Houduran Policy Failure: Lack of Imagination?

I had earlier posts which pointed out absurdity of the Obama administration getting tough with Honduras while appeasing Iran and how they were in effect advocating that Hondurans, who opposed the Zelaya and Chavez efforts to undermine their democracy, should stand down and hope that the illegal referendum would fail.

The Obama administration's rationale for their decision was supposedly based on the legality of how Zelaya was removed, i.e. deported to Costa Rica. In an opinion article in the Los Angeles Times, Honduran-born attorney Miguel Estrada points out something which should have been evident as well to the Obama administration, namely that Zelaya has the right to return to Honduras, but not the presidency. Estrada's argument:

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?

No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya's own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left). Because Zelaya's vice president had earlier quit to run in the November elections, the next person in the line of succession was Micheletti, the Liberal leader of Congress. He was named to complete the remaining months of Zelaya's term.

It cannot be right to call this a "coup." Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country's elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law. All Honduran bishops joined Rodriguez in this pronouncement.

True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country.

That strikes me as a very good argument, the kind of argument that an American administration should have been making to avoid aligning themselves with Ortega, Chavez and Castro on this issue. The question is, did the Obama administration reject this argument or is it that they didn't have the smarts or experience to make it in the first place?

As Leon Wieseltier has pointed out, 'the learning curve of an American president is the insult that history adds to the injury of those who are dependent upon that leadership.' In this case, the best possible interpretation of how the Obama administration acted with respect to Honduras is that they were unprepared. Otherwise, their actions reflect an unfortunate degree of comfort in siding with our enemies in the region.

Post-post - July 13 - Estrada's article was also highlighted by Jennifer Rubin from Pajamas Media.

Estrada's opinion article is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Times
Opinion / Honduras' non-coup
Under the country's Constitution, the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya was legal.
By Miguel A. Estrada
July 10, 2009

Honduras, the tiny Central American nation, had a change of leaders on June 28. The country's military arrested President Manuel Zelaya -- in his pajamas, he says -- and put him on a plane bound for Costa Rica. A new president, Roberto Micheletti, was appointed. Led by Cuba and Venezuela (Sudan and North Korea were not immediately available), the international community swiftly condemned this "coup."

Something clearly has gone awry with the rule of law in Honduras -- but it is not necessarily what you think. Begin with Zelaya's arrest. The Supreme Court of Honduras, as it turns out, had ordered the military to arrest Zelaya two days earlier. A second order (issued on the same day) authorized the military to enter Zelaya's home to execute the arrest. These orders were issued at the urgent request of the country's attorney general. All the relevant legal documents can be accessed (in Spanish) on the Supreme Court's website. They make for interesting reading.

What you'll learn is that the Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country's borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must "succeed one another" in a "republican form of government."

In addition, Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any "infraction" of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule.

As detailed in the attorney general's complaint, Zelaya is the type of leader who could cause a country to wish for a Richard Nixon. Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude -- as virtually everyone in Honduras did -- that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession. Not unlike what Zelaya's close ally, Hugo Chavez, had done in Venezuela.

It is also worth noting that only referendums approved by a two-thirds vote of the Honduran Congress may be put to the voters. Far from approving Zelaya's proposal, Congress voted that it was illegal.

The attorney general filed suit and secured a court order halting the referendum. Zelaya then announced that the voting would go forward just the same, but it would be called an "opinion survey." The courts again ruled this illegal. Undeterred, Zelaya directed the head of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vasquez, to proceed with the "survey" -- and "fired" him when he declined. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and ordered Vasquez reinstated.

Zelaya had the ballots printed in Venezuela, but these were impounded by customs when they were brought back to Honduras. On June 25 -- three days before he was ousted -- Zelaya personally gathered a group of "supporters" and led it to seize the ballots, restating his intent to conduct the "survey" on June 28. That was the breaking point for the attorney general, who immediately sought a warrant from the Supreme Court for Zelaya's arrest on charges of treason, abuse of authority and other crimes. In response, the court ordered Zelaya's arrest by the country's army, which under Article 272 must enforce compliance with the Constitution, particularly with respect to presidential succession. The military executed the court's order on the morning of the proposed survey.

It would seem from this that Zelaya's arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot. But, unfortunately, the tale did not end there. Rather than taking Zelaya to jail and then to court to face charges, the military shipped him off to Costa Rica. No one has yet explained persuasively why summarily sending Zelaya into exile in this manner was legal, and it most likely wasn't.

This illegality may entitle Zelaya to return to Honduras. But does it require that he be returned to power?

No. As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya's arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya's own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left). Because Zelaya's vice president had earlier quit to run in the November elections, the next person in the line of succession was Micheletti, the Liberal leader of Congress. He was named to complete the remaining months of Zelaya's term.

It cannot be right to call this a "coup." Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country's elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law. All Honduran bishops joined Rodriguez in this pronouncement.

True, Zelaya should not have been arbitrarily exiled from his homeland. That, however, does not mean he must be reinstalled as president of Honduras. It merely makes him an indicted private citizen with a meritorious immigration beef against his country.

Miguel A. Estrada is a partner at the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. A native of Honduras, he was a member of the official U.S. delegation to President Zelaya's 2006 inauguration.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-estrada10-2009jul10,0,1570598.story
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Hondurans of Faith: Into the Breech

I watched HBO's 'Into the Storm' over the weekend. The film is a historical drama about British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill during World War II. The part of the film which presented the dilemma facing Churchill as to whether to negotiate with the Germans or fight against great odds was especially moving. Churchill's answer:

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

People of a similar faith in democracy -- Hondurans who opposed former President Zelaya's efforts to replicate a Chavez-stlye subversion of their democracy in Honduras -- faced a difficult decision recently. They also choose to fight. Fighting in their case meant acting -- although the Honduran constitution did not offer direction over how to handle a standoff between the president and other parts of the government -- rather than hoping that Zelayo and his ally Chavez would either act with restraint or fail.

What happened? In what irresponsible way did they act so as to cause the American president to label their actions 'not legal' and place the US on the side of Ortega, Chavez and Castro in the dispute?

Here are the list of events:

• In Honduras, a constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
• Then President Zelaya, declared a national referendum on his own and had Hugo Chávez ship him ballots from Venezuela.
• The Honduran Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
• The attorney general also made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out.
• The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply.
• Mr. Zelaya fired him.
• The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
• Mr. Zelaya led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.
• Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and exiled to Costa Rica.

So why aren't the Hondurans who acted being celebrated like those who stood up to Nixon in the Saturday Night Massacre? The reason is that the Honduran constitution does not offer a clear direction on how to handle disputes between the president and other branches of the government. So what were they supposed to do? Please pay special attention to those who criticize Honduras for their actions. What are they suggesting should have occurred?

Here is an example from the Economist magazine, which criticized the removal of Zelaya. Here is their recap and criticism:

Even so, there is no evidence of Hondurans clamouring for the president’s return with anything like the enthusiasm of outsiders.

That is because most have tired of his rule, and blame him for the constitutional crisis that preceded the coup. It was precipitated by his attempt to emulate Mr Chávez by organising a referendum to call a constituent assembly, which he seemed to hope would allow him to remain in power beyond January, when his four-year term ends. Under Honduras’s constitution, only Congress can call referendums and it was against one. Mr Zelaya went ahead anyway. When the head of the armed forces refused to carry out an order to distribute the ballot papers, the president sacked him. The Supreme Court reinstated the general, and the electoral tribunal ordered the ballots to be confiscated. In response, Mr Zelaya led a group of supporters to an air force base where they carted off the ballots. He instructed public employees to collect signatures for the constituent assembly. Hours before voting was to begin, the army seized the president.

The army said he was arrested for defying the Supreme Court, though no explanation has been given for why he was not brought before a Honduran judge. The legislature then voted almost unanimously to install Mr Micheletti, a Liberal rival of Mr Zelaya, as his successor. Congress has no constitutional power to remove the president. Mr Micheletti produced a curiously worded resignation letter which Mr Zelaya denies having written or signed.

That's it, they go no further in their analysis. Even in a magazine editorial, the left seems to lack the courage of their convictions. The Economist, like our President, are oh so gutless in this case. Gutless because they step up to the breech in their criticism and then fall back silently. Knowing the political pitfalls of spelling out their alternative.

So most critics implicitly suggest what they realize would look and sound terrible if spelled out. Here it is; What they believe Hondurans should have done was to not act, allow events to unfold and hope that Zelaya and Chavez would fail in their efforts. That is the position of the Miami Herald as well - they editorialized:

Congress could have ignored the outcome and stepped up preparations for scheduled presidential elections in November. It could have impeded the referendum by less drastic means that upheld the rule of law.

Maybe. If you are a Honduran who believes in democracy, that 'maybe' is not as appealing as it to those who sit in genteel offices overlooking the Arsht Center and Biscayne Bay. Given the examples of Nicaragua and Venezuela, Hondurans understandably moved to act with something more definite than 'ignoring outcomes of elections.' The spirit of Lord Halifax is alive and well in many places today, unfortunately, that includes our White House. That is not bad news everywhere, Iranian religious zealots and tyrants are thrilled.

The WSJ's Mary Anastasia O'Grady, writes of the primary phrase found in the hundreds of emails from Hondurans, 'please pray for us.' We would do well to do so for many reasons, not the least of which would be Pastor Martin Niemöller's rationale:

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

Read more!

Obama: The Un-Ugly American Wannabe

When I read Leon Wieseltier's description of President Obama's mindset, it was one of those moments when you realize that someone who had been seeing and reading the same things I had, was able to articulate it in a way that helped me make sense of what at times seems incomprehensible. Leon Wieseltier on Barack Obama:

I do not agree that Obama's diffidence about liberation and human rights is owed entirely to a fear of nuclear proliferation. He has another commitment. He is determined to be the un-ugly American. This excites him. He is consecrated to an engagement with the Muslim world, which is not entirely consistent with a consecration to democracy. Even as the brutality of the ayatollahs was increasing, Obama made a point of referring graciously to "the Islamic Republic of Iran," as if it would be a slander against Islam or Iran to refer to the regime in a less legitimating manner. (The commentators are declaring a "crisis of legitimacy" in Iran, but there can be no crisis of legitimacy where there is no legitimacy.) Why does Obama care so much for Khamenei's good opinion? Khamenei will blame the West whatever the West does, because he believes that the West is forever to blame. Khamenei responded to Obama's rapture in Cairo with this. And soon, if he is to act according to his plan, Obama will have to sit down with Ahmadinejad. Perhaps he will shake his hand. Perhaps he will he wear a green tie. There are many ways for an American to be ugly or un-ugly. The hearts of millions are about to be broken. They will look to the president of the United States. Will his mincing cease? Will the realist get real? In recent days Obama has begun--not under pressure, of course--to "condemn" and to "deplore." The oppressed people of Iran may now endure what other oppressed peoples have endured: the learning curve of an American president. It is the insult that history adds to their injury.

Wieseltier's article is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Long Arc - Leon Wieseltier - The New Republic - Published: July 15, 2009

On a rainy day in 1993, I sat with my parents at the opening ceremonies of the Holocaust Museum and heard President Clinton, who was doing nothing to stop the genocide in Bosnia, suggest that the genocide in Bosnia must be stopped, because never again can we allow genocide to occur. My mother laconically whispered that "he talks about Bosnia as if he is somebody else." I was reminded of her distinction between the president and the rest of us when I read a piece on this magazine's website by my haver Michael Walzer, who made the same distinction but for the opposite end. He wished to exonerate the president. His subject was President Obama's stony reluctance to condemn the Iranian regime's theft of the election and its repression in the streets. "What Obama says must be guided by what he has to do," Walzer wrote, referring to the challenge of the nuclearization of Iran. "The rest of us are much freer." And so "we need to be clear about who we are and what we stand for and why we oppose the religious zealots and tyrants who have ruled Iran for the last decades." But the president need express, or teach, no such clarity. "Heads of state," who can "defend political principles" if they wish, "have other things to do." This was the stirring slogan of Walzer's exemption of the president from moral leadership in the midst of one of the greatest explosions of democratic energy in our time: "For liberals and leftists--opposition and nothing else; for state diplomats--handshakes and negotiations."

March, for that? I admit that the condition of the American left matters less to me than the condition of the Iranian resistance. And Walzer was hardly the only liberal making bleak excuses for Obama's zealous refusal to show any zeal. We shall not be moved, indeed. But Walzer got it exactly backward. If all of us support the dissidents but the president does not, the dissidents have an American problem. If none of us support the dissidents but the president does, the dissidents do not have an American problem. And either way, the president is "meddling." Obama's parsimonious performance in the first weeks of the rebellion in Tehran, the disappearance of his eloquence and his championship of change, was an attempt by the president to impersonate the rest of us, to be just another saddened consumer of tweets and feeds. Hence his refrains about "bearing witness" and "the world is watching." That is uplift for a demonstration, or a vigil. Witnessing and watching are varieties of passivity. The rest of us witness and watch, because we can do little else. (Hitting "send" is not a muscular form of political action.) Obama seems to think that there is some force in the admonition that the world is watching; but history plentifully demonstrates that when the world is watching, all the world does is watch. His worst moment came when he hid behind Martin Luther King, Jr.: "What we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to--I think what Dr. King called the arc of the moral universe. It's long but it bends towards justice." The president was counseling patience, and it always looks so unwise, so impetuous, to be against patience. But King was not patient with injustice. And when it came to his own campaign, to his own hunger, Obama did not cite King on the long arc of justice. He cited King on the fierce urgency of now.

With their defense of Obama's dilatoriness about the revolt in Tehran, American liberals compromised themselves. They succumbed to the Council on Foreign Relations view of the world. So it is important to be clear that the strong articulation of American principles by the American president when those principles are being bravely upheld by a people in revolt against a dictator--this is not only a statement of emotion, it is also an element of strategy. It emboldens the right side. It allies the United States with peoples against regimes, which is almost always the surest foundation for the American position. (I am not an Iran expert, unlike almost everyone I meet, but I find it hard to imagine that the young men and women suffering the blows of the Basij would not welcome our support, that they are in the streets with angry thoughts of Mossadegh. If these events have shown anything, it is that their enemy and our enemy are the same.) There is nothing more sweepingly in the interest of the United States in the Middle East than the withering away of the theocracy in Iran. Every blow struck against the structure of state power in Iran is a blow struck against Hezbollah and Hamas; and a blow has at last been struck. This is one of those instances in which our planners may have some use for our principles. I understand the urgency of the nuclear issue, of course. I doubt that those centrifuges will be negotiated away; but if there is any hope for diplomacy, it lies in a political transformation in Tehran.

I do not agree that Obama's diffidence about liberation and human rights is owed entirely to a fear of nuclear proliferation. He has another commitment. He is determined to be the un-ugly American. This excites him. He is consecrated to an engagement with the Muslim world, which is not entirely consistent with a consecration to democracy. Even as the brutality of the ayatollahs was increasing, Obama made a point of referring graciously to "the Islamic Republic of Iran," as if it would be a slander against Islam or Iran to refer to the regime in a less legitimating manner. (The commentators are declaring a "crisis of legitimacy" in Iran, but there can be no crisis of legitimacy where there is no legitimacy.) Why does Obama care so much for Khamenei's good opinion? Khamenei will blame the West whatever the West does, because he believes that the West is forever to blame. Khamenei responded to Obama's rapture in Cairo with this. And soon, if he is to act according to his plan, Obama will have to sit down with Ahmadinejad. Perhaps he will shake his hand. Perhaps he will he wear a green tie. There are many ways for an American to be ugly or un-ugly. The hearts of millions are about to be broken. They will look to the president of the United States. Will his mincing cease? Will the realist get real? In recent days Obama has begun--not under pressure, of course--to "condemn" and to "deplore." The oppressed people of Iran may now endure what other oppressed peoples have endured: the learning curve of an American president. It is the insult that history adds to their injury.

Leon Wieseltier is The New Republic's literary editor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Happy Independence Day!

Read more!

Weakness Which Leads To Perfection

What is meant in St Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, where he notes that God spoke to him saying, "My grace is enough for you, for in human weakness the power of God reaches perfection?" Fr Vallee gives us his thoughts on it and concludes his homily this way:

The point is that it does not matter what Paul’s “weakness” is. We all have weaknesses and stuff about ourselves we are ashamed of. The point is God’s response to Paul’s weakness. Because God addresses our weaknesses with the same words. God tells Paul: “My grace is enough for you, for in human weakness the power of God reaches perfection.” We don’t have to be perfect. In fact, the fact that we are not perfect is precisely what forces us to realize our need for God’s grace. Ignatius of Loyola wrote: Take Lord, and receive all my liberty, my memory, my understanding and my entire will, all I have and call my own. You have given all to me. To you, Lord, I return it. Everything is yours; do with it what you will. Give me only your love and your grace; that is enough for me.

The email address to request to be put on Vallee's email distribution list is Cioran262@aol.com. To see the entire homily click on 'read more.' Search for other Fr Vallee homilies in this blog by entering 'Vallee' in the search box in the upper left hand corner or look for Fr Vallee in the Labels.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fr Vallee Homily - July 4, 2009

I. Thorn in the flesh, angel of Satan
One of the most amazing passages of Scripture, in my view at least, is today’s second reading from Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. Paul writes: “In order that I might not become inflated and arrogant, I was given a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to beat me and keep me from becoming proud. Three times I begged the Lord to take this from me. But he said, ‘My grace is enough for you, for in human weakness the power of God reaches perfection.’” This is a very beautiful and yet somewhat enigmatic passage. Notice that Paul does not tell us what exactly this “thorn in the flesh” might be. We can be pretty sure as to what it is not. It is not pain or persecution, trials or tribulations. Why? Because Paul just told us that he willingly boasts of what he suffers for the sake of the Gospel. So what is it that so torments Paul? One thing is sure, it something that Paul sees as a weakness and something not to boast of but to be ashamed of.

II. First Possible thorn: character flaw
There are many possibilities as to the nature of this “angel of Satan.” Let’s look at three. First, Paul could be referring to some sort of a character flaw on his part. He had several to deal with. His worst problem was that he had a terrible temper and an acidic tongue. When Barnabas in Acts, asks him to take back John Mark, Paul says he is a baby and should go back home to his mommy. In Galatians, he writes, with a somewhat poisonous pen, “how stupid can you be!” Later in Galatians, Paul writes, “Henceforth, let no man bother me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord’s passion.” One thing is certain, Paul was not so good at playing nice with the other children.

III. Second: Physical problem
The second possibility is that Paul could have been talking about some sort of physical problem which may have gotten in the way of his preaching the Gospel. For example, it is believed that Paul stuttered. This, of course would have affected his ability to preach the Gospel. In the 20th chapter of Acts we read that Paul was preaching, “on and on” and a young man got so bored that he fell from a third story window and died. Paul had to go down and raise him from the dead. My homilies are not always great but I have never killed anyone. Which is all for the best, being that I am not at all confident about the raising from the dead part afterwards. Also, when Paul describes his fits and seizures, some modern doctors have surmised that he was perhaps an epileptic. Of course, is always a bit dangerous to perform such anachronistic diagnoses.

IV. Moral Problem
The third and, I think, the most interesting possibility is that Paul is alluding to some sort of moral flaw, some sort of sin he struggles with. We have already seen that he has a bit of trouble with wrath and pride and envy. But maybe it is something else. A French psychologist wrote a book in the 1980s which analyzed all of Paul’s comments about women and suggests that Paul does not like them very much. Not to put too fine a point on it but that Paul perhaps struggled with desires which ran contrary to nature. Of course, there is no way to know being that Paul doesn’t say.

V. Grace is enough
The point is that it does not matter what Paul’s “weakness” is. We all have weaknesses and stuff about ourselves we are ashamed of. The point is God’s response to Paul’s weakness. Because God addresses our weaknesses with the same words. God tells Paul: “My grace is enough for you, for in human weakness the power of God reaches perfection.” We don’t have to be perfect. In fact, the fact that we are not perfect is precisely what forces us to realize our need for God’s grace. Ignatius of Loyola wrote: Take Lord, and receive all my liberty, my memory, my understanding and my entire will, all I have and call my own. You have given all to me. To you, Lord, I return it. Everything is yours; do with it what you will. Give me only your love and your grace; that is enough for me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Emilio Bonifacio and His Selectively Tough Critics

After "Michael Jackson," the phrase "why is Emilio Bonifacio playing everyday" was the most popular worldwide search term in Google last week. Or maybe it just seems that way. Earlier in the week, Juan Rodriguez's Sun-Sentinel blog basically told Marlins fans, 'you may wanna back off, Bonifacio might not be going anywhere.' That blog post made sense because Bonifacio has become the favorite target of local sports talk shows callers [no doubt only temporarily supplanting Freddi Gonzalez, who is filing in ably for Randy Shannon until football season begins]. I was going to describe those callers as hyper-critical and illogical, but since I already noted that they called sports radio shows, that would be redundant.

Later in the week, Dave Hyde weighed in with a balanced take on Bonifacio, pointing out positives, for example how his OBP has improved by month. However, the negative crescendo reached its peak with Joe Sheehan from Baseball Prospectus on the Jonathan Zaslow radio show on Friday. Joe really doesn't like Emilio. I believe the nicest thing he said was that 'Bonifacio really wasn't really a MLB player.' I enjoy the analytical approach which sites like Baseball Prospectus have opened up to us fans. But in listening to Sheehan, the limits of statistical analysis, or more accurately, the limitation of statistical analysis without imagination, became evident.

What's the point in just saying that Bonifacio's OBP and OPS need to improve? If you say it with enough invective does it become more interesting? The real questions worth analyzing are whether Bonifacio can be expected to improve or how long the Marlins can afford to continue to play someone with his current level of stats. Clearly the Marlins believe he will improve [as he has begun to do so already]. Those who say that Bonifacio should not be playing are in effect stating that he will not improve. Based on what? Do they discount the improvement he has already shown? Are they aware that many good players struggled early in their careers?

I had a post where I discussed Dan Uggla's performance by month during his first 3 seasons and made certain assumptions based on that [namely that if the Marlins were to trade him, they should do so right after the month of June]. If someone had replied that 3 years was not enough of a track record to assume how he would perform in his 4th or 5th seasons, I think that would be a fair point to make, especially if someone could back it up with examples.

That is the area that I expected someone from Baseball Prospectus to get into. But that's not what Sheehan did [it took me a while to realize that he wasn't just another angry white man from Aventura]. I looked up Bonifacio's stats, he has 500 MLB at bats. In those 500 at bats, Bonifacio has walked way too little and struck out way too much, but are Bonifacio's critics saying that after 500 at bats, you pretty much know the what type of MLB hitter someone can be?

That doesn't make sense to me. Even my late night cursory look at other 2B revealed that Brian Roberts had a similar poor start to his career -- perhaps not coincidentally when Roberts was 23 & 24 years old -- check out their stats at the beginning of their careers:

Bonifacio: 500 AB / .244 AVG / .296 OBP / .310 SLG
Roberts: 401 AB / .244 AVG / .294 OBP / .327 SLG

Also, keep in mind the following facts about Emilio Bonifacio:

• He is 24 years-old.
• He is really fast.
• This is his 3rd organization in 3 years. In practical terms, he's worked for 3 different bosses, 3 different management teams, while living in 3 different cities / homes.
• Bonifacio is learning a new position at the MLB level, 3B.
• The Marlins baseball operations -- widely regarded for their ability to compete with minimal payrolls -- believe enough in Bonifacio to have traded for him and then stuck with him through major struggles.
• He's hitting just 4 points less than Jeremy Hermida.
• He is really, really fast.

I love stats. But the type of people who used those stats to beat up on players without also conveying that they are just guessing about the prospects of that player's development -- a guess, by the way, which is at odds with the collective opinion of Larry Beinfest, Michael Hill and Freddi Gonzalez -- strike me as just a cut above a fan yelling obscenities at the ballpark, especially when they avoid criticizing someone like Beinfest with the same amount of intensity.

The reason I equate the two is that just like I assume that fans who specialize in obscenity-laced tirades at the ballpark would never speak that way, especially without the alcohol, face to face to the athlete. Similarly, analysts or commentators who go after someone like Bonifacio, rarely attack those ultimately responsible for putting him in the lineup [i.e. Larry Beinfest] with the same amount of gusto. The reason they don't in the case of Beinfest, is that he has a very good reputation [and memory, no doubt] in MLB. As such, those who pull their punches when it comes to those who are actually putting Bonifacio in the lineup, are glorified bullies in my book.

They represent a new set of MLB powers that be, armed with too many spreadsheets and too little humility. If they ever get tired of baseball, they probably would fit right into Washington DC. To paraphrase Nick Carraway, I think 'they're a rotten crowd, the whole damn bunch put together.'

Read more!

The Charmin(g) Presidency?

Sorry, I meant Charming, but couldn't get the strike through effect in the title.

The new and inexperienced US President was tested recently. Barack Obama proved to be true to his roots. He reactions were Hyde Park through and through. Soft. Soft as in appeasing the most dangerous and unpredictable head of state, Ahmadinejad, while cracking down on Honduras.

It was not the sort of issue he could defer to Congressional Democrats. It was not the sort of test his Media Minions or teleprompter could help him with. It was not the sort of crowd the former Hyde Park resident is comfortable in dealing with, i.e. White House reception for gays and lesbians.

Peter Wehner describes Obama's choices in Commentary magazine:

Let’s see if you can follow the bouncing diplomatic ball. In order to justify his timid early words regarding the Iranian suppression of liberty, Barack Obama based his argument on how important it is for the United States to not “meddle” in the internal affairs of Iran. But today Obama said that the weekend ouster of Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya was “not legal” and that he remains the country’s president.

In the first instance, Obama was clearly trying to pacify the theocratic leadership of the repressive, terror-sponsoring Iranian regime. In the case of Honduras, Obama is “meddling” in order to protect the legitimacy of an authoritarian president who is acting as if he were above the law, is violating Honduras’s Constitution, and is supported by Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Fidel Castro.

Regarding the situation in Honduras, read the comments of the WSJ's Mary Anastasia O'Grady:

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.
....
The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.

I think I know what Obama is about ideologically, so I can't say I'm disappointed. My question is [still] for the the American electorate; what about Obama's background lead to their confidence in him? Maybe it was the ultimate act of hubris, as in, 'we are so invincible, we can even make it work with this guy.'

O'Grady's article is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honduras Defends Its Democracy - Fidel Castro and Hillary Clinton object
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY - June 30, 2009

Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.
[THE AMERICAS] Associated Press

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

Honduras is fighting back by strictly following the constitution. The Honduran Congress met in emergency session yesterday and designated its president as the interim executive as stipulated in Honduran law. It also said that presidential elections set for November will go forward. The Supreme Court later said that the military acted on its orders. It also said that when Mr. Zelaya realized that he was going to be prosecuted for his illegal behavior, he agreed to an offer to resign in exchange for safe passage out of the country. Mr. Zelaya denies it.

Many Hondurans are going to be celebrating Mr. Zelaya's foreign excursion. Street protests against his heavy-handed tactics had already begun last week. On Friday a large number of military reservists took their turn. "We won't go backwards," one sign said. "We want to live in peace, freedom and development."

Besides opposition from the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunal and the attorney general, the president had also become persona non grata with the Catholic Church and numerous evangelical church leaders. On Thursday evening his own party in Congress sponsored a resolution to investigate whether he is mentally unfit to remain in office.

For Hondurans who still remember military dictatorship, Mr. Zelaya also has another strike against him: He keeps rotten company. Earlier this month he hosted an OAS general assembly and led the effort, along side OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, to bring Cuba back into the supposedly democratic organization.

The OAS response is no surprise. Former Argentine Ambassador to the U.N. Emilio Cárdenas told me on Saturday that he was concerned that "the OAS under Insulza has not taken seriously the so-called 'democratic charter.' It seems to believe that only military 'coups' can challenge democracy. The truth is that democracy can be challenged from within, as the experiences of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and now Honduras, prove." A less-kind interpretation of Mr. Insulza's judgment is that he doesn't mind the Chávez-style coup.

The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Is 2 Think Good the Snopes of the Florida Marlins? True

I'm always surprised when I check out chain emails forwarded by friends on Snopes, they are invariably false. In a way, I see myself as a low-rent Snopes for the Florida Marlins.

For example, now that the Marlins are now 7-0 vs. the Washington Nationals and just 2.5 games out of first place, most fans might be tempted to attribute the Marlins position in the NL East to their record against the Nationals. They would be right, but not how they think. See the Marlins would be even closer [2 games out] if no one in the NL East had played the Nationals.

The Phillies are 10-2 and the Mets are 7-2 against the Nationals. The Dodgers, the team with the best record in the NL, is the only NL team without a winning record against the Nationals [1-1]. But at least if fans are talking about won-loss records, their arguments are rooted in facts. It's not like they're citing luck, opposition injuries and managerial moves, the unholy trinity for the nattering nabobs of negativism.

Read more!

When Their Godfather Knowledge Is Full of Holes

As any Godfather fan worth their cannolis learned at their Mother's knee, Santino Corleone was killed at the tollbooths entering the Long Beach Causeway (also known as the Loop Parkway), which connects Long Beach with the Meadowbrook State Parkway near Jones Beach.

I recently heard it described as 'the Jersey Turnpike' while eating lunch with friends. When I heard it, I wasn't angry [though naturally, I was unable to enjoy the rest of my meal]; I knew the young man, I knew he was head-strong, talking loud, saying stupid things. So when he uttered the Jersey infamnia, I let it go. And I said to myself, this is the type of careless and superficial remark a fan of the Bay City Rollers is prone to make.

Fortunately, the superficiality did not extend to the rest of our lunch crowd, as a line quickly formed to flog the offender. Justice, Dirty Harry-style, was meted out in a swift and efficient manner, complete with a retraction, apologies, and an unanimously agreed upon 6-month moratorium on any AMC, Bravo or TCM Godfather programming -- including, but not limited to, films, documentaries, interviews, electronic games bearing their likeness and Francis Ford Coppola retrospectives.

Read more!

Anatomy of a Possible Florida Marlins Trade

Let's play Florida Marlins GM. On more than one occasion, Larry Beinfest has indicated that the Marlins want to emphasize pitching and defense. Their numerous good young pitchers are a testament to that focus. However, defense has been a problem for the team.

My impression as a fan is that players rarely improve significantly as fielders. So poor or below average defensive players need to be replaced if a team expects to improve. The defense up the middle [CF, SS, 2B & C] is considered the most important part of a team's defense.

As someone who used to do stats by hand as a kid and then as a young adult would receive my weekly Bill James Fantasy League updates through the mail, the current world of available on-line stats [through ESPN] from the Elias Sports Bureau is amazing.

The best way to measure defensive ability is a combination of fielding percentage [FPCT] and the range factor [RF]. RF numbers will obviously vary significantly between positions, so you can't really compare those numbers beyond a specific position. The importance of the RF stat is that it helps to determine whether a player has a good fielding percentage partially because he is not getting to the more difficult fielding chances due to their lack of range. I limit my analysis to the National League, i.e. only league playing real baseball.

Let's look at the Marlins defense at those positions:

• CF - Cody Ross. His RF [2.6] is just below average. His FPCT [.980] ranks last among regular CF's. Ross splits his time between CF [57% of his games] and RF. He is also one of the hottest hitters in MLB at the moment. But the answer to getting better in center-field is named Cameron Maybin.


• SS - Hanley Ramirez - Hanley's RF [3.96] and FPCT [.973] are below average for a NL shortstop. His RF has dropped significantly from his first 3 years [4.55 in 06 / 4.27 in 07 / 4.40 in 08 - any of those RF's would be an above-average stat in 09]. This could be due to his increased weight or to his battling a groin injury, but it's not good news either way. If the Marlins ever decide to move Hanley to 3B, they will bring RF stats to that meeting.


• C - John Paul Baker [started 62% of games] / Ronny Paulino - In a real statistical anomaly, their defensive stats are practically identical. Their FPCT [.992 both] is below average. I'm going to ignore the RF for catchers, since I think they include strikeouts as putouts [they are above average in this stat--8.07 & 8.24]. The key stat for catchers is the caught stealing percentage [CS%]. Among regular catchers, the stat is bookended by the Magnificent Molina's, Yadier on top [.455] and Bengie at the bottom [.194]. Both Baker [.184] and Paulino [.195], are more like Bengie. Here again the stat can be misleading. The Marlins young pitchers may be doing a poor job of holding runners on. The answer to getting better at catcher is named Kyle Skipworth.


• 2B - Dan Uggla - His FPCT [.980] is below average and his RF [4.12] is the worst in the NL by a wide margin. Besides the poor defense, Uggla's problem is that his position is one of the few that the Marlins have a readily available option to improve immediately--Chris Coghlan. Coghlan's strength is not his defense, but he is seen as an improvement over Uggla.

So why would the Marlins trade a productive hitter for just a marginal improvement defensively? They would do so if they believe they have seen the best of Dan Uggla and could get the most value for him right now.

As I noted in an earlier post, Uggla's 3 previous seasons indicate that May and June are by far his best months. His offensive numbers have consistently dropped during July and August. One factor working in favor of not trading Uggla is that he is one of the core group of players that fans have gotten to know since 2006.

Given that the Marlins are in contention and the fact that Uggla is one of the highest paid Marlins, trading him could be seen as evidence that management is reverting to their salary dumping ways. In light of the recent approval of the use of public monies towards the building of a new stadium for the 2012 season, trading Uggla would be seen as an even more egregious move than usual. But Matt Lindstrom's injury / demotion may have just tipped the scales in that equation. Because now the franchise could argue that while they didn't want to part with Uggla, they could not pass up a key reliever as a way to improve immediately.

So who would the Marlins trade Uggla for? OK first let's figure out who would benefit most from his offense. See the stats below -- click on image to enlarge:



So here are the teams which Uggla would represent an improvement offensively and strategically the teams would not have an issue making a trade [i.e. teams typically would not make a trade within their own division] -- Colorado, Detroit, San Diego and Seattle.

Colorado: Their current 2B, Clint Barmes leads the league in RF [5.45 -- by the way, so does their shortstop, Tulowitzki @ 4.95] and the team leads the NL in runs scored, so they are an unlikely trade partner.

Detroit: Their current 2B, Placido Polanco is 2nd in the AL to Ian Kinsler in the RF [5.04] and leads the AL in FPCT [.997]. However, Polanco is now 33 years old and a below average offensive player on a team which is right in the middle of the league in runs scored. They could use the offense. But I don't see the Marlins being interested in the 2 Tiger relievers having the best seasons, Fernando Rodney or Bobby Seay.

San Diego: Their current 2B, David Eckstein is veteran [34 yrs old] and while he has been a good fielder in his career, he currently has a poor RF [4.48] and San Diego is last in the NL in runs scored. So who does San Diego have that the Marlins would want? Heath Bell is tied for the league lead in saves, after having taken over in that role from Trevor Hoffman. Edward Mujica is having a nice year as a setup man, but he's not worth trading Uggla for. Unfortunately, Uggla is likely not enough to get a top reliever for straight up.

Seattle: Defensively, Dan Uggla would actually represent an improvement over the Mariners current 2B, Jose Lopez [RF 4.07] and Seattle is last in the AL in runs scored, so we could be in business here as well. The Mariners top reliever, David Aardsma, came over from the Red Sox in a trade and is having such good year, that again, Dan Uggla alone is probably not enough to get Seattle to make this deal.

As I see it, the Marlins best option is to trade Uggla to secure a top reliever -- either Heath Bell or David Aardsma. But the additional price would likely be one of their young starters [Sean West, for example]. Would you make that trade?

Read more!

Lyle Lovett and My Neighborhood Friends

I went to the funeral of the father of a great friend recently. Among the many people who came to pay their respects were about 10 guys from the neighborhood who had grown up together within a couple of years of each other. Most, like me, did not have to travel far in distance to attend, even the funeral home [on the ubiquitous SW 8th Street] was located within a 2 mile radius of where we had met, grown up, gone to high school and 'started' our lives. The main transporting that occurred was of our state of minds. Speaking for myself, I went blithely, as opposed to willingly, since there was no conscious thought about the process.

An evening which began with our focus on the pain of one of our own, ended with ... well for me it actually ended with an Elena Ruz sandwich at Versailles, just further down 8th Street. But before I ended the sandwich, I had spent the evening with friends who knew me before I was what I now identify myself as to others, i.e. education, jobs, beliefs. The feeling was familiar and welcome to all. The all for the one that evening, the family of the friend whose loss had reunited us, worked as it should and was intended:

In Catholic funerals, the church seeks to provide spiritual support for the deceased and honor their bodies, as well as try to provide a measure of hope for the family and friends of the deceased.

What is easy to see now, looking back, is also hard to explain. See, while we were just random neighbors on the surface -- tossed together by geopolitical events and the socio-economic struggles of our immigrant parents [like the Dad we were laying to rest] -- we ended up forging lifetime friendships. Perhaps we were able to do so because we did not realize that we could have done otherwise. I blame the fun we were always having.

See I'm sure that's an exaggeration, nothing is ever 'always,' especially fun. But man, it came close. The other stuff? My brain must have hit a dump button a while back [I know, I know, other stuff must have been lost too .. important stuff]. One thing I consciously did that night was to step back and appreciate what God had wrought among my friends. Then, a Lyle Lovett song popped into my head as I stood on SW 8th Street and my thoughts wafted, circa 1973.

I went to a funeral
Lord it made me happy
Seeing all those people
I ain't seen
Since the last time
Somebody died

Everybody talking
They were telling funny stories
Saying all those things
They ain't said
Since the last time
Somebody died

RIP, Ramon Garcia

See a YouTube video of Lyle Lovett's, 'Since The Last Time' click here

The complete lyrics to 'Since The Last Time' are copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artist: Lyle Lovett
Song: Since The Last Time
Album: Joshua Judges Ruth [1992]

I went to a funeral
Lord it made me happy
Seeing all those people
I ain't seen
Since the last time
Somebody died

Everybody talking
They were telling funny stories
Saying all those things
They ain't said
Since the last time
Somebody died

But you take a look around you
Don't it seem like something's missing
I said something that weren't missing
Lord the last time
Somebody died

You took him from the last time
To that hallowed ground
I'm praying take me to the next time Lord
So I can hang around

Then the people start to looking
And some of them start crying
And all the little children
Lord they're scared
Because they ain't never seen
A dead man before

You took him from the last time
To that hallowed ground
I'm praying take me to the next time Lord
So I can hang around

He's swimming through that Jordan
Going to the other side
But if it's all the same to you Lord
I think I'll stay dry

Now it's church on Sunday
It's a bar on Friday night
It's work on Monday
The preacher Lord you know he might sing

Hallelujah
Sing hallelujah
Sing hallelujah
Sing hallelujah

He's got church on Sunday
And he got drunk the night before
And he got his good gal when he got home
The preacher said he wants some more of that

Hallelujah
Sing hallelujah
Sing hallelujah
Sing hallelujah

Now if you want to get to heaven
Let me tell you what to do
You better grease your foot up buddy
With that mutton stew
And when the devil comes after you
With them greasy hands
You just slide on over to the promised land

Sing hallelujah
Sing hallelujah
Sing hallelujah
Sing hallelujah

Now there was two little imps
And they was black as tar
And they was trying to get to heaven
In an electric car
And that car wheel slipped
On down the hill
Instead of going to heaven
They went to Jacksonville

Sing hallelujah
Sing hallelujah
Sing hallelujah
Sing hallelujah

Thank you, you've been so nice
All my friends they came
Now close the lid down tightly
And quit crying
Because when they close them
They all look the same

And grab hold of the handle
It won't be too heavy
And take me to the graveyard

I went to a funeral
And Lord it made me happy
Seeing all those people
I ain't seen
Since the last time
Somebody...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

The Florida Marlins and Mandichian Candidates

On May 11th, the Marlins suffered lost their 6th loss in 7 games and found themselves 6 games under .500. Last night the Marlins beat the Orioles to get their record back to .500. Try and think back, since May the 11th, of all those writers or commentators who have told you that the Marlins meager payroll finally caught up to them. 'This team can't continue to compete' ... yada yada yada.

It is not surprising to find local media who are willing to bury the Marlins after a slump [even in May]. They are in jobs that require either originality or negativity. Given that originality is rare because it is difficult, negativity is a fairly rational choice on their part. But do keep the doomsayers [the Mandichian candidates?] cluelessness in mind during the next Marlins slump.

The last time we looked at what's right with the Marlins was back in May, let's update the good news about the Florida Marlins:

• 25 year-old Josh Johnson leads the NL [the AL is dead to me] in innings pitched, is tied for the lead in quality starts and is 4th in ERA.
• 24 year-old Andrew Miller has been more consistent since coming off the DL in May and gave up only 1 hit in his 7 innings against the Orioles.
  
• 22 year-old Chris Volstad gave up more than 4 runs in a start for the first time in his 27 career starts in back to back starts in June. That raised his ERA by a full run. However, he bounced back with what now can be described as a typical Volstad effort against the Yankees -- 6 innings, 3 earned runs.
• 26 year-old Ricky Nolasco has an ERA of 2.50 in his last 3 starts since returning from the DL in June. Included in that was allowing the Red Sox only 1 hit in 5 innings at Fenway.
• 23 year-old Sean West's only bad start [out of 6] was his last, a loss against the Yankees at home last Friday.
• Kiko Calero, Dan Meyer and Renyel Pinto all have ERA's under 2.22 and are part of a Marlins bullpen which leads the NL in innings pitched. Unfortunately, likely resulting from that over-use, Calero and Pinto have spent time on the DL this year.
• 25 year-old Hanley Ramirez is hitting .329 and is about to start his 2nd All-Star game.
• In 24 year-old left-handed batter Chris Coghlan, the Marlins appear to have found their leadoff hitter. After seeing his average drop to .200 after his first month, Coghlan did what all players who stick in the majors do, he adjusted. He's at .275 overall now and he's actually hitting over .300 in the lead-off spot.
• Dan Uggla remains a productive RBI man, despite his Mendoza skirting average.

Read more!

Petro-Dictatorships and the NY Yankees

What do Petro-Dictatorships and the New York Yankees have in common? Vast resources which facilitate autocratic rule and encourage financial incompetence. In the case of the Yankees, cable contracts for NY-based sports franchises are the equivalent of extensive oil reserves in third world countries.

Brian Cashman, Joe Torre and Joe Giraldi have fans in at least one corporate headquarters in America, the offices of AIG. The ability to fail repeatedly with unlimited resources is not something that can be appreciated by your run of the mill failures.

Maybe what the Yankees need is a vigilant loan officer armed with basic covenants. If such a thing existed, a basic MLB covenant would be the cost in salaries per win [ML salaries/wins]. A look at this financial covenant for the New York Yankees since the glorious year of our Lord, 2003.

2003 - $1.5 Million per win [153/101] - WS Losers
2004 - $1.8 Million per win [184/101]
2005 - $2.2 Million per win [208/95]
2006 - $2.0 Million per win [195/97]
2007 - $2.0 Million per win [190/94]
2008 - $2.3 Million per win [209/89]

At the other end of the financial competency continuum, the Florida Marlins:

2003 - $0.5 Million per win [49/91] - World Champions
2004 - $0.5 Million per win [42/83]
2005 - $0.7 Million per win [60/83]
2006 - $0.2 Million per win [15/78]
2007 - $0.4 Million per win [31/71]
2008 - $0.3 Million per win [22/84]

Speaking of colossal failures, how about the design of the Yankees new ballpark? The park has given up the most home runs of any new ballpark ever. Some have speculated that the park itself is on steroids.

I prefer to give the Yankees the benefit of the doubt on this one. I believe they are not exploiting the steroids issue, but rather are attempting to solve it. The Yankees are trying to do their part to make steroids irrelevant. How? The Yankees now have a ballpark where anyone can homer. As they might say in my old neighborhood, 'Esteroides para que tu?'

Read more!

Benjamin Franklin - Not All Change is Progress

Benjamin Franklin's inscription
on the tombstone of his parents.

Josiah Franklin and Abiah his wife, lie here interred. They lived lovingly together in wedlock fifty-five years; and without an estate or any careful employment; by constant labor and honest industry, maintained a large family comfortably, and brought up thirteen children and seven grandchildren respectably. From this instance, Reader, be encouraged to diligence in thy calling, and distrust not Providence. He was a pious and prudent man; she a virtuous woman. Their youngest son, in filial regard to their memory, places this stone. J. F. Born, 1655. Died, 1744. Aet. 89. A. F. Born, 1667. Died, 1752. Aet. 85

That tombstone has always been very intimidating to me. It highlights personal qualities that I don't always see in myself, let alone fellow citizens. Then I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' thoughts on the feelings of being in love:

Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the state called "being in love" usually does not last. If the old fairytale ending "They lived happily ever after" is taken to mean "They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married," then it says what probably never was nor ever could be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be "in love" need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense-love as distinct from "being in love" is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both parents ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be "in love" with someone else. "Being in love" first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.

Franklin was an integral part of America's 'explosion' generation.' Our country has enjoyed quite a ride since then. But it would be the worst kind of self-delusion to not realize that -- while the orbit which resulted from America's truly gifted 'explosion generation' really was quite amazing -- it is now ending. I plan to be around and make the best of the landing. In doing so, I also plan to heed Franklin's best advice, "Distrust not Providence."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Franklin's Funeral and Grave

He Was Able to Restrain Thunderbolts and Tyrants

Franklin Gravestone
"No other town burying its great man, ever buried more of itself than Philadelphia with Franklin," wrote Carl Van Doren in his biography of Franklin.

Franklin himself had composed the black-bordered Pennsylvania Gazette which announced his death. Dr. Jones, Franklin's physician, informed the readers of Franklin's final illness. He had been suffering from empyema, pus filling in his lung brought on by attacks of pleurisy many years earlier. His temperature was high. This made breathing laborious, and he almost suffocated. After several days of breathing woes, the pain went away for a day, upon which he left his bed and asked that it be made properly so that he might have a dignified death. His daughter, Sally, told him that she hoped he would live many years more. "I hope not," he replied.

An abscess in Franklin's lung burst and he passed into a coma. He died on April 17, 1790, with his grandsons William Temple and Bennie at his side. Benjamin Franklin was 84 years old.

Franklin's grave
On April 21, the funeral procession gathered at the State House. Leading the cortege was the clergy of Philadelphia. Though Franklin was not a regular churchgoer by any means, he had aided the churches by raising funds to help their construction. His coffin was carried by the citizenry of Philadelphia. Dignitaries surrounded the Pall including Revolutionary Era Philadelphia mayor Samuel Powell, astronomer David Rittenhouse, and several members of Pennsylvania's Supreme Executive Council. Judges and current Philadelphia politicians were also in the mix.

They were followed by the printers of the city and their apprentices. Franklin always considered himself a leather apron man, a mechanic, a printer. "Keep they Trade, and thy Trade will keep Thee."

Then came members of the American Philosophical Society, which was co-founded by Franklin in the 1740's. Next came members of the College of Physicians. Franklin was a founding member of the Academy, which became the College of Philadelphia, which had created the College of Physicians, the first medical school in the country. The Society of Cincinnati found its way into the procession, though Franklin had derided their philosophy of making honor hereditary.

Franklin's grave
On the cortege wound, composed of citizens of all stripes, headed toward the Christ Church burial ground. It is estimated that 20,000 mourners gathered for the funeral. Bells of the city church's were muffled and tolled. When Franklin had arrived in Philadelphia's port on October 6, 1723, he was a broke runaway. Now the ships in the very same harbor Franklin had arrived in flew their flags at half-mast for the man who had enriched the world.

Franklin was buried beside his wife Deborah, who had preceded him in death by 25 years. His beloved son Francis Folger, who had died at age 4 from smallpox, was also in the family plot.

As a young man in 1728, Franklin had composed his own mock epitaph which read:

The Body of
B. Franklin
Printer;
Like the Cover of an old Book,
Its Contents torn out,
And stript of its Lettering and Gilding,
Lies here, Food for Worms.
But the Work shall not be whlly lost:
For it will, as he believ'd, appear once more,
In a new & more perfect Edition,
Corrected and Amended
By the Author.
He was born on January 6, 1706.
Died 17

His gravestone would simply read:

BENJAMIN
And
DEBORAH FRANKLIN
1790

America mourned.

James Madison moved that the House of Representatives, then sitting in New York, wear mourning for a month.

France mourned.

In June, Count Mirabeau suggested that the French National Assembly should wear mourning as well. His suggestion also provides a fitting eulogy.

Would it not become us, gentlemen, to join in this religious act, to bear a part in this homage, rendered, in the face of the world, both to the rights of man and to the philosopher who has most contributed to extend their sway over the whole earth? Antiquity would have raised altars to this mighty genius, who, to the advantage of mankind, compassing in his mind the heavens and the earth, was able to restrain alike thunderbolts and tyrants. Europe, enlightened and free, owes at lest a token of remembrance and regret to one of the greatest men who have ever been engaged in the service of philosophy and liberty. I propose that it be decreed that the National Assembly, during three days shall wear mourning for Benjamin Franklin.

Today thousands of tourists annually still come to pay their respect to Benjamin Franklin. His grave is visible through an iron gate at the southeast corner of 5th and Arch Streets. Pennies dot his tombstone, as a local tradition claims that such a practice will bring the penny-tosser luck.

One must wonder what the author of Poor Richard's Almanack might think of such a practice though. On the one hand, a man famous for the line, "A penny saved, is a penny earned," would not like throwing money away; on the other hand surely Franklin would recognize, it is only "common cents" that we would look to him for inspiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Mystery of the Contempt for Fredo Corleone

I just don't get it. What is it about Fredo Corleone that invites such universal scorn? Have you ever heard anyone anywhere stick up for this guy? I once heard him referred to during a conversation between seminarians as a weak bastard. I mean, a little perspective here. Let's take a closer look at his family.

Father--He's the middle son of a homicidal crime boss. What kind of a father was Vito Corleone? To me it is best exemplified by the scene in GII where he brings home a pear. His wife, Carmella Corleone, acts as though they have just won the Lotto. This suggests to me that there were earlier beatings when she showed something less than enthusiasm in her reactions to earlier Vito 'generosities,' i.e. bread or Sodium bicarbonate. The next time you see that scene, watch Carmella closely and tell me if she doesn't resemble the adults in the Billy Mumy Twilight Zone episode. Trips to the zoo with this guy probably ended with Fredo being held up to the Gorilla cage and told not to show any fear when they approached, Clemenza chuckling in the background.

Older Brother--How bad a bad-ass was this disturbed sociopath? Professional assassins, having already shot Santino 173 times and with numerous potential witnesses approaching in more than one vehicle, felt it necessary to stop and walk up to the sieve-like figure lying on the floor in order to empty out their machine guns on him at a close range. These were the type of people who would develop signature assassination procedures, widely hailed for their efficiency [double-tap] and copied throughout their industry. 'Santino, watch your brother,' probably initiated more than a few Fredo nightmares.

Younger Brother--Had older brother killed. Planned it for months and watched. Most popular Corleone son.

The next time you hear someone rip Fredo, in the words of his Dad's advise to Johnny Fontane, 'you can act like a man' and do the right thing. Stick up [pun intended] for the only normal Corleone you've ever known.

Read more!

Straw Man Tactic Explained: Safire on Obama

I took my own shot at explaining the straw man form of argument, but let's read how a pro lays it out. William Safire on President Obama, an excerpt:

Accepting the Democratic nomination in a huge football stadium way back in the presidential campaign of ’08, Senator Barack Obama displayed his oratorical talent by using one of his favorite tried-and-true devices in argument: “Don’t tell me that Democrats won’t defend this country!”

Who was telling him that? To be sure, his opponents were claiming that a Republican administration would be stronger on defense, but nobody was telling him or the voters that Democrats preferred abject surrender. At the time, reviewing that speech, I noted the rhetorical technique: “By escalating criticism, he knocked down a straw man, the oldest speechifying trick in the book.”

Encouraged by his reviews for eloquence, President Obama has embraced the straw man frequently (as F.D.R. liked to emphasize it, “again and again and again”) with nary a peep of criticism. Two weeks ago, the Times correspondent Helene Cooper dared to note this president’s repeated use of digs like “I know some folks in Washington and on Wall Street are saying we should just focus on their problems.” Some folks, like those who, are never named but are always wrongheaded extremists. Her “White House Memo” was headlined “Some Obama Enemies Are Made Totally of Straw”; its subhead was “Setting them up to have someone to knock down.” Cooper, as the objective reporter, gave examples of conservative politicians who speak straw-manese, although none with such fluency.

Articles referenced is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Straw-Man Issue - By WILLIAM SAFIRE
June 7, 2009 - On Language

Accepting the Democratic nomination in a huge football stadium way back in the presidential campaign of ’08, Senator Barack Obama displayed his oratorical talent by using one of his favorite tried-and-true devices in argument: “Don’t tell me that Democrats won’t defend this country!”

Who was telling him that? To be sure, his opponents were claiming that a Republican administration would be stronger on defense, but nobody was telling him or the voters that Democrats preferred abject surrender. At the time, reviewing that speech, I noted the rhetorical technique: “By escalating criticism, he knocked down a straw man, the oldest speechifying trick in the book.”

Encouraged by his reviews for eloquence, President Obama has embraced the straw man frequently (as F.D.R. liked to emphasize it, “again and again and again”) with nary a peep of criticism. Two weeks ago, the Times correspondent Helene Cooper dared to note this president’s repeated use of digs like “I know some folks in Washington and on Wall Street are saying we should just focus on their problems.” Some folks, like those who, are never named but are always wrongheaded extremists. Her “White House Memo” was headlined “Some Obama Enemies Are Made Totally of Straw”; its subhead was “Setting them up to have someone to knock down.” Cooper, as the objective reporter, gave examples of conservative politicians who speak straw-manese, although none with such fluency.

I’ve had experience in this form of rhetorical attack as analyst, as victim and as perpetrator. President Bill Clinton told a foreign-policy audience in 1995 that “the new isolationists would have us face the future alone.” I wondered in print: Who were those nuts proposing “America — let’s face the future alone”?

The same year, when the Serbs were imposing “ethnic cleansing” on the Muslims in Bosnia and the world was wringing its hands, op-ed columnists urged the supply of arms and NATO air support to the besieged Bosnians in their homeland. Gen. Colin Powell told The New Yorker: “William Safire and Tony Lewis say this will only take a little bit of bombing and it will work . . . and Safire . . . just says, ‘Air power can do it.’ Forget it.” Rather than whine about his misrepresentation of my position, I counterattacked: “That’s the straw-man trick: Take your opponent’s argument to a ridiculous extreme and then attack the extreme.” (U.S. air power helped force the Serbs out and also led to today’s independent Kosovo.)

Now for my own perp walk: Such mid-1990s straw-manese reminded me of a speech I drafted for President Nixon to give at the Air Force Academy in 1969. Handing over my draft, I carefully advised the president in these words: “Take the easy way.” He looked surprised but understood when he read the line “It would be easy for a president of the United States to buy some popularity by going along with the new isolationists.” For years afterward, Nixon could then truthfully use the “some say” straw man: “Some of my advisers say I should ‘take the easy way’ — but I have rejected that course. . . .”

THE REAL STRAW MAN

We know the technique; but what’s the source of straw man? A poet in the 18th century responded to critical judgment with “Critics, who like the scarecrows stand/upon the poet’s common land.” The best guess about the trope’s origin is the farmer’s scarecrow — an old coat and hat set up on a pole and stuffed with straw to resemble a human sentry and frighten hungry blackbirds away from vegetable seedlings.

Though it appeared in a somewhat sexist 17th-century English saying — “A man of straw is worth a woman of gold” — in U.S. politics it was made famous in 1912 by President William Howard Taft, who had been set in place by the retiring Theodore Roosevelt four years earlier but who was being savaged by Teddy’s campaign to get his old job back: “I was a man of straw; but I have been a man of straw long enough. Every man who has blood in his body, and who has been misrepresented as I have . . . is forced to fight.” Taft won renomination, but Roosevelt ran as a “Bull Moose” independent, splitting Republicans and helping elect Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat.

Early in the 2008 primary season, The New York Post — not inclined to support most Democrats — surprised readers with the front-page headline “Post Endorses Obama.” David Carr, media reporter for The Times, asked rhetorically, “Why did The Post kick Senator Clinton to the curb?” While noting that the relationship between Rupert Murdoch of The Post and the Clintons was complicated, he wrote that the endorsement “invited suggestions that Mr. Murdoch was using The New York Post to set up a straw man for the Republicans to mow down in the fall.”

The noun phrase straw man, now used as a compound adjective as in “straw-man device, technique or issue,” was popularized in American culture by “The Wizard of Oz.” Dorothy (played by Judy Garland in the 1939 movie), backed up by the Tin Man (Jack Haley) and the Scarecrow (Ray Bolger), slaps the paw of the Cowardly Lion (Bert Lahr) for frightening her dog Toto and says, “It’s bad enough picking on a straw man, but when you go around picking on poor little dogs. . . .” The meaning is clear: a figure of a man stuffed with a cheap material may appear scary but is really weak and defenseless.

In the late 20th century, the metaphor was challenged by empty suit, but that was directed mainly at male business executives; as suits lose their fashion dominance, the old straw man endures both as a noun phrase and a compound adjective, scaring off flights of speechwriting fantasies.

Send comments and suggestions to: safireonlanguage@nytimes.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Fear and Loathing at the State Department

This morning, when I read the story of the Washington D.C. couple -- Walter Kendall Myers and Gwendolyn Myers -- in their 70's who were accused of espionage on behalf of the Castro regime, I wished my newspaper could have turned into a hardcover novel.

For us with a front porch view of geopolitical intrigue, the article had a run of the mill aspect to it. But little about U.S. & Cuba politics are simple. For example, let's appreciate the timing of the release of this news. Coming after a week in which the Obama Administration capitulated to OAS demands regarding Cuba, this must have been an ace sticking out of the Administration's back pocket for a while now. Politically speaking, like a Tim Hardaway cross-over dribble, it was a nice move.

But the last sentence of the Miami Herald story by Lesley Clark is what made me wish I was reading a novel instead of a straight news story.

After the FBI source suggested his next meeting with them would be the last, the documents say, the Myerses admitted to "mixed feelings" about giving up their ties to Cuba. "It's forever," Kendall Myers told the FBI source. "You know, it's like Fidel, it's forever."

An unrequited homosexual attraction aside, what married male in his 70's ever thinks, let alone speaks, a sentence such as the last one? What male in his 70's with a two-decade long involvement in espionage and State Department politics ever thinks, let alone speaks, such a sentence? At that point is when when we need to think like a novelist instead of believing in a 'straight' quote.

The answer to the question I posed above is someone who has read or heard of The Secret World of American Communism. For spies and fellow travelers, aside from the actual contents of the book itself, the publisher was just as big a disaster, Yale University Press. Not your typical right-wing publisher and much more difficult to attempt to discredit. Here is a review of the book by Glen Garvin in Reason magazine, click here.

Anyone who has ever spied, especially if they've gone undetected, must live in fear of that book for what it represents. A paper trail. This from book description:

... the hidden world of American communism can be examined with the help of documents from the recently opened archives of the former Soviet Union. An engrossing narrative places the documents in their historical context and explains key figures, organizations, and events.

So imagine you having been a careful spy for many years, but also realizing that your handlers leverage over you never goes away, in fact it increases as the evidence [your efforts] mounts. Even semi-retired spies who have requests made of them, must weigh what paper trails remain about them before deciding to comply.

So when 72 year-old Walter is sitting across from his handler and waxes poetically about Castro, he is trying to send the same message Frankie Five Angels does after being visited by Tom Hagen, 'don't worry, you won't get any trouble from me.' After all, given the nature of their profession, one would think spy handlers are a notoriously unromantic lot. So when Walter was going through his song and dance, a typical handler would probably be thinking, "I got him, thank God too, I was worried this would take me past lunch." Fortunately for us, in this case, the handler was the FBI.

Keep in mind the Walter Kendall Myers of the world the next time you hear people defend indefensible regimes, like the one in Cuba. Maybe they are just trying to cheat or postpone their judgment day. Like banner sugar harvests in centrally planned economies, I believe their prospects of success are low. While we should never wish that fate upon anyone, like Walter, I believe that some truths, 'are like ... forever.'

Article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.C. couple spied for Cuba for decades, feds say - Jun. 05, 2009

BY LESLEY CLARK - lclark@MiamiHerald.com

Walter Kendall Myers spent more than two decades deep in the bureaucracy of the U.S. State Department until this week, when federal authorities accused him of a life of intrigue and espionage as a clandestine agent for one of the United States' longtime antagonists: the communist government of Cuba.

The 72-year-old retired State Department employee -- who had enjoyed top-secret security clearance -- and his wife, Gwendolyn Steingraber Myers, 71, appeared in federal court Friday, charged with serving as illegal agents for Cuba for nearly 30 years and conspiring to deliver classified information to its government. They pleaded not guilty.

According to documents unsealed Friday in Washington, Myers, a former analyst on Europe for the State Department, and his bank employee wife agreed in 1979 to deliver U.S. secrets to Cuba.

Federal authorities called the couple's spying for Havana ``incredibly serious.''

Investigators allege Myers -- at the behest of the Cuban Intelligence Service -- landed a job at the State Department, gained sensitive clearance and traveled with his wife to Mexico, the Caribbean, Central and South America, and New York to meet with Cuban agents. He told an undercover FBI source he was so successful he received ''lots of medals'' from the Cuban government, and that he and his wife enjoyed a rare private meeting in 1995 with Fidel Castro.

The couple agreed as recently as April to supply information on the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, the Justice Department said.

The Myerses were arrested Thursday by the FBI and made initial appearances Friday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The arrest comes as President Barack Obama has sought to improve relations with Havana. Critics moved swiftly to raise caution flags. Florida Sen. Mel Martinez called on the administration to halt ''any further diplomatic outreach to the regime,'' including the resumption of planned migration talks, ``until the U.S. Congress has a full accounting of the damage these individuals have caused to our national security.''

The Center for a Free Cuba, advocates for dissidents on the island, called on the House and Senate intelligence committees to hold hearings on Cuban intelligence operations in the United States.

The State Department said the arrests were part of a three-year investigation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has ordered a ''comprehensive damage assessment'' to determine what may have been divulged to Cuba.

ABOUT THE AGENTS

Court documents portray a couple who relished their work and missed visiting with Cuban intelligence agents when they stopped traveling in 2006 after worries that Myers' boss at the State Department had ``put him on a watch list.''

They proclaimed ''great admiration'' for Ana Belen Montes, a senior intelligence analyst who worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency and was arrested for spying for Cuba in 2001. Montes, Gwendolyn said in the records, ``was not paranoid enough.''

Gwendolyn Myers -- known by the Cubans as Agent 123 and Agent E-634 -- told investigators that her favorite way to pass information along was to swap shopping carts in grocery stores because it was ``easy enough to do.''

The criminal complaint says Kendall Myers -- dubbed Agent 202 -- began working for the State Department in 1977 as a lecturer at the agency's Foreign Service Institute. The government alleges a Cuban official visited him and his wife when they were briefly living in South Dakota after traveling to Cuba in December 1978, and they agreed ''to serve as clandestine agents of the Cuban government.'' They returned to Washington, and Myers resumed working at the State Department.

The indictment says that in 2007 alone -- the year Myers retired from the State Department as a senior analyst for Europe -- he had viewed more than 200 intelligence reports related to Cuba. Of those reports, the affidavit alleges, most were classified ``and marked Secret or Top Secret.''

In court records, the Justice Department said Myers 'expresses a strong affinity towards Cuba and its revolutionary goals and a negative sentiment toward `American imperialism,' '' in a diary he wrote about his 1978 trip to Cuba.

''Fidel has lifted the Cuban people out of the degrading and oppressive conditions which characterized pre-revolutionary Cuba,'' a purported excerpt from his diary reads. ``He is certainly one of the great political leaders of our time.''

Myers surfaced publicly in news reports in 2006, when he criticized U.S.-British relations when it came to the Iraq War.

The affidavit alleges that Cuba often ``communicated

with its clandestine agents in the U.S. through encrypted radio messages from Cuba on shortwave radio,'' and that the Myerses had ``an operable shortwave radio in their apartment of the same make used by Ana Belen Montes.''

Montes is serving a 25-year prison term. The Myerses could face as much as 20 years in prison on at least one charge. The indictment seeks the return of $1.7 million Kendall Myers earned at the State Department and $174,867 in retirement money.

The radios have surfaced in Cuban spy cases dating back nearly two decades. One of the earliest cases unfolded in 1992 when Francisco Avila, a Cuban exile in Miami, revealed on Spanish-language television that he had been a double agent and had received orders from Cuban intelligence officers via shortwave radio.

In 1998, when FBI agents in South Florida shut down one of the biggest Cuban spy rings in U.S. history -- the Wasp Network -- investigators revealed that several of the suspects received coded instructions from Havana via shortwave radio.

WHAT RAISED ALARM

The Justice Department says the Myers espionage began to unravel in April when the FBI began an undercover operation.

The documents say an undercover FBI source, purporting to be a Cuban intelligence officer, approached Kendall Myers in front of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies where he was teaching a class, saying he had instructions to contact him and seek out his opinions ``because of the change that is taking place in Cuba and the new administration.''

The couple apparently took the bait, meeting several times with the FBI in various Washington hotel rooms.

They gave mixed reactions to what they thought were the renewed ties to Cuba, saying they were ''delighted to have contact again,'' but were retired and ``don't want to go back into the regular stuff.''

The documents suggest the Myerses' travel to meet with Cuban contacts was ''notable,'' as it began shortly after Montes' arrest in September 2001. Investigators said they believe the Cubans then began meeting their contacts outside the United States because they believed the risk was too great after Montes' arrest.

The Myerses told the FBI source that their last face-to-face contact with Cuban agents was in Mexico in 2005. They said they had kept in touch, via e-mail, with Cuban intelligence sources asking the Myerses to come to Mexico, but they were reluctant to travel. Documents suggest Cuban intelligence e-mails were sent to the Myerses as recently as March.

After the FBI source suggested his next meeting with them would be the last, the documents say, the Myerses admitted to ''mixed feelings'' about giving up their ties to Cuba. ''It's forever,'' Kendall Myers told the FBI source. ``You know, it's like Fidel, it's forever.''

Miami Herald staff writers Alfonso Chardy and Carol Rosenberg contributed to this report.

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

Read more!