Farewell Perv

Just a quick one today. News is hitting the world today that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has thrown in the towel, resigning to avoid inevitable impeachment and possible imprisonment.

The myth has arisen that this guy is some sort of quasi-democrat, a friend of the West and a saviour of freedom in Pakistan, who has been essential in the fight against terrorism. He has been committed to helping us against the evil-doers, and is therefore welcome into our 'club' of acceptable leaders.

Utter shite. The man was a military dictator who trampled on the few freedoms left to ordinary Pakistanis. He dismantled democracy when it didn't work for him, and has overseen his country's descent into near- civil war.

Good riddance to the Perv, I say. Enjoy Saudi Arabia.

I Am A Jam Doughnut

“All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."

So said our mate John F. Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War back in June 1963, to an adoring crowd of Berliners. Obviously, he was telling them he was one of them. But did he actually make a gigantic gaffe, and tell them all that he was a jam doughnut?

This is one of those historical tidbits that has become accepted fact. I even tell my kids at school all about JFK and his oratorical faux pas.

The story goes like this: Berliner, rather than being the German word for ‘person from Berlin’, actually means, ‘jam-filled pastry from Berlin’ (in much the same way as a Wiener is a sausage from Vienna, or a frankfurter is a sausage from Frankfurt). Kennedy’s crowd being almost solely German, they would have instantly picked up on his mistake, and found his assertion ridiculous, embarrassing, and funny.

It all makes for a great laugh. The sad thing is, it’s not true. Bugger.

He definitely said it. And he got it spot-on.

A Berliner is, indeed, a pastry from Berlin. But only to Germans who come from outside of Berlin. Berliners call their jam doughnuts pfannkuchen (pancakes).

The problem for scholars of German, is Kennedy’s use of the indefinite article ein (a). A true Berlin citizen would have said, ‘Ich bin Berliner”, without the ein. By using ein, he was implying that he was a non-human Berliner, and therefore a doughnut.

However, as a non-citizen of the city, expressing his figurative solidarity with its people, the use of ein was necessary. Being a US President with a strong Boston accent, he was most evidently not a true Berliner. By using ein, he was sort of saying, ‘I am an American who identifies with the struggles of the people of Berlin’.

Kennedy did make the phrase up at the last minute, and inserted it twice into his landmark speech, in the newly-divided city. But he ran it past his official interpreter, and practised it (in front of Germans) in the office of then Mayor Willy Brandt.

So where did the myth come from? It seems that it didn’t really take off until 20 years after the speech, when the incident was mentioned in Len Deighton’s spy thriller, Berlin Game. The story’s protagonist, Bernard Samson, refers to the jam doughnut gaffe as follows:

“'Ich bin ein Berliner,' I said. It was a joke. A Berliner is a doughnut. The day after President Kennedy made his famous proclamation, Berlin cartoonists had a field day with talking doughnuts.”

A couple of book reviews then mentioned the story, and all of a sudden, it became gospel fact.

Now, god knows where Deighton got the idea from, but he has gone on the record as saying that the character of Bernard Samson is prone to exaggerate and joke, and not everything he says should be taken seriously. So it could be an example of the playful Deighton sparking off an urban legend, via the playful character of Bernard Samson.

Wherever the myth is from, I can tell you one thing: I am mightily annoyed at finding out that JFK didn’t stuff up, because it means I have one less slightly-interesting anecdote to bore my Year 12 kids with. Damn.

Ich bin disappointed.

Flying the Coup

Ah, Africa. Another day, another illegal seizure of power. The news is just coming through that there has been a coup in Mauritania, with the President taken hostage and whisked away to places unknown by the country's leading generals. The news has jarred me a little, seeing as I was in Mauritania a little over a year ago, and I did take quite a shine to this nation of 3 million people and Allah-knows how many camels. Despite being a largely unpopulated expanse of Saharan sand, the country has its fair share of political problems, most stemming from its position on the fault-line between Arab- and sub-Saharan Africa, its recent embrace of fundamentalist Islamic causes, and its sad history as a French colony.

I wish les Maures all the best, and I hope nobody gets hurt in this calamity. Doubtless the dust (or sand) will settle, and the long-suffering population will find themselves under the control of yet another corrupt and unelected leader, and simply get on with the job of surviving. Then, a few years down the track, there will be a push for greater democracy, followed by some flawed elections, then a period of misrule by the new government, and then, to correct the balance...another coup.

Which brings me to my topic for today - coups in Africa. What a stereotype. They have become so cliched in that continent, that now, whenever I see the word 'coup', I instantly presume that it has happened in one of Africa's 53 nations. (Quick digression - why do the French have a word for coup, and we don't, having to use theirs? And why do we use the Spanish word for junta? Surely we can come up with some English alternatives? Suggestions, please...)

Military takeovers do seem to happen a lot in Africa. Or, at least, most people think they do. I am guilty of such presumption, and I was in Africa for ten months last year. I travelled through 20 countries, and didn't see one coup. Admittedly, there was a contested election in Kenya a few months after I was there, but no direct throwing-over of any ruling parties.

So what are the stats? Well, they're actually pretty interesting.

• From 1960 until 2001, there were 191 attempted coups in Africa, or roughly 5 annually. 82 were successful, or about 2 per year. That means each country in Africa has experienced roughly 1.5 coups in the past 40 years. The success rate of coups has declined since the 1960s, but is still at around 40%.
• Europe has had the fewest coups - 18 between 1946-2006, or roughly one every three years. All of those coups were in just 8 countries. Now, the fun part - see if you can name them!
• The Americas was by far the most coup-prone region, in the 1940s and 1950s.
• The five (confirmed) coups since 2000 have been in - Fiji (twice), the Solomons, Thailand, and the Philippines. So it looks like our backyard is the new place to put on a putsch!
• Coups tend to happen where they have happened before - 78% of countries that experienced a coup, actually experienced more than one.
• Sub-Saharan Africa alone has accounted for 44% of the world's coups since 1946. Add on North Africa and the figure shoots up to 55% or so.
• There are now roughly 6 coup attempts worldwide every year (with four of those in Africa). In the 1970s, the world average was 13.
  
• Only three countries in sub-Saharan Africa have never had a coup - and two of them are island nations away from the mainland (Cape Verde, Mauritius, and Botswana)
  
• The world's most coup-prone country? Bolivia, with 22 coups since 1946. The runners-up are Syria (20), Sudan (18), Nigeria (15), Iraq (15) Comoros (13, including three in one year), Benin (12), and Mauritania (12). Well, maybe we should put Mauritania up into joint 6th place now...

So it seems that Africa does get a lot of coups. It has a quarter of the world's nations, most of them independent only since the 1960s, yet it accounts for over half the coups since the 1940s. And even though it is not Number One, it still has 5 nations in the Top Eight.

And why does it happen so much in Africa? Well, there's a topic for another blog...

Bastards yesterday, diamond blokes today

My mate Sam threw out a challenge to me on his blog a couple of weeks ago. He asked me to identify any people or groups whom once we regarded as radical, violent, evil, terrorists, who threatened our very way of life, who are now held in somewhat higher regard.

It's actually not so difficult to come up with a few names. Terrorists are, by and large, simply politicians who have chosen violent methods to pursue their aims. Quite often, they have done so because they see no other avenue. Sometimes, they have done so because they like blowing shit up. And sometimes, they are not anti-government rebels, or shadowy independence groups - they actually are the government.

Once a terrorist is able to use legitimate, constitutional means to resolve their grievances, they quite often choose to do so. And once a terrorist chooses - or is allowed - to come in from the cold, they can become peaceful, regular politicians. We all know that there is a fine line between terrorism, and fighting for what to many is a noble cause; just as there is a fine line between fighting a war for good reasons, and fighting one for crappy reasons.

So, anyway, leaving aside people who are terrorists and in government (eg. Dubya), here's my Top Ten (alright, Nine) of Transformed Terrorists. Feel free to comment on them...

1. Nelson Mandela

Yep, the man himself. Today he is the embodiment of all that is noble and good about politics. He is kind, tolerant, inclusive, noble, and just. Since being released from prison, he has become a nobel peace laureate, and the global statesman without equal. Yet, this guy was only knocked off the US Terrorism watch list last month. Why? Because he used to be regarded (in South Africa at least) as a bloodthirsty insurgent. Mandela, short of legal options for pursuing true democracy in his homeland, resorted to violent means. He headed the armed wing of the ANC and was imprisoned for 27 years for charges inclduing sabotage.

2. Yasser Arafat.

OK. This list isn't in any particular order. And some people wouldn't include ol' Crackerfat. But few would disagree that Yasser made the move from internationally reviled terror chief, to legitimate negotiating partner on the issue of Palestine. True, he died without his dream being realised, after being trapped in his compound by the Israelis for the last few years of his life, but he kept the dream of an independent Palestine alive for decades. He even used to shape his headscarf into the rough outline of his nation every day. In the early 80s, he was almost picked off by Ariel Sharon in Beirut, before being offered last-minute asylum in Tunisia, yet he bounced back and became a quasi-national leader.

3. Menachem Begin.

In the interests of balance, I've now got my favourite former Israeli terror chief. In the 1940s, Begin headed Irgun, a terrorist group which perpetrated hundreds of violent acts against the British administration in Palestine. Thirty years later, he was Prime Minister! Proof that, whatever your race, religion, or creed in the Middle East, bombing people is no obstacle to a respectable career in constitutional politics.

4. Prachanda.

A contemporary one. In 1996, Prachanda ("the fierce one") initiated a Marxist insurrection against the Nepalese government. 13,000 people died during the conflict. Now, Prachanda is part of the interim government, and a favourite for future President. And he has managed to engineer the end of the Nepalese monarchy! So, kids, there you go: violent Maoism does pay.

5. Muammar Gaddafi.

Apparently, there are at least 32 ways to spell Qadaffy's name. There, I've used two already. Back in the mid-80s, he was 'Mad Dog' himself, rogue leader of a rogue state, so vile that the Yanks bombed him. And now? He has renounced terrorism and is being courted by the great powers of Europe, especially the French. Why? Because he has lots of oil and money and he wants to buy guns. And if you renouce terrorism you're allowed to buy guns and be violent. Don't you just love the way international politics works?

6. Xanana Gusmao.

1990s - public enemy number one in Indonesia, arrested for separatism and arms possession.
2008 - Universally adored President of a free East Timor. But probably still not loved by the Indos.

7. Tito.

I guess this one depends on your politics. Tito went from gun-totin' thorn in the Nazis' side in the Balkans, to suit-wearin' thorn in the Russians' side as President of Yugoslavia. The Partisan leader was prepared to piss off anyone who tried to step on his nation, again showing us that 'terrorism' is a purely relative term.

8. Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

In 1968, DCB was a firebrand French student, who led the violent, dramatic riots in Paris which nearl toppled French democracy. He was passionate, angry, uncompromising. No way would he become a part of the rotten, corrupt institutions of stagnant old Europe!

And now? DCB is a respectable, law-abiding Member of the European Parliament. Stick it to the man, Danny!!

9. Fidel Castro.

One day he's a communist revolutionary insurgent hiding out in the hills of southern Cuba. The next, he's a communist revolutionary insurgent swigging Bacardi in his palace in Havana. And still a terrorist, according to the Yanks.

10. Er..that's it.

James Newhouse - A Real Don Juan

I have to admit, I know bugger-all about Giacomo Casanova. Except that his name translates into English as James Newhouse (don't names always sounds better in Romance languages? Mine would be Tommaso Guerriero).

My good mate Sam (Samuele Rubinetti) asked me if I could address the myth of Mr Casanova. Was he, as history would have us believe, a 'man-whore'?

Because that is certainly what he is famous for. Whether you know the intricacies of his life or not, chances are that, when you hear that name, you think of a guy who has slept around a lot. A bit like Don Juan (or Don Giovanni, in Italian). The difference is, Don Juan was fictional. But Casanova was the real thing.

Jimmy Newhouse led a pretty darned exciting life. Born in Venice in 1725, he spent 73 fun-packed years carousing around Europe, hatching schemes, sleeping with women, educating himself, being arrested, gambling away his fortune, and generally not focusing on any one thing for too long. Reading about his exploits, one thinks immediately of an 18th-century Cosmo Kramer - constantly flitting from project to project, from lover to lover, having a grand old time, and always landing on his feet.

But was he a 'man-whore'?

In his memoirs, he mentions 122 sexual encounters with different women (with a few not-so-boastful implied encounters with blokes).

Now, 122 may sound like a lot. But that still only averages out to two a year, from when he was first fondled by a female friend at age 11. And there are plenty of other, more contemporary figures, who have probably had as many, if not more: Mick Jagger and Warren Beatty jump to mind, as well as basketballer Wilt Chamberlain, who claimed he'd slept with 20,000 ladies. Wow.

But it's not just about the quantity. In his lengthy discussions of his seduction technique, he states the importance of love being one-on-one (no orgies for our Venetian friend); of the value of attentiveness and conversation; that alcohol and violence are not tools to be employed by the truly great lover; and that the greatest conquests were those preceded by some sort of chase (one night stands would not have been his favourites).

So, it seems that Cassie slept with a very large number of women, but treated each as a sexually/emotionally/intellectually-fulfilling relationship, to be savoured over a quite lengthy period of time. Unlike the conventional image of a man-whore, which would look more like Keith Richards, pepped up on goofballs, shagging fourteen underaged groupies in a Miami hotel, whilst wearing a leather g-string and 10-inch dildo, and simultaneously snorting coke off a dwarf's thigh.

The other thing to remember is that the main source for our information on Casanova's wondrous sexploits is his very own, 12-volume autobiography - The History of My Life. Running to 3500 pages in its unexpurgated form, the book pretty much recounts every single experience in Giacomo's time on earth.

This isn't selling yourself along the lines of a modern-day cash-in memoir such as Britney: My Life (by Britney Spears and Some Proper Author, 44 pages). This is pure, unadulterated, 12-volume, self-promotion by the multi-talented celebrity of his era. So we can probably take some of what he says with a grain of salt.

He did lots of amazing stuff, and lived a rich and fulfilling life. Along the way he had lots of wholesome sex. The he wrote a big, fat exaggerated account about it.

In fact, if Casanova was anything, he was a self-obsessed celebrity with ADHD, who thought he could do absolutely anything if he put his mind to it, who had an obsession with sex.

Kind of like Madonna.

Great-great-great-grandfather Genghis

You know that guy sitting opposite you on the bus this morning? The one with the reddish tinge to his hair, and the hint of oriental heritage in his eyes? And possibly a scimitar hanging from his hip? Well, the chances are relatively high that he is a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.

You may have heard of the Genghis Khan effect. I stumbled upon it the other day, and its one of the coolest historical doobywacks I've encountered in a while. The basic premise is as follows:

In 2003, a group of 23 scientists completed ten years of research in the lands constituting the former Mongol Empire. They analysed the DNA of thousands of men in those regions, studying especially the Y chromosomes, those passed from father to son.

Apparently, the Y-chromosome remains largely unchanged as it makes its genetic way forward through history. Every now and then, a (usually harmless) mutation occurs somewhere along its length, and this mutation, or 'marker', will then pass on from generation to generation.

These Y-markers are useful because, if you find two blokes with the same one, chances are that they are both descended from the same ancestor.

The scientists conducting this research made an amazing discovery: in the former empire of the Great Khan, around 16 million men, or 1 in 12 males, share the same Y-marker, one which is found only in that region. Also, the mutation is about 1000 years old.

The only possible way for a mutation like that to spread to so many people in such a short time, is if the person carrying the original manages to kill off lots of the male competition, and sleep with lots of women, and have lots of sons.

That sounds like our Genghis. He killed hundreds of thousands, he had concubines and harems, and he got first pick of the conquered females.

So the explanation goes like this. Genghis picked up the Y-marker from a recent male relative, maybe his great-grandfather. He and his male siblings spread their line throughout their rapidly-conquered territories. They murdered the guys and raped the ladies. And now Genghis has 16 million direct male descendants.

The rest of us could expect about 20 male heirs by the year 2800. So Genghis has spread his seed at 800,000 times the average rate.

Of course, we can't be sure that the progenitor was Temujin himself, until we find his remains and test his DNA. But the odds on it being him are pretty good. I mean, how many other murderous Mongolian warlords, ruling the whole of Eurasia, were there 8 centuries ago?

And the loser is...

What with all the Obama-Clinton furore in the press recently, I have found myself pondering over the following dilemma: just who has been the worst US President out of the 42 white Protestant men (and one white Catholic man) who have so far held that esteemed office?

Now, in 2008, it is mighty easy to dismiss the incumbent shitwit as the worst of the worst. By any measure, George Dubya is a man of loose morals and of questionable intelligence, who is already well within the 'lame duck' catgeory. There is really nothing he could do in the next six months to lift himself from the doldrums of presidential-effectiveness.

However, Americans don't seem to completely agree with this sentiment. They have voted for him twice (sort of), and the vitriol and anger directed towards him back in 2003-4 seems to have largely been replaced with feelings of pity for his pure bumbling incompetence. Yes, he is pretty crap, but he can't help it. And at least he has stopped invading other people's countries in recent years.

There is much debate about who has been the best US President. In fact, there have been a large number of surveys based on this question, where Americans are asked to rank their past leaders from first to last. Pretty unsurprisingly, the favourites are usually Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Washington. Jefferson, Truman, the other Roosevelt, and Wilson tend to follow. In the last 2 major surveys, (2002 and 2005), George W. has come 23rd and 19th respectively. Bill Clinton managed 18th and 22nd. Bush Snr. was about the same, with 22nd and 21st. So, in recent times, it seems the guys we all remember get lumped in about the middle. Not too bad, but not too great either.

But what about the worst? There was a poll conducted in 2008 of professional historians, of which 98% declared the Bush presidency a failure, with over 60% calling it the worst so far. Now, this was a poll of experts, who might actually know what they're talking about, but it probably doesn't reflect the view of most Americans. And certainly not your average gun-totin' redneck Texan.

On the public surveys, there are a few names which tend to pop up at the bottom of the list. The main three are:

Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
James Buchanan (1857-61)
Warren G Harding (1921-23)

Another two, William Henry Harrison, and James Garfield, usually remain unranked, as they both died after a few months in office, and therefore didn't really get the chance to bugger up the domestic economy, or send the marines into a troublesome Latin American country.

So let's look at our three top contenders.

1) Pierce.

It seems that the main issue with this guy was that he allowed himself to be manipulated by the pro-slavery lobby, allowing the newly-settled western states to introduce slavery if they wished. He has been accused of being a northern President with southern sympathies, of being unable to keep control of domestic or international affairs, and of being indecisive. He is, so far, the only President who failed to win his party's nomination to stand for a second term. And, after his crappy period as President, he became an alcoholic (on losing the nomination, he reportedly said, 'there's nothing left to do but get drunk'), and he once ran over an old woman in his carriage. He died of liver cirrhosis at the age of 64.




2) Buchanan.

Poor old Jimmy Buchanan famously declared that 'history will vindicate my memory'. Well, it seems that it didn't. Buchanan took a similarly weak stance on slavery as his predecessor, Pierce. It was during his presidency that the southern states moved towards secession, and historians blame his inability to deal with this pressing issue as one of the reasons for the Civil War. In fact, by the time he left office, seven slave states had already left the Union, and the first tentative shots of the conflict had been fired.

He also sent the troops in to Utah to hassle the Mormons, and oversaw the Financial Panic of 1857.

Buchanan saw the writing on the wall, and didn't stand for nomination in 1860. In fact, he departed office gladly, telling Lincoln that if he was as happy to enter the White House as Buchanan was to leave it, then Lincoln was indeed a happy man.


3) Harding.

Ah, Warren Gamaliel Harding. Conservative newspaperman, popular Republican President, inventor of the word, 'normalcy' - and historical lame duck. What went wrong?

Well, apparently he appointed a bunch of his cronies into his administration, and they proceeded to rob the nation's coffers. Harding either couldn't or wouldn't do anything about his corrupt chums. "I have no trouble with my enemies," Harding said at one point, "but my damn friends, they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!"

He also had a rather clumsy style of speaking, loaded with gaffes, mispronunciations, incorrect words, and cluttered phrases.

Conservative and inept. Cronyism and corruption. Inability to speak publicly. Does any of this sound familiar?


So, in conclusion?

From what I've read about these three blokes, it seems that the first two were incompetents who presided over the disintegration of the Union, while the third was a bit average. To a non-American, who doesn't see the Civil War as the defining moment of tragedy in World History, they don't seem that bad.

My vote definitely goes to those Presidents who have abused American power, to the detriment of the rest of the globe.

Johnson, Nixon, Bush Jr., hang your (respectively) ugly, lying and empty, heads in shame.