delanceyplace

delanceyplace.com 12/22/09 - oil

2009-12-22T03:34:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - in the late 1990s, even
as the major U.S. oil companies merged to get
larger, their influence waned in the face of
foreign national oil companies. Of the
world's twenty largest oil
companies, fifteen are state-owned:

"[The need for significantly larger
investments in oil exploration and
development] created the imperative for what
became known as restructuring. The majors
combined
to become supermajors. BP merged with Amoco
to become BPAmoco, and then
merged with ARCO, and emerged as a much
bigger BP. Exxon and Mobil - once Standard
Oil of New Jersey and Standard Oil of New
York - became
ExxonMobil. Chevron and Texaco came together
as Chevron. Conoco combined with Phillips to
be ConocoPhillips. In Europe, what had once
been the two
separate French national champions, Total and
Elf Aquitaine, plus the Belgian
company Petrofina, combined to emerge as
Total. Only Royal Dutch Shell, already of
supermajor status on its own, remained as it
was. ... With all
these mergers, the landscape of the
international oil industry changed. ...

"It turned out that the restructuring of the
world oil industry that had started with the
emergence of the supermajors at the end of
the 1990s was only the beginning. One more
merger - of Norway's Statoil and Norsk Hydro
- created Statoilhydro, a new supermajor,
although partly state-owned. But the balance
between companies and governments has shifted
dramatically. Altogether, all the
oil that the supermajors produce for their
own account is less than 15 percent
of total world supplies. Over 80 percent of
world reserves are controlled by governments
and their national oil companies. Of the
world's twenty largest oil
companies, fifteen are state-owned. Thus,
much of what happens to oil is the result of
decisions of one kind or another made by
governments. And overall, the
government-owned national oil companies have
assumed a preeminent role in
the world oil industry. ...

"Saudi Aramco - the successor to Aramco, now
state-owned - remains
by far the largest upstream oil company in
the world, single-handedly producing
about 10 percent or more of the world's
entire oil with a massive deployment
of technology and coordination. The major
Persian Gulf producers control for
the most part their production, as do the
traditional state companies in
Venezuela, Mexico, Algeria, and many other
countries. The Chinese companies - partly
state-owned, partly owned by shareholders
around the world -
continue to produce the majority of oil in
China but have also become
increasingly active and visible in the
international arena. So have Indian
companies. The Russian industry is led by
state-controlled giants Gazprom and Rosneft
and by privately held companies, such as
Lukoil and TNK-BP, that are
majors in their own right.

"Petrobras, the Brazilian national oil
company, is 68 percent owned
by investors and 32 percent by the Brazilian
government, though the government retains the
majority of the voting shares. Petrobras had
already established itself at the forefront
in terms of capabilities in exploring for and
developing oil in the challenging deep waters
offshore. Beginning with the Tupi
find in 2006, potentially very large
discoveries are being made in what had
heretofore been inaccessible resources in
Brazil's deep waters, below salt deposits.
These discoveries could make Petrobras - and
Brazil - into a new powerhouse
of world oil. Malaysia's Petronas had turned
itself into a significant international
company, operating in 32 countries outside
Malaysia. State companies in other
countries in the former Soviet
Union - KazMunayGas in Kazakhstan and
SOCAR in Azerbaijan - have also emerged as
important players. While Qatar is
an oil exporter, its massive natural gas
reserves put it at the forefront of the
liquefied natural gas industry (LNG) and,
along with Algeria's Sonatrach and other
exporters, at the center of growing global
trade in natural gas."

Daniel Yergin, The Prize, new 2009
epilogue, Free Press, Copyright 1991, 1992,
2009 by Daniel Yergin, pp 765-770.

delanceyplace.com 12/21/09 - take your time, son, take your time

2009-12-21T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - for those who are
already expert at their craft, there are
perils to rushing or overrehearsing. Here
Paul Shaffer frantically tries to reach Sammy
Davis, Jr., to select a song and schedule
rehearsal before his appearance on the David
Letterman show:

"Every time I called [Sammy Davis, Jr., to
try and select a song or discuss rehearsal],
he was either
working or sleeping. He never did return my
calls.

The morning of the show I was feeling some
panic. Sammy
was flying in, and we still didn't know what
he wanted to sing.
At 10 a.m., the floor manager said I had a
backstage call. It was
Sammy calling from the plane.

' 'Once in My Life' will be fine, Paul,' he
said. 'Key of E
going into F.'

'Great!' I was relieved.

I was also eager to work out an arrangement.
We whipped
up a chart, nursed it, rehearsed it, and put
it on tape. That way
when Sammy arrived, he could hear it.

Then another backstage call. Sammy's plane
had landed
early, and he was on his way over. When I
greeted him at the
backstage door with a big 'We're thrilled you're
here,' I was a little taken aback. He looked
extremely tired and
frail. He walked with a cane.

'We have an arrangement, Sam. You can
rehearse it with the band.'

'No need, baby. Gotta conserve my energy. I'm
just gonna go
to my room and shower.'

'I wanna make it easy for you. So I'll just
play you
a tape of the arrangement on the boom box.
That way you'll
hear what we've done and tell me if it's
okay.'

'Man, I know the song.'

'I know, Sam,' I said, 'but what if you don't
like the chart?'

'I'll like it, I'll like it.'

'But what if the key's not right?'

'Okay, if you insist.'

I slipped the cassette in the boom box and
hit 'play.' To my
ears, the chart sounded great. Sammy closed
his eyes and, in
Sammy style, nodded his head up and down to
the groove. He
smiled.

'It's swinging, man,' he said, 'but think of
how much more
fun we could have had if I hadn't heard this
tape.'

His words still resonate in my ears; the
notion still haunts
me. Sammy swung that night, but as he was
performing, I
couldn't help thinking that his carefree
feeling about time - as
opposed to my lifelong notion of the pressure
of the
time - was
coming from a higher spiritual plane. As a
musician, I've always
thought I rushed. I still think I rush. The
great players never
rush.

It reminds me of that moment when I watched
Ray Charles
turn to his guitarist, just as the young guy
was about to solo, and
say, 'Take your time, son. Take your time.'
"

Paul Shaffer, We'll Be Here for the Rest
of Our Lives, Flying Dolphin Press,
Copyright 2009 by Paul Shaffer Enterprises,
Inc., pp. 234-235.

delanceyplace.com 12/18/09 - neville chamberlain

2009-12-18T03:38:00.000-05:00

In today's excerpt - Neville Chamberlain, the man who
tried to appease Hitler and thus became an
everlasting symbol of weak naïveté in foreign policy. In
fact, Chamberlain has become so reviled a symbol of
weakness, that his name is immediately invoked any
time a politician even hints at a preference for
negotiations rather than military threats toward a
potentially hostile dictator. While most historians now
believe that Chamberlain's appeasement policy was
not as hopelessly misguided as his political rival
Winston Churchill portrayed it to be, he nevertheless
made a series of other, related diplomatic blunders
that compounded his failure - chief among them,
neglecting to fully include allies such as France in his
diplomatic efforts. He thought French lavatories
smelly!:

"Getting the French "in on the act" [of diplomatic
negotiations with Germany] as Édouard Daladier,
Chamberlain's French opposite number, had wished,
might have offered greater leverage and struck a
sweeter entente unity note. Cold-shouldering the
French and maintaining it was the Czechs and not
Hitler who constituted the problem, Neville
Chamberlain allowed his love of the limelight and
instinct for the unconventional to determine his policy.
Having invested heavily in summit diplomacy, and
being quite seduced by the popping flash-bulbs and
cheering crowds that went with his foreign trips, he
was incapable of tactical maneuver once Hitler started
misbehaving. Deliberately cutting himself off from
such advice as the Foreign Office had to offer, he
failed utterly to convey to the dictators ... that Britain
meant business. ...

"While ever-larger allocations of the defense budget
were devoted, or so he thought, to rendering England
immune from air attack, Neville Chamberlain strode
the world stage and made no effort to court, befriend
or even appease wouldbe continental allies. As far as
he was concerned they were militarily on their own.
Moreover his rearmament program left the army so
starved of resources that, as late as the spring of
1939, French observers were still referring to it as
a 'parade ground army'.

"The fatal consequence of neglecting the army lay in
the way it affected relations with Britain's only palpable
continental ally, France, and in the manner in which
that neglect impacted on French strategic thinking.
Unlike his Francophile half-brother Austen, Neville
Chamberlain did not like the French. He thought their
lavatories smelly and the people sexually degenerate.
But in allowing his prejudice to influence his
policy-making, he aroused French suspicions that if
war with Germany should come, the British would
leave them in the lurch. If the British proposed to effect
a blockade from a distance and keep their bombers in
reserve, it would be left to the French to pay the
butcher's bill of warfare on land. It was hardly
surprising that they quailed at the prospect. Yet Neville
Chamberlain cared not a jot for French sensibilities.
Thinking it wise to, as he put it, 'keep everyone
guessing', he made no undertakings about military
assistance to France and no suggestion until very late
on about staff-talks."

Nick Smart, "Neville Chamberlain and Appeasement,"
History Review, December 2009, pp. 24-25.

----------------------------------------

To visit our homepage or sign up for our
daily email click
here (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102888091668&s=40935&e=001Mh6XyHNCpDlHSnoZQzYycwXOT0utDWX3TPOI8ujN03v8HVktYP_2tOiob2qbFIxOGTRvSib6Xztfn-w0X6MwN1Z_DeDlyaTNO10dTj01zoKFvScqPiRwaA==)

To view previous daily emails click
here (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102888091668&s=40935&e=001Mh6XyHNCpDk_bHiy-FfT7dpXLaAEtJM5by0jegQWViOW1dK698DCVFtDeSgWFhBu1FGdAtmjZdglh1vP3hTy44Jw2v0gFI_rFr6yf6SRiHEag1O4sFQFfu9N-i_06vapv8RppQRSdvphzJivXsGJkLGkITADSqbC4FP_rJwL1QE=).

------------------------------------------------------------ daily@delanceyplace.com
------------------------------------------------------------

Forward email
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1101151826392&ea=bblog%40delanceyplace.com&a=1102888091668

This email was sent to bblog@delanceyplace.com by daily@delanceyplace.com.

Update Profile/Email Address
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&v=001k2WZ9BVVGwuzG6dg3Iqjho-3Gf58x0T8LeMRT6lcgSUuxFSq2SdAdEK2ilk1q0V7vS1jXcfJSdLncD8lly5HWw%3D%3D

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&v=001k2WZ9BVVGwuzG6dg3Iqjho-3Gf58x0T8LeMRT6lcgSUuxFSq2SdAdEK2ilk1q0V7vS1jXcfJSdLncD8lly5HWw%3D%3D

Email Marketing by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com

Delanceyplace.com | daily@delanceyplace.com | Philadelphia | PA | 19102

delanceyplace.com 12/17/09 - the huddle

2009-12-17T03:34:00.001-05:00

In today's encore excerpt - the
football huddle is invented at a college for
the deaf - Gallaudet University in
Washington, DC - as a means of hiding signals
from other deaf teams. It is
institutionalized at the University of
Chicago as a means of bringing control and
Christian fellowship to the game:

"When Gallaudet played nondeaf clubs or
schools, Hubbard merely used hand signals -
American Sign Language - to call a play at
the line of scrimmage, imitating what was
done in football from Harvard to Michigan.
Both teams approached the line of scrimmage.
The signal caller - whether it was the left
halfback or quarterback - barked out the
plays at the line of scrimmage. Nothing was
hidden from the defense. There was no
huddle.

"Hand signals against nondeaf schools gave
Gallaudet an advantage. But other deaf
schools could read [quarterback Paul]
Hubbard's sign language. So, beginning in
1894, Hubbard came up with a plan. He decided
to conceal the signals by gathering his
offensive players in a huddle prior to the
snap of the ball. ... Hubbard's innovation in
1894 worked brilliantly. 'From that point on,
the huddle became a habit during regular
season games,' cites a school history of the
football program. ...

"In 1896, the huddle started showing up on
other college campuses, particularly the
University of Georgia and the University of
Chicago. At Chicago, it was Amos Alonzo
Stagg, the man credited with nurturing
American football into the modern age and
barnstorming across the country to sell the
game, who popularized the use of the huddle
and made the best case for it. ...

"At the time, coaches were not permitted to
send in plays from the sideline. So, while
Stagg clearly understood the benefit of
concealing the signals from the opposition,
he was more interested in the huddle as a way
of introducing far more reaching reforms to
the game. Before becoming a coach, Stagg
wanted to be a minister. At Yale, he was a
divinity student from 1885 to 1889.

"Thoughtful, pious, and righteous, Stagg
brought innovations football as an attempt to
bring a Christian fellowship to the game. He
wanted his players to play under control, to
control the pace, the course, and the conduct
of what had been a game of mass movement that
often broke out into fisticuffs. Stagg viewed
the huddle as a vital aspect of helping to
teach sportsmanship. He viewed the huddle as
a kind of religious congregation on the
field, a place where the players could, if
you will, minister to each other, make a
plan, and promise to keep faith in that plan
and one another."

Sal Palantonio, How Football Explains
America, Triumph, Copyright 2008 by Sal
Palantonio, pp. 38-41.

delanceyplace.com 12/16/09 - bees to blues brothers

2009-12-16T03:34:00.001-05:00

In today's excerpt - because John Belushi of
Saturday Night Live hated the costume
he has
to wear to play one of his most popular
characters - a bee, the box-office phenomenon
The Blues Brothers are born. As
recounted by
Saturday Night Live musical director Paul
Shaffer:

"Meanwhile, Belushi was complaining about his
bee costume.
Belushi hated putting on the bee costume. It
weighed a ton and
made him sweat like a hornet in heat.

"I hate these bee sketches," said Belushi.

"[Producer] Lorne [Michaels] loves them,"
said [Dan] Aykroyd.

"F**k Lorne," John exclaimed. "This is my
last one."

"Wait a minute," Danny interjected. "I've got
an idea. What
if we get the band to put on bee costumes,
and we all play Slim
Harpo's 'I'm a King Bee.' I'll play harp and
you'll sing the shit
out of it."

"How's it go?" asked John.

Danny started singing the lyrics.

"Let's do it," said John.

Next thing I know I'm running around the SNL
set in a bee
costume. I understand why Belushi rails
against this thing. It
stings. It disorients me to the point that
during rehearsal I wander into a Gilda
Radner/Garrett Morris sketch in my bee getup.

"What are you doing here?" asks Gilda.

"I don't know," I say.

Belushi is sensational as a buzzed-up blues
singer. In the middle
of the song, he does a full flip and lands
flat on his back. The
audience licks it up like honey.

Now Danny and John are warming up the SNL
audience as
two blues singers, not bees but two guys
dressed in dark hats,
dark ties, dark suits, and dark glasses.

"Why the dark suits and dark glasses?" I ask.

"I was hipped to the look by Fred Kaz," says
John, "the beatnik musical director at Second
City in Chicago. He's the cat who
told me that junkies always wore
straight-looking outfits so
they could pass. Check out William
Burroughs."

Shortly thereafter, Lorne is featuring the
singing duo, not as
a warmup act, but as on-air performers. Not
only that, I get to
introduce them on camera in the guise of [my
character] Don Kirshner. I give it
the slowed-down, frozen-stiff, tanned,
gold-chained, full-nasal
Brooklyn brogue treatment of my show-biz
friend and say ...

"Today, thanks to the brilliant management of
Myron S.
Katz and the Katz Talent Agency, these two
talented performers
are no longer just a legitimate blues act.
But with careful shaping and the fabulous
production of Lee Solomon, who's a
gentleman, and his wonderful organization,
they have managed to
become a viable commercial product. So now,
let's hear it for
these two brothers from Joliet, Illinois.
Ladies and gentlemen, I
give you ..."

Paul Shaffer, We'll Be Here For The Rest
of Our Lives, Flying Dolphin Press,
Copyright 2009 by Paul Shaffer Enterprises,
Inc., pp. 176-177.

delanceyplace.com 12/15/09 - kidney transplants

2009-12-15T03:35:00.001-05:00

In today's excerpt - an economist writes on
the demand for kidney transplants:

"The first successful
kidney transplant was performed in 1954. To
the layperson, it looked
rather like a miracle: someone who would
surely have died of kidney
failure could now live on by having a
replacement organ plunked inside
him.
Where did this new kidney come from? The most
convenient source
was a fresh cadaver, the victim of an
automobile accident perhaps or
some other type of death that left behind
healthy organs. The fact that
one person's death saved the life of another
only heightened the sense
of the miraculous.

"But over time, transplantation became a
victim of its own success.
The normal supply of cadavers couldn't keep
up with the demand for
organs. In the United States, the rate of
traffic fatalities was declining,
which was great news for drivers but bad news
for patients awaiting a
lifesaving kidney. ... In Europe, some
countries passed laws of 'presumed consent';
rather than requesting
that a person donate his organs in the event
of an accident, the state
assumed the right to harvest his organs
unless he or his family specifically opted
out. But even so, there were never enough
kidneys to go
around.

"Fortunately, cadavers aren't the only source
of organs. We are born
with two kidneys but need only one to live.
... Stories abounded of one spouse giving a
kidney to the other, a
brother coming through for his sister, a
grown woman for her aging
parent, even kidneys donated between long-ago
playground friends.
But what if you were dying and didn't have a
friend or relative willing
to give you a kidney?
One country, Iran, was so worried about the
kidney shortage that it
enacted a program many other nations would
consider barbaric. It
sounded like the kind of idea some economist
might have dreamed up: the Iranian government
would pay people to give up a kidney, roughly
$1,200, with an additional sum paid by the
kidney recipient.

"In the United States, meanwhile, during a
1983 congressional hearing, an enterprising
doctor named Barry Jacobs described his own
pay-for-organs plan. His company,
International Kidney Exchange, Ltd.,
would bring Third World citizens to the
United States, remove one of
their kidneys, give them some money, and send
them back home. Jacobs was savaged for even
raising the idea. His most vigorous critic was
a young Tennessee congressman named Al Gore,
who wondered if
these kidney harvestees 'might be willing to
give you a cut-rate price
just for the chance to see the Statue of
Liberty or the Capitol or something.'

"Congress promptly passed the National Organ
Transplant Act,
which made it illegal 'for any person to
knowingly acquire, receive, or
otherwise transfer any human organ for
valuable consideration for use
in human transplantation.' ...

"And what about U.S. organ-donation policy?
... There are currently 80,000 people in the
United States
on a waiting list for a new kidney, but only
some 16,000 transplants
will be performed this year. This gap grows
larger every year. More
than 50,000 people on the list have died over
the past twenty years,
with at least 13,000 more falling off the
list as they became too ill to
have the operation. ... This has led some
people to call for a well-regulated market in
human organs ... but this proposal has so far
been greeted with widespread repugnance.
...

"Recall, meanwhile, that Iran established a
similar market nearly
thirty years ago. Although this market has
its flaws, anyone in Iran
needing a kidney transplant does not have to
go on a waiting list. The
demand for transplantable kidneys is being
fully met."

Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner,
Superfreakonomics, William Morrow,
Copyright 2009 by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen
J. Dubner, pp. 124-125.

delanceyplace.com 12/14/09 - yorktown

2009-12-14T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - General George
Washington, though indispensable to the cause
of the American Revolution and a supremely
gifted leader, showed poor instincts for
military strategy throughout the
revolutionary war. When the time came for the
final decisive battle of in Yorktown,
Virginia - the battle that ended the war -
Washington's strong preference was to try and
retake Manhattan from the British instead.
However, the French general who had just been
sent to serve under him, the seasoned
military strategist Comte de Rochambeau -
whose government was strained financially and
highly eager to end the war - maneuvered
things to insure that Washington's army went
to Yorktown instead:

"When Washington and Rochambeau met in May
1781 in Weathersfield, Connecticut, to plan
that year's last-ditch campaign, they knew few
of [American General Nathaniel] Greene's
successful activities and nothing of [British
General] Cornwallis's decision to march his
army into Virginia. Once the pleasantries - a
military parade and formal
dinner - were out of the way, the two
generals and their staffs sat down
to talk. The discussions were frank and at
times heated. After revealing the financial
gift that his country was making to its
allies, Rochambeau asked
Washington what operations he envisioned for
the coming summer. To one's surprise [given
his war-long obsession with retaking
Manhattan], Washington urged a campaign to
take New York, claiming
that Clinton, [the British general in New
York] was weaker than ever, having sent
raiders to Virginia and reinforcements to the
Carolinas.

"Losing his patience - a French observer later
said that Rochambeau treated Washington with
'all the ungraciousness and
all the unpleasantness possible'
- the French commander earnestly reiterated
his objections to focusing on New York. He
then proposed a campaign in Virginia. Though
unaware of Cornwallis's epic decision [to
march north to Virginia],
Rochambeau knew there was a British army of
roughly thirty-five hundred men in Virginia.
The allies would have numerical superiority.
If they
could trap the enemy force, the long-awaited
victory that could break
Great Britain's will to continue might be
achieved. But Washington was
intransigent. The allies must focus on New
York. Washington 'did not
conceive the affairs of the south to be such
urgency,' the French general
subsequently recalled. Given that Rochambeau
remained under orders from France to
defer to the wishes of the American
commander, he consented to march
his army from Rhode Island to the periphery
of Manhattan, where the allies would prepare
for a joint operation to retake New York.

"Washington was delighted. He had prevailed,
or so it seemed. The campaign for New York of
which he had dreamed for three long years was
imminent. After three days of talks,
Washington bade farewell and rode
back to the Hudson to await the arrival of
the French army. But there was
something that Rochambeau had not divulged.
He had neglected to inform Washington that
the French fleet in the Caribbean had been
ordered
to sail to North America that summer.
Immediately following Washington's departure
from Weathersfield, Rochambeau sat down at
his desk and
drafted a crucial letter to the Comte de
Grasse, commander of the French
fleet. He did not ask him to sail to New
York. Instead, Rochambeau urged
de Grasse to bring the fleet to the
Chesapeake. Unbeknownst to Washington, and in
defiance of his wishes, Rochambeau was
secretly planning
what he believed would be a campaign that was
more likely than an attack
on New York to produce a decisive outcome.
His object was to confront
General Washington with a fait accompli.

"As the lush days of spring faded into high
summer in 1781, three army
commanders ruminated over strategy. Only
Washington believed the allies could succeed
in a campaign to take New York. Rochambeau and
Clinton - both lifelong professional
officers, were convinced that the redcoats,
having had five long years to prepare for the
defense of Manhattan and Long Island, could
repulse anything the allies threw at them, even a
joint land-sea siege and assault. Indeed,
Clinton prayed that the allies would
attack New York. If their campaign failed, as
he was certain it would, the
will to continue hostilities would surely
evaporate in France and America.
Great Britain would do very well at the peace
conference that followed. In
his wildest dreams, Clinton even imagined
that Britain might win this war
in the event of a failed allied campaign to
take New York."

[Washington yielded to Rochambeau, and the
American army turned south and went to
Virginia where it overwhelmingly defeated
Cornwallis and ended the war.]

John Ferling, The Ascent of Washington,
Bloomsbury, Copyright 2009 by John Ferling,
pp. 209-211.

delanceyplace.com 12/11/09 - mexico

2009-12-11T03:38:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - by the estimate of journalist Philip
Caputo, the most violent city in the world is not located
in Afghanistan, Iraq or some Sub-Saharan African
country, but across a river from the United States in
Juarez, Mexico. And in the almost three years since
President Felipe Calderón launched a war on drug
cartels, some 14,000 people have been killed in the
country of Mexico, and part of the country is effectively
under martial law:

"The U.S. government estimates that the cultivation
and trafficking of illegal drugs directly employs
450,000 people in Mexico [out of 110 million people].
Unknown numbers of people, possibly in the millions,
are indirectly linked to the drug industry, which has
revenues estimated to be as high as $25 billion a
year, exceeded only by Mexico's annual income from
manufacturing and oil exports. Dr. Edgardo
Buscaglia ... concluded in a recent report that 17 of
Mexico's 31 states have become virtual
narco-republics, where organized crime has infiltrated
government, the courts, and the police so extensively
that there is almost no way they can be cleaned up.
The drug gangs have acquired a 'military capacity' that
enables them to confront the army on an almost equal
footing. ...

"Of the many things Mexico lacks these days, clarity is
near the top of the list. It is dangerous to know the
truth. Finding it is frustrating. Statements by U.S. and
Mexican government officials, repeated by a news
media that prefers simple story lines, have fostered
the impression in the United States that the conflict in
Mexico is between Calderón's white hats and the
crime syndicates' black hats. The reality is far more
complicated, as suggested by this statistic: out of
those 14,000 dead, fewer than 100 have been
soldiers. Presumably, army casualties would be far
higher if the war were as straightforward as it's often
made out to be. ...

"The toll includes more than 1,000 police officers,
some of whom, according to Mexican press reports,
were executed by soldiers for suspected links to drug
traffickers. Conversely, a number of the fallen soldiers
may have been killed by policemen moonlighting as
cartel hit men, though that cannot be proved.
Meanwhile, human-rights groups have accused the
military of unleashing a reign of terror - carrying out
forced disappearances, illegal detentions, acts of
torture, and assassinations - not only to fight
organized crime but also to suppress dissidents and
other political troublemakers. What began as a war on
drug trafficking has evolved into a low-intensity civil
war with more than two sides and no white hats, only
shades of black. The ordinary Mexican citizen - never
sure who is on what side, or who is fighting whom
and for what reason - retreats into a private world
where he becomes willfully blind, deaf, and above all,
dumb. ...

"[The City of] Juárez's main product now is the corpse.
Last year, drug-related violence there claimed more
than 1,600 lives, and the toll for the first nine months
of this year soared beyond 1,800, and mounts daily.
That makes Juárez, population 1.5 million, the most
violent city in the world."

Philip Caputo, "The Border of Madness," The
Atlantic, December 2009, pp. 63-69.

delanceyplace.com 12/10/09 - princess leia

2009-12-10T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's encore excerpt - Carrie Fisher, who
played the role of Princess Leia, George Lucas and
Star Wars:

"George made me take shooting lessons because in
the first film I would grimace horribly at the deafening
sound of the blanks from the blasters and the squibs
that the special effects team would place all over the
set and on the stormtroopers. So George wanted to
make me look like I'd been shooting them for my
entire Alderaan existence. So, he sent me to the same
man who'd taught Robert DeNiro to shoot weapons in
Taxi Driver and the shooting range was in this cellar in
midtown Manhattan, populated with policemen and all
manner of firearm aficionados.

"I used to have this fantasy that in some distant Star
Wars sequel, we'd finally stop all the shooting and
screaming at each other and would go to a
shopping-and-beauty planet, where the stormtroopers
would have to get facials, and Chewbacca would have
to get pedicures and bikini and eyebrow waxes. I felt at
some point that I should get - okay, fine, maybe not
equal time - but just a few scenes where we all did a
lot of girly things. Imagine the shopping we might have
done on Tatooine! Or a little Death Star souvenir shop
where you could get T-shirts that said 'My parents got
the force and jumped to light speed and all I got was
this lousy t-shirt!' or 'My boyfriend blew Jabba the Hutt
and all I got' .. etc., etc. You get the gist of my drift.

"But I have to admit, after a series of weapon
instruction from a very pleasant ex-cop, I became quite
proficient with an assortment of guns, including a
double-barreled shotgun. Obviously my family was so
proud. Because for Darth sake, I was always doing
their endless stupid boy things.

"But back to the first film. Shortly after I arrived, George
gave me this unbelievably idiotic hairstyle, and I'm
brought before him like some sacrificial asshole and
he says in his little voice, 'Well, what do you think of it?'
And I say - because I'm terrified I'm going to be fired
for being too fat - I say, 'I love it.' Yeah, and the check's
in the mail and one size fits all and I'll only put it in a
little bit!

"Because, see, there was this horrible fat thing going
on! When I got this great job to end all jobs, which truly
I never thought I would get because there were all
these other beautiful girls who were up for the
part - there was Amy Irving and Jodie Foster; this girl
Teri Nunn almost got the part ... Oh! and Christopher
Walken almost got cast as Han Solo. (Wouldn't that
have been fantastic) Anyway, when I got this job they
told me I had to lose ten pounds. Well, I weighed
about 105 at the time, but to be fair, I carried about fifty
of those pounds in my face! So you know what a good
idea would be? Give me a hairstyle that further widens
my already wide face!"

Carrie Fisher, Wishful Drinking, Simon &
Schuster, Copyright 2008 by Deliquesce, Inc., pp.
81-85.

delanceyplace.com 12/9/09 - prostitution

2009-12-09T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - prostitutes in the
United States a century ago likely made in
excess of $70,000 per year in today's dollars
- far in excess of
today's prostitutes, and were a higher
percentage of the population. The reason?
Today's prostitutes face more competition
from women willing to have sex with a man for
free. This conclusion stems from the work of
economist Sudhir Venkatesh on the subject of
the Chicago prostitute industry:

"It turns out that the typical street prostitute
in Chicago works 13 hours a week, performing
10 sex acts during that
period, and earns an hourly wage of
approximately $27. So her weekly
take-home pay is roughly $350. This includes
an average of $20 that a
prostitute steals from her customers and
acknowledges that some
prostitutes accept drugs in lieu of cash -
usually crack cocaine or heroin, and usually
at a discount. Of all the women in
Venkatesh's study,
83 percent were drug addicts.

"Many of these women took on other,
non-prostitution
work, which Venkatesh also tracked.
Prostitution paid about four times
more than those jobs. But as high as that
wage premium may be, it looks
pretty meager when you consider the job's
downsides. In a given year, a
typical prostitute in Venkatesh's study
experienced a dozen incidents of
violence. At least 3 of the 160 prostitutes
who participated died during
the course of [his] study. 'Most of the
violence by johns is when, for some
reason, they can't consummate or can't get
erect,' says Venkatesh. 'Then
he's shamed,- 'I'm too manly for you' or
'You're too ugly for me!' Then the
john wants his money back, and you definitely
don't want to negotiate
with a man who just lost his
masculinity.'

"Moreover, the women's wage premium pales in
comparison to the
one enjoyed by even the low-rent prostitutes
from a hundred years ago.
Compared with them, [the typical street
prostitutes] are working for next to
nothing.

"Why has the prostitute's wage fallen so
far?

"Because demand has fallen dramatically. Not
the demand for sex.
That is still robust. But prostitution, like
any industry, is vulnerable to
competition.

"Who poses the greatest competition to a
prostitute? Simple: any
woman who is willing to have sex with a man
for free.

"It is no secret that sexual mores have
evolved substantially in recent decades. The
phrase 'casual sex' didn't exist a century
ago (to say
nothing of 'friends with benefits'). Sex
outside of marriage was much
harder to come by and carried significantly
higher penalties than it
does today."

Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner,
Superfreakonomics, William Morrow,
Copyright 2009 by Steven D. Levitt and
Stephen J. Dubner, pp. 29-30.

delanceyplace.com 12/8/09 - james brown

2009-12-08T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - Paul Shaffer, musical
showman par excellence whose career has
included long stints as musical director with
David Letterman and Saturday Night Live,
delivers an encomium to his favorite
musician, the King of them all, the Godfather
of Soul - James Brown:

"The one artist that woke me up and got me
going - and, I must add, has kept me going
throughout my life - was the Godfather of
Soul, Mr. James Brown. James electrified me,
as he
electrified the world, beginning in my
precollege years. I loved
listening to the time-honored introduction
rendered by Danny
Ray, James Brown's formidable master of
ceremonies.

" 'Now, ladies and gentlemen, it is Star
Time. Are you ready
for Star Time? Thank you and thank you
kindly. It is indeed a
great pleasure to present to you at this
particular time the artist
nationally and internationally known as the
hardest-working
man in show business.

" 'Yes, he'll make your bladder splatter,
he'll make your knees
freeze and your liver quiver. The star of the
show, Mr. Please
Please himself, soul brother number one, Mr.
Dynamite, the
man with the crown ... James Brown and the
Famous Flames.'

"Musicologists hail the sublime musical
contributions of
Mozart, Monteverdi, Beethoven, and Bach. Here
in America we
celebrate Louis Armstrong, Aaron Copland,
Duke Ellington,
and Charles Ives. The relative merits of
musical geniuses are
impossible to calculate. I won't try. I will
only say that, for my
money, James Brown is 'King of them all,
y'all.'

"It's the singing, yes: the pitch-perfect
screams that penetrate
your heart and freeze your blood. It's the
dancing, of course: the
spins, the splits, the grace, and the grit.
It's the band: tighter
and righter than any orchestra in the proud
history of soul. It's
the songs: the social messages, the sexual
subtexts, the self-assertive anthems of a
free black man in a white world. It's
everything. James Brown is everything I love
in music. ...

"[He was] the most ferocious barbarian of
all, ... and [in a typical] performance made
time grind to a halt, and the world stop
turning on its
axis. Dogs stopped chasing cats. Cats stopped
chasing birds.
Lions lay down with lambs. Babies ceased
crying. Women
stopped weeping. ...

"At the end
of a song, a cape was placed on James's back.
I sat in wonder. Why the cape? What were they
doing? James had fallen to his
knees, and perhaps the purpose of the cape
was to prevent a
chill after his red-hot performance. But as
he started to leave
the stage, he threw off the cape and returned
to the mic,
singing another stirring chorus. The
routine continued. He fell to his knees; a
new cape was placed;
then he got up and threw it off only to
return to the mic. Again!
And again! He couldn't stop himself. He
couldn't stop returning
to plead to his woman, 'Don't Go.' He was
truly out of sight."

Paul Shaffer, We'll Be Here For The Rest
of Our Lives, Doubleday, Copyright 2009
by Paul Shaffer Enterprises, Inc., pp. 80-84.

delanceyplace.com 12/7/09 - disarmament, demobilization and reintegration

2009-12-07T03:34:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - in civil wars and other
widespread conflicts within a country, Dr.
Graciana del Castillo, in her landmark work
Rebuilding War-Torn States (which
includes case studies of El Salvador, Kosovo,
Afghanistan and Iraq), asserts that no peace
process has ever succeeded without the
reintegration of former combatants:

"One of the conditions for successful
reconstruction of a country is the
disarmament, demobilization, and
reintegration (DDR) of former combatants,
including all militia groups. ...

"No peace process has ever succeeded without
the reintegration of former
combatants, as well as other groups affected
by the conflict, taking place in an
effective manner. This is because effective
reintegration promotes security by
limiting the incentives to these groups to
act as spoilers. Reintegration (such as El
Salvador's land-for-arms program), however,
is the longest and one of the most expensive
reconstruction activities. [Yet],
reintegration is typically neglected, as
major donors shy
away from open-ended commitments to the
costly social and economic programs that are
often essential for sustainable peace. Donors
should consider
that, without effective reintegration, their
military and security expenditure to
keep the peace may be significantly
higher.

"This process is critical in supporting
national reconciliation and the promotion of
peace. In December 2006,
the UN launched new Integrated Disarmament,
Demobilization, and Reintegration Standards,
acknowledging the difficulty of transforming
individuals
scarred by conflict into productive members
of their societies. In order to facilitate
the transition, the Standards call for
measures to provide psychosocial
counseling, job training, educational
opportunities, and mechanisms to promote
reconciliation in the communities to which
those individuals return. ...

"Lessons from Mozambique, El Salvador,
Guatemala, and many other countries are
conclusive in this respect: short-term
reintegration programs served
an important purpose in providing
demobilizing soldiers with a means of
survival and an alternative to banditry that
indeed helped maintain the cease-fire.
...

"It is important that the strategy have
enough financial and technical support at
each stage, to make reintegration sustainable
over time, since it has proved a sine qua
non for peace consolidation. ... There
can be different avenues for reintegration.
Reintegration often takes
place through the agricultural sector,
micro-enterprises, fellowships for technical
and university training, and even through the
incorporation of former
combatants into new police forces, the
national army, or political parties."

Graciana del Castillo, Rebuilding War-Torn
States, Oxford, Copyright 2008 by
Graciana del Castillo, pp. 256-259.

delanceyplace.com 12/4/09 - the great depression

2009-12-04T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's encore excerpt - the calamity of the
Great Depression dwarfs the calamity of 2008, in
large part because the Fed turned the crisis of 1929
into the Great Depression by acting to contract the
money supply, helping cause U.S. output to decline by
a third and unemployment to rise to 33%:

"In perhaps the most important work of American
economic history ever published, Milton Friedman and
Anna Schwartz argued that it was the Federal Reserve
System that bore the responsibility for turning the
crisis of 1929 into a Great Depression. They did not
blame the Fed for the bubble itself [and] ... the New
York Fed responded effectively to the October 1929
panic by conducting large-scale (and unauthorized)
market operations (buying bonds from the financial
sector) to inject liquidity into the market. However, after
Strong's death from tuberculosis in October 1928, the
Federal Reserve Board in Washington came to
dominate monetary policy, with disastrous results.

"First, too little was done to counteract the credit
contraction caused by banking failures. This problem
had already surfaced several months before the stock
market crash, when commercial banks with deposits
of more than $80 million suspended payments.
However, it reached critical mass in November and
December 1930, when 608 banks failed, with
deposits totaling $550 million, among them the Bank
of United States, which accounted for more than a
third of the total deposits lost. The failure of merger
talks that might have saved the Bank was a critical
moment in the history of the Depression.

"Secondly, ... the Fed made matters worse by reducing
the amount of credit outstanding (December
1930-April 1931). This forced more and more banks to
sell assets in a frantic dash for liquidity, driving down
bond prices and worsening the general position. The
next wave of bank failures, between February and
August 1931, saw commercial bank deposits fall by
$2.7 billion, 9 per cent of the total. Thirdly, ... the Fed
raised its discount rate in two steps to 3.5 per cent, ...
driving yet more US banks over the edge: the period
August 1931 to January 1932 saw 1,860 banks fail
with deposits of $1.45 billion. ...

"In the United States, output collapsed by a third.
Unemployment reached a quarter of the civilian labour
force, closer to a third if a modern definition is used.
World trade shrank by two-thirds as countries sought
vainly to hide behind tariff barriers and import
quotas. ...

"The Fed's inability to avert a total of around 10,000
bank failures was crucial not just because of the
shock to consumers whose deposits were lost or to
shareholders whose equity was lost, but because of
the broader effect on the money supply and the
volume of credit [which saw] a decline in bank
deposits of $5.6 billion and a decline in bank loans of
$19.6 billion, equivalent to 19 per cent of 1929
GDP."

Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money, Penguin,
Copyright 2008 by Niall Ferguson, pp. 158, 161-163.

delanceyplace.com 12/3/09 - postal service

2009-12-03T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - postal service as we know it has
its origins in 16th century England, with an extra
charge if the letter contained a second sheet of
paper:

"The postal service was not originally designed for
public use. It emerged haphazardly in the 16th century
to provide horses and messengers in times of war for
Henry VIII. A major aim was to establish a government
monopoly over the gathering and censoring of
information and mail. As well as controlling the flow of
intelligence, it would oversee the delivery of diplomatic
correspondence, support foreign and domestic policy
and help to raise revenue. The king's first Master of
the Posts, Sir Brian Tuke (d.1545), selected local
postmasters and divided the six major roads from
London into stages.

"Increased literacy, trade and an interest in news soon
led merchants and the public to demand access to
the post. But it wasn't until 1635 that a London
merchant Thomas Witherings (d.1651) offered a
proposal to organize the first postal system for public
use. A Royal Proclamation for the 'settling of the Letter-
Office of England and Scotland' gave Witherings the
authority to establish fixed, regular posts. Each post
town had its own mail bag to and from London,while
foot posts carried letters further on. The central
London office at Bishopsgate co-ordinated mail on six
main roads, charging 2d a letter for up to 80 miles. ...

"After the Restoration in 1660 Charles II intensified
intelligence activities on post roads that passed
through London. Secretaries of State were given the
right to open letters. It was rumored that state
employees could take impressions of seals, imitate
writing perfectly and copy a letter in a minute by
pressing damp tissue paper over the ink. At the same
time, the Six Clerks of the Road in London were
informally allowed to frank newspapers to local
postmasters, who provided drink, gossip and horses,
as well as news. This right to send newspapers
postage-free led to profits for the six clerks and
reduced prices of papers for readers. It would have a
profound effect on the spread of newspapers.
Paradoxically, the roles of the Post Office as both a
censor and newsagent coexisted throughout the
century. ...

"Country letters that passed through London were
sorted and directed to one of the six roads. Postage
due at delivery was written across the address for the
recipient to pay. If it was suspected that more than one
sheet of paper was enclosed, envelopes were held up
to a candle and extra was charged for each additional
sheet therein."

Susan Whyman , "The Royal Mail: A Passion for the
Post," History Today, Volume: 59, Issue: 12.

delanceyplace.com 12/2/09 - the great beginning

2009-12-02T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - for the ancient Chinese,
God did
not create the heaven and the earth, it just
happened. And man came from the worms of the
decaying Pan Gu's body:

"Though by no means a godless people, the
ancient Chinese were
reluctant to credit their gods - or God -
with anything so manifestly
implausible as the act of creation. In the
beginning, therefore, God did
not create heaven and earth; they happened.
Instead of creation myths,
China's history begins with inception myths
and in place of a creator it
has a 'happening situation.' Suggestive of a
scientific reaction, part black
hole, part Big Bang, this was known as the
Great Beginning.

"According to the third-century BC Huainanzi:
'Before Heaven and Earth had taken form all
was vague and amorphous. Therefore it was
called The Great Beginning. The Great
Beginning produced emptiness, and emptiness
produced the universe. The universe produced
qi [vital force or energy], which had limits.
That which was clear
and light drifted up to become Heaven while
that which was heavy
and turbid solidified to become earth ... The
combined essences of
Heaven and Earth became the yin and
yang.'

"A more popular, though later, version of
this genesis myth describes the
primordial environment as not just amorphous
but 'opaque, like the inside
of an egg'; and it actually was an egg to the
extent that, when broken, white
and yolk separated. The clear white, or yang,
ascended to become Heaven
and the murky yolk, or yin, descended to
become Earth. Interposed between
the two was the egg's incubus, a spirit
called Pan Gu. Pan Gu kept his feet
firmly in the earth and his head in the
heavens as the two drew apart. 'Heaven
was exceedingly high, Earth exceedingly deep,
and Pan Gu exceedingly tall,'
says the Huainanzi. Though not the creator of
the universe, Pan Gu evidently
served as some kind of agent in the
arrangement of it. ...

"Less relevant still in Chinese tradition is
the origin of man. In another
version of the Pan Gu story, it is not Pan
Gu's lanky adolescence which
suggests a degree of personal agency in the
creative process but his posthumous
putrescence. In what might be called a
decomposition myth, as
Pan Gu lay dying, it is said that:

" '[his] breath became the wind and the
clouds; his voice became the
thunder; his left eye became the sun, and his
right the moon; his
four limbs and five torsos became the four
poles and the five mountains; his blood
became the rivers; his sinews became geographic
features; his muscles became the soils in the
field; his hair and beard
became stars and planets; his skin and its
hairs became grasses and
trees; his teeth and bones became bronzes and
jades; his essence
and marrow became pearls and gemstones; his
sweat became rain
and lakes; and the various worms in his body,
touched by the wind,
became the black-haired commoners."

John Keay, China, Basic Books, Copyright
2009 by John Keay, pp. 25-27.

delanceyplace.com 12/1/09 - teddy roosevelt

2009-12-01T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - 39-year-old Teddy Roosevelt
leads the charge up San Juan Hill. Roosevelt, who
was Assistant Secretary of the Navy when the Spanish
American War started in 1898, unexpectedly resigned
his position to enlist in the Army, and displayed
genuine heroism during a key battle of the four month
long war. Roosevelt was decidedly pro-war at a
moment when President McKinley and much of the
country were greatly concerned that the war was
unnecessary and would be the unfortunate
commencement of American imperialism - and in
fact, the war resulted in the acquisition of America's
first colony - the Philippines:

"[After the explosion of the USS Maine], President
William McKinley called for 125,000 volunteers to
augment the 28,000-man regular army. Young men
from every section of the country rallied to his call.
They were anxious to prove themselves equal to the
task and worthy of their place as Americans. Among
the first to volunteer was the man who had perhaps
been the leading advocate for war - Theodore
Roosevelt. Everyone was astonished by this act.

"President McKinley twice attempted to change
Roosevelt's mind, to no avail. 'One of the commonest
taunts directed at men like myself is that we are
armchair and parlor jingoes who wish to see others
do what we only advocate doing,' declared
Roosevelt. 'I care very little for such a taunt, except as
it affects my usefulness, but I cannot afford to
disregard the fact that my power for good, whatever it
may be, would be gone if I didn't try to live up to the
doctrines I have tried to preach.' ...

"The press dubbed the [first of the three regiments
engaged]'Roosevelt's Rough Riders' - a name T.R.
did not relish because of its obvious reference to
Buffalo Bill's Wild West show - and the men were
anxious to see their namesake lieutenant colonel.
Many were at first unimpressed with his somewhat
comical appearance, but that quickly changed.
Lieutenant Tom Hall sized him up immediately: 'He is
nervous, energetic, virile. He may wear out some day,
but he will never rust out.' ...

"Colonel [Leonard] Wood noted 'that this is the first
great expedition our country has ever sent overseas
and marks the commencement of a new era in our
relations with the world.' For the men, however, there
was little thought of world politics, just much card
playing and even an occasional chorus of the Rough
Rider's adopted theme song - 'There'll Be a Hot
Time in the Old Town Tonight.' ...

"[In Cuba, during the heat of the battle] an assortment
of officers, foreign observers, and journalists watched
[the charge up San Juan Hill] in amazement. The
foreigners were as one in condemning the folly of the
charge. 'It is gallant, but very foolish,' said one officer.
Melancholy New York World reporter Stephen Crane
was lost in the glory of it all. 'Yes, they were going up
the hill, up the hill,' Crane wrote. 'It was the best
moment of anybody's life.'

"It was certainly the best moment of Colonel Theodore
Roosevelt's life. He was the only man on horseback,
but his life seemed charmed. 'No one who saw
Roosevelt take that ride expected him to finish it alive,'
wrote correspondent Richard Harding Davis. 'He wore
on his sombrero a blue polka-dot handkerchief, la
Havelock, which, as he advanced, floated out straight
behind his head, like a guidon.' Like Crane, Davis
was overcome by the sheer emotion of the
charge. 'Roosevelt, mounted high on horseback, and
charging the rifle-pits at a gallop and quite alone,
made you feel that you would like to cheer,' he
declared."

Paul Andrew Hutton, "Theodore Roosevelt: Leading
the Rough Riders During the Spanish-American War,"
American History Magazine online.

delanceyplace.com 11/30/09 - germany and mexico

2009-11-30T03:34:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - in 1917, the American public was
resistant to entering World War I, and Woodrow
Wilson had just been re-elected on the promise to
keep America out of that war, when Germany made a
colossal diplomatic blunder that drew America
in:

"As 1917 began, the war was not going well for Britain.
There seemed to be no end to the slaughter on the
Western Front yet there were no obvious signs of
Germany being defeated. Food shortages threatened
and the Asquith government had fallen. Worse,
Germany was about to start unrestricted U-boat
warfare in the Atlantic from February 1st with, it was
feared, a substantially larger U-boat fleet. Much
depended on whether America could be brought into
the war.

"Unrestricted U-boat warfare meant that every enemy
and neutral ship found near the war zone would be
sunk without warning. The Germans envisaged U-
boats sinking 600,000 tons a month, forcing Britain to
capitulate before the next harvest. Admiral von
Holtzendorff told the Kaiser: 'I guarantee that the
U-boat will lead to victory ... I guarantee on my word as
a naval officer that no American will set foot on the
Continent.'

"Enter Arthur Zimmermann, the new German Foreign
Minister, a blunt speaker who considered himself an
expert on American affairs. He developed a plan to
keep America out of Europe once U-boats started
sinking American ships. He proposed to establish a
German-Mexican alliance, promising the Mexicans
that if America entered the war, and following a
German victory, Mexico would have restored to her the
territories of Texas, New Mexico and
Arizona. ...

"On January 16th,
1917, [Zimmermann] sent a coded cable via the
American cable
channel to his ambassador in Washington, Count
Bernstorff. It contained his overture to Mexico
proposing a military alliance against America.
Bernstorff was instructed to pass on the message to
his counterpart Ambassador Eckhardt in Mexico
City. ...

"The full text of the Zimmermann telegram
read:

"Most Secret: For Your Excellency's personal
information and to be handed on to the Imperial
(German) Minister in Mexico.

"We intend to begin un-restricted submarine warfare
on the first of February. We shall endeavour in spite of
this to keep the United States neutral. In the event of
this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of an
alliance on the following basis: Make war together,
make peace together, generous financial support, and
an understanding on our part that Mexico is to
reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and
Arizona. The settlement detail is left to you.

"You will inform the President [of Mexico] of the above
most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the
United States is certain and add the suggestion that
he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to
immediate adherence and at the same time mediate
between Japan and ourselves.

"Please call the President's attention to the fact that
the unrestricted employment of our submarines now
offers the prospect of compelling England to make
peace within a few months. Acknowledge receipt.
Zimmermann. ...

"The telegram
[intercepted and decoded by the British
and] was passed to Washington with the explanation
that the British copy had been 'bought in Mexico'.
The contents of the telegram were passed on to the
Associated Press on February 28th. It sparked
eight-column headlines next morning. It caused a
sensation in America but at the same time aroused
suspicion among Washington politicians about
whether the telegram was authentic. Some even
sniffed a cunning British scheme to propel America
into war.

"Confirmation came from an unexpected source. To
Lansing's 'profound amazement and relief',
Zimmermann himself admitted his authorship.
Overnight the mid-Western isolationist press dropped
its pacifist posture. The Chicago Daily Tribune said
the United States could no longer expect to keep out
of 'active participation in the present conflict.'

"On April 6th 1917, America went to war with Germany,
as Wilson told a joint session of Congress: 'The world
must be made safe for democracy.' "

David Nicholas, "Lucky Break," History Today,
September 2007, pp. 56-57.

delanceyplace.com 11/27/09 - lincoln ejects a visitor

2009-11-27T03:33:00.002-05:00

In today's encore excerpt - the
portrait artist Francis Bicknell Carpenter
(1830-1900), who used the White House as a
studio while painting Abraham Lincoln,
studied and painted Lincoln for nearly six
months. On at least one notable occasion, he
saw the forceful side of Lincoln's
personality. He wrote:

"It has been the business of my life to study
the human face, and I have said repeatedly to
friends that Mr. Lincoln had the saddest face
I ever attempted to paint. During some of the
dark days of the spring and summer of 1864, I
saw him at times when his care-worn, troubled
appearance was enough to bring the tears of
sympathy into the eyes of his most bitter
opponents. I recall particularly one day,
when, having occasion to pass through the
main hall of the domestic apartments, I met
him alone, pacing up and down a narrow
passage, his hands behind him, his head bent
forward upon his breast, heavy black rings
under his eyes, showing sleepless
nights--altogether such a picture of the
effects of sorrow and care as I have never
seen! ...

"A great deal has been said of the uniform
meekness and kindness of heart of Mr.
Lincoln, but there would sometimes be
afforded evidence that one grain of sand too
much would break even this camel's back.
Among the callers at the White House one day
was an officer who had been cashiered from
the service. He had prepared an elaborate
defense of himself, which he consumed much
time in reading to the President. When he had
finished, Mr. Lincoln replied that even upon
his own statement of the case, the facts
would not warrant executive interference.
Disappointed, and considerably crestfallen,
the man withdrew. ...

"[However, the man returned on two additional
occasions and presented the same case in its
entirety, and was twice again dismissed]
Turning very abruptly, the officer said:
'Well, Mr. President, I see you are fully
determined not to do me justice!' This was
too aggravating, even for Mr. Lincoln.
Manifesting, however, no more feeling than
that indicated by a slight compression of the
lips, he very quietly arose, laid down a
package of papers he held in his hand, and
then suddenly seized the defunct officer by
the coat-collar, he marched him forcibly to
the door, saying, as he ejected him into the
passage: 'Sir, I gave you fair warning never
to show yourself in this room again. I can
bear censure, but not insult!' In a whining
tone the man begged for his papers, which he
had dropped. 'Begone, sir,' said the
President, 'your papers will be sent to you.
I never wish to see your face again.' "

Harold Holzer, Lincoln as I Knew Him,
Algonquin, Copyright 1999 by Harold Holzer,
pp. 193-195.

delanceyplace.com 11/25/09 - washington's blunders

2009-11-25T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - early in the American
Revolution, General George Washington's
blunders and misjudgments led to terrible
battlefield losses in New York and in the
Brandywine river valley, and put his job in
jeopardy to General Horatio Gates, whose
stirring victory at Saratoga had been crucial
to American prospects:

"Washington's string of blunders [in New
York] was certain to lead to recriminations,
perhaps even to calls for his removal.
Already aware of the displeasure
among some in Congress, he discovered on the
last day of November that
even some in the army had lost confidence in
him. On that day, a letter
from General Charles Lee arrived for Joseph
Reed, Washington's former secretary,
now the army's adjutant general. As Reed was
away from headquarters on
a mission, Washington, who was desperate for
information, tore open
Lee's letter. What he read was lacerating.
Washington's 'fatal indecision,'
Lee had said in his customarily caustic
manner, would doom the American
army.

"From things that Lee said, it was also clear
that Reed, heretofore
Washington's closest confidant in the army,
shared Lee's views. (Reed,
with pitiless honesty, had told Lee that
Washington's 'indecisive Mind'
had been among the army's 'greatest
Misfortunes,' and he added that had
it not been for Lee, Washington's army would
never have escaped Manhattan.) One of the few
men with the backbone to criticize Washington
to his face, Lee had already told the
commander that he was foolish to act
on the advice of his generals, most of whom
were 'Men of inferior judgment.' Though
Washington was unaware of it, Lee had also
urged General Horatio Gates to hurry to
Washington's side to 'save your army,' as
'a certain great Man is most damnably
deficient.' ...

"[The next year after his loss at the Battle
of the Brandywine], Washington was besieged
with rumors that a
'Strong Faction' within Congress wished to
remove him and name Gates
as the new commander of the Continental army.
Washington did not
know precisely what was occurring behind the
curtain in Congress, but he
probably knew that some congressmen believed
- as Pennsylvania's Dr.
Benjamin Push, a signer of the Declaration of
Independence, put it - that
the army 'under General Gates [was] a well
regulated family,' while
'Washington's [was but an] imitation of an
Army' that bore the look of
'an unformed mob.' Some proclaimed that Gates
had 'executed with vigor
and bravery,' attaining 'the pinnacle of
military glory.' Washington's command,
according to the whispers, was characterized
by such 'negligence'
that it was hardly surprising he had been
'outwitted,' 'outgeneraled and
twice beated [sic].' It was unsettling enough
to have congressmen complain about his
leadership, but atop that Washington soon
learned that some
of his officers had lost confidence in
him.

"Washington did not know the full extent of
the disaffection with his
leadership. But he knew enough to become
convinced that he was in the
maw of a great crisis."

John Ferling, The Ascent of George
Washington, Bloomsbury Press, Copyright
2009 by John Ferling, pp. 119, 139.

delanceyplace.com 11/24/09 - more innovation

2009-11-24T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - small firms have an
advantage over larger firms in innovation,
and venture capital plays a
disproportionately large role economic
growth:

"Initially, economists generally overlooked
the creative power of new
firms: they suspected that the bulk of
innovations would stem from
large industrialized concerns. For instance,
Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950), one
of the pioneers of the serious study of
entrepreneurship, posited that
large firms had an inherent advantage in
innovation relative to smaller
enterprises. ...

"In today's world, Schumpeter's hypothesis of
large-firm superiority
does not accord with casual observation. In
numerous industries, such
as medical devices, communication
technologies, semiconductors,
and software, leadership is in the hands of
relatively young firms whose
growth was largely financed by venture
capitalists and public equity
markets. ...

"A
study by Zoltan Acs and David Audretsch
examined which firms developed some of the
most important innovations of the twentieth
century. They documented the central
contribution of new and small
firms: these firms contributed almost half
the innovations they examined. ...

"What explains the apparent advantage of
smaller firms? Much of it
stems from the difficulty of large firms in
fomenting innovation. For
instance, one of Schumpeter's more perceptive
contemporaries, John
Jewkes, presciently argued:

" 'It is erroneous to suppose that those
techniques of large-scale operation and
administration which have produced such
remarkable results in some branches of
industrial manufacture can be
applied with equal success to efforts to
foster new ideas. The two
kinds of organization are subject to quite
different laws. In the one
case the aim is to achieve smooth, routine,
and faultless repetition, in the other to
break through the bonds of routine and of
accepted ideas. So that large research
organizations can perhaps
more easily become self-stultifying than any
other type of large
organization, since in a measure they are
trying to organize what
is least organizable.'

"But this observation still begs a question:
what explains the difficulties of larger
firms in creating true innovations? In
particular, there are at least three reasons
why entrepreneurial ventures are more innovative:

"The first has to do with incentives.
Normally, firms provide incentives to their
employees in many roles, from salespeople to
waiters.
Yet large firms are notorious for offering
employees little more than
a gold watch for major discoveries. ...
Whatever the reason, there is a striking
contrast between the very limited incentives
at large corporate labs
and the stock-option-heavy compensation
packages at start-ups.

"Second, large firms may simply become
ineffective at innovating.
A whole series of authors have argued that
incumbent firms frequently have blind spots,
which stem from their single-minded
focus on existing customers. As a result, new
entrants can identify
and exploit market opportunities that the
established leaders don't
see.

"Finally, new firms may choose riskier
projects. Economic theorists suggest that new
firms are likely to pursue high-risk strategies,
while established firms rationally choose
more traditional approaches. Hence, while
small firms may fail more frequently,
they are also likely to introduce more
innovative products. ...

"On average a dollar of venture capital
appears to be three to four times more potent
in stimulating patenting than a dollar
of traditional corporate R&D."

Josh Lerner, Boulevard of Broken
Dreams, Princeton, Copyright 2009 by
Princeton University Press, pp. 45-49, 62.

delanceyplace.com 11/23/09 - the pilgrims and columbus

2009-11-23T03:34:00.002-05:00

In today's Thanksgiving encore excerpt - the
discovery of America. Author Tony Horwitz
muses on the discovery of America after
hearing from a Plymouth Rock tour guide named
Claire that the most common question from
tourists was why the date etched on the rock
was 1620 instead of 1492:

" 'People think Columbus dropped off the
Pilgrims and sailed home.' Claire had to
patiently explain that Columbus's landing and
the Pilgrims' arrival occurred a thousand
miles and 128 years apart. ...

"By the time the first English settled, other
Europeans had already reached half of the
forty-eight states that today make up the
continental United States. One of the
earliest arrivals was Giovanni da Verrazzano,
who toured the Eastern Seaboard in 1524,
almost a full century before the Pilgrims
arrived. ... Even less remembered are the
Portuguese pilots who steered Spanish ships
along both coasts of the continent in the
sixteenth century, probing upriver to Bangor,
Maine, and all the way to Oregon. ... In
1542, Spanish conquistadors completed a
reconnaissance of the continent's interior:
scaling the Appalachians, rafting the
Mississippi, peering down the Grand Canyon,
and galloping as far inland as central
Kansas. ...

"The Spanish didn't just explore: they
settled, from the Rio Grande to the Atlantic.
Upon founding St. Augustine, the first
European city on U.S. soil, the Spanish gave
thanks and dined with Indians-fifty-six years
before the Pilgrim Thanksgiving at Plymouth.
... Plymouth, it turned out, wasn't even the
first English colony in New England. That
distinction belonged to Fort St. George, in
Popham, Maine. Nor were the Pilgrims the
first to settle Massachusetts. In 1602, a
band of English built a fort on the island of
Cuttyhunk. They came, not for religious
freedom, but to get rich from digging
sassafras, a commodity prized in Europe as a
cure for the clap. ...

"The Pilgrims, and later, the Americans who
pushed west from the Atlantic, didn't pioneer
a virgin wilderness. They occupied a land
long since transformed by European contact.
... Samoset, the first Indian the Pilgrims
met at Plymouth, greeted the settlers in
English. The first thing he asked for was
beer."

Tony Horwitz, A Voyage Long and
Strange, Henry Holt, Copyright 2008 by
Tony Horwitz, pp. 3-6.

delanceyplace.com 11/20/09 - innovation

2009-11-20T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's excerpt - historically, 85% of the increase in
per capita GDP (gross domestic product or wealth) in
the U.S. economy has come from innovation - the
invention of new products and services or the
invention of better ways to make existing products and
services. It follows that any durable and sustainable
program to create jobs in an economy would focus
foremost on innovation:

"Since the 1950s, economists have understood that
innovation is critical to economic growth. Our lives are
more comfortable and longer than those of our great-
grandparents on many dimensions. To cite just three
improvements: antibiotics cure once-fatal infections,
long-distance communications cost far less, and the
burden of household chores is greatly reduced. At the
heart of these changes has been the progress of
technology and business.

"Economists have documented the strong connection
between technological progress and economic
prosperity, both across nations and over time. This
insight grew out of studies done by the pioneering
student of technological change, Morris Abramowitz.
He realized that there are ultimately only two ways of
increasing the output of the economy: (1) increasing
the number of inputs that go into the productive
process (e.g., by having workers stay employed until
the age of sixty-seven, instead of retiring at sixty-two),
or (2) developing new ways to get more output from
the same inputs. Abramowitz measured the growth in
the output of the American economy between 1870
and 1950 - the amount of material goods and services
produced - and then computed the increase in inputs
(especially labor and financial capital) over the same
time period. To be sure, this was an imprecise
exercise: he needed to make assumptions about the
growth in the economic impact of these input
measures. After undertaking this analysis, he
discovered that growth of inputs between 1870 and
1950 could account only for about 15 percent of the
actual growth in the output of the economy. The
remaining 85 percent could not be explained through
the growth of inputs. Instead, the increased economic
activity stemmed from innovations in getting more stuff
from the same inputs.

"Other economists in the late 1950s and 1960s
undertook similar exercises. These studies differed in
methodologies, economic sectors, and time periods,
but the results were similar. Most notably, Robert
Solow, who later won a Nobel Prize for this work,
identified an almost identical 'residual' of about 85
percent. The results so striking because most
economists for the previous 200 years had been
building models in which economic growth was
treated as if it was primarily a matter of adding more
inputs: if you just had more people and dollars, more
output would invariably result.

"Instead, these studies suggested, the crucial driver of
growth was changes in the ways inputs were used.
The magnitude of this unexplained growth, and the
fact that it was exposed by researchers using widely
divergent methodologies, persuaded most
economists that innovation was a major force in the
growth of output.

"In the decades since the 1950s, economists and
policymakers have documented the relationship
between innovation - whether new scientific
discoveries or incremental changes in the way that
factories and service businesses work - and
increases in economic prosperity. Not just identifying
an unexplained 'residual,' studies have
documented the positive effects of technological
progress in areas such as information technology.
Thus, an essential question for the economic future of
a country is not only what it produces, but how it goes
about producing it.

"This relationship between innovation and growth has
been recognized by many governments. From the
European Union - which has targeted increasing
research spending as a key goal in the next few years -
to emerging economies such as China, leaders have
embraced the notion that innovation is critical to
growth."

Josh Lerner, Boulevard of Broken Dreams,
Princeton, Copyright 2009 by Princeton University
Press, pp. 43-45.

delanceyplace.com 11/19/09 - scientists

2009-11-19T03:35:00.002-05:00

In today's encore excerpt - science becomes
a profession:

"It is natural to describe key [scientific] events in terms
of the work of individuals who made a mark in
science - Copernicus, Vesalius, Darwin, Wallace and
the rest. But this does not mean that science has
progressed
as a result of the work of a string of irreplaceable
geniuses possessed of a special insight into how the
world works. Geniuses maybe (though not always);
but irreplaceable certainly not. Scientific progress
builds step by step, and as the example of Charles
Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace [who independently
and simultaneously put forward the theory of evolution]
shows, when the time is ripe, two or more individuals
may make the next step independently of one another.
It is the luck of the draw, or historical accident, whose
name gets remembered as the discoverer of a new
phenomenon.

"What is much more important than human genius is
the development of technology, and it is no surprise
that the start of the scientific revolution 'coincides' with
the development of the telescope and the
microscope. ... If Newton had never lived, scientific
progress might have been held back by a few
decades. But only by a few decades. Edmond Halley
or Robert Hooke might well have come up with the
famous inverse square law of gravity; Gottfried Leibniz
actually did invent calculus independently of Newton
(and made a better job of it); and Christiaan
Huygens's superior wave theory of light was held back
by Newton's espousal of the rival particle theory. ...

"Although the figure of Charles Darwin dominates any
discussion of nineteenth-century science, he is
something of an anomaly. It is during the nineteenth
century - almost exactly during Darwin's lifetime - that
science makes the shift from being a gentlemanly
hobby, where the interests and abilities of a single
individual can have a profound impact, to a
well-populated profession, where progress depends
on the work of many individuals who are, to some
extent, interchangeable. Even in the case of the theory
of natural selection, as we have seen, if Darwin hadn't
come up with the idea, Wallace would have, and from
now on we will increasingly find that discoveries are
made more or less simultaneously by different people
working independently and largely in ignorance of one
another. ...

"The other side of this particular coin,
unfortunately, is that the growing number of scientists
brings with it a growing inertia and resulting
resistance to change, which means that all too often
when some brilliant individual does come up with a
profound new insight into the way the world works,
this is not accepted immediately on merit and may
take a generation to work its way into the collective
received wisdom of science. ...

"In 1766, there were probably no more than 300
people who we would now class as scientists in the
entire world. By 1800, ... there were about a thousand.
By ... 1844, there were about 10,000, and by 1900
somewhere around 100,000. Roughly speaking, the
number of scientists doubled every fifteen years
during the nineteenth century. But remember that the
whole population of Europe doubled, from about 100
million to about 200 million, between 1750 and 1850,
and the population of Britain alone doubled between
1800 and 1850, from roughly 9 million to roughly 18
million."

John Gribbin, The Scientists, Random House,
Copyright 2002 by John and Mary Gribbin, pp. xix-xx,
359-361.

delanceyplace.com 11/18/09 - occupiers and plebiscites

2009-11-18T03:34:00.003-05:00

In today's excerpt - occupiers often manipulate
plebiscites or other data to "prove" that their new
subjects support them. But that often masks a
pending revolt. And so it was with the British
occupation of Iraq (Mesopotamia) in 1917 - which
locals viewed as a British attempt to extend their
empire - and the violent revolts that followed. Given
Woodrow Wilson's world-shaking proposal in the
aftermath of World War I that all people should be able
to self-determine their own government, such
plebiscites had become especially crucial:

"On March 11th, 1917, British and Indian soldiers of
the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force (MEF)
marched into Baghdad and occupied it in order to
restore order and halt the looting that had followed the
city's evacuation by Ottoman forces the previous day.
On March 12th, the British War Cabinet issued a
proclamation to the inhabitants of Baghdad. This
flowery document pledged that 'our armies do not
come into your cities and lands as conquerors or
enemies, but as liberators'. ...

"After March 1917 the emphasis of [British] operations
in Mesopotamia shifted towards the pacification of the
British-occupied areas and the introduction and
extension of civil machinery designed to regulate the
mobilization and extraction of the manpower, food and
fodder needed in ever greater quantities for the
military. This involved the 'submission by political
means' of local tribes and the visible downward
penetration of British control to all levels of
society. ...

"The logistical requirements of maintaining and
supplying the MEF, which peaked at 420,000
combatants and non-combatants in 1918, made
enormous demands on local resources of manpower,
food and fodder, ... causing great hardship to a
populace already weakened by poor harvests in 1916
and 1917, and the commercial dislocation caused by
three years of war.

"At the end of the war, Mesopotamia remained under
British occupation. With President
Woodrow Wilson and the peace-makers in Paris
championing self-determination, the British
administration in Baghdad sought to find 'up to date
reasons' for continued British rule that would make
them 'both indispensable to, and acceptable by, the
native community', even as they entrenched
themselves more firmly in the region. ... The British
failed to identify the true degree of opposition to their
presence in Mesopotamia. They manipulated and
misrepresented the results of a plebiscite on 'local
opinion' in 1919 to produce what one Cabinet
member in London, Edwin Montagu, called
an 'authoritative statement' to President Wilson and
the peace conferences indicating popular local
support for British policies.

"British demands for labour and foodstuffs continued
throughout 1919 and 1920 and the methods of
collection became more effective. They combined with
the cumulative impact of food shortages, high price
inflation and the introduction of taxation to create
significant pools of discontent as British control
became increasingly visible, ... creating a multitude of
grievances that eventually found their outlet in violent
unrest. The speed and ferocity with which the [Iraqi]
revolt took root and spread between July and October
1920 shook the foundations of British rule in
Mesopotamia and necessitated a level of financial
and military expenditure that London could ill afford at
a time of significant discontent in India, Ireland and
elsewhere. ...

"[Prominent among the revolt leadership was] a family
called Sadr, [whose grandson Moqtada al-Sadr is a
belligerent in the current Iraqi War]."

Kristian Ulrichsen, "Coming as Liberators," History
Today, January 2007, pp. 47-49.

delanceyplace.com 11/17/09 - subjugating ireland

2009-11-17T03:35:00.001-05:00

In today's excerpt - subjugating Ireland in the early
1600s. England, having recently broken away from the
Catholic Church, feared that Catholic Spain would use
still-Catholic Ireland as a stronghold for invading
England, and therefore had incentive to subjugate
and "colonize" Ireland. England could look to the new
European experiences in the New World for examples
of how to colonize and subjugate. And the colonizing
mission required colonists to wear civilized clothes
and inhabit civilized housing - however impractical that
might be:

"Ironically and perhaps fatefully, early English
conceptions of Indian life and character became
intertwined with the justification of another colonizing
venture. Ireland was nominally under English rule, but
effective control did not extend beyond the small
district known as 'the Pale,' centered on Dublin. The
rest of the island was home to 'the wild Irish,' who
were divided into loose collections of warlike people
with a common interest in defying the English. With
the Spanish seemingly set on ruling the world,
England awakened to the danger that Catholic Spain
might take over Catholic Ireland as a stronghold for
invading England. Subjugating the Irish became a way
of forestalling Spain. Elizabeth began by parceling out
the country to her favorites, [Sir Walter] Ralegh among
them.
These English overlords could either tame their wild
Irish tenants or supplant them with a more productive
and tractable population. It was the same problem
that Ralegh faced at Roanoke and the Virginia
Company would face at Jamestown, not to say the
problem the United States would face in its long
march across North America.

"[To the English,] the Irish shared with American
Indians a profound
deficiency that required correction if they were to make
proper subjects: they were not civil. That word carried
hidden meanings and connotations that would
reverberate throughout American history. Civility was a
way of life not easily defined, but its results were
visible: substantial housing and ample clothing.
Uncivil peoples were naked and nomadic. Civility
required of those who deserved the name a sustained
effort, physical and intellectual. It did not require belief
in Christianity, for the ancient Greeks and Romans
had it; but Christianity, or at least Protestant
Christianity, was impossible without it. The Irish
Catholics and those Indians converted by Spanish or
French missionaries were not, in the English view,
either civil or Christian. The objective of colonization
was to bring civility and Christianity to the uncivil, in
that order.

"The objective was threatened, indeed civility itself
was
threatened, if lazy colonists, coveting the unfettered life
of the uncivil, went native, or, it might be said, went
naked. 'Clothes were of tremendous importance, ...
because one's whole identity was
bound up in the self-presentation of dress. The Scots
and Irish - and soon the American Indians - could not
be civil unless they dressed in English clothes, like
civilized people, and cut their long hair,' signs of a
capacity to submit to the enlightened government of
their superiors.

"England's preferred way of civilizing the Irish was
through force of arms, but after ruthless military
expeditions failed to bring widespread peace, and
with it civility, the new solution was to plant the country
with people who already rejoiced in that condition.
Refractory natives would learn by example, or simply
give way, left to a wretched existence on the margins
of a profoundly transformed Ireland. Not long before
the Virginia Company began supplying people to
Jamestown for much the same purpose, the English
authorities began settling far larger numbers across
the Irish Sea, an estimated 100,000 by 1641."

Edmund S. Morgan and Marie Morgan, "Our Shaky
Beginnings," The New York Review of Books,
April 26, 2007, pp. 21-22.

----------------------------------------

To visit our homepage or sign up for our
daily email click
here (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102825428048&s=40935&e=001i8ShNGf0fvyo96PHwEOr9wLj-OWI-CcqXui-tO3OiNGM1j81qYTPQ6Eaa37Jov82M3lbsZiJDMig1Z9mBQVO0YM_PPcpS2ATWzHj9JpXLrsp82PGxujl2g==)

To view previous daily emails click
here (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102825428048&s=40935&e=001i8ShNGf0fvzUvitoN22eNAqJv9wPIEDTIX9wKyrM2WVRNkXigNlmz5A-b5oXyd_Jri1wXj1wdKQ7MuGsbhAsFuiBPwDlb8J4JXM4Zy0w3F070SCB2xPorKvHyFisWxJvNcUqn_FFfgEH_RTR7mpBzILTKOpEM-Clj7VIWrIX3ms=).

------------------------------------------------------------ daily@delanceyplace.com
------------------------------------------------------------

Forward email
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1101151826392&ea=bblog%40delanceyplace.com&a=1102825428048

This email was sent to bblog@delanceyplace.com by daily@delanceyplace.com.

Update Profile/Email Address
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&v=001k2WZ9BVVGwuzG6dg3Iqjho-3Gf58x0T8LeMRT6lcgSWARlhL1Sw_9-1QVsKcCF35dGoFqg46LqmnlAdcDAWX8Q%3D%3D

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&v=001k2WZ9BVVGwuzG6dg3Iqjho-3Gf58x0T8LeMRT6lcgSWARlhL1Sw_9-1QVsKcCF35dGoFqg46LqmnlAdcDAWX8Q%3D%3D

Email Marketing by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com

Delanceyplace.com | daily@delanceyplace.com | Philadelphia | PA | 19102