Pequeno vals vienes (Little Viennese Waltz)

by Federico García Lorca
(June 5, 1898 — August 19, 1936)

Rough translation by Leonard Cohen (in 1998 for a song he called Take This Waltz on the album I’m Your Man)

En Viena hay diez muchachas,
un hombro donde solloza la muerte
y un bosque de palomas disecadas.
Hay un fragmento de la mañana
en el museo de la escarcha.
Hay un salón con mil ventanas.
         ¡Ay, ay, ay, ay!
Toma este vals con la boca cerrada.

Este vals, este vals, este vals,
de sí, de muerte y de coñac
que moja su cola en el mar.

Te quiero, te quiero, te quiero,
con la butaca y el libro muerto,
por el melancólico pasillo,
en el oscuro desván del lirio,
en nuestra cama de la luna
y en la danza que sueña la tortuga.
         ¡Ay, ay, ay, ay!
Toma este vals de quebrada cintura.

En Viena hay cuatro espejos
donde juegan tu boca y los ecos.
Hay una muerte para piano
que pinta de azul a los muchachos.
Hay mendigos por los tejados,
hay frescas guirnaldas de llanto.
         ¡Ay, ay, ay, ay!
Toma este vals que se muere en mis brazos.

Porque te quiero, te quiero, amor mío,
en el desván donde juegan los niños,
soñando viejas luces de Hungría
por los rumores de la tarde tibia,
viendo ovejas y lirios de nieve
por el silencio oscuro de tu frente.
         ¡Ay, ay, ay, ay!
Toma este vals del "Te quiero siempre".

En Viena bailaré contigo
con un disfraz que tenga
cabeza de río.
¡Mira qué orillas tengo de jacintos!
Dejaré mi boca entre tus piernas,
mi alma en fotografías y azucenas,
y en las ondas oscuras de tu andar
quiero, amor mío, amor mío, dejar,
violín y sepulcro, las cintas del vals.
Now in Vienna there's ten pretty women
There's a shoulder where death comes to cry.
There's a lobby with nine hundred windows.
There's a tree where the doves go to die.
There's a piece that was torn from the morning,
and it hangs in the Gallery of Frost --
        Ay, ay, ay, ay
Take this waltz, take this waltz,
take this waltz with the clamp on its jaws.

I want you, I want you, I want you
on a chair with a dead magazine.

In the cave at the tip of the lily,
in some hallway where love's never been.
On a bed where the moon has been sweating,
in a cry filled with footsteps and sand --
        Ay, ay, ay, ay
Take this waltz, take this waltz,
take its broken waist in your hand.

This waltz, this waltz, this waltz, this waltz
with its very own breath
of brandy and death,
dragging its tail in the sea.

There's a concert hall in Vienna
where your mouth had a thousand reviews.
There's a bar where the boys have stopped talking,
they've been sentenced to death by the blues.
Ah, but who is it climbs to your picture
with a garland of freshly cut tears?
        Ay, ay, ay, ay
Take this waltz, take this waltz,
take this waltz, it's been dying for years.

There's an attic where children are playing,
where I've got to lie down with you soon,
in a dream of Hungarian lanterns,
in the mist of some sweet afternoon.
And I'll see what you've chained to your sorrow,
all your sheep and your lilies of snow --
        Ay, ay, ay, ay
Take this waltz, take this waltz,
with its "I'll never forget you, you know!"

And I'll dance with you in Vienna,
I'll be wearing a river's disguise.
The hyacinth wild on my shoulder,
my mouth on the dew of your thighs.
And I'll bury my soul in a scrapbook,
with the photographs there, and the moss.
And I'll yield to the flood of your beauty,
my cheap violin and my cross.
And you'll carry me down on your dancing
to the pools that you lift on your wrist --
O my love, O my love
Take this waltz, take this waltz,
it's yours now. It's all that there is.


Are there popular bands today that would write a song like Spanish Bombs and mention a poet who was tortured and then murdered by a right-wing militia for his support of modernity in poetry, politics and morals? His only crime was to be outspoken about values that were not shared by a conservative and heavily armed group fighting for control of his country.

I remember mulling over Clash lyrics while in grad school with some folks who were working for Paul Preston. How places of great tragedy have turned into lazy drinking at a “disco casino” for British tourists.

The lyrics led me to Lorca’s poems and thus to a deeper understanding of life and civil war in 1930s Spain. It still gives me chills to listen and read about this period in time in Europe, not just because of social consciousness about incredible brutality against civilians but because of the sad similarity to world events unfolding even today. The Wikipedia explains the fundamental rift that left hundreds of thousands of civilians dead and that devastated the Spanish economy for decades:

During and in the wake of the war, the Nationalists carried out a program of mass killing of opponents where house searches were carried out, and unwanted individuals were often jailed or killed. Trade-unionists, known republican sympathisers and critics of Franco’s regime were among the first to be targeted. The Nationalists also carried out aerial bombings of civilian areas with the help of the German and Italian air forces.

[…]

Republican sympathizers proclaimed it as a struggle between “tyranny and democracy”, or “fascism and liberty”, and many young, committed reformers and revolutionaries joined the International Brigades, which thought saving the Spanish Republic was the front line of the war against fascism. Franco’s supporters, however, especially the younger members of the officer corps, viewed it as a battle between the red hordes of communism and anarchism on the one hand and “Christian civilization” on the other.

Outdoor risk calculations

Outdoor magazine has a long but amusing story about risk and recreation:

In sheer numbers—including canoeists, kayakers, and rafters—the most common way someone dies boating is in a canoe, on flatwater, with no PFD [personal flotation device], drinking alcohol.

“Fifty percent of people who die in canoes and kayaks are out fishing,” Dillon continues. “They’re not tuned in to the skills and information they need to participate safely.”

Charlie Walbridge, longtime board member of the American Whitewater Safety Committee, has been tracking whitewater accidents for three decades. Like Dillon, he believes a failure to take sensible precautions is responsible for most deaths.

I always wear a lifejacket, but the issue I’ve run into is that the US Coast Guard does not consider 60 newtons sufficient for a recreational lifejacket yet the rest of the world does. It’s actually only a problem if you want to buy one of the new European lifejackets. One afternoon when I crashed an A-Class catamaran at speed, and was left swimming in the ocean swell a couple miles from shore, I have to admit I started to wonder whether the Coast Guard was right and I would have been taking a bigger risk with 5 fewer newtons…rough calculations are one thing, but eventually someone has to draw a line in the sand and we get to test it for accuracy.

Poland cracks down on ex-Soviet spies

The BBC reports:

The Polish parliament has approved a bill designed to remove people who collaborated with the communist secret services from public life.

The bill could lead to the dismissal of hundreds of thousands of people working in business, the media and government.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if they were removed and then came back under a fake ID, or would they give up the fake one and come back with their real ID…?

FWIW, I originally posted this on Schneier’s blog.

America losing War on Terrorable Diseases

John Stewart has some razor-sharp analysis of the stem cell veto by President Bush. You have to watch this.

Incidentally, Senator Feinstein provides a crucial bit of information on the debate:

The Castle-DeGette legislation now approved by both the House and the Senate would make available for use stem-cell lines derived from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization clinics — embryos that are already slated to be disposed of and, therefore, it is difficult to understand the objections.

[…]

Let us be clear: We are talking about embryos that will be destroyed, whether or not this bill becomes law. It is an indisputable fact these embryos have no future.

I can think of nothing more ethical than using embryos that would otherwise be wasted, to generate new, viable stem-cell lines offering medical hope and promise to so many.

Is it that the President just opposed to progress? Hates science? How can it be that he would rather cells be destroyed than used to cure people of terminal and debilitating illnesses?

Maybe it’s just me, but this puts his position on emissions control and global warming in perspective. The official response seems to be that no one, even scientists, can really be certain of anything and therefore life as we know it must go on unchallenged. This reminds me of a VP many years ago who launched a product against the advice of the infosec team because “they can’t prove the risk is absolute”, whereas he said his resolve and faith of success were absolute. The company lost over $250K for the next seven days as their site failed and that VP was eventually let go because the negative economic impact of his highly anti-scientific approach was so readily apparent.

A similar theme apparently emerges with regard to the Bush administration’s new policy on agriculture and ranching. Environmental scientists and conservationists were recently told that they will not be allowed to form an opinion after only one year of apparent destruction by ranchers — a minimum of two years of data is required. In addition, the new policy is based on the declaration that “cattlemen themselves are the best stewards of the land”. Scary reasoning, as many have tried to point out:

“That’s an extremely unbalanced requirement,” said John Buckley, executive director of the Twain Harte-based Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, “unless they’re also requiring that the public’s costs are taken into account.”

Buckley said that would mean the economic costs associated with degraded watersheds and damaged wildlife habitat also should be weighed in determining the future of public-land grazing.

Another case of externalities, where those who care about a balanced outcome try to show the long-term harm of not taking action, and the Bush administration shows its disdain for people who want to use a truly scientific approach to factoring risks.

Imagine this type of governance in information security or structural engineering, where experts would be told that they could not warn of critical flaws until months after discovery and users were already clearly harmed. Software companies gotta’ make money, right? Even then a security team might be told that software developers are the best stewards of the software and thus should ultimately decide when to fix a bug, if at all.

Back to economic and social considerations, it’s important to note how the Bush administration bends the term to suit their purpose. A look at the bigger picture makes it seem that they should reverse their own policy:

The ranchers pay $1.35 per animal unit month — the amount of forage required to feed a cow and a calf for one month.

This fee has remained unchanged for years, and is lower than fees charged for state or private lands. Past efforts to revise the grazing fee — including a 1991 proposal passed by the House to boost it to $8.70 — have collapsed on Capitol Hill.

“It really, truly is an abuse of the taxpayers to not at least charge fair market value,” Buckley said.

Ranchers clearly have some lobby power. Who will pay, though, if turns out that they were taking unfair advantage of the land and causing residual and external harm? Have you experienced the pesticides and herbacides that ruin drinking water and kill off the local flora and fauna? What about heavy metals from industry? Who pays for the clean-up of someone else’s folly? What if they are drunk or delusional? Differing values, it seems, are at the heart of the issue especially when obvious harm takes many years to see.