Friday, 10 April 2020


Random Ramblings – the Master Tapes

It’s supposed to be a day of rest today (Good Friday) and so the Random Ramblings will simply provide a means to access the full slate of Ramblings.  The real purpose of this exercise is to have something after the end of this nonsense – to look back on, laugh about, and perhaps trigger a memory as to where you left your car keys…  

It’s also an exercise in trying to tie together a number of media; writing, links to videos, photo’s, music – a real high tech exercise (cue off screen laughter).

So here is a link to the full slate of pointless, all over the place, confusing, random ramblings…

Random ramblings from the great lock down of 2020, Part I... Tiger King Mania


If you had asked me what the most bizarre "life story" I had ever seen was, I would, up until now, have probably thought for a while and come back with an answer of "Andy Kaufman". Because, after all, it is not often that you see a comedian/performance artist who had an act that consisted of reading "The Great Gatsby" on stage, or miming to the "Mighty Mouse" theme, or transitioning in to the greatest Elvis imitation ever - or bringing the entire audience for milk and cookies.

Kaufman then morphed in to a sitcom star (Taxi) who nearly sabotaged his own career by booking himself in character (terrible lounge singer Tony Clifton) as a guest star on the same show. That ended badly. So, changing pace he endeavoured to become the "intergender wrestling champion of the world", got in to a public feud with another wrestler (which may or may not have been real), and eventually, when he dies, has screwed with people's minds for so long that, to this day, there are still those who claim he's not dead. That's a bizarre life. Hard to beat that.

Until I watched "Tiger King". Ladies and gentlemen - we have a winner and new champion. Actually, maybe we have three.

"Now Mike", you say to me, "What's the big deal?" After all, this is just your ordinary, everyday, run of the mill documentary about the owner of an exotic big cat theme park who happens to be involved in a three way gay marriage and is serving time for a kill for hire scheme targeting another owner of a (currently non-breeding) big cat theme park who, may, perhaps, have killed her second husband and fed him to one of those cats and who both were mentored by another owner of a big cat theme park (how many of these freakin' places are there anyway?) who is evidently running it as the "Bhagwan" of a cult staffed by sex slaves. And, sure, it sounds reasonable when you put it that way, but that's only part of the story. There is also country music involved.

Suffice to say that the sanest character in this story is a woman who had her arm chewed off by a tiger and went back to work, at the same place days later for $100 a week and all the expired meat she could eat. As we all sit inside, a captive audience with little else to take up our time, I get the feeling this will become a runaway hit.

Andy did you hear about this one?


Random Ramblings from the great lockdown of 2020, Pt. II… Secretariat


Being shut in makes you appreciate the times when you experience or witness the opposite – the freedom of skiing down a slope, running down a fly ball, watching a dog chase down a frisbee (he won’t get it…, no way he get’s it… it’s gonna be close…got it!”). Many of those moments (though not all) are associated with speed, stretching things to the limit, going beyond what you might have thought you, or someone/something else might do.

That’s the lead in to today’s ramble.

Now, I’m not much of a horse person. In my estimation they’re above cats but below dogs, and even behind the platypus (love me some platypus). Still, I enjoy a day out at the track from time to time. Tattersalls, one of the world’s great auctioneers, is just 10 minutes up the road, as is Fairyhouse, home of the Irish Grand National.

I was in Saratoga for the 1994 Travers Stakes, the celebrated “fourth leg of the Triple Crown”, also known as the race for those who were “told there would be no math”… Anyway, this particular contest was supposed to be a classic confrontation between Holy Bull and Tabasco Cat, who had duelled in the year’s earlier Triple Crown races. Instead, the race became an incredible sprint for the finish between Concern and the Bull, with the latter staying in front by a nose.

I proudly hold a copy of the ticket I purchased for American Pharoah’s Belmont win – the first triple crown to be completed in 37 years. That was quite a stretch. For a time in the ‘70’s triple crowns had been fairly common, but the norm is for a gap of time to pass between winners of that honor. Before Seattle Slew and Affirmed put back to back triple crown’s together in 1977 and ’78 there had been only one triple crown winner in 29 years – but that one had been incredibly special, and is the subject of this ramble.

Secretariat, coming up to the Belmont Stakes in 1973 was a national sensation. Appearing on the cover of all the national magazines the horse stood on the verge of accomplishing what had not been done for 25 years – winning a triple crown (the previous one - Citation in 1948, is a story in itself). The big, red horse, ridden by jockey Ron Turcotte, had set track records in winning both the Kentucky Derby and Preakness – although it is not often remembered that neither was a sure thing. The second place horse in both races, Sham, would have set track records himself if he hadn’t been staring at Secretariat’s bum going across the finish.

The real test was to be the Belmont, a grueling mile and a half trial of a three-year old’s stamina. The feeling was that Sham would push Secretariat to the max and, perhaps, break through for the win at the stage where completing the classic series had proven so difficult for prior contenders. For whatever reason the attempt at the rarely completed triple crown had caught the nation’s (and the horse racing world’s) attention like no event in the recent past, and for at least one day the sport of king’s returned to the center stage that it had once held in the days when baseball, boxing and the horses reined supreme in American sport. The stage was set for all to watch – the only question was whether the horse would deliver the goods.

Oh boy. Did he ever.

As the horses lined up that day CBS was the network lucky enough to have the broadcast rights. They were also lucky to have the talents of Chic Anderson to call the race. Anderson’s work that day has become rightfully acknowledged as one of the great broadcasts of all time. The event is obviously the major reason for that – what Secretariat was to do that day would have been special to see even if no one had announced the event. Still, hearing Anderson at various points in the race makes the happening even more special. Listen, for instance, for Anderson to nonchalantly take over the call as the horses are loaded in to the gate – his laconic, relaxed “Thanks Buddy” is the perfect lead in for a horse racing call, which should always start as if you’re having a laid back chat with a neighbour about the weather across a fence, and build to a climax. Anderson clearly knew what he was doing from the get go – but even better – he understood the moment as the race was proceeding. It would have been expected for an announcer to hold off until the finish to go in to high gear – but Anderson grasped, as he was announcing, that he was watching something extraordinary and he did not wait to let his audience know it. The call is fairly standard until he announces the ¾ mile split – then he clearly understands what’s going on and changes his cadence to let the world know. The wonder of his voice when he says the words “tremendous machine” are most often cited (and they are memorable) but listen as well to how his voice almost cracks as he says “Secretariat is ALL ALONE” and then, finally, how it does break when he sees the ecstatic reactions in the crowd and speaks of this “miracle horse”.

So what had Secretariat done? He won the Belmont in a record time of 2:24 (it still stands). He had destroyed Sham and the rest of the field, winning by an incredible 31 lengths. (This was the one thing Anderson gets wrong – he said it was 25. It’s hard to call him on this – first, he acknowledges it’s just a guess. Second – check how the TV camera must pan back to even find the other horses in the race). In winning the triple crown five years later Affirmed won the three races by a combined margin of less than two lengths (a neck and a nose over Alydar in the last two). In this single race Secretariat was more than 15 times better than that in terms of margin.

On a day in June, 1973 Secretariat, not a machine but a being of flesh and blood broke the bounds of what anyone thought could be done. As we sit confined in our homes today it’s worth watching the film of that event and remembering what it is like to be so unconfined, and know that it can be done.

Amazing.


Random Ramblings during the great lockdown of 2020 Pt III – Hotels

One of the hardest hit industries of the current crisis is the hotel/resort sector, which is essentially crippled. Not only is there no travel (so no rooms being rented), but all the adjunct businesses, from weddings, restaurants, bars, golf courses, spas – everything connected to a hotel either as accommodation or vacation spot is shut down. Hopefully things come back strong for all hotels, but I worry about two in particular, because they represent a dying breed and because they are truly historic in more than just the generic sense of the term.

They also both occupy the same State, and though they represent two entirely different environments they are only about 100 miles apart. The extremes are the sea and the mountains, the State is New Hampshire and the establishments are Wentworth-by-the-Sea and the Mount Washington (Bretton Woods) hotels. The historic connection is that two of the most important treaties of the 20th century were negotiated in the confines of the resorts, the Treaty of Portsmouth, which ended the Russo-Japanese War and won Teddy Roosevelt a Nobel Peace Prize and the Bretton Woods Agreement, which essentially created the economic world as we know it.

The odds on any two hotels in America acting as the venue for such diplomatic events are not that great – treaties are usually named for entire cities (the delegations are kept apart) – so you get the “Treaty of Paris” or “The Geneva Convention”. There are also government owned castles or military bases that will house large delegations - the “Camp David Accords” or “Treaty of Versailles” pop to mind. But for two hotels, (in tiny New Hampshire of all places) to serve as the venue for such historic events is amazing.

Just to clear things up – Wentworth by the Sea is not in Portsmouth, it’s right next to it in the truly scenic little town of New Castle. I cycle by the place every year when I go to the New Hampshire coast. The treaty is named after Portsmouth because that’s where the Navy Yard, where things were signed, is located. All the important stuff took place at the hotel – that’s where the Japanese and Russian delegations stayed and wrangled out the terms of their disengagement with T.R.’s constant prodding.

Bretton Woods is the resort where the Mount Washington hotel is located and the treaty that was hammered out there, amongst many of the world’s nations (great and small), is perhaps the most important document of the last century. The World Bank, the IMF, the very structure of international economics was put in place in the middle of the New Hampshire wilderness through the summer of 1944. (That’s right 1944 – in the middle of the second World War). John Maynard Keynes and Henry Morgenthau were there along with a gaggle of Russians (and Russian spies, including one of the most prominent Americans), Indian delegations before India was even a country, representatives from Guatemala to Greece, occupied France and a China that was very different from what China would become. Not a single head of state attended – but to give an idea of the importance of the gathering no less than seven of the attendees would go on to be President or Prime Minister of their countries. They negotiated all day, drank all night for about a month – and in the end largely constructed the world as we know it.

Both of these hotels harken back to a day when, due to the fact that it was only possible to create so many places with indoor plumbing, transport (meaning train) access, staff that could live on site (no one had cars) and the ability to feed large groups of people – you had to build large hotels. Sorry “large” is an understatement. These buildings are massive. When you look at the Wentworth, or the Mount Washington – the sheer scale of the building is the first thing that jumps out. They aren’t tall like a skyscraper, or impressive like the Lincoln Memorial or White House. They are – I don’t know – I guess the word is “dominant”. In places next to the ocean or against the mountains where you would never expect a man-made edifice to overpower the setting – they still manage it. The daunting undertaking of walking around in the place, let alone maintaining it, boggles the mind. Still, they manage to fit in to their landscapes – I like looking towards the White Mountains and seeing the Bretton Woods resort. I look forward to topping the rise (usually after stopping for lunch at the Ice House – recommend it highly) and seeing Wentworth-by-the-Sea spread out ahead of me.

These types of hotels are impressive, but they are living fossils – always threatened with real extinction because, while they fit in to their settings they don’t really fit in to these times. That’s too bad because I think they’re worth keeping around – not just because of the history they represent but because they remind us that it is possible to build something big and not have it look like it was constructed by an alien civilization.

Read “The Summit”, Ed Conway’s book about the Bretton Woods conference and what it accomplished, or “Mornings on Horseback” David McCullough’s book about Teddy Roosevelt and how he became who he was – but if you get a chance after we all get let out – travel to either of the hotels and maybe spend a buck or two there. It’ll be worth it.


Wentworth By The Sea



The Mount Washington Hotel at Bretton Woods



Random Ramblings Pt IV – Mad Men (Kids Version)

Today we will address the attack of the unbeatable earworms, nothing disease related, but a review of the sorts of commercials that get in your head, like a pop song, and live there for, essentially, your entire life. These have been crossing my mind lately as I’ve been subjected to more than the usual share of advertising as the radio or TV plays in the background while I’m at home. I realize, as I listen to the same ads over and over again – that they are all trying to burn their way into my consciousness (well – probably more my subconsciousness).

I think advertising agencies used to be better at this – or I was more susceptible when I was a kid. I’m doing some writing about the old Saturday morning cartoon shows and one of the things I had to confront was the fact that I remember as much about the continual bombardment of breakfast cereal commercials as I do about the cartoons. I know, for example, that A is for apple, J is for jacks – cinnamon, toasty Apple Jacks. I also know that Honeycomb’s big (yeah yeah yeah) it’s not small (no, no no). Oh – and Trix are for kids.

I’m sure some commercials had the opposite effect on me than what they desired. I never would have bought Chuck Wagon dog food, because, well, I was pissed off that the dog never caught the little chuck wagon:


(It seems I wasn’t the only one).


There were other commercials that just managed to annoy the hell out of me. I don’t know anyone who liked the little girl who said “and I haaaaaalped” at the end of the Shake and Bake ad. I mean – hey, kid, don’t squeal on Grandma, and don’t take credit for doing anything when all you did was shake the freakin’ bag. It’s like doing one piece of a jigsaw puzzle (a corner piece) and then saying you helped get it done. I mean “haaaalped”. Screw that kid – you probably make your family dinners of pot noodles these days.


But there were undoubted successes. To this day two opposing frankfurters battle in my head for supremacy. An army of fat kids, skinny kids – right up to pock-marked children square off against those who wish they could morph in to elongated tubes of pinkish meat by-products:


Those weren’t the only successes. I definitely try not to litter. I’m sure I do it because I understand the need to recycle, to keep the landscape clean, to preserve a sense of order in the world. I mostly do it because I feel bad for this guy:


It’s a short ramble today – but I’ll leave you with an earworm that has undoubtedly caused numerous Americans to ask Italian tour guides whether they will be going to “Baloney” when making their way around the old country…


Random Ramblings during the great lockdown of 2020, Part V. Musical interludes.

Being shut inside means that there is usually a radio playing somewhere, and while there is a hell of a lot of important advice being broadcast (evidently “washing your hands” is the new craze) – there is a huge amount of music to be heard as well. So the day typically will have a few tunes to be enjoyed, but there are musical elements that are missing from the current circumstances.

Now, other than largely futile forays in to learning the guitar and harmonica I am not a musical person – except for the fact that I really like to listen to music. I also enjoy reading and finding out about people who are good musicians, I have been known to loosen up the vocal cords when drunk (though I rarely drink, confining my intake only to days that contain the letter “Y”), and will use any excuse to see live music.

Of course, while I enjoy all of these activities – during the lock down the only one I can’t currently indulge in is the latter. There are no concerts, club gigs, sessions in bars, festivals, parades, sing-songs around a campfire or other public musical displays at the moment. (Other than those Italians leaning out the window to sing – that was brilliant). So in honor of not being able to go out to listen to the music (including the Christy Moore concert that got cancelled), here are a couple of memorable musical moments that I’ve had the pleasure of experiencing. Mind you – these aren’t my “favorite concerts” (though some I’m sure would be on the list) or “best bands” - they’re just times when music publicly performed gave me some enjoyment. I might end up doing a couple of rambles about these times since it’ll be a while before any of us will get to a concert or hear a band live. Hopefully it triggers a similar memory for yourselves.

There was one winter night when a bunch of friends (about six) and I were wandering around Cambridge, for whatever reason. Having had something to eat and (in all likelihood) more than a bit of something to drink we were at a loss for what to do next. Then it started to snow – one of those mixes where there are big fat flakes coming down with a bit of drizzle – it was pretty clear we weren’t going to be able to stay outside much longer and so would have to find a port to get us through this storm.

The storm got more intense and so we started to look for some place to duck in to. Now, there was (and maybe still is) a club in Central Square called “The Middle East” and they had a number of bands that played there – some very good, others less so. We were coming up to the place and I noticed that a band named “Davy Jones” was playing there on this night. I figured that they were named for the keeper of the famous undersea locker and so asked the guy at the door what kind of music they played. “I don’t know, monkey music I guess”.

I assumed the doorman wasn’t making a random racial slur so, exhibiting Sherlock Holmes-like powers of deduction I said – “Do you mean Monkee music as in Davy Jones, former Monkee?” He did indeed – it seems Davy was promoting a new album and had somehow been booked in to a place that would more likely have been hosting bands like The Pixies or The Lemonheads before they made it big. I asked how much it was to see the shortest of the pre-fab four and was told the asking price was $25. That seemed quite steep – and taking a chance that there was going to be very few people venturing out in what was rapidly becoming a major storm I countered with an offer of a fiver each. “No can do” he answered – but the way he said it I could tell he was open to negotiation. We settled on $7.50 each, and like a bunch of snow covered soaked rats we ventured down into the venue.

During Davy Jones' days with the Monkees they routinely had to be escorted by police through overflowing crowds that threatened to tear the band limb from limb. This was not going to be one of those nights. There were about 25/30 people in the place and we grabbed a table next to the stage.

The first part of the show – let’s just say, it didn’t go well. Davy was there to promote an album of his new material and I guarantee you there wasn’t anyone there who really wanted to explore the new musical directions of Davy Jones. We were all wet, cold, at least middling drunk and at least some of the other people had paid twenty-five bucks to sit in a club that was empty enough to have allowed you to set out a tennis court and carry on a decent rally. There were the proverbial crickets chirping in between songs. Finally, about 30 minutes in Davy looked out and said “I suppose you want to hear the old ones”.

I swear he looked right at me when he said this – I was only about ten feet away, and so I kind of shrugged my shoulders and nodded yes. Jones gave a kind of resigned sigh and turned to the band –

“All right guys – plan B”.

Now – you have to understand – there hadn’t been a single song that anyone recognized through the whole first part of the concert – so everyone was quite ready for something familiar. The band probably was as well – after a brief pause they started up with one of the Monkees hits – not the biggest hit, but one everyone recognized…

Ah, walk out, girl, don’t you walk out
’Cause we’ve got things to say
Talk out, let’s have a talk out
And things will be okay..


Look, Neil Diamond is no Neil Young. His songs don’t make history, and they don’t define a generation – but man, can you sing along to them or what? This is one of them. Within about a verse everyone in that bar was up and singing, moving up towards the stage, not worrying about how they were gonna get home through the storm – just having a good time. We were the wretched refuse of the Cambridge streets, somehow ending up listening to a middle aged musical survivor of a ‘60’s sitcom – but dammit – we were gonna have a good time. Said good time went on through “Valleri”, and “She” (which he hadn’t even done lead on with the Monkees) and then he did another new one, which kind of took the edge off. I swear the guy looked over at me again.

I don’t know why I did what I did next – I’m sure it was just instinct - but I put my hand to my ear and yelled “Do the Brady Bunch song!”.

Remember – there had been drink taken.

The briefest of smiles went over his face – for the next song he said “I don’t know why people remember this – but it gets asked for everywhere we go”.

Remember it? Are you kidding me? – he promised Marcia he would sing at the prom. He promised. He wrote her a letter…


The show closed – but there had to be an encore – and of course you knew what the encore would be. After a short pause Mr. Jones returned and the band struck up the familiar, jingly opening chords…


When word came a few years ago that Davy Jones had passed away I was actually pretty sad. I watched The Monkees when I was a kid, but I’d also spent a snowy night listening to this guy make a small crowd happy when he probably would have preferred to be somewhere else. And while it’s not like being in Newport when Dylan went electric I can always say I had a front row seat for Davy Jones singing “Daydream Believer” – and that’s something.

The other musical interlude I’ll tell you about also involved drink being taken – and since I was one of the singers at the time that is not to be considered unexpected. It wasn’t snowy though – in fact it was a summer night in Newport, Rhode Island, at one of the bars located outside, along the harbor, on one of the docks. A band had supplied the music through most of the night and the group I was with, plus the rest of the crowd, had enjoyed a good time. Very much enjoyed – because when the band ended, and the bar got ready to close – no one wanted to leave. Instead a dedicated group, of which I must admit I was one of the chief instigators, began a sing-a-long to whatever songs we might happen to remember.

Now – that no doubt included such crowd favorites as “Daydream Believer” and “Sweet Caroline” – but I’m certain we soon ran out of tunes for which we recalled the words. As the staff desperately tried to get us off the dock the crowd swelled (even the members of the real band joined in) – and we descended in to whatever songs we could remember – which was pretty much television theme songs. The aforementioned Brady Bunch theme made an appearance, as did the theme from “Happy Days” and the Partridge Family. When it became apparent that we weren’t gonna leave the staff called the police.

In summertime Newport this seemed to consist of a number of “rent-a-cops” who would patrol the streets in the event of just such an occurrence. The town of Newport, however well off it might be, didn’t supply this force with top quality vehicles. They didn’t even get golf carts. Instead we were able to look up the sea wall and see, slowly heading towards us, a series of flashing blue lights attached to what seemed to be a caravan of mobility scooters for senior citizens.

We could clearly see them coming – but it was like watching a glacier make its way down a valley. I think from the time they started towards us we had a chance to get through the theme from both “Laverne & Shirley” and “The Flintstones”. When they finally pulled up I remember breaking in to “Doo Wah Diddy” – (the “Stripes” version):


While the scooters were slow to arrive – the cops moved with remarkable rapidity once they got there. Before I knew it they were walking next to me – and two or three of Newport’s finest were picking me up and carrying me off the dock. While I was horizontal we had a conversation:

“We’re just singin’” I said

“We know”

“We aren’t causing any trouble”.

“We know”.

“Where are we going?”

“You’re a ringleader – are you going to go home?”

I replied I was actually a bandleader, and, yes, I would be going home.

“All right then” they said, placing me vertical, thankfully feet first “…stop singing and go home”.

The crowd made its way off the harbor and myself and the group I was with filtered back to the place we were staying. There were a few more with us than when we started, and they all duly christened me a “ringleader”, which led to much merriment. We were all sleeping on the floor and every once in a while someone would say “Hey ringleader, do you know this one” and then burp or fart, which would result in gales of laughter. After the laughter would die down I’d say “No, but it’s easy to dance to – I think it’s gonna be a big, big hit” or some such, and the laughter would resume. Believe me – it was hilarious at the time.

When we woke up the next morning there were more stories about the fleet of cops who had come to chase us off – the general consensus was that they should have given those guys something more dignified to move around in, like skateboards or tricycles. There were people popping up all over the place – it even turned out that one of the girls renting the house was from my hometown, which I didn’t know until breakfast and was pretty weird since there were only about 900 people who lived in the town (which was about the same number of people who seem to have spent the night in that house).



For the next few years I’d run in to a couple of the guys who were “ringleaders” as well when we were out in Boston somewhere. We’d just laugh, point at each other and say “One of these days – we’re puttin’ the band back together…”

When this lockdown ends I get the feeling there are going to be a few parties that have similar ends – people laughing, singing – and putting the band back together.


Random Rambling during the great lockdown of 2020 – Pt. V – Pizza

Pizza – not the most important topic in the world – but up there. It is possible to get pizza delivered during this most bizarre of times, which is perhaps the best sign that civilization has not yet completely collapsed and the apocalypse, while possibly nigh, has not yet arrived. Still – the fact that pizza can still be delivered to your house, while acceptable, may not in all cases be ideal. Sometimes you have to/want to go out for said pizza – and that’s not currently an option.

This worries me – basically anything that interferes or disrupts the pizza world worries me. I know I would be joined in this sentiment by many, including my good friend David Goldman, who is worthy of pizza related nicknames the way Babe Ruth collected baseball monikers. Sultan of Swat, Collosus of Clout, Behemoth of Bust – meet the Maharishi of Mozarella, the Caliph of Crust, the Caesar of Sauce. Sure – you can find a reduced number of pizza places that will deliver – but each delivery risks the loss of valuable pizza heat, each closed restaurant shrinks the possibility of finding the perfect slice – not to mention the looming threat of a worldwide cheese shortage.

Dave – am I right?

There’s no sense obsessing over this (though I will). Instead I will use this rambling to muse about my top five pizza list (which I reserve the right to change at any moment). I’ll also lay down some laws (actually, commandments) about what qualifies as pizza or pizza toppings, comment on school lunch pizza and generally – well – ramble.

What is pizza? Philosophers have thought on this topic for years. There is Descartes’ famous statement “Cogito pizza ergo sum” (“I think it’s pizza, therefore it is”). This offered an open door to a broad interpretation of pizzadom, accepting things like French bread pizza, bagel based pizza and “pizza in a cup” as being true pizza. I am tempted to rely upon Kierkegaard’s refutation of this argument, which claimed it to be a meaningless tautology – to whit, his position is summarized thusly:

“… that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into the premises "'x' thinks" and "I am that 'x'", where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.”

I could rely on that, but instead I think it is clearer to simply state - Descartes was an idiot.

While there are many things that approximate pizza, they are not truly pizza. I don’t come to this conclusion lightly but it is true. If you put sauce, cheese and, say, pepperoni into a paper cup – that is not pizza. That would be like taking the approximately 60 chemicals that make up the human body, putting them in a blender and calling it “my friend Bob”. Just because the ingredients of “Bobdom” are present does not a person make. It is the same with pizza.

The Italians knew this. They understood that form, presentation, soul (“anima”) made up a pizza. If you changed any one of those, you may have pizza ingredients but you do not have pizza. For example – if you take a pizza and fold it over – not a pizza anymore. It’s a calzone. You can still like and enjoy it – but if you call it a pizza, you sleep with the anchovies.

Good example – I used to go in to the North End in Boston for lunch, and one of the places I stopped offered a dish which was a thick piece of crusty Italian bread topped with sauce, cheese, roasted peppers and (this was really good) some tortellini. It was delicious.

Not pizza.

Here is where I have to take the first and perhaps the most controversial of my stands with regard to the question of what qualifies as a pizza and what does not. When I go back to the States I will often stop in at Uno’s where I will order one of their deep dish…

Items.

Offerings.

Victuals.

Foodstuffs.

Fares.

I like them but for the love of God they are not “pizza”. It’s a casserole, a cheese/tomato pie, an Uno’s special – call it whatever you like but not “pizza”. I could open this to debate, but the judge has ruled and court is no longer in session.

That said I would like to show that I have an open mind on this topic. To do this I bring you back to that day in school when the menu read “pizza” and everyone had a bit more bounce in their step, joy in their heart and sauce on their shirt.

Now, let’s face it – school pizza was not that great – but it beat the hell out of “Shepherds Pie” or “Lunch Loaf”. It also wasn’t round, but baked in sheets, wasn’t thin, but a bit doughy and the cheese may not have been mozzarella. Still – I state that it was, in fact, pizza. Flat, foldable, capable of being grasped in the hands if you so chose – it made the grade.

But not that high a grade. At best it was C+, and a lot of that had to do with the setting and circumstance. But there was enough potential there for this type of pizza (which is essentially the “Sicilian” variety) to achieve greatness. In my top five list, at number 5, I submit that I have found just such a pizza. To find it you need to travel to that same North End, at lunch time, and stand in line (and don’t bother for part of the summer because they’re closed). I’m talking about:







No. 5 - Galleria Umberto
http://galleriaumbertonorthend.com/


This pizza is amazing – hot out of the oven and cut right in front of you, grab a slice or two and maybe accompany it with an arancini, panini or panzarotti. People line up every day, rain or shine, to get this food. So leave a little extra time, bring cash and an appetite. This is great stuff (only open for lunch – this is old school).



Let’s stay in the North End for our next stop, which you may want to do for pizza at dinner time. Should that be your desire wander over to Thacher Street where you will find:





This is the acknowledged home of Boston pizza – and as long as you go to the North End (accept no substitutes) it gets a big thumbs up from me. The pizza is good, of the Neapolitan type, (meaning thin crust, which will be the case for all the remaining pizza’s on this list). It is eaten by the slice and, when at its best, requires very few toppings to make it as tasty as possible.

This is as good a time as any to discuss the realm of toppings. I’m a relatively open-minded person when it comes to toppings on pizza. I’ll tolerate barbeque sauce and chicken. I’ll go along with meatballs and eggplant. I’ll never order anchovies, but if you do I will not seek to imprison you, publish your name on a list of heretics or make you wear a scarlet letter “A” (“Apostate”).

However – “Broccoli Florets” – no. Chopped hot dog – I don’t think so. Finally – if you bring a pineapple anywhere near my pizza I reserve the right to shoot without warning and with a license to kill.

Again – the judge has spoken.

On to happier thoughts (I shudder each time I think of those poor, unsuspecting cheesy discs that face the threat of pineapple every day). My remaining pizzas all derive from my childhood, and two are still out there, though I hope they are using dough that has been prepared more recently than the 1970’s.

They say you never forget your first pizza (no, really – they say that). My first pizza likely came from someplace that was, at the time, called “Shaker Pizza” because it was on Shaker Road in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts. The fact that it was first would make it memorable but I can attest to the fact that this pizza was seriously good – the crust was amazing and I can still remember the smell that permeated the house when it was brought in the door. Whenever anything approximating that odor wafts across my path it triggers one of those “sensory memories” that you get – and I flashback to the times we’d get that pizza. Yes – I get “pizza flashbacks”.

Another sign that this place had seriously good pizza is this – it’s still there. I’m 56 years old – which means there aren’t too many pizza places older than me. There’s another place on Shaker Road that says it has served pizza “since 1980”. A mere pup. The Shaker Pizza that I know (now called “The Pizza Shoppe”) website says this about its restaurant:

“The Pizza Shoppe has been serving pizza with the legendary sweet crust for over 60 years. The dough and sauce we use are made right here at the restaurant. It has become a staple of the community. Medium, large, and extra large sizes are available. Create your own or get our most popular, “The Cheese.” Eat in or get it to go.”

Over 60 years. Oh – and the “extra large” if I remember correctly, is two pizza boxes stapled together with enough pizza to feed an army. All of these combine to make this:

No. 3 – The Pizza Shoppe
https://www.pizza-shoppe.com/

While The Pizza Shoppe may be where I sourced my first pizza, the establishment that probably holds the title for having served me the most pizza is a place called The Russell Inn, located in Russell, Massachusetts. Now – I say “probably” because while I spent many a night with family or friends in the Russell Inn growing up, and while I would typically get pizza – the Russell Inn is actually not just a pizza place – it’s a proper restaurant with a wide selection of other dishes. They’re good too – but the pizza was (and I trust still is) extraordinary. It’s been a while since I’ve had pizza there – but I swear when I get back home after all this shit ends – I’m going there for pizza again. I can’t wait. The Inn is another place that triggers sensory memories, but not just with food. There was a jukebox there, which always seemed to be playing “Sweet Home Alabama”, and I’m going to put that on tonight and dream of tomato sauce cheesy goodness. For people nearby who can still order out – have a few (dozen) slices for me.

No. 2 – The Russell Inn: https://www.russellinnrestaurant.com/Home

Which brings us to the best pizza I ever had. This one differs from the others on this list in that it has gone the way of the dodo, burned down somewhere back in the ‘80’s or ‘90’s – but for whatever reason I remember the Cozy Spruce in East Otis as being the best pizza when I was a kid. It wasn’t as close as the Russell Inn (or maybe just not on the typical path) – but when we’d be up that way the pizza at the Cozy went to the top of the list. That’s the benchmark – a hot pie being brought to your table, checking to see if the pieces were cut unevenly and trying to get the big one if you could – bringing it to your mouth even though you knew the cheese would probably burn a couple layers off the roof, and then tasting everything meshing together perfectly, cheese, sauce, crust – heaven. I can’t find a picture of the Cozy Spruce on line – (if someone has one please post it) – but I can still conjure it up when needed.

Pizza does that.

Random Ramblings Part VI – from the great lockdown of 2020 – See Here…



In 1940 the United States passed the Selective Service Act, subjecting all men between 21-44 years of age to the draft, with one year’s mandatory service. In 1941 the length of active service was stretched to 2 years (the extension passed by one vote) and, as a result, the country had the framework of a military in place when it was attacked on the 7th of December, 1941.

So - the draft was a good thing, and never caused any difficulty for the rest of the country’s history.
What is that you say? There actually was a problem with the draft at various times? They actually ended the draft? Well it seems to have gotten past some people…


Yes, there was one – and to tell you the truth it caused problems even during the time before Pearl Harbor. There was a lot of resistance to the institution of the draft and it only survived the move to extend it by that one vote. However, once it was in effect the selective service did manage to create one of the most formidable fighting forces in history. To get the serious discussion of this phenomenon read a book like “Citizen Soldiers” by Stephen Ambrose – to get the low down on what it really meant to the people drafted I’d send you to the book that is the subject of the photo attached to this article – “See Here, Private Hargrove” by Marion Hargrove, a journalist drafted in to the Army in 1941 who chronicled his experiences and put them down in this bestseller. The book is hilarious, was a runaway hit, spent 15 weeks on top of the NY Times charts and was later made in to a movie.

The best part about reading the book now is the irreverent tone Hargrove strikes about all things military – which he is entitled to do since he was on the inside looking out. Here’s his take on a draftee’s back and forth with a career Army Sergeant who challenged him about walking sentry duty:

“Suppose you saw a battleship coming across that drill
field over there. What would you do”?

The guard thought furiously. The answer – General
Order No. 9 – didn’t come.

“What would you do?” the sergeant insisted.

A light came into the sentry’s eyes. “I’d torpedo the
thing and sink it”.

The sergeant gasped. “Where would you get a torpedo?”
he demanded.

The guard smiled brightly. “The same place you got that
damn battleship,” he said.

Heroes are born not made.

This ability to mock, criticize and still respect and serve the military was once a characteristic of a large majority of the (admittedly, male) population of the United States. My father served in the National Guard, my uncles and cousins from my parents’ generation all spent time in the service, and one of the things they all were able to do, without reservation, was call out the military when they felt it was full of shit. They respected the military but did not revere it. Supported it but did not worship it. Defended but did not defer to it.

They also loved to make fun of it. Listening to them tell stories about how screwed up the military could be was always enjoyable.

One of the things lost when the draft was ended was that sense of shared experience. I took the ASVAB tests and talked to recruiters when I got out of high school, they came to our house and made a case for going in. The Marine recruiter also made a strong case for not signing up “Look” he said, “We’d love to have you but if you’re not 100% committed to this – don’t do it. It’s a volunteer service now”.

So, along with most of the people I went to college with – I didn’t enlist. I think the recruiter was correct – in a volunteer force you should be 100% committed before joining up. But the question is – should military service be a volunteer force – or should national service be compulsory?

I’ll tell you two groups of people who are against compulsory service – 18 year olds who don’t want to be told they have to give a one or two year commitment to something they aren’t committed to, and, strangely enough, the United States armed forces – who, in the current world, do not wish to have anyone in uniform who doesn’t want to be there. They both have valid points, but I’m beginning to think that despite their legitimate concerns they might be wrong on this one.

The reason this comes up (and I mean comes up again, believe me, I’ve thought about this before) stems from the recent actions taken by the Acting Secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly. As you may have heard, Modly summarily relieved Capt. Brett Crozier of his command of the aircraft carrier “Roosevelt” because Crozier criticized the manner in which the Navy was dealing with the presence of the Corona virus on his ship. Crozier did not make his criticism publicly, but was deemed to have done so in a manner that made it easy for the matter to be leaked. Modly acknowledged that Crozier was simply attempting to safeguard the approximately 5,000 men under his command, but stated that the way in which he went about it showed “poor judgement”. It is strongly suspected that pressure was put on Modly to take this action.

On it’s face the dismissal seems unjustified, even cruel. Taking a ship away from its commanding officer is about the most drastic thing that the Navy can do. The ship, in many ways, is the Captain. If the officer charged with the care and well being of 5,000 men took actions designed to keep them safe, then it would seem that the officials overseeing him should at least cut him some slack, even if those actions might have made things awkward for them. Strict adherence to the chain of command is nice but when your crew is at risk of dying that may not always be possible.

At least that’s how it looks “on its face”. The thing is – how things look from the outside doesn’t always reflect the reality of the situation. What I think to be obvious may, in truth, be completely wrong, because an even greater truth is that I don’t know a goddamn thing about how the military works. For all I really know what Captain Crozier did may be completely forbidden by accepted and valid military rules. I also would completely understand someone who did serve thinking I ought to shut my damn mouth about military matters since I never put a uniform on.

That’s understandable, but unfortunate. The U.S. military is predicated on the assumption that it comes under civilian control. Those civilians are better off from a knowledge standpoint having been in service, but it is not required. Still, if you haven’t been in the service you had best know when to keep your mouth shut. Most of the people opining on the internal workings of the military without any direct experience are properly assumed to be talking out of their rear porthole.

That doesn’t mean you can’t ask questions if you haven’t served – it just means that you can’t assume you know the answers. Here’s another example. The recent reassignment of the Vindman brothers, one of whom testified against Donald Trump in the impeachment hearings, raises just such a question. It seemed to me that removing Alexander (the brother who testified) may have been justifiable. As long as he wasn’t demoted it is likely that he wouldn’t be effective in his former role. The removal of Yevgeny Vindman, Alexander’s twin brother, who hadn’t testified, from his assignment as an attorney with the National Security Counsel seemed unjustifiable. He had served for two decades and had a spotless record – why should he be removed? The question is legitimate – but there’s no way I can pretend to know the answer.

Similarly, the recent pardon of Eddie Gallagher, the Navy Seal who had been convicted of murdering captives also raised questions. Gallagher was convicted in a military court, in conformity with military rules. His colleagues testified he was “freaking evil” and many military chiefs criticized the pardon, saying it overruled legitimate actions taken under Naval law and procedure. Military chiefs (and veterans) can do that – it’s much harder for those who did not serve to claim the ability to know what may have driven Gallagher to do what he did.

The fact that there are so many who fall in to that category (“those who did not serve”) seems to me to be a real problem – since Gallagher might well be “freaking evil”, having a huge portion of the population unable to comment on that possibility is not a good thing. America is becoming increasingly polarized, creating a situation where even more division – between those who wear or wore the uniform and those who did not, could end up being downright dangerous. Yet that is exactly what is happening. As the generations that served up to and through Vietnam pass from the scene there are large numbers of Gen Xer’s and millennials who have never been in uniform. Yet, in today’s world, there are an increasing number of situations where the ability to effectively question and criticize the military is crucial. Having a citizenry where two-thirds (or more) are incapable of realistically doing that is a problem. Not, mind you, a military problem – a citizenship problem.

One way to eliminate that division would be to bring back the draft, or some version of it. Easy for me to say, having grown up without facing such an imposed condition, but the mere fact that we didn’t have required national service in place when we should have doesn’t justify continuing that mistake. You want free college? – one year active and ten years reserve. You want to qualify for a national health care program? Same thing. The military itself may not be thrilled with this – but the Constitution does encourage the creation of a “well trained and regulated militia” – so expanding that possibility may well be a critical part of defending that same Constitution.

I think it’s important to get back to a time where people can, with a straight face and a degree of confidence associated with having actually been there, tell the military they’re full of shit. Where people can (while respecting the institution) still joke about how screwy it can, at times, be. To tell truth to power and inform them that they can take their wild assumptions back to “the same place they got that damn battleship”.


Random Ramblings from the great lock down of 2020 Pt. VII – You know you’re in Ireland when…

For today’s rambling I thought I’d concentrate on a few things close to home. I’ve been in Ireland now for 22 years or thereabouts, and, being from somewhere outside Ireland typically the things you look for and pick up on are those that remind you of where you are from. “That’s not that different from…”, Boston, or the Berkshires or March Madness or the way they make French toast in such and such a restaurant – things that are similar. It’s a natural tendency - to look for and interpret things in a way that makes them familiar.

There is another type of moment that goes in the opposite direction. Those would be the times when you think – well – I know I’m in Ireland now. There are many cultural reminders, of course. When a bus to the city centre goes by it will say “an lár” – Irish gets used for such simple phrases. When you go to the bathroom in a restaurant the signs might read in Irish as well. “Mna” and “Fir”. I tried to figure this out myself the first time. “Mna” I thought – “it has an “M” and an “N” – gotta be the MeNs room – and that is “Fir” – “F” – must be “Female”.

My logic was perfect and irrefutable.

It was refuted.

There have been many other moments when I knew I was definitely in Ireland. Here are a few of them.

1. “Try it sometime”.

I hadn’t been here quite a year when the first of the moments I’ll discuss occurred. There is an Irish institution called “The Late, Late Show” which was hosted for years by a man called Gay Byrne, who was essentially Johnny Carson and Oprah Winfrey mixed together to make the ultimate Irish talk show host. First thing about the Late, Late. It’s not that Late, Late. It’s not even that Late. At 9:30 PM on a Friday night, well before the sun goes down in the summertime, a huge percentage of the nation turns on the telly.

Back in 1999 it was an even higher percentage, and on a January day of that year a politician by the name of Padraig Flynn (commonly known as “Pee Flynn”) proved he was also a contortionist by placing his foot squarely in his mouth on numerous occasions throughout the show. The interview, which covered a number of topics, wasn’t going particularly well for Flynn. Following a question from the audience about the salary he received for his job as an EU Commissioner it became a disaster. At one point in the answer Flynn said this:

“I get give or take, it works out at about with expenses 140,000 a year and I pay 30.3% tax on that, so it’s about a net 100,000 and out of that 100,000 I run a home in Dublin, Castlebar and Brussels. I wanna tell you something, try it sometime…”

As soon as that came out of his mouth I turned to my wife and said – “He’s gonna get some trouble for that…”. Oh yeah – he got some trouble all right. He pissed off about 90% of the viewers that night (and one in particular who went on to testify against Flynn in front of a Tribunal). He also effectively ended his political career. Now – there are plenty of examples of politicians making statements that damage their careers – but the combination of Flynn, Gay Byrne, the Late Late Show, a tribunal and the immediate reaction mark this as a uniquely Irish moment for me.

I wanted to attach a video link from RTE but they seem to have pulled all of the feeds on the grounds of copyright (which makes no sense at all – it’s one of their iconic moments). I did find a second hand video which includes someone clearing their throat as the video plays. It is still interesting to watch Flynn’s career turn to ashes on live TV.


I also managed to get a photo of Flynn taken from a slightly different angle:



2. Cabin Fever
Flynn’s act of self-immolation occurred on the Irish television network RaidiĂł TeilifĂ­s Éireann or “RTE”. RTE is a state sponsored enterprise that also attempts to create revenue through the sale of advertising and programming. One of the most profitable ways of selling programming is to come up with a “concept” for a game or reality show and then sell the rights to that concept to other networks throughout the world. Think “Do You Want To Be A Millionaire” or “Big Brother”. Whoever created those shows made money when they first rolled them out, but really cashed in when the concept was syndicated worldwide.

This was not lost on RTE, which duly set about trying to come up with a reality show concept that would catch on. One of their efforts is particularly apt for the current times. Entitled “Cabin Fever” it involved renting out a tall ship, bringing eleven contestants on board to act as novice “crew members” and have them sail around the Irish coast. Essentially it was “Big Brother” on a boat.

In theory this sounds like a genius idea – it sets up the sort of closed environment that leads to conflicts (which are what reality television lives off), should be easy enough to film and even addresses one of the major problems with the “bunch of people shut up together” genre, which is that the visuals get boringly familiar after a while. On a boat the “studio” is mobile, so you get a changing shoreline each day.

One thing – about that shoreline. On the east coast of Ireland the coast and sea are (relatively) docile. The shore often looks like this:



Low lying sandy beaches, the occasional island and the best dog ever roaming the shore (hi Gork!). Seriously – for the waters of the Irish Sea and English Channel the biggest threats to ships can often be that out in the middle of what appears to be the open sea you can find a shallow sandy bit where you can damn near step out of the boat. Since the boat would never be going too far away from shore that wasn’t a real problem for the Cabin Fever crew.

But the people on RTE didn’t propose sending a bunch of novice crew members out and around just Dublin Bay. No – they wanted them to go around the entire island of Ireland. This includes the west coast of Ireland, where it is not quite as hospitable. Instead – it very often looks like this:




Or this:



Or, near a place called Tory Island, like this:



Beautiful, isn’t it? Those rocks eat ships for dinner.

And so it was that one morning we all woke up to hear that there had been a wee bit of a problem with RTE’s latest reality TV show. It seems that it had run in to a little too much ---- reality.

The “crew” had been helicoptered off after the ship had foundered on rocks off the Tory Island coast. The show was indefinitely cancelled, but it did produce some of the most impressive television you’d ever wish to see. The shots of the vessel splintered into bits of kindling and bobbing around in the waves is hard to forget – but it was soooooooooooooooooooooooo Irish.

After a shortened run using a substitute ship (which itself had engine trouble) Cabin Fever crowned a champion and has never returned to the airwaves (it had problems with all kinds of waves). A report, issued two years later, concluded that letting eleven, tired, inexperienced and stressed out people act as crew for a large sailing ship was probably not a good idea. (Yes – that took two years to figure out).

By the way – RTE actually has produced a TV show which I think is worthy of copying for format and syndication. It’s called “Reeling in the Years” and it chronicles the highlights of a given year through news clips with minimal narration. Here’s one for 2003 – watch for the segment beginning at around the 17:45 mark.



3. We All Dream...
The next memory doesn’t have any YouTube video that I am aware of – but there is video, and if any of the people involved ever run for higher office I am sure that it will surface. It concerns events taking place on that west coast of Ireland in a County Clare town with the innocent enough sounding name of “Doolin”. Doolin is near both the Burren and Cliffs of Moher, and is a beauty spot in and of itself. A picturesque village with some great little pubs, it is a favourite destination for tourists – I’d recommend it highly.

It so happens that a large group of gentlemen (some might say a “group of large gentlemen” but there is no room for cynicism here), from my neighbourhood rented a bus and went to Doolin for a quiet weekend of enjoyment in October of 2009. We traveled down on a Friday, going from Dublin to Doolin, a trip that can take up to three and a half hours. However, utilizing advance planning and carefully structured stoppages we managed to make it there in seven hours. Look – we only stopped if it was absolutely necessary and it would’ve been just rude not to raise a glass with the locals.

After spending a cracking evening in the lovely confines of Doolin (it really is a great town),




which included food, drink, music, laughter and fireworks (the nature and origin of which will not be expounded upon), we prepared to do it all again on Saturday night. There would be a major event to attend however – the Republic of Ireland were taking on Italy in a World Cup qualifier.

Having taken on suitable ballast we established ourselves at a table in front of the television and ended up watching one of the better matches that any Irish squad has ever played. Ireland jumped out to an early 1-0 lead and while Italy pulled one back midway through the opening half – it was clear Ireland were on their game. As the crowd of (mainly American) tourists filtered in to the pub and took up places behind us, someone, potentially my next-door neighbor Tony, began a chant.

Now, let me tell you about Gary Breen. Breen was a relatively obscure Irish international player (who did not feature in the team on this night). His career high was scoring a goal in the 2002 World Cup against Saudi Arabia. His greatest claim to fame however was the fact that his name rhymed nicely with one of Ringo Starr’s peak vocal moments with the Beatles. The only other way this might have happened is if Ireland had fielded a player named “Rocktapusses Pardon” so yes, I am speaking of “Yellow Submarine”. Within seconds of the chant starting our entire table was in a full-throated chorus of:

“We all dream of a team of Gary Breens,
a team of Gary Breens,
a team of Gary Breens”

(Repeat)

(Infinitely)

Actually, there are some other verses. For example:

And Number 1
(is Gary Breen)
And Number 2
(is Gary Breen)
And number 3
(Is Gary Breen)
And Number 4
IS GARY BREEN – AH-HA!

(Repeat Chorus).

The beauty of this song is that it will work with any “een”. You could dream of a team of:

Mr. Beans

Drag Club Queens

Ruptured Spleens

David Leans

Martin Sheens

Charlie…

(OK – there are some limits).

We sang our way through the game, loudly proclaiming our dreams for a player who wasn’t on the squad – and then – unbelievably Ireland broke through to pull ahead 2-1 in the 87th minute. The happy ending we had all been screaming for was in our grasp. Alas – this is Irish soccer – Italy scored in the 90th minute to salvage a draw and leave the glass half full. Still – it was a beautiful, quintessentially Irish moment.

The funniest thing may have happened when, in the midst of our rapturous singing, I looked around the pub. There, in the back, were a phalanx of American tourists, dutifully recording the sight of a table full of eejits murdering a Lennon McCartney tune. Somewhere, no doubt, our visages pop up when visitors are subjected to viewing the video of “our trip to Ireland” following a Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner.

Here’s to the coming days when we get back in the pubs and sing Mr. Breen's (or Mr. Bean's) praises.


Random Ramblings from the Great Lockdown of 2020 Part VIII – Up the Creek. -

We’re all sitting at home, working, getting up, moving around the house. Noticing that a picture we’ve passed a thousand times is a little crooked. Straighten it. Ask the wife – “what’re we doing for dinner”. Receive a non-committal answer. Pick up the candleholder on the mantlepiece. Examine it as if it were a piece of fine art. Put it back. Wander back to the desk. Do a bit more work. Back to another picture. Straighten that one too. Ask about dinner again. Slightly more strained but equally non-committal answer. Back to the desk. A bit more work. Pick up the Argos catalogue. Randomly open to any page. Lawn furniture. Look at the lawn furniture. Glance towards the wife. Return glance informs you that a question about dinner is not advisable at the moment.

So you grab a book from the nearest shelf. For me the latest I picked up was “The Seinfeld Scripts” which is a review of the scripts from the first two seasons of the show. There are classics in there, which include the introduction to Vandelay Industries, “five, ten minutes”, “Bob Saccomanno” – all the basics. However - there are complications to be considered.

The problem with reading Seinfeld scripts is that you begin to think in “Seinfeldian” terms. You start to question things as if you were in the show. Like – “Why do they say we are in lock DOWN but then say we are all locked UP? Are we DOWN or are we UP? Who decides these UP/DOWN things? Is there a committee?”




To give you a further example – I began wondering yesterday how we ever got the expression “Up shit creek” – or, as it is more often stated “Up SHIT’s creek”, as if there is some ownership of a Mr. Shit implied. I decided to stop fighting it and simply give you the ramble today as an excerpt from a purely imaginary Seinfeld script (apologies to Larry David).

Just play the link each time it appears.


OPEN – Int. Nightclub

JERRY: Some of these sayings – I just don’t get them. “Up shit creek” – or is it “Up shit’s creek”? What kind of mind thinks of these things? The mental image I get is just too disturbing. Isn’t it enough to say “We’re in a bad place?” Doesn’t that get the message across adequately?
And the whole “without a paddle” bit. I mean – if you’re up shit’s creek, do you REALLY want a paddle? Would having a paddle make your journey that much more enjoyable? Allow you to extend your trip along this current of excrement? “Don’t worry honey, I found the paddle – we can easily cruise a few miles down-stream now. Just sit back and enjoy…”.

My feeling – and perhaps this is just me – if you’re “up shit creek” – get to shore any way you can and get out of the canoe. Do not look for paddles, maybe hip waders. And a clothespin.


ACT ONE – SCENE ONE – Int. Boardroom. George is at the table with a number of co-workers. Boss, at the head of the table, speaks first:

BOSS: So, if these trends continue, this market will dry up completely. Any business that puts too many resources in to this sector will pay dearly for being over-extended. I’m afraid they’d find themselves up shit creek.

Cut to:
GEORGE: (nodding) Oh, yes, yessir…

Pan to MORRIS, who is also nodding, and who interjects:

MORRIS: And “without a paddle!”

BOSS: - Exactly Morris – exactly…

Pan to GEORGE who is scowling with frustration…

ACT ONE – SCENE TWO

Int. Coffee Shop – evening, GEORGE, KRAMER facing JERRY and ELAINE

GEORGE: …and then Morris says “and without a paddle” and he reacts like he just said something…

JERRY: “Cliched?”

GEORGE: No – like it was good - smart, original… help me out here…

KRAMER: Pithy?

GEORGE: YES! Pithy – like it was a very pithy saying…

ELAINE: I think that may be the opposite of “pithy”.

KRAMER: Well – I think maybe he was going for pithiness.

GEORGE: I can be pithy. I have pith.

KRAMER: You’re full of pith.

ELAINE: (muttering) Full of something.

JERRY: If you must say something at least be original…pithy but original.

GEORGE: I will be the master of pith. The Pithmaster. He will say something and I will follow with a pithy add on.

KRAMER: A piece of pith.

(All stare at him)


ACT TWO – SCENE ONE - Int. Boardroom. George is at the table with a number of co-workers. Boss, at the head of the table, again speaks first:

BOSS: …So the nerve of these guys. Bringing this proposal to the table. What do they expect us to do – just sit there and take it? Do they really think we’re going to happily eat their shit sandwich?

Cut to GEORGE hanging on every word, waiting to jump in…

GEORGE: And without even ANY mustard on it…

Awkward silence. BOSS stares at George.

BOSS: Why would I want mustard on a shit sandwich?

GEORGE: (Nervous and flummoxed) It’s a metaphor – a pithy metaphor…

BOSS: A metaphor for what?

GEORGE: Pithy – it’s metaphorically full of pith.

MORRIS: It’s full of something…

(General laughter – and cut)


Int. Coffee Shop – evening, JERRY and GEORGE

JERRY: So, how’d the meeting go?

GEORGE (downcast): Not well.

JERRY: Pithiness didn’t work?

GEORGE: You could say that.

WAITRESS approaches table:

WAITRESS (to JERRY): Soup and sandwich special?

JERRY: Sure.

WAITRESS (to GEORGE): Same for you?

GEORGE: Thanks - I’ll just have the soup…


(Explainer: A “boardroom” is a place in an “office” which is where people once went to work. A “coffee shop” is a type of restaurant where people would go to be served in person by a “waitress”.)

Enough of reading Seinfeld scripts. It makes interactions difficult unless you are talking to someone from New York. I’ve taken to reading a novel by Hemingway. The paper is crisp. The book is light in my hand. The words are good. Clean words. Words that talk honestly. I look at the page. “These are true words”, I say.



Random Ramblings from the great Lock Down of 2020 - The We're In Report.

Yesterday the book I picked up off the shelf was a collection of Seinfeld scripts. Today I grabbed a copy of the original mass-published Warren Report. This was something that most households had in the 1960's and is among the most reviewed reports in history. If you wonder why there is so much skepticism concerning government proclamations (often with good cause) these days - well, much of it stems from the reception given this report.


To tell you the truth - that probably is a bit of a bad rap. While the Warren Commission's work was often sloppy their conclusions have actually stood the test of time quite well. One of the main reasons it was seen as shaky was because government agencies like the FBI and the CIA either flat out lied to the Commission or failed on numerous occasions to reveal important information. (For example - the FBI had one of its agents destroy a threatening letter that Oswald left at Dallas headquarters days before the assassination. This was likely because they would have been embarrassed to disclose that the President's assassin was in their offices committing a crime and was just allowed to walk away. Critics, of course, see it as more sinister. The CIA observed Oswald in Mexico City in the weeks before the assassination and did not disclose all the information they gathered. Again - probably done to avoid appearing incompetent but ending up casting doubt on what they were up to).

In the case of both of these agencies their poor management undercut attempts to investigate the assassination in a full and complete manner. It also cushioned both from what would have been a cry for them to cooperate more fully. The FBI and CIA have traditionally fought turf battles against each other - and if it had come out in 1964 that their failure to communicate had allowed a Presidential assassin to commit the worst crime of the century under their noses - well it might just have led to them being told to stop acting like spoiled children and share. Instead, it was another failure to communicate, in 2001, that finally forced through reforms that made the two groups do what they logically should have been doing all along. If you need further convincing of how petty the rivalry was between the groups - read a book called "The Looming Tower" about how the 9-11 plotters got away with it, and you will see exactly how this ridiculous feud endangered American lives for decades after the Kennedy assassination.

But that's not what today's Ramble concerns - or at least not fully. In looking at the Warren Report I reconsidered what I believe to be the 5 most likely things to turn up even all these years after the events in Dallas. Just a little thought experiment for the times that we are able to spend a bit more time thinking:

TOP FIVE THINGS THAT MAY YET BE FOUND IN CONNECTION WITH THE JFK ASSASSINATION

• 5. Documentary Evidence of the CIA's or FBI's recruitment of Lee Harvey Oswald -
Please note - this does not mean his recruitment as an assassin. I am referring here to his recruitment as an informant. The one area that I think has some traction when it comes to conspiracy theorist's arguments is, to me, the question of why so little attention was paid to Lee Harvey Oswald by either the CIA or the FBI prior to the assassination. There appear to me to be two answers to this question. The first is that there is nothing unusual surrounding the level of attention Oswald was given. That explanation is entirely possible. The other is that there was a great deal of attention given to Oswald, but neither the CIA or FBI wanted anyone to know about this because it would be highly embarrassing. This also, to me, seems quite possible. Given that the FBI admits having destroyed Oswald related material immediately following the assassination, and the CIA admits having followed Oswald in Mexico City, you cannot discount the possibility that someday a folder will turn up showing that one or both of these organizations were very much interested in recruiting LHO to their own uses. I do not believe, as some argue, that one of these uses was the shooting of the President. I do believe however, that even if the use was the typical "low-level informant" request - the fact that you thought having the President's future assassin on your payroll was a moderately good idea was not something any government agency would be thrilled to have come out.

• 4. Fragments of Bullets from Dealey Plaza -
The absolute holy grail of assassination artifacts would be a sizeable chunk of "the shot that missed" - believe me - there is no such chunk. However - lead does not rust or corrode in any appreciable way. It is rather like gold in that way. It is also like gold in that it is a heavy metal which tends to collect, over time, in the lowest part of sedimentary deposits. It is remotely (and I stress "remotely") possible that small bullet fragments in or around Dealey Plaza may have accumulated in such a way. The way to determine this would be to find a place in the area, where rainwater would pool, and pan for lead in the same way that miner's panned for gold. If you were to find small flecks of lead it could be a bit of the missing bullet. It could also be a bit of a fishing weight - but in your favor there is only one known recorded instance of fragmented lead being deposited in or around Dealey Plaza - and that happened on November 22nd, 1963.

• 3. Blood or tissue from JFK -
This is an extremely morbid topic, and one generally avoided, but it needs to be noted that in past assassinations the retention of bloody scraps of material or other medical artifacts did take place. The most notable of these revolves around the Lincoln assassination, which has had several recent revelations of bits of the bloody sheets on which Lincoln rested following his shooting in Ford's Theater turning up in family archives. Typically this is accompanied by a note along the lines of "Dear Sister - Enclosed please find a memento of our martyred President taken from his deathbed where I was stationed as a soldier - please keep it secret and tell only those in our family that we have it as a treasured keepsake of his memory, blah, blah, blah." Whether you view such actions as true reverence for a martyr or sick opportunism - that's up to you. But do not be surprised, given the number of people in contact with President Kennedy post assassination and the amount of blood and trauma associated with his wounds, if similar items appear in the future in connection with his killing.

• 2. A bullet from Oswald's Rifle -
LHO is believed to have fired his weapon on many more occasions than the two assassination attempts on Edwin Walker and President Kennedy. Oswald had become obsessed with firing the weapon in the weeks prior to the assassination, practicing constantly. There are several areas, (vacant lots in 1963), where Oswald would shoot. Since bullets typically survive long periods of time in the ground or embedded in trees (Civil War bullets turn up all the time) it is quite conceivable that someone, digging randomly, will find an old bullet or casing in the ground someday in these areas. While it may be impossible to match the artifact exactly - these are undoubtedly out there.

• 1. A Photograph or Image of Lee Harvey Oswald During the Time between the Assassination and the Tippit Shooting. -
This, I think, is the most likely as well as the most significant item that may turn up in an archive related to the assassination. There were numerous people taking photos in and around Dealey Plaza (and Dallas) during the period immediately after the assassination, yet somehow no one seems to have got a shot of Oswald even though he was out the door of the TSBD, on and off a bus, flagging down a cab and walking the streets for much of the time before J.D. Tippit was shot. This time period is highly controversial - and there may be someone out there who is holding on to a picture of a seemingly innocuous crowd shot which includes an image of Oswald. Most people have focused on shots of the plaza during the few seconds immediately before and after the shooting (for obvious reasons) but that snapshot from a few minutes later may actually be more important. Some investigator may yet turn this up.


Random Ramblings from the Great Lock Down of 2020 – Pt. IX – Getting In –

As we obsess daily about how soon we will be able to get out, today’s ramble will be about getting in – specifically about getting in without a ticket or invitation. Yesterday I rambled a bit about the Kennedy assassination (the one in Dallas). As part of the “research” I watched a documentary called “The Kennedy Assassination – Breaking the News” which was a review of the TV coverage that took place over the 72 hours immediately following the assassination. This included the initial reports, the coverage of the flight back to Washington, the hunt for the assassin, the arrest of Oswald – right up through the funeral on the Monday after the shooting.

Included in this was the coverage that came from Dallas police headquarters. It was amazing how many reporters got their start covering the events of that weekend. Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Bob Schieffer, Jim Lehrer and Robert MacNeil all appeared in front of the cameras that were allowed to freely patrol the halls of the police central office. Everyone was permitted to crowd around Oswald whenever he was moved about the building, the murder weapon was paraded down the hall and Schieffer even managed to commandeer an office where he entrenched himself with Oswald’s mother for the better part of an evening. He was nearly allowed in the room when Oswald was brought down to see his mother, only being turned away when an FBI agent finally thought to ask “Hey, who are you”?

One of the events that the Dallas police threw during this period was a “press conference” in which they brought Oswald down for a meet and greet with a room full of reporters. First of all – that this even happened is beyond amazing – imagine if a few hours after capturing him the Boston police had brought the marathon bomber down for a chat with the world’s press. “Excuse me, is that spelled “Joker”?

So yes, the mere existence of an event like this pretty much blows the mind. It gets worse. Amongst the reporters assembled to view and question Oswald was a non-reporter who had walked into the room with no problem, mainly because he was always dropping by headquarters with donuts or sandwiches. As the owner of a strip club Jack Ruby needed to stay on the good side of the cops, so he had very little trouble crashing the party. The next day Ruby would manage to wander into another police event, with a bit more impact.

Believe it or not Ruby being at the press conference may not have been the most improbable person there. For years, John Peel, one of the BBC’s most influential disc jockey’s, had told the story of how, during a time that he had been in the U.S. on a working visa as an office boy for an insurance company he had grabbed a friend, sauntered down to Dallas police headquarters and simply walked in to the Oswald press conference. Peel, who broke any number of new music acts from the 60’s on, was never much of a drug user, but his listeners must’ve put this down to some sort of hallucinatory flashback. “Sure John – when you were an office boy in Texas you walked in to the centre of Dallas’ law enforcement community to hang out with the accused assassin of the most powerful man in the world. Absolutely - that happened”.

Turns out – it did.

Peel had said to a cop that he was with the “Liverpool Echo” and his friend was a photographer (despite not having a notepad, let alone a camera, between them). The cop waved them through. Peel had told the story so often that even he had got to the point where he wasn’t sure it ever happened – until he watched a film on BBC TV which included footage of the press conference – at the end of the clip – there he was. Here’s a video of him describing the whole thing.


I admire Peel using the whole “member of the working press” thing – and I also admire the chutzpah he exhibited in deciding he was going to get in to that press conference. Truth is – I have used this same ploy on several occasions – and have since found that such a scam has a proud Irish history.

Even before I knew about Peel’s ploy (alliteration) I had pulled the same prank (more alliteration). When I was a junior in college I spent a little over a semester as a Senate intern in Washington D.C. One of the issues I worked on was the passage of the Martin Luther King Holiday bill. It was a pretty interesting job as the crazies came out of everywhere to oppose the Act, sending all kinds of wacky letters to the office and Jesse Helms, a patron saint of the whack jobs, led the assault against the bill. I helped coordinate the responses and worked with the other sponsors offices (including a range of Senators from Ted Kennedy to Bob Dole) to coordinate the floor actions. Eventually the bill came up for a vote – and I really wanted to see that go down. However, once I got to the gallery I realized that there was no chance I was going to get in there – the line was down the hall and out of sight. When I looked up into the press gallery – there were a few spots there – but, of course, you had to be with the press.

Lightbulb.

Rushing back to the office I grabbed one of the standard gallery passes and typed on it “Michael Shea to Press Gallery – Temporary Press Pass – Hilltown Country Journal”. I figured I’d take a shot.



To my continuing astonishment – it worked. I approached the guard outside the Press Gallery and casually asked “What time will the actual vote start”. He answered it was about 20 minutes away, I pulled the pass out and – for whatever reason - he just waved me through. I’d love to say I somehow dazzled him with some impossible to resist story – but the truth was he was more than happy to wave anyone through if they just seemed like they belonged there. Here’s a little secret – that’s often the case.

I watched the vote from the press gallery – and afterwards got to go to the press conference and the press reception, meet Kennedy, Dole, Jesse Jackson, Coretta King, Stevie Wonder, Harry Belafonte – it was quite the day.

I kept the “press pass” (picture attached) and even included the episode in my end of term paper (got an “A”). I also learned a valuable lesson – sometimes they key to getting in somewhere is to pretend that you’re SUPPOSED to be there.

I have used this concept on several occasions – in 1999 I had a ticket to the All-Ireland football semi-final, but the seats weren’t great. So, using only my American accent I managed to convince the stewards that I was there on a freelance assignment to explain Gaelic sports to the American masses. He escorted me to the press section of Croke Park and I watched the game from there. 

A couple of weeks later the All-Ireland hurling final was scheduled and I wondered if I’d be able to pull the same scam without even having a ticket. I walked up to the press entrance and gave the same spiel to the guy at the gate. He seemed skeptical until I spotted the guy who had been at the inside gate the week before. I waved to him and he wandered over. “What’s the craic”? he said.



“Back again for the next part of the story”.

The guy who I was originally talking to looked confused until the second steward gave him a nod.
“He’s OK”.

And I was – I went back to what I now considered “my” seat in the press section (they were good seats for viewing but a bit basic for all the amenities) and proceeded to watch Cork edge Kilkenny by a point.




There is actually a long and proud history in Ireland of insinuating one’s self into sporting events. It’s even got a name – “blagging”. There was a recent case where two Irish lads travelled to America without tickets to the Super Bowl on the hope of managing to pick up a last minute pair of tickets. Having had no luck they were hanging outside the stadium when a group of first aid workers began to make their way inside. Seeing no reason why they should not volunteer their services as a first responder, they fell into line and marched straight in. Long story short, they ended up in seats with a total value of $50,000, sitting next to ex-Patriot all-pro Lawyer Milloy and getting their picture taken with the Patriots mascot. There’s an article about the whole thing here:


Granted, they were Seattle Seahawk fans so the Patriots happily ripped their hearts out at the end of the game, so in the end we were all happy.


You might think this was the high-water mark of Irish “blagging” but really it’s not even close. We’ll get to that a bit later. I recently had occasion to use blagging tactics at the MLB London game between the Red Sox and Yankees. I had a ticket for this one and had been in London for work at the end of the week. I threw a change of clothes into my computer bag and, on my way in through security they checked it carefully and then put a green security band through the handles. All this really meant was that I was cleared to bring my bag in to the stadium and carry it to my distinctly non-VIP seat. While walking through the stadium I noticed that the people gaining access to the VIP sections all had similar green security bands, just that they wore them around their wrists.

Figuring that the average guard wouldn’t distinguish between the wristband and the bag-band I just held my bag up and acted like I belonged in the VIP section. Worked again. Free food, free drink, free program, free radio link with headphones, free souvenir baseball – the only way to get free things in the UK seems to be to have a lot of money. Wandering around the corporate section I ran into a meet and greet with one of my favorite old Red Sox, Reggie Smith and one of my least favorite Yankees, Bucky Dent. Turning to a Sox fan I said I’d get Reggie’s signature, but couldn’t be bothered with Bucky. “Definitely, not unless he signs his full name” was the reply. (Sox fans will understand).

A few pictures are attached. By the way – it won’t be the Sox and Yanks the next time teams play in London. Kansas City may be out of luck.




It could be the Reds, Cardinals, Astros, Mariners - or any other team that next represents MLB in London, but if this picture is any indication - it won't be the Royals...

My personal favorite bit of blagging in the last year or so was at a sort of “Night With” meeting in Dublin. The “With” guy was Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, one half of the famed reporting team of Woodward and Bernstein who helped break the Watergate scandal. About half way through the night a surprise guest was brought out – Carl Bernstein was in town so they put the old team back together. It was a fascinating night and towards the end they announced that “those who had been invited to the reception should go to the Oak Room” or something like that. Now, I hadn’t been invited (I’m sure it was lost in the mail), but once again they seemed to be relying on the wristband method of security. I’d gone to the hospital to give blood earlier in the day – and I still had the band on my wrist that they give you when you check in.

So I gave it a shot. Going in with a group of about five I lifted my wrist up to show my band with a sort of disdain, an air of “of course I have a wristband – do I even have to go through this charade”.

It worked.

I got to hang out and have a drink with Woodward and Bernstein, and since I had brought a copy of “All the President’s Men” with me in case Woodward was signing I managed to come out of there with a fully autographed copy of that iconic work. Blagged my way into that.




So what is the greatest Irish example of blagging? It has to be the events carried out by a couple of kids ages 10 and 13 who left their home one evening in the Northside of Dublin, telling their mothers that they’d be home soon because dinner wasn’t that far away. They then proceeded to hop a commuter train to Dun Laoghaire, which, for you Americans is like hopping the gate in Queens and taking the subway down to the Battery.

Fair enough – that’s a bit cheeky for a barely teen and pre-teen but probably not uncommon. But they were just starting. Once in Dun Laoghaire they maneuvered their way on to the ferry boat from Ireland to the United Kingdom - Holyhead in Wales to be exact. International travel – that’s the big leagues there, but that only charged their batteries. Making their way to the train station the pair hopped on a train to London, specifically Heathrow Airport, international terminal. Spotting an Air India flight to New York they somehow convinced the attendant at the gate that their parents were to follow with the tickets. On they were waved, and they quietly ensconced themselves in seats on the transatlantic flight. The plane takes off, they watch the film, enjoy a meal and land in New York. They ventured out in to the terminal and determined to head in to the Big Apple. In one of New York’s finests finest hours an NYPD patrolman finally nabbed them when they asked for directions “in to town”. Probably was a bit suspicious when he heard something like “Hey meester, kin yiz tell us hows ta get innatown?”

Kept overnight in a five-star hotel and fed like kings they were sent back to Ireland the next day, holders of the all-time blagging championship. A movie is supposedly in the works. You can read all about it here: Absolutely legendary.


I’m convinced that 90% of the battle when pulling this off is to convince yourself that you belong there. Not the guy at the gate – you have to persuade YOURSELF that you should get in. I really would have been upset if someone at the door had stopped me at the Woodward/Bernstein reception “Whattya mean stop? I’ve got a wristband – I got yer wristband right here buddy. Wore the thing all day – so what it’s from a hospital – hospitals are important. I’m goin’ in".

Ah, the places we’ll go when we get out.


Random Ramblings from the great lockdown of 2020 – Part X – Jeopardy

In keeping with the Seinfeld script I find myself watching old SNL clips from time to time – and you start to think you could write one of those sketches yourself. The concepts get used again and again and some work better than others – the Jeopardy vignettes are pretty funny…

Screen begins to fade into a transition…

JEOPARDY – INEFFECTIVE LEADERS EDITION.

WE OPEN ON THE SET OF THE GAME SHOW JEOPARDY WITH HOST ALEX TREBEK PORTRAYED BY GUEST HOST STEVE MARTIN.  THE CONTESTANTS ARE ALSO FORMER GUEST HOSTS – ALEC BALDWIN AS DONALD TRUMP, JOHN CLEESE AS CALIGULA AND MICHAEL PALIN AS NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN – HEY – WE’RE PUTTIN’ THE BAND BACK TOGETHER…

ALEX TREBEK - Welcome to Jeopardy – today we have a group of contestants that were, at one time or another, leaders of their countries or empires. They have asked us not to tell you the reason for their selection (ONSCREEN FLASHING - “CUZ THEY SUCKED” APPEARS) but suffice to say we’re absolutely thrilled to have them here.

Contestant Number 1 hails from the United Kingdom where he acted as Prime Minister for a period during the 1930’s – ladies and gentlemen big round of applause for Neville Chamberlain!

CROWD BEGINS APPLAUSE – IT IS CUT OFF BY ANOTHER CONTESTANT…

TRUMP - Why is he Contestant Number 1? – I should be Number 1 – Everyone knows I’m number 1. Let me be Number 1.

ALEX - Sorry sir, we were told that you were Number 2. We can only move you if Mr. Chamberlain agrees…

TRUMP GLARES AT CHAMBERLAIN

CHAMBERLAIN - Oh – ah certainly – I don’t see any problem with that if it will keep the peace.

TRUMP SHOVES CHAMBERLAIN ASIDE

ALEX - Now contestant Number 1 – 46th President of the United States – Donald J. Trump.

MEAGER APPLAUSE - SOME BOOS.

TRUMP - Thank you for what is obviously the greatest ovation ever received on this show.

I don’t know how anyone could have thought I was Number 2.

ALEX - Actually, we’ve been told by a number of sources that you are Number 2.

TRUMP - Fake news – haters and baiters.

ALEX (A BIT EXASPERATED) - Perhaps it was Number 2 in another context…

On to contestant Number 3, a former Roman emperor – please welcome Caligula!

MILD APPLAUSE, CALIGULA, EATING A GRAPE, LOOKS MILDLY AMUSED

ALEX - And now to play Jeopardy – the categories are:

Shakespeare’s Kings

Food and Drink

Abbreviations

Potent Potables

Drugs Part I - and

Successors

As our returning champion the board belongs to you Caligula.

CALIGULA - Grazie – I’ll go with Drugs Party.

ALEX – I’m sorry?

CALIGULA – Next to last category – Drugs Party.

ALEX – That’s “Drugs Part One”…

CALIGULA – Never mind then - Abbreviations for 100.

ALEX - Here we go – The full name of where the King’s English is used – the BBC.

Donald Trump, you’re the first to buzz in -

TRUMP - What is the Bogus Broadcasting Company.

ALEX - Sorry – not quite right.

TRUNP - Bad British Crapsellers.

ALEX - Only one question per answer Mr. Trump.

TRUMP: SCOWLS AND MUTTERS – Same as the Corrupt News Network…

ALEX - Mr. Chamberlain?

CHAMBERLAIN - What is the British Broadcast Corporation?

ALEX - Correct – Your board Mr. Chamberlain

CHAMBERLAIN - Shakespeare’s Kings for 100 please.

ALEX - Certainly – This king is noted for the concealed sexual tension with his daughters who end up the death of him (TRUMP BUZZES IN)

Mr. Trump?

TRUMP - What is making me exceptionally uncomfortable right now?

ALEX - Probably true Mr. Trump but not what we’re looking for at the moment. Mr. Chamberlain.

CHAMBERLAIN - Who is King Lear?

ALEX - Correct again Mr. Chamberlain. Your board.

CALIGULA (INTERRUPTING) - I want Chamberlain’s points.

ALEX - Caligula – now you know you didn’t answer – those points are Mr. Chamberlain’s.

CALIGULA - I want them or I’ll start a fight.

ALEX - I’m sorry…

CHAMBERLAIN INTERUPTS

CHAMBERLAIN - If it’ll avoid a fight…

ALEX - Ah – this is unprecedented but if you insist on appeasing Caligula…

CHAMBERLAIN - I think it’ll calm everyone down.

ALEX - (QUESTIONINGLY) - Ummmm – Okay. Your board.

CHAMBERLAIN - Food and drink for 100

ALEX - The answer is – A substance that became a great source of calcium for humans because of a genetic mutation. (CALIGULA BUZZES IN)

CALIGULA - What are the bones of my enemies crushed into a powder.

ALEX - No Caligula – sorry. (TRUMP BUZZES IN)

TRUMP - What are Trump steaks.

ALEX - Sorry Mr. Trump. Mr. Chamberlain.

CHAMBERLAIN - What is milk?

ALEX - Correct – Your board.

TRUMP - That’s what I said.

ALEX - I’m sorry – I’m certain you said “Trump steaks”.

TRUMP - You misheard me.

ALEX - We have a tape.

TRUMP - It’s a metaphor for milk – everybody says it.

ALEX (INCREDULOUS) - Who says it?

TRUMP - Lots of people are saying it – a metaphor.

ALEX - I’m afraid not – Mr. Chamberlain – your board.

TRUMP - I want his points too – or I’ll have to retaliate. Tremendous retaliation.

ALEX - You can’t… (LOOKS TO CHAMBERLAIN WHO IS NODDING AND POINTING TO TRUMP)– are you giving your points to him as well Mr. Chamberlain?

CHAMBERLAIN - SHRUGGING – I believe it will lead to peace in our time.

ALEX, SHAKING HIS HEAD – Your board.

CHAMBERLAIN - Successors for 100

ALEX - The answer is – He succeeded Donald Trump following the election of 2020 – oh my this seems to have been placed here prematurely…

AUDIENCE SHOUTS EN MASSE: JOE BIDEN!

TRUMP - Hey – doesn’t it have to be in the form of a question?

AUDIENCE SHOUTS EN MASSE: NO QUESTION ABOUT IT!

And so on…

Maybe someday I’ll submit it to Lorne Michaels. In the mean time life goes on – a few pictures taken today of wood pigeon that landed next to our window – snapped the picture just as the little girl in the house behind ours was swinging so it looks like she threw a saddle on a giant bird. Then a close up of one of the visitors to our feeder – and a hedgehog Margaret spotted on our walk tonight. You notice these things more these days…









Monday, 2 March 2020

CORONA (NO LIME)


It seems unquestionable that when China gets a cold, the market sneezes.  When the world gets China’s cold - the market seizes.  As the various exchanges register “Shock and Aaaaaaargh!” at the potential impacts of the Corona virus there is a distinct chance that this will expose the fragility of the Trump economy.  The economic boom so frequently touted by the President is something I’ve long said was built on toothpicks, that it might very well disintegrate if any small thing falls out of place – and a microscopic virus seems to be proving that point. It’s also illuminating something perhaps a bit more surprising – there are many more things in common between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders than the conventional wisdom would hold to be the case.   

On what do I base these assertions?  First, let’s take four basic assumptions as starting points – if you want to challenge me on those feel free but I’m pretty confident they are correct and that the only real debate surrounds their impact, not their existence:

1.       Trump inherited a strong, improving economy from Barack Obama.

2.       The tax cuts passed in Trump’s first year assisted in heating that economy up, creating at least a mini-boom.

3.       The administration has evidenced little to no concern with the growth in the federal deficit; and,

4.       The administration has aggressively sought to counter the typical impacts associated with tariffs.

Now – let’s take those points in turn. 

Trump Inherited a Strong Economy

Barack Obama’s style infuriated conservatives but, perhaps more impactfully over the past two presidential election cycles, it frustrated and disappointed liberals, particularly those farther left.  Obama was far too measured for their taste – liberals were expecting a figure whose every speech would evoke the Gettysburg Address and every bill would be a new Voting Rights Act.  Instead Obama, while certainly capable of rising to the occasion when required (witness his speech following the murders of worshippers in South Carolina) was perhaps best described as “plodding but effective”.  (Warning:  Here come the sports analogies). They wanted Jim Brown but got Larry Csonka.  They wanted Ted Williams but got Stan Musial.  They wanted Michael Jordan but got John Havlicek.  (Further Warning – Irish sporting analogy ahead) They wanted Rory McIlroy but got Padraig Harrington. 

Enough.

The point is – all of those alternatives are great in their own way – they’re just not “the greatest ever” and aren’t all that flashy.  Obama’s probably going to end up being ranked somewhere in that category of Presidents.  Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of the economy.  The one thing no politician ever gets credit (or blame) for are the “things that don’t happen”.  If Herbert Hoover had prevented the Great Depression – would anyone have even known?  If James Buchanan had quietly sat both sides down and stopped the Civil War from happening – I’m certain people would not revile him as much as they do now but I’m equally sure that, because the Civil War would not have happened, no one would realize the danger of the bullet that had been dodged.

To me – when it comes to measuring the Obama performance – it’s a bit like asking “how sharp are the shark’s teeth that did not bite you”?  When Obama was coming in to office the economy was in something resembling free fall.  Lehman Brothers had failed, the banking system was hanging by a thread, the remnants of the auto industry were about to collapse without access to cash (which is tough to get with no banks), pensions had been wiped out, the world economy was teetering.  It was bad – really bad. 

But the fact that we are sitting here today tells you that while the economy may have been on a cliff’s edge in 2009 – it never fell off.  The fact that this didn’t happen is perhaps Obama’s greatest triumph.  He did what Hoover and Buchanan did not. We’ll never know how sharp the teeth were that did not bite.

How this happened is one of the better stories of the last fifty or so years. In large part it goes like this - having taken an active part in the transition between administrations (a stark contrast to the actions of Trump as detailed in Michael Lewis’s “The Fifth Risk”), Obama was able to effectively lobby for the passage of an economic stimulus plan.  More impressively, once in office the administration of those funds was accomplished in a way that managed to maximise their effectiveness.  Rather than financing a number of politically attractive huge projects (in a manner similar to that done during the New Deal) a more careful, deliberate course was followed.  No enormous dams, federal office complexes or national monuments (all of which could be named after prominent politicians) were built – instead the money was carefully apportioned to managed projects involving strategic investments – and ended up being historically free of waste and corruption.  The entire endeavour is described in Michael Grunwald’s book “The New New Deal”, which makes a strong case in favor of the methods used to apportion the funds.

But whether you accept the effectiveness of the incentive plan or not one thing was certain – it was not designed to bring about immediate or even “brisk” recovery.  Instead the approach was based upon gradualism – a slow, sometimes barely discernible return to prosperity.  This proved infuriating to conservatives, who decried the pace (or even the reality) of the recovery.  But more telling for the current election cycle this was even more frustrating for the left wing of the Democratic party, which had thought the incentive program offered an opportunity to funnel funds to traditional government backed programs – not a stimulus package for the private sector. The fact that this was not the approach taken led to discontent on the left – perhaps most graphically represented by the fact that throughout 2011 one Bernie Sanders was spending significant amounts of his time in New Hampshire, preparing for a primary challenge to Obama. Donald Trump was contemplating a similar run - when he wasn't trying to prove Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Obama did have one factor acting to his advantage – the strategy was working.  While the economy could, at any one given time, be described as “lethargic” it was, over the span of years, clearly improving.  In the 2012 election Obama’s Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, vowed to achieve 6% unemployment if elected.  This was deemed an outrageous figure, pie in the sky stuff. Obama simply vowed to stay the course – keep the same strategy and continue the slow growth.  Hardly the stuff of legend.  Nonetheless, by 2016, after winning that 2012 election – the unemployment rate under Obama was not at Romney's promised 6% level - it was, in fact, around 4%.  Clearly whoever inherited the economy following the 2016 contest would be walking in to a solid, well performing, growth-based situation. That someone turned out to be Donald Trump.

Superheating the System

Let’s start this next section with a question. If you were to be given a credit card with a million dollar credit limit – are you then a millionaire?  I know most would say “no” – but why not?  If you see something with a million dollar price tag on it – you can buy it – that’s what a millionaire could do.  If you want to invest $100,000 dollars in ten separate business ventures – you could do that.  That’s what a millionaire could do.  If you want to fund a pension fund with a million – you could do that. Just like a millionaire.

Of course, what is not factored in to this is the annoying little fact that you will have to pay back the million – eventually.  But during the period of time that the bill doesn’t come due – shit, you’re a damn millionaire.

Here we come to the great Republican con game of the past 40 years.  While selling themselves as the staid proponents of fiscal austerity the GOP has been the largest band of profligate spenders in history.  In each of the Republican administrations since Ronald Reagan the federal deficit has grown, the national debt has exploded, the revenue base has been eroded and – incredibly – the party has promoted itself as the avatars of frugality.

Oh – by the way – they have done so successfully

The basic plan goes like this – you come in to office criticising the Democrats as a bunch of socialist, half crazed, anti-American lunatics who want to give all your money away to gang members and drug addicts.  You then assure people that if they turn the economy over to you these activities will stop, you will curtail all this craziness and – get this – you’ll be able to cut everyone’s taxes and make sure no one feels any pain. 

Of course, these are the things that would cause pain – cuts to military spending, cuts to social security, cuts to medicare, cuts to student loans, cuts to transport spending, cuts to farm subsidies, cuts to veterans’ benefits – you get it.  You could get away with attacking grants to public broadcasting (unless they are seen to be a direct threat to Big Bird), and you could make a lot of hay cutting art subsidies or food stamps – but those were red herrings – the size of the cuts were miniscule.

The tax cuts however – they were not illusory.  Each administration would come in with a single, overriding top legislative priority – get those cuts passed.  The reason was quite simple – a tax cut to a country is the equivalent of giving itself that million dollar credit card we talked about at the beginning of this section – except it was more like a multiple of billion dollar cards. 

If you spend like a millionaire for a short period of time it will become similar to a sugar high – to all watching you from the outside you’ll appear to be doing better than ever.  You’ll have a better home, drive a better car, wear better clothes, eat better food.  The same is true of a country after a tax cut.  There’s more money out there (lots more for some), there’s more economic activity, business is up, spending is up, unemployment goes down. And here’s the thing that Democrats don’t seem to realize – this is not “illusory”.  The economic boom that accompanies a tax cut is quite real- it’s just not sustainable. 

Republicans, in fairness to them, have made feeble attempts to cut spending for some of the large, pain inducing programs previously listed.  The problem is this – those are all good programs. Not just popular – but good, important, necessary areas in which government is expected to, and should, perform.  We need a military. We need social security. We need functioning roads and airports, educated students, health care for veterans and the elderly (really, more than just that) – so when you attempt to cut those programs – you lose elections. So while the previous Republican administrations of Reagan and the two Bushes probably did intend to cut spending to offset their tax cuts (although it is hard to envision how they ever thought they’d cut enough) they were never actually able to do the job – and it wasn’t because of the Democrats.

We know this because during the two Democratic administrations there was actual evidence of fiscal responsibility.  The Obama successes have been detailed – but during the Clinton years the federal government posted surpluses – an unheard of development. (Obama did not but that was largely down to the stimulus package and TARP program inherited from Bush II).  This was helped by the brakes applied by Republican congresses – but remember – they never went after the really important programs because, well, they were important.

Which brings us to Donald Trump.  Trump, who is not a conservative and was not, until the party morphed into his image, a Republican, has simply done away with all pretense when proposing an economic plan.  He passed huge tax cuts upon taking office, knowing that this would superheat the strong economy he inherited, he made no effort to reduce spending other than cosmetic things like spending on national parks, he actually boosted spending on things like his ridiculous wall, “Space Force” and other chimerical programs.  At the same time he reduced regulation, knowing this would open the gates for companies to exploit areas without fear of federal restraints.  (This is called “getting government off your back”.  Other examples of operations where government was not “on the back” of big business would be WorldCom, Enron, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and some Dutch tulip company back in the day).

Unsurprisingly all of this additional money, reduced regulation and promise of more of the same led to the spurt in economic growth the country has enjoyed for the past few years.  It is not illusory – the economy is in a legitimate “boom” period – but, like a gangly teenager going through a growth spurt – it’s getting bigger but not “stronger”.

Treating the economy like this is dangerous, and cannot be sustained for long.  Trump doesn’t care.  As far as he is concerned it only has to be maintained until November, long enough for him to tell everyone how great things are.  That’s why the latest Chinese export has him so worried.  The Corona virus just might disrupt his timetable.

Why Does This Matter?

Look – if this was only about who was going to end up as President after the November election – this really wouldn’t matter.  Economies go up and down, elections get held, there are plenty of other reasons to cast a vote that don’t involve deficits, budgets, taxes, monetary theory, trade policy – the wonky things. Go ahead - vote for (or against) someone because of guns, abortion, the judiciary, civil rights – those are all incredibly, incredibly important. But I want people to at least consider the following arguments because I think they are important as well.

As I’m writing this I’m looking through the collected works of someone whom I greatly admired.  Paul Tsongas was a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts whose office I worked in while attending college.  He was unreservedly liberal when it came to social issues, but was also a self-described “pro-business” Democrat. This meant that he did not, for example, automatically discard someone’s value as a person simply because they were rich. To him the word “billionaire” would have simply meant someone who had a billion dollars, not someone who was inherently evil.  Prejudice is prejudice, no matter if it is based on skin color or dollar signs.

He was also a great opponent of something that is not really thought about much anymore.  Here is something he wrote about in 1991 (and that I touched on at the beginning of this article):

The students will not believe the teacher.  How could this be, they will ask. How could Reagan and Bush have gotten away with balanced budget rhetoric at a time of massive budget deficit realities? How could they lull the American people into accepting such staggering debt without widespread revolt?

More pointedly, they will ask, why did people allow this enormous accumulation of debt which now burdens their generation? This, of course, raises the pointed question of generational morality.

That was 1991.  The annual budget deficit that he was up in arms about was $245 billion.  This year it is estimated to surpass $1 trillion.

For one year.

That is nearly inconceivable and, to me, represents an enormous danger.  The problem is – it doesn’t seem to bother too many people on the right (Trump) or the left (Sanders) very much at all.  At least anymore. 

Republicans were, at one time, up in arms about the deficit. Having signed on to Trump’s use of the company credit card (and the accumulation of a one trillion annual bill) that is not the case any longer.  Democrats (other than the Tsongas wing of the party, who are becoming increasingly less conspicuous) have never been overly concerned about the concept of deficit spending, though the level of unsupported expenditure has not been as high under Democratic presidents as Republicans since the 1960’s. The Bernie contingent certainly has no problem with such spending.

In fairness to both parties the lack of concern about the rate of deficit spending is not simply a case of “whistling past the graveyard”.  Economists on both the right and the left are able to justify their position on deficits on the grounds that the true measure of the impact of the deficit is not the overall size of the debt, but the cost of servicing that debt.  If interest rates are low then the cost of servicing the debt will not become a drag on the economy – instead the borrowing will act as a kind of “perpetual stimulus” keeping the debt easily serviceable while the economy motors along.  Here, in theory, is how this works itself out according to a recent article in Slate:

The main reason economists have traditionally warned governments against borrowing too much is that doing so could slow down the economy by pushing up interest rates and “crowding out” private investment. In theory, a country could also end up trapped in a debt spiral, where it can no longer meet its interest payments and is forced to default. But for developed nations that print their own currencies (sorry, Greece), those aren’t really serious concerns these days. As Olivier Blanchard, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, has explained at length, we live in an era of rock-bottom interest rates that have made it easier for governments to sustain even high levels of debt. In the United States, interest payments as a percentage of GDP are just over half of what they were in the mid-1990s. The signs of crowd-out are also all but nonexistent: Borrowing is cheaper for companies now than at any time since the 1950s. There are also signs that advanced countries can carry vastly higher debt loads than we do and still be just fine: Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio is more than double ours, and yet it’s currently borrowing money at negative interest rates, meaning investors are essentially paying Japan to hold their money.

The Slate article goes on to note that while this is currently the prevailing wisdom – they could be wrong. That moment of humility is expressed thusly: In the end, all predictions about the economy are informed guesses, and it’s possible that, down the line, circumstances might change in unexpected ways.” That seems to be the position on all sides – they could be wrong, but there is no evidence to that effect and it’s a bet worth taking.

The problem is – there is evidence to the contrary and if you have any regard for history – fairly recent history – you would never take that bet.  It was only the 1970’s when the country faced interest rates that were in the high teens. Yes – that was forty odd years ago – but that’s the thing – if rates spike every 60 years or so – then within the next 20 years we’ll see a repeat event.  When that happens the irresponsible growth of the national debt will not be “just fine” – it will be crippling.

I can just see the people who know a bit about the events in the ‘70’s shaking their heads.  “What happened during that time was unique – you can’t base policy on the chance of an energy crisis, coupled with currency devaluation and slow economic growth repeating itself”. What are the odds of something like that happening again?

The thing is – there are any number of situations that mirror that scenario – some of which are repeating themselves during this current period.  How about this – in the next 10-15 years global warming could create a situation where it is readily apparent that energy policies have to change.  This creates a 1970’s type energy crisis.  The reason such a change becomes “readily apparent” is the impact of rising sea levels on urban areas – huge infrastructure changes may be needed to preserve the seafronts in Boston, New York, Miami Beach – every major city that is coastal.  This leads to economic chaos and monetary shortages which manifest itself in high interest rates.  The high rates cause spikes in the debt service payments that are the current generation’s legacy.  This leaves the next generation slaves to this debt and unable to finance the needed rebuilding program. They'll essentially have to deal with the economic mess for their entire lives.  Nothing in this scenario involves anything particularly “new” – and while it isn’t something that will inevitably happen –it certainly could.  Suddenly the bet everyone seems so willing to make isn’t such a sure thing.

The “Modern Monetary Theory” that pushes for the continuance of deficit spending is enormously risky – and flies in the face of Tsongas’s cry for “generational morality”.  The willingness of the extremes on the right and left to overlook that fact is troubling, as is the point of view that “moderates”, the tag applied to people who still worry about things like running trillion dollar deficits, are seen as being “against change” or “snowflakes” (depending on who is doing the name calling).  Since both Trump Republicans and the Sanders contingent on the Democratic side agree that deficits aren’t that big a deal – a vote for either of them in November makes very little difference on this issue. Plus, that’s not the only issue that Sanders and Trump agree on – when it comes to China, where the Corona virus started (remember the Corona virus- this is an article about the Corona virus…) Trump and Sanders aren’t that different either, especially when it comes to one particular area – tariffs.

What’s the Deal with Tariffs?

Up to now I’ve been giving examples of how Donald Trump has attempted to superheat the economy, creating a boom that, while unsustainable in the long term, could very well last long enough to get him re-elected.  It’s a strategy very similar to the one that Michael Cohen described Trump using when seeking to finance a deal – he creates a deceptive cash flow picture, convinces the target banks to front him cash for a speculative deal (in effect “vote for him”) and then after securing the funds he’ll default and force a re-negotiation.
 
There was one element of the Trump administration’s actions that did not seem to fit this model – the use of tariffs, which has been a staple of Trump’s trade war with China.  Tariff’s are a controversial tool – whether they are effective at all is still very much up for debate.  One thing, however, is certain.  In the short term the use of tariffs by themselves are a drag on the economy.  It raises the price of goods within the borders of the nation that imposes them, and, due to the inevitable retaliatory measures that the targets of the tariff will impose, it reduces trade for impacted industries and sectors. 

The key phrase there is “by themselves”.  Trump, when putting tariffs in place, typically never uses a tariff alone but accompanies the action with massive amounts of federal assistance for the impacted sectors.  If any other administration were to try this the immediate cry of “socialism” or “welfare” would arise – but Trump has the Republican party so strung up that no one is left to make that charge. Nonetheless – it is true – the single largest trade based social welfare program in U.S. history is being run by Donald Trump right now.

Remember when we talked about the Obama administration’s supervision of the stimulus package?  One of the larger elements of that package was the effort to preserve the auto industry.  Most Republican’s hated that program.  Mitt Romney advocated for letting the automakers declare bankruptcy rather than spend any federal money to support them.  It was derided as the worst instance of socialist meddling in U.S. history. All told the auto industry benefited from about $18 billion in federal largesse, which was a hell of a lot of money. Still – there is a U.S auto industry today and so the effort can be deemed a success from that point of view. 

Republicans in Congress still profess to hate the whole thing (even though it was started by George W. Bush).  The market, according to them, should have been left to decide the matter.  All such bailouts are bad policy say these staunch conservatives.

Ummmm.  Well, maybe not all such bailouts.

You see, since the beginning of Trump’s trade war with China the U.S. agricultural industry has received $28 billion in federal subsidies, dwarfing the auto bailout.  This is just as “socialist” an approach as that taken by Obama (and, before him, Bush). Wait a second – strike that.  This is far more socialist than the auto bail out.  At least the auto industry was actually failing – the U.S. agricultural community isn’t in danger of collapse, they were just not going to be making as much money as they did before Trump imposed tariffs on the Chinese.  This is wealth redistribution that rivals, well, Mao Tse Tung, amongst others.  Yet, magically, this enormous grant of federal money passes into the hands of a favored group without any appreciable objection from the GOP.

Why?

The reason goes back to the motivation behind the Trump tax cuts and deregulation movements.  The economy only gets superheated when people (and corporations) have cash to spend – and if a tariff is going to remove cash from as big a sector of the U.S. economy as the agricultural industry – then that would endanger the boom – and cash would need to be thrown at that sector to avoid such a result.  In order to prevent tariffs from having the effect tariffs always have – you must counteract the tariff through direct government intervention – and if that is “socialist” in its nature – well, Donald Trump and Eugene Debs would pretty much see eye to eye on that one.

One other person who would agree with using government funds to counter the impact of tariffs is Bernie Sanders – who was loudly proclaiming this same strategy long before the Republicans in Congress became converts.  Trump and Sanders both espouse the same strategy for using tariffs – use them as protectionist measures for securing domestic jobs while aggressively providing government assistance to those who are impacted by this blatant interference with free trade.  You can agree or disagree with the approach – that’s a different discussion.  All I am trying to establish here is that Sanders and Trump do not differ that much in their current positions on tariffs.

However – please note that the key word here is “current”.  If, as I think the rest of this essay makes clear – the economic trend of the first three Trump years is unsustainable – then the Trump approach to tariffs and trade will likely end as soon as the first cracks in the boom appear. There are a number of reasons for this – but the primary one is the fact that a trade war is not something that is of long-term use to Donald Trump.  A superheated economy that gets him re-elected is fine – and protective tariffs where no one feels any pain in the short term help achieve that goal. But once that has been accomplished – a trade war with China is never going to be in the best interest of an international developer like Trump.  Watch for the pressure on China to ease if Trump is re-elected.

How Does the Corona Virus Threaten This?

The house of cards that is the Trump economy is predicated on one overriding premise – make it last long enough to get him through November.  If the economy collapses or evidences significant weakness before then – the whole thing falls apart.  Corona virus is possibly the bug in the punch bowl.  The unsustainability of a boom engendered from stimuli like tax cuts, regulators looking the other way and tariff programs that offer an excuse for rampant federally funded welfare unravels if people are suddenly afraid to spend and speculate because they are worried about the global impact of a pandemic.  Instead of pumping all that money in to the system people will hold it – and the boom will end. 
Again, do not make the mistake of calling a boom like this “artificial”.  The economic effects are real – it’s just that they are not capable of lasting – and when you come out the other side of an accelerated "boom" cycle you do worse, as an economy, than you would have if you had simply let the economic trend develop organically. 

In short, this is an argument for, that dirty word again, moderation.  When you drink moderately you have a good time, and while you might be a bit tired after spending a long night out with friends – you are up for doing it again. When you drink heavily you have a great time, but it doesn’t last as long and you throw up in the cab on the way home and can’t figure out why that one guy won’t talk to you anymore.  When you eat moderately you enjoy a good meal.  When you pig out your taste buds explode with ecstasy – and then you feel like garbage and have to pop an endless series of antacids to stop the reflux.  The same thing goes for economic moderation.  The Obama recovery was slow, sometimes agonizingly so, but it was built to last.  The Trump bump – God only knows what’s going to happen when we wake up from this one.

This is an essay about Corona – and a few other things.  In the end the Corona virus may end up being a bit like Toto in The Wizard of Oz.  While everyone is looking at the smoke and mirrors at the end of the hall – it may quietly draw back the curtain of the man creating that ruckus.  Here’s the thing – Frank Morgan, the actor who played the Wizard – he looks and sounds a bit like Donald Trump.  He also can be mistaken, at times, for Bernie Sanders.

Stay healthy everyone.  And vote wisely.

Tuesday, 14 January 2020

COME OUT YOU BLACK AND TANS... (And Collect Your Medals)


I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.
Where's me bloomin' medal?
Ulysses S. Grant, Thoughts Upon Accepting the Surrender of the Confederacy


I never expected to be revisiting U.S. Grant’s reminiscences on Appomattox when the new decade dawned, but thanks to a completely inexplicable act on the part of the Irish government – here I am. In fact, I’ve had a couple of occasions to be reminded of Grant in the last few years, and Fine Gael’s ham-handed approach to the question of how to begin the “celebration” of the centenary of Ireland’s War of Independence is just another reminder of how the confusion of the individual with the institution is bound to lead to trouble.

A brief reminder of the history behind this most recent contretemps is in order.  In 2016 Ireland celebrated the 100-year anniversary of the uprising that is most often cited as the start of the process that would eventually lead to Irish independence during the 1920’s.  That centenary, however, was the celebration of a rather crushing defeat. The Republic that was declared on Easter weekend of 1916 lasted but a few days before the British war machine, then in the fullness of its WWI related might, snuffed it out entirely, executed most of its leaders, marched the others off to prison and resumed what it believed to be normalcy for Ireland.  “Normalcy” evidently was supposed to mean that the Irish would go back to hating the British, particularly the English, but would do so quietly, like German soccer fans do today, or, you, know – like Scotland. As we shall see, this did not happen.
On the other hand the 2016 centenary celebration went off splendidly. There were fireworks, and parades and speeches and examples of great Irish food and drink (which meant halls full of beer and whiskey and a food stand with, I don’t know, mussels or something). Everyone had a great time, and – here’s the part that would come back to haunt Leo Varadkar – everyone remembered to mention that during 1916 there was a war going on and that plenty of Irish were serving in the British forces - so you had to remember those folks as well.  Other than a few muted voices on the Sinn Fein side of the aisle – no one objected to that being said.

Fast forward to 2020.  We are now on to the celebration of a new centenary, one that is very, very different from that which was celebrated in 2016.  The Easter Rising was nasty, brutish and short. It was also something that played out, in the words of those who fought and observed it, as a “grand gesture”, an “act of martyrdom”. “Winning” was secondary.

“Grandness” aside, 1916 was certainly a gesture. What started in 1919-1920 was quite different. It was a damn war

How best to describe this? In 1916 the leaders of the rebellion wanted to “show” the British – show them they were serious, show them things weren’t going to be the same, show them that Ireland couldn’t be taken for granted.  When, following a number of political developments, the rebellion re-started in 1919, the point was no longer to just “show” the British.  

It was to kill them. It was to win.

The British answer to this was, beginning in March of 1920, to ship thousands of British servicemen to Ireland to act as “reserve police”.  Owing to the rather mismatched status of their uniforms these new police became known as the “Black and Tans”, and soon gained a deserved reputation for butchery. The relative degree of the war crimes committed by this force remains in some dispute, but suffice to say that while the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded during the years the Tans were active in Ireland, they were never considered a threat to win. 

Of course, in order to be a part of a police “reserve” you must be in reserve to something already there. In the case of the Black and Tans the regular force they attached to was something known as the “Royal Irish Constabulary” or “RIC”.  The RIC was the crown’s policing authority in Ireland, and while not exactly the gang of thugs that would soon be so readily added to their numbers, they were also not, shall we say, “beloved of the people”. In fact, the ease by which the Tans incorporated into the RIC, and the willingness that some members of the original RIC showed to take part in some of the atrocities, (e.g. one of them assassinated the mayor of Cork) meant that the distinction between the forces became understandably blurred.  Suffice to say that amongst most Irish the term “RIC” remains a dirty word for a most dirty organisation.

Well, most, it seems, is not “all”. Here we come to modern day politics, or, to coin a Friends-type title “The One Where Leo Gets A History Lesson”.

Here’s what happened. In order to kick off the 2020 end of the “Decade of Centenaries” the current Irish Government announced that, on the 17th of January, the institutions of the RIC and DMP (The Dublin Metropolitan Police, a branch of the wider force) would be commemorated in a ceremony at Dublin Castle.  Since the Black and Tans were an adjunct of this force, it effectively meant that they too would be commemorated. It was also announced that on the same day henhouses throughout the country would be offering thanks to foxes for their service through the ages.

Okay, that second one was a joke.

The first one wasn’t and it soon became apparent that it was no laughing matter.  Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan, the person responsible for scheduling the event, was immediately assailed by members of opposition parties expressing outrage at the idea such an event was being held.  Such expressions are to be expected from the opposition parties. However, when members of his own party began to voice their displeasure Flanagan’s actions were stoutly defended by his party leader, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar.  

Varadkar, mustering maximum levels of self-righteousness, stated that it was “regrettable” that the event was being criticised.  Then, obviously subscribing to the somewhat backwards theory that when you’re digging yourself a hole the best advice is “keep digging”, Varadkar went on to say:
“I remember 10, 15 years ago it was very controversial to commemorate the deaths of soldiers in World War I because some people felt that they shouldn’t be remembered because they fought for the United Kingdom…, That has changed. We now all accept, or almost everyone accepts, that it is right and proper to remember Irish people, soldiers who died in the first World War,”.

Varadkar continued, stating he believes the same thing applies to “police officers who were killed, Catholic and Protestant alike, who were members of the RIC and the DMP, many of whose families are still alive and remember them”.

Oh boy.  Here’s where we go back to Ulysses S. Grant and confusing the individual with the collective.

When Grant made his statement he was quite careful to differentiate his feelings for a person (Lee) from the collective “cause” (the Confederacy) that he represented.  Grant let Confederate soldiers retain their mounts so that they could work their farms, because as individuals they might, in time, become good citizens when they got back home. He did not, it should be noted, allow them to march to that home under the flag of the despicable Confederacy.

Similarly, the Ku Klux Klan started as a benign social club in Pulaski, Tennessee.  It’s fairly certain that some of its members simply wanted someplace to play cards at night.  Unfortunately for those upright individuals the group they formed turned out to be exceptionally susceptible to exploitation as a white supremacist terror organization.  So while those quiet bridge players may be fondly remembered by their families, that fondness should not extend to their membership in the KKK (even if their families are OK with that).

The same holds true for those supposed “good people” who Donald Trump cited as having been unfairly besmirched just because they happened to express their concerns for public art in the course of a murderous Neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Varadkar was correct in that individual officers who were simply caught in a crossfire may have suffered a cruel fate, but their membership in the collective of the RIC is not why their service is notable, or their demise regrettable. Individuals may have served “valiantly” (Grant’s words) in the RIC, but the RIC was not a valourous establishment. More to the point, the RIC policies were, during the time which this centenary commemoration marks, “one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse”. 

The susceptibility of the RIC and its adjunct branches to these worst elements disqualify it from commemoration.  It was far too easy for the police forces of Ireland to suddenly become the home for an assortment of war criminals and semi-official thugs.  This is distinctly different from the allied armed forces of the First World War, which, while lead by a collection of dolts and having certain instances of improper behavior, was by and large an honourable force. Equating membership in the British Army with the collective institution that served as a vehicle for inserting the Black and Tans into Irish history is an improper interpretation of history.  It’s also lazy. The idea that we should just lump all the members of the RIC into one big bundle of forgiveness is unfair to both their victims and, funnily enough, to those members who actually did join the group on the assumption it would be a force for good only to end up being duped into supporting the effort to suppress Irish freedom.

I don’t think Varadkar or his government were being intentionally cruel, or even attempting to rehabilitate the reputation of the RIC or British forces in Ireland when they announced this commemoration.  I do believe, however, that they were being lazy. “Let’s have a day for the RIC.”, they thought, “It’s just the same as standing up for those Irish who volunteered to fight the Germans during the war. What could possibly go wrong?”

What indeed. Here’s a very basic statement that I challenge people to contradict.  The British army, attempting to fight and kill Germans serving the Kaiser in France does not equate with an Irish based British police force attempting to fight and kill Irish people fighting for Irish independence in Ireland. Yes, I know there were some members of that police force who thought they were attempting to simply maintain civil order.  They were well intentioned. They were also wrong. The group to which they found themselves bound in service had been subverted, rather easily, into a terror machine. I hope they maintained their individual integrity – but it is simply a fact that their organisation, as a collective, had slipped in to the abyss that also contains the Confederate Army, the KKK and the Nazi party.   

Here’s a more intellectually difficult, but, I believe, better example of how to deal with the question of individual membership in a collectively disreputable institution.  When it comes to U.S. history I believe that every veteran who served in the American Civil War, North or South, deserves the honour of having an American flag placed on their grave on Veteran’s Day.  Each one of them, in their own way, forged the country that today is sovereign in the land where they lie. Every one of them contributed something to that tapestry. Of course, if their families choose not to display that symbol, that is their right. Conversely, I do not, I am afraid, believe that Confederate veterans should be allowed to have the rebel flag displayed on their gravesite if that is found in a public place.  That is a hateful symbol that disparages the rights of those citizens, particularly those of colour, that live and have lived in that same country. The individual veteran deserves respect and recognition. The cause they represented, the organisation to which they belonged, I am not sorry or afraid to say, does not.

The same basic equation should, I propose, apply in Ireland.  Those Irish people who served, on whatever side, in furtherance of their beliefs should be honoured and respected.  That instrument of respect should be expressed via the symbols of the state that was forged from the struggles in which they participated.
  
The tricolour. 

The harp in the coat of arms. 

Amhrán na bhFiann. 

Individuals should not be excluded from respect and consideration for the role they played in the evolution of the state simply because they belonged to a dishonourable organisation.  If they, as a person, were doing their best as they saw it then that should be acknowledged. The organisation, on the other hand, does not get rehabilitated just because the individuals caught in its web have been cut loose. 

The RIC, the Black and Tans, the DMP and the like do not make the cut as collectives. There are no commemorations that should be held for such groups, no more than people should mourn for the “lost cause” of the Confederacy.  These groups were not just “on the wrong side of history” – they were wrong. If saying so offends some – too bad – some things are worth being offensive about.     

CLINGING TO NORMAL WHILE SLOUCHING TOWARDS BETHLEHEM

  Well, that was quite the visit for Vladimir Zelensky to the Oval Office, wasn’t it?   While certain of the MAGA army, (though not all), ta...