Innovation

Les Paul, R.I.P.

Interesting Choice

A new picture based on the Diary of Anne Frank will be written and directed by David Mamet. Roy gets a set of steak knives for getting us an advance script excerpt....

NYT Styles: Trying To Prove That Stereotypes About Manhattanites Are True!

Shorter Cintra Wilson: "They let non-rich people and fat people (by which I mean people who aren't a more morally appropriate size 2, like myself -- have I mentioned that I'm a size 2?) buy clothes now? In Manhattan? Ewwwwwwwwww!"

[Via Cottle and McEwan.]

...In comments, Sisi notes that she's apologized, so in fairness this may have been (failed) satire.

Beyond MLB

I like Doug Glanville's op-ed on the options open to professional athletes after their careers end; it helps to clarify (which is more important than to "dispel") the "set for life" perception of how retired athletes live. It's obviously more complicated than the two poles we're most commonly treated to; on the one hand, the incredibly wealthy athlete who declares bankruptcy shortly after retirement, and on the other hand the retiree who spends his time appearing at celebrity golf courses and endorsing local car dealerships. Glanville also makes explicit the idea that so much of what is available in economic life is only available if you know how to take advantage of it, and you only know how to do that if you're fortunate enough to have picked up appropriate tools of analysis and to have enough time to analyze all your options. It reminds me a touch of some of the debates about health care coverage; in many situations, decent coverage is available, but it often takes a very long time to figure out what can be had, what the best options are, and so forth.

Baseball's Worst Riccardis

A good list, although I think the Beltre contract was OK (as Posnanski half-concedes.) Two apercus I particularly endorse:

• "Here’s my thing about J.P. Ricciardi, the thing that really baffles the heck out of me: How can someone keep giving out contracts THIS BAD and keep his job and reputation? How? I’m serious. How?"
  
• "Funny, people will constantly rip the Yankees and Red Sox and teams like that for all the money they spend … but it is teams like the Mariners, Royals, Brewers, Blue Jays and Indians that seem to actually make the worst signings."

A query: would Halladay + Wells's contract in return for a Circuit City gift card be a good trade? I think it's close...

Book Bloggingheads: Graveyard of Empires

Seth Jones and I talked about his book Graveyard of Empires last week on Bloggingheads:


...sadly, I forgot my hat in Cincinnati. Hopefully I'll have an appropriate substitute by the next Bloggingheads.

Gene Wojciechowski is standing outside Derek Jeter's window, lofting a boom box into the air

Shorter Wojo:

If Derek Jeter is discovered to have used PEDs, I, too, will pump my fist -- into my own broken heart!

Arguably the worst part of drug war moralism (Sporting Division) is that people like Gene Wojciechowski are permitted to earn a living by repeating the idiotic fantasy that certain players bear within them with game's Purity of Essence. It's bad enough that such declarations of abiding love for the game actually indicate their opposite, but when this peculiar form of romance is folded into the catechism of the Order of St. Jeter, it's difficult not to feel embarrassed for the guy. I mean, imagine if the "template for baseball professionalism" included, say, not adding superfluous leaps to routine grounders, or sharing pernicious viruses with supermodels -- how could Gene Wojciechowski face his children each morning?

Self-Inflicted Wounds

I think this is definitely correct. I didn't understand why Obama was appointing viable Senate candidates at the time, and it looks even worse in retrospect. (Although the subsequent analysis doesn't apply in her case, one can also add Sebeius, who would have been at least a credible challenger for the soon-to-be vacant Senate seat in Kansas, and would likely have been more progressive than the typical red state senator to boot had she won.) If I understood the logic, Obama felt it was important to have ex-legislators in the cabinet to facilitate relations with Congress and help advance his agenda. Hence the failed Daschle nomination as well. But, as Matt says, I think that was misguided -- what matters is power, and a credible challenger means vastly more than having someone in the cabinet with some experience as a legislator.

Palin-LaRouche 2012! Or would that be LaRouche-Palin?

Suzy Khimm offers some thoughts on the presence of LaRouchites along the midways of various health care town halls.

The LaRouchies' logic seems virtually indistinguishable from the current right-wing fear-mongering. "Citizens are receiving Hitler-era ‘reasons' for why they must accept drastic medical cutbacks, sickness, and death," LaRouche writes on his site. "For example, you must forego what is called ‘wasteful, excessive treatment,' during your end-of-life months." The only difference between their agitations and the far right's histrionics? Larouchies maintain that Obama and his cronies are in cahoots with HMOs and the insurance industry-and that the real solution to their fascistic agenda is a single-payer plan (which would presumably be rid of its Hitler-inspired leadership, though they don't go into the details).

I suspect the LaRouchites would argue that once HMOs are abolished and placed on trial for crimes against humanity, their political enablers will join them in the dock -- thus turning the American political system over to a new class of leaders who are determined at last to do battle against the English Crown.

Nuance aside, Khimm is obviously correct to point out the crossover between LaRouche and the Soylent Green Right; however, she fails to notice the most obvious (and literal) link in the axis. While Sarah Palin's views on the Queen of England and her role in the international drug trade are, as yet, undisclosed, LaRouche has been a perennial advocate of a Land Bridge to Nowhere, connecting Asia and the Americas by tunneling under the Bering Strait. LaRouche's ideas are custom-made for someone like Palin, whose "Drill, Baby, Drill" mantra could be easily adapted to support yet another federally-funded project to benefit a state comprised of independent, freedom-loving people who proudly reject federal funds except when, like, they prefer not to.

Dumber and Dumbest

It has to be some sort of landmark in American political discourse when both Lee Siegel and Camille Paglia weigh in on American health care policy. Total combined knowledge of relevant policy area displayed: approaching zero.

Still, tough as the competition is I'd have to say that the Paglia argument is decisively worse. Siegel is at least kind of crazy, making his bad arguments more original, and he does have an actual sensible point about the unwillingness of Dems to raise taxes embedded within the nonsense. Paglia, meanwhile, just re-heats especially stupid talking points (there will be "rationing!" Unlike the current system, where everyone has absolutely unlimited resources!), combined with apparently discovering for the first time that the United States doesn't have a parliamentary system. I'm reluctant to say that a Paglia argument is embarrassing even by her standards, but...it is.

Adventures In Rent-Seeking

It's not suprising how the interests line up, but here's a good account of why New York's irrational policy of banning wine sales in grocery stores remains in place.

Good Luck With That

This could be a chance for some profitable InTrade arbitrage.

Although, in fairness, he has a more plausible path to the nomination that Guiliani did...

Fast Food Chefs Like

Even though I generally make an annual sojurn to Vegas with some co-bloggers without current or imminent parental responsibilities, I've never tried In-N-Out. But an unscientific survey of chefs -- including Thomas Keller! -- ranks it as America's best fast food chain. I'm sure some commenters will be willing to weigh in on the topic...

Mexico v USA

Wednesday, August 11.  13:00 PDT, and other times.  Google isn't new, and for the love of god, don't rely on me.

This one is being somewhat blown out of proportion.  While Mexico are uncharacteristically struggling in the qualifiers for 2010,  the 5-0 stomping of the USA in the Gold Cup final doesn't matter, and their FIFA ranking is a near historic low 30th (the USA is 12th), the USA do not win this match.  Sorry.

Why?  Sure, the USA beat Spain, and played respectably against Brazil.  However, in their last 23 matches in Mexico City, they are 0-22-1.  No wins, one draw, and 22 defeats.  Additionally, I tend to put more faith in the Elo rankings over the FIFA rankings.  For example, the USA were ranked something silly like 4th for a while according to FIFA.  Indeed this is true: 4th in May of 2006.  And didn't the USA look just great in Germany that summer?  Elo have the USA 16th, Mexico 11th, though it should be said that this, too, is not 100% reliable, as I think Elo was overly affected by the Gold Cup performance; the previous month the USA were 9th according to Elo.

While the US players are talking the good talk, I like the resurgent Giovani dos Santos, (shame he plays for Spurs however), and the US have had problems playing at 35,000 7,350 feet in front of 18,000,000 105,000 hostile fans.

Speaking of altitude, I'm off to hike part of the Pacific Crest Trail for a week or so in about half an hour, with my lovely partner, her father and a couple of her brothers (one of whom I understand is a fan of LGM).  We'll be somewhere between 5,000 and 6,500 feet over our route, if I know how to read the map.  Hence, I'll be off the grid for a spell, which means I'll miss this match, but at least I've got a fifth of Sazerac Rye Whiskey packed away in my provisions.  I suspect it will come in handy.

Most Demanding?

I have to agree with David Bernstein when it comes to the assertion that Sotomayor "will soon take on one of the most demanding jobs in the land." Granting that the job has some high-level intellectual demands and pressures, I would say that in fact being a Supreme Court justice is relatively undemanding for a job of its prestige and influence. I would note, for example, that one year Sandra Day O'Connor was reimbursed for 28 trips. I think it's safe to say that there are a lot of more demanding jobs out there.

Pointless Rant: East Coasters Drive Like this...

Having grown up and spent most of my formative years on the West Coast, I am constantly befuddled by the aversion of East Coasters to drives of even moderate distance. Easterners seem, in my experience, largely incapable of conceiving of any drive that takes longer than 45 minutes. Baltimore to Philly? Might as well be the Bataan Death March. New York to Boston? I heard about a guy who tried it once, but I think he was eaten by wild animals near Providence, wherever that is. To be sure, there are good reasons why people should shun long drives, including environmental concerns and the relatively high accident rate of automobile travel. These are not, however, the concerns that my Eastern interlocutors most often invoke. Rather, they just can't seem to imagine sitting in a car long enough to get from one place to another.

It is not this way in the West. You wouldn't want to do it everyday, but it was not uncommon for myself and my friends to drive from Seattle to Portland for a day trip, returning the same evening. That's 170 miles one way, give or take. Hell, while I was at UO it wasn't even that unusual to do a Eugene to Seattle round-trip in a single day. Mention to an urbanite from the Boston-DC corridor that you're considering a trip that might take an hour (time spent in traffic doesn't count, for some reason), and they'll respond with a blank, stunned stare. Let me illustrate this point with a short play:

Cast:
Hans- Stasi Interrogator
John- Captured CIA spy hailing from Boston

Hans: Ve have vays of making you talk. Ve shall drive you to ze place of torture vere ve shall find ze location of your nuclear bomb.
John: (meekly) How long of a drive?
Hans: Four hours, but do not vorry. Ve give you a nice New York Review of Books and a thermos coffee-
John: (whispering) Four.... hours? (shrieking) OH GOD, GOD NO! I'LL TALK! I'LL TALK!

Beats a Rusty A-4...

The Brazilians may finally be getting some decent aircraft for the Sao Paulo:

The Government of Brazil has requested proposals from several foreign suppliers, including the United States, to provide the next generation fighter for the Brazilian Air Force. In this “FX-2” competition, the Government of Brazil has yet to select the United States Navy-Boeing proposal. This notification is being made in advance of receipt of a letter of request so that, in the event that the US Navy-Boeing proposal is selected, the United States might move as quickly as possible to implement the sale. If the Government of Brazil selects the U.S. Navy-Boeing proposal, the Government of Brazil will request a possible sale of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft...

Assuming that the F/A-18 can operate off Sao Paulo (and they could operate from USS Midway, so I don't see why not), this would transform the carrier from a curiosity into a useful unit. In particular, the F/A-18 has actual defensive capabilities, which the A-4 lacks. Of course, it's still unclear to what use the Brazilians would put Sao Paulo.

Via Galrahn.

Amen

John Boonstra, responding to Paul Johnson:

What we don't know is if a successful Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would discredit the regime to the point that it would be forced out of power or if such an attack would be used to discredit the opposition, causing Iranians to close ranks behind their extremist leaders.

Generally, when bombs fall on people, they get mad at the people doing the bombing. It's a simple enough lesson, but one that many, in their unconsidered haste to bring about the regime's downfall, miss quite entirely. The second of Johnson's possibilities, or a version of it at least, seems much more likely to result from a missile attack; this would only enhance the government's hardline posture, and give needless credibility to its attempts to focus attention on outside "enemies."

If Israeli bombing discredits the Iranian regime, it will be approximately the first time in the history of the world that such a thing has happened. The closest case would appear to be that of Slobodan Milosevic after the Kosovo War, but a much more compelling argument can be made that Milosevic fell because he gave up, rather than because he fought.

The Founders Intended What Now?

Ezra, channeling Alec MacGillis:

So too is the section where he quotes Donald Ritchie, the Senate's official historian, explaining that "the authors of the Constitution really thought the House would be the driving engine, and the Senate would just be the senior group that would perfect legislation that came up from the House." Given how often the Senate's current role is defended on grounds of original intent, it's crucial to understand that the Founders actually meant for the more representative body to be the more powerful of the two chambers.

I see arguments of this sort every now and again, and I don't really understand them. A really common one comes in the form "the Founders didn't want a standing military." This latter one is wrong on the merits (some of the Founders didn't want a standing military, while others were pretty happy with the idea), but more broadly it depends on the idea that the Founders were kind of stupid. If they didn't want a standing military, then they should have been clear in the Constitution that they didn't want a standing military. Really, the idea that tension with Britain, France, Native American tribes, and Spain might produce strong incentives for a standing military was too complicated for the Founders to think out? It would never have occurred to them? Similarly, the above argument doesn't make a lot of bloody sense to me. I suppose it's possible that the Founders may have intended the House of Representatives to be more powerful than the Senate. If they did, it would have been nice for them to so indicate in the Constitution, and to do so a lot more clearly than they did. From the perspective of a Martian (which, in this case, isn't all that different from the perspective of a 21st century American) it's really not at all clear that the House should have a stronger legislative role than the Senate. It has certain powers that the Senate lacks, but then the Senate has certain powers that the House lacks.

And so, I'm left to draw the conclusion that either a) the Founders couldn't anticipate that their vague, uninstitutionalized desires regarding the structure of the legislative branch would quickly fall by the wayside, or b) that the Founders didn't intend such, or at least didn't intend such as a group. I'm leaning towards the latter.

Supporters Labeled the Organizers “Ridiculous” and the Event a “Shambles”.

Indeed.  At least I rest easier knowing that the English racist / fascist set couldn't organize the proverbial piss-up in a brewery.  Some further internal dissent can be found here.

The title above appears in The Times coverage of this event, where the English Defence League kicked off their promised season of anti-Muslim demonstrations in the center of Birmingham.  

Only, those against whom they were "protesting" (protesting what, exactly?) and their allies were considerably better organized.  Reports in the MSM are sketchy and inconsistent, with The Times referring to the group as the English Defence League, while the Independent refers to them as the more broad-minded English and Welsh Defence League.  Both indicate that the Casuals United were possibly involved, possibly not.  To wit, from the Independent:

Discussion and planning on online social networking sites led police to believe the group involved was the English and Welsh Defence League, or Casuals United.

The Times also suggests that both groups were in cahoots.  Casuals United seem to be an umbrella organization of various football hooligan firms (so I guess in IR parlance it would be more the UN of hooligans rather than a NATO of hooligans . . . they'll stop beating up on each other only when a more threatening foe arrives).  

What interests me here is the alleged ties to, and denials from, those lovable non-racists in the BNP.  Again, from The Times:

The English Defence League claim not to be a racist group and say that they have no ties with the British National Party. One of the websites linked to the League is believed to have been set up by a known BNP member, but that has now been taken down in an apparent attempt to conceal any link.

There is evidence to suggest a connection between the BNP and this new English (and Welsh!) Defence League.  More indirect evidence can be found here.  It's heartening to see the non racist BNP (see my earlier post here outlining their lack of racism) embracing the globalization concept of outsourcing, and thus outsourcing their racism.  A couple motivations spring immediately to mind for this from the BNP perspective.  More likely and obvious, they want to raise the spectre of further racist clashes in order to draw attention to the salience of their "cause". 

Less likely (because I don't think that they are this clever) but more problematic due to the inherent efficacy of this approach is a reading of behavioral economics.  If the BNP are outsourcing the more radical elements of their appeal to a new organization / party positioned to their right, according to the principle of the "decoy effect" this would make the BNP more appealing when contrasted to a context where this more radical decoy doesn't exist.  The first chapter of Dan Ariely's eminently readable book Predictably Irrational covers this concept (and there's a blog of the same name here).  

I can see the BNP and their even less racist cousins UKIP making further inroads in local elections in England and Wales.  Thankfully, local counsellors have very little power to do anything about anything.

Now Also Appearing at ID...

In addition to my duties at LGM, I will now periodically be blogging at Information Dissemination. The focus there will be more maritime oriented, and a bit more policy wonkish.

Degree of Difficulty

This dude's job kind of sucks.

If you think you face an uphill challenge at work today, spare a thought for Farah Ahmed Omar, the man in charge of Somalia's navy. He has neither boats nor equipment and admits he has not been to sea for 23 years.

The interim government does not control much of the 3,000-km (1,860-mile) Somali coastline and then there is the headache of plentiful pirates. Mr. Omar said he was first put in charge of the navy in 1982, but speaking to the BBC by phone from the capital, Mogadishu, he did not sound too daunted by the task ahead.

Responsibility without power... Via Axe.

The Non-Existent "Pro-Life" Majority

Ed Kilgore notes a new Gallup poll making clear what was always overwhelmingly likely -- the widely-trumpeted May Gallup poll showing a significant "pro-life" majority was an outlier. When public opinion has been as stable over the long term as it's been on abortion, that's always the safe bet.

In addition -- since, as Ed implies, the "pro-life" term is, especially in this context, a largely vacuous one that doesn't necessarily imply support for criminalizing abortion -- it's also worth noting that the public wants Roe v. Wade to be upheld by a roughly 2-to-1 margin:

The Supreme Court legalized abortion 36 years ago in the ruling known as Roe versus Wade. If that case came before the court again, would you want Sotomayor to vote to (uphold) Roe versus Wade, or vote to (overturn) it?

                     Uphold   Overturn   No opinion
Sotomayor, 6/21/09     60        34           6
Alito, 12/18/05        61        35           4
Alito, 11/2/05         64        31           5
Roberts, 8/28/05       60        33           7
Roberts, 7/21/05       65        32           4

As Ed says, somehow I'm guessing we're going to hear a lot less about this than we did about the May outlier.

An Argument For Localism?

Horrible stuff:

The bountiful harvest of California strawberries, melons, grapes, peaches and nectarines overflows the nation's summer tables. But that luscious crop mostly emerges thanks to farm workers who labor in flat fields under a scorching sun - and has a price higher than the grocery-store bill. Every year many farm workers become sick, and some die. Typical of the fatalities was Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez, who was just 17. In May 2008, she died after picking grapes in Merced County for nine hours in 95-degree heat. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger attended her funeral and promised to do more to protect workers.

I thought about excising the black comedy of the last line, but thought I should leave it in. Schwarzenegger may like the idea of protecting farm workers in theory, but if it might require a marginal increase in tax revenues to enforce the law, I think he'll quickly forget the whole thing. Priorities, you know...

Always Trust Your Pessimism

In the midst of generally disastrous picks -- I had at least remembered being more reluctant about picking Cleveland than I was -- was an actual insight:

I initially thought that letting Teixera go to the Yankees, while perhaps the right long-term decision, handed the division to a team that otherwise just wouldn't have had the offense.

Of course, having seen that I for some reason picked the Red Sox anyway. I'm not sure why, but was that ever stupid. (And no whining about the Yankee payroll. Boston certainly make enough money to sign him; they chose some cheap gambles on ancient pitchers coming off shoulder surgery and once-promising outfielders who effectively haven't played in three years instead. They lost.)

...Well, and at least I didn't jump on the bandwagon of this year's inexplicable trendy pick to contend Kansas City...

Book Review: The White War

In May 1915, Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary in an effort to detach and seize several mountain provinces, as well as Trieste and portions of the Adriatic Coast. Since the beginning of the war, Italy had engaged in negotiations with both the Allies and the Central Powers. Although initially attached by treaty to Berlin and Vienna, neither the Germans nor the Austrians viewed Italian intervention as decisive or likely. The Austrians made some offer of territorial concessions, but this did not include Trieste. Moreover, Italian nationalism viewed the "Italian" lands held by Austria as far more integral to Italy's "natural" status than similar areas in French hands. Eventually, with minimal debate and without substantial public support, pro-war Italian factions had engineered a declaration of war against Austria. Three and a half years later, Italy would win Trieste at the cost of 650000 military dead, a percentage higher than that of the United Kingdom. Mark Thompson's The White War examines the Italian campaign in depth, and is harshly critical of Italy's civilian and military leadership.

The idea of war against Austria was not particularly popular in Italy in 1915. The Italian state was itself relatively new, and had considerable difficulty winning the loyalties of locals and creating a cohesive Italian identity. The notion that Trieste and a few Alpine areas were necessary to create the "real" Italy was alien to the bulk of the Italian peasantry, and wasn't particularly popular to the working class. The intellectual class, however, ate it up. Although not fully united behind the idea of war, Italian intellectuals by and large saw Trieste and environs as belonging to Italy by right, and believed that war was the only way to win it. This is to say that they believed that war was a positive good; Italy wouldn't simply gain more by fighting, but any gains were better won with blood than won through negotiation. Gabriele D'Annunzio was the chief exemplar of the Italian intellectual warrior-caste; in addition to cheer-leading, he participated directly in the butchery by ineptly leading several bizarre military effort during the war. The control by the war-party of the Italian intellectual class, and accordingly its control over the media, meant that it was possible for the Italian government to wage an aggressive war with the genuinely unenthusiastic support of the bulk of the country. World War I was unpopular in Italy, but control of the media was able to substantially obscure this fact.

Enthusiasm aside, Italy was not prepared for a major war. Its soldiers were poorly trained, it lacked artillery and infantry equipment, and its senior leadership was substantial behind the curve. The first offensives were, accordingly, disastrous. For an obsolete empire, Austria-Hungary fought well enough for three years. Imperial forces were consistently outnumbered by the Italians, and usually suffered from severe material shortages. The army of Austria-Hungary was a hodgepodge of different nationalities, each with its own reasons for fighting. Nevertheless, working with the benefit of forbidding defensive terrain, the Austrians did very well against the Italians. Italy threw its army repeatedly against fortified Imperial positions with little or no effect apart from the general massacre of its men. Italy won exactly one of the twelve Battles of the Isonzo, even then gaining only trivial Austrian territory. Nevertheless, the relentless Italian pressure put the institutions of the Dual Monarchy under severe strain, and limited Austria's ability to prosecute the war against Serbia and Russia.

In October 1917 the Germans decided that they had had enough, and took command of a combined German-Austrian operation on the Italian front. With troops fresh from the collapsing Russian front, the Germans and Austrians were able to build up a substantial numerical advantage. When the offensive was launched, the Italian response was hopeless. Italian territorial gains were lost within days, and the Central Powers pushed almost all the war to Venice. The Italians were simply incapable of fighting a modern foe when that foe had sufficient equipment and reserves. A young officer named Erwin Rommel won glory in this campaign, capturing some 9000 Italian soldiers while commanding a battalion. The most memorable parts of A Farewell to Arms, for my money the most memorable Hemingway, also cover the Battle of Caporetto. The German and Austrian failure to exploit the victory is one of the great "roads not taken" of World War I. Italian lines had not fully solidified when the Caporetto offensive slowed, and it's possible that more vigorous prosecution could have effectively destroyed the Italian Army as a fighting force. Instead, the Germans withdrew to prepare for their spring offensives on the Western Front, and the Austrians were unable to make up the slack. In hindsight, there can be little question that a Central Powers strategy of serially knocking Allied countries out of the war would have been better than the gamble of unrestricted submarine warfare; by late 1917 the Germans and Austrians had essentially defeated Serbia, Rumania, and Russia, and breaking Italian resistance might have driven France and the UK to terms.

Although Thompson doesn't dwell on the point, he does bring up the relationship between Catholicism and Italian nationalism. Italian nationalists viewed the Catholic hierarchy with great suspicion, largely because of its resistance to Italian unification in the 19th century. The fact that the Dual Monarchy was Catholic only served to increase the level of suspicion, and priests in occupied areas came under surveillance. Some were even interned. After the death of Emperor Franz Josef, Charles I of Austria took efforts at mediation through the Pope, although these came to nothing. Italy's other regional and class divides also received attention from the state, although it's worth noting that there was no general worker or regional uprisings to the extent seen in Germany or Austria-Hungary.

Thompson is harshly critical of the Italian high command for most of the war, and repeatedly makes the point that the Italian Army itself was incapable of fighting a major war against a modern opponent. It is possible for both of these things to be true at the same time, but of course there is some tension between them. Offensive infantry action against a determined and entrenched opponent is possible, but it requires a great deal of training and social trust. The Italian Army lacked such training, and also lacked the national social cohesion that helped facilitate military effectiveness. Given that a defensive position out of the gate wasn't an option (why would you declare war, then go on the defensive?) I'm not completely convinced that Italy's generals deserve quite the degree of condemnation that Thompson accords. Of course, this isn't to say that the fault lies with the individual soldiers; Italians fought with extraordinary bravery against insurmountable odds, and experienced precisely what happens when a resistable force meets an immoveable object. I also wish that Thompson had included some discussion of the naval war. Although it wasn't decisive, it was taken seriously by both sides and had some effect on the larger war. It also included some events that were compatible with Thompson's thesis on war and Italian nationalism, such as the destruction of the Viribus Unitas.

Thompson doesn't shy away from parallels between Italy's vicious war party and modern American neoconservatives. Neocons don't sing the praises of war as a postive act, or at least they don't do so publicly, but they do romanticize force in a manner reminiscent of D'Annunzio and his ilk. Neoconservatives also mirror the Italian war party in their view of the role of the media, which in war is understood to be one of maintaining fighting enthusiasm rather than telling anything approaching the truth. It bears mentioning that this approach to the media isn't just bad for democracy and bad for truth, but is also bad for war; in both the Iraq War and in Italy's experience of World War I, media control almost certainly produced a less capable military force, by obscuring the failures of military organizations and reducing incentive to change and adapt.

Finally, Thompson's White War illuminates the folly of the Cult of Will; the idea that objectives are achievable if we simply want them hard enough, and if that failure is the result of insufficient enthusiasm. The Cult of Will was present in full force in Italy in 1915, and anyone who pointed out that throwing poorly trained conscripts against prepared defensive positions in mountainous was stupid was immediately denounced as a traitor and enemy of the nation. But of course, all the enthusiasm in the world was insufficient to break the Austrian position; the Italians finally made meager gains only when the entire Central Powers collapsed in late 1918, an event which was not precipitated by the succession of inept Italian offensives. In the end, the fact that you really want something (and even that you want it more than the other guy; many of the Imperial soldiers couldn't give a rats ass about either the Hapsburgs or the Alpine provinces) doesn't meant that you'll actually get it. The Will to Win is great, but I'll take artillery if given the choice.

One cheer for the Homerdome

Perhaps my standards are minimal to non-existent, but I've always kind of liked the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome for reasons that are expressed quite well here. In spite of its overwhelming and obvious deficits as a baseball venue, tickets have always been insanely inexpensive by comparison with the rest of the league; wags might point out that any price was too high to watch the team during most of the years I spent in Minneapolis ('93-'02), but $4 nosebleeder seats were just fine by me, especially when the ushers clearly didn't mind anyone slipping behind the dugouts after a few innings. Not a bad price to pay for seeing Brad Radke win his 20th in 1997, or to see the last major league hits by Kent Hrbek, Paul Molitor, and (less happily) Kirby Puckett.

Several fans quoted in the Deadspin article mention the prevailing lethargy of Twins crowds, a condition that certainly took some getting used to. I don't know how much of that can be chalked up to the emotional habitus of the upper Midwest and how much to the fact that the team was just rotten throughout the 1990s, but no one ever gave me shit for passing a Sunday game while reading the New York Times. Moreover, the Dome was probably the only stadium I've visited where the alcohol-free "Family Section" was completely unnecessary. It was just as well, I suppose. When crowds did get riled up -- as they did during the closest thing we ever had to "Ten-Cent Beer Night" -- it was because they were temporarily larded with mooks who inexplicably lobbed hot dogs and batteries at a guy who'd split the team four years earlier in exchange for a couple of players (Eric Milton and Christian Guzman) who'd actually helped make the team competitive again. (I paid $4 to see that game, too.)

I rarely make it back to the Twin Cities anymore, though I did manage to catch this nearly-unwatchable outing last month when I was in town for a few hours. Though it was nice to see A-Rod robbed of a grand slam, I'm a bit concerned about the bigger picture -- you see, the last game I'd caught at the Dome was in 2002, when the Twins lost an afternoon game to the Angels, who of course went on to win the World Series a few months later. It's bad enough that my final visit to the Dome was marred by a Yankee win, but if my attendance in any way presages the outcome of the postseason, any lingering affection for the place will completely evaporate...

England Cricket Has Reassuringly Returned to Normal

England 102, Australia 196-4, close of play first day, fourth test.

England 102 & 82-5, Australia 445 all out.

This is carnage. England are toast. This test ends tomorrow, two days early, likely Australia winning by an innings.  Creeping into the tail, I don't see how England will make up the 261 runs they are down to force Australia to return to bat for the five minutes it would take them to win. 

32, 30, 0, 3, 4 is the score line for the first five batsmen, all now out.

 

Look for Bopara to be dropped, he contributed one entire run in his two innings.  However, without Pietersen, and now Flintoff looking unlikely, who to replace Bopara with?

This is looking a lot more like 2006/07 series than the 2005 series.

Sarah Palin cranks the crazy up to 11 . . .

. . . and then rips the knob right off the amplifier.

I imagine that being a non-Wingnut Republican these days is like being in one of those hyper-dysfunctional families where Uncle Bob always gets trashed at family gatherings and moons everybody before falling face first into the jello mold.

You just sort of have to close your eyes and pretend you didn't see that.