By Dr. Athanasios Ioannis Kyriazis


This article will raise several key points about 20th century history. It makes the point that but for European, Russian, American, EU, UN & League of Nations actions taken negligently and/or intentionally, and in direct abrogation of international law, against Greece and its sovereign interests, Greece would be a far, far larger, far richer, and far more populous country than it is today. Greece today is on the brink of financial crisis not due to its own mistakes, but due to the arrogance and indifference of the larger powers which denied its destiny to be again what it was supposed to be—a second Byzantine-Greek Empire with a capital at Constantinople spanning two continents and five seas as was originally negotiated and settled by Venizelos at the Versailles treaty table after World War I and consummated in the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. That Greek Empire today would have approximately one hundred forty-sixty millions population and would be one of the most powerful countries on earth, as well as one of the richest.



In 1975, Turkey was allowed to invade Cyprus not once but twice, eventually appropriating approximately forty per cent of the land, killing hundreds of thousands, and expropriating billions of dollars in property holdings belonging both to Cypriot and ethnic National Greek citizens in Northern Ethnic Cyprus.

The invasion, and the continued illegal military occupation and Turkish colonization program of settling Turks from the mainland and passing them off as “Turkish Cypriots” for the past thirty-five years, continues to be illegal and condemned repeatedly by international law and United Nations resolutions.


Cyprus was only created as an independent state in 1960 after many years of Greek national lobbying for “enosis” or union of Cyprus with Greece. Cyprus was offered to Greece in 1915 as part of the spoils of World War I by England, but England breached that agreement at the Versailles Treaty table and retained Cyprus as a mandate and colony.

In retaliation for the enosis movement, Turkey forcibly expelled nearly 200,000 ethnic Greeks living in Constantinople lawfully entitled to reside there pursuant to the Treaty of Lausanne, first in a series of purges executed in 1955, and in a second round of purges in 1964, followed by the closing of the Halki school of Theology in 1971 and other acts directed at the Greek minority of Constantinople protected by the International Treaty of Lausanne.

Greece is entitled to damages with interest from 1955. Those are in the billions of dollars. Those are due them from France, England, the US and the UN’s failure to act to remedy the Turkish depredations to the Greek minorities of turkey since that date. For this reason alone, Greece is entitled to have not only its debts forgiven, but is entitled to war and treaty reparations and damages in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

This issue was discussed in great detailed in acclaimed novelist Jeffrey Eugenides prize-winning historical novel, MIDDLESEX (2001);

Thus we meet Desdemona Stephanides, who with her husband flees the Turks in Smyrna in 1922 and arrives in Detroit, where she has cousins. Desdemona, a formidable creature, has the habit of fanning herself when she gets angry or excited. “To anyone who never personally experienced it, it’s difficult to describe the ominous, storm-gathering quality of my grandmother’s fanning,” says Calliope, her granddaughter and the book’s narrator. And Desdemona’s fans, it should be said, are eccentric: “the front of the fan was emblazoned with the words ‘Turkish Atrocities.’ Below, in smaller print, were the specifics: the 1955 pogrom in Istanbul in which 15 Greeks were killed, 200 Greek women raped, 4,348 stores looted, 59 Orthodox churches destroyed, and even the graves of the Patriarchs desecrated.” Again, it is not only the verve of the writing that appeals, but its exactness. The idea of an “atrocity fan” is wonderful enough, but Eugenides’s real talent lies in the detailed coda to this passage: “Desdemona had six atrocity fans. They were a collector’s set. Each year she sent a contribution to the Patriarchate in Constantinople, and a few weeks later a new fan arrived, making claims of genocide and, in one case, bearing a photograph of Patriarch Athenagoras in the ruins of a looted cathedral.” This is the kind of detail that makes narrative.

review at

England, France and the other great powers of Europe, along with the League of Nations, the predecessor to the UN, are guarantors of the Treaty of Lausanne. As in this treaty has been breached repeatedly by the Turks due to the depredations suffered by the Greeks, and the treaty guarantors have failed to act and are in breach, they owe Greece monetary damages. Greece is entitled to injunctive relief and monetary damages. At a minimum, they are entitled to damages from Turkey, England, the EU, the UN, the US, and a new regime of minority legal rights from Turkey, including a new rider to the Treaty of Lausanne allowing them up to 3 million resident ethnic Greeks and newly expanded Patriarchate rights in Constantinople.



It should be pointed out that in addition to partitioning the Ottoman Empire and Asia Minor proper, the Treaty of Sevres also provided for the holding of the so-called “Malta Tribunals,” which were to punish Turkish war criminals for acts of war crimes committed from 1914 onwards, specifically, acts of genocide and war crimes directed at christian minorities, such as Armenians and Greeks.


These tribunals were, in fact, never held, but the fact of the armenian and greek genocides were recognized and the machinery put in place to try the Turkish war criminals as early as the Treaty of Sevres. Indeed, these provisions were later copied by the US at the Nuremberg trials. However, it was the Allies failure to punish the Turks after WWI that let Hitler famously to comment, “who remembers the Armenians” in pursuing his genocide against the Jews of Eastern Europe. In this, Hitler specifically referred to the failure to carry out the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres regarding the Malta Tribunals.

Greece is owed indemnity for this as well. My own grandmother was witness to the senseless butchery of thousands of armenians in her own village, many of whom were defenseless citizens machine gunned down and buried in mass pits, while she also lost three older sisters to the ravages of the Turks. The Terrible Turks.

The Obama administration opposes the current house resolution declaring the Armenian Genocide of 1915 to have existed. Nancy Pelosi killed it when she was house speaker. Just to show I’m being bipartisan, so too did Speaker Denny Hastert of the Republicans kill it back in the 1990s, allegedly after receiving a suitcase of more than $1 million dollars from a Turkish lobbyist (it may have been from Hill & Knowlton). Nancy Pelosi and several other are also alleged to have received substantial cash bribes to change their votes from the Turkish lobbyists as well, but much of this is urban legend and myth.

Getting back to our narrative, of course, enosis was not granted because Cypriot independence was guaranteed by England in 1960. That independence lasted fifteen years, while Turkish invasion and slavery over half the island of Cyprus has lasted more than 35 years.

Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1975, marking very nearly the 400th anniversary of their original Ottoman invasion and conquest of Cyprus in 1570. This was an outrageous act of aggression and the first sign of the Islamic radical agenda to emerge in the modern era which culminated three years later in the Iranian Revolution, the Iranian funding of Hamas and the eventual destabilization of Lebanon. This was all the beginning of a program to de-Christianize the Middle East and depopulate it of westerners and Christians, a program which has culminated in the 9/11 bombings and the program of renewed neo-pan-Turkism, neo-pan-Islamism and neo-pan-shi’ism, together with the scourge of radical Islam, radical anti-Semitism and radical anti-Americanism/radical anti-European sentiment now dominating not only Turkey but all of the middle east from Lebanon to Palestine to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Malaysia.

Regarding the invasion of Cyprus proper, England, the United States, the major European Powers, the UN and the EU, all owe Greece and Cyprus monetary reparations, damages and injunctive relief for the original invasion and all consequential damages. England, because Cyprus was a Commonwealth nation, and England guaranteed Cypriot independence after 1960 pursuant to treaty, by military means if necessary, and England is in breach of that treaty, owes Cyprus and the Greek Government damages for breach of that treaty.

Those damages are in the trillions of dollars, together with owing Greece, Cyprus and their people land and territorial compensation from the Turkish territories in compensation, along with reparations and damages from Turkey.


The Eastern European nations which conspired actively with the USSR to fund the Greek Civil War from 1944-1948, as well as the funding of the Greek Communist Party and the left-wing Andreas Papandreou movement of the 1980s, which was a pro-Communist USSR-sympathetic government masquerading as a left-wing government (Papandreou was an out and out Marxist-Leninist communist in full sympathy with the USSR and an ardent anti-American) were fully and completely facilitated by the major European nations, the US and the UN.

To some extent, the US and CIA ameliorated these problems thru the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and active CIA involvement in Greece against the left-wing insurgents, but the root of the problem, the Greek expatriate communists living in the Eastern European Communist countries, propagandizing and funding these communist and left wing movements in sovereign Greece, have never been addressed satisfactorily by Germany, France, England, Italy or any of the major EU powers.



However, the US abandoned Hungary and the Czechs to their fates in 1956 and 1968, and never allowed Yugoslavia to emerge from communism. The US also allowed the pro-US, anti-communist junta to be dissolved and allowed it to intervene in the affairs of Cyprus in 1975, while also green-lighting the Turkish invasion of Cyprus that same year.

To the contrary, the EU has pursued a policy of abandoning Eastern Europe to its communist fate, and not doing anything to resist the advance of leftist and communist parties in Greece, even if they were funded by the USSR or Eastern European nations.

Worse, since the breakup of the USSR, the EU has broken up and balkanized the former Yugoslavia, creating stronger Muslim states in Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia, while also creating issues for Greece with the FYROM, and weakening Serbia, Greece’s natural ally of World War I and II (and the only Balkan ally besides Greece of both France and England from both World Wars, incidentally).

Such a policy has been a betrayal not only of Serbia, but also of Greece, and of the Versailles and UN pacts, as well as of the fundamental understandings of the peace accords following World Wars I and II that Greece and Serbia were the winners, and the other countries were the losers.

Greece is owed reparations, land and damages from the EU, the former Eastern European Republics which intervened in her internal affairs, and from the US for the additional issues over Serbia, Yugoslavia and FYROM and Kosovo.

All of these matters have conspired to make Greece economically weaker and to cut Greece off from its natural trading partner, Serbia/Yugoslavia, for an extended period of time.

The damages are in the billions of dollars. And apologies.

At a minimum, Greece is owed Southern Albania (Northern Epirus) as land compensation for the evil deeds done by the Communists for fifty plus years. They are also owed this because of the Albania invasions during World War II and because of Greek claims to the land dating back to the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 and World War I prior to the formation of Albania. Also, because Italy owes reparations to Greece and Italy, more than any other country, is responsible for the current drawing of Albania’s boundaries.

The land compensation issue is not a minor one.

The other land that should really be awarded to Greece since Yugoslavia cannot hold it is the FYROM. Only Greece has the military, governmental and spiritual resources to hold this land against the Albanian minority.

Likewise, Kosovo should remain part of Serbia. It is holy land to the Serbian Orthodox dating back to the 13th century, and this issue is far more important than who happens to live there now. Besides which, most of the Muslim peasants who reside there are transients, nomads or rebels transplanted there for the purpose of fighting the Serb army and not true residents of Kosovo.

The fact that Albania, Bosnia, FRYOM and Kosovo are becoming breeding grounds for the Albanian mob and Islamic terrorism are only additional reasons for extending Serbian and Greek military and territorial sovereignty and orthodox churches to these regions. This is just compensation.


Greece is owed war reparations on a massive scale by Germany, Albania and Italy (and therefore the entire EU) jointly for depredations during World War II. Not only were more than one million Greek citizens killed by warfare, starvation and occupation by the Nazis and Italy.

The depopulation of Greece and economic damages to Greece due to the Italian invasion of 1940, the Greek Counteroffensive of 1940-41 (capturing Northern Epirus) and the subsequent Italian and German Occupations, and the looting of Greek archeological and art treasures, the theft of Greek farm products, the deliberate starvation of millions of Greeks, the holocaustic killing of Greek gypsies and Greek Sephardic Jewish minorities in Thessalonica and Macedonian Greece in the hundreds of thousands, often against bitter Greek resistance, caused severe economic and population damage to Greece for decades to come.

If you watched the recent Tarantino film INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, which took a few historical liberties, you got the essential idea of what the NAZIS were like–jew-hating, propaganda-wielding zealots, hungry and mad for power. They killed, plundered and exploited their conquered nations with reckless but precise abandon.


First, Greece’s population was decimated, probably by a factor of two. Greece today would be twenty million but for the decimations and depredations of World War II.

Second, Greece became depopulated of Sephardic Jews, its most productive and happy citizens of the North and of Thessaloniki. The economic consequences were incalculable to Thessaloniki. Greece was one of the main theaters of the Holocaust as Thessaloniki was a largely Jewish city prior to 1940. Its Sephardic Jewish community was centuries old. This was true in other parts of Greece as well where the Germans attempted to first quarantine, then liquidate the Greek Sephardic Jewish population.

Third, Greece was split into two armed camps, communist resistance fighters and pro-British royalists working with the American CIA, resulting in a bitter civil war from 1944-48 which further split the country upon the retreat of the Germans, killing off what little wealth and population was left. This war destroyed the wealth and population of the North.

Fourth, a wave of emigration began from Greece to the US, causing further depopulation. Things were so bad in Greece, everyone basically left. Again, net result, Greece’s population would have been around twenty million, maybe 25 million if there’s no World War II attack by the Italians and Germans, and their GDP in Greece would be about fifty times as large.

Fifth, Greece was looted of antiquities, paintings, ancient art and other valuable objects which were never restored to her. The Elgin Marbles are peanuts compared to what the German Nazis stole, and as we now know, the Russians stole what the Nazis stole, as in the case of the rare Heinrich Schliemann gold jewels of Troy, to give but one famous example of World War II art theft—the so called golden jewels of Sophia Schliemann which were considered lost for more than sixty years, suddenly appeared in a Russian museum once communism fell.

One could go on, but it’s clear that the Marshall Plan and US yearly aid does not approach compensation for damages done to Greece by Germany and Italy. Germany owes Greece a permanent stipend in the hundreds of billions of dollars and so does Italy.

Moreover, Germany is now a rich country, while Greece continues to be poor. This is directly a result of Germany’s own imperial Nazi policies under the Third Reich, which not only followed prior Prussian imperialism but added to it Hitler’s anti-Semitic notions of lebensraum, anti-Semitism and other nutty ideas he had absorbed while living in 1890s Vienna listening to pan-German anti-Semites yearning for the lost years of the German-dominated Habsburg Empire.

Perhaps Germany has moved on, but Greece has been unable to, because it continues to be paralyzed by the left-right splits which were directly created by Germany’s interferences in Greece.

Nearly everything that has happened in Greek economic and politics since 1940 is directly a result of World War II, as well as other external events not of Greece’s own doing.

Germany and Italy are the main culprits and owe Greece trillions of dollars in reparations.

Greece and Serbia were both on the winning side in World War II. Yugoslavia emerged stronger, but Greece considerably weaker, although it was given the Dodecanese Islands, including Rhodes, from Italy. But this was not a sufficient compensation for the depredations of the War.


Greece and Serbia were on the winning side Under the Treaties of Versailles and Sevres. Serbia was rewarded with the Kingdom of the Croats, Serbs and Slovenes, which later became Yugoslavia.

Because of the events that are described herein, Greece continues to be owed reparations by the old Ottoman Empire, Modern Turkey, England, France, the USSR, modern Russia, the United States, the League of Nations and its successor the UN, as well as the land promised them in those treaties.

Greece by contrast was denied Cyprus and the Dodecanese were given to Italy. Instead under the Treaties of Versailles (1919) and Sevres (1920) (signed by the Turkish Sultan) Greece was given more territory from Bulgaria, as well as Smyrna and a zone in Asia Minor around Smyrna, to be governed by Greece for five years pending a plebiscite. Also, Eastern Thrace, a massive amount of territory largely Greek speaking and Greek populated, flat and fertile and bordering on the Black Sea, up to the borders of Constantinople, was given to Greece. This would have approximately doubled Greece’s land area and created the Greece of two continents and five seas envisioned by Venizelos. Finally, the Treaty guaranteed the international freedom of the Straits (the Bosphorus, Dardanelles and Sea of Marmora) as well as the status of Constantinople as an International City, free of any governmental control by any national entity.

In time, it was inevitable that both Constantinople and Smyrna would become wealthy, influential and rich centers of Greek trade and influence.

At this time, in 1919, Asia Minor had approximately five million Turkish, three million Greek, one million Armenian and one million Kurdish citizens. Constantinople was more than fifty per cent Greek, Armenian and Jewish, and had more than thirty newspapers, the majority of which were in French, Greek, or Armenian. Smyrna was at that time the largest, most populous and richest Greek city in the world, and the center of the lucrative Greek tobacco trade, which dominated the world. Aristotle Onassis’ father was the richest tobacco merchant in all of Smyrna.

Greek history books refer to what happened next as “the great catastrophe,” but the real story is at once more complex and also much simpler.

First, the United States promised to administer the Armenian Mandate, adopt the Treaty of Versailles, and join the League of Nations and guarantee by military means, if necessary, the provisions of the dismemberment of the Ottoman States. The Armenian Mandate included most of Northern and Anatolian Asia Minor, where resided many Christian Armenians and Greek Ottoman Empire citizens, many of whom were seeking protection from Turkish and German oppressions and depredations since 1915 in American missionary schools and camps. An extensive record of German-Turkish brutalities, including the Armenian genocide from 1915 onwards, is to be found in many sources.

This American mandate never happened. First, the US Senate voted down the Armenian Mandate. Second, the US Senate voted down the Versailles Treaty. Third, the US Senate voted down the League of Nations.

Thus, what US History books refer to as “isolationism” is really “refused to get involved in the politics of the Ottoman Empire and the protection of Christians from Turks”. And “refused to send us peacekeeping troops to protect Christians from Muslim genocidal race-hating young Turks”.

Since this is such a common US peacekeeping mission today, perhaps we have trouble envisioning this, but in 1919, eugenics was so commonly pervasive in the US that Armenians and Greeks were truly thought of as inferior genetically and racially by many learned American intellectuals, and thus not worth saving. It would only be four years later that the same US Senate passed the most sweeping immigration reform bill in history restricting southern European immigration to very low quotas, based on the same bad science and racial notions.

Next, the Russians, who were allies of the Greeks, became communists in 1917. They made a separate peace with the Germans and Turks, and in 1919, Kemal Attaturk who was commanding the rebel forces in the hills of Ankara, but who had no money and no weapons, went to Lenin and made a deal for war loans and weapons, and got both. In return, they agreed to partition Armenia and settle the long-standing disputes over the Caucasus border. At this point they both knew the US wasn’t coming with its navy or army.

Next, having sealed off his Northeastern front with the Russians, Attaturk faced an attack from the west by the Greek Army, who was told by British Prime Minister Lloyd George in 1920 that the Greek Army would need to invade Asia Minor to deal with the problem of the rebel Turk army led by Attaturk. They were told they would be supported fully by the French, the Americans, the League of Nations and the British in their endeavor.

The Greek Army invaded, and won major victories, until reaching near Ankara, where they reached a stalemate, trench like position near the Sakarya River near Ankara. There, more than 100,000 seasoned Greek troops faced off against more than 100,000 seasoned Turkish troops (both armies had fought in both the World War and the Balkan Wars) for the next two years, from 1920-1922, without a significant change or advance.

Next, Attaturk made a separate deal with France. France betrayed England and cut a separate treaty of peace with Attaturk, in violation of Sevres and Versailles, and their pledges to the English, the Greeks and everyone else, surrendered all their weapons and artillery to the Turkish rebels, agreeing to recognize Attaturk as the true ruler of Turkey, as well as signing over land to Attaturk’s faux regime, including Antioch, a Christian city with a bishop and patriarch.

The reasons for the French betrayal are complex, but essentially boiled down to rivalry in the Middle East with England. For some reason, they felt it would be to their advantage to have an independent Turkey friendly to France on the border of French Syria and French Lebanon than one controlled by Greece.

Of course, as events turned out, this was a huge mistake, since when Germany re-armed, Turkey immediately re-upped with Germany and tossed France over the side leading up to WWII. This led to the dismemberment of the French colonies in the Middle East. This led in turn to the increase in the role of the British and the US in the Middle East after 1945.

In short, France not only made a diplomatic mistake, but it betrayed its two World War I allies and violated numerous treaties as well as insuring Greece’s defeat in the War.

The French surrender was a turning point in the Greco-Turkish War of 1920-22. First, it signified a diplomatic recognition of Attaturk’s rump regime. Second, it provided Attaturk’s fledgling army with needed weapons. Third, and perhaps most critically, it gave Attaturk only one front to fight on. Without a Russian front to the Northeast or a French Front to the South east, Attaturk could concentrate all of his army and newly found money, artillery and weapons from the French and Russians against the Greek Army along their extended defensive lines on the Sakarya River.

In the summer of 1922, Attaturk prepared a counterattack, and manage to split the Greek lines in two. This caused confusion, and ultimately, a rout of the Greek forces, which began a disorganized retreat back to Smyrna in two groups with heavy casualties, losses and mean captured. It is estimated the Greek Army suffered more than 60-80% casualties in this battle and series of retreats.

And yet, military victory was well within the grasp of Greece for many months if not years of the war, for reasons that will be delved into at greater length in a longer work still in progress.

At the end, the Greek Army disembarked on ships, and left Smyrna and the Greek populace of Smyrna to their fate. In September of 1922, Attaturk and his rebel army entered Smyrna, and in the year of the 500th anniversary of the capture of Thessaloniki by the Ottomans in 1422 (an event clearly in Attaturk’s mind) Attaturk made sure his soldiers looted, pillaged and raped every Christian home, citizen and girl in the city, and then set fire to the Christian quarters of the city. Much the same fate had befallen Thessaloniki in 1422 when it fell to the Moslem.

Smyrna was utterly destroyed.

The Sack of Smyrna was an awful and terrible event. Smyrna is one of the seven cities of the Revelation, along with Philadelphia and five other cities mentioned in the apocalypsis of the revelation of st. john the divine, written on the island of patmos but revealing the divine word of God. Thus, it must be fated again to be Christian.

cf the NYT 1922.

Eugenides’ Middlesex has a long passage on the sack of Smyrna–it is a central event in his book. It is the reason for the exodus of his main character Desdemona Stephanides to America–the sack of Smyrna.

There are several books treating this subject, but the best in english remains Smyrna 1922: The Destruction of a City by Marjorie Housepian Dobkin, There is also a newer volume out by a Giles Milton, but by default I still recommend Dobkin’s volume. Also, Ernest Hemingway wrote a famous war dispatch in 1923 about the sack of Smyrna which can be found in any volume collecting his war dispatches for newspapers.



The terms of the Treaty of Sevres were renegotiated by force the next year in the Treaty of Lausanne, resulting in the so-called “exchange of populations,” whereby all Christian Greeks left Asia Minor for Greece and all Muslim Turks left Greece for Turkey, but the exchange was both lopsided and unfair. First, there were 1.5 million Greeks still living in Asia Minor, and second, the Turks had killed another 1.5 million Greek civilians during the Greco-Turkish War in genocide of their own. Many more would die during the trip and in refugee camps in Greece once they arrived.

Far fewer Muslim Turks made the reverse journey.

Most, if not all, of the Asia Minor Greeks never found a home in Greece. Many moved to other countries, notably America, though some went to Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Germany and other countries.

Those that did go to Greece did not feel Greek at all. They brought a different sense of culture with them, along with a sense that their land, their history and their past had been taken from them. But this is a story for another time. Their laments are today heard, and were then heard, in the rebetika of the time, the micrasiatika music.

In the final chapter of the War, the British refused to defend independent Constantinople from Turkish advance, and in the Chanak Crisis of late 1922, Lloyd George surrendered Constantinople rather than go to war with Attaturk, even though he himself had encouraged Greece to go to war with the same adversary. His Liberal Government fell soon after, and a Liberal Government has never again been elected in England. Lloyd George’s foreign policy can best be characterized as cowardly with regards to the Greeks. He failed to back them up with military and naval support and failed to commit to a total annihilation of the Turkish rebel army with British army and naval means.

That reparations, land and other monetary and equitable damages are due to the Greek Nation from England, France, Russia, etc. is clear. But for these treaty and agreement breaches, Greece would be a far greater, far more populous and far less Diasporic nation and peoples than it is. Also, Greece’s largest city, Smyrna, was destroyed at the height of its economic glory, and its largest trade center and Greek cultural center, Constantinople, was taken from it.

All in all, these two blows to the Greek economy were far too much for it to every recover. Sovereign Greece with a healthy Smyrna within it and an independent Constantinople trading freely would have soon become one of the most economically powerful countries on earth. What did happen in history was something far worse.

Greece is owed trillions upon trillions of dollars in reparations, land and two huge cities.


The Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204, and looted and pillaged the city. At that time, Constantinople was the capital of the Greek Empire and the richest city on earth.


To give an idea of what was taken, the St. Sophia alone had 40,000 pounds of gold and 80,000 pounds of silver decorating its walls and dome.

Just the gold alone, assuming 16 ounces per pound, and $1200 per ounce, would yield a value in 1204 of around $786,000,000.

However, in 2010, assuming an interest rate of 5% that investment would have doubled every 14.4 years since then or roughly 56 times.

The net worth of the gold in the St. Sophia, then, in today’s dollars would be approximately 5.69 times 10 to the 25th power—or approximately 56.9 billion trillion trillion dollars.

In short, more than the GDP of the entire EU combined, probably.

So, in short, Greece is owed everything owned by Western Europe.

At least that, in short, is the Fourth Crusade Argument.

Oh, and by the way, they stole the Holy Grail, the holy lance, the holy shroud (mistakenly known as the shroud of Turin, it’s the shroud of Constantinople), the crown of thorns the true cross, and all the other known relics of Jesus Christ. Is there a value on these? They were gathered in one holy place, a sanctuary, in Constantinople.


This is even more basic than the Fourth Crusade argument. Everything in Western Europe and Western culture derives from Ancient Greece and Byzantine Greece—religion, art, philosophy, politics, science, mathematics, the renaissance, etc.

For this great endowment, the Greek people and the nation of Greece should be forever on stipend from Europe.

Every museum in Berlin, London and Paris has entire halls devoted to collections of Greek Antiquities. The Rosetta Stone and the Greek language were the key to unlocking Egyptology. The Gospels are written in Greek, as are the Septuagint and all of the major works of antiquity on geometry and mathematics which were studied by the Renaissance humanists, not to mention Galileo, Newton and others.

For this great endowment of learning, must we not reward the Greeks and Greece?

Monetarily? In Trillions? Quadrillions? Keep them a free trading zone? Lend to them interest free? Keep their country a kind of permanent museum?

One would think so.

I worked out the number once just for the Fourth Crusade. It’s about 1 times ten to the 56th power, even assuming a very low interest rate such as 3%, since 1204. You can work out similar numbers for the gold stolen from the Greeks and land stolen from the Greeks on many other occasions, including notably the sack of Syracuse, the various conquests by the Romans, the conquests by the Arabs, and so on and so forth, but the conquests by the 4th or Latin Crusade are the most galling, because the Catholic Church does not renouce either their spiritual claim or their temporal claim to the lands. In fact, you can go to France or Germany or any of these countries, today, and obtain a dukedom or other royal title appurtaining to Athens or any other city which used to belong to the Eastern Roman Empire. In addition, the Catholic Church appoints Bishops to every eastern city in which there should only be a Patriarch appointed by the Bishop of Constantinople,e.g. the Patriarch, thus not recongizing his full equality in the Christian Church.

It would be silly of me to see the hand of opus dei or some nefarious plot behind all these machinations against the Greek Government, but you have to admit, the Germans have been in league with the Catholic Church before, to be specific, 1938, and that didn’t turn out so well for Europe or its then considerable Eastern European Jewish population. Whenever Germany takes an interest in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and you have a sitting German Pope, it’s a pretty good bet someone wants to reconstitute the Austro-Hungarian Empire along Germano-Catholic lines. Recreating Croatia as a catholic, independent country was certainly a good first step in that direction. Perhaps isolating Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Russia, the bastions of Orthodoxy, is the next step in the plan.

Of course, it’s not secret that Angela Merkel is unpopular at home. Saber-rattling against some small defenseless country fits her agenda. And, of course, there are millions of foreign Turkish gastarbeiter working in Turkey.

Returning to our main theme,Christianity itself is Judaism plus Platonism==expressed in Hellenistic philosophical terms by the Greek Church fathers.

And to Greek culture and philosophy we owe Islam and Protestantism, and perhaps even Confucianism and Buddhism too, since it was Alexander the Great who brought his Greek Philosophers to the brink of China and India in the 4th century BC.

As the Hollies once sang, “Pay You Back with Interest.”

It’s a big debt Europe owes the Greeks. Not the other way around, last time I checked, the ledger is still pretty heavily on the Greek side.

3/25/2010 greek independence day

Today, as we survey the wreckage of the first and second rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament, 2010 version, which has destroyed nearly everyone’s brackets, including mine, it is wise to remember the words of one of the seven sages of Ancient Greece, Heraclitus, who noted that “everything is in flux,” or more modernly, “everything changes constantly.”


Since today is GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY, everything I write today will really be about GREECE and the incredible influence GREECE and GREEK THOUGHT has had upon modern life. Specifically, I will show you how GREECE & GREEK THOUGHT have had a major influence on MARCH MADNESS AND THE NCAA BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT. You won’t even believe it, but it’s so.


Today marks the 189th anniversary of the birth of the modern Greek nation-state and the uprising against the Ottoman Empire by the ethnic Greeks and Greek-speaking majority of Roumeli against their Ottoman overlords on March 25, 1821. After nine long years, that struggle resulted in the creation of the modern Greek state. And of course, we who are Greek-American have to celebrate it, since the actual Greeks in Greece are temporarily on strike against government austerity measures. Hey, I wish I could retire at 41 with a full salary and benefits too, but as one of my Harvard economics professors once noted, TANSTAAFL “THERE AINT NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.” (actually, that phrase was coined by sci fi giant Robert A Heinlein, 1907-1988, if you grok me). Frackin’ great line, though.


Many, many effects of that revolution can be seen here in America.

1) The very idea of athletic competitions and tournaments is Greek in origin. The Greeks invented the Olympics in 776 BC. They had them on a four year rotation, along with three other games, the Pythian, Nemean and Isthmian Games, the four being known as the “Pan-Hellenic Games.” The point is the Ancient Greeks had an athletic competition to determine a winner in each event every year. This is exactly what the modern NCAA does. The logos of the NCAA even use Olympic/ancient Greek style laurel wreaths on some of their publicity and trophies, and even up to the present day, the concept of AMATEURISM, the notion that an athlete should not be paid for participating in sports, is uniquely and completely ancient Greek in origin, as the Romans customarily paid their Olympic and other athletes, or compelled them to compete through slavery. It was the Ancient Greeks who prided themselves that competition should be amateur and free of payment, and participated in by free citizens of city-states only for the glory of the competition. This very concept is what animates the entire notion of the NCAA and of college sports; its entire spirit and animus are Ancient Greek in conception and thought. The Ancient Romans had no such distinction; to them, athletes were paid the same as anyone else. Moreover, the concept of colleges today relate closely to the concept of ancient Greek city-states. There are many more parallels, but you get the idea. Winning at sports was the sine qua non of excellence in Greek culture. Note that Christianity for many years discouraged athletic competition—it was a modern development with the rediscovery of humanist thought, and the rediscovery of Greek thought, that athletics made a comeback in modern society. The Greek notion of athletic competition heavily influenced the Romans, who made stadiums, chariot races and gladiatorial combat part of their culture. Consequently, it is very clear that the very notion of having an NCAA tournament every year is nothing if not Greek in origin.


2) Many colleges and college nicknames are Greek in origin. For example, Michigan State is in the Sweet Sixteen. Their nickname is the “Spartans.” They were nicknamed, largely, in tribute to the Greeks of the Greek Revolution of the 1820s, largely due to Philhellenic (Greek-loving) feeling. Most Americans were sympathetic with the Greeks, 1) because the Greeks were struggling for democracy against autocracy 2) because the Founders were largely influenced by Ancient Greece in their models for what a democracy like America should look like and 3) because the Greeks were Christians struggling against the Turkish Infidels, which is what we used to call Muslims in the 19th Century before PC discourse deconstructed plain language and speech sometime in the past 20 years. In fact, Turks used to be called “the Terrible Turk” by people like no less than Prime Minister Gladstone, and the Ottoman Empire, after the Greeks won, used to be called the “Sick Man of Europe,” and the question of how to carve up the fading Ottoman Empire was called the “Eastern Question.” It wasn’t settled finally until World War I, and not really finally until 1923. But that’s another story. So I like Michigan State. Didn’t you watch “300”? “We are SPARTANS!!!”


3) U. Tennessee remains in the Sweet Sixteen. Vanderbilt is in Nashville, Tennessee, where they have an actual full-scale replica of the Parthenon built which you can go see today. It is complete and accurate to the last detail. In fact, throughout the South, there is more Greek Revival and neo-classical architecture than almost anywhere in the US, especially on college campuses. This is certainly true at Vanderbilt, at Duke, at Kentucky, at U. Tennessee, at U.Va certainly, and many of the other schools left in the Sweet Sixteen.


About the Parthenon

The Parthenon stands proudly as the centerpiece of Centennial Park, Nashville’s premier urban park. The re-creation of the 42-foot statue Athena is the focus of the Parthenon just as it was in ancient Greece. The building and the Athena statue are both full-scale replicas of the Athenian originals.

Originally built for Tennessee’s 1897 Centennial Exposition, this replica of the original Parthenon in Athens serves as a monument to what is considered the pinnacle of classical architecture. The plaster replicas of the Parthenon Marbles found in the Naos are direct casts of the original sculptures which adorned the pediments of the Athenian Parthenon, dating back to 438 B.C. The originals of these powerful fragments are housed in the British Museum in London.

The Parthenon also serves as the city of Nashville’s art museum. The focus of the Parthenon’s permanent collection is a group of 63 paintings by 19th and 20th century American artists donated by James M. Cowan. Additional gallery spaces provide a venue for a variety of temporary shows and exhibits.

The Parthenon is open year round Tuesday – Saturday, 9:00 – 4:30. Additional hours during June, July & August: Sundays, 12:30 – 4:30 p.m. The Parthenon will be closed on July 4, Labor Day, the Thursday & Friday of Thanksgiving week, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. Admission: Members free; Adults – $6.00; Children 4-17 – $3.50 (under 4 free); Seniors 62+ – $3.50. Phone number 615-862-8431.

See? And you thought you had to travel to GREECE to see the Parthenon? Nope, you can go to NASHVILLE, TENNESEE AND SEE IT! AND THIS PARTHENON ISN’T IN RUINS!!! (No Turks or Venetians to blow it up in a meaningless war in the 17th century). Oh–and they have some pretty darn good music there, too–and hey, Vandy and U. Tennessee are pretty darn good schools.

4) Many of you have probably watched the show “GREEK” on TV, which details “GREEK” or fraternity/sorority life on campuses around the country. What you probably don’t know is that fraternities and sororities have their origins with the Greek War of Independence. So many college students were in sympathy with the Greeks and their War of Liberation from the Turks during the 1821-1830 period, that many of the campuses and universities founded societies named after Greek letters such as “Phi Beta Kappa” or “Alpha Chi Rho” to celebrate their “fraternity” and “solidarity” with the Greek cause of independence, liberty and freedom. So, if you’ve ever been a fraternity or sorority member, you actually have pledged fraternity, sorority, brotherhood and sisterhood, to the nation of Greece and its sacred causes for liberty, democracy, Christianity, and its ongoing fight against the Turks. Thus the “GREEK” show really is, in actually, about Greece. It even takes place at fictional “CYPRUS-RHODES UNIVERSITY.” Hey, I’ve been to Rhodes, that island rocks, every single hotel opens out to a private beach, and every bar is open all nite long. And Cyprus, even though only half of it is open (the other half is still occupied by a muslim country from the north starting with “T” and ending with “Y”) is the hottest tourist and banking destination in the Middle East. Plus, Garo Ypremian is from Cyprus, and he once kicked a touchdown! He told me so 18 holes in a row at a pro-am golf tournament. “where else but in america could a 5 foot 7 cypriot find work in the NFL as a professional kicker?” he said. To his credit, he was a great golfer.

The very origins of sorority and fraternity life are from the Greek Revolution and Greek War of Independence, and Philhellenism among American college students. In fact, many of those students went to Greece and fought for the Greek cause. In the NCAA tournament, it’s obvious that frat and sorority and Greeks are the main hoops fans. Thank you Greece and Greek culture, again. And here’s to our favorie fraternities, Kappa Tau Gamma (ΚΤΓ), Omega Chi Delta (ΩΧΔ), and our favorite sorority, Zeta Beta Zeta (ΖΒZ). May we all be Greeks forever!


5) Syracuse is a heavy favorite to get to the final four. Syracuse University and Syracuse, NY are named for the ancient Greek city-state of Syracuse. Syracuse was the richest and most famous Greek city-state of the ancient world. Situated on one of the three corners of Sicily, Syracuse was as powerful in its heyday as Rome, Carthage, Athens or Persia, and made a play for hegemony against Rome and Carthage during the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Unfortunately for Syracuse, despite being neutral in the 2d Punic War between Carthage and Rome, Rome decided to lay siege to Syracuse in order to plunder its enormous stores of gold. Rome simply needed the money. Archimedes, the most brilliant mathematician and scientist of ancient times, was a native of Syracuse. He famously designed siege defense machines which pulled Roman ships out of the water and crashed them against the rocks, other machines which focused the light of the sun on Roman ships and set them on fire, etc. You get the picture. The Romans were kept out of Syracuse for years by the high walls of Syracuse and Archimedes brilliance. When they finally breached the walls, the Romans were instructed to bring Archimedes alive to the Roman commander, but of course they got it wrong and killed Archimedes by mistake. The Romans plundered billions of dollars in gold, silver and other treasures from Syracuse. P.S. Italy owes that money back to Greece, today, with interest, under international law, in my view. Syracuse was neutral at the time. Also, indemnity for Archimedes’ death is independently owed by Italy to Greece. One supposes that would sort of cancel out any debts owed by Greece to the EU. In fact, one might suppose that Italy should just hand over the deed to, well, Italy, since the interest has been piling up for 2,400 years or so on that loan. Or have I just lost my Elgin Marbles? (many thanks to my good friend the brilliant Mike Reiss on that line).




The philosopher Plutarch of Chaeronea (46-c.122) is the author of a series of double biographies in which he compared Greeks and Romans, and tried to explore the nature of some type of man. They contain much historical information. The following text is taken from his Life of Marcellus, and describes how this Roman general captured Syracuse during the war between the Romans and the Carthaginian general Hannibal. During the siege the famous scientist Archimedes (287-212), was killed. The translation was made by Walter Charlton and appeared in the Dryden series.

Marcellus now was a third time created consul, and sailed to Sicily. For the success of Hannibal had excited the Carthaginians to lay claim to that whole island; chiefly because, after the murder of the tyrant Hieronymus, all things had been in tumult and confusion at Syracuse. Therefore, the Romans also had sent before to that city a force under the conduct of Appius, as praetor. […]

At this time Marcellus, first incensed by injuries done him by Hippocrates, commander of the Syracusans (who, to give proof of his good affection to the Carthaginians, and to acquire the tyranny to himself, had killed a number of Romans at Leontini), besieged and took by force the city of Leontini; yet violated none of the townsmen; only deserters, as many as he took, he subjected to the punishment of the rods and axe.

But Hippocrates, sending a report to Syracuse that Marcellus had put all the adult population to the sword, and then coming upon the Syracusans, who had risen in tumult upon that false report, made himself master of the city. Upon this Marcellus moved with his whole army to Syracuse, and encamping near the wall, sent ambassadors into the city to relate to the Syracusans the truth of what had been done in Leontini. When these could not prevail by treaty, the whole power being now in the hands of Hippocrates, he proceeded to attack the city both by land and by sea.

The land forces were conducted by Appius: Marcellus, with sixty galleys, each with five rows of oars, furnished with all sorts of arms and missiles, and a huge bridge of planks laid upon eight ships chained together, upon which was carried the engine to cast stones and darts, assaulted the walls, relying on the abundance and magnificence of his preparations, and on his own previous glory; all which, however, were, it would seem, but trifles for Archimedes and his machines.

These machines he had designed and contrived, not as matters of any importance, but as mere amusements in geometry; in compliance with King Hiero’s desire and request, some little time before, that he should reduce to practice some part of his admirable speculation in science, and by accommodating the theoretic truth to sensation and ordinary use, bring it more within the appreciation of the people in general.
Eudoxus and Archytas had been the first originators of this far-famed and highly-prized art of mechanics, which they employed as an elegant illustration of geometrical truths, and as means of sustaining experimentally, to the satisfaction of the senses, conclusions too intricate for proof by words and diagrams. As, for example, to solve the problem, so often required in constructing geometrical figures, given the two extremes, to find the two mean lines of a proportion, both these mathematicians had recourse to the aid of instruments, adapting to their purpose certain curves and sections of lines.

But what with Plato’s indignation at it, and his invectives against it as the mere corruption and annihilation of the one good of geometry, which was thus shamefully turning its back upon the unembodied objects of pure intelligence to recur to sensation, and to ask help (not to be obtained without base supervisions and depravation) from matter; so it was that mechanics came to be separated from geometry, and, repudiated and neglected by philosophers, took its place as a military art.

Archimedes, however, in writing to King Hiero, whose friend and near relation he was, had stated that given the force, any given weight might be moved, and even boasted, we are told, relying on the strength of demonstration, that if there were another earth, by going into it he could remove this. Hiero being struck with amazement at this, and entreating him to make good this problem by actual experiment, and show some great weight moved by a small engine, he fixed accordingly upon a ship of burden out of the king’s arsenal, which could not be drawn out of the dock without great labor and many men; and, loading her with many passengers and a full freight, sitting himself the while far off, with no great endeavor, but only holding the head of the pulley in his hand and drawing the cords by degrees, he drew the ship in a straight line, as smoothly and evenly as if she had been in the sea. The king, astonished at this, and convinced of the power of the art, prevailed upon Archimedes to make him engines accommodated to all the purposes, offensive and defensive, of a siege. These the king himself never made use of, because he spent almost all his life in a profound quiet and the highest affluence. But the apparatus was, in most opportune time, ready at hand for the Syracusans, and with it also the engineer himself.

When, therefore, the Romans assaulted the walls in two places at once, fear and consternation stupefied the Syracusans, believing that nothing was able to resist that violence and those forces. But when Archimedes began to ply his engines, he at once shot against the land forces all sorts of missile weapons, and immense masses of stone that came down with incredible noise and violence; against which no man could stand; for they knocked down those upon whom they fell in heaps, breaking all their ranks and files. In the meantime huge poles thrust out from the walls over the ships sunk some by the great weights which they let down from on high upon them; others they lifted up into the air by an iron hand or beak like a crane’s beak and, when they had drawn them up by the prow, and set them on end upon the poop, they plunged them to the bottom of the sea; or else the ships, drawn by engines within, and whirled about, were dashed against steep rocks that stood jutting out under the walls, with great destruction of the soldiers that were aboard them. A ship was frequently lifted up to a great height in the air (a dreadful thing to behold), and was rolled to and fro, and kept swinging, until the mariners were all thrown out, when at length it was dashed against the rocks, or let fall. At the engine that Marcellus brought upon the bridge of ships, which was called Sambuca, from some resemblance it had to an instrument of music, while it was as yet approaching the wall, there was discharged a piece of rock of ten talents weight, then a second and a third, which, striking upon it with immense force and a noise like thunder, broke all its foundation to pieces, shook out all its fastenings, and completely dislodged it from the bridge.

So Marcellus, doubtful what counsel to pursue, drew off his ships to a safer distance, and sounded a retreat to his forces on land. They then took a resolution of coming up under the walls, if it were possible, in the night; thinking that as Archimedes used ropes stretched at length in playing his engines, the soldiers would now be under the shot, and the darts would, for want of sufficient distance to throw them, fly over their heads without effect. But he, it appeared, had long before framed for such occasions engines accommodated to any distance, and shorter weapons; and had made numerous small openings in the walls, through which, with engines of a shorter range, unexpected blows were inflicted on the assailants. Thus, when they who thought to deceive the defenders came close up to the walls, instantly a shower of darts and other missile weapons was again cast upon them. And when stones came tumbling down perpendicularly upon their heads, and, as it were, the whole wall shot out arrows at them, they retired. And now, again, as they were going off, arrows and darts of a longer range inflicted a great slaughter among them, and their ships were driven one against another; while they themselves were not able to retaliate in any way. For Archimedes had provided and fixed most of his engines immediately under the wall; whence the Romans, seeing that indefinite mischief overwhelmed them from no visible means, began to think they were fighting with the gods.

Yet Marcellus escaped unhurt, and deriding his own artificers and engineers, “What,” said he, “must we give up fighting with this geometrical Briareus, who plays pitch-and-toss with our ships, and, with the multitude of darts which he showers at a single moment upon us, really outdoes the hundred-handed giants of mythology?”

And, doubtless, the rest of the Syracusans were but the body of Archimedes’ designs, one soul moving and governing all; for, laying aside all other arms, with this alone they infested the Romans and protected themselves. In fine, when such terror had seized upon the Romans that, if they did but see a little rope or a piece of wood from the wall, instantly crying out, that there it was again, Archimedes was about to let fly some engine at them, they turned their backs and fled, Marcellus desisted from conflicts and assaults, putting all his hope in a long siege.

Yet Archimedes possessed so high a spirit, so profound a soul, and such treasures of scientific knowledge, that though these inventions had now obtained him the renown of more than human sagacity, he yet would not deign to leave behind him any commentary or writing on such subjects; but, repudiating as sordid and ignoble the whole trade of engineering, and every sort of art that lends itself to mere use and profit, he placed his whole affection and ambition in those purer speculations where there can be no reference to the vulgar needs of life; studies, the superiority of which to all others is unquestioned, and in which the only doubt can be whether the beauty and grandeur of the subjects examined, of the precision and cogency of the methods and means of proof, most deserve our admiration. It is not possible to find in all geometry more difficult and intricate questions, or more simple and lucid explanations. Some ascribe this to his natural genius; while others think that incredible effort and toil produced these, to all appearances, easy and unlabored results. No amount of investigation of yours would succeed in attaining the proof, and yet, once seen, you immediately believe you would have discovered it; by so smooth and so rapid a path he leads you to the conclusion required. And thus it ceases to be incredible that (as is commonly told of him) the charm of his familiar and domestic Siren made him forget his food and neglect his person, to that degree that when he was occasionally carried by absolute violence to bathe or have his body anointed, he used to trace geometrical figures in the ashes of the fire, and diagrams in the oil on his body, being in a state of entire preoccupation, and, in the truest sense, divine possession with his love and delight in science. His discoveries were numerous and admirable; but he is said to have requested his friends and relations that, when he was dead, they would place over his tomb a sphere containing a cylinder, inscribing it with the ratio which the containing solid bears to the contained. Such was Archimedes, who now showed himself, and so far as lay in him the city also, invincible.

While the siege continued, Marcellus took Megara, one of the earliest founded of the Greek cities in Sicily, and capturing also the camp of Hippocrates at Acilae, killed above 8,000 men, having attacked them whilst they were engaged in forming their fortifications. He overran a great part of Sicily; gained over many towns from the Carthaginians, and overcame all that dared to encounter him.

As the siege went on, one Damippus, a Spartan, putting to sea in a ship from Syracuse, was taken. When the Syracusans much desired to redeem this man, and there were many meetings and treaties about the matter betwixt them and Marcellus, he had opportunity to notice a tower into which a body of men might be secretly introduced, as the wall near to it was not difficult to surmount, and it was itself carelessly guarded. Coming often thither, and entertaining conferences about the release of Damippus, he had pretty well calculated the height of the tower, and got ladders prepared.

The Syracusans celebrated a feast to Artemis; this juncture of time, when they were given up entirely to wine and sport, Marcellus laid hold of, and before the citizens perceived it, not only possessed himself of the tower, but, before the break of day, filled the wall around with soldiers, and made his way into the Hexapylum. The Syracusans now beginning to stir, and to be alarmed at the tumult, he ordered the trumpets everywhere to sound, and thus frightened them all into flight, as if all parts of the city were already won, though the most fortified, and the fairest, and most ample quarter was still ungained. It is called Achradina, and was divided by a wall from the outer city, one part of which they call Neapolis, the other Tycha.

Possessing himself of these, Marcellus, about break of day, entered through the Hexapylum, all his officers congratulating him. But looking down from the higher places upon the beautiful and spacious city below, he is said to have wept much, commiserating the calamity that hung over it, when his thoughts represented to him how dismal and foul the face of the city would be in a few hours, when plundered and sacked by the soldiers. For among the officers of his army there was not one man that durst deny the plunder of the city to the soldiers’ demands; nay, many were instant that it should be set on fire and laid level to the ground: but this Marcellus would not listen to.

Yet he granted, but with great unwillingness and reluctance, that the money and slaves should be made prey; giving orders, at the same time, that none should violate any free person, nor kill, misuse, or make a slave of any of the Syracusans. Though he had used this moderation, he still esteemed the condition of that city to be pitiable, and, even amidst the congratulations and joy, showed his strong feelings of sympathy and commiseration at seeing all the riches accumulated during a long felicity now dissipated in an hour. For it is related that no less prey and plunder was taken here than afterward in Carthage. For not long after they obtained also the plunder of the other parts of the city, which were taken by treachery; leaving nothing untouched but the king’s money, which was brought into the public treasury.

But nothing afflicted Marcellus so much as the death of Archimedes, who was then, as fate would have it, intent upon working out some problem by a diagram, and having fixed his mind alike and his eyes upon the subject of his speculation, he never noticed the incursion of the Romans, nor that the city was taken. In this transport of study and contemplation, a soldier, unexpectedly coming up to him, commanded him to follow to Marcellus; which he declining to do before he had worked out his problem to a demonstration, the soldier, enraged, drew his sword and ran him through. Others write that a Roman soldier, running upon him with a drawn sword, offered to kill him; and that Archimedes, looking back, earnestly besought him to hold his hand a little while, that he might not leave what he was then at work upon inconclusive and imperfect; but the soldier, nothing moved by his entreaty, instantly killed him. Others again relate that, as Archimedes was carrying to Marcellus mathematical instruments, dials, spheres, and angles, by which the magnitude of the sun might be measured to the sight, some soldiers seeing him, and thinking that he carried gold in a vessel, slew him. Certain it is that his death was very afflicting to Marcellus; and that Marcellus ever after regarded him that killed him as a murderer; and that he sought for his kindred and honored them with signal favors.

Q.E.D. Archimedes was brilliant, the Romans stole all the Greeks’ money, and Syracuse was a neutral city whose neutrality was blatantly violated by the Romans in the 2d Punic War. And the Romans did it for the money. Plutarch is pretty much a reliable source.





Of 32 first-round picks, I only got 19 right, for barely a 59% percentage. That looks good until you realize by flipping a coin I’d get 50%, so basically that’s a 9% winning percentage. Not very impressive. The only two brackets I have reasonably correct are the East, where I have Kentucky meeting West Virginia in the Regional Final, which can still happen, and the South, where I had Duke meeting Baylor in the Regional Final. Of those, I had West Virginia upsetting Kentucky in my original bracket and going to the final four, and Duke beating Baylor to get to the Final Four. In the East bracket, I was totally busted as I had Kansas hitting Georgetown in the regional. Oops! Can you say University of Northern Iowa? In the West, I had Syracuse hitting Pitt. From there I had Kansas and Pitt in the final four, and Pitt v. West Va in the finals, with West Va winning. Well, that clearly was wrong. I did pick Villanova to lose in the second round, although it was to Richmond, and not to St. Mary’s, but I’ve never thought much of Jay Wright as a tournament coach, much less an NCAA coach. He had a good run last year, but usually ‘Nova has done poorly in both the Big East and the NCAA tournaments. Temple, by contrast, has usually done well in A-10 and NCAA tournaments, and Fran Dunphy has coached many fine teams not only at Temple, but at Penn and LaSalle before that.

In light of the first two rounds, I’d have to revise all that. In the East, I think Kentucky-West Virginia, first of all, is sort of the championship within the championship. Second, I believe Kentucky will win. I am also assuming that Kentucky will beat Cornell. West Virginia will beat Washington. In the South, Duke will handle Purdue, while St. Mary’s dance will end at the hands of Baylor, although that’s a bit more of a flip. It doesn’t really matter, since Duke will beat the winner of that game and advance to the final four. So it will be Duke v. Kentucky in that bracket. At this point, Kentucky will beat Duke in a good game, but John Wall is simply better. Also Calipari is a match for coach K.

The Midwest is tougher. Of course, I love the Spartans, and they will beat UNI. Ohio State is still a #2 seed, and they should handle Tennessee. That leaves an interesting Big Ten match up of Mich State v. Ohio State in the Regional Final, which I have to like Ohio State, but then again, Tom Izzo is a terrific coach, so really, it’s a flip. I have to favor Ohio State, but Michigan State has the coaching. Then again, the Spartans will be without one of their key players due to injury. Finally, in the West regional, I like Syracuse to beat Butler, although Butler is good and playing well. I also like Kansas State to beat Xavier, although again, Xavier is good and playing well. Neither will be easy games. That leaves Syracuse against Kansas State in the regional final. Here you have a #1 against a #2, and a real dogfight. I like Syracuse, but both teams are talented and well-coached. I like Syracuse to go to the final four. Out of that bracket, then, I like Ohio State v. Syracuse, and in that match up, I actually think Syracuse has an easier game against either Ohio State/Michigan State than they did against Kansas State, and Syracuse advanced to the final Round.

The final round therefore will be Syracuse against Kentucky, and this will be a terrific game. I like Kentucky here, but it will be a terrific game.

After notes: I was stunned to see Cornell beat an outstanding Temple team, but Cornell is legit—they have a 7-footer with hands who can pass, rebound and shoot, and they’ve surrounded him with a good point guard and several excellent three point shooters who can bomb it from way downtown. So you can play inside-outside all day long, and Temple was stuck double-teaming low or pressing on the perimeter, and getting burned on both ends. Cornell put up 78 points on Temple—and Temple allowed no more than 50 something in the A-10 against great teams like URI and Richmond, and shut down Xavier defensively in the regular season. And Cornell then went out and destroyed Wisconsin for good measure. No wonder Cornell has been on the front page of the WSJ for like a week straight.

Did I mention that Cornell is in ITHACA, NY? You remember Ithaca–that’s the place ODYSSEUS or as he’s known in latin, ULYSSES was from. He was a pretty famous king who went to TROY (another city in NY and also a famous kingdom in ASIA MINOR) to fight the TROJAN WAR, then got lost on the way back.

ULYSSES story of how he gets back to ITHACA is told in the screenplay and movie, “O WHERE ART THOU BROTHER?”, which of course is based upon the novel ULYSSES by James Joyce, which of course is based upon a famous old poem in decapentasyllabic metred Homeric Ancient Greek by an old blind goat named HOMER, called the ODYSSEY.

In ancient times, everyone was required to not only read this book but to memorize and recite it. ALEXANDER THE GREAT so loved the book, he kept a copy of it under his bed, along with the ILIAD.

So yes, even CORNELL has ties to ancient greece, in fact, their very town is the embodiment of all things greek–didn’t they read the poem by Cavafy about returning to Ithaca at Jackie O’s funeral???? Isn’t that in the last collection of poems by her daughter??? Everyone knows what HOME is–it’s ITHACA.


And right across from Cornell is ITHACA COLLEGE–alma mater of my cousin–and of course, the setting for ROAD TRIP, one of the ten greatest films ever made about college life. And yes, everyone has been with a girl like Amy Smart once in their lives. Not. But if you’re Odysseus, you can spend five years with a hot siren, and chalk it up to mental defect or the effect of some goddess like nectar, and still plead the fifth to your wife, who remains faithful for yeah, 20 years.

Cornell is the best basketball team I’ve seen with four white guys on the floor since maybe the Boston Celtics of Bird-McHale-Ainge-Rick Robey-Parrish of the early 80s. Those Celtics had four white guys and they could flat out play. Of course, they got better, NBA championship better, when they got rid of Robey and got Dennis Johnson, who could flat out PLAY, plus he could shut down Andrew Toney, the Boston Strangler and ever-underrate Sixers sharpshooter, as Simmons points out in his recent fantastic book.

–art kyriazis, Philly hoops guy
March 25, 2010


There were some ugly rumors the past week or so to the effect that the Philadelphia Phillies, in the wake of losing the 2009 World Series to the Yankees, might be willing to trade Cole Hamels to the Blue Jays for Roy Halladay. Since then, the Phils’ front office has categorically denied they will trade Hamels, which is a good thing, but let’s make sure they don’t by putting out the case for NOT trading Hamels in a logical, sensible fashion.

The Phillies should not trade Hamels for Roy Halladay. Since Hamels and Halladay follow each other alphabetically in the 2009 Bill James Handbook and on, this one is easy to figure out.

1) Hamels is much younger than Roy Halladay, Halladay is 33, Hamels 26.

2) Hamels has thrown one fourth as many career innings as Halladay.

3) Hamels has a better strikeout to walk ratio than Halladay; Halladay just isn’t a strikeout pitcher.

4) Halladay is wilder than Hamels, hitting more batters and throwing more wild pitches.

5) Hamels is a much, much better hitter than Halladay, important in the NL.

6) Hamels is a proven post-season winner and performer; Halladay has never pitched in the post-season. Moreover, Halladay has never gotten his team into the playoffs, even when paired with AJ Burnett, whereas Hamels got his team the NL East crown with #2 starters like Brett Myers and Kyle Kendrick. Hamels is a better leader.

7) Hamels is very likely to rebound in 2009 and beyond and become a career dominant pitcher like Steve Carlton.

So let’s go into the details behind these reasons:

First, Hamels is far younger than Halladay.

Roy Halladay will be 33 years old in 2010, having been born on May 14, 1977. He is six foot six, weighs 225 throws right and bats right.

Cole Hamels will be 26 in December of 2009, having been born on December 27, 1983, an age advantage of eleven years. He is six foot three weighs 190 throws left and bats left.

CLEAR ADVANTAGE: HAMELS. Hamels has an entire career ahead of him. Halladay could have five years left, or he could be done tomorrow. It’s really hard to say.

Second, Hamels has thrown far fewer innings than Halladay.

Halladay has thrown eleven seasons in the big leagues. From 1998 to 2001, he did not pitch over 150 innings. In 2002 and 2003 he led the league in innings pitched with 239 and 266. In 2004 and 2005 he was limited to 133 and 141 innings pitched. In 2006-2007 he pitched mor than 220 innings and in 2008 again led the league in innings pitched with 246. In 2003 he led the league in wins and won the AL Cy Young Award. Total Innings worked in eleven seasons: Adding in 2009, he’s pitched around 2000 plus innings in the big leagues.

Hamels has thrown four seasons in the big leagues, and only two seasons over two hundred innings. He’s pitched deep into the postseason the past two seasons, which has increased his workload, but adding in 2009 he’s still only pitched around just short of 800 innings in the big leagues. One point is that the pace of Hamels’ workload at this age is far greater that it was at a comparable age for Halladay. If Hamels were to continue this pace, he would throw nearly 3,000 innings by the time he reached Halladay’s age. On the other hand, if he could continue this pace, you’d have a pitcher of Hamel’s quality throwing 2,000 plus career innings for you the next five to ten years.


Third, Hamels has a far, far better Strikeout to Walk ratio than Halladay.

Halladay, career, through 2008, struck out 1287 batters in 1808 innings pitched, while walking 420 batters, which is about 6 strikeouts and two walks per nine innings pitched.

Hamels, career, through 2008, has struck out 518 batters in 543 innings pitched, while waking 144 batters, which roughly works out to 8 strikeouts and three walks per nine innings pitched.

When comparing pitchers, the strikeout pitcher is always to be preferred to the pitcher who keeps the ball in play.


Fourth, Hamels is not as wild as Halladay.

Halladay, career, through 2008, has hit 51 batsmen and thrown 41 wild pitches in 1808 career innings. That’s a pretty high self-destruction index, to paraphrase one of Bill James’ famous columns.

Hamels, career, through 2008, has hit 7 batsment and thrown 10 wild pitches in 543 career innings. That’s nowhere close to Halladay’s wildness. In fact, for a pitcher of Hamels’ quality, those are impressively low numbers.

Thus, even though Hamels may have a slightly higher walk ratio, the fact is that Hamels doesn’t hit batsmen, and doesn’t throw wild pitches at anywhere close to the rate that Halladay does.


Fifth, Hamels is a better hitter than Halladay.

Halladay has spent his entire career in the AL and has never hit for himself. It would be expected that he cannot hit at all.

Hamels, an exceptional all around athlete born and reared in Southern California who trains very hard, is an excellent hitter for a pitcher, routinely gets singles, rbis and can get the bunt down when called upon in game situations.

In the National League, a pitcher who can hit, over the course of a season, can save you runs and pick up win shares, and therefore games. The difference between a .050 batting average and a .200 batting average over the course of a season is substantial—you’re not giving away as many outs at the number nine hole, especially if your pitching ace logging innings is getting all those at bats.


Sixth, Hamels has proven himself in the postseason.

Roy Halladay has never pitched in the postseason. This is not really his fault, but at the same time he has never led his club to a championship, a division title or a wild card berth despite his pitching prowess. Toronto has had some fine clubs, including some 90 game winning clubs, but the Yankees and Red Sox keep winning many more than ninety games, leaving Toronto unable to get into the AL Playoffs as a wildcard. In 2008, with AJ Burnett and Roy Halladay at the top of their staff, Toronto had an outstanding team that won 86 and lost 73—and yet finished fourth in the AL East division, behind Tampa Bay, who went 97-65, the Red Sox who went 95-67, and the Yankees, who went 89-73. When AJ Burnett went to the Yankees in 2009, the Yankees improved by nearly fifteen games and won 103 games in 2009, walking away with the division, and Burnett turned in a sharp postseason performance for the Yankees, suggesting that perhaps he and not Halladay was the gutsier performer with the will to win.

Hamels, by contrast, has not only pitched three years of playoff baseball, he’s been integral in the Phillies three consecutive NL East Division Championships. Yet that was with #2 pitchers in 2007 and 2008 like Brett Myers, Jamie Moyer and Kyle Kendrick. The Phillies did not add another truly great starter until mid-2009 when Cliff Lee arrived on the scene. Until Lee arrived, Hamels clearly was the ace who had led the Phillies not only to the 2007 and 2008 NL East crowns, but also to a substantial lead in mid-2009.

While the NL East is not the AL East, it is a difficult division, with the Mets, Braves and Marlins all very competitive every year. Again, perhaps it is Hamels, like Burnett, who is the gutsier performer with the will to win.

This is not to question Halladay’s will or desire to win, but the record shows that he’s never led any of his teams to the playoffs, whereas Burnett has been on two World Series teams, as has Hamels. This may be closely related to the fact that Hamels and Burnett are both strikeout pitchers, while Halladay is not really a strikeout pitcher.

In the 2007 postseason, even though he gave up three runs and lost, Hamels had seven strikeouts and only gave up three hits, even though the Rockies won the game. Even in losing, Hamels pitched tough.

In the 2008 postseason, Hamels was untouchable through the NLDS, the NLCS and the World Series, and won the MVP for the 2008 World Series. Even though the Phils won in five games, all but one of those games were one-run wins, and but for Hamels and Lidge, the Phils would not have won over a very fine Blue James team that beat the Yanks and Red Sox in the AL East to get to the Series. Hamels was unbelievably great in October of 2008, and even when the Commissioner of Baseball, Bud Selig, attempted to take Hamels’ Game Five win away from him by allowing play to continue in the rain until BJ Upton scored a tying run in the mud and slop of a drenching rainstorm before Selig “suspended” play for the first time in a modern World Series game, Hamels maintained his calm demeanor.

In the 2009 postseason, while not quite as sharp, Hamels did the job through the NLDS and NLCS as the Phils marched through the Rockies (exacting revenge for 2007) and the Dodgers in five games each. In the World Series, Hamels in critical game 3 was pitching a no-hitter through three innings with lots of strikeouts when again, the Commissioner of Baseball interfered with another Hamels game by illegally reviewing an obvious ground-rule double/in live play Alex Rodriguez ball that struck a camera that was in the field of play, erroneously ruling that the ball had “stuck an object over the fence in flight” and ruling the ball a home run on instant replay (from a lawyers room in the Commissioner’s Office in New York, Bud Selig again), turning second and third and a 3-0 lead into a 3-2 one run game.

(see my prior blog on this subject posted a couple of weeks back for an explanation of why the double hit by rodriquez was not subject to instant replay review under the rules of baseball–in fact, the next night they pushed the camera back and out of the field of play, proving my point entirely).

This time, Hamels did not react as coolly and he gave up three more runs the next inning and had to be removed. Nonetheless, he had struck out numerous Yankees, and only given up a very few hits when he was replaced, and the home run by Rodriguez was bogus. Some would argue that forces in New York wanted to see the Yankees succeed at any cost, even if it mean rattling Hamels’ cage to do it.

It certainly is suspicious that the Commissioner of Baseball and the umpires would interfere with two Hamels World Series games in consecutive years to the detriment of the Phillies.

But then again there are those who still think JFK was shot by a lone gunmen, or that money doesn’t buy influence in politics, or that drinking, gambling, staying up late and going out with the ladies is the best preparation for professional athletic contests even if your name isn’t babe ruth.

At any rate, Hamels still pitched well in spite of everything, and even if the Yanks got runs off him, he still pitched well enough to win if the Rodriguez ball hadn’t been called a home run.

The bottom line is that Hamels is a good postseason pitcher.

Note also that Hamels did not disintegrate on the mound like AJ Burnett did on three days rest in Game 5 of the World Series after throwing a masterpiece in game 2.


Seventh: Career Comparison suggests that Hamels’ 2009 Stats following 2008 are a lot like Steve Carlton’s 1973 Stats following 1972.

In 1972, Steve Carlton won the Cy Young, working more than 300 innings and winning 29 games and losing only 10, striking out more than 300 batters with a miniscule ERA, for a last place Phillies team that frankly, was dreadful. The next year, Carlton lost twenty games or nearly that, with a much higher ERA, and about a .500 winning record. It took Carlton a year or too to get back his mojo, but he once again became a regular twenty game winner, and went on to win three or four more Cy Young Awards, and one of the most feared, dominant pitchers in the league, and a feared, dominant post-season pitcher as well, eventually winning game six over the Kansas City Royals in the 1980 World Series to clinch for the Phillies their first World Championship.

If you normalize Cole Hamels’ stats for 2008 and 2009, and also Steve Carlton’s stats for 1972 and 1973, either back to 1972 or up to 2008, you will quickly see that the two pairs of years by the two pitchers look very, very similar.

This suggest strongly that Hamels’ year this past year is not a sign of his moving backwards, but merely that after a huge year last year (like Carlton’s first huge year), some pitchers tend to regress back towards to mean, first because of pitcher workload reasons, and second for psychological reasons.

Carlton’s answer was to stop talking to the media and intensify his legenday workout program.

Hamels has already shown signs of this. He’s indicated first, that he was mentally drained from last year, indicating that psychology was a factor for him. Second, he’s indicated that he will be speaking less to the media and at public events this offseason, and working harder on conditioning. Third, he’s made it clear that he wants redemption and wants to come back next year in excellent physical shape, ready to compete at a high level.

Consequently, there is some reason to believe that Hamels’ career arc will be like Carlton’s—there may be offyears, but the high points will be very high indeed—Cy Young Years, MVP Years, years when he leads the NL in strikeouts, shutouts and the like.

Consequently, the Phillies should not trade Hamels.

–art kyriazis, philly
home of the 2008 world champion phillies
Jimmy Rollins, three straight gold gloves, 2007-2009
Shane Victorino, two straight gold gloves, 2008-2009
Chase Utley, four straight Silver Slugger Awards, 2b, 2006-2009
2007, 2008, 2009 NL East Division Champions
2008, 2009 NL Pennant Winners
1976-1978, 1980, 1983, 1993 NL East Division Champions
1981 NL East Divisional Playoffs.
1915, 1950, 1980, 1983, 1993 NL Pennant Champions
1980 World Champions

in 2006, the Phils and Yankees made the historic Bobby Abreu trade, but the forgotten man in that deal was Starting Pitcher Cory Lidle:

July 30, 2006: Pitcher Cory Lidle Traded by the Philadelphia Phillies with Bobby Abreu to the New York Yankees for C.J. Henry (minors), Carlos Monastrios (minors), Jesus Sanchez (minors) and Matt Smith.

Abreu spent 2 years with the Yanks, then moved on to the Angels, where he helped the Angels reach the ALCS before they fell to the Yanks. Abreu did not have a good ALCS vs the Yanks.

Why is Lidle that important? Because, as everyone knows, or has forgotten, the Yankees were looking for depth at the back end of their rotation at the time. Cory Lidle was an innings eater, a guy who averaged 185-200 innnings a year. His career 162 game average was 189 innings pitched per year with a 12-10 career won lost record, a 4.57 ERA, a very good strikeout to walk ratio, and a WHIP of 1.33, which is decent for a 4 or 5 starter.

But as everyone knows, or has forgotten, on October 11, 2006, Cory Lidle was killed accidentally while flying his airplane near new york city over one of the rivers bordering manhattan. It was a gruesome disaster, and spelled the end to a young life. Lidle was only 34 years old at the time and still pitching very well indeed–and probably would have stuck with the Yanks.

The reason I mention the late Cory Lidle is twofold.

First, you would think someone would have thought to honor his memory during this series. It would have been right.

Second, if Cory Lidle had lived, he surely would have been the back end starter that the Yankees were searching for all year this year–the guy to take heat off of Joba Chamberlain, and surely a guy they could have dialed up to start Game 5 instead of rushing AJ Burnett out there to get pounded on three days rest.

No one gives much credit to the #4 and #5 starters of the world–the Joe Blantons–but they do an important job–they eat up innings, hold the other team to 3 or 4 runs, and give their teams a chance to win.

Cory Lidle on normal rest would have done that for the Yanks, and hey, he would have loved to pitch in the world series against his old team.

It’s a shame he never got the chance.

–art kyriazis, philly
Home of Chase Utley, Mr. November, Five Homers in a World Series
Tying Reggie Jackson’s all time record, Mr. October, set 32 years ago, 1977 vs. LA Dodgers.
Phillies, 2008 World Champions, 2009 NL Champions, congratulate the 2009 World Champion Yankees.

Last night we witnessed the triumph of existentialism, or should I say, Instantiation, in modern baseball, because the alleged two run home run hit by Alex Rodriguez NEVER ACTUALLY OCCURRED.

To understand this, first we must review the Home Run Rule in modern baseball, which was first defined in 1885, and was subsequently amended in 1892, 1914, 1920, 1926, 1931, 1950 and 1955.

The key concept of the home run rule is most plainly expressed in the 1892 rule which has not been changed very much since 1892:


The key concepts here are that

1) the ball has to be fair; and
2) the ball has to go “over the fence.”

The 1892 rule adds that “A distinctive line is to be marked on the fence showing the required point.” Meaning, if the ball goes over the fence above the line, it goes “over the fence.”

However, and this is the key point, the ball still has to go OVER the fence, not just ABOVE the line.

Last nite’s alleged home run by Alex Rodriquez, as a careful examination of the Rules of Baseball in this blog will demonstrate, was not a home run, but a Ground Rule Double.

It was a Ground Rule Double, because the ball never went OVER the Fence, as require plainly by the Rules of Baseball, but merely hit an object, which was in the field of play, above the line, but still in the field of play.

As to whether the ball would have, could have, or should have gone over the fence, but for the object, which was a TV camera, that is an interesting philosophical debate (which is the same as conceiving of unicorns, trolls, a planet without war and the tooth fairy), but the result is still the same: the home run remains an abstraction, something INSTANTIATED and given EXISTENCE only in the collective minds of the umpires.

You see the replay plainly on Fox TV. At no time did the ball go OVER the Fence. Moreover, the camera was jutting a good five to ten feet into the field. Even if the camera wasn’t there, the downward arc of the ball meant that the ball might have gone over the fence, or it might have continued its downward slope and hit the fence at a point BELOW the line of the fence.

Now, as a careful examination of the rules will show, similar disputes such as balls getting caught in the wiring of the ivy fences at Wrigley have always been rules as ground rule doubles. At no time have such balls ever been rules home runs, not in World Series and never on instant replay, because there has never been instant replay in the World Series or at any time in baseball.

I’m certainly pleased to see that baseball, not content with attempting to stop the Phillies from winning the World Series last year by calling a rain delay halt for the first time in World Series History when Cole Hamels was pitching a brilliant game in game five, this year, for the first time in World Series history called a fake home rum and foiled Cole Hamels again from winning.

Up to the point of the fake homer call, Hamels was pitching a no-hitter. It was obvious that Hamels was furious with the call. And rightly so. The call was utter and total BS, and proves that Bud Selig and Organized Baseball are determined to see that the Yankees win the World Series at all costs. The Umpiring crew rules so quickly that they must have been told by Selig how to rule. They didn’t have time to deliberate.

This is reminiscent of 1950, when the Yankees used their connections with the US Government to have Curt Simmons, a blazing lefthander with Sandy Koufax stuff, a twenty game winner, on the Phillies, get his draft notice in mid-September 1950, two weeks before the World Series was coming up with the Yanks. At the time, the Phils had Robin Roberts, now in the Hall of Fame, and Curt Simmons, a blazing lefthander, on their staff. The two pitchers had combined for more than fifty wins. The two pitchers could each have won two games in the series and blown out the Yanks, much like Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson won the 2001 Series for Arizona back a few years. But with Curt Simmons in the Army, the Phillies barely won the Pennant, and were eradicated by the Yanks in four games.

The Yankees always need to cheat to win.

Ok, so here are the Home Run Rules:

1885 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence at a distance less than 210 feet from home base shall entitle the batsmen to two bases. A distinctive line shall be marked on the fence at this point.

My comment: At this point, a ball “over the fence” is not a homer at all, it’s a ground rule double. Weird.

1892 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence shall entitle the batter to a home run; except that should it go over the fence at a distance less than 235 feeet from home base, the batter is entitled to only two bases. A distinctive line is to be marked on the fence showing the required point.

My comment: This is essentially the modern rule. The ball has to go “over” the “fence” to be a home run. And it has to go “over” the “distinctive line” of the “fence”. Not above, but over.

I think we all understand the difference between going near, above and around a line painted on a fence, and going over a fence. It’s the difference between a hurdler stumbling on the hurdle, and a hurdler clearing the hurdle entirely.

Rodriquez’ ball last nite, in Game 3 of the 2009 World Series, is not a home run under the Home Run Rule. It did not go “over the fence” or over the “distinctive line”, because in three dimensional space, it hit the camera before it crossed the plane of the line, and was knocked back into the field. Therefore, it never went over the line, never went over the wall, and never went over the fence.

Consequently, it was not a home run under the 1892 rule.

Are there any changes in the rules SINCE 1892 that could make it a home run? The answer is no, but let’s go through them all and see.

Note that this is not a “judgment call” by the umpires. The ball has to go “over the fence” and be a “fair ball” to be a home run. End of story. An umpire or group of umpires cannot make a ball that might have been or should have been a home run except that it hit something, into a home run by philosophical instantiation, or abstractive analysis.

In short, there are no unicorns, trolls or other imaginary beings just because we think there are; and there are no imaginary home runs. C.f. Occam’s razor—we don’t create a multiplicity of abstract universal beings just because we name them, think of them or create them in our minds. If we create now a class of abstract home runs, home runs that might have been, should have been and so forth, we now introduce into baseball a series of abstract balls, strikes, stolen bases, catches, hits and so forth and soon there will be entire parallel universes of baseball realities creeping into games, abstract realities which have nothing to do with what’s going on down at the field level, or, more pertinently, in the empirical world or in the rulebook. Everything will come down to what the umpires say and we’ll have a courtroom, not a ballgame.

1914 – Should an errant thrown ball remain in the meshes of a wire screen protecting the spectators, the runner or runners shall be entitled to two bases. The umpire in awarding such bases shall be governed by the position of the runner or runners at the time the throw is made.

My comment – this is the first indication that hitting a camera should be a ground rule double. Here the rule says if an errant thrown ball gets caught in wire screen mesh, the runner gets two bases and two bases only. It doesn’t matter if the ball is over the fence in fair ground, it’s still only two bases.

1920 – Home Run/Game-Ending – If a batsman, in the last half of the final inning of any game, hits a home run over the fence or into a stand, all runners on the bases at the time, as well as the batsman, shall be entitled to score, and in such event all bases must be touched in order, and the final score of the game shall be the total number of runs made.

My comment – this is the famous “walk off homer” rule change. Prior to 1920, if someone hit a walk off homer with one, two or three men on that won the game, the only runs that counted were the ones that won the game, e.g. if the score were 9-8 the road team, and you hit a grand slam, you got two runs, the score ended 10-9 home team, and you were credited with either a single or a double, usually a single. Not a grand slam. But under the walk-off rule, the score ended 12-9, the batter got credit for a homer, a grand slam and 4 RBI.

Note again that the rule says “over the fence” and “into the stand”. Rodriquez’ alleged homer last night meets neither of these key tests.

1926 – A fair batted ball that goes over the fence or into a stand shall entitle the batsman to a home run, unless it should pass out of the ground or into a stand at a distance less than 250 feet from the home base, in which case the batsman shall be entitled to two bases only. In either event the batsman must touch the bases in regular order. The point at which a fence or stand is less than 250 feet from the home base shall be plainly indicated by a white or black sign or mark for the umpire’s guidance.

My comment – again, the rule says “over the fence” or “into a stand” in order for a ball to be a home run. This changes the 1892 rule by making the minimum fence distance 250 feet for a home run instead of 235 feet in order not to have “cheap” home runs, although even 250 feet would be a pretty short distance. Of course, Yankee Stadium had a 297 foot right field porch for years for their left handed sluggers, another example of the Yankees “cheating”, and then they would have an all-lefthanded staff to keep the other team from stacking up lefties against them, c.f. Lefty Gomez, Whitey Ford, Andy Pettite, Ron Guidry and so forth. This unfair advantage has been wiped out with the new Yankee Stadium, although allegedly there remains a slightly easier job of hitting to right field.

1931 – Batter/Awarded Bases – A fair hit ball that bounds into a stand or over a fence shall be a two-base hit. Note: There is no reference to distance in this rule and any fair hit ball bounding over the fence or into the stand is a two-base hit.

My comment: This is the modern ground-rule double rule. It hasn’t changed at all. Most importantly, READ what it says. “A FAIR HIT BALL THAT BOUNDS INTO A STAND OR OVER A FENCE SHALL BE A TWO-BASE HIT.” That means that if the ball bounces off a camera and then over the fence, it’s a two base hit. If the ball bounces off a fan and over the fence, it’s a two base hit. If it bounces off the top of the Astrodome, and back into the field of play, as happened to Mike Schmidt in 1974, it’s a two base hit; but if it went off the top of the Astrodome and then over the fence, it would be a ground rule double according to the rule.

According to the plain language of the ground rule double rule of 1931, the ball A Rod hit last nite in game 3 of the World Series was a double. Not subject to review, not subject to judgment call. A ground rule double. It went off a camera and bounded over the fence and then back into the field. It was in play. It’s a ground rule double in that case.

In 1950 the rulebook was entirely recodified and rewritten, refined and clarified:

1950: Batter/Awarded Bases: Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability of being put out, advance to home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes over the field fence in flight and he touch [sic] all bases legally; of if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have cleared the field fence in flight, is deflected by the act of a defensive player in throwing his glove, cap or any article of his apparel, the runner shall be awarded a home run.

My comment – to be a home run, the ball must go over the fence “in flight”. The only case where an umpire may exercise judgment and rule on whether a ball “would have cleared the field fence in flight” is solely and exclusively the case of when the ball is “deflected by the act of a defensive player in throwing his glove, cap or any article of his apparel”. This is the one and only situation where an umpire may exercise abstract judgment and award a hypothetical or abstract home run under the rules of baseball; where a fielder attempts to block the ball by throwing his glove, cap or article of his clothing at the ball.

This was not the case with A Rod’s home run last night. Jayson Werth did not throw his cap, his glove or any article of his clothing at the ball last night. Consequently, the ball would have had to clear the fence “in flight” to be a home run. Since the ball never cleared the fence “in flight”, it was not a home run under the 1950 rule, as amended.

More 1950 changes:

The batter becomes a baserunner when a fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands or passes through or under a fence or through or under shrubbery or vines on the field, in which case the batter and the baserunners shall be entitled to advance two bases.

The batter becomes a baserunner when any fair ball which, either before or striking the ground, passes through or under a fence or through or under a scoreboard or through or any opening in the fence or scoreboard or through or under shrubbery or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the baserunners shall be entitled to two bases.
The batter becomes a baserunner when any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands or over or under a fence on fair or foul ground, in which case the batter and all baserunners shall be entitled to advance two bases.

The batter becomes a baserunner when any fair fly ball is defelected by the fielder into the stands or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run.

My comment – the first three rules make clear that deflections by the fielder and interference with the ball by objects on the field, such as vines, fences and shrubbery, are always ground rule doubles. The only case where a ball is NOT a ground rule double is when there is a deflection by the fielder, and for this to be a home run, there are four requirements;
1) a fair fly ball in fair territory;
2) deflected by a fielder;
3) into the stands; or
4) over the fence.

Note that even if argued analogically to last nites hit by A Rod, the 1950 rule does him no good. First, the camera deflected the ball back into the field. Second, the deflection was by a camera, not by a fielder. Third, the deflection was not “into the stands.” Fourth, the deflection was not “over the fence.”

Consequently, it’s really, really, really crystal clear that what we have is a ground rule double, under the remaining provisions of the 1950 and 1932 ground rule double rules. A Rod and the Yankees were only entitled to a ground rule double last nite in game 3 of the World Series.

1955 Rule Change

The 1955 rule change is very, very minor, it just provides that if a hitter hits a homer and has an accident while running the bases and time is called, he can have a runner come in and pinch run for him and run out the homer run and score it. It has no effect whatsoever on the discussion at hand.

Ok, through 1995, that’s all the rule changes I have from the source J. Thorn, P. Palmer, M. Gershman, D. Pietruskza, Total Baseball V: The Official Encyclopaedia of Major League Baseball (Viking NY 1997), c.f. D. Bingham & T. Heitz, “Rules and Scoring,” at pp. 2376-2432.

Now let’s hit the Net.

The rules as they exist through 1955 continue to exist and are codified in Official Rules of Baseball at Rule 6.09, exactly as they were enacted in 1950, see for yourself:

6.09 The batter becomes a runner when—
(a) He hits a fair ball;
(b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;
Rule 6.09(b) Comment: A batter who does not realize his situation on a third strike not caught, and who is not in the process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate.
(c) A fair ball, after having passed a fielder other than the pitcher, or after having been touched by a fielder, including the pitcher, shall touch an umpire or runner on fair territory;
(d) A fair ball passes over a fence or into the stands at a distance from home base of 250 feet or more. Such hit entitles the batter to a home run when he shall have touched all bases legally. A fair fly ball that passes out of the playing field at a point less than 250 feet from home base shall entitle the batter to advance to second base only;
(e) A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
(f) Any fair ball which, either before or after touching the ground, passes through or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through any opening in the fence or scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, or which sticks in a fence or scoreboard, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to two bases;
(g) Any bounding fair ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over or under a fence on fair or foul territory, in which case the batter and all runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
(h) Any fair fly ball is deflected by the fielder into the stands, or over the fence into foul territory, in which case the batter shall be entitled to advance to second base; but if deflected into the stands or over the fence in fair territory, the batter shall be entitled to a home run. However, should such a fair fly be deflected at a point less than 250 feet from home plate, the batter shall be entitled to two bases only.

the deflection by the fielder rule is also exactly the same as adopted in 1950 and has not been changed, and is codified in Rule 7.05(a);

7.05 Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance—
(a) To home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally; or if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of his apparel;

See? It’s exactly the same. The only way an upire can judge if the fair ball would have left the stadium and gone out of the playing field in flight, is if it was deflected by the act of a fielder under Rule 7.05(a).

The umpire can’t make a judgment call under any other of the rules of baseball.

All the rules of baseball, incidentally, are on line and available for you all to read for yourselves at;

see also these websites:

There IS however, a rule which pertains to interference by media, and that is rule 3.15, which I hereby quote now:

3.15 No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

NOTE WHAT RULE 3.15 SAYS ABOUT INTERFERENCE WITH A BALL BY NEWSPHOTOGRAPHERS WHO ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE ON THE FIELD OF PLAY: In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play.

Since A-Rod’s ball was UNINTENTIONALLY INTERFERED WITH BY A PRESS CAMERA, RULE 3.15 COMES INTO PLAY EXPRESSLY AND THE BALL IS IN PLAY. It’s not a case of fan interference where the umpires are allowed to make a judgment call to nullify the fan interference and create a home run abstractly.

To the contrary, the rule is clear and express- “the ball is in play” says the rule. Since the ball did not go over the fence or into the stands or over the fence in flight, but back to the field, and since Werth relayed it back, the Yankees runners were stuck at 2d and 3d.

There was no interference, and if there were a ground rule here, it was at best a ground rule double. See discussion above, supra.


The Umps and all of major league baseball got the rules wrong last night.

The ball was alive and in play last night and/or was a ground rule double, under the ground rule double rules and also under official Rule 3.15.

The Umps had no interference discretion under rules 3.15 or 3.16 because NO FAN touched the ball—instead, an authorized member of the press touched the ball.

The camera was an authorized photographer.

Consequently, the ball was in play.

Note the difference if a spectator had touched the ball:

3.16 When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.

Rule 3.16 Comment: There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 3.15. Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpire’s judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.
No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator’s interference.
Example: Runner on third base, one out and a batter hits a fly ball deep to the outfield (fair or foul). Spectator clearly interferes with the outfielder attempting to catch the fly ball. Umpire calls the batter out for spectator interference. Ball is dead at the time of the call. Umpire decides that because of the distance the ball was hit, the runner on third base would have scored after the catch if the fielder had caught the ball which was interfered with, therefore, the runner is permitted to score. This might not be the case if such fly ball was interfered with a short distance from home plate.

The ground rules for ground rule doubles are exactly the same as the 1950 and 1932 rules discussed above, and are codified at the official rules of baseball 7.05;

7.05 Each runner including the batter-runner may, without liability to be put out, advance—
(a) To home base, scoring a run, if a fair ball goes out of the playing field in flight and he touched all bases legally; or if a fair ball which, in the umpire’s judgment, would have gone out of the playing field in flight, is deflected by the act of a fielder in throwing his glove, cap, or any article of his apparel;
(b) Three bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a fair ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril;
(c) Three bases, if a fielder deliberately throws his glove at and touches a fair ball. The ball is in play and the batter may advance to home base at his peril.
(d) Two bases, if a fielder deliberately touches a thrown ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play;
(e) Two bases, if a fielder deliberately throws his glove at and touches a thrown ball. The ball is in play;
Rule 7.05(b) through 7.05(e) Comment: In applying (b-c-d-e) the umpire must rule that the thrown glove or detached cap or mask has touched the ball. There is no penalty if the ball is not touched.
Under (c-e) this penalty shall not be invoked against a fielder whose glove is carried off his hand by the force of a batted or thrown ball, or when his glove flies off his hand as he makes an obvious effort to make a legitimate catch.

(f) Two bases, if a fair ball bounces or is deflected into the stands outside the first or third base foul lines; or if it goes through or under a field fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery or vines on the fence; or if it sticks in such fence, scoreboard, shrubbery or vines;
(g) Two bases when, with no spectators on the playing field, a thrown ball goes into the stands, or into a bench (whether or not the ball rebounds into the field), or over or under or through a field fence, or on a slanting part of the screen above the backstop, or remains in the meshes of a wire screen protecting spectators. The ball is dead. When such wild throw is the first play by an infielder, the umpire, in awarding such bases, shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the ball was pitched; in all other cases the umpire shall be governed by the position of the runners at the time the wild throw was made;
APPROVED RULING: If all runners, including the batter-runner, have advanced at least one base when an infielder makes a wild throw on the first play after the pitch, the award shall be governed by the position of the runners when the wild throw was made.
Rule 7.05(g) Comment: In certain circumstances it is impossible to award a runner two bases. Example: Runner on first. Batter hits fly to short right. Runner holds up between first and second and batter comes around first and pulls up behind him. Ball falls safely. Outfielder, in throwing to first, throws ball into stand.
APPROVED RULING: Since no runner, when the ball is dead, may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled, the runner originally on first base goes to third base and the batter is held at second base.
The term “when the wild throw was made” means when the throw actually left the player’s hand and not when the thrown ball hit the ground, passes a receiving fielder or goes out of play into the stands.
The position of the batter-runner at the time the wild throw left the thrower’s hand is the key in deciding the award of bases. If the batter-runner has not reached first base, the award is two bases at the time the pitch was made for all runners. The decision as to whether the batter-runner has reached first base before the throw is a judgment call.
If an unusual play arises where a first throw by an infielder goes into stands or dugout but the batter did not become a runner (such as catcher throwing ball into stands in attempt to get runner from third trying to score on passed ball or wild pitch) award of two bases shall be from the position of the runners at the time of the throw. (For the purpose of Rule 7.05 (g) a catcher is considered an infielder.)
PLAY. Runner on first base, batter hits a ball to the shortstop, who throws to second base too late to get runner at second, and second baseman throws toward first base after batter has crossed first base. Ruling—Runner at second scores. (On this play, only if batter-runner is past first base when throw is made is he awarded third base.)
(h) One base, if a ball, pitched to the batter, or thrown by the pitcher from his position on the pitcher’s plate to a base to catch a runner, goes into a stand or a bench, or over or through a field fence or backstop. The ball is dead;

APPROVED RULING: When a wild pitch or passed ball goes through or by the catcher, or deflects off the catcher, and goes directly into the dugout, stands, above the break, or any area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be one base. One base shall also be awarded if the pitcher while in contact with the rubber, throws to a base, and the throw goes directly into the stands or into any area where the ball is dead.
If, however, the pitched or thrown ball goes through or by the catcher or through the fielder, and remains on the playing field, and is subsequently kicked or deflected into the dugout, stands or other area where the ball is dead, the awarding of bases shall be two bases from position of runners at the time of the pitch or throw.
(i) One base, if the batter becomes a runner on Ball Four or Strike Three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire’s mask or paraphernalia.
If the batter becomes a runner on a wild pitch which entitles the runners to advance one base, the batter-runner shall be entitled to first base only.

Rule 7.05(i) Comment: The fact a runner is awarded a base or bases without liability to be put out does not relieve him of the responsibility to touch the base he is awarded and all intervening bases. For example: batter hits a ground ball which an infielder throws into the stands but the batter-runner missed first base. He may be called out on appeal for missing first base after the ball is put in play even though he was “awarded” second base.
If a runner is forced to return to a base after a catch, he must retouch his original base even though, because of some ground rule or other rule, he is awarded additional bases. He may retouch while the ball is dead and the award is then made from his original base.
(j) One base, if a fielder deliberately touches a pitched ball with his cap, mask or any part of his uniform detached from its proper place on his person. The ball is in play, and the award is made from the position of the runner at the time the ball was touched

as you can plainly see, nothing has changed in the ground rules at all.

Consequently, A-Rod’s hit was either a ground rule double under rule 7.05, or it was a ball in play since it hit a media camera which was authorized to be in the field of play under rule 3.15. What it was not was a home run under either rule 6.09(d) or rule 7.05(a) or any other rule of baseball.

I’ve looked exhaustively and so have my sabrmetric friends, and there isn’t a rule in the book supporting what happened last night.

What happened also violates the laws of logic and violates the laws of physics. It violates the laws of logic, because the home run was created by an act of particular instantiation—abstract thought created a thing from a concept—what we in philosophy call a “unicorn”—which would make my old professor of logic at Harvard turn over twice—and violates Occam’s razor—that you don’t create needless entities through nominalism.

Instead, empiricism and realism dictate that a home run is a home run when we SEE and WITNESS that the ball goes over the fence—not that we imagine or suppose that it MIGHT have gone over the fence.

The problem with the umpires’ supposition last night is that it is what we call in philosophy a “modal” proposition, an “if….then” statement, that is conditional.

“If the camera were not there, then the ball would have flown over the fence.”

This can readily be recognized as a categorical statement of conditional form—namely, if there were no camera “x”, the trajectory of flight of the ball would have been different in form “y”.

The problem, as anyone knows, is that without an actual observation of same, there are a plethora of possible universes of possible “y’s”.

All we know is that the ball may or might have gone over the wall—or it may or might have bounced below the line and back onto the field. All we have is a possibility that it might have gone over the wall.

All conditionals are like this.

Moreover, accepting conditionals as true introduces a host of problems.

The medieval philosophers didn’t like conditionals, and neither should we.

It’s true that rule 9.03c states that

Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.

however, in this case, the A-Rod double IS covered specifically by the baseball rules. There is no room for discretion or authority to rule.

Here’s what actually occurred before game 3 of the World Series according to the umpiring crew:

Indeed, umpire crew chief Gerry Davis said that his crew explored every inch of Citizens Bank Park prior to Game 3, spending time reviewing areas unique to the park. The right-field camera was one of the aspects they discussed.
“We tour the field during the series whenever we go to a new ballpark, and discuss specific ground rules and potential trouble areas just like that,” Davis said. “Because we cannot control what the cameraman does with the camera, one of the specific ground rules is when the ball hits the camera, [it’s a] home run.”

So, the umpiring crew themselves MADE UP THEIR OWN GROUND RULE that the camera, if it was hit, would be a home run.

That would be fine, except that it’s in direct violation of Baseball Rule 3.15, as cited above, supra, that a media photographic camera, if a ball strikes it, the ball is in play and NOT a home run.

The Umpires don’t have discretion to make a ground rule about that.

The statement made by Umpire Davis is totally and completely WRONG. The rules cover the situation of when a ball strikes a camera held by a camera man.

Let’s see the rule again:

3.15 No person shall be allowed on the playing field during a game except players and coaches in uniform, managers, news photographers authorized by the home team, umpires, officers of the law in uniform and watchmen or other employees of the home club. In case of unintentional interference with play by any person herein authorized to be on the playing field (except members of the offensive team participating in the game, or a coach in the coach’s box, or an umpire) the ball is alive and in play. If the interference is intentional, the ball shall be dead at the moment of the interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

Ok, then, cameramen, news photographers who unintentionally interfere with the ball, and the interference is unintentionall, the “ball is alive and in play.”

It’s not up to Davis and his crew to make up a ground rule there. It’s up to Davis and his crew to follow Rule 3.15. Rule 3.15 trumps Article 9 and the umpire discretion rules.

Now let’s discuss the instant replay rule.

Here’s the story on the instant replay rule adopted in September of 2008:

5. Instant replay
Main article: Instant replay
In November 2007, the general managers of Major League Baseball voted in favor of implementing instant replay reviews on boundary home run calls. [19] The proposal limited the use of instant replay to determining whether a boundary home run call is:
• A fair (home run) or foul ball
• A live ball (ball hit fence and rebounded onto the field), ground rule double (ball hit fence before leaving the field), or home run (ball hit some object beyond the fence while in flight)
• Spectator interference or home run (spectator touched ball after it broke the plane of the fence).
On August 28, 2008, instant replay review became available in MLB for reviewing calls in accordance with the above proposal. It was first utilized on September 3, 2008 in a game between the New York Yankees and the Tampa Bay Rays at Tropicana Field. [20] Alex Rodriguez of the Yankees hit what appeared to be a home run, but the ball hit a catwalk behind the foul pole. It was at first called a home run, until Tampa Bay manager Joe Maddon argued the call, and the umpires decided to review the play. After 2 minutes and 15 seconds, the umpires came back and ruled it a home run.
About two weeks later, on September 19, also at Tropicana Field, a boundary call was overturned for the first time. In this case, Carlos Peña of the Rays was given a ground rule double in a game against the Minnesota Twins after an umpire believed a fan reached into the field of play to catch a fly ball in right field. The umpires reviewed the play, determined the fan did not reach over the fence, and reversed the call, awarding Peña a home run.
Aside from the two aforementioned reviews at Tampa Bay, replay was used four more times in the 2008 MLB regular season: twice at Houston, once at Seattle, and once at San Francisco. The San Francisco incident is perhaps the most unusual. Bengie Molina, the Giants’ Catcher, hit what was first called a double. Molina then was replaced in the game by a pinch-runner before the umpires re-evaluated the call and ruled it a home run. In this instance though, Molina was not allowed to return to the game to complete the run, as he had already been replaced. Molina was credited with the home run, and two RBIs, but not for the run scored which went to the pinch-runner instead.
On October 31, 2009, in the fourth inning of Game 3 of the World Series, Alex Rodriguez hit a long fly ball that appeared to hit a camera protruding over the wall and into the field of play in deep left field. The ball ricocheted off the camera and re-entered the field, initially ruled a double. However, after the umpires consulted with each other after watching the instant replay, the hit was ruled a home run, marking the first time an instant replay home run was hit in a playoff game. [21]

Citing to

• ESPN – GMs vote 25-5 to use replay to aid home run decisions – MLB

Now, let’s parse all this.

What instant replay boils down to is this.

A lawyer sits in Bud Selig’s offices in NYC and HE reviews the play and decides how it should be called.

The head of the umpiring crew calls NYC and asks the lawyer how the play should be ruled.

Then they decide.

Uh, what’s wrong with this picture if the NEW YORK YANKEES are one of the teams in the playoffs?

Let’s see, a NEW YORK LAWYER making the call? Against a PHILLY team?

Oh right, that would be really fair, impartial and just.

Incidentally, let’s review the rule again:

The proposal limited the use of instant replay to determining whether a boundary home run call is:
• A fair (home run) or foul ball
• A live ball (ball hit fence and rebounded onto the field), ground rule double (ball hit fence before leaving the field), or home run (ball hit some object beyond the fence while in flight)
• Spectator interference or home run (spectator touched ball after it broke the plane of the fence).
Id, supra.

Note that the ball has to hit an object BEYOND the fence while in flight.

Not in front of the fence, but BEYOND the fence.

This is completely consistent with Rules 6.09 and 7.05(a) which define a home run as one hit “over the fence in flight”.

The camera, in this case, was jutting out over the fence by a good five to ten feet.

So it was not beyond the fence, but on the field of play.

Second, because it was on the field of play, it was therefore a photographic interference under Rule 3.15, and should have been considered an unintentional interference, and a live ball in play under Rule 3.15.

Third, if not a live ball in play, then the ground rule double rule of 7.05 (b) et seq. comes into play.

What’s wrong with this picture?


Let’s review the criteria for instant replay;

1) is it fair or foul? Well, it was a fair ball. No need for instant replay.
2) Is it a live ball that hit the fence and bounced back to the field? No. No need for instant replay.

Was it a live ball that hit some object beyond the fence while in flight?

No. It never went beyond the fence. So no instant replay was required.

Well, it hit the camera==part of which was behind the fence, but the part of the camera the ball hit was NOT beyond the fence.

This is not a semantic issue, but a real rules issue, because if you start saying that balls that don’t go over the fence in flight are home runs, just because the umpires make up ground rules before the game to make them eligible for instant review, doesn’t make it so.

I think the key here is to parse the fact that the umpiring crew made a mistake before the game establishing false ground rules, by making a camera that jutted INTO the field, a candidate for HOME RUN instant replay.

That wasn’t their call to make.

Under the instant replay rule, the camera has to be entirely beyond the fence for them to make that decision, end of story.

Remember, the rule is to decide the boundary issue of when a ball has hit an object BEYOND the fence–not an object within the ballfield.

The Umps exceeded their rulemaking authority. Also, see #3, below, because there’s actually a different rule that applies to cameras that are in the field of play and not beyond the field of play, in which case the ball is either a ground rule double or in play. In either case the result is the same; arod at 2d, texeira at 3d.

3) There was not spectator interference, but rather, photographer interference under rule 3.15, which made it a live ball under the rules, and on the field of play.

Consequently, there was no jurisdiction for an instant reply. Rather, the umpires AGGREGATED and SEIZED inappropriately the jurisdiction for home run instant replay because they forgot their own rule book and the rules of baseball.

They got the call all wrong.

It’s an insult to our collective intelligence and our common sense to say that a ball that fell short of the wall, and never went over the wall, is a “fair ball” that “went over the fence in flight” or that after instant replay, was shown to have struct an object “beyond the fence” in flight. None of these things occured on arod’s hit.

And messed up a 25 year old kids’ no hitter in the processs.

Did they purposefully do it?

Did the NY Offices of baseball reverse the call to obstruct the Phillies from repeating?

I don’t know—go ask the Atlanta Braves. No one in Bud Selig’s office was happy when they went up 2-0 on the Yankees in 1996 either.

The Commissioner’s office basically wants LA or NY to win the series because that’s good for TV ratings.

They like to ignore Philly and Atlanta even though we’re much more rabid about baseball than New Yorkers, most of whom are too poor to afford to go to a game, whereas in Philly or Atlanta, it’s mostly the middle class who attend.

And if we have to cheat and violate the rules to make the Yankees winners, what the hay?

Just remember Curt Simmons’ draft notice, and Bud Selig’s ridiculous rain delay call in last year’s Game Five in Philly.

Definitely be sure there’s bias against the Phillies in NYC.

And of course, let’s not forget they used a single New York Lawyer as the judging panel for instant replay of a World Series play involving….

The New York Yankees.

Like that’s really fair.

This is the Second World Series in a row where Bud Selig has personally messed around with our ace, Cole Hamels, in a World Series game.

First was Game Five in World Series 2008, in which Cole Hamels was shutting the door down on Tampa Bay. Selig allowed the game to proceed in the rain, then let Tampa Bay score a cheap run in rain soaked conditions against Hamels, a cheap run in conditions not fit to play in, and then Selig announced the game would be suspended—a first in Series history—which infuriated not only the Phillies, but Hamels, who had pitched well enough to win. Last year the story line was supposed to be tampa bay to win, cindarella, last place to world champions. New york didn’t want philly winning.

Conspiracy theorists, you are right if you think Selig hates Hamels.

And now this year, Selig sends Davis and an experienced umpiring crew out, and they set up illegal ground rules, and use the first chance they get, to award a two run instant replay home run—an existential, instantiated home run—an abstraction if you will, because nothing ever left the park or ever went over the fence in flight—for the sole purpose of screwing up Cole Hamels’ game in game 3, the pivotal game of the 2009 world series.

I need not point out how furious Hamels must have been with all this BS; for the second year in a row, he’s been messed with, not by the opposing lineup, but by lawyers and umpires and the commissioners’ office. They just won’t let him do his job.

I understand why he might have hung a few curves the next inning to Swisher and Damon.

What I don’t understand is why the Phillies don’t aggressively move

1) for Bud Selig’s immediate ouster as Commissioner of Baseball; and
2) an immediate amendment of the baseball instant replay rule requiring that the review of plays always be done in a neutral city by an impartial panel of three arbitrators, not lawyers, with one chosen by each team and the third chosen by the other two.
3) And the umpiring crew and ground rules be reviewed two weeks in advance of the World Series by the front office of each team, and by the teams attorneys, to be sure there are no conflicts with the Rules of Baseball.

Even my 80 year old mother in law, who just had eye surgery, who watched the game last night, and used to be a Brooklyn Dodger fan from Brooklyn, saw the play last night and she knew that the A-Rod hit wasn’t a home run.

“it didn’t go out of the park” she said. “how could it be a home run?”

Exactly. To be a home run, under rule 7.05(a), and in the common sense of every fan, a home run must go over the fence in flight.

And to be a home run for instant replay purposes, it has to go over the fence in flight and THEN hit some object.

Not hit some object which inteferes with the ball from going over the fence in flight. That’s a ground rule double or a ball live in play, as we have seen from our discussion, at length, of the rules.

The difference last night was two runs.

But the difference, from our perspective, is the lawlessness of the Bud Selig regime.

A regime which bars Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame, but tolerates steroid use by the likes of A-Rod and David Ortiz, and turns a blind eye to the income inequalities between teams like the Yankees and the Twins that keep baseball from truly being competitive.

A regime which makes arbitrary and capricious decisions each and every year about rain delays, rain suspensions, instant replay home runs in the World Series, and which plays games of law and fate which affect a man’s life and career in the case of Cole Hamels, who is a truly great pitcher along the lines of a Steve Carlton.

In fact, if you study Hamels stats, you will see that his 2009 is to his 2008, as Carlton’s 1973 was to Carlton’s Cy Young 1972.

I expect Cole Hamels to have a very bright future.

And he will not take much more of this abuse from Bud Selig and his cronies.

And neither should we philly fans.

And New York Yankee fans, you are cheating to win.

And to think I actually shed tears for you guys on 9/11.

And by the way, your NY Giants got rolled by the Eagles. At least the NFL runs a fair league. Thank you Pete Rozelle Paul Tagliabue and your successors.

Guess those memories of Joe Namath are starting to fade, eh?

–art kyriazis, philly
home of the world champion phillies, 2008 world champions
2008, 2009 National League pennant champs

“Where am I?”
“In the Village.”
“What do you want?”
“Whose side are you on?”
“That would be telling. We want Information. Information. Information.”
“You won’t get it.”
“By hook or by crook, we will.”
“Who are you?”
“The new Number #2.”
“Who is Number #1?”
“You are Number #6.”
[stranger laughs diabolically at his assertion of freedom].

THE PRISONER (1967) STARRING PATRICK MCGOOHAN (SOON TO BE SHOWN AS A REMAKE ON CABLE TV) – This is truly one of the legendary TV shows of all time, and an inspired choice for a remake. The originals are now out on Comcast on demand and available to be seen for the first time in quite a while. They are in color and in excellent, really superb quality, considering they were filmed more than forty years ago and have been in the vaults a long time. The Prisoner was a cult hit in both Britain, and later in the US, where it was shown on PBS sometime after it was shown in Britain. Along with Monty Python and Sesame Street, it was one of PBS’ biggest hits of the late 60s/early 70s.

Every episode of the Prisoner started the same.

McGoohan, who is a british spy, obviously working for British Intelligence, has an angry argument with his superior, then bangs the table and throws his resignation letter on the desk.

Then cut to McGoohan’s apartment, where we see him packing. Meanwhile, next cut to a strange looking man in a top hat who approaches the apartment door from the outside. Cut to inside view and gas starts pouring visibly inside McGoohan’s flat, overcoming him.

He wakes up in a strange bed in a strange place. He does not know where he is. He looks out the window and sees a strange town. Then cut to a strange place, a strange person seated in a throne like chair in a round room. McGoohan is being interrogated by the Stranger.

McGoohan: “Where am I?”
Stranger: “In the Village.”
McGoohan: “What do you want?”
Stranger: “Information.”
McGoohan: “Whose side are you on?”
Stranger: “That would be telling. We want Information. Information. Information.”
McGoohan: “You won’t get it.”
Stranger: “By hook or by crook, we will.”
McGoohan: “Who are you?”
Stranger: “The new Number #2.”
McGoohan: “Who is Number #1?”
Stranger: “You are Number #6.”
McGoohan: “I am not a Number, I am a Free Man!!!”
Stranger: [laughs diabolically].

So many aspects of the show are classic—the bubble chasing down anyone trying to escape, the taxi which goes nowhere (local service only), the oblique references to a “New World Order”, the bicycle logo with its subtextual semiotic references to Orwellian dystopias, the constant references to the battles between McGoohan and science, McGoohan and psychology, McGoohan and being watched all the time, and the hilarious fact that every week, McGoohan defeats #2 and a new #2 has to brought in to break him down because McGoohan has broken down the previous #2. No one has money in the Village, only “work units,” and there appears to be a sort of communitarian utopia. There is a democratic council, but there are no actual rights. In one episode, McGoohan runs for election, but he quickly finds out he is not actually allowed to say or do anything that would upset the status quo. “your local council” is just a hollow slogan, a catch phrase for a democracy that doesn’t exist at all.

The key concepts of the show are freedom, human aspiration, knowledge, escape, dignity, free will and liberty. Everyone in the village has all their material needs met, but they must sacrifice all of their liberty, including their own individual identities, their memories and their minds, in order to obtain it.

In short, this show presents a working picture of what a communist or fascist society must really be like, in which everyone enjoys health care, work, food, leisure and a decent living quarters, but absolutely no freedoms whatsoever to think or exist except as dictated by the state. Presented hour after hour, episode after episode, the Prisoner is an unqualified call to freedom everywhere.

In our own times, many movies and series have been inspired in whole or in part by the Prisoner. The X-Files, certainly, draws some inspiration from the Prisoner. The Jim Carrey movie “The Truman Show” draws heavily on the Prisoner for its set designs and concept of an observed, controlled village, and for the notion that a person is subject to psychological control by an unseen central force.

Finally, we have the current phenomenon, worldwide, of people being arrested and detained without due process of law, in places unknown, for periods of time, and being interrogated in all sorts of ways for what they know. Every side politically does this, including our side with Guantanamo Bay and all our allies who assist in the war on terror. Of course, at the time of the Prisoner, it was understood that Russia and the US were both doing this as part of the Cold War—and yet both the James Bond series of movies, as well as Get Smart, the Prisoner, the Man from Uncle, and numerous other fictional spy shows continued to assert the existence of a third, “shadow” force, as powerful as the US or Russia, which also employed spies, torture methods, interrogation methods, and bargained or double-dealt using agents who had defected from one or both sides—under such acronyms as KAOS, SPECTRE, and so forth. Even the recent series of Mission Impossible films remade with Tom Cruise as their star clearly posit a so-called “third party” of international force. This premise was cleverly lampooned in the Austin Powers-Man of Mystery series of spy-lampoon movies, where the third power was led by a man called “Dr. Evil”, who was laughably played by the same actor playing Austin Powers, in perhaps the most brilliant series of spy spoofs ever committed to film.

Without commenting on the right or wrong of it, imagine if you will the situation of a man seized and placed in a “village” one day, deprived of his freedom and dignity, and forced to give up not only his secrets and knowledge, but also his identity, his selfhood and everything that makes him a man. Every dystopian novel or non-fiction work ever written—Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, Player Piano, the Gulag Archipelago, The Road to Serfdom, the Open Society and Its Enemies, Atlas Shrugged—posits precisely this sort of situation coming to pass in our own day.

Perhaps no two writers were more articulate about this phenomenon than Arthur Koestler and George Orwell, who wrote frequently, passionately and articulately about the dangers and evils of communism, socialism and false utopias. Koestler’s Darkness at Noon is the dystopian novel which most clearly reflects, and inspires, the series “the Prisoner,” in that it is directly a synopsis of the main character’s experience of what must have been the experience of Stalin’s purge and show trials of the late 1930s—first capture, then interrogation, then brainwashing, then being made to confess one’s sins in public, and finally, the inevitable lengthy prison sentence in Siberia or, perhaps more mercifully, death. The forturnate few were “rehabilitated” if they could be made to “understand” Stalinist communism and completely confess and revoke their sins, and be made to be a number, and not a free man.

The Prisoner is a powerful reminder of why liberty is the most important right we have.

Art Kyriazis, November 1, 2009
Philadelphia, PA
Eagles Pounding Giants as we speak

the 2003 texas rangers, with mark teixeira and alex rodriquez, won 71 and lost 91, and finished last in the al west.

the rangers then got a salary demand from AROD and decided to unload him on the yanks for alfonso soriano and build around Teixeira.
the next year, the rangers went up 20 games and were in first place most of the year. you have to remember Buck Showalter was manager, a hardass, and he thought arod was lazy.

of course, since arod went to ny, they blew the 3-0 lead to boston in 2004 (arod batted .258), have lost all those series since, he’s been photographed with strippers and ladies of the night in toronto and elsewhere, he’s been CAROUSING with madonna, born in 1958 (older than me), CAVORTING with kate hudson, who was married to a wild rock star (cooties galore in her privies) and of course, he was taking steroids.

plus, he’s now 35 and on the downside of an illustrious career. 7 years ago he was hiting 57 homers a year. now it’s down to 30 or so. He’s still good, but he’s declined with age. It’s obvious he can’t hit the high fastball or the low one the way Teixeira or Matsui can. AROD collects all his hits off bad pitchers. plus he’s ugly.

why did the yanks get good this year? one word: Teixeira. He’s the man. the phils almost drafted him in 1999, but they had scott rolen at 3b, so Texas drafted him instead. T-man was a 3d baseman in college.

can you imagine if the phils had Teixeira now at 3b with Rollins, Utley and Howard?????

the “mighty” yanks have feet of clay. they have three starters and a lousy bullpen.

derek jeter is 40. but has heart and will to win.
jorge posada is 40. but has heart and will to win.
mariano rivera is 40. but has heart and will to win.
andy petitte is 39. but has heart and will to win.
alex rodriguez is 35. no heart, clubhouse cancer. losing mentality. net minus on any ballclub.
melky cabrera is all field no hit.
hideki matsui is 35 but he can still play.
nick swisher is a legit young player.
mark teixeira is a great player with heart.

cc sabathia is great, but he has a psych prob with phils dating back to last year with milwaukee. he’s 0-2 with 3 homers in 11 innings in 2 playoff games. he averages .7 hrs given up a game. but in playoff games v. phils, that number is 4 homers per 9 innings. methinks he chokes in phils games. phils are 2-0 v sabathia in post season play. sabathia has never beaten the phils in a post season game.

aj burnett is great. he was great with the marlins. always had filthy nasty stuff.

johnny damon is nearly 40. he’s done. nothing left. he looks lost as a lamb out there. can’t even field. the guy’s whole game was built on speed. it’s all gone now. bat speed and foot speed.

meanwhile, all of the phillies are around 30 and at their peak, end of discussion. Pedro is the oldest guy, and he’s only 38 and still has a live arm, as you can plainly see.

cole hamels is 25. cliff lee is 31. ryan howard is 29. chase utley is 30. rollins is 31. only ibanez is old at 37, but he was the starting lf for the all start team.

phils lineup:

rollins – nl mvp 2008, gold glove 32
victorino – nl allstar 2009, gold glove 25
utley – nl allstar multiple years, silver slugger multiple years, gold glove 30
howard – nl mvp 2007, nl all star multiple years, silver slugger, home run derby champion 29
werth – nl all star 2009 30
ibanez – starting lf nl all star 2009 37
feliz – gold glove quality defense 34
ruiz – gold glove quality defense, can hit some 30

our lineup is younger and more powerful than the yanks.

and our pitchers are younger and better than the yanks.

also they have arod. no team with arod has ever won anything.

i’ve looked at the yanks pitching stats, and i’m mystified at who their #4 starter will be, because they don’t have one. joba chamberlain’s numbers are horrible and so are everyone else’s, but cc sabathia can’t work on 3 days, plus the phils have a hoodoo on him of some kind dating back to the milwaukee series last year.

the phils by contrast are throwing cole hamels, last years 1 starter, as their 3 starter this year, and joe blanton, who used to be the a’s 1 starter, as their 4 starter, and they still have ja happ, the nl rookie of the year, their 5 starter, available to come in and bail anyone out who can’t get out of the 3d inning.

the phils look a lot deeper in the bullpen and starting rotation to me. plus pedro looked pretty good to me last night. burnett was filthy and nasty but pedro only made two mistakes.

at this point i will note that it’s Teixeira, not ARod, that’s the money player. last year Teixeira was with the Sox, and the Sox went to seven games with the Rays. the yanks were eviscerated.

this year, teixeiras with the yanks, and the yanks get to the series. coincidence, I think not. let’s examine history.

in 2003, the Texas Rangers had ARod and Teixeira. they won 71 and lost 91. they finished last, dead last, in the al west.

and that team had rafael palmeiro and some other big boppers on it too.

in feb 2004 they traded arod to ny for soriano to build around Teixeira.

the next year, 2004, texas rangers, the awful texas rangers, who everyone thought stunk, well, they improved by 20 games. remember, buck showalter was a hard ass who thought arod was a playboy who was ruining the clubhouse.

guess what, he was right.

the rangers almost won the al west without arod and led by teixeira, who had a monster year. because texeira is about baseball, not partying or steroids.

arod meanwhile reversed the curse for the sox, blowing the 3-0 lead (and batting only .258 in the alcs in 2004) (see fever pitch) and led the yankees to five years of division and alcs losses. you might as well tatoo “loser” on arod’s arm or something.

also a divorce, pictures with strippers and hookers, an affair with madonna, born in 1958, an affair with kate hudson, who was married to a filthy drug addicted rock star from the black crowes (so shes a skank too) and he’s outed as a steroids user.

plus he’s 35 and on the downside of his career. he’s hitting 30 homers, but remember, this is a guy who used to hit 47, 57, 59 a year in texas when he was younger. he’s in age-related decline, and he can’t hit the fastball anymore like he used to. he hits bad pitchers only now. he looked awful against lee and worse against pedro martinez the last two night, legit aces both.

plus he’s ugly.

it’s teixeira who’s the ballplayer–and when the yanks needed someone to step up–he did. that was as clutch a homer as you’ll ever see a guy hit. and matsui’s was even better, on an unhittable pitch.

but i like the phils to sweep at home and close these yanks out.

by the way the phils almost drafted teixeira in 1999–he was a college 3d basemen–but they had scott rolen at the time and took a pass so texas had him.

can you imagine if we had an infield with teixeira at 3b, with rollins utley and howard?

the yanks won one legit last night. matsui hit an unhittable pitch, so did texeira, plus burnett was filthy and nasty. the yanks still pedro’s daddy. but the phils were playing with house money since they won game one. they have cole hamels, last year’s #1, pitching third in the rotation, and the yanks have 39 year old andy pettitte, which is not great for them. and they have no #4 starter. we have joe blanton and rookie of the year ja happ.
the phils will sweep at home.

bank it. jro had it right.

also the birds beat the giants sunday to make it a clean sweep of new yawk.

art kyriazis philly home of the world champion phillies
nl pennant winners 2008
nl pennant winners 2009
2-0 vs cc sabathia in post season play
world series champions 2008
3-0 at citizens bank park in world series play


September 30, 2009

here are AI’s immortal words from his twitter site:

God Chose Memphis as the place that I will continue my career. I met with Mr. Heinsley, Chris Wallace and my next head coach Lionel Hollins

9:06 AM Sep 9th from web

you have to still love AI. based on his twitter site, he’s still the same guy with a heart of a champion he’s always been, even as he closes in on 35 years old and counting, along with 25,000 NBA points scored.

Incidentally, Lionel Hollins once played with the Sixers, although he also beat the Sixers as a Portland Trailblazer in 1976-77 with Bill Walton.

It’s a shame about the Sixers, who let very valuable point guard Andre Miller go in the offseason; Miller led the team in win shares last year with 7 1/2 according to basketball, along with Andre Iguodala’; the Sixers did not make an effort to sign Iverson as the replacement point guard.

AI signed with the Grizzlies of Memphis for much less money than Miller wanted, and he certainly would have been willing to play with Philly again.

Also, AI at point combined with Elton Brand at power forward and Andre Iguodala at 2 guard or 4 at the shooting forward, would have been potent in either the half court or the running game. It certainly would have helped the sixers’ three point offense and perimeter offense since at least two guys would have had to watch iverson at the perimeter. It would have given the Sixers three scorers.

instead, the sixers think lou williams, one of the statistically worst guards in the nba the last two years (can’t shoot, can’t pass) can play point guard full time in this league.

well, he can’t. and the offense will suffer for it.

no matter how good the rest of the team is, without a point guard, they won’t be able to score.

it may take 10, 20, 30 games, but the sixers will need to trade for an experienced point guard at some point this season.

it’s a shame that guy wasn’t AI. the Sixers could have had him here and he could have finished out his career here.

–art kyriazis, philly
home of the world champion phillies
NL East Champions 2007-2009

copyright arthur j kyriazis 2009 no use or other reprint without the express written permission of arthur j kyriazis.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from watching Movies like Ocean’s Eleven or TV shows like Leverage, if you want to pull the long con, you have to make sure that nothing is what it seems, or else you can’t pull off a long con when everyone in the world is watching and the cameras are running. But that is just what Iran, Ahmadinajed and the Ayatollahs of Iran have been doing for the last six and half years—in plain view of everyone—pulling the longest con in the history of international politics. And when they get nukes sometime next year, they’re going to make Danny Ocean and his ten buddies seem like a small-timers and small potatoes.

Right now, the ayatollahs of Iran are in the midst of one of the longest long cons in the history of international politics. Their short marks are the Iranian people, the middle-term marks the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and their long-term marks are Israel and the United States and the rest of the world.

Throwing missiles around and setting up secret nuclear enrichment plants has been one element of Iran’s long con. The fact is that they’ve been working on getting nuclear weapons, on and off, since 1979, and working on it in earnest since 2001, and in particular since 2003. Anything they’ve said and done to the contrary has all been part of the long con on the international community. Like the proverbial Cretan liar, everything they say and do is a lie. They are incapable of telling a truth.

Everyone is so focused on the fact that the 2009 election is crooked, that they’ve overlooked the fact that the 2005 election in which Ahmadinajed came to power originally, was completely and totally crooked, and was hijacked in a much worse fashion, than the 2009 election. And further overlooked the fact that Ahmadinajed was hand-picked in 2003 by the Ayatollah Khameini to be the radical right wing candidate of change in the 2005 elections, for the specific and long-term goals of Iranian intervention in Iraq, the building up of Iranian nuclear armaments, and the destabilization of U.S. efforts at building up middle eastern democracy in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Palestine and in the Middle East region.

Ahmadinajed’s history is that of working actively to secure the 52 U.S. hostages in 1979-81; interrogate them; working in Iranian covert intelligence, interrogation and torture from 1979-2003, and being a fanatical devotee of both the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Ayatollah Khameini.

Ahmadinajed is a vicious anti-Semite who denies the existence of the Holocaust and preaches the destruction of Israel by any means necessary, including the use of nuclear weapons and missiles. He co-mingles this message with one of the return of the 13th imam or Mahdi, a key element of millenarian shi’ite prophecy which predicts the return of the true caliph in occultation who is the rightful descendant of Ali, the rightful caliph and rightful heir to the prophet Muhammed. Upon the destruction of Israel, this event will occur, according to Ahmadinajed.

The Iranian leadership, and Ahmadinajed in particular, believe strongly that bombing Israel and other targets with nuclear weapons will hasten the arrival of the 13th imam or Mahdi, and bring about the arrival of the “millennium” and the fulfillment of shi’ite holy prophecies. Upon the destruction of Israel, this event will occur, according to Ahmadinajed

This is not a generally accepted view in twelver-shi’ism, but nonetheless, it is the view he takes.

Getting back to the long con, here’s how the long con is going down, according to multiple primary and secondary sources;

The Iranians regime in the 1990s was drifting towards a bit of moderation. Towards the end of the 1990s, there was a bit of a diplomatic opening under Secretary of State Albright and the Clinton Administration; the Iranians hosted the United States International Wrestling Team (including some professional acquaintances of mine, the Olympic Gold Medalist Kevin Jackson & Olympic Wrestler John Giura, who went on that trip), and there was a substantial thawing of relations between the two countries.

Had Al Gore been seated as U.S. President, and the Albright State Department continued in office, eventually relations between the two countries might have been normalized, and the radical elements in Iran may or may not have emerged as they did in 2003.

Instead, we all know what happened. Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election, but the U.S. supreme court intervened to give George W. Bush, the victory in the U.S. Presidential election, on a 5-4 decision in the case of Bush v. Gore. They did so by suspending the recount in the Florida popular vote count and declaring the Florida electoral vote tally turned in by Gov. Jeb Bush’s alleged mistress, who was running the electoral board, final. George W. Bush appeared to be a fraudulent winner, since he probably didn’t win Florida’ popular vote, probably didn’t win Florida’s electoral vote, probably didn’t win the electoral college, and definitely didn’t win the popular vote.

The ayatollahs in Iran sat up and took notice of this. They realized after watching President Bush take office in this officious way, that they, too, could steal elections in their country, and that the United States would say nothing about it, because, after all, President Bush had stolen the election as well. What could he say about stealing an election, after all?

So the hardliners in Iran, who have wanted control of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the destruction of Israel (where they have been funding Hamas and Hezbollah since the late 1970s, and helped destroy Lebanon as well as destabilize Palestine) decided on a plan to abandon their moderation and take a hardline approach with the usurper of the American Presidency and test him as no one had been tested before in American history.

So first of all, Iran along with bin Laden, hit hard at the U.S. on 9/11/2001. We all remember that. They decided to test the usurper, Bush II.

The response by the Bush II Administration was decidedly peculiar. Instead of seeking multilateral assistance, the Bush II Administration ventured forth into Afghanistan and then Iraq more or less singlehandedly with some allies, instead of as part of a generalized U.N. police force action as his father had done with the Kuwaiti liberation action.

To his credit, Bush II at least stood up to this infamy and hit back hard, and with everything the U.S. had. He certainly didn’t knuckle under. And he crafted a careful and thorough anti-terrorist policy almost immediately. But as Richard Clarke and others on the 9/11 Commission have documented, the Bush II Administration came to these positions only after 9/11 occurred.

Without determining the merits or demerits of the Bush II war interventions, suffice it to say that the Iranian leadership saw the American war intervention in Iraq as an opportunity.

First, in 2003, the Americans came to Iran and negotiated with them a stand still agreement for Iran to stay out of Iraq. But in exchange for this, Iran asked for, and obtained, the United States’ agreement for the US to bomb, and eradicate, all of the based of the MEK, stationed outside the border of Iran, in Iraq.

The MEK, up until 2003, was the primary opposition group in exile fighting the Iranian Revolution. In the event of a popular uprising, they would be able to come to Iran and assume power. They had bases just outside of Iran in order to invade the country and help a popular revolution if one occurred. Until 2003, the MEK were supported by Saddam Hussein and by the United States.

In 2003, the US betrayed the MEK and sold them down the river along with betraying Saddam Hussein, in exchange for a nonsensical deal with the Iranian Ayatollahs to stay out of Iraq, which the Ayatollahs have never honored. The MEK was bombed, all their camps bombed and eradicated by the United States, and the Iranian Ayatollahs had a major thorn in their sides removed by the United States.

The biggest fear of the Iranian Ayatollahs is a popular uprising followed by an armed intervention. With the MEK gone, there is no danger of an armed intervention. Moreover, what no one realizes is that the United States has AGREED that there will be no armed interventions in Iran as a quid pro quo to its occupation of Iraq as part of the 2003 agreement. In essence, the United States has abrograted its protection of the rights of 80 million Iranian citizens for very little in return.

And yet the Iranian Ayatollahs did not deliver on their promises. They did stay out of Iraq in the sense of not formally invading, but they stepped up their campaign of terrorist bombing, of terrorist infiltration, and of terrorist everything. Since 2003, the number of US soldiers and Iraqi citizens killed by terrorists and other organized NGOs sponsored by Iran has skyrocketed, and there is no peace in the land of Iraq.

It was then, in 2003, that Iran and its Ayatollahs foresaw their opportunity for the longest con of all—installing a President with a worldview like their own at the head of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The man they groomed for the job was none other than Mahmoud Ahmadinajed.

Starting in 2003, they laid the groundwork for stealing the 2005 elections from the people of Iran. Plans were made for stuffing ballots, for miscounting election results, and in general, for defrauding the people of Iran of their right to vote for President.

The inspiration for the Ayatollahs was all too clear. They all had watched CNN for two months in the fall and winter of 2000. They saw George W. Bush steal the American election. They properly reasoned that if he could it, so could they.

Moreover, they further reasoned, if Bush was in power, he had no legitimacy to complain if they, Iran, stole an election, since he, Bush, was in power due to a stolen election. It would be a joke if he complained.

And in this, they would be proven completely correct. The groundwork for their long con was laid down.

So what happened in the 2005 elections? A gigantic fraud was perpetrated on the Iranian electorate. The favored two candidates won with 21% and 19% of the vote, and Ahmadinajed was third. Only the first two were supposed to get into the runoff.

But a week later, the Ayatollahs declared that Ahmadinajed was actually second, and knocked the second place guy off the run-off ballot their boy Ahmadinajed on.

Then, in the run-off, in 2005, the Ayatollahs came up with a vote count of Ahmadinajed 66%, and the other guy 33%, even though all polls showed Ahmadinajed couldn’t possible be getting more than 33% of the vote. It was exactly the same garbage that the Ayatollahs pulled this past year, in 2009.

But what could the Bush II Administration do? They couldn’t protest. After all, they themselves had been elected under a cloud and under fraudulent pretenses, the most fraudulent, contested and controversial United States election in American History since the Samuel Tilden-Rutherford B. Hayes election of 1876 (which resulted in the end of Reconstruction, by the way, in exchange for the Presidency). Even the 2004 election had some questions. So they couldn’t very well question the Iranian election. Moreover, they had made DEALS with this Iranian Government regarding non-incursions into Iraq as of 2003 (see discussion, supra).

So they said nothing.

That brings us slowly, inexorably, to the present serious situation, which has been bubbling slowly below the surface for a long, long time.

The Iranian people who protested their government in the streets this past spring were nothing short of heroes, like the Hungarian people of 1956 and the Czech people of 1968. The United States Government should have extended a lifeline to help overthrow their government when it was weak and subject to pressure by its people, but President Obama stood still and did nothing, much as President Bush I stood still and did nothing during Tianamen Square twenty years ago.

This was reprehensible.

These people deserved freedom.

Now the show trials have begun, the repressions, the tortures, the killings, the executions and the inevitable purges. The Iranian hardliners fear only one thing—internal revolution. It happened, and the U.S. did nothing to help it along. Now the Ayatollahs know we will do nothing to help such a revolution along, they fear such an insurrection even less.

No wonder they are developing nuclear weapons. No wonder they are firing medium range intercontinental ballistic missiles. No wonder they send President Ahmadinajed to the U.N. where he denies the Holocaust, denounces Israel and makes a mockery of the very concept of the United Nations on U.S. soil. They do not fear the United States at all.

Soon the long con will come to a close and nuclear weapons will be fired from Iran and World War III will begin.

Only Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a very modest man who grew up part of his life in suburban Philadelphia, seems ready, willing and able to take the right actions. He seems willing to take a pre-emptory military strike against Iran to take out their nuclear capacity, much as Israel did with Iraq back in 1981.

This is the proper and correct action. All this multilateralism the United States is going through is too little too late. The bottom line is the U.S. needs to take military action against Iran to take out the Weapons of Mass Destruction.

This isn’t like Iraq—we know Iran has WMDs this time. We have rights under the UN Charter, under Article 51, to take a pre-emptory military strike.

It would be defensive war and it would be justified both on international law grounds and because Iran has violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Administration’s response to this new Hitler of the sands will define it for all history.

–art kyriazis, philly
copyright arthur j kyriazis 2009 no use or other reprint without the express written permission of arthur j kyriazis.
home of the World Champion Phillies
NL East Division Champions 2007-2009


1) Books – Primary Sources

Madeline Albright. With Bill Woodward. 2003. Madame Secretary: A Memoir. (Miramax Books/Hyperion, New York, NY).

Hamid Algar, translator & annotator. 1981. Islam and Revolution—Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini. (Mizan Press, Berkeley, CA)..

Benazhir Bhutto. 2008. Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West. (HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY).

Lord Curzon. 1892. Persia and the Persian Question. (London, U.K.).[needs additional citation materials]

Richard N. Frye, translator & commentator. 2005. Ibn Fadlān’s Journey to Russia: a Tenth Century Traveler From Baghdad to the Volga River. (Markus Wiener Publishers, Princeton, NJ).

Richard N. Frye. 2005. Greater Iran: a Twentieth-Century Odyssey. (Mazda Publishers, Inc., Costa Mesa, CA).

Sir Robert Graves. 1933. Storm Centres of the Near East: Personal Memories 1879-1929. (Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., Publishers, London, U.K.).

Fred A. Reed. 1999. Anatolia Junction: A Journey into Hidden Turkey. (Talonbooks, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada).

Robert Satloff. 2006. Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust’s Long Reach into Arab Lands. (Public Affairs, New York, N.Y.).

William Shakespeare. 1596. Henry IV.

2) Scholarly Articles in Books Edited by Others

Abbas Amanat & Frank Griffel, eds. 2007. Shari’a: Islamic Law in the Contemporary Context. (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).

Roberto J. Gonzalez, ed. 2004. Anthropologists in the Public Sphere: Speaking Out on War, Peace and American Power. (University of Texas Press, Austin, TX).

Nikki R. Keddie, ed. 1972. Scholars, Saints and Sufis: Muslim Religious Institutions in the Middle East Since 1500. (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA). See especially Gustav Theiss, “Religious Symbolism and Social Change: The Drama of Husain.” Chapter 14, at pp. 349-366; and references cited therein; see also Hamid Algar, “The Oppositional Role of the Ulama in Twentieth Century Iran.” Chapter 9, at pp. 231-255 and references cited therein. This entire volume is recommended.

M.A. Muqtedar Khan, ed.. 2007. Debating Moderate Islam: The Geopolitics of Islam and the West. (University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT).

Charles Kurzman, ed. 1998. Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook. (Oxford University Press, New York, NY).

Charles G. MacDonald & Carole A. O’Leary, eds. 2007. Kurdish Identity: Human Rights and Political Status. (University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL).

Hafeez Malik., ed. 1987. Soviet American Relations with Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan (St. Martin’s Press, New York, NY).

Muhammed Khalid Masud, Brinkley Messick & David S. Powers. Eds. 1996. Islamic Legal Interpretation: Muftis and Their Fatwas. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).

David C. McClelland. “National Character and Economic Growth in Turkey and Iran.” In Lucian W. Pye, ed. 1963. Communications and Political Development. (Princeton University Press, 1963). at pp. 152-181.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Hamid Dabashi & Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr, eds. (introduction and annotation). 1989. Expectation of the Millenium: Shi’ism in History. (SUNY Press, Albany, NY).

Ja’far Subhānī. 2001. Doctrines of Shi’i Islam: a Compendium of Imami Beliefs and Practices. (I.B. Tauris, London, U.K.) (translated & edited by Reza Shah-Kazemi) (in ass’n with the Institute of Ismaili Studies).

3) Books – Secondary Sources

G.F. Abbott. 1916. Turkey, Greece and the Great Powers: A Study in Friendship and Hate, With Maps. (Robert Scott Roxburghe House, Paternoster Row, E.C., London, U.K.).

Sharough Akhavi. 1980. Religion and Politics in Contemporary Iran: Clergy-State Relations in the Pahlavi Period. (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY).

Hamid Algar. 1973. Mirza Malkhum Khan. [double check this cite might be Alezar]. (Berkeley, 1973).

Hamid Algar. 1968. Religion and State in Iran 1785-1905: The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period. (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).

Touraj Atabaki, ed. 2007. The State and the Subaltern: Modernization, Society and the State in Turkey and Iran. (I.B. Tauris, London, U.K.).

Shaul Bakhash. 1984. The Reign of the Ayatollahs. (Basic Books, New York, NY).

Mangol Bayat. 1999. Anti-Sufism in Qajar Iran. [needs more citation]

Mangol Bayat. 1991. Iran’s First Revolution: Shi’ism and the Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1909. (Oxford University Press, New York, NY).

Mangol Bayat. 1982. Mysticism and Dissent: Socioreligious Thought in Qajar Iran. (Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY).

Mangol Bayat-Philipp. 1976. Shi’ism in Contemporary Iranian Politics: The Case of [Dr.] Ali Shari’ati. (Unpublished manuscript circulated to graduate seminars and Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University).

William O. Beeman. 1986. Language, Status and Power in Iran. (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN).

Niyazi Berkes. 1964. The Development of Secularism in Turkey. (McGill University Press, Montreal, Canada)

Leonard Binder. 1962. Iran: Political Development in a Changing Society. (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).

G.W. Choudhury. 1969. Constitutional Development in Pakistan. (Harlow Longmans). (2d ed. revised & expanded). See especially pp. 58-65; pp. 108-115; and pp. 212-223.

Richard W. Cottam. 1988. Iran and the United States: A Cold War Case Study. (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA).

Richard W. Cottam. 1978. Nationalism in Iran. (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA) (updated edition)

Mamoun Fandy. 2007. Uncivil War of Words: Media and Politics in the Arab World. (Praeger Security International, Westport, CT, U.S. & London, U.K.).

M.R. Ghanoonparvar. 1993. In a Persian Mirror: Images of the West and Westerners in Iranian Fiction. (University of Texas Press, Austin, TX).

Gusfield, Joseph R.. (__________). Protest, Reform, and Revolt (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY).

Heinz Halm. 1999, 1997, 1994. Shi’a Islam: From Religion to Revolution. (Markus Wiener Publishers, Princeton, NJ, 2d printing). (translated from the German by Allison Brown).

Samuel P. Huntington. 1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. (Simon & Schuster, New York, NY).

Mohammad Hashim Kamali. 1991. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. (Islamic Texts Society, Cambridge, U.K.).

Meir Litvak. 1998. Shi’i Scholars of Nineteenth Century Iraq: The “ulama” of Najaf and Karbala. (Cambridge University Press, Cabridge, U.K.) (Cambridge Middle East Studies #10).

Heath W. Lowry. 2003. The Nature of the Early Ottoman State. (State University of New York Press, Albany, N.Y.). (SUNY Series in the Social and Economic History of the Middle East, Donald Quataert, ed.).

Asa Lundgren. 2007. The Unwelcome Neighbor: Turkey’s Kurdish Policy. (Tauris, London, U.K. & New York, N.Y.).

Loren Lybarger. 2007. Identity and Religion in Palestine: The Struggle between Islamism and Secularism in the Occupied Territories. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).

A.L. Macfie. 1989. The Eastern Question 1774-1923. (Longman Group U.K. Ltd., Longman, Inc., New York, N.Y.).

A.L. Macfie. 1998. The End of the Ottoman Empire 1908-1923. (Addison Wesley Longman Ltd., New York, N.Y.).

William Miller. 1966. (3d ed. 1927, 2d ed.1923, 1st ed.1913). The Ottoman Empire and its Successors 1801-1927: Being a revised and enlarged edition of The Ottoman Empire 1801-1913. (Frank Cass & Co., Ltd. By arrangement with Cambridge University Press. Thomas Nelson Printers, Ltd., London & Edinburgh, U. K.) (New Impression edition).

Andrew J. Newman. 2006. Safavid Iran: Rebirth of an Empire. (Taurus, London, U.K.).

Ilan Pappe. 2006. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. (Oneworld Press, Oxford, United Kingdom).

Trita Parsi. 2007. Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States. (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).

Rouhollah K. Ramazani. 1966. The Foreign Policy of Iran: 1500-1941. 1966. [additional citation materials needed].

Hussein Tahiri. 2007. The Structure of Kurdish Society and the Struggle for a Kurdish State. 2007. (Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA.).

Wilkinson, Paul. Social Movement (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971).

Robin Wright. 1989. In the Name of God: The Khomeini Decade. (Simon & Schuster, New York, NY).

Robin Wright. 1985. Sacred Rage: The Wrath of Militant Islam. (Simon & Schuster, New York, NY).

Secret Warriors Inside the Covert Military Operations of the Reagan Era.

4) Scholarly Articles in Academic Journals

A.H.H. Abidi. “The Iranian Revolution: Its Origins and Dimensions.” (April-June 1979) International Studies. (Volume 18, Number. 2). 18:129 161.

Ismail Ajami. “Differential Fertility in Peasant Communities: A Study of Six Iranian Villages.” (November 1976). Population Studies. (Volume 30, Number 3). 30:453-463.

Elizabeth Bacon. 1947. “Soviet Policy in Turkestan.” Middle East Journal. (Volume One, Number Four). (October 1947). 1:386-400.

Cheryl Benard & Zalmay Khalilzad. 1979. “Secularization, Industrialization, and Khomeini’s Islamic Republic.” Political Science Quarterly. (Volume 94, Number 2). (Summer, 1979). 94:229 41.

Peter Bender. 1987. “The Superpower Squeeze.” Foreign Policy. (Winter 1987). 65: 98 113.

James A. Bill. 1973. “The Plasticity of Informal Politics: The Case of Iran.” Middle East Journal. (Spring 1973). (Volume 27, No.2). 27:131-151.

James A. Bill. 1969. “The Politics of Student Alienation: The Case of Iran.” Iranian Studies. (Winter 1969) (Volume II, no. 1). 2:8-26.

James H. Billington. 1987. “Realism and Vision in American Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs. (Volume 65, Number. 3). 65:630 52.

Leonard Binder. 1957. “Pakistan and Modern Islamic-Nationalist Theory.” Middle East Journal. (Volume 11, Number 4, Autumn 1957). 11:382-396. (Part I of II).

William C. Bodie. 1988. “The American Strategy Schism.” Strategic Review. (Volume xvi, number. 2). (Spring 1988). 16:9 15.

Thompson Buchanan. 1982. “The Real Russia.” Foreign Policy. (Summer 1982). 47:26 45.

Hedley Bull. 1979. “A View From Abroad: Consistency Under Pressure.” Foreign Affairs. (Volume 57, No. 3, Special Issue on “America and the World”). 57: at pp. 451-455.

Richard Cottam. 1991. “Charting Iran’s New Course.” Current History. (January, 1991).

Edward Mead Earle. 1929. “American Missions in the Near East.” Foreign Affairs. (Volume 7, No. 2). (January 1929). 7:398 417.

C.J. Edmonds. 1957. “The Kurds of Iraq.” Middle East Journal. (Volume 11, Number 1, Winter 1957). 11:52-62.

Hamid Enayat 1973. “The Politics of Iranology.” Iranian Studies. (Volume vi, No. 1). (Winter, 1973). 6:2 20.

Asghar Fathi. 1980. “Role of the Traditional Leader in Modernization of Iran, 1890 1910.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. (February 1980). 11:87 98.

Richard W. Gable. 1959. “Culture and Administration in Iran. Middle East Journal. (Volume. 13, no. 4). (Autumn, 1959). 13:407-__________.

Charles F. Gallagher. 1966. “Contemporary Islam: The Plateau of Particularism—Problems of Religion and Nationalism in Iran.” (July 1966). American Universities Field Staff. Southwest Asia Series Vol XV, No. 2 (Iran) (CFG-2-1966). 15:1-24.

Deniz Gökalp & Seda Ünsar. 2008. “From the Myth of European Accession to Disillusion: Implications for Religious and Ethnic Polarization in Turkey.” Middle East Journal. 62:93-118.

Yair P. Hirschfield. 1980. “Moscow And Khomeini: Soviet Iranian Relations in Historical Perspective.” Orbis. (Summer, 1980). _____:219 40.

Samuel P. Huntington. “The Clash of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs. (1993). [additional citation needed].

Nikki R. Keddie. 1968. “The Iranian Village Before and After Land Reform.” Journal of Contemporary History. (Volume 3, Number 3). (July, 1968). 3:69 92.

Nikki R. Keddie. 1962. “Religion and Irreligion in Early Iranian Nationalism.” Comparative Studies in Society and History. (Volume IV, Number 3). (April, 1962). 4:265 95.

Rosanne Klass. 1988. “Afghanistan: The Accords.” Foreign Affairs. (Volume 66, Number 5). (Summer 1988). 66:922-945.

Noel Koch. 1990. “Hostage-Taking and Terrorism: A Review and Assessment of U.S. Policy.” Mediterranean Quarterly: A Journal of Global Issues. (Volume One, Number 2). (Spring 1990). 1:106-121.

Ann K.S. Lambton 1964. “A Reconsideration of the Position of the Marja al Taqlid and the Religious Institution. Studia Islamica. (Volume XX, No. _____). 20:115 35.

George Lenczowski. 1947. “The Communist Movement in Iran.” Middle East Journal. (Volume 11, #1, January 1947). 11:29-45.

Walter J. Levy. 1981. “Oil: An Agenda for the 1980s.” Foreign Affairs. (Volume 59, Number 5). (Summer 1981). 59:1079 1101.

Samuel S. Lieberman. 1979. “Notes and Commentary: Prospects for Development and Population Growth in Iran.” Population and Development Review. (Volume Five, Number 2). (June 1979). 5:293-317.

Herbert J. Liebesny. 1967. “Stability and Change in Islamic Law. Middle East Journal. (Volume 21, Number 1). (Winter, 1967). 21:16 34.

Evan Luard. 1986. “Superpowers and Regional Conflicts.” Foreign Affairs. (Volume 64, Number 5). (Summer 1986). 64:1006 25.

Hossein Mahdavy. 1965. “The Coming Crisis in Iran.” Foreign Affairs. (Volume 44, Number 1). (October 1965). 44:134 46.

Phebe Marr. 1991. “Iraq’s Uncertain Future.” Current History. (January, 1991). 90:1-4 & pp. 39-42.

George Michael. 2007. “Deciphering Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust Revisionism.” Middle East Quarterly.” (Volume 14, Number 3) (Summer 2007). 14:11-18

David D. Newsom. 1981. “America EnGulfed.” Foreign Policy. (Volume __________, Number. 43). (Summer 1981). __________:17 32.

Richard Pipes. 1955. “Muslims of Soviet Central Asia: Trends and Prospects. Part II [of II].” Middle East Journal. (Volume Nine, No. Three). (Summer 1955). 9:295-308.

Richard Pipes. 1955. “Muslims of Soviet Central Asia: Trends and Prospects. Part I [of II].” Middle East Journal. (Volume Nine, Number Two). (Spring 1955). 9:147-162.

Rouhollah K. Ramazani. 1974. “Iran’s ‘White Revolution: A Study in Political Development.” International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. (Volume __________, (Number 5). __________:124 39.

Bernard Reich. 1991. “The United States in the Middle East. Current History. (January, 1991). 90:5-8 & p.42.

Abbas William Sammii. 2008. “A Stable Structure on Shifting Sands: Assessing the Hizbullah-Iran-Syria Relationship.” Middle East Journal. 62:32-53.

Philip C. Salzman. 1972. “Persian Land Reform and the Shah.” The Muslim World. (Volume LXII, Number 3). (July 1972). 62:241 46.

Abraham D. Sofaer. 1986. “Terrorism and the Law. Foreign Affairs. (Volume 64, Number 5). (Summer, 1986). 64:901 22.

Ray Tayekh. “Iran’s New Iraq.” Middle East Journal. (2008). 62:13-31.

Van Hollen, Christopher, “Don’t Engulf the Gulf,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 59, no. 5 (Summer 1981): 1064 78.

William Linn Westermann. “Kurdish Independence and Russian Expansion.” Foreign Affairs. (Volume 24, Number 4, July 1946). 24:675:686.

Robin Wright. “Islam’s New Political Face.” Current History. (January, 1991). 90:25-28 & pp. 35-36.

Young, T. Cutler, “Iran in Continuing Crisis,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 40, no. 2 (January 1962): 275 292.

5) Book Reviews

Edward Allworth. 1960. Book Review. Russian Central Asia 1867: A Study in Colonial Rule. By Richard A. Pierce. (University of CA Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA). (viii + 359 pp. $7.00). Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 14, No. 4). (Autumn 1960). 14:483-484.

Peter Avery. 1975. Book Review. The Golden Age of Persia: The Arabs in the East. By Richard N. Frye (Barnes and Nobles and Harper and Row, New York, NY, 1975), 290 pages. Illus. Maps. $25.00. Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 29, No. 4). (August 1975). 29:470-471.

Hafez F. Farmayan. 1971. Book Review. Religion and State in Iran, 1785-1906: The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period.” By Hamid Algar. (University of CA Press, Berkeley, CA, 1970). (286 pp., Index, $9.50). Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 25, Number 3). (Summer 1971). 25:413-415.

Harold Glidden. 1959. Book Review. The Muqaddimah, by Ibn Khaldūn. Translated by Franz Rosenthal. (Pantheon Books, New York, NY, 1958). (Vol. I cxv + 481 pp, [five] (5) plates and [two] (2) figures); (Vol. II xiv + 463 pp, [nine] (9) plates); (Vol. III xi + 603 pp., [four] (4) plates and diagram in pocket, indexed, $18.50). Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 13, Number 3). (Summer 1959). 13:330-331.

Edward J. Jurjii. 1957. Book Review. Islam in Modern History. By Wilfred Cantwell Smith. (Princeton University Press, Princton, NJ 1957). (308 pp., index to 317 pp., $6.00). Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 11, Number 4). (Autumn 1957). 11:436-437.

Henri Laoust. 1960. Book Review. Islamic Law in the Modern World. By J.N.D. Anderson, with an Introduction by Dr. Saba Habachy. (New York University Press, New York, NY). (xx + 100 pp, bibliography to p.106, $2.75). Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 14, Number 3). (Summer 1960). 14:338.

Ernest R. McCarus. 1960. Book Review. “Kurdish Language Studies.” Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 14, Number 3). (Summer 1960). 14:325-335.

Chantal Quelquejay. 1959. Book Review. “Anti-Islamic Propaganda in Kazakhstan.” Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 13, Number 3). (Summer 1959). 13:319-327.

J. Schacht. 1967. Book Review. The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybānī’s Siyar. Translated with an Introduction, notes and appendices by Majid Khadduri. (The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD 1966). (xvii + 311 pp, $8.00). Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 21, Number 2). (Spring 1967). 21:273.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith. 1957. Book Review. Islam and the West: Proceedings of the Harvard Summer School Conference on the Middle East, July 25-27, 1955. Richard N. Frye, ed. (Mouton & Co, The Hague, Netherlands, Distributed in the US by Gregory Lounz, 1956). (215 pp. $5.00). Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 11, Number 4). (Autumn 1957). 11:437-438.

Gustave Thaiss. 1976. Book Review. Shi’ite Islam. By ‘Allāmah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabātabā’ī. Translated from the Persian and edited with an Introduction and Notes by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. (Albany, [NY]; State University of New York Press, 1975).” Reviewed in Middle East Journal. (Volume 30, No. 2) (Spring 1976). 30:236-237.

6) Newspapers, Periodicals, Television Shows, Websites

“Scapegoat [Hassan] Ayat.” The Economist. June 28, 1980. p. _____

“Can the ayatollah’s revolution work and last?,” The Economist, June 7, 1980.

“Crusaders Win” The Economist. June 21, 1980. p. _____

Steven Emerson. “What Walsh Didn’t Know About Ollie’s Notebooks.” The Washington Post. March 20, 1988. p._____

Steven Holmes. “Giving In to ‘Graymail’: North’s Legal Strategy Decreases the Hope for a Full Airing of the Iran-Contra Scandal.” Time. January 16, 1989. pp. 24-25.

Youseef M. Ibrahim. “The Marketplace Remains, Despite the Conflicts.” & Paul Lewis. “The O.E.C.D. is a “Reactor” Not an “Initiator””. both in “Old Rich, Oil Rich: The West v. OPEC: The Oil Cartel and the West’s Economic Club Have Turned [Twenty] 20. War or No War, Oil Prices Should Keep Stunting the Industrial Nation’s Growth.” New York Times. (Sunday) (Business Section). November 30, 1980. Section Three (3). pp. 1 & __________.

“Israel Asked U.S. for Greek Light to Bomb Nuclear Sites in Iran; U.S. President told Israeli Prime Minister he Would not back Attack on Iran, Senior European Diplomatic Sources Tell Guardian.” Thursday September 25, 2008.
(four pages). (web only).

Joseph Kraft. “Letter from Riyadh.” New Yorker. June 26, 1978. pp. 62-77.

Thomas A. Sancton. “Quarreling Over Ghosts: The Hostage Release Grows Into a Burning Internal Issue [for Iran].” Time. February 9, 1981. p. 35. Reported by Roberto Suro, Washington, DC Desk.

Jack Thomas. “New Tack in TV News: TV News Scoop on Iran Deals.” Boston Globe. February 1, 1981. pp. 1 & 13.

“Portrait of an Ascetic Despot.” Time. January 7, 1980. p._____

“An Interview with Khomeini.” Time. January 7, 1980. p._____

“The Mystic Who Lit The Fires of Hatred.” Time. January 7, 1980. p._____

Mike Wallace. “Interview of former First Lady Nancy Reagan.” CBS Sixty Minutes. First televised Sunday, January 15, 1989.

Curtis Wilkie. “Was Carter Misled on Shah Visit: False Proviso on Shah Visit?” Boston Globe. February 1, 1981. pp. 1 & 12.

7) Legal Documents, Treaties, International Agreements, International Conventions, etc.

Bilateral Agreement Between the Republic of Aghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the Principles of Mutual Relations, in Particular on Non-Interference and Non-Intervention. (Article II). and U.S. Statement. 1988. cited in Rosanne Klass. 1988. “Afghanistan: The Accords.” Foreign Affairs. (Volume 66, Number 5). (Summer 1988). 66:922-945 at pp. 944-945.

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 1980. The Middle East Journal. __________:181 204.

The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,

the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,

the ban on chemical and biological weapons,

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter

8) Legal Citations, Law Review Articles etc.

United States v. North, _____ F. 2d _____ (1989)


My prior post claiming extinction for the phils was, to paraphrase mark twain, premature.

Last nite, the Phils won, the Braves lost, and now the Phils are up five with five to go, they’ve clinched a tie for the NL East, and they have Pedro Martinez, THE PEDRO MARTINEZ, who has thrown two shutouts and has a ridiculously low ERA and gone 5-0 or 6-0 since returning to baseball in August, on the mound tonite before a packed house, to clinch it against the Astros.

You couldn’t draw it up any better than this.

Who would have thought at the start of the season, that the Phils would clinch their 3d NL East Crown with Pedro Martinez pitching like the Pedro of old, on the mound for them?

But all hail the Braves, who have put on quite a show in September. They’ve got some great young kids, and the best kid in AAA is joining their club next year.

Baseball is a funny old game.

The World Champion Phillies have played well enough to repeat at NL East Division champs in September. They’ve gone 15-12 and in the last 14 games, 8-6, and in the last 17 games, 10-7. Those are all winning records.

But the Atlanta Braves, like the St. Louis Cards of 1964 and the NY Giants of 1951, are scorching the earth. They are 15 and 2 in their last 17 games, and just won’t lose.

But Madsen did the job last nite, and finally, the Braves lost a game and the Marlins beat them, 5-4. Go Fish.

–art kyriazis, philly
home of the world champion phils