It Could Happen

How do you solve a problem like Obama?

2008-03-19T12:32:00.002-04:00

How do you catch a cloud and pin it down? How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

So, if you missed it, history was made yesterday. The aptly named speech, "A More Perfect Union", was precisely the right speech at precisely the right moment, given to a national audience. Clintonistas must be infuriated right now and McCainiacs are furiously researching new and better ways to pin down the rhetorical shadowboxer. He was on the ropes for a moment, but he slipped away once more.

The problem is that Barrack Obama isn't a man. He isn't a candidate. He isn't even human. He's an idea. He's a vision. He's the dream of progress made flesh. And you can't fight that.

People don't like Barrack Obama because of his policies. They don't vote for him because they think he'll fix the economy or get us out of Iraq. They vote for him because he makes them feel better about their world, about their country, and about themselves. They vote for him because an African-American president, by simple fact of existence, purges America of its original sin. It cleanses away the guilt, the shame, the divisions, and the hatreds of slavery. Or at least, it promises to.

What Clinton is desperately trying to do, and what McCain will have to succeed at, is to make Barrack Obama a man. A candidate. Because if people begin to see him as a real person, rather than the image of redemption and the promise of an end to racial division, then some serious questions can be asked about who the man is. Then you can play politics and start swinging away. In fact, if voters see Obama as a real human being at any point in this election, he's probably finished.

But how do you do it? How do you pull him down off his pedestal when he can evade punches like the Reverend Wright story? That should have brought down anyone. And it may yet bring down Obama, but it won't be that story alone that does it. Obama's inspiring presentation of his clear analysis and insight into race relations in America saw to that.

As a man and a candidate, he's got all kinds of problems. But as a vision, this guy keeps getting better and better.

And if you're just here for the punch and pie, here's a girl doing 21 accents.

Never make my move to soon....

2008-03-06T00:08:00.002-05:00

To the media, wherever it may find them:
"Left me with a Keno card
This life in Vegas sure ain't hard
I ran it up to about fifty grand
Cashed it in and held it in my hand
That kind of word can get around
And make a lost love come up found
I hear you knocking baby at my door
But you know you ain't living here no more
It's too bad
I think you made your move too soon."
-Sincerely yours,
Hillary Clinton, March 5, after taking Texas and Ohio, with apologies to B.B. King

There's a certain sense of drama about this election. It's electrifying. That means the politicians are doing their jobs right. There are so many different roles being bandied about and everything is so very very fluid. Nothing has stuck yet and everything can still change. It's a time for hero's and villains.

We've got the fighter jockey war hero, still fighting the good fight. There's the old man of the establishment, out to stop the new generation and desperately grabbing for power. The voice of reason who said we needed more troops in Iraq long before it was popular, who takes stances based on principle and not on political expediency. The same man who reversed his unpopular opinion on illegal immigration. The savior of the Republican political hopes and the only man who stands a ghost of a chance against the Democrats, damned by the stalwarts of his party. John McCain.

And then there's the American dream come to the flesh. A man who's meteoric rise is the stuff of hope and dreams. Literally. A man who says he represents bipartisan compromise and a new day in Washington, with the single most partisan voting record of any Senator. A man who would show a bold new American face to the rest of the world, and a mere three years ago he was a lowly state senator, debating state cigarette taxes and school lunch menus. Is Barrack Obama the man who will lead America boldly into the next generation (while presenting the same tired ideas carried over from the old)?

Not if the Ice Queen has anything to say about. The most reviled woman in America today, the very mention of her name brings flecks of spit to the mouths of raving conservatives, eager to show their distaste. The first female candidate with a true chance to be president, a woman who has fought for her ideals and principles for over 40 years, even if those principles have been proven wrong for over 40 years. A woman who doesn't wear a single shoulder-padded pant suit without first calculating the political impact it might have. Is she the true standard bearer of change? The one who has the experience to fight her ideals past tough old opposition congressmen? Perhaps, but if conservative America has anything to say about it, Hillary Clinton will only ever again visit the White House after standing in line for a tour.

So many messages to get out, so little time. Which face of these multi-faceted three will the public choose to believe? How will we remember them in five years? Who knows? But you can be sure, in five years, none of them will be seen as they are today. The next few weeks will mold and shape opinions and the next few months will hammer those shapes into steel, a steel so strong that only time and the perspective it brings can change it. And it's all happening right now.

It's fun thing to watch, huh?

Revealations, Ruminations, and Regrets

2008-02-13T11:20:00.005-05:00

Jay Cost has a great breakdown of the race right now. In it, to spare those poor souls for whom reading is an unpleasant chore for the anemic grey matter that rests comfortably above their necks, he presents a statistical arguement for why Obama's victories have not been due to any sort of momentum, but rather, because of the demographic contituencies he has put together.

Black voters vote for him overwhelmingly, but so do white voters with incomes over $50,000. Hillary plays better with women and Hispanics. The states that have voted so far haven't bucked any of the trends, it's more of a coincidence that 7 states that have favorable demographics for Obama were stacked in a row. It's a very interesting arguemnt.

And it indirectly highlights one of the critical aspects of politics in general: image management. The Obama campaign may be able to turn a demographic coincidence into actual momentum. In essence, they would take something that doesn't necessarily exist, if Mr. Cost is to be believed, and make it exist. And then it would have always existed; people will look back on this recent sweep of seven states as the time when Obama began to pull away.

But only a fool would count Hillary out. She's proven that too many times in an election where there are very good reasons to not trust previous patterns.

On the other side of the aisle, it's obviously over. Going back over some of the prediction I've made, I find myself a bit chagrinned at my initial thoughts on John McCain (interesting side note: do I like him more now because he won or because I know him better?). I find myself respecting McCain, and maybe regreting some of my earlier animosity.

Perhaps it's a weakness or psychological trick that draws those of us who follow politics in like moths to the quadrennial flame, but I really do think he's the best possible nominee. I think that now. I didn't then.

Perhaps it's the lackluster position that the Republican party finds itself in now. After 8 years of Bush and compassionate conservatism, talk of Democratic irreleveance as a national party seems further away than 3 years ago. Who would have thought that the Golden Boy of the Right, George W., would have been the man who sundered the conservative coalition apart? But the base is dispirited, the religious right is petulant, and the libertarians are cynical and bolting. The moderates are showing signs of Obamania.

Into this politically hellish perfect storm, could a better candidate be found than one who has clearly been at odds with his President and the extreme factions of his party? A man of nigh-on unimpeachable personal character, who also draws Hispanic and Independent voters in large numbers? A man who actually has a proven record of bipartisanship? In fact, a man who has shown himself to be so willing to work with moderates that the wing nuts of his own party did everything they could to torpedo his nomination?

I think not.

Rhetorical revelations and the obfuscating Obama

2008-02-12T20:12:00.004-05:00

Obama. Obamania. Obamaniacs.

I recently was involved in several discussions about this guy where I just didn't have the time, or it would have been horribly impolite, to really get into why he'd make an awful president. That's right, I said it. And yes, I AM going there.

Let's start with his eyes. Those piercing dark eyes that crinkle up when he smiles. And his smile, his so spot on, so warm and friendly smile. You know who also has great eyes and a smile? Tom Cruise. Tom "I Believe Alien Souls are Inhabiting My Body" Cruise. So lets move past the whole "he looks so good" thing.

But then there's his Voice. It's the Voice of a new generation. The Voice of a new America. Our hopes and our dreams and our highest aspirations are carried up higher and lifted to new horizons, guided by the melodious sounds of his vocal chords. To quote another famous wordsmith, "his words are a very fantastical banquet, just so many strange dishes."

There is power in words. Words are important and inspiring. But words are important because they are symbols, simple sounds strung together in patterns that have recognized significance. Take away that significance and what do you have? Words are inspiring because of their message. If that message is undeliverable they have no substance. Without substance behind them they're simply foul. And, "foul words are but foul air, and foul air is but foul breath, therefore I shall depart unkissed."

Obama has a decent record as an Illinois State Senator. He has a tolerably decent record as a U.S. Senator. He hasn't been in bed with a dead girl or a live boy yet, so that's good. He was just rated as the most liberal senator in the entire body, so I have some issues with his politics, but lets put that aside for a minute and just look at his ability to deliver on his message.

His message is change. Non-partisan change, working from a centrist position to move America forward. His voting record is one of the most partisan on record in either party, so I'm not sure he means it, but lets assume that he does. The next president is going to have to deal with two major issues, right off the bat: the economy, and Iraq.

Economically speaking, one of three things is going to happen: serious tax increases, serious spending cuts, or deficits that will put already legendary Bush level spending to shame. What's the centrist solution there? Probably some amalgamation of tax increases on the rich and corporations (which will slow down the economy even further), spending cuts for the military and perhaps one or two entitlement programs, and continued deficits. Notice how I'm not even mentioning what nationalized health care will do to the economy. Now, he's being advised by reasonable centrist types, so that's good. He's also backed away from some of the protectionist garbage that other Democratic candidates, and even Republican candidates (Mr. Huckabee, I'm looking at you here) have been peddling. So we'll pretend that he'll somehow keep the left wing of his party mollified while he reaches towards the center fiscally and move on (.org).

But on Iraq, his hands are so tied it hurts. How does he pull away, as he's committed to doing, from a situation that even Democrats are acknowledging is getting better? He loses the military worse than Clinton did if he tries. And if he keep troops present, even in a much more peaceful Iraq (as our Arab allies, fearful of the chaos of 2006, would privately like us to do- to say nothing of Iraqi's themselves), how does he keep his party together? How does he tell Democrats who have sweat and fretted (and sometimes even frothed) for so long to get their party in a position of power so that they can get us the hell out of Iraq that he plans on staying for a few years? That's an Obama speech I'd love to hear.

And we're going to be expecting a man who was only a relatively busy state level politician just a few short years ago to be able to handle challenges like these? Really? Really?

He's shown no executive ability, no brilliant legislative ability, and no ability of any kind other than his truly legendary power to speak pretty. And he does it so well it hurts. He does it so well that I sometimes find myself wishing there was some substance there. He has the number one requirement of a politician down pat: he can get people to care about him. But where's the substance?

Where's the beef?

The mind boggles....

2008-01-31T11:55:00.001-05:00

Can someone out there please explain to me what this conservative hatred for John McCain is all about? I understand where it comes from. "Ooh, he's a maverick," "Ooh, he did that campaign finance reform thing and that immigration reform thing. But where does this visceral, better-Clinton-than-McCain, HATRED come from?

Your guy didn't win, so you're taking your ball and going home? Really mature. Don't bitch and moan when you're required to sign up for national health care. Which will be the number one issue that a Democratic congress and a Democratic president will want to pass. Hey conservatives, you think that a $1.2 trillion prescription drug plan is bad? Let's look briefly at what a national health care plan would be like.

Ok, I exagerate slightly, but not much.

McCain has an 82% rating from the American Conservatives Union. He's just not going to kowtow to establishment media and beg forgivness for their differences. This childish game of "our way or the highway" that Rush Limbaugh, George Will, and others are playing is ridiculous.

Ridiculous: worthy of ridicule. Something to be mocked.

For the record...

2008-01-03T11:18:00.000-05:00

No poems, no snazzy videos, no jokes. Just a cold, hard, quick, "for the record" update.

Iowa Results:
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Clinton
4. Nobody cares about you

1. Romney
2. Huckabee
3. McCain
4. Thompson
5. Paul
6. Giuliani
7. Get out of the race, it was over for you a long time ago.

Everyone will continue to Iowa except perhaps Thompson, who's gotten no traction and nobody likes him anyways. Edwards loses the race if he loses Iowa. So does Obama, probably. Giuliani seems to be trying the avaunt guard strategy of losing races to win. That might work in jiu jitsu or something, but not here. Paul is nuts, who knows how long he's going to stay in the Republican primary. Key world there: Republican. Look for the Huck-a-boom to die down and McCain might take off.

We'll see.

Personal Note about smiles

2007-12-23T00:21:00.000-05:00

I was recently reminded of a thing I told a friend a long time ago. I was in a particularly good mood and a girl asked me what I couldn't stop smiling about. My mind paused for a second, trying to calculate all of the variables that had brought this inescapable smile to my lips, and, failing, left me with nothing to fall back on but a description.

"It's the sort of smile that starts briefly," I said, "but when you try to repress it, you find that you can't. It slowly expands, as though happiness refuses to be denied." Her eyes lit up with undeniable interest, and a slight glimmer of recognition begged me to go on. And when I did, I found that she was the first person I had ever encountered that had had a moment of pure happiness that they were willing to talk about. Mine occurred when I didn't get on a bus; hers occurred when she did. These types of conversations happen when you're 17.

I recently discovered another type of feeling, long since familiar, but never identified. It is a combination of the anticipation, anxiety, uncertainty and then resolution that both precedes and follows an important decision. The moment begins with the recognition that ones actions in the present moment will have consequences that radiate out into the future.

It continues into the growing awareness of the possibilities of action, generally options that have been previously thought out. I could do A and X would probably happen, or I could do B and Y might result. As the moment progresses, you have either selected an option beforehand or you recognize that action is needed and hope for the best, leading to a decision.

By a decision, I don't necessarily mean telling someone you'll do something. You can tell anyone everything and everyone anything. I mean the moment where you commit yourself irrevocably to a course of action. For example:

"I love you."
"I'll be there."
"You're right, Jack is a shitbag."
"I don't know, I've got nothing against Jack."
"I wish I could, but I can't make it."
"I'm sorry, I don't love you."

And once you're committed, the moment ends with the realization of the new course of action you're set upon. "Well, for better or worse, I'm doing X. Hope I thought it all through."

Experience has taught me that I have not, in fact, thought it all through. But I find myself enjoying those moments of action. Those seconds where life hinges on a word.

...

For what it's worth, I also enjoy those moments where people recognize something familiar in each other, be it a love of art, music, poetry, politics, beer, coffee, movies, sports, jokes, or some other form of common identity. Perhaps even smiles.

And, as always, I try to keep my ego in check, and offer something to those who have read this far and felt they have learned nothing.

Things I don't understand, Part 1

2007-12-11T12:14:00.000-05:00

I don't get all the Pats hate out there. This team is incredible, this season is historic, and so many people I know can't stand it. Huh?

I'm a Denver fan. Denver fans have gotten used to losing big games over the past few years, frequently to Indianapolis or the Patriots. I enjoyed nothing so much as when we knocked out New England a few years back (only to lose to the Steelers in the AFC Championship. Shanahan!!!!). But even I like the Pats this year. Sure, Belichick is a grumpy old man with a serious chip on his shoulder. Yeah, he's a dick. But they're just fun to watch. They're playing football like it's meant to be played.

And in honor of all the people that can't stand it, lets try to figure out how good Tom Brady is.

How good is Tom Brady?
When google can't find something, it asks Tom Brady for help.
When Jack Bauer can't handle the terrorists, he calls up Tom Brady.
Brad Pitt once called him up, asking for handsome lessons.
It is a known fact that somewhere in the fourth quarter of the 2007 Pats-Ravens game, Tom Brady was leading a game winning comeback and discovered the answer to Unified Field Theory.

Brady has more touchdowns this season that the rest of his division. Combined.
More touchdowns than the Manning brothers. Combined.
More touchdowns than the combined totals of Drew Brees and Brett Favre (winner of SI's 2007 Sportsman of the Year award).
He has five interceptions in 476 pass attempts. Brett Favre, Jake Plummer, and Tony Romo throw that many interceptions just warming up before a game.

He was a sixth round draft pick in 2000 (went 199th overall) and was rejected by the 49ers. There's a team with some long range vision.
Tom Brady has a 70% completion rate, but... wait for it, he also has a 9.4% touchdowns per pass attempt rate. That means that one out of every ten or eleven pass attempts is a touchdown. For those of you who don't follow football, that number is nuts.

Nuts.

He's a got a great cast around him. Randy Moss picked the right team for his renaissance. A quarterback is only as good as his offensive line. You need a credible run threat to maintain a serious passing attack. Bill Belichick is an enormous ass who didn't really shake hands with Tony Dungry after the Colts-Pats game this year.

Fine. But the point is, this ain't your daddy's football that being played here. This is record breaking history, even if they don't go 16-0. The Pats are unbelievable this year, and as ever, in good times and bad, attention focuses on the figure head.

Hey, if he keeps this up for another 7 or 8 years, people might start comparing him to John Elway.

Hmmm. John Elway.

Getting Presidency.

2007-12-11T10:28:00.000-05:00

Three men in a garden are asked a question. What if the bird will not sing?

Nobunaga says, "Kill it."
Hideyoshi says, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu says, "Wait."

We all get nervous as we approach a defined time for action. Knowing that a thing is coming, but being forced to wait for it. Months, weeks, days, hours, minutes. Years. All excruciating. And without patience, without that critical ability to control one's impulse to force a decision, you can mess it all up forever.

Lets say there's this girl you really like. We'll call her Presidency (what? It could be a name, people name kids anything these days.). You really like Presidency, you think the two of you could have a lot of fun. But she's very busy and important and popular and full of herself. You think that if you could just spend some time with her (like a term or so) the two of you would really hit it off, but you need to get her to see that.

So you set up a date, you'll pick her up in Iowa on January 3rd. A quick flurry of activity ensues, you get a hair cut, go to the gym a bit more, maybe give a speech or two. You start to realize that Presidency might be setting up dates with some other people, but you know she's right for you. This is the time for patience.

For putting in your plan and waiting for it to be carried out. It's not the time for crazed emails. It's not the time for lying. Presidency isn't going like you more because you spent time on your hair. Presidency is going to like you because you told some funny jokes and showed a decent income and were charming. Presidency will stay with you if you can keep her inspired, interested, and involved. Give her something to laugh at, something to think about, and just maybe, something fun to do. That's how you get the hard to get ones. That's how you get Presidency.

Not by wearing a funny shirt and lip-synching lines that aren't yours. Not by getting your friends to say you're awesome. That never works. Trust me.

You've thought out your game plan, champ. Stick to it, don't panic. Have patience.

The Empire, long divided must unite...

2007-09-26T13:17:00.000-04:00

The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.

If you can identify that quote you read too much. But you probably have a good baseline understanding of political philosophy (realism vs. idealism, etc). The quote is from Luo Guanzhong's Romance of the Three Kingdoms, one of the four classic works in ancient Chinese literature, and probably the most popular today.

The Romance covers the late Han period, the collapse of the empire into chaos and warfare, the solidification of power around three separate kingdoms, and the final birthing of a new dynasty, the Jin. It's timelessness stems from its detailed accounting of the machinations and stratagems used by the various power players as they attempt to bring each other down. There is the good (Liu Bei), the bad (Cao Cao), and the ugly (Dong Zhuo?). But the good doesn't always win, and the bad is shown in a positive light when compared to the incapable. Even Cao Cao, the ultimate political realist, concerned only with his own advancement, is more admirable than Dong Zhuo or even Lu Bu, a fierce, but disloyal, warrior. Ultimately, the good must also be smart, and the evil must also be efficient, or else they will fail.

Who cares? Why am I writing about some obscure (in the western hemisphere) text?

Because it shows that it doesn't matter how just your cause is if your details are not rock solid.
Because Barack Obama has more donors than the entire Republican field.
Because Hillary is beating her Republican opponents in head to head races in the polls.
Because the monks have the passion, but the junta has the guns.

Who has better organization and loyalty? Who's gonna stay the course and win the fight?

My money's on Cao Cao.

Conflict

2007-09-18T22:37:00.000-04:00

Writing focuses thought.

I was asked the question: Is conflict inevitable in the relationship between China and America?

Answer: Yes. Conflict is an inevitable and natural part of any inter-group dynamic. An economist would say it is the result of scarcity (of one resource or another), and a psychologist might argue that conflict is a part of the evolutionary development of the human psyche. A historian would point out that we can trace the first conquest-based empires back through thousands of years to Mesopotamia, while an anthropologist would go even further, reminding us that, excepting a few highly specific cases, conflict has been a part of every human society we've ever come across.

Whatever its origins, conflict is inevitable.

Now, does this mean that we should prep the fleet for departure, and warm up the nukes? Of course not. The United States is engaged in the type of conflict I'm talking about with China right now. War, distinct from conflict, is certainly not an inevitable scenario. The U.S. competes with China for oil and natural resources, for trade contracts and concessions, for influence among developing nations, for prestige, for military and technological advantage, and for a dozen other things on a daily basis.

Now, putting aside the semantics, however important they may be, and getting to the root of the question, the U.S. and China will probably not fight a war for at least 5 years. With the explicit understanding that this is based entirely on my opinions, China will not want to risk a war, however limited in scope for at least that long. They will want to increase their ability to disrupt U.S. C4I capabilities (our computer and battlespace awareness advantages), their ability to conduct amphibious assaults under hostile circumstances, and their ability to damage the U.S. economy before they initiate any decisive actions against Taiwan, the only serious area of potential conflict between China and the U.S.

Even if they increase these capabilities at a level that gives them parity with the U.S., it is by no means certain that they will choose to pursue the violent option. Taiwan has a significant party that favors reunification with the mainland. It also has increasingly strong ties with the economy of the its large neighbor. Further, the U.S., and the international community in general, has done a fairly good job incorporating China into the global community. The idea here is that as China becomes more entangled and interdependent on the global community, it becomes a guarantor of the stability of that community, unwilling to risk damage to its economy and the social unrest that such damage might cause. This is a decent argument, but obviously it only works if China believes that invading Taiwan would risk consequences that of that nature.

Right now the best option from the Chinese perspective is to wait. Time brings a stronger economy, a more professional and technologically enhanced military, and, perhaps most important of all, it brings Taiwan closer to the mainland both socially and economically. These are all trends that are difficult, perhaps impossible, to reverse, and they all favor China.

Conflict? Absolutely.
War? Not yet.

So there are my thoughts.

It's been on my mind.

2007-09-10T21:00:00.000-04:00

This is what's wrong with the Republican field.

Mitt Romney. This guy's been on every side of every issue. Really.

John McCain. Do I even need to link to this guy's faults?.... Oh alright, how about his immigration bill and his Campaign Finance laws. And could someone find me an issue where he's come down in favor of individuals making their own decisions? I'm sure something exists out there, I just have yet to see it. And that's just off the top of my head.

Fred Thompson. So you're finally in are you, Fred? That would have been news if you had announced it way back when you started running. Instead I feel like this video has been happening to me, just replace "mom" with "Fred Thompson may be running for President!" Dude, do you want to be president or not? Put aside the fact that he's about as substantive as Obama, at least Obama came out and said it. You lost me somewhere around July, Fred.

And finally, Rudy Giuliani. While he might be the best of the bunch, I can't really get behind a guy who thinks that freedom is all about authority. Nope. Not gonna happen. I'd rather be this guy.

So what do I have left? Ron Paul? He's got about as much a chance of winning something as Darth Vader. Darth always loses. He got sliced up by Christopher Lee, Obi-wan left him a smoldering ruin, and his son and his boss wrecked his breather suit thing. Even when he thought he was winning, Obi-wan was just becoming more powerful than we can possibly imagine. That's about the shot that Ron Paul has.

Mike Huckabee? Am I even spelling his name right? Does it matter? Great job on the diet, good answer to a tough question on evolution. Maybe.... Then again, see the Darth Vader argument.

Don't get me started on the Democrats. Haiku shall explain.

Edwards:
Brown hair pretty boy
spewing populist garbage,
lost his Senate seat.

Obama:
Cloud of charisma,
with audacity to hope,
where is the substance?

Hillary:
The well-oiled machine,
Can you wear a scarf without
asking consultants?

And all I hear when any of them speak is "federalized health care is gonna happen." Here is my retort to federalized health care.

If a libertarian rails on the internet...

2007-09-09T15:05:00.000-04:00

Do they make a sound? Probably not, but I'm operating on the assumption that a little libertarian lamenting never hurt anyone right? It's a little preachy. If you don't like it, here's a jumping monkey in a blue shirt.

In the Last Days of the Idea that was America

In the last days of the Idea that was America, I saw fields of gold and green,
each waiting to give their harvests of grains and play.
I saw small creeks running through city parks, and shady trees overlooking suburban sidewalks.
I saw the lines that joined the smaller dots on the map to the larger dots on the map also join daughters to mothers, and fathers to sons.

In the last days of the Idea that was America, I saw children playing, crying, breathing, becoming.
I saw mothers putting on backpacks and sending them off to school,
I saw fathers turing on camcorders and watching them walk across the stage.
I saw boyfriends, girlfriends, and old friends leave each other for new friends, living and striving, hoping to find the dream that was America.

In the last days of the Idea that was America, there was white and red and brown and black, churning together in the maelstrom of the world, and the colors of thier swirling and churning were the paints that fueled America.
There were limitless resources, for there was nothing that was not for sale.
There were limitless possibilities, for America was big enough for any idea.
There was limitless ignorance, for without memory, even ideas can be silenced.

In the last days of the Idea that was America, I saw security cameras and reckless driving laws, and I felt safer.
I saw walls going up and lists being made, and I felt reassured.
I saw the news and read the paper and knew something was being done to protect me, to protect me from the things that were not America.

I heard the man on the radio say that our side was winning and was right, and I felt good about being on the right side.
I saw my candidate win on election day, and I felt better about being on the winning side.
I saw money being taken and was told that it helped people, and I felt less guilty about having so much in a world with so little.
I saw promises broken and I didn't feel bad, for those promises are always broken.

In the last days of the Idea that was America, I saw Thomas Jefferson on my money, but I never heard what he said.
I saw Patrick Henry outside my public library, but I never knew why he was there.
I saw George Washington lauded by everyone, but all I ever heard about him was that cherry tree story.

In the last days of the Idea that was America, I was too content to consider, too warm to worry, to happy to care, and I knew too much to be troubled.

Too much? That wasn't so bad.
Too much that wasn't so. That was bad.
In the last days of the Idea that was America.

Don't get cynical

2007-02-07T14:48:00.000-05:00

I was listening to the radio last night as I was driving to the grocery store. Some clown of a commentator (yes, when I say "radio" I mean "AM") did the greatest thing I've ever heard him do. He shut up. And instead of talking, he aired an old Ronald Reagan speech. The speech was titled "A Time For Choosing", made in support of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and it was regarded as Reagan's first foray into politics. I sat there in my car with my milk and some beer and some potato chips.

And wow.

Here's the text and here's the recording. If, like me, you've been disgusted by politics lately; if the bitter partisanship or the tremendous deficit spending is getting you down; if you're concerned about the Patriot Act or government incursions on an individual's right to smoke in their own home; if you've been thinking dark thoughts about moving to New Zealand, listen to this speech.

Why is it refreshing to be reminded that government isn't the solution to the problem, it is the problem? Why is it invigorating to hear that the foundation of all that America has achieved has been freedom? Freedom of property, freedom of religion (or from religion), freedom to protest and to not be censored. Why is it refreshing? I think I just reminded myself.

If a football analogy will be permitted, Reagan hikes the ball, passes to Bush 41, Bush 41 runs to the outside, no, no, he fumbles, hit by Clinton, Clinton's running the other way... gets distracted by a fan, and W has the ball! W's running with it, he's going up the middle, he's, wait... where have we seen running like this?

C'est la vie. It's easy to be pissed about politics. It's even easier to wonder why candidates refuse to follow this simple vision, fighting over the mantle of "Reagan's heir" and ignoring the substance that made him so popular. But, if I could, once more, borrow from the Gipper,

"Don't get cynical. Don't get cynical... Look at yourselves and what you've done, and recognize that there are millions and millions of Americans out there who want what you want, who want it to be that way. Who want it to be a shining city on a hill."

Oh, and if you were bored by this, you might try a simpler blog.

Hey, he had it coming.

2007-02-06T02:43:00.000-05:00

Ok, I just had to comment on this one. You know I did.

Since I've discovered that some of my regular readers are linkophobic, it's an article that encapsulates the Left's eventual mindset. Essentially, it argues that our soldiers support the war in Iraq because they are brainwashed mercenaries or naive simpletons who need to believe what they're told.

Now, to be clear, I agree with some of the article.

I happen to be one of those who thinks that is IS possible to support the troops but not their mission. This is only logical. Surely it is possible to realize how much the American serviceman (of every branch) sacrifices, while at the same time, disagreeing over the necessity of that sacrifice. Of course, unlike the author, I think that staying the course in Iraq is imperative, for a variety of reasons, explained below.

Firstly, there seem to be two real political options: stay the course, and phased withdrawal. It was always accepted (I hope) that the neo-con vision of a new, democratic, and westernized Iraq was always a very risky proposition. If we succeed, the entire Mid-East region is changed in a very fundamental way, and if we fail it fails in equal proportion.

Given those two options (and I recognize the existence of other "options", I just doubt their basis in reality), what is the "best" course for th U.S. to pursue? Hell if I know. I'm just an unemployed college grad.

But it seems disingenuous to me to represent our armed services as mercenaries who have only signed up for college benefits and money. And hey, when did we start paying "the soldiers a decent wage"? Maybe the officers get a decent wage, but the last time I checked (and most of you know I've been checking) a Private (E1) makes about $15,000 a year or less. I don't know too many folks (Arkin excepted) who would argue that that's a "decent wage".

More to the point, arguing that "the troops also need to support the American people", because "Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform" is ridiculous. For those of you who failed 8th grade English, ridiculous means "causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable".

Unfortunately, I don't think Arkin's position will be ridiculed forever. Sure, it will be today, but tomorrow it will be mainstream left-wing thought. It almost seems like a lament when he argues that, "We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon." The implication being that the troops should be grateful to the American public for their kind indulgence.

Now, again, I have no answers to the Iraq situation. And from our politicians, I've only heard two, which are, "more of the same" and "run away". But surely, it's not too much to ask that we keep our rhetoric out of the sewers and in the realm of the realistic, the achievable, or the desirable. If criticism is warranted (and it may well be) is it oo much to ask that, instead of targeting the average joe who's trying to make needs meet on >$20,000 a year, we lay the decision makers in our sights? A low blow is a low blow, whether it's for a good cause or not.

And, as always, if the above has bored you into a repetitive alpha state, here's proof that Bobby McFerrin is not, in fact, a human being.

Just Say NO!... to Piglet.

2007-01-30T22:40:00.000-05:00

So, I came across this the other day. It's one of those stories you read where you first figure, "so what?" Then you start thinking about it.

For those of you who are linkaphobic, it's a story on the recent Chinese government ban on all things pig related in commercials and advertisements. It's going to be the Year of the Pig very soon in China, and China and the pig go way back.

Not only does the pig represent prosperity and health, it's also culturally ubiquitous. The average Chinese person eats over 80lbs of pork every year. Hell, the reason so many flu viruses come from China and Asia is because old germs morph into new ones inside of the pigs, and then make their way into humans. Too much information, I know. The point is, this isn't the Dog or the Horse. This is the damn Pig.

So why did they do this? Because they don't want to offend the Islamic minority in the country. Let me use different words, but repeat that, because it's important. The Chinese government is canceling billion dollar deals because it doesn't want to offend a religious minority. Since when did the Chinese give a flying monkey's ass about pissing off religious groups?

This is a government that has serious issue with religious groups of all shapes and sizes. And they're changing for a group that represent 2% of their population? Too be sure, 2% of China's population is about 21 million Muslims, which is comparable to the total amount in Europe, but the notion is odd. Especially considering the wrench it throws into the works of many large deals. Disney, fresh off the opening of a new theme park in Hong Kong, was prepping for a large publicity push, focused on Piglet. Hell, the postal service just unveiled a new series of Piglet stamps that will have to be changed or downplayed. Never mind the general use of the Pig in advertising this year.

So here's the fun part of the equation? Why is China terrified of their Islamic minority? If you think the government is doing this because they've realized the error of their ways vis-a-vis religion, let me know. I always love winning one sided arguments. China's attempting to placate, rather than quash. It's a very unusual approach from them, and might be worth keeping an eye on.

Oh, and if you read all of that and got bored, here's a video of a break-dancing toddler.

I'm Back.

2007-01-30T03:15:00.000-05:00

Right. So, if you haven't noticed, I've been a bit... dismayed... by politics lately, and resultantly non-prolific. The Republicans, proving that you, in fact, can't teach an old dog new tricks, lost the House and Senate. I wish that angered me.

No, really. I wish that I could rouse up some of the fury I would have once felt at the notion that Nancy Pelosi, from San Fransisco, is the new Speaker of the House. Once upon a time, maybe. But not now. Not after the Education bill, the Steel tariffs, the "Bridge to Nowhere" (which became the icon of early 21st Century pork barrel spending), the "Culture of Corruption" (which would have been a serious charge, if it wasn't for the pot calling the kettle black), the refusal to accept changes on the ground in Iraq, and this absurd focus on "Big Government Conservatism".

Big government conservatism isn't a philosophy, it's a heresy.

And please don't mistake me, I hold no hope for the Democrats. Pelosi demonstrated her intense concern for reform when she attempted to nominate her "bestest friend evar" Congressman Murtha, to be her #2 man. He's only one of the most corrupt men on the Hill (and, WOW, is that saying something!). She further illustrated her commanding grasp of the issues dominating the political scene by pushing through a bill raising the minimum wage to $7.25/hour.

Now don't get me wrong, until very recently I worked at a job making $8.00/hour, so I understand the paycheck to paycheck lifestyle. Still do, come to think of it (though it's really more of the "Christ I hope I get a job soon", variety). The point, however, lest it slip through my verbosity, is that Pelosi clearly understands that American's are fed up with a 4.5% unemployment rate. Dammit, we need stuff to moan and groan about! Pump that unemployment up to 7%, or hell, 10%, if she's lucky. We're approaching an election after all.

The long and the short is this: I've been disgusted with politics lately. I've gotten 4 calls from the RNC asking for donations. They keep calling because on their list it says I'm one of the thousands of contributors that can be counted on for a regular $25-$50. I've hung up 4 times. I'm not afraid of the Homosexual Agenda, or the terrorists, or the Democrats. Give me something to vote FOR. Fear-mongering has run its course with this donor. I chose Bush twice because he was better than the other guy. It'll be a little while before I vote for (or fund) that again.

Hopefully, I'll be able to keep this more up to date, though, it should be noted, if politics continues as is, this may be a slightly depressing blog.

ASIDE: Go Indy! I thought the Pats would womp 'em. I was wrong. I really don't see Grossman and company taking on the Colts. Like a buddy of mine was recently saying about the Saints, the Colts, "are a team of Destiny."

You don't mess with Destiny.

Look where it got Darth Vader.

Vive Les Estates Nanny!

2006-10-03T12:36:00.000-04:00

We've come a long way from Casablanca. Freedom? What's that? Individual responsibility? Whosa whatta huh? Three items, one foreign, one domestic, and one that's a little bit of both, have gotten under my skin (and not in the good Sinatra kind of way).

1. France decides its citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions. If the French (THE FRENCH!!) can't smoke, who can?
2. People who like online poker are outta luck. And I mean like, "he's got kings and you've got aces, and he thinks he'll go all in, but then the game gets interrupted", Out Of Luck. Of course, horse racing, lotteries and fantasy sports are all totally acceptable. You can wager on those, just not poker. Bush is expected to almost certainly sign it into law, and unless the Supreme Court takes a sudden turn for individual rights, that's exactly what this will become, law. Making online poker illegal.
3. Moving can be so much fun. Especially when its into a new industry. The "video games" argument (whether they're ultimately good or bad) aside, Penny Arcade has a great synopsis of what this bill is all about. And it ain't protecting the children.

So what? French smoking, online gambling, video games, and Trans Fats in New York? What's the big deal you ask? Hmmm, I know I left my soap box around here somewhere... where was it? Where? Ah yes, thank you. Ahem.

BECAUSE IT'S YOUR LIFE!

And you should be entitled to live it as you choose. Maybe it's the nutjob in me. I don't smoke, I generally dislike the French, I don't play poker online, and I don't go to New York all that often. But I just can't understand the absence of outrage over these types of nanny state laws. When did it become ok for bureaucrats to determine personal morality? Ok, I know, stupid question. But does anyone else find the idea of bureacurats telling us what's right and wrong ridiculous?

Anyone?

A Poem

2006-09-28T10:45:00.001-04:00

First they came for the weed,
And I did not speak out
Because I'm not a dirty hippy.
Then they came for the cigarettes,
And I did not speak out
Because I hate that smell.
Then they came for the trans fats,
And I did not speak out
Because I was too hungover.
Then they came for beer,
And there was no one left
To speak for beer.

-With apologies to Niemoller.

Well I feel like an idiot....

2006-09-27T10:51:00.000-04:00

See, this is the kind of thing that makes the human conscience cringe. While my logic and reason and common sense are fully aware that I had nothing to do with it, I still feel like an ass. If I were a cartoon, the little white angel that sits over my left shoulder would be sounding off right now.

However, this new TO development is a perfect opportunity to watch spin in action. First, the story breaks and we've only got police reports and hearsay. But since it's TO and a suicide attempt, it makes big news. Then the various media groups get involved, TO's publicist, the Cowboys's, etc. Suddenly it looks like he could be having just an adverse reaction to a pain medication. ESPN's article used to say just that. No big deal.

But the original story and police report are still out there and not going away. So rather than ignore the story that all their colleague's are reporting, and seem naive when this story gets under way, they change their story to say that according to the "police report" TO attempted to commit suicide. This covers them from too much flak from TO's people and the Cowboy's people. They're not saying what TO did, they're saying what's in the report.

When the full spin gets going on this story it will be even more interesting to watch. Facts can be so organic.

How to get fired and get sued

2006-09-14T11:05:00.000-04:00

1) This guy has it down. Hopefully it's a context thing. Here's how I see the dialogue actually going:

Q:"Mr. Secretary, sir, if you were going to say one thing that would get you fired, and I mean get you fired today, what would it be?"

A:"Well, I'm glad you asked that Sean, I think we need to test our weapons systems on Americans first."

2) Did you ever think that the president would be engaged in serious talks with a major central Asia country over, not terrorism, but rather, a British comedian? Oh, and watch out for the link, it's got a scary picture. Apparently Sacha Cohen has a new movie coming out that Kazakhstan isn't happy with. So instead of downplaying this as a distasteful joke, they bump it up to international news.

For those who are interested and have a... sturdy... sense of humor, there was a song that made the rounds on the internet a few years ago. Be warned, it is subtle satire, it is racial and it is "real", in the sense that only the singer is in on the joke. But I thought this targeted rednecks more than Kazakhstani's (Kazakhstani's? Kazakh's?). The link. Don't say I didn't warn you. In response, the government of Kazakhstan threatened legal action for the unfair portrayal of their nation. Smooth.

You ever see a campfire? You know how it burns, right? You ever pour gasoline on it? How does it burn after that? Kinda like this, I'd imagine.

See, who says foreign affairs need to be serious all the time?

Quick! Get that Genie back in the Bottle!

2006-09-14T10:04:00.000-04:00

In their latest attempt to desperately control expanding domestic access to information, Chinese authorities have given Xinhua News Agency increased control over foreign media outlets. The idea is that everything that gets published goes through or comes from Xinhua before it is distributed locally. To quote the AP article linked, "The regulations announced Sunday boost Xinhua's efforts to transform itself from the ruling Communist Party's propaganda mouthpiece into a modern, profitable entity."

In the words of the quiet Virgin Mary, "Come again?"

You gotta admire the chutzpa of the Chinese authorities though. I mean, if you're gonna lie, lie with style, go all out. Why waste your time with details like plausibility when you can have panache? Why focus on facts when you can indulge in inordinate inaccuracy? Give 'em the ole' razzle dazzle. Razzle Dazzle 'em!

And on that note, I'd like to announce that I graduated with a 4.0, can do over 200 pushups, have read all of Aristotle's works in the original Greek, and have a HUGE...... wait what was I talking about again?

Now here's a cute monkey for you to "ooh" and "aww" at while I come up with Part II.

Trends and Ideas, Part I

2006-09-14T01:26:00.000-04:00

It's been a while, I know. But hey, that only means I've had some time to percolate, right? Read some new things, keep looking for a job, etc. I've pounded away about half of Forester's Hornblower series, and I'm halfway through Casanova's memoirs, Fraser's biography of Frederick the Great, Herman's To Rule the Waves, and I'm rereading substantial chunks of Wilbur's Brief History of Everything and Greene's The Elegant Universe. I know, I know, I'm all over the map right now. I'm working on it. So that's the section about me. The next bit is going to be long and complicated. You've been warned.

I've been thinking about trends and ideas lately. Alot. And several apparently disparate elements are coalescing into a Monet-like canvas that needs to be clearly drawn out and clarified. Hey, it's my blog, if you don't like having to read my half-thoughts, you can get your own.

I'm interested in tracing the connection between theory, practice, and new evolution. To illustrate what I mean by this, let's consider several examples that most people are at least vaguely familiar with.

Using socialist thought as our example, we start with the original idea. This would generally be Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto (1848). The Manifesto outlined the ideal and basic structures of the utopia, and it also sparked further philosophy and theory. The practical application of the ideas came into real force with Lenin's successful revolution in Russia (1917), almost 70 years later. While some die-hards will argue that Lenin's application of Marxist thought was interrupted by his death and abandoned by Stalin, the example of the USSR is the closest thing we have seen to the realization of Marx's dream in this world. Political Theory -> Political Practice.

Taking a polar opposite example we can examine the resurgence of free market economics at the end of the 20th Century. It began, arguably, with von Mises and Socialism (1922), and was continued forcefully by Hayek (The Road to Serfdom, 1944) and Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom, 1962). These ideas were practically applied by the Reagan administration in the early 1980's, again after they had been in development for 60 years. Political Theory -> Political Practice.

I use these two examples to show that the theory came demonstrably before the political application (which in both cases fell short of the ideal). Duh. With this established, I want to flesh out the connection to modern politics. This is where it gets tricky.

If the politics of today are a result of the ideas of yesterday, where are we? The 20th Century is frequently portrayed, generally correctly, as the Great Struggle between individualism (via free markets) and collectivism. Individualism won. We call it Russia, not the USSR. Everything is made in the People's Republic of China. Hell, even Deng Xiao Ping, the communist guerilla who ended up leading China, told his people that "to get rich is glorious"!

So if that battle has "ended", what's next?

While collectivism still rears its head in various forms, it is mostly confined to university lecture halls and environmentalist rhetoric. To be sure, the vestiges of the Great Struggle are still with us today. Europe, in particular has been having a hard time moving towards more market based economies, generally evidencing a deep distrust of personal choice when it comes to economics. But even in America we see calls for nationwide health care, a classic example of collectivism. And even a Republican president with a Republican congress passed the prescription drug plan, dramatically enlarging a program whose origins lie with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society collectivism. But these remnants should not be confused with a struggle. China has free markets, as does almost all of Asia. India has stopped its decade's long flirtation with socialism and is now becoming one of the poster boys for globalization. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were elected as proponents of market economics and the "Third Way" (aka moderate capitalism from the Labour Party), ie, as moderates who were far to the center of their respective party's general platform.

So, where does this victory leave us? And what is its effect on modern politics? I believe that the current disorganization in the Democratic party is a direct result of the fall of the Soviet Union. Not because Democrats are communists or something ridiculous like that, but because the Democratic Party, from Roosevelt, through Johnson, all the way up to Al Gore's "People vs the Powerful" message in 2000, has represented collectivism in America. No one seriously argues that we need tougher unions when we're hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs to China and India. No one seriously argues that the bipartisan Welfare Reform Act of 1996 wasn't a dramatic success. Al Gore, the vice president of a guy with a 70% approval rating, despite years of every kind of attack the Republican's could mount (pardon the pun) against him, managed to lose to the inexperienced son of a disliked former president by adopting his collectivist message. John Kerry, who took up a similar theme, couldn't defeat a president who had a 35% approval rating mere months after the election.

In short, the ideas that represented much of the party platform have been tried and have failed. The ideas of the party are old. Their message is tired. And Republicans have been able to coast by on the remnants of Reagan's legacy, increasingly indulging themselves at the trough without making significant forward steps, ever since then. If the Democrats pull off any kind of victory in the upcoming elections it will be the result of general (and deserved) disatisfaction with Republican coruption, rather than a clear message from the Democrats. A vote against Republican's, or a low Republican turnout, rather than excitement about the Democratic message, is the only thing that will carry them to victory this November.

So, if the Democratic party is having difficulty because its core ideas (democratic collectivism) have been demonstrably refuted, the question arises? What's next? And the answer is: another essay, of course. The next essay (an essay is a collection of jumbled thoughts, right? Right?) will examine this trend on a larger scale. I want to look at scientific developments, their effects on philosophy and religion, and the corresponding shift down to politics. I think a third essay will examine the effects of modern scientific development and current "establishment" philosophy (mainly existentialism and atheistic evolutionary thinking), hopefully with some conclusions coming about current trends in philosophy and therefore, politics.

Love to hate 'em

2006-08-29T22:07:00.000-04:00

Some of you may not follow the NFL. Others may feel, as I do, that football is one of the most interesting, competitive, and engaging sports watchable in America today. Either way, you'll be able to relate to this news about Terrel Owens.

Apparently he's messing up in Dallas already. For those of you who aren't familiar with him, he's a wide receiver who was cut by Philadelphia because he's an inveterate jerkoff, and later picked up by Dallas. Now, who cares? Many receivers complain about injuries in preseason to avoid going to practice. Many players are fined by their team for minor infractions. None of that makes news, so why this? Well, similar to the media attention on whether or not Hillary will run or the focus on whether Katie Couric will be able to read the news in an exciting way, it's a story because of who, rather than what, is being discussed.

Owens (TO) is a publicity hound of the worst sort. He distinguished himself by instigating brawls between teams, his over-the-top touchdown celebrations, and his unapoligetic (yet victimized) attitude. He has also compared himself to Jesus. Really. It's too good to not quote:

"I don't have to worry about what people think of me, whether they hate me or
not. People hated on Jesus. They threw stones at him and tried to kill him, so
how can I complain or worry about what people think?...How can you justify
hating me after I worked so hard rehabilitating from a broken leg to get back to
the Super Bowl to help our team try to win? Really, you've got to look at who
the villain really is in this thing."

People in Philadelphia were "hating on him" because he was renegotiating a $49 million contract that he had just signed with their team.

Of course, he's also very good at catching footballs, which makes some teams think they can handle his antics as long as his performance on the field delivers. Ask Donovan McNabb how well that worked out.

The point is this, people love to hate him. People actually enjoy getting outraged by his latest antic. And they yearn to see the brilliantly successful and excessively arrogant clown "get what's coming to him". It's a safe conversation topic, there's only one side of the debate. Not unlike certain politicians I could name whose names rhyme with "push" or "pillory".

And in fact, "pillory" is the appropriate word, because it shows just how long we, as humans in society, have been at indulging in the "love to hate 'em" thing. It always strikes me as a bizarre phenomenon, because it's not really hatred, so much as a mild dislike or repulsion. If you don't like someone that much, why bother keeping up with what they're doing? Why not just ignore them completely? Wouldn't that be healthier and make you happier, to be focusing on things you don't hate? I keep hoping that some of these petty hatreds (an unusual- but accurate- combination of words right there) will fade away.

But what I really want is to see Owens get cut by Dallas. That would make my day.

Fact, meet Fiction. Fiction, this is Fact.

2006-08-28T19:36:00.000-04:00

You know those moments when you have something you want to say, something you need to say, but you can't find the words? This is one of those moments for me, so bear with me while I get this out.

Saddam Hussein, the former dictator of Iraq, may have had to watch Saddam Hussein, the cartoon character envisioned by the creators of South Park. Seriously.

If you aren't familiar with the latter, it's from the adult cartoon South Park. You can find a clip here, courtesy of youtube. Watch out for language and all that.

Seeing news like this makes me smile. I really don't feel too bad for the mass murder being forced to watch parodies of himself. After all, "he can change..."

2006-08-20T20:17:00.000-04:00

After a lengthy sojourn along the North Carolina beaches, I return to the mundane and slightly depressing search for a job. Sigh. Wait, what's that? There in the sky?! It's a bird. It's a plane!

No, it's Super Hillary! Representing truth, justice, and the partisan American political way!

And wait, gentle reader, with baited breath, for the real story is yet to be broken. Are you sitting down? Are you sure? Don't say I didn't warn you...

According to Time Magazine, Hillary Clinton.... is ready to run. That's right folks it looks like she'll be running for the nomination after all. This must come as a surprise to ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. However, it provides me with a useful jumping platform for touching some of the insanity that follows this woman around.

An uncle of mine once asked my extended (and extensive and conservative) family, "what, exactly, is so wrong with Hillary Clinton? What has she done that draws this vitriol from the right? Aside from having the last name of Clinton?" Now, I don't want to name names, so we'll just call him "Jerry".

Jerry is a brilliantly successful guy who has the misfortune of being a liberal who married into a generally conservative family. When this question was posed (at another beach get away, some years ago), there was a shocked silence. What's wrong with Hillary Clinton? You're asking that, really? Well.... how much time do you have? Surrounded by intelligent, politically active conservatives, I thought I was about to witness a second Cannae. What I actually witnessed was much, much, worse. It was as close to a complete rout as a near shouting match can be.

Absolutely no cogent points were raised during the "discussion" that could explain the pure (and at times, ridiculous) hatred that many conservative voters approach this woman with. Her policies are actually quite moderate, and while I recognize that it can be argued (believe me, it can be argued) that she only votes moderately because she's been running for the White House ever since she left it, at what point do we ignore someone's actions and trust instead what their opponents are saying about them?

I guess what I'm trying to get across is that I don't understand what the fuss is all about. The Time article is a case in point of this mindless media facination. A facination that both nourishes and requires intense partisan positioning.

She's a politician, she's saying things to get elected. Where's the news item there? She may be ambitious and power hungry. That's a crime? Name me someone in Washington who isn't. If they're in Washington, it's because they want the power.

So why is this news? She'll run. We get it. We've gotten it for years. As with the effervescent Ms. Couric, I am left to wonder why this is what makes our headlines.

Especially with things like, say, this. Or this. Or maybe.... this.

Ok, maybe not that last one.

2006-08-09T16:14:00.000-04:00

A promise is a promise... unless it's from the Chinese authorities regarding civil liberties. Don't complain about it over the telephone though. You may remember back in 1997, when the People's Republic of China took over Hong Kong, there were strict, inviolable assurances made as to the protection of Hong Kong's civil liberties and freedoms. After "redesigning" the legislature (packing it with pro-mainland delegates) and limiting the number of electable positions, it's no wonder that laws like this get passed from time to time.

Sure, what's going on in Lebanon or Iraq is difficult, wrenching at times. And even in Asia, the example that North Korea sets for the region makes a simple phone-tapping bill seem tame. Especially in comparison to people boiling grass to survive. But try to remember that Hong Kong was once one of the most free cities, if not the freest city, in the world. Once, this barren rock had a flourishing democratic tradition. Once it was an example, not only to China, but to the world, of the power of capitalism, rather than a golden egg.

Once.

2006-08-09T09:19:00.000-04:00

Well, it happened. Connecticut Democrat residents will now be represented by Ned Lamont. The average far left blogger must be thrilled. This election result wasn't an accident. It was the result of a carefully coordinated attack by far left democrats against one of the party's most prominent moderates.

Joe Lieberman will be running as an independent. He's another casualty of the strange momentum that can be generated by blogger's of both parties. Not unlike Rather-gate or Howard Dean's 2004 campaign, internet momentum can take on a frenzy. I almost hope than when the party is over, CT democrats don't feel like the guy who took his shirt off and danced on top of the bar. That guy always feels awkward the next morning.

Seeing a large party of the Party embrace the far left can only be good for the Republicans in November.

In related news, Georgia voters tossed out Cynthia McKinney. Chock one up to common sense. I guess even Congresswomen can't punch a Capitol Hill police officer in the face, and get away with it.

The most important treaty you've never heard about

2006-08-04T12:08:00.000-04:00

Is right here. It's a treaty that may be ratified by the Senate in the next few days. The administration is putting pressure on them to pass it. The "cybercrime" treaty would obligate the U.S. to help enforce other countries internet laws, even if such laws do not exist in the U.S.

To paint a picture of what this means, Vladimir "See my Soul" Putin, can ask our FBI to track down Russians who are criticizing him online but from the U.S. It obligates us to respect the censorship laws of countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, etc. In the event that you didn't know, those nations don't exactly have a free press.

I understand the administration thinks this treaty will assist us in tracking terrorists, but at what cost? At the risk of sounding naive, what happened to that vision of the "shining city on a hill"? When did tracking potential terrorists become more important than supporting freedom in countries that desperately need it? And if America doesn't support them, who will?

Sometimes I wonder why I vote Republican. Then I see that the main opposition to this treaty is coming from conservatives and I remember.

Edit: After further research, it appears that the actual text isn't as bad as those articles make it out to be. The treaty, while a somewhat blatant step in the direction of world government, and a far cry from perfect, does make an attempt to reach an international definition on what constitutes a cyber crime. So our FBI would be used to chase down violators of whatever the international consensus is, rather than a specific countries individual laws. While better than initially thought, it's still bad news if you're wary of UN-style internationalism.

Oh, and it was just ratified.

Chickens come home to roost

2006-08-04T11:53:00.000-04:00

You may remember Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. You know, the one who punched a Capitol Hill police officer because he didn't recognize her? I believe her defense was something along the lines of, "I had a very important vote that I was late for and had forgot my special congressional pin. So I punched the Capitol Hill police officer because he stopped me when I tried to bypass the line that everyone else has to stand in, but not me because I'm special and more important than you peons."

That may not be an exact quote.

So you can understand my joy at seeing this wonderful example of what's wrong with Washington come under attack during her primary. Gosh, it's almost like the people have a... what's that word called? Oh yeah, a memory. With any luck at all a new Democrat will replace her. Not that he'll be less corrupt or more hard working or anything like that. He'll just be less experienced at being an ass.

News Update

2006-08-03T10:40:00.000-04:00

Katie Couric, who, for those of you living in Greer, Arizona, or some other desolate locale, because that is the only way you'll have avoided this information, is taking over the CBS Evening News, may have some flashy new music to accompany her. Whew, that is a sentence.

Which gives me the opportunity to comment (not that I need an opportunity) on the whole "Couric as network savior" thing. Her nation-wide photo-op and its accompanying publicity is all very well done, but does any of it change the underlying fundamentals of the situation? What does Katie bring that Rather didn't , aside from fresh credibility and trademarked "spunk"? Smart money says she's going to fail in her destined role (network savior) unless she brings something that changes the situation dramatically.

Network news is losing viewers. This is unquestioned. The potential reasons are many, but they come back to a simple fact: there are just too many choices out there. FoxNews, for example, plays to a specific demographic, rather than the whole population, providing that demographic (conservatives who like the news) with something that they felt was missing for years. The result? Success. The internet has revolutionized media distribution. What are you reading right now? Even progressives get this. Which brings us back around to the beginning.

Is spunkenough? Hey, it could happen. Just don't bet on it.

Also, in a fit of irrationality, Democrats in Connecticut are favoring Lamont. By a lot. Looks like Joe "Excitement" Lieberman might be running as an independent after all.

A novel idea

2006-08-03T10:16:00.000-04:00

Now here's a novel idea. Straight from your local Persian nutjob, the perfect solution to the whole "middle east" thing. All that violence, all these years, if we'd only known.

All we need to do is destroy Israel.

Problem solved. Thanks Mr. Ahmadinejad sir, for that wonderfully useful and timely advice. I also like how he's calling for a ceasefire. The only problem with that, from a moral standpoint, is that his country is almost entirely responsible for funding Hezbollah in the first place. All those rockets being launched into Israel? Yeah, they're generally Iranian. Also, the guy that started the raid into Israel? He might be enjoying an all-expense paid stay at the wonderful Iranian embassy in Lebanon. Paging Dr. Hypocrisy. Dr. Hypocrisy, you have a patient in Tehran.

All that said, however, this is a pretty good development for several reasons. First, while the clerics hold the real power in Iran (Ahmadinejad couldn't even get women into soccer stadiums), Iran barks, and Hezbollah jumps. One of the main reasons this current fray was started could be because Iran wanted to take the heat off of its nuclear program. At the very least, Hezbollah represents a significant investment of time, treasure, and prestige for the Iranians. So why ask for a cease-fire?

Could it be that Hezbollah is starting to feel the burn? Is Iran trying to preserve their investment from crippling damage? Or are they just trying (also pronounced: failing) to preserve an air of disinterested legitimacy? Either way, it's an interesting announcement.

Capitulation is an ugly thing.

2006-08-02T22:32:00.000-04:00

Yes it seems the Congressional cafeteria is hoisting the tri-color once again. What's next, La Marseillaise playing in the hallways? I'm not sure whether to be happy or sad.

On the one hand, I don't like the French much. They're like America's running joke. Are you at a party? Need something funny to say? There's always France. So anything that allows me to publicize my dislike of the the frog eating surrender monkeys is generally a good thing.

On the other hand, this was, is, and will continue to be one of the most ridiculous things Congress has ever done. I don't hate the French so much that I think we should look like morans in order to distance ourselves from them.

Sigh. It's a no win situation. It's very... well, French.

News Update

2006-08-02T21:20:00.000-04:00

I found this to be a little funny. The idea that a propaganda war can be waged via text messaging really makes me question what future conflicts will looks like. The fact that China regularly is the source of official and unofficial attacks on U.S. web sites makes me wonder how well I'll be able to pay my cable bill the next time Taiwan tries to ruffle some feathers.

Also, in the event that you missed it, Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CO), is under attack from Ned Lamont in the Democrat primary. What is surprising is not that Lieberman, who has supported the war in Iraq and many of President Bush's policies for the war on terror, is under attack by the left wing of his party. That's to be expected. What is surprising to me is that the left wing of the party in general is siding with Lamont. I don't get it. Help me out here.

President Clinton won two elections with a centrist message. Compassionate reform was the order of the day under his administration. Al Gore broke away from that during the 2000 campaign for a message of the people vs. the powerful, overlooking the fact that Gore's father was a senator and powerful figure in Tennessee politics. Paging Dr. Irony.

Senator Kerry (D-MA) also left the middle ground in a bid to outrace Howard Dean to the far left in the 2004 primary. How well did that work out for him? He was unable to defeat a president that barely scraped together 51% of the vote, and is only now recovering from a 30% approval rating. Kerry should have cleaned Bush's clock. He went far left, typical Democrat, support the unions, rhetoric without change, etc.

As long as the Dem's keep attacking their center, the Republicans will be able to keep trouncing them. So why do they keep going further left? And who's going to pull them out of this leftward tailspin?

Anyone? Bueller?

2006-07-26T20:58:00.000-04:00

Couple of quick things. Arizona beckons, and when she calls, I must answer. And that means a 6:00 AM plane flight. Clearly I don't have the time that this project might deserve. Especially since my knowledge of html is... lacking... and requires a time consuming trial and error process to get anything done right. That neat little bar at the top that starts with "wherein", do you see it? Yeah that took me about 10 minutes.

I yearn to break the staid confines of unoriginality (grateful though I may be to these confining templates for setting me up), yet lack the knowledge to do so. Baby steps it must be.

Here, go entertain yourself until I get back.

We're Off!

2006-07-26T18:48:00.000-04:00

Introductions can be difficult. Do you shake hands? Do you nod? And if you shake, how hard do you grab? You don't want to be the guy who needs to crush everyone's hand. No one likes that guy. But by the same token, you don't want to go all limp wristed or only grab the fingers. No one likes those guys either. It's tricky. And with that said...

Hello.

This will be the first post., the introductory post, of the blog. It will also be the first blog of the author. You never how one of these things will turn out. Will it become a must see place for friends and family? A reference guide to my life? Or will it go the way of so many other blogs and projects and fade into memory?

I like to think it will be a useful place, filled with interesting thoughts and information.
Hey, it could happen.

Matt