Ken Gargett

a friend sent me this link on another war time photo (or pair of them). fascinating stuff, what a difference between the two pics. and this guy was also the photographer who took the pic of the sailor kissing the girl in times square. ‘Eyes of Hate’ Captured in Portrait of Nazi Politician by Jewish Photographer Mar 31, 2013 Michael Zhang 84 Comments In September 1933, LIFE magazine photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt traveled to Geneva to document a meeting of the League of Nations. One of the political figures at the gathering was Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, one of Hitlers most devout underlings and a man who became known for his “homicidal anti-Semitism.” Eisenstaedt was a German-born Jew. Not knowing this at first, Goebbels was initially friendly toward Eisenstaedt, who was able to capture a number of photos showing the Nazi politician in a good and cheerful mood (as in the photograph above). However, Goebbels soon learned of the Jewish blood flowing through Eisenstaedt’s veins. Subsequently, when Eisenstaedt approached Goebbels for a candid portrait, the politician’s expression was very, very different. Instead of smiling, he scowled for the camera, and the famous photo that resulted shows the man wearing “eyes of hate”: Here’s what Eisenstaedt later shared regarding experience: I found him sitting alone at a folding table on the lawn of the hotel. I photographed him from a distance without him being aware of it. As documentary reportage, the picture may have some value: it suggests his aloofness. Later I found him at the same table surrounded by aides and bodyguards. Goebbels seemed so small, while his bodyguards were huge. I walked up close and photographed Goebbels. It was horrible. He looked up at me with an expression full of hate. The result, however, was a much stronger photograph. There is no substitute for close personal contact and involvement with a subject, no matter how unpleasant it may be. [#] …and: He looked at me with hateful eyes and waited for me to wither. But I didn’t wither. If I have a camera in my hand, I don’t know fear. [#] This powerful photograph would become one of Eisenstaedt’s most famous images, though he did shoot an even more iconic just months after Goebbels committed suicide at the end of World War II. On August 14, 1945, Eisenstaedt photograph a sailor celebrating Japan’s surrender by kissing a random nurse in New York City. The photo came to be known as “V-J Day in Times Square.” (via Iconic Photos and Erik Kim) P.S. This photograph reminds us of Yousuf Karsh’s famous portrait of Winston Churchill, in which Karsh elicited a scowl from Churchill by stealing the cigar that was in Churchill’s mouth.

made a note last night that it was time for you to get off the proverbial and get this up. timing is everything... we have the top two picks sown up. we are so bad, 1 is us. and then whomsoever we trade TW to will be infected by the skins bug and they'll come 2nd last. i'm predicting we use them on the best kicker and snapper in the draft!

havana club and santiago, and to be honest, pretty much the lot, should be fine.

this all touches bang on one of my early points - and it reveals the massive hypocrisy in sports, all nature. in rugby and league, we see players claiming tries and celebrating only for video refs to expose them as fibbers - not even close sometimes. in cricket, i mentioned the appeals for lbw and caught behind when the players know that it is not out, putting it into the hands of the ump. that is accepted as part of the game. and yet, claiming a catch you did not take (yes, i'm looking at you joe root, but leave that aside) is absolutely seen as cheating. if i was asked to explain the reason or difference, i could not.

you are welcome to follow up as often as you like. they do both. i have seen their 1971. cracking stuff but a full bottle about $5K. excuse the blatant self promo but this will give some more info on their vintage releases. these are 200mls. https://quillandpad.com/2019/04/04/glenfarclas-family-cask-trunk-and-the-1971-vintage-whisky/

i know glenfarclas does - that said i am not so sure how easy they are to buy. i think they do collections. i have a heap sitting in front of me, right up to 40 year old. i see quite a few as easy for samples. but they definitely have some. in europe, it might come down to EEC regulations. i know that the bureaucrats prevented champagne from using the 500ml bottles, though that has recently changed.

found this interesting. thoughts? Why Ultra-Aged Spirits are Ripping You Off If I may be frank, most super-old Scotches are super awful. Here’s why: Most good Scotch is bottled starting at around 12 years old. Fantastic offerings can also be found up to the 18- to 21-year-old range. Beyond that, the oak tends to overpower everything else going on in the bottle. The effect can be even more pronounced with spirits that tend to age more quickly, like Bourbon. If you sip a 40-year-old Bourbon or 50-year-old Scotch, you’re basically sipping on oak tannins, bragging rights, a sense of history and little else. Which is why it’s so perplexing to see producers and others rolling out bottles that are decades past drinkability—think stunt Scotches like a 72-year-old Macallan single malt, produced in 1946 and that fetched $110,085 at auction. It’s an interesting nod toward history to own a World War II-era whiskey but forget about drinking it. After 72 years, you might as well go suck on an oak stave. If you sip a 40-year-old Bourbon or 50-year-old Scotch, you’re basically sipping on oak tannins, bragging rights, a sense of history and little else. Yet, every barrel-aged spirit has a sweet spot in terms of the maturity where it tastes best. Two key factors dictate how a spirit will mature: the barrel used to age the spirit (new barrels age a spirit fastest), and the climate where the spirit is aged (heat can accelerate the aging process). The rules aren’t always hard-and-fast, but it’s easy to tell when your pour is past its prime: as Four Roses Master Distiller Brent Elliott explains, it’s “when the barrel influence is so strong that it has become bitter, astringent and has lost complexity.” Here’s a guide, informed by input from the experts, on when some of the most-gifted spirits categories are likely to hit their stride. For those seeking a special bottle to commemorate a specific year, this may help in finding a vintage-year pour that’s not just enjoyable, but possibly exceptional. Getty Bourbon and rum: Best aged 5–12 years By law, Bourbon is made in new, charred oak barrels. That means the distillate extracts flavors from the wood relatively quickly, so Bourbon matures faster than most other barrel-aged spirits. “The majority of barrels peak in the 5–10-year range,” says Elliott. “In this range, all of the immature character of the white dog is gone, but there are still a lot of the bright and delicate flavors from grains and fermentation that have developed in the barrel, and with the barrel, to create that perfect balance.” Beyond the 12-year range, says Elliott, “there will be fewer and fewer that are still ‘improving’ each year.” A unicorn does sometimes appear. Orphan Barrel’s line of rare whiskeys has included some very good Bourbons aged around 20 years. Also, keep an eye out for single-vintage rum bottlings. Very few producers do this; most include a blend of rums of varying ages. But single vintages can be found from producers such as Diplomático, Foursquare and Plantation, including some 10–12 years old. Rum aged in warm climates, like the Caribbean, age two to three times faster than a spirit in a cold climate, experts estimate. How Wine Affects Your Whiskey Scotch whisky: Best aged 12–25 years Since Scotch whisky is aged typically in used barrels, it takes longer to extract vanilla or caramel flavors from the wood. The late distiller Dave Pickerell once described this as “the tea-bag effect.” The second time that a tea bag is used, there’s less flavor left to draw out, so it needs to steep longer. Scotland’s humid climate also slows down evaporation, so the spirit isn’t as concentrated as those aged in drier climates, like Bourbon. The problem with pinpointing an ideal age for Scotch, is “it all depends on the style of whisky you want to bottle,” says John Glaser, founder and whiskymaker for Compass Box, which releases primarily blended Scotch whiskies. He deems a Scotch too old when the wood notes overtake the distillery character and flavor compounds that have developed over time. In other words, “the whisky loses its cohesiveness,” he says. Scotches aged 30, 40 and older can be sourced, but know that means paying a substantial premium for whisky that may be past its best years. Note: These ages only indicate the number of years the spirit has been in the barrel. Unlike wine, once bottled the aging process for spirits stops. For those who seek to commemorate a benchmark birthday with a bottle, Armagnac may be your best bet. Armagnac: Best aged up to 50 years You’ll almost never see a single-vintage Cognac, because it’s made with a blend of ages, with the designation signifying the youngest distillate in the blend. By comparison, many Armagnacs are sold as blends, but some producers also choose to release single-vintage bottlings when they are deemed exceptional. Some of these may be decades old. For those who seek to commemorate a benchmark birthday with a bottle, Armagnac may be your best bet. According to Christine Cooney-Foubert, owner of Heavenly Spirits, an importer of French spirits, Armagnac can age longer than Cognac because it is distilled just once, as opposed to twice for Cognac. This strips fewer fatty acids from the distillate, enabling “more sustainable aging” over longer time frames, she says. It’s also not unusual for producers to reuse barrels over and over again, often to the point where the barrel no longer contributes tannins, but instead acts as a container that enables the brandy to “keep breathing and get rounder.” “Normally, we don’t leave an Armagnac in the barrel for more than 40 or 50 years,” Cooney-Foubert says, “but some Armagnac will age gracefully” for longer periods in such barrels. Is there a ceiling, even for Armagnac? Yes, Cooney-Foubert says. “I have tasted Armagnac that had rested in barrels for 100 years and it was my opinion that they were too ‘old.’”

fuzz, true vegans wear no silk, no leather, no wool and so forth.

what time?

opinions for sure. and we are not going to change each other's minds on this which is fair enough. as i said, i don't think that there was any intention by root to go out and cheat whenever he got the opportunity. i think that it was a spur of the moment thing. whether he regrets it, we'll never know. so if we play semantics, i don't see root as a serial cheat but i do believe that on this occasion he did cheat. which comes back to the 'little bit pregnant' argument.

certainly not suggesting it makes any sense to me. but if their thing is no meat/living animal products etc etc, whether it be for religious reasons or perceived health reasons or whatever, if they are going to stick to it, that includes bees. and yes, i think it is box of frogs stuff.

not parents - other side of the family, though still quite close. far be it from me to ever defend a vegan but the honey/bee stuff is simply part of the nothing from animals edict that they practice (not saying i agree). honey comes from bees. for them, it makes just as much sense as not eating meat. it is not about affecting the hive (actually i'm buggered if i know what it really is about). i do enjoy pointing out that honey is actually bee vomit.

agree with this very much.

smith will always have it around his neck. no question. but like warnie with his drugs and stupidity, i do not see it defining him. but we have argued this. your point re levels of premeditation is interesting and it seems to have more grip over there than here. i have a good mate from england who has raised the same thing. and fair enough - if we are ever asked to rank cheating then yes, deliberately planning and getting a younger (not that young and one who still knew better) to do it is appalling and will rank higher than a spur of the moment incident. However, it is not that simple. In root’s defence, if you like, my gut feeling is that normally he would not claim it – yes, he turned one down in the first innings that he took in slips – but this was a high pressure situation with the possible Ashes series in the balance late on the last day and he claimed it without really thinking of the consequences but then felt himself locked in (i suspect that is the reality and i would hope it so). He really should have said to the umps, not sure, perhaps I didn’t (or sorry, no I definitely didn’t), and then when on screen, yep, I am clearly mistaken. No one would have had a problem with that. He would have been applauded, but I think he felt trapped by his immediate reaction. This is just my gut feeling. I don’t think he went out there saying if I get a chance to claim a catch like that I will. But that doesn’t excuse it. he had then chance to do the right thing and he failed abysmally. I do understand the view of this not being as bad as warner and Bancroft (smith, I think, as i have said, simply abrogated his duties, which he should never have done and for which he has paid). But that said, cheating is a little bit like being pregnant. You are or you are not. I’ll never think of him as an honest bloke ever again (I’ll never think of warner or Bancroft as honest either and always think of smith as dim-witted and irresponsible for what happened under his watch).

i can understand you might want to defend the english captain but you ask how did he prove himself a cheat? he claimed a catch that he knew full well didn't carry. it is, by any standards, cheating. and yes, of course he knew full well. i do believe he would do it because that is exactly what he did. i've seen about 6 different angles, none shows it carried. nothing like. not on any objective viewing. it is simply inconceivable that anyone could imagine he genuinely thinks he caught it (john, you are just too nice). i'm yet to hear anyone down here (other than the too-nice john) even give him a possible doubt. he has shown himself for what he is. under pressure to win a test, maybe he made a mistake in the heat of the moment (if so, on seeing it on screen, he could and should have immediately said, whoops, i made an error), but with respect, i do not care if you know him. don't care if the bloke is your brother. i have absolutely no doubt he cheated. and i assure you that everyone i have spoken with, from here and over there, are not arguing the contrary. and no matter what they might tactfully say publicly, you did not need to be much of a lipreader or student of body language to know that is also exactly what the australians think of him. "There have been many more examples, including Australians, claiming catches that from all TV angles categorically did not carry and are not labelled cheats." there have certainly been examples - i'm not sure i'd say many and not sure many english or aussies involved - happy to look at any you can name (i do remember an english wicket keeper late 70s or early 80s around knott's era - taylor or richards - who blatantly claimed one but not many others). there have been a couple of aussies i would not put it past but that said, i can't name anyone - can you? - but that one of root's was obvious and blatant. but you say that they are not labelled cheats? why not? of course they are cheating (as an english friend's email to me said this morning - he was horrified, for what it is worth). who says that they are not cheats? you suggest that my response is to do with frustration at seeing the innings end. does that apply to everyone? with respect, that is clutching at the very faintest of straws. for a start, i wasn't watching it live. that would have been about 3.30. i had gone to bed. so we can rule out that (same applies for almost everyone else i suspect). my opinion is based on viewing it many times (had it on tape) from all the angles they showed. if an australian had done that, i would have been mortified and i believe i would think of them as just as bad a cheat as i think of root. even my mother, who will defend the english till the cows come home, is convinced we should remain a monarchy forever and still thinks of us as little more than an english colony was horrified. you say errors can be made by the player. i played as a wicketkeeper. so i saw a great many catches come my way (sadly far from all were caught) but even with gloves, there was only one catch the entire time i played where i was not 100% certain whether it carried. which i immediately indicated to the umps and the bat was given not out. and that is with gloves on. i've heard test players insist (before this incident) that it is simply impossible not to know. but say that there might be a tiny percentage - that is not one of them (one of my cricketing mates said he thought it landed three feet in front of him - slight exaggeration - and another said that the rules of backyard cricket have now changed - that would not even have been out under the one bounce, one hand rule). that ball was clearly bouncing up into his hands when he caught it. i do not believe an experienced cricketer would have made an error. he did not even express possible doubt - he just claimed it. and threw away his reputation for honesty. and before you start throwing stones at australians, worth remembering that ricky ponting tried to put in place an agreement between the teams last time he captained the ashes series that sides would take the word of the opposition on such matters. it was the english who refused it. wonder why? "Were the onfield umpires cheating when they gave the soft signal out? Was the third umpire cheating when they gave the it as out? If they both called it out does that not at the minimum signify that there was clearly a view it could be out?" with respect, that is a silly and defensive comment and makes utterly no sense. the three umps we've had in this series have been dismal. but no one i have heard is suggesting that they are cheating. so yet another error does not become an accusation of cheating. live, it is entirely possible to rule that way, plus the england captain, who given the spirit of the game you would like to believe, indicated it was out. it became very clear it was not, very quickly. i certainly do not blame the onfield umps. they referred it as they should have done. so of course it could have been out. no argument. but also no argument it was not. the soft call meant the the third ump had to find evidence to overturn. no idea why he was so inept - why he has been so inept all series. it was he who made the majority of the errors in the first test. and it continues. but it should never have got to him. root should immediately have done the right thing. i'm sure that plenty of the english will defend him regardless - interesting that a member of the MCC was thrown out for abusing smith as a cheat, which seems just a tad hypocritical - and i might enjoy watching his talents as a bat, but i will never ever be convinced, that he is anything but a cheat. he showed that to the world.