Group Ride!

My notes say that the last one was on June 20, which is far too long. There may be people who thrive, always riding by themselves. It is certainly good to have nothing but your own snout in the wind on a regular basis. But there is definitely a place for riding with others. Not surprisingly, I've had motivation problems the past six weeks (also because a planned riding adventure fell through). Same old flat loops near the home town week after week. Not that they're not pretty or that you can't do stuff on them, but one needs some stimulation, goals, and certainly camraderie beyond the love for the sport to keep things interesting and stay sharp. I do, at least. So last night I went looking for my sort-of Eendracht teammates (they've been nothing but nice since I joined two years ago, but I've had a hard time joining them on a regular basis) who do a pretty good ride every Thursday night at seven. There were only five of us (we found an additional rider half-way through our ride) and I ended up with 52 miles for the night, about 40 of which were with the group. In Holland, you have to negotiate traffic, traffic furniture, narrow bike paths and the like on every ride, but we found some stretches where we could ride a pace much better than any of us would have done on his own, and our average together was somewhere between 21 and 22 m/h. We even included two of what in this part of the world pass for little hills (Soester Engh; Soestduinen). Everyone was able to help at the front, and toward the end we were still motoring through a couple of towns at 24-25 m/h. Nothing dangerous, but you certainly had to pay attention, also because at this hour (going on 9 pm) the sun was hanging pretty low and there were times you could not see a whole lot up ahead (signs already of summer winding down). I got home at 9, a little late for the body to calm down in time for a normal night's sleep. The ride was well worth a slightly restless night, though.

Robert C. Tucker, R.I.P.

The great Stalin scholar died last Thursday, the New York Times reports. His two volumes on the tyrant are masterpieces of research, analysis, and writing. Citations, for example in studies on the run-up to World War II, have not been as numerous recently as they should have been, probably because Tucker emphasizes Stalin's aggressive (reckless, he calls it) side over his nowadays more fashionable caution. The two Tucker volumes take the story up to 1941, and the Times obituary confirms what I had feared for a while now: there won't be a third. Apparently a combination of writers' bloc, declining health, and the great amount of new material that has come out since 1990 caused the project to get bogged down. Maybe George Kennan saw this coming when he wrote Tucker to congratulate him on the publication of the second book and added: you must now complete the final volume! (Don't have the book with the letter handy at the moment). I was rooting for him too, being a confirmed ally in the world of Stalin scholarship. That sounds presumtuous (and it is), but we met once at a conference (the big conference on Stalin and the Cold War at Yale in 1999), and at one point during a group conversation between sessions about Stalin's possible motives in Germany after World War II (the subject of the paper I had submitted for this event), he declared: "well, I'm with van Dijk on this." It was very nice to hear, but not really a surprise, because his work was, and continues to be, the greatest single influence on my interpretation of Stalin's worldview and its importance for policy. It's wonderful to have Tucker's books, but I'm sorry to have to give up on ever reading volume three.
Update: Kennan wrote his letter in August 1994 and printed it in At a Century's Ending: Reflections 1982-1995 (Norton, 1996), 238-244. It is a kind letter, but one in which Kennan does question the particular psychological explanation (self-hatred) Tucker employs to make sense of Stalin's behavior. I could try to summarize it all here, but it's much better if you read it yourself. Btw, in the Washington Post obituary, there is also a link to a 1996 appearance by Tucker on the Charlie Rose program on PBS.

What's the World Coming To?

Just three examples from recent reading: Asia columnist, Banyan, in last week's Economist, as s/he was preparing for another assignment. Much economic development and improvement of people's lives across much of the region. Flip side: greenhouse gases produced by this coal-based growth. And: "[d]evelopment is laying waste to the region’s natural richness. The Chinese miracle is built on a raw, bulldozed landscape of unrelenting horror. In Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines, once-vast stands of virgin forest are gone. Laos and Myanmar (“Elephints a-pilin’ teak”) are now going the same way. Asia’s sushi fad bodes ill for the bluefin tuna even on the far side of the world." Also because of the piece's conclusion, "political stuntedness is now Asia's biggest problem," one really has to wonder who/what is going to do anything about this dark side of Asia's development. See also Jonathan Mirsky's review of Bill Hayton's Vietnam: The Rising Dragon, in the June 24 issue of the New York Review of Books. "The environment is a deepening disaster. The rivers surrounding Ho Chi Minh City are 'biologically dead,' and the air in Hanoi is poisonous ... Sewage and other waste in both cities are dumped raw into the rivers and landfills and eventually poison the local water supplies ... people unsuccessfully complained about such pollution for years." It then continues: "but now that the urban middle classes are up in arms about smells and tastes, action is slowly being taken." I'm no expert on the rise of environmental protection in the West, but the little I do know suggests that this, pressure from within society, played an important part. In Asia, then, it may in part be a matter of timing: will pressure from within society become significant enough soon enough for meaningful action to have a chance to turn things around? Not that it has worked so well in the West, for example the United States. Last week's Economist also had a nice piece about the thriving rail freight sector there. That freight railroads are doing well should be good news (better carry stuff on trains than on trucks, at least). Of course, "coal is the biggest single cargo," which also brings us to one of the main reasons climate-change legislation got moved off Washington's agenda recently: resistance from coal-producing states. More than enough reason, therefore, to start reading the blog of someone whose concerns about these developments are based on a deep knowledge not only of the politics but also the science behind them.

Leaving Afghanistan

That's what the Netherlands is doing officially today, after a four year military presence in the province of Uruzgan that according to most observers has been fairly successful, on its own merits and compared to the work of other Western forces in the country. If you believe this is already a lost cause (and war), the withdrawal is of course very timely. However, even the Dutch Social-Democratic party, the PvdA, which brought down the government last winter during discussions over a possible extension of the Dutch role in Afghanistan, did not use this argument. Instead, it argued that it was time for someone else to step up, that the Dutch had done more than their fair share. Sincere or not, they were thanked by a Taliban spokesman (no need to use "spokesperson" here), who in a rare interview with de Volkskrant last week called the PvdA decision "one of the most important decisions ever made for the Dutch government and people." There are many angles to this issue, and it is of course possible that the Western effort to stabilize Afghanistan will ultimately prove to have been in vain. What continues to bother me, however, is that this course of events was not inevitable. The withdrawal we're witnessing today is one of choice, not necessity. There was no popular groundswell against the Afghanistan mission among the Dutch public, no pressure from the military to relieve the strain on its resources (on the contrary, one might say). The choice was to go it alone, for selfish, domestic political reasons, and alliance interests be damned. The Hague pulled the plug right at the time a new U.S. president (one we profess to like and support over here) had begun to implement his own Afghanistan strategy (as opposed to the one of his unpopular predecessor) and had asked allies for support. It is some consolation that as of right now, it doesn't appear likely that last week's Taliban spokesman will get his wish, namely "that the PvdA will play a leading role in a new Dutch government."

That Was One Long, Unexplained Hiatus

The best explanation I can give is that in late May things just got a little too busy (grading, student meetings, thesis stuff, mostly) really to formulate coherent things to say. So no, the Froome Watch did not wear me out. Right around the time I stopped posting the Floyd Landis accusations came out, and that story continues to be covered by many (see, for example, Joe Papp's blog). As a historian, I'd be very interested in seeing the detailed diaries Landis reportedly has kept, but I guess Jeff Novitzky gets to read them first. As I watched him ride in this year's Tour de France, especially during the final week, I had to think that Armstrong may have relished those final hours in the peloton, knowing, as I'm sure he does, that with the Federal probe life after the cycling career is not going to be a lot of fun. Not at all the way he imagined it only a couple of months ago. (By the way, I think he rode more than a little courageously during that death march to Pau). What else was happening two months ago? There was a new U.S. National Security Strategy, which I discussed in an op-ed for the GPD papers here in the Netherlands, arguing that given the emphasis on national renewal as a basis for U.S. foreign policy, this document truly is a product of its time. This is not your Cold War U.S. of A. anymore, although in its aspirations, the Obama administration still bears a strong resemblance (for which we should be grateful). Obama was also trying to get his financial sector reforms through Congress, and I wrote about that in June. I compared the president to both Reagan and Roosevelt, reformers both who inherited a tough economic situation and whose stature as influential leaders only began to take hold later in their presidencies, in part because economically things began to pick up then. In spite of his legislative successes, Obama will probably have to wait for such an economic upswing. There is more to look back on, and there are issues in the news today (really!). Eventually, there may also be something worthy of note in my own riding. In fact, I'll start looking for that right after I click "publish post."

Froome Watch, P.S.

Chris's tweet last night: "That was as far as these legs were willing to go this Giro... I won't say it was a pleasure but for sure one of a kind!!" And this morning "Woke up to some very entertaining messages this morning. Cheers guys :) For the real story check out teamsky.com." It had to be something, and it was knee trouble. He'll be back.

End of the Froome Watch

And now I'm worried the lack of posts the past week has something to do with it. Chris did not finish today's monster stage in the Giro, so with just two more stages to go in this very tough go around, after having come all this way and dealt with so much weather, race, and terrain related mayhem, it's curtains for him. No tweet yet, so no explanation from the man himself as of now. Not that we really need one. I mean, anyone who has followed this race will tip his hat to someone who can get this far in a death march like this. But I would not be surprised if he got out today because of some medical reason. After all, last weekend he was more than holding his own and seeing the humor of the horrendous schedule of the race. Here's his tweet from Friday the 21st: "39 hours of racing these last 7 days. One way to get some solid training in before we hit the big climbs coming up...". Then on Sunday the 23rd, the day the peloton had to climb the near ludicrous Zoncolan: "I would almost recommend riding up here for the view. Almost...". And after a very decent job (39th) in the only slightly less crazy time trial to the Plan de Corones last Tuesday, there was this message: "Now for the cable car ride down." Why haven't there been any Froome Watch installments since last week, in spite of all the excitement? It's for the same reason I haven't watched any of the stages live on tv in more than a week. There was work, there were the rides to and from work, and last weekend there was also a little outing in search for the first hilly miles since spring training in Tuscany, last March. While I was leaving Chris and the fans of the Froome Watch to their own devices, I managed to log 268 miles of my own the past seven days. All I can say is I'm sorry.