Athens or Sparta?

I’ll take Athens. Continue reading

Just about the most disturbing thing that I have ever heard was broadcast last week on the radio show This American Life, which you can listen to here. A soldier in his early thirties disclosed that, after three tours in Afghanistan, he really regretted not having killed any of the “bad guys” there. He insisted that everyone in the Army knows who has a kill and who doesn’t. He also reported that the training that he received was in large part designed to overcome the innate psychological barrier against taking human life and to turn killing into a goal. He rejected this intellectually, but he still felt a primal and almost irresistible urge of some kind to find out what it was like to kill someone. The urge remained even after he had completed his term of service and returned to civilian life.

What a contrast to my own military experience from October 1970 through April 1972. In those days half of the enlisted men in the Army had been drafted, and a good number of those were college graduates. Most of the rest of the guys had either joined up to escape from some problem in civilian life or had been bamboozled by a recruiting sergeant into thinking that they could get something out of the Army. At the time the country was still mired in Vietnam, but no one whom I knew thought of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese as “the bad guys.” The truly bad guys to us were the government officials who forced us to give up the best years of our lives to this inane institution and the lifers who made the whole thing possible. There certainly were a few fellows who enlisted out of a sense of duty, but in most cases it was a duty that had been inherited from parents and/or siblings who had also been in the military.

Another gigantic difference is the way in which the rest of the country treats the military today. I remember in 2003 as we began our ill-fated invasion of Iraq that nearly every football game on television included a tribute of some kind to the American military personnel. That was almost eleven years ago, and the attitude of the media has hardly changed one iota. On Friday I heard on the radio that veterans can now obtain a special driver’s license or ID card with a flag on it to indicate that they have served in the military. The Secretary of the State went on the air to encourage merchants to offer discounts to anyone who had one because “they have done such a great job.”

I just do not get it. By what conceivable standard has the military done a great job? It is a positive development that soldiers no longer roll grenades into the tents of the commanding officers, or at least the instances of “fragging” are now lumped in with other incidents of “friendly fire.” On the other hand, unless you are a Shiite partisan, Iraq seems no better than it was under Sadaam. Moreover, Al Qaeda is reportedly stronger than ever, and Afghanistan is, well, Afghanistan. The expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of lives of non-Americans, and untold numbers of physical and emotional casualties has produced absolutely no good at all as far as I can tell. And don’t tell me that the problems remain because we did not have the political will to finish the job. If it takes longer than a decade to accomplish something, you cannot expect the public to keep writing blank checks. Both the Nazis and the Japanese were defeated in far less time. Simultaneously!

It defies credulity how much the American military itself and the citizenry’s attitude toward it has changed in the four decades since I was involved in it. An overriding concern of every male in my generation was the specter of the draft. Some people, including most of the major politicians of the last two decades, took extreme steps to avoid being drafted. Others, including myself, did not try to avoid the draft, but only because we thought that we would probably figure out a way to avoid facing combat.

The enlisted men in the Army were treated like dirt. The starting pay was $125 per month. For that the soldiers were continually subjected to humiliation and mindless labor. I hated every single minute that I was in the Army even though I had one of the cushiest assignments imaginable. The effect on the Army was pernicious. Both the people who did the fighting and the people who supposedly supported them were angry and resentful. Just about the only thing that Donald Rumsfeld and I agree on is his assessment that the American military of the era of the draft was not an effective fighting force.

We have a totally different military today. An astounding 168,000 members of the armed forces are married to other members of the military! In my illustrious military career I met very few people who were married at all. Men who were married with children were exempt from military service, and married people almost never enlisted.* I never encountered a single person who had a spouse in the military.

Everyone in the military is now paid good wages, easily enough to support a family. The troops are provided with a lot more support than we had. I wonder if the drill sergeants even tell recruits about the infamous Jody these days.

The National Guard and the Reserve were a joke in the old days. They helped in emergencies like hurricanes, but mostly they were known as a way for the rich, influential, and the merely lucky to pretend to be in the military. There was never even a suggestion that they might be sent to help out in the war. Now they are deployed in combat almost as often as the regular GI’s.

The Vietnamese War was much more deadly than the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 50,000 American troops perished in Vietnam, more than ten times the number killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the troops today who kill bad guys using drones and bombs are considered heroes, whereas the poor slobs who got caught in ambushes in the rice paddies were considered … hardly at all.

One thing that the current engagements have in common with the War in Vietname is that they were both based on The Big Lie. In the seventies the lie was known as the Domino Theory, which held that losing in Vietnam would somehow impel other countries to embrace Communism. For many years Americans seemed to buy into this theory, but by the time that I was in the Army hardly anyone of my generation was willing to put his life on the line to hold the line before Communism reached Thailand or Burma.

The lie behind the War on Terror claimed that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were somehow preventing terrorists from staging future attacks on the United States. The evidence against it is at least as strong as the evidence against the Domino Theory, but only now, more than a dozen years after it was promulgated, are the people who have served in the military beginning to question whether the invasions were worth the cost. For years it was considered unpatriotic even to mention the cost.

And what of blood lust? I knew a few guys in the Army who were “gung-ho.” They were the subject of widespread ridicule. The sergeants did not try to get us to hate the Viet Cong. One sergeant even told us never to call him Charlie. He said that he deserved the respectful appellation Mr. Charles. What the dedicated sergeants tried to impart on us was how worthless we were and how hopeless their job of trying to train us was. Half of the sergeants, however, were as lackadaisical as we were. They were just counting their own days.

I certainly had no desire to kill anyone. In fact, I mentioned once or twice in Basic Training that I would in no circumstances do it. At the end of our eight weeks of training period one guy came up to me and said that he did not believe me when I said it, but after eight weeks of being with me he changed his mind.

I never changed mine.


* In Basic Training I did meet one very poor guy from Mississippi who sent every paycheck back home to his wife.

I Fought the Rule of Nine

And lost. Continue reading

The Rule of Nine, which was devised by Mel Colchamiro, is designed to aid in the decision as to whether to convert a low-level takeout double by one’s partner to penalty. One adds the following together:

  • The number of cards in the opponent’s trump suit.
  • The number of honors (tens count) in the opponent’s trump suit.
  • The level of the bid.

If the total is nine or more, it is OK to pass. Note: overall strength is not a factor. The choice is between offense and defense.

* * *
Sitting West at unfavorable vulnerability I saw two passes. I had to decide whether to open the following hand:

8 7 5     K Q 10 6 4     Q 8 6 3     4
Yes, I know that this hand does not meet the most (or even least) disciplined standards for weak two bids, but I hate to let the opponents use every level of the bidding box, especially when I am positive that it is their hand. So, I drew the 2 card from my box and set it confidently on the table.

South, not suriprisingly, doubled. Partner passed. Oh, that was a bad sign. He would have raised to three if he had three hearts. So, we had at most seven hearts. North paused to evaluate her hand for a few hours while I mentally enumerated the popes of the eleventh century so as not to give away my bluff. Alas, in the end North passed. I had no choice but to pass and take my medicine. This was the layout:

Board16

So, we had twelve points, and they had twenty-eight. I needed to hold it to down one unless the opponents had a rather freakish slam. Even at that, I had to hold it to down three. The first goal was obviously not possible unless they revoked two or three times while they were cashing their aces and kings, but I did manage to garner five tricks for -800.

North’s hand did not come close to meeting the Rule of Nine. Even if you change it to the Rule of Eight (because I only had five hearts), her hand fell short. So, Mel would predict that she made a big mistake in passing. Sure enough, North-South can make six spades or six clubs, and the play is not even that difficult. The only challenge is finding the Q.

Unfortunately for me, no pair had the temerity to try the Moysian slam or the eight-card club slam. Nine played in 3NT, two played in 4, and one played in 3. Moreover, only one of the three who played in the black suits managed to bring home twelve tricks. So, it appeared that I made a big mistake by bidding.

However, that club bid intrigued me. The people who played there were pretty good players. I suspect that the person sitting in my chair at that table (the most aggressive bidder in the club) must have opened 2! [I found out later that he DID open 2.] If North followed the Rule of Nine, he would have probably bid clubs in response to his partner’s inevitable double. I would have. Playing lebensohl* he would probably bid 3. At that point South would either move to a club game or, if they were playing Western cue-bids, ask for a heart stopper. The latter approach would land them in 3NT.

If North-South was NOT playing lebensohl, what would North bid? Maybe he would venture 3, and South, armed with the knowledge that eleven tricks in a minor is always difficult, might just pass because she was afraid of the heart suit. Or maybe she would raise clubs. In either case they would not find the easy notrump game.

If so, then it was all or nothing. If North violated Mel’s rule and passed, East-West got a zero. If North bid, East-West won all the marbles.

So, was I chastened by this result? No, but in the future I might be a little more careful at unfavorable vulnerability.


* The lebensohl convention after a double of a weak two bid uses a relay from 2NT to 3 so that advancer can distinguish between weak hands and ones with at least seven points.

The Impossible Spade Advance

What was partner thinking? Continue reading

In a pairs game the deal is on your left. Only the opponents are vulnerable. Dealer opens 1, partner passes, and RHO bids 1. No thought is required for you to bid 2 with the following hand:

6 5    8 4    A Q 10 4 3 2   A 9 4
LHO raises to 2, partner comes alive with a bid of 2, and RHO passes. The first two rounds of the auction are therefore:

LHO Partner RHO> You
1 Pass 1 2
2 2 Pass ?

You are playing non-forcing constructive advances, so partner’s spade bid is not forcing. Should you rebid your diamonds or pass? Maybe a word should be inserted as to what “non-forcing constructive” means. My understanding is that it reflects a willingness for the auction to continue. In practical terms that means that partner either has tolerance for overcaller’s suit or that he/she has a self-sufficient suit.

Well, what do the opponents have? LHO probably has 12-15 points and four hearts. RHO probably has only four hearts, and he cannot find another bid after partner’s overcall.

And what about partner? Let us immediately discard the thought that partner might have six spades. This person has often inserted jump overcalls with no honors at all. Furthermore he loves to bid spades. If he had been dealt five spades that were in any sense self-sufficient and as many as eight points, he almost certainly would have reached for the top of the box on the first round. Furthermore, partner was “off the hook.” He could have passed 2. He must have a pretty good hand, and his spades cannot be that special, or he would have mentioned them the first time.

So, I can picture three possible explanations for his bid: (1) When he combined his two spade fragments together he realized that he had a spade suit that was worth bidding. (2) He realized that one or two of his clubs were really spades. (3) He could tolerate diamonds, but he thought that 2 or 2NT might be a better contract.

It was nearly 10:30 at night, and partner (who was, in fact me) had in the past exhibited both of the first two behaviors even at much earlier hours. This time, however, he held this assortment:

A K 10 3    9 5    J 8 7   K Q 8 5
W.C. Fields would have called the opponents’ bidding the “Ethiopan in the fuel supply.” The opener had a flat 12-pointer, and responder made due with a king and two jacks. The latter also refrained from rebidding 3 even though he did, in fact have five hearts. So, it was difficult for the overcaller to imagine that advancer had such a good hand. At first I thought that she, with whom I had not played in a year or so, was just not used to my style, but two of my long-time partners agreed with her. Maybe I do not understand what “non-forcing constructive” means or maybe the concept changes when partner has passed.

Riverside Reflection

Thoughts from my seven-mile walk. Continue reading

The rain on Sunday was predicted to begin around noon. I managed to drag myself outside to take a walk alongside the Connecticut River at about 9:15. I made it back to the office just as the precipitation was beginning two hours later.

I had been planning to listen to Pavarotti and Sutherland in Turandot, which is just about the right length for this journey. However, I soon realized that I had left my headphones at the house. I reckoned that it was not worth driving back to pick them up, and I certainly did not wish to risk getting drenched. So, I set out without my iPod. This had the inadvertent effect of allowing me to be a little less oblivious than usual concerning the surroundings. Here are a few things that I observed.

I encountered no other pedestrians during the entire period. In Volunteer Park, a narrow strip of land in East Windsor that abuts the river, someone was vigorously removing brush. Even though I passed within a few feet of her, she paid no attention to me as she removed small bushes and clipped them into pieces that she deposited into large paper bags. She was still at it when I returned ninety minutes later. I have no idea if she was employed by the city or undertook this campaign on her own volition. Her objective was likewise beyond my ken. It certainly made the river more accessible and removed cover for the animals.

I learned that the beverage preferred by litterbugs on the long, straight, sparsely-used road is, by a large margin, Bud Light. I counted more than a dozen empty cardboard eighteen-packs spaced out at intervals on the east side of the road. That is more than two hundred cans of beer! I also saw a couple of dozen cans, but most of them were on the west side of the road. I could not think of a scenario that would explain why the cartons were almost exclusively deposited on one side of the road, but the cans were predominantly on the other side.

The second most common item of detritus was the Coors Light can. A theme seemed to be developing. The litterbugs evidenced a strong predilection for light beer, and fairly expensive brews at that. Could they possibly think that these brands were the tastiest? Were they counting their calories? Did they want to limit their consumption of alcohol while maximizing their consumption of the other aspects of beer? Maybe they got a deal or a five-fingered discount on these brands, or maybe they just liked to pee. I mean, if you are going to get drunk, do you really like maximizing the amount of liquid required, or do you try to reach the ultimate state as soon as possible? I do not claim to know the answer. I guess that it is a question for the ages.

I noticed a pink pair of panties on the side of the road in an undeveloped area. I glanced at them long enough to realized that they came from a store that specialized in “women’s sizes.” I did not slow down to inspect them. In fact, I sped up a little.

As locations in Connecticut, one of the most densely populated states in America, go, this road is pretty remote. Here and there I saw quite a few parked trucks that had obviously not been driven for decades. I must have seen them before, but they did not make much of an impression. I must say that my dominant thought at the end of this walk was that people are pigs.

Near the end of the road the nearby railroad track crosses the river. Just north of the bridge is a sign that says “Stompers Point.” I had noticed this sign many times and wondered about it, but I had never noticed the building just north of the sign. It now has many trucks parked around it, but for the first time I paid attention to the long-abandoned building itself. I think that it must have been a station at one time, or at least that is definitely what it looks like.

When I finished walking I searched the Internet for information about the building, but I was unable to find much. I did find this photo on Flicker. I also discovered some newspaper stories about an attempt to build a new train station not at this location but in the Thompsonville section of Enfield, which is easily the most downtrodden area between Hartford and Springfield, MA. The proponents of the scheme have convinced themselves that a train station there will somehow revitalize Thompsonville. I will believe it when I see it.

One sign I did not see. There used to be a green street sign with “Enfield Town Line” on one side and “East Windsor Town Line” on the other. There was no sign of it at all. I suspect that it is now decorating someone’s bedroom. It would not surprise me to learn that this someone has downed a few Bud Lights.

The last quarter mile of my walking route is on Route 5. I noticed two peculiar things there. At the stoplight for the road leading to the industrial park stand a Dunkin Donuts and three other buildings. Two of them – Enfield Small Appliance Repair (which is comfortably located in East Windsor far south of the Enfield line) and the East Windsor Diner – have been abandoned for several years, and little or no effort seems to have been made to sell the properties or to turn them into something useful. I wonder why not.

The other building is even stranger. The building that faces the highway is a John Deere dealership that also sells Honda and Yamaha equipment such as generators, lawn mowers, and snow throwers. I bought my lawnmower there, but I never noticed that it shares a parking lot with a two-story structure that houses a hair salon and a store called Liquid Sun. I thought that the latter must sell that stuff that makes you look like you have a suntan in the winter, but I discovered that I was wrong when I looked it up on the Internet. They actually sell lighting and other products for people who grow plants indoors. I knew that kits for this were available in places with liberal marijuana laws, but I never dreamed that you could buy them at a retail outlet in this town.

One Century Ago

Things were very different. Continue reading

It often can seem as if the papacy is stuck in a rut. The pope is seldom seen without his traditional papal garments – either the vestments with the miter or his white cassock with the zucchetto, the little white skull cap. Photos from a century ago depict a different face wearing very similar attire. Similarly, the pronouncements from the popes on so many issues – contraception, abortion, homosexuality, women in the clergy, clerical celibacy – seem not to have changed at all in the last one hundred years.

This appearance is quite deceptive. The institution of the papacy has actually changed dramatically. Even a cursory examination of the man who sat on the Throne of Peter in 1913 reveals someone totally different from the last handful of pontiffs. Pius X, who reigned from 1903 to 1914, was the last pope to be declared a saint. The following observations about his pontificate emphasize how far the Church, admittedly a slow-moving institution, has come in that period.

    • By all rights Pius X should never have even been elected pope. Cardinal Rampolla was leading in the votes when a Polish cardinal vetoed his selection. How, one might well ask, did this cardinal have the right to prohibit anyone from being elected the leader of the Church? Because he had in his possession a piece of paper that said that Franz Josef, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor did not want Rampolla. For centuries the Holy Roman Emperor and a few other powerful rulers were awarded the privilege of vetoing papal selections. 1903 was the last conclave in which it was exercised. Pius X abolished the practice, but he did not decline the nomination that resulted from it.
    • Pius X was the third of five pontiffs who claimed to be unable to resume their rightful role as the legitimate king of central Italy because they were were being held prisoner in the Vatican by the Italian government. In fact, the Italian government, while it definitely did contest the pope’s imagined sovereignty over the corridor from Rome to Ravenna, allowed him to move freely around the country. Nevertheless, for the period spanning from 1870 through 1929, no pope ever left the Vatican. Think of that: the head of the largest Church in the world refused to budge from an area that is only one-fifth of a square mile!The claim that now seems so bizarre was based on some forged documents from the seventh century that purported to show that Emperor Constantine had bestowed on Pope Sylvester I most of the Roman Empire west of Greece. That these documents were bogus had been clear for at least six centuries before the era of the prisoner-popes.
    • The pope acted like a king, too. He had an elaborate crown, called the tiara. It was shaped like a a bullet and contained three rings of jewels.
    • The pontiff’s feet seldom touched the ground. He was carted around by a dozen or so men in a sedan chair called the sedia gestatoria. Someone kept him cool with a large fan made from ostrich feathers.
    • Pope Pius X banned all music except chant from Catholic services. I suspect that he was tone deaf. I mean, the music of Mozart and Vivaldi (who was a priest) was too wild for him. The only language allowed was Latin.
    • “Modernism” was the target of the pope’s most strident injunctions. It is not easy to pinpoint exactly what he was against, but anything not covered by Thomas Aquinas was pretty much out of bounds, including the scientific method. He forced priests and professors to swear oaths that they would not promote any “modernistic” teachings.
    • The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was still going strong. If you read anything on the list, you could expect to spend eternity tormented by beings with pointed tails, goat-horns, and pitchforks.
    • Loans were taboo. Christians could neither lend to nor borrow from other Christians if interest was charged. In the eighteenth century Pope Benedict XIV had ruled that the biblical ban on usury meant that charging interest on loans was absolutely prohibited, and he also said that no one was allowed to circumvent the prohibition by some elaborate arrangement that resulted in the same effect. This was pretty much the last word until the Code of Canon Law issued in 1917 muddied the subject sufficiently so that everyone could stop paying attention to it.
  • Pope Pius X detested the Italian government and refused to deal with anyone who recognized it.

By most standards today’s Church seems old-fashioned, but Pope Pius X would be moved to rage and then tears if he saw what had become of it. His successor, Benedict XV, was cut from a different cloth. He was equally appalled by what he saw in the world, but for entirely different reasons. I will write about him when the centennial of his investiture in 1914 approaches.