text:
One Sunday in May 1654, a black cloud rose north of Zeelandia. Townspeople watched as it approached, twisting and stretching. Soon it was upon them. Locusts! So many that the sky darkened and the air buzzed with the sound of innumerable wings. The north wind dashed them against the ground and into wells, where their bodies floated, a reddish-yellow sheet on the water. On the other side of the bay they swarmed the fields, devouring everything in their path.2
The Dutch declared that this "Egyptian plague" was "a sign of God's righteous and much deserved fury about our sins," the latest of a series of signs God had sent to show his anger. First, thousands of Chinese colonists rebelled against the company, and then "a strange star or light" illuminated the heavens. Next, a terrific plague killed thousands of aborigines and many Dutchmen and Chinese. Finally, a huge earthquake devastated homes and buildings, the aftershocks lasting seven weeks. The plague of locusts, with its Old Testament resonances, was taken as "a stimulus urging us to look at ourselves, in order to motivate ourselves to live better lives and turn to the charitable [barmhertigen] God with a beaten spirit and broken heart and
The governor and the Council of Formosa decreed a day of fasting and penitence. Nobody was to work, and the island's Christians were to devote themselves to "fiery pleas for mercy from the loving God."2 But the penance did not help. The locusts continued eating their way through the island, and they were followed by more disasters—plagues, storms, and earthquakes. "What are we to do?" wrote a Dutch official at the end of the summer. "Complaining is impious and awakens, like burning sulphur,
The biggest threats to the Dutch colony of Formosa were not natural disasters but human events. When Manchu armies seized Beijing in 1644, they sparked a long, bitter civil war. Under the new dynastic name Qing, they fought southward through China, opposed by a series of courts known as the Ming loyalists, who struggled to restore the Ming dynasty.4 Out of this chaos arose the most fearsome enemy the Dutch colony had yet faced: Zheng Chenggong (鄭成功), known in Western sources as Koxinga.5 From his base in Xiamen City, Chenggong fought bitterly to reinstate the Ming. To finance his wars, he sent more trading junks to Southeast Asia and Japan, impinging on Dutch monopolies. When the company began harrying his merchants, Chenggong imposed a trade embargo on Formosa. The colony's economy collapsed. It was the beginning of the end for Dutch Taiwan.^top
Zheng Chenggong was born on a beach during a rainstorm, heralded by a mystical fire in the heavens. During his life he turned a monstrous sea turtle into an island, vanquished demons, and made wells by striking his sword into the ground. After his death he became a member of China's eclectic pantheon of saints and deities.6 He is, in short, a figure of legend. Even scholars and academics are apt to write about him hagiographically, calling him a "national folk hero," for in both Taiwan and mainland China he is revered for his defeat of the Dutch and his loyalty to the Ming against the Manchu Qing.76
The real Chenggong is a more ambiguous figure, but just as fascinating. We know he was born in Japan in 1624, the year the Dutch established Fort Zeelandia in Tayouan. His connection with Taiwan began with his father, the pirate-turned-official Zheng Zhilong (鄭芝龍). As we have seen, Zheng père was a member of the Taiwan-based pirate gang of Yan Siqi and an associate of Li Dan. After Yan and Li died in 1625, he rose to rule over a merchant-pirate organization that controlled Fujianese maritime trade throughout the China Seas. We have seen how in 1628 Zheng Zhilong accepted investiture by the Ming court, giving up his pirate ways for official rank. Afterward he became the company's main contact for trade with China.8 He was comfortable dealing with the Dutch, having learned about them when he worked as a company translator, and he allowed trade to flow to Taiwan, knowing that the Dutch were formidable naval opponents. The Dutch grumbled, but they had no alternative. Ming officials, for their part, were pleased with Zhilong, or they were happy to appease him because they faced bigger troubles elsewhere. In any case, by 1640 Zhilong had been named the military commander (Zongbing 總兵) of Fujian province, one of the highest posts in the Ming bureaucracy.97
Zheng Chenggong benefited from his father's fortune and fame. After spending the first seven years of his life with his mother in Japan, he went to Fujian to go to school.10 Whereas his father had sailed the seas to avoid the scholar's life, Chenggong was an avid student, obtaining the county-level licentiate at the age of fifteen. Then he went to Nanjing to study with renowned teachers at the Imperial Academy of Learning. He was a promising scholar and might have gone on to an illustrious official career.11 The Ming-Qing war changed his path.8
After Beijing fell in 1644, Zheng Chenggong's father and other relatives declared themselves loyal to the Ming, which was reorganizing itself in Nanjing around a Ming imperial prince. This first Ming loyalist court collapsed, and the Zheng family recognized a second Ming prince, called the Longwu Emperor (隆武). Longwu was grateful for Zheng senior's support and gave him a promotion. He also symbolically adopted Chenggong, bestowing on him the Ming dynastic surname Zhu (朱). It was an enormous honor. For the rest of his life Chenggong carried the title Guoxingye (國姓爺), or Lord of the Imperial Surname.12 This appellation was pronounced "Kok seng ia" in southern Fujianese, and so to the Dutch and other Westerners he was known as Koxinga.9
His father devoted more attention to commerce than to fighting the Manchus. In 1646 the Ming prince undertook a land-based military expedition without Zhilong's help, forgoing a more cautious—and more promising—maritime strategy. Outmaneuvered by swift-moving Manchu forces, he was captured and executed.13 In the meantime, Zhilong had begun negotiating with the Manchus. They promised that if he foreswore his loyalty to the Ming they would name him viceroy of Fujian and Guangdong. Zhilong accepted the offer in spite of his son's protests. In November 1646, Zhilong went to Fuzhou to declare his allegiance to the Manchu Qing dynasty. But the Manchus had deceived him. They took him to Beijing, where he lived the rest of his life under house arrest.1410
Unlike Zhilong, Chenggong maintained allegiance to the Ming dynasty. Scholars continue to argue about the nature and extent of his loyalism. Ralph Croizier believes that his loyalty was a construction of nationalistic Chinese historians, who distorted historical evidence to portray him as an anti-imperialist hero.15 Other scholars, on the other hand, portray Zheng as a sincere loyalist. An excellent study by Wong Young-tsu, for example, portrays Chenggong's opposition to the Manchus as ideological, even "fanatical," arguing that Chenggong was a "revolutionary traditionalist" who "transformed sheer violence into a political movement in an unprecedented way. He politicized the entire region."16 An important book by a Taiwanese scholar, on the other hand, lends support to Croizier, arguing that "Zheng Chenggong was not wholly loyal to the Ming dynasty" and suggesting that "one should not overestimate his patriotism."17 The debate will go on. Indeed, in a letter to the Dutch, Chenggong himself once wrote: "How can one know my hidden thoughts and tell what are my actual intentions, which have been revealed to nobody?"18 We historians will perhaps do little better than his enemies at discerning his true aims.11
Still, it is clear that Chenggong was willing to sacrifice more than his father did for the sake of Ming restoration. He engaged in a constant and shifting war against the Manchus, using the Zheng family's maritime trade networks as a financial base. He was a slippery adversary. Although they could counter him on land, the Manchus lacked an understanding of naval warfare. At the same time, they were occupied with Ming loyalists in other areas of China. Chenggong's main base was in and around Xiamen City, which in 1654 he began to call the "Memorial Prefecture for the Ming" (Si Ming Zhou 思明州). He established a government based on Ming administrative structures, with six boards staffed by Ming scholar-officials. By ensuring, however, that military and merchant interests held sway over scholar-officials, he avoided the bureaucratic infighting that had riddled other Ming loyalist governments.19 This made his an effective regime, but it also may have limited his appeal to the traditional scholar elite.20 Still, his court did draw loyalists from throughout China and became a center of anti-Manchu opposition. It also enjoyed a measure of popular support. Chenggong's soldiers usually had strict orders to refrain from pillaging and killing in the areas they captured. Like his father, he appears to have strictly enforced these orders, executing soldiers who disobeyed them.2112
Although he controlled the seas and coastlines of southeastern China and had popular support, Chenggong nonetheless had trouble striking against the Manchus. Fujianese describe their home province as "many mountains, few fields" (shan duo tian shao 山多田少). Only 10 percent of Fujian's area is lower than 200 meters above sea level. The mountains cut Fujian off from inland China, which is one reason Fujianese people tend to be oriented toward the sea. Fujian's mountains sheltered Chenggong from Manchu land attacks, but they also made it hard for him to extend his control outward from his base in Xiamen. His early attempts to do so were, to be sure, promising. In 1647 he invaded Quanzhou prefecture and captured the city of Tong'an. However, powerful Manchu armies soon drove him back. In 1649 he once again gained control over large areas of Quanzhou, only to be driven back again. When he tried launching attacks farther from his base, he had even less success. In 1650, for example, he planned a major offensive northward from Guangdong, in concert with a Ming loyalist in Guangxi province. The Manchus swiftly deployed a large army in the area, and he decided instead to seek his advantage by ferrying his armies southwards along the coast. A severe storm hindered his movements. Meanwhile, the Manchus had launched a surprise attack against Xiamen, forcing him to return with his armies to protect his home base. Thus, although he had a decisive advantage at sea, being able to move his troops quickly along China's vast coast, this was never quite enough to counter the swift and efficient Manchu forces, and he had consistent difficulties extending his control inland. The only progress he made with land warfare was in limited areas near his coastal bases.2213
The Manchus did, however, view him as a threat. In the early 1650s, after he had managed to recapture many cities in the Zhangzou and Quanzhou region, widening the strategic perimeter around Xiamen and increasing his tax revenues, the Manchus decided that it would prove difficult to reduce him by force of arms. They therefore made an overture: If he would swear loyalty to the Manchu Qing dynasty, they would make him the duke of Haicheng (海澄) and give him authority over several coastal prefectures. He entertained the Manchus' emissaries and engaged in lengthy negotiations. Perhaps he did so merely to gain time to strengthen his military and increase his administrative hold on the lands and people of Fujian, or he may have considered accepting an offer. In any case, these negotiations never resulted in an agreement.2314
He knew that ending the stalemate with the Manchus would require a bold victory. He therefore began plotting his most ambitious undertaking: the capture of Nanjing. This city, which had served as China's capital off and on for the past thousand years, would make a more viable base than Fujian, and its capture would attract Ming loyalists from throughout China. From 1656 through 1658 he planned his operation and made preparations, gathering grain and armaments, building ships, and drilling his soldiers. He also set up a series of forts and grain repositories along the coast leading to the Yangtze River. His plan was to sail up the Yangtze with his fleet and land his troops before Nanjing. In the summer of 1658, his preparations were complete, and he set out with his great fleet from Xiamen. A severe storm forced him to turn back and repair his ships, but nearly a year later the expedition was ready to reembark. On July 7, 1659, Chenggong's armada sailed into the mouth of the Yangtze River. The ships won their first battles, prompting Chenggong to write:
On the Great River, dressed in mourning white,
I swear to vanquish the Tartars;
The anger of my hundred thousand brave men
Shakes the land of Wu.
Wait and look! When resolutely we cross the Formidable Moat,
Who will still believe that China does not belong to the Ming?24
The armada proceeded quickly upriver, and on August 24, 1659, Chenggong's troops encircled Nanjing. Yet they did not immediately begin a siege. Chenggong, who felt that Qing power was crumbling, may have underestimated his enemies' resolve. Believing they were ready to surrender, he engaged in negotiations with officials in Nanjing. This tarrying may have cost him victory. Qing reinforcements arrived and launched a furious assault. Despite their preparation, Chenggong's forces broke formation and ran.2515
A month later, the remnants of Zheng's army arrived in Xiamen. Many experienced officers had been captured or killed, as had thousands of soldiers. Chenggong had made some poor choices. Some of his officials had advised him to secure the area around the Grand Canal instead of sailing directly to Nanjing. If he had done so he might have established a beachhead in Manchu territory and cut off Qing supply lines.26 Indeed, he probably could have counted on popular support in the region, since the Manchus had made enemies during their ruthless sacking of Yangzhou. But it was too late.16
His defeat at Nanjing left his prestige and organization shattered. He began having more trouble collecting tolls and taxes. Moreover, his trade revenues were beginning to suffer from Manchu policies. In 1656 the Manchus had issued an edict forbidding Chinese subjects, on pain of death, to trade with Chenggong's people. At first the edict had had little effect, but that same year, one of Chenggong's senior merchants, a man who knew the intricacies of the Zheng family's trade networks, defected to the Manchus and revealed Chenggong's web of secret contacts. With this knowledge, the Manchus began to prosecute Chenggong's trading partners. Most important of all, in 1660 the Manchus embarked on a draconian policy to destroy Chenggong's source of livelihood: They began fortifying the coasts of China and implementing a coastal evacuation policy, whereby all coastal inhabitants had to move ten miles inland. Equally important, the other centers of Ming loyalism were collapsing, and the Manchus were able to concentrate their full force on Fujian. Chenggong proved he could still counter Manchu armies, for he was victorious in the first battle of the Manchu's renewed offensive, but he knew he had to find a new strategy. He began considering his options. Might it be possible to expand at the expense of the red-haired barbarians? Relations with them had, after all, deteriorated of late.^top
In the early 1650s, as in most of the 1640s, relations between Chenggong and the company had appeared cordial. Letters between them indicate a willingness to cooperate and a commitment to dialogue, but beneath these appearances lay deep distrust. Some company officials believed that the Chinese revolt of 1652 had been incited by Chenggong, for a few of the rebels said that they had expected Chenggong to come to their aid with three thousand junks and thirty thousand men and that he would help them capture all of Formosa from the Dutch.27 Most Dutch officials did not believe Chenggong would really have helped, and that the revolt was rather the work of rich Chinese farmers: "We suspect that the principal Chinese farmers, having achieved a measure of prosperity, undertook this
To be sure, they tried to appear friendly, going out of their way to accede to requests that did not harm their interests. In 1654, Chenggong sent a letter to Taiwan and asked to have a Dutch surgeon sent to Xiamen to help with some medical problems. The company decided to send Christiaan Beyer, Zeelandia's surgeon in chief [opperchirugiijn]. When Beyer arrived in Xiamen, he was shown Chenggong's wound, "a few lumps [knobbelen] on his left arm, which according to the mandarin [Chenggong] had been caused by cold and wind, but about which Beyer himself had a different opinion."31 Perhaps the Dutch writer's reticence about the true cause indicates that Beyer suspected it was syphilis, which can cause rashes and lesions on skin. If so, this would explain psychotic episodes later in Chenggong's life and, perhaps, his early death.32 In any case, Beyer prescribed medicine, which Chenggong required him to prepare in front of his own doctor, who inspected the ingredients carefully before allowing Beyer to add them, "even though he had no understanding of them."33 Frustrated, Beyer wrote to Zeelandia. Chenggong, he said, refused to cooperate with his medical advice. More important, his patient, "for the smallest of reasons, had many people killed in various awful ways
Beneath the patina of cordiality were strong tensions. In the spring of 1655, almost no silk junks arrived in Taiwan. Company officials had heard that Chenggong was moving against the Manchus, which, some felt, explained the lack of trade. Others, however, felt "that these rumors might have been propagated on false grounds in order to rock us to sleep and that therefore Chenggong might be planning to attempt something to Formosa's detriment."36 The Council of Formosa sent a junk to the Pescadores to see whether Chenggong had gathered forces there, and in the meantime it prepared to defend Zeelandia. The junk's crew found nothing suspicious, and relieved officials stood down their alert. Yet the incident reveals how vulnerable the colony could be to Chenggong's actions. It was in 1655 that he established the Ming Memorial Capital in Xiamen. And so his struggle against the Manchus was beginning in earnest and, in the fighting that ensued, far fewer junks came to Taiwan. As the governor of Taiwan wrote in a letter to Batavia, trade would be slow until the end of the war: "We and [the Chinese merchants] will have to wait until Chenggong and the Tartar [the Manchus] reach a peace or until one is defeated."37 Although they realized they could do little about it, Dutch officials looked on Chenggong's growing power with concern. According to reports of Europeans and Chinese traders alike, he had around three hundred thousand men and some three thousand junks. It was clear he was preparing for a large siege. Although direct evidence of hostile intentions against Taiwan was lacking, Dutch officials in Tayouan wrote to Batavia to ask for more soldiers from Batavia, for permission to build more forts on Taiwan to help ward off an invasion by sea, and for more ships.3820
Company officials also began noticing that Chenggong did not accept the company's sovereignty over Taiwan and its Chinese residents. In August 1655, the governor of Taiwan received a letter from Chenggong. The Spanish, wrote Chenggong, had been mistreating his sailors, and he had therefore issued an edict that forbade Chinese to sail to Manila on pain of death. He enclosed a copy of the edict and requested that the governor propagate it in Formosa and enforce it by confiscating the junks and property of any who disobeyed. But the language of the edict raised their hackles. First, it said that the Dutch "behave more like animals than Christians." Second, it referred to Chinese who lived in the Dutch colony as Chenggong's subjects. Third, and most important, it threatened punishment not only for Chinese but also for "anyone outside of our nation who extends money for trade with Manila."39 If company officials did as Chenggong asked and published the edict, they would be admitting that Chenggong had sovereignty over the Chinese colonists in Formosa. The governor and the council decided they must refuse Chenggong's request to preserve "the sovereignty of the Netherlanders."40 They replied with a "compliment letter," which politely declined his request.21
Chenggong responded not to the Dutch governor but to Chinese cabessas, to whom he sent a direct letter. Therein he complained that Dutch ships had captured his junks and confiscated his property. He added that he had heard rumors that Dutch officials in Batavia were going to prevent his junks from trading in Southeast Asia. He therefore threatened to prohibit his subjects from engaging in commerce with the Dutch unless the governor of Taiwan would personally guarantee [sich borge stellen] that Chenggong's junks would thenceforth be safe from Dutch depredations and that Batavia would make no decision to forbid his junks from trading in Southeast Asia. If, however, his junks should continue to suffer at Dutch hands, he would "issue an edict according to which none of my junks from anywhere, even the smallest places, should be allowed to go to Tayouan."4122
Zheng Chenggong's letter caused a stir in the Chinese community, and the cabessas brought it to the governor.42 Dutch officials reassured the cabessas. Chenggong was, they said, ill informed. His junks had not been mistreated in Batavia, and his poor opinion of the Dutch was based on hearsay and rumor. They asked the Chinese cabessas to write back to Chenggong and tell him politely that they would not propagate his edict. First, they were at peace with the Spanish in Manila and could undertake no action that would hurt them. Second, junks typically did not sail from Taiwan to Manila, so it was not necessary to forbid them from doing so. Third, Dutch officials in Taiwan did not have the authority to guarantee the behavior of their superiors in Batavia, since "a servant cannot decide [verobligeeren] what his master might do."43 The governor and the council did promise, however, to relay Chenggong's concerns to Batavia. The cabessas indeed wrote to Chenggong, but they received no immediate response.23
Chenggong's ill opinions of the company were well founded: The company had indeed captured some of his junks. To raise money for his troops, Zheng had increased his foreign trade, sending junks directly to Japan, Tonkin, Cambodia, Palembang, and Melaka—all ports in which the company had trading interests. Officials in Batavia were wary of his competition: "We see that Koxinga is beginning to devote himself more fully to trade, and this may in places
In a letter to Taiwan, the governor-general wrote, "It is clear that Chenggong will be upset about these actions and will press hard for restitution, but we are inclined to concede nothing. If he gives you any trouble in Taiwan about them, pretend that you know nothing about it and tell him to deal with us."47 The governor-general was certain that if the company held firm Chenggong would give up trying to undermine their trade. Nor did officials in Batavia limit themselves to capturing Chenggong's junks. They also tried to make alliances with his enemies. "We believe," wrote the governor-general, " that, if the company negotiated with the Manchus and promised to infest Chenggong's seacoasts, we might thereby come into the Manchus' great esteem."48 In 1656 a Dutch embassy was indeed received in Beijing. Fortunately for Chenggong, it achieved little, primarily because the company's request to trade in Canton would have conflicted with the court's new policy of restricting coastal trade.49 Chenggong certainly knew about this embassy, but being busy with battles in China, he did not immediately react to Dutch provocations.5025
In the meantime, trade to Formosa remained slow. Although some junks brought rice, none brought the gold, silk, and silver on which the company's trade depended. For several months in late 1655 and early 1656, not a single Chinese junk came to Tayouan. This meant that even the low-cost goods that underlay Sino-aboriginal trade—ironwares, clothing, tobacco, and ceramics—grew scarce. As demand for them rose, the value of aborigines' own trading goods—deer products and fish, for example—fell.51 The buying power of village leaseholders increased, and they gathered large stocks of deerhides and venison, but they suffered because they could not take them to China to sell. The village leasehold system thus began to fall apart, as did many of the other leases that formed the basis of the company's revenues.52 So dependent was Taiwan on Chinese trade that the entire colony suffered when trade was slow.5326
Company officials mused about Chenggong's growing influence. They would receive no valuable wares until Chenggong had helped himself to all he wished, "since it was in his power to do so."54 Moreover, if he resorted to arms, "not only the commerce but all of Formosa would hang in the balance, for the company's power
On Sunday, July 9, 1656, a junk flying Chenggong's flag arrived at Fort Zeelandia. A messenger disembarked, carrying an edict. He said he had been instructed to hand it directly to the Chinese cabessas, who should put it up for all to see.58 When Dutch officials saw a translated copy, they were alarmed. Chenggong wrote that the Dutch in Tayouan "consider our people to be nothing but meat and fish that one can eat
That Chenggong expressly forbade junks to carry, even during this hundred-day period, goods "that came here [to Tayouan] from other places" indicates that the measure was designed to strike directly at the company and the merchants who worked most closely with it and that perhaps it was part of an effort to reduce competition for Chenggong's own expanding foreign trade. Indeed, when a company official asked the Chinese cabessas to clarify what goods would be forbidden during the one hundred days, they replied that Chenggong was referring to pepper, cloves, lead, tin, and all the other foreign wares that together formed the mainstay of the company's trade with Chinese merchants. The governor and the council members confiscated the edict and told the man who brought it that he would be severely punished if he posted any copies of it anywhere on Formosa. He promised to comply, but the damage had been done. Chinese merchants began leaving, taking their wives and children with them, for their livelihood depended on the company's foreign wares, and they believed Chenggong could and would do as he threatened.6129
Company officials had to do something to respond to such "panic" (alteratie). Equally important, they felt they had to respond to Chenggong's insult to their sovereignty. Not only had he tried to propagate his edict in land belonging to the United Provinces of the Netherlands, but he had called its inhabitants "his subjects" (mijn volck).62 The governor and council sat down and composed an edict of their own. Henceforth, they resolved, no one could bring to Formosa and make public any edicts of foreign rulers. Those who did, or even those who brought letters whose contents might hurt the common good of the Formosan colony, must hand them over immediately or face corporal punishment (straffe aen den lijve). In order, however, not to appear overly concerned with Chenggong's edict, the governor and council decided to wait a month before issuing their own.63 In the meantime they put their forts in a state of defense and sent reconnaissance junks to the Pescadores to investigate Chenggong's activities. They found the inhabitants there reluctant to sell provisions or allow them to take on water, an attitude they attributed to Chenggong's influence. They also found four junks, whose captains explained that they were there to collect Chenggong's yearly taxes. Probably, however, they were also inspecting junks to see whether they were in compliance with Chenggong's edict forbidding the carrying of foreign goods from Tayouan, for shortly thereafter Chenggong wrote about inspectors he had placed in the Pescadores for precisely this purpose.6430
Indeed, Chenggong made it clear he would vigorously enforce his edict. Just after the company published its resolution forbidding foreign edicts, news arrived in Zeelandia that a Chinese junk from Tayouan had been confiscated in Xiamen. A rigorous inspection had revealed a hidden cargo of pepper. Although the one hundred days had not yet expired, pepper was not a Formosan product and was technically forbidden by Chenggong's edict. So Chenggong executed the captains of the junk. Other crew members had their right hands cut off.65 The news caused even more anxiety among the Chinese merchants. It was clear that Chenggong was enforcing his measures. Some of the most important Chinese merchants aborted trade voyages and ordered that their junks, three of which stood full of pepper and ready to depart, be unloaded and their pepper placed again in warehouses in Zeelandia.6631
Around the same time a "minor mandarin" arrived in Tayouan, carrying a document with Chenggong's seal. Dutch soldiers ushered him to an audience with the Council of Formosa before he could talk to anyone else.67 He said he had been sent by Chenggong to inspect all the junks in Tayouan and record their cargoes.68 The governor demanded the document and had it translated.69 It stated that the official was to tell Chenggong the names of all Chinese merchants who sought to bring pepper and other foreign trade goods to China. He would receive half the trade goods he found in his inspection, and Chenggong would kill the captains and crews. It was clearly intended to be read by the Chinese merchants of Tayouan, for Chenggong wrote, "I recommend that you who reside in Tayouan come in all haste back to China, where you will live in peace and prosperity."70 Company officials were incensed. They told the mandarin that Chenggong had no right "to take our subjects to China."71 They were especially disturbed by the language of the document, which referred to the Chinese on Formosa as Chenggong's subjects. "Chenggong," they said, "would not stand for us or anyone else to publish such edicts or make such commands in areas under his control. We can clearly see from his actions that he seeks to break the old friendship and commerce that have for so many years existed between our subjects and his."72 As soon as tide and weather permitted, they said, Chenggong's inspector must return to China and tell his master that henceforth no one should come to Tayouan on such missions.32
The mandarin had, however, already posted the edict in the Pescadores, so the Chinese in Tayouan soon learned of his errand. They realized that the Lord of the Imperial Surname was taking concrete measures to examine their junks, and they had no doubt he would punish those who contravened his embargo. They immediately began to load their junks full of venison, fish, and other Formosan products so that they could return to China before Chenggong's one hundred days had elapsed. They refused to buy the company's foreign wares—not "even one peppercorn."73 Instead, they desperately sold their own foreign wares, causing prices to fall precipitously. Soon, Tayouan was bereft of junks.33
The embargo revealed once again how vulnerable was the company's colony. First, the embargo hurt the company's foreign trade by ending the import of gold. Since gold from China was the main item of exchange for the company's trade in India, all of the company's trade suffered.74 Second, because there were no buyers for the company's Indian and Southeast Asian goods, the Formosan warehouses stood full of pepper, tin, sandalwood, and other once-expensive wares. Third, the embargo damaged the Sino-aboriginal trade that stood at the heart of the Formosan economy. Village leaseholders ran out of goods to trade for deer products, and, since no merchants came from China, their houses and boats were filled with deer products they could not sell. Many faced financial ruin.75 Others refused to buy deerskins from the aborigines, who complained that they could not obtain the Chinese clothing they relied on.76 Chinese tax farmers also suffered. Those who had bought the right to collect the hoofdgeld, for example, saw their receipts fall because so many Chinese left Formosa. Farmers were affected too. If they could not export their rice and sugar to China, their investments in fields and labor would be lost and they would be ruined.34
The suffering of Formosa's Chinese colonists directly affected the company because it lowered the value of leases and licenses. Moreover, since the lessees bought their offices on credit, they were unable to pay off their loans, which threatened to provoke a credit crisis. Indeed, by the end of 1656 many lessees had asked for relief from their debts to the company. Farmers also requested help, in the form of guaranteed prices for their products.77 Meanwhile, in Zeelandia and Saccam the shelves of the Chinese shops were bare, and many Chinese could "scarcely find food for themselves."78 Even students in the mission schools felt the embargo, although they may not have been displeased: Their classrooms were running out of the Chinese paper on which they wrote their lessons.79 Indeed, so severe were the embargo's effects that, as company officials in Batavia wrote, "If it should continue like this for much longer, it would spell total ruin for the company in Tayouan and Formosa."8035
Company officials did not know how to end the embargo. Some even believed that it was a prelude to invasion, that Chenggong had decided the Dutch were his enemy and the company must therefore "keep a watchful eye on the sail" and be ready for an attack. Others speculated that Chenggong's aim was to force the company to agree to a favorable trading treaty with him. To find out, the governor and the Council members asked the cabessas and other Chinese merchants. They replied, "together, as if out of a single mouth," that Chenggong was angry because the company had been mistreating his trading junks in Southeast Asia.81 They said they thought the embargo would not last long, since Chenggong needed the Formosan and Southeast Asian commerce as much as the company did.82 At the end of 1656 the governor and the Council of Formosa met to consider "whether it might be a good idea to send a little letter
The Chinese merchants of Formosa, however, were proactive. They sent Chenggong presents and a letter begging him to reopen trade to Taiwan. He sent no reply, and other news from China was vague and contradictory. But finally, more than six months later, Chenggong's brother and uncle sent letters to the cabessas on Tayouan, explaning that Chenggong had forbidden trade because the Dutch had mistreated his men and caused hindrances for his junks.84 Company officials decided that it was time to make an overture. They decided to send letters to Chenggong and other powerful members of the Zheng family. But was there anyone they could trust to be their intermediary? They ended up choosing a Chinese cabessa named He Tingbin. It was a terrible choice.^top
Note 1: Resolution of the Council of Formosa, 12 May, 1654, VOC 1207: 672–74, quote at 672–73; Leonard Blussé et al., eds., De Dagregisters van het Kasteel Zeelandia, Taiwan, 1629–1662, 4 vols. (The Hague: Instituut voor Nederlandse Geschiedenis, 1986–2001), vol. 3, E: 413–414 (cited hereafter as Zeelandia Dagregisters). back
Note 2: Resolution of the Council of Formosa, 12 May, 1654, VOC 1207: 672–74, quote at 673. back
Note 3: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, E: 466. back
Note 4: The outstanding book by Lynn Struve is an indispensible reference: The Southern Ming, 1644–1662 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984). See also Lynn Struve, Voices from the Ming-Qing Cataclysm: China in Tigers' Jaws (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993). back
Note 5: His Western name comes from the pronunciation, in the southern Min dialect, of the characters 國姓爺, meaning "Lord of the Imperial Surname." back
Note 6: The story of the sea turtle and the island is told about Guishan (龜山) Island, located off the coast of Taiwan's Yilan County. Stories of wells made by Koxinga appear to be found in various parts of Taiwan, such as Taipei City's Dihua (迪化) Street, where there used to be a well called the Xiao Jian Tan Jing (小劍潭井), said to have been created by Koxinga. A tale of Koxinga's monster vanquishing is told about Jian Tan (劍潭), just north of Taipei City, where Koxinga is said to have used a jeweled sword (寶劍) to kill an evil spirit. Sometimes, it is said, you can still see the sparkling of the jeweled sword. back
Note 7: For discerning the historical, documentary base of the legends, a good place to start is Huang Dianquan 黃典權, Zheng Chenggong shishi yanjiu 鄭成功史事研究 (Taipei: Taiwan Business Affairs Press 臺灣商務印書館, 1996). Classic scholarship on the legends was conducted by Lou Zikuang 婁子匡; see especially "Zheng Chenggong chuanshuo de tantao" 鄭成功傳說的探討, Wenshi huikan 文史彙刊, 2 (1960): 47–69. The classic work on Koxinga as national folk hero is Ralph Croizier, Koxinga and Chinese Nationalism: History, Myth, and the Hero (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977). back
Note 8: Young-tsu Wong, "Security and Warfare on the China Coast: The Taiwan Question in the Seventeenth Century," Monumenta Serica 35 (1981–83): 111–196, esp. 120–27; C. R. Boxer, "The Rise and Fall of Nicholas Iquan," T'ien Hsia Monthly 11, no. 5 (1941): 401–39, esp. 420–21. back
Note 9: Wong, "Security and Warfare," 128–29. back
Note 10: His mother's name was Tagawa Matsu 田川松, usually sinicized as Wengshi 翁氏, (probably 1601–46) back
Note 11: Earl Swisher, "Chêng Ch'eng-kung," in Arthur Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (1943; Taipei: S.M.C. Publishing, 2002), 108–9. back
Note 12: The prince also gave the young man the name Chenggong, by which he is usually known today. His original name was 森舍, and as a child in Japan he was known by the name Fusong 福松. back
Note 13: Struve, The Southern Ming, 75–97. back
Note 14: Tang Jintai 湯錦台, Kaiqi Taiwan di yi ren Zheng Zhilong 開啟臺灣第一人鄭芝龍 (Taipei: Guoshi 果實 Press, 2002). back
Note 15: Croizier, Koxinga and Chinese Nationalism. back
Note 16: Wong himself admits that he became interested in Koxinga in order to understand the current situation between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan, and so he views Koxinga's politics somewhat anachronistically, but his research is careful and his conclusions forceful: Koxinga was opposed to the Manchus on ideological grounds, and his struggle against the Manchus politicized Fujian and the Taiwan Strait. Wong, "Security and Warfare," 133. back
Note 17: Wu Zhenglong 吳正龍, Zheng Chenggong yu Qing zheng fu jian de tan pan 鄭成功與清政府間的談判 (Taipei: Wenjin Publishing 文津出版社, 2000), 182. back
Note 18: Koxinga to Council of Formosa, letter, November 1660, in Verwaerloosde Formosa, 90. back
Note 19: See Struve, The Southern Ming. back
Note 20: This insightful argument is advanced by John E. Wills Jr., "Maritime China from Wang Chih to Shih Lang: Themes in Peripheral History," in From Ming to Ch'ing: Conquest, Region, and Continuity in Seventeenth-Century China, ed. Jonathan D. Spence and John E. Wills Jr. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), 201–38, esp. 223–28. back
Note 21: Wong, "Security and Warfare," 138. back
Note 22: John E. Wills Jr., Mountain of Fame: Portraits in Chinese History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 222–227. back
Note 23: See Wu Zhenglong's valuable Zheng Chenggong yu Qing zhengfu de tanpan. Cf. Struve, The Southern Ming, esp. 158–66. back
Note 24: Wong's translation (Wong, "Security and Warfare," 139). back
Note 25: It is interesting to note that before the battle one scholarly observer noted in letters to friends that Zheng's troops were undisciplined and would fail to take Nanjing. See Julia Ching, "Chu Shun-Shui, 1600–82: A Chinese Confucian Scholar in Tokugawa Japan," Monumenta Nipponica, 30, no. 2 (1975): 177–91. back
Note 26: This, as Jonathan Spence points out, is precisely what the British did in 1842 (personal communication, July 2000). back
Note 27: Generale Missiven van Gouverneurs-Generaal en Raden aan Heren XVII der Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie, ed. W. Ph. Coolhaas, 2 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhof, 1960–85), vol. 2 (1639–55), Reyniersz., Maetsuyker, Hartzinck, Cunaeus, Caesar, and Steur (7), 24 December 1652, p. 610. back
Note 28: Generale Missiven, vol. 2 (1639–55), Reyniersz, Maetsuyker, Hartzinck, Cunaeus, Caesar, and Steur (7), 24 December 1652, p. 612. back
Note 29: See Governor General Carel Reyniersz to Governor Nikolaas Verburg, letter, 25 July 1652, VOC 876: 457–82, esp. 465. back
Note 30: Generale Missiven, vol. 2 (1639–55), Reyniersz, Maetsuyker, Hartzinck, Cunaeus, Caesar, and Steur (7), 24 December 1652, p. 612. back
Note 31: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, E: 444. back
Note 32: Chinese sources generally favor the explanation that Zheng Chenggong died of a cold (感冒風寒) (see Xia Lin 夏琳, Min hai ji yao 閩海紀要, Taiwan wenxian congkan, no. 11 [1958]: 30). Other sources, such as the Lu qiao ji wen, indicate that as he was dying Chenggong scratched his eyes and face, which would perhaps fit a diagnosis of tertiary syphilis, in which gummas form on the face. Some records indicate that he went insane just before dying, such as the Qing Veritable Records, which state that Chenggong "could not contain his anger and suddently went insane" (不勝其怒驟發顛狂)—cited in Chen Shengkun 陳勝崑, "Zheng Chenggong siyin de tanjiu" 鄭成功死因的探究, Yixue, xinli yu minsu 醫學心理與民俗, Xiandai yixue 現代醫學, series no. 10 (1982); 52–59, esp. 56. See also Li Tengyue 李騰嶽, "Zheng Chenggong de si yin kao" 鄭成功的死因攷, Wenxian zhuankan 文獻專刊1, no. 3 (1950): 35–44. Although both Chen Shengkun and Li Tengyue discuss Chenggong's episodes of madness, neither attributes them to syphilis. It is notoriously difficult to diagnose syphilis, "the great imitator," but it is possible that Zheng Zhilong had it. Thanks to John Hibbs, M.D., for a helpful medical perspective on syphilis and its epidemiology (personal communication, October 2004). back
Note 33: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, E: 444. back
Note 34: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, E: 473–74. back
Note 35: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, F: 667, E: 682. See also Cornelis Caesar, governor of Taiwan, to Governor-General Jan Maetsucker, Zeelandia, letter, 14 November 1655, VOC 1212: 284–349, esp. 327. back
Note 36: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, F: 573. back
Note 37: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Taiwan, to Governor-General Jan Maetsucker, Zeelandia, letter, 14 November 1655, VOC 1212: 284–349, quote at 290. back
Note 38: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Taiwan, to Governor-General Jan Maetsucker, Zeelandia, letter, 14 November 1655, VOC 1212: 284–349, esp. 306, 310, 326. back
Note 39: Translation of a Chinese placard from the Great Mandarin Koxinga, 20 November 1655, VOC 1213: 556–557, quote at 557. back
Note 40: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Taiwan, to Governor-General Jan Maetsucker, Zeelandia, letter, 14 November 1655, VOC 1212: 284–349, quote at 328. See also Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, F: 701–2 and 705. back
Note 41: Translation of Letter from Koxinga to the Chinese Translator Pinqua and the other Cabessas in Tayouan, 17 October 1655, VOC 1213: 560–61. See also Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, F: 735–37. back
Note 42: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, F: 734. back
Note 43: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Taiwan, to Governor-General Jan Maetsucker, Zeelandia, 14 November 1655, letter, VOC 1212: 284–349, quote at 330. See also Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, F: 737. back
Note 44: Batavia to Taiwan, 14 May 1655, letter, VOC 878: 209–42, quote at 232v. back
Note 45: Batavia to China to the Great Mandarin Koxinga in China, letter, 17 July 1655, VOC 879: 296–98. back
Note 46: Batavia to Taiwan, letter, 26 July 1655, VOC 879: 413–27, esp. 416–17. back
Note 47: Batavia to Taiwan, letter, 26 July 1655, VOC 879: 413–27, esp. 416–17, quote at 417. back
Note 48: Batavia to Taiwan, letter, 14 May 1655, VOC 878: 209–42, quote at 233. back
Note 49: Johan Nieuhof, Het Gezantschap der Neerlandtsche Oost-Indische Compagnie aan den Grooten Tartarishchen Cham, Den Tegenwoordigen Keizer van China (Amsterdam, 1668). For an excellent treatment of Dutch relations with the Qing in the seventeenth century, see John E. Wills Jr., Pepper, Guns, and Parleys: The Dutch East India Company and China, 1622–1681 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974) and Embassies and Illusions: Dutch and Portuguese Envoys to K'ang-hsi, 1666–1687 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984). back
Note 50: Company officials used a single Chinese translator to communicate both with Chenggong and with the ambassadors to the Manchus. Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 3, E: 362–63. back
Note 51: See Generale Missiven, vol. 3 (1655–74), Maetsuyker, Hartsinck, Cunaeus, Verburch, Steur, 1 February 1656; in Cheng Shaogang, "De VOC en Formosa 1624–1662: Een Vergeten Geschiedenis" (Ph.D. diss., University of Leiden, Netherlands, 1995), 2:385–405. back
Note 52: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, A: 199–201, back
Note 53: See Generale Missiven, vol. 3 (1655–74), Maetsuyker, Hartsinck, Cunaeus, Verburch, Steur, 1 February 1656; in Cheng, "De VOC en Formosa," 2:385–405. back
Note 54: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Taiwan, to Governor-General Jan Maetsucker, Zeelandia, letter, 14 November 1655, VOC 1212: 284–349, quote at 345. back
Note 55: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Taiwan, to Governor-General Jan Maetsucker, Zeelandia, letter, 14 November 1655, VOC 1212: 284–349, quote at 346. back
Note 56: In fact, the governor was exaggerating. In that battle Zhilong actually had around twenty-seven junks. back
Note 57: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Taiwan, to Governor-General Jan Maetsucker, Zeelandia, letter, 14 November 1655, VOC 1212: 284–349, esp. 347. back
Note 58: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 30 November 1656, VOC 1218: 1–70, esp. 36. back
Note 59: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, A: 249–51. See also VOC 1218: 419–420. back
Note 60: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, A: 249–51. back
Note 61: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 30 November 1656, VOC 1218: 1–70, esp. 38. back
Note 62: Volk is in this context somewhat ambiguous. It can mean both "people" and "subjects." Unfortunately the Chinese originals of these edicts have not been preserved, so it is impossible to recover Koxinga's original wording. The matter is clouded even more by the process of translation. Chinese documents were usually translated, by Chinese translators, first into Portuguese or Castilian and then, by Dutch translators, into Dutch. Although it is difficult to know for sure which word was used, the Portuguese and Spanish word gente, which might have been what the Dutch word volk was translated from, is similarly ambiguous. back
Note 63: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, A: 256. back
Note 64: See Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, A: 268. back
Note 65: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, A: 266. back
Note 66: Ibid. back
Note 67: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 30 November 1656, VOC 1218: 1–70, esp. 39. back
Note 68: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, A: 265–266. back
Note 69: Records concerning the translation of this document give us a rare glimpse into the company's translation processes. Three Chinese cabessas were responsible for translating the document from Chinese into Portuguese. From the Portuguese translation was made the Dutch translation. See Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, A: 268. back
Note 70: Translation of a License Given by the Great Mandarin Koxinga to the Mandarin Sjausinja, 1 July 1656, VOC 1218: 421. See also Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, B: 268. back
Note 71: Emphasis mine. Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, B: 268. back
Note 72: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, B: 269. back
Note 73: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 30 November 1656, VOC 1218: 1–70, quote at 41. back
Note 74: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, 30 November 1656, letter, VOC 1218: 1–70, esp. 3 and 33–34. back
Note 75: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, appendix to letter, 30 November 1656, VOC 1218: 71–74, esp. 71. See also Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 27 December 1656, VOC 1218: 467–471, esp. 468–469; and Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 31 January 1657, VOC 1218: 501–3 (this letter also contains a fascinating section detailing the expenditures that the village leaseholders had to expend in their trade, including transport costs, labor costs, etc.). back
Note 76: Zeelandia Dagregisters, vol. 4, B: 133. back
Note 77: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 27 December 1656, VOC 1218: 467–471, esp. 469; Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 30 November 1656, VOC 1218: 1–70, esp. 32. The governor and the Council of Formosa told the Chinese supplicants that they must wait for permission to come down from Batavia. They felt constrained because their superiors in Batavia and Amsterdam had been upset by previous decisions they had made that decreased revenues from Tayouan, such as a lowering of the toll on venison, a measure they had enacted to provide relief for Chinese merchants. back
Note 78: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, appendix to letter, 30 November 1656, VOC 1218: 71–74, quote at 71. back
Note 79: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, appendix to letter, 30 November 1656, VOC 1218: 71–74, esp. 71. back
Note 80: Generale Missiven, vol. 3 (1655–74), Maetsuyker, Hartzinck, Cunaeus, Van Oudtshoorn, et al., XIII, 31 January 1657, quote at 117. back
Note 81: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor–General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 30 November 1656, VOC 1218: 1–70, quote at 41. back
Note 82: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 30 November 1656, VOC 1218: 1–70, esp. 42. back
Note 83: Cornelis Caesar, governor of Formosa to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 27 December, 1656, VOC 1218: 467–71, quote at 469. back
Note 84: Letter from Frederik Coyett, governor of Formosa, to Governor-General Jan Maetsuycker, Formosa, letter, 10 March 1657, VOC 1222: 1–16, esp. 11–12. back


text:
The White House's Original Sin: A Failure of Effective Management
The Healthcare.gov debacle shows the administration doesn't know how to run the executive branch.
The HealthCare.gov debacle has been thoroughly dissected so far by America's best health journalists and policy analysts. To be sure, every major rollout of a new or changed social policy, including Medicare itself, is rough and takes weeks or months to resolve. But this rollout is clearly worse, and, as we learn more about its history over the past six months and more, the failures in vision and execution, in the face of clear and blunt warnings of problems ahead, are striking and troubling.
Go back, first, to Max Baucus's famous and widely distorted and misused "train wreck" comment in a hearing to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in April 2013. Contrary to Ted Cruz and countless other Republicans, Baucus did not call Obamacare a train wreck—he was referring directly to its implementation through the website. He said, "I understand you've hired a contractor. I'm just worried that that's going to be money down the drain because contractors like to make money more than they like to do anything else. That's their job. They've got to worry about their shareholders and whatnot.
"And also, all the other agencies are all involved. People are going to be really confused. And maybe give some thought to one-stop shopping somehow, so you go to one location--a businessperson--one location, get the answers.
"I just tell you, I just see a huge train wreck coming down. You and I have discussed this many times, and I don't see any results yet."
"What can you do to help all these people around the country going, 'What in the world do I do and what--how do I know what to do?' "
If Sebelius, the president, the leaders at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and other White House officials were unaware before that hearing about the implementation problems, they could not be unaware afterward. And, as we are now hearing, the stark internal warnings from tech experts of deep-seated problems in the programs came months ago and went unheeded.
Michael Gerson, the Washington Post columnist channeling his inner Friedrich von Hayek, says this is the inherent flaw in a huge system run by government—an obviously false conclusion given that the health care systems in France, Canada, the Netherlands. and, yes, Great Britain work smoothly and are immensely popular, and that in several states running their own exchanges, the implementation has been quite smooth.
Putting aside the fact that the federal exchange is much larger to start than anyone anticipated, because so many Republican governors opted out of creating their own exchanges, and that the demand has been strikingly high, I view the problem in a broader way. It is the larger failure of public administration that has been endemic in the Obama White House, and is probably the president's most significant weakness.
The first clues to this problem came during the transition in 2008. George W. Bush and his chief of staff, Josh Bolten, offered exemplary assistance to the incoming Obama team—but many of the ideas on the table to streamline the nomination process for executive posts, including the cumbersome vetting element, were ignored. From the get-go, the Obama administration was behind the curve on nominating people to fill key posts; many remained unfilled for the first term. Combine that with the shocking failure to quickly nominate judges to fill vacancies—for a constitutional-law professor who had served in the Senate. Both meant that the early tendency in the Senate to confirm presidential nominations was lost, and subsequent nominees got caught repeatedly in obstructionist tactics by Republican senators.
The initial White House staff structure did not include anyone in a prominent position who knew the executive branch intimately—knew which positions among the political appointees were important for the president's policy objectives and needed to be filled quickly by experts or managers; knew which senior career employees in the departments and agencies could be trusted and which to avoid; knew how to leverage policy goals through the adroit use of regulations, executive actions, and executive orders. The post of deputy chief of staff for operations is the key position here—it was not then and has not yet been filled with a person like Sally Katzen, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, or John Koskinen, all experts on management and the executive branch who would have admirably filled the bill. Instead, we had an Obama White House filled with veterans of Congress and of politics. There were management people at OMB—but that is not at all the same as having someone in the West Wing. Over the entire Obama presidency, little has changed.
Burwell is now, commendably, at OMB, and Koskinen has been nominated to be IRS commissioner. But of course, Koskinen, if and when confirmed, will only underscore the White House's failure here. Obama failed to fill the key post of IRS commissioner for FIVE YEARS. A savvy commissioner, in place early on, would have understood the potential train wreck ahead over the long-term IRS mishandling of 501(c)4 and (c)6 applications, and would have set up a process to create a bright line both to eliminate or ameliorate the political abuses of the tax code by groups like American Crossroads GPS and to give the career staff the clear guidelines they needed. And an experienced executive-branch veteran and public-management expert inside the White House would have seen the problems emerging with HealthCare.gov and begun the urgent management repair work earlier.
To be sure, the Obama administration has had many departments run well and efficiently, with remarkable stability and limited infighting among Cabinet and top agency appointees. There was none of the bickering that, for example, characterized the Bush White House's national security process in its first term involving Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice. Thanks to the model set by the president, and the work done by ethics adviser Norm Eisen, the Obama White House has had the fewest ethical problems of any administration in modern memory (the Fox News' rants about Benghazi and Operation Fast and Furious notwithstanding).
Some would argue that Eisen's stiff restrictions on lobbyists entering the administration is to blame here. There is no doubt that a number of qualified people were kept out or frightened away by the restrictions. But there were plenty of qualified people remaining in the job pool. It was the remarkable lack of concern with managing the government, seeing the effective implementation of the laws as important as their passage, that is the key here. And the buck starts and stops with the president.
NEXT STORY: 3 Levers to Pull for Smoother Budgeting

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The world's IPL2 fever just now began and all of us are aware of the hot matches. To cherish the fever, Orkut has released a new theme for Kolkata Knight Riders for a limited time. This team will be available until 24 May of 2009. This team is owned by Sha Rukh Khan, the Indian Cinema super star. Some sources say that hack will be available for this theme.
click to make Orkut fast to load


text:
The Secret Beyond Matter
A9 TV, 10 September 2011
They go into a restaurant and pack bombs into it. Even though there are children, young girls and innocent people inside. There are Muslims inside. What are you doing? Why do you have to do that? You are committing murder. Then you will remain in hell for all time, because you go without repenting. If you kill, the penalty is eternal hell. Instead of repenting, they say, "I am a jihadist." But their homes are full of pictures of Che and Mao. What is Muslim about them then? They are just classic terrorists. Admirers of Darwin. Darwinists and materialists who believe the world is shaped by Darwin's theories. But they sit around and talk about Islam. Whenever we look closely at a terrorist we see a Darwinist and materialist. But they say, "I am a Muslim." Children aged eight, young girls, die because of their bombs, and what do these people say? They say they are waging jihad. If you are waging jihad, then raise your level of general culture and knowledge and tell people abut Islam with love, affection and patience. They must find that hard, and planting bombs very easy, I guess. People become fed up with living and look for somewhere to do away with themselves. So they kill the people there as well as themselves. Instead of bombing that restaurant, go and preach or hand books out in it. But they find that difficult. Do you know the penalty in the hereafter for throwing bombs? What answer will you give Almighty Allah if He asks why you martyred a child of five or six? You will say, "I was waging jihad." "Allah will ask you, "Why did you kill yourself?" And you will say, "I was waging jihad." Islam is being attacked in a thousand ways, and this is one of them. I talk day and night about the ideas and errors of those who harm Islam. This is one such example. Our Prophet (saas) says there will be no bloodshed in the End Times, no waking of the sleeper and even no causing anyone's nose to bleed. And no weaponry. Arms will be done away with. What is left? Love, affection, compassion, justice, sincerity, brotherhood, joy, science, art and beauty will be left. I fail to understand why they make a world like this when they have the opportunity to make it so lovely instead.
A9 TV; 26 September 2011
Now primary and middle schools have gone back. I have looked at the official textbooks. They are packed full of Darwinism and materialism. As much as you could ask for. Wherever you open one you see Darwinist and materialist predilections and account. Then people put Marxist and Leninist thinking on top of that. Marxism is built once someone is a Darwinist and materialist. Because Marxism already talks about dialectic materialism. But the state cannot espouse dialectic philosophy, or Darwinism. The state has to set out both views. The state does not allow the teaching of creationism. Have you ever seen it say, "There are 350 million fossils that prove Creation"? No. Have you ever seen textbooks that say: "A protein cannot form by chance. This is the structure of the protein molecule. Protein needs protein to come into existence"? You cannot. Yet the state's own books say it came into being by chance. Then they complain about terrorism. Abdullah Öcalan says: "I used to pray and be religious. Then I was politicized. The people around me taught me communism. I learned about Darwinism and materialism from books, and I learned about atheism." He says he did not recognize Allah nor the Book. Then he says he is a communist, Abdullah Öcalan. In his own words: "Initially, I was religious. I did not know about materialist thinking. Then I learned about communism and became a communist." That is what happens if we do not answer back.
A9 TV; 28 October 2011
(About the martyring of two police officers in an attack by the PKK in Osmaniye)
That is the method in communist thinking. War and disasters such as earthquakes are used in the implementation of communism and Leninism, in their strategy. They will try to spread conflict. They regard these as a fine opportunity for anarchy and terror. These things are set out in Leninist praxis. And they apply them. The whole problem is one of a scientific struggle against Marxism and Leninism. Silence just gives the impression the other side is defeatist in the face of Leninism. That is how they think. That they cannot beat us on the level of ideas. You see them say, "They can only oppose us with demagoguery." So since we have these means, when it is scientifically so clear we are in the right, then we must make full use of this opportunity.
A9 TV, 5 August 2011
There had to be a mobilization in Turkey and the world against communism. There can be no other means of opposing it. There has to be a scientific, intellectual struggle. Some people say this is terrible oppression, what they are doing, and say it should not be happening in the holy month of Ramadan. But communists pay no heed to Ramadan. Savagery is a communist technique, the communist style. It is a weapon they can never relinquish. How can they? They say they are very saddened. But the more they say that, the more it encourages the communist movement and accelerates it. That is what they want. They go into paroxysms of joy every time they see a martyr's body. Such things really strengthen the organization; weeping and lamentation. Day and night, the television describes what the PKK terror organization is doing. It has been on all the TV stations for the last 30 years; funerals, reports of bombings every day, daily references to the PKK. Never a day without mention of Abdullah Öcalan or the PKK. And that is what the organization wants, what the PKK wants. There is no way to stop it apart from intellectual propaganda. The first thing the State must do is to stop Darwinist propaganda in all schools and everywhere. The state must put a stop to Darwinist propaganda on TRT and everywhere. There must be no official Darwinist propaganda in high schools and universities. If there is any, it must come with a rebuttal, a scientific. But one-sided propaganda just prepares the way for communism's main foundation, its main philosophy. Then it is easy to establish communism. If a person has a materialist and Darwinist mindset, there is no reason why he should not be a communist. If he sincerely believes in Darwinism and materialism, if he believes in thesis, antithesis and synthesis, in the dialectical system, then he is a communist. What else could he be? It all revolves around Darwinism. Once Darwinism is eliminated, communism will evaporate. It is my intellectual annihilation of Darwinism that lies behind their severe attacks on me. They attack worldwide.
(Regarding people saying the timing of the slaughter is wrong because of Ramadan)
It is a slip of the tongue for Muslims to say "the timing of the slaughter is wrong." There can never be a right time for slaughter. It is talk and suggestion that convinces people. And that comes from science. Not with oppression and tanks and guns. This stems from the ferocity of the way of the Sufyan. Their aims in Turkey are normally of that kind. They imagined they could destroy Muslims en masse. The alleged terror organization Ergenekon will not just sit idly by, so we are carrying on. That is their logic. Whoever said "the timing is wrong" should issue a retraction2012-10-31 16:22:17


text:
The Granite Games Throwdown 2018
Hosted by SYR Crossfit. The first 25 are fully and individually edited images. All photos are corrected for color, and can be individually edited upon request (submit via Contact option above). Prints and downloads for each image (no watermark) can be accessed by clicking on the desired photo and choosing the print/download option desired. Please reach out ("Contact" option above) with any other questions!Read More


text:
Hello Dramatics! It's your favorite Drama Queen back once again with a list of Asian movies to watch for the month of December 2017. This list is very special because the movies on this list are the ones Dramatics recommended that I watch. Dramatics from all over the world participated in this poll via Twitter recently. With that being said, some of these titles have been out for some time and others have been released in 2017. What I like about this list is that it is very diverse with movie recommendations from South Korea, Japan, and China to name a few. I would like to thank the readers of KDramaParadise for their recommendations. Without further adieu, here are your recommendations for Asian Movies To Watch in 2017!
Midnight Runners
Genre: Action, Comedy, Detective, Investigation
Country: South Korea
Release Date: August 9, 2017
Duration: 1 hr. 49 min.
Starring: Kang Ha Neul , Park Seo Joon
Synopsis: Two police academy students who only have their majors and books to trust, witness a kidnapping and try it down. The two police cadets try to save the young woman's life before it's too late.
Source: Movie.Daum.Net
Min & Max
Genre: Comedy, Romance
Country: China
Release Date: November 25, 2016
Duration: 1 hr. 35 min.
Starring: Godfrey Gao , Wang Shuilin
Synopsis: This romantic comedy is about the relationship between Zhang Xiao and Xia Xil Ling. The shortest taekwondo master female Xia Xil Ling, and the tall and very handsome basketball player, Zhang Xiao. Whenever they meet they always fight but end up falling in love with each other.
Day Time Shooting Star
Genre: Romance, School, Youth, Manga
Country: Japan
Release Date: March 24, 2017
Duration: 1 hr. 59 min.
Starring: Shohei Miura, Mei Nagano
Synopsis: Fifteen-year-old country girl Suzume Yosano has to move to Tokyo to live with her uncle due to her father's transfer. She bumps into a mysterious man who ends up taking her to her uncle's place after she gets lost. Suzume will be seeing him a lot more often once she starts school because the mysterious man happens to be her homeroom teacher.
Source: IMDB
My Love Story
Genre: Comedy, Romance, Manga
Country: Japan
Release Date: October 31, 2015
Duration: 1 hr. 45 min.
Starring: Ryohei Suzuki , Mei Nagano
Synopsis: Gouda Takeo is a big guy with a big heart. Unfortunately, the girls are not interested in him and only want his good looking best friend, Sunakawa. Accepting the fact, Takeo is content wit his single life. One day, after saving a girl named Yamato from being harassed, he unexpectedly turns his life around.
Source: IMDB
Back To The 90's
Genre: Romance, Fantasy
Country: Thailand
Release Date: March 19, 2015
Duration: 1 hr. 51 min.
Starring: Pimchanok Leuwisetpaiboon , Achita Pramoj Na Ayudhya
Synopsis: About a young guy who discovers a message on an old pager and is transported twenty years back in time to 1995. altering the events in which his parents met and fell in love.
Source: IMDB
Have you seen any of these movies? What did you like about them? Are there any other movies you would recommend? Leave a comment down below and lets discuss! Remember To Keep Calm And Drama On! Happy Drama Watching!
For more Asian drama and movie reviews, follow me:
Twitter: KDramaParadise
Facebook: KDramaParadise
Instagram: KDramaParadise
YouTube: KDramaParadise
Blog: KDramaParadise


text:
Humanism is modern, clean and professionally crafted PSD template. It is especially designed for charity, NGO, non-profit organization, donation, church or fundraising website. This PSD Template has 4 color schemes (including light and dark versions), boxed and wide versions. It has mobile version. The psd is designed on grid and can be easily converted into responsive HTML and WP.
This theme will be available in HTML and WP version as soon as possible. Stay tuned!
- 15 layered PSD files
- Boxed and Wide versions
- 4 color chemes
- Light and dark versions
- Mobile version
- Based on 1170px grid system
- Grid lines included
- Well organized layers
- Easy to customize
- Multipurpose
- Free icons used
- Free fonts used
- Icons font Included
- Bootstrap layout ready
What Do You Get:
- This template has 15 layered PSD files:
- Main Yellow Light.psd
- Main Red Light.psd
- Main Yellow Dark.psd
- Main Red Dark.psd
- Main Yellow Boxed 1.psd
- Main Red Boxed 1.psd
- Main Yellow Boxed 2.psd
- Main Red Boxed 2.psd
- Main Mobile.psd
- Causes.psd
- Cause Page.psd
- Events.psd
- Blog.psd
- 404.psd
- Contacts.psd
- Documentation
- "rt-icons" Icons Font
- Alfa Slab One: https://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Alfa+Slab+One
- Lato: https://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Lato
- Socialico Font fontfabric.com/social-media-icons-pack/
- Icons Font icomoon.io
If you purchase this template, you will get support. We will update this template time by time and we want to hear your wishes for the future updates or for complete new templates.
The images used in the template are not included in the main download file, they are only for the preview purpose.
Thank You!
Thank you so much for your interests. Your comments and ratings would be much appreciated.


text:
City of London Pubs (1973): Forty Years On – Part 5
November 25, 2014
Please note: I'm jumping ahead here, but the long-delayed Part 1 will follow in the next week!
This is the fifth part of my walk following the route of City of London Pubs: A Practical and Historical Guide by Timothy M. Richards and James Stevens Curl.
For Richards and Curl, Area 5 was "our largest tour, topographically speaking" – but today, it's the area which drives home just how much the City has changed in the last forty years.
Once, this area was the heart of the City's brewing industry. On Chiswell Street stood the Whitbread Brewery, founded by Samuel Whitbread in 1750 as the country's first purpose-built mass-production brewery. On the wall outside, a stone plaque records a 1787 visit by George III and Queen Charlotte – their visit was commemorated with two rooms used for storing beer named in their honour.
The brewery is no longer operating, but it was still a working brewery when Richards and Curl were writing in 1973 – they wrote that Whitbread's "is now the sole survivor" of the City breweries, which had once been 40 strong – but it closed three years later in 1976.
The real damage to the City's historic pubs started at this point, but it was really during the 1990s and early 2000s that the trade took a hammering it can never recover from. Bigger profits were to be found outside the pubs: in the value of the land and in other, more profitable, businesses.
The company used the Brewery as their headquarters until 2001, when they decided to wash their hands of the pub trade after two-and-a-half centuries. Their website proudly states:
In 2001 we became the company we are today. We sold our breweries [in 2000] and left the pub and bar business [selling off their pubs in 2001], refocusing on the growth areas of hotels and restaurants. Our reinvention as the UK's leading hospitality business naturally coincided with the ending of this country's brewing and pub-owning tradition, started by Samuel Whitbread over 250 years earlier.
Since 1995, Whitbread have owned the Costa Coffee chain, and this, along with Premier Inn and Brewers Fayre restaurants, has been the main focus of their business ever since.
The Whitbread Brewery was sold to an investment firm in 2005 and is now The Brewery, "a premier corporate venue" and "a leading conference space."
I've been there for an awards-do and it's very pleasant, but I can't shake the feeling that are lots of other similar corporate venues dotted around the neighbourhood, and it would be far more special if it had remained a working brewery. Of course, that comes down to profit, and if that's not there, what can you do?
The fate of the Whitbread Brewery was the same as many of the pubs which Richard and Curl visited in 1973, and their writing makes it clear they were largely unaware of the extent of the creeping destruction which was just around the corner.
This walk is close to a tipping point in my survey – this is the first walk where the number of lost pubs far exceed the number which have survived. Five pubs that Richards and Curl visited in 1973 are still here; but ten have gone. The City has lost so many pubs by this point in my survey that nearly half of the pubs which Richards and Curl visited in 1973 have disappeared.
The huge office blocks which now dominate the area have also entirely changed the area's topography. What used to be a street with numbers neatly along its length has often been replaced with vast glass atriums with company names etched onto the glass, and entire sections of the roads have been replaced by single buildings. Occasionally, this has made it hard to pinpoint the exact locations of lost pubs.
Additionally, there seems to be a concerted effort to hide road names when office blocks have taken over. Many street signs (some of them very old signs themselves) are placed high above the level of the street, often on one side only and at angles that make it almost impossible to see. Why this should be, I have no idea.
No.64 – THE KING'S HEAD, 49 Chiswell Street, EC1
Noting that Chiswell "is probably a corruption of the brewery's 'choice well'", Richards and Curl call The King's Head the "first of the Whitbread brewery taps…The interconnected saloon and public bars are always bustling, patronised mainly by brewery workers and men from the Barbican site. The small saloon lounge inevitably fills up in no time at all…A large mural depicting the brewery in olden days graces one wall."
The pub has now gone, replaced with a smart bistro called The Chiswell Street Dining Rooms, which stretches four shop-fronts along the road. There is a bar inside, but it is certainly not a pub – the menu outside sounds delicious, but anywhere offering "prune and Earl Grey tea puree" on the side of a dish is definitely a restaurant.
As is often the case when I wander around the City with a camera, a gentleman who worked at the Dining Rooms came over to ask me what I was doing when I was photographing the building. As soon as I'd said "I do a blog", he immediately relaxed and told me to pop in for a drink if I fancied. I can tell you that isn't the usual response I get – some people have asked me for "ID proving you're a historian", which I don't think actually exists – so thanks to him. I didn't have the drink, but I appreciated the gesture.
No. 65 – THE ST PAUL'S TAVERN, 56 Chiswell Street, EC1
At the junction with Silk Street, on the other side of the Brewery's entrance from the King's Head, formerly stood the St Paul's Tavern, a "popular pub" where "space…is always at a premium." It has now been renamed the Jugged Hare, and while more obviously a pub than the Chiswell Street Dining Rooms, it is not what anyone could term a boozer.
Looking at the menu outside, I noticed the bottom of the menu has the same details as the one outside the Chiswell Street Dining Rooms, noting it was owned by 'the ETM Group'. Slightly lower priced than its sister business, it was similarly filled with suited City types and certainly isn't the sort of place you'd wander into wearing jeans and carrying a copy of the Racing Post.
The problem here is that if it looks what a pub traditionally looks like, it has a bar and it serves a decent pint of beer, is it still a pub? I've thought about this a lot for the purposes of this survey, and I've come to the conclusion that it isn't necessarily.
There are certain things which are integral to pubs that go beyond that – could you pop in for a swift half with two mates on the way to a gig? Could you nip inside to keep out of the rain, and nurse a half for the best part of an hour? Would you go there on a Sunday morning to read the papers? Is the bar the focus of the building as opposed to the restaurant? The answer to all those questions is no.
It might seem as if I'm splitting hairs, but I think the main purpose of a pub has to be to primarily serve alcohol to people in a social environment. If the main focus is on food, and not on serving beer, then it's a restaurant. So while the Jugged Hare looked very nice, it's not any longer what I think can be termed a pub.
No. 66 – THE RED LION, 1 Eldon Street, EC2
As Richards and Curl state, the Red Lion (like the two previous businesses) is ever so slightly outside the boundary of the City, but aside from saying its busy, they spend little time on the overall look. Perhaps it's due to the glass cliffs which now tower above it, but the Red Lion looked terrifically inviting from the outside, and more so when I looked through the door.
Run by Taylor Walker, it's a snug, dark wooden room which was full of pre-Christmas afternoon cheer.
No. 67 – THE RAILWAY TAVERN, 15 Liverpool Street, EC2
"Standing as it does opposite Broad Street and Liverpool Street Stations, The Railway is an obvious place to down a quick pint while waiting for a train. More trains have been missed for this reason than all others put together we suspect. The second of Whitbread's 'theme' houses (owned jointly with Bass), this one is a real Mecca for railway enthusiasts. The large, once stately, lounge houses numerous prints, photographs, and notices concerning railway history. Two models stand out in particular – an LNER Coronation Coach and the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway's 'Jenny Lind.'"
While these pieces of railway memorabilia have long gone, The Railway remains, now subdivided into bars: the main one, an upstairs bar and dining room called The Engine Room, and one smaller round the back, named the Citybar – a name that immediately makes me think of 1980s Yuppiedom (perhaps also because it comes complete with a stained glass window reading 'Wine Bar' above.)
Not withstanding the handsome sub-classical exterior, the inside is a bit gloomy, with the darkness punctured by the flash of fruit machines, Sky Sports on the flatscreens and an Atom-bomb-bright board on showing rotating adverts for Now That's What I Call Music compilations and local estate agents. It hadn't put many people off, as it was busy inside.
Next door, the pub's proximity to the railway was spelled out: Crossrail's redevelopments are taking place, but it's a relief to see the pub incorporated into the developer's idealised vision of the future of the area.
No. 68 – PATMAC'S RAILWAY BUFFET, 73 Old Broad Street, EC2
"Essentially, as its name suggests," wrote Richards and Curl in 1973, "Patmac's (Patrick & Macgregor) is a buffet bar for Liverpool Street Underground Station…It is interesting to note that Liverpool Street should have a buffet bar here, as it is now the only tube station apart from Sloane Square possessing a bar actually on the platform." While the Liverpool Street tube bar is long gone, Patmac's is still operating, although now it goes by the much preferable name The Lord Aberconway.
A lovely Victorian bar – probably the most handsome interior of all the pubs on this walk – it's run by Nicholson's, who are one of the few brewers to proudly retell the history of their pubs on handsome plaques outside (I award extra bonus points for mentioning ghosts and/or the plague). The name change – Lord Aberconway was the last chairman of the Old Metropolitan Railway, which amalgamated with other lines in 1933 to form the Underground as we know it today – is relatively recent, but the pub itself (despite the frequent name-changes) looks as if it has been largely unchanged for years.
Letter E – THROGMORTON BAR, 27 Throgmorton Street, EC2
No.69 – THE BODEGA BAR, 30 Throgmorton Street, EC2
Throgmorton Street was, for many years, dominated by the bars along it, serving the workers in the nearby Stock Exchange.
During the 1970s, the Throgmorton Bar was "a darkly-panelled bar in vaguely seventeenth-century style, with 'period' plaster ceiling in the Jacobean manner…the showpiece of this bar is, however, undoubtedly the mosaic-clad stairwell that leas down to the basement. The stairs winds it way round an elegant wrought-iron cage containing the lift shaft. The mosaics are richly colourd, with classical Pompeian friezes and much use of gold." Its near-neighbour, the Bodega Bar, was "a remarkably long, narrow bar…based on a styling vaguely art nouveau. The walls are subdivided by pilasters of alabaster and marble, and the plaster ceiling is enriched with sub-Art Nouveau and Rococo motifs."
While not doubting Richards and Curl's appreciation of these places (it sounds a little like the decor of these bars might not be to modern tastes), all have since disappeared over the years as whatever redevelopment is happening in Throgmorton Street continues to not happen.
Unlike most City developments, there are no signs promoting any new developments 'coming soon', even though it looks as if the road is definitely being prepared for redevelopment.
Throgmorton's closed in 2008, the long-running Throgmorton's restaurant (responsible for the elaborate metalwork along the road, most of it dating from the time the restaurant was owned by the Lyon's chain) in 2013, and a pub not mentioned in City of London Pubs called The Arbitager was the last to be operating in the main portion of the road.
I went in once a few years back, and it was simply unique – with the racing on, and unpainted walls, it looked more like a Dickensian hole-in-the-wall gin shop than a pub. No less exciting for that. Now it too has gone the way of all the rest.
No.70 – MOORE'S BAR, 34a Throgmorton Street, EC2
At the lower end of Throgmorton Street, where Moore's Bar once stood – "below pavement level, the subterranean bars are loaded with Victoriana, especially mirror advertisements of the late nineteenth century, stuffed fish and other period bric-a-brac" – the buildings have all been demolished and are awaiting office blocks.
No.71 – BIRCH'S, Angel Court, Ec2
"Chiefly a wine house," note Richards and Curl, "the shop front, with its three semi-circular leaded windows, is a passable replica of part of the eighteenth-century original [Birch's wine shop in Cornhill]…the interior is small and intimate, with a board floor. There is a splendid open screen of vaguely Gothick style separating the front bar from the rear alcove containing tables – a most charming feature." All these features have now gone, along with the historic name – the only business along the street in a building similar to the one Richards and Curl described is the Mint Leaf Lounge, a huge open plan bar which looks a lot of the lobby of an expensive hotel, all honey lighting and strange human-shaped silver statues.
No. 72 – THE BUTLER'S HEAD, 11 Telegraph Street, EC2
New in 1973 – "another undistinguished addition to the City" – this pub has since been replaced by a later office block with a pub underneath called The Telegraph.
By far the largest of all the pubs I saw on this walk – honestly, you could take the tables and chairs out and play a football match inside – The Telegraph is run by Fullers. It's newness makes it look like a branch of the Slug and Lettuce and it lacks charm – but I suppose its main purpose is to cater efficiently for large numbers of workers on a weeknight rather than act as a cosy local.
Due to the fact that neither Richards nor Curl would recognise this site in the slightest, and the fact the name of the pub which used to be on this site has been lost, I'm counting this as a new pub which has opened on the site of an old one which closed.
No.73 – YE OLDE DOCTOR BUTLER'S HEAD, Masons Avenue, EC3
Set in a beautiful avenue of half-timbered, narrow old houses, this pub was named after Dr William Butler, the Court Physician to King James I. Famous for inventing a popular medicinal ale, the pub which takes his name is old, but was significantly remodelled in the 1920s.
Largely preserved since then, when I visited it had been renamed The Movember Arms to promote the excellent men's health charity Movember. Hopefully this renaming is just for the month of November – I must admit, it's so professionally done, there's a part of me that's ever so slightly worried it won't be changing back. Thankfully the barrels hint the name isn't here to stay…
No. 74 – THE STIRLING CASTLE, 50 London Wall, EC2
"A late nineteenth-century pub with a strongly designed exterior," wrote Richards and Curl, "somewhat spoiled by the loss of its original glass." More than the glass has gone now – the entire pub and surrounding buildings have been demolished and replaced with the ubiquitous office block with shop units underneath.
The lack of numbering on this faceless block means its hard to tell exactly where the pub would have been – it looks to be where LA Fitness is. A couple of original metal plaques have been salvaged by the developers and pinned to the front of the modern building like the scalps of defeated enemies – one, which reads 'SCS 1886' seems to fit the date of the old pub given by Richards and Curl, with the 'SCS' perhaps incorporating the initials of 'Stirling Castle.' This is just a guess – if anyone knows any better, please let me know!
No. 75 – THE GLOBE, 83 Moorgate, EC2
"The Globe is one of those pubs that no one knows by its real name; it is universally known as The 199." While I don't think anyone knows the pub as The 199 these days, the Globe is still standing, huddled together at the edge of a small group of old buildings kept standing as all the surrounding ones have been knocked down to build offices.
Huddled together amidst the skyscrapers, the Globe is a hardy survivor –"it was mentioned in 1734 in records of the Clockmaker's Company, and we know that John Wilkes 'dined at Globe near Moorgate' in 1770." Nowadays there don't seem to be many radicals coming through the doors, only City workers having a couple of pints before heading to Moorgate station just a few wobbly steps away.
No. 76 – THE MOORGATE, 85 Moorgate, EC2
Located directly next door to the Globe in 1973, the inn was once known as The Swan & Hoop, and it was here that the poet John Keats was born in 1795 (his father managed the livery stables at the inn, although whether Keats was truly born here or at his parent's unidentified nearby house is lost in the mists of time.)
The Moorgate is no longer running, having been swallowed by its neighbour at some point and renamed 'Keats at the Globe', although I'm not entirely certain if they are actually connected as a whole. The house bears a plaque commemorating Keats' birth and the house – not original to the time Keats was born and now looking really tired –probably has its famous connection to thank for escaping the redevelopment which has started one door down. As the pub is now just an overspill of The Globe, I am counting it as lost.
No.77 – THE PLOUGH, St Alphage Highwalk, London Wall, EC2
No. 78 – THE PODIUM, St Alphage Highwalk, London Wall, EC2
No. 79 – THE BARBICAN, St Alphage Highwalk, London Wall, EC2
These pubs were "three new highwalk public houses" located in the Barbican development (which, at the time of Richards and Curl's 1973 book wouldn't be completely finished for another three years.) All were situated on the same Highwalk (the name given to the passageways in the complex which were high above street level), all appeared during the early 1970s, and all shut during the 2000s, ahead of a redevelopment of the fringe on which they were situated.
Along with the pubs, St Alphage Highwalk has itself been terminated.
It currently leads nowhere, blocked off at one end and cut off at the other, as 'London Wall Place' (another office) is erected on the site where the pubs once stood, alongside a universally unloved late-1950s skyscraper named St Alphage House. The small parade of shops on the site always underperformed and the units had been empty for a number of years. After the recession stalled a number of projects, the parade and St Alphage House were finally demolished earlier this year.
There are still two places to get a drink by the Barbican, however: situated on Moorfields Highwalk is the City Boot…
…while close by the Church is Wood Street, a restaurant which also serves drinks. It has a pub sign outside and a snooker table (although with red baize, which I have problems with), so I'm happy to count it as a pub. It was formerly known as the Crowders Well before its current incarnation.
It also has a sign outside that pleased me greatly. "Drinking is not allowed outside the pub. Drinkers must stay inside."
That's what people who use pubs should always be. Not customers, not guests, not patrons.
Two quick notes
In this walk, Richards and Curl also included a number of wine bars (or as they had it, places that were "not a pub in the true sense of the word, but included as a drinking establishment"), which they chose to letter from A to F, rather than number like pubs. All but one of them – Gow's Oyster Bar on Old Broad Street, which looked like a great place to go at Christmas and was fit to bursting with bald businessmen enjoying a late seafood lunch – have long gone, as, unlike pubs, when the owner left, the business didn't continue. As such, I have left them off this survey, as I have done with new wine bar/club places, such as Babble City (which looks as if it was specifically designed to scare off anyone over 30) on Wormwood Street.
Additionally, a few proper new pubs have appeared in the forty years since City of London Pubs was written. At no. 26 Throgmorton Street is the Phoenix, a large cavern of a place with dark wood interior…
…and on Wormwood Street sits the King's Arms, a Taylor Walker pub situated underneath a tower block which must have sprung up in the years following Richards and Curl's book.
Pubs covered in 1973′s City of London Pubs still open: 32 (4 renamed)
Pubs covered in 1973′s City of London Pubs now closed: 31
Pubs covered in 1973′s City of London Pubs which had closed and are now open: 1
Pubs opened since 1973's City of London Pubs: 6


text:
Welcome to Washington Ford
Stop by and visit us today at Washington Ford. Serving Pittsburgh, Penn Hills, Canonsburg, and Wheeling, we are your local Ford new and used Car, Truck, SUV dealership. We take pride in the vehicles we sell and strive to succeed in great customer experience and satisfaction.Whether you are looking for a new Ford Mustang, Ranger, Escape or F-150, our knowledgeable and friendly staff at Washington Ford are eager to assist you in your car buying process. For Assistance, call us now at (888) 706-6128At Washington Ford we give you easy access to the most up-to-date internet car buying tools: you can quickly view our new Ford Specials, Used Car Specials, New Ford Vehicles, used vehicle inventory, build and price your new vehicle, request a test drive,apply for financing, schedule your next service appointment, or get Directions and Hours for our dealership.


text:
Steel can do so much. It can span great distances, and surge outwards into the open air with no apparent means of support. It can withstand desert heat and mountainous winds. It can be as strong as Superman, yet as svelte as Lois Lane. Steel can produce houses that are box-like, pure pavilions that float above the land, or houses that burrow into their sites. Steel houses can be cool machines, or warm cabins. As a material, steel is emotionally malleable. Steel frames and panels can be prefabricated in a factory, trucked to a building site, and assembled quickly.
Historically the push for steel was part of a larger movement that sought to make houses easier to build and maintain. Designers from the 1930s on also tried plastics, aluminum, reinforced concrete, and concrete blocks. 'Arts & Architecture,' the magazine that did so much for residential steel by sponsoring the Case Study House program from the late 1940s into the '60s, bragged about steel's "permanence, its crisp fine line" in an article about Craig Ellwood's Case Study 'Fields House.'
Few architects who worked in steel ever had the primary goal of producing a 'steel house.' Designing a house, most of them will surely admit, is not about the material that is used, but about serving the needs of the people who live there.
A close look at a dozen of California's most distinguished modern steel houses shows how their architects addressed those needs and the variety of approaches they used to reach that goal.
#1: Stahl House - Case Study House 22
Built: 1960
Architect: Pierre Koenig
Where: Hollywood Hills
Status: This iconic home remains in-demand for high style photo shoots.
Structure: Steel frame, with exposed ceiling of steel decking. The roof is covered with composition roofing and gravel. Walls are glass and steel decking. Interior walls are faced with insulated wallboard. Steel caissons support the house, on a steep and tricky site.
The steel roof beams draw the eye towards the view, as though any drawing is needed. The Stahl house is one of the most famous modern homes anywhere, thanks to Julius Shulman's classic shot of well-dressed partygoers enjoying cocktails in a glass box floating above the lights of Los Angeles.
The steel allowed Koenig to create a house that appears almost immaterial. Inside, nothing is allowed to block views—not suspended kitchen cabinetry nor the see-through fireplace. Steel beams and decking provide south- and west-facing overhangs that control summer sun. The steel allows the house to cantilever out over a rock face towards Los Angeles, as though it is reaching for the lights of the city below.
More even than as a practical residence, the Stahl house has functioned as an iconic image of modernity, thanks to Shulman's image. Architect Norman Foster wrote of "the heroic nighttime view of Pierre Koenig's Case Study house," and said: "If I had to choose one snapshot, one architectural moment, of which I would like to have been the author, this is surely it."
Photo: David Glomb
#2: Lovell Health House
Built: 1929
Architect: Richard Neutra
Where: Los Angeles
Status: The home remains in superb condition.
Structure: Steel frame encased in concrete, with plastered interior walls of metal lath.
The granddaddy of California steel houses, Neutra's Lovell Health house set the scene for much that followed. Almost certainly the first steel-framed modern house in California, the Lovell house is framed in off-the-shelf steel posts and beams, with 12-inch steel wing plates at junctures for lateral strength. Window casements are steel.
Like so many California steel houses that followed, the Lovell house used steel to handle a steep slope. The house's distinctive cantilevers are suspended from the roof. Unlike most of the steel houses, the Lovell uses steel for interior partitions—as a steel mesh encased in plaster. But with its shot-on stucco exterior, it looks less like a steel house than like concrete floating atop glass walls. The steel is implied.