Saturday, September 12, 2015

Biased Blow-By-Blow - 2015 Vuelta a España Stage 20


Introduction

Some bike race coverage is better than others, but the vast majority of accounts share one trait:  journalistic integrity.  This means being responsible and only reporting what is verifiable fact.  How odd, then, that such coverage participates in the big lie that the sport has cleaned itself up.  An announcer must pretend to be excited when an obvious doper is doing well, when he’s got to be thinking, deep down inside, “What a disgrace.”

Well, my coverage is different.  I like to tell it how it is, or at least how I suppose it is.  My goal is simply to entertain, even at the risk of inaccuracy, because that’s the purpose of sport anyway, right?  And yeah, I play favorites ... because what sports fan doesn’t?  So read on for a totally biased blow-by-blow report of the crucial penultimate stage of the 2015 Vuelta a España.

Vuelta a Espana Stage 20:  San Lorenzo de El Escorial – Cercedilla

As I join the action, Ruben Plaza Molina (Lampre-Merida) is off the front solo with almost 80 km left in the stage.  This looks pretty quixotic, but what better country to be quixotic in than Spain? 

Haimar Zubeldia (Trek Factory Racing) decides to do something panzic, and tries to bridge from the chase group up to Plaza.  What’s “panzic,” you ask?  Well, if we can derive “quixotic” from Quixote, to mean “acting in a way that Don Quixote might act,” can’t we do the same with Quixote’s faithful sidekick, Sancho Panza?  I’ll make you a deal:  you help spread “panzic” as a word, and I’ll keep providing these blow-by-blow reports free of charge.

Zubeldia is caught.  Man, he almost didn’t even last long enough for my verbal aside.  So, I’m not sure how big this chase group is.  It’s about 12 minutes ahead of the peloton, and 2:20 behind Quixote.  Er, Plaza.  Is Plaza being stupid?  Not necessarily.  This is a really strange course:  nothing but up and down ... 176 km (109 miles) with four Category 1 climbs.


Long flat sections doom a solo rider, but drafting doesn’t help that much on climbs, and if the road is twisty, a good descender can hold his own pretty well.  Think of Floyd Landis in Stage 17 of the 2006 Tour de France, when he soloed for a huge distance over such terrain to [seem to] win the stage.  (If he hadn’t drunk too much Jack Daniels and fallen asleep with a testosterone patch on his balls, and if all the American cyclists hadn’t turned on each other via the Lance Armstrong investigation years later, I might have managed that last sentence without the bracketed caveat!)  So yeah, maybe Plaza’s move is smarter than it looks.

Speaking of turning on each other, I think Sean Kelly is getting fed up with his co-announcer, Carlton, who has just made a lame joke about race leader Tom Dumoulin (Team Giant-Alpecin) breaking his bike in a crash yesterday.  “Giant was probably pretty upset about that,” he quipped.  Earlier in this Vuelta, Kelly might have politely ignored this, but instead he disagrees, saying, “In a crash like that you’re actually just glad your man wasn’t hurt.”  I can’t blame Kelly for being impatient.  During a crucial earlier stage, Mikel Landa (Astana Pro Team) was soloing, and Carlton said, “He’s Mikel Landa, and he’s about to land a big one!”  What I heard next was hard to make out, but I think it was the sound of Kelly punching Carlton in the windpipe.

With 53 km to go, the riders are on the penultimate climb, the Puerto de la Morcuera, which is 10.4 km in length at an average grade of 5.3%.  Plaza has almost 3 minutes on the chasers, whose gap to the main field is down to 10:50.  Plaza doesn’t look so hot—his shoulders are really rocking—but then, form isn’t everything.  I mean, nobody looks worse on a bicycle than Christopher Froome (Team Sky), but that doesn’t stop the guy from winning the Tour de France.

Speaking of Froome, he dropped out of this Vuelta long ago.  He was way out of contention after a crash, but frankly he was never really in contention anyway.  He almost got a stage win on a summit finish, but as he was making his disgraceful, mincing-stepped, high-cadence, bobble-headed way to the finish line, Dumoulin—who had failed to solo minutes before—defied the laws of gravity and came flying by to take the win.  Dumoulin is a big man, a man’s man, and it’s not a stretch to say a macho man, and he wielded his bike like a fricking bat instead of a badminton racquet like Punky Froomester does, and I had to let out a whoop of pure joy and relief that the sport isn’t totally ruined by the kind of boring predictability that Froome and Sky have been working to produce through their undeniable lead in the pharmaceutical arms race.

It’s actually been a very exciting Vuelta, because no single rider or team has built up too great an advantage.  Sadly, Tejay van Garderen (BMC Racing Team) crashed out; Nairo Quintana (Movistar Team) looks too tired from the Tour de France to contest GC victory here; Vincenzo Nibali was disqualified for holding on to his team car (which was disgracefully, embarrassingly blatant; he might as well have been caught on camera dirty-dancing with a podium girl); and other contenders like Rafal Majka (Tinkoff-Saxo) and Fabio Aru (Astana Pro Team) have been excellent but not dominant.  Going into yesterday’s hilly stage, Dumoulin had only 3 seconds over Aru in the GC battle.  He dropped Aru on the short cobblestoned climb at the end to get 3 more seconds.

Near the top of the Puerto de la Morcuera, Astana is drilling it on the front, and Dumoulin is gapped!  They’ve got about two seconds on him!


Dumoulin’s team is nowhere around; probably they’ve all been shelled.  (I think of them more as a sprinter’s team built around John Degenkolb than a GC team.)  But Dumoulin is a cool customer.  He lost snatches of time—30 seconds here, 30 seconds there—in the earlier, more brutal mountain stages, confident that he’d make up time in the time trial, which he certainly did, crushing everybody (including the second-place rider on the day, who lost over a minute).  Still, 6 seconds is nothing on such a hard stage, particularly when Aru has such a strong teammate, Landa, to help him attack.

The breakaway, by the way, is still over 10 minutes ahead of the field, which makes Aru’s job harder because they’ll eat up all the bonus seconds for the top 3 finishers.

Alejandro Valverde (Movistar Team) is all by himself, having been sawed off from the GC group.  That’s been the story of this race.  He’s always either trying to solo, or getting dropped from a group.  Maybe he just prefers being alone ... maybe he just doesn’t like his competitors.  Fine by me ... I don’t like him, either.

The GC group is down to 8 guys.  I love these later stages in grand tours, when so many riders are so blown, they just give up when the hammer goes down.  It certainly makes it easier to tell what’s going on among the GC favorites.  It’s particularly easy with this Vuelta because Dumoulin is so much taller than everybody else, like a giraffe among gazelles.

Astana attacks again!  Oh, man, Dumoulin is really hurting!  His shoulders are rocking and he’s totally isolated!  Ooh, it’s a big gap.  Sure, he has a long descent before the final climb, but if it’s not technical, he won’t necessarily make up time on the group.  Being dropped this far from the finish also doesn’t bode well.


The front group of 6 has split in half but they’ll come back together.  They’ve got about 22 seconds on Dumoulin now.  Majka and Quintana are in that group and obviously highly motivated to work.  Quintana sits 5th on GC, about 30 seconds behind Majka.  I'm sure he’d love to make that up today.

Dumoulin is working with Mikel Nieve (Team Sky) and has decreased the gap to around 18 seconds.  Assuming he catches up, the final climb is going to be brutal.  If he manages to stay anywhere near the leaders on that climb, he’ll have a 7 km flat section before the final descent.  He showed in the time trial how much faster he goes on the flats than the little climbers.  Like a Kawasaki Ninja against a bunch of Vespas.

Could Dumoulin be faking it, to give Aru false hope?  Probably not, but it’s not impossible.  In a really hilly road race I once let myself get dropped on every climb, because it wasn’t that hard to catch the group on the downhills.  I did this for the whole race until the last couple climbs, when keeping up mattered.

Dumoulin is hauling ass ... Nieve can barely hang on, despite what must be an awesome slipstream.

I wonder what the Giant-Alpecin director is saying to Dumoulin over the radio.  How do you motivate your rider without demoralizing him?  Maybe it’s something like, “You have to beat Aru.  He’s the kind of jerk who sticks his chewed-up gum to the bottom of the desk.  He’s mean to old people and kicks dogs when nobody is looking.”

Dumoulin has shrunk the gap to 10 seconds.  This would be great news if he didn’t have that final climb, 11 km at 5.3%, to deal with.  Dang, he looks really tired.  He flicks his elbow and Nieve takes a turn at the front.  Now they’re chatting.  What could they be saying?  “Dude, you’re crazy, Natalie Portman is way hotter than Scarlett Johansson.”

Dumoulin gives a little head-shake, reminiscent of George H.W. Bush.  Either he’s cooked, or this is the greatest rope-a-dope since Lance on the Alpe d’Huez stage of the 2001 Tour.

Dumoulin drops back to his team car, but then seems to change his mind and just keeps riding.  Maybe he was going to ask for a strong cup of coffee but then remembered that caffeine is a diuretic and didn’t want to have to take a piss during the climb.  That might knock him off the podium.

Look, I’m not going to deny it:  I’m totally rooting for Dumoulin.  When it comes to bike racers, I’m size-ist.  This isn’t really on aesthetic grounds; it’s just that, being a tall, heavy rider myself, I’ve had countless opportunities—hundreds, I think—to resent the little climbers as they break my legs off.  I admit it:  I’m bitter.  When I look at a big guy like Dumoulin, I can relate to his difficulty in these mountains.

It looks like Aru has another teammate ... somebody must have dropped back from the breakaway.  If so, that’s the first time Astana has done anything intelligent in any bicycle race.

Man, Dumoulin must be heartbroken ... at one point he was 10 seconds behind the leaders but now it’s stretched out to over a minute, despite his getting some help from a couple more riders.  He’ll be lucky to hang on for a podium placing at this point.  Poor guy, he’s really suffering.  I dare say he even looks, well, clean!

Way up front, Plaza is still going it alone, 1:40 ahead of the chasers.

Dumoulin’s radio earbud is taped to his ear.  I always find that a little sad.  Some riders have the good kind of ear that holds the earbud; some don’t.  Lance never needed tape; Ullrich always did.  Ullrich’s taped-on earbud looked sad, too.

Man, Plaza just slashes away.  He hasn’t looked good all morning, and yet his lead is holding steady.  His saddle is about 2 inches too low ... maybe it’s slipping down.  And Dumoulin’s beret is all crumpled; his sunglasses are scratched; his zipper is jammed; back home, a drain is clogged; his cat just missed the litter box by like 4 feet.  The center cannot hold.  I think I’m going to cry.

The chase group has broken up and it’s now four riders chasing Plaza:  Giovanni Visconti (Movistar Team), Alessandro De Marchi (BMC Racing Team), José Gonçalves (Caja Rural-Seguros RGA), and Matteo Mantaguti (AG2R La Mondiale).  Do you like how I bothered with the cedilla on the “c” in Gonçalves?  You won’t get that on cyclingnews.com.  They wouldn’t bother.  On the downside, knowing it’s pronounced “Gon-SAL-vays” means I can’t make a pun about calves.  Maybe that’s for the better.  (Yes, I’m killing time before the finish because the denouement of this race is such a long, painful one.  If this were boxing, the ref would call the fight right now, but in bicycle races everybody has to serve out his full sentence.)

Dumoulin has fallen behind the group he was with and some Astana guy is on his wheel now.  I’m sure the Astana rider is taunting him from back there.

Quintana attacks!  No, he doesn’t have grand ambitions here, being almost 3 minutes behind Aru on the GC.  But as I mentioned earlier, he’d love to overtake Majka in the GC.  Needless to say, Majka is right on him.  The two are pulling ahead of the other GC favorites. 

Plaza reaches the final summit!  I think he’s got the stage win.  What did I tell you about Plaza’s long solo move not being as stupid as it might look?

Majka attacks Quintana, just before the summit.  Not that he really wants to distance him; I think it’s just a gesture:  “I see your effort to pass me in the GC, and I spit on it.  Look, I’m beating you to the top of the hill!”

Dumoulin’s director is saying, over the radio, “It’s okay, Tom.  You’re still a good person.  You’re not mean to old people, and you’ve never kicked a dog.  We just talked to your girlfriend and she says she doesn’t care because you’re way better looking than Aru.  She says he looks like a stricken baitfish.  She really said that.”

The peloton is over the final summit, while Dumoulin has almost 4 more minutes of miserable climbing ahead of him.  As my brother Max likes to say, “It’s all over but the crying.”

Plaza is struggling to maintain his gap on this flat section.  Funny, isn’t it, how a flat section can be cruel for a climber?  Still, his spirits are surely high, so his suffering is only physical.  Poor Dumoulin.  I wonder if he’s seen “On the Waterfront,” and if, despite not having seen it, he might be thinking, “I coulda been a contenda!” without any knowledge of where that comes from.  Probably not.  He’s probably thinking something far less predictable, like, “Mikel Nieve is such an idiot.  Scarlett Johansson isn’t even that hot.”

The chasing quartet is on the final descent now.  Their gap is down to 1:18, but with less than 5 km to go, they’re pretty much doomed to fight it out for second place.

Man, the GC group crested that final summit with 3 Astana guys left!  Astana is half the lead group!  I wonder if Team Sky has any plans to hire Astana’s team doctor away.  Not that Sky needs any help with its doping program, but it’s always wise to neutralize a fearsome opponent if you can.

Plaza has just 700 meters to go!  I wonder if he’ll do the new victory salute that has become so popular, where he tugs on his necklace until he’s pulled out the pendant, and polishes it up on his jersey before crossing the line.  Those Europeans are so weird.

Here he comes!  He looks back—he can’t help it—and now he does something really cool:  he takes his gloves off, and throws them to the crowd!  That is just fricking awesome.  I’m glad he didn’t get carried away and throw his helmet to the crowd; it would be awful to get disqualified only 25 meters from the finish line.


The next two riders are sprinting for second and I don’t care who gets it.  My enthusiasm has been deflating for about the last hour, in case you can’t tell.  Really, it’s Dumoulin, not Plaza, who’s the Don Quixote of this Vuelta.  At least he gave us a show!

Aru crosses the line and does an awkward, blurry victory salute with his teammate.  I never liked the “GC victory salute.”  Do you know who was the first guy to do that?  Lance Armstrong.  Do you know who was the second?  Carlos Sastre.  Now it’s almost standard.


The camera is on Aru as he’s mobbed by the press.  Even in victory, he looks like a stricken baitfish.


Dumoulin crosses the line, surrounded by a group of also-rans that evidently caught him as he made his lugubrious, plodding way toward the line.  It’s probably better for him, having a little bit of anonymity at the finish line instead of giving everybody a chance for some emblematic photo of his great loss.  He slips to 6th overall in the Vuelta, less than 24 hours after leading it.  Oh well ... he’s young.  He has many opportunities ahead.

They’re interviewing him.  He’s gracious enough to allow it (in contrast to Aru, who refused to speak to the press yesterday after losing 3 measly seconds).  Dumoulin is asked, predictably, how he feels.  “Just empty.  I mean, my legs are empty.  But don’t forget, I’m sponsored by Alpecin shampoo.  So my hair feels great!”  Ah, a true professional to the last!




Tuesday, September 8, 2015

What You Didn’t Know About Giraffes!


Introduction

Back in the ‘80s, a friend of mine tried to set me up with his girlfriend’s sister.  I thought the whole double-dating thing was kind of corny, plus it didn’t seem like this girl was the sharpest tool in the shed.  For example, she wrote a report for school on the topic of goats; it was basically a list of goat-related facts.  (I know, I know ... what grade-school kid hasn’t taken this approach?  But this was a high school junior!)  I enjoyed watching her friend try to help:  “Shouldn’t you have a thesis?” To which she replied, “It is a thesis!”

Well, I probably should have dated her, because I now realize that a well-defined thesis actually limits you intellectually.  Had she declared something specific—e.g., “goats are assholes”—then she’d have had to ignore all the great things about goats when conducting her research.

With that in mind, I’m not going to try to reach some neat conclusion as I pursue the topic of giraffes.  What I will say is this:  though there are many neat things to learn about giraffes, some of the most fascinating things are curiously—perhaps suspiciously—obscure.


Some amazing facts about giraffes

The giraffe is the tallest animal in the world.  Newborn giraffes are taller than most humans. 

A giraffe can stand up within half an hour of being born.  NASA has studied this to help understand how to strengthen astronauts’ leg veins.

A giraffe can gallop along at 35 mph.

A giraffe’s kick can actually decapitate a predator.

A giraffe’s tongue is 20 inches long, and prehensile.  The giraffe can and does pick its nose with this amazing tongue.

Giraffes have very high blood pressure:  at about 300/200, it’s twice that of humans.  A giraffe’s pulse rate, at around 170, is also twice ours.

A female giraffe can only mate for two weeks out of the year, and indicates her readiness by urinating in the male’s mouth.  This odd practice is called flehmen and is related to that weird smelling thing cats do.


Can giraffes be evil?

Of course it’s silly to assign moral responsibility to animals, but when an animal exhibits a behavior that’s sufficiently dastardly, it’s tempting to call that animal evil.  Consider the abominable practice of eating one’s young.

“But wait,” you protest, “giraffes are herbivores!”  Well, yes, mainly.  But they are also known to eat the bones of dead animals, and even carcasses.  Is it a stretch to assert that they also eat their own young?  Probably not.  Try this:  go to Google, and type in “do giraffes eat.”  Google’s auto-fill feature immediately suggests obvious search strings, like “do giraffes eat apples.”  Fourth on the list:  “do giraffes eat their young.” 


Now, the responses you’ll see are of course quite varied.  There are more than 1.5 million hits on this search, and I for one do not have time to chase them all down.  Bottom line:  there’s probably something to this, and I think it’s deplorable.

Giraffes are also known to lay their eggs in other animals’ nests, in a move called “brood parasitism.”  What’s more, the baby giraffe, once hatched, will push the other animal’s eggs out of the nest, to get all the food to itself!  Watch this video if you don’t believe me.

Okay, I just realized I screwed up.  I somehow confused cuckoo birds with giraffes.  I guess giraffes don’t technically engage in brood parasitism, which should have been obvious because of course giraffes don’t lay eggs.  I could go delete the previous paragraph, but any attempt to “revise the past” can get you into legal trouble.  It just makes you look guilty.  And with the Wayback Machine, of course I’d get caught.


More on evil in giraffes

I’m not the first person to explore the notion of evil in giraffes.  Eddie Izzard, who in addition to being a zoologist and historian does some stand-up comedy, pursued this question when pondering, onstage, why (in the Noah’s Ark tale) so many animals had to endure the great flood that God brought about to punish evil in the world.  Among other animals, Izzard investigates the giraffe
What in fact is an evil giraffe?  How do they ... [here he mimics a giraffe voice and pantomimes chewing:]  “I will eat all the leaves on this tree.  I will eat more leaves than I should.  And then other giraffes may die.  Ha ha ha!  I am an evil herbivore.”
You should talk about this with your children.  Share with them your best rendition of Izzard’s monologue.  Use it as a jumping-off point to discuss the nature of good and evil.


Did giraffes ruin poetry?

Of course I won’t be so absurd as to assert that giraffes have done anything deliberate—whether acting collectively or individually—to ruin poetry.  But it’s an unfortunate fact that their very name has caused poets no end of grief, with many critics convinced that poetry itself has suffered.

The problem stems, oddly enough, from the simple fact that almost nothing rhymes with “giraffe.”  Of course the modern reader thinks nothing of this, since rhyme has all but disappeared from modern verse—but that’s actually the point.  For most of poetry’s history, rhyme did matter.  It was actually this animal—or rather, its name—that started the trouble.

Believe it or not, no prominent poet had managed to rhyme on “giraffe” until T.S. Eliot, in 1920, wrote “Sweeny Among the Nightingales.”  It opens thus: 
Apeneck Sweeney spreads his knees
Letting his arms hang down to laugh,      
The zebra stripes along his jaw    
Swelling to maculate giraffe.
Critics immediately noted two things:  one, Eliot rhymed on just one syllable, which doesn’t really count and is fairly weak for a poet of his caliber; and two, “maculate giraffe” is kind of a stretch.  As a verb, “maculate” means “to mark with spots or stain” and is a transitive verb.  The poem takes place in a restaurant so obviously there’s no giraffe around.  (That would turn the whole poem into a weak joke, like the one where a panda strides into a bar and shoots the piano player.)  So “maculate” must be an adjective, meaning “spotted or stained.” 

Since when is it okay for a noun to modify an adjective (i.e., for “giraffe” to modify “maculate,” since what is being described is not a giraffe but the way that Sweeney’s sideburns are spotty)?  This line really makes no sense.  If you ask me, the mental effort of rhyming with “giraffe,” even on one measly syllable, simply threw Eliot off his game.

(The difficulty of rhyming with “giraffe,” by way, is related to where the stress falls in this word.  Most English words are trochaic—that is, the stress, or emphasis, falls on the first syllable; e.g., “zebra,” “swelling,” “letting.”  The word “giraffe” is iambic, meaning the stress is on the second syllable.  This is very common with French words, but a French poet runs into the problem of two different words for “giraffe”:  “la girafe” (feminine) and “le girafeau” (masculine).  How can the poet choose which form of this word to use, when the sex of a giraffe is so hard to determine?)

That Eliot’s “Sweeney Among the Nightingales” was well received really irritated another poet of the era, a certain E.E. Cummings.  Cummings attended Harvard shortly after Eliot, and it’s widely known he disliked living in the older poet’s shadow.  So he set out to write a poem of his own that would not only rhyme with “giraffe” on two syllables, but would actually make sense.

The only problem was, he couldn’t do it.  The only obvious two-syllable rhyme, “carafe,” was off the table, because it was too obvious.  A popular knickknack of the day was a carafe actually shaped like a giraffe, which made the association far too twee for a sophisticated poet.  (If you’re lucky you can still come across a vintage giraffe carafe at a thrift store.)


Countless crumpled-up drafts of Cummings’ giraffe poetry efforts were found by historians, but none still exist (they were destroyed in a fire, which some say was arson).  We know through accounts from Cummings’ friends that, for weeks at a time, he would convince himself that words like “agrafe,” “piaffe,” and even “Luftwaffe” counted as proper “giraffe” rhymes; each time, he eventually acknowledged he was only slipping into self-delusion.  This effort almost drove him insane, and finally he abandoned traditional poetry altogether, not only eschewing rhythm, rhyme, and spelling, but most other poetic conventions as well.  He would never write traditional poems again.

While E.E. Cummings continues to be a household name, many critics dismiss the actual quality of his work.  But whether or not he was any good, his influence cannot be denied.  To this day, most poetry lacks rhyme (along with meter, etc.).  It’s not fair to scapegoat Cummings for this ... the problem was with “giraffe” all along.  Sure, other words are hard to rhyme with too, but they aren’t attached to creatures as compelling as giraffes, which practically cry out to be celebrated in verse.


Are giraffes political?

Many primates are known to build complex political structures within their communities.  But do giraffes?  Not exactly, but once again, something about these strange animals seems to inspire humans.  If we ever manage to put together a credible third political party, don’t be surprised if its symbol is the giraffe.

The use of the giraffe in pictorial political metaphor is as old as the metaphor itself.  The giraffe first makes its appearance, oddly enough, in the first cartoon that represented the Republican party as an elephant.  I’m talking about Thomas Nast’s drawing, “The Third-Term Panic,” which ran in Harper’s Weekly in 1874:


I think political cartoons have gotten simpler over the last 140 years.  It’s worth pointing out here that the donkey doesn’t actually represent the Democratic party (as has been reported elsewhere):  its collar reads “N.Y. Herald.”  The Democratic Party is represented in this cartoon by the raccoon, which retreats from the chasm of chaos even as the elephant flees the lion.  Almost every other animal flees the lion as well.  Notable exceptions are the owl, whose meaning I can’t grasp; the ostrich, predictably burying its head; and the giraffe.

It’s impossible to overstate the importance of this cartoon in establishing the elephant as the symbol of the Republican party.  Likewise, other Nash cartoons cemented the relationship between the donkey and the Democrats (even though this one didn’t).  Nash didn’t follow up on the giraffe theme—but other cartoonists did.  Check this out:


The big problem with the giraffe’s ascendance in political cartoons is that the giraffe isn’t yet symbolic of anything specific (“independent” being something less than a political party with specific values).  Consider the following pair of pictures:


The caption of the first cartoon translates, “April goes as it entered, the end will be the beginning.”  The second, near as I can figure, is something about a wind farmer being pissed about a June hailstorm.  I don’t grasp the point of either cartoon, and I’m no expert on German politics, but since Merkel and Beck represent opposing political parties, the giraffe cannot be thought to symbolize either one of them.

If you’re about to ask “so what?” I will ask you to pause and reflect on something:  isn’t it possible that the failure of a viable third party to emerge is actually the giraffe’s fault?  Think about it.  The donkey first came to symbolize the Democrats because Andrew Jackson’s opponents called him a jackass, and he embraced the symbol because it represents stubbornness.  Nash characterized the Republican party as an elephant because this party was too big, he felt, to cower in fear, even when confronted by a lion.  Stubbornness and fearlessness are sound characteristics on which to base a party’s mascot.  But what are giraffes?

Giraffes, alas, are just kind of weird.  What party wants to be associated with weirdness?  But this timidity is the whole problem.  If you’re going to take on the big established parties, you’re going to have to embrace your uniqueness.  Figure out how to tune your metaphor to include a strong heart, a clever tongue, and a strong kick, and you’ll be on your way.  (Needless to say, it’s best if you leave out the bit about urinating into your mate’s mouth.)

For the record

As I hope you’ve gathered, all that stuff about Cummings and Eliot was pure malarkey (though I suppose it’s possible I unknowingly stumbled on some truth there).  Everything else in this essay, however, is completely true(-ish).

--~--~--~--~--~--~--~---~--
For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

From the Archives - Wacko College Rhetoric Paper


Introduction

When I transferred from UC Santa Barbara to UC Berkeley, I somehow didn't have the official “Schedule of Classes” that described exactly what each class was.  In fact, I didn’t know this document existed, and when I filled out the application, I was in the back of a car on some road trip.  So for my first semester at Cal, I chose classes more or less at random, which is how I came to be enrolled in Rhetoric 1A, a class that was an alternative to a bonehead English class I’d tested out of in high school.  As a junior, I was in a classroom with a bunch of freshmen.  (From the standpoint of credits towards graduation, the class was worthless, but I have no regrets—I learned a lot.)

Emboldened by the notion that I couldn’t fail, I was highly experimental and unorthodox with my rhetoric papers, jettisoning all the standards and guidelines the professor had laid out.  (He loved this.)  The following stage play was my final paper for the class and represents the culmination of my wacko trajectory.



December 10, 1990 – College rhetoric paper


THE STRUGGLE TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE

A Play in One Act

————————————————————————

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

CHORUS


NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, author of “The Qualities of the Prince” (an excerpt from The Prince)

RICHARD DAWKINS, author of The Selfish Gene

CHARLES DARWIN, author of The Origin of Species

JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU, author of “The Origin of Civil Society” (an excerpt from his oeuvre)

An APPARITION, who holds the answer to everything


SCENE: Geneva, Switzerland

————————————————————————

PROLOGUE

Enter CHORUS.


     Four writers, all alike in dignity,

     In fair Geneva, where we hold our talk,

     Speak each at length about reality,

     Explaining what is true and what is not.

     One speaks of man as though he were exempt

     From traits which hinder states, and folly cause.

     Another, once this man’s oration’s spent,

     Agrees with it, ascribing newer laws.

     A third man, till now quiet, takes the floor,

     And harshly gives the second one reproach,

     Until the fourth claims every man before

     Has missed the truth he claims to have approached.

            While each the flaws in others tends to show,
    
            The final truth’s not any man’s to know.


SCENE I

Enter MACHIAVELLI, DAWKINS, DARWIN, and ROUSSEAU.

MACHIAVELLI.  All decorum aside, I have no other object but to begin this discussion with a minimum of wasted time, so I take the liberty of opening our discourse.  Though you may hate me for it, I will not tolerate interruptions.  You will all respect me more, ultimately, if I speak my piece without hearing opposing views, for such action would imply hesitation in expounding my ideas, for which you would despise me. 

DAWKINS.  I think I can speak for Darwin in saying your behavior does not suit this open forum environment, so the gene dictating your one-sidedness will not be perpetuated in your children.

DARWIN.  Dawkins, your application of my views could only be considered ridiculous.  The treatment of human behavior such as formal debate is not to be found in my abstract, for I have not accumulated sufficient documentation to assert any such thing.

MACHIAVELLI.  This quibbling does not befit my command of this discussion, and while I desire to appear merciful, I warn you that cruelty on my part may soon be necessary to restore order to this discussion if you continue in your dissent.

ROUSSEAU.  As long as we are forced to obey you, you are unjustified in violating our liberty as free men.  Hence you really ought to—

MACHIAVELLI.  Silence! As I said in my book, “There is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation” (p.  40).  And preservation is exactly what I intend to discuss now, without further interruption.  My ideas actually relate to Darwin’s, for I believe that one’s success is dependent largely on how well he knows his surroundings.  In my book I explain how in doing this, “One learns to know one’s own country and can better understand how to defend it” (p.  38‑9).  This adaptation is a prince’s most important quality, just as Darwin’s idea of natural selection is based on how well any species can adapt to its environment.  Perhaps even more applicable is Darwin’s notion that the behavior of organisms is entirely that which will perpetuate its numbers, and that no organism would ever act in such a way as to solely benefit another.  This would be like generosity, which as I have said in my book, is unwise, for it requires a prince to “burden the people with excessive taxes .  .  .  and becoming impoverished, he will not be much esteemed by anyone” (p.  41).  Hence what is effective in nature is effective in politics—namely, whatever works, regardless of “moral” considerations which, in practice, are their own undoing.  Darwin, although you shake your head, I will be consistent by continuing to use your book to justify my controversial views; and Rousseau, I will disregard your grumbling, for a prince must often accept being despised.  Since you, Dawkins, look as though you agree with my ideas, I will allow you to speak now. 

DAWKINS.  I do agree with you, Machiavelli, because what you are really driving at is what I cite in my book: what Maynard Smith calls “an evolutionarily stable strategy.” This I define as “a strategy which, if most members of a population adopt it, cannot be bettered by an alternative strategy” (p.  74).  I demonstrate this idea by illustrating that if two types of fighting strategies—those of Hawk and Dove—exist, the number of adopters of each strategy depends on what ultimately becomes the most stable balance.  In this model, hawks always attack and doves always retreat.  I see that Darwin is cringing over there; I should acknowledge that doves are in real life aggressive birds, but not in my model.  The strategy of hawks will gain popularity only as long as there are enough doves to attack; once hawks must attack other hawks, injury and fatality result, so that the doves who escape injury will grow in numbers.  Eventually a balance is reached between the two.  Machiavelli, this concurs with your ideas because the strategy depends entirely on what will work, instead of which strategy is morally correct. 

ROUSSEAU grumbles, gnashes his teeth.

DAWKINS.  But before anybody accosts me, I should make some careful stipulations.  First, the survival of a kingdom is not really the underlying goal here; all organisms are actually only “survival machines” for genes.  Genes are the real life force, whose purpose is to replicate themselves from here to eternity.  These genes “swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots” and manipulate the world “by remote control” (p.  21).  Thus any organism, man included, acts only to perpetuate the selfish gene controlling it, which accounts for altruism within a family, since family members carry the same gene.  Any other survival machine, be it of the same or another species, is expendable.  Animals only refrain from killing off members of their own species because they have common rivals which would benefit from this.  In Machiavelli’s kingdom, a prince will seek to perpetuate his kingdom because his offspring will inherit it, and the chance for survival of this offspring—and hence the common gene—will be greater if his assets are great.

ROUSSEAU.  This is all very well, but can you really refute that man, by creating a social pact in which he willfully surrenders certain freedoms, has separated himself from other species?

DAWKINS.  Actually, man is unique because he has culture, which is just like genetic transmission in that it evolves, and outlives the organism—in this case, man alone—who is its survival machine.  Culture, which encompasses literature, religion, and even fashion, replicates itself just like genes do; I call it a meme.  Memes compete just like genes, but for “radio and television time, billboard space, newspaper column-inches, and library shelf-space” (p.  212). 

DARWIN drops the flower he had been studying, turns pale.

DAWKINS.  Man, through his memes, can even transcend his genes; for example, while a “gene for celibacy is doomed to failure in the gene pool,” it “can be successful in the meme pool” (p.  213).  As I brilliantly concluded in my book, “We have the power to turn against our creators.  We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators” (p.  215).

DARWIN.  Dawkins, I believe that sufficient documentation in my favor has now been established to demonstrate that you possess stupidity, the selection of I cannot account for.  My book represents a thoroughness and attention to accuracy; for as I state in the introduction, “No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded” (p.  66).  Your book, on the other hand, comes completely from your own imagination, yet attempts to draw authority from my painstaking work in order to justify its claims.  The beginning of your book is marked by strict adherence, even reverence, for my work; on page one, you state, “It was Darwin who first put together a coherent and tenable account of why we exist.” The reader is hence led to believe that you are a follower of mine and that my ideas back yours.  I find it preposterous that you ultimately conclude that “Darwinism is too big a theory to be confined to the narrow context of the gene.  The gene will enter my thesis as an analogy, nothing more” (p.  205).  Here, you both discard my backing and reduce ninety percent of your book to “an analogy.” It can easily be found, I believe, that the final chapter of your book is marked by brazen anthropomorphism which I carefully avoided; hence you have no backing from me of your theories—only the “analogy” you explain in most of your book!

DAWKINS.  Certainly your views on natural selection must, at least, justify my “selfish gene” thesis.

DARWIN.  They do, but only in a very limited sense.  If a certain variation tends to preserve an organism, it will be selected and inherited by that organism’s offspring.  In that regard you seem to understand my ideas.  But to act in a way that consciously perpetuates a gene implies a sense of purpose which is entirely missing in the animal and plant world.  Species simply survive, as I detailed in an entire chapter of my book.  The idea of living with a purpose in mind is anthropomorphic; I very intentionally avoid this, as human considerations of morality and purpose are beyond the realm of scientific study.  Treating your preposterous notions as science leaves your work completely vulnerable to the unfounded, slippery-slope miscomprehensions which reduce your book to a mockery of itself, and to those as irresponsible as yourself, a mockery of me as well.

DAWKINS turns bright red, covers his face with his hands.

DARWIN.  Machiavelli, I believe you will recognize the inconsistent nature of this man’s thinking.  Earlier, he validated your claims by tying them into his work; then, he similarly embraced Rousseau’s ideals which are in direct contrast to yours.  Anything could fit his thesis.

MACHIAVELLI.  Indeed, I would never trust him as a subject, for any man having such malleable beliefs would be prone to conspiracy.  Exterminating such a subject, while necessary and practical, could nonetheless be unpleasant.

ROUSSEAU.  Before you become too smug, gentlemen, I believe your own arguments to be incomplete.  You have successfully described a primitive society in which man, or organisms, follow the law of self-preservation.  But is man really unaccountable for his actions?  Machiavelli, I challenge your totally pragmatic approach, for it is based upon the fallacy that political power is “exercised in the interests of the governed” (Rousseau, p.  57).  Slavery is a perfect example of both this fallacy about power, and of the distinction between man and nature.  Regardless of whether enslaving its own kind is a trait unique to man, the tendency to justify slavery, or anything else, is uniquely human.  Much of my essay is given to refuting erroneous claims about the “right” of slavery.  Animals lack not only the means, but the instinct to make arguments like this one: “Since the victor has a right to kill his defeated enemy, the latter may, if he so wish, ransom his life at the expense of his liberty” (p.  62).  Machiavelli, even if you are logically pragmatic, you obviously recognize the idea of “right” in seeking the greatest good for a ruled people.  And Darwin, your scientific analysis of the behavior of organisms does not address this element of human behavior.  While Dawkins’ argument is obviously flawed, it nonetheless attempts to explain man’s unique behavior.  No more scientific is my argument, yet it is not lacking in a treatment of human behavior.  Machiavelli, you need to recognize the “vast difference between subduing a mob and governing a social group” (p.  64).  And both you and Darwin must admit that man has made “the passage from the state of nature to the civil state” and “substitutes justice for instinct in his behavior, and gives to his actions a moral basis which formerly was lacking” (p.  68).  These social constructs are unique to man; instead of “might making right” or “survival of the fittest,” all men “become equal in the eyes of the law” (p.  72).

DARWIN.  Yes, but I believe adequate factual documentation of your ideas to be lacking in your thesis.

MACHIAVELLI.  How dare you refute my ideas! I will not tolerate your dissent!

DAWKINS.  Wait, if you won’t accept my ideas, and his lack scientific backing, and I myself have supposedly confounded my theories about behavior, then what is the right answer?


SCENE II

Enter APPARITION. 

APPARITION.  You wacky kids.  You all have your ideas, but nobody has found the answer.  Machiavelli, how do you respond to Rousseau’s point about morality?

MACHIAVELLI.  I should kill him.

APPARITION.  That’s not the point of this convention.  Dawkins and Rousseau, how can you give factual verification to your ideas?

ROUSSEAU.  Were I a mathematician, I would construct a proof; were I a scientist, I would conduct experiments.  As a writer, I can only speculate on my own experience, and whatever history can teach.

DAWKINS.  As an avid follower of Rousseau, I refer you to his authority. 

APPARITION.  Darwin, how do you account for uniquely human behavior?

DARWIN.  It is my firm belief that an undertaking of such a nature has never been, and never will be, an endeavor of my studies.

APPARITION.  Ah, the convention is a failure.  None of you has found the answer alone, and together you only demonstrate each other’s flaws.  I’m afraid it’s time for you all to leave.

ALL: Wait, what is the answer?

APPARITION.  I could tell you, but that wouldn’t be any fun at all.  We’d never again have brilliant minds like yours, not to mention those of Skinner, Freud, Jung (well .  .  .  Jung), and de Beauvoir, engaged in fervent analysis.  Besides, what would future Rhetoric 1A students write about?


EPILOGUE

Enter CHORUS.


 Since each, in thought, is limited in scope

 And gaps reduce the power of each view,

 We must continue thinking, while we hope

 To someday find a theory which holds true.

 Until then we console ourselves with this:

 That all our careful thought is virtuous,

 That all mistakes or thoughts that run amiss

 Are certainly quite far from meaningless.

 Perhaps it’s almost better we don’t know

 What makes us move, what actions we’re allowed,

 Or why we’re here, or where we else should go,

 Or just to what brave thoughts to be avowed.

       For in the lack of knowledge, we’re all sure

       That in our heads, intelligence will stir.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Darwin, Charles.  The Origin of Species.  New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1985. 

Dawkins, Richard.  The Selfish Gene.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Machiavelli, Niccolo.  “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas.  Ed.  Lee A.  Jacobus.  Boston: Bedford Books of St.  Martin’s Press, 1990.

Rousseau, Jean Jacques.  “The Origin of Civil Society.” A World of Ideas.  Ed.  Lee A.  Jacobus.  Boston: Bedford Books of St.  Martin’s Press, 1990.