Blog roundup while listening to BR-549's first album:
Eursoc links to this article from Tech Central Station on poverty on Europe.
Kalebeul posts on "Barcelona's role as a Disneyland of absurd and forgotten ideologies," and on a medieval BCN public brothel.
Patrick Crozier has an excellent historical post on the Battle of the Somme.
Samizdata opines on the Swiss and American constitutions.
Angie Schultz takes Stephen Hawking to task.
¡No Pasarán! finds non-idiotarianism at the Guardian and idiotarianism at the Telegraph. They've also got the video of Zidane's head-butt. Like everything Zidane does, perfectly executed.
Sgt. Mom at the Daily Brief comments on North Korea.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Sunday, July 09, 2006
World Cup final thoughts while listening to Bringing It All Back Home:
I hate penalty-kick finals. I say make them play till they drop or someone scores a goal; make that more likely by forcing each team to remove one player at the beginning of each 15-minute overtime period.
Boy howdy, Zidane sure looked classy when he head-butted Materazzi, didn't he? What a way to go out, a World Cup final and you get red-carded and can't participate in the penalty kicks. And your team loses out on just one miss.
I wonder if Cannavaro might be interested in playing for FC Barcelona. I know he's like 32, but he's pretty damn good and I bet he stays in form three more years. And, right now, Barça has only three center-backs, Puyol, Marquez, and Oleguer. I would put in a bid. I will also bet that Real Madrid signs at least five players from Juve and Milan.
The diving and flopping around was, as usual, excessive, and something needs to be done. Video replay just would not work in soccer, you can't stop play like that, but it wouldn't change the game too much to put three referees on the pitch and two linesmen on each side. That would put a lot more eyes on what's happening, and some things that aren't noticed now would be seen.
More Americans than ever have been following the World Cup in English on ABC, up 65% from under 1 million in 2002 to 2.6 million in 2006. Soccer's actually become the hip cool edgy sport for twenty- and thirty-somethings, and real sports buffs will watch anything, of course. Now, 2.6 million isn't much, but it's an improvement, and that figure is doubled when you count on those watching in Spanish on Univision. And these figures are for the opening games, not for the later, more interesting and exciting ones.
I've always thought that we already had enough sports in America and that there wasn't enough room in the national attention for another, but I might be wrong. Perhaps when the quality of the American professional league improves, more fans will come. And, maybe, US interest in top-level European club soccer will increase too. If I were ESPN 8 or whatever, one of those sports channels with time to fill, I'd buy the rights to the Champions' League and promote the hell out of it just to see what would happen.
I hate penalty-kick finals. I say make them play till they drop or someone scores a goal; make that more likely by forcing each team to remove one player at the beginning of each 15-minute overtime period.
Boy howdy, Zidane sure looked classy when he head-butted Materazzi, didn't he? What a way to go out, a World Cup final and you get red-carded and can't participate in the penalty kicks. And your team loses out on just one miss.
I wonder if Cannavaro might be interested in playing for FC Barcelona. I know he's like 32, but he's pretty damn good and I bet he stays in form three more years. And, right now, Barça has only three center-backs, Puyol, Marquez, and Oleguer. I would put in a bid. I will also bet that Real Madrid signs at least five players from Juve and Milan.
The diving and flopping around was, as usual, excessive, and something needs to be done. Video replay just would not work in soccer, you can't stop play like that, but it wouldn't change the game too much to put three referees on the pitch and two linesmen on each side. That would put a lot more eyes on what's happening, and some things that aren't noticed now would be seen.
More Americans than ever have been following the World Cup in English on ABC, up 65% from under 1 million in 2002 to 2.6 million in 2006. Soccer's actually become the hip cool edgy sport for twenty- and thirty-somethings, and real sports buffs will watch anything, of course. Now, 2.6 million isn't much, but it's an improvement, and that figure is doubled when you count on those watching in Spanish on Univision. And these figures are for the opening games, not for the later, more interesting and exciting ones.
I've always thought that we already had enough sports in America and that there wasn't enough room in the national attention for another, but I might be wrong. Perhaps when the quality of the American professional league improves, more fans will come. And, maybe, US interest in top-level European club soccer will increase too. If I were ESPN 8 or whatever, one of those sports channels with time to fill, I'd buy the rights to the Champions' League and promote the hell out of it just to see what would happen.
Just reading Sunday's La Vanguardia while listening to a Howlin' Wolf compilation. There's this French outfit called Saga Blues (best link I could find) that's put out an excellent series of original blues CDs. I have six or seven of them. They're cool. Well, maybe not this cool.
La Vanguardia, as a very Catholic newspaper, was guaranteed to go overboard on the Pope's visit, and they gave it six full pages. I gleaned that Ratzinger said nothing of any interest; what he didn't say was more interesting, since he did not give Zap hell in public. La Vangua is all POed that Zap didn't show at the massive mass the Pope put on. There are also a few stats: 80% of Spaniards self-identify as Catholic, 1.4% believers in some other religion, and the rest non-religious. Huh, the Catholic tally isn't that different from the percentage of religious believers in the US. 48% of Spaniards almost never go to religious services, while those who do at least occasionally add up to 51%; nearly 20% go to church at least once a week. 42% say they believe in God, and 31% "more or less" (más bien) do, adding up to a 73% majority. 17% are doubters, and 9% are absolute unbelievers.
La Vangua's Latin American correspondent, Joaquim Ibarz, has page three, the lead international story, for the Mexican election, and he blasts Lopez Obrador for "radicalizing his posture and threatening 'the political stability of the country' if the election results are not recounted, which is not permitted by electoral law. 'This has just begun,' he said a few hours before the protest demonstration he called in the Zocalo to denounce 'generalized fraud'." Ibarz stresses the honesty of the election: "Spanish Euro-MP Jose Ignacio Salafranca, the head of the European Union observers mission, said, 'The election was clean and transparent. No PRD poll watcher made the most minimal complaint to us.'" Nice piece, if rather opinionated, by Mr. Ibarz, who is one of the Vangua's better foreign correspondents.
In case you're planning to come to Spain sometime in the next week, be aware that the Iberia pilots' union, Sepla, is going on strike between July 10 and 16. Many flights will be canceled.
Rafael Ramos, tied with Andy Robinson and Tomas Alcoverro for the title of "planet Earth's worst foreign correspondent," has this scoop from London:
The world may go better or worse, there may be wars and earthquakes, global warming and terrorist conspiracies, a Conservative or Labor government, but none of that affects British high society's plans. When summer comes, the only thing on the agenda are the Ascot horse races, the Henley regattas, the Glyndebourne opera, and the traditional cricket match between the exclusive Eton and Harrow schools.
A Spanish soldier was killed by a bomb, probably triggered at a distance, in Afghanistan yesterday. Four others were wounded. We appreciate the sacrifice the soldiers made. 680 Spanish peacekeeping troops are stationed in Herat.
Here's rabid Cataloony TV host Toni Soler, who passes for an intellectual in some circles around here:
The debate about Catalanity, if it is based on genetics, is ridiculous. But language, ah, my friend, that is something else...A 'president' (regional premier) worthy of the new statute must speak Catalan and Spanish well. Montilla, though in Madrid he has an accent from here, speaks deficient Catalan.
OK, Toni, what do you think if we pass a law in the States saying no one whose English is "deficient" can be a state governor? You'd scream xenophobic anti-Hispanic racism, of course, and you'd be right. Fortunately, we don't do such things. And, by the way, who are you to judge Montilla's Catalan? My personal opinion is that it sounds just fine.
Finally, get this load of crap from La Vangua's ombudsman, Carles Esteban, who is at least somewhat better than the last idiot they had. The large-type filler reads, "The American press reported on 9-11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars by hiding the drama of the situation."
After the 9-11 attacks in New York and Washington, the press agencies provided photographs of the victims of the brutal attack in the first hours following, but as time passed, the photos that came in were more general, there were fewer persons recognizable, and of course no one wounded, no corpses.
Mr. Esteban, isn't this true in every disaster? That is, you get lots of photos of dead bodies in the first few hours after a disaster. Then the police carry them away and there aren't any more dead body photos. Duh.
In the Afghanistan war and the later one in Iraq, something similar happened. The officially accredited photographers embedded in military units offered images of the war in which few victims or the devastating effects of military action were seen.
Is this guy nuts? There was and is plenty of violent film coming out of those places. Also, of course, there weren't many victims of the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The great majority of people killed in both places are victims of the so-called insurgents.
Months had to pass from the beginning of the Iraq war until a soldier sneaked a photo of the coffins of the American soldiers repatriated in a military plane, photos that went around the world and caused a scandal in American and world public opinion, since until that moment it seemed like a war without victims.
He's flat-out lying. There were kilometers of film of Iraqi victims of the war, of course, and the reason photos of American soldiers' funerals have not gone around the world is because those funerals are private ceremonies and the international press is not invited, asshole. But American casualties in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were and are heavily covered, as anyone who was actually paying attention to the news would know. And there was certainly no "scandal" in the American press when the photos of flag-draped coffins were shown, in what was arguably interference with the dead soldiers' privacy. If anything, that photograph's effect was to strengthen Americans' respect for the troops.
There's more of this crap, but I've had enough, so I'll summarize it:
mistreatment...torture...terrorize the Iraqi population...Abu Graib (sic)...attacks...devastating...obscene...censorship...passive and uncritical media...mold and control the messages transmitted to public opinion
Gee, if this is the way the ombudsman feels, don't you think news coverage in La Vanguardia might be a little one-sided?
Tomorrow we'll be back with more Sunday paper fun, and maybe some Monday paper fun as well, especially if Baltasar Porcel is up and about.
La Vanguardia, as a very Catholic newspaper, was guaranteed to go overboard on the Pope's visit, and they gave it six full pages. I gleaned that Ratzinger said nothing of any interest; what he didn't say was more interesting, since he did not give Zap hell in public. La Vangua is all POed that Zap didn't show at the massive mass the Pope put on. There are also a few stats: 80% of Spaniards self-identify as Catholic, 1.4% believers in some other religion, and the rest non-religious. Huh, the Catholic tally isn't that different from the percentage of religious believers in the US. 48% of Spaniards almost never go to religious services, while those who do at least occasionally add up to 51%; nearly 20% go to church at least once a week. 42% say they believe in God, and 31% "more or less" (más bien) do, adding up to a 73% majority. 17% are doubters, and 9% are absolute unbelievers.
La Vangua's Latin American correspondent, Joaquim Ibarz, has page three, the lead international story, for the Mexican election, and he blasts Lopez Obrador for "radicalizing his posture and threatening 'the political stability of the country' if the election results are not recounted, which is not permitted by electoral law. 'This has just begun,' he said a few hours before the protest demonstration he called in the Zocalo to denounce 'generalized fraud'." Ibarz stresses the honesty of the election: "Spanish Euro-MP Jose Ignacio Salafranca, the head of the European Union observers mission, said, 'The election was clean and transparent. No PRD poll watcher made the most minimal complaint to us.'" Nice piece, if rather opinionated, by Mr. Ibarz, who is one of the Vangua's better foreign correspondents.
In case you're planning to come to Spain sometime in the next week, be aware that the Iberia pilots' union, Sepla, is going on strike between July 10 and 16. Many flights will be canceled.
Rafael Ramos, tied with Andy Robinson and Tomas Alcoverro for the title of "planet Earth's worst foreign correspondent," has this scoop from London:
The world may go better or worse, there may be wars and earthquakes, global warming and terrorist conspiracies, a Conservative or Labor government, but none of that affects British high society's plans. When summer comes, the only thing on the agenda are the Ascot horse races, the Henley regattas, the Glyndebourne opera, and the traditional cricket match between the exclusive Eton and Harrow schools.
A Spanish soldier was killed by a bomb, probably triggered at a distance, in Afghanistan yesterday. Four others were wounded. We appreciate the sacrifice the soldiers made. 680 Spanish peacekeeping troops are stationed in Herat.
Here's rabid Cataloony TV host Toni Soler, who passes for an intellectual in some circles around here:
The debate about Catalanity, if it is based on genetics, is ridiculous. But language, ah, my friend, that is something else...A 'president' (regional premier) worthy of the new statute must speak Catalan and Spanish well. Montilla, though in Madrid he has an accent from here, speaks deficient Catalan.
OK, Toni, what do you think if we pass a law in the States saying no one whose English is "deficient" can be a state governor? You'd scream xenophobic anti-Hispanic racism, of course, and you'd be right. Fortunately, we don't do such things. And, by the way, who are you to judge Montilla's Catalan? My personal opinion is that it sounds just fine.
Finally, get this load of crap from La Vangua's ombudsman, Carles Esteban, who is at least somewhat better than the last idiot they had. The large-type filler reads, "The American press reported on 9-11 and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars by hiding the drama of the situation."
After the 9-11 attacks in New York and Washington, the press agencies provided photographs of the victims of the brutal attack in the first hours following, but as time passed, the photos that came in were more general, there were fewer persons recognizable, and of course no one wounded, no corpses.
Mr. Esteban, isn't this true in every disaster? That is, you get lots of photos of dead bodies in the first few hours after a disaster. Then the police carry them away and there aren't any more dead body photos. Duh.
In the Afghanistan war and the later one in Iraq, something similar happened. The officially accredited photographers embedded in military units offered images of the war in which few victims or the devastating effects of military action were seen.
Is this guy nuts? There was and is plenty of violent film coming out of those places. Also, of course, there weren't many victims of the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The great majority of people killed in both places are victims of the so-called insurgents.
Months had to pass from the beginning of the Iraq war until a soldier sneaked a photo of the coffins of the American soldiers repatriated in a military plane, photos that went around the world and caused a scandal in American and world public opinion, since until that moment it seemed like a war without victims.
He's flat-out lying. There were kilometers of film of Iraqi victims of the war, of course, and the reason photos of American soldiers' funerals have not gone around the world is because those funerals are private ceremonies and the international press is not invited, asshole. But American casualties in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were and are heavily covered, as anyone who was actually paying attention to the news would know. And there was certainly no "scandal" in the American press when the photos of flag-draped coffins were shown, in what was arguably interference with the dead soldiers' privacy. If anything, that photograph's effect was to strengthen Americans' respect for the troops.
There's more of this crap, but I've had enough, so I'll summarize it:
mistreatment...torture...terrorize the Iraqi population...Abu Graib (sic)...attacks...devastating...obscene...censorship...passive and uncritical media...mold and control the messages transmitted to public opinion
Gee, if this is the way the ombudsman feels, don't you think news coverage in La Vanguardia might be a little one-sided?
Tomorrow we'll be back with more Sunday paper fun, and maybe some Monday paper fun as well, especially if Baltasar Porcel is up and about.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Aimless thoughts while listening to KHYI out of Dallas (click on "Click Here to Listen," and make sure your speakers are turned on):
They busted a serial killer right here in Barcelona a couple of days ago, a fiftyish woman named Remedios Sanchez. Seems Ms. Sanchez was addicted to slot machines and bingo halls, and therefore won the confidence of old women in public places. She would return to their homes with them and there attack and rob them. Out of the eight attacks she is known to have committed, three of the victims died, strangled. Ms. Sanchez was none too bright, as the cops arrested her while she was using one of the victims' bank cards at a bingo hall. I vote we fry her, but that's just a little too barbarous for the locals.
The crime wave that La Vanguardia and the rest of the media pushed so hard during May has fizzled out, if there ever was a crime wave at all.
And speaking of crime in Barcelona, you have to check out this incredibly kick-ass blog called Guirilandia. Hilariously funny and extremely well-done, a wonderful picture of Barcelona's slightly seamy side.
Three key aspects of the Mexican election: 1) the PRI is dead. The only people who voted for it were those who somehow owe it for jobs in the bureaucracy or the unions or state companies. 2) Subcomandante Marcos and his clowns got exactly nowhere. 3) The election was honest and international observers confirm it. Lopez Obrador is actively and intentionally trying to undermine Mexican democracy, weak and fragile as it is, by trying to overturn the voters' verdict.
Jose Montilla has been making some rather loud non-nationalist statements; I guess he's hoping we'll all forget about the disaster of the Tripartite.
The Pope is in Valencia; he made a speech and a big old crowd of the faithful showed up. The Pope and the Zap administration don't get along very well, as they have rather obvious differences on such issues as abortion, gay marriage, easy divorce, and the Pope took advantage of the occasion to make this clear. Of course, Europe can't carry out a major operation like this without American help, as there is a NATO AWACS plane controlling the airspace around the city.
Rafael Ramos, on page 4 of the Vanguardia in the middle of an article about the commemorations in London on the anniversary of the June 7, 2005 bombings, wrote:
"The reaction of the Londoners after June 7 has nothing to do with that of the Americans after September 11," said Jenny Kowalsky, a young American from Chicago who works in a City bank. "It's obvious that the magnitude of the tragedy was not nearly the same, but in the United States the government asked for a blank check to declare in practice a state of emergency, wiretap telephones, and create an illegal detention camp at Guantanamo. In Great Britain the citizens put things in a more balanced perspective and react against excesses." Jenny loves London and is only sorry that her compatriots are identified with George Bush's policies when many of them are opposed.
That doesn't sound to me like anything an American would say, especially the bit about a "state of emergency" (estado de excepcion). Also, of course, both Ramos and "Jenny" should know that the US government hasn't been wiretapping anybody without getting a court order first.
Come on, Ramos, let's hear the tape of your interview with "Jenny."
By the way, it's also interesting that the story right below Ramos's article is headlined "FBI dismantles terrorist plan to attack New York tunnels."
They busted a serial killer right here in Barcelona a couple of days ago, a fiftyish woman named Remedios Sanchez. Seems Ms. Sanchez was addicted to slot machines and bingo halls, and therefore won the confidence of old women in public places. She would return to their homes with them and there attack and rob them. Out of the eight attacks she is known to have committed, three of the victims died, strangled. Ms. Sanchez was none too bright, as the cops arrested her while she was using one of the victims' bank cards at a bingo hall. I vote we fry her, but that's just a little too barbarous for the locals.
The crime wave that La Vanguardia and the rest of the media pushed so hard during May has fizzled out, if there ever was a crime wave at all.
And speaking of crime in Barcelona, you have to check out this incredibly kick-ass blog called Guirilandia. Hilariously funny and extremely well-done, a wonderful picture of Barcelona's slightly seamy side.
Three key aspects of the Mexican election: 1) the PRI is dead. The only people who voted for it were those who somehow owe it for jobs in the bureaucracy or the unions or state companies. 2) Subcomandante Marcos and his clowns got exactly nowhere. 3) The election was honest and international observers confirm it. Lopez Obrador is actively and intentionally trying to undermine Mexican democracy, weak and fragile as it is, by trying to overturn the voters' verdict.
Jose Montilla has been making some rather loud non-nationalist statements; I guess he's hoping we'll all forget about the disaster of the Tripartite.
The Pope is in Valencia; he made a speech and a big old crowd of the faithful showed up. The Pope and the Zap administration don't get along very well, as they have rather obvious differences on such issues as abortion, gay marriage, easy divorce, and the Pope took advantage of the occasion to make this clear. Of course, Europe can't carry out a major operation like this without American help, as there is a NATO AWACS plane controlling the airspace around the city.
Rafael Ramos, on page 4 of the Vanguardia in the middle of an article about the commemorations in London on the anniversary of the June 7, 2005 bombings, wrote:
"The reaction of the Londoners after June 7 has nothing to do with that of the Americans after September 11," said Jenny Kowalsky, a young American from Chicago who works in a City bank. "It's obvious that the magnitude of the tragedy was not nearly the same, but in the United States the government asked for a blank check to declare in practice a state of emergency, wiretap telephones, and create an illegal detention camp at Guantanamo. In Great Britain the citizens put things in a more balanced perspective and react against excesses." Jenny loves London and is only sorry that her compatriots are identified with George Bush's policies when many of them are opposed.
That doesn't sound to me like anything an American would say, especially the bit about a "state of emergency" (estado de excepcion). Also, of course, both Ramos and "Jenny" should know that the US government hasn't been wiretapping anybody without getting a court order first.
Come on, Ramos, let's hear the tape of your interview with "Jenny."
By the way, it's also interesting that the story right below Ramos's article is headlined "FBI dismantles terrorist plan to attack New York tunnels."
Here's Sports Illustrated on the Wimbledon final between Roger Federer and Spaniard Rafael Nadal:
The facts are simple: Federer has lost six of his seven matches with Nadal, including that four-set demolition in last month's French Open final. It's indeed a curious state of things when the player who thoroughly dominates the field is yet dominated by one man, and theories abound. But the most heavily trafficked these days -- because of both source and outrageousness -- is the one voiced by Swedish tennis legend Mats Wilander. "Rafael has the one thing that Roger doesn't: balls," Wilander told Sports Illustrated in Paris. "I don't even think Rafael has two; I think he has three." Wilander backed off a bit for L'Equipe: "[Federer] might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once. It's every time," he said.
I don't know why the European press never quotes Sports Illustrated; SI often has great international sports stuff that never comes out over here. Just a few months ago Iberian Notes linked to an SI interview with Ronaldo, in which he said that he would probably still be playing with FC Barcelona if team management hadn't lied to him. That would have been front-page news in the Barcelona sports press. Barcelona is so soccer-crazy that it supports two daily sports papers with circulations over 100,000; they're mostly devoted to the Barça, but cover all sports popular in Spain. There's an NBA story every day; the NBA is the only American sports league popular over here. The two Madrid sports papers are also sold in Barcelona.
Spain is wild about Rafael Nadal, who is young, handsome, well-behaved, and a winner; he is also the nephew of star soccer player Miquel Angel Nadal of Barça and the Spanish national team. Uncle Nadal was Spain's best center-back during most of the '90s; he was nicknamed "The Animal" by the British tabloids for his fierce play. The other big current hero is Formula One driver Fernando Alonso, who has dominated the circuit for the last two years. Alonso is a major asshole, however, so he isn't nearly as well-liked as Nadal.
While we're on sports, I'm rooting for France to crush Italy in the World Cup final. I despise the Italian team, and I'm a big fan of Zidane, who is Mr. Class. Too bad he played for Real Madrid, because I'd have liked to be able to root for him during the regular club season. Zidane is quite likely the greatest soccer player ever. The game has changed a great deal since about the mid-80s, and I wouldn't rank a pre-'85 player anywhere near the top. Zidane would have eaten Pele's lunch if the two could have confronted one another at their respective peaks. As for Maradona, forget it. Would you trade Zidane for Maradona, at their peaks, even up? I thought not. Would you even want Maradona on your team? Hell, no. The guy is clubhouse poison, and he'll sell you out to the mob for half a kilo of cocaine.
Speaking of which, several Italian clubs, including Juventus and Milan, are in deep trouble for match-fixing. Seems that Juve set up a scheme in which it bribed league officials to assign paid-for referees to Juve matches, and Milan caught on and set up its own competing scheme. Whatever, all teams involved, including Fiorentina and Lazio, will be demoted to second division, and that means there will be an exodus of star players from those clubs. And guess who's ready to buy? Real Madrid. They plan to get rid of several players, including Helguera, Diogo, Pablo Garcia, Woodgate, Pavon, Gravesen, and Baptista, and they have €100 million to spend on signings. And they just signed former Juventus coach Fabio Capello, who will undoubtedly influence several of his former players to come with him.
Tim Stannard runs an excellent blog on Spanish soccer called La Liga Loca, and he contributes a column to the British website Football365. Highly recommended.
The facts are simple: Federer has lost six of his seven matches with Nadal, including that four-set demolition in last month's French Open final. It's indeed a curious state of things when the player who thoroughly dominates the field is yet dominated by one man, and theories abound. But the most heavily trafficked these days -- because of both source and outrageousness -- is the one voiced by Swedish tennis legend Mats Wilander. "Rafael has the one thing that Roger doesn't: balls," Wilander told Sports Illustrated in Paris. "I don't even think Rafael has two; I think he has three." Wilander backed off a bit for L'Equipe: "[Federer] might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once. It's every time," he said.
I don't know why the European press never quotes Sports Illustrated; SI often has great international sports stuff that never comes out over here. Just a few months ago Iberian Notes linked to an SI interview with Ronaldo, in which he said that he would probably still be playing with FC Barcelona if team management hadn't lied to him. That would have been front-page news in the Barcelona sports press. Barcelona is so soccer-crazy that it supports two daily sports papers with circulations over 100,000; they're mostly devoted to the Barça, but cover all sports popular in Spain. There's an NBA story every day; the NBA is the only American sports league popular over here. The two Madrid sports papers are also sold in Barcelona.
Spain is wild about Rafael Nadal, who is young, handsome, well-behaved, and a winner; he is also the nephew of star soccer player Miquel Angel Nadal of Barça and the Spanish national team. Uncle Nadal was Spain's best center-back during most of the '90s; he was nicknamed "The Animal" by the British tabloids for his fierce play. The other big current hero is Formula One driver Fernando Alonso, who has dominated the circuit for the last two years. Alonso is a major asshole, however, so he isn't nearly as well-liked as Nadal.
While we're on sports, I'm rooting for France to crush Italy in the World Cup final. I despise the Italian team, and I'm a big fan of Zidane, who is Mr. Class. Too bad he played for Real Madrid, because I'd have liked to be able to root for him during the regular club season. Zidane is quite likely the greatest soccer player ever. The game has changed a great deal since about the mid-80s, and I wouldn't rank a pre-'85 player anywhere near the top. Zidane would have eaten Pele's lunch if the two could have confronted one another at their respective peaks. As for Maradona, forget it. Would you trade Zidane for Maradona, at their peaks, even up? I thought not. Would you even want Maradona on your team? Hell, no. The guy is clubhouse poison, and he'll sell you out to the mob for half a kilo of cocaine.
Speaking of which, several Italian clubs, including Juventus and Milan, are in deep trouble for match-fixing. Seems that Juve set up a scheme in which it bribed league officials to assign paid-for referees to Juve matches, and Milan caught on and set up its own competing scheme. Whatever, all teams involved, including Fiorentina and Lazio, will be demoted to second division, and that means there will be an exodus of star players from those clubs. And guess who's ready to buy? Real Madrid. They plan to get rid of several players, including Helguera, Diogo, Pablo Garcia, Woodgate, Pavon, Gravesen, and Baptista, and they have €100 million to spend on signings. And they just signed former Juventus coach Fabio Capello, who will undoubtedly influence several of his former players to come with him.
Tim Stannard runs an excellent blog on Spanish soccer called La Liga Loca, and he contributes a column to the British website Football365. Highly recommended.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Denis Boyles from National Review has a piece on the recent British polls that demonstrate the Limeys think we Yanks are all a bunch of ignorant vulgar wankers. Boyles fires back with a link to a City Journal piece by Theodore Dalrymple:
No one who knows Britain could doubt that it has very serious problems—economic, social, and cultural. Its public services—which already consume a vast proportion of the national wealth—are not only inefficient but completely beyond amelioration by the expenditure of yet more money. Its population is abysmally educated, to the extent that in a few more years Britain will not even have a well-educated elite.
If you don't believe Mr. Dalrymple, click here.
Meanwhile, that pompous tosser Gerard Baker at the Times took the same subject and came out with a standard "not all Americans are bad, some of them hate Bush too" piece. Here's the key line:
Nor is it news that many (Britons) have long regarded Americans as, shall we say, not quite our class.
He's right, and that really pisses me off. I cannot stand being patronized by Brits who assume I am vulgar and uneducated, especially when so many of them are precisely that. My normal responses are to either put the Brit on by playing the grinning hayseed, or to put him in his place by asking him which part of Essex he is from and which Viz character he most identifies with. It's also fun to take the first letter of his name, add "-az" to it, and call him that. For example, Dave becomes Daz, Gary becomes Gaz, and Bob becomes Baz. This is really fun with posh names, so Trevor becomes Traz and Simon becomes Saz and Nigel becomes Naz. Try it yourself.
No one who knows Britain could doubt that it has very serious problems—economic, social, and cultural. Its public services—which already consume a vast proportion of the national wealth—are not only inefficient but completely beyond amelioration by the expenditure of yet more money. Its population is abysmally educated, to the extent that in a few more years Britain will not even have a well-educated elite.
If you don't believe Mr. Dalrymple, click here.
Meanwhile, that pompous tosser Gerard Baker at the Times took the same subject and came out with a standard "not all Americans are bad, some of them hate Bush too" piece. Here's the key line:
Nor is it news that many (Britons) have long regarded Americans as, shall we say, not quite our class.
He's right, and that really pisses me off. I cannot stand being patronized by Brits who assume I am vulgar and uneducated, especially when so many of them are precisely that. My normal responses are to either put the Brit on by playing the grinning hayseed, or to put him in his place by asking him which part of Essex he is from and which Viz character he most identifies with. It's also fun to take the first letter of his name, add "-az" to it, and call him that. For example, Dave becomes Daz, Gary becomes Gaz, and Bob becomes Baz. This is really fun with posh names, so Trevor becomes Traz and Simon becomes Saz and Nigel becomes Naz. Try it yourself.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Here's the Wall Street Journal on the Mexican election:
For the past four months this nation has been bracing for a nail-biter of a race. The chief concern was that Mr. López Obrador, a renowned sore loser, would respond in a manner detrimental to Mexican democracy if he were edged out by the competition.
The race was every bit as tight as pollsters had predicted. And by Monday morning when it began to appear that Mr. López Obrador had secured only second place, Mexicans were treated, on national television, to a flash of anger that revealed the trademark intolerance that has made him such a polarizing figure: The red- faced candidate gripped the podium in frustration, pledging to exhaust every available legal channel. His head shook uncontrollably as he demanded that the country "respect" his "triumph." Yesterday, his senior aides told Reuters that his supporters would take to the streets if the election authorities don't go his way.
La Vanguardia's Joaquim Ibarz buried the lead about as deep as possible--the next-to-last paragraph:
Although Lopez Obrador denounced the disappearance of three million votes, he knew they had been counted separately. With the accusation of manipulation, he sowed doubt, exalted feelings against the IFE (election board), and marked the road map toward talk of fraud. The daily La Jornada, Lopez Obrador's unofficial organ, yesterday published a full-page photograph of (IFE president) Luis Carlos Ugalde with this caption: "Wanted: election thief." Lopez Obrador called on his followers to defend their votes "peacefully" in front of the 300 election district headquarters.
The AP is reporting that Calderon won the election and that Lopez Obrador is charging fraud and calling a mass demo in the Zocalo, Mexico City's (and Tenochtitlan's) enormous central square. Several sources point out that Calderon won the north of the country, including every state along the US border, and Lopez Obrador won the relatively poorer south, with few exceptions.
For the past four months this nation has been bracing for a nail-biter of a race. The chief concern was that Mr. López Obrador, a renowned sore loser, would respond in a manner detrimental to Mexican democracy if he were edged out by the competition.
The race was every bit as tight as pollsters had predicted. And by Monday morning when it began to appear that Mr. López Obrador had secured only second place, Mexicans were treated, on national television, to a flash of anger that revealed the trademark intolerance that has made him such a polarizing figure: The red- faced candidate gripped the podium in frustration, pledging to exhaust every available legal channel. His head shook uncontrollably as he demanded that the country "respect" his "triumph." Yesterday, his senior aides told Reuters that his supporters would take to the streets if the election authorities don't go his way.
La Vanguardia's Joaquim Ibarz buried the lead about as deep as possible--the next-to-last paragraph:
Although Lopez Obrador denounced the disappearance of three million votes, he knew they had been counted separately. With the accusation of manipulation, he sowed doubt, exalted feelings against the IFE (election board), and marked the road map toward talk of fraud. The daily La Jornada, Lopez Obrador's unofficial organ, yesterday published a full-page photograph of (IFE president) Luis Carlos Ugalde with this caption: "Wanted: election thief." Lopez Obrador called on his followers to defend their votes "peacefully" in front of the 300 election district headquarters.
The AP is reporting that Calderon won the election and that Lopez Obrador is charging fraud and calling a mass demo in the Zocalo, Mexico City's (and Tenochtitlan's) enormous central square. Several sources point out that Calderon won the north of the country, including every state along the US border, and Lopez Obrador won the relatively poorer south, with few exceptions.
As everyone knows, North Korea's long-range Taepo Dong II missile test has failed. The effect, of course, will be to strengthen links between Japan, South Korea, and the US, and to make possible North Korean allies China and Russia nervous. According to Slate:
Kim Jong-il, these past few years, has adroitly played his otherwise miserable hand because of two cards that everyone believes he holds—nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Yesterday's dud raises the possibility that the missile card's a bluff, that there may be (as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland) "no there there." The next tempting step is to wonder about the nukes. We know that he has enough plutonium to build some bombs, but has he built them? Can he build them?
From a strictly objective viewpoint, the test would have meant little, even had it succeeded. In Cold War days, the United States and the Soviet Union would each test-launch a new intercontinental ballistic missile 20 times before deeming it "operational." The North Koreans, until yesterday, hadn't fired a long-range missile since 1998, and no serious analyst thinks they can make a nuclear weapon small enough to fit inside a missile's nose cone.
Looks to me like Kim has been left with No Dong in his hands.
Rafael Poch, La Vanguardia's completely insane correspondent in Peking, says:
The question why North Korea is so stubborn about launching missiles is almost banal, because of the fact that it is not prohibited and everybody launches them, the Russians and the Americans, even France.
What?!? North Korea doesn't give a rat's ass what international law permits and prohibits, and the fact that Country X test-launches missiles itself does not mean that Country X will not consider itself threatened if Country Y test-launches a missile, especially if Country Y is run by a bunch of crazies led by a certifiable lunatic. North Korea launched those missiles in order to threaten its neighbors, Mr. Poch, you dope, and it's the United States's business because two of those neighbors are close allies of ours.
Mr. Poch adds:
In the Middle East there is a crisis, they say because Iran wants to develop nuclear arms, but in Israel those very arms, some 200 bombs, have existed since the 1970s, though they are not talked about. In the middle of this general irresponsibility, it can be affirmed with some security that the North Koreans are not the only inhabitants in the global insane asylum.
Note the moral equivalence here that Mr. Poch is making between Israel and the US on the one hand and Iran and North Korea on the other. The difference between the two is clear: North Korea and Iran are aggressive totalitarian dictatorships. The US and Israel are not. The US and Israel would be happy to leave North Korea and Iran alone if those countries stopped behaving aggressively. North Korea and Iran have no intention of stopping their aggressive behavior. To quote the Slate article:
"The missile launch is an issue that is entirely within our sovereignty," a (North Korean) foreign ministry official said. "No one has the right to dispute it. … We are not bound by any agreement." The statement is true but beside the point. The worrisome thing about the prospect of North Korean nukes isn't so much the nukes as the North Korean. The missile launch confirms the worst fears about Kim Jong-il—not merely that he's a guerrilla diplomat who takes wild gambles but that sometimes the gambles go awry.
But Mr. Poch continues:
North Korea is not a threat except to its own population, which suffers from one of the toughest regimes in the world. But while the only choice offered to them is regime change, its only play will be missiles and ambitions for a nuclear bomb, for which the real evidence is zero, according to the most trustworthy observers.
Who are those trustworthy observers, Mr. Poch? A few drunks at the hotel bar in Peking? As for being a threat to no one, Mr. Poch, then what are the missiles and warheads and enormous army on the South Korean frontier for?
This was La Vanguardia's page three international lead news story today, not an opinion peace. People, this is not news, it is analysis, and pretty stupid analysis at that.
Kim Jong-il, these past few years, has adroitly played his otherwise miserable hand because of two cards that everyone believes he holds—nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Yesterday's dud raises the possibility that the missile card's a bluff, that there may be (as Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland) "no there there." The next tempting step is to wonder about the nukes. We know that he has enough plutonium to build some bombs, but has he built them? Can he build them?
From a strictly objective viewpoint, the test would have meant little, even had it succeeded. In Cold War days, the United States and the Soviet Union would each test-launch a new intercontinental ballistic missile 20 times before deeming it "operational." The North Koreans, until yesterday, hadn't fired a long-range missile since 1998, and no serious analyst thinks they can make a nuclear weapon small enough to fit inside a missile's nose cone.
Looks to me like Kim has been left with No Dong in his hands.
Rafael Poch, La Vanguardia's completely insane correspondent in Peking, says:
The question why North Korea is so stubborn about launching missiles is almost banal, because of the fact that it is not prohibited and everybody launches them, the Russians and the Americans, even France.
What?!? North Korea doesn't give a rat's ass what international law permits and prohibits, and the fact that Country X test-launches missiles itself does not mean that Country X will not consider itself threatened if Country Y test-launches a missile, especially if Country Y is run by a bunch of crazies led by a certifiable lunatic. North Korea launched those missiles in order to threaten its neighbors, Mr. Poch, you dope, and it's the United States's business because two of those neighbors are close allies of ours.
Mr. Poch adds:
In the Middle East there is a crisis, they say because Iran wants to develop nuclear arms, but in Israel those very arms, some 200 bombs, have existed since the 1970s, though they are not talked about. In the middle of this general irresponsibility, it can be affirmed with some security that the North Koreans are not the only inhabitants in the global insane asylum.
Note the moral equivalence here that Mr. Poch is making between Israel and the US on the one hand and Iran and North Korea on the other. The difference between the two is clear: North Korea and Iran are aggressive totalitarian dictatorships. The US and Israel are not. The US and Israel would be happy to leave North Korea and Iran alone if those countries stopped behaving aggressively. North Korea and Iran have no intention of stopping their aggressive behavior. To quote the Slate article:
"The missile launch is an issue that is entirely within our sovereignty," a (North Korean) foreign ministry official said. "No one has the right to dispute it. … We are not bound by any agreement." The statement is true but beside the point. The worrisome thing about the prospect of North Korean nukes isn't so much the nukes as the North Korean. The missile launch confirms the worst fears about Kim Jong-il—not merely that he's a guerrilla diplomat who takes wild gambles but that sometimes the gambles go awry.
But Mr. Poch continues:
North Korea is not a threat except to its own population, which suffers from one of the toughest regimes in the world. But while the only choice offered to them is regime change, its only play will be missiles and ambitions for a nuclear bomb, for which the real evidence is zero, according to the most trustworthy observers.
Who are those trustworthy observers, Mr. Poch? A few drunks at the hotel bar in Peking? As for being a threat to no one, Mr. Poch, then what are the missiles and warheads and enormous army on the South Korean frontier for?
This was La Vanguardia's page three international lead news story today, not an opinion peace. People, this is not news, it is analysis, and pretty stupid analysis at that.
Read all about it: New Zealand peace activist puts British rock singer in coma!
Here's Timothy Garton Ash in the Guardian, of course. "Most of us" is a reference to the British.
Unlike many continental Europeans, most of us do not rule out war as a means of last resort. We think you sometimes have to fight to defend your way of life, but that you should fight clever, keeping a cool head, a strong grasp on reality and a sense of proportion. We've lived with terrorism for years, and we know you can lick it, especially if we don't overreact and make unnecessary sacrifices of liberty in the name of security - for freedom is its own best defence. Between cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating war junkies, we look for a middle way. Americans have every cause to be proud on July 4. And on July 7, I'm rather proud to be British.
Ash is making several question-begging assumptions here: The US-led coalition is not fighting cleverly or proportionately or in a well-considered manner; IRA terrorism is comparable to Islamist terrorism; Great Britain "licked" the IRA (in reality, of course, they cut a deal); the US has sacrificed liberty for security; and, most blatant, there is some "middle way" between war and peace in Iraq. Note the turn of phrase: "fire-eating war junkies." Does Ash really believe that the Bush administration is addicted to war?
One point, just to avoid misunderstandings: I agree with Ash that British citizens have a great deal to be proud of, and if I were British I would certainly be proud of it. In fact, I'd make a better Brit than a lot of Brits I know.
For lots of anti-Americanism, read the comments below the article.
Here's Timothy Garton Ash in the Guardian, of course. "Most of us" is a reference to the British.
Unlike many continental Europeans, most of us do not rule out war as a means of last resort. We think you sometimes have to fight to defend your way of life, but that you should fight clever, keeping a cool head, a strong grasp on reality and a sense of proportion. We've lived with terrorism for years, and we know you can lick it, especially if we don't overreact and make unnecessary sacrifices of liberty in the name of security - for freedom is its own best defence. Between cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating war junkies, we look for a middle way. Americans have every cause to be proud on July 4. And on July 7, I'm rather proud to be British.
Ash is making several question-begging assumptions here: The US-led coalition is not fighting cleverly or proportionately or in a well-considered manner; IRA terrorism is comparable to Islamist terrorism; Great Britain "licked" the IRA (in reality, of course, they cut a deal); the US has sacrificed liberty for security; and, most blatant, there is some "middle way" between war and peace in Iraq. Note the turn of phrase: "fire-eating war junkies." Does Ash really believe that the Bush administration is addicted to war?
One point, just to avoid misunderstandings: I agree with Ash that British citizens have a great deal to be proud of, and if I were British I would certainly be proud of it. In fact, I'd make a better Brit than a lot of Brits I know.
For lots of anti-Americanism, read the comments below the article.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Barcelona Reporter links to this horror story on US Immigration's treatment of a tourist from Barcelona at the Seattle airport. Immigration is notorious for being unpleasant to foreign visitors, but all bureaucrats, who universally consider themselves overworked and underpaid, are capable of being major jerks. This seems like a typical bureaucratic screwup to me. Another factor, of course, is that the US receives something like 50 million tourists a year, and some small percentage of people is bound to be mistreated. None of this makes it OK, of course.
For some perspective on the issue, watch this video.
For some perspective on the issue, watch this video.
National Review is very good today. Check out this review of a new biography of William Jennings Bryan; I plan to read the book when I get hold of it. Furriners might be interested in Bryan, as he's virtually unknown outside the United States. They've also got a piece comparing Teddy Roosevelt to George W. Bush. Both articles stress that both Bryan and TR would have been sympathetic to today's Republicans, despite Roosevelt's Progressivism and Bryan's populism. And urbane paleocon John Derbyshire explains why he has some doubts about Bush on a personal level.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
The mistake these geniuses are making is assuming that just because some action is permitted, it is therefore a good idea to do it.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Iberian Notes is back after a month of vacation. The Spain Herald is defunct. They told me they couldn't find advertisers and it was costing too much money. No hard feelings; they always treated me decently. My only complaint, which I've already written about several times, is that I strongly disagree with the conspiracy theory on the March 11 bombings that they're pushing.
Major news from Spain today, unfortunately. A subway train went off the tracks on Line 1 in Valencia at 1 PM today, between the Plaza España and Jesus stations, and at least thirty-five people were killed. Thirty more were injured and taken to the hospital; among them is a woman in the last stages of pregnancy. The first thing authorities did was rule out a terrorist attack as the cause; apparently the train was A) going too fast (how can a subway train go too fast?) and B) one of the wheels broke, derailing two cars. According to TVE, there may still be some bodies that haven't been recovered.
More bad news. Two "sub-Saharan" (Spanish politically correct for black) illegal immigrants were killed trying to cross the boundary fence between the Spanish city of Melilla and Morocco in a group of about fifty who tried to use the "human avalanche" technique, tried several times earlier this year. And about twenty more drowned at sea when their open boat capsized on the way from the West African coast to the Canaries. At least one thousand, and probably many more, sub-Saharans have died at sea so far in 2006 trying to reach the Canary Islands.
This is a massive humanitarian tragedy happening here. It is getting no publicity around the world. The Spanish navy and coast guard seem to be doing what they can, and they've been rescuing most of the open boats, called cayucos, before they sink. Some of the West African countries, like Mauritania and Senegal, are officially trying to patrol their coastlines, but I'm not sure how effective that is. Spain, at least, has gone on a diplomatic offensive in the area, sending special envoys to half-forgotten places like Mali and Guinea-Bissau, for whatever good that'll do.
The most significant news of the month was, of course, Zap's announcement that he's going to negotiate with ETA. My position is that there's nothing to negotiate about except when and where ETA is going to turn over its weapons. I have no problem with dragging out the process a few years, IRA style, as long as ETA doesn't go back to murder and extortion. I'll accept letting them save a little face.
The concession I am willing to make is the relegalization of Batasuna, just as soon as it officially announces that it condemns violence. That does not mean pardoning crimes, such as exaltation of terrorism or conspiracy to extort, that may have been committed by Batasuna leaders in the past. Prosecutions should continue, and, of course, all ETA criminals should serve out their full prison sentences.
Relegalizing Batasuna wouldn't even really be a concession, since as far as I know, the Constitution requires us to do it anyway if they renounce violence.
The extortion, though, hasn't stopped. The basis of ETA's finances has always been the "revolutionary tax" it blackmailed Basque businesses and individuals into paying. Among companies rumored to pay off ETA are Eroski, Azkoyen, and Fagor; there are dozens of others. French Basque soccer player Bixente Lizarazu was the most famous individual victim; he most honorably went straight to the police when he was threatened, rather than pay a dime. I certainly hope that I would have the courage to face down a blackmailer like that.
Big News Number Two was the Catalan statute of autonomy, which was comfortably approved in a referendum. Abstention was heavy. I frankly didn't care much one way of the other, since it isn't going to change things very much. I imagine the statute--the equivalent of a state constitution in the US--will not affect anybody's everyday life. I also think that it will be overturned by Spain's supreme court when the various challenges filed by the PP and several other autonomous regions finally get there, so the whole shebang doesn't much matter anyway.
Big News Number Three is that the Catalan Tripartite has crashed and burned, bringing down Pasqual Maragall with it. This fall there will be early elections for the Generalitat, the Catalan regional government, and PSC secretary-general and industry minister Jose "Josep" Montilla will run as the Socialist candidate. This is the first time a charnego, the pejorative term used by some racist rednecks around here to refer to Catalans of Castilian-speaking ancestry, will have a real chance at becoming regional premier--Montilla was born in Cordoba. Seriously. This is a big deal. It's like Kennedy becoming the first Catholic president, or Reagan becoming the first divorced president, or Condi becoming the first woman and black president all at once. It's symbolic proof that anyone, despite his or her previously despised condition, can rise as high as possible in a society.
Other news: It's hot and it hasn't rained much for a while. We are running the air-conditioner almost constantly, except on the weekends when we go out to the pueblo (Vallfogona de Riucorb, a very pleasant place; there's a "casa rural" there, and the Hotel Regina down at the spa. Yes, Vallfogona was an early 20th-century resort town; the medieval stone town, where the 100 citizens live and which was once a Templar fief, and the spa, which includes two hotels, an old folks home, and some "chalets" for rent, are about a kilometer apart on the road through the Riucorb valley.)
The cats hate the air-conditioner. They insist on going into the back room to sleep. One advantage of running the AC is that you close the windows, which keeps out a good bit of the noise. Just for example, there was this drunk kid stumbling down the street this afternoon, while I had the windows open, singing the Barça song (you know, "Tot el camp es un clam") at the top of his lungs. This sort of disagreeable noise significantly diminishes with the window closed.
Speaking of soccer, of course the World Cup is on. We're down to Germany, France, Portugal, and Italy, and I'm forced to root for France, perish the thought. I hate Italy's football team and could never support it. They cheat, they're dirty, and they're corrupt. Worst of all, they're boring. Portugal has had two dirty games so far, with the Netherlands and with England, and they put on such a pathetic show that I can't support them either. That leaves me with Germany and France, and, well, France was on our side in 1778 back when it counted.
The US was not very good at all; I wasn't surprised. We just don't have any very good players. None of the US team could even hope to play for Barça. Over here we're spoiled; we're used to seeing the best possible football. Of course, any top club team could beat any national team, since A) top clubs can choose from all players in the world, not just the subset from their country, and B) club teams are much more used to playing together and to their positions than national teams are.
Major news from Spain today, unfortunately. A subway train went off the tracks on Line 1 in Valencia at 1 PM today, between the Plaza España and Jesus stations, and at least thirty-five people were killed. Thirty more were injured and taken to the hospital; among them is a woman in the last stages of pregnancy. The first thing authorities did was rule out a terrorist attack as the cause; apparently the train was A) going too fast (how can a subway train go too fast?) and B) one of the wheels broke, derailing two cars. According to TVE, there may still be some bodies that haven't been recovered.
More bad news. Two "sub-Saharan" (Spanish politically correct for black) illegal immigrants were killed trying to cross the boundary fence between the Spanish city of Melilla and Morocco in a group of about fifty who tried to use the "human avalanche" technique, tried several times earlier this year. And about twenty more drowned at sea when their open boat capsized on the way from the West African coast to the Canaries. At least one thousand, and probably many more, sub-Saharans have died at sea so far in 2006 trying to reach the Canary Islands.
This is a massive humanitarian tragedy happening here. It is getting no publicity around the world. The Spanish navy and coast guard seem to be doing what they can, and they've been rescuing most of the open boats, called cayucos, before they sink. Some of the West African countries, like Mauritania and Senegal, are officially trying to patrol their coastlines, but I'm not sure how effective that is. Spain, at least, has gone on a diplomatic offensive in the area, sending special envoys to half-forgotten places like Mali and Guinea-Bissau, for whatever good that'll do.
The most significant news of the month was, of course, Zap's announcement that he's going to negotiate with ETA. My position is that there's nothing to negotiate about except when and where ETA is going to turn over its weapons. I have no problem with dragging out the process a few years, IRA style, as long as ETA doesn't go back to murder and extortion. I'll accept letting them save a little face.
The concession I am willing to make is the relegalization of Batasuna, just as soon as it officially announces that it condemns violence. That does not mean pardoning crimes, such as exaltation of terrorism or conspiracy to extort, that may have been committed by Batasuna leaders in the past. Prosecutions should continue, and, of course, all ETA criminals should serve out their full prison sentences.
Relegalizing Batasuna wouldn't even really be a concession, since as far as I know, the Constitution requires us to do it anyway if they renounce violence.
The extortion, though, hasn't stopped. The basis of ETA's finances has always been the "revolutionary tax" it blackmailed Basque businesses and individuals into paying. Among companies rumored to pay off ETA are Eroski, Azkoyen, and Fagor; there are dozens of others. French Basque soccer player Bixente Lizarazu was the most famous individual victim; he most honorably went straight to the police when he was threatened, rather than pay a dime. I certainly hope that I would have the courage to face down a blackmailer like that.
Big News Number Two was the Catalan statute of autonomy, which was comfortably approved in a referendum. Abstention was heavy. I frankly didn't care much one way of the other, since it isn't going to change things very much. I imagine the statute--the equivalent of a state constitution in the US--will not affect anybody's everyday life. I also think that it will be overturned by Spain's supreme court when the various challenges filed by the PP and several other autonomous regions finally get there, so the whole shebang doesn't much matter anyway.
Big News Number Three is that the Catalan Tripartite has crashed and burned, bringing down Pasqual Maragall with it. This fall there will be early elections for the Generalitat, the Catalan regional government, and PSC secretary-general and industry minister Jose "Josep" Montilla will run as the Socialist candidate. This is the first time a charnego, the pejorative term used by some racist rednecks around here to refer to Catalans of Castilian-speaking ancestry, will have a real chance at becoming regional premier--Montilla was born in Cordoba. Seriously. This is a big deal. It's like Kennedy becoming the first Catholic president, or Reagan becoming the first divorced president, or Condi becoming the first woman and black president all at once. It's symbolic proof that anyone, despite his or her previously despised condition, can rise as high as possible in a society.
Other news: It's hot and it hasn't rained much for a while. We are running the air-conditioner almost constantly, except on the weekends when we go out to the pueblo (Vallfogona de Riucorb, a very pleasant place; there's a "casa rural" there, and the Hotel Regina down at the spa. Yes, Vallfogona was an early 20th-century resort town; the medieval stone town, where the 100 citizens live and which was once a Templar fief, and the spa, which includes two hotels, an old folks home, and some "chalets" for rent, are about a kilometer apart on the road through the Riucorb valley.)
The cats hate the air-conditioner. They insist on going into the back room to sleep. One advantage of running the AC is that you close the windows, which keeps out a good bit of the noise. Just for example, there was this drunk kid stumbling down the street this afternoon, while I had the windows open, singing the Barça song (you know, "Tot el camp es un clam") at the top of his lungs. This sort of disagreeable noise significantly diminishes with the window closed.
Speaking of soccer, of course the World Cup is on. We're down to Germany, France, Portugal, and Italy, and I'm forced to root for France, perish the thought. I hate Italy's football team and could never support it. They cheat, they're dirty, and they're corrupt. Worst of all, they're boring. Portugal has had two dirty games so far, with the Netherlands and with England, and they put on such a pathetic show that I can't support them either. That leaves me with Germany and France, and, well, France was on our side in 1778 back when it counted.
The US was not very good at all; I wasn't surprised. We just don't have any very good players. None of the US team could even hope to play for Barça. Over here we're spoiled; we're used to seeing the best possible football. Of course, any top club team could beat any national team, since A) top clubs can choose from all players in the world, not just the subset from their country, and B) club teams are much more used to playing together and to their positions than national teams are.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Iberian Notes has moved
Iberian Notes is back in business! We are now affiliated with the Spain Herald. Daily commentary and links on Spain, Europe, politics, culture, history, and lots of other stuff is now available at http://www.spainherald.com/iberiannotes. So don't forget to change your bookmarks, and happy reading.
Friday, December 16, 2005
I am personally damned glad that some sort of position has been taken on torturing prisoners.
My attitude is this:
You treat prisoners, no matter who they are, as you would treat your own soldiers in your own military prison. Don't baby them, but don't torture them either.
My logic is this:
We deserve to win because we are better than they are.
One of the reasons we are better than they are is that we don't torture people.
So us going out and torturing people kind of fucks up that logic, doesn't it?
I don't mind harassment-type interrogations with all the psychological stuff they can think up. We do that to our own people when the cops are grilling them. But inflicting pain is not what we do. Which is why I'm glad we're not going to be doing it anymore.
I'm still for the war, more so than a few months ago. The success of the election in Iraq makes me even more positive. We're going to win and fewer people are going to die and everybody, especially the Iraqis, is going to be better off than with that mass murderer, on whom I would cheerfully pull the trigger, and no joke, I could do it, running the country. They should have just shot him as soon as they determined his identity, Ceaucescu-style.
And one of the reasons we're going to win is that Bush has promised that the Americans d0n't torture people. He's put his neck on the line, and if there's any evidence that any torture goes on in the future, his credibility becomes zero. This gives us a major piece of the moral high ground. See, everybody knows that the terrorists torture people. And we have a lot of winning of the moral high ground to do, so let's get right to it.
My attitude is this:
You treat prisoners, no matter who they are, as you would treat your own soldiers in your own military prison. Don't baby them, but don't torture them either.
My logic is this:
We deserve to win because we are better than they are.
One of the reasons we are better than they are is that we don't torture people.
So us going out and torturing people kind of fucks up that logic, doesn't it?
I don't mind harassment-type interrogations with all the psychological stuff they can think up. We do that to our own people when the cops are grilling them. But inflicting pain is not what we do. Which is why I'm glad we're not going to be doing it anymore.
I'm still for the war, more so than a few months ago. The success of the election in Iraq makes me even more positive. We're going to win and fewer people are going to die and everybody, especially the Iraqis, is going to be better off than with that mass murderer, on whom I would cheerfully pull the trigger, and no joke, I could do it, running the country. They should have just shot him as soon as they determined his identity, Ceaucescu-style.
And one of the reasons we're going to win is that Bush has promised that the Americans d0n't torture people. He's put his neck on the line, and if there's any evidence that any torture goes on in the future, his credibility becomes zero. This gives us a major piece of the moral high ground. See, everybody knows that the terrorists torture people. And we have a lot of winning of the moral high ground to do, so let's get right to it.
Friday, November 25, 2005
10 People I'm Happiest We Fried
10. Marion Pruitt, sicko spree killer of five.
9. Aileen Wournos, murdered seven johns.
8. Alton Coleman, spree baby-rapist, eight victims.
7. Kenneth McDuff, sicko spree murderer of 14.
6. William Bonin, homosexual "Freeway Killer," 14 victims.
5. Douglas Gretzler, spree torture-killer of 16.
4. Ted Bundy, 22 victims.
3. John Wayne Gacy, child-rapist, 33 victims.
2. Gerald Stano, Florida torture-killer of 41.
1. Pee Wee Gaskins, psycho Southerner who may have killed more than 100.
And, of course, Tim McVeigh is hors de categorie.
These people are so morally foul that I just can't see leaving them alive, whatever the other arguments on capital punishment are.
10. Marion Pruitt, sicko spree killer of five.
9. Aileen Wournos, murdered seven johns.
8. Alton Coleman, spree baby-rapist, eight victims.
7. Kenneth McDuff, sicko spree murderer of 14.
6. William Bonin, homosexual "Freeway Killer," 14 victims.
5. Douglas Gretzler, spree torture-killer of 16.
4. Ted Bundy, 22 victims.
3. John Wayne Gacy, child-rapist, 33 victims.
2. Gerald Stano, Florida torture-killer of 41.
1. Pee Wee Gaskins, psycho Southerner who may have killed more than 100.
And, of course, Tim McVeigh is hors de categorie.
These people are so morally foul that I just can't see leaving them alive, whatever the other arguments on capital punishment are.
A big stink is being made over here about a Spanish citizen under a death sentence in the Philippines. The alleged criminal, Francisco Larrañaga, is the son of a Spanish jai alai player and an upper-class Philippine woman, whose family has political connections. The victims are two young women, about 20 years old, whose surname is Chiong. Their father works for a guy who is a big shot in the local mafia. Supposedly, on the island of Cebu, Larrañaga and seven others, who were spoiled rich brats on drugs, picked up the two Chiong girls one day in 1997, raped them, and killed them. One's body has never been found; the other's was found at the bottom of a ravine. Supposedly. Larrañaga's lawyers claim that it has not even been proven that the body is that of Marijoy Chiong. Larrañaga claims to have an alibi, but the only witnesses--agreed, there are more than 20 of them--are friends or classmates of his. Several other witnesses identified Larrañaga and the other seven in a car with the two Chiong girls. I am not sure if any of these people are telling the truth. Especially not the main prosecution witness, a guy named Rusia, who was one of the eight. Rusia, who turned state's evidence and got off, says he and the other seven did the crime, raped and killed the girls. However, he's been in prison twice in the US and his whereabouts are unknown. There seem to have been irregularities at the trial as well; Larrañaga's lawyers claim he was not allowed to testify on his own behalf. He and the others were convicted and got life in prison. Then, something very strange happened: the case was reviewed, and the punishment changed to death. I wasn't aware that such a thing could happen in any legal system. Oh, yeah, in here somewhere the judge, who had convicted these guys in the first place, there was no jury, committed suicide. Maybe.
Larrañaga's family is mounting a media campaign to save him. Philippine president Gloria Macagapal Arroyo says she will not sign any death warrants, which means that Larrañaga is at least temporarily safe from lethal injection. However, temporarily is not permanently.
My attitude is that I am not in favor of coddling criminals, and I think those convicted of heinous crimes deserve the death penalty. Kidnapping, raping, and murdering two young women is about as heinous as it gets, and if these guys did it, fire up the syringe. The problem is I am not convinced these guys are guilty. Exhume the body of the girl said to be Marijoy Chiong and DNA-test it to see if it's her, and to see if any of these guys' DNA are on it. Then proceed from there. But don't execute people if there's a reasonable doubt to their guilt. Hell, you're not supposed to convict people if there's a reasonable doubt to their guilt.
One thing to remember is that Larrañaga is getting all the attention because he's an EU citizen and his family has money. You have to wonder how many people get railroaded by the system, especially in the Third World; I'll bet surprisingly few, but I'll also bet it happens sometimes, and disputes between local elites and mafias are just the sort of context that someone getting railroaded might happen in. Interest in these cases is only taken in places like Europe when there's a Westerner involved.
My understanding, by the way, is that since the US brought back the death penalty in 1977 nobody innocent has been executed.
Larrañaga's family is mounting a media campaign to save him. Philippine president Gloria Macagapal Arroyo says she will not sign any death warrants, which means that Larrañaga is at least temporarily safe from lethal injection. However, temporarily is not permanently.
My attitude is that I am not in favor of coddling criminals, and I think those convicted of heinous crimes deserve the death penalty. Kidnapping, raping, and murdering two young women is about as heinous as it gets, and if these guys did it, fire up the syringe. The problem is I am not convinced these guys are guilty. Exhume the body of the girl said to be Marijoy Chiong and DNA-test it to see if it's her, and to see if any of these guys' DNA are on it. Then proceed from there. But don't execute people if there's a reasonable doubt to their guilt. Hell, you're not supposed to convict people if there's a reasonable doubt to their guilt.
One thing to remember is that Larrañaga is getting all the attention because he's an EU citizen and his family has money. You have to wonder how many people get railroaded by the system, especially in the Third World; I'll bet surprisingly few, but I'll also bet it happens sometimes, and disputes between local elites and mafias are just the sort of context that someone getting railroaded might happen in. Interest in these cases is only taken in places like Europe when there's a Westerner involved.
My understanding, by the way, is that since the US brought back the death penalty in 1977 nobody innocent has been executed.
Friday, November 18, 2005
One reason I haven't posted recently, besides being busy with the Spain Herald and all--I think we've improved it, I really do--is that I've been having a debate with myself over the Iraq war. I don't like blood and killing and death and terror and I think it's a terrible thing for both the civilians and the Allied troops, not to mention the now-legitimate Iraqi government and military.
I suppose what we did was trigger a civil war, mostly pitting two ethnic groups (Shiite Arabs and Sunni Kurds) against one (Sunni Arabs). The Sunni Arabs had run the place since it stopped being an Ottoman colony in 1917, which it had been for the last about four hundred years, and became a British colony. I'm really not sure exactly when it stopped being a British colony, though the year 1932 comes to mind; I remember that the British invaded Iraq in World War II and overthrew a pro-Nazi regime. And grabbed the oil. I do know Iraq had governments somewhere between lousy and horrific between the end of World War II and the overthrow of Saddam by the Allies in April 2003. And those governments were all run by Sunni Arabs for Sunni Arabs. Obviously, in a democratic Iraq, the Sunni Arabs would no longer run everything. Therefore, many Sunni Arabs oppose the democratic government, and a fraction of them are willing to kill.
So we have an ethnic civil war on our hands--again, most Sunni Arabs don't want to fight against the democratic government, only a few do, but that few is enough to cause lots of trouble, which we see every day on the news.
Meanwhile, there is a separate but linked war going on between the Allies and Al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. That war is being fought all over the world, as the explosions in Jordan and Pakistan and Spain and Britain and Morocco and Indonesia show. It is also being fought in parts of Afghanistan, on the ground, against Taliban loyalists. And Al Qaeda has joined in the Iraqi civil war on the side of the violent minority of Sunni Arabs.
So how do the Americans fit in here? Well, one of the mistakes we made in Vietnam was to bail out and ditch the South Vietnamese and Cambodian governments. Just look at the horrors that led to. We can't ditch the democratic Iraqis, no matter what. Doing so would undoubtedly lead to much greater horrors than those we see on television news now. So we're effectively in a civil war on one side. I think if we admit that this is the situation, it might clear up a lot of our thinking. We've got to fight Al Qaeda around the world, because not doing so is suicide. And we have to fight antidemocratic forces in Iraq. Let's make sure we can keep the two separate.
Al Qaeda is basically an ideological movement. The Sunni Arabs are basically a nationalist movement. They're fighting on the same side in Iraq. Al Qaeda is also linked to nationalist groups in many Muslim countries, including Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and the Philippines. They're fighting on the same side in those countries, too.
I suppose this means that no matter how much we dislike seeing the results of the latest bombing in Baghdad, and knowing how much people are suffering, bailing out of Iraq would mean giving a victory to Al Qaeda, which would then have a home base even more convenient than Afghanistan to plot terror, and giving a victory to the insurgent Sunni Arabs, who would then certainly genocide the Kurds and Shiite Arabs. I think, practically and ethically, looking back to examples such as Munich and the Vietnam pullout, the West has to beat them here and now in Iraq. This means no American pullout. Even though two thousand of our guys have been killed, and I would guess at least 15,000 Iraqi civilians. Not to mention large quantities of terrorists, both nationalist Sunnis and Al Qaeda, who will bother us no more.
What's our exit strategy? Well, let's admit we don't really have one, just like Roosevelt really didn't have one in 1942. Whatever we have to do to win the war, because we don't want to fight it in New York and Washington. And Madrid.
Does the end justify the means? I don't think so in the case of torture. I think it's pretty clear that nobody's being tortured in Guantanamo. As for those bleeding hearts who seem to care more for terrorists' rights than for Westerners' simple right to live, what do you want us to do with them? Turn them loose? That's not going to happen. If people are being tortured in secret CIA prisons, well, that would be very wrong if it were happening. Although I haven't seen the slightest real evidence that it is. I also think it's clear that the Abu Ghraib tortures, from which apparently no one died, were an aberration and an isolated incident.
Also, let me make this clear, if it turns out there are secret CIA torture prisons, we can't do that. That wouldn't make me want to stop the war or bail out of Iraq, but it would make me want to fire lots of our intelligence, military, and political leaders and get us some new ones who can win the war without torturing people.
And the Iraqi people are going to suffer less if we stay than if we go. So we have to stay now that we touched off the fuse. The fuse was going to blow sometime, Iraq couldn't go on as it was under Saddam, but we lit it and we need to be honest with ourselves about that. I, personally, was in favor of lighting it back in 2003.
I suppose what we did was trigger a civil war, mostly pitting two ethnic groups (Shiite Arabs and Sunni Kurds) against one (Sunni Arabs). The Sunni Arabs had run the place since it stopped being an Ottoman colony in 1917, which it had been for the last about four hundred years, and became a British colony. I'm really not sure exactly when it stopped being a British colony, though the year 1932 comes to mind; I remember that the British invaded Iraq in World War II and overthrew a pro-Nazi regime. And grabbed the oil. I do know Iraq had governments somewhere between lousy and horrific between the end of World War II and the overthrow of Saddam by the Allies in April 2003. And those governments were all run by Sunni Arabs for Sunni Arabs. Obviously, in a democratic Iraq, the Sunni Arabs would no longer run everything. Therefore, many Sunni Arabs oppose the democratic government, and a fraction of them are willing to kill.
So we have an ethnic civil war on our hands--again, most Sunni Arabs don't want to fight against the democratic government, only a few do, but that few is enough to cause lots of trouble, which we see every day on the news.
Meanwhile, there is a separate but linked war going on between the Allies and Al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. That war is being fought all over the world, as the explosions in Jordan and Pakistan and Spain and Britain and Morocco and Indonesia show. It is also being fought in parts of Afghanistan, on the ground, against Taliban loyalists. And Al Qaeda has joined in the Iraqi civil war on the side of the violent minority of Sunni Arabs.
So how do the Americans fit in here? Well, one of the mistakes we made in Vietnam was to bail out and ditch the South Vietnamese and Cambodian governments. Just look at the horrors that led to. We can't ditch the democratic Iraqis, no matter what. Doing so would undoubtedly lead to much greater horrors than those we see on television news now. So we're effectively in a civil war on one side. I think if we admit that this is the situation, it might clear up a lot of our thinking. We've got to fight Al Qaeda around the world, because not doing so is suicide. And we have to fight antidemocratic forces in Iraq. Let's make sure we can keep the two separate.
Al Qaeda is basically an ideological movement. The Sunni Arabs are basically a nationalist movement. They're fighting on the same side in Iraq. Al Qaeda is also linked to nationalist groups in many Muslim countries, including Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and the Philippines. They're fighting on the same side in those countries, too.
I suppose this means that no matter how much we dislike seeing the results of the latest bombing in Baghdad, and knowing how much people are suffering, bailing out of Iraq would mean giving a victory to Al Qaeda, which would then have a home base even more convenient than Afghanistan to plot terror, and giving a victory to the insurgent Sunni Arabs, who would then certainly genocide the Kurds and Shiite Arabs. I think, practically and ethically, looking back to examples such as Munich and the Vietnam pullout, the West has to beat them here and now in Iraq. This means no American pullout. Even though two thousand of our guys have been killed, and I would guess at least 15,000 Iraqi civilians. Not to mention large quantities of terrorists, both nationalist Sunnis and Al Qaeda, who will bother us no more.
What's our exit strategy? Well, let's admit we don't really have one, just like Roosevelt really didn't have one in 1942. Whatever we have to do to win the war, because we don't want to fight it in New York and Washington. And Madrid.
Does the end justify the means? I don't think so in the case of torture. I think it's pretty clear that nobody's being tortured in Guantanamo. As for those bleeding hearts who seem to care more for terrorists' rights than for Westerners' simple right to live, what do you want us to do with them? Turn them loose? That's not going to happen. If people are being tortured in secret CIA prisons, well, that would be very wrong if it were happening. Although I haven't seen the slightest real evidence that it is. I also think it's clear that the Abu Ghraib tortures, from which apparently no one died, were an aberration and an isolated incident.
Also, let me make this clear, if it turns out there are secret CIA torture prisons, we can't do that. That wouldn't make me want to stop the war or bail out of Iraq, but it would make me want to fire lots of our intelligence, military, and political leaders and get us some new ones who can win the war without torturing people.
And the Iraqi people are going to suffer less if we stay than if we go. So we have to stay now that we touched off the fuse. The fuse was going to blow sometime, Iraq couldn't go on as it was under Saddam, but we lit it and we need to be honest with ourselves about that. I, personally, was in favor of lighting it back in 2003.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
