Images and Quotes, 9 November 1989

"What kind of a system is it that can only exist by keeping the thorns in their own bailiwick? The wall was an actual symbol of defeat. Of inferiority."

Stefan Heym, writer, German Democratic Republic

"The use of force had discredited itself completely. It was no longer possible to stabilize the world by military methods."

Mikhail Gorbachev

"I knew that the communist system was finished. The only problem was what would be the best way to get rid of communism?"

Lech Walesa

"In short, we were speechless, because we were helpless."

Gunter Schabowski, East German Politburo

"She called me. I’m still in my nightgown. [Crowd laughs and cheers] It’s a most wonderful day."

Unidentified German woman, on the night the gates to West Berlin opened.

I Don't Understand Any of This

So, is social media doomed to lose money?

Don't go away. I'm not another social media expert. I barely know how to spell social media. But I just think that sometimes, you know, the folks who think social media is all the buzz have the business sense of a pair of ditry tube socks.

Dilemma: You have a popular "social networking" site. You'd like to actually make a living at what you do, so you start with the advertising. Click-through rates, even for sites that attract millions, produce pennies. So there are a few other things to try. Digg, say, tries "sponsored links," allowing folks to pay for a link to repeat and repeat on their front page.

This is the result.

Fans love Digg so much they don't want it to make money? They want every thing they get on the Internet free of advertising, free of anything that they object to, because we all know how open-minded the average Internet user is.

YouTube is doing sponsored links. Is there a rebellion brewing there?

Personally, I don't mind the sponsored links. Digg has got to figure out a way to make money, just like the next guy, or they'll shut down. Then where will all the social networking geeks who hate advertising go next? Yeah, some other site where you can do the same thing, but the nobles there won't bow to corporate pressure or put up ads or anything like tha . . . wait a second. This is COSTING me money, this social network thing? All these eyeballs aren't paying the bills? I could -- gulp -- use a little bit of sponsored advertising to make more money, make this site better? BACK, SATAN, BACK! If I believed in you, that is. I don't, of course. I'm enlightened. Rational. I will bow to the new demands on business that they do everything to please the consumer, even if it leads the company to financial embarrassment. That's the new Internet mentality.

Maybe it's more of a question of knowing where the lines are between acceptability and deplorability, and not crossing that line? Not looking like MySpace, obviously, is a start, if the comments on the Digg thread are anything to go by.

The S.S. Washington

A long while ago -- I don't quite remember when -- I decided I wanted to find the immigration records from my father's side of the family. They came into the United States from The Netherlands in 1950, long after the big wave of immigration washed over this country but not long after World War II, which they survived. I found them, and they're fun to see.

Above, you can see the entry record for my father Marinus and his brother, along with their mother Dirkje. They were placed on medical hold at Ellis Island along with their father, as you'll see on the next image.

The entry record says "suspected tuberculosis," but the real problem was that enroute, his chest x-ray got folded. He did not have tuberculosis, and the family were allowed entry in mid-November, 1950.

I know their stories fairly well, as we've discussed them in family sessions and in a book I wrote about my Dad a few years ago. One of these days I think it would be interesting to see what happened to some of the people who entered the country at about the same time they did.

They came to the US aboard the SS Washington:

This is what I know of the ship they came on:

Built at New York Shipbuilding Corp.
Yard #406
24,289 GRT
705 x 86.3 feet
Twin screw, Parson geared turbines from builders
20 knots, max 22.7 knots
580 Cabin, 461 Tourist 196 3rd class passengers, 475 crew

Launched August 20 1932. Completed in April 1933. Maiden voyage New York - Southampton - Hamburg, May 10 1933. At the outbreak of war the liner was heading for Europe, so after calls at Cobh and Le Havre, she returned to New York. She then made two round trip voyage to Bordeaux in Western France to repatriate stranded Americans in Europe. After the neutrality act was signed, her voyages to France were cancelled. The Maritime Commission granted permission for MANHATTAN and WASHINGTON to operate a passenger and freight service from New York to Italy which commenced January 13, 1940 calling at Genoa and Naples. However, after Italy's entry into the war the service was ended. WASHINGTON made one special voyage to leaving New York May 30 to Le Verdon, France and to Lisbon, Italy, she picked up 939 and 836 passengers respectively. Off the Portuguese coast she was halted by a German submarine, passengers and crew were ordered into the boats, the Captain insisted that his ship was not American and the submarine departed. At the request of the State Department she made two more transatlantic voyages from New York one to Galway, Ireland and again to Lisbon arriving back in New York July 18 1940. She then sailed New York - Panama - California July 26. First voyage New York to San Francisco July 26.

In 1941 WASHINGTON and her sister MANHATTAN were both taken over by the US Navy, WASHINGTON sailed for Manila 1 April as a troop transport. July 16 she was renamed USS MOUNT VERNON (P 22) and official entered U.S. Navy troop service. Bought by U.S. Government September 26, 1942. Altered to 22,846 GRT. She was renamed WASHINGTON in 1945 and released from service in January 18, 1946 and handed over to the U.S. Maritime Commission and laid up.

April 2, 1946 she began her first post war voyage New York - Southampton to bring back war brides and children. In February United States Lines chartered her for New York - Cobh - Southampton service as a consort to AMERICA. Reconditioned in 1948. Remeasured at 23,626 GRT with 1,106 passengers in tourist class. Remeasured in 1949 29,627 GRT. Continued in New York - Cobh - Southampton - Le Havre - Hamburg service until handed over to the U.S. Maritime Commission in October 1951 for Military Sea Transportation Service. Laid up in Hudson River February 1953. Sold for demolition June 30, 1964 to Union Metals & Alloys of New York. Arrived Kearney, NJ June 28, 1964 and broken up by Lipsett Inc.

They also appear on the ship's manifest of passengers. I'd like to recreate their ocean voyage one of these days.

Domino Theory

I have this theory. It has nothing to do with Communism, or any other kind of ism out there.

It has to do with furniture.

We were given, today, a rather large couch. It kind of resembles one of those snake Rubik's Cube puzzles that were so popular in the 1980s: We have it twined like an "L" on two walls of the family room, really sucking up the space like our old furniture never could.

The theory is this: Given new furniture (it was given to us, and we took it, gratefully, by Michelle's parents) you realize how small your house is and how out of place the old furniture you're replacing is. So we got rid of the two-seater love seat downstairs to make room for the new couch. We also had to move the recliner upstairs, because with the new couch, there just isn't room for the recliner. Moving the recliner meant getting rid of the poofy chair upstairs. So all of it went into the truck, which we drove to the new home of the father of one of our neighbors, who needs furniture. Luckily for them, they did not have stuff they had to get rid of, so the Domino Theory of Furniture ends there.

Michelle's folks have one more chair they wish to give us. We may have to move one of the toilets out.

Uncharted Visits Fort Clatsop

I'm sure Sacagawea's kids NEVER behaved like this.

Yes, I strike at Uncharted once again, drawing on my fourth-grade knowledge of Idaho history to comment on an Oregon historical site. No, I don't understand it either. Just go enjoy the story and photos here. 

The Myths of Peace

I’ve read a lot of books about Richard Nixon. He’s a fascinating character, intelligent, resourceful, and, ultimately because of his faults, one of the most human presidents the United States has ever had. But with “Real Peace,” I read my first book by Richard Nixon.

It’s an eye-opener, more fully cementing in my mind the drive Nixon had for world politics. Most importantly for our day and age, it’s a book in which Nixon deplores quick, political solutions to international problems that only benefit candidates seeking quick wins, and advocates a more long-term, paced approach to real peace through long, thought-out, deliberate action that takes place over decades, not necessarily during one president’s rule.


He writes:

Lenin was fully aware of how helpful naïve Westerners could be to the communist cause. He contemptuously called them “the useful idiots.” More out of ignorance than by design, the useful idiots uselessly plug ridiculously simplistic answers to our most complex problems. They are the sloganeers whose idea of thoughtful analysis is often limited to what will fit on a t-shirt or a bumper sticker. “Make love, not war.” “You can’t hug your kids with nuclear arms.” “Honk if you want peace.” Much of this fatuous nonsense is harmless, but unfortunately not all the useful idiots occupy themselves by marching and honking for peace. Some teach in our universities; some write newspaper columns; others pontificate on television.

The complexities of the modern world are so baffling to them they seek comfort in simple answers., What they fail to recognize is that for every complicated problem there is always a simple answer – and it’s usually wrong.

Building a real peace will be arduous, frustrating work, and it is not surprising that some fall for shortcuts that promise to get them what they want quickly, painlessly, and cheaply. These shortcuts never work, and we should not expect them to work.

In his heart everyone knows that the only people who get rick from the “get rich quick” books are those who write them. But just as there are countless “get rich quick” schemes there is also a wide array of seductively appealing “get peace quick” schemes.

These are the myths of peace.

Though this book was written before the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and is primarily centered on the Cold War conflict, Nixon’s thoughts easily and ably apply to our current state of international conflict between the West and the Middle East. Nixon goes on to advocate what he calls “hard-headed détente,” which, simply put, is a rephrasing of Teddy Roosevelt’s “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Not a war hawk by any means, Nixon reveals himself in this book to be a hawk for economic assistance and military aid that falls short of war but goes a long way in assisting troubled nations to find their own footing. I’d be interested to see what he’d think, for example, of dealing with the Taliban or Iraqi opposition forces in our current conflicts. I’m sure he’d look at the application of military might and say, as he did of American interests in Latin America:

Meanwhile we have left the impression that we become actively involved in Latin America only when our interests are threatened by communist aggression. We must now develop policies which also address their interests. Even if there were no communist threat millions of Latin Americans would justifiably demand reforms to lift the burdens of poverty, injustice, and corruption that have been their lot for generations.

In other words, it’s time to end marching into countries because of what we want to do. We ought to be asking, and forming policies, that help the people in those countries decide what they want to do.

I, of course, am no genius at this. I’m very content to hide in my little corner of the universe.

Time to Eat the Dog?

You know what? I’m a little weary of everything in this modern life of ours being reduced to its impact on the environment.

For example, I’ve written on this blog about our family caring for a stray dog that’s wandered into the neighborhood. The city has no resources to come take it away, so rather than let it starve or be cold, we’ve put out food for it and built it a little shelter in the alley, leastwise until it sheds its timidity and allows us to get near enough to it to read the tags on its collar.

It appears I’m going about it the wrong way. To be environmentally sound, according to Robert and Brenda Vale, architects and experts in “sustainable living” in New Zealand, I should kill the dog and eat it. But not barbecue it. Presumably I should bake it in a solar oven or something, and then eat it, so as to not add to my own carbon footprint cooking the beast.

Think I’m kidding? Read here.

If this craze catches on, you know where it’s going to lead us, don’t you? Right. Planet of the Apes.

We will kill off our pet population in order to reduce our own guilt over carbon footprints, forgetting, of course, that animals in the wild are also eating meat and pooping and doing all sorts of carbon-related activity. Once we kill off the pets, we’ve got to have something to enter our empty little lives, since similar studies also urge strongly against anyone having children any more. (As Child No. 7 out of 8, I find such thinking, well, unthinkable). But back to apes as our masters. We’ll domesticate the ape, teach him environmental responsibility, feed him on home-grown corn and solar-baked cat kibble and then, once we all realize we don’t want smelly, feces-flinging apes living in our homes we’ll nuke ourselves – well, that’s not entirely progressive is it – maybe we’ll just stop breeding entirely and witness a population crash but not before sending a few intrepid yet carbonlicious astronauts into space for a few thousand years so they can come back to Earth in the far distant future to be hunted along with the cave-dwelling, klucke-dragging meat-eating SUV-driving Neanderthals who managed to survive the population crash because they were too busy enjoying the companionship of their large families and their pets to notice that the progressives were saving the planet by using their bodies as compost after they ate their pets. But there’ll be less carbon! And more happiness! Sure, there’ll be fewer actual people (not to mention dogs and cats) to enjoy all the happiness and carbonlessness, but that’s kinda the price you pay for living a progressive agenda.

So do these people APPLAUD species extinction? Of course not. It's because we're producing food for our pets, in the form of pet food. If we let them roam and eat the birdies and the fishies and the mousies and such, maybe that would take the curse off it. But then we'd have Che. That wouldn't be all that bad.

Does that mean I live a horribly carbon-filled lifestyle? Probably, compared to how these nuts would have me live. They obviously won’t be happy until humanity is so scared of releasing methane into the air from farting that we hold it all in, bloat, and eventually explode – once, of course, we’ve climbed the space elevator so we can do our exploding in outer space, where no one can be polluted by our carbon.

Of course, I’m going overboard with this. So are the Vales. Coldly calculating the benefits of getting rid of our pets because of their carbon impact is patently progressive, and patently foolish. I have had much more joy in my interactions with pets (dozens of dogs, dozens of cats, as well as chickens, over a lifetime) than I have had with most human beings.

What it all comes down to is justification. And a misplaced desire to help. Want to help reduce carbon emissions? Encourage nuclear power rather than coal-, natural gas-, or oil-fed power plants. But that’s not Progressive with a big P. Let governments dilly with carbon offsets and solar power, what can WE do to help? Oh yeah. Have fewer (or no) children and barbecue our pets. Thank you for allowing me to justify my childless existence, or at least find solace in the fact that Tiddles or Fido emit less carbon than Kenneth or Julia might, so, since I have a dog rather than a kid, that takes some of the carbon curse off, right? Right? Save us, Dr. Zaius!



On second thought, I wouldn't mind having a breakdancing ape. . .