Personal Note about smiles

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.