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.

Vive Les Estates Nanny!

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

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....

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

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!

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

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

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.

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..."

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.

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.