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.