Oil Where It Belongs

The other day I noticed on Watt's Up With That a couple of articles about the Deepwater Horizon disaster and related issues.

They interested me because now oil spill combat and remediation is my field of work.

But the position expressed by a good number of commenters left me disturbed. At least a bit.

There are people who seem convinced that, because there are natural seeps of crude oil and there are bacteria able to degrade crude, even gigantic spills are no big deal. A few years and the stuff will be gone, so what's to worry about?

Problem is, the big damage comes from the acute, short-term effects of crude oil. Fish and shrimps are killed or tainted becoming inedible; beaches become covered in oil/tar and unaccessible; coastal vegetation such as mangroves can be destroyed and will take many years to regrow.
Last but not least, power plants and chemical/petrochemical factories near a spillage site may have to shut down because oil-polluted water would foul their heat exchangers.

These are well-known effects and occur in a matter of days after a spillage, and after the damage is done the biodegradation time of spilled oil is a secondary concern.

I understand, really, the frustration with dumb alarmism (like that the Macondo oil spill would destroy all marine life in Gulf of Mexico), but science is not served well by swinging back into minimizing the damage.

Domestication of The People

Yeah, it's in the news all over the world: another mass shooting in the USA that left 12 people dead and something like 60 injured.

But there's something I noticed about almost all of these mass-shootings - Columbine, Virginia Tech, Utoya (Norway) and now Aurora: nobody seems to have died while attacking or otherwise confronting the shooter.

In fact I can recall only one person, an elderly professor, who was killed at Virginia Tech while trying to stop the shooter from entering a classroom. Of course, if you know more stories of people who fought back please let me know and set me straight.

Almost nobody, of hundreds if not thousands of people forced in a fight-or-flee situation, fought back. Many tried to flee, but I've also seen several stories of people  - especially in school massacres - who simply cowered underneath or behind some obstacle and waited for death to come and take them, or ignore them.

True that attacking a mad gunman can get you killed, but you may even win. While cowering in fear in front of someone determined to kill you will surely get you killed.

What does this tell me? That the domestication of the people has gone quite far: after generations being told that violence is always wrong and fighting back against an attacker makes you as bad as him, we get people unable to fight back even when their lives are in imminent danger.

Or you have other founded opinions?

The Conspiracy that Is

You rember Fast and Furious? No, not the car action movie but this story:

[...]a botched gun-tracking operation that sent thousands of high-powered firearms to Mexico in the hands of known or suspected straw buyers for drug cartels.

Many people asked themselves how could it happen. Was the ATF so incompetent that they utterly screwed up a tracking operation? Was Holder, Attorney General truly in the dark regarding an operation of this type and size?

Or there were darker reasons behind letting weapons fall into criminal hands?

As much as I despise the conspirational mindset, this time it seems that the second option is correct. For reasons like this, from the same article:

[...]Instead of taking him to task for Operation Fast and Furious, Democratic lawmakers have tried to draw attention to what they describe as the country’s weak network of gun laws.

And this:

Democratic lawmakers contend that Operation Fast and Furious exemplifies the need to strengthen U.S. gun laws to give federal law enforcement officials more tools to prosecute criminal weapon traffickers.

“This hunt for blame doesn’t really speak about the problem,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein at a recent Senate Judiciary hearing while discussing Fast and Furious.

“And the problem is, anybody can walk in and buy anything, .50-caliber weapons, sniper weapons, buy them in large amounts, and send them down to Mexico. So, the question really becomes, what do we do about this?”

Yes indeed, I think some fears are confirmed: supplying Mexican drug lords with firearms bought in America was intended to provide ammunition for those demanding tighter gun control.

But the scandal blew up... yet, politicians are the most bald-faced liars and the likes of Feinstein just keep charging on like nothing happened. Like it wasn't ATF agents themselves who bent and broke rules to buy the guns, and delivered them into criminal hands.

Quotable Quote

A comment at Belmont Club:

The irony is that since all of the hubbub about police brutality the proportion of lethal killing has sky rocketed. I grew up in the 60′s and 70′s with the LAPD and believe me, you did not screw with these guys. They’d mess you up good if they had a mind to. Pisser is they had more discretion and might be apt to let you go after you learned your lesson, hell, maybe even give you a ride home. Now, it is a kinder and gentler police department and your chances of being shot dead went up around 300%.

Yes, they won't touch you with a finger until they will shoot to kill.

Green Money

Watts Up With That publishes a piece on the amount of funding for environmental groups and lobbies and global-warming research.

It is a lot of money, and there are very well-paid executives in environmentalist organizations too.

But to top it off, a company pouring millions in the Green Movement is the oil giant BP, also known for the Macondo disaster.

I Hate California Nazis

I still find it hard to believe, somehow I hope it's an elaborate joke at the expense of the American Right... but I doubt, that would require too much intelligence and sense of strategy.

What am I talking about? Well, this filth: Foreskin Man, the aryan-blonde superhero fighting the evil, circumsizing Jewish monsters.

Is this the last idea from the remains of the KKK or Hitler wannabes? No; in fact it is propaganda material to support a proposal to outlaw male circumcision in the moonbat city of San Francisco.

What to say, thanks for showing where yu truly stay, folks. Better to have nazis out in the open than behind cover. Via the Rottweiler.

I Think I Said So Already

Kevin Baker quoted - not approvingly, I must say - yet another blogger claiming that "Islam must be eradicated" for being an existential threat to Western civilization.

Nevermind that Western civilization is rotting from within in the first place, but I have been reading this sort of stuff since I joined Little Green Footballs in 2002 or so.

And repeating it doesn't make it any more true or accurate.

Some may be thinking that now that I am living in Indonesia I am becoming a friend of Muslims, or too scared of retribution to express harsh opinions.

No, not really. I realized something that I thought already, that Muslims are people like you or me and not impenetrable, intractable alien beasts.

But considering people from other places impenetrable, intractable alien beasts is a failure that many Americans display.

I agree more with the position of Kevin himself, or the commenter Geekwitha45, as I have been doing for a long time.

They Do Not Believe It

Remember the Bush Doctrine?

The much-reviled doctrine postulating that in order to reduce the problem of islamic extremism the people of the Middle East should be given another choice instead of their two typical options: islamic theocracy or strong-man dictatorship.

The third option was intended to be, for lack of better terms, liberal democracy.

The experiment was tried in Iraq with mixed results, but the hoped-for domino effect, the extension of requests for change and revolts in other middle-East countries did not occur.

However, now middle-class revolts and protests are rocking the middle-East and Maghreb: the dictators of Tunisia and Egypt have stepped down* and the unrest may be spreading. These revolts have many agreeable characteristics: they come mostly from the middle-class, the class that historically can provide guidance for a better future; the role of islamic extremists in those is secondary at best; once ousted the dictator those countries became relatively calm. At least I have heard nothing of persecutions of the losers.

I do not think this is a consequence of the American intervention in Iraq; I think that the causes of these rebellions are much closer in time and space: But it is possible that the seeds spread back then have germinated just now.

In any case, for those who professed support for the Bush Doctrine, the actual situation in North Africa and the Middle East should be welcome. To be watched carefully, of course, but as a possibility for positive developments.

Not like Obama is doing, but that's a different story.

Instead, the most common reactions in the American right-wing blogosphere seems to be "Oh, Muslims. We'll see more theocracies in the Middle-east." That is, complete lack of trust. Or worse, considering Muslims as incapable of civilized behaviour.

So why did they support the Bush Doctrine in the first place? Maybe because saying that they just like to see dead Muslims seemed too much?

*The military cabinet ruling Egypt now is made up of Mubarak's men, so the change there may be very superficial after all.

The Italy of Silvio Berlusconi

My blog-friend Kevin asked if I can provide a translation of the previous post. But I do not think that would be very interesting for foreign readers.

Rather, I'll try to provide a brief explanation of who Berlusconi is, why he rose to power and why he is at the same time so hated – to the point that serious rioting in Rome followed the government's victory in a no-confidence vote.

All the bad and weird things you have heard about Berlusconi are to a large extent true. He has parties with young prostitutes, yes. He went through a lot of shady business deals, yes. He is cunning and ruthless and his governments passed a few laws that helped him greatly with his judiciary adventures.

But the Italian people know that. In fact, all these facts and more fancyful flourish are shouted from the rooftops every day. Those who vote Berlusconi do not do so because they are misinformed, but because they still appreciate the man, at least in part.

Berlusconi is the expression of an unique social and political environment; there is no equivalent elsewhere in the world.

He is the expression of a part of the Italian society as it came to be since the end of WW2: the entrepreneurs, the artisans and traders. Which make up a majority of the middle-high class in Northern Italy.

Those are the people who struggle almost daily against restrictive laws, and even worse bureaucracy and bureaucrats. The ones who'd like less taxes, and less red tape, and less scraping and bowing in front of the local politicians only to obtain what should be theirs by right.

Berlusconi was one who overcame the odds and became rich and powerful from a rather humble start. He found ways to circumvent laws that prohibited private televisions from broadcasting all over the national territory; later he forged alliances with the politician Bettino Craxi but when his TVs where already up and running.

And Berlusconi managed AC Milan when it was one of the strongest football clubs in Europe, and won many important competitions.

Also a lot of the good things one can hear about Berlusconi are true: he is an excellent communicator, he's hospitable and entertaining (if in a lowbrow fashion) to foreign leaders; and he at least promised to cut statalism a little bit. Then he didn't deliver; that is the main reason his age is closing to an end, in my opinion.

But reducing the privileges and power of the ruling class is no easy task for anyone; despite his popularity Berlusconi did not have absolute power – far from it.

The success of Berlusconi is strictly linked to the rise of the Northern League (Lega Nord) party. That movement is also difficult to describe to foreigners: it is a nationalist party, but the nation the have in mind is not Italy; rather a poorly-defined entity composed of most of the northern regions.

In practice now Northern League is a federalist party asking for more local governance rather than a heavily centralized state; for tax money to remain where it is collected rather than to be amassed in the central coffers in Rome; for italian citizens to be given priority rather than immigrants, and for immigrants to integrate rather than Italian society to satisfy all their needs. Northern League is the main party of the mid-lower class, these days.

Some depict that party as a racist far-right movement, but that is not true; the ideology of Northern League has nothing to do with Nazism or Fascism; true racists there are few and far between – while they are common among the ranks of Forza Nuova (New Force) and other explicitly neo-fascist groups.

Now, for the opposition to Berlusconi. Those most adverse to him are generally public sector workers, students, intellectuals and members of the judiciary. And from the leftist political scene, yes.

Except for the judiciary, which is a case apart, all those categories above have something in common: they do not need to work hard, produce results and manage complex activities in order to survive. I won't call them all parasites because they are not, but it's clear that the life of an university student financed by parents and/or grants, or the life of a public-funded film director are way easier and secure than the life of a tradesman.

The judiciary is different. After the corruption scandals (complete with severe judicial abuses, but history is written by the winners so those are rarely mentioned) that brought the end of the traditional parties in the early 90's, the Italian judiciary disposed with idea of separation of power and started regarding itself as the supreme power with the right and duty to remake Italy into a Better Place. Of course, according to their own definition of it, and other opinions be damned.

The struggle between Berlusconi and the judiciary is about power, not rule of law or morality. But with a key difference between the two parties: Berlusconi is willing to let other people do as they please – at least as long as his own interests are not threatened; the judiciary instead is made of True Believers, and they allow no room for dissent.

The Italian left is in disarray. The far left is almost non-existent now; the mainstream, centre-left parties have been unable to produce a stable and charismatic leadership since 1994 and no improvement is in sight. The last center-left government was born dead, zombied around for a couple of years producing little more than a state of fiscal inquisition and fell miserably due to internal divisions and lack of a overarching strategy.

The left is still mired in ideologies from the 70's when they are recent; they keep offering the same old stuff which has produced nothing so far; yet they expect people to believe that this time it will work.

Berlusconi is running circles around the leftist leaders without any effort: one of his stupid jokes will make more headlines than the entire political program of the left.

For years, the only and entire message of the Left has been that Berlusconi and his cronies are ruining Italy and have to go – in a political sense, but some have admitted in public that they'd like to see a more physical destruction. And after that Italy will magically become a heavenly land, in which the cultural and systemic and institutional flaws will disappear leaving only the noblest Italian nature to triumph. What should happen to that tainted and wretched 50% at least of Italians who supported Berlusconi is not clear; they will either see the light or be ignored.

It is a fantasy, and many can see through right this bullshit. Berlusconi is the only one who tried to introduce at least a bit of meritocracy, to make superior instruction half-serious; to fight parasites in the public sector and to bring the judiciary back under control.
The age of Berlusconi may very well be near its end, but the left is not in the position to take power. Rather, the party poised to step in is Northern League: they are the second party at the national level and have absolute majority in vast areas of the North. And they will keep doing many of the same things this government has done, but a local rather than national level.

Now, despite twelve hundred words this post still gives only a very sketchy picture of the situation and how it came to be. Please bear with me if I didn't write a whole tome.

Meta-discussion on Gun Control

There has been a fresh wave debate of gun control issues at some blogs, and I have some sparse idea about the dabate itself. Do not expect a structured article but rather a collection of more or less loose thoughts.

• Comparing rates of homicide-by-gun between different countries is tricky (and this is valid for all sides) because those countries have different history and at any given time present a spread of cultural and socio-economic conditions. I think, but I am not sure, that crime statistics tell more about a country's cultural and socio-economic conditions than about the tightness of its gun control.
• Aggregate crime statistics for whole countries also hide a lot of useful information because they group together areas with a wide range of factors as population density, average income, type of employment etc. Not to mention cultural and eventually ethnic differences.
• The police officer with such a developed training to make him fundamentally different from common citizens is basically a myth. At least in Italy your average cop shoots a few rounds at the range from time to time; only the equivalent of SWAT teams have serious combat training. Guns are stored quite safely in police stations, true, but terrorists and maybe also criminals have attacked cops, police stations and army barracks to obtain firearms.
• While guns are rather efficient at killing people, true mass-murder is accomplished even more quickly with explosives and incendiaries. In fact, when enough motivated manpower is available, even machetes did the job. Anyway, on September 11 and on July 2005 in London, groups of islamic extremists have used machines never intended to kill and homemade explosives to cause massive destruction and loss of life.
• People who are determined to terminate their lives seem able to find a way to do so regardless of the availability of firearms. Some kill themselves via cooking gas asphyxiation, which poses a serious risk of explosion. And while I do not recommend suicide, I think that people are the owners of their own life and can end if they choose so.
• Discussions between pragmatists and people arguing from faith are pointless because facts cannot bring down a belief by themselves. Something that hits at a deep emotional level is required.

Truth and Handles

"You cannot handle the truth!" is the famous line uttered by Col. Jessep (Jack Nicholson) in the movie A Few Good Men.

While in the movie that line of defence di dnot work, I think the statement is valid: there are some truths in this world that not everybody can handle. For many different reasons, but they still are hard to handle.

The specific case is the whole Deepwater Horizon / Macondo 252 disaster. There are a few ugly, hard truths there.

One is, the oil flow in the Gulf of Mexico is variable, cannot be measured exactly and any estimate is subject to severe uncertainty - more than mainstream media can handle(1), for sure.

Another - the main one - is that BP is proceeding by trial-and-error in its attempts to bring the gushing well back under control (before at least one relief well can be completed, but nobody seems to be inclined to accept that eventuality). And considering the difficult environemnt in which those attempts have to be carried out, I don not know if there is any other way.

Yes, it was easy to point out the clogging risk for the first dome, but much more difficult to come up with feasible solutions. The "top kill" operation has failed? Difficult to tell: apparently BP is trying the use of different shapes and sizes of "junk" in order to achieve enough restriction of upward flow, but all this takes time and indeed is trial-and-error.

Only those who have some knowledge of oilwell issues - or are willing to learn - can handle the ugly truths above. Most of the public cannot grasp the reality of the situation, and they only to want the oil leakage to be stopped, like... yesterday. Even the President of the USA seems to be in this party, or close to it.

There is another group of people who know how to handle the ugly truths, but for malignant use. It is the ones accusing BP of lying more or less since day one, the ones who would like to see the CEO of BP executed (for what crimes, it is not known). They are ready to use any admission of failure to accuse BP of incompetence or even of deliberately letting oil spill out. At the same time, any optimistic statement is seen as a proof of BP lying to the public.
Is there an obligation to be open and transparent towards your enemies?

Moreover, whenever there is an occasion there will be hosts of people offering a number of solutions to the problem that go from being in good faith but unworkable, to patently absurd - and those often come in a package with fantastic conspiracy theories as to why those solutions are not implemented.

Would I like BP to be more open and transparent? In an ideal world, yes. But I know that organizations of people, always, anywhere, try to spin news at their own advantage - honesty is appreciated because it's rare.

And in this real world, letting the public know everything would not help one bit with the well control efforts, neither the cleanup efforts. In fact it may even complicate things further by putting more pressure to perform rapidly on BP and the others involved - when the disaster occurred because BP wanted to complete the well in haste in the first place.

I have heard of talks of handling the well control operations to the US Navy: what experience does the Navy have with oil wells? They can destroy them if required, but control blowouts? Never heard of that.

(1) All journalista excluding a few scientific divulgators appear intellectually unable to understand what uncertainty is.

The Analogy That Is Not

Another worrysome aspect that I have seen emerging in recent times - mainly from recent polemics in the Italian political scene - is the misuse of analogy.

In this particular case, one politician was lamenting that a change to electoral law¹ less than one month before local elections was akin to changing the rules of a football game while it's being played.

Well, no. Because in football laws are decided by a body designated to do so, of which players are not part if not with their representatives, and with the clausole that rules cannot be changed during a game. While as far as I know the Italian parliament can pass any law within its self-imposed bounds at any time.

One important point is in fact this: a government operates largely unders self-imposed bounds - its procedures and unwritten customs, and these bounds can be modified. In most republics, the outside bound on what the government can do is the constitution, but even that is not immutable.

On the other hand, football players enter the field willingly submitting to laws imposed on them by a separate governing body.

Three paragraphs detailing the differences between government and football games, and where are we? The politician I mentioned fell into the trap of false analogy, maybe - but I suspect something worse. That this man does not know what an analogy is, so he thinks that any superficial similarity between two systems means that the systems have almost the same properties.

It is not a matter of being stupid or dumb, but ignorance of the underlying logic and philosophy of this analogy thing.

In its most common use, analogy is only a figure of speech, often a didactic exemplification intended to bring a difficult and distant concept closer to the listener's experience. In this case, analogy is never perfect - otherwise, it would be pointless. Science and technology textbooks do not use analogies, for example.

There is reasoning by analogy that can be quite rigorous - this is a discussion of analogical reasoning in the field of law, too. Rigorous as far as law goes, anyway.

The ultimate analogy is this:

A = B and B = C

then A = C

But this kind of formalism is unforgiving: the above is true only when A is equal to B and B to C; there is no such thing as similar or "kinda like" here.

Now you want a recap? Here's a recap: if someone is using analogy merely as a figure of speech fine, some leeway is given. But when analogy is used as a method of reasoning, it has to be rather rigorous. If not, the whole reasoning is impaired.

1 - A change in the fine details of the rules of admission, exclusion and appeal for parties interested in taking part to the elections.

Prophecy Is a Mean Job

More than one year ago in these very pages I wrote:

If these comments are indicative of any trend, we're seeing a new spin being put on current events. The achievements in Iraq cannot be ignored at this point, but they are not credited to George Bush. In fact, it is stated that those achievements came only when finally Bush left the helm to others.

Well, a few days ago - via The Rottweiler - I learned that:

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

Prophetic indeed, I was.

Seein in Perspective

The World Bank reports (pdf) that the total value of the virtuous carbon markets in 2008 was roughly 126.3 billion dollars.

Super-evil corporation Halliburton states revenues for 18.3 billion dollars in 2008.

But we can still be sure that nobody would lie or misrepresent facts as to benefit from the carbon markets.

How To Defeat an Insurgency

Sry Lanka has found the correct recipe: ally with a ruthless power like China, which is willing and able to tell the rest of the world to stuff it; pay no heed to the requests of the UN and other NGOs; keep foreign journalists away form the theatre and finally pursue the objective of victory without faltering to the bitter end.

Of course no two wars are exactly the same, so there is no guarantee that this procedure would achieve the same results in a different scenario (an important point is that the Tamil Tigers could not rely on any sanctuary abroad), but so far it cannot be denied that a couple of years of war fought in earnest have ended 30 years of a bloody uprising.

Will a new Tamil insurgency be reborn from the ashes of the old one? It is a function of how well (or badly) the Sri Lankan government will manage the aftermath; if they do it properly there is a good chance that Sri Lanka will be pacified for a long period of time.

I do not know if these events will change the course of conflicts at the global level. However, there are some lessons that countries facing insurgencies and other conflicts may learn. That the West and the UN are largely useless; that China may be a much more effective ally; that - ultimately - the use of force is still an effective instrument.

In these same days, even the Italian government is telling the UNHCR to go pound sand on the issue of the boatloads of illegal immigrants towed back to Libya - Italy's Minister of Defense, La Russa, is quoted as saying that the UNHCR "is completely useless".

Another lesson to take home from the recent developments in Sri Lanka is best expressed by Wretchard himself:

Any workable system of laws will never unduly penalize people who abide by the rules in favor of those who flaunt them. Just as an immigration system in which the legal immigrant is bypassed by the illegal cannot long remain legitimate, humanitarian regimes which effectively make it it impossible for a nation or a society to exercise legitimate self-defense will eventually be abandoned. It cannot be the case that those who obey so-called humanitarian rules not only lose the war but find themselves prosecuted for war crimes because they have subjected themselves to its strictures while those who ignored them from the beginning not only win the war but become media and marketing stars commemorated Hollywood movies, t-shirt logos and trendy scarves.

Free Healthcare For Almost Everyone

This seems to be Obama's plan, according to some recent news.

But who is the Most Tanned President of the USA going to leave out of the scheme? Fat rich Republicans?

Not quite. Rather, the current administration is considering to make military veterans pay, through private insurance, for the treatment even of injuries related to their service.

I guess that's their way to support the troops.

Insipient Knowledge

I am completely fed up with the kind of knowledge too many people display. Online discussions are the worst offenders, but cases of this intellectual pathology are rife in real life as well.

I am fed up with notions - actually exact in themselves - picked almost randomly here and there and heaped without any regard for their connections or lack thereof, and the disdain for a coherent and cogent scheme of things (or narrative or paradigm if you like) able to provide context and relations for the various notions.

And of the same randomly acquired notions hastily put together without the binder of logic - the only safeguard against contradictions and fallacies.

The terrible conclusion when I see that widespread insipience is that two entire generations have been taught not how to think and reason properly, but instead what they should think under a sprinkling of facts collected in a haphazard manner.

Paradigma

Dal TG1 dell'8 Gennaio, ore 20, in un servizio sui giornalisti stranieri che si trovano negato l'accesso alla Striscia di Gaza:

Mancano le immagini vere, dal vivo, da vicino, manca... la crudeltà della guerra, manca...... la tristezza di tutto quello che sta succedendo.
Dichiarazione attribuita a "Avv. Bruno Von Arx, Legale di Alfredo Romeo"

Questa affermazione sembra innocua, ma invece contiene in sè una narrativa (che sembra essere quella dei giornalisti che vogliono entrare a Gaza): le sole immagini "vere" sono quelle dal vivo e da vicino (presumo, di palestinesi morti, feriti e sofferenti - eppure di immagini del genere ne ho viste molte in TV ed internet), e la guerra è crudele e la situazione molto triste.

Questi giornalisti quindi sembrano più intenzionati a proporre al pubblico la loro narrativa dei fatti, invece che la realtà qualunque essa sia. E lo so che l'obbiettività completa è impossibile, ma un conto è tentare e fallire, un altro non provarci neanche.

All'inizio del video si vedono le esplosioni di alcuni ordigni israeliani: lascio ai lettori il compito di determinare di quali munizioni si tratta.

Wonder And Amazement

I am always amazed when I see those Palestinian propaganda pics (click to enlarge) on the western media, and for two reasons.

One is how good the Palestinians are at propaganda. Real masters, nothing less: the image of the grieving, almost crucified with sorrow, woman is so dramatic.

The other is how can reputable media keep falling for the same trick again and again. They do not care about what they publish, or are they in the plan too? (A mix of both).

I am not sure, but I strongly believe that the picture is not a genuine display of grief. Instead, it was deliberately and carefully staged to be used as propaganda material outside of Gaza, especially in Europe and the USA. It already happened in the past, and it worked quite well, so the technique is expected to be used again.

The "internationl community" clamoring for a ceasefire (which of course only Israel has the command & control structure to respect properly) is the usual tranzist mess: dialogue as an end in itself and absence of conflict seen as peace. But in practical terms a ceasefire woul only give Hamas time to regroup and rearm. Israel is completely entitled to reject or accept ceasefire requests at her own leisure.

Sophisticate And Uncouth

In a post from a few days back, reader Zhombre commented:

And for a true redneck, it's baloney, Wonder Bread and beer.

This simple (and innocent) statement made me think about some bigger issues which have repercussions on trans-atlantic relationships (yes, really!).

The main point is that the definition of redneck - or, to use less colloquial terms - the difference between sophisticate and uncouth, is largely a function of the local cultural environment.

In the case at hand, I am sure that drinking wine - even if it's foul-tasting homemade stuff guzzled straight from the bottle - turns one into a sophisticate if not effete chap in the eyes of rural Americans.

Here in Italy, some of the most uncouth and inbred countryside dwellers I know are avid drinkers of wine.

One reason is tradition and history: there is probably nothing more traditional than wine in Italy. This drink has been made and appreciated by countless generations of commons and nobles alike and it is an inextricable part of the local culture.

However, for centuries the commons did not enjoy their wine sipping it at elegant parties, from big, thin goblets while describing its taste and aroma with a collection of rare terms. No, the commons drank their wine in large amounts from small, thick-walled glasses (I remember my grandfather, my friend's grandfather and I have photographs from the first half of the last century) at home or at the local osteria (inn or tavern) and they cared more about alcohol content than taste; some folks quite literally drank wine till the day they died. Quite a few people still make their own wine, here, and it is often less than delicious.

American culture has very mixed roots, but the main influence is Anglo-Saxon: up there, the traditional drinks were ale and cider and mead; later the Americans added moonshine to the list (but kinda forgot about mead, it seems). In England and northern Europe wine has always been something foreign and exotic.

Besides tradition, there is the ages-old rift between countryside and urban dwellers; for a series of reasons which range from higher cultural affinity to the desire of distancing themselves from the uncouth hillbillies, passing through fads and fashions - the urban elites in America have adopted more European* habits.

So, the salt-of-the-earth Americans now automatically associate drinking wine with the effete, metrosexual and leftist urban elites. What they fail to realize is that there is probably less difference between the commons on both sides of the Atlantic (well, ok, the cultural difference is considerable anyway) than between commons and elites within the respective countries/regions.

To make just one example, while elites here and there are for the majority hoplohpobes, many blue-collar workers and professionals and farmers here will tell you that one should be able to use firearms in self-defense without fear of prosecution.

*The habits of the American urban elites seems to me a caricature of European habits, or at least what they'd like them to be rather than the real thing. How many of Manhattan intellectuals would be caught stepping into a bar to drink a glass or two of nondescript wine while still wearing oil-stained work clothes?

Update 02/03/09: I realized only recently that "baloney" is the english term for mortadella.