Posted 5:18 PM by Floyd

If bridge is the queen of all card games, then Barbu is the crazed, perverted jester. I am going to play in a duplicate Barbu tournament tomorrow, and I played a practice session with some friends last night.

Barbu is actually a collection of card games that are scored together. There are four players. There are slight variations in the game; in the version that I am playing tomorrow, there are seven games. There are seven rounds, with four deals in a round. Each player deals seven times and must call each game once.

All but one of the games are "trick-taking" games like bridge; most have no trump, as in hearts. Many games are about not taking certain types of cards. For instance, in Queens you don't want to take any queens; each one you take is 6 points off your score.
An even more drastically simple game is Barbu: Don't take the king of hearts. (Barbu is French for "bearded", and the heart king has a beard.) Then there is a hearts-like game: Each heart is -2, with the heart ace -6. There is no queen of spades in the Barbu hearts game. In Trumps you name a trump suit, and score 5 points for each trick you take.

Other games are stranger. In Last Two you do not want to take the last two tricks. Games like Queens and Hearts tend to punish you for holding good hands; the more high cards you have, the more tricks there are for you to collect hearts or queens. But Last Two is not necessarily a game for bad hands. For instance, you could hold 853 KJ95 932 T54 and follow suit as the spades, diamonds, and clubs are stripped -- then ace and a heart stuffs you for the last two.

A very weird game is Ravage City. You play out a hand, notrump style, then examine your discards. Whoever has the largest number of cards in any one suit is the loser. Usually it is death to take two tricks in one suit, because that's an eight-card holding. But taking one trick in each suit is safe.

The seventh game is a non-trick-taking game called FanTan. It's kind of a mutual solitaire game. The dealer calls a base card, say a six. You can play sixes, or cards that are adjacent to cards already played. (Suits matter; there are four piles, one for each suit.) The object is to play all the cards in your hand.

After the dealer names his game the other players can double the dealer, or other players. Players who are doubled may redouble. If you double someone, there is a side bet between the two of you equal to the difference between your scores. For instance, say we are playing Queens and I double you. If I take one queen and you take two, the double makes it as if I took none and you took three. If you redoubled, it would double the difference; I would be scored for "minus one" queen, and you would be stuck with four.

All players must double each dealer twice! In last night's game I was timid about doubling dealers, and was forced to double people at the end of the game. This would not always be fatal, because the last deal gives you no choice of games -- you call whatever game is left to you. But my friends got dealt good hands for the games they had to call, redoubled me, and beat me like a red-headed stepchild.

Here are some webbed pages on Barbu. I mentioned that there are variations; it seems like everyone's rules and scoring are different.

• Jeff Goldsmith's barbu page
  
• Barbu page at pagat.com
  

I noticed while Googling that a Paul Barbu was a litigant againt the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I don't know if he has a beard.

Posted 4:41 PM by Floyd

I decided that I should link to more people whom I disagree with. Many people, including myself, like to get their political information solely from those who share their beliefs -- with a little time out to sneer at useful idiots with opposite views. See two new blogs at the left, at the left:

• Ann Salisbury is a loyal Democrat from California. Her blog is called "Two Tears in a Bucket." If I had to make the case for Gray Davis, as poor Ann does, I would need a bucket the size of my 100-gallon graywater trough under my house.
  
  
• I don't agree with everything Mark A.R. Kleiman says, but he is thoughful and erudite, and does a good job of updating and correcting posts to relect others' feedback.
  

Posted 7:08 PM by Floyd

I reread one of my history books and realized that in my list of potential Civ III leaders for the Ottoman Empire, I had neglected Suleiman the Magnificent. Suleiman reigned from 1520 to 1566 and led Ottoman power to its zenith, conquering North Africa and destroying Hungary.

If you like history, you should take a look at the "map books" written by Colin McEvedy. These books are called The Penguin Atlas of XXX History, where XXX is Ancient, Medieval, Modern, Recent, African, and North American. (I got the information on Suleiman from the "Modern" book.) Colin details the rise and fall of nations by showing maps at various points in history, with a page of crisp and amusing commentary for each map. Most maps show national borders but some show literacy, religions, or cities and trade.

These books are good learning aids because they provide context and continuity; they show how different countries fared relative to each other over a period of time.

Posted 6:58 PM by Floyd

The VodkaPundit had quite a few mean words to say about the Paul Wellstone "memorial service". I heartily concur that it was a disgrace, but I was rather surprised by his hurt tone. Stephen wrote about his political activities early in life, and was affronted that people would degrade political debate in such a manner. I found this interesting because Stephen is a libertarian. Why should he be shocked when politicians behave badly?

I shall posit two types of libertarians. Type 1 believes that politics is reasonable and legitimate, even if that outcome of political contests is usually distasteful. Type 2 believes that politics, at least as commonly practiced in America and other Western democracies, is fundamentally invalid and immoral. (I could try names instead of numbers but nothing comes to mind. Existing labels like minarchist and anarchist don't really match up with these concepts, although they are likely to match up with Types 1 and 2 respectively. Also people don't like labels being applied to them.)

A Type 1 libertarian thinks that politicians are well-meaning but that their ideas produce inefficient or unfortunate results. A Type 2 libertarian thinks that politicians are scum.

A Type 1 libertarian respects what you might call "American Civics" -- that people should inform themselves and that they should vote. A Type 2 libertarian has no respect for the political process; he may refuse to vote, or vote in a contemptuous manner.

Stephen is a Type 1 libertarian. I am a Type 2 libertarian intellectually, but a Type 1 emotionally (I root for Republicans over Democrats even though I know I really shouldn't). James Donald is a Type 2 all the way. He hates politicians (and also cops). Recently on Usenet Donald said that if Wellstone was murdered there were 100 million suspects, and that the only real tragedy about the crash is that Ted Kennedy was not on board.

I don't want to come across as some sort of twerp who says "I'm more libertarian than you." (Nor do I hate cops; sometimes I find Donald a bit over the top.) But I do think that people who are libertarians and yet are interested in or participate in politics should reflect on whether it's such a good idea. Politics in America is a disgrace; Wellstone's funeral was a slip of the mask, not an aberration. What you are taught about politics in schools or by high-minded individuals has nothing to do with the real world. Political power is used to extract money from your pocketbook. Political power is used by people who despise you to punish you for behaviors they dislike. Maybe you're better off without it.

Posted 10:53 AM by Floyd

Hugo Lindgren wrote a World Series blog on Slate. After Game 6 he wrote:

The lack of a bench limits the managers' ability to make interesting intra-game moves. That, however, seems to suit Dusty Baker and Mike Scioscia just fine. They are completely content in their role as Minimalist Managers. This is what they do: They play the same lineup as often as possible. They do not platoon, they do not juggle who's hot and who's not, and they do not make weird maneuvers based on hunches.

Oops!

Posted 5:54 PM by Floyd

In my current Civilization III game I am playing Egypt. When you play Civ III, you negotiate with other nations, face-to-face with their leader. All nations are represented by a ruler from actual history. This leader stays the same throughout the 6050-year length of the game. (And that is all you need to know about Civ III to read this post.)

Egypt's ruler is Cleopatra. Of the sixteen Civ III nations, four are ruled by women. I suspect a quota system to increase the number of women leaders; three of the four I consider inappropriate.

Here are my criteria: A Civ III leader should be a ruler who had an impact on the nation's history because he or she:

• Ruled for a reasonable length of time.
  
• Was a successful and dynamic leader.
  
• Ruled when the nation was powerful.
  

Cleopatra fails on two counts, plus a bonus disqualifier: She was not Egyptian, but Greek. Egypt had been ruled by Greeks for hundreds of years, and by Persians and Assyrians before that. When Cleopatra reigned her country had been taken over by Romans, and all she could do was to change the terms of overlordship. A better choice for Egypt would have been Ramses or Tutankhamen.

Another female leader is the ludicrous choice of Joan of Arc for France. Joan was a teenager who never ruled France; she led a successful military campaign and was then burned at the stake. Why not Napoleon or Louis XIV or Charlemagne?

A better choice was Elizabeth I for England: She ruled for 45 years and was a strong and dynamic leader.

I think the worst choice has to be Catherine for Russia. Nothing against Catherine, but Peter the Great was the only possible selection. What did Peter do when at war with Sweden? He built a new city (St. Petersburg) on their territory! This guy rules the Civilization way -- give him a shout out!

I might as well list the male leaders and my opinions on them:

• America: Lincoln
  
  This is the safe, non-offensive pick, but wouldn't FDR make more sense, both from a longevity standpoint and also given his leadership before and during World War II?
  
  
• Aztecs: Montezuma
  
  Okay.
  
  
• Babylon: Hammurabai
  
  Certainly reasonable.
  
  
• China: Mao Zedong
  
  Somewhat offensive; the only mass murderer to make the list. There are no good alternatives from modern times; surely there were strong leaders from earlier ages, but I am not sufficiently conversant with Sinitic history to suggest one.
  
  
• Germany: Bismark
  
  A perfect selection: Bismark was skilled and crafty, but not genocidal.
  
  
• Greece: Alexander
  
  Alexander is certainly the most successful of the Greeks in that he controlled the most territory. But when I think of the Greeks I think of art and science, not a warlord who dropped dead before he was my age. I know little of Greek history so I have no other suggestions.
  
  
• India: Gandhi
  
  A weak pick. Like Joan of Arc, Gandhi was a revolutionary figure but not a civil ruler. Maybe one of the Mauryan rulers such as Asoka would have been better.
  
  
• Iroquois: Hiawatha
  
  I know nothing about the Iroquois.
  
  
• Japan: Shogun Tokugawa
  
  Reasonable; none of the modern leaders stand out.
  
  
• Persia: Xerxes
  
  Xerxes or Darius were the logical choices.
  
  
• Rome: Augustus
  
  Can't argue with that.
  
  
• Zulu: Shaka
  
  A very good choice; Shaka trained the Impis (spearmen) to stab with their spears rather than throw them; he is the only leader to be directly associated with the nation's special unit.
  

There is a Civ III expansion called Play the World that adds eight more nations. I will try to predict the new leaders. (Thanks to GameSpy.com for their preview.)

• Arabs: Lawrence of Arabia? Just kidding. I have no idea.
  
• Carthage: Hannibal.
  
• Celts: Arthur. (But Arthur was fictional; it should be Vercingetorix, a Gaullish leader who fought Julius Caesar.)
  
• Korea: Syngman Rhee.
  
• Mongolia: Temujin (Ghengis Khan), another mass murderer. No credit for this; it's obvious and I read it somewhere.
  
• Ottomans: Beyazid, who expanded the Ottoman empire in the late 1300's only to be defeated by Timur, or Selim the Grim, who led the next expansion after Constantinople was captured.
  
• Spain: Queen Isabella.
  
• Vikings: Canute.
  

It would be interesting if the game gave you more options for the leaders. I objected to Mao, but why not have an "evil adversaries" option? Wouldn't you pay attention a little more if you were facing Stalin or Khomeini? Wouldn't you fight a little harder if you knew you could corner Hitler or Caligula in a bunker? Imagine a lugubrious Nixon as your neighbor: "I could threaten to declare war on you if you don't give America Ironworking. But that would be wrong."

Posted 12:40 PM by Floyd

Time for some good news, and an appreciation of things that are more important than making fun of letter-writing idiots. I got this email from my best friend from college:

Friends and Family,

Thanks for all your help, thoughts, and prayers this year. I finished up my
treatments several weeks ago, and the doctors say I'm looking good and cancer-
free. At this point I just need to keep following-up with the doctors and get periodic
medical scans to monitor for any cancer activity.


Happy Halloween, John

p.s. Hair's coming back -- about a half-inch now!

Posted 12:38 PM by Floyd

Brilliance in the the San Jose Mercury News letters page, 10/27 edition -- A for Honesty department:

Diplomacy is a better option

ROBERT Ligeti (Letters, Oct. 19) says, ``The only thing that the Arab world understands is might, power and fury. Any attempts to appease, talk or negotiate will fail.'' This is an extreme over-generalization, and one that is self-fulfilling if the United States shares that attitude.

Attempts to appease, talk or negotiate are always preferable to striking blows, especially pre-emptive attacks. Ligeti follows President Bush's lead and tells us that Saddam Hussein is linked with Al-Qaida. But saying it is so many times does not make it so. Our own CIA tells us that Iraq is not linked with the terrorists. Iraq is responsible for supporting terror in Israel, that is true, but Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

The deaths of thousands of Iraqis is not trivial. This campaign to unseat Saddam has more to do with controlling oil than any immediate threat (unless you believe that not controlling oil is a threat to the United States.).

Ted Tripp
Santa Cruz

(emphasis mine)

I'm sure that it was only available space that prevented Tripp from listing the many successes of appeasement throughout history.

Posted 12:36 PM by Floyd

Brilliance in the San Jose Mercury News letters page, 10/26 edition:

THANK you for your enlightening article ``Organic food law takes effect'' (Page 1A, Oct. 21).

As a backyard farmer, I was fascinated by the rigorous procedures that growers must meet to achieve the ``organic'' label.

As mother of young children I was far more interested in the placement of the column on the front page. If wholesome nutrition were more of a national priority I could perhaps convince my children that the home grown vegetables and organic foods we consume are a gift to them, not a perceived embarrassment that separates them from their junk food-devouring friends.

Vivian Carlson
Los Altos

I was a kid once -- as were so many other people -- and I speak from experience when I say that Vivan is exactly right. Here's a hypothetical exchange:

Vivian: Come on kids, eat your vegetables.

Ralph: I hate these vegetables! I want cheesy poofs!

Vivian: But Ralph, they're home-grown and organic.

Ralph: Next time you go to the store, buy some inorganic vegetables.

Barbra: Mom, my friends get to eat McDonalds every single day! They make fun of me for eating things that are green!

Vivian: I've had enough! President Shalala says wholesome nutrition is a national priority. Now eat your food!

Ralph: I'm sorry Mom, I didn't realize it was a national priority.

Barbra: I now see how foolish my behavior was. I'll abandon it immediately.