Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Burning Point

I periodically listen on-line to On Point, a current events radio show produced by WBUR in Boston. The synopsis for today's episode* contains the following blurb:
Neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz, now an adviser to Rudy Giuliani, warns that the U.S. is in World War IV against "Islamofascists" and war resisters.

My first thought is that the "war resisters" are going to have a tough time fighting World War IV if they are true to themselves. My second thought is that Norman Podhoretz is a crackpot, but I'll need to listen to the show in order to confirm this.

A recent more concrete example of profound contradiction is the premature burning of Burning Man.

On the one hand, I love that people were shocked when someone "acted out" at a gathering of tens of thousands of anarchists and hedonists. I also appreciate the fact the chosen act of subversiveness - Burning the Man - was the ostensible stimulus for the gathering. Act of senseless tragedy and destruction or act of profound expression and liberation? You be the judge.

* Curiously, the individual episode page does not contain the phrase "war resisters", but the main page for On Point currently does (on the afternoon of September 26, 2007).

Friday, September 21, 2007

Stranger than fiction

In a peculiar but perhaps inevitable "final" evolution of the seminal Human Be-In from the Summer of 1967, Iowa City bore witness to a Die-In last night.

The event, sposored by the UI Antiwar Committee, drew 100-150 people. Casualty figures were not released.

I could not help but wonder if the group drew inspiration from the execution of similar tactics in Monty Python's Life of Brian. Sadly, no veterans of the Judean People's Front Crack Suicide Squad could be reached for comment.

Note: by visiting the link you can see that this was an actual event, i.e., this is NOT from the Onion. The difference between gravitas and parody can, indeed, be the trembling of a leaf.

Lastly, I assure you that I never intended this Blog to be a forum for publicizing odd protests (see previous post); just a lucky coincidence I guess!

Quiet Riot

You know things are bad when Buddhist monks are provoked into public demonstrations. The gravity of the situation is distilled deliciously in the following paragraph from the linked article:
Braving intense rain, about 200 monks converged on Mei Lamu pagoda on the outskirts of Yangon. After chanting sermons and praying for 15 minutes, the monks dispersed, witnesses said.

So, you can see, it was not just any rain but "intense" rain. And how could the military rulers of Myanmar fail to appreciate the smoldering menace inherent in the group prayers and rapid dispersal?

OK, OK, so I'm being overly snide. The truth is that the protests ARE significant and the military needs to tread lightly here due to the level of respect and reverence the general public has for monks.

But I just liked the idea of Buddhist monks "rioting."

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Cheese Please

OK, OK, I'm engaged now. To one degree or another, I feel like I've always been environmentally conscious.

For example, I proudly displayed a Greenpeace bumper sticker on my car in High School. You did, unfortunately, have to look close to see it because the sticker ended up clouded and half-obscured by particulate matter spewed from the exhaust of my vintage Datsun 280ZX. I also agitated to family and friends about "Dolphin Safe Tuna." This was a particularly easy topic to stay true to because I didn't like the taste of tuna.

In more recent years I intently watched An Inconvenient Truth and use a reel mower along with, most absurdly, a manual core aerator. I could argue that I was, at least, paying close attention. But although it's alarming when ice sheets the size of Connecticut break off from Antarctica and vast numbers of amphibians are threatened with extinction, I can't say that I was REALLY engaged until now. In fact, I'm beyond engaged; I'm enraged.

I recently learned that global warming is starting to affect cheese production. That's dirty pool. That's a punch in the gut. That's a kick in the crotch. That's serious business. Cheese is important enough to me to rate a spot on my personal list of Seven Wonders of the World. (Bicycles are on there too, but that's a topic for a different day.) In the past, I have attempted to frame my gestalt of cheese by saying, quite simply:
I find it difficult to imagine a world without cheese.

It was of significant, though not complete, comfort that I didn't have to.

But now I do.

But now I do?

But now I do!

Judging from the consumption patterns, this isn't a fringe issue. By the way, how do people feel about the fact that California is on the brink of overtaking Wisconsin in terms of cheese production? Personally, I'm troubled. Hopefully, Wisconsin can take consolation in being on the other side of a comparable geographic-culinary identity disorder since they produce more sauerkraut than Germany.

I know the existential powers of cheese have been recognized by others more esteemed than myself as illustrated in the following quote by Charles de Gaulle:
How can anyone govern a nation that has 246 different kinds of cheese?

I submit that even in his moments of darkest deepest despair, he surely didn't allow himself the terrifying possibility of governing a nation with none...

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Aliens in America

Before I get to the primary topic of the day, I want to give a quick shot of publicity to September 19: a very important day. It is, of course, Talk Like A Pirate Day. We should all take a moment to bask in its silliness and throw out a few "avasts", "mateys", and "scallywags."

But the main thing I wanted to say today is that I'm suitably intrigued by a show debuting on the CW Network this Fall: Aliens in America.

I was unaware of the show until this morning. I listened to a preview of the Fall TV season on the NPR show Talk of the Nation and the mere audio from the teaser (viewable here) caused me to laugh out loud. Can the show sustain anything approaching this level of subversiveness and quirkiness?

Here's the write-up from the CW Web Site:

Justin Tolchuck (Dan Byrd, "The Hills Have Eyes") is a sensitive, lanky 16-year old just trying to make it through the social nightmare of high school in Medora, Wisconsin, with the help of his well-meaning mom Franny (Amy Pietz, "Caroline in the City"), aspiring-entrepreneur dad Gary (Scott Patterson, "Gilmore Girls") and his beautiful and popular younger sister Claire (Lindsey Shaw, "Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide"). Although he's bright and funny, Justin is also shy, socially awkward and pretty much resigned to the fact that he'll never be one of the cool kids. Franny, however, is the kind of take-charge mom who micro-manages her family, and she's come up with a plan to help Justin: she signs up for the school's international exchange student program.

Picturing an athletic, brilliant Nordic teen, Franny is sure this new friendship will bestow instant coolness on her outsider son. However, when the Tolchuck's exchange student arrives, he turns out to be Raja Musharaff (Adhir Kalyan, "Fair City"), a 16-year-old Muslim from a small village in Pakistan. Raja is thoughtful, responsible and wise beyond his years. To the Tolchucks and everyone else in Medora, he's also just about as foreign as a foreigner can be. While the rest of the family is slightly freaked out by the Muslim in their midst, Gary is comforted by the fact that the host family receives a monthly check to help with expenses. This fits right in with Gary's money-making schemes, and when he sees how hard-working and respectful Raja is, he's totally on board. As for Claire, she's too busy with her friends and her new boyfriend to pay much attention to their houseguest, but Raja is smitten from the moment he first sees her.

After the initial shock wears off, Justin is quickly won over by Raja's humor, gestures of friendship and by their common status as outsiders. Despite the cultural chasm between them, Justin and Raja develop an unlikely bond that just might allow them to navigate the minefield that is contemporary high school. It's going to be a very interesting year for Raja, Justin, his family and the entire population of Medora. "Aliens In America" is from CBS Paramount Network Television Inc. and Warner Bros. Television with executive producers Tim Doyle ("Jake in Progress"), Moses Port ("Just Shoot Me," "Mad About You") and David Guarascio ("Just Shoot Me," "Mad About You"), and co-executive producers Richard Day ("Arrested Development," "The Larry Sanders Show") and Michael Glouberman ("Malcolm in the Middle," "3rd Rock From the Sun").

This time of year I feel like a Kansas City Royals fan in Spring Training. Even though I should know better, the shows can seem so worthy before the episodes start airing. But SOME of the shows have to be good, right?

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

The Awful German Language

I stumbled upon this essay by Mark Twain while reading about the German language. I took one year of German in High School and then 12 credit hours in college. I haven't had the occasion to speak it since then. I'm reduced to the occasional attempt at reading it on-line at Der Spiegel or the less restrained Das Bild.

Although some knowledge of German is helpful, I'm certain this piece can be enjoyed by all. At the least in order to appreciate Samuel Langhorne Clemens' mastery of the English language.

I also think the amount of care Twain takes in his task is remarkable. Simply put: I've never seen anything hated so lovingly.

Normally, of course, I would not republish a work without permission. But this one is over 125 years old so I'm throwing caution to the wind. Even so, I'd appreciate it if nobody tells Orrin Hatch.

(The following is Appendix D from Twain's 1880 book A Tramp Abroad. Note that the German orthography is that of the late 19th century.)

A little learning makes the whole world kin.
-- Proverbs xxxii, 7.

I went often to look at the collection of curiosities in Heidelberg Castle, and one day I surprised the keeper of it with my German. I spoke entirely in that language. He was greatly interested; and after I had talked a while he said my German was very rare, possibly a "unique"; and wanted to add it to his museum.

If he had known what it had cost me to acquire my art, he would also have known that it would break any collector to buy it. Harris and I had been hard at work on our German during several weeks at that time, and although we had made good progress, it had been accomplished under great difficulty and annoyance, for three of our teachers had died in the mean time. A person who has not studied German can form no idea of what a perplexing language it is.

Surely there is not another language that is so slipshod and systemless, and so slippery and elusive to the grasp. One is washed about in it, hither and thither, in the most helpless way; and when at last he thinks he has captured a rule which offers firm ground to take a rest on amid the general rage and turmoil of the ten parts of speech, he turns over the page and reads, "Let the pupil make careful note of the following exceptions." He runs his eye down and finds that there are more exceptions to the rule than instances of it. So overboard he goes again, to hunt for another Ararat and find another quicksand. Such has been, and continues to be, my experience. Every time I think I have got one of these four confusing "cases" where I am master of it, a seemingly insignificant preposition intrudes itself into my sentence, clothed with an awful and unsuspected power, and crumbles the ground from under me. For instance, my book inquires after a certain bird -- (it is always inquiring after things which are of no sort of consequence to anybody): "Where is the bird?" Now the answer to this question -- according to the book -- is that the bird is waiting in the blacksmith shop on account of the rain. Of course no bird would do that, but then you must stick to the book. Very well, I begin to cipher out the German for that answer. I begin at the wrong end, necessarily, for that is the German idea. I say to myself, "Regen (rain) is masculine -- or maybe it is feminine -- or possibly neuter -- it is too much trouble to look now. Therefore, it is either der (the) Regen, or die (the) Regen, or das (the) Regen, according to which gender it may turn out to be when I look. In the interest of science, I will cipher it out on the hypothesis that it is masculine. Very well -- then the rain is der Regen, if it is simply in the quiescent state of being mentioned, without enlargement or discussion -- Nominative case; but if this rain is lying around, in a kind of a general way on the ground, it is then definitely located, it is doing something -- that is, resting (which is one of the German grammar's ideas of doing something), and this throws the rain into the Dative case, and makes it dem Regen. However, this rain is not resting, but is doing something actively, -- it is falling -- to interfere with the bird, likely -- and this indicates movement, which has the effect of sliding it into the Accusative case and changing dem Regen into den Regen." Having completed the grammatical horoscope of this matter, I answer up confidently and state in German that the bird is staying in the blacksmith shop "wegen (on account of) den Regen." Then the teacher lets me softly down with the remark that whenever the word "wegen" drops into a sentence, it always throws that subject into the Genitive case, regardless of consequences -- and that therefore this bird stayed in the blacksmith shop "wegen des Regens."

N. B. -- I was informed, later, by a higher authority, that there was an "exception" which permits one to say "wegen dem Regen" in certain peculiar and complex circumstances, but that this exception is not extended to anything but rain.

There are ten parts of speech, and they are all troublesome. An average sentence, in a German newspaper, is a sublime and impressive curiosity; it occupies a quarter of a column; it contains all the ten parts of speech -- not in regular order, but mixed; it is built mainly of compound words constructed by the writer on the spot, and not to be found in any dictionary -- six or seven words compacted into one, without joint or seam -- that is, without hyphens; it treats of fourteen or fifteen different subjects, each inclosed in a parenthesis of its own, with here and there extra parentheses which reinclose three or four of the minor parentheses, making pens within pens: finally, all the parentheses and reparentheses are massed together between a couple of king-parentheses, one of which is placed in the first line of the majestic sentence and the other in the middle of the last line of it -- after which comes the VERB, and you find out for the first time what the man has been talking about; and after the verb -- merely by way of ornament, as far as I can make out -- the writer shovels in "haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein," or words to that effect, and the monument is finished. I suppose that this closing hurrah is in the nature of the flourish to a man's signature -- not necessary, but pretty. German books are easy enough to read when you hold them before the looking-glass or stand on your head -- so as to reverse the construction -- but I think that to learn to read and understand a German newspaper is a thing which must always remain an impossibility to a foreigner.

Yet even the German books are not entirely free from attacks of the Parenthesis distemper -- though they are usually so mild as to cover only a few lines, and therefore when you at last get down to the verb it carries some meaning to your mind because you are able to remember a good deal of what has gone before. Now here is a sentence from a popular and excellent German novel -- which a slight parenthesis in it. I will make a perfectly literal translation, and throw in the parenthesis-marks and some hyphens for the assistance of the reader -- though in the original there are no parenthesis-marks or hyphens, and the reader is left to flounder through to the remote verb the best way he can:

"But when he, upon the street, the (in-satin-and-silk-covered-now-very-unconstrained-after-the-newest-fashioned-dressed) government counselor's wife met," etc., etc.

1. Wenn er aber auf der Strasse der in Sammt und Seide gehüllten jetzt sehr ungenirt nach der neusten Mode gekleideten Regierungsräthin begegnet.

That is from The Old Mamselle's Secret, by Mrs. Marlitt. And that sentence is constructed upon the most approved German model. You observe how far that verb is from the reader's base of operations; well, in a German newspaper they put their verb away over on the next page; and I have heard that sometimes after stringing along the exciting preliminaries and parentheses for a column or two, they get in a hurry and have to go to press without getting to the verb at all. Of course, then, the reader is left in a very exhausted and ignorant state.

We have the Parenthesis disease in our literature, too; and one may see cases of it every day in our books and newspapers: but with us it is the mark and sign of an unpracticed writer or a cloudy intellect, whereas with the Germans it is doubtless the mark and sign of a practiced pen and of the presence of that sort of luminous intellectual fog which stands for clearness among these people. For surely it is not clearness -- it necessarily can't be clearness. Even a jury would have penetration enough to discover that. A writer's ideas must be a good deal confused, a good deal out of line and sequence, when he starts out to say that a man met a counselor's wife in the street, and then right in the midst of this so simple undertaking halts these approaching people and makes them stand still until he jots down an inventory of the woman's dress. That is manifestly absurd. It reminds a person of those dentists who secure your instant and breathless interest in a tooth by taking a grip on it with the forceps, and then stand there and drawl through a tedious anecdote before they give the dreaded jerk. Parentheses in literature and dentistry are in bad taste.

The Germans have another kind of parenthesis, which they make by splitting a verb in two and putting half of it at the beginning of an exciting chapter and the other half at the end of it. Can any one conceive of anything more confusing than that? These things are called "separable verbs." The German grammar is blistered all over with separable verbs; and the wider the two portions of one of them are spread apart, the better the author of the crime is pleased with his performance. A favorite one is reiste ab -- which means departed. Here is an example which I culled from a novel and reduced to English:

"The trunks being now ready, he DE- after kissing his mother and sisters, and once more pressing to his bosom his adored Gretchen, who, dressed in simple white muslin, with a single tuberose in the ample folds of her rich brown hair, had tottered feebly down the stairs, still pale from the terror and excitement of the past evening, but longing to lay her poor aching head yet once again upon the breast of him whom she loved more dearly than life itself, PARTED."

However, it is not well to dwell too much on the separable verbs. One is sure to lose his temper early; and if he sticks to the subject, and will not be warned, it will at last either soften his brain or petrify it. Personal pronouns and adjectives are a fruitful nuisance in this language, and should have been left out. For instance, the same sound, sie, means you, and it means she, and it means her, and it means it, and it means they, and it means them. Think of the ragged poverty of a language which has to make one word do the work of six -- and a poor little weak thing of only three letters at that. But mainly, think of the exasperation of never knowing which of these meanings the speaker is trying to convey. This explains why, whenever a person says sie to me, I generally try to kill him, if a stranger.

Now observe the Adjective. Here was a case where simplicity would have been an advantage; therefore, for no other reason, the inventor of this language complicated it all he could. When we wish to speak of our "good friend or friends," in our enlightened tongue, we stick to the one form and have no trouble or hard feeling about it; but with the German tongue it is different. When a German gets his hands on an adjective, he declines it, and keeps on declining it until the common sense is all declined out of it. It is as bad as Latin. He says, for instance:

• SINGULAR
     o Nominative -- Mein guter Freund, my good friend.
     o Genitives -- Meines guten Freundes, of my good friend.
     o Dative -- Meinem guten Freund, to my good friend.
     o Accusative -- Meinen guten Freund, my good friend.

• PLURAL
     o N. -- Meine guten Freunde, my good friends.
     o G. -- Meiner guten Freunde, , of my good friends.
     o D. -- Meinen guten Freunden, , to my good friends.
     o A. -- Meine guten Freunde, , my good friends.

Now let the candidate for the asylum try to memorize those variations, and see how soon he will be elected. One might better go without friends in Germany than take all this trouble about them. I have shown what a bother it is to decline a good (male) friend; well this is only a third of the work, for there is a variety of new distortions of the adjective to be learned when the object is feminine, and still another when the object is neuter. Now there are more adjectives in this language than there are black cats in Switzerland, and they must all be as elaborately declined as the examples above suggested. Difficult? -- troublesome? -- these words cannot describe it. I heard a Californian student in Heidelberg say, in one of his calmest moods, that he would rather decline two drinks than one German adjective.

The inventor of the language seems to have taken pleasure in complicating it in every way he could think of. For instance, if one is casually referring to a house, Haus, or a horse, Pferd, or a dog, Hund, he spells these words as I have indicated; but if he is referring to them in the Dative case, he sticks on a foolish and unnecessary e and spells them Hause, Pferde, Hunde. So, as an added e often signifies the plural, as the s does with us, the new student is likely to go on for a month making twins out of a Dative dog before he discovers his mistake; and on the other hand, many a new student who could ill afford loss, has bought and paid for two dogs and only got one of them, because he ignorantly bought that dog in the Dative singular when he really supposed he was talking plural -- which left the law on the seller's side, of course, by the strict rules of grammar, and therefore a suit for recovery could not lie.

In German, all the Nouns begin with a capital letter. Now that is a good idea; and a good idea, in this language, is necessarily conspicuous from its lonesomeness. I consider this capitalizing of nouns a good idea, because by reason of it you are almost always able to tell a noun the minute you see it. You fall into error occasionally, because you mistake the name of a person for the name of a thing, and waste a good deal of time trying to dig a meaning out of it. German names almost always do mean something, and this helps to deceive the student. I translated a passage one day, which said that "the infuriated tigress broke loose and utterly ate up the unfortunate fir forest" (Tannenwald). When I was girding up my loins to doubt this, I found out that Tannenwald in this instance was a man's name.

Every noun has a gender, and there is no sense or system in the distribution; so the gender of each must be learned separately and by heart. There is no other way. To do this one has to have a memory like a memorandum-book. In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl. See how it looks in print -- I translate this from a conversation in one of the best of the German Sunday-school books:

"Gretchen.
     Wilhelm, where is the turnip?
Wilhelm.
     She has gone to the kitchen.
Gretchen.
     Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden?
Wilhelm.
     It has gone to the opera."

To continue with the German genders: a tree is male, its buds are female, its leaves are neuter; horses are sexless, dogs are male, cats are female -- tomcats included, of course; a person's mouth, neck, bosom, elbows, fingers, nails, feet, and body are of the male sex, and his head is male or neuter according to the word selected to signify it, and not according to the sex of the individual who wears it -- for in Germany all the women either male heads or sexless ones; a person's nose, lips, shoulders, breast, hands, and toes are of the female sex; and his hair, ears, eyes, chin, legs, knees, heart, and conscience haven't any sex at all. The inventor of the language probably got what he knew about a conscience from hearsay.

Now, by the above dissection, the reader will see that in Germany a man may think he is a man, but when he comes to look into the matter closely, he is bound to have his doubts; he finds that in sober truth he is a most ridiculous mixture; and if he ends by trying to comfort himself with the thought that he can at least depend on a third of this mess as being manly and masculine, the humiliating second thought will quickly remind him that in this respect he is no better off than any woman or cow in the land.

In the German it is true that by some oversight of the inventor of the language, a Woman is a female; but a Wife (Weib) is not -- which is unfortunate. A Wife, here, has no sex; she is neuter; so, according to the grammar, a fish is he, his scales are she, but a fishwife is neither. To describe a wife as sexless may be called under-description; that is bad enough, but over-description is surely worse. A German speaks of an Englishman as the Engländer; to change the sex, he adds inn, and that stands for Englishwoman -- Engländerinn. That seems descriptive enough, but still it is not exact enough for a German; so he precedes the word with that article which indicates that the creature to follow is feminine, and writes it down thus: "die Engländerinn," -- which means "the she-Englishwoman." I consider that that person is over-described.

Well, after the student has learned the sex of a great number of nouns, he is still in a difficulty, because he finds it impossible to persuade his tongue to refer to things as "he" and "she," and "him" and "her," which it has been always accustomed to refer to it as "it." When he even frames a German sentence in his mind, with the hims and hers in the right places, and then works up his courage to the utterance-point, it is no use -- the moment he begins to speak his tongue flies the track and all those labored males and females come out as "its." And even when he is reading German to himself, he always calls those things "it," where as he ought to read in this way:

TALE OF THE FISHWIFE AND ITS SAD FATE

2. I capitalize the nouns, in the German (and ancient English) fashion.

It is a bleak Day. Hear the Rain, how he pours, and the Hail, how he rattles; and see the Snow, how he drifts along, and of the Mud, how deep he is! Ah the poor Fishwife, it is stuck fast in the Mire; it has dropped its Basket of Fishes; and its Hands have been cut by the Scales as it seized some of the falling Creatures; and one Scale has even got into its Eye, and it cannot get her out. it opens its Mouth to cry for Help; but if any Sound comes out of him, alas he is drowned by the raging of the Storm. And now a Tomcat has got one of the Fishes and she will surely escape with him. No, she bites off a Fin, she holds her in her Mouth -- will she swallow her? No, the Fishwife's brave Mother-dog deserts his Puppies and rescues the Fin -- which he eats, himself, as his Reward. O, horror, the Lightning has struck the Fish-basket; he sets him on Fire; see the Flame, how she licks the doomed Utensil with her red and angry Tongue; now she attacks the helpless Fishwife's Foot -- she burns him up, all but the big Toe, and even she is partly consumed; and still she spreads, still she waves her fiery Tongues; she attacks the Fishwife's Leg and destroys it ; she attacks its Hand and destroys her also; she attacks the Fishwife's Leg and destroys her also; she attacks its Body and consumes him; she wreathes herself about its Heart and it is consumed; next about its Breast, and in a Moment she is a Cinder; now she reaches its Neck -- he goes; now its Chin -- it goes; now its Nose -- she goes. In another Moment, except Help come, the Fishwife will be no more. Time presses -- is there none to succor and save? Yes! Joy, joy, with flying Feet the she-Englishwoman comes! But alas, the generous she-Female is too late: where now is the fated Fishwife? it has ceased from its Sufferings, it has gone to a better Land; all that is left of it for its loved Ones to lament over, is this poor smoldering Ash-heap. Ah, woeful, woeful Ash-heap! Let us take him up tenderly, reverently, upon the lowly Shovel, and bear him to his long Rest, with the Prayer that when he rises again it will be a Realm where he will have one good square responsible Sex, and have it all to himself, instead of having a mangy lot of assorted Sexes scattered all over him in Spots.

There, now, the reader can see for himself that this pronoun business is a very awkward thing for the unaccustomed tongue. I suppose that in all languages the similarities of look and sound between words which have no similarity in meaning are a fruitful source of perplexity to the foreigner. It is so in our tongue, and it is notably the case in the German. Now there is that troublesome word vermählt: to me it has so close a resemblance -- either real or fancied -- to three or four other words, that I never know whether it means despised, painted, suspected, or married; until I look in the dictionary, and then I find it means the latter. There are lots of such words and they are a great torment. To increase the difficulty there are words which seem to resemble each other, and yet do not; but they make just as much trouble as if they did. For instance, there is the word vermiethen (to let, to lease, to hire); and the word verheirathen (another way of saying to marry). I heard of an Englishman who knocked at a man's door in Heidelberg and proposed, in the best German he could command, to "verheirathen" that house. Then there are some words which mean one thing when you emphasize the first syllable, but mean something very different if you throw the emphasis on the last syllable. For instance, there is a word which means a runaway, or the act of glancing through a book, according to the placing of the emphasis; and another word which signifies to associate with a man, or to avoid him, according to where you put the emphasis -- and you can generally depend on putting it in the wrong place and getting into trouble.

There are some exceedingly useful words in this language. Schlag, for example; and Zug. There are three-quarters of a column of Schlags in the dictionary, and a column and a half of Zugs. The word Schlag means Blow, Stroke, Dash, Hit, Shock, Clap, Slap, Time, Bar, Coin, Stamp, Kind, Sort, Manner, Way, Apoplexy, Wood-cutting, Enclosure, Field, Forest-clearing. This is its simple and exact meaning -- that is to say, its restricted, its fettered meaning; but there are ways by which you can set it free, so that it can soar away, as on the wings of the morning, and never be at rest. You can hang any word you please to its tail, and make it mean anything you want to. You can begin with Schlag-ader, which means artery, and you can hang on the whole dictionary, word by word, clear through the alphabet to Schlag-wasser, which means bilge-water -- and including Schlag-mutter, which means mother-in-law.

Just the same with Zug. Strictly speaking, Zug means Pull, Tug, Draught, Procession, Markh, Progress, Flight, Direction, Expedition, Train, Caravan, Passage, Stroke, Touch, Line, Flourish, Trait of Character, Feature, Lineament, Chess-move, Organ-stop, Team, Whiff, Bias, Drawer, Propensity, Inhalation, Disposition: but that thing which it does not mean -- when all its legitimate pennants have been hung on, has not been discovered yet.

One cannot overestimate the usefulness of Schlag and Zug. Armed just with these two, and the word also, what cannot the foreigner on German soil accomplish? The German word also is the equivalent of the English phrase "You know," and does not mean anything at all -- in talk, though it sometimes does in print. Every time a German opens his mouth an also falls out; and every time he shuts it he bites one in two that was trying to get out.

Now, the foreigner, equipped with these three noble words, is master of the situation. Let him talk right along, fearlessly; let him pour his indifferent German forth, and when he lacks for a word, let him heave a Schlag into the vacuum; all the chances are that it fits it like a plug, but if it doesn't let him promptly heave a Zug after it; the two together can hardly fail to bung the hole; but if, by a miracle, they should fail, let him simply say also! and this will give him a moment's chance to think of the needful word. In Germany, when you load your conversational gun it is always best to throw in a Schlag or two and a Zug or two, because it doesn't make any difference how much the rest of the charge may scatter, you are bound to bag something with them. Then you blandly say also, and load up again. Nothing gives such an air of grace and elegance and unconstraint to a German or an English conversation as to scatter it full of "Also's" or "You knows."

In my note-book I find this entry:

July 1. -- In the hospital yesterday, a word of thirteen syllables was successfully removed from a patient -- a North German from near Hamburg; but as most unfortunately the surgeons had opened him in the wrong place, under the impression that he contained a panorama, he died. The sad event has cast a gloom over the whole community.

That paragraph furnishes a text for a few remarks about one of the most curious and notable features of my subject -- the length of German words. Some German words are so long that they have a perspective. Observe these examples:

  • Freundschaftsbezeigungen.
  • Dilettantenaufdringlichkeiten.
  • Stadtverordnetenversammlungen.

These things are not words, they are alphabetical processions. And they are not rare; one can open a German newspaper at any time and see them Markhing majestically across the page -- and if he has any imagination he can see the banners and hear the music, too. They impart a martial thrill to the meekest subject. I take a great interest in these curiosities. Whenever I come across a good one, I stuff it and put it in my museum. In this way I have made quite a valuable collection. When I get duplicates, I exchange with other collectors, and thus increase the variety of my stock. Here are some specimens which I lately bought at an auction sale of the effects of a bankrupt bric-a-brac hunter:

  • Generalstaatsverordnetenversammlungen.
  • Alterthumswissenschaften.
  • Kinderbewahrungsanstalten.
  • Unabhaengigkeitserklaerungen.
  • Wiedererstellungbestrebungen.
  • Waffenstillstandsunterhandlungen.

Of course when one of these grand mountain ranges goes stretching across the printed page, it adorns and ennobles that literary landscape -- but at the same time it is a great distress to the new student, for it blocks up his way; he cannot crawl under it, or climb over it, or tunnel through it. So he resorts to the dictionary for help, but there is no help there. The dictionary must draw the line somewhere -- so it leaves this sort of words out. And it is right, because these long things are hardly legitimate words, but are rather combinations of words, and the inventor of them ought to have been killed. They are compound words with the hyphens left out. The various words used in building them are in the dictionary, but in a very scattered condition; so you can hunt the materials out, one by one, and get at the meaning at last, but it is a tedious and harassing business. I have tried this process upon some of the above examples. "Freundschaftsbezeigungen" seems to be "Friendship demonstrations," which is only a foolish and clumsy way of saying "demonstrations of friendship." "Unabhaengigkeitserklaerungen" seems to be "Independencedeclarations," which is no improvement upon "Declarations of Independence," so far as I can see. "Generalstaatsverordnetenversammlungen" seems to be "General-statesrepresentativesmeetings," as nearly as I can get at it -- a mere rhythmical, gushy euphuism for "meetings of the legislature," I judge. We used to have a good deal of this sort of crime in our literature, but it has gone out now. We used to speak of things as a "never-to-be-forgotten" circumstance, instead of cramping it into the simple and sufficient word "memorable" and then going calmly about our business as if nothing had happened. In those days we were not content to embalm the thing and bury it decently, we wanted to build a monument over it.

But in our newspapers the compounding-disease lingers a little to the present day, but with the hyphens left out, in the German fashion. This is the shape it takes: instead of saying "Mr. Simmons, clerk of the county and district courts, was in town yesterday," the new form put it thus: "Clerk of the County and District Courts Simmons was in town yesterday." This saves neither time nor ink, and has an awkward sound besides. One often sees a remark like this in our papers: "Mrs. Assistant District Attorney Johnson returned to her city residence yesterday for the season." That is a case of really unjustifiable compounding; because it not only saves no time or trouble, but confers a title on Mrs. Johnson which she has no right to. But these little instances are trifles indeed, contrasted with the ponderous and dismal German system of piling jumbled compounds together. I wish to submit the following local item, from a Mannheim journal, by way of illustration:

"In the daybeforeyesterdayshortlyaftereleveno'clock Night, the inthistownstandingtavern called `The Wagoner' was downburnt. When the fire to the onthedownburninghouseresting Stork's Nest reached, flew the parent Storks away. But when the bytheraging, firesurrounded Nest itself caught Fire, straightway plunged the quickreturning Mother-stork into the Flames and died, her Wings over her young ones outspread."

Even the cumbersome German construction is not able to take the pathos out of that picture -- indeed, it somehow seems to strengthen it. This item is dated away back yonder months ago. I could have used it sooner, but I was waiting to hear from the Father-stork. I am still waiting.

"Also!" If I had not shown that the German is a difficult language, I have at least intended to do so. I have heard of an American student who was asked how he was getting along with his German, and who answered promptly: "I am not getting along at all. I have worked at it hard for three level months, and all I have got to show for it is one solitary German phrase -- `Zwei Glas'" (two glasses of beer). He paused for a moment, reflectively; then added with feeling: "But I've got that solid!"

And if I have not also shown that German is a harassing and infuriating study, my execution has been at fault, and not my intent. I heard lately of a worn and sorely tried American student who used to fly to a certain German word for relief when he could bear up under his aggravations no longer -- the only word whose sound was sweet and precious to his ear and healing to his lacerated spirit. This was the word Damit. It was only the sound that helped him, not the meaning; and so, at last, when he learned that the emphasis was not on the first syllable, his only stay and support was gone, and he faded away and died.

3. It merely means, in its general sense, "herewith."

I think that a description of any loud, stirring, tumultuous episode must be tamer in German than in English. Our descriptive words of this character have such a deep, strong, resonant sound, while their German equivalents do seem so thin and mild and energyless. Boom, burst, crash, roar, storm, bellow, blow, thunder, explosion; howl, cry, shout, yell, groan; battle, hell. These are magnificent words; the have a force and magnitude of sound befitting the things which they describe. But their German equivalents would be ever so nice to sing the children to sleep with, or else my awe-inspiring ears were made for display and not for superior usefulness in analyzing sounds. Would any man want to die in a battle which was called by so tame a term as a Schlacht? Or would not a consumptive feel too much bundled up, who was about to go out, in a shirt-collar and a seal-ring, into a storm which the bird-song word Gewitter was employed to describe? And observe the strongest of the several German equivalents for explosion -- Ausbruch. Our word Toothbrush is more powerful than that. It seems to me that the Germans could do worse than import it into their language to describe particularly tremendous explosions with. The German word for hell -- Hölle -- sounds more like helly than anything else; therefore, how necessary chipper, frivolous, and unimpressive it is. If a man were told in German to go there, could he really rise to the dignity of feeling insulted?

Having pointed out, in detail, the several vices of this language, I now come to the brief and pleasant task of pointing out its virtues. The capitalizing of the nouns I have already mentioned. But far before this virtue stands another -- that of spelling a word according to the sound of it. After one short lesson in the alphabet, the student can tell how any German word is pronounced without having to ask; whereas in our language if a student should inquire of us, "What does B, O, W, spell?" we should be obliged to reply, "Nobody can tell what it spells when you set if off by itself; you can only tell by referring to the context and finding out what it signifies -- whether it is a thing to shoot arrows with, or a nod of one's head, or the forward end of a boat."

There are some German words which are singularly and powerfully effective. For instance, those which describe lowly, peaceful, and affectionate home life; those which deal with love, in any and all forms, from mere kindly feeling and honest good will toward the passing stranger, clear up to courtship; those which deal with outdoor Nature, in its softest and loveliest aspects -- with meadows and forests, and birds and flowers, the fragrance and sunshine of summer, and the moonlight of peaceful winter nights; in a word, those which deal with any and all forms of rest, repose, and peace; those also which deal with the creatures and marvels of fairyland; and lastly and chiefly, in those words which express pathos, is the language surpassingly rich and affective. There are German songs which can make a stranger to the language cry. That shows that the sound of the words is correct -- it interprets the meanings with truth and with exactness; and so the ear is informed, and through the ear, the heart.

The Germans do not seem to be afraid to repeat a word when it is the right one. they repeat it several times, if they choose. That is wise. But in English, when we have used a word a couple of times in a paragraph, we imagine we are growing tautological, and so we are weak enough to exchange it for some other word which only approximates exactness, to escape what we wrongly fancy is a greater blemish. Repetition may be bad, but surely inexactness is worse.

There are people in the world who will take a great deal of trouble to point out the faults in a religion or a language, and then go blandly about their business without suggesting any remedy. I am not that kind of person. I have shown that the German language needs reforming. Very well, I am ready to reform it. At least I am ready to make the proper suggestions. Such a course as this might be immodest in another; but I have devoted upward of nine full weeks, first and last, to a careful and critical study of this tongue, and thus have acquired a confidence in my ability to reform it which no mere superficial culture could have conferred upon me.

In the first place, I would leave out the Dative case. It confuses the plurals; and, besides, nobody ever knows when he is in the Dative case, except he discover it by accident -- and then he does not know when or where it was that he got into it, or how long he has been in it, or how he is going to get out of it again. The Dative case is but an ornamental folly -- it is better to discard it.

In the next place, I would move the Verb further up to the front. You may load up with ever so good a Verb, but I notice that you never really bring down a subject with it at the present German range -- you only cripple it. So I insist that this important part of speech should be brought forward to a position where it may be easily seen with the naked eye.

Thirdly, I would import some strong words from the English tongue -- to swear with, and also to use in describing all sorts of vigorous things in a vigorous ways.

4. "Verdammt," and its variations and enlargements, are words which have plenty of meaning, but the sounds are so mild and ineffectual that German ladies can use them without sin. German ladies who could not be induced to commit a sin by any persuasion or compulsion, promptly rip out one of these harmless little words when they tear their dresses or don't like the soup. It sounds about as wicked as our "My gracious." German ladies are constantly saying, "Ach! Gott!" "Mein Gott!" "Gott in Himmel!" "Herr Gott" "Der Herr Jesus!" etc. They think our ladies have the same custom, perhaps; for I once heard a gentle and lovely old German lady say to a sweet young American girl: "The two languages are so alike -- how pleasant that is; we say `Ach! Gott!' you say `Goddamn.'"

Fourthly, I would reorganizes the sexes, and distribute them accordingly to the will of the creator. This as a tribute of respect, if nothing else.

Fifthly, I would do away with those great long compounded words; or require the speaker to deliver them in sections, with intermissions for refreshments. To wholly do away with them would be best, for ideas are more easily received and digested when they come one at a time than when they come in bulk. Intellectual food is like any other; it is pleasanter and more beneficial to take it with a spoon than with a shovel.

Sixthly, I would require a speaker to stop when he is done, and not hang a string of those useless "haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden seins" to the end of his oration. This sort of gewgaws undignify a speech, instead of adding a grace. They are, therefore, an offense, and should be discarded.

Seventhly, I would discard the Parenthesis. Also the reparenthesis, the re-reparenthesis, and the re-re-re-re-re-reparentheses, and likewise the final wide-reaching all-inclosing king-parenthesis. I would require every individual, be he high or low, to unfold a plain straightforward tale, or else coil it and sit on it and hold his peace. Infractions of this law should be punishable with death.

And eighthly, and last, I would retain Zug and Schlag, with their pendants, and discard the rest of the vocabulary. This would simplify the language.

I have now named what I regard as the most necessary and important changes. These are perhaps all I could be expected to name for nothing; but there are other suggestions which I can and will make in case my proposed application shall result in my being formally employed by the government in the work of reforming the language.

My philological studies have satisfied me that a gifted person ought to learn English (barring spelling and pronouncing) in thirty hours, French in thirty days, and German in thirty years. It seems manifest, then, that the latter tongue ought to be trimmed down and repaired. If it is to remain as it is, it ought to be gently and reverently set aside among the dead languages, for only the dead have time to learn it.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Our next AG (anti-Gonzales)

Granted, it may be a little early to label him the "Anti Gonzales." But I'd argue that in the 20 minutes or so since President Bush made the formal nomination, Mukasey hasn't served as an enabler of Bush's worst tendencies or embarrassed himself through episodes of incompetance or ineptitude. So, all-in-all, it's a good start.

I think this is a good choice for all. The Democrats can be happy for a couple reasons:

1.) Alberto Gonzales, Bush's preferred AG, suffered a humiliating (if overdue) exit.

2.) They 'succeeded' in preventing the rumoured nomination of long time nemisis Ted Olson.

The Republicans can be happy for a couple reasons:

1.) Mukasey should be confirmed with a minimum of fuss and can then be expected to be a competent, effective, and respected AG.

2.) The Democrats think they 'succeeded' (see above) but I'm not convinced that Mukasey will administer the Department of Justice any differently on the key issues of the day as compared to the boogieman (aka Ted Olson.)

Indeed, over the long term, this could work to the benefit of the Bush Administration. They can point to Mukasey as a "consensus nominee" and perhaps leverage that into some sort of advantage for themselves in negotiations on some other topic down the road. Meanwhile, they've only suffered a defeat in the hypothetical sense since Olson was never actually nominated. Floating Olson's name could have been a ruse from the start. Keep in mind that joining a lame-duck, weakened, and generally unpopular adminstration isn't an easy choice (even for a Cabinet level position). Does anyone know if Olson actually wanted the job?

On the other hand, in the murky volitile world of politics, sometimes even hypothetical wounds can draw real blood. For example, we can probably count on some Wingnuts to make a big stink that Olson WASN'T nominated and bleat, absurdly, that Mukasey isn't conservative enough. Even if this is part of a 'ruse', it could further depress and demoralize an apparently depressed and demoralized Republican base. In contrast, the Democrats could be emboldened (to use a favored Bush term) if they view a Mukasey nomination as "blood in the water" around Bush.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Be prepared

I wonder if people who don't like cold weather are misguided. Perhaps it's not too cold; perhaps they're just not wearing warm enough clothes. I know it seems a little early to early to start talking about cold weather, but we DID have our first frost last night.

Saturday mornings are usually when I try to go for a long bike ride. I rolled out of bed around 6:40AM and found outside temperatures of 39 degrees. That's warmer than the 10-hour forecast called for when I went to bed last night but plenty chilly for a bike ride! I don't have a lot of experience riding in cold weather, but I've gradually been accumulating cold weather gear so I felt prepared. I wasn't sure what combination of clothes to wear; here's what I settled on from top to bottom:

  • helmet cover
  • balaclava
  • sunglasses
  • long sleeved silk undershirt
  • cycling jersey
  • long sleeved cycling jersey
  • water/wind proof jacket
  • neoprene full-fingered cycling gloves
  • cycling tights, bib style
  • winter weight cycling socks
  • cycling shoes
  • neoprene fleece-lined booties

I set out just before 7:30AM fueled by a half cup of oatmeal and a quart of coffee. It was brisk, but I can't say I was truly cold. I started with the jackets fully zipped. The only change I made once I started (after just a few minutes) was to cinch the drawstrings at the bottom of the wind breaker. I then let the drawstrings out during a bathroom break 90 minutes into the ride.

It was a beautiful day for a ride; sunny with negligible wind. Frost on lawns, protected by shadows, survived in tree shaped patterns reaching West. Steam from Iowa's only nuclear power plant billowed continousy on my left for 2 1/2 hours as I rode a 41 mile counter-clockwise loop off the Northwest edge of Cedar Rapids through Alburnett, Center Point, Palo, and Hiawatha.

By the time I puled into my driveway, the outside temperature had climbed to 50 degrees. The cold-weather gear worked great! My torso and legs were quite comfortable. For even chillier temeratures I can just add an extra long sleeve layer or a fleece vest. I've also got some rain/wind proof pants I could wear as an additional layer for my legs. My only complaint is that my hands and feet were a little cold. I might consider more windproof gloves and even heavier socks. And this may or may not be apparent from the picture, but the balaclava gave me the sensation that my face was being squeezed out the opening. I think that comes with the territory.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Campus Cops

The presidents of Iowa's regent universities have formally recommended that campus police carry firearms. This is notable because, in the case of the University of Iowa, it will reverse a policy that has been in place for 43 years.

Why now? Color me a skeptic, but this seems primarily to be a belated, misguided, and ineffectual response to the campus shootings at Virgina Tech. After the horrific events in Blacksburg last April, Governor Culver (by coincidence a graduate of Virgina Tech) tasked the Iowa universities to review their security policies. The only item I've seen gain traction in the media is the matter of arming campus police. My initial reaction to an armed campus police force was, "What's the big deal?" However, the more I've thought about it, the less I can see any compelling reasons to reverse the existing policies of campus police disarmament.

The only reason the discussion came up at all was, again, Virginia Tech. It should also be said that the University of Iowa is no stranger to gun violence. I was a Sophomore in November 1991 when five people were killed and one seriously wounded in a rampage by a disgruntled physics student.

What's strange is that I haven't seen a credible argument from any quarter that armed campus police would prevent similar incidents. In fact, the campus police at Virgina Tech ARE armed.

I guess I can understand why the police themselves would want to be armed. I'm sure it would make them feel more police-like. However, positions such as found in today's Iowa City Press Citizen: 'Half of university officers to leave if regents answer is no' suggest more hysteria and less reasoning.

A few facts:

  • Campus police ARE fully trained law enforcement officers empowered to make arrests, etc...
  • At the University of Iowa, campus police actually DO have firearms. They are not carried by patrol officers but are stored at headquarters and may be issued as circumstances require.
  • The University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and The University of Northern Iowa are the only institutions in their conferences whose campus police are not armed. (I'm not sure how campus crime/safety statistics compare within said conferences.) According to this article, the ratio of armed/disarmed campus police among public colleges with an enrollment greater than 2,500 is about 80/20.

I heartily recommend the following Blog post: Peace Through War; Security Through Weaponry for a well-reasoned argument against arming campus police. In a related thought, I'm so thankful for Blogs; they give pithy titles a needed outlet.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

As expected, but still shocking in its shamelessness

The Associated Press is reporting that President Bush will announce a troop cut in the upcoming televised address. To be clear, the surge ending is now being marketed as a "cut."

See my two previous posts for an explination of how bogus this is. This is SMOKE AND MIRRORS. This alleged "cut" is fully in line with preexisting schedules of troop rotations. It therefore represents no concession of any kind, no readjustment of any kind, no change-of-course of any kind.

After this "cut", troop levels will be at pre-surge levels. Folks, the more things change, the more they stay the same. You ready to "stay the course" some more?

It will be interesting to see how the press handles this.

Dog & Pony Show

Here's an illustration of what I meant yesterday about nothing being debated or decided with the Petraeus Report and the whole deal being purely for show.

In the congressional hearings, Petraeus indicted that a Marine Expeditionary Unit will be withdrawing soon and an Army brigade will be removed from the theater around Christmas. This was spun in some media reports as some sort of concession or a "recommendation" by Petraeus.

Indeed, in his testimony today, Petraeus himself referred to these withdrawals as part of his deliberate calculations. In his words, a recommended "...drawdown of the surge." This provoked Chairman Biden to interrupt the questioning in order to clarify that the Marine unit was SCHEDULED to withdraw in advance. Petraeus conceded this point and then immediately dissembled by pointing out that he could have recommended that the unit(s) stay in Iraq.

This is a bit ridiculous. There was no need to have hearings to simply repackage what we already knew about the deployment schedules of US ground forces to Iraq. That the surge will end is NOT news. 15-month combat tours for approximately 30,000 troops WILL end by Summer '08. Therefore, in order to maintain the surge, one of two things would have to happen:

  1. The guidelines that limit combat tours to 15 months would have to be altered.
  2. The time between deployments would have to be further reduced below the current levels of 12 months.

For what it's worth, the Secretary of the Army sees "no possibility" of extending combat tours. And, although the Bush administration and its allies has fought efforts to guarantee time between deployments, any further reductions in dwell time would carry a tremendous cost in public relations to the administration and reduced morale within the military.

Here's a good article by Howard Fineman that attempts to describe what is actually happening. The short story is that the combination of Bush in the White House and insufficient oppositional voting blocks (Democratic majority + 'defecting' Republicans) ensures that there will be no meaningful change in Iraq policies.

We're doomed to continue "staying the course" right up to the elections of 2008.

Saturday, September 8, 2007

This surge is a sham

I think even by Washington standards, the upcoming Petraeus Report is more about political theater and less about any sort of genuine deliberative process. I know it's shocking to see such skepticism directed towards our elected leaders and political process, but bear with me.

Point 1: Bush is a stubborn cuss and will not be told what to do.

Was it not inevitable that when the Iraq Study Group reported back with its recommendations that Bush could be expected to do just the opposite? According to form, when the ISG called for a gradual pull back of the 15 combat brigades in Iraq (at the time the report was released), Bush carefully considered the advice and responded by announcing an INCREASE of 5 brigades.

So now the "stubborn cuss" part has moved into a protective posture around the surge. Even though I don't think he genuinely wanted a surge in the first place, i.e., it was only a contrary reaction to the ISG, once he started it, he wasn't going to be told when to end it. How long can he be stubborn in the face of mounting casualties and public opposition? Well, he only needs to be stubborn another 500 days (the length of his Presidency) and really, he doesn't even need to string it along that far because the gravitational pull of the 2008 election will begin to provide cover before that.

Point 2: The surge itself is contradictory

We've heard Bush and administration supporters saying things like "...Petraeus' strategy", "...give his strategy a chance", and "...let's wait to hear what he has to say."

One curious thing is that some people -- like General Shinseki -- get rebuked publicly when we hear what they have to say.

Another curious thing is the timing of listening to what people have to say. Let's assume for a moment that the Surge is, in fact, the brainchild of General Petraeus. Why did the surge start when it did?

Bush has repeatedly asserted that the sectarian violence in Iraq was sparked by the Samarra bombing on February 22, 2006 . Personally, I see this as an attempt to cover up incompetence and dismal planning by the administration, i.e., "We had everything under control until Al-Qaeda blew up the mosque." But, for the moment, let's assume that the Samarra bombing was a primary factor in destabilizing the country. Why was the surge not launched until almost a YEAR later?

Another curious thing is that even when we say we're listening to what people have to say, we appear not to be. General Petraeus was tasked with reformulating the official counterinsurgency doctrine of the U.S. Military; the result was Counterinsurgency Field Manual FM 3-24.

The manual recommends force ratios of up to 20 combat troops for every 1,000 members of the general population. A fully realized counterinsurgency campaign would then require approximately 120,000 combat troops for Bagdhad (population 6 million) alone. The rest of Iraq (population 20 million) would require an additional 400,000 combat troops. To be fair, every region of Iraq is not equally destabilized and in need of full counterinsurgency troop staffing levels. Excepting Iraqi Kurdistan and its 6 million inhabitants from the estimates would bring the overall national troop staffing requirements to 400,000. It also should be noted that the population of combat troops need not be entirely comprised of American troops, i.e., Iraqi security forces and those of the coalition of the willing.

Incidentally, I'd like to take a quick moment to ridicule the phrase 'coalition of the willing.' I know that the administration was making token efforts to deflect accusations that it was acting unilaterally. But didn't the phrase mostly serve to highlight the absurdity of the situation? Are there other kinds of coalitions? Coalition of the coerced? And while honoring the contributions of individual soldiers, diplomats, etc... I must also wonder what difference the inclusion of such Geopolitical heavyweights as Estonia and Nicaragua made in the grand scheme of things. But I digress...

At the high-end, Patraeus' own strategy called for 520,000 combat troops to wage counterinsurgency in Iraq. Let's be magnanimous and assume that for various reasons (some provinces are relatively stable, we have help from others, we're really good at it), we can fully execute Patraeus' strategy with only 33% of the high-end requirements. So now we're down to 6.66 troops per 1,000 members of the general population. Heck, let's just call it 6. Now, we just need to deploy 156,000 combat troops and we can pacify and rebuild the whole country. There's just one problem. We can't. There aren't enough troops. You see, even under our optimistic calculations here, we need 156,000 COMBAT troops. The actual real-life surge features a peak of 20 brigades which, using a figure of 4,000 per brigade, amounts to only 80,000 combat troops. And even THAT amount cannot be sustained beyond next Summer.

(Could it be that we are finally down to one Friedman Unit or so? And I really REALLY mean it this time!)

As I understand it, we're tapped out. We simply don't have a large enough military to execute our own official counterinsurgency doctrine in a country the size of Iraq. Not even CLOSE. Never mind Iraq for the moment, how has the tempo of ground force deployments to Iraq affected the readiness of our military to respond to other threats in the region (or globally)? According to this article, CENTCOM commander Admiral Fallon is concerned enough that he has started to develop plans that will "...radically draw down American troops." which has contributed to poor relations between Fallon and Patraues.

So the troop numbers look bleak. What about other highlights of FM 3-24?

Well, the doctrine holds that "political objectives must retain primacy." To buttress this point, the manual includes a quote from General Chang Ting-chen of Mao Zedong's Central Committee that revolutionary war was 80 percent political and only 20 percent military.

So when General Petraeus expressed disappointment in the lack of progress toward political reconciliation in Iraq in an open letter released last Friday, I'm surprised it did not receive more emphasis. If 80% of the overall strategy isn't succeeding, I think that's a big deal. There's more; here's a quote from the letter:

Up front, my sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum and wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number of areas of Iraq. The result has been progress in the security arena, although it has, as you know, been uneven.

Alas, the FM 3-24 warns us starkly about emphasizing tactical results. Under the heading 'Tactical Success Guarantees Nothing', FM 3-24 includes the apocryphal exchange in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Colonel Harry Summers (US Army) said to a North Vietnamese colonel, "Remember, you never defeated us on the battlefield." The NVA officer considered for a moment. "That may be so," he said, "but it is also irrelevant."

Point 3: Fool me once... Fool me twice...

This is under reported in the media, but we actually already had a Petraeus Report in September of 2004. This was long enough after the invasion for things to start going to heck, but not so long that the Bush Administration's credibility wasn't totally shot. So who knows what difference Petraeus' happy talk made in the run-up to a very consequential 2004 election. Actually, upon consideration, I don't think an Op-Ed in the Washington Post swung the election (perhaps in Bethesda or Falls Church?) but it still makes me angry to read a puff piece with sections like this:

The institutions that oversee [Iraqi security forces] are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward, leading their country and their security forces courageously in the face of an enemy that has shown a willingness to do anything to disrupt the establishment of the new Iraq.

What a great relief! With good news like this all the way back in the Fall of '04, think what kind of shape we'll be in three years later in the Fall of '07. Golly, maybe the boys will be home by Christmas.

So I conclude the surge is a sham. But, in spite of myself, I have to give credit to the Bush adminstration for steering the debate masterfully.

The 2006 elections were widely viewed as a repudiation of Bush and his war policies. But somehow the debate shifted...

Should we be in the war?
How long should we be in the war?
How long should we sustain the surge?
Then, ABSURDLY, to should we remove ONE Brigade!?

Well played Mr. President, well played. I just wish you weren't playing with our country and theirs.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Dog Days of Summer

The opening day of the Fifth Annual Iowa City Dog Paddle was yesterday. What a great tradition!

I wandered over and took a couple pictures. Here's a lucky shot of a dog in flight.



And this should give you a sense of the general scene.



Several owners were trying, unsuccessfully, to get their dogs to go off the diving board.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Is this necessary? Pt. 1

I believe I've discovered a fine illustration of the difference between intelligence and wisdom. In order to conduct the following studies, you need high levels of intelligence, a solid understanding of statistical analysis and scientific methods, etc... In order to see any NEED for the following studies, you need to be a complete MORON, i.e., posses a lack of wisdom.

In a separate but related matter, I see a glaring need to commission a study that examines the approval process for funding studies. But how do I get it started?

Questionable Study #1 - Deer hunting may put men's hearts at risk
The key findings of this crucial study are distilled as follows:
In a study of 25 middle-aged male deer hunters, researchers found that the activities inherent to hunting -- like walking over rough terrain, shooting an animal and dragging its carcass -- sent the men's heart rates up significantly.

I think the past titans of science, Nicolaus Copernicus, Max Planck, Carl Linnaeus, et al. can rest easy. We've either already figured out the important stuff or we're not going to figure out anymore important stuff if this study is representative. What's next, 'Pain found to hurt'?

Questionable Study #2 - Rock stars more likely to die prematurely
"In the music industry, factors such as stress, changes from popularity to obscurity, and exposure to environments where alcohol and drugs are easily available, can all contribute to substance use as well as other self-destructive behaviors," the report said.

Brilliant. We learn something new every day, but not while reading this study. Even as the premise is raised or reinforced, what are we supposed to DO about it? Divert money from school lunch programs to launch fitness and wellness programs for rock stars? Sigh...

Questionable Study #3 - Men go for looks when choosing mate, study confirms

I think the headline here says all that needs saying. Did this really require the attention Dr. Todd and the cognitive science program at Indiana University? What study was rejected in favor of this groundbreaker?

Sunday, September 2, 2007

Just a Thought Pt. 1

The other night I was noticing how sure footed Sophie - my cat - was as she walked along the railing of my deck. All the sudden I realized the advantages she has. She's got 4 points of contact (feet) and her center-of-gravity is like 6 inches off the ground! What's the big deal?