Pretty Cunning, Don’t Ya Think?

Posted on 4 February 2012 by Eric

After days of enduring my nagging, my lovely and talented wife put her other projects on hold and crocheted me a Jayne Cobb hat.  I love it.

If you don’t have any idea who Jayne Cobb is, stop whatever you are doing and watch Firefly.  It won’t take long because the fascist rubes at FOX cancelled the show before it ran an entire season (and yet somehow ‘The Simpsons’ is in its third decade and ‘The Cleveland Show’ was allowed to exist in the first place).

I think Michelle did a damned good job, especially since the original was knitted not crocheted.

The original:

Michelle’s version:

I think it compliments my winter beard quite well.

Posted in general entertainment, movies, the better half | Leave a comment

Top Ten: Favorite National Flags

Posted on 11 January 2012 by Eric

Ever since, as a child, I would sit and stare at the colored plates of flags of the world in the middle of the “F” volume of my parents’ Encyclopedia Americana, I have loved flags.  I find the combination of aesthetics, history and politics fascinating.

I take my flags seriously.  I have thus been known to mock the occasional national flag (e.g., the fact Mozambique features an AK-47 on its flag or that the Cypriots couldn’t think of anything better than a picture of Cyprus plus some very ironic olive branches).  Likewise, I have often bemoaned the lack of creativity in flag design, especially the plague of the dull and uninspiring colored bar motif: two or three horizontal or vertical bars, sometimes featuring some symbol to break up the monotony, but more often plain.  The prevalence of the colored bar motif is not only boring but confusing: Indonesia, Monaco, and Poland essentially have the same dull, two-tone red above white flag.  On the other hand, I have been irked by the a surplus of creativity in more recent designs; just read the explanation behind the odd diagonals of the Seychelles and look at the resulting ’80s track suit of a flag.  I suppose it is high time that I point out the flags I like for a change.

A note on methodology:  this is not in the least scientific or internally consistent.  Artistic merit and emotional response are probably the most important factors, but history and meaning sometimes matter.  But not always.

Albania.   Many national flags incorporate national symbols or heralds; sometimes it works, and other times, it does not (e.g., Uganda’s flag has a Grey Crowned Crane, its national symbol, in the center, but the depiction of the bird is so small in relation to the rest of the flag that, at first glace, it looks like a chicken).  Albania’s flag is an excellent example of the former:  a silhouette of the classic, badass medieval double-headed eagle in black on a field of red (note that Montenegro also uses the eagle sigil, but it is a little too busy for me).  It is simple and striking.   I love it.

Switzerland.  Yeah, I am biased on this one, but I love the Swiss flag.  In enjoy the simplicity of the white cross on the red background, and the fact he flag is uniquely (save the Vatican flag) square.  It gets bonus points for a very interesting history.  But to truly appreciate the flag, you need to spend some time in Switzerland to see how the flag is put to use by a creative culture which is proud of its heritage and not afraid to show it.  A bit of trivia, even though Red Cross founder Henri Dunant was Swiss and it is based in Geneva, there is no clear evidence that the Red Cross symbol was created by reversing the colors of the Swiss flag.

Bhutan.  The flag features a dragon.  A DRAGON.  That’s all I need to know.  Specifically, sprawled across the flag is “Druk, the Thunder Dragon of Bhutanese mythology“.  And Druk is not at all pleased.  Bhutan, I salute you.  And besides the inherent genius of featuring a pissed-off dragon named Druk, I like the design:  the diagonally-divieded fields of yellow and orange, the black and white simplicity of the dragon, and the fact the dragon is so placed that it seems to be crawling up the diagonal line.  Classic.

Macedonia.  There is an interesting and disturbing background to Macedonia’s flag, which is all wrapped up in the fact Greece has been bullying its young neighbor for years because Greece seems to think it has the sole claim to the culture and 3000 year history of Macedonia (which anyone who has read anything of Balkan history knows is absolute nonsense).  If I had any control over the EU, I would make Greece get down on its knees and apologize to Macedonia for being such a dick before it got an iota of financial aid.  When Macedonia first declared independence in the early 90′s, its first flag featured the Vergina Sun, a symbol used by ancient Macedonians.  This, of course, was anathema to Greece.  Those fine, upstanding Greeks then instituted a one year blockade of landlocked Macedonia to force them to take the Vergina Sun off the flag.  Eventually, the Macedonians agreed to alter their flag, adopting a new flag in 1995 which, though obviously referencing the Vergina Sun, was different enough to assuage the Greeks.   Thus, besides being visually striking, the new flag is a creative solution to a thorny, typically Balkan problem.  This new flag is, in my opinion, beautiful.  It is somewhat similar to the Japanese military Rising Sun Flag (the aesthetics of which I always appreciated), but without the baggage of history.  I prefer the colors and the artistry as well.

Israel. I have always found the Israeli flag striking.  The famously featured Magen David (“Shield,” not “Star” of David) is a visually arresting symbol, and the stark dark blue on white is simplicity itself.  Of course, everything related to Israel is controversial, and the fact the hexagram Shield of  David was the formal symbol of the Zionist Congress angered some, but I love it.  And for the record, the blue horizontal bars are actually meant to reference a Jewish prayer shawl; I am thus granting the flag and exception to my “horizontal colored bars a boring flag make” rule.

United Kingdom.  You did not seriously believe I forgot about the Union Jack, did you?  Not only is the flag a graphic representation of the growth of the British Empire but it is beautiful in its slight incongruence (due to the “pinwheel” of St. Patrick’s Cross) and and lines of color.    I find it interesting that both the oddly long 1:2 and 3:5 “war flag” ratios are official.

Kiribati.  The fairly young Pacific island nations are a fascinating vexillogogical study:  generally, these nations gained independence fairly recently, so their flag design is subject to more modernist tendencies; on the other hand, these nations on the whole lack a homogeneous cultural history so that they do not have a an ancient existing flag to resurrect or a wealth of old symbology to draw on (e.g., Macedonia) in the design of a new flag.  Thus, the nations had a carte blanche in designing flags.  In some cases (such as the aforementioned Seychelles), the creativity went overboard.  In other cases (Tonga), they didn’t try hard enough.   But I like what Kiribati came up with.  Are you a bunch of  atolls stretching over 1.3 million square miles of ocean?  How about having THE OCEAN on your flag?  I also like the weird, stylized sun raising above the waves.

Georgia.  I’ve always liked the ancient (and recently resurrected) national flag of Georgia, partially it is because it is reminiscent of crusader sigils (particularly the Knights Hospitaller) and partially because it is aesthetically pleasing. Apparently, the ancient flag was originally a simple St. George’s Cross, like England, but the four quadrant crosses were added after the Georgians defeated the Mongols — a nice metaphor, I think, of how Georgia has straddled east and west throughout history.  I would note the Georgian national flag is a vast improvement over the flag of the Soviet Georgian SSR and, for that matter, the State of Georgia.

Kyrgyzstan. It would have been hard for Kyrgyzstan to design a flag worse than the Soviets forced on them  (yet more horizontal colored bars + a hammer and sickle).  But I am impressed with what emerged:  a sun stylized to represent a traditional Kyrgyz yurt, a design which is commonly seen across the nation.  It is simple and striking.


Honorable Mention:  Jamaica.  A simple but effective design and I like the color scheme.  But Jamaica deserves mention because the original proposal was for (of course), three horizontal colored bars, but they changed it to a saltire because it looked too much like another flag.  Good for you Jamaica.

Posted in general entertainment, history | Leave a comment

Book Review: The Real German War Plan

Posted on 30 December 2011 by Eric

World War I, or, more simply, the Great War, is one of my favorite historical subjects.  It is fascinating from all angles, be it political (a century of dynastic marriage, balance-of-power obsession, French revanche, German Weltpolitik, the rising power of nationalism, and the “Eastern Question,” inter alia, all result in a conflict everybody expected yet nobody wanted), cultural (the liberal humanism of a European gilded age is annihilated in the muck of northern France), or military (the tragedy of twentieth century technology wielded with nineteenth century tactics).

Conventionally, any discussion of the aforementioned tactics begins with the mythic “Schlieffen Plan,” the so-called “perfect” plan of mobilization and attack designed by German Chief of Staff Alfred von Schlieffen in the early years of the twentieth century which was bequeathed to his successors and remained the sacrosanct lodestar of German planning and which, when set into motion in August 1914, would have led to the quick defeat of France but for the bungling of the junior Moltke and other German generals.  Nearly every book I have read on the Great War follows that theme.

Unfortunately, I have been convinced the conventional wisdom is all wrong thanks to Terance Zuber’s new book, The Real German War Plan, 1904-14.  As I have noted before in this blog, I am very wary of “revisionist history” because it can be utilized in an Orwellian fashion to mangle history for ideological reasons.  However, Zuber (a retired German army officer and historian) is really more of a re-revisionst inasmuch as, for the last decade, he has been on a crusade against the myth of the Schlieffen Plan because, he claims, the myth itself is the product of revisionist history.  And his case is compelling.

As The Real German War Plan, 1904-14 sets forth, the Schlieffen Plan myth was promulgated by various Germans in the 1920s and 1930s who had a vested interest in blaming the Great War on long dead strategic planners.  It was picked up by historians and politicians convinced that Prussian warmongering was the cause of the Great War, and that the Schlieffen Plan is evidence of the German “war guilt” which was codified in the Treaty of Versailles.  All of the original relevant pre-Great War German military documents were believed lost during the Allied bombing of Berlin at the end of World War II, leaving only the biased secondary sources, thus ossifying the Schlieffen Plan myth throughout the second half of the twentieth century.  There have always been scholars who questioned this school of thought (such as Liddle-Hart), but if my experience is any indication, these scholars have been voices in the wilderness.

However, after the fall of the Eastern Bloc that certain German military documents did survive, were captured by the Red Army, and were later returned to the East German authorities.  Only recently have such documents come to light.  Zuber claims these newly-discovered documents provide conclusive evidence of the fact that there never was a Schlieffen plan, as such, thus proving correct the anti-Schlieffen school.

These new documents prove, Zuber avers, that Schlieffen produced many different, alternative, Aufmarsch (mobilization schedules), which were replaced, amended, or scrapped on a yearly basis depending on the state of international affairs.  None of the Aufmarsch are the mythic Schlieffen plan, and most concentrate on the counter-offensive (i.e., Schlieffen supported allowing France and Russia to attack first and then crushing them on German soil, as opposed to the mythic Schlieffen Plan’s immediate offensive).  Zuber provides a map of the 1905 Schlieffen Aufmarsch — which is often cited as the genesis of the mythic Schlieffen Plan — to show how different it is from the mythic Schlieffen Plan; furthermore, as Zuber notes, the 1905 Aufmarsch was scrapped and replaced in 1906.  As Zuber points out, the famous West Point Atlas map of the Schlieffen Plan (which is prominently featured on Wikipedia) does not correspond to any of the Schlieffen Aufmarsch is an amalgam of the general idea of German mobilization toyed with between 1904 and 1914 and what actually transpired in August and September 1914.

After the younger Moltke took over as Chief of General Staff, he continued to produce yearly Aufmarsch, which evolved to meet current concerns.  As it became clear that Germany would have to fight a two-front war, Moltke’s planning changed accordingly.  The final German mobilization plan instituted in August 1914 had almost little to do with any single Schlieffen Aufmarsch and was instead the result of years of trial-and-error.  Rather, Germany’s final 1914 war plan was developed in 1913 and 1914 as a result of the weakening of Austria due to the Balkan Wars, the anticipated participation of the BEF in Belgium, the continued improvement of the Russian army, and other factors which occurred after Schlieffen’s death.

In short, Zuber claims that there never was a mythic Schlieffen Plan and, contrary to conventional wisdom, Germany did not have in place a monolithic design of offensive throughout the first fifteen years of the twentieth century.  And I tend to agree with him.

Now, at the end of the day, Germany did march through Belgium into northern France while concurrently whipping up on the French army in the Battle of the Frontiers.  Zuber agrees with other scholars that German success was due more to German combined arms tactical training and the decentralization of command than grand strategy, so at the end of the day the fact there probably was not a mythic Schlieffen Plan does not change the general Great War scholarship.  Still, it gives one pause — if the conventional wisdom regarding the Schlieffen Plan was incorrect, what else is?

Posted in history, literature, review | Leave a comment

Wikifun: Hans Augusto Reyersbach

Posted on 10 December 2011 by Eric

I stumbled across the Wikipedia biography of Curious George author H.A. Rey (born Hans Augusto Reyersbach).  A German Jew, he barely escaped the Nazi invasion of France on a bicycle:

Hans and [his future wife] Margret were both Jewish and of German birth. They met in Brazil, where Hans was working as a salesman and Margret had gone to escape the rise of Nazism. They married in 1935 and moved to Paris that same year.

While in Paris, Hans’s animal drawings came to the attention of a French publisher, who commissioned him to write a children’s book. The result, Cecily G. and the Nine Monkeys, is little remembered today, but one of its characters, an adorably impish monkey named Curious George, was such a success that the couple considered writing a book just about him. Their work was interrupted with the outbreak of World War II. As Jews, the Reys decided to flee Paris before the Nazis seized the city. Hans assembled two bicycles, and they fled Paris just a few hours before it fell. Among the meager possessions they brought with them was the illustrated manuscript of Curious George.

The Reys’ odyssey brought them to the Spanish border, where they bought train tickets to Lisbon. From there they returned to Brazil, where they had met five years earlier, but this time they continued to New York. The books were published by Houghton Mifflin in 1941 . . .

In other words, the couple’s real life was far more interesting than any book they ever wrote.  Fascinating .

Posted in history, literature, wikifun | Leave a comment

The Pujols Manifesto, Pt 2

Posted on 8 December 2011 by Eric

I am still digesting the news that Albert is now and Angels and I will update once I have ruminated more.  But my initial thoughts are as follows:

I think this is what Mozelik wanted all along.  Albert’s first decade was epic, but he is 32 and without steroids to Clemens/Bonds him into his 40s, his skills will degrade.  The Cardinals were morally and politically obligated to make a good faith run at Albert, and did.  Nobody can fault them for the 9 year/$210m offer which was rumored to be on the table.  But I think Mozzy and the other powers that be were very uncomfortable with mortgaging the franchise’s future for a decade.  So they hoped someone would be stupid enough to sweep in and pay Albert enough more to convince him to jump ship.

Let’s be honest:  10 year/$250m is too much.  I think Colin Cowherd is right: dumbest contract ever signed.  For three or four years, he will be money.  But then . . .

Meanwhile, the Cardinals have $20m or so to play with and throw at either a younger player (Prince?) or more palatable contracts.

As noted, I don’t fault Albert at all for taking more money.  He is a great player and a great guy and I wish him the best.  But at the end of the day, I think he made the wrong choice.  He now has a decade of pressure to live up to $25m.  Maybe he will do it and the Cardinals (and Cowherd) will look like fools.  But I doubt it.

More as warranted.

Update:  looks like the actual deal is $254m.

Apparently the Marlins offered him $275m . . . their refusal to include a no-trade clause was apparently a huge deal.  Or, perhaps, it was those new ass-ugly uniforms that scared him away.

I agree completely with Karabell and Law:  this is a loss for the Cardinals, but signing him would have been a Pyrrhic Victory.  No corner infielder who is 30+ is worth a 10 year contract.  Arte Mareno may be loaded, but I think this will be an albatross even for him.

I’m trying hard to avoid this response.  As noted, I don’t blame him for taking more money, but was $3m a year more really worth jumping ship?

Here is what Bill DeWitt has to say.  I believe him.  If the rumors about the 9 year/200+m offer from the team Pujols left on the table are true, that is more than they probably should have offered.  The more I think about it, the more I suspect that, behind closed doors, DeWitt and Mozzy are breathing sighs of relief.  And I think they are right.

I don’t know if I would go so far as to compare this deal to the Mo Vaughn debacle but I agree with Schaap that the effective value of the deal is probably up over $30m per given the dead weight likely waiting at the end.

Next question: what to do with $20m? The first step was signing Furcal which was a good move IF (big IF) he stays healthy.  It does not look like they want a piece of Prince but I agree Beltran would be a good fit if not too much is expected.

Jonah Keri at Grantland gives the contract a statistical review.  Makes me feel better.

Posted in sports | Leave a comment

The Crochet of Cthulhu

Posted on 5 December 2011 by Eric

A few weeks back Michelle called me at work and, her giggles barely suppressed, told me she had discovered a fantastic crochet project.  She immediately embarked on a secret project, dropping hints all along that she was making me the perfect gift.  Frankly, I though she was overplaying her proverbial hand and setting expectations far too high. Based on her hints, I guessed she was making me a dragon.  Given the intrinsic awesomeness of dragons, I complimented her on the idea.  But she told me it wasn’t a dragon, it was BETTER.  I didn’t believe her.

But then she presented me my VERY OWN CROCHETED CTHULHU and I realized that she did, in fact, make me the perfect gift:

Just do the math:  H.P. Lovecraft + crochet = awesome.  I love the nexus of slightly obscure cultural reference, great literature, nerdery, hipster crafts, and general awesomeness.  Well done, Michelle.  You were right.

Posted in administrivia, literature, the better half | Leave a comment

The Pujols Manifesto

Posted on 30 November 2011 by Eric

Nikhil asked me my opinion on the report that the Cubs are speaking with Albert Pujols’ agent about a deal.  I thought it would be appropriate for me to make public my official position on Albert:

Albert, it is impossible to blame you for testing the water and gauging his value.  That is capitalism and it would be irresponsible of you to do otherwise.  You has the perfect right to maximize his value.  So, go with my blessing and meet with the Marlins and Cubs and whomever else you want and see what they offer you.

But, at the end of the day, your best fit is in St. Louis.  You are coming off a remarkable World Series run and approach a deity in Missouri.  Now that you are past 30, age will inevitably catch up with you and your skill set will degrade.  But Cardinals’ fans won’t care, because you are Albert Pujols.  There is no pressure.  Just remember Derek Jeter. On the other hand, if you sign elsewhere, you will be expected to live up to an epic contract and carry the franchise on your shoulders for the next decade.  Frankly, I don’t there is any way you can live up to the money your agent is allegedly asking for.

Also, consider the teams which will make a run at you:  the Marlins and Cubs are years from contention.  The Yankees and Red Sox already have top-dollar first basemen.  The Angels have a solid prospect in Trumbo and need to invest elsewhere. Given the money the Dodgers just gave Kemp and the ownership situation, I doubt the Dodgers can afford you.  There is a rumor Texas could make a run at you, but I doubt they can beat what St. Louis allegedly has on the table.  Plus, given your defensive skills and 5-tool skill set, you are a better fit on a National League team.  The Cardinals, meanwhile, are World Champions and, given Wainwright’s return and a better bullpen than at the beginning of last season, there is no reason to believe they won’t contend again if you stay on.

Therefore, if at the end of the day the deal the Cardinals give you a reasonable offer (by which I mean, one that is reasonably close to what else is on the table), you are a fool to leave.  They are your best chance to win, and your best fit.  I don’t expect you to give the Cardinals a huge hometown discount, but the benefits of staying a Cardinal are such that you should be willing to take reasonably less to stay.

So, don’t let the damned Union tell you what to do and stick around.

Meanwhile, Mozzzy:  PAY THE MAN.  Just remember with Prince on the market, you don’t have to bid against yourself.

Posted in sports | Leave a comment