Located in the heart of the Plaza District, 520 Madison Avenue is one of New York City’s most prestigious addresses. This 43 story, 1,034,108 square foot office building was completed in 1982 and designed by Swanke Hayden Connell & Partners.

According to Tishman Speyer’s  website until the late 1970s, Madison Avenue between 53rd and 54th Streets consisted of many small parcels of land with different owners. Tishman Speyer recognized the location as being strategically outstanding for a major corporate headquarters and assembled land parcels totaling 39,000 square feet. Tishman Speyer managed the design, construction, and development of the office tower, which when completed in 1982 represented the first investment-grade, stone-clad office facility constructed in New York City in over a decade. Tishman Speyer still owns this property today.

In 2009 520 Madison Avenue was awarded LEED certification at the Silver level by the U.S. Green Building Council. According to Costar the building is currently 97% occupied and houses an exclusive tenant roster that includes, Fortis, Carlyle Investment Management and Jefferies & Company.

Para disipar una duda, cualquiera que sea, se necesita una acción.

Thomas Carlyle

Let’s catch up on what happened when California came to visit.

Friday
I forgot to mention that I had to parallel park in Old Town Alexandria on Friday afternoon. Imagine this: pouring rain, narrow streets (one section of which was cobblestone), and a completely inept driver parallel parking for only the third time in her life (yours truly). Although the space was big, it took me quite a few attempts and much inching back and forth to even get close fitting in the spot. And that still wasn’t enough. Imagine my embarrassment when a man ran out of nowhere and stood on a stoop, frowning at me. I thought he was just a passerby, gawking at the girl who couldn’t park. But no. He started waving his arms around, trying to tell me when to turn, shaking his head when I turned too much, and in general frowning as my car went back and forth erratically. When I finally managed to squeeze in a good 5 minutes later, he gave me a thumbs up and ran off through the heavy curtain of rain. Maybe he was trying to be a good Sam, but it made me laugh too much that he went out of his way in a downpour to frown and help me.

Saturday
My coworker recommended that we check out Luray Caverns, about 90 minutes west of where I live, in Shenandoah Naitonal Park. We woke early Saturday morning to head out; it was cloudy, but I really enjoyed the drive. I want to take more random road trips and just blast the music, see what’s out there. Anyway, we entered the cavern by descending down a staircase that’s actually in a house — it just opens right up, and the house is built on top! It was cool to learn about all the stalagmites and see the formations as we went through our audio tour. My favorite part was dream lake — a perfectly still pool of water looks like the bottom of the cavern floor; I didn’t realize until later that it was an intense reflection of the ceiling above.

Entrance to the cavern

Inside the cavern itself; a camera can’t do justice to how beautiful it is in there, and the lighting is totally different

Dream Lake — doesn’t the bottom look like it could be the cavern floor?!

After the caverns, we went through a cool garden maze nearby. I’d never done a maze before, and though it looked really small, size was deceptive. We spent a good half an hour making wrong turns and going through dead ends. It’s so easy to lose your sense of direction in one of those, not that that says much coming from me, since I lose my sense of direction walking around my studio. I liked the maze for its refreshing sprays of water — they lined the hedges and I loved brushing past them because it was sweltering hot outside.

For dinner, we went to La Chaumiere, a cute French restaurant in Georgetown. Because it was Georgetown, I had to parallel park again, but thankfully, nobody was there to witness my lack of skill. I love the Georgetown neighborhood because it’s so cute with stoops, actual fires in the lanterns in front of each house, and shutters! I want shutters! We originally went for Restaurant Week, but decided to order whatever we wanted because the deal didn’t save us that much anyway. For about $60/person, we split some appetizers, a bottle of white wine, different entrees, and dessert. Not bad!

The group at La Chaumiere. The restaurant was decorated like the inside of a quaint inn (which is what “chaumiere” means in French), and our server spoke with a strong, if decidedly overdone, French accent. I love good restaurants.

Duck breast with black currant sauce, ordered by Michelle and Tanya

My dish of St. Jacques Provencale — sea scallops in a tomatoe-y sauce; a little salty, but so tender and flavorful

We topped everything off with creme brulee and a Grand Marnier souffle. By the time we finished, I think we had to waddle to the waterfront to work off a bit of our rotundedness (the word of the weekend). Somehow, we got the energy to go back to my place and got ready to go out to Dupont Circle.

Alas, Dupont Circle and I aren’t on good terms with each other. Every time I try to meet people there, we don’t have as much fun as I envision we will. Either things are closed, or I can’t find the right street, both of which happened this time. Plus it was raining. Instead of the bars I remembered, there were nightclubs with lines flowing out the door. Instead of getting in to Buffalo Billiards to play shuffleboard, we went to Front Page because it was fight night at Buffalo. We stood around with our beers at Front Page (except Tanya, who hilariously got buzzed after 2 beers and kept saying happily, “I’m buzzed! I like the new me!”), then headed home. I also seem to have issues whenever I return from Dupont, because the wait for the metro is interminable and I end up taking the cab back.

Sunday
We originally planned to visit the Vietnam Memorial on Sunday, but woke up too late and only had time to go out for brunch before everybody had to be at the airport. After searching on Yelp, we decided to go to Carlyle in Shirlington. Needless to say… it was delicious. I love good food, and I love it when people visit me so I can enjoy good food with them

My delicious grilled salmon with asparagus and home fries. The only home fries I’d had before this had been chunks of potatoes at Anne’s Soup Kitchen or Cafe Durant in Berkeley; these put those shame with their sliced goodness and flavor.

Em desenvolvimento.

Sobre o Carlyle Group na Wikipédia….

Janeiro de 2000: Bush (pai) encontra-se com a família Laden numa reunião do grupo Carlyle, já os havia encontrado também em 1998. (Wall Street Journal 27/9/2001).

Janeiro de 2001: Após as eleições, as agências de Inteligência foram notificadas para parar as investigações sobre a família Laden e realeza árabe. (notícia BBC 11/6/2001).

Maio de 2001: Colin Powell, secretário de Estado, envia 43 milhões de dólares para o governo Talibã. (Los Angeles Times 22/5/2001).

10 Setembro de 2001: George W Bush no dia 10 de Setembro de 2001 esteve em reunião com o grupo Carlyle e um irmão de Bin Laden. (notícia no Washington post, 3/16/2003)

11 Setembro de 2001: Antes dos impactos nas Torres, mais de 100 milhões de dólares foram transferidos, concluiu uma investigação de peritos que recolheram dados de 32 computadores entre os destroços. (notícia Reuters 18/12/2001).

I have been hesitant to report on MIKA latest effort because I felt like the song was all kinds of wonderful turd. There’s just too much going on and the chorus doesn’t sync well. Also, it brings back the memory of the Go-Go’s. Now, as I listen to a the song with the a friend he pointed out the similarity between “We Are Golden” and “Heaven Is A Place On Earth” by Belinda Carslile. The chorus sounds melodically exact and there is no writing credit on the song. It sounds too close for comfort. And, he has a sampling history. By “sampling,” I mean taking the whole song and it’s melody then changing the lyrics around and making it his. He did it with “Relax (Take It Easy)” and totally mangled Cutting Crew’s “(I Just) Died In Your Arms.” All-in-all, I’d be surprised if We Are Golden survived the sophomore slump. Click below to listen to the song to compare and contrast.

Belinda Carslile – “Heaven Is A Place On Earth”:

- Understand that well, it is the deep commandment, dimmer or clearer, of our whole being, to be free.  Freedom is the one purport, wisely aimed at, or unwisely, of all man’s struggles, toiling and suffering in this Earth.

-

O conceito de ganância atrelada à propriedade remonta às teses helênicas e, conjuntamente, à argumentação filosófica do naturalismo em sua essência fundamental: a igualdade precede a propriedade, diz-se. Richard Pipes já nos avisa que o conceito patrimonialista está atrelado ao desenvolvimento da sociedade como civilização constituída, se propriedade é o termo utilizado a toda e qualquer faculdade individual em sua livre aquisição e transação, seja intelectual, seja de facto; a civilização desenvolve-se a partir do conceito de liberdade, que culmina invariavelmente à destituição do Estado como gerenciador das relações privadas.

Diz Pipes que a liberdade não inclui o suposto direito à segurança pública e ao sustento (tal como é sugerido nos slogans liberdade de necessidade e o direito à residência), o que infringe o direito dos demais cidadãos, uma vez que são eles que terão que pagar por tais direitos. Estes são, na melhor das hipóteses, uma reivindicação moral, e na pior, se reforçados pela autoridade pública, um privilégio não merecido.

Platão em sua visualização limitada de civilização, em nome de Sócrates, proclamou a sociedade ideal, posteriormente rechaçado em Política, de Aristóteles. Este, refutando o igualitarismo proprietário, ressalta: as posses permitem que o homem ascenda a um nível ético superior, dando a eles a oportunidade de serem generosos. A liberdade consiste no uso que é dado à propriedade.

Inicia-se a derivação da Caridade, a partir da “filosofia da generosidade” aristotélica, concepção que veio a alicerçar os preceitos cristãos da Idade Média, tal qual a prevalência da Reforma como a exaltação do indivíduo em face do coletivo. Interessante, contudo, a tese do filósofo russo Vladimir Soloviev à caridade cristã, esta que subentendia a valorização primordial da propriedade para que, conseguinte à ética e amorosidade, seja repartida aos demais o essencial à existência, porquanto não há caridade sem propriedade. E Carlyle, em Medieval Political Theory, acerca dos primeiros teóricos da Igreja, sentencia que a propriedade privada era na verdade mais uma instituição disciplinatória que tencionava refrear e neutralizar a índole viciosa dos homens.

A propriedade privada, como antecedente da liberdade ocidental, instiga o homem inevitavelmente à Responsabilidade.

SO CARlYlE JUST BOUGHT THiS HOUSE WAS THiNKiN OF HAViN A PARTY

HAHA . CHECK OUT THiS HOUSE iN BRAZil . MAD NiCE .

CHECK OUT MORE ARCHiTECTURE SH*T AT ARCHDAilY

ViA : ARCHDAilY

+ [ dAmAyA ]

I’ve always treated this blog as “the things I would tell you over lunch, if we could sit together.” So this little life experience seems to fit exactly. But it’s also a little embarrassing to write about.

Deb and Laura and I had been planning a dinner together for some days at a place in downtown Portland called “Carlyle”.  It was because we had a coupon for dinner there which expired on June 1 and a coupon for bread at Ken’s Artisan Bakery which expired at the same time. Both are in NW Portland, so we would need to plan a special trip there.

I had never even heard of Carlyle, but our running group goes by it fairly often, and it’s in an odd location under the Fremont Bridge, so we thought we should check it out.

As soon as I opened the menu, I could tell that it was a bit more expensive than I had expected.  In fact, with Genoa closed now, it might be the most expensive place in Portland. But hey, I think to myself, we won’t have too many more chances to have dinner with just Laura, so I guess I will stick with it.

And frankly, the experience was fantastic – the food, presentation, and service were all wonderful.  For example, we had a soup course that was a zucchini and oregano puree, poured over a little zucchini cake. Terrific, and a great presentation:

(Sorry for the crappy cell phone photo)

Laura and I had a prix fixe selection, which was soup or salad, choice of chicken or tortellini, and a dessert.

As I said, the service was terrific, and wasn’t at all snooty. Hey, this is Portland, right? There was even a patron who was dressed in shorts and tennis shoes.

But just as we’re about to leave, my allergies call up and I blow my nose. The young guy at the next table leans over to me and says, not at all quietly, “Can you please go to the bathroom to do that?”, or words to that effect.

At the time, I thought it a bit odd, given that I am bombarded with some particularly unpleasant bodily noises in some countries I travel to, and just mark it down as something to ignore. 

At the time, I mumbled something about “my allergies acting up” and then sat there fuming a little, twittered the incident and signed for the meal before we left.

Once we left the restaurant, my family started chiming in and stating that this guy had been acting pretentiously all evening, and frankly I hadn’t even noticed it.  I won’t go into particular details here, but I can see why they would think it.

I guess it’s true – you can dress me up, but you can’t take me out.

Ainda há quem duvide, mas o empresário Guilherme Paulus, fundador do Grupo CVC, está prestes a vender 63% da CVC Operadora, maior agência de viagens do País, por cerca de R$ 800 milhões para um dos fundos de private equity do norte-americano Carlyle Group. A negociação, considerada a maior do setor de turismo nacional, vem sendo feita a sete chaves desde o início do ano.

A proposta inicial do Carlyle era da compra do total de ativos, por R$ 1,1 bilhão. Mas Paulus ainda quer ficar no negócio. O empresário manterá 37% das ações da empresa, bem como a presidência do conselho de administração da CVC, no qual terá direito de indicar três dos nove conselheiros. Valter Patriani, executivo mais antigo da empresa, há 30 anos na CVC, continuará na presidência da operadora, com contrato para mais cinco anos.

Paulus não nega a negociação. Em recente entrevista ao portal Panrotas, no começo deste mês, afirmou que vários investidores têm mostrado interesse pela empresa e que houve, sim, uma aproximação com o Carlyle.

"O acordo tem tudo para dar certo e só esbarra em um quesito: Guilherme Paulus não quer que seja realizada due diligence na empresa", afirma um executivo do setor de turismo. A proposta do empresário é que seja realizado um "escrow account", literalmente, uma conta caução, na qual serão depositados R$ 300 milhões, que o fundo poderá usar caso surjam problemas financeiros ou jurídicos. "Com esta medida, Paulus ainda colocaria no bolso R$ 500 milhões, um valor considerável para uma empresa de turismo", afirma o executivo.

Há cerca de dois anos, Paulus deu início ao processo de profissionalização do Grupo CVC. O objetivo era abrir o capital da empresa.

Há pouco mais de três meses, uma notícia deixou o setor de turismo em polvorosa: o empresário Guilherme Paulus, 59 anos, estaria negociando a venda da CVC Operadora, maior agência de viagens do País, para um fundo de private equity do norte-americano Carlyle Group. A notícia foi recebida com uma certa incredulidade pelos profissionais do mercado. Amigos e pessoas que acompanham a trajetória do empresário, em princípio, duvidaram que ele seria capaz de vender o negócio que construiu do nada nos últimos 37 anos a partir de uma pequena empresa que vendia excursões aos clubes recreativos de operários do ABC Paulista.

Paulus nunca negou que estaria conversando com o fundo. Em recente entrevista ao portal Panrotas, no começo deste mês, afirmou que vários investidores têm mostrado interesse pela empresa e que houve sim uma aproximação do Carlyle, mas sem nada definido. "Por enquanto, é só namoro", disse ao portal de turismo. Até então, o empresário ainda mantinha o discurso de que não queria perder o controle da empresa. "Os investidores não querem comprar apenas 20%, 30% do negócio, normalmente querem adquirir 60%, 51%, aí você perde o controle. Ninguém conhece tão bem a CVC quanto nós, afirmou o empresário em entrevista à Gazeta Mercantil no ano passado, que sempre deixou claro não estar interessado na participação de palpiteiros no negócio.

Esse cenário já mudou. Informações do mercado dão conta de que o Carlyle fez uma proposta que realmente agradou o empresário e a negociação caminha para um desfecho favorável ao grupo americano.

Segundo executivos que acompanham a negociação, o fundo calculou o valor da CVC Operadora em de R$ 1,1 bilhão. "Sem passar pelo processo de due diligence", afirma um executivo, referindo-se ao processo de análise e avaliação detalhada dos documentos contábeis e jurídicos, tradicionalmente realizadas em empresas que estão sendo vendidas.

De acordo com esse executivo, inicialmente, a proposta seria de compra total dos ativos, a serem pagos em quatro anos, período no qual Paulus permaneceria à frente do negócio. Porém, a proposta que mais agradou o empresário é a venda de 63% da operação, por cerca de R$ 800 milhões.

Nesta negociação, o empresário manterá 37% das ações da empresa, bem como a presidência do conselho de administração da CVC, no qual terá direito de indicar três dos nove conselheiros. Valter Patriani, executivo mais antigo da empresa, há 30 anos na CVC, continuará na presidência da operadora, com contrato para mais cinco anos."O acordo tem tudo para dar certo e só esbarra em um quesito: Guilherme Paulus não quer que seja realizado due diligence na empresa", afirma um executivo do setor de turismo. A proposta do empresário é que seja realizado um "escrow account", literalmente, uma conta caução, na qual serão depositados R$ 300 milhões, que o fundo poderá usar para o caso de problemas financeiros e jurídicos. De acordo com um executivo próximo ao empresário, a medida serviria para evitar uma jogada comum dos fundos de investimentos: colocar um preço alto para atrair a confiança do vendedor e depois ir reduzindo, paulatinamente, sob pretexto de problemas existentes.

"Com esta medida, Paulus ainda colocaria no bolso R$ 500 milhões, um valor considerável para uma empresa de turismo", afirma o executivo. O único problema é que não é comum um fundo de investimento comprar uma companhia sem fazer uma análise detalhada nas contas. "Permitir o due diligence significa colocar na mesa todos os problemas existentes, e um fundo não vai entrar no negócio sem a certeza de que os passivos não são maiores do que os ativos comprados", diz um empresário.

Há cerca de dois anos, Paulus deu início ao processo de profissionalização do Grupo CVC. O objetivo era abrir o capital da empresa. "Pretendíamos fazer em setembro (de 2008), mas os próprios bancos parceiros nos disseram para esperar um pouco porque não é o melhor momento", afirmou Paulus em entrevista à Gazeta Mercantil. A empresa contratou a consultoria KPMG para estruturar o processo de oferta pública de ações e, nesse período, criou um conselho de administração e passou a atuar como uma holding. Além da CVC Operadora, Paulus ainda conta com a GJP Administradora de Hotéis, a CVC Cruzeiros e a Webjet Linhas Aéreas.

Gazeta Mercantil

Link: Carlyle negocia compra da CVC por R$ 800 milhões

Ainda há quem duvide, mas o empresário Guilherme Paulus, fundador do Grupo CVC, está prestes a vender 63% da CVC Operadora, maior agência de viagens do País, por cerca de R$ 800 milhões para um dos fundos de private equity do norte-americano Carlyle Group. A negociação, considerada a maior do setor de turismo nacional, vem sendo feita a sete chaves desde o início do ano.

A proposta inicial do Carlyle era da compra do total de ativos, por R$ 1,1 bilhão. Mas Paulus ainda quer ficar no negócio. O empresário manterá 37% das ações da empresa, bem como a presidência do conselho de administração da CVC, no qual terá direito de indicar três dos nove conselheiros. Valter Patriani, executivo mais antigo da empresa, há 30 anos na CVC, continuará na presidência da operadora, com contrato para mais cinco anos.

Paulus não nega a negociação. Em recente entrevista ao portal Panrotas, no começo deste mês, afirmou que vários investidores têm mostrado interesse pela empresa e que houve, sim, uma aproximação com o Carlyle.

“O acordo tem tudo para dar certo e só esbarra em um quesito: Guilherme Paulus não quer que seja realizada due diligence na empresa”, afirma um executivo do setor de turismo. A proposta do empresário é que seja realizado um “escrow account”, literalmente, uma conta caução, na qual serão depositados R$ 300 milhões, que o fundo poderá usar caso surjam problemas financeiros ou jurídicos. “Com esta medida, Paulus ainda colocaria no bolso R$ 500 milhões, um valor considerável para uma empresa de turismo”, afirma o executivo.

Há cerca de dois anos, Paulus deu início ao processo de profissionalização do Grupo CVC. O objetivo era abrir o capital da empresa.

Fonte: Gazeta Mercantil

Leo en el avance de prensa sobre el libro de Milan Kundera “Un encuentro” (Tusquets) que el autor de “La lentitud“ recuerda cómo “la fidelidad a un amigo es una virtud, tal vez la única, la última” y traigo aquí algo de lo que escribí no hace mucho en una Revista sobre los límites de la amistad.

“¿Hasta dónde pueden llegar - dije yo entonces - los límites de la amistad? ¿Es que la amistad tiene algún límite? Edward Albee, el célebre dramaturgo norteamericano, escribió “Delicado equilibrio“, obra tensa y turbulenta que obtendría el Premio Pulitzer, se estrenaría en 1966 en Nueva York y sería luego  llevada a la pantalla en 1973 por Tony Richardson y protagonizada por Katharina Hepburn en el papel de Agnes, Paul  Scofield en el de Tobías, Joseph  Cotten en el de Harry y Betsy  Blair en el de Edna.

La casa de Tobías y de Agnes, en donde el delicado equilibrio del matrimonio se hace ya patente desde la primera escena, es “invadida” por una pareja amiga, la de Edna y Harry, que llegan aturdidos y aterrorizados por algo que les ha ocurrido fuera. Vienen en busca del refugio de los amigos, pero no aspiran a quedarse por un tiempo determinado sino que desean  ”instalarse” allí para siempre y encontrar permanente cobijo.

-Si el terror viene…desciende… -dice Edna pidiendo amparo a sus amigos- si de pronto…necesitamos…vamos adonde se nos espera, adonde sabemos que se nos quiere, no sólo adonde queremos; venimos adonde la mesa ha sido tendida para nosotros en esa oportunidad…adonde la cama está preparada…y calentada…y está lista por si la precisamos. No somos…transeúntes…

En el tercer acto, Tobías, en una confesión  en la que vuelca cuantas contradicciones  lleva dentro, exclamará:

-¿La amistad no llega a eso? ¿Al amor? ¿Cuarenta años no cuentan para nada? Hemos hecho lo nuestro juntos, viejo – le dirá a Harry -, somos amigos, hemos pasado buenas y malas juntos. ¿Cómo es ahora, viejo? (Grito) ¿CÓMO ES AHORA MUCHACHO? ¡¿BUENA?! ¡¿MALA?! ¡BUENO, SEA LO QUE FUERA LO HEMOS PASADO, VIEJO! (Suave) Y no tienes que preguntar. Te aprecio, Harry, sí, de verdad, no me gusta Edna, pero eso no cuenta para nada, te aprecio mucho; pero encuentro que mi aprecio tiene sus límites…¡PERO ESOS SON MIS LÍMITES! ¡NO LOS TUYOS! (…) ¡VAS A TRAER TU TERROR Y VAS A ENTRAR AQUÍ Y VAS A VIVIR CON NOSOTROS! ¡VAS A TRAER TU PESTE! ¡TE VAS A QUEDAR CON NOSOTROS! ¡NO TE QUIERO AQUÍ! ¡NO LOS QUIERO! ¡PERO POR DIOS…SE QUEDARÁN!

Esta enorme virulencia y  turbulencia de las palabras de Tobías que quiere y no quiere a la vez aceptar  a sus amigos, aceptarlos para que vivan para siempre en su casa, desencadena las contradicciones de un corazón dividido, corazón que sufría ya un “delicado equilibrio”  amenazando  su vida matrimonial.

No es el caso aquí de desvelar el desenlace de este intenso drama de Albee que presenta numerosas capas de interpretación social, psicológica y literaria. Esa “peste” de la que habla Tobías y que, según él, trae Harry desde fuera, es una  referencia e influencia indudable de Camus sobre Albee, ya que el autor norteamericano admiraba mucho al francés. ¿Pero qué haría cualquiera de nosotros en una situación así? ¿Aceptaría que un amigo angustiado se quedara a compartir para siempre y en nuestra propia casa nuestra vida? ¿Tiene un límite la  amistad? ¿O las fronteras de la amistad desaparecen puesto que si nos fijáramos en ellas no existiría verdadera amistad? El tema de la amistad  ha recorrido épocas e historia de la vida pública y  privada durante siglos. “Sin amigos – dejó dicho Aristóteles- nadie querría vivir, aunque tuviese todos los bienes”.  A veces la amistad se ha cristalizado incluso en objetos de recuerdo. Petrarca, que sentía un hondo afecto por San Agustín, había tomado la costumbre de anotar en un cuadernillo especial el diálogo que siempre mantenía con su amigo muerto hacía casi mil años. Guardaba celosamente para sí ese cuadernillo que era un objeto-reliquia en su vida íntima: había creado un verdadero discurso amistoso con una persona de otro tiempo. Más adelante, en 1441 y en Florencia, el certamen de la  Academia de aquella ciudad se centró en la amistad como asunto y se propuso tratar en lengua vulgar un tema institucional del mundo clásico.

Pero no solamente la distancia de siglos en la evocación personal sino el amplio espacio de amistad cuyo arco unen los libros ha servido en la Historia para acercar en confidencia a escritores y lectores e irlos haciendo cada vez más amigos. “Sin duda la amistad, la amistad que se refiere a los individuos – escribirá  Proust  -, es cosa frívola, y la lectura es una amistad. Pero al menos es una amistad sincera, y el hecho de que se dirija a un muerto, a un ausente, le da un algo de desinteresado, casi de emocionante. Es además una amistad exenta de todo lo que constituye la fealdad de las otras. Como nosotros, los vivientes, no somos todos más que unos muertos que no han entrado todavía en funciones, todas esas finezas, todos esos saludos en el vestíbulo que llamamos deferencia, gratitud, afecto, y en lo que tanta mentira ponemos, son estériles y fatigosos. (…) En la lectura, la amistad torna súbitamente a su pureza primigenia. Con los libros, nada de amabilidad. Estos amigos, si pasamos la velada con ellos, es verdaderamente porque tenemos gana de pasarla”.

El argentino Ricardo Sáenz Hayes, miembro de la Academia de Letras, cronista y viajero, publicó un interesante volumen, “De la amistad en la vida y en los libros“ (Austral),  en el que reúne a Tácito y a  Plinio, a Teresa de Jesús y a Juan de la Cruz, a Montaigne y a  La Boétie, a Cervantes y a Lope, a Boswell y a Johnson, a Goethe y a Schiller, a Carlyle y a Emerson. Célebres amistades fueron las de Brahms con el cirujano Billroth y es muy emocionante la correspondencia entre Henry James y Stevenson que contiene cartas extraordinarias entre los dos amigos. Célebre también, ya en España, es la amistad de Garcilaso con Boscán, cuando Garcilaso va escribiendo y describiendo la meditación del viajero sobre la amistad:

               Iba pensando y discurriendo un día

               a  cuantos bienes alargó la mano

               el  que de la amistad mostró el camino,

               y  luego vos, del amistad ejemplo…

Garcilaso va “discurriendo” así, sobre la marcha, la meditación sobre la amistad y la canaliza  poéticamente en una epístola.

  ”Si tienes un amigo en quien no confíes tanto como en ti mismo -había dicho ya  Séneca al principio -, o te engañas profundamente, o no conoces la fuerza de la verdadera amistad. Examina todas las cosas con tu amigo, pero ante todo examínale a él. Después de la amistad, todo se debe creer; antes, todo debe deliberarse. Medita largamente si debes recibir en amistad a alguno, y cuando hayas resuelto hacerlo, recíbele con el corazón abierto, y háblale con tanta confianza como a ti mismo”. Siglos después, con motivo de los indicios de privatización de la sociedad desde el  XVl al XVlll,  se descubre el gusto por la soledad y por la amistad, aunque ya no será  esa amistad aquella fraternidad que respondía a la camaradería militar de la Edad Media, sino la gran amistad que se encuentra  en Shakespeare o en Miguel Ángel.  

En España, en nuestro tiempo y ciñéndonos tan sólo a la poesía – además de la rica  Correspondencia entre Pedro Salinas y  Jorge Guillén que revela toda la amistad entre ambos -, Elena,  la hija de Gerardo Diego, hizo públicos hace pocos años los testimonios de amistad que unieron al Grupo del 27. Gerardo Diego no quiso denominar  ”Generación” sino “Grupo” a esos poetas  y comenta  el autor santanderino  ”la traición, enemistad y prisa centrífuga” que, según él, caracterizó “a los del 98″ y que se repitió “con los diez años más jóvenes, los de la promoción siguiente”. Ante esto, Diego defendió siempre la amistad de los del 27. “Cada uno siguió su camino vital- dijo-. Todos vivimos y sufrimos la opresión del ambiente súbitamente afiebrado a partir de 1929 y la guerra nos separó a la fuerza. Pero la amistad no se rompió. En cuanto fue posible volvimos a comunicar por escrito o en persona”.

La separación física entre poetas – quienes permanecieron en España y quienes salieron del país – hacía vibrar el vínculo de la amistad entre todos, y  Gerardo Diego recuerda todo eso diciendo que “padecían la hondísima pena de no poder moralmente volver según su corazón o su criterio”.

El primero en desaparecer fue Federico García Lorca. El segundo, Pedro Salinas. Su viuda escribió a Gerardo Diego: “Qué buen amigo es usted de sus amigos. Cómo le agradezco que me recuerde usted a Pedro en sus mejores cualidades espirituales”. El grupo, bien compacto, pudo verse en varias ocasiones. En 1950, Manuel Altolaguirre escribe a Diego: “Estamos en casa reunidos cotidianamente Moreno Villa, Luis Cernuda, Emilio Prados y yo y ahora esperamos venga a estar con nosotros Jorge Guillén que dará un curso en el Colegio de México”. Cuando muere Altolaguirre en 1959, las cartas que se cruzan Aleixandre, Gerardo Diego, Cernuda y Emilio Prados testimonian una vez más lo fuerte de una amistad. “¡Qué ejemplo de fidelidades a prueba de todo entre los miembros de este “grupo” – glosa  la hija de Gerardo -¡Es tan honda la compenetración entre ellos, su amistad, que se puede llegar a confundir a uno con otro como hizo un periodista!”.

De todo esto hablé – aunque más extensamente – en el artículo escrito para Alenarterevista. Delicado equilibro es siempre el de la amistad.  Confidencia y  respeto caminando juntos. Tener un verdadero amigo es  casi un milagro y cultivar esa amistad es una extraordinaria tarea.

(Imágenes: 1.-Yong Sin.-2009.-AndrewShire Gallery.-Los Angeles.-artnet/ 2.-Villiam T. Wiley.-1988.-artnet/ 3.-Benny Andrews.-1991.-artnet/4.- Alberto Sughi.-1965.-artnet)

New construction always commands a higher price, and in order to command a higher price, higher value must be perceived by the buyer. That value has to include open floor plans, more privacy, and modern amenities that fit today’s lifestyles. This could mean upgraded electronic technology throughout, concierge and valet services, city views, large expansive luxurious lobbies, outdoor saunas, on-site engineers and managers, libraries, wine storage, saline pools, modern gyms, media rooms, etc. A 3 bedroom, 4.5 bathroom condo in a new building, The Carlyle Residences, has an asking price of $5,050,000. Located on the 20th floor, faces South East, is 3,535 square feet with monthly homeowners dues of $3,455.60 per month. Now compare this to a similar unit at The Blair House built in 1989, located on the 22nd  floor facing Wilshire boulevard, 3 bedrooms 3.5 bathrooms at 3,499 square feet priced at $3,695,000 and with monthly homeowners dues of $2,197.00 per month.

one way palestinians and indigenous americans are alike is the long history of political imprisonment. it’s yet another means of separating people and destroying resistance recently leonard peltier was denied parole yet again. last week his attorney, eric seitz, wrote about it for the san francisco bay view news while going over some details of the case and letting us know what we can do about it:

The Bush administration holdovers on the U.S. Parole Commission today adopted the position of the FBI that anyone who may be implicated in the killings of its agents should never be paroled and should be left to die in prison.

Despite judicial determinations that the unrepentant FBI fabricated evidence and presented perjured testimony in Leonard Peltier’s prosecution; despite a jury’s acquittal on grounds of self-defense of two co-defendants who were found to have engaged in the same conduct for which Mr. Peltier was convicted; despite Mr. Peltier’s exemplary record during his incarceration for more than 33 years and his clearly demonstrated eligibility for parole; despite letters and petitions calling for his release submitted by millions of people in this country and around the world including one of the judges who ruled on his earlier appeals; and despite his advanced age and deteriorating health, the Parole Commission today informed Mr. Peltier that his “release on parole would depreciate the seriousness of your offenses and would promote disrespect for the law” and set a reconsideration hearing in July 2024.

This is the extreme action of the same law enforcement community that brought us the indefinite imprisonment of suspected teenage terrorists, tortures and killings in CIA prisons around the world and widespread disrespect for the democratic concepts of justice upon which this country supposedly was founded. These are the same institutions that have never treated indigenous peoples with dignity or respect or accepted any responsibility for centuries of intolerance and abuse.

At his parole hearing on July 28, Leonard Peltier expressed regret and accepted responsibility for his role in the incident in which the two FBI agents and one Native American activist died as the result of a shootout on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Mr. Peltier emphasized that the shootout occurred in circumstances where there literally was a war going on between corrupt tribal leaders, supported by the government, on the one hand, and Native American traditionalists and young activists on the other.

He again denied – as he as always denied – that he intended the death of anyone or that he fired the fatal shots that killed the two agents, and he reminded the hearing officer that one of his former co-defendants recently admitted to having fired the fatal shots himself.

Accordingly, it is not true that Leonard Peltier participated in “the execution style murders of two FBI agents,” as the Parole Commission asserts, and there never has been credible evidence of Mr. Peltier’s responsibility for the fatal shots, as the FBI continues to allege.

Moreover, given the corrupt practices of the FBI itself, it is entirely untrue that Leonard Peltier’s parole at this juncture will in any way “depreciate the seriousness” of his conduct and/or “promote disrespect for the law.”

We will continue to seek parole and clemency for Mr. Peltier and to eventually bring this prolonged injustice to a prompt and fair resolution.

Take action

News from North Dakota today is that Leonard Peltier’s parole has been denied. He won’t receive another full parole hearing until 2024, at the age of 79 years.

As sad as we all are, we are steadfast, undefeated. We will not go away. We will not be quiet.

Take a moment to reflect. Just a moment. But then put your disappointment behind you. Gather your strength. There’s much work to be done.

Action Item 1: Contact the Attorney General

On June 23, 1995, Amnesty International submitted a letter of concern about the Peltier case to the then U.S. Attorney General. There was no response. Write to Eric Holder, Attorney General. Ask him to conduct an executive review of the case and to finally right the wrongs of the past. Tell him it’s never too late to find the truth. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Write to Eric A. Holder, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20530-0001, (202) 353-1555.

And while you’re at it, ask Mr. Holder why more than 140,000 documents from a more than 30-year-old case are still being withheld by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Tell him America has a right to know what occurred over 30 years ago and demand the release of all documents related to the Peltier case.

Action Item 2: Contact Members of Congress

Use all the resources at your disposal to contact your members of Congress and continue urging them to support freedom for Leonard Peltier. That support should be formally expressed in correspondence to President Obama.

Also demand a full congressional investigation into the Reign of Terror on the Pine Ridge Reservation during the ‘70s. It’s long past time for the truth to be told. See http://www.FreePeltierNow.org/call.htm and http://www.FreePeltierNow.org/write.htm.

Do you use Twitter? Try using this service to quickly and easily reach your members of Congress: http://tcxs.net/.

You also can sign the petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Pine_Ridge/.

Congress will not be in session for most of August. This is a good time to meet with your members of Congress in their home offices. Make the appointment now. You can find locations, telephone numbers etc. via our congressional directory: http://www.FreePeltierNow.org/congressmaster.htm.

Action Item 3: Call the White House

Call the White House comment line to express your outrage at the outcome of the parole hearing. Demand that President Obama free Peltier now. Call (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1112.

You also can send an e-mail to the White House. Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/.

If you prefer, mail or fax a letter: President Barack Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20500, fax (202) 456-2461.

Better yet … do all three. It’s time to set him free … because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

“When you begin a great work you can’t expect to finish it all at once; therefore, you and your brothers [and sisters] press on and let nothing discourage you until you have entirely finished what you have begun.” – Teedyuschung, chief of 10 Delaware tribes, died in 1763

To learn more, visit Friends of Peltier at http://www.FreePeltierNow.org or email contact@whoisleonardpeltier.info. The Bay View thanks Freedom Archives, www.Freedomarchives.org, for compiling this information. Questions and comments may be sent to claude[at]freedomarchives.org.

recently, dahr jamail wrote a great article called “kill the indian. save the man” for truthout in which he offers a great historical overview of how the united states actively worked to destroy the indigenous. of course, one method was imprisonment, but yet another was cultural genocide, specifically destroying the relationship between american indian tribes and their languages:

Steven Newcomb, a Shawnee/Lenape Native American and author of “Pagans in the Promised Land – Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery,” has written: “It’s a little known fact that the Catholic Church issued a number of papal edicts in the fifteenth century that set into motion patterns of colonization that became globalized over many centuries. In the documents “Dum diversas” (1452) and “Romanus Pontifex” (1455), for example, issued by Pope Nicholas V to King Alfonso V of Portugal, the pope “authorized” the king to send men to the Western Coast of Africa and “to invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue” all non-Christians, “to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery,” and to “take away all their possessions and property.” Such patterns of thought and behavior became institutionalized in law and policy, and the patterns are still operative against indigenous peoples today under the concept of “the State.”

An effective means to institutionalize this process was to indoctrinate Native American children at highly religious boarding schools run by the Department of Interior. The children were severed from their families on reservations with the ostensible aim of saving them from poverty.

The original boarding school idea came from Gen. Richard Henry Pratt who formed the Carlyle Indian School in Carlyle, Pennsylvania, in 1878. He wrote in “The Advantages of Mingling Indians with Whites,” Americanizing the American Indians: Writings by the “Friends of the Indian” 1880-1900 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 260-271, “A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of his destruction has been an enormous factor in promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.”

Systematically, his school and its later extensions stripped away tribal culture. Students were forced to drop their Native American names, barred from speaking in their native languages and forbidden to wear long hair. Punitive measures and torture were rampant.

Pratt’s conviction of moral superiority can be gathered from his views on slavery, “Inscrutable are the ways of Providence. Horrible as were the experiences of its introduction, and of slavery itself, there was concealed in them the greatest blessing that ever came to the Negro race – seven millions of blacks from cannibalism in darkest Africa to citizenship in free and enlightened America; not full, not complete citizenship, but possible – probable – citizenship, and on the highway and near to it.”

here is one way palestinians and indigenous americans are different: palestinians still have their language. although in 1948 palestine there are some serious barriers to arabic for palestinians, particularly given the way the education and exam system is set up so that there are only incentives for palestinians to become adept in hebrew and not in arabic in the same academic ways. but there are american indians who are actively working to resist all that jamail catalogs in the above-quoted article. al jazeera did a great piece about indigenous americans and language on rageh omaar’s program witness a month ago and it’s well worth watching. it’s directed by amy williams and it follows tish keahna who shows us how the wind river reservation has created an arapaho language immersion school to reverse the effects of centuries of killing indigenous languages:

    Prior blogs have touched upon the lineage of so-called multiculturalism, a reactionary ideological offensive that confused individuals with groups and suppressed economic explanations for conflict and change in favor of cultural anthropological ones. As a manifestation of German Romanticism, it was an aesthetic theory buttressing a political structure: an irrationalist völkisch “aristo-democracy” (Herder). The German Romantics and their popularizers in England and America, men like Carlyle and Emerson, waved their supple poetic individuality, unique, yet imperceptibly diffused into race and nation and time itself as Schlegel had advised. The aristo-democrats were the blooming correctives to the dessicating “mechanical” rationalism and universalism that had undergirded popular sovereignty for the seventeenth-century political theorist of constitutional democracy, John Locke. In the eighteenth century, Piranesi would visualize this Lockean world in a series of engravings, his nightmarish urban spaces/prisons. Lord Byron counterattacked with Lockean Prometheans, images of indomitable humanity: fatherless, yet kind, ameliorative and intellectually fortified. In the later nineteenth century, Piranesi’s desolate, gigantic scenes of torture would reappear in James Thomson’s poem The City of Dreadful Night, the City ruled by numeracy and literacy personified in Melencolia, the Queen patterned after both Dürer’s famous image of writer’s block, and George Eliot, Thomson’s contemporary, the realist novelist, author of Felix Holt, Radical.

    I have mentioned just a few instances of cultural conflict over accountability: the culture wars are fought over you and me, non-experts in an advanced, complex, and hierarchical, yet “democratic” industrialized society. Confident in the capacity of ordinary people to test their betters, Locke, like ourselves, was up against centuries of conservative antidemocratic propaganda on behalf of a tribal or feudal order where either Nature or arbitrary authority were taken for granted as immovable. Not surprisingly, social obligations (contracts) were vertical, links in the Great Chain of Being, not horizontal agreements between equals, each party theoretically free to walk away from a bad deal. Locke’s antagonistic contemporary, the proto-Tory Robert Filmer (d. 1653) summarized centuries of antidemocratic wisdom in his Patriarcha:

[Filmer:] “I know not how to give a better character of the people than can be gathered from such authors as have lived among or near to popular states. Thucydides, Xenophon, Livy, Tacitus, Cicero and Sallust have set them out in their colours. I will borrow some of their sentences.

‘There is nothing more uncertain than the people: their opinions are as variable and sudden as tempests: there is neither truth nor judgment in them: they are not led by wisdom to judge of anything, but by violence and rashness, nor put they any difference between things true and false. After the matter of cattle they follow the herd that goes before: with envious eyes they behold the felicity of others: they have a custom always to favor the worst and weakest: they are most prone to suspicions, and use to condemn men for guilty upon every false suggestion. They are apt to believe all news, especially if it be sorrowful, and, like Fame, they make it more in the believing: when there is no author, they fear those evils which they themselves have feigned: they are most desirous of new stirs and changes, and are enemies to quiet and rest. Whatsoever is giddy or headstrong, they account manly and courageous, but whatever is modest or provident seems sluggish: each man hath a care of his particular, and thinks basely of the common good: they look upon approaching mischiefs as they do upon thunder, only every man wisheth it may not touch his own person. It is the nature of them: they must either serve basely or domineer proudly, for they know no mean.’ Thus do their own friends paint to the life this beast of many heads. Let me give you the cypher of their form of government. As it is begot by sedition, so it is nourished by arms: it can never stand without wars, either with an enemy abroad, or with friends at home. The only means to preserve it is to have some powerful enemy near, who may serve instead of a king to govern it, that so, that they have not a King over them, for the common danger of an enemy keeps them in better unity than the laws they make themselves.” [end Filmer quote]

     The foil to all this irrationality is of course the reformed queen/king; the paragon of moderation has renounced absolutist, arbitrary rule for a limited, constitutional monarchy: one that protects the body politic from combative and divisive “special interests.” Unlike the Cool Head with the Warm Heart, Filmer’s “people” are the locus of selfish individualism; the people are incapable of solidarity without an external enemy; the ever-befuddled people lack the self-control to separate inner voices and impulses from the outer world; the people have no self-respect: they may be servile or, given a measure of authority, they will whip their charges to extract obedience; i.e., the barbaric, headlong people have neither the taste nor the capacity for gentleness or politeness. Let them have outlets for their characteristic sadism and masochism, as Geoffrey Gorer proposed in 1934; ‘tis better than the trap of romantic love. After the second world war Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism popularized the notion of protofascist “mob society”–both cynical and gullible–in terms that echoed Filmer. Similarly, Todd Gitlin has claimed that the mounting Right-wing critique of the new curricula is best understood as a frenzied hunt for new scapegoats after the Cold War was won in 1989; Gitlin asserts that the presence of the Other provides the only source of “national identity.”

    Return now to the seventeenth century. Responding to the autocratic Filmer, John Locke adumbrated his concept of legitimate authority. In The Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke argued that monarchs were not beyond criticism, nor were the people so unbalanced that they could not assess their own interests and the performance of their protectors:

[Locke:] “The end of government is the good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should always be exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed when they grow exorbitant in their use of power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation, of the properties of their people?
     Nor let anyone say that mischief can arise from hence as often as it shall please a busy head or turbulent spirit to desire the alteration of the government. It is true such men may stir whenever they please, but it will be only to their own just ruin and perdition. For till the mischief be grown general, and the ill designs of the rulers become visible, or their attempts sensible to the greater part of the people, who are more disposed to suffer than right themselves by resistance, are not apt to stir. The example of particular injustice or oppression of here and there an unfortunate man moves them not. But if they universally have a persuasion grounded upon manifest evidence that designs are carrying on against their liberties, and the general course and tendency of things cannot but give them strong suspicions of the evil intentions of their governors, who is to be blamed for it? Who can help it if they, who might avoid it, bring themselves into this suspicion? Are the people to be blamed if they have the sense of rational creatures, and can think of things no otherwise than as they find and feel them? And is it not rather their fault who put things in such a posture that they would not have them thought as they are? I grant that the pride, ambition, and turbulency of private men have sometimes caused great disorders in commonwealths, and factions have been fatal to states and kingdoms. But whether the mischief hath oftener begun in the people’s wantonness, and a desire to cast off the lawful authority of their rulers, or in the rulers’ insolence and endeavours to get and exercise an arbitrary power over their people, whether oppression or disobedience gave the first rise to the disorder, I leave it to impartial history to determine. This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the formulation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government, he is guilty of the greatest crime I think a man is capable of, being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of governments bring on a country; and he who does it is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be treated accordingly.” [end Locke quote]

  Yes, there are demagogues, but they would have no credibility were it not for the excesses of the rulers. Taken with his statements on natural law, it is clear that Locke is not protecting private property as unlimited personal aggrandizement, but the confiscation of lower-class property and labor by tyrannical rulers–a crucial distinction for those who view Locke as an image of Filmer’s people: the “possessive individualist” par excellence. The radical liberal ideal of one set of rules for rich and poor alike and the assumption of rationalism upon which the rule of law depended was a radical innovation; it remains an advanced position and belongs in the democratic tradition, notwithstanding efforts to brand Locke solely as a hypocrite and supporter of slavery.

   Tories and Whigs crucially differed on the educational potential of “the people.” If Nature’s God was a democrat for the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century progressive bourgeois, organic conservatives reclaimed Nature for the aristocracy. In antebellum America, Filmer’s good fathers were models for socially responsible slaveholders contrasting their benevolent paternalism with the cruelty of northern laissez-faire capitalism and class struggle. Indeed, the distinguished historian of the South, C.Vann Woodward, a participant in the Martha’s Vineyard conference on “Racism and Education” (excerpted in my blog on Pacifica, Part One) revived the southern apologist for slavery George Fitzhugh to lobby for organic conservatism as antidote to today’s mass society. Filmer’s image of “the people” would be indistinguishable from “the unconscious” in the social psychology espoused by many in the twentieth-century Progressive movement–conservative reformers responding to the rapid growth of industrialism and class warfare that Northern victory in the Civil War facilitated. Mass “irrationality” remains the argument for the eternal rule of philosopher-kings operating “in the public interest” in bureaucratic collectivist societies. While Lockean ideas of the common good have been co-opted, Filmer’s theory shades upper-class secret machinations from the blazing eyes of the lower orders. The unresolved debate between Filmer and Locke frames the work of the Yankee Doodle Society; our models of human capacity determine our politics as we face “the mischief…grown general” on our endangered planet.

It’s always important for an athlete to go into a match feeling relaxed and well rested. During the rain delays at the finals of Wimbledon in 2008, Roger Federer stayed lighthearted in the locker room. He relaxed and cracked a few jokes to the people around him. At one point, I remember reading, he looked at his opponent for the day and said “Looks like we meet again,” to which the player respond with a simple nod. My guess is that Rafael Nadal didn’t have quite as good of a night of sleep as Federer had.

Looking at pictures of the suite that Roger Federer has for the US Open at the Carlyle hotel – and assuming that he has similar treatment at the other Grand Slams – there is plenty of reason why he holds the most Grand Slam titles in the history of tennis. Actually, if I was staying there for a night, I’m pretty sure that I could make it to at least the quarters (not really, though).

The two-bedroom, $3,075/night suite is going to be where Roger Federer stays for the third consecutive year. The New York Observer got a good look at where the champion stays.

On the plus side, the suite has a sleek little kitchen with a 24-bottle mini-bar and an espresso machine; a long living room with a white orchid, a gargantuan quasi-Picasso, two giant shiny black vases, a giant antique-mirrored disc that looks vaguely cocainey and a book on Jacques Helleu; two hefty closets in the foyer, where there’s also a horn-handled metallic tray; and a master bedroom with a leopard-print rug, four mirrored bedposts and a comfy-looking tub. (As it happens, the apartment was designed by a musical theater actor named J. Cameron Barnett.)

If only I could get these accommodations at HoJo’s…