lloydtown 

More Ailments

I've been running since September--three times a week, alternating days with swimming, which I've been doing for longer.

I would sometimes get a sore heel after running, but it never seemed serious--never caused me to limp, or hesitate to walk, or anything.

Last Saturday I did what I consider my longer run, and in the afternoon my left heel hurt like crazy. Naturally, I went to the Internet. Almost certainly inflammation of the plantar fascia.

So in hindsight, I should have worked harder on getting good shoes. I thought I did well in spending almost a hundred bucks on a pair that fit really snugly--lots of support. But now it seems I need more support, and someone probably could have told me that.

In fact, the good news is that there's a lot of information around now. I'll probably skip a couple of runs, do some stretches, and get some inserts for my shoes. I iced both feet, especially the sore one, both Saturday and Sunday. The pain responded well to that plus iboprofen.

So: conservative treatment, prevention, back in action.

Meanwhile I'm getting a cold from the sickies I live with--I mean, my loved ones.

Back to Grey and World War I

Still reading.

Grey spends some time on an offer of arbitration that Woodrow Wilson extended, before the U.S. entered the war, by way of Wilson's friend Colonel House.

[blockquote]Colonel House expressed an opinion decidedly favourable to the restoration of Belgium [to independence from Germany], the transfer of Alsace and Lorraine to France, and the acquisition by Russia of an outlet to the sea, though he thought that the loss of territory incurred by Germany in one place would have to be compensated to her by concessions to her in other places outside Europe.[/blockquote]

Once again, there was a lost opportunity for both sides--but perhaps particularly for Germany.

[blockquote]How does it all look now? In the light of after-events, it is clear that Germany missed a great opportunity of peace. If she had accepted the Wilson policy, and was ready to agree to a Conference, the Allies could not have refused. They were dependent on American supplies; they could not have risked the ill-will of the Government of the United States, still less a rapprochement between the United States and Germany. Germans have only to reflect upon the peace that they might have had in 1916 compared with the peace of 1919.[/blockquote]

Did the Allies also miss an opportunity?....now, some years after the mighty peace of 1919, the condition of Europe is sufficiently disappointing to make it interesting to imagine what the course of events might conceivably have been if the Allies and Germany in 1916 had told President Wilson that they were ready for the Conference he was prepared to summon.

....The terms were such as must have demonstrated the stultification and failure of Prussian militarism. Granted that militarists are incorrigible and would have desired to prepare a new war, would the German people have been so disillusioned about war as to depose militarism from control?

....if a Wilson peace in 1916 had brought real disillusionment about militarism, it would have been far better than what actually happened.

Best Cheney Lines

OK, maybe this is past its due date.

From the fake Whittington blog: I've always been a fundraiser for the Republicans, but now I have to ask myself: if Gore had been elected President, would I be worse off today?

From somewhere: Once again the media proves its liberal bias! I've scanned every possible source (proving once again that I have no life), and no where has the perfidious MSM mentioned--even once--the parts of Whittington's body that haven't been shot yet!

There must be a third one--well, the cartoon on Wonkette: you go hunting with the intelligence you've got, not with the intelligence you want.

Go Raptors

Third straight win; sixth out of the last eight games.

Brief Comment on the Shooting

Chatting with colleagues at work, I said perhaps the funniest comment so far is (from Hit and Run) that Cheney is like Claudine Longet. The big difference: Longet did the media thing properly, crying, "I don't know what happened! The gun went off, and Spider was dead!"

After enjoying the laugh, one colleague said: but this is totally different, right? We all think Dick is just old and stupid and blind, right?

I guess so. What else could it be?

Western Chronology: Still Crazy After All These Years?

It turns out it's possible--and stress, only possible--that the "official" dating of events from the Middle Ages and antiquity may be out by 500 to 1000 years.

We owe the Julian/Gregorian, or "Western" calendar, based on solar years made up of solar days, to Julius Caesar and Pope Gregory XIII. Every other culture and people has always used lunar calendars, which nonsensically try to match up lunar months with solar days and years. Our information about "when" things happened, from the centuries before the solar calendar became fully accepted, generally derives from one individual, "the French philologist Joseph Scaliger, later a professor at the University of Leiden in Holland, who founded the science of historical chronology."

"He analyzed about 50 calendars, none of which are in use any more," Daicu explains. While some eminent scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton and Johannas Kepler disagreed with some of his datings, Scalinger's chronology underlies the work of historians to this day.

How then, can we arrive at accurate chronology? "One way of doing it is to use radio carbon dating (of documents), to use scientific dating in a scientific way: take many measurements, do statistical analysis and draw the right conclusions," he says.

He is exasperated by the tendency he has noted of archaeologists and historians to use carbon dating only to support conventional chronology. "Historians discard measurements they don't like," he says. "I've talked to many historians and most trust the existing chronology. If you change the chronology, a complete new interpretation of documents is implied."

Zakaria on the New Middle East

Stanley Kurtz is correct: this piece by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek is very thought-provoking. (via The Corner).

Give Bush his due. He has correctly and powerfully argued that blind assistance to the dictatorships of the Middle East was a policy that was producing repression and instability. But he has not yet found a way to genuinely assist in the promotion of political, economic and social reforms in the region. A large part of the problem is that the United States—and the West in general—are not seen as genuine well-wishers and allies of the peoples of these countries in their aspirations for a better life. We have stopped partnering with repressive Middle Eastern regimes, but we have not yet managed to forge a real partnership with Middle Eastern societies.

Abramoff and Reid

The AP has said Harry Reid, Democratic leader in the Senate, has received "Abramoff-related" donations amounting to over $60,000.

This is at least partly sloppy reporting. No one is saying Reid received money directly from Abramoff. No one is even saying they ever met (in contrast to, say, Bush and Abramoff). At most Reid received money from Indian tribes who were clients of Abramoff's. Reid also met with people at Abramoff's lobbying firm--or, more likely, Reid's staff did.

Do Indian tribes take orders from Abramoff as to whom to give money to? Have they ever done so? They are not like some of the dummy corporations Abramoff set up, specifically to channel money to politicians. The claim is now made that certain tribes only started giving money to Reid after these tribes became clients of Abramoff's; that Reid received money, at least in some cases, shortly after speaking in favour of the cause these tribes pursued. It looks like Reid is able to say he kept on defending the same old cause: no Indian gambling off reservation, especially if the request was a cover for a land claim. That is his long-standing view. If a tribe was prepared to pay him to keep saying the same thing, why not?

Minimum wage on the Marianas is more murky. Reid was actually a co-sponsor of the legislation to raise the minimum wage in all U.S. territory, including the Marianas. Republicans opposed any raise, especially in the Marianas. This is the issue on which Reid and his staff met with lobbyists associated with Abramoff. Did they discuss keeping the minimum wage low in Marianas, while leaving the rest of the bill untouched, or, as one former Reid staffer is now saying, did they simply discuss the timing of the debate on the bill?

I don't think there is anything solid against Reid here. Yet Instapundit jumps on it again, along with more rabid Bushie sites. I think the AP reporters like the story, as the Washington post liked their line about Abramoff helping both Republicans and Democrats, because they enjoy a sense of moral superiority: they're all corrupt, a pox on both their houses. Yet if this is the only Abramoff connection they can find to any Democrats, they don't have much.

Rick Mercer

I got to see the young or not so young man live at the University of Toronto.

He showed clips from his career on Canadian TV: "Talking to Americans," a bizarre interview with Chretien at a Harvey's restaurant, getting politicians and journalists singing "Let's Raise a Little Hell," Pierre Berton demonstrating how to roll a joint, a selection of fake commercials, and a tribute to Canada's peacekeepers in Bosnia (some years ago).

A big auditorium full of students, and all of this went over very big with them. Probably many Americans would be annoyed by the assumption that Canadians are superior to Americans--or at least, we are free of something they are stuck with, and we are fortunate for that. He got Governor Huckabee of Arkansas to wish Canada all the best with its national igloo. Mercer had a story: as they entered the Capitol building, a chain gang was assembling a nativity scene for Christmas. They were bound together so tightly that if one fell, they all fell. One fell when he was about to put the baby Jesus in place. A guard with a shotgun yelled at him to shape up. Mercer had the audacity to ask to see the Governor, and after going through layers of staff, he finally got to. Mercer was more and more nervous. Finally Huckabee said go ahead, roll the camera. A staffer called him away, saying it was urgent. Mercer is thinking: if they Google me, I'm f___ed. Huckabee came back, very serious: young man, I'm going to ask you a question, and I want you to answer me truthfully. "Yes Governor." This igloo--this national igloo--is it a controversial igloo? "Oh no sir." OK, let's do it.

Mercer and his producer had planned to enjoy some great barbeque in Little Rock--indeed, that's how they picked Little Rock as a destination. After all they had been through, remembering the chain gang, when they were done Mercer just said "let's get the hell out of here."

Mercer gives voice to the idea that in a way we know too much about the U.S.--we can't avoid them. I for one am endless fascinated, I always want to learn more. I'd be happy to teach U.S. government to Canadians, but there may not be many takers.

How did he get Chretien to meet him at Harvey's? There had been a news item saying Chretien enjoyed dropping in at a local Harvey's, with no planning. Mercer called the media person in the PMO to suggest a meeting. The flack was grumpy. "You're really going too far this time; the PM will be running down the stairs before the House, as always; you might get a moment with him." Mercer kept pressing: it's a great idea, something different, we all benefit--in fact, it will make a great picture. At that point Donolo the flack said: I'll put you on hold for a minute. He came back on and said "Will 11:00 do?"

Mercer figured it all out later. The day they did this was Budget day. Normally, the papers the next day would all have the Minister of Finance on Page One, delivering the Budget. In 1996 that would have been Chretien's arch-rival, Paul Martin. In 1996, instead, many papers had a photo of Chretien having a hamburger at Harvey's with Rick Mercer. Mercer says "That's how much they hated each other." Once he had this figured out, he later got Martin to participate in something by saying: it's OK, we'ver got Brian Tovin.

Mercer has a self-deprecating shtick. His most successful bits resulted from desperation. He couldn't think of anything that seemed really funny, but he had to do something. Thus: Talking to Americans, the famous petition to change Stockwell Day's name to Doris.

The commercials included some fun anti-Bush stuff. "Some see a glass that's half full. Others say the glass is half empty. George Bush says: it's my glass. Keep your hands off my glass."

One commercial takes off on the satellite TV industry: "Taking a signal you haven't paid for is stealing." The kid delivers this message to dad when dad starts to chew him out for stealing a candy bar. Fine, says the father, no satellite. The kid starts to wail. What? Dad says: you can just watch the CBC (Mercer's employer). The kid is hysterical. Then a brief moment: shall we watch the roundtable discussion on menopause?

For the now-famous Pierre Berton bit, there was a back story: a young man had just started working for Mercer, and overheard Mercer's end of the phone conversation with Berton: Yes Mr. Berton we were hoping you would agree to demonstrate how to roll a joint. You would? Great. Can we bring the dope? Yes, we can certainly do that. OK, we'll be there.

The kid said: Man, I'm going to love this job.

The piece on Canadian troops was the finale. Mercer seems to mean it when he says he has great respect and affection for these folks--and they deserve more money, and better equipment. All of this got a good reaction from the crowd. The patriotism seems real.

Peggy Noonan Comes Through Again

I guess this is why she makes the big bucks at the WSJ:

Listen, I watched the funeral of Coretta Scott King for six hours Tuesday, from the pre-service commentary to the very last speech, and it was wonderful--spirited and moving, rousing and respectful, pugnacious and loving. The old lions of the great American civil rights movement of the 20th century were there, and standing tall. The old lionesses, too. There was preaching and speechifying and at the end I thought: This is how democracy ought to be, ought to look every day--full of the joy of argument, and marked by the moral certainty that here you can say what you think.

There was nothing prissy, nothing sissy about it. A former president, a softly gray-haired and chronically dyspeptic gentleman who seems to have judged the world to be just barely deserving of his presence, pointedly insulted a sitting president who was, in fact, sitting right behind him. The Clintons unveiled their 2008 campaign. A rhyming preacher, one of the old lions, a man of warmth and stature, freely used the occasion to verbally bop the sitting president on the head.

So what? This was the authentic sound of a vibrant democracy doing its thing. It was the exact opposite of the frightened and prissy attitude that if you draw a picture I don't like, I'll have to kill you.

It was: We do free speech here.

That funeral honored us, and the world could learn a lot from watching it. The U.S. government should send all six hours of it throughout the World Wide Web and to every country on earth, because it said more about who we are than any number of decorous U.N. speeches and formal diplomatic declarations.

A moment for a distinction that must be made. Some have compared Mrs. King's funeral to the Paul Wellstone memorial. It was not like the Wellstone memorial, and you'd have to be as dim and false as Al Franken to say it was. The Wellstone memorial was marked not by joy but anger. It was at moments sour, even dark. There was famous booing.

The King funeral was nothing like this. It was gracious, full of applause and cheers and amens. It was loving even when it was political. It had spirit, not rage. That's part of why it was beautiful.