God Must Be Happy (1 cent)

I spent yesterday afternoon at the Holocaust Memorial Museum attending a two hour session on the implications of the recent discovery in Vienna of 800 boxes of Jewish community records from the Nazi years. For many reasons, it was a fascinating afternoon.

After the session ended, I drove home and we decided to go out for dinner. We have a gift card from Filomena, a restaurant in Georgetown that we had never used, and where we had never been. So, very unusual for us, we drove to Georgetown for dinner. We got to Filomena at about 6:45 and were told that the next available table would be at about 8:30. We decided to go elsewhere.

Filmena is on Wisconsin Avenue, south of M Street. For no particular reason, we walked up to M Street and, again, for no reason turned left and walked west. We wandered a while (restaurants that used to be there are now mostly furniture stores) and saw hidden in a window that boarded a passageway that went to a set of steps that went down to a courtyard a small sign calling attention to a restaurant called "Leopold's", and another sign that said that it had won a Washingtonian Magazine award in 2006. We had never heard of Leopold's.

We walked down the steps, found ourselves in a spacious courtyard with outside tables, and saw Leopold's Kafe, a very contemporary looking place (much glass, much plastic, no wood) that looked exactly that it had stepped out of contemporary Vienna (having seen places last year that looked precisely like that). Then we looked at the menu, which included Austrian wines, schnitzels, and sausages, as well as more universally continental dishes.

Leopold is the name of one of Vienna's new museums in what is now known as the Museum Quarter, and there were Leopold posters on the interior walls.

So, what chance would there be to go from spending an afternoon dealing with Vienna to a restaurant that looked like it was Vienna? This is too much of a coincidence, so I conclude that it was at God's direction.

God must be happy. For once (and maybe only for once), his plan worked out just as he wanted it to. I am happy to have played a part.

Auf wiedersehen.

Presidential Courage

So, Michael Beschloss' book on presidential courage seems to be getting panned all over. Based on what I have seen about the book, and on his presentation several weeks ago and Politics and Prose, that is not surprising.

He picked a number of examples of various presidential accomplishments, defined them as obvious examples of presidential courage (all were not) and stated them to be the best examples possible (they were not).

At any rate, in contemporary terms, look at George Bush (if you dare). You can't deny it: invading Iraq was an example of presidential courage. It might have also been an example of presidential stupidity or presidential deception, but clearly it involved courage.

So, we have a courageous president, right? Well, not so fast.

Our president does not appear to have the courage to pardon Scooter Libby, a man who clearly does not deserve to hang out and dry while his superiors go free.

For shame.

40th Anniversary

Yesterday marked the 40th anniversary of Day 1 of the Six Day War. We went to a commemoration held at American University's Kay Spiritual Center, but not sponsored by the university. I am embarrassed to say that I don't know the names of all of the panelists, but of the four, two were Aaron David Miller and Yuval Rabin, Yitzhak's son. The other two were Arabs who live in the Washington area. All are involved in peace, bridge building activities. None are considered 'radical'.

I was surprised at the size of the audience. There must have been 200 people there. We only knew or recognized a handful. Many were activists with various peace organizations. There seemed to be many more Jews than Arabs (not surprisingly for any number of reasons).

The question is where to go from here. Or, putting it maybe a bit better, is there any where to from here. There was clearly a lot of sorrow and frustration expressed by the panelists, but each still had a smidgeon of optimism. None could understand where that remain optimism comes from. All agreed that on so many issues the sides were so very far apart.

The support was still for the two state solution. Which was deemed the right thing to support, but only because there was nothing else to support.

I return to my own thoughts. I do not think that the two state solution is possible. I think it is a chimera. You cannot name a state today that is divided in this manner; Pakistan failed and split, for example. And particulary you cannot think of a successful such state which would be separated by an 'enemy', and an enemy with much more power.

So, I repeat what I have said before.

Look at Jordan. A successful country to be sure, but a parliamentary monarchy under a Hashemite (ethnic Saudi) king, when the population itself is virtually all Palestinian or Bedouin (the majority being Palestinian). At some point, the kingdom will fail, and a form of democracy will take root, with Palestinian interests controlling the country. At that time, I believe that pressure would build for a merger of the West Bank into Jordan (where it was before 1967). I think that there are many reasons for this, and I think a viable country would remain.

As to Gaza, immediate viability is impossible, but long term viability, as a separate state unto itself, is quite possible. Look not only at what Singapore has done. Look closer to home (Gaza being home for this exercise). The emirate have done quite well for themselves.

Gaza has the port, it has the work force, and it has the beaches. Imagine goods coming from North African into Gaza, being transported across Israel into an augmented Jordan. The pieces are there for an economically interdependent region.

What about Hamas? As one of the Arab speakers said last evening, democracy is a great thing, but to implement it when Hamas is powerful would be a disaster. As we can see from the current Palestinian experience.

Perhaps this true, but perhaps Hamas would have bigger fish to fry if it had a country to develop than focusing on its enemy, Israel.

If the Arab focus could be on internal development. If the occupation could end. If the Israelis could stay together without a common enemy. If the Palestinians could do the same........

Both sides seem to need each other as focal points for internal feels of solidarity and community. That has to change. And a large number of West Bank settlers will have to be relocated, most likely. But the world is filled with people who move, and if it is done in the context of a mutually secured agreement for security, who knows what the limits might be.

In the meantime, I go back to what Tom Segev said when we heard him last month. He said that the citizens of the region seem to have give up today on large goals with prospects of immediacy, and instead being content to simply manage and control the conflict, so it does not break out too often.

My guess is that Segev is correct, but I think this time of controlled tension can be used to develop the possibility of two Palestinian states, not one, although this is clearly contrary to majoritarian thinking today.

A nice noon time concert (22 cents)

sometimes, I am not certain about the accoustics at the Church of the Epiphany, and today was one of those times. Betsy Hinkle's violin did not sound quite rich enough. But her playing was otherwise impeccable and the accompaniment of Jad C. Bernardo was first class. The main item on the program was Cesar Frank's Sonata in A for Piano and Violin, which is one of my favorites, and I had not heard it for a long time. They ended with two selections from Porgy and Bess, much less demanding, and very enjoyable. About 75 people in attendance by my count. The weather was beautiful outside, so the dozen or so homeless men who usually sit in the back of the church were not there.

A few quick thoughts

1. Neisha Thai Restaurant last night was very good.

2. Went to a lecture this morning on the role of women in Caesaria in the 4, 5, and 6th centuries. I found it a little disappointing because the lecturer, Kenneth Holsum, who has led a major dig in Caesaria and teaches at U. Md., is a very dry speaker, and he went on for over an hour although he did not have that much to say on the subject. He started by saying that nothing has been published on women in Byzantine Caesaria; by the time he was finished, I knew why. There is surprisingly little to say, particularly if you want to divide the roles played by Christian, Jewish and Samaritan women. Holsum would simply extrapolate and guess a little too much. Not that it was a waste of time, and not that nothing of interest was said, but for a lecture on this particular subject, I don't think he got very far.

3. Last month, as you may recall, I read Raphael Patai's "The Seed of Abraham". Why is it that, today, I could not tell you one thing in it?

4. How are they allowing the Nats/Padres game to continue through this rain? It wouldn't be such a bad call, if the Nats were winning, but they are not.

The Week that Was (16 cents)

This was actually a fairly eventful week, but the lack of air conditioning in my home office has hampered by computer usage and blogging. Why the air conditioning went out, we don't know. Our regular air conditioning company came out and said that the air conditioner seemed OK, but that it was getting any electricity. We need an electrician. The electrician is coming on Tuesday, so here (on a Saturday) I am, without air conditioning in the room in which I do most of my homework.

Last Saturday, we picked up our new car, a silver Toyota Prius. Our first Toyota; our first hybrid. It is the 'greenest' car on the American roads, and according to this morning's paper, Toyota sold three times as many Priuses in May 07, as they did in May 06. It drives very comfortably and, in fact, is a relaxing car to drive. You don't have the sensation that you should be revving the engine up continually (in fact you can't), and you try (even subconsciously) to over accelerate. It is odd, in that the car has no key (you have a block shaped key-like thing that you can keep in your pocket), no starter (you push a button that says 'power'), and no gear shift (just a small vestigial toggle that protrudes about 2" from the dashboard). It also is low on trunk space (it is a hatchback), unless you pull down the back seat, but then your storage space, although more than ample, becomes visible.

We tried out the car on Saturday in Loudoun County at the Hunt and Stable Show, and then we drove it to New York, leaving our house Tuesday during rush hour and returning by about 11 p.m. Wednesday night. We went to see the Barcelona exhibit at the Met, closing this weekend), which proved very worthwhile, and a good primer for our August trip. We stayed on the way up at a more than satisfactory Best Western in Burlington NJ, and ate at a Ruby Tuesday's (or was it a Friday's or was it an Applebees?) across the parking lot, where the tilapia turned out to be better than the salmon.

We drove into the city (HollandTunnel was not fun) and followed the sign to the Met and the Met parking lot, where for only $26, we could park for five hours. The garage is under the museum, something that seems vaguely dangerous, although they do check your trunk (or what passed for our trunk) upon entry.

The Barcelona exhibit deals with the period from 1881 (when a newly textile-prosperous city decided to become a center of culture and art) until 1939 (when newly installed General Franco decided the opposite), and had sterling examples of art, jewelry, crafts, furniture, architectural models and more. We were lucky enough to catch a tour guided by one of the three curators of the show. We hope to see many of the exhibited items back in Spain in August.

Coming back (we left the museum about 4) and spent almost 2 hours trying to get through the Lincoln Tunnel, and onto the NJ Turnpike.
The drive back was quick, except that we had a two hour stop in Mt. Holly, an unknown (to us) old town, with buildings going back to the early 18th century. Everything was closed when we got there, and we ate at the Robin's Nest, an upscale restaurant where the highlight was the 3-soup appetizer: cold strawberry, cream of spinich and Md. crab.

The car did very well, and averaged the promised 50 miles per gallon (and it takes regular gas at that).

Since our return Wednesday night, I went to the National Museum for Women in the Arts to see the exhibit of paintings by women from the Italian renaissance, which was very enjoyable. Particularly the portraits (there were fewer still lifes, religious subjects, or historical subjects), some of which were up there with the best of the portraits of the time. I also saw Harry Benton's photographs at the National Portrait Gallery, which spanned a 50 year period of time from the 1950s until today. Benton is a Scottish photographer, who has worked for a number of periodicals and newspapers. While I do not think that all of the photos on display were of display quality, many clearlly were. Perhaps I will get time to talk about them later.

Finally, after a dinner at Bua Thai on Thursday, we saw again Either/Or at Theater J, which seems to have matured in the weeks it has been performed, and is now an excellent show, making it all the sadder that it has to close this weekend, and that the reviews were based on the first few performances. The show was good then (and the reviews positive), but seems to have improved dramatically (no pun intended). I guess this happens with some shows, particularly when they are premieres and were undergoing continual changes until just before opening night. The talkback with cast and director was also interesting.

What's in a Title?

I just finished reading Shirley Christian's very interesting book, "Before Lewis and Clark". Its subtitle is "the Story of the Chouteaus, the French dynasty that ruled America's frontier". It is the story of the founding and first 75 years or so of St. Louis.

It was published in 2004 which was the 200th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase (which brought St. Louis to the U.S.) and the start of the Lewis and Clark voyage to the northwest. Clearly, Farrar, Straus and Giroux thought they could capitalize on all of the interest in that expedition, by chosing a name for the book that would make you think that it was about the years before 1804.

Au contraire, as they used to say in French St. Louis. The subtitle is much more in keeping with the text. The Lewis and Clark expedition is discussed in the first third of the book.

Putting this mistitle aside, and not using this blog entry to retell the story of the founding of St. Louis, the following facets of the book were most interesting. First, the degree in which fur trapping was THE reason for the location of St. Louis, and the mainstay of its early economy. Second, how fur trapping worked, through bargaining with individual groups of Native Americans, and through sole trappers who roamed parts unknown. Third, the difficulties in getting the furs to market, and particularly the problems with transportation and the dangers of long distance travel. Fourth, the degree to which St. Louis really was a French city, with the senior Chouteaus, including those who lived well into the 1800s, never learning English. Fourth, the complex relationships between the trappers, the settlers and the Indians, and the problems between one Indian tribe and another, and how all of this impacted on, among other things, the economy of St. Louis. Fifth, the ease with which some of the Chouteaus got along with many of the Indians, including learning the languages. Sixth, the attitudes towards Indians of while St. Louisans, and their attitudes towards blacks and slavery. Seventh, not only the sexual alliances between Indians and whites, but the length and depths of some of these relationships. Seventh, the numbers of children born to each family, and the numbers of children who died, as well as the prevelance generally of what would today be considered very early death. Finally, how difficult travel was and how long it took to get from one place to another.

On this last point, in the early years going from St. Louis to, say, Washington, meant a boat down the Mississippi to New Orleans, and boat from New Orleans to Baltimore, and a coach from Baltimore to Washington.

Even as late as the 1850s, when I would have thought that transportation had been much improved, such a journey could prove an adventure. Although not taking as long as the route I just described, the five day trip from St. Louis to Washington went like this:

"Leaving St. Louis, he traveled up the Mississippi to Galena, then spent the night in a stage coach to arrive at Rockford the next day at 2 p.m. He got a train to Chicago, arriving safely despite the fact that the car jumped the tracks while taking a curve too fast. He took the night train to Detroit, the " the fast steamer May Flower for Buffalo......next morning we were in Buffalo and it was my [Henry A. Chouteau, age 20] intention to stop a day and go to the Falls, but as it was raining I went straight for the cars for Albany. This train goes at the rate of thirty miles an hour....."

After an overnight stop at a hotel in Albay, he took a steamer down the Hudson, getting to New York City at 5 the next afternoon..

Curses, foaled again

So, today we saw three foals. One was born yesterday. All three nursing. We also saw a 20 year old arthritic horse (former race horse, Mountain John), swim three laps around a pool. And we saw a very large number of alpacas, ranging from black to white, with all shades of tan, brown and grays.

Where were we? In Upperville, of course, at the annual hunt show. We did not go to see the former Kentucky Derby winner, or Paul Mellon's barn, or the other stables that were open for inspection.

But it was all very interesting, and western Loudoun and eastern Fauquier Counties are quite beautiful.

Oh, yes, three cheers for the beef burritos with red sauce at Anita's in Chantilly. (actually, I didn't eat the burrito)

Why Am I Always Changing Light Bulbs? (one cent)

Because I have 115 of them in my house. Homebuyers, beware.

Book of the Day (12 cents)

Perhaps I should give you all an idea of the books that I buy for under $4 several times a week.

Today's is a coffee table sized book entitled "From Semaphore to Satellite", and it was published in 1965 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the International Telecommunications Union, in Geneva. It was signed by Gerald Gross, the Secretary-General of the Union, and inscribed to Francis de Wolf, whom Gross says is the guy who got him to Geneva in the first place. There is also a brief letter from Gross to de Wolf, or ITU stationery. On ABEbooks, there is one signed copy of this book for sale for about $70.

If you are interested in the history and international spread of the telegraph (first suggested by Robert Hooke in 1726), and want to see a lot of black and white historic photos, this may just be the book for you. Gross was the Secretary General from 1960 - 1965 and is the only American ever to hold this position.

The ITU is of course still going strong, having expanded its scope beyond the telegraph. It is now a part of the United Nations.

Initial Reactions (ten cents)

Some time ago, I wrote a post about the decision of the Washington Post not to use the term "PG County" anymore, and always to refer to it by its full name. My posting was about the inconsistency in the use and acceptability of initials or abbreviations in place names (e.g., Phillly and Indy OK, Minnie or Millie not). Since that time, I have spoken to a number of residents of Prince George's County, most of whom call it PG, and think that the disputation played out in the Post was nonsense.

Now comes that terrific ad for St. Louis ribs that I see on television (actually, the ad could be better because I have no idea what brand or chain they are advertising, as I think about it), where the one young man says "These are just like they eat in St. Louie" and his companion says "People who live in St. Louis do not call it St. Louie", to which the other answers: "Yes, they doooooooo".

All of this came to mind again this morning as I was reading through the Washington Examiner which had a brief story about Deborah Palfrey, the now notorious and/or celebrated (take your pick) D.C. Madam. She says that she would rather be called the Washington Madam, and not the D.C. Madam. When asked why, she responded "it's a little classier". One more country heard from.

The best quote in the article came from her lawyer, the man with the name that sounds like a school for sick people: Montgomery Blair Sibley. When Palfrey announced that she was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, she added that she "hated" Bush. Sibley's reaction: "there goes your chance for a pardon".

Ciechanowski (11 cents)

Jan ciechanowski was the Polish ambassador to the United States during World War II, and wrote a book published in 1947 called "Defeat in Victory". I did not read the entire book, but only the first and last few chapters. The implication was clear. At the start of the war, Roosevelt was very supportive of the Polish government in exile. At the end of the war, there was the Yalta conference where a very sick Roosevelt failed to stand up to Stalin with regard to elected governments in Eastern Europe. The Soviets appoint a government beholden to the USSR and no one kicks and screams. Defeat in victory.

I Wish I Liked It (11 cents)

The concert at Epiphany Church today was by a soprano, a flute and a piano. Perhaps not my favorite combination, and there was nothing in the program that particularly attracted me. Ein Lied von Bach, and works of Philippe Gaubert, Roger Quilter, Edouard Lippe and Sir Henry R. Bishop (talk about names that didn't ring a bell). I debated whether I should just take advantage of the warm weather, but decided to enter the church, find a nice seat, and take out the book of short stories by Albert Moravia that I have been reading at the Tuesday concerts.

I thought that this was one of the weaker concerts. I was not attracted to the solists voice, I thought that the floutist was not up to professional standards. The piano was ok. On a number of flute/soprano pieces, I thought more practice might have helped. I had a hard time believing they were playing the same piece for the most part.

But....

no one left the concert, and

there was quite a bit of applause.

So I wish I liked it, because it looked like everyone else did.

Odd Exhibit at the Phillips Collection (24 cents)

Called "Moving Pictures: American Art and Early Film", it contains numerous video screens showing short films from about 1895-1905, and next to them pieces of art which depict similar scenes. For example, an early movie taken showing Niagara Falls from up close (one of the better films, I thought), next to some paintings from about the same time of Niagara Falls. Most of the films were not that interesting. Yes, they were very early films, but....... And the art work got lost, I thought, because they were no more than there to support the video screens.

I did like the film of Niagara Falls (and it was up close), and a liked even more perhaps a short film of a storm at sea taken from the deck of a ship, with the waves looking very forboding. I also liked the New York street scenes. Even though you know it was so, it seems strange to see all of these large brick and concrete buildings, with no motor vehicles, only horse drawn buggies and carriages, and a lot of pedestrians. And, what was most noticeable about the overdressed pedestrians (all with hats of course)? They weren't fat. None of them.

Worth seeing? Well, anything is worth seeing, I guess. And it is interesting to see that some of the same things that the movie makers were focusing on (this is before films began to show stories and plot lines) were the same things that painters were painting. Worth seeing twice? Not at all.

The Trouble With Studying History (1 cent)

From Lee Meriwether's "My Yesteryears", writing about the death of his ancestor, Meriwether Lewis. Lewis died in 1809, only a few years after the end of the Lewis and Clark exploration of the northwest. He writes:

"In October, 1809, Lewis died either by his own hand or by that of a murderer. The suicide theory rests upon a letter written by Jefferson, but facts discovered later point plainly to murder. Lewis was on his way with important papers for Jefferson. He planned to go by boat down the Mississippi to New Orleans an thence by sea to Baltimore, but at Memphis were alarming rumors of war with England. Actually war did not come until 1812, but even as early as 1809 impressment of Americans into the British navy made many men believe war was imminent.....Several days out from Memphis, Lewis and a friend named Neeley, and a Negro servant who accompanied him, plunged into the wilderness....The first cabin he found belonged to a man named Grinder. Lewis stopped there for the night, and next morning he was found dead in bed, a bullet hole through his head. Grinder was gone, and with him Lewis' watch, money and papers. Many months later Grinder was caught in North Carolina, brought back to Tennessee and tried for murder; he had Lewis' papers; he, formerly almost a pauper, had bought land and slaves. He could not explain his sudden riches; the circumstantial evidence that he had killed and robbed Lewis was strong. but no one had witnessed the deed, and Mrs. Grinder swore Lewis had killed himself. And so the jury's verdict was "Not Guilty".

"In those days, weeks, even months were required for news from the wilderness to reach Washington. Long before he knew, if he ever knew about Grinder's disapearing with Lewis' money and papers, Jefferson had received Mrs. Grinder's suicide story, and had written the letter which has come down to our own day, stating that Meriwether Lewis died a suicide. Had Jefferson known all the facts, he would not have written that letter."

This book was written in 1942.

From a book written over sixty years later, "Before Lewis and Clark" by Shirley Christian:

"A few days before Pierre started down the Mississippi, Meriwether Lewis had set out from St. Louis to go down the Mississippi and get a ship for Washington, intending to defend himself with regard to his use of government moneys......Shortly before his departure, Lewis spent a day with William Clark.....Clark wrote his brother Jonathan that......his friend was in a great deal of distress, 'ruined' by the government's decision to protest some of his expenditures....by the time Meriwether Lewis had sailed from St. Louis, he was in a deranged state, twice trying to kill himself, according to the boat crew. At Chickawaw Bluffs, the future Memphis, the fort commander, Captain Gilbert Russell, put him under a suicide watch.......But Lewis passed an anguished evening, and in the early morning hours of October 11 he took out his pistols and shot himself, first with one, then the other. When the owner of the house heard the shots, she summoned the two servants, but they arrived too late to save Lewis. Death came shortly after daybreak."

Nothing about Grinder, or a murder trial.

Which, if either, story is correct?

A Surprising Gap in my Education (29 cents)

I went to a noontime slide lecture, held at the Renwick Museum, yesterday. The topic was the Bauhaus Workshops, and the presentation was given by by Ursula Ilse-Neuman. I am not sure who she is because I missed the introduction, but she is a curator somewhere, I believe, and a scholar. She speaks with a slight German accent, but with the speed of a French bullet train. If you blink, she has left you in the dust.

This made her a little hard to follow, as did the fact that she had a lot to say within her allotted 45 minutes of time. I believe that her speed exhausted many in the audience of about 100. There were zero questions at the end, perhaps because of a desire for a little space and some fresh air.

But the presentation was very informative and quite well organized.

Here is where my education failed me. I guess I knew nothing about Bauhaus. I knew it was a German movement, I knew it was a between the wars movement. I knew it involved Walter Gropius and Mies van der Rohe. I know a Bauhaus inspired building when I see it (usually). And I thought I knew that Bauhaus was a modernistic, but pared down industrial inspired architectual movmement.

I had no idea that the Bauhaus was a school that lasted for fourteen years (first in Weimar, then in Dessau and finally in Berlin), until Hitler shut it down (with great publiciity) in 1934, that it involved an extraordinary number of well known twentieth century artists (as teachers or instructors, as students, or as both), or that it was reconstituted in Chicago (where it was renamed and now forms part of the Illinois Institute of Techonology, and inspired Black Mountain College in the Piedmont region of North Carolina (also home to an array of famous twenty century artists) which closed in 1957, and also had influence over artistic teaching in Northern California.

I now know that, in addition to architecture (which hardly was mentioned yesterday), Bauhaus involved painting, fabrics and weaving, pottery, metal working and jewelry, furniture, and sculpture. That it was a holistic program, designed to blend the working of craftsmen with the working of artists, and on an equal footing (it was in a sense a socialist, or at least social democratic movement), and that the major item of contention within the movement itself was how much focus should be put on industrial design (i.e., items that can be manufactured), rather than on individualistic pieces of art. It spread in both directions. For example, in the U.S.A., Chicago was more industrially oriented (and techologically), while Black Mountain seemed to be more individualistic.

Josef and Anni Albers, Marcel Breuer, Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, Andreas Feininger all taught at Bauhaus. Josef Albers was a student, as was (at Black Mountain) both deKoonings, Cy Twombly, Robert Rauschenberg, Jacob Lawrence, Franz Kline and others.

Oh, yes, one more rather important point. The Bauhaus style inspired some extraordinary works in all of the categories mentioned above, much of which is now quite familiar. Only when you see it context with the Bauhaus philosophy, however, does it all (to my untrained) eye, all fit together in surprising ways.

A bit too early, perhaps, but funny

The cartoon this morning in the Washington Examiner. Jerry Falwell, who died yesterday, is standing before (presumably) St. Peter, who says to him: Here we take people regardless of race, gender or sexual preference. Fallwell has a terrified look on his face and responds: oh my, do you mean I'm in hell?

One Movie, Three Plays and a Good Meal (5 cents)

One of the weirdest movies I have seen is, in English, "One Hand Can't Clap", a Czech film shown at the Avalon. What is it about? Is it about the suave vegetarian Prague restaurater who, in the cellar of his restaurant has another, even fancier restaurant, where he serves exotic protected species? Or his wife, who is against anything having to do with eating or wearing animals, who insists that their house have neither TV nor computer, who homeschools their kids and obviously knows nothing about her husbands underground proclivities. Or the two children, one a pre-teen boy who dresses like a girl and the other a pre-teen girl, who attempts to murder her brother? Or the host of the TV show, which is a voyeur's version of Candid Camera, or his daughter who has been embarrassed on the show irretrievably. Or the fellow who goes to jail for transporting, without knowing it, endangered species for the restaurant, who gets out of prison and who, in spite of having a good heart, is befriended by a more mischievous ne'er-do-well, and who meets the daughter of the TV host, and who seeks to find out why these birds were coming into the country. Oh, yes, it is a comedy.

Much less weird are "Either/Or" and "Shylock" at Theater J. "Either/Or is of course Tom Keneally's story of Kurt Gerstein, the German Nazi who decides that his party is not always in the right, but who wants to be in the thick of things to act as a witness, but for whom the killing of Jews and others is too much. He becomes an unsuccessful whistle blower, but his papers are presented to the victorious English, although Gerstein is either murdered or commits suicide in prison before any trial can be held. Well acted, well written. But is it the best material for a play? Somehow, it would make a better movie, I think.

As to Arnold Wesker's "Shylock", a reworking of the story found in "Merchant of Venice", starring Theodore Bikel, in a modified stage reading formulation, it starts out very well, with a sympathetic Shylock, good friend to Antonio, and for whom the bond of a pound of flesh is meant to be a joke. But when Antonio's ships are lost at sea, even though all government parties are willing to forget the entire deal, Antonio and Shylock agree that the precedent would be potentially dangerous to the fragile Jewish community and insist on going through with the bargain. Of course, it does not happen because of the non-lawyer discovering the legal problems with the contract. The play deteriorates, I thought, in the second act. I don't think Wesker knew how to end it. I think he stuck too close the story line, something he did not need to do.


Before Shylock, we ate at Merkado. Very nice supper. Fish all around.

We also went to Theater J for the Friday afternoon reading of "The Milliner" by Susan Glass. An English playwright it is loosely (very loosely) the story of her grandfather, for whom English exile during the war did not end his love of Berlin, to which he returned. I think that he found out that while he remained a Berliner and always will, he was clearly no longer the German he thought he was.

Seemed like old times.

A beautiful Sunday afternoon. The ballpark. Nobody in the stands. I thought I was back at Sportsman's Park watching the Browns.

But something's wrong. Something's different? What could it be?

Oh, now I see.

The home team won.

Abraham: father of us all?

I had wanted to read Bruce Feiler's "Abraham" from the day it came out. Not that Feiler is a great scholar, or anything, but I had read "Walking the Bible", which I found to be an ingenious book. Not one that was profound, and in fact I thought that some of his statements and conclusions were wrong (or at least arguable), but the concept of exploring Israel and Sinai with the Torah text in mind, and doing so on three levels (the text itself, the condition of the biblical sites today, and using biblical historians and archeologists as guides) was very effective. I thought that it would be a very good introduction for those who had traveled to Israel, but not thought about things in these terms. [In fact, perhaps Moshe Pearlman's book, "Footsteps of Moses", wrtten 30 years ago, did much the same thing; I have the book, but have only looked at the pretty pictures].

When he put out "Abraham", which dealt not only with Judaism, but with Islam and Christianity, and which dealt with a broader geographic area, I had great hopes.

Unfortunately, the book is not very good. It (like the first book) does not go beneath the surface, his travels are much less extensive than in his earlier book, and his conclusions again seem not always right, and sometimes stretched to make the point.

For example, he says that the three religions all stem from Abraham, but from a different Abraham. The Jews get Abraham who made a covenant with God. The Christians get an Abraham for whom faith is all important. And the Moslems get an Abraham who always submits to God's will. Well, in fact, each of them have an Abraham whose qualities (good or bad) contain all three elements. Feiler's division is handy and seductive, but I do not think that it holds up.

I Missed Three (1 cent)

I missed 3 newspaperboxes in front of Marvelous Market. Total = 955

Cerrado!!

Turning the Page's annual book sale has been advertised that it will close on May 18. Today is May 10. It is "temporarily closed" with a sign that says: check our website for updates. The website says that it closed due to unforeseen circumstances, and more sales will be held later somewhere sometimes, perhaps.

So, I walked two blocks to Sixth and I Historic Synagogue, to see the Roman Vishniac photography exhibit that is open from Monday to Thursday, 12-3. I got there today, a Thursday, at 1. Locked tighter than a drum. No sign, no nothin'.

Cerrado.

848 + 104 = 952 (7 cents)

Number of newspaper boxes on streets and streetcorners between Chevy Chase Circle and K Street. (see April 3 blog)

I Gotta Tell You (25 cents)

I gotta tell you

about Rafael Patai's book, "The Seeds of Abraham"

about our conversations with a beekeeper and a fur trapper at the May fair in Solomon's Island, MD

about our dinner at Sushi Taro, and Michael Dirda's lecture on the writing of Isaac Babel

about Sari Nusseibeh's and Tova Reich's presentations at Politics and Prose

about the concert today at the Church of the Epiphany

about the Flower Mart at the National Cathedral

about the reading of Susan Glass' play "The Milliner" at Theater J

about the opening of Thomas Keneally's "Either/Or" at Theater J

about the delightful movie "Avenue Montaigne" at the Avalon

But when?

Books of the Day (2 cents)

1. The International Spy Museum has occasional noontime book signings and lectures, and I have attended a handful. They are, of course, free, as opposed to the museum which charges a hefty admission (I have never been in the museum).

Yesterday, the speaker was Bill Gertz, Washington Times reporter who concentrates on espionage, and writes from a (whether it is accurate or not) right wing paranoid perspective. His newest book, published last fall, is called "Enemies", not to be confused with the Isaac B. Singer book of the same title.

The books contains a series of chapters, each concentrating on someone spying, or allegedly spying, against America. The premise is "they are out to get us, we are out to stop them, they are competent, and we are not", or something like that.

The stories are all interesting, of course, from Wen Ho Lee (who he believes is guilty as sin), Katrina Leung and her lovers in the American intelligence establishment, spies from Cuba, from North Korea, from everywhere. Are they accurate? I am not sure.

He was written a lot about China: "The only reason they want nuclear weapons is to fight a war with us eventually".

What about Israeli spies? Well, those he thinks are more "friendly spies". You don't want them spying on us, but you also don't want to hurt the Israelis' feelings because we cooperate with them so well. "They are good on human spying; we on electronics", he said.

My own instinct of course is to be very suspicious of Gertz's dogmatic conclusions, but - especially because he is talking about undercover and counterintelligence - I find it hard to dismiss anything he has to say entirely.

2. Leaving the Spy Museum, I walked over to 7th Street. I wanted a place to get a light lunch, and I thought about the cafe at Olson's, a book store. To my surprise, though, every table was filled, and on my way out, I stopped to look over some of the new books. I found a signed copy of Tatyana Tolstaya's new collection of short stories in soft-back (I think perhaps there is no hardcover edition) and bought it. I then took it to Jaleo's where I sat at the bar and had a very nice salad (spinach, cheese, red peppers and walnuts)for less than you pay at Cosi's. I read the first story, "Loves Me, Loves Me Not", told by a precocious 5 year old Leningrader, talking about her French speaking, old and overweight nanny. Which was great. Twenty three more stories to go.

3. We went to see Tova Reich speak about her new book, "My Holocaust" last night at Politics and Prose. Reich has written a satirical book on the commercialization of the Holocaust. Two Polish survivors make a lot of money leading tours through Auschwitz and Birkenau, but one of their daughters has become a nun at the local Carmelite convent. One of the survivors becomes the head of the D.C. Holocaust Museum, and becomes under pressure to expand the museum to cover the "holocausts" of other groups. There is a museum takeover lead by African American Pushkin Jones, of the United Holocausts association. Etc.

Her reading shows that her writing is very clever. She brings up a large number of points that are worthy of discussion and debate. She says that she is against the commercialization of the Holocaust, that there are too many museums and monuments, and that the dead should be permitted to rest in peace. She also believes that the Holocaust is THE Holocaust, and it is a Jewish thing, belonging to no one else.

But wait a minute. Her husband, Walter, was the director of the Holocaust Museum here. And what is this book if not an attempt to capitalize on the commericialization of the Holocaust? Or am I missing something? Perhaps. It could be that she has written "My Holocaust" as the commercialization to end all commercializations. I guess.

Am I being critical? Not at all. I think I'll read the book.

Avraham Burg Last Night at Adas Israel

Avraham Burg is very impressive. His background is impressive, his father having been an Israeli cabinet minister and his maternal grandfather the former chief rabbi of Hebron. He himself has been a cabinet minister, the speaker of the Knesset and the head of the Jewish Agency. He has his share of charisma. His accented English speaking style is punctuated and animated. Because of his religious upbringing, he can bring biblical quotes to whatever is the task at hand. His mind is very agile. And he has a good sense of humor.

He divides the worlds into what appears to be an infinite series of groupings. People who like Jews, people who hate Jews. People are universal thinkers, people who are parochial. People who embrance modernity, and people who shun it. People who say potayto, people who say potahto. People who are part of the problem and people who are part of the solution.

He talks about the Jewish world going into many directions - insular, wordly, observant, humanistic. Some (or all) will succeed, and split further, while some (or all) will fail.

He is on the side of those who favor humanistic values, and universal thinking.

Then there is Israel. While discussing Israel from several aspects, he avoided (perhaps as a result of bad experiences in other American synagogues?) the tough questions, questions that he has written about and been such a lightning rod at home. He did say that the state of Israel's leaders have not treated its Arab neighbors well, and he did say that this was not consistent with Jewish values. (One thing of interest in his remarks was something like: "If you ask any Jew, what makes up Judaism, the answer will always include a reference to treating people well.")

But he did not talk about the ultimate dilemma which has been a focus of his most controversial remarks in Israel: can Israel remain a Jewish state without continuing to maltreat the Arabs, and if it does so, is it really a Jewish state? (He did give a reference to his appearance on an Israeli talk show where he 'debated' several former Gaza settlers and announced that he was not their 'brother'; he was their adversary, and that he only had one sibling, his birth sister. But then later on he addressed the audience talking about their 'brothers and sisters in Israel'.)

And his lecture was noticeably absent on solutions. Particulary at a time when the acting head of the Palestinian parliament gave a Friday talk at a mosque in Sudan, saying that all Jews and all Americans must be annihilated.

He was very good to listen to. He was provocative and hopefully he got some in the audience, who were not used to thinking, to start thinking. But this was not an adverse audience, as it seemed to me that most of the more right wing members of the Congregation did not attend. It was appreciative of his remarks, and (whether it knows it or not), it is looking for leadership on the issue. In the diaspora (a term that Burg thinks has become archaic), he might be able to provide this type of leadership. In Israel, it seems to me that he has come too close (by his march leftward) to becoming the Ramsey Clark of Israel. But perhaps that is too harsh.

I would definitely like to hear him again, and give him a chance to expound on what he said, and move to the next level. Whether, in a discussion rather than a lecture format, he would be effective, I don't know. He may overwhelm any discussion. If not, the discussion would be worth having.

Examples of the humor: What is a conservative? A liberal with teenage daughters? What is the diaspora? Exile, after it has become comfortable.

May 1, 2007 (2 cents)

At the gym for about an hour, reading Raphael Patai's "Seeds of Abraham" while on the elliptical.

To the dry cleaners, taking and picking up.

A bagel with a little orange marmelade and some very good coffee.

The metro to work.

A busy morning.

Lunch with a friend at "The Fourth Estate".

A quieter afternoon.

A meeting with a client in from Florida

The metro again.

A very nice supper at Indique.

Listening to Avraham Burg speak at Adas Israel.

Home.

Descended from the Elephants?

We all know (or at least we all think)that elephants, very social animals, know when they are about to die and, for whatever reason, wander off by themselves to die alone, away from their mates and friends. For humans, this has never been a normal course of action. The perfect death, in fact, is generally idealized as one where you die peacefully and painlessly in your bed surrounded by family.

How to explain, then, the fact that three of the six movies we saw at the DC International Film Festival had its central characters take on the habits of elephants?

First, take "The Education of Fairies", where the Argentinean filmmaker had the mother/wife tell her husband that, for reasons she could not explain, their seemingly perfect marriage was over and that she would have to leave? In fact, we learned at the end of the movie that she had been diagnosed as having a vascular brain disease (a la Senator Tim Johnson) and could die at any minute, or be paralyzed, and she could not inflict that sorrow or responsibility on her husband and (seven or eight year old) son. In fact, she does not leave, either because she is convinced not to, changes her own mind, or does not have the internal strength to carry out her plans. But this is the central dynamic of this excellent movie, around which all other plots and subplots turn.

Then, there was "Le Voyage en Armenie", where the elderly and stubborn Armenian emigrant in Marseilles, in order in part to avoid the surgery that his no longer that young and stubborn cardiologist daughter has arranged form him, and in part to re-unite with his girl friend of 50 (?) years earlier, sneaks out of Marseilles to return to his homeland. He did not tell his daughter or son-in-law, but apparently told his teenage granddaughter who was sworn to secrecy. Now, going to Armenia is not exactly wandering off into the jungle, particularly when there is an old flame waiting for you (and of course we have no idea where our "Fairies" heroine would have gone), but it is abandoning the comfortable if not perfect (in "Fairies" it was both comfortable and perfect) life you have known, to undertake a final journey into terra not quite cognita.

Finally, "My Mexican Shiva". Here, Moises dies in the first scene, but his death is the core of the entire film. He had run off, at an advanced age, with a "shicksa" (perhaps when his wife was still alive; this is what killed her, according to their daughter). But three months before his death, he leaves his new love without saying good-bye or leaving a forwarding address. She believes he has found someone still newer; in fact, he has learned he had a coronary condition, and he simply checked into a hotel. What he did during his last three months is not clear, but he seemed to have avoided his girl friend and his family, although he died dancing at a reunion of his Yiddish Theatre troupe of many years past.

So what is it that sent all three filmmakers in the same direction? It seems to me that running away at this time to face death alone is so counter-instinctual.

I can't imagine that this is to be a trend in film or literature, but I'll keep my eyes open.

Goal Met, Barely

I went to the National Galler of Art to see the Jasper Johns exhibit on its last day (it has been open since January). Very glad I did. Never having been a Johns fan, I was surprised. His pieces look much nicer in person than in reproductions. They look much better in large numbers, than singly. The exhibit only covered ten years of his career, from 1955 (when he was 25) to 1965. Targets (in fact, Target the store was the main corporate sponsor), Red-Yellow-Blue, Numbers, were the main subject matter. The colors, the proportions, the thought which went into each piece, and the complexity of the materials used, were very apparent.

(The goal, met barely, is to make sure that I see all major exhibitions in town)

Afterwords, dinner at Le Chat Noir, French restaurant on Wisconsin and Emery. Did not know what to expect. Very nice.

Quick Film News (1 cent)

We saw our final two films at the DC International Filmfest, "Hula Girls" and "My Mexican Shiva".

"Hula Girls" is the story of the 1965 closing of the Joban Coal Mine in Iwaki, and the conflict and depression which accompanied it. A group of city boosters decided to create a tourist destination, a Hawaiian theme park and to train local teenagers to be Hawaiian dancers. It is based on a true story, and deals primarily with emotions all around. Today, over 40 years later the theme park is going strong, and the performances continue daily.

In the movie, Iwaki seemed very remote, terribly ugly and overall a horrible place to be. Wheter this is an accurate portrayal, I do not know, but today it is a city of about 350,000, with museums, beaches, hotels, restaurants and, of course, the Hawaiian Center.

The movie has won some awards, but I found it a bit tedious. Three stars.

"My Mexican Shiva" on the other hand is a very clever and enjoyable movie. I hope it is shown again in Washington; I think large numbers of locals would enjoy it. Very basically, the father/grandfather falls dead of a heart attack at a reunion of his Yiddish Language Theater Company, and shiva occurs involving his largely estranged, and highly disfunctional family. His neurotic daughter, ready the fly off the hook at any moment, controlled if at all only by her stable husband. His adolescent son who is chronologically about 50. The son's ex-wife, a New Ager, living in Arizona. Their son, on the lam from a drug charge, who has become a ba'al tshuvah in Jerusalem, but is arrested by the Mexico City police on day two of the shiva. The daughters, two children, a son (with wife and baby) and single daughter living in New York. Many elegant old members of the Mexico City Ashkenazic commmunity. A Chaverman who runs the shiva. Two not quiet real orthodox rabbis, who are looking at the entire affair and judging the deceased. And many others, not the least of whom belong to a Mariachi Band. Five stars.

I Did Not Care For It At All ($1.26)

The Saul Steinberg exhibit at the Museum of American Art. At all.

High Heel Shoes and Low Hanging Earrings

We went back to the DC International Film Festival tonight to see two more films. The first, "Armenia" (or in the original French "Voyage en Armenie") is the story of an older man with a heart condition who has spent most of his adult life in Marseilles, but rather than face an operation decides to go back to Armenia. His physician-daughter follows him there, and spends the movie searching for him to bring him back to France for his surgery only to find out that she is more Armenian that she ever knew.

The visuals are terrific. You get a great feeling for various aspects of the country (assuming that the terrific visuals are indicative of the country as a whole). The plot, on the other hand, while is has its moments, is a bit contrived and convoluted, as the whole of the country seems to glom on to this French speaking physician (who trapses around the rocks and railroad tracks wearing four inch spike heels), causing her to meet more people and have more adventures in six days than is humanly conceivable. She even gets to shoot two heavies who were manhandling her manicurist and hairstylist, who was also dealing in illegal medications and dancing nude in a nightclub. Did I like it? I have no idea. The combination of the plot and the scenery created such an odd mix than I have no idea if I was seeing a good travelogue or a mediocre adventure yarn, or an unusual finding of one's identity.

The second movie, "The Sound of Soul" was a disappointment. Sacred music recorded at the Fez Festival of Sacred Music. Some of the music was pleasant; some was jarring. The narrations were run of the mill; and the comments of World Bank and WTO officials seemed simply out of place. The portrait of Fez was interesting, but I got a better feel for Armenia. It just was not special. But I did get to watch the low hanging earings of all of the female performers (except for those in complete head wrappings).

It Makes You Want to Cry

I just read the headlines (and a few of the articles) in the first DC version of The Onion. You know, an article on Earth Day ("Cheney Celebrates Earth Day by Breathing Oxygen"), and on Radio Shack ("Even CEO Can't Figure Out How Radio Shack Still in Business"), and on gender issues ("Female Boss Walking Around Like She Owns the Place").

Enough, I said (my coffee getting cold), I want some hard news before I start my workday. So I turned on my computer, and went to my homepage Drudge Report to see what was new in the world. "India Court Orders Gere's Arrest for Obscene Kiss", "Hugh Grant Arrested Over Baked Beans Attack", and "Man Accused of Dental Work in Garage".

I kid you not. (For you oldtimes, that is paar for the course.)

Much to Report and Where to Start? (27 cents)

Not sure why I have not been reporting as we go along, but I haven't been. So here goes...

1. A weird ad in this month's Smithsonian Magazine by Travel Texas, a Texas tourism promotion site, starts out with: "There's more art in Texas than in the Louvre." Huh?

2. The quickie restaurant reviews:

Dinner upstairs at Bistrot Lepic, still one of our favorites. I had, for the first time, cassoulet, which seemed to have three kinds of meat, carrots and a large number of white beans, and was quite the thing for a chilly, rainy spring night. Our waiter was French (and just passing through on his way to start is career as a musician in Los Angeles, "but don't tell my boss") and his English needs some improvement. My wife ordered "flounder" and got "foie gras". I should have been suspicous when she asked him what wine he would recommend with the flounder, and he said "but, of course, champagne". She tells me, as it turns out, that champagne and flounder make a good combination.

It's been a long time since we ate at Cafe Le Ruche in Georgetown, but our lunch on the outside patio away from the hubbub was perfect. My wife's salad was filled with all sorts of things, and I had French fish soup (a red soup with, I think, trout, no seafood) and an appetizer plate of lamb sausages, called merguez, which are eaten in France but come from North Africa. Fairly spicy with some sort of chili sauce built in to the mix.

We had brunch at Cafe Ole, a "Mediterranean" (read north African/Turkish) restaurant on Wisconsin Avenue, near the FannieMae headquarters. Also out on the patio, and also quite good. Their brunch menu is a full menu, not only eggs, and the main style of service is mezes, small servings, although two (they recommend two to three) was more than enough. My two were a baba ganoush and a Moroccan chicken stew.

Then there was lunch at Kinkeads, another old reliable, but a bit pricy for noon time. We went with a friend; he had fish and chips. My wife had salmon and what she describes as a perfect avocado salsa; I had a arugula and beet salad, and three kinds of cheeses (none of which I could identify if I passed them on the street), all of which was more than tasty.

Dinner at Frascati in Bethesda, which we enjoyed the last time, was a real bust. Don't think we will go back again. Lunch at the Austin Grill in Bethesda equally lacking (Austin Grill has closed in Glover Park; is the entire chain in trouble?). And dinner at Jandera, an Thai restaurant also near FannieMae, was very ordinary.

Carryout from Jyoti, the Indian restaurant in Adams Morgan, was good as always.

Conclusion: we eat out too much.

3. Movie Reviews.

We saw two movies at the DC International Film Festival last Saturday night. We loved the first, an Argentinian/Spanish movie called "The Education of Fairies", set in Catalan outside of Barcelona, about a woman, her young son, a man, and another woman, who fit the definition of a fairy. The story line was (if a little obvious at times) a good one, the acting (particularly, but not only, the young boy) was extraordinary, and the visuals could not have been better. A strong recommendation if it comes back. The second movie, "Just Sex and Nothing Else" is Hungarian and is a comedy based on a Hungarian dramaturg who is in her mid-30s and giving up on love. But she wants a baby, so is looking for just sex and nothing else. Well, things don't turn out quite as she plans, and that is OK, but the movie, to me (but not to the audience it appeared) was a bit too dark and the funny pieces were not really funny.

4. Books.

For one thing, there was the Stone Ridge Books Sale, where I bought too much for a change, especially as it followed by only one week the Arlington Library sale.

But I read a couple of books, as well. First, a short novel by English writer Julian Barnes called "The Porcupine", which tells the story of a post-Communist eastern European country and the trial (or is it a show-trial) of its former leader. The prosecutor is the son of one of the leader's cohorts, and owes his job to the now defendant, who pulled strings to give him the best of the best. Moral ambiguity, is that the point? I am not sure. The advantage of the book is that it is short.

I also ready Amos Elon's "Flight to Egypt", which he wrote in the late 1970s. Following Sadat's trip to Jerusalem, Elon accompanied Begin to Israel, and became the first Israeli journalist to spend time traveling the country and assessing its modd. It would have been interesting to have read the book when it first came out; it is equally interesting today, because although the mood may have changed for the worst, the issues are the same, and the history which comes out through interviews with leaders in all facets of Egyptian life provides a very good backdrop.

4. The events.

There are several to report.

First, Professor Fred Lazin of Ben Gurion University, head of their politics and government department, gave a talk to BGU supporters about the current political situation in Israel. Second, we heard a speech by Haaretz journalist Tom Segev about the year 1967, and what it has meant for Israel (this being the year of the Six Day War and the start of the occupation, and the year of the creation of many myths0. Third, we went to a full day colloquium where twelve academics from the US, Israel and Canada spoke about various things relating to the future of Zionism and its relationship to the state of Israel. Many interesting thoughts were developed, although the presenations were uneven, and the day could have been thought out a little better by the organizers. If I have time, I will provide more details later.

On Sunday, Adas Israel's yearly Guardian of the Righteous commemoration, where a gentile who sheltered, protected or saved Jews during the Holocaust is honored. This year's honoree is Heinz Drossel, who at 90 or so could not make the flight to DC form Germany. His story is a very interesting one. He never joined the Nazi party but was an office in the German army. On several occasions, he disobeyed orders. Such as when he was asked to escort certain Russian prisoners to where he knew they would be executed, he instead told them to run.

On leave in Berlin in 1942, he saw a young woman about to jump into the River Spree. He talked her out of it, learned she was Jewish, told her he would find places for her to hide, and did. In 1946, he married her.

One of the individuals saved by Drossel spoke; he is the father of a friend. He currently lives in Michigan. His family was living in the same village as Drossel's parents, under false papers. When it appeared that their identity had been discovered, he went to Drossel, his friend, and told him the story. Drossel and his parents took care of them.

Finally, Saturday we went on a 90 minutes walking tour of the portion of Georgetwon formerly known as Herring Hill. It is between 29th and Rose Park, north of M Street. This is the traditionally black section of Georgetown and the history of the Georgetown African-American community was the focus of the walk. It was fascinating. Between the 1830s and 1940s, Georgetown was about 1/3 African American. Starting as slaves, sold at auction at Wisconsin and O, they became laborers and real estate investors, doctors and wharf workers. And the created several churches that still stand. They were dispossessed by gentrification, except for a few families, who can trace their ancestry back several generations.

Zhukov (ten cents)

William Spahr has published a biography, more or less, of Marshall Georgii Konstantinovich Zhukov. I say more or less, because his sources were very limited and most of what he wrote was based on Zhukov's own memoirs, which are suspect because they were written in the Soviet Union and subject to censorship and control.

Yet enough of the story comes out to give a good idea of Zhukov's triumphs during World War II and the immediate post-war period, his brief reign as Minister of Defense, and his discreditation and internal exile.

He was a very smart military leader, whose contribution to the eventual Russian defeat of the German invasion was immeasurable. He was brave and not afraid to speak up even to Stalin in the midst of the purges. He was crafty enough to stay alive during all of the Soviet times of trouble. He was ruthless enough to lead his commands in large part by fear. And he was bright enough to write very sophiticated memoirs of the war years.

The book brought back again to my mind the MILLIONS of Soviet soldiers and civilians who died during WW II. It showed me something that I did not know at all, which is that Stalin was the ultimate military decision maker, as he was the ultimate decision maker in all fields. And that he made his decisions based on reports brought to him and discussed with him, and wa shimself without military training.

Zhukov was a very powerful figure. This was both his strength and the cause of his downfall. Party leaders feared him as they feared anyone with sufficient charisma and visibility to become more powerful than they.

I read the entire book today, which means I skimmed over a lot of material, including detailed military campaign data. I cannot say that the book left me totally satisfied, mainly because I don't think its sources were totally satisfactory. But to remind me, and teach me, about the Soviet experience during the war, it is clearly worth reading through.

The Three State Solution

I have decided that the two-state solution is not going to resolve the Israeli-Palestinean problem.

So let me tell you about the three state solution.

There will be three states, Israel, East Palestine, and West Palestine (as to names, the last two are placeholders; I do not know what the eventual names will be.

East Palestine will consist of the current West Bank, subject to final boundaries. It will presumably be controlled by Fatah and may or may not eventually combine with Jordan.

West Palestine is Gaza. It will presumably be controlled by Hamas.

The rationale: first, there is less commonality between West Bank and Gaza than imagined. They have not been part of the same polity since the end of the Ottoman Empire. They presumably have little family connections. They certainly have been isolated from each other since the formation of the state of Israel. They have political differences, and different economic considerations. The existence of a single Palestinean state separated by Israel will create continual problems and never permit the development of a truly autonomous Palestine.

Finally, as it is now 40 years since the 1967 war and the start of thinking about the two state solution, it is time to give it up as hopelesss. No political entity has a 40 year gestation period does it? Particularly no entity has spent 40 years in the desert.

Or am I forgetting something?

Perhaps Not the Rehoboth You Know

I picked up Alexs Pate's novel, "West of Rehoboth", because its title attracted me, and because I saw it was set in West Rehoboth, an African American neighborhood just west of downtown Rehoboth Beach DE.

It is a relatively short novel that I read in two sessions, Sunday and Monday. It was touch and go as to whether I would pick it up again on Monday, because I wasn't enjoying it. Today, looking at 14 customer reviews on Amazon.com, I see I was not the only one who thought that the book started out slowly, but improved considerably.

Not that the book is perfect, but largely because of the development of the character of Uncle Rufus (name a little to close to Uncle Remus?), I would recommend it highly.

It is a coming of age story. Twelve year old, chubby African American Edward Massey is a bookworm and would-be detective. His mother, every summer, takes him from their North Philly home to stay with relatives on the Delaware Coast. Each year, he notes a strange man, Uncle Rufus, appearing and disappearing from a shack behind his aunt's house. No one talks to him and no one talks about him.

Rufus is a drunk, he is homeless, he is mentally unbalanced. But who is he really? After shooing Edward away a number of times, circumstances develop where Rufus decides to "educate" the boy and tell him his story.

No one has had all the bad luck that Rufus has had. He is in love with Edward's aunt, always has been and it appears always will be. He is a former crab fisher, who has a hard time controlling his temper and keeping a job, but he has ambition. He is not a big guy; whenever he gets in a scrape, he comes out the loser. Finally, it all gets to him, he challenges one of the West Rehoboth bullies, he is knocked back, but pulls out a knife and kills his adversary. He had had too much to drink.

He had to leave town and the woman of his dreams. He joins the Merchant Marine, and travels the world for five years. He saves his money (while all his fellows are chasing wine and woman), only to have it stolen by a man he thought his friend. He hikes back to Rehoboth, but must stay out of sight; he is still a wanted man.

Time passes; he mind deteriorates.

A sad, sad story. But for Edward, living a sheltered and protected life, it is eye opening. An important part of leaving his childhood behind and becoming a man.

Is Edward really Alexs Pate? I would think so. Was there an Uncle Rufus?

"In the Storm of the Eye"

"In the Storm of the Eye" is the name of the relatively short memoir of Bill Leonard, long time CBS radio and tv broadcast journalist and executive, and one time president of CBS News. The books got off to a very strong start, with the story of Leonard, having become president in 1978, being introduced to his new responsibilities by CBS news star Walter Cronkite telling him he wanted to retire. The three replacement candidates were Roger Mudd (who appeared to have the inside track), Charles Kuralt (a little too folksy) and Dan Rather (young and inexperienced, but promising). Of course, Rather was hired, and the story of the decision making and of the personalities of those involved was interesting.

There was nothing in the book that was either boring or offensive, but I guess I didn't really need to read about all of the changes over the years of CBS executives. The book was losing my interest until there was a discussion of some of the more influential specials, documentaries, and 60 Minutes pieces, some of which I remembered. Also, of interest were the discriptions of the very early days of television, when no one really knew if it had a future, or not.

He described a number of CBS news personalities, most of whom he seemed to have gotten along with well. But, something was missing. Where was Daniel Schorr (whom as you know we just saw ten days ago talk of his experiences, including the 25 years he spent at CBS). And, it is not that Schorr's time was without drama. Remember the Nixon enemies list. And there were other instances where Schorr 'protected his sources' in spite of Congressional pressure to reveal them.

Perhaps there is another story here. I wish I had read the book before the evening with Schorr. I would have had something to ask him in the q and a period.

"From the Shadows"

"From the Shadows" is the name of the memoirs of Robert M. Gates, our current Secretary of Defense. It was published in 1996, three years after the end of his two year term as Director of the CIA. A book that has not been widely read, it is fascinating on several levels.

Gates was the first CIA Director to grow up in the CIA. Recruited out of graduate school at Indiana University, he spent his entire career (until 1993)at either the CIA or in the White House with the National Security Council.

This makes for fascinating inside history, and insight. By and large, Gates presents himself as a practical, well-meaning middle of the roader. And as an ultimate professional.

He rose quickly in the organization, and was asked to work for the NSC in the Ford administration. National Security Advisor Brzezinski asked him stay on into the first Carter years. He has worked with every president since Johnson and every CIA director since Colby.

What does he think of the presidents with whom he worked closely? Nixon was a very good president, when his paranoia did not get in the way. Ford, he liked. Carter has gotten a bad rap; his policies set the standard for Reagan. Reagan had vision and purpose, but began to lose it mentally early into his second term. George H.W. Bush, he loved.

What about the CIA itself? Clearly bureaucratic. A lot of turf protection. A tremendous amout of rivalry. Some politics (depending on the director) in finalizing analytic pieces. Soviet moles (John Walker, Ames Aldrich).

Foreign policy in the government? Not bureaucratic at the highest level, but continual disagreements (until Bush I) between State, Defense, CIA, and the NSC. At time, particularly when Schultz was at State, Weinberger at Defense, and Casey at the CIA, it was vicious. Schultz being the "let's negotiate" guy, and Weinberger and Casey being the "we should not talk to them" types. More than you can imagine.

The focus was always on the USSR (and sometimes on its puppet in the Caribbean). CIA directors all had their own approaches. The most extreme case was, of course, Bill Casey, who wanted to use resources to support the Contras, fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Congress prohibits the funding, so Casey (legal opinion in hand) decides that non-government and foreign governmental sources should be encouraged. But he did not want the CIA involved, which is how the White House and Oliver North got started.

At the same time, there was a widespread feeling that Iran should be given the right to buy some advanced weaponry. This today may seem weird, but at the time, there were a number of reasons for this. First, there was the thought that it would strengthen moderates in the government. Second, it would counter the Soviet strength in Afghanistan. Third, it would help the release of some hostages in Lebanon (even then through Hezbollah).

What the CIA may not have known, is that North and others used funds raised through the sale of arms to Iran in order to support the Contras.

It is not perfectly clear how much the CIA actually knew about Iran/Contra. When Bill Casey was suddenly taken ill with a brain tumor and died shortly after, Reagan nominated Gates to take his place as CIA director. His nomination did not last very long, because of Iran/Contra. Gates, who claims he knew nothing, was in a terrible position: if he knew about Iran/Contra, he was involved in violating the law; if he did not, what value is the CIA anyway?

This last question is a good one. There is so much analysis going on, but what good does it do? On a direct basis, it is hard to say. And, with the spy scandals, maybe we lose more than we gain? But perhaps just the idea of a CIA is helpful, if not its activities. The fact appears to be that there is no major gain that can be ascribed either to CIA analysis or operations.

Finally, the book chronicles the end of the Soviet Union, the death of Brezhnev, the temporizing of Andopov and Chernenko, the rise of Gorbachev, the maturation of Yeltsin. And their ultimate failures.

The CIA (but along with others) predicted (with some trepidation)that the Soviet Union was in an untenable economic crisis, and had no way out. This makes for some inevitability, but, to Gates, Gorbachev, for all of his good qualities, was hopelessly naive, and that this naivete helped bring about the destruction of the USSR. He also gives credit to Bush, for his personality in treating the Soviet reformers on a one-to-one basis, to Reagan for, in effect, keeping his eye on the prize, and surprisingly, Jimmy Carter for his human rights campaign, which he feels set the stage for everything that happened to breakdown Communist control in Eastern Europe.

This is one of the most surprising elements of the book, his treatment of Jimmy Carter. He was not close to Carter, and maintains that Carter's communication skills within the White House was poor at best, but he thinks that Carter's foreign policy was quite effective (and that Carter's defense cuts were, with one exception, proper cuts related to outmoded programs), and that the Reagan White House built on the Carter program. That there was complete continuity between the two administrations.

Having been forced to withdraw as CIA director/nominee in the 1980s, he was renominated by Bush in 1991, received Senate support, and served for two years.

In 1993, for the first time, he found himself outside of government, winding up with quite a good position: president of Texas A & M, where he by all accounts did an outstanding job. Bush II called him back to serve as Secretary of Defense after Don Rumsfeld resigned. But all of this will have to await the next book.

Don Ho Dies in Hawaii

I saw in the paper this morning that Hawaiian singing legend Don Ho died at age 76 of heart failure. Too bad, becaue Ho was the rare example of one singer who created/preserved a specific genre, and whose career never seemed to falter.

But we need to make some things clear.

Don may have been a Ho, but he was not nappy haired.

Imus may be a Don, but he is not a Ho.

You can quote me on this.

One More Blog About Don Imus (Who Needs It?) (1 cent)

I must admit to have been an occasional Don Imus watcher. A few years ago, I was fairly regular. Why is this? Because he was, I thought, entertaining and charismatic, and could be counted on for interesting guests. As to his crude and cruel 'humor', I generally cringed. I didn't really overlook it, but I didn't let it stop my enjoyment of the show. And, perhaps in the sense that it was 'live' and 'spontaneous', it added something. And I did wonder why no one washed his mouth out with soap.

Imus had two sidekicks on the show. One, Charles McCord, did the news and played it fairly straight. I always have liked him. The other, Bernard McGuirk (McJerk?) was the opposite; he was the crudest of the crude, the instigator of all things bad on the show. He was also the producer of the show.

Now, I don't know the working relationship between the members of this longstanding trio, and particularly, I don't know, as between Imus and McJerk, which one came up with the most outlandish lines or skits. I don't really care.

Enough has been reported about all the crude remarks Imus has made over the years, and how the audiences, the sponsors, and the networks tolerated (welcomed?) them. Was it money only? Was it enjoyment? Was it tacit approval? (By one theory, Imus was willing to say what a lot of people would think, but were not in a position to say.) Again, I don't know.

I have, however, long been intrigued about his guests, and their willingness to participate actively in the show, particularly since so many of the guests were so prominent politically, and who worked hard to maintain a level of politician morality that was so different from the Imus morality. Think Joe Lieberman. Think John McCain. Think John Kerry.

Then there were the clergymen, Rabbi Mark Geller and Father Tom Hartman. What is their excuse?

As to the NBC journalists, Tim Russert and David Gregory and the others, well I thought that business was business, and they were on to promote the networks. But then there were the print journalists who called in as well. What were they thinking?

Many people want to expand this discussion. They want to take on the rap industry (that is probably a good thing). They want to take on the conservative talk show hosts (it is about time someone did). They want to take on Bill Maher (I think he is pretty outrageous). They want to take on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (that is not going a little too far; that is going way too far). But where are the limits on this type of talk? And on whom should the limits be placed? And should they be legal limits (as they are with obscenities), or simply societal acceptance limits (assuming there is such a thing in such a diverse society). These are the questions that need to be addressed.

Of course, it is not the words themselves that are problems (although 'ho'' is not a word), but the use of the words and the identity and intent of the speaker. Can Jews tell jokes on Jews, and blacks make fun of blacks, while neither should put down the other? Perhaps, although this in many ways goes against the grain, and certainly against the American premise that everyone should be treated and considered equally. Once, I was in a group of black and Jewish professionals, and one of the Jewish members set to one of the black members: "Help me out here, what do you want me to call you? Black? Or African American?". The honest answer came back: "Whichever one you call me, I want you to call me the other one." This tension will always exist.

Well, what about Imus' charitable activity, which seems to be quite extensive, with his camp for children with cancer, his raising funds for all sorts of health facilities and programs, and his wife's work making housekeeping green? You can't excuse a murderer because he was good to his mother. You don't excuse Mussolini because he made the trains run on time. I think the same goes for Imus. His charitable work is terrific and you can only hope he keeps it up.

I think he has been properly booted, and hope he does not return to the airwaves. As Imus would say (were he not Imus): This scraggly, turkey headed, scarecrow of a weasel got just what he deserved.

OK, Not So Weird (1 cent)

After talking to a number of people about my mysterious open window syndrome, one of them said to me (joking, I think) "maybe your remote does more than you think". It got me thinking and lo and behold this is the answer. If you keep holding down the open door button, it becomes an open window button. Whew!

A Little Too Weird

6:45 a.m. get in my car in my driveway and take the short drive to the gym.
6:50 a.m. park car on Yuma Street
7:55 a.m. walk from gym to car, open door with remote key control, sit in car and turn on motor.
7:56 a.m. notice that driver side window is completely open. do not remember opening window, but think I must have done so. close window.
7:57 a.m. see that passenger side window is also open. clearly do not remember opening both windows, but think I must have done so. close window.
7:58 a.m. leave parking space, decide to pick up some bagels, take short drive and park on Livingston Street, noticing, while I am driving, that it feels cool (it is cool outside, but should not feel that cool in the car)
8:05 a.m. park car on Livingston Street, still feeling cool, look up and see that the skylight is completely open. to open skylight, you must reach to front ceiling, and pull and hold a switch. I know I did not do that. I also know that nothing was open over night, as it rained hard, and the insides of the car were completely dry.

I have no answer. Does this mean that there is a God? And that He has nothing better to do?

Brats

"Brats" is a 2005 Czech movie which we saw tonight at the Avalon (one Wednesday each month, another award winning Czech film). We enjoyed it.

A couple has trouble having children, and adopts two boys, both of gypsy parentage. Then they have one of their own. The kids are hard to handle--the adopted boys have a hard time focusing and an easy time getting into trouble. The younger son has a serious asthma condition. They move from Prague to an exurban village for the fresh air, and hopefully for good neighbors (the Prague neighbors did not take to the gypsy boys).

It does not work out. The kids have trouble adjusting. The parents (and especially the mother) are isolated and overstressed. And one man in particular is out to get the kids, falsely accusing them of vandalism and calling them 'black bastards'.

Watching all of the bickering between the kids and between the parents, combined with the youngest boy's medical condition, and the problems with the neighbors, and the continual bullying and ribbing between all of the children made me very nervous. In addition, some weird camera work (a lot of scenes from above, a lot of face focusing, and a lot of blurred images)are disturbing.

Nevertheless, the movie is enjoyable, draws you in and keeps you going. I'd recommend it.

By the way, the boys are brats. But the Czech title of the film is "Smradi", which is translated as "smell" or "stench". This would be an ambiguous title. What stinks? Is it the gypsy kids, as the bigots think? Or is it the bigots? Or is it everything in the Czech Republic.

Why did they translate the title into English as "Brats". On the one hand, the boys are all brats, but "brats" is a very unsympathetic word, and the kids are very definitely meant to be objects of sympathy. But the three boys are also, of course, brothers, and the Czech word for "brothers" is "bratri". So the English title also has multiple meanings, but is more in the nature of a double entendre than it is ambiguous in the way Smradi is.

Tricks of Memory

I parked my car in the garage and entered the building's elevator lobby this morning, where a man in a Nationals' cap and warm up jacket was already waiting. He was probably about 50. I asked him if he was on the team.

On the way up, we and a few other Washingtonians lamented the Nationals, Caps, Redskins and Wizards.

Then, I got thinking. Forty years ago, a book was published called "Letters To and From Groucho Marx", real letters if I recall that Groucho sent (and the responses he received).

One, to Yankee Joe Dimaggio went something like: "Saw you late last night at Toots Shor's restaurant in New York. You were dressed in slacks, a sport jacket and tie. I was shocked. What would you have done if a ball game had broken out?"

My elevator companion was ready for action.

But what does all this say about memory. Let's say I read the Groucho book when it came out, or within a few years. 35-40 years ago. Why is it that I remember this letter, and nothing else at all?

Or, better still, although I remember this letter, do you think it is really in the book?

Memory.

What are the Seven Lively Arts Anyway ? (6 cents)

I really don't know. But I assume that theater and music are two of them.

Today, the last day of Passover, I went to church twice. At noon, I went to the Church of the Epiphany for its Tuesday noontime concert, and saw three Levine School faculty members (floutist Rebecca Collaros, pianist Grace McFarlane and cellist, Vasily Popov) perform flawlessly. A treat.

Interestingly, their program, entitled "A World-Wind Affair with Strings Attached" was comprised of pieces with which I had no familiarity whatsoever. The only piece that was vaguely familiar was Chopin's Barcarolle, and I know I could not have identified it by listening.

I thought that the selections were mixed; this was the only downside. But I did hear something that I don't believe I had ever heard before, and would like to hear much more. It is called "Kaleidoscope" by Hungarian composer Miklos Rozsa (1907-1995. I do not recognize the name. It is for flute, piccolo and piano, and contains a number of short rhythmic selections: march, musette, burlesque. You get the idea.

I enjoyed the Chopin (a lot of notes in that piece), and Debussy's Syrinx, a short flute solo. Madrigal by French composer Philippe Gaubert (1879-1941), another unknown to me, left me cold (i.e., didn't like it and didn't dislike it; the moment it was over, it slipped from my memory). The final piece, for three instruments, was Bohuslav Martinu's Trio for flute, cello and piano, which I thought the performers played about as well as it can be played. And I tried and tried to like it, and I just didn't. OK, so I should hear this again, too, and see if it was just its novelty that made it miss the mark with me.

This evening, we went to a first staged reading of a play called "The Quilt", written by Jason Ford, the son-in-law of friends. We did not know what to expect. It was part of a series of readings produced by the Playwright's Forum, and was held at St. John's Church in Bethesda.

It was quite good, and the post-reading discussion about good and weak points was also very interesting. The story line (in brief, and without giving away too much) is about a family who inherited a quilt which is sacred to a cult-like religious group. The cult members thought that the quilt had been lost and when they discovered its existence, they wanted it back. How they got it back, how the family was inevitably step by step roped into relationships with cult members, how tragedy struck, and how it ended. This is the play.

Having seen a number of readings over the past few years, this one ranks very high. Of course, whether it will ever again see the light of day, and how many drafts and re-drafts it will go through, is yet to be determined.

Ali Alawi at Politics and Prose

Ali Alawi spoke about his new book on occupied Iraq. Allawi left Iraq in exile in the early 1970s with his family. He went to England, studied and then taught at Oxford and became an investment banker. He went back to Baghdad, became Finance Minister and Defense Minister. He got disgusted; he got angry. He wrote this book.

The book has been very well received.

It was pretty depressing. To sum it up: things were bad, people were killed, then there was the invasion, then we had hope, then we screwed it up (we = everyone involved), now things are really tough, but maybe we can still turn it around. But our window is very small. He believes the Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and of Shiites, and that there have been another several hundred thousand who have died as a result of the invasion and occupation. Then there are a couple of million refugees, mainly in Syria and Jordan. The midddle class is gone. The Shiites and the Kurds are allied. The Sunnis are in trouble. If America gets out without leaving a structure, it will get worse. If they stay, it will get worse.

He believe that, with the advent of the Bush II administration, academics who had been peripheral became core, and they developed this plan for the middle east that had nothing to do with the middle east.

There was no happy ending.

Imus, Youmus Go!

The Weekend (one cent)

The weekend is about to be over. It is going to end with our study group meeting at our house to discuss the growing trend of recognizing Sephardic Passover culinary traditions in Ashenazic homes. That is, traditionally Ashkenazic (today, basically Europeans and their descendants) keep stricter Passover rules, not eating certain foods eaten by those who define themselves as Eastern or Sephardic (Iraqi, North African, Arab, etc.). The Sephardim eat rice, beans and legumes; the Ashkenazim do not. But now that geogrpahy is losing its importance and communities (particularly in Israel, but to an extent here today as well) are mixing, what should be the tradition in the future? (Yes, these are the discussions that make up religious life, everywhere. Except perhaps for Unitarians)

Last night, we were disappointed when we went to see The Hoax, the movie with Richard Gere and Alfred Molina about Clifford Irving's book, The Autobiography of Howard Hughes, which turned out to be a forgery and was pulled off the press. Irving and his cohort Richard Suskind each spent time in jail, as did Irving's then-wife. This all took place in the 1970s.

The story is a good story and could have been told much more intelligently that it was, I felt. I thought Gere did a good job (considering the way the movie was put together), Molina not so good. The story was told half as reality, and half as Irving's fantasies, and the mix did not mix.

Before the show, we went to the last game of the Caps miserable season, where they lost to top NHL team, the Buffalo Sabres. The game was actually pretty good, and the Verizon center was sold out (of course, a lot of Sabre fans were there). The Caps promise that they will be better this summer. I hope so. But then again, hockey is not played in the summer.

And the Nats have now lost 6 of their first 7, even though they are getting a lot of hits, and very good relief pitching. Interestingly, their problems seem to parallel that of the caps.

Offense:
Nats good
Caps good

Offense When it Counts:

Nats bad
Caps bad

Goalie/Relievers

Nats good
Caps good

General Defense/Starting pitchers

Nats bad
Caps bad

We will see how the season goes, but I don't think it will be pretty.

A short blog about rape and the Washington Post (5 cents)

On page B-1 of today's Post (carried over to page B-2) is an article entitled "Comments on Rape Law Elicit Outrage". A long term Maryland delegate from Prince George's County, Joseph F. Vallario, Jr. , quoted a 17th century English jurist, Sir Matthew Hale, saying in effect that women who were not raped could claim that they were. The context was the discussion of proposed legislation denying parental rights to rapist fathers.

Outrage resulted. Someone googled Hale and discovered the presumed exact quote: "Rape is an accusation easily to be made, hard to be proved, and harder yet to be defended by the party accused". Although no one seems to be calling Vallario evil, many were appaled by the reference.

I am always concerned about the requirements of political correctness, particularly since the quotation does not seem out of line to me; rather, it appears to state a truism.

The article had another surprising reference: in 1987 Virginia apparently passed a law, according to the article, "prohibiting judges from instructing juries to be "skeptical of rape claims". That in itself seems a little weird.

So, OK, no one is in favor of rape, and I think it makes sense that a rapist should not have paternity rights. But (particularly where there has been no criminal conviction) how do you know if a rape occurred.

In fact, on the same page, there was an article (by chance it seems) about a Naval Academy midshipman accused of raping a fellow student. The midshipman's defense is that the sex was consensual. The case is ongoing. Was there a rape? Without some overriding physical evidence, how would you ever know?

A Great Miracle Happened Here

The Capitals and the Nationals won on the same day.

Elijah in the Haggadah (12 cents)

Between the third cup of wine, the tradition is to open the door for Elijah. People remember doing this as long as they remember attending seders. In this country, in Israel, in Europe.

But it isn't in the Haggadah.

There is a mystery here that must be unraveled.

The Plague Continues (12 cents)

By my count, you pass 848 newspaper vending boxes on Connecticut Avenue between Davenport St. and K St.

This and That (2 cents)

1. The New York Times reports that the Baltimore Orioles will have their tenth straight losing season this year, and that that has not happened since they were the St. Louis Browns. Ha!

Of course, the Nationals will have their own problems, won't they? Their five starting pitchers, for example, won a total of (that is all of them added together) two games in the majors last year!

And the Nationals have let Alfonso Soriano and Jose Vidro go. They must be modeling after the Capitals who, after last night's loss, have now lost their last five hundred games, or something like that. Since they traded Dainius Zubrus for very little and then gave away Jamie Heward, what has their record been? Hint: I don't think that they have won more than the Nationals' pitchers won last year.

It's the Washington way.

When I lived in St. Louis, they used to say it was "First in shoes, first in booze, and last in the American League". Washington, which is looking for a new slogan, seems to be "First in news, one of the first in zoos, and last in all the leagues".

My suggestion for city slogan: Washington - where you don't go to the mall to shop.

2. Washington does have cherry blossoms, and yesterday was a beautiful day to walk around the Tidal Basin, and also to stop at the Washington Monument for the kite festival. Billions of people were there, old, young, white, black, Oriental.

3. We saw two movies, "Namesake" and "Flannel Pajamas". Both were relationship movies, and in both cases the relationships went haywire. No happy endings.

"Flannel Pajamas" was the weaker of the two, although I did not really like either movie very much. Two New Yorkers are fixed up by their mutual therapist. They live in New York (the New York papers tended to give the film much more positive reviews), she is somewhat shallow girl from Montana with an attractive smile, he is a Jewish (though you can't prove it by anything that happens in the movie) talker who seems as untrustworthy as they come. Her family is drenched in alcohol and her parents divorced; his mother was crazy but his parents stayed together. Functionality was not a part of either of their family backgrounds. They fall in love, they get married, and then they begin to torment each other, not because they want to, and not loudly, just inevitably. Who are these people, who are presumably finding themselves? I am not sure that they knew themselves any better at the end than they did at the beginning.

We went into "Flannel Pajamas" blind (it was close by and started at the right time), but I thought that my reaction to "Namesake" was going to be positive. But here you go. A young woman in Calcutta has an arranged marriage with a Bengali living and teaching in New York. They struggle (in every way) at first, but wind up with an acceptable house in the suburbs and a lot of Bengali friends. So far, so typical. Their two children become all-American (not surprising) and their older, gifted son (a Yalie and an architect) falls in love with a non-Indian, blond haired daughter of wealth (shades of "Flannel Pajamas"). He ignores his family, and seems to be well on his way to marriage, when his father dies, and he has guilt and regets and remembers he is Indian, and throws away (really, no better word for it) his girlfriend Maxine, and meets and quickly marriages the girl of his parents dream, the daughter of a couple of from the old country. Happy ever after? Not on your life. His new wife, Mo, it seems needs more than one guy at a time and begins an affair with old French boyfriend Pierre. Splitsville, once more.

Commonalities: relationships that go sour, although in the first movie you thought it was because they were from different backgrounds, and in the second the only reason they got together is that they were from similar backgrounds. And Christmas: in the first movie, Christmas in Montana is central to everything, although the fact that the boyfriend was (so-called) Jewish did not seem to matter at all. In the second, the Hindu family has wreaths and trees and reindeer on the lawn, all brightly lit.

Ugh.

3. Good food. Arucola and Luiginis. Neither new to us. Both reliable for good fish dinners. And a very good Italian wine, Passamante, at Luigini's.

Sticking with food for a minute, the weekend before, we had a tapas lunch at Jaleo, and I ordered a sherry, a Palo Cortado. What is that? I looked it up in Wikipedia, and they said: "it is a rare variety of sherry that is initially aged under flor to become a fino or amontillado, but inexplicably loses its veil of flor and begins aging oxidatively as an oloroso." No wonder I liked it.

4. I finished the book about Colonel Frank Brandstetter, World War II hero, owner/manager of Las Brisas Hotel in Acapulco, U.S. intelligence operator. As I said before, it was an interesting book. I looked it up on Amazon. There appear to have been no professional reviews (it was published by University of North Texas Press), but has twelve reader reviews, all positive, some glowing. Several of the reviewers talk about meeting Brandstetter and how impressive he is. Several say that this story is very important and should be assigned by schools and bought by libraries.

Well, that's enough to get you suspicious. Friends of the author writing reviews? You gotta wonder. Particularly, since entries on Google about Brandstetter are primarily limited to mentions of the book.

Is the guy real?