The Holiday Is "Washington's Birthday"

Monday is not / not 'President's Day'

It's my pet peeve.

As we approach the Federal holiday that we will celebrate on Monday, the History News Network asks the timely question, Is It Presidents Day or President's Day or Presidents' Day?

Of course, it is none of those.

According to some of the calendars and appointment books floating around the Internet, Monday, February 18, is Presidents’ Day. Others say it’s President’ Day. Still others opt for Presidents Day. Which is it?

-- snip --

Trick question. The answer, strictly speaking, is none of the above. Ever since 1968, when, in one of the last gasps of Great Society reformism, holidays were rejiggered to create more three-day weekends, federal law has decreed the third Monday in February to be Washington’s Birthday. And Presidents Day? According to Prologue, the magazine of the National Archives, it was a local department-store promotion that's responsible. Retailers discovered that a generic Presidents Day cleared more inventory than a holiday celebrating a particular one, even the Father of His Country. Now everybody thinks it’s official, but it’s not.

That Prologue article tells us how and why Washington's Birthday was established as a Federal holiday, and explains why most people think there is such as thing as Presidents Day:

Local advertisers morphed both "Abraham Lincoln's Birthday" and "George Washington's Birthday" into the sales sound bite "President's Day," expanding the traditional three-day sales to begin before Lincoln's birth date and end after Washington's February 22 birth. In some instances, advertisers promoted the sales campaign through the entire month of February. To the unsuspecting public, the term linking both presidential birthdays seemed to explain the repositioning of the holiday between two high-profile presidential birthdays.

So we see that Washington's Birthday, an observance begun for the purpose of fighting the erosion of historical memory, was twisted into an excuse to advertise department store sales during February.

And, it turns out the main culprit in this misinforming of the American public for commercial purposes was none other than the Washington Post:

By the mid-1980s, the term was appearing in a few Washington Post holiday advertisements and an occasional newspaper editorial. Three "spellings" of the advertising holiday ensued—one without an apostrophe and two promoting a floating apostrophe. The Associated Press stylebook placed the apostrophe between the "t" and "s" ("President's Day"), while grammatical purists positioned the apostrophe after the "s" believing Presidents' deferred the day to the "many" rather than one singular "President."

Well, there you have it. Believe the WaPo at your own risk.

Please Don't Look At This Fortress Embassy In Guayaquil

Photo from U.S. Consulate Guayaquil's website 

The U.S. Consulate in Guayaquil, Ecuador, has moved to a new location, and apparently that's it in the photo above.

In case you are wondering about that small "c" in parentheses in the image, it's merely a copyright mark and not a classification marking. Of course it isn't a classification marking, because the building's exterior is in the public view and not classifiable.

But on second thought, maybe that photo and any others like it should be classified, because I can't believe the Consulate wants anybody to see that monstrosity of a building. I'm partial to fortresses and all, but really, that one is making me get in touch with the architect within me, and he thinks the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) should tear that thing down and start over.

Honest to Jane Loeffler, that is a strange and ugly building!

Here's OBO's press release:

In an important symbol of our commitment and enduring relationship with Ecuador, U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador, Adam E. Namm, presided over the dedication of the new U.S. Consulate General in Guayaquil today.

The new multi-building complex provides employees with a safe, secure, and modern workplace. Situated on an 11.25-acre site in the San Eduardo neighborhood, the new Consulate General includes a new office building, two access pavilions, a service/utility building, and parking.

The $66.5 million project incorporates numerous sustainable features to conserve resources and reduce operating costs, including an energy recovery unit that reduces the need for heating and cooling, water-conserving plumbing fixtures, and the use of regional and recycled materials.

The facility was designed by Page Southerland Page, LLC of Arlington, Virginia and constructed by Contracting Consulting and Engineering, LLC of Annapolis, Maryland.

Since 1999, as part of the Department’s Capital Security Construction Program, the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) has completed 109 new diplomatic facilities and has an additional 36 projects in design or under construction.

OBO’s mission is to provide safe, secure, and functional facilities that represent the U.S. government to the host nation and support our staff in the achievement of U.S. foreign policy objectives. These facilities should represent American values and the best in American architecture [sic, believe it or not], engineering, technology, sustainability, art, culture, and construction execution.

OBO's press kit for the project is currently mixed up, and the link for New Consulate Guayaquil's fact sheet takes you to New Embassy Benin.

That's too bad, because I'd like to find out how much OBO paid to Page Southerland Page, LLC of Arlington, Virginia to design that place. Considering that the total project cost was only $66.5 million, or less than half of what a typical new embassy or consulate costs, I'm guessing the design end was practically an afterthought.

Now I'll spend the rest of the day shaking off the inanity of that image.
 

Who Cares About Flowers, Where Have All The Stalinists Gone?

Tom Lehrer pays a richly deserved tribute to all those battlers against injustice who enter combat armed only with banjos and camouflaged with nothing but broken grammar and plaid shirts. Good stuff.

Returning to the subject of Pete Seeger, I looked through many of the essays and tributes to him trying to learn when, or whether, he ever regretted his years as a loyal Communist during the era of Stalin. Did he break with his old comrades after the Budapest Uprising, or the Berlin Wall, or the Prague Spring?  Or anything at all?

No such luck.

According to a New York Times article from 2007, the best Seeger ever did in the way of a denunciation was this:

But in fact, Mr. Seeger, 87, made such statements [denunciations of Stalin] years ago, at least as early as his 1993 book, “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” In the book, he said in a 1995 interview with The New York Times Magazine, he had apologized “for following the party line so slavishly, for not seeing that Stalin was a supremely cruel misleader.”

His 1993 book? Stalin died in 1953. Couldn't Seeger have come to a conclusion a little sooner than 1993?

I've read that Seeger joined the Communist Youth League in 1936, and the main Communist Party USA in 1941. So, he spent up to 17 years of his Party career under the leadership of Stalin. (I say ‘up to’ because Seeger never made clear exactly when he left the Party.) That should have been enough time to develop an opinion of the man.

What was Stalin up to in those days? Well, he was sponsoring the great purges and show trials in which the Party, government, and Red Army leaderships, plus the peasants, the intellectuals, and foreign minorities were terrorized and decimated. That news made the papers, even the New Masses, so I assume Seeger was well aware of it all.

What else? Leon Trotsky, the Russian revolutionary and Marxist theorist, original member of the Soviet Politburo and founder of the Red Army, who had been exiled by Stalin in the 1902s, was assassinated in Mexico City on Stalin's orders.

Then there was World War II and Stalin’s pact with Hitler (1939 to 1941), followed by his invasion and annexation of Poland and Lithuania.

Right after the war there was the hostile take-over by the Soviet Union of Eastern European states, followed by the violent suppression of the East German uprising of 1953, which started with labor strikes. In Poland, there was the Poznań uprising in 1956, also a labor strike. Also in 1956, there was the huge uprising in Hungary which ended in the abolition of the Hungarian Communist Party, the calling of multi-party elections, and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact – in fact, a counter revolution - which was brutally suppressed by a Russian military invasion. I know Seeger must have heard about that.

To be fair, since Stalin died in 1953, it was his successors who were directly to blame for everything that happened in 1956. Of course, also in 1956, came the famous denunciation of Stalin by Nikita Khrushchev to the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. His speech "On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences" was published in the West, including in the New York Times. It made quite a splash.

Surely Seeger read about Khrushchev's speech. Didn’t the crimes of the Stalin era make an impression on him? I guess not, if it was only in 1993 that Seeger expressed some small criticism of Stalin.

A supremely cruel misleader. That’s it? After spending thirteen years as a loyal Communist while Stalin was alive, and with the benefit of another forty years of hindsight after Stalin’s death, that’s all Seeger had to say about the man?

So tell me … if Leni Riefenstahl, sometime around 1984, had told an interviewer that Hitler was “a supremely cruel misleader,” would she have then been welcomed back to the human race, and become a fit subject for film criticism or, say, an NPR profile about all her fascinating artistic pursuits since WWII? At the least, would Jodie Foster finally be able to make the Riefenstahl biographical film she is rumored to be developing? I don't think so.

I mean, 1993? Really? Why even bother making such a ridiculously mild ‘denunciation’ at such a comically late date? Not only had Stalin been dead for forty years, but the Soviet Union itself had ceased to exist by the time Seeger wrote his book.

It’s like Seeger waited until he was the last Communist still standing before he let rip with that tiny diss.

Where have all the commies gone, long time passing?
Where have all the commies gone, long time ago?
Where have all the commies gone?
Gone to grave yards every one

I hesitate to speak ill of the dead. But given that we've talking about the last unrepentant follower of Stalin, I ask myself, when will we ever learn to shun the propagandists of left-totalitarianism the same as we do their counterparts on the right and elsewhere?

   

If I Had A Hammer, It Would Look Cool Next To My Sickle

Talking Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that is

Leni Riefenstahl never got the respect she deserved. The taint of Nazism overwhelmed all other considerations when it came to her reputation.

Riefenstahl was fairly described as "an artist of unparalleled gifts, a woman in an industry dominated by men, one of the greatest formalists of the cinema on a par with Eisenstein or Welles." All absolutely true, and all of absolutely no help whatsoever in rehabilitating her legacy in cinema.

She was a far greater artist than Pete Seeger. Plus she was a woman, so you might think she'd get at least some grudging acknowledgment as the pioneer for women in her field. She even lived seven years longer than Seeger did (she died at age 101), so she might have qualified for at least a little reconsideration based on the passage of enough time. But, no. She had been pro-Nazi.

Pete Seeger, on the other hand, got a total pass for the nearly two years that he played for the same team as Riefenstahl: 23 August 1939 until 22 June 1941, the period of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. She made pro-Nazi films, and Seeger sang his heart out to keep America neutral while Nazi Germany invaded Poland and Czechoslovakia, tried to invade Britain, and established Auschwitz. What's the moral difference between those two propagandists?

Seeger, a U.S. Communist Party member, was being objectively pro-fascist, to use the term that George Orwell applied to pacifists in World War II. Yet, he ends up being the celebrated old leftie troubadour, awarded the National Medal of the Arts by President Bill Clinton in 1994. Riefenstahl just ... ended up.

It was Seeger's bad luck that he and the Almanac Singers released their debut album of FDR-bashing anti-interventionism, Songs for John Doe, just one month before Hitler broke his pact with Stalin and invaded the USSR. But Seeger was nothing if not flexible. He withdrew Songs from distribution (although you can still find it) and came right back with a pro-FDR, pro-war, album called Dear Mr. President. Seeger did not let a decent interval pass, he just turned on a dime and resumed cheer leading, only for the other side. 

In May 1941, Seeger was all:

Oh, Franklin Roosevelt told the people how he felt
We damned near believed what he said
He said, "I hate war, and so does Eleanor
But we won't be safe 'till everybody's dead."

Then, after Hitler invaded Russia, he was all:

Now, Mr. President,
You're commander-in-chief of our armed forces
The ships and the planes and the tanks and the horses
I guess you know best just where I can fight ...
So what I want is you to give me a gun
So we can hurry up and get the job done!

I dislike the sucking-up tone of Dear Mr. President even more than the objective pro-fascism of John Doe. "I guess you know best ... " Really, now.

Just so I don't speak too much ill of the dead on the day that he died, I'll say something in Seeger's favor. He disagreed with Joan Baez' statement that there are no good right-wing folk songs, which I think showed a commendable magnanimity. I recall seeing him say that in a television interview many, many, years ago; I've been googling like a Stakhanovite all day to find a clip of that interview but came up empty-handed, so please trust my recollection.

Seeger even sang a few examples of good right-wing folk songs, one of which was See the Beatniks (An Ode to Non-Comformity). That was a parody of Little Boxes, a song Seeger had covered and made popular, and which the satirist Tom Lehrer called the most sanctimonious song ever written. There's a good discussion of Boxes here.

RIP Seeger. You came of age in a low dishonest decade, but in the end you lived long enough that those old lies have been almost forgotten.

Federal Offices In Washington DC Closed Due To Snow

Today's major winter storm started very slowly, I must admit. But by now - almost noon - I see a steady flow of snowflakes coming down, so the prudent judgment of the Office of Personnel Management (FEDERAL OFFICES in the Washington, DC, area are CLOSED) has been amply justified.

Kabul's Taverna du Liban Attack Was A Tripwire Crossed

Outside the Taverna yesterday

Last Friday's attack by the Taliban on a Kabul restaurant that catered to the international community is just about a perfect example of terrorism, as it is defined by the U.S. government: politically-motivated violence against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups to influence an audience.

The Taliban are influencing that target audience in a big way. They have an achievable strategy - making ISAF and the rest of the international community leave Afghanistan - and that attack was perfectly executed to advance their aims without causing unintended casualties that might have spoiled the political message it delivered. 

The Taliban released a statement describing the attack's political message as revenge for a U.S. airstrike that killed civilians:

The attack was in retaliation to the massacre carried out by foreign invaders 2 days earlier in Parwan province's Siyah Gerd district where the enemy airstrikes destroyed up to 10 homes, razed several orchards as well as killing and wounding up to 30 innocent civilians mostly defenseless women and children.

The day before the Taverna attack, President Karzai himself condemned that airstrike for the same reasons, and noted: "The Afghan government has been asking for a complete end to operations in Afghan villages for years, but American forces acting against all mutual agreements ... have once again bombarded a residential area and killed civilians." According to press reports, there were indeed civilian casualties.

The statement by ISAF Commander General Dunford condemning the Taverna attack did a great job of missing the point, especially this sentence: "The Taliban must stop premeditated and indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, especially on those who are working to bring stability and prosperity to the Afghan people.”

That is an extremely odd choice of words, considering that there was nothing at all indiscriminate in the Taliban's attack. They killed every foreigner inside the restaurant, but none of the local employees. On the contrary, it was indiscriminate slaughter of civilians by ISAF that was the Taliban's stated justification.

The WaPo had this description of the Taverna:

For years, the bistro was a rare haven of relaxation for foreign diplomats, aid workers and Afghan officials in a gray city full of blast barriers and beggars. Hookahs bubbled in an alcove equipped with low couches, and Arabic pop music played in the background. Wine and beer were served discreetly, in china teapots, along with savory Lebanese appetizers of kebab, falafel, tabbouleh and stuffed grape leaves.

In the past year, as international missions began to downsize or leave the capital in anticipation of Western troop withdrawals, the number of ­foreigner-friendly establishments shrank, but La Taverna thrived.

-- snip --

In 2011, the restaurant added armed guards and triple-door steel barricades at its entrance to protect customers and win continued approval from foreign embassies and missions for their employees to eat there.

Those precautions were no match for the suicide team that attacked Friday night.

The Taverna was a soft target despite those steel entry doors and an anteroom for inspection of visitors. According to press reports, one bomber detonated inside the inspection area, clearing the way for two more attackers to enter the restaurant and fire at the guests, who were evidently trapped without a way to get out quickly. It probably isn't feasible for a 'foreigner-friendly establishment' in Kabul to have a large building with setback from the street, architectural blast hardening, and control of internal circulation, but short of such measures there really isn't a way to counter that kind of attack. 

The attack killed nationals of many ISAF coalition members and international organizations, including three UN civilian staff from Russia, the U.S., and Pakistan, plus the Lebanese IMF Representative, two Britons, a Dane, two Canadians, and two American from the private sector, as well as 13 Afghan nationals. The impact will be felt immediately as foreign embassies and missions in Kabul will now further restrict their staffs to secure compounds, and will reconsider how many staffers and contract employees they need to keep in Kabul, as well as how soon they can close up shop in Afghanistan and go home.
   

Today They Give Crystal, Back Then They Gave Weapons

Czech protocol gifts used to be more hardcore

A few more details have come out in the Czech press about the firearms found inside the residence of the late Palestinian Ambassador Jamal al Jamal. A few new details, plus one terrific quote.

According to the Prague Post:

The police revealed 12 arms in two suitcases and one plastic bag on the spot of the explosion, the paper [Lidové Noviny (LN)] writes, citing sources close to the investigation.

When Palestinian diplomats arrived on the spot, they wanted to mark the suitcases and bag as diplomatic luggage, but the police had already found the guns.

-- snip --

According to its sources, it were [sic] four Škorpion vz.61 submachine guns and eight pistols - one Smith&Wesson, one Tokarev and six CZs made in Czechoslovakia.

Only one of the arms was officially registered in the Czech Republic - a pistol whose official owner is former Palestinian ambassador Mohammed Salaymeh who was replaced by Jamal in Prague last summer.

-- snip --

It is still unclear whether the Czechoslovak-made pistols were first sent to Palestinians in the Middle East and then smuggled to Prague or whether they have never left Czech territory, LN writes.

Salaymeh claims that the second alternative is true.

"Czech representatives give crystal to foreign guests now, in the past it were weapons," Salaymeh told LN.

I love that quote. Today it's crystal for those diplomatic gift-giving occasions, but back in the day it was weapons.

Why did they ever switch? Is there anyone who wouldn't rather get a Skorpion submachine gun than some fancy glasses?



The story continues:

Ambassador Jamal died in a blast of a safe deposit in the Palestinian embassy building in Prague-Suchdol on Jan. 1.

Czech investigators believe that Jamal was fatally injured by a bomb that he wanted to use to secure the safe. The investigation is still underway, however.

"According to police investigators, 200 grams of a yet unknown explosive exploded. The blast was very strong. Even if Jamal survived it, he would have lost both hands," said a source acquainted with a police report on the case.

The Palestinian diplomats were moving to a new seat. It appears that Jamal wanted to check the safe and secure it against opening, a source told LN.

A Czech diplomat requesting anonymity told the paper that the Foreign Ministry does not focus on the technical details anymore. "We are now primarily interested in how are the Palestinians going to solve the whole case administratively, for example, whether there will be an apology," the diplomat said.

The Palestinians no doubt owe an apology to their host country's government. However, doesn't the Czech government owe all of us an apology for having equipped terrorist groups - the PLO for one, but also many others - back in the 1980s?