".....small, roundish, and moved with an ungainly restlessness, like a number of elderly squirrels trying to escape from a sack. His own age was on the older side of completely indeterminate. If you picked a number at random, he was probably older than that.....Certainly his face was heavily lined, and the small amount of hair that escaped from under his red woollen skiing hat was thin, white, and had very much its own ideas about how it wished to arrange itself.......(taking off his coat) was complicated....by the necessity first of taking off his professional gown, and then putting it back on again once his coat was off, then of stuffing his hat in his coat pocket, then wondering where he'd put his scarf, and then of realising that he hadn't brought it....."

Despite the fact that this professor was from "the other place", and, the lack of red skiing hat in real life (or as real as life could be in the smokey, sherry filled, oak pannelled walls of an Oxford college), Douglas could have been describing my former tutor of Modern History from the Queen's College Oxford, Dr Alastair Parker, RIP.

Dr Parker used to search through the many piles of papers and essays for marking for many a minute, grumbling to himself, looking for his spectacles......while all the time his spectacles would be on the top of his head.

He would look totally bemused when the telephone rang, as if wondering where the sound was coming from. It was one of those old-fashioned telephones. He would cafrefully lift the earpiece to his ear. He would bend down to the mouth piece. And, in a voice reminiscent of Prince Charles (but educated) he would quietly say "Yeeees?"

He would charm the pants of young, pretty female undergraduates.....some would say, quite literally, allegedly. Note this extract from his obituary: "He was a handsome and rather dashing figure, attracted by women and attractive to them. "

And, while he tolerated my lack of application while teaching me dull periods of British History, he totally captivated my attention during my specialism "British Foreign and Domestic Policy 1935 - 1939". While he forgave my pro-Chamberlain tendencies at a time when the consensus was rather anti-appeasement, I am not sure that I was a huge influence on his later, successful book - Chamberlain and Appeasement: British policy and the coming of the Second World War (1993). He was my personal Professor Dumbledore.

In contrast, there was my other History Tutor, Blair. Rowan Atkinson, an old member of Queen's College, descibes his comedy character, Mr Bean, as a "child in a grown man's body". He could have been talking about Professor John Blair, who tried to teach me, well anything, about Anglo-Saxon England, with only partial success. In contrast to the dapper Dr Parker, Blair was like a rabbit trapped in a car's headlights. He would scurry and mince through the corridors of college a la Mr Bean with his elbows stuck to his torso and his forearms and hands flapping around like, well, a girl running. He would be pursued by shouts of "Blaiiiiir!" from unseen assailants.

You got the sense that this accomplished academic had never visisted the real world. This was rather unfortunate as he was also a Moral Tutor - someone who was supposed to help undergraduates with their worries and woes. Some of the female students used to invent problems with their sex lives just to watch him squirm. And squirm he did.

Hoy se cumplen 70 años de los Acuerdos de Munich, 70 años del pacto que simboliza el fracaso de las políticas de apaciguamiento.

El 29 de Septiembre de 1938, los primeros ministros británico y francés, Chamberlain y Daladier, firmaron junto con Hitler y Mussolini, el acuerdo que permitía la anexión por parte del III Reich alemán de los más de 16000 kilómetros cuadrados de territorio perteneciente a Checoslovaquia, que contaban con mayoría de población alemana. A la reunión, no fue invitado, por supuesto, ningún representante del gobierno checoslovaco.

Chamberlain y Daladier fueron recibidos a la vuelta en sus respectivos países, como héroes que habían evitado una guerra, salvadores de la paz mundial. “Peace for our time”, alardeaba el británico. Seis meses más tarde, los nazis invadían lo que quedaba de Checoslovaquia y otros 6 meses después se repartían Polonia con la URSS de Stalin, dando comienzo a la gran guerra del siglo pasado.

Sirva la historia como ejemplo, y recordemos como nuestro presidente del Gobierno Zápater, luchador incansable por la paz, al igual que sus homólogos antes citados, dialogó, negoció y cedió a las presiones de los totalitarios y asesinos de ETA, para garantizarnos la paz. Se le repitió hasta la saciedad que con los terroristas no se negocia, que el apaciguamiento fracasa y es humillante para las víctimas, pero siguió, tildando a los que nos oponíamos, de no desear la paz. Fracasó, estrepitosamente, en su campaña de final dialogado de la violencia, como le ocurrió a Chamberlain. La diferencia entre uno y otro, es que Chamberlain dimitió, cediéndole el puesto al que realmente acabó con el horror y que siempre fue contrario al apaciguamiento, Churchill.

Zápater, todos sabemos donde sigue aún, de la Moncloa no le mueve nadie, ¿fracaso? ¿qué más da? tenía derecho a intentarlo…

Spain is different, aquí no dimite ni Dios.

« Marrakech

Les deux journaux lus habituellement ici sont les quotidiens de Casabalanca, Le Petit Marocain, parution vers midi, et La Vigie Marocaine, parution en fin d’après-midi. Tous les deux sont « patriotiques », plus où moins anti-fasciste, mais neutre envers la guerre civile espagnole et anti-communiste. Le journal local L’Atlas, hebdomadaire, semble totalement insignifiant. Hier (le 15) en dépit de la nouvelle sensationnelle du vol de Chamberlain vers Berlin, avec lequel les journaux ont fait leurs choux gras, il y avait un manque d’intérêt ici, et bien sûr personne ne croit la guerre imminente. Néanmoins il y a eu de gros mouvements de troupes vers le Maroc. Deux des paquebots français qui font la traversée Marseille – Tanger – Casablanca étaient plus où moins complètement rempli de soldats. Il y a eu récemment une nette augmentation des forces aériennes et 125 nouveaux officiers sont arrivés dit-on.

Film footage taken by the French Resistance at the liberation of Paris from the Nazi's. Some historical audio from Chamberlain and the BBC and a Pink Floyd track as soundtrack

I would find any comments about this letter really useful – thanks Rick

22nd August 2008
Dear Mr Brown

I wrote to you back on the 12th May to express my deep concern about the lack of direction of your government in the face of the linked crisis of economy, environment, and equality currently facing the world. I asked you to please provide decisive leadership; we need to pull together like never before, without this focus we are becoming more ever more focused on our narrow person needs.

I did not get a reply to my letter. However I have now started a blog entitled www.workofchange.co.uk to add a further voice in support of these ideas.

My reason for writing to you again is to reflect on what I feel has changed since May and to emphasise the dangers to the labour government and our society for your continued lack of decisive action.

We are facing unprecedented long term threats to our society and way of life.

• It is beyond doubt that our industrial growth society now requires resources and generates pollutants that will critically damage the earth’s habitability systems this century.

• Our trade and economic systems is creating an increased level of inequality that is destroying our ability to maintain cohesive institutions at home and is leading to desperation and anger in many parts of the world.

• Our reliance on imported oil, gas and other resources is now creating dangerous political consequences for our country and the world. This is only going to get worse as peak oil becomes a reality the threat of both economic and military conflict will become a reality.

• The recent global food shortages may have lessened temporarily but this has very publicly highlighted the critical vulnerability in our food distribution and production systems both domestically and globally.

• While the potential for technical development is huge, it cannot address these problems in time without wide-scale changes in expectations and behaviour from the public.

These threats are not temporary challenges to be weathered; they are a logical consequence of rapidly growing consumption in a finite system. The consequences of our behaviour, if unchecked, are unavoidable – resource collapse, conflict, and social disintegration. A policy of business of usual is now not possible.

This combination of challenges must be a curse for a leader; however it is also the greatest of all opportunities. For a leader there is a choice:

• To hold on to the old world and to avoid the consequences of public fear by clinging to, a ‘Chamberlain-esque’ position, claiming that there will be ‘Peace for our time’. This representation is unfair given the options Chamberlain had in reality but this is how he is remembered.

• To grasp the challenges of the future and to take responsibility for the unpleasant reality and offer a vision of a positive future that draws on the resolute spirit of this nation.

This ‘Churchillian’ option is still open to you but not for much longer.

• David Cameron is seeking to adopt this ground, with talk of healing Britain; invoking the spirit of Thatcher , one world consensus conservatism, and building a sustainable society.

• Nick Clegg is calling for us to be energy independent by 2050, and is evoking the Apollo mission as inspiration.

The government’s actions are inconsistent; very positive actions like:

• The currently laudable but imperfect Climate Change Bill.

• The Renewable Energy Strategy.

• Your leadership role over climate change with the G8.

Are undermined by;

• An apparent interference in the European Renewables Directive.

• A resistance to promote micro-generation by establishing a clear framework for feed in tariffs.

• The re-emergence of largely imported very polluting coal, is not only causing civil unrest but is also drawing anxieties from US scientists that US commitment to a post-Kyoto agreement maybe undermined.

• The very costly return to Nuclear energy which is undermining the potential for a more distributed, locally sustainable system for power generation that people could have a real stake in.

This is not a picture of a government grasping the future and helping the people to understand their responsibilities in meeting it.

The opposition leaders are successfully using the government’s refusal to proactively fully acknowledge the crisis to paint the government’s actions as weak, vacillating, and slavish to the fears of the public.

We all face a unique challenge; we must face it with unique vision, courage, and leadership that encourage all to stand together and put our personal interests to one side for the good of that future.
I strongly believe in the ideals of good government and the Labour party. However I feel your government has lost its way it has done so because it is afraid of the future and what it will bring, thus it is not helping us to:

• Prepare for the worst

• Search for the best

Prepare for the worst – by developing technical, social, and material resilience to adapt to the changes that we are facing.

Search for the best – help us to understand how we can live successfully in these new worlds (because we can). Help us to understand how we can rely on each other and the government to make sense of these changes while recognising our responsibilities within it.

I feel this is the leadership we need, as I suggested there is still a real choice between being moved aside as another ‘Chamberlain’ or to grasp the future because the moment requires it in the expectation that the people feel what you do.

Yours sincerely
Rick Wilson

www.workofchange.co.uk

As hundreds of Russian tanks poured into his country, CNN reporter Susan Malveaux asked Georgian President Saakashvili:

MALVEAUX: Have you reached out to them? Do you feel there's any room for negotiation or at least to begin a dialogue or discussions?

The problem has been that Russia has done its "negotiating" with tanks.

The UK Telgraph runs a story by Josh Bolton the editors titled, "The US fiddled while Georgia burned." And this is undoubtedly true (as Bolton himself acknowledges). But at least the US' "fiddling" involved doing something (in the sense of trying to get Georgia admitted to NATO, which would have circumvented this entire sad affair). Europe stood by and did absolutely nothing while Georgia burned.  And the so-called "cease fire agreement" that France proffered essentially allows Russia to remain in Georgian territory for as long as they like.  Many believe that the presence of Russian forces only a few miles from the Georgian capital is a naked attempt to topple the democratic government.

Just as with Iraq, European intransigence to sound diplomatic policy led to war. By refusing to accept the United States' demand to require meaningful weapons inspections on Iraq, the U.N. in general and France and Russia in particular took every option but open war off the table for America. And by refusing to allow the U.S.-backed Georgian bid to join NATO, our European "allies" left a democratic and pro-Western former Soviet State vulnerable to precisely the sort of attack that totalitarian Russia launched.

Josh Bolton describes the European diplomatic initiative in shades of the infamous Munich Agreement:

The European Union took the lead in diplomacy, with results approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich: a ceasefire that failed to mention Georgia’s territorial integrity, and that all but gave Russia permission to continue its military operations as a “peacekeeping” force anywhere in Georgia. More troubling, over the long term, was that the EU saw its task as being mediator – its favourite role in the world – between Georgia and Russia, rather than an advocate for the victim of aggression.

After Neville Chamberlain returned from signing the infamous agreement with Hitler, and appeasing an evil tyrant in the name of "peace in our time," an embittered Winston Churchill observed:

"You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."

Josh Bolton believes that "the extent of the wreckage [of Georgia] reaches far beyond that small country." He goes on to write:

The West, collectively, failed in this crisis. Georgia wasted its dime making that famous 3am telephone call to the White House, the one Hillary Clinton referred to in a campaign ad questioning Barack Obama’s fitness for the Presidency. Moreover, the blood on the Bear’s claws did not go unobserved in other states that were once part of the Soviet Union. Russia demonstrated unambiguously that it could have marched directly to Tbilisi and installed a puppet government before any Western leader was able to turn away from the Olympic Games. It could, presumably, do the same to them.

Fear was one reaction Russia wanted to provoke, and fear it has achieved, not just in the “Near Abroad” but in the capitals of Western Europe as well. But its main objective was hegemony, a hegemony it demonstrated by pledging to reconstruct Tskhinvali, the capital of its once and no-longer-future possession, South Ossetia. The contrast is stark: a real demonstration of using sticks and carrots, the kind that American and European diplomats only talk about. Moreover, Russia is now within an eyelash of dominating the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the only route out of the Caspian Sea region not now controlled by either Russia or Iran. Losing this would be dramatically unhelpful if we hope for continued reductions in global petroleum prices, and energy independence from unfriendly, or potentially unfriendly, states.

It profits us little to blame Georgia for “provoking” the Russian attack. Nor is it becoming of the United States to have anonymous officials from its State Department telling reporters, as they did earlier this week, that they had warned Georgia not to provoke Russia. This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquess of Queensbury rules in South Ossetia, where ethnic violence has been a fact of life since the break-up of the Soviet Union on December 31, 1991 – and, indeed, long before. Instead, we are facing the much larger issue of how Russia plans to behave in international affairs for decades to come. Whether Mikhail Saakashvili “provoked” the Russians on August 8, or September 8, or whenever, this rape was well-planned and clearly coming, given Georgia’s manifest unwillingness to be “Finlandized” – the Cold War term for effectively losing your foreign-policy independence.

And now we are already beginning to see not only "how Russia plans to behave in international affairs for decades to come", but right in the here and now.

In a statement about Poland that ought to send shivers up the spine of any thinking human being, a top Russian general added to the rhetoric of President Dmitry Medveded:

Only 24 hours after the weapons agreement was signed Russia's deputy chief of staff warned Poland "is exposing itself to a strike 100 per cent".

General Anatoly Nogovitsyn said that any new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack with his forces targeting "the allies of countries having nuclear weapons".

He told Russia's Interfax news agency: "By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain. It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority."

Russia's nuclear rhetoric marks an intense new phase in the war of words over Georgia. The Caucasus conflict has spiralled into a Cold War style confrontation between Moscow and Washington in less than a week.

The stand off between the two cold War powers was underlined by Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, who dismissed US claims that the silo is a deterrent against 'rogue states' like Iran as "a fairy tale". He told reporters at the Black Sea resort of Sochi: "The deployment of new missile defence facilities in Europe is aimed against the Russian Federation."

Poland and a few other former Soviet Republicans who do not want to become future Russian republics are moving toward official relationships with the United States and Western alliances such as NATO. We must stop attempting to appease rogue and tyrant states for the sake of going along to get along in the short term and clearly and strongly back Western-leaning democratic states.

Again, Bolton is right on target:

Europe’s rejection this spring of President Bush’s proposal to start Ukraine and Georgia towards Nato membership was the real provocation to Russia, because it exposed Western weakness and timidity. As long as that perception exists in Moscow, the risk to other former Soviet territories – and in precarious regions such as the Middle East – will remain.

Obviously, not all former Soviet states are as critical to Nato as Ukraine, because of its size and strategic location, or Georgia, because of its importance to our access to the Caspian Basin’s oil and natural gas reserves. Moreover, not all of them meet fundamental Nato prerequisites. But we must now review our relationship with all of them. This, in effect, Nato failed to do after the Orange and Rose Revolutions, leaving us in our present untenable position.

By its actions in Georgia, Russia has made clear that its long-range objective is to fill that “gap” if we do not. That, as Western leaders like to say, is “unacceptable”. Accordingly, we should have a foreign-minister-level meeting of Nato to reverse the spring capitulation at Bucharest, and to decide that Georgia and Ukraine will be Nato’s next members. By drawing the line clearly, we are not provoking Russia, but doing just the opposite: letting them know that aggressive behaviour will result in costs that they will not want to bear, thus stabilising a critical seam between Russia and the West. In effect, we have already done this successfully with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Diplomacy is always worth pursuing. But diplomacy that is not backed with power and the willingness to use it is meaningless, and will always be recognized as such by tyrants and terrorists.

As we look at Russian totalitarian imperialism in Eastern Europe, and contemplate the looming menace of a nuclear-weapons-armed Iran, we must realize that much of the world is in the same mindset that the world was in in 1938. Only by recognizing that we must stand strongly against such developments will we be able to avoid the next catastrophic global harvest of death.

This is as certain as the fact that World War III follows World War II.

Following up the challenge laid down by Paper Scissors Rock of Ages here is a historic photo I found in the archives. And a more recent one from last year:

The Tampa Bay Rays are still atop the AL East, but for how much longer? The Red Sox solved the Manny Ramirez dilemma and got him as far out of Boston as they could by sending him to the Dodgers. The Yankees did a great job of filling the holes on their roster and are clearly a legit threat to extend their amazing streak of post-season appearances. As for the Rays, they didn't do a thing. They were apparently on the verge of acquiring Jason Bay for a pair of prospects (reportedly Jeff Niemann and Reid Brignac), but backed off at the last minute, in essence allowing the Red Sox to make their deal.

It's my strong opinion that the Rays completely missed the boat in not making the deal with Pittsburgh. Niemann is a quality pitching prospect, but Tampa Bay is blessed with an actual abundance of great young arms, and Niemann was expendable. Brignac is a fine prospect as well, but he's not ready to take over SS yet and there are still questions about his offensive ceiling. Bay would have been a major pickup for a team that needs his offense right now, and they would have kept him away from one of their division rivals.

None of this should be surprising. The Red Sox and Yankees are aggressive and want to win. It's not just about the dollars. The Rays just don't have the same mindset, and I still get the impression that they're fine with just competing. Too bad, as I felt they had a real chance to win the division with just one significant move.

The Rays do have one hole card still at their disposal, however, and it's an ace named David Price. Last year's overall top draft pick has already exceeded the hype. He's currently overmatching hitters at AA and clearly has surpassed that level already.

The Rays should recall Price immediately and put him right into the rotation. There has been talk about bringing him up to work out of the bullpen similar to what the Yankees did with Joba Chamberlain last season. I think that's ridiculous on all counts. Chamberlain was already at a point where the Yankees felt they needed to limit his innings, and they also were in dire need of a quality bridge to Mariano Rivera. That's not the case in Tampa. J.P. Howell, Grant Balfour and Dan Wheeler have all been outstanding in front of Troy Percival, so the need for a shutdown one or two inning guy isn't there. On the flip side, the Rays need help at the back of their rotation. Price would be a major upgrade over either Edwin Jackson or Andy Sonnanstine.

The Rays have never been anything but hapless throughout their existence, but they've got a real chance to win their division or at least get the wild card this season. Management owes it to their players and their fans to give the team its best chance to win. That best chance is named David Price, and if the Rays are serious about trying to win, they'll have him up with the big club by the end of this week. But I'm not about to hold my breath in anticipation of this move.

SKINFLINTS RECALL LIRIANO, CUT LIVAN

The Minnesota Twins continue to prove my point. This organization is anything but major league in every regard and only continue to flourish and compete thanks to all the great moves by former GM Terry Ryan. One of those moves was the snow job Ryan pulled on Brian Sabean a few years back in a deal with the Giants that netted the Twins Joe Nathan and Francisco Liriano.

Liriano was unfairly kept in the minors about one month longer than he should have been so that the Twins could avoid having to offer him arbitration next year. Now that they've likely accomplished that objective, Liriano is back where he belongs and was sensational in completely shutting down the Indians on Sunday.

Meanwhile, the Twins were also able to save more money by waiting to recall Liriano. I would not have faulted them for cutting Livan Hernandez a couple months ago, as he's been pretty lousy despite a massively misleading W/L ledger. Instead, they waited till Livan got very close to having some performance-based incentives kick in, and then dumped him. As shaky as Hernandez has been, he's not the worst pitcher on the roster. That would be Boof Bonser. But the prospect of spending a few dollars was enough to make the decision easy, so the Twins naturally said adios to Livan.

I have no problem with any owner operating his team to make a profit. They're all in business to make money, and that's the way it should be. But the Twins are a disgrace. They aren't small market in any regard but operate as if they're on a forced shoestring budget. I guess that's why their new stadium won't have a retractable roof, which would seem like kind of a necessity for a ballpark in Minneapolis, wouldn't it? With the Twins, making cents continues to clearly outweigh making sense.

The defending champion Boston Red Sox are in trouble. There's simply no question in my mind that the Manny Ramirez situation is now beyond repair and he needs to be dealt immediately.

Popular opinion is that the Red Sox should hold onto Manny for what they hope is another spot in the post-season and a chance to grab their third World Series championship in the last five years. Or their third in the last 90 years for those who can't stand the Red Sox. I'm an unabashed fan of this team, so one might think I'd be all for keeping Ramirez until the season's over, in hopes that his production outweighs the other issues. After watching their last several games, I'm now convinced that the Red Sox will not make the playoffs if they fail to get Manny out of Boston as quickly as possible.

The Red Sox are completely devoid of their usual spirit right now. For all their talent, they're actually pretty lousy at this point. And there's no question that this all revolves around Manny Ramirez. He's been in the middle of every problem the team has had this season. The lowlights include a dugout row with the always intense Kevin Youkilis, an altercation with the team's 60+ year old traveling secretary over some comp tickets, and Manny's public comments regarding his future with the team that managed to offend the entire organization.

That's just the off the field stuff. On the field, he's flat out dogging it. He's been jogging to first base on ground balls and his play in the outfield has been pathetic. In the past, Manny could always rely on his teammates to defend him publicly. Now, even David Ortiz, his best friend on the team, has been reduced to saying all the right things, but it's apparent to anyone listening he's just offering require lip service.

Manny Ramirez is a great player. He's got Hall of Fame credentials if he never plays another game, and despite the advancing years and a not so athletic body, Manny can still rake with the best, especially when it counts. But he's outlived his usefulness with the Red Sox, and now he needs to go. Not at the end of the season, but right now.

I'm pretty sure Theo Epstein and the Red Sox brain trust feel the same way, and that's why I'll predict that if Ramirez will be wearing another uniform at this time next week.

DONE DEAL #1

First, the Yankees swap with the Pirates. The Yankees gave up a quartet of prospects for Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte. I don't think this deal is as awful for Pittsburgh as most believe, but it's still a clear win for the Yankees.

Nady has played over his head this season for the Pirates. He's just not this good and I fully expect his production to drop as he moves to the AL East. He'll be facing tougher pitching down the stretch. He's still a nice add for the Yankees, but I actually feel Marte is the more important acquisition. Marte can not only excel as a situational lefty, he's shown he's entirely capable of being a very strong seventh or eighth inning setup type, and he can also close in a pinch. The New York bullpen, a real concern when they moved Joba Chamberlain to the rotation, is now an unquestioned strength.

The Pirates got four players in this deal. Jose Tabata is the centerpiece. His stock has tumbled this year as he's shown some real immaturity playing in AA at Trenton. Tabata's numbers are lousy, his conditioning has been criticized and he's had at least two incidents that cast him in a bad light. The good news is that Tabata is still just 19 years old, and he's got talent. But he's not showing much pop in his bat and there are definite question marks now arising about Tabata that weren't previously there.

Jeffrey Karstens, Ross Ohlendorf and Dan McCutchen are the three pitchers obtained by the Pirates in this trade. Ohlendorf probably has the highest ceiling of the three, with some legit potential as a late inning reliever. Karstens is a back of the rotation type, and I'll say McCutchen is probably about the same.

The consensus is that the Yankees made the Pirates the best offer, so they took it. They shouldn't have. The team sucks again, they don't have much in the way of high end prospects and they could have kept Nady through next season for a very reasonable salary. I don't think they got killed in this deal because I don't consider Nady a big star, but it's still an indication that the Pirates don't really care about winning.

DONE DEAL #2

What is up with Ned Colletti? The GM of the Dodgers has a thing for middle-aged veterans, doesn't he? The latest senior citizen to make the trek west is Casey Blake, who will turn 35 in August.

Unlike Colletti's inane big money off season signings that have actually hurt the team, this deal is actually not bad at all for the Dodgers. Blake's not a superstar, but he's a clutch performer and fills a big need at 3B. And he didn't cost much in terms of prospects.

Jon Meloan was rated the #8 Dodgers prospect by Baseball America prior to the season, but his stock has fallen substantially. Part of the problem is that the Dodgers decided to make him a starting pitcher despite the fact he clearly seems better suited to bullpen work. It hasn't worked. Meloan struggled all season here in Las Vegas, and his velocity also dropped. Meloan has a flawed delivery and he's an elbow injury waiting to happen pitching multiple innings. The Indians have already moved Meloan back to relief at Buffalo, so maybe he can regain his prospect status in the process.

Carlos Santana is intriguing. Coming into the season, he looked like a catcher with legit big league defensive ability, but a very questionable bat. A good season at Hi-A Inland Empire has changed that thinking somewhat. I'm taking his improvement with a grain of salt, as he put up the numbers in a very hitter-friendly league, but Santana is now a guy to keep an eye on.

I'd rate this as a good deal for both teams. The Dodgers get a 3B they can count on for the playoff drive, and the Indians get a couple of interesting prospects for a veteran who really didn't figure in their future.

DONE DEAL #3

Last but not least, the blockbuster. The Braves sent Mark Teixeira to the Angels for Casey Kotchman and Stephen Marek.

First, a quick take on Marek. He was the #6 rated BA prospect in the highly regarded Angels organization, so he's got potential. It appears to be mostly as a bullpen set up type, but considering how valuable those components are these days, Marek is more than just a throw-in.

Kotchman is a terrific defender who will hit for average and his power is increasing. There's no reason Kotchman can't become a perennial .300, 20 HR performer. That's not All Star level, but it's sure solid.

Teixeira is the big bat the Halos have coveted to offer assistance and protection for Vlad Guerrero. At first glance, he's just what the doctor ordered for the Angels attack.

But I actually don't like this deal at all for the Angels and consider it a dumb gamble. Here's why. The Angels were a cinch to win the AL West before making this deal. There's no way anyone in that division even makes a run at them. Teixeira is a free agent at season's end and his asking price will be huge. I'm sure the Angels made this trade with the thought that they'll sign Tex. But what if they don't? If that's the case, they just dealt away a very productive 1B with his best years ahead of him for a guy who could, in effect, be an upgrade for as few as three games, depending on what happens to this team in the playoffs.

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I'm putting the check mark next to the Braves on this trade.

Printed statement that Neville Chamberlain waved as he stepped off the plane on 30 September, 1938 after the Munich Conference had ended the day before.

===============================

Chamberlain read the above statement in front of 10 Downing St. and said:

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.
I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

Wer wollte den Krieg? (1 von 16)
Alle Videos bei Youtube: “Wer wollte den Krieg?” (1-16)

1939 - Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte
Autor: Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof; Neu kaufen: EUR 34,00

1939 - Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte. 2 CDs
Autor: Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, Matthias Ponn...; Neu kaufen: EUR 14,95

[ German! | Deutsch! ]

1939 - Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte.
Der lange Anlauf zum Zweiten Weltkrieg (Gebundene Ausgabe)

von Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof (Autor)

 

 

But there's always the reality of people who are not sane and really quite bent on evil.

If you think I'm being xtreme, just take a look at this document. It's a letter of agreement signed by Adolf Hitler and the British PM Neville Chamberlain.

And we know what Hitler did shortly after.

As Bob Dylan put it:

Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace.

Note: Handwritten portions have been moved toward center to fit into this blogspace.

Starting is different than relieving.  Well...yeah, you say.  Other than the obvious it should be pointed out that until he started the other day, he had never been through an entire lineup twice.  Big league hitters are big league hitters because, in part, they can adjust.  That's one of the reasons why you'll see starters sail through the first few innings then get hammered in later frames.

Ever wonder why Smoltz was even better as a closer than he was a starter?  Think about it, if Joba is facing four hitters or less an inning, a player might, and only might, see him twice in a series.  Not a lot of time to make an adjustment.  It's not that he isn't very, very good or be great starter.  It is just that Yankee fans shouldn't expect him to repeat that success as a starter.  There is no guarantee that he won't implode.  Be careful what you wish for, you just might get Kerry Woo.

If it were me, I'd leave him as a set-up man and build him up next spring.  He and Rivera make the game seven innings long.  Kind of like Wetteland and Rivera years ago.  Anyone remember how that worked for the Yankees?

The Yankees' problems run far deeper than the lack of Joba starts.  Though they have been changing their focus in recent years they are still suffering from neglect of their farm system.  You might want to point out to me recent successes like Chamberlain.  With the money they have, however, they should have the premier farm system.  It isn't just a matter of drafting well though that is important.  It is also a matter of scouting inside and outside of organized ball, player development and proper identification of prospects inside and outside of your system.

If there was a team that had the money to sign a Rule 5 like Josh Hamilton it was the Yankees.  Too many old men on the 40 man roster in my opinion.  You're saying who knew?  The Cubs and Reds knew.  Look at the Reds, for example.  Hamilton, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, Votto are all producing at the major league level with others to come.

Which leads me back to Joba.  The Yankees are doing better at identifying and developing talent.  When you've developed talent as poorly as the Yankees have, however, it leads people to expect miracles to occur because one very good pitcher is starting every five days.

On May 15, President Bush and Senator McCain compared Obama to Nazi appeasers such as Neville Chamberlain due to the fact that Obama is open to negotiating with Iran. If you accept Bush's definition of appeasement(negotiating with an enemy rather than just saber-rattling and bombing) then you'll need to expand that list. If Bush and McCain are going to be intellectually consistent with their definition of appeasement, they must come out and denounce not only Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki(who has, but also former President George H.W. Bush who talked Syria into supporting the first Gulf War and Senator Chuck Hagel , a respected Vietnam War veteran who thinks we should be talking to Syria now. He would also have to denounce the late former President Ronald Reagan who famously traded weapons to Iran for the release of the hostages in what would become known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

Sen McCain, on the other hand, has rightly pointed out that there is nothing "tiny" about the threat from Iran, Venezuala or Cuba.  Iran wants, and will acquire, nuclear materials and weapons if given enough time.  Venezuala controls most of the oil that comes to the US.  Cuba is still a communist country positioned a stones throw from our shores.   Sen McCain recognizes that sitting down and talking does nothing except prolong the inevitable.  

Successful diplomacy can only come from a position of strength, and that is where Sen Obama is historically flawed.  JFK resolved the Cuban missile crisis  by sending warships to Cuba, while keeping the channels of diplomacy open.  The Soviets blinked first in the military game of chicken JFK played and thus he was in a position to make demands of the USSR.  Similarly, Reagan built a massive military and continued deploying weapons around the world despite Soviet threats.  The Soviets tried to keep up and eventually became so financially strapped that they were forced to negotiate.  It was not until the Soviets blinked again that Reagan met with Gorbachev and bargained from a position of strength.  Neither JFK nor Reagan were looking for a common interest, as Obama has suggested.  Both Presidents were looking how to force the Soviets to blink first and come to a diplomatic arrangement hat in hand. 

When Neville Chamberlain stated that he had avoided war and declared peace in our time, he probably had no idea that Hitler was going to embark on his conquest of Europe.  However, Chamberlain's policy of appeasement actually turned out to be the Achilles heal Hitler was looking for in Europe.  Iran,Cuba and Venezuala may be small countries but there is nothing tiny about the threat that they pose to America and her allies.  Sitting down with them will expose an Achilles heal Sen Obama is too naive to protect and too inexperienced to defend once it is shown. 

What Obama seems to be unaware of is that his willingness to meet with parties that have already indicated pernicious aggressiveness is also a signal of weakness or defect (less like a poker player’s “tell” and more like a blast from a foghorn). In this, Obama (like Kerry, Carter, and others before him) displays a kind of sissified naïveté at best and a pathological blindness to evil at worst.

There is an article today in The American Spectator ("Seeing Evil: The Arms of John McCain", by Jeffrey Lord) that delves into this issue with Churchill/Chamberlain/Baldwin as a template to understanding our present situation. What follows is an interesting excerpt that captures the general feel of the article. And, BTW, if you read nothing else this week, please read this article. It reminds us that there is, among other currents of statecraft, a “canine-like” interaction between nations. This is a world of established order among aggressors. There is an “alpha male/female” and he/she is regularly tested by the other dogs.

I have learned from watching "The Dog Whisperer" (Cesar Milan) that this is how ordered is maintained in the pack.  And, I have learned from reading Churchill that the same holds true among nations.

First, the definition of "to appease" as provided by The Random House Webster's College Dictionary: "to appease is to make anxious overtures and often undue concessions to satisfy someone's demands." Webster's also suggests appeasement is "to yield to the demands of in conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of one's principles."

There were any number of precise reasons why Winston Churchill believed Chamberlain and his predecessor were guilty of appeasement. He was, for example, appalled at the reluctance to fund British military preparedness. This is the 1930s British version of modern Democrats in America opposing the Reagan-era buildup or refusing funding for today's troops in Iraq. Indeed, the struggle between Churchill and his foes Baldwin and Chamberlain suggests nothing more than what has become a seemingly eternal struggle between a Reagan, either Bush or a McCain versus a Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Obama.

To cite but one specific example, Churchill thought his opponents derelict in funding the Royal Air Force (RAF). Churchill warned Baldwin in 1934, barely a year after Hitler had come to power, that "the Germans had a secret Air Force and were rapidly overhauling ours." He presented Baldwin with "definite figures and forecasts." All of which Baldwin "denied with all the weight of official authority," depicting Churchill as a "scaremonger," very much as Senator Obama today charges both President Bush and Senator McCain with trying to instill fear in the American people. Over and over Churchill hit Chamberlain and Baldwin over their refusal to allocate sufficient funds to rebuild the RAF. He thought the specific lack of funding was not only dangerous in the sense of leaving Britain militarily unprepared for war, but that the refusal to aggressively follow a preparedness doctrine sent a message of weakness to Hitler. As Chamberlain and Baldwin stubbornly clung to their anxious hopes of not doing anything to antagonize Hitler, Churchill ridiculed their defense budgets and public statements not simply as conciliatory but rather as "acts of submission," castigating Chamberlain for his lack of "judgment."

Continue reading...

i forgot how much i love chris matthews until i watched this video. it focuses on bush's remarks to the israeli legislature on may 15. bush referred to former idaho senator william borah, and borah's statement in 1939 in which he said, 'lord, if only I could have talked with hitler, all of this might have been avoided,' essentially meaning that leaders do not negotiate with enemies. obviously, borah believed that they should.

bush also said, 'some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.' many have interpreted that this statement refers to barack obama, although bush's reps have said he was referring to jimmy carter.

regardless...

in this video, then, chris matthews interviews conservative radio host kevin james, and mark green, president of air america. james boldly begins by saying that bush should have been talking about obama even if he wasn't talking about obama. then he says something about what barack obama should have done, what he didn't do this, and states that barack obama is endorsed by hamas. the best part of the video, though, is when matthews asks james what exactly chamberlain's mistake was (which borah referred to in 1939).
and kevin james has no idea.

this video is so worth a watch, it is absolutely hilarious.

nataliebeth