than they are in the fine points of analyzing Camus. Second, why should we care what the Europeans think about us anyway? My attitude is if they like us, fine, and if they don't like us, well, that's their problem. If they're determined not to like us nothing's going to change their minds anyway, not even if we find the cure for cancer. (Which we just might do.)
It's a beautiful sunny spring afternoon in Barcelona, and of course I went down to the Plaza Rovira for some coffee and the newspaper. Of course there were people all over the place, that's one of the attractive things about Barcelona. Lots of old folks walking their little old chubby dogs. Not so many kids playing with their dads watching them, but at least there are a couple. The Pakistanis banging on their orange butane tanks which they're carting around on a dolly in order to alert the customers they're out there. Teenagers wearing lots of makeup. Quite a few couples without kids.
Lots of people at the sidewalk cafes. Lots of people buying lottery tickets at the Bar Vall, since there's a drawing of the Primitiva. Folks either overdressed--leather jackets--or underdressed--tank tops--for the weather. I'm wearing blue jeans and a cotton sweater and am comfortable. Chat for a moment with Pedro the drunk guy, who's a friend of mine. He's a Communist but likes John Ford, Charlie Parker, and Dos Passos, so we get along just fine. Nobody in the pet store where I pick up the monthly huge bag of catfood, but they've got really cute baby gerbils. Can't get any, not with five cats. There's a crowd in the Bodega Manolo doing the traditional weekend pre-lunch "vermut", in which they drink either straight Martini red (yecch) or beer and eat salty snacks like anchovies and potato chips. At the Manolo they also have potatoes with allioli and steamed mussels with garlic and parsley.
They're widening the sidewalks on Torrente Flores, our main up-and-down street, but of course nobody's at work, it's Saturday, so there's a ditch along one side of the street that's just sitting there. I checked out the birds; we've got four main urban bird species, your plain old standard pigeon, your basic normal sparrow, ring-necked doves, and these green parakeets that supposedly are native to Argentina. I especially like the parakeets. We also have seagulls, but you don't see many up here three miles away from the harbor. The harbor is a lot cleaner than it used to be, by the way; there are several different kinds of fish living there now. They've also done at least something about dumping raw sewage into the sea, though they need to do a lot more work with water purification. Barcelona is flanked by two rivers, which are of course glorified streams, the Llobregat on the left and the Besos on the right. They used to be really filthy, the Besos was a dead river that could not support any life. Now they're a lot cleaner, and a fairly attractive park has been installed along the Besos. It ain't the Seine or even the Tiber, but it doesn't stink any more.
Anyway, I took my bike out and rode up and down the side streets for about half an hour. Lots of spring cleaning going on, all the balconies wide open. I look dorky in my helmet, but you really do need to wear one because there's no telling when you might get nailed by a butane truck or a sixteen-year-old on a moped. It's kind of a crappy old bike, but a friend of ours gave it to me and I've got a sentimental attachment to it. And, besides, it's not like I'm riding in the Tour de France or anything.
Oh, I got a new computer, it was about time. I bought the previous box secondhand in 2000, and all the other stuff, monitor, etc. was from 1996. The monitor barely worked, Internet was incredibly slow, and the damn thing kept crashing. Also, Murph bought this computer game that wouldn't even work on that computer, and that's when you know your setup is obsolete. This one's much nicer. Cost me €800, bottom-of-the-line laptop, and I got the latest Norton security thing as well, since I had a bunch of adware and junk on the old computer and I don't want to get any of that crap on this one.
The TV thing went OK, though there were too many people. The question was what we thought about the Zapatero administration, and I kept it short and sweet and said that Zap had jumped from being a US-UK ally to a France-Germany ally, and that France and Germany then abandoned Zap. leaving him with only Cuba and Venezuela for friends. I said the Iraq pullout was a bad idea and that Spain was now internationally isolated. I said Zap's error was putting Spain on the wrong side of history. Last thing I managed to say was that I didn't think Gonzalez and Fernandez Ordoñez would have carried out a foreign policy like that of Zap and Moratinos. The deal was they wanted people to comment on a variety of issues, and most of the invitees were critical from the left and there to talk about gay marriage or whatever. It would have been better if they'd spread it out over five days and given, say, 15 minutes each to family issues, religious issues, economic issues, foreign policy, and education / social services issues, for example, over the whole week, rather than jamming it all into 30 minutes on Friday.
Lots of people at the sidewalk cafes. Lots of people buying lottery tickets at the Bar Vall, since there's a drawing of the Primitiva. Folks either overdressed--leather jackets--or underdressed--tank tops--for the weather. I'm wearing blue jeans and a cotton sweater and am comfortable. Chat for a moment with Pedro the drunk guy, who's a friend of mine. He's a Communist but likes John Ford, Charlie Parker, and Dos Passos, so we get along just fine. Nobody in the pet store where I pick up the monthly huge bag of catfood, but they've got really cute baby gerbils. Can't get any, not with five cats. There's a crowd in the Bodega Manolo doing the traditional weekend pre-lunch "vermut", in which they drink either straight Martini red (yecch) or beer and eat salty snacks like anchovies and potato chips. At the Manolo they also have potatoes with allioli and steamed mussels with garlic and parsley.
They're widening the sidewalks on Torrente Flores, our main up-and-down street, but of course nobody's at work, it's Saturday, so there's a ditch along one side of the street that's just sitting there. I checked out the birds; we've got four main urban bird species, your plain old standard pigeon, your basic normal sparrow, ring-necked doves, and these green parakeets that supposedly are native to Argentina. I especially like the parakeets. We also have seagulls, but you don't see many up here three miles away from the harbor. The harbor is a lot cleaner than it used to be, by the way; there are several different kinds of fish living there now. They've also done at least something about dumping raw sewage into the sea, though they need to do a lot more work with water purification. Barcelona is flanked by two rivers, which are of course glorified streams, the Llobregat on the left and the Besos on the right. They used to be really filthy, the Besos was a dead river that could not support any life. Now they're a lot cleaner, and a fairly attractive park has been installed along the Besos. It ain't the Seine or even the Tiber, but it doesn't stink any more.
Anyway, I took my bike out and rode up and down the side streets for about half an hour. Lots of spring cleaning going on, all the balconies wide open. I look dorky in my helmet, but you really do need to wear one because there's no telling when you might get nailed by a butane truck or a sixteen-year-old on a moped. It's kind of a crappy old bike, but a friend of ours gave it to me and I've got a sentimental attachment to it. And, besides, it's not like I'm riding in the Tour de France or anything.
Oh, I got a new computer, it was about time. I bought the previous box secondhand in 2000, and all the other stuff, monitor, etc. was from 1996. The monitor barely worked, Internet was incredibly slow, and the damn thing kept crashing. Also, Murph bought this computer game that wouldn't even work on that computer, and that's when you know your setup is obsolete. This one's much nicer. Cost me €800, bottom-of-the-line laptop, and I got the latest Norton security thing as well, since I had a bunch of adware and junk on the old computer and I don't want to get any of that crap on this one.
The TV thing went OK, though there were too many people. The question was what we thought about the Zapatero administration, and I kept it short and sweet and said that Zap had jumped from being a US-UK ally to a France-Germany ally, and that France and Germany then abandoned Zap. leaving him with only Cuba and Venezuela for friends. I said the Iraq pullout was a bad idea and that Spain was now internationally isolated. I said Zap's error was putting Spain on the wrong side of history. Last thing I managed to say was that I didn't think Gonzalez and Fernandez Ordoñez would have carried out a foreign policy like that of Zap and Moratinos. The deal was they wanted people to comment on a variety of issues, and most of the invitees were critical from the left and there to talk about gay marriage or whatever. It would have been better if they'd spread it out over five days and given, say, 15 minutes each to family issues, religious issues, economic issues, foreign policy, and education / social services issues, for example, over the whole week, rather than jamming it all into 30 minutes on Friday.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Somebody decided "passion" was the cool word in advertising around here a year ago or so and now there isn't a single ad anywhere that doesn't use it. I mean, for Chrissake, there's this brand of shampoo going around advertising "Passion for healthy hair"....Tasteless ads are bigger over here than in the States. For example, there's this one ad over here for sore throat menthol candies that features the model sucking on one and then suddenly her boobs pop out to size 48 triple-D. Everybody knows this is tacky but it goes over....Here's one for local tastelessness. My wife's forty-fiveish female cousin told this joke in front of everyone, and acted it out too. You need to know that Lepe is the town in Spain where stupid people come from, rather like Polish jokes in the US or Irish jokes in the UK. It's a beauty contest. Miss Seville is ready to go down the catwalk. They tell her, "Pose." She poses. They say, "Smile." She smiles. They tell her, "Moisten your lips." She licks her lips. They say "Thank you," and she parades off. Here comes Miss Barcelona. Pose. She poses. Smile. She smiles. Moisten your lips. She licks her lips. Thank you. Next. Here comes Miss Lepe. Pose. She poses. Smile. She smiles. Moisten your lips. She looks confused for a moment, then the lightbulb in her head goes on. She licks her fingers good, sticks them inside her bikini bottom, and starts rubbing...Would people do that in the States in front of their mother-in law and three people they barely know?
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Here's a piece I submitted to the Spain Herald. We'll see what they think. I know it needs some editing.
Where are Spain's moderate leftists?
David Horowitz is a well-known conservative American writer and polemicist; Libertad Digital, the Spain Herald's Spanish-language mother ship, often publishes pieces by him in Spanish. Horowitz's most recent project is the Discover the Network website (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individual.asp), which documents the connections between various organizations and individuals on the Left, mostly in the United States .
Horowitz divides individual Leftists into five groups. The first two, Totalitarian Radicals (example: Fidel Castro or ETA) and Anti-American Radicals (example: Noam Chomsky) should be obvious. The two brands of Radicalism are often found within the same person. Unfortunately, it is all too common in Spain, among the comfortable "parlor pinkos" and "limousine leftists" whom Tom Wolfe so successfully skewered a generation ago, to actually give support to these enemies of freedom. American parlor pinkos tend to fall into what Horowitz calls "Affective Leftists", who really don't know what they think but feel that the Left is Good and the Right is Bad. Affective Leftists (example: Barbra Streisand) are mostly just goofy, though, and nobody really cares what they say. Affective Leftists are also not really serious about destroying liberal capitalist democracy, which has treated them so well. Totalitarian and Anti-American (or Anti-Spanish, over here) Radicals are. The United Left and Batasuna fall into the Radical categories, and Esquerra Republicana and the PNV are flirting dangerously with Anti-Spanishism, getting entirely too friendly with groups like ETA that practice violence.
Sometimes it's difficult to decide which celebrity or politician fits exactly into which group. Jane Fonda? I'd say Radical, she actually went to North Vietnam. Sean Penn? He's just a dope. Affective. Not that Jane Fonda is smart. Michael Moore is Radical. Everybody who signed the pro-Castro petition? Radical. Here in Spain? The Bardems are Radical. Almodovar is Affective. Zapatero and his bunch mostly strike me as Affective, though they're slightly tainted by Radicalism. All those boring Communist singers (Llach, Aute, Sabina, Victor Manuel, etc) are Radical. Most movie people like Penelope Cruz and that lot are Affective. Too many Radical bad writers, like Jose Saramago and Rosa Regas, get a lot of publicity from their politics.
Horowitz's two other classifications are a little less obvious. Just plain Leftists are democratic socialists. They are neither capitalist nor liberal, but at least they're constitutionalists and they generally oppose the use of violence. They are also generally not particularly patriotic, at least not pro-American or pro-Spanish. Most of the Spanish Socialist Party would fit in here, as would Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry are Leftists.
Moderate Leftists are exemplified by Bill Clinton. He's not a socialist. He's not antipatriotic. He's not wholly anticapitalist. He's actually fairly liberal in the European sense of the word regarding the economy. His sympathies are with the ideals of the Left, but he's pragmatic enough to compromise his principles, something he does not have a lot of, by the way. Two other Americans who would fit in here are Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, and I'd stick Hillary in with this lot.
Moderate Leftists are actually a good thing to have in a democratic system. Of course, we'd prefer for the conservative candidates to win most of the elections, but Moderate Leftists won't be a complete disaster if they take over, and they will probably stay out of the economy enough not to completely undermine the business sector. Moderate Leftists are a guarantee of constitutional stability, just like Moderate Rightists. They may not like to use the armed forces or the cops, but they will if they have to.
An excellent example of a Moderate Leftist is Tony Blair, who has been wrong on every single small issue but absolutely right on the one big one. I'd trust Tony Blair's moral and practical instincts almost blindly. Of course, one big advantage Blair has over Clinton is his personal integrity, but, hey, a Moderate Leftist who's honest is often not a bad thing at all. Look at Harry Truman or Franklin D. Roosevelt--or Teddy Roosevelt, who was considered a dangerous progressive at the time, or Lincoln, who pulled such socialist big-government stunts as instituting the permanent national debt, the income tax and the draft, not to mention organizing the single greatest army of the 19th century and all the centralization that involved, and who was the greatest individual agent for radical change in American history.
But who would fit in here in Spain? If Felipe Gonzalez had been more honest, he'd fit in here very well. He publicly renounced Marxism, instituted a sort of social democracy allowing business to operate more or less, allied with the United States and NATO, and fought ETA. Those are all major Moderate Leftist achievements, Sure, he spent a bunch of tax money on huge but arguably necessary projects, and sure, Socialist party hacks embezzled some of the cash, but worse things have happened. And though I'd have voted for either the AP or PP candidate against Felipe, especially if he was Aznar, Felipe's administration was not horrible. If you don't mind a little corruption and a death squad or two.
I can't think of any respectable Moderate Leftists in Spain today, though. Zapatero? He's so dumb he's an Affective, and his foreign policy is Anti-American Radical. He's not much of a Spanish patriot either. Moratinos? He sure acts like a Radical, what with all this love for Fidel Castro. Carod-Rovira? He's close to Totalitarian. The Basque left? They're crazy. The Communists? It makes me laugh.
About as close as I can come to a Moderate Leftist in Spain today is Jose Bono, the minister of defense. He's pro-Spanish and anti-terrorism, at least, and we don't know what he thinks about Spain's pullout of troops from Iraq, but he probably would have supported staying there. OK, Bono is a party hack, a regional boss. He runs Castilla-La Mancha the way Mayor Daley used to run Chicago, if you know what I mean and I'll bet you do. But, if you can stand a little corruption, you can at least trust Bono not to behave like a clown and to keep the country functioning. I am afraid that Zapatero has proven, in his first year in office, that he is no Moderate Leftist. Bono might be.
Where are Spain's moderate leftists?
David Horowitz is a well-known conservative American writer and polemicist; Libertad Digital, the Spain Herald's Spanish-language mother ship, often publishes pieces by him in Spanish. Horowitz's most recent project is the Discover the Network website (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individual.asp), which documents the connections between various organizations and individuals on the Left, mostly in the United States .
Horowitz divides individual Leftists into five groups. The first two, Totalitarian Radicals (example: Fidel Castro or ETA) and Anti-American Radicals (example: Noam Chomsky) should be obvious. The two brands of Radicalism are often found within the same person. Unfortunately, it is all too common in Spain, among the comfortable "parlor pinkos" and "limousine leftists" whom Tom Wolfe so successfully skewered a generation ago, to actually give support to these enemies of freedom. American parlor pinkos tend to fall into what Horowitz calls "Affective Leftists", who really don't know what they think but feel that the Left is Good and the Right is Bad. Affective Leftists (example: Barbra Streisand) are mostly just goofy, though, and nobody really cares what they say. Affective Leftists are also not really serious about destroying liberal capitalist democracy, which has treated them so well. Totalitarian and Anti-American (or Anti-Spanish, over here) Radicals are. The United Left and Batasuna fall into the Radical categories, and Esquerra Republicana and the PNV are flirting dangerously with Anti-Spanishism, getting entirely too friendly with groups like ETA that practice violence.
Sometimes it's difficult to decide which celebrity or politician fits exactly into which group. Jane Fonda? I'd say Radical, she actually went to North Vietnam. Sean Penn? He's just a dope. Affective. Not that Jane Fonda is smart. Michael Moore is Radical. Everybody who signed the pro-Castro petition? Radical. Here in Spain? The Bardems are Radical. Almodovar is Affective. Zapatero and his bunch mostly strike me as Affective, though they're slightly tainted by Radicalism. All those boring Communist singers (Llach, Aute, Sabina, Victor Manuel, etc) are Radical. Most movie people like Penelope Cruz and that lot are Affective. Too many Radical bad writers, like Jose Saramago and Rosa Regas, get a lot of publicity from their politics.
Horowitz's two other classifications are a little less obvious. Just plain Leftists are democratic socialists. They are neither capitalist nor liberal, but at least they're constitutionalists and they generally oppose the use of violence. They are also generally not particularly patriotic, at least not pro-American or pro-Spanish. Most of the Spanish Socialist Party would fit in here, as would Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry are Leftists.
Moderate Leftists are exemplified by Bill Clinton. He's not a socialist. He's not antipatriotic. He's not wholly anticapitalist. He's actually fairly liberal in the European sense of the word regarding the economy. His sympathies are with the ideals of the Left, but he's pragmatic enough to compromise his principles, something he does not have a lot of, by the way. Two other Americans who would fit in here are Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, and I'd stick Hillary in with this lot.
Moderate Leftists are actually a good thing to have in a democratic system. Of course, we'd prefer for the conservative candidates to win most of the elections, but Moderate Leftists won't be a complete disaster if they take over, and they will probably stay out of the economy enough not to completely undermine the business sector. Moderate Leftists are a guarantee of constitutional stability, just like Moderate Rightists. They may not like to use the armed forces or the cops, but they will if they have to.
An excellent example of a Moderate Leftist is Tony Blair, who has been wrong on every single small issue but absolutely right on the one big one. I'd trust Tony Blair's moral and practical instincts almost blindly. Of course, one big advantage Blair has over Clinton is his personal integrity, but, hey, a Moderate Leftist who's honest is often not a bad thing at all. Look at Harry Truman or Franklin D. Roosevelt--or Teddy Roosevelt, who was considered a dangerous progressive at the time, or Lincoln, who pulled such socialist big-government stunts as instituting the permanent national debt, the income tax and the draft, not to mention organizing the single greatest army of the 19th century and all the centralization that involved, and who was the greatest individual agent for radical change in American history.
But who would fit in here in Spain? If Felipe Gonzalez had been more honest, he'd fit in here very well. He publicly renounced Marxism, instituted a sort of social democracy allowing business to operate more or less, allied with the United States and NATO, and fought ETA. Those are all major Moderate Leftist achievements, Sure, he spent a bunch of tax money on huge but arguably necessary projects, and sure, Socialist party hacks embezzled some of the cash, but worse things have happened. And though I'd have voted for either the AP or PP candidate against Felipe, especially if he was Aznar, Felipe's administration was not horrible. If you don't mind a little corruption and a death squad or two.
I can't think of any respectable Moderate Leftists in Spain today, though. Zapatero? He's so dumb he's an Affective, and his foreign policy is Anti-American Radical. He's not much of a Spanish patriot either. Moratinos? He sure acts like a Radical, what with all this love for Fidel Castro. Carod-Rovira? He's close to Totalitarian. The Basque left? They're crazy. The Communists? It makes me laugh.
About as close as I can come to a Moderate Leftist in Spain today is Jose Bono, the minister of defense. He's pro-Spanish and anti-terrorism, at least, and we don't know what he thinks about Spain's pullout of troops from Iraq, but he probably would have supported staying there. OK, Bono is a party hack, a regional boss. He runs Castilla-La Mancha the way Mayor Daley used to run Chicago, if you know what I mean and I'll bet you do. But, if you can stand a little corruption, you can at least trust Bono not to behave like a clown and to keep the country functioning. I am afraid that Zapatero has proven, in his first year in office, that he is no Moderate Leftist. Bono might be.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Sorry not to have posted for a while--I've been busy with the news side of the Spain Herald, and then we went out to the pueblo last weekend for the annual family calçotada.
I think I'm going to change the focus of this blog. Since I spend a couple of hours a night translating stuff to English, I don't particularly want to do even more of it here. The thing about the Spain Herald is that what it says in the news section is accurate to the best of my knowledge and to the best knowledge of the management, and they pretty well cover everything of importance that happens on the political side around here. Yeah, it's slanted, but they admit it--they don't pretend to be neutral--and their slant on the issues is pretty much mine too. If they ever asked me to translate something I found genuinely objectionable, I wouldn't do it. That hasn't happened yet and there's no reason for me to think it ever would.
Anyway, what we don't cover, our friends Trevor at Barcelona Reporter and John B. at Spain Media do, and for opinion our friends Franco Aleman at Barcepundit in English (y en español tambien) and the boys at HispaLibertas in Spanish pretty much write about everything of importance. Check with our man Robert Duncan in Madrid and on Catholic topics. Also, the Spain Herald's opinion section is excellent, with articles by such notables as economist Pedro Schwartz and my man Jorge Valin, a personal friend of Iberian Notes. And, of course, you'll want to look at all the other sites on the blogroll over on the left, too.
What I'm going to do is begin posting a bit more personally. I'm going to start writing more about society and culture and less about politics in general. We'll see how it works. Give me a month or so to hit a stride.
I think I'm going to change the focus of this blog. Since I spend a couple of hours a night translating stuff to English, I don't particularly want to do even more of it here. The thing about the Spain Herald is that what it says in the news section is accurate to the best of my knowledge and to the best knowledge of the management, and they pretty well cover everything of importance that happens on the political side around here. Yeah, it's slanted, but they admit it--they don't pretend to be neutral--and their slant on the issues is pretty much mine too. If they ever asked me to translate something I found genuinely objectionable, I wouldn't do it. That hasn't happened yet and there's no reason for me to think it ever would.
Anyway, what we don't cover, our friends Trevor at Barcelona Reporter and John B. at Spain Media do, and for opinion our friends Franco Aleman at Barcepundit in English (y en español tambien) and the boys at HispaLibertas in Spanish pretty much write about everything of importance. Check with our man Robert Duncan in Madrid and on Catholic topics. Also, the Spain Herald's opinion section is excellent, with articles by such notables as economist Pedro Schwartz and my man Jorge Valin, a personal friend of Iberian Notes. And, of course, you'll want to look at all the other sites on the blogroll over on the left, too.
What I'm going to do is begin posting a bit more personally. I'm going to start writing more about society and culture and less about politics in general. We'll see how it works. Give me a month or so to hit a stride.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Here's an e-mail from my mom back in Kansas on all this stuff.
These are definitely the Shoemakes we know and love. Annie Bone is the “Eve” of our Indian ancestors as far as I know. #14v, John Wesley, #11i James and Sarah Tomlin Shoemake are Jim’s parents and #24 to 34 are Jim’s brothers and sisters and William #10 is a brothers of James #11i. June, Johnine & I went to Okla and found their graves very tidily maintained two summers ago. James #11i was the last of the brothers to die within a span of a few months and his grave did not have a marker, so John McDowell had made an aluminum one with the letters engraved on it (small enough for them to bring on the plane) and we installed it along with several stones from various locations (my grandfather’s grave in Marathon, our yards in KS and TX) since it is a Cherokee tradition to put stones of significance on graves. Anyway, I sent the e-mail on to Johnine who will be fascinated that you just ran across it. We knew most of the names, but not all the dates and locations which are indicated. Thanks!! We looked up the Indian files at the local library in the town where the graveyard is located (I can’t remember the name of the files, but they are extremely detailed.) There is a really interesting living history museum in that town as well which has young college Indians who illustrate all kinds of Cherokee traditions and myths, etc. And buildings and games, etc. LOVE MOM
These are definitely the Shoemakes we know and love. Annie Bone is the “Eve” of our Indian ancestors as far as I know. #14v, John Wesley, #11i James and Sarah Tomlin Shoemake are Jim’s parents and #24 to 34 are Jim’s brothers and sisters and William #10 is a brothers of James #11i. June, Johnine & I went to Okla and found their graves very tidily maintained two summers ago. James #11i was the last of the brothers to die within a span of a few months and his grave did not have a marker, so John McDowell had made an aluminum one with the letters engraved on it (small enough for them to bring on the plane) and we installed it along with several stones from various locations (my grandfather’s grave in Marathon, our yards in KS and TX) since it is a Cherokee tradition to put stones of significance on graves. Anyway, I sent the e-mail on to Johnine who will be fascinated that you just ran across it. We knew most of the names, but not all the dates and locations which are indicated. Thanks!! We looked up the Indian files at the local library in the town where the graveyard is located (I can’t remember the name of the files, but they are extremely detailed.) There is a really interesting living history museum in that town as well which has young college Indians who illustrate all kinds of Cherokee traditions and myths, etc. And buildings and games, etc. LOVE MOM
How a French Aristocrat Gave His Surname to a Cherokee Cowboy (Maybe) (Part II)
Granddaddy Jim was born in Cotulla, Texas, down by the Rio Grande. As a young man, he went west to the Marathon area and got a job as a cowboy on a ranch, which in those days was a not a glamourous job at all. He held several different ranch jobs out there before he married Aunt Jennie in 1896 and sort of settled down, working as a clerk in one of the general stores, since he was literate and numerate and honest. Later on, though, when he was in his thirties, he joined up with the newly-established Mounted Border Patrol, which wasn't founded until 1904. Their main job, then as now, was catching illegal immigrants while using no violence unless attacked. During the Mexican Revolution, which began in 1910 and spiraled on with dizzying complexity, bandit gangs raiding across the river became common--these guys were mostly livestock rustlers--, and Jim was in more than one gunfight; his partner was shot dead beside him in one of these skirmishes.
Jim always said that he was part Indian, and everyone believed him, it's been family lore for decades that we're part-Cherokee, but we never had any real evidence. Jim didn't have too much to say about his family, and the story is that he left home young because his father mistreated him. Jim's father was named James Preston Shoemake, and he was born in 1826 in Jackson County, Alabama, which was Cherokee territory then. James Preston moved west, away from his family, down to the Rio Grande area sometime before 1860, since in that year he married a woman named Sarah Louisa Tomlin in Texas. We don't know anything about her family. James Preston died sometime after 1896 in Cotulla, Texas. James Preston had two brothers, William H. and John Wesley Shoemake (the name John Wesley indicates they were already Methodists, which the family has been since time immemorial), among other siblings, and he had two first cousins named Lula B. and Mary E. Shoemake.
I'm going to quickly jump back a generation. James Preston's father was John A. Shoemake, who might have been born around 1803, perhaps in Chesterfield County, South Carolina. John A. married a woman named Elizabeth, whom we know nothing about, in about 1824, and he was out in Jackson County, Alabama, part of the Cherokee lands, at that time. He died in a village called Crowtown in that region in 1855. Now, John A. had at least two other sons, James Preston's brothers William H. and John W., and William had two daughters, Lula and Mary. Here's where it gets interesting.
There is a document called the Dawes Roll, compiled in I believe 1893 in the Indian Territory, what is today Oklahoma, that lists all the members of the Cherokee Nation who were entitled to certain federal government rights. William H. Shoemake is number 32130 on the Dawes Roll, Lula B. is 32131, Mary E. is 32132, and John W. is 32133. James Preston would therefore have qualified, too, but he was down in Cotulla rather than in Oklahoma with everybody else. Why he chose to go to Texas while the rest of his relatives all went to Oklahoma, I do not know. What I do know is that all the Jackson County, Alabama, Shoemakes left there or died there before the 1850s.
Let's go back to John A. Shoemake, father of William, John, and James Preston. John A. was the son of Anna Thorn (or Anna Bone) and an unknown man, and he was probably born in 1803. We don't know whether Anna was married to the man or not; this is why we're not sure what her original surname was. But Anna, possibly recently widowed or possibly with an illegitimate child on her hands, married a man named John Shoemake, called "Balljack", sometime in the decade of 1800. Balljack adopted John A. as his stepson and gave him his surname. To repeat: Balljack was not John A.'s biological father, but Anna was his biological mother. This means that Anna is as far back as we can trace the bloodline, because Balljack and his ancestors are not related to my family by blood.
OK. Let's go through it again. My grandmother, Bonnie Shoemake (1910-1988), was the daughter of James Lafayette "Granddaddy Jim" Shoemake (1874-1960), who was the son of James Preston Shoemake (1826-1896?), who was the son of John A. Shoemake (1803?-1855?), who was the son of Anna Thorn or Anna Bone and the stepson of John "Balljack" Shoemake.
Granddaddy Jim was born in Cotulla, Texas, down by the Rio Grande. As a young man, he went west to the Marathon area and got a job as a cowboy on a ranch, which in those days was a not a glamourous job at all. He held several different ranch jobs out there before he married Aunt Jennie in 1896 and sort of settled down, working as a clerk in one of the general stores, since he was literate and numerate and honest. Later on, though, when he was in his thirties, he joined up with the newly-established Mounted Border Patrol, which wasn't founded until 1904. Their main job, then as now, was catching illegal immigrants while using no violence unless attacked. During the Mexican Revolution, which began in 1910 and spiraled on with dizzying complexity, bandit gangs raiding across the river became common--these guys were mostly livestock rustlers--, and Jim was in more than one gunfight; his partner was shot dead beside him in one of these skirmishes.
Jim always said that he was part Indian, and everyone believed him, it's been family lore for decades that we're part-Cherokee, but we never had any real evidence. Jim didn't have too much to say about his family, and the story is that he left home young because his father mistreated him. Jim's father was named James Preston Shoemake, and he was born in 1826 in Jackson County, Alabama, which was Cherokee territory then. James Preston moved west, away from his family, down to the Rio Grande area sometime before 1860, since in that year he married a woman named Sarah Louisa Tomlin in Texas. We don't know anything about her family. James Preston died sometime after 1896 in Cotulla, Texas. James Preston had two brothers, William H. and John Wesley Shoemake (the name John Wesley indicates they were already Methodists, which the family has been since time immemorial), among other siblings, and he had two first cousins named Lula B. and Mary E. Shoemake.
I'm going to quickly jump back a generation. James Preston's father was John A. Shoemake, who might have been born around 1803, perhaps in Chesterfield County, South Carolina. John A. married a woman named Elizabeth, whom we know nothing about, in about 1824, and he was out in Jackson County, Alabama, part of the Cherokee lands, at that time. He died in a village called Crowtown in that region in 1855. Now, John A. had at least two other sons, James Preston's brothers William H. and John W., and William had two daughters, Lula and Mary. Here's where it gets interesting.
There is a document called the Dawes Roll, compiled in I believe 1893 in the Indian Territory, what is today Oklahoma, that lists all the members of the Cherokee Nation who were entitled to certain federal government rights. William H. Shoemake is number 32130 on the Dawes Roll, Lula B. is 32131, Mary E. is 32132, and John W. is 32133. James Preston would therefore have qualified, too, but he was down in Cotulla rather than in Oklahoma with everybody else. Why he chose to go to Texas while the rest of his relatives all went to Oklahoma, I do not know. What I do know is that all the Jackson County, Alabama, Shoemakes left there or died there before the 1850s.
Let's go back to John A. Shoemake, father of William, John, and James Preston. John A. was the son of Anna Thorn (or Anna Bone) and an unknown man, and he was probably born in 1803. We don't know whether Anna was married to the man or not; this is why we're not sure what her original surname was. But Anna, possibly recently widowed or possibly with an illegitimate child on her hands, married a man named John Shoemake, called "Balljack", sometime in the decade of 1800. Balljack adopted John A. as his stepson and gave him his surname. To repeat: Balljack was not John A.'s biological father, but Anna was his biological mother. This means that Anna is as far back as we can trace the bloodline, because Balljack and his ancestors are not related to my family by blood.
OK. Let's go through it again. My grandmother, Bonnie Shoemake (1910-1988), was the daughter of James Lafayette "Granddaddy Jim" Shoemake (1874-1960), who was the son of James Preston Shoemake (1826-1896?), who was the son of John A. Shoemake (1803?-1855?), who was the son of Anna Thorn or Anna Bone and the stepson of John "Balljack" Shoemake.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
How a French Aristocrat Gave His Surname to a Cherokee Cowboy (Maybe) (Part I)
Bonnie Shoemake was my grandmother's name. I always associated her a little bit with Bonnie Parker because 1) obviously they have the same first name 2) they were both born in West Texas 3) in 1910 4) in the same sort of lower-middle upper-working class family 5) they were feisty, tough, and intelligent 6) they were very small (Parker four-foot-ten, "Granny" four-foot-eight) 7) they were both "flappers" in the Twenties, or what passed for it in that part of the world 8) they both knew how to use a gun 9) they even look a bit alike. (Photos to follow.) Of course, 10) Granny wasn't dumb or amoral enough to do any crimes or silly enough to fall in with a habitual criminal like Clyde Barrow was. She was a good woman and she married a good man. They weren't perfect, but they were good people, and we all loved them both.
Granny was born, as I said, in 1910 in Marathon, Texas, which you've never heard of because it's about as close to the middle of nowhere as it's possible to get. (You have probably seen Marathon in a movie; the deserty motel scenes in "Paris, Texas" were filmed there. I've stayed in that motel. It's not hard to find. It's the only one there.) Marathon is where you turn south off Highway 90 to get to Big Bend National Park. It's actually become a little foo-foo, there are a couple of art galleries and bed and breakfasts and stuff there now. In the old days, though, it was West Texas ranch country and nothing but. The Southern Pacific main line runs through there, and that's how John Frederick Aust met Granny.
Pappy, as we all called him, was a German. German was his first language, and he didn't learn English until he went to school. He was a skilled mechanic and worked on a series of railroads maintaining the signals; seems that he was particularly good with electricity, though he could fix or rig up about anything. He was working on the Southern Pacific in 1934 and that's where he met Granny and they got married and had my mom and my aunts and that is of course why I'm here.
Pappy was from Western Kansas; his grandfather and father had immigrated back in 1888 from a town called Illeschestic in a region called Bukovina that was then part of the Austrian Empire and now is in Romania. They were originally from Wurttemberg in southern Germany; what happened is that in the beginning of the 1700s the Austrians conquered a bunch of land in the Balkans from the Turks and, since it was vacant territory they needed to repopulate it. What they did was declare the area "the Military Frontier" and give free land to anybody with the guts to take it--you never knew when the Turks might come back. These Wurttembergers took the Emperor up on the deal and entire villages moved out east to Bukovina and similar places. Then, toward the end of the 1800s, word got to Bukovina that land was so cheap it was almost free in Kansas, and those entire villages packed up and moved again, this time to Ellis County and the high plains.
If you're European, you might be wondering why I know all this. The answer is paradoxical. We Americans are the descendents of people who moved, and our people often moved more than once, like Pappy's ancestors; you Europeans are descended from people who stayed home. Therefore, Europeans know where they come from, because their great-great-grandparents were from the same place as they are. Europeans don't make a big deal about finding roots because they just know automatically that they have them. Every American's roots, though, come from somewhere else and we don't always know where. This makes us curious, and it's why so many Americans are interested in genealogy.
Back to Granny. Granny's mother was named Virginia Alice Hovis, and everyone called her "Aunt Jennie". She lived until 1952, and my mother and aunts remember her very well. Aunt Jennie's family were poor white folk from the Mississippi hills, and we really don't know very much about them. Her father was a buck private in the Confederate Army, and he fought at Antietam, where he was wounded in the ankle and sent home from there. That's about all we know.
It's Granny's father's family that we know something about. Granny's father, Aunt Jennie's husband, was named James Lafayette Shoemake. He was very long-lived, born in 1875 and died in 1960; my mother and her sisters called him "Granddaddy Jim". Jim was a larger-than-life fellow, a guy who made an impression. People liked him, and they remembered him well. My mother's family still swaps Granddaddy Jim stories, and the fascinating thing is that every one I've been able to check out turns out to be true.
This looks like a good place to stop. The title's a bit of a teaser, isn't it?
Bonnie Shoemake was my grandmother's name. I always associated her a little bit with Bonnie Parker because 1) obviously they have the same first name 2) they were both born in West Texas 3) in 1910 4) in the same sort of lower-middle upper-working class family 5) they were feisty, tough, and intelligent 6) they were very small (Parker four-foot-ten, "Granny" four-foot-eight) 7) they were both "flappers" in the Twenties, or what passed for it in that part of the world 8) they both knew how to use a gun 9) they even look a bit alike. (Photos to follow.) Of course, 10) Granny wasn't dumb or amoral enough to do any crimes or silly enough to fall in with a habitual criminal like Clyde Barrow was. She was a good woman and she married a good man. They weren't perfect, but they were good people, and we all loved them both.
Granny was born, as I said, in 1910 in Marathon, Texas, which you've never heard of because it's about as close to the middle of nowhere as it's possible to get. (You have probably seen Marathon in a movie; the deserty motel scenes in "Paris, Texas" were filmed there. I've stayed in that motel. It's not hard to find. It's the only one there.) Marathon is where you turn south off Highway 90 to get to Big Bend National Park. It's actually become a little foo-foo, there are a couple of art galleries and bed and breakfasts and stuff there now. In the old days, though, it was West Texas ranch country and nothing but. The Southern Pacific main line runs through there, and that's how John Frederick Aust met Granny.
Pappy, as we all called him, was a German. German was his first language, and he didn't learn English until he went to school. He was a skilled mechanic and worked on a series of railroads maintaining the signals; seems that he was particularly good with electricity, though he could fix or rig up about anything. He was working on the Southern Pacific in 1934 and that's where he met Granny and they got married and had my mom and my aunts and that is of course why I'm here.
Pappy was from Western Kansas; his grandfather and father had immigrated back in 1888 from a town called Illeschestic in a region called Bukovina that was then part of the Austrian Empire and now is in Romania. They were originally from Wurttemberg in southern Germany; what happened is that in the beginning of the 1700s the Austrians conquered a bunch of land in the Balkans from the Turks and, since it was vacant territory they needed to repopulate it. What they did was declare the area "the Military Frontier" and give free land to anybody with the guts to take it--you never knew when the Turks might come back. These Wurttembergers took the Emperor up on the deal and entire villages moved out east to Bukovina and similar places. Then, toward the end of the 1800s, word got to Bukovina that land was so cheap it was almost free in Kansas, and those entire villages packed up and moved again, this time to Ellis County and the high plains.
If you're European, you might be wondering why I know all this. The answer is paradoxical. We Americans are the descendents of people who moved, and our people often moved more than once, like Pappy's ancestors; you Europeans are descended from people who stayed home. Therefore, Europeans know where they come from, because their great-great-grandparents were from the same place as they are. Europeans don't make a big deal about finding roots because they just know automatically that they have them. Every American's roots, though, come from somewhere else and we don't always know where. This makes us curious, and it's why so many Americans are interested in genealogy.
Back to Granny. Granny's mother was named Virginia Alice Hovis, and everyone called her "Aunt Jennie". She lived until 1952, and my mother and aunts remember her very well. Aunt Jennie's family were poor white folk from the Mississippi hills, and we really don't know very much about them. Her father was a buck private in the Confederate Army, and he fought at Antietam, where he was wounded in the ankle and sent home from there. That's about all we know.
It's Granny's father's family that we know something about. Granny's father, Aunt Jennie's husband, was named James Lafayette Shoemake. He was very long-lived, born in 1875 and died in 1960; my mother and her sisters called him "Granddaddy Jim". Jim was a larger-than-life fellow, a guy who made an impression. People liked him, and they remembered him well. My mother's family still swaps Granddaddy Jim stories, and the fascinating thing is that every one I've been able to check out turns out to be true.
This looks like a good place to stop. The title's a bit of a teaser, isn't it?
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Tasty comment by John Derbyshire in The Corner over at National Review; I like The Corner because it's generally pretty lighthearted, sort of a break from the normal fairly serious tone of National Review. I'm surprised at how often Derbyshire and I agree, though he's a social paleocon and I'm not. What we both are is pro-religion atheists and strong believers in the scientific method, if that makes sense. Big bang, yes. Evolution, yes. Global warming, dopey. Lomborg, yes. Ockham's razor, yes. God, no. But religion, at least the moderate kind, good.
I subscribe to this 100% and I rather wish I'd written it.
"Mr. Derbyshire---Your review of Simon Singh's book in the Feb. 28 issue of National Review included a general defense of the integrity of scientists. Singh, you say, 'gives the reader a valuable lesson in the progress of scientific inquiry, in the nature of scientific method and the means by which controversies in science are resolved. A great deal of nonsense is talked and written about this, particularly by anti-evolution propagandists. Singh's account shows plainly that the generality of scientists are neither passionless Mister Spocks, weighing evidence with cold, flawless objectivity, nor grim upholders of a pseudo-religious dogma determined to defend crumbling theories to the last ditch.'
"Would you be as comfortable with that quote were 'anti-evolution' replaced by 'anti-global-warming'? I'm afraid that I can't recall whether you have written anything about Bjorn Lomborg, but National Review has certainly had a lot to say about the scientific establishment's defense of the 'pseudo-religious dogmas' of environmentalism against Lomborg's skepticism.
"You say that scientists are 'reluctant to let go of the convictions of a lifetime, but usually willing to do so when faced with convincing evidence.' Do you believe that to be as true of environmental scientists as it is of physicists? What about evolutionary biologists?"
Reply: The key phrase there is "convincing evidence." Broadly speaking, when evidence is very sparse, the human side of scientists comes out, and there is much grandstanding, politicking, and ego-tripping. So it was with the Big Bang until the 1970s, when the weight of evidence began to make the anti-Big-Bangers look silly. When evidence reaches a critical mass, science at large swings behind the better theory. A few eccentrics like Hoyle might hold out; but science **at large** knows the difference between a theory that fits the evidence parsimoniously, and one that doesn't. Not only does it know it, in fact, it depends on that knowledge for its livelihood and reputation! I don't know any counterexamples to this rule. The problem, again, is that when the evidence is scanty, pretty much anything can be made to fit.
With global warming things are much worse than they were with Big Bang because there are more political points to be made (Rich countries BAD! Poor countries GOOD!) and more gummint money to be spent. The fundamental problem is the same, though. The evidentiary database is just too sparse. You can make any sort of case from it. The earth is a large object: measuring its average temeperature is a tricky business. Trying to see whether that temperature has changed across decades is an order of magnitude harder. And then you have to try to figure out whether, if there *is* change, it's caused by human activity. (Followed, of course, by the question: If there is change, and it is human-caused, DOES IT MATTER?)
Evolutionary biology presents a different case. The origin of species by natural selection via mutated forms is the only theory we have. There isn't another one. ("God makes it happen!" isn't a scientific theory, only a metaphysical one.) There is no competition of theories here, of the type Big Bang vs. Steady State, or Global Warming vs. No Global Warming (or Man-Made Global Warming vs. Natural Global Warming). Nobody has an alternative theory. This may be just a failure of imagination on the part of biologists. Perhaps next week someone will come up with an alternative theory for the origin of species that will make Natural Selection via Mutations look silly. Until that happens, though, NSvM is the only game in town. And it looks pretty good. We don't have any observations that contradict it (e.g. a species of winged insects arising in a single generation from a species of un-winged ones). *And* the more we learn about the actual mechanisms of morphology & inheritance, the better the theory looks. Of course it might be all wrong -- it's just a theory; but at present there is no reason to think it's all wrong, and again, NO ALTERNATIVE THEORY.
I subscribe to this 100% and I rather wish I'd written it.
"Mr. Derbyshire---Your review of Simon Singh's book in the Feb. 28 issue of National Review included a general defense of the integrity of scientists. Singh, you say, 'gives the reader a valuable lesson in the progress of scientific inquiry, in the nature of scientific method and the means by which controversies in science are resolved. A great deal of nonsense is talked and written about this, particularly by anti-evolution propagandists. Singh's account shows plainly that the generality of scientists are neither passionless Mister Spocks, weighing evidence with cold, flawless objectivity, nor grim upholders of a pseudo-religious dogma determined to defend crumbling theories to the last ditch.'
"Would you be as comfortable with that quote were 'anti-evolution' replaced by 'anti-global-warming'? I'm afraid that I can't recall whether you have written anything about Bjorn Lomborg, but National Review has certainly had a lot to say about the scientific establishment's defense of the 'pseudo-religious dogmas' of environmentalism against Lomborg's skepticism.
"You say that scientists are 'reluctant to let go of the convictions of a lifetime, but usually willing to do so when faced with convincing evidence.' Do you believe that to be as true of environmental scientists as it is of physicists? What about evolutionary biologists?"
Reply: The key phrase there is "convincing evidence." Broadly speaking, when evidence is very sparse, the human side of scientists comes out, and there is much grandstanding, politicking, and ego-tripping. So it was with the Big Bang until the 1970s, when the weight of evidence began to make the anti-Big-Bangers look silly. When evidence reaches a critical mass, science at large swings behind the better theory. A few eccentrics like Hoyle might hold out; but science **at large** knows the difference between a theory that fits the evidence parsimoniously, and one that doesn't. Not only does it know it, in fact, it depends on that knowledge for its livelihood and reputation! I don't know any counterexamples to this rule. The problem, again, is that when the evidence is scanty, pretty much anything can be made to fit.
With global warming things are much worse than they were with Big Bang because there are more political points to be made (Rich countries BAD! Poor countries GOOD!) and more gummint money to be spent. The fundamental problem is the same, though. The evidentiary database is just too sparse. You can make any sort of case from it. The earth is a large object: measuring its average temeperature is a tricky business. Trying to see whether that temperature has changed across decades is an order of magnitude harder. And then you have to try to figure out whether, if there *is* change, it's caused by human activity. (Followed, of course, by the question: If there is change, and it is human-caused, DOES IT MATTER?)
Evolutionary biology presents a different case. The origin of species by natural selection via mutated forms is the only theory we have. There isn't another one. ("God makes it happen!" isn't a scientific theory, only a metaphysical one.) There is no competition of theories here, of the type Big Bang vs. Steady State, or Global Warming vs. No Global Warming (or Man-Made Global Warming vs. Natural Global Warming). Nobody has an alternative theory. This may be just a failure of imagination on the part of biologists. Perhaps next week someone will come up with an alternative theory for the origin of species that will make Natural Selection via Mutations look silly. Until that happens, though, NSvM is the only game in town. And it looks pretty good. We don't have any observations that contradict it (e.g. a species of winged insects arising in a single generation from a species of un-winged ones). *And* the more we learn about the actual mechanisms of morphology & inheritance, the better the theory looks. Of course it might be all wrong -- it's just a theory; but at present there is no reason to think it's all wrong, and again, NO ALTERNATIVE THEORY.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Arts and Letters Daily links to a new very German website (in English) called Sight and Sign. Here's an excerpt from a piece by Gotz Aly on the Nazi origins of the German welfare state and why many Germans supported Hitler. My personal belief: The German Romantic movement, combined with virulent nationalism springing from the hundreds of years of German disunity and weakness, and combined with the German youth movement (Wandervogel) which fed on "blood and soil" ideology and the idea that pure, uncorrupted youth could and should overthrow the old ways, led to the cultural conditions that caused the First World War and then Naziism. I think it's fascinating that the radical Green environmental movement started in Germany; I honestly think the extreme Greens would fit very nicely into the naive wing of the Nazi Party. Just in case you were wondering, by the way, the Nazis were of all things animal-rights activists. One of the charges that '20s and '30s Nazi propaganda threw at the Jews was that kosher slaughtering was cruel and inhumane.
By the way, of course, most of the Spanish welfare state originated under Franco, and a lot of Spanish societal, legal, and political quirks spring from Francoism.
For the majority of young and by no means monstrous men, National Socialism meant freedom and adventure, a physical and mental anti-ageing program. They were looking for challenges, fun and the ultimate kick in the modern mobile war. They were in their early twenties, trying to find themselves, spurred on by feelings of omnipotence. They lacked the social skills to fit in. They created, in a destructive sense, the most successful generational project in modern history.
Hitler oriented himself to the mood of the population. He asked himself on an hourly basis how he could better satisfy the German majority. Playing a constant game of give and take, he established the redistributive state par excellence. The tax incentive for married couples, so vehemently defended by the conservatives in 2002, stems from 1934. The kilometre flat-rate so dear to today's Bavarian government dates back to the same tax reform law which stated: "It is a constitutional prerogative of National Socialism that citizens have their own homes in the open countryside ..." Since 1941, German pensioners have had a right to health insurance and are no longer dependent on public or church welfare. Under Hitler, the number of holidays was doubled.
Bonuses for working on Sundays, bank holidays and late shifts were taxed until October 2, 1940 at which point the Nazi government wrote them off with a flick of the wrist. Even the Reich's finance minister gave his approval "naturally, on condition that the war is over in 1940." And he rightly anticipated what a "strong impression" this good deed would make on the German public in the midst of a "gigantic war".
Anyone trying to understand the destructive success of National Socialism should look at the public face of the annihilation policy – the modern, cosy and obliging welfare state. During WWII, German soldiers' wives received twice as much family support as their British and American counterparts. They had more money than in peace times. The generosity of state benefits meant that women saw no reason to work. In 1942 it was suggested that state benefits be reduced and taxed but Hitler blocked the idea, fearing public opposition. Funk, the Reich's minister for economic affairs commented drily, "Our economic policy during the war was overly opulent. It is not easy to correct such a thing."
Until May 8, 1845, 80 percent of Germans paid no direct war taxes. The indirect taxes were limited to tobacco, brandy and beer. The Regime's cautious handling of the Volk was apparent in every last detail. In the so-called "South-Eastern German consumer region", the tax on a litre of beer (which Goebbels referred to as a "positive mood element") was 10 Reichspfennigs; in the North, it was about 30 more. There was no tax on wine because it would have affected wine producers who were "already struggling economically".
Protection against unfair dismissal, tenant protection regulations, protection from seizure under execution: hundreds of finely tuned laws were aimed at socio-political appeasement. Hitler ruled according to the principal of "I am the people", later to form the basis of the German Republic's welfare state. The Schröder/Fischer government now faces the historic task of bidding a prolonged farewell to the German community of the Volk.
Hitler gained overwhelming support with his policy of running up debts and explaining that it would be others that paid the price. He promised the Germans everything and asked little of them in return. The constant talk of "a people without living space", "international standing", "complementary economic areas" and "Jew purging" served a single purpose: to increase German prosperity without making Germans work for it themselves. This was the driving force behind his criminal politics: not the interests of industrialists and bankers such as Flick, Krupp and Abs. Economically, the Nazi state was a snowballing system of fraud. Politically, it was a monstrous bubble of speculation, inflated by the common party members.
By the way, of course, most of the Spanish welfare state originated under Franco, and a lot of Spanish societal, legal, and political quirks spring from Francoism.
For the majority of young and by no means monstrous men, National Socialism meant freedom and adventure, a physical and mental anti-ageing program. They were looking for challenges, fun and the ultimate kick in the modern mobile war. They were in their early twenties, trying to find themselves, spurred on by feelings of omnipotence. They lacked the social skills to fit in. They created, in a destructive sense, the most successful generational project in modern history.
Hitler oriented himself to the mood of the population. He asked himself on an hourly basis how he could better satisfy the German majority. Playing a constant game of give and take, he established the redistributive state par excellence. The tax incentive for married couples, so vehemently defended by the conservatives in 2002, stems from 1934. The kilometre flat-rate so dear to today's Bavarian government dates back to the same tax reform law which stated: "It is a constitutional prerogative of National Socialism that citizens have their own homes in the open countryside ..." Since 1941, German pensioners have had a right to health insurance and are no longer dependent on public or church welfare. Under Hitler, the number of holidays was doubled.
Bonuses for working on Sundays, bank holidays and late shifts were taxed until October 2, 1940 at which point the Nazi government wrote them off with a flick of the wrist. Even the Reich's finance minister gave his approval "naturally, on condition that the war is over in 1940." And he rightly anticipated what a "strong impression" this good deed would make on the German public in the midst of a "gigantic war".
Anyone trying to understand the destructive success of National Socialism should look at the public face of the annihilation policy – the modern, cosy and obliging welfare state. During WWII, German soldiers' wives received twice as much family support as their British and American counterparts. They had more money than in peace times. The generosity of state benefits meant that women saw no reason to work. In 1942 it was suggested that state benefits be reduced and taxed but Hitler blocked the idea, fearing public opposition. Funk, the Reich's minister for economic affairs commented drily, "Our economic policy during the war was overly opulent. It is not easy to correct such a thing."
Until May 8, 1845, 80 percent of Germans paid no direct war taxes. The indirect taxes were limited to tobacco, brandy and beer. The Regime's cautious handling of the Volk was apparent in every last detail. In the so-called "South-Eastern German consumer region", the tax on a litre of beer (which Goebbels referred to as a "positive mood element") was 10 Reichspfennigs; in the North, it was about 30 more. There was no tax on wine because it would have affected wine producers who were "already struggling economically".
Protection against unfair dismissal, tenant protection regulations, protection from seizure under execution: hundreds of finely tuned laws were aimed at socio-political appeasement. Hitler ruled according to the principal of "I am the people", later to form the basis of the German Republic's welfare state. The Schröder/Fischer government now faces the historic task of bidding a prolonged farewell to the German community of the Volk.
Hitler gained overwhelming support with his policy of running up debts and explaining that it would be others that paid the price. He promised the Germans everything and asked little of them in return. The constant talk of "a people without living space", "international standing", "complementary economic areas" and "Jew purging" served a single purpose: to increase German prosperity without making Germans work for it themselves. This was the driving force behind his criminal politics: not the interests of industrialists and bankers such as Flick, Krupp and Abs. Economically, the Nazi state was a snowballing system of fraud. Politically, it was a monstrous bubble of speculation, inflated by the common party members.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Here's Victor Davis Hanson in the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006350
After the Cold War, we only acerbated an already unwholesome parent-teenager relationship with the Europeans, who bragged of their new independence, snapped at their benefactors, but always counted on our subsidized protection. That simultaneous denial of and insistence on dependency was not healthy for a continent with a larger population and economy than the United States, as contemporary European insecurity always warred with past glories and unrealized potential capabilities...
Yet, if Europeans are ever going to enter into a full partnership with America, then we better let them move out, encourage them to rearm--or hope they find that the world works according to the refined protocols of The Hague. America must have the confidence that the European pan-democratic continent has evolved beyond warring against itself--and us as well. For all the diplomacy of Secretary Rice and President Bush, it is the Europeans' choice, not our call...
So we are in a dilemma. Until postmodern Europe rightly assumes a role commensurate with its moral rhetoric, population, and economic strength, out of envy or pride it will often seek to undercut and occasionally embarrass the U.S.--at least up to that fine, though ambiguous, point of not quite alienating its hyperpower patron. For our part, we cannot ridicule Europe's present military impotence only to oppose its nascent efforts at a unified defense establishment...
The United States should ignore all this ankle-biting, praise the EU to the skies, but not take very seriously their views on the world until we learn exactly what is going on inside Europe during these years of its uncertainty. America is watching enormous historical forces being unleashed on the continent from its own depopulation, new anti-Semitism, and rising Islamicism to Turkish demands for EU membership and further expansion of the EU into the backwaters of Eastern Europe that will bring it to the doorstep of Russia. Whether its politics and economy will evolve to embrace more personal freedom, its popular culture will integrate its minorities, and its military will step up to protect Western values and visions is unclear.
But what is certain is that the U.S. cannot remain a true ally of a militarily weak but shrill Europe should its politics grow even more resentful and neutralist, always nursing old wounds and new conspiracies, amoral in its inability to act, quite ready to preach to those who do.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006350
After the Cold War, we only acerbated an already unwholesome parent-teenager relationship with the Europeans, who bragged of their new independence, snapped at their benefactors, but always counted on our subsidized protection. That simultaneous denial of and insistence on dependency was not healthy for a continent with a larger population and economy than the United States, as contemporary European insecurity always warred with past glories and unrealized potential capabilities...
Yet, if Europeans are ever going to enter into a full partnership with America, then we better let them move out, encourage them to rearm--or hope they find that the world works according to the refined protocols of The Hague. America must have the confidence that the European pan-democratic continent has evolved beyond warring against itself--and us as well. For all the diplomacy of Secretary Rice and President Bush, it is the Europeans' choice, not our call...
So we are in a dilemma. Until postmodern Europe rightly assumes a role commensurate with its moral rhetoric, population, and economic strength, out of envy or pride it will often seek to undercut and occasionally embarrass the U.S.--at least up to that fine, though ambiguous, point of not quite alienating its hyperpower patron. For our part, we cannot ridicule Europe's present military impotence only to oppose its nascent efforts at a unified defense establishment...
The United States should ignore all this ankle-biting, praise the EU to the skies, but not take very seriously their views on the world until we learn exactly what is going on inside Europe during these years of its uncertainty. America is watching enormous historical forces being unleashed on the continent from its own depopulation, new anti-Semitism, and rising Islamicism to Turkish demands for EU membership and further expansion of the EU into the backwaters of Eastern Europe that will bring it to the doorstep of Russia. Whether its politics and economy will evolve to embrace more personal freedom, its popular culture will integrate its minorities, and its military will step up to protect Western values and visions is unclear.
But what is certain is that the U.S. cannot remain a true ally of a militarily weak but shrill Europe should its politics grow even more resentful and neutralist, always nursing old wounds and new conspiracies, amoral in its inability to act, quite ready to preach to those who do.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Spring training is on and another baseball season begins. My favorite baseball website is The Hardball Times, and they run this hilarious story today on orientation at this year's spring training:
We have a number of drills designed to get you in fighting shape for the season. As you've no doubt noticed, your practice jerseys have different color armbands. That is specifically designed to keep you in groups for the various exercises. Yellow group goes to diamond one for the cup adjustment drills...You must be able to readjust your cup in no fewer than 10 moves. If you are unable to after eight tries, you'll be sent to remedial cup adjustment in the bullpen under the supervision of Denny Neagle’s, um, coach after the morning workout.
This is very important -- if you need over 25 adjustments it can cause vision impairment, blindness, and a shocking amount of staff turnover among the clubhouse attendants in charge of the laundry...For those of you using a thimble in place of your cup, urine tests are being held in the tent by the left-field fence -- try not to graze on your way there, it upsets the groundskeepers.
Speaking of the drug tests, everyone will be expected to visit the tent before we finish up today for the first of your series of urine tests. Please use your own this time. When we started this last year we discovered half the Yankees were pregnant and one third of the Tigers turned out to be golden retrievers.
The blue group will go to diamond two. There you will receive intensive sobriety test rehearsal. You will be blindfolded and required to spin around in circles for five minutes, then your eyes will be uncovered and you must try to walk down the first base line. Kindly remember to spit out any chewing tobacco before performing this drill. For those of you in need of remedial training in this regard, Richie Sexson has been retained to tutor you.
We have a number of drills designed to get you in fighting shape for the season. As you've no doubt noticed, your practice jerseys have different color armbands. That is specifically designed to keep you in groups for the various exercises. Yellow group goes to diamond one for the cup adjustment drills...You must be able to readjust your cup in no fewer than 10 moves. If you are unable to after eight tries, you'll be sent to remedial cup adjustment in the bullpen under the supervision of Denny Neagle’s, um, coach after the morning workout.
This is very important -- if you need over 25 adjustments it can cause vision impairment, blindness, and a shocking amount of staff turnover among the clubhouse attendants in charge of the laundry...For those of you using a thimble in place of your cup, urine tests are being held in the tent by the left-field fence -- try not to graze on your way there, it upsets the groundskeepers.
Speaking of the drug tests, everyone will be expected to visit the tent before we finish up today for the first of your series of urine tests. Please use your own this time. When we started this last year we discovered half the Yankees were pregnant and one third of the Tigers turned out to be golden retrievers.
The blue group will go to diamond two. There you will receive intensive sobriety test rehearsal. You will be blindfolded and required to spin around in circles for five minutes, then your eyes will be uncovered and you must try to walk down the first base line. Kindly remember to spit out any chewing tobacco before performing this drill. For those of you in need of remedial training in this regard, Richie Sexson has been retained to tutor you.
Just in case you're interested, the New York Times did a travel piece on Lawrence, Kansas, where I spent six years getting two college degrees.
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/travel/escapes/25hour.html?ex=1110171600&en=8689f2edc3e7eb17&ei=5070
I don't think I'd make a special trip from New York or LA just to see Lawrence, but if you're in the area it makes a nice weekend getaway and it's not expensive. Lawrence is very pretty, especially in late spring and early fall, and there's plenty to do there. The article doesn't mention crashing parties down in the "student slum" along Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky streets, where the local hippies and alternative folk hang out. Just follow the noise every Friday and Saturday night.
On the wild off-chance that somebody out there is thinking of going to an American university, Kansas is good and cheap, one of the two or three cheapest major state universities, and I highly recommend it. Lawrence is a nice introduction to America because it's small, low-key, and friendly instead of huge, anonymous, and bustling. They have a summer English-language program that's a good value for the money; you could also enroll for a full trimester. I used to teach there.
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/travel/escapes/25hour.html?ex=1110171600&en=8689f2edc3e7eb17&ei=5070
I don't think I'd make a special trip from New York or LA just to see Lawrence, but if you're in the area it makes a nice weekend getaway and it's not expensive. Lawrence is very pretty, especially in late spring and early fall, and there's plenty to do there. The article doesn't mention crashing parties down in the "student slum" along Tennessee, Ohio, and Kentucky streets, where the local hippies and alternative folk hang out. Just follow the noise every Friday and Saturday night.
On the wild off-chance that somebody out there is thinking of going to an American university, Kansas is good and cheap, one of the two or three cheapest major state universities, and I highly recommend it. Lawrence is a nice introduction to America because it's small, low-key, and friendly instead of huge, anonymous, and bustling. They have a summer English-language program that's a good value for the money; you could also enroll for a full trimester. I used to teach there.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Last night Barcelona beat Chelsea, leader of England's Premier League, 2-1 in a fine second-half comeback in Champions' League play. I caught part of the game while I was translating for the Spain Herald.
Barcelona came out swinging and Chelsea played exclusively on the defensive, with eight or nine men back, looking for the fast break and trying to break Barcelona's on-side trap line. In the first half Chelsea scored on a rather lucky on-goal by Belletti while he was trying to head away a center into the area in the 32nd minute. Barcelona sort of fell apart for the rest of the first half, but after halftime they came out strong again.
Drogba, Chelsea's star forward, got himself kicked out of the game in minute 55 for generally being a dick. The proximate cause of his expulsion on a second yellow card was a charge into Barcelona goalie Valdés. Albertini started instead of Oleguer, who is mildly injured and needs some rest. Márquez moved back to Oleguer's place next to Puyol in the middle of the defense, and Albertini took Márquez's defensive midfielder spot, and he wasn't very good. Rijkaard's standard first-man-off-the-bench Iniesta replaced him in minute 56, right after Drogba's expulsion, and then Giuly, who wasn't terrific, either, went out for Maxi López, whom Rijkaard had been saving for Chelsea. López was excellent. He's big and strong and smart; I just might try starting him at center-forward and moving Etoo over to the right in place of Giuly, or putting him on the left of the attack, Ronaldinho in the center, and Etoo on the right.
López and Etoo combined for two quick goals, Lopez in the 65th and Etoo in the 73rd, and Barcelona continued to play well, with several more chances at goal. Chelsea stayed back, playing defense only, and after the second Barça goal it was pretty obvious they'd given up. If Barça had converted even one of those, this two-game matchup would be almost over. The game ended 2-1, though, and all Chelsea needs to do is beat Barca 1-0 at home and they go through to the next round.
It was another rough game; Puyol, Márquez, Belletti, and Albertini, Barça's thug squad, beat the crap out of Chelsea's forwards and the ref let them get away with it. Deco took a blatant dive in the area early in the match and he got away with that too. All this pissed Drogba off so much he acted like a dope and bought himself two yellow cards. Tiago, Cole, and Makelele were probably the best Chelsea players. I'd say Etoo, Deco, Xavi, Puyol, Márquez, Iniesta, and López were standouts for Barça.
Etoo is a horse and Puyol is a bull. Sticking with the metaphor, Márquez, Xavi, and Deco would be hard-charging rams, and Iniesta is a two-year-old thoroughbred. Ronaldinho had a pretty good game. He's a horse too, but he's like Seabiscuit--when he's good he's great but when he's not he's only OK. He's in just a bit of a slump, but he's still better than just about anyone else out there, and he's going to keep improving. A slump for Ronaldinho means a merely above-average performance. Ronaldinho hasn't hit his peak years yet. Etoo hasn't hit his peak, either, and he's playing like Secretariat this year.
Other Champions' League results, from the first leg: On Wednesday, Oporto 1-Inter Milan 1, Manchester United 0-AC Milan 1, and Werder Bremen 0-Olympique Lyon 3. Lyon is obviously through to the next round, while the rest of the series are wide open for the second leg. AC Milan, Barcelona, and Inter Milan are likely, in that order, to advance.
On Tuesday night, it was Real Madrid 1-Juventus 0, Liverpool 3-Bayer Leverkusen 1, PSV Eindhoven 1-Monaco 0, and Bayern Munich 3-Arsenal 1. Liverpool and Bayern ought to go through, and the other two are still undecided. Madrid and PSV would both obviously be favored to advance, though if I were going to pick one team of eight to turn the series around it would be Juventus.
So, assume Barça goes through along with Lyon, Milan, Inter, Madrid, Liverpool, PSV, and Bayern. Tough group. I would bet on Barça, Inter, Milan, and Bayern to be the final four. Lyon is the upset special. They have a lot of good French and African players, and they could knock out anybody, which PSV, Liverpool, and Madrid probably couldn't. If Juventus comes back and knocks Madrid out in this round, which is quite possible, they'd also have to be one of the favorites. There you have some completely awful predictions. Come back on March 8 and 9 for the second leg and you can either all laugh at how wrong I was or marvel at how brilliant I am.
Barcelona came out swinging and Chelsea played exclusively on the defensive, with eight or nine men back, looking for the fast break and trying to break Barcelona's on-side trap line. In the first half Chelsea scored on a rather lucky on-goal by Belletti while he was trying to head away a center into the area in the 32nd minute. Barcelona sort of fell apart for the rest of the first half, but after halftime they came out strong again.
Drogba, Chelsea's star forward, got himself kicked out of the game in minute 55 for generally being a dick. The proximate cause of his expulsion on a second yellow card was a charge into Barcelona goalie Valdés. Albertini started instead of Oleguer, who is mildly injured and needs some rest. Márquez moved back to Oleguer's place next to Puyol in the middle of the defense, and Albertini took Márquez's defensive midfielder spot, and he wasn't very good. Rijkaard's standard first-man-off-the-bench Iniesta replaced him in minute 56, right after Drogba's expulsion, and then Giuly, who wasn't terrific, either, went out for Maxi López, whom Rijkaard had been saving for Chelsea. López was excellent. He's big and strong and smart; I just might try starting him at center-forward and moving Etoo over to the right in place of Giuly, or putting him on the left of the attack, Ronaldinho in the center, and Etoo on the right.
López and Etoo combined for two quick goals, Lopez in the 65th and Etoo in the 73rd, and Barcelona continued to play well, with several more chances at goal. Chelsea stayed back, playing defense only, and after the second Barça goal it was pretty obvious they'd given up. If Barça had converted even one of those, this two-game matchup would be almost over. The game ended 2-1, though, and all Chelsea needs to do is beat Barca 1-0 at home and they go through to the next round.
It was another rough game; Puyol, Márquez, Belletti, and Albertini, Barça's thug squad, beat the crap out of Chelsea's forwards and the ref let them get away with it. Deco took a blatant dive in the area early in the match and he got away with that too. All this pissed Drogba off so much he acted like a dope and bought himself two yellow cards. Tiago, Cole, and Makelele were probably the best Chelsea players. I'd say Etoo, Deco, Xavi, Puyol, Márquez, Iniesta, and López were standouts for Barça.
Etoo is a horse and Puyol is a bull. Sticking with the metaphor, Márquez, Xavi, and Deco would be hard-charging rams, and Iniesta is a two-year-old thoroughbred. Ronaldinho had a pretty good game. He's a horse too, but he's like Seabiscuit--when he's good he's great but when he's not he's only OK. He's in just a bit of a slump, but he's still better than just about anyone else out there, and he's going to keep improving. A slump for Ronaldinho means a merely above-average performance. Ronaldinho hasn't hit his peak years yet. Etoo hasn't hit his peak, either, and he's playing like Secretariat this year.
Other Champions' League results, from the first leg: On Wednesday, Oporto 1-Inter Milan 1, Manchester United 0-AC Milan 1, and Werder Bremen 0-Olympique Lyon 3. Lyon is obviously through to the next round, while the rest of the series are wide open for the second leg. AC Milan, Barcelona, and Inter Milan are likely, in that order, to advance.
On Tuesday night, it was Real Madrid 1-Juventus 0, Liverpool 3-Bayer Leverkusen 1, PSV Eindhoven 1-Monaco 0, and Bayern Munich 3-Arsenal 1. Liverpool and Bayern ought to go through, and the other two are still undecided. Madrid and PSV would both obviously be favored to advance, though if I were going to pick one team of eight to turn the series around it would be Juventus.
So, assume Barça goes through along with Lyon, Milan, Inter, Madrid, Liverpool, PSV, and Bayern. Tough group. I would bet on Barça, Inter, Milan, and Bayern to be the final four. Lyon is the upset special. They have a lot of good French and African players, and they could knock out anybody, which PSV, Liverpool, and Madrid probably couldn't. If Juventus comes back and knocks Madrid out in this round, which is quite possible, they'd also have to be one of the favorites. There you have some completely awful predictions. Come back on March 8 and 9 for the second leg and you can either all laugh at how wrong I was or marvel at how brilliant I am.
For all those predicting America's economic doom due to its trade and / or budget deficits, read this piece from Foreign Affairs called "The Overstretch Myth".
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301facomment84201/david-h-levey-stuart-s-brown/the-overstretch-myth.html
Slight digression: This is an economic piece aimed at the general fairly-well informed public. It is about as complex a piece on economics as I can understand. I wouldn't be able to make most of the arguments in this article myself, but I do get the point the authors are trying to make. My experience with economics is ECON 140 in college and twenty years of more or less reading and sort of figuring out the Wall Street Journal and the Economist. Not that great, which is why I don't write about economics much.
One point they make is that people have been predicting America's collapse for a good long time and it hasn't happened yet. I remember reading a whole bunch of dumb stuff as a kid back in the '70s and as an adolescent in the ´80s and as an adult, more or less, in the '90s on how first Vietnam had laid us low and then that the Soviets were going to prevail and then that we were all going to get blown up and then that the Japanese had us beat economically and then that the environment was going to crash and then that we were going to run out of resources and then that we didn't have the national will to fight the Terrorist International and now Bush's fascist repression is going to enslave us all. So far all the predictors of doom have been wrong.
One thing I had problems with for a long time was the relative importance of the amounts of money that are involved in the world's economy. Here's a very non-exhaustive list of what different things' monetary value is.
US business receipts, 1997: $18 trillion (12 zeroes)
US stock market capitalization, 1999: $16.6 trillion
US gross domestic product, 2004: $10.5 trillion
Euro area's gross domestic product, 1999: $6.53 trillion
US services output, 1999: $6 trillion
Japan's gross domestic product, 1999: $4.35 trillion
US industrial output, 1999: $2.16 trillion
US total federal spending, 2002: $2.01 trillion
US total federal receipts, 2002: $1.85 trillion
France's gross domestic product, 1999: $1.4 trillion
US total health care spending, 1999: $1.3 trillion
US total imports, 2000: $1.21 trillion
UK services output, 1999: $1.02 trillion
China's gross domestic product, 1999: $1 trillion
Euro area's total exports, 1999: $808 billion (9 zeroes)
Total US currency in circulation, 2003: $802 billion
US total exports, 2000: $782 billion
US current-account deficit, 2004: $650 billion
Spain's gross domestic product, 1999: $596 billion
US recreational spending, 1999: $534 billion
Spain's stock market capitalization, 1999: $431 billion
Russia's gross domestic product, 1999: $401 billion
UK industrial output, 1999: $343 billion
Brazil's foreign debt, 1999: $244 billion
Netherlands's total exports, 1999: $200 billion
China's total exports, 1999: $195 billion
Turkey's gross domestic product, 1999: $185.7 billion
General Motors's sales, 1999: $176.6 billion
Saudi Arabia's gross domestic product, 1999: $139 billion
Spain's government spending, 2002: $120 billion
Toyota's total sales, 1999: $115.7 billion
Spain's total exports, 1999: $110 billion
Japan's current-account surplus, 1999: $107 billion
Ireland's gross domestic product, 1999: $93.4 billion
Euro area's fuel imports, 1999: $82.8 billion
Volkswagen's total sales, 1999: $80 billion
Philip Morris's total sales, 1999: $61.8 billion
Pakistan's gross domestic product, 1999: $58.2 billion
Saudi Arabia's oil exports, 1997: $52.3 billion
Peru's gross domestic product, 1999: $51.9 billion
Brazil's total imports, 1999: $49.2 billion
Hewlett-Packard's total sales, 1999: $48.3 billion
Citigroup's capital assets, 1999: $47.7 billion
South Korea's exports of electronic goods, 1999: $45.8 billion
Spain's tourist receipts, 1999: $33 billion
Saudi Arabia's total imports, 1999: $30 billion
Nigeria's national debt, 1999: $29.4 billion
US spending on books, 1999: $27 billion
Value of US corn crop, 2000: $18.6 trillion
Deutsche Bank's total capital assets, 1999: $17.4 billion
Boeing's sales to US Defense Dept., 2002: $16.5 billion
Italy's textile imports, 1999: $15.5 billion
Nigeria's oil exports, 1999: $14.5 billion
US spending on recorded music, 2000: $14 billion
BSCH's total capital assets, 1999: $12.5 billion
Spain's energy imports, 1999: $9.7 billion
US foreign aid, 1999: $9.15 billion
Indonesia's oil exports, 1999: $5.4 billion
Total cost of Barcelona's Forum de les Cultures, 2004: $5 billion
UK spending on books, 1999: $4.6 billion
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301facomment84201/david-h-levey-stuart-s-brown/the-overstretch-myth.html
Slight digression: This is an economic piece aimed at the general fairly-well informed public. It is about as complex a piece on economics as I can understand. I wouldn't be able to make most of the arguments in this article myself, but I do get the point the authors are trying to make. My experience with economics is ECON 140 in college and twenty years of more or less reading and sort of figuring out the Wall Street Journal and the Economist. Not that great, which is why I don't write about economics much.
One point they make is that people have been predicting America's collapse for a good long time and it hasn't happened yet. I remember reading a whole bunch of dumb stuff as a kid back in the '70s and as an adolescent in the ´80s and as an adult, more or less, in the '90s on how first Vietnam had laid us low and then that the Soviets were going to prevail and then that we were all going to get blown up and then that the Japanese had us beat economically and then that the environment was going to crash and then that we were going to run out of resources and then that we didn't have the national will to fight the Terrorist International and now Bush's fascist repression is going to enslave us all. So far all the predictors of doom have been wrong.
One thing I had problems with for a long time was the relative importance of the amounts of money that are involved in the world's economy. Here's a very non-exhaustive list of what different things' monetary value is.
US business receipts, 1997: $18 trillion (12 zeroes)
US stock market capitalization, 1999: $16.6 trillion
US gross domestic product, 2004: $10.5 trillion
Euro area's gross domestic product, 1999: $6.53 trillion
US services output, 1999: $6 trillion
Japan's gross domestic product, 1999: $4.35 trillion
US industrial output, 1999: $2.16 trillion
US total federal spending, 2002: $2.01 trillion
US total federal receipts, 2002: $1.85 trillion
France's gross domestic product, 1999: $1.4 trillion
US total health care spending, 1999: $1.3 trillion
US total imports, 2000: $1.21 trillion
UK services output, 1999: $1.02 trillion
China's gross domestic product, 1999: $1 trillion
Euro area's total exports, 1999: $808 billion (9 zeroes)
Total US currency in circulation, 2003: $802 billion
US total exports, 2000: $782 billion
US current-account deficit, 2004: $650 billion
Spain's gross domestic product, 1999: $596 billion
US recreational spending, 1999: $534 billion
Spain's stock market capitalization, 1999: $431 billion
Russia's gross domestic product, 1999: $401 billion
UK industrial output, 1999: $343 billion
Brazil's foreign debt, 1999: $244 billion
Netherlands's total exports, 1999: $200 billion
China's total exports, 1999: $195 billion
Turkey's gross domestic product, 1999: $185.7 billion
General Motors's sales, 1999: $176.6 billion
Saudi Arabia's gross domestic product, 1999: $139 billion
Spain's government spending, 2002: $120 billion
Toyota's total sales, 1999: $115.7 billion
Spain's total exports, 1999: $110 billion
Japan's current-account surplus, 1999: $107 billion
Ireland's gross domestic product, 1999: $93.4 billion
Euro area's fuel imports, 1999: $82.8 billion
Volkswagen's total sales, 1999: $80 billion
Philip Morris's total sales, 1999: $61.8 billion
Pakistan's gross domestic product, 1999: $58.2 billion
Saudi Arabia's oil exports, 1997: $52.3 billion
Peru's gross domestic product, 1999: $51.9 billion
Brazil's total imports, 1999: $49.2 billion
Hewlett-Packard's total sales, 1999: $48.3 billion
Citigroup's capital assets, 1999: $47.7 billion
South Korea's exports of electronic goods, 1999: $45.8 billion
Spain's tourist receipts, 1999: $33 billion
Saudi Arabia's total imports, 1999: $30 billion
Nigeria's national debt, 1999: $29.4 billion
US spending on books, 1999: $27 billion
Value of US corn crop, 2000: $18.6 trillion
Deutsche Bank's total capital assets, 1999: $17.4 billion
Boeing's sales to US Defense Dept., 2002: $16.5 billion
Italy's textile imports, 1999: $15.5 billion
Nigeria's oil exports, 1999: $14.5 billion
US spending on recorded music, 2000: $14 billion
BSCH's total capital assets, 1999: $12.5 billion
Spain's energy imports, 1999: $9.7 billion
US foreign aid, 1999: $9.15 billion
Indonesia's oil exports, 1999: $5.4 billion
Total cost of Barcelona's Forum de les Cultures, 2004: $5 billion
UK spending on books, 1999: $4.6 billion
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
From James Taranto:
Belgian author Paul Belien, who kindly showed us around Antwerp when we were vacationing in his country last summer, has a piece on The Weekly Standard's Web site that gives us quite a chuckle. It seems that Belgium's Socialist Party, which is part of the governing coalition, marked President Bush's visit this week by distributing "piss stickers, specially made to be used in urinals," that depict Bush's face against an American-flag backdrop, with a caption (in English, not Belgiumish) that reads GO AHEAD, PISS ON ME!!
My reaction, if I ran across one of these things stuck inside a urinal, would be to decline to urinate on the American flag. I would therefore be forced to urinate on the floor. I might manage to urinate all over the walls as well. Or I just might use the sink, if I were feeling hygenic.
Also, somebody had to reach inside that urinal and stick that sticker on the wet germy porcelain. Yecch. Nobody ever said anti-Americans were smart, though.
Joke. American and Frenchman at NATO summit. Break in conferences. Bathroom time. They go, zip up, and then the Frenchman goes over to the sink to wash his hands while the American walks straight out the door. Frenchman says snidely, "En la France zey teach us to vash our hands avter ve micturate." American replies, "In America they teach us not to piss on our hands."
Belgian author Paul Belien, who kindly showed us around Antwerp when we were vacationing in his country last summer, has a piece on The Weekly Standard's Web site that gives us quite a chuckle. It seems that Belgium's Socialist Party, which is part of the governing coalition, marked President Bush's visit this week by distributing "piss stickers, specially made to be used in urinals," that depict Bush's face against an American-flag backdrop, with a caption (in English, not Belgiumish) that reads GO AHEAD, PISS ON ME!!
My reaction, if I ran across one of these things stuck inside a urinal, would be to decline to urinate on the American flag. I would therefore be forced to urinate on the floor. I might manage to urinate all over the walls as well. Or I just might use the sink, if I were feeling hygenic.
Also, somebody had to reach inside that urinal and stick that sticker on the wet germy porcelain. Yecch. Nobody ever said anti-Americans were smart, though.
Joke. American and Frenchman at NATO summit. Break in conferences. Bathroom time. They go, zip up, and then the Frenchman goes over to the sink to wash his hands while the American walks straight out the door. Frenchman says snidely, "En la France zey teach us to vash our hands avter ve micturate." American replies, "In America they teach us not to piss on our hands."
Sixty years ago today Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima was taken by the United States Marines. This excerpt is from John Keegan's The Second World War:
On 29 September 1994, Admirals King, Nimitz, and Spruance, meeting at San Francisco, agreed to make Okinawa the principal target for amphibious operations in the following year. Because a main aim of the advance to the Ryukyu Islands was to secure better air bases for the prepatory bombardment of Japan and to drive an "air corridor" between the home islands and the Japanese airfields on Formosa and Luzon, it was also agreed that a subsidiary base should be seized on another island nearby, which could be taken more quickly, to provide a staging post and emergency landing field for B-29s. Iwo Jima in the Bonin Islands seemed the best choice. On 3 October the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a directive for Iwo Jima to be attacked in February and Okinawa in April.
...The 3rd, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions assaulted Iwo Jima on 19 February. The (fact that the Ten-Ichigo kamikaze offensive was not yet ready to be launched) was the only mercy granted the Americans at Iwo Jima; heavily gunned and garrisioned, honeycombed with tunnels, its bedrock of basalt covered with a deep layer of volcanic dust, the island submitted the Marines to their worst landing experience of the Pacific War. Amphtracs lost traction and ditched on the beaches, to be destroyed by salvos from close-range artillery which three days of battleship bombardment had not destroyed; riflemen dug trenches which collapsed as soon as they were deep enough to give cover; the wounded were wounded again as they lay out on the beaches awaiting evacuation,. Robert Sherrod, the correspondent who had been at Tarawa and most island landings in between, thought it the worst battle he had ever seen: men died, he said, "with the greatest possible violence". When Iwo Jima was finally secured on 16 March, 6821 Americans had been killed and 20,000 wounded, over a third of those who had landed; the 21,000 Japanese defenders died almost to a man.
About 4000 of the American, British, and Canadian soldiers who landed at Normandy on June 6, 1944, were killed. About 1500 Americans have been killed in Iraq.
You might call up your local country music station today and ask them to play Johnny Cash's "The Ballad of Ira Hayes".
Slight change of subject. One of the reasons sports are fun is they are an artificial universe in which you can test your decision-making skills. Do we sign a midfielder or a defenseman? Do we play a 4-3-3 or a 4-4-2? Should we get rid of Player X? You'll find out at the end of the match or the series or the season. Baseball is particularly fun because detailed baseball statistics have been kept for over 140 years, and baseball is one of the sports in which an individual's performance can be most easily measured. Baseball statheads and sabermetricians, led by Bill James, love to argue about arcane questions of baseball history (who was better, Edd Roush or Heinie Groh?). One of the concepts they've laid out is that when judging a player, you look at both his career value and his peak value. For example, Mickey Mantle, during his four or five really great seasons, was a better player than Willie Mays was at his peak. But Mays had eight or ten great seasons and ten more good ones, and Mays played every day, never got hurt, and took good care of himself instead of going out every night and getting drunk with Billy Martin and getting into the papers for various barfights down at the Copa. Mantle's last big year was 1961. Mays played steadily through until about 1971.
So who would you rather have on your team? Well, if you can choose one single player at his very highest peak performance, and you want to win the World Series this year, you take Mantle. If you're investing for the long-term, though, you'd take Willie, who will likely help you get to several Series.
I think you can make an analogy for career and peak value with musicians. For example, Johnny Cash's peak was in the '50s and early '60s; he was OK through the rest of the '60s, didn't do much in the '70s and '80s, and came back very strong in the 1990s. Gotta give Johnny cred for both a high peak and high career value. Hank Williams would be an example of a high peak value during a short career. Paul McCartney is a Mantle-ish guy who had a very high peak between about 1963 to 1968, but then his career value goes all to hell. The Stones had a long, steady very high peak value between 1965 and about 1972; then they were OK until about Tattoo You, and after around '83 decline had definitely set in, but '65 to '83 in the major leagues is a very high career value. Loretta Lynn would have a high career value but never really hit an enormously high peak; you could say the same about many singer-songwriters. Best combination of a really high peak and solid long-term career value: Bob Dylan.
I always thought that rock bands should be like sports teams, so, for example, Van Halen could trade Sammy Hagar to Whitesnake for David Coverdale and then re-sign David Lee Roth as a free agent with an incentive-heavy one-year contract, or Journey could cut Neil Schon and see if Alex Lifeson is on the market; as an alternative, they could swap their soundman to Black Sabbath for Tony Iommi and a roadie to be named later. Rush might be willing to give up Lifeson in exchange for a rookie bass player and a lead-guitar prospect. There would always be a solid market in free-agent session players, who might sign with Cyndi Lauper one season, get cut, and get picked up by Bonnie Tyler the next year. Some of these guys might go down to the minors occasionally, signing on with BTO or ELP or ELO, who are always looking for a veteran left-handed drummer with experience. Certain players might change position; Van Halen might move Hagar to rhythm guitar and replace him as lead singer with Coverdale, for example, or with veteran pickup Roth if Coverdale can't sing the hits in the clutch.
On 29 September 1994, Admirals King, Nimitz, and Spruance, meeting at San Francisco, agreed to make Okinawa the principal target for amphibious operations in the following year. Because a main aim of the advance to the Ryukyu Islands was to secure better air bases for the prepatory bombardment of Japan and to drive an "air corridor" between the home islands and the Japanese airfields on Formosa and Luzon, it was also agreed that a subsidiary base should be seized on another island nearby, which could be taken more quickly, to provide a staging post and emergency landing field for B-29s. Iwo Jima in the Bonin Islands seemed the best choice. On 3 October the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a directive for Iwo Jima to be attacked in February and Okinawa in April.
...The 3rd, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions assaulted Iwo Jima on 19 February. The (fact that the Ten-Ichigo kamikaze offensive was not yet ready to be launched) was the only mercy granted the Americans at Iwo Jima; heavily gunned and garrisioned, honeycombed with tunnels, its bedrock of basalt covered with a deep layer of volcanic dust, the island submitted the Marines to their worst landing experience of the Pacific War. Amphtracs lost traction and ditched on the beaches, to be destroyed by salvos from close-range artillery which three days of battleship bombardment had not destroyed; riflemen dug trenches which collapsed as soon as they were deep enough to give cover; the wounded were wounded again as they lay out on the beaches awaiting evacuation,. Robert Sherrod, the correspondent who had been at Tarawa and most island landings in between, thought it the worst battle he had ever seen: men died, he said, "with the greatest possible violence". When Iwo Jima was finally secured on 16 March, 6821 Americans had been killed and 20,000 wounded, over a third of those who had landed; the 21,000 Japanese defenders died almost to a man.
About 4000 of the American, British, and Canadian soldiers who landed at Normandy on June 6, 1944, were killed. About 1500 Americans have been killed in Iraq.
You might call up your local country music station today and ask them to play Johnny Cash's "The Ballad of Ira Hayes".
Slight change of subject. One of the reasons sports are fun is they are an artificial universe in which you can test your decision-making skills. Do we sign a midfielder or a defenseman? Do we play a 4-3-3 or a 4-4-2? Should we get rid of Player X? You'll find out at the end of the match or the series or the season. Baseball is particularly fun because detailed baseball statistics have been kept for over 140 years, and baseball is one of the sports in which an individual's performance can be most easily measured. Baseball statheads and sabermetricians, led by Bill James, love to argue about arcane questions of baseball history (who was better, Edd Roush or Heinie Groh?). One of the concepts they've laid out is that when judging a player, you look at both his career value and his peak value. For example, Mickey Mantle, during his four or five really great seasons, was a better player than Willie Mays was at his peak. But Mays had eight or ten great seasons and ten more good ones, and Mays played every day, never got hurt, and took good care of himself instead of going out every night and getting drunk with Billy Martin and getting into the papers for various barfights down at the Copa. Mantle's last big year was 1961. Mays played steadily through until about 1971.
So who would you rather have on your team? Well, if you can choose one single player at his very highest peak performance, and you want to win the World Series this year, you take Mantle. If you're investing for the long-term, though, you'd take Willie, who will likely help you get to several Series.
I think you can make an analogy for career and peak value with musicians. For example, Johnny Cash's peak was in the '50s and early '60s; he was OK through the rest of the '60s, didn't do much in the '70s and '80s, and came back very strong in the 1990s. Gotta give Johnny cred for both a high peak and high career value. Hank Williams would be an example of a high peak value during a short career. Paul McCartney is a Mantle-ish guy who had a very high peak between about 1963 to 1968, but then his career value goes all to hell. The Stones had a long, steady very high peak value between 1965 and about 1972; then they were OK until about Tattoo You, and after around '83 decline had definitely set in, but '65 to '83 in the major leagues is a very high career value. Loretta Lynn would have a high career value but never really hit an enormously high peak; you could say the same about many singer-songwriters. Best combination of a really high peak and solid long-term career value: Bob Dylan.
I always thought that rock bands should be like sports teams, so, for example, Van Halen could trade Sammy Hagar to Whitesnake for David Coverdale and then re-sign David Lee Roth as a free agent with an incentive-heavy one-year contract, or Journey could cut Neil Schon and see if Alex Lifeson is on the market; as an alternative, they could swap their soundman to Black Sabbath for Tony Iommi and a roadie to be named later. Rush might be willing to give up Lifeson in exchange for a rookie bass player and a lead-guitar prospect. There would always be a solid market in free-agent session players, who might sign with Cyndi Lauper one season, get cut, and get picked up by Bonnie Tyler the next year. Some of these guys might go down to the minors occasionally, signing on with BTO or ELP or ELO, who are always looking for a veteran left-handed drummer with experience. Certain players might change position; Van Halen might move Hagar to rhythm guitar and replace him as lead singer with Coverdale, for example, or with veteran pickup Roth if Coverdale can't sing the hits in the clutch.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
I suppose everybody has heard about the "Bush tapes" by now. A family friend of the Bushes taped several private conversations he had with George W. in the late 1990s, and he has released them. The tapes were made without Bush's knowledge or consent, which is legal in Ohio, the state where they were recorded. I'm sure they're legit because they present Bush in a favorable light (he gets off a great line, saying that he reads the Bible every day "and the Bible is pretty good about keeping your ego in check"), but they weren't publicized before either the 2000 or 2004 elections, when they might very well have done Bush some good. I am also sure they're legit because the story is from the New York Times, which is not exactly a pro-Bush rag.
Those who think Bush is a right-wing caveman fundamentalist nut might want to read this passage from the Times article:
Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people. "I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.
But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"
Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."
"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."
Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."
Those who think Bush is a right-wing caveman fundamentalist nut might want to read this passage from the Times article:
Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people. "I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.
But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"
Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."
"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."
Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."
Here's another one for Alex Cockburn.
Alex, there's no need to feel down.
I said, Alex, pick yourself off the ground.
I said, Alex, 'cause you're a Communist clown
There's no need to be unhappy.
Alex, there's a place you can go.
I said, Alex, where Fidel runs the show.
You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time.
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
They have everything for Alex to enjoy
He can be one of Castro's toys
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
You can pick up a boy, you can pick up a girl, but they've eaten up all of the squirrels
Alex, are you listening to me?
I said, Alex, with Fidel they're not free
I said, Alex, but who gives a damn
When you can have fun in Havana
Alex, put away all your cares
I said, Alex, go and sample the wares
And just go there, to C-U-B-A
I'm sure you can get drunk today.
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
Alex, there's no need to feel down.
I said, Alex, pick yourself off the ground.
I said, Alex, 'cause you're a Communist clown
There's no need to be unhappy.
Alex, there's a place you can go.
I said, Alex, where Fidel runs the show.
You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time.
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
They have everything for Alex to enjoy
He can be one of Castro's toys
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
You can pick up a boy, you can pick up a girl, but they've eaten up all of the squirrels
Alex, are you listening to me?
I said, Alex, with Fidel they're not free
I said, Alex, but who gives a damn
When you can have fun in Havana
Alex, put away all your cares
I said, Alex, go and sample the wares
And just go there, to C-U-B-A
I'm sure you can get drunk today.
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
It's fun to stay in C-U-B-A.
Here are the lyrics to Tom Lehrer's 1965 song "The Vatican Rag". I'm trying to do an Alex Cockburn (isn't that surname hilarious?) and Castro version.
First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Do whatever steps you want if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.
Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional.
There the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!
So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman;
Ave Maria,
Gee, it's good to see ya.
Gettin' ecstatic an' sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican
Rag!
How about:
First you get down on your knees,
Give Fidel a hug and squeeze
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
If your name is Alex Cockburn
And your brain is like a glowworm's
Then you're gonna wanna write
Odes to Fidel every night
Doin' the Digital Rag
Don't you worry 'bout those gulags
Hit the beach to cure your jet lag
Then go down to Old Havana where
Teenage hookers cost a dollar there
You can have a life that's nice
Praise the Cuban paradise
C - U - B - A
Even Alex can get laid!
So get down upon your knees,
Forget corruption, drugs, and sleaze
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Write that Fidel Castro's glorious
Don't dare ask what the real story is
Viva Che Guevara
Libre mi bandera
Ethically I'm midgetal
Sexually I'm Gidgetal
Doin' the Digital Rag!
First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Do whatever steps you want if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.
Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional.
There the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!
So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman;
Ave Maria,
Gee, it's good to see ya.
Gettin' ecstatic an' sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican
Rag!
How about:
First you get down on your knees,
Give Fidel a hug and squeeze
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
If your name is Alex Cockburn
And your brain is like a glowworm's
Then you're gonna wanna write
Odes to Fidel every night
Doin' the Digital Rag
Don't you worry 'bout those gulags
Hit the beach to cure your jet lag
Then go down to Old Havana where
Teenage hookers cost a dollar there
You can have a life that's nice
Praise the Cuban paradise
C - U - B - A
Even Alex can get laid!
So get down upon your knees,
Forget corruption, drugs, and sleaze
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!
Write that Fidel Castro's glorious
Don't dare ask what the real story is
Viva Che Guevara
Libre mi bandera
Ethically I'm midgetal
Sexually I'm Gidgetal
Doin' the Digital Rag!
Monday, February 21, 2005
Check out this interview with Ricardo Alarcon Quesada, "Vice President" of Cuba and "President of Cuba's National Assembly", from Alexander Cockburn's digital rag CounterPunch. It is damning. Zap is not only kissing Castro's ass, he's trying to get the rest of the EU to do it too.
Landau: Specifically, vis a vis Europe. Initially, when Cuba jailed the dissidents in 2003, the European Union responded very critically, going along with the U.S. position, and now the EU is about to resume friendly resume friendly relations.
Alarcon: Formally, we always had economic and diplomatic relations with European countries. It was rather childish what the EU did. Unfortunately, following Spanish government advice, the EU followed the American line on Cuba. Even on the Helms-Burton law. Europe at first complained to the WTO about Helms-Burton and then negotiated and reached what they called an understanding with Washington. They withdrew their complaint.
And on May 2004, in the U.S. plan for Cuba, Bush announced that the U.S. will examine on a case by case basis, country by country, in terms of implementing Chapters 3 and 4 [punishing countries and companies trading with Cuba] of Helms/Burton more efficiently.
They forgot their commitment to Europe to eliminate or change those chapters and instead declare they will implement them more thoroughly. No complaints, no protests from Europe in what is tantamount to a U.S. slap in Europe's face. With news of the dissidents' arrest [Cuba arrested 75 anti-government activists and charged them with working for the U.S. government against Cuba in March 2003], the Europeans had an opportunity to protest against the "illegal" arrest of people not only in Cuba, but throughout the western world. I refer to widespread torture and the violation of habeas corpus and other legal principles. Europeans behaved as accomplices to these policies as did on U.S. policy toward Cuba. Then they took some childish steps like refusing high level contacts with Cuba. Some countries ignored that decision. Another step: eliminate cultural exchanges. Last year, the Havana book fair was dedicated to Germany. At the last moment, the German government, following the European position, withdrew from the fair. In spite of that, many writers, publishers and artists from Germany came to Cuba.
And they added another step. They would invite the so-called dissidents to their official, diplomatic functions like national holidays and so-on. In other words, they tried to insult us. Not to have high level or important contacts with the Cuban government and to put those people [dissidents], those American agents, at the same level as legitimate Cuban authority.
Our answer was simple. We cut off contacts with the embassies here. We said we are prepared to wait the necessary time. On a personal basis, I enjoyed this period. It's a burden to attend these diplomatic functions like receptions and diplomatic dinners if you have work to do. Of course, we continued as before normal functions with African, Asian and Latin American embassies in Havana. But now the Europeans realize it was nonsense and are changing. But more important, I said that Europe had followed Spanish advice. That was when Mr. Aznar headed the conservative government in Spain. In March, Spaniards elected a new government, which withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq, and proposed other progressive steps on women's rights, etc. And regarding Cuba, the new government openly said it wanted to change the Aznar policy. The socialists have a more respectful and friendly approach. That was the source of Europe's new position. Let's hope the EU will follow the new Spanish counsel. By the way, it's as if we're still a Spanish colony, which we're not. But I think we've turned the page. I hope the Europeans have matured and will not repeat that nonsense.
Landau: Specifically, vis a vis Europe. Initially, when Cuba jailed the dissidents in 2003, the European Union responded very critically, going along with the U.S. position, and now the EU is about to resume friendly resume friendly relations.
Alarcon: Formally, we always had economic and diplomatic relations with European countries. It was rather childish what the EU did. Unfortunately, following Spanish government advice, the EU followed the American line on Cuba. Even on the Helms-Burton law. Europe at first complained to the WTO about Helms-Burton and then negotiated and reached what they called an understanding with Washington. They withdrew their complaint.
And on May 2004, in the U.S. plan for Cuba, Bush announced that the U.S. will examine on a case by case basis, country by country, in terms of implementing Chapters 3 and 4 [punishing countries and companies trading with Cuba] of Helms/Burton more efficiently.
They forgot their commitment to Europe to eliminate or change those chapters and instead declare they will implement them more thoroughly. No complaints, no protests from Europe in what is tantamount to a U.S. slap in Europe's face. With news of the dissidents' arrest [Cuba arrested 75 anti-government activists and charged them with working for the U.S. government against Cuba in March 2003], the Europeans had an opportunity to protest against the "illegal" arrest of people not only in Cuba, but throughout the western world. I refer to widespread torture and the violation of habeas corpus and other legal principles. Europeans behaved as accomplices to these policies as did on U.S. policy toward Cuba. Then they took some childish steps like refusing high level contacts with Cuba. Some countries ignored that decision. Another step: eliminate cultural exchanges. Last year, the Havana book fair was dedicated to Germany. At the last moment, the German government, following the European position, withdrew from the fair. In spite of that, many writers, publishers and artists from Germany came to Cuba.
And they added another step. They would invite the so-called dissidents to their official, diplomatic functions like national holidays and so-on. In other words, they tried to insult us. Not to have high level or important contacts with the Cuban government and to put those people [dissidents], those American agents, at the same level as legitimate Cuban authority.
Our answer was simple. We cut off contacts with the embassies here. We said we are prepared to wait the necessary time. On a personal basis, I enjoyed this period. It's a burden to attend these diplomatic functions like receptions and diplomatic dinners if you have work to do. Of course, we continued as before normal functions with African, Asian and Latin American embassies in Havana. But now the Europeans realize it was nonsense and are changing. But more important, I said that Europe had followed Spanish advice. That was when Mr. Aznar headed the conservative government in Spain. In March, Spaniards elected a new government, which withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq, and proposed other progressive steps on women's rights, etc. And regarding Cuba, the new government openly said it wanted to change the Aznar policy. The socialists have a more respectful and friendly approach. That was the source of Europe's new position. Let's hope the EU will follow the new Spanish counsel. By the way, it's as if we're still a Spanish colony, which we're not. But I think we've turned the page. I hope the Europeans have matured and will not repeat that nonsense.
In weekend soccer action, FC Barcelona romped all over Mallorca at home, 2-0, goals by Etoo and Deco. Real Madrid lost 0-2 at home to Athletic Bilbao, giving Barcelona a seven-point lead with fourteen games left to play. Barça has 57 points and Real Madrid is their only challenger with 50. Betis and Sevilla are tied for third place, way back with 41 points. (You get three points for a win and one for a draw.)
The season is over as far as first and second places go; Barça has about an 80% chance of finishing first, I'd guess, with Madrid the only possible second place team. The Big Two get the two automatic bids to next year's European Champions' League. The competition now is for spots three through six. If you finish third or fourth, you get a bid to the playoff round of the Champions' League, and if you finish fifth or sixth, you get a bid to the UEFA Cup, the second most prestigious of the Europe-wide club competitions.
So there are four spots open for Europe next year and seven teams in the hunt. They are Betis and Sevilla with 41 points each, Villarreal with 40, last year's champion Valencia with 38, Espanyol with 38 also, Athletic Bilbao with 35, and Atlético Madrid with 33. None of the other 11 teams have positive goal-averages. Deportivo de la Coruña, in recent years a top Spanish club, is not having a good year and will finish in the middle of the final standings. Villarreal and Betis are currently hot and I would expect them, if they can keep it up, to take the two remaining Champions' League spots. Espanyol and Valencia are both in a slump and are the two teams most likely to fall out of the top group in the league table. Sevilla appears to be playing over its head, since they have the worst goal average among the top nine, and I'd expect to see them drop from their current fourth place as well.
At the bottom of the table, the three teams that come in last drop down to Second Division next year. Numancia with 17 points and Mallorca with 21 are almost sure to be demoted, and the last demotion spot will probably go to either Albacete with 23, Racing Santander with 24, Levante and Getafe with 27, or Málaga with 28.
In the second division the first three teams, of course, move up to First Division next year. There are eight teams in the hunt for those three places; the Second Division race is going to be much more exciting than in First, in which we already know who's going to win. Cádiz leads Second with 47, followed by Celta de Vigo with 46, Elche and Eibar 45, Alavés Vitoria and Valladolid 42, Recreativo de Huelva 40, and Xerez 39.
The season is over as far as first and second places go; Barça has about an 80% chance of finishing first, I'd guess, with Madrid the only possible second place team. The Big Two get the two automatic bids to next year's European Champions' League. The competition now is for spots three through six. If you finish third or fourth, you get a bid to the playoff round of the Champions' League, and if you finish fifth or sixth, you get a bid to the UEFA Cup, the second most prestigious of the Europe-wide club competitions.
So there are four spots open for Europe next year and seven teams in the hunt. They are Betis and Sevilla with 41 points each, Villarreal with 40, last year's champion Valencia with 38, Espanyol with 38 also, Athletic Bilbao with 35, and Atlético Madrid with 33. None of the other 11 teams have positive goal-averages. Deportivo de la Coruña, in recent years a top Spanish club, is not having a good year and will finish in the middle of the final standings. Villarreal and Betis are currently hot and I would expect them, if they can keep it up, to take the two remaining Champions' League spots. Espanyol and Valencia are both in a slump and are the two teams most likely to fall out of the top group in the league table. Sevilla appears to be playing over its head, since they have the worst goal average among the top nine, and I'd expect to see them drop from their current fourth place as well.
At the bottom of the table, the three teams that come in last drop down to Second Division next year. Numancia with 17 points and Mallorca with 21 are almost sure to be demoted, and the last demotion spot will probably go to either Albacete with 23, Racing Santander with 24, Levante and Getafe with 27, or Málaga with 28.
In the second division the first three teams, of course, move up to First Division next year. There are eight teams in the hunt for those three places; the Second Division race is going to be much more exciting than in First, in which we already know who's going to win. Cádiz leads Second with 47, followed by Celta de Vigo with 46, Elche and Eibar 45, Alavés Vitoria and Valladolid 42, Recreativo de Huelva 40, and Xerez 39.
The Spanish press seems to be putting as much emphasis on the low turnout for yesterday's non-binding referendum on the European Constitution as on the fact that the large majority of the 42% who came out voted yes. I would have voted yes, too. Some of my more libertarian, anti-statist friends disagree strongly with me, and they have a lot of very good points, but I don't think this constitution does much more than codify the current regulations of the EU. I have as many complaints as anyone else about the imperfections of the EU structure and its thick-headed bureaucracy, and I too support the idea of having as small a government as possible, but things in Europe are going pretty well along about now.
(Digression: Rule Number One of international politics is that people vote with their feet. This is why they want to leave places like Mexico and Morocco and go to places like America and Spain. If you are a place that people are risking their lives to reach, you are doing a pretty good job in general, so Europe ain't nearly as badly off as some conservative Europeans in despair over the large state sector of their economies think. Other comments: Note that there's been no flood of refugees leaving Iraq. Note also that at least a couple million Afghan refugees have returned to Afghanistan. Note in addition that absolutely nobody except for a few crazy expatriates [NOT "ex-patriots", that's a horrible ignorant mistake to make and I've seen it in print] like me emigrates from the United States, while there are quite a few Europeans, at least a million, who have moved to the States. A lot of these people will go back home at some time or another, but I bet at least half of them stay.)
I admit not having read the whole Constitution, though I have read the press reports on its contents fairly thoroughly, and I'm pretty sure that if there were anything horribly scandalous in the Constitution somebody like Libertad Digital would have informed us. One of the major factors creating my opinion is that my favorite Spanish political party, the PP, supported the treaty, and I tend to go along with what those guys recommend, since I figure Aznar and Rajoy and Rato are probably the smartest people in Spain and if they're for it, then it can't be too awful. Also, most of the active opposition came from groups I despise like Esquerra Republicana and the Spanish Communist Party, not to mention Le Pen and his neo-fascists (who we should not forget came in second in the last French presidential election). So if those dopes are against it and the PP is for it, I reckon it's probably a pretty good idea.
As an American citizen, I support the closer integration of the European countries. Anything that more closely unites the Europeans, who got more than two hundred million people killed around the world during the 20th century with their world wars and their Fascism and Communism, under a democratic system is fine with me. I'm not afraid of France dominating a more united EU: I figure Britain, the Eastern Europeans, and the NATO Nordics will keep them under control. I am also not afraid of European competition with the United States; we are not going to go to war against one another. Our peoples will not let us. There is no way you could get the American people to support an invasion of, say, Ireland or Greece or Portugal, even if you were crazy enough to suggest it, and there is no way you'd ever convince the Europeans to go to war with America, either.
Non-military competition, in economics and business and technology and science, is good for everybody and I hope Europe will become much more competitive with the United States than it is now. A kick in the butt from Europe would do American society a world of good, kind of like the kick in the butt we got from the Japanese in the late '70s and early '80s. I do not think this treaty will impede that butt-kicking from happening, though I'm not sure it will help much, either.
Meanwhile, the deal in the Middle East is getting done. Israel began turning loose the 500 Palestinian prisoners they promised they would. This is an excellent step forward, and when Sharon pulls the Israeli settlements out of Gaza, it will be proof to the whole world that Israel means what it says and is willing to make concessions in its honest desire for peace. The Arab states and the Palestinians should (and I think they will) lose all legitimacy they still hold in European eyes if they continue with anti-Israeli terrorism.
I have a considered comment to make on torture. It seems that there is solid evidence that a prisoner died at Abu Ghraib while being hung up by the arms; at least this is my understanding. It is also my understanding that at the very least severe psychological pressure is being applied to prisoners at Guantanamo with the goal of making them talk, and that we are not being informed of what the CIA or other intelligence agencies might be doing.
My standard is that psychological pressure is legitimate if there are grounds to believe that a person has knowledge that might determine the life or death of American or allied troops or innocent civilians. This pressure must be carried out by official interrogators only, not by ordinary guards, who should be held to the standards of guards in American military prisons where U.S. soldiers convicted of crimes are held. All cases of guards meting out psychological pressure or physical torture must be severely punished.
By psychological pressure I mean sleep deprivation, humiliation, good cop-bad cop treatment, lying to them, frightening them, intimidating them, playing Barney music 24 hours a day, forcing them to watch film of their bloody work over and over, making them eat pork or nothing, isolating them, and threatening them with deportation to less savory countries where they are wanted by authorities (and then actually deporting them if they don't cooperate), not to mention anything else they can think of. This is legitimate if ordered by interrogation officers for the express purpose of getting information, and military lawyers should be informed of what is being done, who it is being done to, and what the results are.
Physical torture should be verboten under all circumstances, period. Yeah, we all know the extreme example of having Osama in your hands half an hour before the planes hit. Of course you torture the hell out of him to make him talk and if he dies so what. Get medieval on his ass. But that is a very extreme example, and under 99.9% of circumstances there is no justification for torturing people physically. The Gestapo and the KGB do that, not us. At least that's the way it should be.
(Digression: Rule Number One of international politics is that people vote with their feet. This is why they want to leave places like Mexico and Morocco and go to places like America and Spain. If you are a place that people are risking their lives to reach, you are doing a pretty good job in general, so Europe ain't nearly as badly off as some conservative Europeans in despair over the large state sector of their economies think. Other comments: Note that there's been no flood of refugees leaving Iraq. Note also that at least a couple million Afghan refugees have returned to Afghanistan. Note in addition that absolutely nobody except for a few crazy expatriates [NOT "ex-patriots", that's a horrible ignorant mistake to make and I've seen it in print] like me emigrates from the United States, while there are quite a few Europeans, at least a million, who have moved to the States. A lot of these people will go back home at some time or another, but I bet at least half of them stay.)
I admit not having read the whole Constitution, though I have read the press reports on its contents fairly thoroughly, and I'm pretty sure that if there were anything horribly scandalous in the Constitution somebody like Libertad Digital would have informed us. One of the major factors creating my opinion is that my favorite Spanish political party, the PP, supported the treaty, and I tend to go along with what those guys recommend, since I figure Aznar and Rajoy and Rato are probably the smartest people in Spain and if they're for it, then it can't be too awful. Also, most of the active opposition came from groups I despise like Esquerra Republicana and the Spanish Communist Party, not to mention Le Pen and his neo-fascists (who we should not forget came in second in the last French presidential election). So if those dopes are against it and the PP is for it, I reckon it's probably a pretty good idea.
As an American citizen, I support the closer integration of the European countries. Anything that more closely unites the Europeans, who got more than two hundred million people killed around the world during the 20th century with their world wars and their Fascism and Communism, under a democratic system is fine with me. I'm not afraid of France dominating a more united EU: I figure Britain, the Eastern Europeans, and the NATO Nordics will keep them under control. I am also not afraid of European competition with the United States; we are not going to go to war against one another. Our peoples will not let us. There is no way you could get the American people to support an invasion of, say, Ireland or Greece or Portugal, even if you were crazy enough to suggest it, and there is no way you'd ever convince the Europeans to go to war with America, either.
Non-military competition, in economics and business and technology and science, is good for everybody and I hope Europe will become much more competitive with the United States than it is now. A kick in the butt from Europe would do American society a world of good, kind of like the kick in the butt we got from the Japanese in the late '70s and early '80s. I do not think this treaty will impede that butt-kicking from happening, though I'm not sure it will help much, either.
Meanwhile, the deal in the Middle East is getting done. Israel began turning loose the 500 Palestinian prisoners they promised they would. This is an excellent step forward, and when Sharon pulls the Israeli settlements out of Gaza, it will be proof to the whole world that Israel means what it says and is willing to make concessions in its honest desire for peace. The Arab states and the Palestinians should (and I think they will) lose all legitimacy they still hold in European eyes if they continue with anti-Israeli terrorism.
I have a considered comment to make on torture. It seems that there is solid evidence that a prisoner died at Abu Ghraib while being hung up by the arms; at least this is my understanding. It is also my understanding that at the very least severe psychological pressure is being applied to prisoners at Guantanamo with the goal of making them talk, and that we are not being informed of what the CIA or other intelligence agencies might be doing.
My standard is that psychological pressure is legitimate if there are grounds to believe that a person has knowledge that might determine the life or death of American or allied troops or innocent civilians. This pressure must be carried out by official interrogators only, not by ordinary guards, who should be held to the standards of guards in American military prisons where U.S. soldiers convicted of crimes are held. All cases of guards meting out psychological pressure or physical torture must be severely punished.
By psychological pressure I mean sleep deprivation, humiliation, good cop-bad cop treatment, lying to them, frightening them, intimidating them, playing Barney music 24 hours a day, forcing them to watch film of their bloody work over and over, making them eat pork or nothing, isolating them, and threatening them with deportation to less savory countries where they are wanted by authorities (and then actually deporting them if they don't cooperate), not to mention anything else they can think of. This is legitimate if ordered by interrogation officers for the express purpose of getting information, and military lawyers should be informed of what is being done, who it is being done to, and what the results are.
Physical torture should be verboten under all circumstances, period. Yeah, we all know the extreme example of having Osama in your hands half an hour before the planes hit. Of course you torture the hell out of him to make him talk and if he dies so what. Get medieval on his ass. But that is a very extreme example, and under 99.9% of circumstances there is no justification for torturing people physically. The Gestapo and the KGB do that, not us. At least that's the way it should be.
Well, the referendum happened. If you want to read about it, or any other news from around here, check out the Spain Herald for a good solid right-wing anti-Socialist dose of information. I actually like this translating thing.
The Drudge Report has these excerpts from Bush's Brussels speech. Excellent. Just what the Europeans want to hear, with the added advantage that it's becoming more and more clear that Bush means what he says. Bush has been so rough on Europe in the past that this is a real olive branch, and even France is getting a chance to pick it up. Note that nobody's doing Zap any favors, though. Zap's honeymoon with the public isn't over yet; all the surveys I've seen show that the Socialists would win if an election were to be held now, though the PP would make a race of it. Zap's honeymoon with the non-El Pais media is about over, though, because it's also becoming more and more clear that Zap is a dope. And Spain is in the deep-freeze as long as Zap's PM.
"The alliance of Europe and North America is the main pillar of our security in a new century. Our robust trade is one of the engines of the world economy. Our example of economic and political freedom gives hope to millions who are weary of poverty and oppression. In all these ways, our strong friendship is essential to peace and prosperity across the globe - and no temporary debate, no passing disagreement of governments, no power on earth will ever divide us."
"Today, America and Europe face a moment of consequence and opportunity. Together we can once again set history on a hopeful course - away from poverty and despair, and toward development and the dignity of self-rule … away from resentment and violence, and toward justice and the peaceful settlement of differences. . . . As past debates fade, and great duties become clear, let us begin a new era of transatlantic unity. . . . "
"Our greatest opportunity, and our immediate goal, is peace in the Middle East. . . . "
"We seek peace between Israel and Palestine for its own sake. We also know that a free and peaceful Palestine can add to the momentum of reform throughout the broader Middle East. . . . "
"Lasting, successful reform in the broader Middle East will not be imposed from the outside; it must be chosen from within. . . ."
"Together, we must make clear to the Iraqi people that the world is also with them - because they have certainly shown their character to the world. . . ."
"All nations now have an interest in the success of a free and democratic Iraq, which will fight terror, be a beacon of freedom, and be a source of true stability in the region. . . . Now is the time for the established democracies to give tangible political, economic, and security assistance to the world's newest democracy. . . ."
"America supports Europe's democratic unity for the same reason we support the spread of democracy in the Middle East - because freedom leads to peace. And America supports a strong Europe because we need a strong partner in the hard work of advancing freedom in the world. . . ."
"The nations in our great alliance have many advantages and blessings. We also have a call beyond our comfort: we must raise our sights to the wider world. Our ideals and our interests lead in the same direction: By bringing progress and hope to nations in need, we can improve many lives, and lift up failing states, and remove the causes and sanctuaries of terror. . . ."
"Our alliance is determined to promote development, and integrate developing nations into the world economy. . . . "
"Our alliance is determined to encourage commerce among nations, because open markets create jobs, and lift incomes, and draw whole nations into an expanding circle of freedom and opportunity. . . ."
"Our alliance is determined to meet natural disaster, famine, and disease with swift and compassionate help. . . ."
The Drudge Report has these excerpts from Bush's Brussels speech. Excellent. Just what the Europeans want to hear, with the added advantage that it's becoming more and more clear that Bush means what he says. Bush has been so rough on Europe in the past that this is a real olive branch, and even France is getting a chance to pick it up. Note that nobody's doing Zap any favors, though. Zap's honeymoon with the public isn't over yet; all the surveys I've seen show that the Socialists would win if an election were to be held now, though the PP would make a race of it. Zap's honeymoon with the non-El Pais media is about over, though, because it's also becoming more and more clear that Zap is a dope. And Spain is in the deep-freeze as long as Zap's PM.
"The alliance of Europe and North America is the main pillar of our security in a new century. Our robust trade is one of the engines of the world economy. Our example of economic and political freedom gives hope to millions who are weary of poverty and oppression. In all these ways, our strong friendship is essential to peace and prosperity across the globe - and no temporary debate, no passing disagreement of governments, no power on earth will ever divide us."
"Today, America and Europe face a moment of consequence and opportunity. Together we can once again set history on a hopeful course - away from poverty and despair, and toward development and the dignity of self-rule … away from resentment and violence, and toward justice and the peaceful settlement of differences. . . . As past debates fade, and great duties become clear, let us begin a new era of transatlantic unity. . . . "
"Our greatest opportunity, and our immediate goal, is peace in the Middle East. . . . "
"We seek peace between Israel and Palestine for its own sake. We also know that a free and peaceful Palestine can add to the momentum of reform throughout the broader Middle East. . . . "
"Lasting, successful reform in the broader Middle East will not be imposed from the outside; it must be chosen from within. . . ."
"Together, we must make clear to the Iraqi people that the world is also with them - because they have certainly shown their character to the world. . . ."
"All nations now have an interest in the success of a free and democratic Iraq, which will fight terror, be a beacon of freedom, and be a source of true stability in the region. . . . Now is the time for the established democracies to give tangible political, economic, and security assistance to the world's newest democracy. . . ."
"America supports Europe's democratic unity for the same reason we support the spread of democracy in the Middle East - because freedom leads to peace. And America supports a strong Europe because we need a strong partner in the hard work of advancing freedom in the world. . . ."
"The nations in our great alliance have many advantages and blessings. We also have a call beyond our comfort: we must raise our sights to the wider world. Our ideals and our interests lead in the same direction: By bringing progress and hope to nations in need, we can improve many lives, and lift up failing states, and remove the causes and sanctuaries of terror. . . ."
"Our alliance is determined to promote development, and integrate developing nations into the world economy. . . . "
"Our alliance is determined to encourage commerce among nations, because open markets create jobs, and lift incomes, and draw whole nations into an expanding circle of freedom and opportunity. . . ."
"Our alliance is determined to meet natural disaster, famine, and disease with swift and compassionate help. . . ."
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Well, I've been busy lately. Thanks to our friend Franco Alemán's mediation, I got a (very part-time) job translating for The Spain Herald, which is the English edition of Libertad Digital, the Spanish conservative news-and-politics website. (The link is in the blogroll on the left.) Every evening they send me one several-paragraph story and four one- or two-paragraph news briefs and I put them in English. It doesn't take long, forty-five minutes to an hour fifteen, or so. I don't translate the opinion stories; someone else does that. They did say I could submit opinion stuff, though, and yesterday they posted a little piece I reworked and sent them.
I also get to be in the local media again. Helena García Melero from TV3 has a show on Saturday at noon on Radio Barcelona, which is the SER network, and they invited me to be on it. It's going to be an hour-long interview; apparently what she does is picks out an everyday someone who is a little offbeat, and I seem to qualify. We're going to record it tomorrow afternoon and it will be on Saturday if you want to listen. I don't know if it will be available on Internet or not, but try Radio Barcelona's website.
If this doesn't get me on Gran Hermano VIP I don't know what will. I can just see myself smoking a few spliffs and talking literature with Pocholo. I'm willing to compromise, though. I'll accept Hotel Glam. What I am not going to do is go on one of those survival-on-a-desert-island ones where you have to eat bugs and get sunburned. My skin is very sensitive. I don't lie out in the sun because the consequences are painful. I am also a vegetarian, and I don't eat mammals or birds, much less bugs and worms.
I also get to be in the local media again. Helena García Melero from TV3 has a show on Saturday at noon on Radio Barcelona, which is the SER network, and they invited me to be on it. It's going to be an hour-long interview; apparently what she does is picks out an everyday someone who is a little offbeat, and I seem to qualify. We're going to record it tomorrow afternoon and it will be on Saturday if you want to listen. I don't know if it will be available on Internet or not, but try Radio Barcelona's website.
If this doesn't get me on Gran Hermano VIP I don't know what will. I can just see myself smoking a few spliffs and talking literature with Pocholo. I'm willing to compromise, though. I'll accept Hotel Glam. What I am not going to do is go on one of those survival-on-a-desert-island ones where you have to eat bugs and get sunburned. My skin is very sensitive. I don't lie out in the sun because the consequences are painful. I am also a vegetarian, and I don't eat mammals or birds, much less bugs and worms.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Ana Palacio zaps Zap in the Wall Street Journal. (Hat tip: Franco Alemán.)
MADRID -- In some Spanish political circles, people wonder why Condoleezza Rice didn't come to Madrid on her grand European tour last week. But the omission shouldn't surprise anyone. In the 10 months since José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero took office as prime minister, Spain has abandoned a high-profile foreign policy and today relishes in an ill-defined role as a second-rate player on the world stage.
It did not have to turn out this way. When Mr. Zapatero took over last March, Spain was the world's eighth largest economy, the sixth biggest investor worldwide (second in Latin America) and the fifth most popular destination for investment. It was one of the most open economies in the world, boasting a balanced budget and a growth rate double the EU average. It was at the height of its political influence in Europe and the world in recent memory.
In no time, this inspiring picture turned dark. In his first action of note in European affairs -- the final negotiations on the new European Constitution -- Mr. Zapatero negotiated away Spain's position of influence in the EU by diluting its voting powers in the new constitution. In economic policy, he seems driven by an obsession to intervene, from limiting stores' opening hours to backing an attempt to raise the minimum wage. Of course, the economic costs of mismanagement aren't felt by consumers immediately. But the Bank of Spain has revealed that only eight months into Mr. Zapatero's term, direct foreign investment had fallen by 80%.
On the international stage, Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos had the temerity to accuse the previous government, in which I served for two years in his job, of having supported the attempted 2002 coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. This accusation was only echoed in the official mouthpiece of Cuba -- which is no doubt grateful for the Zapatero government's efforts to lift EU sanctions against the Castro regime and to keep dissidents out of EU missions on the island. And of course, in one of its first decisions, the new socialist administration last spring rushed a reckless withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, and later irresponsibly called for other members of the coalition to follow its lead.
MADRID -- In some Spanish political circles, people wonder why Condoleezza Rice didn't come to Madrid on her grand European tour last week. But the omission shouldn't surprise anyone. In the 10 months since José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero took office as prime minister, Spain has abandoned a high-profile foreign policy and today relishes in an ill-defined role as a second-rate player on the world stage.
It did not have to turn out this way. When Mr. Zapatero took over last March, Spain was the world's eighth largest economy, the sixth biggest investor worldwide (second in Latin America) and the fifth most popular destination for investment. It was one of the most open economies in the world, boasting a balanced budget and a growth rate double the EU average. It was at the height of its political influence in Europe and the world in recent memory.
In no time, this inspiring picture turned dark. In his first action of note in European affairs -- the final negotiations on the new European Constitution -- Mr. Zapatero negotiated away Spain's position of influence in the EU by diluting its voting powers in the new constitution. In economic policy, he seems driven by an obsession to intervene, from limiting stores' opening hours to backing an attempt to raise the minimum wage. Of course, the economic costs of mismanagement aren't felt by consumers immediately. But the Bank of Spain has revealed that only eight months into Mr. Zapatero's term, direct foreign investment had fallen by 80%.
On the international stage, Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos had the temerity to accuse the previous government, in which I served for two years in his job, of having supported the attempted 2002 coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. This accusation was only echoed in the official mouthpiece of Cuba -- which is no doubt grateful for the Zapatero government's efforts to lift EU sanctions against the Castro regime and to keep dissidents out of EU missions on the island. And of course, in one of its first decisions, the new socialist administration last spring rushed a reckless withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq, and later irresponsibly called for other members of the coalition to follow its lead.
Monday, February 14, 2005
As I think everyone knows by now, a skyscraper in Madrid, the Windsor Tower, was completely gutted by fire over the weekend; the building was 32 stories, more than 300 feet tall. Yesterday afternoon it was finally declared under control; the building did not collapse, as was feared, but it will obviously have to be destroyed. The most important thing is that nobody was hurt, and, fortunately, the fire did not spread to any neighboring buildings such as El Corte Inglés.
The most important effects of the fire are that traffic in the area has shut down and offices in the area are closed down until Wednesday. Three subway lines are cut off as well as Madrid's central commuter train line from Chamartín to Atocha. The company most affected by the fire is the auditing firm Deloitte & Touche, the largest in Spain. They own Arthur Andersen. They occupied twenty stories of the building. These guys audited dozens of large companies, including 21 of the 35 listed on Spain's stock market index. Meanwhile, they still haven't decided what caused the fire, but it reached temperatures of over 800º C and took more than 200 firemen more than 24 hours to put out. The building was the property of the Reyzábal family and was insured for 84 million euros by Allianz. The conspiracy theories may begin.
The most important effects of the fire are that traffic in the area has shut down and offices in the area are closed down until Wednesday. Three subway lines are cut off as well as Madrid's central commuter train line from Chamartín to Atocha. The company most affected by the fire is the auditing firm Deloitte & Touche, the largest in Spain. They own Arthur Andersen. They occupied twenty stories of the building. These guys audited dozens of large companies, including 21 of the 35 listed on Spain's stock market index. Meanwhile, they still haven't decided what caused the fire, but it reached temperatures of over 800º C and took more than 200 firemen more than 24 hours to put out. The building was the property of the Reyzábal family and was insured for 84 million euros by Allianz. The conspiracy theories may begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
