WhirledView

Weekend Project: Ta Lendab Mesipuu Poole

by CKR

I saw "The Singing Revolution" twice this past week, might see it again. It reminded me of something I've understood quite imperfectly from the last Laulupidu in 2004. This video will give you some of the feeling, I think, although I suspect you had to be there.

I was practically crying with the emotion of the crowd. The memory almost makes me cry now. And the applause insisted on a second singing, which evoked even more emotion.

"Ta lendab mesipuu poole" means "It flies toward the honey tree," obviously referring to a bee. My Estonian isn't good enough to get all the words as they're sung, so I have pondered that title. In the film, there is a reference to the Soviet Union reaching west toward Estonia like a bear toward a honey tree, and just a tiny bit from the song.

So I've found the words:

Ta lendab lillest lillesse,
ja lendab mesipuu poole;
ja tõuseb kõuepilv ülesse -
ta lendab mesipuu poole.

Ja langevad teele tuhanded;
veel koju jõuavad tuhanded
ja viivad vaeva ja hoole
ja lendavad mesipuu poole!

Nii hing, oh hing, sa raskel a'al -
kuis õhkad sa isamaa poole;
kas kodu sa, kas võõral maal -
kuis ihkad sa isamaa poole!

Ja puhugu vastu sull' surmatuul
ja lennaku vastu sull' surmakuul:
sa unustad surma ja hoole
ning tõttad isamaa poole!

I can't quite read it all, but I'm starting to see. Like the bee flies to the honey tree, so my spirit flies toward my homeland. That's not exact; I need to look up some of the words.

And maybe PHK or I will write a review of the film. Quick version: It's a very good film. See it if you can. You don't need to understand Estonian.

To fly - or not to fly - with Condi: That is the Question

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Yesterday, I came upon an insightful post by The Washington Times State Department correspondent Nick Kralev on his blog Nick Kralev on Diplomacy about his latest trip to Israel, Palestine and London with Condi Rice.

What intrigued me most about “Flying with Miss Rice” was Kralev’s comment – almost in passing - that he was one of only nine reporters sent by their news organizations to cover Rice’s trip. As he explained, the media has to weigh whether the stories produced by such a trip are worth the expenditures when deciding whether to send a reporter along or not. Most organizations, clearly, decided in this case not.

In some senses, the nay-saying editors were right: there would be no break-throughs in Israeli-Palestinian talks whether Rice came calling or not. For my money, there will not be until after W departs from the scene. Why pay the money, therefore, to send a reporter along to report a non-event or a series of non-events when it's clear the event or events is/are not going to happen anyway? So why send along a content provider, previously known as a reporter or correspondent.

And if there had been a break-through it would have been picked up and reported instantly by the local media organizations and even, horror-of-horrors, citizen journalists aka bloggers in-situ. Headlines are what consitute 30 second sound bites - no context and little content needed thank you very much.

As Kralev also pointed out in his post, stories related to policy do not get the hits – or the readers – that non-policy stories do. So editors have to decide whether an expensive foreign trip has enough "public interest value" to make it worth it. In my view, most of our commercial media – dependent on ad revenues and needing to meet the bottom line plus some obscene profit margin for their continued existence – continue to cut back on substance in favor of fluff, fluff and more fluff which unfortunately is far the more attractive to the mass audience - as I suppose it always has been.

Have times changed

But wait a minute. When I was press attaché in Helsinki at the end of the Cold War and the Secretary came through, anywhere between 25 and 50 reporters straggled off the back of the Secretary’s plane and onto the waiting press bus. This was nothing compared to the media that came along on a Presidential visit. Regardless, there were enough reporters with the Secretary that we set up and staffed round-tbe-clock press (filing) centers where I saw major US media personalities in action or inaction.

What does this lack of State Department media attention that Kralev reports now mean? That Rice and the State Department are superfluous?

That the media climate is so changed that it is no longer necessary to send reporters along with the Secretary to get a story when transcripts are posted almost immediately on State’s webpage anyway?

That the American public is so poorly educated and uninterested in US foreign policy or what the administration is doing abroad to warrant the expense?

That State’s charges to the media organizations are out of line (after all a $60 passport now costs $100 and one has to wonder how much of that goes to a private contractor with a head office in the Netherlands and a manufacturing plant in Thailand that provides insecure RFID chips)?

How much, by the way, does one seat on Rice’s plane cost and what does it pay for?

Or is there that intangeable added value – which Kralev also describes – to the personal touch: Real time proximity to the Secretary and others one meets (like the UN Secretary General) as a result of being there, to on-the-plane briefings which are reported, at least first, by those reporters who did go along, or to the inevitable un-reportable chatter that helps reporters key into future stories and put them in better context than they could otherwise?

Subnational Activity in Syria?

by CKR

I have persuaded my colleague MC to expound on why that site in Syria might not have been run by the Syrian government. There is an additional point to be made, as well.

It seems to me that the publicly available facts on the site and on the Israeli raid are as consistent with this hypothesis as with the hypothesis that the site was run by the Syrian government; perhaps more so in places. As I noted about the ISIS report, alternative hypotheses need to be considered in interpreting overhead photos, and, indeed, what informants may provide.

So let’s assume that the installation was a reactor or somesuch producer of dangerous materials. But let’s consider that those constructing it were from a subnational group. Here are my colleague’s reasons, with one of mine thrown in with her permission.

Syria did not anticipate the attack. Syria did not condemn the attack. Syria has not come up with a story line to explain what was going on at al Kibar. A government most likely would have a cover story ready in case the enterprise was discovered. Some in the Syrian government may have known about it or even participated in it, but most likely not in an official capacity.

There seems to have been little or no tracking of this area by satellite. One of the signatures that would draw attention would have been movement of Syrian government traffic. Apparently there was little such movement.

A subnational group would spend and implement the minimal amount needed to get to their goal. They would not spend on security because it would be less added-value and more added-headaches in terms of bringing more people (who might be tracked, who might leak) into a top secret venture. They would not spend a huge amount of money burying a facility underground if their goal was to create enough nuclear material for a handful of weapons.

There is little concern in the facility design for the health of their workers (by having a shorter stack, for one example) which may indicate that the builders didn’t plan to be there long.

A government behaves in certain predictable ways, including putting up fences and guard stations to protect from the curious and for simple bureaucratic routine. How far outside its routine and bureaucratic comfort zone can a government go, even to protect against detection?

Being unaware of such an enterprise would be a major embarrassment to any government. That embarrassment, along with the desire to make the site unavailable to other free-lancers, would account for the rapid and complete clearing of the site by the Syrian government.

I think that this hypothesis is also persuasive with regard to the way the incident has played out internationally. I’ll try to post on that later.

The ISIS Report on Al Kibar

by CKR

The Institute for Science and International Security has issued a report on the al Kibar site in Syria. It does a number of things well, but its scope is limited to analysis of overhead photos and photos of the building. Perhaps a report on the reactor photos is in the works.

The authors, David Albright and Paul Brennan, use the site as a case study of how hard it can be to detect nuclear installations, particularly if the builders go to some lengths to conceal them. This, of course, assumes that the site was indeed a reactor installation.

Let me first say what the report does not (and cannot) address. The provenance of the ground-level photos of the building was not disclosed in the CIA video, nor was the associated intelligence that whoever took the photos provided. The report also does not address directly whether North Korea was involved in the building of the reactor. Evidence for this claim was thin in the CIA video, which presented only a photo of two men standing together, one in a running suit and one in a business suit. For any of us who have attended international conferences, there are undoubtedly hundreds of such photos out there. The CIA is said to have much more information than was released. Albright and Brennan cite “U.S. government experts knowledgeable about intelligence assessments about the Al Kibar reactor” as some of their sources.

The provenance of the photos probably legitimately involves concerns about sources and methods. Presumably a spy was inserted into the construction operations, or someone within those operations was turned. Presumably that person has been removed from that position, or it might be too dangerous to publish the photos at all. However, since limited numbers of people must have come to and gone from the operations, some danger to that person remains. An explanation of the provenance would likely expose his identity.

However, given the propensity of the Bush administration to overstate its case with regard to intelligence, questions will remain until the provenance of the photos is known; otherwise there is no way to know whether the photos of the building are from the same site as the overhead photos, nor whether the inside photos are inside of that building.

Albright and Brennan try to decipher how some of the distinguishing marks of the Yongbyon reactor, the shape of the building, cooling towers and gas stacks, might have been disguised or redesigned.

Half a Million!

by CKR, PHK, and PLS

This afternoon, StatCounter registered 500,000 page views for WhirledView.

We signed up with StatCounter in November 2005, about a year after we started WhirledView, so we must have more page views than that. And TypePad hasn't quite registered that half-million yet. It's a commonplace that even if you can count such things, we still don't know what they mean. We'd love to know how many regular readers we have, but that eludes us.

But you're out there, and you're reading WhirledView! For that, we thank you many times over.

Food for Thought; Pause for reflection: American attitudes towards the world

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Seems to me that the foreign policy advisors for all three still-standing US presidential candidates should take a hard look at the results of the most recent 19 nation public attitudes poll formally released today at a Carnegie lunch by World Opinion.org and coordinated by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). And in particular that section on how Americans see their government and this country’s relationship to others.

The read won’t take long, I assure you. The data’s all there on the website just waiting for readers. All in one tidy little section. To a certain extent its how one asks the question – because not all the responses are neat and tidy or play well with the others. But this survey does provide a comparative international snap-shot with which the data on Americans can be compared. Not surprisingly, it confirms that a strong majority of Americans think this country is not being governed by the will of the people. This, of course, corroborates with W’s in-the-tanks-poll ratings during much of his second term and his 66 percent unfavorable rating in an Washington Post/ABC news poll released today.

Less obvious, but far more interesting findings

But this is obvious. Three other perhaps even important findings, however, appear "below the fold:"

First, 80 percent, or four in five, Americans say the country is “being run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, rather than for the benefit of all the people.”

Second, “81% (of Americans surveyed) say that leaders should consider public opinion polls when making an important decision to get a sense of the public’s views, and an overwhelming 94% say that leaders should consider the views of the people as they make decisions in between elections.”

And third, “Asked how much their government should take into account world public opinion in developing its foreign policy, Americans give a response of 6.6 on a 0-10 scale (with 10 meaning “a great deal”), however when asked how much their government does take world public opinion into account, they give the lowest score (3.9) among all countries polled. Sixty-five percent say the government should consider world public opinion more than it already does.”

The first finding (big interests looking out for themselves) should be carefully revisited by campaign associated economists as well as those - hopefully - involved in reinstituting good government regulations, regulatory agencies and strengthening the work of Congressional oversite committees.

The sleeper question

But it is the third - almost sleeper - response that 65 percent of Americans surveyed thought that the US government should "consider world public opinion more than it does" that should give U.S. foreign policy campaign gurus the most pause for consideration. It should also spur a major rethink of how America should and could interact with the world.

This response should also give editorial boards, foreign policy columnists and the commentariat food for thought. Particularly those looking for more effective ways to pull this country back from its disastrous lead-with-the-tanks approach to foreign policy since 9/11. I’ll bet, however, this thought doesn’t find its way into Anne Applebaum, Robert Novak, Cal Thomas or Jim Hoagland’s writings – for instance. Doubtful it will make it into - let alone played up - in a FOX News or Christian right radio broadcast either. After all “winning hearts and minds” through non-military means doesn’t square with the ultra-right or the ultra-religious; but hello out there, maybe "rank-and'file" US citizens are on to something. If done right, listening to others first - before acting like Cesear's Roman Legions on the rampage - can be far more effective in the end – and lots cheaper, too.

Tuesday Cactus Blogging

by CKR

Let's see if I can get my photoblogging back to Tuesdays.

Before we look at cactuses, here are some more blue penstemons. I'm particularly pleased with these two. I transplanted them into a flowerbed three years ago, and they are blooming for the first time this year. I transplanted six plants, and only these two survived. I hated to see the others die, but I remind myself that blue penstemons are everywhere in my yard.

I've just planted this Echinocereus X fendleri (Fendler's hedgehog) last week. It had the bud already on it when I bought it, but it patiently waited until I got it planted to bloom. I kept it in the shade, and now it's where it gets sun most of the day. It's a rocky area by one of my three Siberian elms. The elm and the slope of the land shade it in the afternoon. These smaller cactuses seem to prefer some shade during the day. The X in its name means that it's a hybrid. Looks like the wild variety gets taller. That link is from the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, further south in New Mexico. This description also suggests that Santa Fe may be a bit cooler than the cactus's natural range.

And here's this week's coming attraction. (The claret cup hedgehogs aren't quite blooming yet.) It's (as you can see in the photo) a green pitaya (Echinocereus viridiflora), located in the same rocky area as the Fendler's. My normal viewpoint is looking down on it from maybe eight feet, and it looked to me like it was dried up and dead after the winter. One more that didn't make it. But when I clambered down to get a good angle on that lovely magenta flower, I realized that the pitaya was not only alive but had a set of buds on it. They're still small, so it will be a while before they bloom. But I was delighted to see it doing so well.

I wasn't acquainted with the green pitaya before I bought this one. Here's a reference that says that it and the Fendler's can be found in White Rock Canyon of the Rio Grande, just below Los Alamos. I've thought that the climate at this house is similar White Rock's, although the canyon goes down several hundred feet more. It's endangered in Texas. Both cactuses are in a spot that is protected and has some sun in the winter, so maybe the Fendler's will do as well as the pitaya seems to be doing.

Massive Retaliation

by CKR

Hillary Clinton, answering a question that contained two hypotheticals—that Iran had its own nuclear weapons and that it attacked Israel with them—threatened to “obliterate” Iran with “massive retaliation.” Not once, but five times (one, two, three, four, five), mostly under direct questioning. So we may presume that she means it, that it wasn’t too late at night, and she didn’t misspeak.

Gary Sick gives us some background on “dual containment,” which may be what is behind Clinton’s pairing of nuclear threats with her concept of a nuclear umbrella for the non-Iran states of the Middle East.

The idea presumably would be to prevent the sort of nuclear proliferation that Joby Warrick writes about in today’s Washington Post. Forty or more developing countries have signaled interest in starting nuclear power programs, and of them, a half dozen have said that they are planning to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel. Those capabilities, in particular, make a weapons program possible. Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Egypt, and Turkey are all interested in nuclear power. United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have vowed never to pursue uranium enrichment or fuel reprocessing, but they are interested in nuclear power.

The price of oil is one of the motivators to own the nuclear fuel cycle, but regional stability may be more important to the Middle Eastern states, along with the prestige of having nuclear weapons, a way of signaling to the world that they have arrived militarily.

It’s easy and convenient to blame this on Iran, but let’s step back a bit.

A Psychedelic Symphony Evening

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Or more accurately, a psychedelic evening at the symphony? Or was it a psychedelic Alice at the Kennedy Center? Or could it have been a not so subtle musical statement about the inanities of the past seven years of the Bush administration with the Queen shrieking “Off with her Head!” Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld style near the end? After all, Alice in Wonderland has multiple interpretations.

But the political satire and parody on the inanities of mid-nineteenth century British politics should not be lost – despite the fact the two reviews (Anne Midgette of the WaPo and Michael Lodico of IonArts) and the one preview (Stephen Brookes in a special to the WaPo on May 8) I read ignored the obvious political dimensions of Alice in Wonderland entirely. (Note to readers: I'd include links to Midgette and Brookes articles, but the WaPo site is crashing my computer.)

Michael Lodico of the music critics blog IonArts, at least focused on the true musical highlight of the evening, violinist Hilary Hahn’s performance of Paganini’s Violin Concerto No 1 in D Major, Opus 6, a lovely performance that was not psychedelic at all.

A peculiar sort of program

In reality, this was one of the stranger combinations of symphonic works on a single program in my experience as a member of audience of numerous classical music concerts over the years and someone who still attempts to play the oboe thanks to an indulgent oboe teacher.

Normally, twentieth century music is played pre-, not post-intermission so the audience doesn’t escape en masse before the work or soloist most came to hear – in this case the 28 year old virtuoso violinist Hahn. This, however, was not the case at the most recent program of Washington’s National Symphony Orchestra. Hahn was sandwiched between a mediocre rendition of Verdi’s “Overture to I vespri siciliani” which Midgette’s critique got mostly right. It was sloppily performed. What she missed, however, was that the orchestra also had intonation problems. This was particularly evident in the Verdi.

I too went to hear Hilary Hahn who performed beautifully. But the last half of the program was devoted to the 64 minute or so uncut version of contemporary composer David Del Tredici’s “Final Alice,” the first time it has been staged uncut in over a decade or longer. With good reason.

Hahn was worth the price of admission.

Whether or not one likes this particular Violin Concerto – or considers it fluff as did Midgette, Hahn performed it spectacularly. Perhaps the two men seated in front of me knew something I didn’t know, but they escaped at half time, I mean intermission, after Hahn’s performance and before the hour plus of “Final Alice” began.

Stephen Brookes , however, had led me to believe in his special to the WaPo concert preview that Del Tredici’s “Final Alice” was a throw-back to pre-Schoenberg tonality. As it turned out, only partially.

Yes, Del Tredici broke with the atonal tradition who-cares-about-the-audience attitude at the time he wrote it 32 years ago – but he seems not to have made up his mind whether the work should have been tonal or not – and the transitions between the two were, so to speak, jagged en extremis.

Not my cup of tea

Let's just say that “Final Alice” was not my cup of tea – or maybe it was the NSO’s performance of the work that was not. Or maybe it’s that this rather peculiar work would have been better presented as an opera, not a symphonic production. Del Tredici seems to have spent much of his adult composing life writing, revising and regrouping various versions – longer and shorter – of Alice. And from his perspective, almost parroted by Brookes in his pre-concert review probably taken from the Program Notes or an NSO pre-concert press release, with emphasis on Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson’s aka Lewis Carroll’s apparent unhealthy fetish for young attractive girls.

Friday Is It a Weed Blogging

by CKR

This is a game I play every time I work in the garden. As regular readers know, I have a somewhat unconventional view of weeds and wildflowers, so that makes it even more complex.

I have been impressed lately with all the lacy sorts of leaves that are in my yard. And many of them look the same, or almost the same. If the distinction is too difficult, I just let the plant grow for a while. It will reveal its true character at some point.

Meanwhile, that first plant is what I promised last week in coming attractions: a blue penstemon. Like many perennials, they seem to prefer blooming every other year, and this is the other year. The plant in the photo is in a particularly favorable place, and it is one of the first in the yard to bloom, but many others are coming.

So here is today's quiz: weed, wildflower, or cultivated plant (i.e., I paid money for it)? Click on the photos to enlarge them, in case you think that will help. Answers after the jump.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.