Radio inteview went well. He had some ideas I had to defuse, and a couple of implications I had to be sure to refute. Was about ten minutes of live interview. Got good reviews from the people who heard me when I was talking (they were in the studio office).
Felt good, had some moments of (by my lights) humor.
Off to the Aquarium.
I'm in Monterey, prepping for a radio appearance tomorrow (mostly by going out, pondering old times, eating clam chowder, strolling with CG, drinking beer [Belhaven IPA] at The Crown and Anchor [the booth with the model of HMS Leopard was taken, so I moved us from the RMS Titanic to MHS Bark Endeavour], while snarfing fried prawns, scallops, calimari and cod with chips; and wrapping it up with a toffee pudding [very well done]).
Tomorrow the radio, then breakfast and the filling of a lacuna in my time here (which is hard believe was 16 years back), and going to the Acquarium.
Saturday I have a two-hour presentation at MIIS, on the usual subjects. It will be at one, I forget the name of the auditorium.
albatross: I'm a Catholic too, and I am with abi: When the church says, "this moral issue is against our policies so much that, rather than render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (i.e., in this case, benefits to partners with marriages recognised by a secular entity), only in this specific case; when there is a direct parallel; that is remarriage, they have chosen to allow it. Which seems inconsistent.
Because the Church's official position on homosexuality is much like that of it's position on remarriage. The homosexual, actually, is, per dogma, in no different a circumstance. God has, for whatever reason, made them gay. They should resist the urge to fornicate. God made the married person such that they fall in love again. They too are to avoid the urge to fornicate; further they are to refrain from marriage, lest they be cut off from the sacraments.
So, all things being equal; the church seems to see the things (doctinally) as equal. Which means this bit of posturing is, so far as I can tell, both wrong, and (per doctrine) immoral; inside the logic of the Church.
Avram: If a ban has been made, and the officiant knows of it, he is obliged to refuse the sacrament; no matter how public the service. It's usually done quietly, but it is supposed to be refused. As you say, Guiliani's state of lacking grace was both widely known (because to have regained it he would have had to end the affairs), and had been spoken of. When the stink was being made about Kerry the Pope said it was between Kerry, his conscience and his priest.
AR/Marilee: A 5 qt pot is just fine. The important ingredient is the lid/weight, to keep the kraut below the surface of the brine. My kraut pot is about 3/4s gallon, just enough for two heads of cabbage.
re malls: Inverness has one. Not very big. It also had what seemed to be several different high streets (i.e. streets with shops).
re pokeweed: The flowers looke like rue
Ddavid Harmon: 1: I still aver that what's being trained with that power imbalance is more fear, and unerstanding of the imbalance. If the thing trained isn't something the trainee later comes to accept as reasonable, the results will last only so long as the power imbalance remains.
As dcb says, the uses of recognition, praise and reward create a much different relationship. When training the dogs with a clicker, they became joyful and eager to find out what today's game was going to be.
Cats were willing to be trained to jump through hoops and to fetch and to avoid chairs. When we moved to training them to do such things on cue, we had; effectively, trained them not to do it, because the knew the reward they had come to associate with the action wasn't going to be forthcoming without the cue part of the equation.
The only problem we ever had was that of unintentional training, where an animal (less common with people) decided the click had been for something other than we'd meant to train for. Sienna (a horse) took to biting her flank. We had to create a cue for it, so we could train her out of thinking we wanted her to do it.
With you all the way. I sometimes regret not making the sacrifices to meet an ex-girlfriend in Berlin to see Pink Floyd play the wall, in '88. I missed the chance to see something which seemed appallingly eternal, just before it was shown to be ephemeral.
So, tonight, with you, in honor of it, I will sip some Glenmorangie (maderia finish) and savor the ephemera of the world.
AR: I just put up my first kraut of the season. You can tell if it's safe to eat by smell. If it's rank, don't eat it.
The crock should be more than adequate. I gave a lesson while I was putting mine up, and the student used just such a container (I have a specially made kraut put, with a purpose built lid. Maia made it for me a few years ago, it holds two heads of cabbage).
The important thing is to have a "following" lid, so the kraut stays below the surface of the brine. If you want to be certain find some fresh kraut (upscale supermarkets, or farmers' markets have them), and pour in a small amount of that brine.
The technique is dead simple. Cabbage, kosher salt (because it melts quickly, and isn't iodized). Layer of cabbage, sprinkle of salt (with a moderate hand, you want a brine of 7-10 percent), press flat (hard enough to feel the cabbage give a little, you want to break up some of the structure. Repeat until the crock is mostly full. Leave the lid pressing. If the cabbage hasn't covered itself with juice, add a little water (give it a day). Keep in a cool place (not more than about 74°F) for 2-3 weeks. After that you can start to sample. When you like it, eat. Save some of the brine for the next batch.
Texanne: "In my Father's house are many doors." There is, per the theology of that cartoon no, "right religions", and it's certainly the case (per the apparent theology of the cartoon) they are not all of the same religion; but they all use the same door.
re CI and vanilla: They are not infallible, and there is more to the joy of cooking than the end result. If it were akin to the difference in Saffron prices (between 6-64 dollars (US) per half gram), them I might care more.
But the prices on vanilla? And there are some things in which it's really obvious, so why spend the money to use the cheap stuff when I'm only using it every so often? Maybe when I'm making 40 dozen spritz for the holidays, but other than that?
Vanilla also improves with age, so I tend to buy it in bunches of 6, and then use that until it's gone. The imitation stuff goes stale (to my taste).
David Harmon: I'll have to find the archive, but the problem is the list, when done to the rules, forbids anything which might lead to real story.
Some of the bits I recall off the top of my head: No eye contact, no one removing anyone else's clothing, no homo-social environments (follwed later by no navies, no ships; it also excludes, monasteries, convents, all stories at girls/boys schools). No one is allowed to be reluctant, no age difference, no inequities of class/station/rank. It was absurd.
Taken literally I got, "Jack and Jill met eat other, like each other, they had consensual sex of on an equal footing, and lived happily ever after." If you wanted to avoid the erotic aspects, leave out the sex.
I'm exaggerating a bit, but the list was that exhuastive. No eroticisation of clothes, no opulence, no bustles, no attention to hands/feet/arms/legs.
The mind reels. I have no problem with, "vanilla" slash, but the list, as given; and the explantion (implicit) that all those things are, "kink" was croggling.
(for those who want to see/join a discussion on it, vito_excalibur on Lj is having one, a screencap is promised.
Earl Cooley: Yes, there is no expiry on impeachment. Malfeasance is punishible so long as they are still alive. This is in part because the punishment includes exclusion from future office, and I presume, because it might not come out until after they left office.
There is even one precedent (though as I recall it, it is weak. He retired/resigned, in an attempt to avoid impeachment, and the refused to bite. I am not completely certain on the details but I do recall wishing it were more cut and dried when I was doing the research.
Dave Bell: The problems with getting subs out wasn't, because of the limits of ASW, all that big a deal. The British hadn't figured out ASDIC (which was semi-reliable, at best; right to the end of the war) Weren't using convoys (what the movement to convoys [finally] did was limit the affect one sub, submerged) could do. Since the Germans didn't try pack tactics that alone made a huge difference), and had ceded the oceans (the pullback to Scapa Flow was because the Admiralty was terrified of subs taking out ships).
The problem, for England, was the sea lanes have to converge on a few ports. Short time on station isn't a big problem in so target rich an environment.
In the realms of... whah...?
A list of forbidden kink for a kink-free slashfic community.
Paula: The House Rules Committee Chairman was David Drier. One wonders what it would have been like had his being gay (an open secret in his disctrict, which was mine for years... my opinions of him make yours look downright affectionate), not prevented him from getting DeLay's place when he was forced to step down.
For a few hours it looked like he was going to be the next Speaker.
abi: I was saying the units/structures didn't exist. The US Army increased itself twenty-fold in the course of the war, creating more than a dozen new divisions which hadn't previously existed. The means to train them, the tactics to be learned (many of which were taught by British cadre sent to the states to do the training) the equipment to supply them, and all the other infrastructure, weren't there.
Even accepting the explanation of what he meant to say, I don't think the addig of Americans to British units (much less French) would be any more possible. First, the shipping of that many new people to Britain would be a problem. They would need to be housed, trained, equipped. The training, in particular, would be a problem because the British used a regimental system of training. The soldier is added to a recruit battalion, and trained. Well adding an entire corps worth of non-British to the system, and it will break down.
I've trained with the British Army, and even as one already a soldier the oddities of difference took some adjusting. I, at least, already shared one culture (that of soldiering) and there was common ground to start from. In 1916, the cultural differences were greater than they are now, and the odds of successfully integrating that many people, of so different an understanding would have been, I think, insurrmountable.
None of which addresses that, until almost 1917 the Allies had no counter to submarines, and were losing tonnage faster than they could build it; which is where we came in.
P.M. Lawrence: I think I see the disconnect, and I don't think I am wrong.
The point I made was if the Germans don't accede to Wilson's complaints in 1915, and continue with unrestricted Submarine warfare, the blockade would force England out of the war; in part because the threat of US intervention was, in practical terms, nil.
You said I was wrong. The US could have put enough troops into the field before the effects of the tonnage loss could have forced the British out.
Primus: I will cop to some narrowness of thinking when you say I misunderstood you, but I don't think it "sensible" for me to take your quoting my words back at me to mean something different to what I said. I further don't think it sensible to expect the US to have just given its citizenry over to the whim of a foreign power, with the authority of life or death. As I pointed out the Australians, members of the Commonwealth; and moderately subject to the Crown refused to do that.
Secondus: The issues of training so many men wasn't trivial. The British didn't have the cadre for it. They were hard presssed to keep up with requirements to train the men they did have.
Tertius: To "encourage" people to enlist in a foriegn Army would have been a hard sell; even in 1915 when anger over the Lusitania was at its peak. Wilson didn't move for a declaration of war because it would have failed. His warning to Germany that continued blockade by sinking was likely to lead to the US entering the fray was about half bluff.
When you consider that it was, in fact, a crime (though more honored in the breach) for an American to take such an elistment unless done abroad it becomes more problematic (this is why the various groups who did enlist had get to the country in question first, in person, to do it; othewise they violated US Code §958-960, which was decided as it not constituting a crime for someone to enlist in a foreign army, but a breach of law if such contract was entered on US soil (Wiborg v US 163 U.S. 632 [1896]). For the Gov't to say, Yes, ship out from NY, and fight in Flanders would almost certainly have been successfully challeneged under that ruling.
On a personal note, if you are actually trying discuss things with me, the condescening tone of your last reply isn't likely to help. Telling me I am not paying attention to your reply, which is sensisble and accusing me of refusing to read what you write (when I am reading it closely, and quoting directly the replies you are making to me, in which you are imposing your interpretation of my words, and demanding I take them in your meaning, is not only poor practice (since I know what I meant, and you presumed to impose your reading of it on me) but it isn't likely to garner much in the way of the good will required to gain the more charitable readings you desire.
Since this thread is the only place in which you have any findable record (here: I did go and look at your other writings from the page linked to your name; and that at first contact. I allow you may have changed e-mail address, but even with that you are have not posted enough for me to place you by name, or tone of typer),and none of your writings show experience, or competence in matters military; about which I am both informed, and experienced, it's not unreasonable for me to assume that your confusion is the result of not being clear on just what it is the proposals you say would have done 'X' actually meant on the ground.
It's also not unreasonable for me to hope that the level of detail I entered in reply might be food for thought and further investigation, esp. as I was kind enough do some for you (such as confirming the rates of tonnage loss, and the specific makeup and size of the army at the outbreak of the war. Sadly I was unable to find the numbers for 1915, and didn't get the numbers for the first flush of enlistement/draft. Nor was I able to confirm my grandmother's recollection that the US had to institute the draft in 1917, not to collect men, but to manage them; because the sheer numbers were overwhelming the ability to process, feed and clothe them. That was with the problems of training and equipment, but; as is my wont, I digress).
Words have meaning. Connotation matters. Clarity of terms is important. If what you meant was mere manpower, you needed to be more clear; because in this case contextually "troops" refers to one's own soldiers, not merely men being sent to some other place.
If you meant something else, and you wished to avoid confusion (which is only sensible) it's incumbent on you to make sure the distinction is made.
P.M. Lawrence: I did not miss the point. I disagreed with it. You said the US could field an army.
You didn't say, of course the ability to field an army that quickly wasn't there. You said quite the opposite "The USA did have "the ability to pour troops into the field", it just chose not to do so as that would have involved sending them into French units. It was forming and deploying a distinct AEF that took the added time. (emphasis in original @122).
Well it didn't. The arguments over who was going to command didn't arise until the actual presence of US troops was feasible,and added about 6 weeks to the equation (and yes, while some of the question was about using them as plain replacements, a large part of it was about making the US an indpendent command, with its own portion of the line to hold, and its own objectives in attack).
The problems you don't see are legion. One can't just, "put troops into existing training structures and units" when there aren't any. The army before the war had a total strength of 210,000 troops (of which a number were actvated Guard on duty in the Philipines).
The army was expanded to 4,100,000 by war's end, there is no way to just "fold in" 20 times the listed Order of Battle into units. Even if that was the way the US army did its training (and it isn't) that would swamp the cadre. The result would be an ill trained mob (at best). Which says nothig of the troubles of feeding, clothing, housing, and arming them. Just look at "The Blue Puttees" of Newfoundland for an example of the problems; in a nation already on a war footing.
Which is why it took a year to get the army to the numbers needed to deploy them.
Dave Bell: I don't there there has been a gunpowder army which was better trained then the Long Service Army of 1914.
P M Lawrence: Terry Karney wrote "Want to know how Germany ends the war in 1916? They don't stop unrestricted submarine warfare. Odds are they are sinking half a million tons of shipping a month by June 1916, (they were quickly up to about 800,000 when the)y resumed). No one had the means to stop them, and the US didn't have the ability to pour troops into the field (it took almost a year from our declaration to our arrival on the Western Front)."
The convoy system worked well enough against submarines; the problem was that dispersion was necessary against surface warships. After Jutland, it was practical to focus against submarines. The USA did have "the ability to pour troops into the field", it just chose not to do so as that would have involved sending them into French units. It was forming and deploying a distinct AEF that took the added time.
The Convoy System worked well enough once it was forced on the Navy; and once the British had invented the Depth Charge. No small part of the change the US entry to the war made was our insistence on not sending capital ships, but on sending destroyers. Since Germany was sinking more tonnage than the British were able to replace...
And no, we weren't able to send troops. It took us almost a year (and that with some ramping up in advance on the part of Wilson) to field the Army. The intrangience about who was to command them (and it was as much not willing to put htem under Haig as it was Foch: one thing [which the Austrialians understood,and the Canadians didn't, was to refuse the right to discipline to the British; which is why no Australians were shot for cowardice, and Canadians were, but I digress] added time to that, but the actual ability to field an army wasn't there. We had to draft, supply, and train, a huge increase in manpower. (we had to do the same thing again in WW2, and was with an even more decided ramping up under Roosesevelt).
Given how poorly we actually fought (being more a case of mass than technique), I don't know that having an army in the field two years earlier; when the Germans were still fresh) was going to be much of a real change.
My grandfather's recollections (such as he was willing to share) don't put things in a very good light, and pretty much all Pershing did was engage in mass attacks; gaining the advantage of being the only player left who had men willing to engage in them with such vigor.
The Battle of Jutland, as understood by the British, was a ceding of the field to the torpedo (Jellicoe did exactly what he said he would, refused to press the High Seas Fleet for fear of mines and torpedoes. When they saw torpedoes, the turned about).
Paul A. I have seen it, it was glorious. You do know the lines of Snoopy's book are all lifted from a Bulwer-Lytton novel, yes?
Debbie: The Irish, Poles, Czechs, Italians, etc. had a huge advantage over the Mexicans, Central/S Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Sub Saharan/East/West/North African immigrants.
Lose the accent and they can blend in.
I have friends, whose families have been here since the 1700s, who get asked for green cards.
I really like the end of that NYT piece, where Salazar (the last American to win the NY Marathon) was the tag.
In Salazar’s view, Keflezighi’s victory is another indication that American distance running is coming back. Keflezighi never ran competitively before he came to the United States, and he did all his training here.
“Can American-born guys and gals compete?†Salazar said. “I think we are starting to see that.
“Does Meb resolve that argument? No. He wasn’t born here.
“And neither was I.â€
I put a link up, and a bit of a ranty comment on my facebook.
One my more Conservative friends (we won't even go into where he stands on health care) was the first to chime in calling Rovell a dolt.
There is a fair bit of hope in the world.
Patrick: That is a great book. It gave a wealth of context to the piece. Even if the argument about what Lincoln intended is wrong, the rest of the book more than makes up for it in how it gives perspective to the speech, and lifts it from the, "afterthought" position it gets sort of relegated to (being so short, after an prologue so long).
re WW1: There were a lot of things going on (the most noteworthy being that, had Austria been willing to bite the bullet and just storm Serbia in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, nothing much would probably have come of it. A bunch of diplomatic wrangling to resolve the fait accompli but her waiting allowed for the mobilisation; when she finally did cross the border it was kitty bar the door).
The rest of the theory of structural inevitability has been gone over a lot. The Schlieffen plan wasn't doable as designed (either wait for all the troops/supplies, and let the Allies get set, or leave now, with not enough). When BEF spent itself stopping the Germans at the Battle of Mons, and the gap opened on the German Right to allow the Battle of the Marne; the Machine Gun did the rest.
Then we get to the idea of the offensive. The Germans were content to sit in place and counterattack (mostly), so they had good bunkers, and "comfortable" trenches. The French and British had squalid slices in the raw earth.
Want to know how Germany ends the war in 1916? They don't stop unrestricted submarine warfare. Odds are they are sinking half a million tons of shipping a month by June 1916, (they were quickly up to about 800,000 when the)y resumed). No one had the means to stop them, and the US didn't have the ability to pour troops into the field (it took almost a year from our declaration to our arrival on the Western Front).
So England gets starved out (and maybe the US troopships get sunk), and then France sues for peace.
re the "Merrimack" It's damned near conventional to call it by the Union name; my texts all said something to the effect of, "the USS Merrimack, which the Confederates called "Virginia" as if the long naval traditions of taking siezed/captured vessels into service never existed.
I have a friend, who is a fiend for the US Civil War, and praises all sorts of southern generals, who refuses to call it anything but the USS Merrimack. I don't understand it.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 1109 |
| 2008 | 1827 |
| 2007 | 776 |
| 2006 | 58 |
| 2005 | 30 |
| 2004 | 2 |
Total: 3802 comments. View all these comments on a single page. (May take a frightfully long time to load.)
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Terry Karney:
Show all comments by Terry Karney.