7/30/11
As loyal readers know, I’ve not been Rahm Emanuel’s greatest fan. In fact, when Mr. Emanuel first threw his hat in the ring for mayor of Chicago, I didn’t think he had a chance of replacing Mayor Daley. Arguing that he had no organization on the ground here, no real experience in Chicago politics, and a reputation for toughness that was largely a fabrication of a consanguineous media and Washington political establishment, I contended that Mr. Emanuel would wither and fold when faced with the Machiavellian tactics of the real tough guys who hold the inside seats in the politics of our town. When it became obvious that Mr. Emanuel would win because the Daleys and most of the city’s political and business establishments had joined the media completely in the tank for this guy and the competition was composed of the political equivalent of Muhammad Ali’s “bum of the month club” from the 1970s (two not at all unrelated developments), I begrudgingly conceded that Rahm Emanuel would be our next mayor. When even the most powerful ward organizations either couldn’t or wouldn’t turn out the vote for Mr. Emanuel’s pathetic opposition (See my 2/22/11 post, “IT’S OVER, IT’S OVER!!!”), the deal was sealed and Rahm Emanuel became our mayor. I wasn’t happy about it, but for stylistic, rather than ideological, if indeed ideology has anything to do with running a city, reasons.
While I have no problem admitting I was wrong in my prognostications, I do have problems admitting I was wrong about the desirability and ability of people in leadership positions. But I must overcome those problems in this case. So far, Mayor Rahm Emanuel is doing a terrific job in running this city. He seems to have wasted little time in addressing the woeful fiscal mismanagement that has plagued our city for at least the last ten years. He shows little compunction about attacking the structural problems of Chicago government, many of which have their geneses in a sense of entitlement that has been imbued in some people by political connections that span generations and he is not afraid to stand up to the municipal workers’ unions that make lesser politicians either crumble or mutter with frustration. It’s early, but, so far, my hat is off to Mr. Emanuel, despite my many misgivings about his approach to politics and government. (See, inter alia, my 6/23/11 post “A WHOLE LOT OF SHAKIN’ (DOWN) GOIN’ ON”.) Whether his approach to addressing the city’s problems will result in his meeting his comeuppance from people who have spent their lifetimes feeding at the troughs he is seeking to dismantle is another issue, but so far, so good for Rahm Emanuel.
A second point on Mr. Emanuel…
Readers of my books who are immersed in Chicago politics like to approach them (The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, both available on Amazon.com, other online booksellers, at independents throughout Chicagoland and, on order, from any place that sells books) as puzzles in which the reader tries to determine which fictional characters are “really” which real characters. Ever since Mr. Emanuel became mayor, and even before, numerous people have come up to me, or written me, saying something like “Oh, Tom Dempsey (the ingénue quasi-reformer who became mayor, and one of the first book’s antagonists) is definitely Rahm Emanuel, right?” While one can see how people could make that connection, Tom Dempsey is NOT Rahm Emanuel for two very good reasons.
First, nobody in the books is anybody in real life. Every character is an amalgam of several, or many, real life characters. Just as Chairman Eamon DeValera Collins is not, as some have guessed, Ed Burke, Michael Madigan, Bill Banks, Ed Vrdolyak, or anyone else, Tom Dempsey is not Rahm Emanuel, Jane Byrne, Dan Walker, or anybody else. He is Tom Dempsey.
Second, Tom Dempsey was conceived in my head long before then Congressman Rahm Emanuel expressed any desire to become mayor of Chicago. At the time The Chairman was being written, Rahm Emanuel’s ambition was to be Speaker of the House. So Rahm Emanuel was not even among the legions of people that are reflected in the character of Tom Dempsey. But, rereading passages in the book about Mayor Tom Dempsey, it is easy to see how a reader could think Mr. Emanuel was his inspiration. Whether Rahm Emanuel will meet a fate similar to that of Mr. Dempsey is another issue; such an outcome seems nearly impossible at this point, but, again, it is early and strange things happen in Chicago politics. Ask, oh, Jane Byrne or Dan Walker.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
MAYBE WASHINGTON ISN’T SO BYZANTINE AFTER ALL
7/30/11
While I may not have a great deal new or especially insightful to say about the debt ceiling, spending reduction, default avoidance, balanced budget or whatever the pols and the punditocracy prefer to call them talks on a given day or at a given hour, I feel compelled to talk about the burning issue du jour that will be forgotten in about three weeks. Further, I may not say anything that you haven’t heard elsewhere, but I can almost guarantee my readers that I will say it better than most anyone else. As I sometimes do in these disjointed commentaries on disjointed topics, I will resort to bullet points of a sort:
--Will there be a default?
While I hate being in the middle of anything other than a great trade, a stimulating conversation, a nice long drive, or a good meal, I find myself in the middle of this ideological struggle, as I do increasingly on any number of issues. On one hand, we have the “right’s” current talking point (I can always tell when we are dealing with the “right’s” talking points when I hear nearly identical words, expressing the exact same sentiment, from a number of acquaintances whose only common attribute is their nearly religious tuning in to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but I digress.) that there won’t be a default because the government takes in roughly $3 trillion a year and pays about $400 billion in interest and hence can easily service its debt. Since debt service takes first priority, there is no way, this logic goes, that the government will default.
On the other hand, we are given seemingly credible numbers that show that if nothing is done on a debt deal, we will default come Wednesday, August 3, given the government’s cash balances and a big social security payment that goes out that day. This is a cash management problem that cannot be addressed by the “right’s,” and my, preferred method of cutting some program; cutting or eliminating a program has no immediate cash management ramifications if “immediate” is defined as three days. If these numbers are to be believed, somebody will not get paid on Wednesday. If the government decides to pay its creditors, it will have to stiff somebody else. So, whether the government defaults on its debt or not, it will default on some kind of obligation, and probably a contractual obligation. This is not a good thing and would call the government’s credibility (Hah!) into further question even if the creditors get their dough.
Note the words “If these numbers are to be believed” in the last paragraph; as I have said on numerous occasions, politicians, as a class, reflexively lie because lying comes at least as naturally to them as telling the truth, so perhaps those numbers are part of the effort to get the old credit card limit bumped up without having to do much of anything to restore the confidence of those issuing the card. I NEVER discount the possibility that the pols are prevaricating.
All of this will probably be moot because, if I had to make a prediction, the pols will come up with some half-hindquartered scheme to increase the debt limit sometime in the next few days, but there is always the possibility that these charlatans won’t even be able to put on a temporary patch.
--What will be the consequences of a default?
Here I find myself again uncomfortably in the middle. The “right’s” take seems to be something along the lines of “So what if we default? Who cares if the Chinese don’t get paid?” The “mainstream” view seems to be that default will be some sort of cataclysmic event that will leave us gathered around campfires outside our caves ruminating on the good old days before 8/3/11.
While defaulting won’t be, as Andy Sipowicz once put it in a completely different context, “tea with the friggin’ queen,” it won’t be any kind of cataclysm. Nor would a virtually certain, even without a default, downgrade of the U.S. from AAA to AA, even if anybody other than the financially illiterate paid attention to the rating agencies any more. Yes, there might be problems in the repo market, with bank reserves, and even with banks’ capital bases if a downgrade, the last two if a default forced write-downs. But the market will recognize a default as very temporary and institutions that must eschew defaulted debt will be able to take advantage of existing or quickly improvised grace periods to continue to hold onto their treasuries. Our foreign creditors’ reaction, if anything, will be similar; default, and a downgrade, will confirm what they already know about our government but will do nothing to provide alternatives. So the long run consequences for the desire of creditors to hold our debt will be modified, if at all, only slightly by either a downgrade or a default.
My favorite misguided reaction to a potential default was the contention by many in the financial and non-financial media that a default will result in “two extra percentage points on mortgages and other consumer loans as the interest the government must pay goes up.” This contention was made repeatedly yesterday (I spent much of yesterday listening to CBS news and the radio versions of CNBC, Bloomberg, and CNN while driving from New York to Chicago.), a day on which the ten year treasury’s yield fell to 2.80%, its lowest yield since last November. While some of that drop may have been attributable to the lousy GDP numbers released yesterday morning, the irony remains delicious, as does the concern that people who hawk such nonsense not only get to vote but influence the votes of others who badly need some prep work to vote intelligently, but that is another issue.
--It’s easy to sympathize with the Tea Party…
Jim Cramer spent the better part of a CNBC segment with a tea party Congressman (whose name I couldn’t write down because I was at the threshold of the George Washington bridge during Mr. Cramer’s rant), attempting to figuratively beat the hell out of the guy, arguing that (paraphrasing Mr. Cramer’s words for the same reason that I do not remember the congressman’s name)
average investors, many of whom are your constituents, will lose a lot of money today because of your intransigence.
The tea party guy was not sufficiently quick on his feet to say what instantly came to my mind, something like “The problem is not the solution; the problem is the problem. Debt is the problem and has to be addressed; rarely do we get a chance to focus the country on a problem that will prove to be its ruin if left unchecked. Yes, there might be some short term pain, akin to the pain an addict feels when he is forced to withdraw from heroin. But continuing his habit will surely kill him. We have passed the point at which this addiction to debt can be addressed painlessly, mostly because a series of half-measures have been applied due to our nation’s inability to deal with even the mildest of discomfort.” But I am not a congressman, nor do I write or advise a congressperson, much to the nation’s detriment, but I digress.
I don’t fault the tea partiers at all for seizing the day and being “obstructionist.” You have to play a decent hand when you are dealt a decent hand, and they are largely right, if a bit naïve, about what needs be done.
--…but there is a better way out of the larger problem.
It’s too late now to address the debt ceiling in this manner, but the best plan out there is the plan put forth by the Gang of Six, which is essentially what was formerly called the Rivlin Plan and differs only in detail from the very meritorious Simpson-Bowles plan. Despite what people who normally think like I do would say, we’re going to have to raise some revenue to address this problem because we’ve already spent the money (usually with only token resistance, and no resistance or active encouragement, from those now protesting most stentorially when they were the beneficiaries, direct or indirect, of that spending) and can’t grow our way out of this one. The beauty of the Gang of Six and similar plans is that they raise money not by raising marginal rates but by eliminating deductions, i.e., by cleaning up the tax code and getting the government out of the business of allocating capital. So these plans give us both deficit reduction and a flatter, simpler tax code with lower marginal rates. The latter used to be a dream of the small government crowd, and remains a recurring one for those of us who really believe in what we say we believe in, but ask many newcomers to the small government game if they would favor, say, eliminating or even reducing the mortgage deduction in exchange for a lower tax rate and they will scream either “tax increase!” or “bloody murder!” So it goes.
If by some miracle, Speaker Boehner gets his commission, the likely product will be something like Gang of Six or Bowles-Simpson (So why do we need another tiresome commission? Great question for normal people, silly question for a politicaster, but I digress.), so something good could possibly come out of these machinations. But I doubt it.
--What a great country!
In this case, I am speaking of Turkey. I raved about Turkey in my instantly seminal piece of 7/30/11, ODYSSEUS, AENEAS, AND ME, and this crisis has given me further reason to laud the birthplace of St. Paul. As quoted in today’s (i.e., Saturday, 7/30’s, page A5) Wall Street Journal, a “leading member of (Turkey’s) ruling Justice and Development Party recently warned Turks (in reaction to the debt problems in Washington and in Europe) to
“…hold on to what you’ve got. Don’t spend too much.”
If we had pols (or financial and economic “experts”) like that here, we wouldn’t be having this discussion today.
While I may not have a great deal new or especially insightful to say about the debt ceiling, spending reduction, default avoidance, balanced budget or whatever the pols and the punditocracy prefer to call them talks on a given day or at a given hour, I feel compelled to talk about the burning issue du jour that will be forgotten in about three weeks. Further, I may not say anything that you haven’t heard elsewhere, but I can almost guarantee my readers that I will say it better than most anyone else. As I sometimes do in these disjointed commentaries on disjointed topics, I will resort to bullet points of a sort:
--Will there be a default?
While I hate being in the middle of anything other than a great trade, a stimulating conversation, a nice long drive, or a good meal, I find myself in the middle of this ideological struggle, as I do increasingly on any number of issues. On one hand, we have the “right’s” current talking point (I can always tell when we are dealing with the “right’s” talking points when I hear nearly identical words, expressing the exact same sentiment, from a number of acquaintances whose only common attribute is their nearly religious tuning in to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but I digress.) that there won’t be a default because the government takes in roughly $3 trillion a year and pays about $400 billion in interest and hence can easily service its debt. Since debt service takes first priority, there is no way, this logic goes, that the government will default.
On the other hand, we are given seemingly credible numbers that show that if nothing is done on a debt deal, we will default come Wednesday, August 3, given the government’s cash balances and a big social security payment that goes out that day. This is a cash management problem that cannot be addressed by the “right’s,” and my, preferred method of cutting some program; cutting or eliminating a program has no immediate cash management ramifications if “immediate” is defined as three days. If these numbers are to be believed, somebody will not get paid on Wednesday. If the government decides to pay its creditors, it will have to stiff somebody else. So, whether the government defaults on its debt or not, it will default on some kind of obligation, and probably a contractual obligation. This is not a good thing and would call the government’s credibility (Hah!) into further question even if the creditors get their dough.
Note the words “If these numbers are to be believed” in the last paragraph; as I have said on numerous occasions, politicians, as a class, reflexively lie because lying comes at least as naturally to them as telling the truth, so perhaps those numbers are part of the effort to get the old credit card limit bumped up without having to do much of anything to restore the confidence of those issuing the card. I NEVER discount the possibility that the pols are prevaricating.
All of this will probably be moot because, if I had to make a prediction, the pols will come up with some half-hindquartered scheme to increase the debt limit sometime in the next few days, but there is always the possibility that these charlatans won’t even be able to put on a temporary patch.
--What will be the consequences of a default?
Here I find myself again uncomfortably in the middle. The “right’s” take seems to be something along the lines of “So what if we default? Who cares if the Chinese don’t get paid?” The “mainstream” view seems to be that default will be some sort of cataclysmic event that will leave us gathered around campfires outside our caves ruminating on the good old days before 8/3/11.
While defaulting won’t be, as Andy Sipowicz once put it in a completely different context, “tea with the friggin’ queen,” it won’t be any kind of cataclysm. Nor would a virtually certain, even without a default, downgrade of the U.S. from AAA to AA, even if anybody other than the financially illiterate paid attention to the rating agencies any more. Yes, there might be problems in the repo market, with bank reserves, and even with banks’ capital bases if a downgrade, the last two if a default forced write-downs. But the market will recognize a default as very temporary and institutions that must eschew defaulted debt will be able to take advantage of existing or quickly improvised grace periods to continue to hold onto their treasuries. Our foreign creditors’ reaction, if anything, will be similar; default, and a downgrade, will confirm what they already know about our government but will do nothing to provide alternatives. So the long run consequences for the desire of creditors to hold our debt will be modified, if at all, only slightly by either a downgrade or a default.
My favorite misguided reaction to a potential default was the contention by many in the financial and non-financial media that a default will result in “two extra percentage points on mortgages and other consumer loans as the interest the government must pay goes up.” This contention was made repeatedly yesterday (I spent much of yesterday listening to CBS news and the radio versions of CNBC, Bloomberg, and CNN while driving from New York to Chicago.), a day on which the ten year treasury’s yield fell to 2.80%, its lowest yield since last November. While some of that drop may have been attributable to the lousy GDP numbers released yesterday morning, the irony remains delicious, as does the concern that people who hawk such nonsense not only get to vote but influence the votes of others who badly need some prep work to vote intelligently, but that is another issue.
--It’s easy to sympathize with the Tea Party…
Jim Cramer spent the better part of a CNBC segment with a tea party Congressman (whose name I couldn’t write down because I was at the threshold of the George Washington bridge during Mr. Cramer’s rant), attempting to figuratively beat the hell out of the guy, arguing that (paraphrasing Mr. Cramer’s words for the same reason that I do not remember the congressman’s name)
average investors, many of whom are your constituents, will lose a lot of money today because of your intransigence.
The tea party guy was not sufficiently quick on his feet to say what instantly came to my mind, something like “The problem is not the solution; the problem is the problem. Debt is the problem and has to be addressed; rarely do we get a chance to focus the country on a problem that will prove to be its ruin if left unchecked. Yes, there might be some short term pain, akin to the pain an addict feels when he is forced to withdraw from heroin. But continuing his habit will surely kill him. We have passed the point at which this addiction to debt can be addressed painlessly, mostly because a series of half-measures have been applied due to our nation’s inability to deal with even the mildest of discomfort.” But I am not a congressman, nor do I write or advise a congressperson, much to the nation’s detriment, but I digress.
I don’t fault the tea partiers at all for seizing the day and being “obstructionist.” You have to play a decent hand when you are dealt a decent hand, and they are largely right, if a bit naïve, about what needs be done.
--…but there is a better way out of the larger problem.
It’s too late now to address the debt ceiling in this manner, but the best plan out there is the plan put forth by the Gang of Six, which is essentially what was formerly called the Rivlin Plan and differs only in detail from the very meritorious Simpson-Bowles plan. Despite what people who normally think like I do would say, we’re going to have to raise some revenue to address this problem because we’ve already spent the money (usually with only token resistance, and no resistance or active encouragement, from those now protesting most stentorially when they were the beneficiaries, direct or indirect, of that spending) and can’t grow our way out of this one. The beauty of the Gang of Six and similar plans is that they raise money not by raising marginal rates but by eliminating deductions, i.e., by cleaning up the tax code and getting the government out of the business of allocating capital. So these plans give us both deficit reduction and a flatter, simpler tax code with lower marginal rates. The latter used to be a dream of the small government crowd, and remains a recurring one for those of us who really believe in what we say we believe in, but ask many newcomers to the small government game if they would favor, say, eliminating or even reducing the mortgage deduction in exchange for a lower tax rate and they will scream either “tax increase!” or “bloody murder!” So it goes.
If by some miracle, Speaker Boehner gets his commission, the likely product will be something like Gang of Six or Bowles-Simpson (So why do we need another tiresome commission? Great question for normal people, silly question for a politicaster, but I digress.), so something good could possibly come out of these machinations. But I doubt it.
--What a great country!
In this case, I am speaking of Turkey. I raved about Turkey in my instantly seminal piece of 7/30/11, ODYSSEUS, AENEAS, AND ME, and this crisis has given me further reason to laud the birthplace of St. Paul. As quoted in today’s (i.e., Saturday, 7/30’s, page A5) Wall Street Journal, a “leading member of (Turkey’s) ruling Justice and Development Party recently warned Turks (in reaction to the debt problems in Washington and in Europe) to
“…hold on to what you’ve got. Don’t spend too much.”
If we had pols (or financial and economic “experts”) like that here, we wouldn’t be having this discussion today.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
“YEAH? WELL I MEAN BUSINESS, TOO.”
7/24/11
Today’s (i.e., Sunday, 7/24, page 4A) Chicago Sun-Times reports that shootings by police in Chicago are on the rise this year. Forty suspects have been shot by the Chicago police so far in 2011 and 16 of those were killed, compared with 13 fatalities in cop shootings in all 2010.
Especially interesting, and curious, in this article is the statement
Even though such shootings are on the rise, overall violent crime in Chicago is falling this year, police say.
Why the “even though”? Could it be that Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Pat Camden, quoted in the article, is wrong when he says “There’s no fear of the police”? Perhaps there is indeed fear of the police and that overall violent crime is down in Chicago precisely because the police are shooting and that, as the article reports
…the Independent Police Review Authority rarely deems a police involved shooting to be “out of policy,” and no Chicago police officers have been charged with criminal wrongdoing involving shootings in recent memory.
the department is backing them up. It stands to reason that a potential criminal might think twice if he knows his chances of being fatally shot by law enforcement officers are increasing.
Today’s (i.e., Sunday, 7/24, page 4A) Chicago Sun-Times reports that shootings by police in Chicago are on the rise this year. Forty suspects have been shot by the Chicago police so far in 2011 and 16 of those were killed, compared with 13 fatalities in cop shootings in all 2010.
Especially interesting, and curious, in this article is the statement
Even though such shootings are on the rise, overall violent crime in Chicago is falling this year, police say.
Why the “even though”? Could it be that Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Pat Camden, quoted in the article, is wrong when he says “There’s no fear of the police”? Perhaps there is indeed fear of the police and that overall violent crime is down in Chicago precisely because the police are shooting and that, as the article reports
…the Independent Police Review Authority rarely deems a police involved shooting to be “out of policy,” and no Chicago police officers have been charged with criminal wrongdoing involving shootings in recent memory.
the department is backing them up. It stands to reason that a potential criminal might think twice if he knows his chances of being fatally shot by law enforcement officers are increasing.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
THREE SAD STORIES, SAD BUT TRUE, ABOUT A GIRL THAT SOME ONCE KNEW…
7/23/11
This morning, I was reading the newspaper stories about the debt ceiling negotiations and the bombing and shooting spree in Norway that killed, at last count, 87 people. Hoping to get some updates on these very major stories, I turned on the CBS radio news at noon. What was the lead story, amid the dance of the dunces in Washington and the tragic murders in Norway? Someone named Amy Winehouse was found dead in her home in London. This “story” was also the lead on the 12:30 news.
There is little doubt that, judging from that “news” flash, that Ms. Winehouse’s story was a tragic one of her inability to deal with her addictions to drugs and alcohol. Admittedly, it is hard to sympathize with someone who, again, judging from the news stories, positively and unabashedly celebrated in “song” the addictions that killed her, but, nonetheless, addiction is a devastating and debilitating (the latter often too weak a word) demonic disease that is, in many cases, far stronger than its victims. Ms. Winehouse deserves our pity and our prayers, even if mixed with a healthy measure of our criticism for her unwillingness to take the steps necessary to deal with her maladies and the example she set for others prone to her disease. But many, many others deserve our pity, prayers, and whatever help we can provide, help that Ms. Winehouse reportedly repeatedly refused. Why is Ms. Winehouse’s sad story apparently so newsworthy when the similar tales of millions of others routinely ignored?
It’s hard to determine which is sadder, Ms. Winehouse’s tragic life or our media’s, and apparently our people’s, decision that her story is somehow more newsworthy than the deaths of scores in Norway and our government’s utter inability to address the problems it, and those who elected it, have created. Maybe we should go one step further by introducing a third baleful aspect of this story: according to this news report, Ms. Winehouse’s “work” has won several Grammies (Grammys?). From what I heard in the story, Ms. Winehouse’s music is, to put it nicely, whiny, tuneless, artificial, and dyspeptic. Yes, I know I sound like my dad complaining about “all that crap you kids listen to” when I was squandering entirely too much time listening to the music of my era (or usually prior eras, as my friends in my formative years can attest, but that is another story), but Ms. Winehouse’s work is simply awful. But the American people (and, people across the globe) apparently like to be aurally assaulted, and Ms. Winehouse's drivel is only one example of our utter disdain for silence or pleasant music or sounds and our strange preference for all noise, all the time, but that, too, is grist for another mill. And that, too, is very sad, or, rather, pathetic and emblematic of the rapid acceleration of our downward spiral into a certain dystopic future.
This morning, I was reading the newspaper stories about the debt ceiling negotiations and the bombing and shooting spree in Norway that killed, at last count, 87 people. Hoping to get some updates on these very major stories, I turned on the CBS radio news at noon. What was the lead story, amid the dance of the dunces in Washington and the tragic murders in Norway? Someone named Amy Winehouse was found dead in her home in London. This “story” was also the lead on the 12:30 news.
There is little doubt that, judging from that “news” flash, that Ms. Winehouse’s story was a tragic one of her inability to deal with her addictions to drugs and alcohol. Admittedly, it is hard to sympathize with someone who, again, judging from the news stories, positively and unabashedly celebrated in “song” the addictions that killed her, but, nonetheless, addiction is a devastating and debilitating (the latter often too weak a word) demonic disease that is, in many cases, far stronger than its victims. Ms. Winehouse deserves our pity and our prayers, even if mixed with a healthy measure of our criticism for her unwillingness to take the steps necessary to deal with her maladies and the example she set for others prone to her disease. But many, many others deserve our pity, prayers, and whatever help we can provide, help that Ms. Winehouse reportedly repeatedly refused. Why is Ms. Winehouse’s sad story apparently so newsworthy when the similar tales of millions of others routinely ignored?
It’s hard to determine which is sadder, Ms. Winehouse’s tragic life or our media’s, and apparently our people’s, decision that her story is somehow more newsworthy than the deaths of scores in Norway and our government’s utter inability to address the problems it, and those who elected it, have created. Maybe we should go one step further by introducing a third baleful aspect of this story: according to this news report, Ms. Winehouse’s “work” has won several Grammies (Grammys?). From what I heard in the story, Ms. Winehouse’s music is, to put it nicely, whiny, tuneless, artificial, and dyspeptic. Yes, I know I sound like my dad complaining about “all that crap you kids listen to” when I was squandering entirely too much time listening to the music of my era (or usually prior eras, as my friends in my formative years can attest, but that is another story), but Ms. Winehouse’s work is simply awful. But the American people (and, people across the globe) apparently like to be aurally assaulted, and Ms. Winehouse's drivel is only one example of our utter disdain for silence or pleasant music or sounds and our strange preference for all noise, all the time, but that, too, is grist for another mill. And that, too, is very sad, or, rather, pathetic and emblematic of the rapid acceleration of our downward spiral into a certain dystopic future.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
LIKE THE CUBS’ PROVIDING ADVICE ON HOW TO PLAY BASEBALL
7/21/11
Today’s (i.e., Thursday, July 21’s, page A12) Wall Street Journal reports that the IMF is urging China to adopt
…a stronger currency, higher interest rates, reduced advantages for big state-owned enterprises, and a liberalized financial sector.
These ideas have some merit, but they will be, for the most part, ignored. One can understand China’s reluctance to let the yuan appreciate substantially; the Chinese hold a lot of dollar denominated assets ($1.3 trillion in treasuries alone), so letting the dollar depreciate would result in quite a blow to their reserves. (See two posts on this subject, LOOK WHO’S PULLING THE RICKSHAW NOW, 6/21/10 and YUAN I SHOULD BUY SOME MORE STUFF FROM YOU?, 3/8/11) Chinese officials deny this, arguing that conversion is little more than a remote, theoretical possibility, but to deny such an impact is the equivalent of denying the tides. And one suggests a bit of disingenuousness in their denials. But I digress.
While the Chinese will understandably pay little more than lip service to letting the yuan rise, they will get positively apoplectic at the suggestion from the IMF that they liberalize their financial sector. Yes, liberalizing the financial sector is advisable, and in all likelihood necessary, if China is to become the economic and financial superpower its potential indicates it will. However, an understandable reaction from the Chinese is something like
Where does the West get off lecturing us on how to run a financial sector?…and indeed they have a point. After our, and especially the U.S.’s, financial sector nearly drove the world into the depths of new economic dark age, where indeed do we think we get the authority to lecture the Chinese on running their financial sector?
Today’s (i.e., Thursday, July 21’s, page A12) Wall Street Journal reports that the IMF is urging China to adopt
…a stronger currency, higher interest rates, reduced advantages for big state-owned enterprises, and a liberalized financial sector.
These ideas have some merit, but they will be, for the most part, ignored. One can understand China’s reluctance to let the yuan appreciate substantially; the Chinese hold a lot of dollar denominated assets ($1.3 trillion in treasuries alone), so letting the dollar depreciate would result in quite a blow to their reserves. (See two posts on this subject, LOOK WHO’S PULLING THE RICKSHAW NOW, 6/21/10 and YUAN I SHOULD BUY SOME MORE STUFF FROM YOU?, 3/8/11) Chinese officials deny this, arguing that conversion is little more than a remote, theoretical possibility, but to deny such an impact is the equivalent of denying the tides. And one suggests a bit of disingenuousness in their denials. But I digress.
While the Chinese will understandably pay little more than lip service to letting the yuan rise, they will get positively apoplectic at the suggestion from the IMF that they liberalize their financial sector. Yes, liberalizing the financial sector is advisable, and in all likelihood necessary, if China is to become the economic and financial superpower its potential indicates it will. However, an understandable reaction from the Chinese is something like
Where does the West get off lecturing us on how to run a financial sector?…and indeed they have a point. After our, and especially the U.S.’s, financial sector nearly drove the world into the depths of new economic dark age, where indeed do we think we get the authority to lecture the Chinese on running their financial sector?
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
MICHELE AND SARAH, MAKE ROOM FOR THE FAT LADY
7/19/11
The race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination may well be over even before it has started in earnest. There are a number of reasons to suppose that Mitt Romney will win this nomination in a walk. First, Mr. Romney is way ahead in the polls; it was big news yesterday when a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that Michele Bachman, Mr. Romney’s closest challenger, has barely more than half the support (16%) Mr. Romney has (30%). Second, and more important, Romney is way, way ahead in the money race, and money tends to, but does not always, win nominations and elections. Third, the one declared candidate with a realistic chance of getting the support from conservatives and the money to challenge Mr. Romney, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, has crashed and burned. Fourth, and most important, the Republicans have, at least as far back as Nixon in 1968, picked their candidates by primogeniture, i.e., by who is next in line. Mr. Romney, having barely lost the nomination in 2008, is next in line.
Naysayers list two major reasons that Mr. Romney will not get the GOP nod. First, they cite the Massachusetts health care law, implemented under Mr. Romney, which is derided as “Obama-light,” “Obamaromneycare,” or some other such failed attempt at levity. But it is the true believers whose main problem with Mr. Obama is his largely ill-conceived health care legislation. The typical voter, while not enthralled by Obamacare, is more concerned about the direction of the economy and the federal governments’ finances under President Obama than they are about the President’s approach to health care. If they are disgusted by Obamanomics, concern about a legitimate and promising rival’s approach to health care is not going to dissuade them from supporting that challenger. Note also that more “typical voters,” as opposed to true believers, are going to decide the GOP nomination because there will be no reason, at the presidential level, for independents, and for most Democrats, to take a Democratic ballot in the 2012 primaries. Hence, the voters in the Republican primaries will be more similar to the general election electorate than they have been since at least 1996. While substantial numbers of Democrats may vote in their Republican primaries for the person they feel will be the weakest challenger to their certain standard-bearer, one has to think that independents, and even most Democrats, will support the candidate they find most palatable as an alternative to Mr. Obama.
That last point largely answers the other major counter-argument to Mr. Romney’s almost certain nomination, to wit, that his moderate, and somewhat sickeningly flexible, views do not appeal to those who vote in GOP primaries. This should not be as big a problem as most (including, until a few weeks ago, yours truly) think. First, again, there will be plenty of cross-over voting in the GOP contests, and hence the primary electorate will be far more moderate than is typically the case in these primaries. Second, look at the GOP nominees since President Reagan’s retirement:
(I)=incumbent
1988 George H.W. Bush
1992 George H.W. Bush (I)
1996 Bob Dole
2000 George W. Bush
2004 George W. Bush (I)
2008 John McCain
Yes, I know; depressing, isn’t it? But that’s not my point. My point is that, for all the bluff and bluster, largely from the left and the mainstream media, about how the rabid right-wingers choose the Republican nominee, none of the above could be considered a raving conservative, either social or economic, with the (only) possible exception at the time of George W. Bush. All had challengers from the right, but all had plenty of money and party support and, most importantly, all, again with the (only) possible exception of George W. Bush, were next in line. Mr. Romney should repeat this pattern.
It’s early, of course, and anything could happen. Mr. Romney, like any politician, has the potential to shoot himself in the foot, even, perhaps especially, if he plays it safe. If Rick Perry, or, far less likely, Chris Christie, gets in the race, things change, probably markedly. Further, with the elimination in many states of winner take all delegate selection, things have the potential to get even more interesting. But, at least at this stage, it’s hard to see how Mr. Romney does not get the GOP nomination, and he may wrap it up earlier than most people think.
The race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination may well be over even before it has started in earnest. There are a number of reasons to suppose that Mitt Romney will win this nomination in a walk. First, Mr. Romney is way ahead in the polls; it was big news yesterday when a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that Michele Bachman, Mr. Romney’s closest challenger, has barely more than half the support (16%) Mr. Romney has (30%). Second, and more important, Romney is way, way ahead in the money race, and money tends to, but does not always, win nominations and elections. Third, the one declared candidate with a realistic chance of getting the support from conservatives and the money to challenge Mr. Romney, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, has crashed and burned. Fourth, and most important, the Republicans have, at least as far back as Nixon in 1968, picked their candidates by primogeniture, i.e., by who is next in line. Mr. Romney, having barely lost the nomination in 2008, is next in line.
Naysayers list two major reasons that Mr. Romney will not get the GOP nod. First, they cite the Massachusetts health care law, implemented under Mr. Romney, which is derided as “Obama-light,” “Obamaromneycare,” or some other such failed attempt at levity. But it is the true believers whose main problem with Mr. Obama is his largely ill-conceived health care legislation. The typical voter, while not enthralled by Obamacare, is more concerned about the direction of the economy and the federal governments’ finances under President Obama than they are about the President’s approach to health care. If they are disgusted by Obamanomics, concern about a legitimate and promising rival’s approach to health care is not going to dissuade them from supporting that challenger. Note also that more “typical voters,” as opposed to true believers, are going to decide the GOP nomination because there will be no reason, at the presidential level, for independents, and for most Democrats, to take a Democratic ballot in the 2012 primaries. Hence, the voters in the Republican primaries will be more similar to the general election electorate than they have been since at least 1996. While substantial numbers of Democrats may vote in their Republican primaries for the person they feel will be the weakest challenger to their certain standard-bearer, one has to think that independents, and even most Democrats, will support the candidate they find most palatable as an alternative to Mr. Obama.
That last point largely answers the other major counter-argument to Mr. Romney’s almost certain nomination, to wit, that his moderate, and somewhat sickeningly flexible, views do not appeal to those who vote in GOP primaries. This should not be as big a problem as most (including, until a few weeks ago, yours truly) think. First, again, there will be plenty of cross-over voting in the GOP contests, and hence the primary electorate will be far more moderate than is typically the case in these primaries. Second, look at the GOP nominees since President Reagan’s retirement:
(I)=incumbent
1988 George H.W. Bush
1992 George H.W. Bush (I)
1996 Bob Dole
2000 George W. Bush
2004 George W. Bush (I)
2008 John McCain
Yes, I know; depressing, isn’t it? But that’s not my point. My point is that, for all the bluff and bluster, largely from the left and the mainstream media, about how the rabid right-wingers choose the Republican nominee, none of the above could be considered a raving conservative, either social or economic, with the (only) possible exception at the time of George W. Bush. All had challengers from the right, but all had plenty of money and party support and, most importantly, all, again with the (only) possible exception of George W. Bush, were next in line. Mr. Romney should repeat this pattern.
It’s early, of course, and anything could happen. Mr. Romney, like any politician, has the potential to shoot himself in the foot, even, perhaps especially, if he plays it safe. If Rick Perry, or, far less likely, Chris Christie, gets in the race, things change, probably markedly. Further, with the elimination in many states of winner take all delegate selection, things have the potential to get even more interesting. But, at least at this stage, it’s hard to see how Mr. Romney does not get the GOP nomination, and he may wrap it up earlier than most people think.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
THE FISCAL EQUIVALENT OF A CHILD SEAT
7/19/11
Today’s (i.e., Tuesday, 7/19’s) lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal argues against a balanced budget amendment, even such an amendment with, as proposed by certain segments of the GOP, a 2/3 majority requirement for tax increases. Some of the editorial’s arguments are decent, such as the contention that such an amendment will be used as justification for ever increasing taxes and that the Constitution is best left as uncluttered as possible. Others are predictable and somewhat hypocritical, such as that such an amendment will hurt the Journal’s cherished under all circumstances “defense” budget. On balance, though, the argument against a balanced budget amendment is wearing thin.
I used to share the Journal’s fear that a balanced budget amendment would be used as a fig leaf for big spending by disingenuous and dissolute politicians, a la “Gee, I didn’t want to raise taxes, but the Constitution says I must.” While that’s still a well justified fear, there is an argument for such an amendment that supersedes that fear, to wit, that the only effective barrier to the growth of government is a balanced budget requirement embedded in the Constitution. As things now stand (i.e., without a balanced budget requirement), government is essentially free. New programs can be voted for in order to mollify certain constituencies while not having to stick other constituencies with the bill; we simply borrow the money to distribute to the groups to which the sponsoring and otherwise supportive politicians wish to pander. The beneficiaries feel passionately about “their” program while others are at best indifferent toward the program. The old principle of concentrated benefits’ prevailing over dispersed costs kicks in. However, without a requirement that anybody actually pay for a program, the costs are not even dispersed; they are non-existent, other than interest on the debt incurred to hand money to those favored by assertive and aggressive pols. At current rates, such interest is negligible. So resistance to expansion of government is tepid at best.
So we have a situation in which public goods are essentially free. Microeconomics tells us that demand is unlimited for free goods. No wonder government has grown at the rate that has landed us in the financial, and some might say spiritual, mire! If, however, someone had to pay for new government programs, and those programs could be assigned a cost in tax dollars, terms most taxpayers can understand, we would finally have some real opposition to the growth of government. Spending would be subjected to cost/benefit analyses in which the cost is real, rather than zero.
While crafting a balanced budget in the heat of debt ceiling negotiations may not be advisable, such an amendment, carefully considered, seems necessary if we are to return to anything resembling fiscal sanity in this country. This is especially true when, as now, one gets the distinct impression that grown-ups are no longer in charge in Washington.
Today’s (i.e., Tuesday, 7/19’s) lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal argues against a balanced budget amendment, even such an amendment with, as proposed by certain segments of the GOP, a 2/3 majority requirement for tax increases. Some of the editorial’s arguments are decent, such as the contention that such an amendment will be used as justification for ever increasing taxes and that the Constitution is best left as uncluttered as possible. Others are predictable and somewhat hypocritical, such as that such an amendment will hurt the Journal’s cherished under all circumstances “defense” budget. On balance, though, the argument against a balanced budget amendment is wearing thin.
I used to share the Journal’s fear that a balanced budget amendment would be used as a fig leaf for big spending by disingenuous and dissolute politicians, a la “Gee, I didn’t want to raise taxes, but the Constitution says I must.” While that’s still a well justified fear, there is an argument for such an amendment that supersedes that fear, to wit, that the only effective barrier to the growth of government is a balanced budget requirement embedded in the Constitution. As things now stand (i.e., without a balanced budget requirement), government is essentially free. New programs can be voted for in order to mollify certain constituencies while not having to stick other constituencies with the bill; we simply borrow the money to distribute to the groups to which the sponsoring and otherwise supportive politicians wish to pander. The beneficiaries feel passionately about “their” program while others are at best indifferent toward the program. The old principle of concentrated benefits’ prevailing over dispersed costs kicks in. However, without a requirement that anybody actually pay for a program, the costs are not even dispersed; they are non-existent, other than interest on the debt incurred to hand money to those favored by assertive and aggressive pols. At current rates, such interest is negligible. So resistance to expansion of government is tepid at best.
So we have a situation in which public goods are essentially free. Microeconomics tells us that demand is unlimited for free goods. No wonder government has grown at the rate that has landed us in the financial, and some might say spiritual, mire! If, however, someone had to pay for new government programs, and those programs could be assigned a cost in tax dollars, terms most taxpayers can understand, we would finally have some real opposition to the growth of government. Spending would be subjected to cost/benefit analyses in which the cost is real, rather than zero.
While crafting a balanced budget in the heat of debt ceiling negotiations may not be advisable, such an amendment, carefully considered, seems necessary if we are to return to anything resembling fiscal sanity in this country. This is especially true when, as now, one gets the distinct impression that grown-ups are no longer in charge in Washington.
Monday, July 11, 2011
ODYSSEUS, AENEAS, AND ME
7/11/11
Ah, the joys of travel! As many of you know, in general, I HATE to travel. However, I am deeply in love with a woman (my wife—don’t get the wrong idea) who LOVES to travel, our kids like to travel (though, increasingly so, preferably without us), and so I travel. I try to keep a brave face during these excursions; sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. Usually, I come back from these expeditions happy that I took them because of the time they afford us to spend time together as a family. Why on earth we couldn’t spend similar family time at, say, Centennial Beach in Naperville, at a good restaurant in some ethnic neighborhood in Chicago, or in New Buffalo, Michigan is beyond me, but, nevertheless, I am happy for the time we were able to spend together.
So we have just returned from a cruise to the eastern Mediterranean, or, more properly, the Adriatic, the Aegean, and Ionian Seas. My concession for traveling outside this country is that we do so on a cruise ship; believe it or not, cruising is the budget way to see Europe. One could never, ever, eat like one eats on a cruise ship or sleep in a room like one gets in a cruise ship for anything like what one spends on a cruise ship. That point was driven home, painfully, on this particular odyssey, but more on that later.
One might dismiss much of the following as the rantings of a philistine who doesn’t appreciate or understand the finer things of life. I plead partially guilty. I have little appreciation for art and I do not drink and hence have no appreciation for or understanding of fine wine. I don’t understand fashion; indeed, I think fashion is more than a bit silly and slavish devotion to it is a mark of fatuousness rather than refinement. I don’t judge the quality of food by the slope of the downward sloping curve depicting the relationship between its price to the portions in which it is served. So, while I might depict my lack of what the world considers refinement as having an open set of eyes, an overabundance of common sense, the ability to detect a scam for what it is, and a well grounded set of priorities, others will insist on calling one with such characteristics a philistine.
Expanding on the point in the prior paragraph, I’ve never understood the argument that traveling is “broadening.” Whenever I’ve gone on a tour, I have invariably known more about the subject matter than any of my colleagues on the tour and, in many cases, more than the tour guide, and I have acquired this knowledge by, mirabile dictu, reading. Most travelers know far more about the location of overpriced, tourist trap shops than they know about the history of the area they are visiting. How have they been “broadened” by their traveling experience? Peeing away money is peeing away money no matter where it is done. Likewise, people argue that traveling affords one the opportunity to sample exotic foods, or even familiar foods served in their native environment. But if I want really good Italian food, I can go to Bacchanalia on 24th and Oakley or to Clara’s in nearby Woodridge, which is run by a very good friend of mine. Both serve among the best Italian food in the world at very reasonable prices and one leaves both establishments full and with leftovers. If I want Indian food, I live in Naperville where Indian food is never more than a half mile away. In fact, the best Indian restaurant in Naperville, Cuisine of India, is easy walking distance from my home. The same can be said for Chinese, Korean, or Japanese food. You get the point. If the cuisine exists, one can get it in Chicago and, in most cases, in Naperville.
Similarly, we are told that travel affords us the opportunity to meet people from all over the world. Living in Naperville, we have friends from India, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Ireland, Sweden, and Italy, off the top of my head. I went to St. Ignatius where two of my best friends in freshman year did not learn English until they went to grade school and where one could not pronounce the name of anyone on the soccer team unless one could deal with an utter lack of vowels. Since the age of fourteen, I have never had the need to travel anywhere beyond school to meet people from ethnic backgrounds radically different from mine.
One more caveat: Any observations I make here are based on my observations of the places I went. When one visits places via cruise ship, one only spends anywhere from 5 to 10 hours at any destination and hence is limited, though probably not much, if at all, more than the typical tourist. Again, I am willing to make that trade-off for the ease, convenience, and economy of cruising. My observations of Venice, however, are based on having spent a few nights there, so they may be more valid, but more on that later.
Some salient points, grouped into negative, positive, somewhere in the middle, and conclusions. You can guess where most fall:
NEGATIVE
--As I mentioned in one of my previous travelogs, walking briskly is energizing while walking slowly (i.e., at a normal or slower pace; a walk with me is, as a former boss and current friend said of it many years ago, an aerobic experience) is enervating. Since no one walks as swiftly as I do, it is difficult for me to travel with anyone, let alone a tour group.
--We have to do something in this town about the international terminal at O’Hare. Once one gets past the very imposing security process there, there is no food available, which would be fine if anyone told one that before one goes through security. Further, the bathrooms are abominable in that section of O’Hare. This is especially appalling when one is coming in from Europe where, almost without exceptions, the bathrooms are very clean. The first stop of most foreign visitors is the airport bathroom and first impressions are hard to overcome. Why don’t the people at O’Hare understand that?
--Venice. What can I say about Venice? I have to be very careful here because several close friends love Venice. On the other hand, they are close friends and know that I am a man, to quote Senator Pat Geary, “…who speaks frankly, perhaps more frankly than you are used to being talked to.” Also, being close friends, they understand, as I do, that friendship does not require agreement on all, most, or many things, which is a good thing because I would have few friends if such were not the case. But I digress.
As I said to my wife when my frustration with Venice had reached the boiling point, and thus had tossed my normally decent grammar over the side,“This place is a lot of money for walking around in filth and evading pickpockets.” I can best describe Venice as an open sewer through which flows a series of open sewers. One of its few positives is that it didn’t smell quite as bad as I thought it might. The prices are outrageous; we got a plate of pasta, a quantity sufficient to fill one’s tooth, for 10 euros ($14.00 as I write this) and, by Venice standards, were getting a bargain. We stayed in a hotel that, while clean and with very nice bathrooms, had views of, literally, a brick wall and cost over $200 per night. The same room would cost maybe $50 in this country anywhere outside Manhattan. (My wife did buy me a very nice tie for 8 euros, or about $11.20, far less than it would have cost here; fair is fair, so I’m compelled to mention that.)
As we wandered Venice, I started conjuring conspiracy theories, which I dearly love, with the oft-mentioned caveat on these pages that what I will think about and what I will believe are two different things. An idea that appeals to me was rather quickly formulated: Venice, and most of Europe, is a vast conspiracy of Europeans to sucker the naïve American, Canadians, and Australians out of our money. They have convinced the “better” types that what they are providing is high culture and history when all they are actually providing are substandard living conditions, crowds, high prices, and, in some cases, an unctuous and condescending, or often just rude, attitude. We line up like idiots to turn over large portions of money for small portions of food and living conditions that resemble those in this country about 100 years ago. And I was one of them, right there, falling for the scam. I felt like an idiot. My son, always the good and polite kid, said, while eating the 1.50 euro ($2.10) ice cream cone that was about the size of his thumb nail and trying to console his exasperated father, said “Maybe here, dad, it’s quality over quantity,” to which I replied “They saw you coming, buddy; that’s what they want you to think. Where is the ice cream better? Here or at Colonial (a delightful ice cream/family dining place in Naperville, similar to, but far better than, Friendly’s for my east coast readers)?” He thought about it and, perhaps trying to be nice to his mother (whence he gets his sweet temperament), replied “Here?” Then he and I both laughed.
I can hear some readers now: “What a lout! Doesn’t he understand art, culture, and history, which are abundant in Venice?” To which I reply no, yes, and yes, respectively. But even if I were an art aficionado, why would I want to go all that way and put up with all the exploitation to see the art first hand rather than look at it in a book? Really, I mean it. Think about it. One cannot sit and gaze at a piece of art in a crowded gallery. One cannot study the fine and subtle brush strokes to discern the ideas and emotions the artist was trying to convey. One is hemmed in on all sides by people whose appreciation for art is vastly exceeded by their lack of appreciation for proper personal hygiene. One is rushed along and bombarded by admonitions to not use flash photography, made necessary by the true philistines who insist on endangering priceless works of art so that they can have a picture to prove to those back home that they had actually been foolish enough to spend the money necessary to go to Venice to look at art they don’t understand while on their way to the gift shop.
Okay, a minor positive in Venice, besides the inexpensive tie. We did find San Zacaria (St. Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, whom I didn’t know was a saint (the father, not the son), but I digress.) which is quiet, empty, and serene, amazing traits given that San Zacaria is only a few blocks from St. Mark’s Square, which is the opposite of all three. There is no charge, mirabile dictu, to enter the church, which is filled with priceless and beautiful, at least to the eyes of this galloot, artwork. Even more amazing, they actually celebrate the Mass there! Imagine that! I was able to attend Mass on Saturday night. While it was in Italian, any Catholic’s knowledge of the Mass, my high school Latin, and a very good missalette allowed me to follow quite nicely. The “crowd” was small but friendly and the priest, who looked like he was straight out of central casting (“Get me an old Italian priest for the Vatican scene, pronto!”), was a terrific guy who obviously loved his flock, reflected his faith, served his God and his Church, and was delighted by the presence of a visitor whose language he did not understand.
--Athens. Thank God we didn’t have to stay in a hotel in this pit of a city. Before we left, we had heard that Athens was a dirty, smelly, sometimes dangerous, crowded city once one got away from the antiquities. When I related this to a good friend who had been there, he corrected me; he pointed out that Athens is a dirty, smelly, sometimes dangerous, crowded city even at the antiquities. He was right. Graffiti everywhere. Ramshackle buildings. People just milling about doing who knows what. The Acropolis was a challenge, to put it nicely, from a crowd standpoint. Awesome, in the old sense of that ubiquitous word, to be sure, but still not worth the crowds and the near fighting one must do to get near what one wants to see. Awful in general is how I would describe Athens.
Yes, we, too, were surprised that we even went to Athens given the goings-on there of late. We thought the cruise company would divert us to a Greek island or perhaps to Istanbul. But we went, and the recent demonstrations are one of the few things that made Athens interesting. We saw the places where the riots took place, and their aftermath. The signs (e.g., facing parliament, in Greek (obviously), “Judas got thirty pieces of silver; how many did you get?”) were still up, presumably remaining in place until the weather gets more hospitable for further rioting in protest of, inter alia, increasing the retirement age to 58.
SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE
--Norwegian Cruise Lines (“NCL”). We took NCL because it was less expensive than our usual Royal Caribbean (“RCL”) (We could get two balcony cabins for less than one outside (no balcony) cabin and one inside cabin.), we liked the itinerary more than RCL’s, and we wanted to try NCL’s free style cruising. My sister, who owned a travel agency for many years, counseled caution, telling us that NCL might appeal to those who had never cruised before but probably wouldn’t appeal to experienced cruisers. She was just about right.
There wasn’t anything especially negative about NCL, or at least anything I can put my finger on, that would make me want to strongly advise against it, but nothing at all that would make me recommend it, either. It has a distinctively down-market feel to it, but that normally doesn’t bother me. The food was not bad but, in all but a few cases (They had a terrific salmon entrée and a snapper and lobster dish (first night only) that was terrific.), not all that great either, and this from a guy who still eats at places like IHOP, Old Country Buffet, and Cici’s Pizza. The crowd was probably not all that different from the crowd on any line in that market segment (Norwegian Cruise Lines, Royal Caribbean, Carnival), but, probably due to cultural differences (Americans were a distinct minority on this ship, which was populated mostly by Italians, Spaniards, and Germans, with a few Brits, Aussies, and Canadians thrown in to complete the rather interesting patchwork.), most people had trouble with such concepts as waiting their turn, especially at the buffet line, and not stopping to exchange one’s life story with one’s companions at choke points in the flow of traffic in the crowded areas of the boat. The pool was jam-packed and getting a chair, let alone a lounge chair, was nearly impossible on days at sea. The boat, one of NCL’s newest (Norwegian Jade) lacked some amenities our kids enjoyed on RCL ships we have sailed, such as climbing walls, ice skating rinks, and miniature golf courses. (Yes, I know; life is tough when your kids can’t play miniature golf on a cruise ship in the Aegean Sea. I don’t even want to think about what my dad would have said in such a situation!)
The big push at NCL, besides price, is “free style cruising,” which means that one does not have a set time and table for dinner and formal nights, called “Dress Up or Not” nights, are voluntary. This might appeal to many, but not to us. We, even our kids, like getting dressed up for dinner on at least a few nights on a cruise. Some might argue that nothing was stopping us from coming to dinner in suits and dresses, and we did indeed do that. But the atmosphere is not quite the same when most of one’s fellow diners equate the “Dress Up or Not” night with “Clean T-Shirt (maybe) Night.”
On the positive side, the crew couldn’t have been more attentive and helpful. We made friends with several crew members (the woman who (surprise!) ran the trivia contests, the family games, and the karaoke festivities, a young man who was a lighting guy and sound technician for the shows, several of the dancers, one of the lifeguards, etc.). We participated in the ship’s version of “Family Feud” and lost by one question. Our daughter Megan placed fourth (with her Hungarian dancing partner, part of the crew’s dancing cast, for lack of a better term) in the ship’s version of “Dancing with the Stars” and we always managed to find something to occupy us on the boat.
So would we go back on NCL? Probably not, but we so liked some of the people who worked on the ship that it’s hard to definitely rule out another cruise. If we ever find the money and my wife insists to the point at which we travel again, we’ll probably go to RCL or perhaps try Princess, which my aforementioned sister always has liked and about which I hear good things. But, for the right price, on a ship with more amenities and a good itinerary, we MIGHT go back on NCL. Would I recommend it? Probably not, but maybe to first time cruisers or people who want to be very casual all the time and want to save a few bucks.
--The Dalmatian Coast and the beach outside of Trogir, Croatia. Trogir is an old town that we thought might be more like Cefalu in Sicily, which still might be our favorite town in Europe. While Trogir was not nearly as nice as Cefalu, it had its attractions. And the beach was fantastic, once one got into the water. Like all beaches in Croatia, it is a rocky beach and getting past the rocks on bare feet and into the water was downright painful. But once in the water, it was beautiful, with the mountains in back behind the hills. Simply beautiful. And, of course, the prices. The kids got huge gelato cones for $1.00, and they took American money! Wow!
--Our otherwise delightful tours (See below.), like every tour in Turkey, ended with a visit to a carpet making coop. We were told this was a demonstration of local crafts and not a sales pitch. Uh-huh. It was a brief demonstration, interesting for those who are into crafts, followed by a strictly hard sell session. While one was practically locked in a room, given tea, coffee, or Coke (the Turkish national beverage, according to the tour guide), carpets were rolled out, prices were proposed and reduced, sales pitches, subtle or otherwise, were pushed. It resembled a Turkish bazaar and bargaining would have been fun had I or my wife had any interest in purchasing one of the carpet. As a young Don Corleone told his new friend Clemenza, “Sure, I’d like it, but who has money for a rug?” Anyone who thought we would spend the money they were asking, or anything close to it, on any of these admittedly beautiful rugs has no familiarity with the Quinns. It’s a rug, for pity’s sake.
POSITIVES
--Turkey, or, as they call it, Turkiye. I was predisposed toward liking Turkey for two reasons. First, just about every experienced traveler about whom I asked Turkey has raved about it. Some have raved about it simply when asked to name their favorite country or countries. Second, I have been impressed with Turkey’s longstanding friendship with the United States and its largely unrequited attempts at partnership with Europe. I’m even impressed with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Yes, I know the AK Party is Islamist, at least in name, and the term scares people, in most cases unjustifiably. But AK, and certainly Mr. Erdogan, is Islamist in the Turkish sense, which is quite a bit different from, say, the Iranian or Saudi sense. Mr. Erdogan and Turkey maintain good, though not as good a few years ago, with Israel. He maintains the aforementioned strong and faithful alliance with the U.S. He is a consensus builder, albeit perhaps by necessity; even after June’s landslide victory, Mr. Erdogan’s AK Party does not quite have a majority in Parliament. He is also a believer in free markets who has delivered economic growth and prosperity in Turkey that most of the world would envy.
So I thought I would like Turkey, while my wife looked at it with foreboding, having an image of it that is probably not unlike that of most Americans, that of a crowded, dirty, backward Third World backwater, best visited, if at all, quickly and left even more quickly. She was shocked. I was surprised. Turkey, from what we saw, was far better than even I thought it would be. Three words come to mind: Historical, friendly, and clean.
History is everywhere in Turkey. To hear the Turks tell it, all history took place in what was to be called the Roman province of Asia, then Asia Minor, and ultimately later Turkey, or at least the Asian portion of Turkey, which is most of the country. The Turks are not all that wrong in this contention. The Seven Churches of Revelations, Troy, Ephesus (of Paul’s letter and the Acts of the Apostles), the birthplace of Abraham, the land of the ancient Hittites, Mt. Ararat of Noah’s Ark fame, the scene of the Blessed Virgin’s final days and Assumption (if one is Catholic or Orthodox) or death (if one is Muslim or Protestant, for the most part), the capital of the Byzantine Empire and the seat of the Orthodox Church…all in Turkey. But I knew all of that, as did doubtless most of you. What I didn’t know is that, unlike in Rome or Athens, the antiquities are very manageable and not at all crowded. I stood right over the original burial place of St. John, alone, for as long as I wished, to contemplate and to reverence my favorite evangelist, who stood at the foot of the cross. There was, literally, no one but our tour group of seven and a few locals at what remains of the Temple of Artemis (admittedly, not much, but, in my mind’s eye, I could see the silversmith Demetrius yelling “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”), one of the seven wonders of the ancient world and, in its time, far larger than the Parthenon, on the outskirts of old Ephesus. The ruins of the theater and marketplace of old Ephesus are somewhat more crowded, but always manageable and NOTHING like the Coliseum or the Acropolis. Mary’s House, more crowded than any of the other sites we visited, was still sparsely visited relative to any of the antiquities in Rome or Athens. I found Mary’s House to be a deeply spiritual place, as one might guess. My being able to attend Mass and read the first two readings at this site doubtless helped foster this feeling of deep spiritual contentment and awe. But I’d go even further: I’ve been to the Vatican and got nothing from the Vatican that approached the sense of God’s, and Mary’s, presence that I felt at that simple little structure outside of Ephesus. This might also be a reflection of my approach to the Faith, but that is another issue.
What I had heard, but didn’t know, is that the Turks, again from what we saw, are the friendliest people we have encountered on any of these foreign odysseys my wife drags me along on. And the place is CLEAN. Every restaurant, bathroom, tourist site, etc., was nearly, or actually, immaculate. The food was great. The prices were reasonable, if not outright cheap. The scenery was breathtaking, very much akin to the coastal regions of California, without the crowds. Simply a wonderful place that, if one must travel, I would recommend highly.
--The many nice people we met, including…
• The aforementioned workers on the boat.
• A wonderful older couple from Scotland whose brogues were so thick we initially couldn’t understand them any more effectively than we could understand, say, a German speaker. But the temporary language barrier was quickly superseded by the warmth that these people naturally exuded.
• A couple from California with a seven or eight year old girl who really liked our kids who, like their mother, are naturally attractive, and attracted, to children
• A retired NHL journeyman goalie (Jack Norris, who played for, inter alia, the Blackhawks and the Bruins in the ‘60s and early ‘70s) and his wife from Saskatchewan. Funny, kind people with great stories to tell, some of which were about hockey.
• Our tour guides in Turkey.
• A very engaging man who ran one of the restaurants at which we dined in Venice.
• Anybody we met from Australia. People from Australia will walk up to you on the street, anywhere, and engage in conversation as if you were a long lost friend. And, no, we won’t be going to Australia despite our affinity for Australians; it’s too damn far!
CONCLUSIONS
--Even if we had enjoyed everything, if Athens and Venice had been clean, wonderful, places, O’Hare was welcoming and easy, and everyone walked at my pace, would it be worth it? No. Yes, I was able to attend Mass at San Zacaria and the Mary’s House, to swim in the Adriatic, and to climb the bell tower at the medieval St. Laurence Cathedral in Trogir, Croatia. We were able to gaze at the ruins of Ephesus, climb the Acropolis, stroll through Dubrovnik, overlook the Adriatic and Aegean from a number of vantage points, and share all this with out kids. But it wasn’t worth all the expense and the hassle of travel. Too much time was spent at airports, on airplanes, on tenders getting from ship to shore, and in lines in general. Too much hassle and planning was involved. Our lives might be a bit richer, but not sufficiently richer to justify all of traveling’s downsides.
--If you ever get the sense that we in the United States don’t live in paradise, travel overseas. While I am ever mindful of our nation’s problems and troubled by its direction (If you’ve read one jot or tittle of the Pontificator you are familiar with my feelings in this regard.), we live in paradise. Trust me on this. Even in those places that we, and doubtless you, like, we measure our affection for the place by its similarity to America and the ability it affords its residents to live what we might call an American way of life. I’d never leave the place if being married to the world’s most wonderful woman didn’t make doing so necessary.
--I’d like to say that I can now put my passport away permanently, that I will never, ever travel overseas again. But I know that is only an idle dream. The world’s most wonderful woman will want to cross the ocean again and I will join her and, hopefully, our kids, if the inevitable processes by which their desire to travel with their parents dissipates has not entirely run its course. And, as hard as it is to admit this, I will actually enjoy at least some aspects of the trip(s) and be happy that I took it (them).
Ah, the joys of travel! As many of you know, in general, I HATE to travel. However, I am deeply in love with a woman (my wife—don’t get the wrong idea) who LOVES to travel, our kids like to travel (though, increasingly so, preferably without us), and so I travel. I try to keep a brave face during these excursions; sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. Usually, I come back from these expeditions happy that I took them because of the time they afford us to spend time together as a family. Why on earth we couldn’t spend similar family time at, say, Centennial Beach in Naperville, at a good restaurant in some ethnic neighborhood in Chicago, or in New Buffalo, Michigan is beyond me, but, nevertheless, I am happy for the time we were able to spend together.
So we have just returned from a cruise to the eastern Mediterranean, or, more properly, the Adriatic, the Aegean, and Ionian Seas. My concession for traveling outside this country is that we do so on a cruise ship; believe it or not, cruising is the budget way to see Europe. One could never, ever, eat like one eats on a cruise ship or sleep in a room like one gets in a cruise ship for anything like what one spends on a cruise ship. That point was driven home, painfully, on this particular odyssey, but more on that later.
One might dismiss much of the following as the rantings of a philistine who doesn’t appreciate or understand the finer things of life. I plead partially guilty. I have little appreciation for art and I do not drink and hence have no appreciation for or understanding of fine wine. I don’t understand fashion; indeed, I think fashion is more than a bit silly and slavish devotion to it is a mark of fatuousness rather than refinement. I don’t judge the quality of food by the slope of the downward sloping curve depicting the relationship between its price to the portions in which it is served. So, while I might depict my lack of what the world considers refinement as having an open set of eyes, an overabundance of common sense, the ability to detect a scam for what it is, and a well grounded set of priorities, others will insist on calling one with such characteristics a philistine.
Expanding on the point in the prior paragraph, I’ve never understood the argument that traveling is “broadening.” Whenever I’ve gone on a tour, I have invariably known more about the subject matter than any of my colleagues on the tour and, in many cases, more than the tour guide, and I have acquired this knowledge by, mirabile dictu, reading. Most travelers know far more about the location of overpriced, tourist trap shops than they know about the history of the area they are visiting. How have they been “broadened” by their traveling experience? Peeing away money is peeing away money no matter where it is done. Likewise, people argue that traveling affords one the opportunity to sample exotic foods, or even familiar foods served in their native environment. But if I want really good Italian food, I can go to Bacchanalia on 24th and Oakley or to Clara’s in nearby Woodridge, which is run by a very good friend of mine. Both serve among the best Italian food in the world at very reasonable prices and one leaves both establishments full and with leftovers. If I want Indian food, I live in Naperville where Indian food is never more than a half mile away. In fact, the best Indian restaurant in Naperville, Cuisine of India, is easy walking distance from my home. The same can be said for Chinese, Korean, or Japanese food. You get the point. If the cuisine exists, one can get it in Chicago and, in most cases, in Naperville.
Similarly, we are told that travel affords us the opportunity to meet people from all over the world. Living in Naperville, we have friends from India, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Ireland, Sweden, and Italy, off the top of my head. I went to St. Ignatius where two of my best friends in freshman year did not learn English until they went to grade school and where one could not pronounce the name of anyone on the soccer team unless one could deal with an utter lack of vowels. Since the age of fourteen, I have never had the need to travel anywhere beyond school to meet people from ethnic backgrounds radically different from mine.
One more caveat: Any observations I make here are based on my observations of the places I went. When one visits places via cruise ship, one only spends anywhere from 5 to 10 hours at any destination and hence is limited, though probably not much, if at all, more than the typical tourist. Again, I am willing to make that trade-off for the ease, convenience, and economy of cruising. My observations of Venice, however, are based on having spent a few nights there, so they may be more valid, but more on that later.
Some salient points, grouped into negative, positive, somewhere in the middle, and conclusions. You can guess where most fall:
NEGATIVE
--As I mentioned in one of my previous travelogs, walking briskly is energizing while walking slowly (i.e., at a normal or slower pace; a walk with me is, as a former boss and current friend said of it many years ago, an aerobic experience) is enervating. Since no one walks as swiftly as I do, it is difficult for me to travel with anyone, let alone a tour group.
--We have to do something in this town about the international terminal at O’Hare. Once one gets past the very imposing security process there, there is no food available, which would be fine if anyone told one that before one goes through security. Further, the bathrooms are abominable in that section of O’Hare. This is especially appalling when one is coming in from Europe where, almost without exceptions, the bathrooms are very clean. The first stop of most foreign visitors is the airport bathroom and first impressions are hard to overcome. Why don’t the people at O’Hare understand that?
--Venice. What can I say about Venice? I have to be very careful here because several close friends love Venice. On the other hand, they are close friends and know that I am a man, to quote Senator Pat Geary, “…who speaks frankly, perhaps more frankly than you are used to being talked to.” Also, being close friends, they understand, as I do, that friendship does not require agreement on all, most, or many things, which is a good thing because I would have few friends if such were not the case. But I digress.
As I said to my wife when my frustration with Venice had reached the boiling point, and thus had tossed my normally decent grammar over the side,“This place is a lot of money for walking around in filth and evading pickpockets.” I can best describe Venice as an open sewer through which flows a series of open sewers. One of its few positives is that it didn’t smell quite as bad as I thought it might. The prices are outrageous; we got a plate of pasta, a quantity sufficient to fill one’s tooth, for 10 euros ($14.00 as I write this) and, by Venice standards, were getting a bargain. We stayed in a hotel that, while clean and with very nice bathrooms, had views of, literally, a brick wall and cost over $200 per night. The same room would cost maybe $50 in this country anywhere outside Manhattan. (My wife did buy me a very nice tie for 8 euros, or about $11.20, far less than it would have cost here; fair is fair, so I’m compelled to mention that.)
As we wandered Venice, I started conjuring conspiracy theories, which I dearly love, with the oft-mentioned caveat on these pages that what I will think about and what I will believe are two different things. An idea that appeals to me was rather quickly formulated: Venice, and most of Europe, is a vast conspiracy of Europeans to sucker the naïve American, Canadians, and Australians out of our money. They have convinced the “better” types that what they are providing is high culture and history when all they are actually providing are substandard living conditions, crowds, high prices, and, in some cases, an unctuous and condescending, or often just rude, attitude. We line up like idiots to turn over large portions of money for small portions of food and living conditions that resemble those in this country about 100 years ago. And I was one of them, right there, falling for the scam. I felt like an idiot. My son, always the good and polite kid, said, while eating the 1.50 euro ($2.10) ice cream cone that was about the size of his thumb nail and trying to console his exasperated father, said “Maybe here, dad, it’s quality over quantity,” to which I replied “They saw you coming, buddy; that’s what they want you to think. Where is the ice cream better? Here or at Colonial (a delightful ice cream/family dining place in Naperville, similar to, but far better than, Friendly’s for my east coast readers)?” He thought about it and, perhaps trying to be nice to his mother (whence he gets his sweet temperament), replied “Here?” Then he and I both laughed.
I can hear some readers now: “What a lout! Doesn’t he understand art, culture, and history, which are abundant in Venice?” To which I reply no, yes, and yes, respectively. But even if I were an art aficionado, why would I want to go all that way and put up with all the exploitation to see the art first hand rather than look at it in a book? Really, I mean it. Think about it. One cannot sit and gaze at a piece of art in a crowded gallery. One cannot study the fine and subtle brush strokes to discern the ideas and emotions the artist was trying to convey. One is hemmed in on all sides by people whose appreciation for art is vastly exceeded by their lack of appreciation for proper personal hygiene. One is rushed along and bombarded by admonitions to not use flash photography, made necessary by the true philistines who insist on endangering priceless works of art so that they can have a picture to prove to those back home that they had actually been foolish enough to spend the money necessary to go to Venice to look at art they don’t understand while on their way to the gift shop.
Okay, a minor positive in Venice, besides the inexpensive tie. We did find San Zacaria (St. Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, whom I didn’t know was a saint (the father, not the son), but I digress.) which is quiet, empty, and serene, amazing traits given that San Zacaria is only a few blocks from St. Mark’s Square, which is the opposite of all three. There is no charge, mirabile dictu, to enter the church, which is filled with priceless and beautiful, at least to the eyes of this galloot, artwork. Even more amazing, they actually celebrate the Mass there! Imagine that! I was able to attend Mass on Saturday night. While it was in Italian, any Catholic’s knowledge of the Mass, my high school Latin, and a very good missalette allowed me to follow quite nicely. The “crowd” was small but friendly and the priest, who looked like he was straight out of central casting (“Get me an old Italian priest for the Vatican scene, pronto!”), was a terrific guy who obviously loved his flock, reflected his faith, served his God and his Church, and was delighted by the presence of a visitor whose language he did not understand.
--Athens. Thank God we didn’t have to stay in a hotel in this pit of a city. Before we left, we had heard that Athens was a dirty, smelly, sometimes dangerous, crowded city once one got away from the antiquities. When I related this to a good friend who had been there, he corrected me; he pointed out that Athens is a dirty, smelly, sometimes dangerous, crowded city even at the antiquities. He was right. Graffiti everywhere. Ramshackle buildings. People just milling about doing who knows what. The Acropolis was a challenge, to put it nicely, from a crowd standpoint. Awesome, in the old sense of that ubiquitous word, to be sure, but still not worth the crowds and the near fighting one must do to get near what one wants to see. Awful in general is how I would describe Athens.
Yes, we, too, were surprised that we even went to Athens given the goings-on there of late. We thought the cruise company would divert us to a Greek island or perhaps to Istanbul. But we went, and the recent demonstrations are one of the few things that made Athens interesting. We saw the places where the riots took place, and their aftermath. The signs (e.g., facing parliament, in Greek (obviously), “Judas got thirty pieces of silver; how many did you get?”) were still up, presumably remaining in place until the weather gets more hospitable for further rioting in protest of, inter alia, increasing the retirement age to 58.
SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE
--Norwegian Cruise Lines (“NCL”). We took NCL because it was less expensive than our usual Royal Caribbean (“RCL”) (We could get two balcony cabins for less than one outside (no balcony) cabin and one inside cabin.), we liked the itinerary more than RCL’s, and we wanted to try NCL’s free style cruising. My sister, who owned a travel agency for many years, counseled caution, telling us that NCL might appeal to those who had never cruised before but probably wouldn’t appeal to experienced cruisers. She was just about right.
There wasn’t anything especially negative about NCL, or at least anything I can put my finger on, that would make me want to strongly advise against it, but nothing at all that would make me recommend it, either. It has a distinctively down-market feel to it, but that normally doesn’t bother me. The food was not bad but, in all but a few cases (They had a terrific salmon entrée and a snapper and lobster dish (first night only) that was terrific.), not all that great either, and this from a guy who still eats at places like IHOP, Old Country Buffet, and Cici’s Pizza. The crowd was probably not all that different from the crowd on any line in that market segment (Norwegian Cruise Lines, Royal Caribbean, Carnival), but, probably due to cultural differences (Americans were a distinct minority on this ship, which was populated mostly by Italians, Spaniards, and Germans, with a few Brits, Aussies, and Canadians thrown in to complete the rather interesting patchwork.), most people had trouble with such concepts as waiting their turn, especially at the buffet line, and not stopping to exchange one’s life story with one’s companions at choke points in the flow of traffic in the crowded areas of the boat. The pool was jam-packed and getting a chair, let alone a lounge chair, was nearly impossible on days at sea. The boat, one of NCL’s newest (Norwegian Jade) lacked some amenities our kids enjoyed on RCL ships we have sailed, such as climbing walls, ice skating rinks, and miniature golf courses. (Yes, I know; life is tough when your kids can’t play miniature golf on a cruise ship in the Aegean Sea. I don’t even want to think about what my dad would have said in such a situation!)
The big push at NCL, besides price, is “free style cruising,” which means that one does not have a set time and table for dinner and formal nights, called “Dress Up or Not” nights, are voluntary. This might appeal to many, but not to us. We, even our kids, like getting dressed up for dinner on at least a few nights on a cruise. Some might argue that nothing was stopping us from coming to dinner in suits and dresses, and we did indeed do that. But the atmosphere is not quite the same when most of one’s fellow diners equate the “Dress Up or Not” night with “Clean T-Shirt (maybe) Night.”
On the positive side, the crew couldn’t have been more attentive and helpful. We made friends with several crew members (the woman who (surprise!) ran the trivia contests, the family games, and the karaoke festivities, a young man who was a lighting guy and sound technician for the shows, several of the dancers, one of the lifeguards, etc.). We participated in the ship’s version of “Family Feud” and lost by one question. Our daughter Megan placed fourth (with her Hungarian dancing partner, part of the crew’s dancing cast, for lack of a better term) in the ship’s version of “Dancing with the Stars” and we always managed to find something to occupy us on the boat.
So would we go back on NCL? Probably not, but we so liked some of the people who worked on the ship that it’s hard to definitely rule out another cruise. If we ever find the money and my wife insists to the point at which we travel again, we’ll probably go to RCL or perhaps try Princess, which my aforementioned sister always has liked and about which I hear good things. But, for the right price, on a ship with more amenities and a good itinerary, we MIGHT go back on NCL. Would I recommend it? Probably not, but maybe to first time cruisers or people who want to be very casual all the time and want to save a few bucks.
--The Dalmatian Coast and the beach outside of Trogir, Croatia. Trogir is an old town that we thought might be more like Cefalu in Sicily, which still might be our favorite town in Europe. While Trogir was not nearly as nice as Cefalu, it had its attractions. And the beach was fantastic, once one got into the water. Like all beaches in Croatia, it is a rocky beach and getting past the rocks on bare feet and into the water was downright painful. But once in the water, it was beautiful, with the mountains in back behind the hills. Simply beautiful. And, of course, the prices. The kids got huge gelato cones for $1.00, and they took American money! Wow!
--Our otherwise delightful tours (See below.), like every tour in Turkey, ended with a visit to a carpet making coop. We were told this was a demonstration of local crafts and not a sales pitch. Uh-huh. It was a brief demonstration, interesting for those who are into crafts, followed by a strictly hard sell session. While one was practically locked in a room, given tea, coffee, or Coke (the Turkish national beverage, according to the tour guide), carpets were rolled out, prices were proposed and reduced, sales pitches, subtle or otherwise, were pushed. It resembled a Turkish bazaar and bargaining would have been fun had I or my wife had any interest in purchasing one of the carpet. As a young Don Corleone told his new friend Clemenza, “Sure, I’d like it, but who has money for a rug?” Anyone who thought we would spend the money they were asking, or anything close to it, on any of these admittedly beautiful rugs has no familiarity with the Quinns. It’s a rug, for pity’s sake.
POSITIVES
--Turkey, or, as they call it, Turkiye. I was predisposed toward liking Turkey for two reasons. First, just about every experienced traveler about whom I asked Turkey has raved about it. Some have raved about it simply when asked to name their favorite country or countries. Second, I have been impressed with Turkey’s longstanding friendship with the United States and its largely unrequited attempts at partnership with Europe. I’m even impressed with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Yes, I know the AK Party is Islamist, at least in name, and the term scares people, in most cases unjustifiably. But AK, and certainly Mr. Erdogan, is Islamist in the Turkish sense, which is quite a bit different from, say, the Iranian or Saudi sense. Mr. Erdogan and Turkey maintain good, though not as good a few years ago, with Israel. He maintains the aforementioned strong and faithful alliance with the U.S. He is a consensus builder, albeit perhaps by necessity; even after June’s landslide victory, Mr. Erdogan’s AK Party does not quite have a majority in Parliament. He is also a believer in free markets who has delivered economic growth and prosperity in Turkey that most of the world would envy.
So I thought I would like Turkey, while my wife looked at it with foreboding, having an image of it that is probably not unlike that of most Americans, that of a crowded, dirty, backward Third World backwater, best visited, if at all, quickly and left even more quickly. She was shocked. I was surprised. Turkey, from what we saw, was far better than even I thought it would be. Three words come to mind: Historical, friendly, and clean.
History is everywhere in Turkey. To hear the Turks tell it, all history took place in what was to be called the Roman province of Asia, then Asia Minor, and ultimately later Turkey, or at least the Asian portion of Turkey, which is most of the country. The Turks are not all that wrong in this contention. The Seven Churches of Revelations, Troy, Ephesus (of Paul’s letter and the Acts of the Apostles), the birthplace of Abraham, the land of the ancient Hittites, Mt. Ararat of Noah’s Ark fame, the scene of the Blessed Virgin’s final days and Assumption (if one is Catholic or Orthodox) or death (if one is Muslim or Protestant, for the most part), the capital of the Byzantine Empire and the seat of the Orthodox Church…all in Turkey. But I knew all of that, as did doubtless most of you. What I didn’t know is that, unlike in Rome or Athens, the antiquities are very manageable and not at all crowded. I stood right over the original burial place of St. John, alone, for as long as I wished, to contemplate and to reverence my favorite evangelist, who stood at the foot of the cross. There was, literally, no one but our tour group of seven and a few locals at what remains of the Temple of Artemis (admittedly, not much, but, in my mind’s eye, I could see the silversmith Demetrius yelling “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”), one of the seven wonders of the ancient world and, in its time, far larger than the Parthenon, on the outskirts of old Ephesus. The ruins of the theater and marketplace of old Ephesus are somewhat more crowded, but always manageable and NOTHING like the Coliseum or the Acropolis. Mary’s House, more crowded than any of the other sites we visited, was still sparsely visited relative to any of the antiquities in Rome or Athens. I found Mary’s House to be a deeply spiritual place, as one might guess. My being able to attend Mass and read the first two readings at this site doubtless helped foster this feeling of deep spiritual contentment and awe. But I’d go even further: I’ve been to the Vatican and got nothing from the Vatican that approached the sense of God’s, and Mary’s, presence that I felt at that simple little structure outside of Ephesus. This might also be a reflection of my approach to the Faith, but that is another issue.
What I had heard, but didn’t know, is that the Turks, again from what we saw, are the friendliest people we have encountered on any of these foreign odysseys my wife drags me along on. And the place is CLEAN. Every restaurant, bathroom, tourist site, etc., was nearly, or actually, immaculate. The food was great. The prices were reasonable, if not outright cheap. The scenery was breathtaking, very much akin to the coastal regions of California, without the crowds. Simply a wonderful place that, if one must travel, I would recommend highly.
--The many nice people we met, including…
• The aforementioned workers on the boat.
• A wonderful older couple from Scotland whose brogues were so thick we initially couldn’t understand them any more effectively than we could understand, say, a German speaker. But the temporary language barrier was quickly superseded by the warmth that these people naturally exuded.
• A couple from California with a seven or eight year old girl who really liked our kids who, like their mother, are naturally attractive, and attracted, to children
• A retired NHL journeyman goalie (Jack Norris, who played for, inter alia, the Blackhawks and the Bruins in the ‘60s and early ‘70s) and his wife from Saskatchewan. Funny, kind people with great stories to tell, some of which were about hockey.
• Our tour guides in Turkey.
• A very engaging man who ran one of the restaurants at which we dined in Venice.
• Anybody we met from Australia. People from Australia will walk up to you on the street, anywhere, and engage in conversation as if you were a long lost friend. And, no, we won’t be going to Australia despite our affinity for Australians; it’s too damn far!
CONCLUSIONS
--Even if we had enjoyed everything, if Athens and Venice had been clean, wonderful, places, O’Hare was welcoming and easy, and everyone walked at my pace, would it be worth it? No. Yes, I was able to attend Mass at San Zacaria and the Mary’s House, to swim in the Adriatic, and to climb the bell tower at the medieval St. Laurence Cathedral in Trogir, Croatia. We were able to gaze at the ruins of Ephesus, climb the Acropolis, stroll through Dubrovnik, overlook the Adriatic and Aegean from a number of vantage points, and share all this with out kids. But it wasn’t worth all the expense and the hassle of travel. Too much time was spent at airports, on airplanes, on tenders getting from ship to shore, and in lines in general. Too much hassle and planning was involved. Our lives might be a bit richer, but not sufficiently richer to justify all of traveling’s downsides.
--If you ever get the sense that we in the United States don’t live in paradise, travel overseas. While I am ever mindful of our nation’s problems and troubled by its direction (If you’ve read one jot or tittle of the Pontificator you are familiar with my feelings in this regard.), we live in paradise. Trust me on this. Even in those places that we, and doubtless you, like, we measure our affection for the place by its similarity to America and the ability it affords its residents to live what we might call an American way of life. I’d never leave the place if being married to the world’s most wonderful woman didn’t make doing so necessary.
--I’d like to say that I can now put my passport away permanently, that I will never, ever travel overseas again. But I know that is only an idle dream. The world’s most wonderful woman will want to cross the ocean again and I will join her and, hopefully, our kids, if the inevitable processes by which their desire to travel with their parents dissipates has not entirely run its course. And, as hard as it is to admit this, I will actually enjoy at least some aspects of the trip(s) and be happy that I took it (them).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
