Your Thoughts Exactly

Great Eater

2009-10-11T18:56:00.001-05:00

Just so you know, myself and YTE friend TJ Smoov have started a new blog "Great Eater," dedicated to the art of eating, and all that it entails. Make sure to check it out!

Hopefully I'll be back on here soon. Everyone always says that I know.

Tetris and life

2009-03-21T00:55:00.004-05:00

One of my favorite parables I heard as a kid goes something like this:

One day, flood waters were rising and threatening to submerge a small patch of land where we find our friend, the scorpion. He cried out for help, but most other animals fled for their own safety, not trusting the dangerous creature. Finally, a frog stopped to examine the plight of the scorpion. "Please, you've got to help me and take me to safety on the other side of the river!" the scorpion pleaded. "Ha!" says the frog. "Why should I trust you? as soon as I get you on my back, you'll sting me!"
The scorpion reasoned- "No, why would I do that? If I were to sting you, you would die, and we would both drown!"
The frog thought this over, and reassured by this logic, agreed to let the scorpion climb on his back. No sooner than they were halfway across the river did the frog feel the searing pain of the scorpion's sting. "Why did you sting me?" he cried out. "Now I will die, and we will both drown!"
"Because," said the scorpion, "it is in my nature to sting."

I don't know why that story has stuck with me for so long, but it's always left an impression on me. I thought of it the other day as I played Tetris- one of the top games of all time, if you'll recall my list from a few years ago. Like many people, my first exposure to Tetris came through the original Nintendo Game Boy- pretty much the gold standard of Tetris, the one that other versions of Tetris tried to one up or duplicate, but yet never really manage to outdo.

I mention that version because there's a version I play on my iPhone that is nearly identical to that version, except for one major difference- the scoring. The original version of Tetris, for those that don't know, gave a bonus for completing a Tetris (clearing four lines at once.) So many of us played that version and its derivatives that I'm sure many of us would agree that the "right" way to play tetris is to build up a large block of squares, leaving one column open for the long, straight pieces. So it was with an annoying realization that I found out the version on my iPhone gives the same reward for four one-liners that it does for a full Tetris. It seemed wrong to me. At first I chalked it up to a bug, because they obviously had not followed the reference material closely enough. I mostly ignored it, and I continued to play the way I had trained myself to play- slowly growing a block tower only punctuated by drops of the long pieces into the waiting empty space. But I wondered to myself- why play this way, when it's far less risky and far more sensible to continually go for the one-liners at the bottom? But try as I might, I would always find myself placing the blocks to arrange a beautiful (at least in my mind) tower with a gaping hole on the right side.

I realized that regardless of score, I enjoyed playing only when I could complete Tetrises (sp?) and regardless of score, it didn't feel right to play any other way. They could come out with a version of Tetris where you got penalized points to clear four-liners, and I would still not play it any other way.

Life is a lot like that. Sometimes everything works out great, the pieces come just as you want them to, and you do great. But was it luck? Could you have adapted had things not come as they did? Because sometimes you spend the whole game waiting for that straight piece to come, and it never does. You build up the whole tower, and in the end, your incessant drive to go for what you've trained yourself to do ends up screwing you. It never comes, and you lose. And sometimes your nature loses you the game, despite the best intentions, strongest logic, and all the luck in the world.

I remember when I was younger, I would see people who committed suicide on the news, and I would think- "Why would you do that? What could be so bad in your life that you can't just pick up your stuff and move on to something completely new?" I had an all-purpose contingency plan- if things ever got so bad that I was contemplating suicide, I would move to Mexico and open a Chinese restaurant. A fresh start, I thought. But that ignores the problems that people get themselves into, and the nature of themselves that causes them to get into those problems.
But it's not that simple. You might be able to leave your troubles behind, but you can't run away from yourself.

But we're not the scorpion. We can change, right?

Yet Another Political Endorsement

2008-02-06T09:50:00.000-06:00

If you've been a long-standing reader of Your Thoughts Exactly, you know we differ on the relevance and importance of voting. I do feel its worthwhile to put my vote down, and trudged a whole 100 yards through the slush this morning to show my faith in Democracy and the Greatest Nation of All Time.

I try to have as great a grasp of the issues as possible when going into vote for the candidates, which becomes more difficult in primaries where the nuances between the candidates are slight. Many pundits have been reiterating that the policy differences between Hilary and Barack are almost inconsequential, so instead you need to look at alternative factors: The vision of the country in the next ten years. The personalities of the candidates and their abilities to inspire and lead. And the role the candidates see themselves in as President, in terms of how they will do their job once elected.

To me though, policy always comes first. I have specific ideas about policies I would like the country to enforce in order to transform our society. In 2008, they prioritize this way:

Foreign policy, both in trade and relations, with getting out of Iraq within the next 18 months being priority A short-term and relations with China being priority A long-term,
Reversing the moves made by the Bush Administration to curtail civil liberties while expanding the power of the executive branch, with new FISA regulations and the closing of Guantanamo Bay being priority A.
Universal Healthcare
Education.
Energy Reform.

In terms of policy, Hilary and Barack are both vast improvements over the current clown-in-chief, and the differences are slight. I prefer Barack's ideas on Iraq and engagement with Iran, but Hilary is a little more pro free-trade. I'm wary of how the Clintons would do at curtailing executive power. Hilary has been a stronger advocate for universal healthcare throughout her career. Policy wise, I lean towards Obama, but for the first time the other factors almost equal out. There is one man to thank for this: George W. Bush.

As awful as his policies are, the style of his government is that much worse. Staunch, unquestioned partisanship that punishes party members who go against the grain. Secrecy and misdirection. Willfull ignorance points of view and perspectives different from your beliefs.

We've seen a Clinton White House before, and so we have an idea of what to expect. Partisanship and secrecy were major problems of the Clinton White House, especially in the last six years of office after the Republican takeover. The Clintons play the victimization card as a political tool, and are also both skilled and comfortable slandering and defying those whom they see as providing little political gain or suction to themselves. What they failed to learn, in my opinion, is that its better to have enemies that tolerate you than those that hate you passionately.

The other major flaw of the Clinton White House is how the personal relationship of the Clintons dominated their presidency in ways that hindered Bill's ability to govern and provided ammunition for the same enemies they made already. Is this is bad as the Bush Presidencies foibles? Hell no. But it was a problem and remains a problem today.

Meanwhile, Obama's greatest strength is the vision he offers of his Presidency and the fundamentals he claims he will run his government by. The role of the Presidency, for Obama, is providing a uniting force and positive image for America, in order to allow and enable the government as a whole to legislate based on the principles this country is based on. Many a candidate has played this card in my lifetime, but none has done it as poetically or as convincingly as Barack Obama. Being able to persuade, to have a vision of the office and gain the support of the people would be crucial to actually fulfilling this vision. It's a similar one to what Bill Clinton had in 1992, that he was ultimately unable to enact. Partly because maybe Americans weren't ready, and partly because he might not have been the man to do it.

Now we are ready. And I believe Barack's the man to do start us down that path. Hopefully, he'll get a chance to.

Oops

2007-12-12T09:16:00.000-06:00

Scroll down to my May 23^rd post.

Yea I guess I was wrong about that one. At least about the Celtics being crappily run….maybe.

Trading for Ray Allen made very little sense to me at the time, because I thought that a Pierce/Jefferson/Allen corps was good for maybe a 5 seed in the East and unlikely to get by who I thought was going to be the top teams, the Bulls (oops) and the Cavs. But then the KG trade went down and…wow.

I don’t know if this was Danny’s master plan all along, and how much of it is just good fortune, the right guys becoming available at the right time. I wonder if he was working on Garnett during the Allen negotiations. The Allen move doesn’t make sense to me without the KG move, so if not, it’s just another example of incredible Boston sports luck that will hopefully keep going for another 8 months. But as Baseball Prospectus is fond of saying, luck is the residue of design.

Having gone to watch the Celts play the Bulls on Saturday, I was once again impressed by how well the team fits together in terms of how the players strengths complement each other. As stars, the combo of Pierce, Allen, and Garnett works because of their different offensive games, KG inside, Allen as a pure shooter, and Pierce as one most versatile scorers in the league. They are a matchup nightmare, because of Garnett and Pierce’s flexibility (both can handle being on the post or wing) and the passing ability of all three. Moreover, Rondo and Perkins are now relegated to roles in which they can excel, Perk as the recipient of layups off putbacks and other’s penetration, and Rondo as a quick PG who isn’t always asked to run the offense and can now hit 18 footers. It’s freaking awesome.

Defensively, KG’s presence inside, along with a not to be overlooked Perk allows Rondo and Pierce to step up the pressure on the outside. Being able to cheat on your man by overplaying the outside game because you have one of the best interior help defenders in the league is why the Spurs have played such great D the last 10 years, and why the Celtics are now destroying in defensive metrics.

So how far can this team go? Certainly the Finals are within reach. I know people are clamoring for a Sam Cassel addition (stay the fuck away) but if I were Danny, I wouldn’t be that concerned. Maybe add another big body for the Perk role because he still gets in foul trouble, and Pollard aint gonna cut it against Dwight Howard in May.

For now though, it’s definitely easy being green.

We Are Stll in Iraq

2007-12-05T12:18:00.001-06:00

And I am responsible.

I must be, if we truly live in a free and democratic society. For the Constitution of the United States, begins with “We the People” and acts as the ultimate source of authority in our nation, of which I am a citizen. Thus the decisions of our politicians, elected by myself and my fellow citizens, are the responsibility of the people. Ideally, the majority will be able to make rational decisions that move the country forward in a positive manner.

Yet how much time have we allowed our country to be involved in a conflict that was clearly a mistake?

Our government is set up so that change occurs slowly over time, which is a good thing. Thus we are not totally at the mercy of the whims of the populace, which in this day and age of constant stimulation from various media sources, runs completely contrary to the rest of society. The re-election of Bush in 2004 was the death sentence for thousands of young American soldiers. It was an affirmation of his policies, even if Truth is something completely different. Truth is not subject to the electoral college, and the rationale behind going into Iraq (the WMDs!) does not hold up to Truth. Moreover the entire plan does not hold up to reason, it was foolhardy and wrong-headed. Democratization of the Middle East, which was the goal of this War in order to obtain easier access to a natural resource, combined with a little payback at a dictator was the ultimate goal of this administration. But hoping we could initiate a viral spread of democracy was a fairytale that ignored a basic fact about human society: The world is not a democratic place. Even in 2007, how many countries truly operate within a free, democratic system of government? Democracies can flourish, but they are so fragile and can be upset so easily; by a leader who wants increased power, by money and its persuasion, and worst of all by complacency, by refusing to listen to opposing and differing points of view to where those that air them are shouted down or mocked.

In fact, rather than spread Democracy to another country, the lasting legacy of the Bush Administration will be a weakening of Democracy and freedom within our own country. From reduced opportunity for social mobility to curtailing civil liberties to embracing exclusive rather than inclusive values, all of the actions on a domestic front have been about enhancing their personal power while reducing that of the individual or the other branches of government one of which represents the people more directly (Congress) and one of which is supposedly bound to enforce the principles and rights on which our Consitiution was written. It's a modus operendi that contradicts their international ambitions, and calls into question the very fabric of their administration. How can two such divergent tactics be part of any coherent moral plan other than to increase their power and wealth? What is the difference between a despot and elected leaders who act only to enhance their own power? Does the fact that they were elected make it ok? Hell no.

What we need is a reasoned reevaluation of American Democracy, before we go about trying to spread it to other places. Does this mean retreat from the international scene for a lull? Yes. I am not advocating isolationism...I'm advocating prioritization. The priority is Us. We the People, and our health, education, and opportunity. Through turning inward, and refreshing freedom and democracy here, we will be able to turn outward and play an important world in helping to bring freedom and opportunity to the rest of the world.

It's reality, stupid

2007-11-28T22:31:00.000-06:00

Didn't think this was going to happen again, did you? Well, today's topic of discussion was inspired by a REAL-LIFE conversation between your two favorite former bloggers.

Recently, I've had discussions about media and its role in shaping behavior of the masses- specifically, whether mass-market culture promotes consumerism and environmentally unsustainable practices; and whether hip-hop culture promotes violence and racism. The flip side to the argument is whether these cultures are merely a byproduct of audience tastes. I've done my share of media-bashing, but I'm also pretty sure that they're only a small part of the puzzle. CNN is terrible, but if it is viewed by millions of Americans as the daily news, then who is to blame, CNN or Americans?

The short answer is both, but since that's a cop-out answer, the long answer is: what good is it to blame anybody? It's fashionable to blame hip-hop culture when gang violence rears its ugly head, and it's fashionable to blame the media when it spends 6 hours of coverage on Britney Spears or Drew Peterson. But blaming "the media" is akin to blaming nobody; it's like a blame version of Kitty Genovese- spread enough blame around and nobody is really going to take responsibility.

The link above is another symptom of this knee-jerk reaction to assign blame. It's a bill in Congress to do something about the Internet and its role in radicalizing terrorist groups. A lot of things that Congress does make no sense, and this is actually not the crux of the bill, but I wanted to point out that it is the only medium mentioned by name. As if terrorists don't use cell phones, television, paper, and even face-to-face communication. No, it's the internet that has helped spread terrorism.

The thing is, I won't even disagree with assertion. Just like I'm not going to dispute that video games (and violent movies and television) might cause violence in less stable members of the population, or that guns might cause violence. Sure, it might be true, but what are you going to do about it? Ban violent culture? Ban guns? Blame the internet? The point I'm trying to make is that these things are reality, and blaming them or trying to quell them is like the industrial revolution workers that destroyed the machinery that was "taking" their jobs. Things change in the world, and it's better to work with them than it is to fight against the inevitable. So it makes sense to blame the Internet. To the creators of this bill, cell phones, television, and talking are part of reality for them. They've accepted their place in the world, but the Internet just doesn't make sense to them.

I'm sure that's an oversimplification, but I'm painting with a broad brush. Blaming the media is fashionable, I'm sure, because it's an unprovable assertion. But what if we really could understand the causes and effects of the media? If we really knew why Britney Spears gets so much airtime, maybe we can change the rules of the game so that it isn't such a profitable combination to air her 24/7. Or maybe we would just learn to accept that Britney Spears is an absolutely compelling human interest story, that violent video games are fun, and that hip hop is violent and racist because it's just more awesome that way.

Poor Celtics

2007-05-23T10:38:00.000-05:00

So the Celtics aren't going to get Durant or Oden. Boo-hoo. While I feel bad for Simmons because he may off himself, we've got to realize that 1) the Celtics had less than 50 percent chance of getting one of the two and 2) it's still not a bad time to be a Boston sports fan. The Pats and Red Sox are two of the better run organizations in sports. (The Pats being possibly the best.) Plus they've had some karma. We drafted the greatest QB of our generation with a sixth round pick. We signed David Ortiz off the scrap heap and he became a Boston legend. The Celtics are crappily run, and losing out on the lottery will turn people's attention to that. Perhaps, only if we get the organization moving in the right direction, from ownership on down, will we be able to have a fortunate break like getting an Oden. Would have been freaking sweet though.

MANNNN THATS SOME BULLLLLSHITT

2007-05-17T09:48:00.000-05:00

Thats two straight posts with bullshit in the title, in case you were wondering.

The Suns should have won last night, except they couldn't because when they needed to score in the 4th quarter, they had to run pick and rolls with Kurt Thomas instead of Amare or Diaw. This enabled Duncan to cheat of Thomas cutting off Nash's penetration. As usual, I defer to Simmons when describing the NBA; the Spurs have the edge on the Suns right now because 1) The NBA is retarded (suspensions etc.) and 2) Duncan is amazing. The Spurs are not a great team, they execute very well and put their players in positions where they can succeed. But there entire defensive scheme (pressuring the ball up top) is based on the fact that Duncan will save their ass if they get beat on dribble penetration. Which he did last time. Every freaking time.

Which is why the loss of Amare hurt so much. Amare is a young stud who actually has the ability to take it the rim with Duncan there and finish. Which is what he did twice in the last minute of game 4, to put the Suns on top. While everyone was focusing on Nash's passes, that was the real key to victory for the Suns. It's also why they still have a chance in Game 6.

On the suspension, it's made clear that David Stern has lost his ability to be an effective executive. Giving someone authoritarian control over a business enterprise works, until the power foes to said person's head and he/she starts making bad decisions that aren't questioned by outside sources because everyone is afraid of jeapordizing their own position. The first sign of this is when Stern lengthened first round series from 5 games to 7 in the middle of the season in 03 because the Lakers were in danger of getting a 5 seed and he wanted to ensure that they made it out of the first round. Changing a rule in the middle of the season? Who does that?

Of course Stern couldn't change this rule in the middle of the season because that would make him look incompetent. Which is more important than the integrity of the game of course.

Or not. I've written on the Smoking Section about the connection between basketball and hip-hop in the public eye, as two of the main avenues whereby young black males are famous and get exposure. What I wrote there, is that while elements of hip-hop exploit the "gangster" image, the NBA patronizes their players and fans. Everything done by the NBA in the last ten years has been aimed at taming this image, even if it's impossible, so that they can sell young black males to upper middle class white people.

What the NBA needs is an executive who can balance the positives of hip-hop culture, the style and expressiveness, with the corporate interests tied into the game, and market the product to youth. Jay-Z for NBA commissioner?

Feeding the Monster Bullshit

2007-05-15T10:16:00.000-05:00

I read "Feeding the Monster," by Seth Mnookin, a former New Yorker writer who followed Red Sox management around for a few years (03-05ish) and wrote a tome on them.

While Mnookin does have some interesting insights on the Red Sox, this is one of the worst pieces of non-fiction I have read about the Sox. As a non-fiction writer, the goal should be to take a broad view, understanding that in profiling something as large as an organization, there are going to be different individual views as to how things happened. In something as that garners as much media coverage, opinionizing, and rumor-mongering as the Red Sox, this is definitely going to be the case.

Unfortunately, this "insider's" perspective reads as a PR piece put out by Red Sox brass. Mnookin, rewards ownership for the amount of access given to him by taking their line in every single major conflict. His lack of reporting skill is especially evident in his inability to get the player's side of the story. Granted, getting interviews with Manny Ramirez can be a challenge, but answering such a challenge is necessary if you are going to write about the man.

Mnookin consistently labels the players as "greedy," consistently pointing out the large salaries they make while referencing their complaints in order to make them look spoiled. No mention then, of the penny-pinching done by ownership, rather according to how Mnookin portrays it, the Red Sox are struggling to make money what with revenue sharing etc. (Mnookin places the caveat that revenues from NESN arent counted, total garbage because the Sox moved all their games to NESN after buying the network, cable packages then added NESN to extended basic and charged ALL New England consumers extra, whether they are Red Sox fans or not.) Who does he think he's fooling? The Sox have by far the most expensive tickets and fuck their fans over for money in a ton of ways. Don't look to me for pity.

Worse then this portrayal however is the misrepresentation of truth. Two examples come to mind.

The first is Mnookin calling out Dan Shaugnessy for glossing over the Red Sox racist history in his book "The Curse of the Bambino." The Shank is a total putz, and the city will be a better place when he retires, but I've got to back him on this one. I've read the book and his account of the Jackie Robinson tryout (with the famous "get these niggers off the field," from the owners box) the Willie Mays tryout, the racism of Pinky Higgins, and the de facto limit on minorities through the 80s are all covered in Dan's book. He even floats a theory that there is a twin curse of Ruth and Robinson, tying Boston's futility to their racist attitudes. Mnookin's statement is slanderous.

A second comes in backing the Red Sox decisions and buying the party line as truth. Mnookin claims that, in signing David Wells and Matt Clement over Derek Lowe and Pedro Martinez, the Sox managed to get a better combination of pitchers for 8 million dollars less. Of course at the end of 2005, Pedro and Lowe had a combined VORP of 86 while Clement and Wells were at 50. Whoops.

The 2004 Red Sox were a great team both as the game of baseball and in terms of the confluence of personalities. Shame that out of such a team, no one has written a definitive profile. Skip Mnookin's for sure, Johnny Damon's bio will probably provide more level-headed insight

Bwah?

2007-05-13T14:36:00.000-05:00

Ok I was just about to write a quick update on the NBA playoffs, but while I was waiting for the Bulls-Pistons games to start, I noticed something horrendous.

On one of the ubiquitous, much-maligned “Our Country” Cougar Melloncamp Chevy commercials, they pan between shots of white males working on farms. In addition to the acknowledged racism of these adds, the next of which will feature a group of guys standing in white hoods, two yokels are listening to the radio while bailing hay. Over the radio we hear, “The war in Iraq is over. The Enemy has surrendered.”

Um What the fuck are you thinking GM? I assume this is reference to the first Iraq War, a reminder of a time when you could fight wars without land power or casualties. If it’s a reference to the current Iraq conflict, it’s a giant fuck you to the troops dying by the day. Even as a reference to 91, it seems horribly irresponsible. Utilizing nostalgia of American military dominance may play up to the demographic group you are targeting, but in case you hadn’t noticed, that group is shrinking fast. The majority of Americans are going to find this jingoism disturbing and flock to the Toyota and Honda dealers to buy better cars. Tying their economic success by hoping for a resurgence in “Buy American,” while reminding consumers of exactly why they are disappointed in their country sounds like the business model for a company that wants to break their own record for net loss in a quarter. Goodbye GM.

Baseball has been bery bery good to me

2007-05-12T12:29:00.001-05:00

And it has. In the last three years I have seen my Red Sox finally break through to win the title and my fantasy baseball team win the inaugural Parade of Horribles championship. Can life be any better?

Yes, if I can somehow manage a way to have both happen in one season. 2007 looks like it could be that year.

First of all, the Red Sox have started hot. I mean super hot. The pitching looks excellent; two seasoned vets in Schilling/Wake, two young studs in Dice-K and Beckett have combined to lead us to the best ERA in the majors. The bullpen has also been solid, behind Papelbon and Okajima.

The offense looks like it will be at worst good, at best near the tops in the league although still not fucking with the 03 and 04 juggernauts. The Hall of Fame 3-4 has never been underappreciated from this corner and will ensure nothing less than above average. Greatness depends on the ability of Crisp, KY, Drew, and Lugo to live up to what the smartest front office in history envisioned of them. So far this year they are 1 for 4. It’s early.

Of course one of those 4 is not J.D. Drew, who was also supposed to play a vital role on B&B Enterprises (my fantasy team.) Currently his SLG stands at .368 making him one of four players on my team to have a slugging percentage within 50 points of their on base. Not good.

I still think I can win because there will be regression in terms of home runs for my team, which will lift me in the three categories I am trailing horribly in (runs, home runs, and slugging.) The question is, will current leader (and part-time contributor to YTE, David) experience a similar correction in pitching? Who can pull off the trade that puts them over the top?

In the words of Master Splinter: We shall see, Oroko Saki.

The World 3-20

2007-03-20T09:20:00.000-05:00

Quick hit update before I try to keep shit moving with a longer piece on some awesomeness later in the week. There are three big sporting events going on in the world right now, the Cricket World Cup, the NCAA tourney and the Parade of Horribles Fantasy Baseball League, which everyone needs to keep updated with.

In cricket, the huge story has been the absolute destruction of everything Pakistan; not only did their team lose to Ireland meaning they don’t make it to the Super 8s, but the night after this historic loss their coach was found dead in his hotel room. People are afraid to speculate whether this was natural or shady for obvious reasons, but it’s put quite the damper on the whole tournament. Unfortunate, since the hosts (Windies,) have played well and moved on to the next round. The other Big Team that is threatened with missing the next round is India, who lost to Bangladesh, meaning their matchup with Sri Lanka on the 23^rd is huge. Follow all scores live on www.cricinfo.com

As for the tourney, I filled out three brackets, all with different outcomes, so hopefully one of them will end up right. I have Ohio State going too far, they aren’t that good and should have lost already. The toughest teams so far look like Kansas, Georgetown, and Florida. I really hope Florida doesn’t win again.

As for the PoH, we submitted our keepers this week; I chose to keep Ryan Zimmerman and Huston Street as my last two keepers, with the logic that it was more difficult to find good third basemen and closers as opposed to starting pitchers. The bottom line is I still have two of the top five players (Reyes and Howard,) and two more in the top 15 (Haf-Daddy and Beltran.) I love myself.

As for the rest of the world, we seem to be on the brink of a long hot summer, where things in Washington will continue to get nastier as Bushites are exposed for all the wrongdoing they have been involved in. What we have to realize here is that it’s not the specific machinations that are the problem; it’s the general disrespect for the other branches of government, the Constitution, and the laws on the books. No one likes legal smackdowns, but in this case, it’s deserved. And let me tell you, it’s great seeing them fall one by one.

Sports Sports Sports Sports

2007-03-14T16:13:00.001-05:00

Some quick thoughts on the sports events I saw yesterday. First I watched about 40 overs of the West Indies-Pakistan opener of the Cricket World Cup. When we arrived at the bar, the Pakis had the Windies on 7-170 and on the ropes, but some crucial slogging by the bottom order brought their total to 240 and none of the Pakistani batters could build a partnership. Of course its way too early to be making statements about the outcome of the World Cup since the first round is all about the Big Fish not being upset by the minnows, but it looks like Pakistan is going to need a super-human performance from their 3-4-5 of Khan, Yosouf and Inzamam to have a chance of getting to the semis, since the rest of their team either bowling or batting doesn’t impress. The Windies, while not looking perfect, at least found out that their bowling can win games for them against quality batsmen. That’s key, since it was their biggest question mark coming into the tourney.

Second I went to the Bulls-Celtics game, where I went in about thirty seconds from paying 20 dollars for standing room seats to getting comped to Google’s luxury suite. After recovering from the giddiness of free beer and sandwiches, I came away with the following observations about the teams in question.

The Celtics have some pieces; Pierce is still Pierce albeit maybe giving 80 percent (fine by me, this year is worthless and he is back from injury,) Al is a crucial frontline piece going forward, Delonte has some serious off the bench scoring potential…

Other than that though: Gerald Green is Kedrick Brown part 2, (someone who can jump and nothing else,) Rondo can beat anyone off the dribble but can’t play PG, Perkins got destroyed on the boards, Telfair is a joke, Scalabrine would be a great tenth man on a good team, etc. etc.

As much as the world’s most visible Celtics’ fan (Bill Simmons,) fiends over Durant in every column he writes, I am here to say that if I had the first pick, I’d draft Oden. It’s about need right now, and Tyrus Thomas and Ben Wallace DESTROYED us on the boards and inside. We don’t need another scorer, even if Durant is a once in a life time offensive player, Oden could be a once in a lifetime defensive player. In the Big Ten Championship, Wisconsin was afraid to come within ten feet of the basket.

As for the Bulls, they have as good a chance as anyone to emerge from the East. The key to their success will be Tyrus Thomas; it’s a good thing that they didn’t trade him for Gasol since he’ll be a better player in two years. Regardless with Deng, Hinrich, and Gordon in the back court and Big Ben in the middle, they have the pieces.

Of course they’ll still probably get killed in the Finals. Sorry Stu.

Know Your History

2007-03-05T18:04:00.001-06:00

Remember ten years ago? You probably were at entering your peak pimple/masturbation years, thinking about trying out that “marijuana,” thing, and lying about how much sex you had. But in between managing your hormones, you were in high school. And if you were like me, you were taking European history, learning about white rich men the world over.

Anyways I want you to dig deep into your memory banks and see if you can’t recall one of history’s most dire times: The 30 Years War. Taking place between 1618 and 1648, it’s generally regarded as one of the deadliest periods in human history. (In “Germany,” 1/3 of the population died.) It eventually drew in nearly every major state, kingdom, dukedom and earldom, in the region. It grew out of tensions between the two major branches of the major regional religion, specifically the dominant branch (Catholicism) learning to deal with the increased power of the minority branch (Lutheran Protestants.) Surrounding nations were drawn into the conflict as a proxy war to fight over control of the resources of the weaker areas.

Why am I bringing this up? Because, as this blog says, you have to know your history, or you are doomed to repeat mistakes that have already been made. And I think that the lessons of the 30 Years War can teach us about what we are dealing with in the present day Middle East.

The violence taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan is due to two factors: anger about control over the Middle East by larger outside states (especially among previous groups who used to have power,) and underlying tensions between Shias and Sunnis that have been inadvertently brought to the forefront of geopolitical interactions by the U.S’ terrible foreign policy of the last six years. The U.S. and Europe’s support of Israel and more importantly, exploitation of natural resources and military presence (colonization and neo-colonization) fermented the seeds of dissent in people in the region. This led to the creation of radical groups, many of them strongly religious, who began committing acts of war against people they thought were invading their area: the U.S., Israel, and Europe.

The invasion of Afghanistan by NATO was a response to the most severe and deadly act of war by a radical group. The invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing, is starting to look like a resource grab gone horribly wrong. Yes the Bush Administration tried to tie it to the acts of war, but this connection by our leaders was either gross misjudgment or outright lying. While WMDs were not in Iraq, the oil always was, as well as the hope that Iraq would transform itself into a western-friendly proxy state that could supply energy while allowing the U.S. and others to use their territory as a military base and counter-balance to other Anti-West states.

What we know now is that idea was a pipe dream; instead the radical groups, realizing that an invaded Iraq was a prime area to conduct an insurgency, destabilized Iraq and Baghdad. Lack of security in this environment led groups of Shia’s and Sunnis to gang together for protection, increasing sectarian conflict.

On a larger scale, the destabilization of Iraq increased Iran’s regional power by getting rid of one of their largest threats. Iran is the heartland of Shia Islam, and has done its best to step into the void of leadership in the Middle East that has existed since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. This has threatened traditional Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan; the Saudis don’t want Iran flexing its muscles in the oil regime, the Jordanians and Egyptians are worried about getting caught up in an Israel-Iran conflict. As Sunni-majority states, they also are troubled by the rise of Shia’s in Iraq’s new government and Iraq’s movement towards Iran; thus the rise of academics and journalists throwing around the term “Shia Crescent.”

Destabilization within the region and fear of the rival risks escalation to a scenario similar to that in Europe in the 17^th Century. A repeat of the 30 Years War would go something like this. First the U.S. shifts their focus from rebuilding Iraq and snuffing out the radical groups that actually attacked them to state on state conflicts, through threatening Iran on the basis of their nuclear program, causing problems in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon or funding terrorists with Syria. Iran fights back, the U.S. and allies invade Iran. Various radical groups and militas on various sides attack each other for various reasons, using anywhere from Saudi Arabia to the Afghanistan Pakistan border as their battlefield Syria and Israel get drawn into the conflict militarily while the Saudis and Egyptians get drawn in at the minimum as financial backers.

Ok so that would be terrible, but not too terrible right? Certainly not as bad as the 30 Years War.

The problem is that, the 30 Years War took 30 Years. And we are in year four of this conflict. Countries such as China or Russia, who do not have strong enough interests, or not enough military power to compete against the U.S., could be in a different position twenty years down the line. At the very least they could take a role similar to that in Vietnam where they helped fund and arm the U.S. main enemy.

Still, my point is that all wars don’t happen like World War II, where there was a defined threat we could see coming down the road and prepare for. Sometimes, they are more complicated and progressive; what was intended to be a quick mission or quick land grab turns into a mess involving more actors than you originally intended. It’s a different kind of war, the only similarity is the death.

I think that the Middle East is going through a similar period as Europe in the 17^th century. There is a battle of religions, of control. There are discussions about new ideas and philosophies that have entered the region and disrupted the balance of power. Long-term cultural institutions such as the patrimonial tribal system and the role of women are being challenged. There is a great economic disparity between those who have oil and those who do not.

In Europe, after years of war, the blood eventually became to great a cost. Eventually, the wars stopped and when the region finally recovered years later, the went through the time of the Enlightenment, where many of the liberal values that are the foundation of Western culture today were born. The Middle East will have its own Enlightenment, and the results will be different than that of Europe, yet no less influential. Here is hoping that it doesn’t take 30 years of bloodshed and 50 years of recovery to drive them to it. And whatever the future holds, the U.S. must do all it can to encourage a peaceful transition to the next stage.

CRICKET!!!!

2007-02-26T20:13:00.000-06:00

Let’s say in a fantasy world, I was in some situation where a company gave me a check every two weeks, which was directly deposited into my bank account. Let’s also say that said company also gave me a certain amount of days per year where I was paid yet did not have to show up at work. They would call this “vacation.” If I was in this outrageous situation, I would take a week off and head to Jamaica for the world’s second greatest international sporting event, the Cricket World Cup.

This event getting no play in the United States because our team sucks, even though almost half the world’s population has a deep rooting interest in one team or another. The games won’t even be shown on any cable channel; you are going to have to spring for a dish package. Anyways I am here to give you a quick intro.

THE FORMAT: 16 teams make the World Cup, split into 4 groups of 4 in the first round. Of these teams, 6 (Kenya, Canada, Bermuda, Scotland, Ireland, and the Netherlands) are what are called “minnows.” They do not have ICC test status, (meaning they participate in the multi-year rotation of Tests,) because their teams aren’t good enough. They have no chance of winning. The top two teams from each group go into the next round, the Super 8s, a second round-robin. The top 4 teams go into the semi-finals.

All games are played under the One-Day International (ODI) format. Each team gets 50 overs to bat. (An over equals six balls bowled, from alternating ends…the same bowler cannot bowl two overs in a row.) You try and score as many runs as possible in this time; if your whole lineup gets out, then you don’t get to fulfill your 50 overs.

THE TEAMS: What will follow is a capsule preview of each of the ten test nations participating in the World Cup, for your enjoyment.

AUSTRALIA

Population: 20 million

Best Result: Champion (1987, 1999, 2003)

Top Exports: Babes, Kangaroo meat, meatheads.

Why you should root for them: Australians are some of the friendliest most relaxed people in the world. They have an absolutely beautiful country that everyone should visit. They have stupidly stood by the U.S. in the War on Terror. Plus their country will be out of water in 20 years, and they could be potentially invaded by Indonesia at any moment. They need a lot of championships to build up their confidence.

Why you should root against them: They are the greatest dynasty in sports right now. In addition to winning the last two world cups, they have been by far the best test nation in the last decade (think Roger Federer/Tiger Woods domination,) which has led to the usual amount of arrogance and entitlement among their fans. Plus their fans are prone to making racist comments towards the opposition.

Three players to watch: Ricky Ponting, the captain and the best batsman in the world. Andrew Symonds, an all-rounder (batsman, fielder, and bowler) who excels at the one day game and is trying to make it back from injury. Glenn McGrath, fast bowler who is retiring after the World Cup and one of the two most important players to Australia’s long-term success.

BANGLADESH

Population: 147 million

Best Result: First Round

Top Exports: People, Despair

Why you should root for them: The newest team to achieve test status, Bangladesh has had to fight for respect ever since, with players from countries like Australia and England sneering at them that they don’t belong. Add on top of that they are one of the poorest countries in the world, and their government was recently ousted by a military coup that promises elections “in the near future.” Oh yea their country will be under water in the next thirty years, so they may not get too many more chances to enter a team in the tourney.

Why you should root against them: I don’t know, maybe if you haven’t killed enough puppies in the last few months and are looking to take your psychotic aggression out through sports.

Three players to watch: That one guy, I think he is a bowler. And that one batsman. Ok I don’t know that much about their team.

ENGLAND

Population: 50 million

Best Result: Runner-Up (1992, 1987)

Top Exports: Chemicals, boats, hooligans

Why you should root for them: God damn did England had it made back in the 19^th Century; they had colonial dominion over every country in the World Cup! (except The Netherlands.) They invented cricket and spread it to their colonies, bringing joy to billions of people the world over. Now they have been surpassed by most of their former colonies in all the sports they exported, and have to deal with everyone rubbing it in their face every time they beat them.

Why you should root against them: Somehow I think beating a national side in cricket, rugby, or soccer doesn’t make up for two centuries of enslavement and exploitation. But that’s just me.

Three players to watch: Andrew Flintoff, their all-rounder who led them to victory in the 2005 Ashes and was anointed the next great English cricketer only to suck ever since. Kevin Pietersen, who is actually South African but stabbed them in the back. Monty Panesar, who is a Sikh bowler who rocks the turban at all times.

INDIA

Population: 1 billion

Best Result: Champion (1983)

Top Exports: India takes, it doesn’t give

Why you should root for them: With one billion people in a country that is obsessed with cricket, a victory would ensure the most happiness among the world’s people. Also India deserves some reward for putting together a Democratic country with at least thirty different languages, more ethnicities, and multiple populations of major religions. It’s a great fuck you to China’s claims that they are too big for traditional Democracy.

Why you should root against them: India uses its population and money to bully other cricket nations into accepting their terms for various events, the same way that a large corporation would use its weight to set the rules of the industry. Not very nice if you ask me.

Three players to watch: Sachin Tendulkar, one of the greatest batsman in history who is probably playing in his last world cup. Sourav Ganguly, who was kicked off the team as captain two years ago and has made a remarkable comeback into favour. Sreesanth, just because his name is Sreesanth.

NEW ZEALAND

Population: 4 million

Best Result: Semifinals (4 times, last ’99)

Top Exports: Sheep, Xtreme Sports, hobbits

Why you should root for them: 4 million people! That’s smaller than the Metro Boston area. They have no business winning any international competition of any kind. Plus they have to spend their entire lives playing little brother to a country (Australia) renowned for playing little brother to everyone else.

Why you should root against them: While New Zealanders are known to be a friendly, peace-loving people, they can’t hide the fact that they are crackers.

Three players to Watch: Shane Bond and Daniel Vettori, their two world class bowlers who could make New Zealand a dangerous team. Stephen Fleming, their long-serving captain who could be over the hill.

PAKISTAN

Population: 168 million

Best Result: Champions (1992)

Top Exports: Terrorists, Amina K. Majeed

Why you should root for them: They are bordered by one of the world’s most unstable countries (Afghanistan,) the site of the next major world conflict run by a borderline lunatic, (Iran) their traditional enemy, who has nuclear weapons and 7 times as many people (India,) and the world’s next superpower (China.) Oh and their entire Northwest quarter is controlled by violent tribes making it a haven for all sorts of illegal activity. Think the people need a distraction?

Why you should root against them: Their team is bunch of whiny prima donnas, led by their captain Inzamam Ul-Haq who also is blessed to share the Cecil Fielder body type. The national cricket board changed the rules to let back two bowlers who failed drug tests (Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammed Asif.)

Three Players to watch: Mohammed Yousuf, who converted to Islam over a year ago and was rewarded by Allah who granted him the ability to set the single season record for test runs scored in 2006. Asif, who barring injury and drug appeals, is their best bowler. Kamran Akmal, their young wicketkeeper who can win a game with his bat and lose one with his shaky field play.

SOUTH AFRICA

Population: 47 million

Best Result: Semi-finals (’99)

Top Exports: Ostrich meat, auto parts, window sills, crafts, HIV

Why you should root for them: South Africans are the nicest people in the world and have come a LONG way in a short period of time. They were banned from international competition during the apartheid years. Their people deserve a reward for the progress. Africa needs a country to step up and be their representative in the world and South Africa can be that country; an international championship would go some way in building confidence.

Why you should root against them: If you yearn for the good old days of White Man’s Burden and Manifest Destiny.

Three players To watch: Graeme Smith, who became captain at 21 and is one of the game’s rising young stars. Makhaya Ntini, the best fast bowler in the world. Shaun Pollock, one of the world’s best all-rounders playing in his final World Cup.

SRI LANKA

Population: 20 million

Best Result: Champions (’96)

Top Exports: M.I.A., textiles

Why you should root for them: Sri Lankans may have the coolest names of anyone on the planet. (Sample from the 2007 roster: Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha Joseph Chaminda Vaas.) Their country suffered through the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004. They are the classic underdog team of the sub-continent with fewer resources than their bigger neighbors, yet are arguably the most successful team of the bunch.

Why you should root against them: There was this really hot Sri Lankan girl I met in Germany and she flirted with me for like an hour and a half before telling me she had a boyfriend.

Three players to watch: Kumar Sangakarra, the world’s best wicketkeeper. Muttiah Muralitharan, the best Sri Lankan player in history, and probably the world’s most controversial, (depending on which side you take, he either is the victim of white man’s persecution or they changed the rules to make his arm action legal.) Sanath Jayasuria, the hero of Sri Lanka’s surprise 1996 run making his last stand after being booted from the team a year ago.

WEST INDIES

Population: The “Windies,” are not a country per say, rather a collection of former British colonies that love cricket and have a co-op team.

Best Result: Champions (’75 and ’79)

Top Exports: See above

Why you should root for them: They are the hosts! And, as when any developing nation hosts a worldwide event, the rich nations are complaining about how everything is not up to their normal standards. Waa Waa. Plus the Windies are the traditional glamour squad of cricket that has fallen on hard times and is looking to re-establish dominance.

Why you should root against them: Because I am in Chicago and its twenty-five degrees out.

Three players to watch: Brian Lara, Brian Lara, Brian Lara. The West Indies’ one great player that provides a link to their glory days, and one of the finest batsman ever gives it a last hurrah. Going out with a World Cup victory at home would cement him as a cricket legend; he will be the story of the tournament.

ZIMBABWE

Population: 33 million

Best Result: Quarterfinals

Top Exports: Former White Land Barons

Why you should root for them: Well you shouldn’t.

Why you root against them: Their cricket team is a political entity controlled by their dictator/president 4 life Robert Mugabe’s cronies. Many of the best Zimbabwe players have left the team and fled the country in protest of their government. Mugabe continues in power despite destroying the potential for one of Africa’s former rising stars.

Three players to watch: Zimbabwe doesn’t need us to watch them. It needs our TLC.

My prediction for the World Cup is as follows. Seven of the eight expected teams get through group play, Australia, India, Pakistan, West Indies, South Africa Sri Lanka, and New Zealand. England, whose one-day record is abysmal despite beating Australia in the CB series, loses out to minnow Kenya. At least two arrests of players are made during this time, one drug-related, one sex-related. At least one player gets kicked off of Pakistan’s team. At least one team pulls their team from the field during a match citing unsafe conditions. At least one complaint is lodged about racist Australian fans.

The Super 8s produce the following semi-finals: Sri Lanka v. Australia and West Indies v. South Africa. Sri Lanka upsets Australia who have been barely staying alive all tournament. South Africa ends Lara’s dream of a World Cup on home soil, but he gets man of the tournament as a parting gift. South Africa wins the World Cup cementing their status as the new team to beat, at least on the One-Day side with Shaun Pollock taking MoM honors.

Should be fun. If you want to follow the games or the tournament, check out www.cricinfo.com one of the best run, cleanest sports sites out there. Till then, Play Ball!

I Resolve to Look the Other Way

2007-02-20T19:54:00.001-06:00

What did we honestly expect the Democrats to do when we voted them into power three months ago about the War? Many dovish peaceniks fantasized about an automatic pull-out of Iraq, although those of us not totally doped up thought. Some, like myself, wanted at least a substantial policy to come out of the change in power, either implementing the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group, or David Harris (a massive troop surge, followed by a phased withdrawal.) At least, I hoped, the Bush Administration would be forced to take a multilateral approach to their policy-making, realizing that the election was a direct rebuke to the reign of Rumsfield.

The Democrats, in the middle of a celebration of their newfound power, allowed The Presidency to draw the line in the sand on the most important issue of our time. While they were busy pushing through their 100 hours reforms, the President, through his primetime speech and the State of the Union laid out the stakes: He would not be accepting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. He would not be working with Congress on foreign policy. Instead, he would poor some salt on a shit sandwich by sending a token amount of troops into Baghdad and calling it a “surge.” Most importantly, Bush offered no new ideas about acceptable outcomes that would lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

This straight up “Fuck You” to the Democratic Party (and the people who voted them into power,) regarding Iraq was pretty bold, even for Bush. In the face of falling popularity at home and continual failure abroad, he smiled and kept moving forward with what he (or his cronies,) think is the right thing to do (or the most profitable. If this is not a case of morality gone awry for Bush then he is as bad as Stalin.)

In my view, it is the responsibility of the Congress to respond accordingly. While foreign policy is traditionally the realm of the executive branch, what we have here is an administration that’s unwilling to listen to suggestions or alternatives from qualified sources when it’s clear we are involved in an international crisis that has the potential to affect the U.S. for decades to come. The time is now for Congress to step in and utilize the power of the purse.

Instead, we get this non-binding resolution crap. This is the worst of all worlds. It doesn’t even make sense politically. If the troop surge fails, Congress gets to say I told you so about Bush’s foreign policy, but Bush’s foreign policy is already about as unpopular as it can possibly be. If the troop surge succeeds, the Dems look like idiots for coming out against it.

And enough with the “we support the troops.” bullshit which is just the Democrats running scared from Republican accusations about potentially cutting funding. The Democrats need to show some balls and argue that cutting off funding isn’t a fuck you to the troops, it’s a fuck you to the leadership that is getting our troops killed. There has to be some level of accountability in government and this is the power that our forefathers granted to the Congress. Sure this reasoning will piss some people off, but now is the time to do that, 18 months away from the next election, with popularity for the war at an all-time low.

Of course everything the Democrats do in their first two years of power will be done with consideration for its effect on the ’08 election. They will be paralyzed to make any unpopular moves that can be brought back upon them, even if they may be the correct ones. With so much at stake, it will be hard for pols to move away from the influence of their campaign managers and lobbyists, instead they will adapt the John Kerry mode. As Kerry proved, all that gets you is a narrow defeat

I really believe that a politician that can come out and lead a stand against Bush based on taking the moral high ground, ignoring politics, and telling the truth, that this War is wrong, that our troops are dying, that it’s bankrupting our country, that the people of Iraq are suffering, that all that the U.S. stands for is being degraded every day we prolong this doomed conflict, and that our executive leadership is mired in the midst of a swirling vision of false hope and the fear of being wrong that needs to be blown away by the winds of change, he or she will come across as the Champion that the American people know they need in these troubled times. I doubt in the era of non-binding resolutions, that we will see such bravery.

What do We Want? Gays in Sports!

2007-02-17T12:01:00.000-06:00

Why is the idea of a Gay jock such a big deal? Gay ballerina, not so big a deal. Gay basketball player? Huge deal! Stop the presses! Front page news! Pull Wolf Blitzer off the Anna Nicole Smith autopsy watch!

One reason is that people in the ballet industry have probably been dealing with gay colleagues for a long period of time because their society is one where homosexuality is not stigmatized. In the world of professional sports, one of the solitary figures to come out, John Ameachi has to deal with Tim Hardaway making a comment like “I hate gay people…I think there is no place in the world or the United States for homosexuality.” If Hardaway is willing to make this comment in a public forum, god knows what he or others are willing to say in more private settings.

The problem here is twofold. First of all, athletes from any sport are not necessarily the smartest subsection of humanity. Yet when an issue such as a homosexual co-worker arises, they are asked to comment because they are public figures. These are questions that sometimes require an ability to understand a complex issue and digest multiple viewpoints. You are going to get some ignorance and stupidity that reflects that of the general population.

Second, and more importantly, it’s ok for ballerina’s to be gay because ballet is seen as a feminine persuasion. The two major institutions of manliness, are the military and athletics. And over the last decade, they have been the two institutions where discrimination against homosexuals has been tolerated, rationalized, and excused. In the military, it’s in the rules; you can’t be openly gay and serve your country. Evidently a homosexual in the forces kills morale, camaraderie, trust, discipline, and spreads Communism. (Look up the military’s official statement on the matter from 1981, which is still in force.) Similar arguments are made by athletes when they talk about a “lack of trust in the locker room,” or similar garbage, which substitutes for people’s true discomfort, being in a situation where they are around gay people and how it effects their own views of their sexuality.

What do people mean by comments such as “I wouldn’t want to shower with that guy.?” Evidently standing naked with someone who is gay is a dangerous habit; you never know if the gay person might sneak up behind you when you are washing the shampoo out of your eyes and try and cop a feel.

Of course, if you asked a gay person about that, they would laugh in your face. The truth is that most people, whether they are gay or straight, probably have some level of discomfort about showering next to other dudes. That doesn’t make them ignorant or weird, it just makes them normal.

Society reinforces standard sexual roles that many people do not fit into, starting of course with the standard husband-wife model. The fact is a majority of people do make it through life fulfilling this supposed “proper,” model. Yet anyone who does not is stigmatized as a failure. In fact, they are also normal.

The athlete and the soldier, enshrouded in the myth of manliness, are supposed to live up to their status as alpha males by sexually dominating multiple females. Males in this position are so obsessed by maintaining this image that they can’t even accept associating with homosexuals. Fear of the different and the unaccepted, combined with uncertainty about the self leads to a group reaction of discrimination and abuse. It’s the same old story.

American society is going through a conflict with regards to sex and sexual roles. The animosity towards gay marriage is the key political representation, and a different argument for a different blog. But can’t we all agree that a man or woman should at least be able to go to work and express him or herself as gay or lesbian while feeling safe and comfortable? It’s clear that in pro sports, this is not the case. This is a problem, and frankly people like Tim Hardaway need to grow the fuck up.

WMDs: If only We'd Known

2007-01-29T12:15:00.000-06:00

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have for you a Your Thoughts Exactly exclusive that explains everything from 2003 onward and validates the previously nonsensical neo-conservative foreign policy. What we did not know is that Messrs. Rumsfield, Rice, and Wolfowitz were privy to secret information about the nature of the threat emanating out of the Middle East that, unbeknownst to the general population, threatened the very existence of the Untied States, the West, and sweet Freedom herself. I am talking, of course, about WMDs.

The genius of the Bush Administration is that they were able to hint at the true threat the whole time while throwing Congress, several foreign nations, and the majority of the press and the public off the trail. They all had us convinced that Saddam was secretly hiding and building Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was the primary justification given for invading Iraq (at least publicly,) in 2002-3, one that has been disproved as either the worst intelligence gaffe in US history, or an outright planned lie. When press members mention the subsequent lack of WMDs to current administration officials, like say Dick Cheney, they get flustered and try and make up other reasons for the invasion in their efforts to hide the real truth from us. For example, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer this week, VP Cheney rationalized invading Iraq on the basis of the fact that if we had left Saddam in power, he would currently be involved in a nuclear arms race with Iran’s President Mahmoud Amhadinejad as they are bitter enemies.

Now in response to this assertion, one could say something like “gee Dick, Saddam had no access to highly enriched uranium in ’03, you really think that would he would have been able to get some so quickly when he was an international pariah?” Or alternatively “Wow Dick, you mean the U.S. knew in 2003 that Ahmadinejad would get elected in 2005, so you used your supreme knowledge of the future to invade Iraq to stop a nuclear arms race? You guys are fucking geniuses!” Of course, Supreme knowledge of the future flies in the face of logic and rationality. But as YTE has recently discovered, there is nothing rational about what is going on in the world today, and the grave threat that every human being now faces.

You see, a drunken Saddam let loose a slip of the tongue about his plan to secret US ally Kim Jong Il, the Bush Administration has known the real meaning behind WMDs. What those of us in the know, like a certain Taylor James Peterson, have long feared: War-Mongering Monkey Dolphins.

You see, ever since the dawn of man, over seven thousand years ago, we have been able to dominate nature in every way possible, from domesticating the horse and dog to controlling the weather. (You think Katrina was an accident?) Yet there always existed the potential for two animals to team up through mating to form some sort of super-hybrid capable of dethroning man from his rightful perch as supreme guardian of of Earth. Monkeys and Dolphins have long been seen by political scientists as two of the largest threats (along with peacocks.) Monkey-Dolphin hybrids combine the prehensile tales and opposable thumbs of primates with the large brains, superior vision, and echolocation ability of dolphins. Thankfully, with one confined to the Oceans, and the other to the Jungles, monkeys and dolphins never got the chance to procreate, except for in extremely rare cases when a monkey would grab a dolphin out of the water, rape it, and throw it back in. The only possible opportunity for such a threat to emerge was from a human backed cross-breeding program.

Enter Saddam Hussein. An avid physical anthropologist with an interest in marine biology before his secondary career as a Ba’athist Party strongman/psychopath, the former dictator knew that the only way to stave off eventual overthrow and seizure of his oil by the U.S. was to gain a strategic advantage through the development new military technology that would raise the cost of invasion beyond what the U.S. would be willing to accept. With acquiring nuclear weapons out of the picture, Saddam, turned to the simpler and more cost-effective solution of cross-breeding.

What is the real danger posed by Monkey-Dolphins and why did the U.S. feel the need to intervene before Saddam unleashed these creatures on the U.S. and its allies?

First, it’s important to note that Saddam had proven that he would use WMDs before, on his own people, the Kurds, the Iranians. While the rest of the world has shown remarkable restraint, avoiding unleashing the terror of nuclear or biological weapons (standard WWII and Vietnam exceptions apply,) in the hands of a lunatic like Hussein, Monkey-Dolphins in all their poop-throwing, blow-hole fucking madness could be used to wreak havoc on Hussein’s enemies from Tehran to Tel Aviv. Plus with their aquatic capabilities, Monkey-Dolphins could be used to strike the fair shores of the US of A. In a matter of seconds, Hawaii, or worse, an entire coastline could be overrun by these genetic super-beings.

Second, we need to look at the potentiality of WMDs in the post 9/11 world. Thus far in the 21^st Century, we have moved away from state on state conflict; terms like asymmetric warfare, or transnational conflict have entered the general lexicon of international studies. Globalization and loose borders have made it easier for information and contraband to get between insurgent groups. The sheer power of weaponry in this day and age means that in the hands of a few sick-minded heathen jihadist freaks, one monkey-dolphin would be one too many.

Third, what of the unspoken possibility that brings about everyone’s worst nightmare?
We do not know what level of control any human being will be able to maintain over any Monkey-Dolphin hybrid. Assuming that the intelligence levels of the Monkey-Dolphins fall somewhere between the Cylons from Battlestar Galactica and Sloth from The Goonies, we could be looking at a race of people with the exact same mental capabilities as us. Perhaps even greater.

As history has proven, subjugating people with free will can be difficult at times, although by no means impossible. And continuing to do so is proving more and more difficult, taking more and more out of us. Look at the relative area of control the West had in 1900: major empires controlling swaths of land. Complete control of resources.

Nowadays? Sure we have economic clout and military dominance. But the gap is closing all the time between us and the rest of the world. It’s a struggle just to keep our heads above water, in our rightful place as leaders of the world. And the last thing we need is people getting their hands on some military technology that will make it more difficult to tell them what to do.

Moreover, the Monkey-Dolphins themselves pose a huge threat to us. Who knows what kind of culture or ideas they could spread in an area of the world that seems fed up with the West and capitalism. Plus their superior diving skills would make adept at exploring for underwater oil deposits. Also, as (both) their habitats would likely be threatened by climate change, they would not look too kindly on the U.S. for their refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol.

With a full understanding of the threat posed, Your Thoughts Exactly hereby retracts all past statements degrading the Iraq War as dumb, ill-planned, irresponsible, evil, moronic, or illegal. We hereby re-affirm our complete faith in our executive branch. We will return to burying our heads in the sand, and leave the tough decisions in your extremely capable hands.

Damn White People

2007-01-26T07:52:00.000-06:00

The first two MCs that came up on ITunes for me this morning were KRS-One and Chuck D, so I guess I may as well speak about what a terrible racist I am.

After writing my endorsement of Barack Obama for the blog last Saturday, I took a nap, then went down to Clark Street Alehouse for a friend’s birthday party. Upon walking in I noticed two things. First, there were a solid amount of good looking women complete with engagement rings, which not only depressed me because I was unlikely to hook up with them, but also frayed my corneas and depressed me again based on the lack of funds in my bank account to spend on such a crappy rock. After recovering from this depressive wave, I notice for the second time this weekend that I had ended up at a bar with only white people.

Ok well the bouncer was black. And over the course of the night I was able to spot one other black guy and an Asian dude. But still, I was in Crackerland. And hey I guess it’s cool to roll with your own right?

I do believe in the melting pot America of the 21^st century. But America is a big place, and it’s going to develop at different speeds and with different dynamics depending on local history and demographics. One of the reasons I loved Miami was its multiculturalism. It felt like a city that was twenty five years ahead of the rest of the US in this manner. Sydney also was surprisingly multi-cultural, considering Australians in general are about thirty years behind in terms of racist attitudes.

Chicago, not so much. It is a city of 9 million people that obviously has representation from every racial demographic somewhere. But something about it, maybe the sprawl, maybe where I have chosen to live, maybe the weather, gives me the impression that there are still barriers that separate groups of people.

The bottom line is, I should never be in a situation where there is only one race of people in a bar in a major city in the US. Now, bars don’t help by catering to specific races of people. I know this from my brief experience working as a barback. One weekend, we hosted a “black party,” on a Friday and a traditional “white party,” on a Saturday. The main difference, of course, was the music played. Interestingly, my bar manager had decided that black people prefer Heineken while white people prefer Amstel Light, so we served one on Friday and one on Saturday. Weird.

I was talking about this with Breezy Boo (my African-American sister) last year; she said that is was natural for groups of people to “hang with their own.” I guess that is true. While I grew up in an extremely multi-cultural neighborhood, my parents’ decision to send me to private schools with mostly all white kids limited my exposure to families and friends of different ethnicities.

I guess it is “natural,” for me to not be friends with very many black people because I haven’t interacted with as many as I have white people in my lifetime. And when people “hang with their own,” they develop different cultures and backgrounds, which lead to an increased divide between groups. Increased divide in racial subcultures means that people have to expose themselves to unfamiliar situations to bridge gaps.

Well, people don’t like uncomfortable situations. Most people are self-conscious and don’t like being in situations where they stand out, or where their differences are noticeable. No wonder all the black people avoided the bar last Saturday. This isn't the America I want though...But what can I do? Any Suggestions?

Preceding Me in the Office of President should be,..

2007-01-20T16:57:00.000-06:00

My fellow Illinoisan? Barack Obama!

That’s right, the Marmaniac endorsement is already in for the 2008 election. And why not? After all it’s only 21 months away.

The readiness of candidates to declare themselves candidates proves that George W will add to his distinguished resume the title of being the lamest duck of all time. Democrats, fresh off their victory in November are chomping at the bit to put their names out there in hopes of carrying forward momentum. Personally, I think this is a bit dumb; Howard Dean should have taught everyone that there is no point in peaking six months before everyone votes, that just give the other pols a target to aim at before Iowans and New Hampshirens go to decide our candidates. That’s how we end up with John Kerry. Gross.

Hilary and Barack, however, have such name recognition (and in the case of Hilary, have been taking shit for so many years,) that they can probably transcend the traditional American pattern of infatuation followed by backlash. So we may actually have ourselves a real primary in ’08, where all elections matter and the majority of voters don’t end up feeling disenfranchised.

Barack is a good liberal; the only policies of his that I do not agree with are his reluctance to free trade and his opposing gay marriage (although he does support civil unions and voted against the constitutional amendment.) But that’s not why I’m voting for him.

I’m voting for Barack because I have realized something that Anand Shah told me six years ago, the President doesn’t really do much. What the President does is act as the face of the United States to its people at home and, almost as importantly, people abroad. The Executive Branch has a lot of sway over policy, and whomever is President certainly will play a role in forming the policy decisions and path of the U.S. for the rest of the decade and beyond. But, as we’ve seen especially in the Bush Administration, this will be decided based on Cabinet appointments that we have no control over.

And as much as I believe it is time for the United States to have a female President, we need Barack. He is the Anti-Bush.

Bush is a representative of entitlement, of our parents’ generation which for all their progress at our age, has left a bad taste in the mouths of many. Our executive should inspire trust, and be an embodiment of America, a representative of all 300 million of us and some shared vision of where we want our country to move. Bush is the embodiment of the upper crust good old boys network that still controls much of this country domestically. Internationally, he is the embodiment of the Ugly American, who doesn’t understand that different parts of the world play by different rules, and doesn’t have the natural ability or patience to try and understand the subtleties and nuances of diplomacy and foreign policy. He is a 20^th Century relic.

Obama represents a projection of America in the 21^st Century. First, the obvious; his skin-color and name. Of mixed heritage, he represents America’s inevitable drive towards becoming the true melting pot nation. The relative increase of the African-American and Hispanic population, combined with the increase of mixed heritage children will be as much of our future as global warming. Embrace it. Love it (hotter chicks!) Use it to our advantage.

Bush’s greatest failure is the total erosion of American moral superiority gained from fighting fascism and communism. What better way to get it back then by reminding everyone of how America originally became great; as the land of opportunity, as the welcomer of all, as land of freedom. A land that welcomes all types of people from all types of religious and cultural backgrounds. What better representation of those ideals then Barack Obama, a well-spoken, attractive, embodiement of the 21^st Century American. Obama has a singular opportunity to do this that Joe Biden or John McCain do not. Obama’s election will feel also skip a generation of politicians of the Pelosi/Reid Era who feel entitled to their turn in power without doing much deserve. As a Young American, I can honestly say he would be the first President who I would trust to be fighting for, and listening to, my needs. I’m not sure if I can say that about other candidates.

A pretty face isn’t all you need for the Presidency. And ObamaNation won’t cure all of the United States’ problems or make everyone who hates America put down their AK and buy a Chevy. But this election is more important then electing a new chief executive. This election is about how we are going to represent ourselves to take on the great challenges of the 21^st Century. This election is about how we are going to put behind as a nation the Bush Administration’s fear-mongering and bullying, and rallying to move forward together. This is about re-establishing the United States of America as the country everyone wants to be, not the country everyone wants to go away. And Barack Obama is the man to start us down that road.

Dear Premier George Walker Bush,

2007-01-18T08:27:00.000-06:00

Do you feel something on your back? Some incredible burden that keeps you from getting exactly where you want to go? That crushing sensation is known in most circles as checks and balances. That’s right, they are back.

You don’t seem to understand how to react to this new found problem. On some issues, such as the Iraq War, you have pretended to come up with a new policy while simply recycling old talking points and lame assertions that attempt to link Al Qaeda to Iraq, hoping no one will notice. You even through in an additional 20,000 troops into the pile, to show your commitment, an amazingly bold decision. Bold in the fact that absolutely no one seems to agree that this is the right move. Faced with the tough choice of admitting failure in Iraq and beginning the long withdrawal or taking the risky stand of massively increasing troop levels in an effort to bring forced stability, you have done neither. Instead you chose the same path to disaster that the American people demanded you change less than two months ago.

On other issues, you seemingly just give up. As if moved by a higher power, you have changed your mind on the legality of domestic warrantless wiretapping. Maybe the day off in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King gave you a chance to reflect on the values that he stood and gave his life for, which caused you to have a change of heart and realize that protecting the freedom of the citizens of America meant sacrificing some level of security. Or perhaps you just didn’t want to deal with those mean old Democrats probing into the nitty gritty details of just which nursing homes you had bugged.

You even had to dig through your bedroom to find your Dad’s favorite veto pen, the one he gave you at the beginning of your second term. You hadn’t had much practice issuing veto orders, so you looked over Article II of the Constitution one more time, just to make sure you had the rules down. After all, the Democrats had passed some pretty insane laws in their first week on the job, such as raising the minimum wage by less than a dollar in real terms and giving all that money for stem-cell research. What will those crazies do next?

At times I’m sure you feel like getting on Air Force One, flying off to some small island and camping out until the worst was over. But you still have two years left before you get to spend all your days at the ranch. Sucks to say, but you are still my President. As a citizen of my country, how can I advise you to act in this time of struggle?

First, learn from your predecessor. Bill Clinton was able to function quite ably as President with an opposition Congress. Clinton picked his battles and moved forward on legislation where he found a common ground with the Republican majority (most notably welfare reform and NAFTA.) Find a few issues where you differ from your fellow Republicans. Immigration seems like a good starting point. Reach out to people across the aisle to prove that you can work with them, that you are not mortal enemies. That will make it less easy for them to hate you when you have to start disagreeing on things like free trade and the budget deficit.

Second, wake the fuck up. You have to realize that whatever paradigm through which you view international relations is inherently flawed. It has led to no less than the collapse of American credibility in the international political regime. It is an unequivocal disaster. Fire everyone in the State and Defense departments. Go hire people from DIFFERENT backgrounds. Bring in a liberal, a realist, a neo-con, and a post-modernist segment to your diplomatic community. Throw them all in a room, let them fight it out, and demand compromise. Discourage uniformity and dogmatism. Understand that the world is a complicated place and more importantly, a chaotic place. X does not always lead to Y.

Will you do either of these things? Likely not. Instead you will whimper to the finish in the passive-aggressive manner of a spoiled brat who is used to getting his way, but now finds himself actually facing adversity. Which is exactly what you are.

Fuck Off,

The Marmaniac

Hip-Hop Adolescence

2007-01-16T09:45:00.000-06:00

Thanks to the wondrous instrument that is my iPod, as well as a few crucial links from your number one DJ savior Trackstar the DJ, I have reengaged myself with one of my truest loves: rap music. I haven’t blogged about hip-hop in quite some time; wait I haven’t blogged about anything in quite sometime. Anyways here are my thoughts on hip-hop as we enter 2007.

The two most talked about news items in the last month within the greater Hip-Hop u’mmah are Nas’ newest album title (Hip Hop is Dead,) and a scholarly/useless identification of a new hip-hop sub-genre entitled “Crack rap,” or music glorifying selling drugs. Let’s deal with Nasir first.

To quote DJ Trackstar, (no known association with Trackstar the DJ) “Nas was trying to start a conversation about the current state of rap music.” As someone who has gradually learned about hip-hop in the last fifteen years, since I first heard (and liked) “Knockin’ the Boots” by the Candyman and “The Choice is Yours” by Black Sheep, I do not agree with what Nas’ assertion. Hip-Hop is alive and well.

The argument for the decline of rap music from your average white kid or hip-hop legend goes as such: The average talent of MCs on the hip-hop charts is constantly trending downward due to the industry’s rapid commercialization throughout my lifetime. Hip-Hop “on the radio,” is now, like all other forms of pop music, subject to the manipulative business tactics of record labels and media conglomerates, based on marketing data on which types of songs or which faces/stories will sell best to the general public. Talent as an MC or DJ doesn’t get you where it used to. More importantly, hip-hop no longer acts as a mechanism for empowering the African-American community, through representing current issues and struggles of black youth. Worse, hip-hop has become obsessed with materialism and violence which negatively affect impressionable youth by de-prioritizing empowerment and ignore hip-hop’s role as an educating and cautionary force.

I recently (legally) downloaded Stakes is High, by De La Soul, which is a great underground album partially responsible for launching the New York “conscious rap,” scene of the late 90s. The claims of De La in 1996 were exactly the same as Nas in 2006: Hip-Hop is obsessed with materialism and violence, people need to focus more on positivity. Here is one quote from the title track

I'm sick of bitches shakin' asses

I'm sick of talkin' about blunts

Sick of Versace glasses

Sick of slang

Sick of half-ass awards shows

Sick of name brand clothes

Sick of R&B bitches over bullshit tracks

Cocaine and crack

What albums/artists could De La Soul have been referring to in 1996? The last three years had seen the Hip-Hop charts dominated by Snoop, Dr. Dre, and 2pac on the West Coast and Biggie and company on the East coast. Nas, Jay-Z, and Outkast were on their way to superstardom, releasing their most critically acclaimed albums in this span. The underground offered Wu-Tang at the absolute height of their powers, as well as A Tribe Called Quest and many other legendary groups. It is generally looked back on by present day hip-hop fans as the greatest period in Hip-Hop’s history. Yet the criticisms that precluded the death of Hip-Hop in ’06 were there then.

Why? What has changed in 2006 that makes Hip-Hop dead as opposed to 1996?

Two major changes come to mind. First, like everything else Hip-Hop has been greatly influenced by the dawning of the digital age. If you are looking for new hip-hop, you aren’t limited to what is being played on the radio or MTV. You can download whatever album you want, be it the new Lil’ Wayne or Organized Konfusion’s first album. Online review databases as well as hip-hop message boards and websites make it much easier to build a common consensus as to what is a classic album and to specifically target and tailor one’s tastes. Moreover, the form that the online community takes,with its combination of amateurism and anonymity, makes it difficult to endorse new albums or artists for fear of backlash from the ever fickle mind of collective humanity. It is VERY difficult to take a stand against the collective in hip-hop, a community of fans who are stunningly obsessed with conformity in terms of dress, attitude, and projected personality. (A rapper is supposed to look and act a certain way, and have a very limited set of priorities.) Thus classic rap albums are not deemed classic until two or three years after their release, they have to be tested by the collective hip-hop/cool obsessed first, before everyone collectively gets the balls to label an album classic. Such an attitude is one reason behind the “current hip-hop always sucks” attitude that prevails to this day. Thus De La can complain about the state of rap in 1996, a year that saw the release of the now classic Reasonable Doubt, All Eyez on Me, Muddy Waters, Dr. Octagon, ATLiens, Ironman, E. 1999 Eternal, etc.

Of course professional coverage of hip-hop in music magazines or cultural magazines is no better than that of the general community. Most major music publications haven’t yet moved beyond having their rock critics review rap albums. Why this is I don’t know; you wouldn’t have your hockey expert comment on how to throw a curveball. Occasionally, someone magazine like the New Yorker or Slate will attempt to throw their two cents in on hip-hop; unfortunately they usually end up embarrassing themselves. The New Yorker wrote an article in their December 11^th issue on the new found prevelance of referencing selling crack in rap music, a theme which has only been around since, oh 1988. Evidently my mole in the game Slick Rubin (no relation to Trackstar the DJ,) told me that the New Yorker was actually taking its cue from a term that was coming up in blogs about hip-hop.

So to sum up, the two major trends of hip-hop criticism are to 1) make sure you don’t praise anything too much and 2) make up sub-genres that make no sense in an attempt to pretending like you staying on top of what’s new.

To me, the problem isn’t so much with the music itself, but rather, how the whole hip-hop community: rappers, MCs, record companies, critics, and fans view themselves. I believe this to be driven mainly by how the hip-hop community is struggling to deal with its own success, like any 18-24 (or in my case, 25+) old kid coming into its own (20 years from the first multi-platinum album Raising Hell.) Part of this has to do with certain values that rap music has embraced (gangsterism and the glorification of dying young.) Part of this has to do with the fact that the hip-hop community is itself full of young people, and young people are irresponsible.

But the success of hip-hop and the way in which the music brings together all types of people present an opportunity, to unify members of our u’mmah into a political force. We have the opportunity express the positive shared values of hip-hop music, especially freedom and empowerment at a time when both are under attack from our own leaders. In the late 80s, early 90s, hip-hop felt like a movement, but with limited potential to influence the direction of the country. Now, hip-hop needs to realize it has much greater potential in terms of redefining the values and identity of the United States. Hip-hop is an American force, and a reflection of what is good and bad about our country. Hip-hop is not dead: it just needs to grow up.

Execution Style

2007-01-02T22:37:00.000-06:00

Is it wrong for me to make bad puns out of someone's death? I haven't been keeping my nose close to the news lately, so it came as a bit of a shock last weekend when I heard they were about to execute Saddam Hussein. About to? I figured that was rhetoric- that maybe they were going to keep the appeal process under 10 years this time. But no, there was Al-Maliki, pronouncing it'd be done within a week. Then I figured that was when the UN would jump in, sounding sanctimonious, demanding that there be more appeals, human rights inspectors to oversee it, etc. Even the US had to be taken aback at this timetable, right? No, US officials said things like "he's a prisoner of the Iraqi government now" and "they're free to do as they want". So Saddam Hussein was hanged, and I'm in no position to argue whether he deserved it or not. That he was hanged by an Iraqi court, and not by an international court, and executed by his former dictatees (is that a word?) seems more like an assassination than justice. But that's not what I'm irked about.

No, what I'm getting at is that it somehow seems so fitting for this war. That the Iraqi prime minister, assuredly filled with anger and hatred for his former dictator, took such pleasure and haste in killing him shows what Iraq has become. It isn't surprising, maybe, that the UN wanted no part of it. Everyone wants to get out of Iraq, and it alternately makes me disgusted and happy:
Poll numbers in April '04 showed that 77% of the public supported Bush and his war. Polls now show that just about 77% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war. So that means about 54% of the American public has changed their minds. The consensus? Bush told us that we'd be hailed as liberators! And he told us that Saddam had WMDs! We've been lied to! We've been had! This much is true. Isn't this why we elect representatives? Aren't they supposed to get to the truth of the matter? YTE has never been shy about our greatness, but apparently it's true- we do know better than the politicians.

Because I know that all three of us, at least, were never convinced. I'm guessing that whoever's reading this counted themselves as the 23% who were against it from the start. I've actually switched into the other 23% at various points, because as Marmar would say, I'm a hater. But no, it wasn't purely just so I could be a non-conformist. It was because, (and bonus points for quote identification) "you can't play god and then wash your hands of the things you've done." But that's not what I'm thinking anymore. I say, let's cut and run. Let's let democracy lose, and have freedom stagnate, unrung, in the land of Iraq. Let's implode a country by allowing a civil war that we started, to take its course. Oh wait, is that not a very convincing argument?

But the thing is, in order to leave Iraq, don't we have to be prepared to accept those consequences? Maybe, and maybe not. No matter how many times you say "there's no civil war", doesn't make it true. I don't think deep-seated religious strife and cyclical violence can be cured through daily affirmations. What Saddam's execution at the hands of mostly Shiite handlers represents (even though I won't confess to knowing Al-Maliki's actual motives) is that US forces are now accomplishing nothing over there, and in fact are no longer even the focal point for what happens in Iraq from now on.

There are millions of Iraqi people at risk, and to say we should get out and leave them to the monsters goes counter to something I really do believe- that American lives are not worth more than any other human lives. To publish 3,000 American soldier's deaths as a milestone but then throw out a number like 600,000 Iraqi deaths as if it's an attendance statistic is, well, frankly, American. But to stand in the middle of a fight that you have no control over is stupid. (and arguably also American) We're supposed to learn from our mistakes, and our history. Iraq's future may be democratic, but I don't think it'll be at the end of an M-16's barrel. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Korea. In fact we have a much better track record at installing dictators (as our last commenter pointed out) than we do of removing them.

So what, exactly, am I recommending? Our friend David came up with a good idea (yes, he still has them semi-annually). Let's give it one try at doing it right. Send in twice as many troops as we have now; even if that means unifying the Sunnis and Shiites through sheer martial law (and perhaps even through mutual struggle against the US). If they're still hell-bent on destroying each other, then we really are just standing in the way.

But that isn't going to happen, because that's an even more unpopular decision than staying OR leaving. So leave it to us to suggest the impossible and then criticize everyone when they don't do as we say. And I'm certainly not willing to sign up for that, so it smacks of hypocrisy as well. So I vote we get out, and simply prepare ourselves for the consequences. And Vietnam (although there was no sectarian or racist division there) even showed us that it can succeed despite our bungling, so it may be possible that Iraq has a way out in the absence of US forces, so we can tell ourselves that it will work out in the end. That's what Bush says to himself as he falls asleep every night.

Hurrar for Incompetence!

2006-12-27T20:57:00.000-06:00

Silver Bells,

Soon it will be Boxing Day!

Happy Holidays to those of you in the middle of breaks from school or work, and a special shout-out to those poor unfortunate souls forced into the office on this day that should be a holiday.

One of the many great things about being home (although way down on the list behind getting to see my family, sleeping in my own bed, and the food,) is getting to sift through about three months worth of the New Yorker magazine. Most known for their undecipherable cartoons (famously mocked in a Seinfeld episode,) the New Yorker pieces together top-level commentary on politics, art, and culture, as well as publishing original short stories and poetry.

Anyways this post is a reaction to an article I read on the prevalence of conspiracy theories within the leftist establishment with regards to Iraq, and the ways in which the media tend to legitimize conspiracy theories. According to said article, there are two major conspiracy theories that point to shadowy forces of evil that have led us into Iraq for self-serving needs. One common argument is that the War in Iraq is driven by large corporations’ need for Iraq’s oil (and defense contracts.) Removing Saddam Hussein and using Iraq’s oil were always a top priority for the Bush Administration and its happy friends the energy companies. Tying the Iraq invasion to the greater War on Terror was a matter of convenience, not truth. Backers of said plot usually refers to the Secret Energy Task Force and its map of Iraq’s oil reserves, Halliburton and other’s success in securing no-bid contracts, and assertions by members of the Bush Administration that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction with oil revenues as evidence.

The second most common argument is that the Iraq War is the fulfillment of the Project for the New American Century/Neo-Con’s grand plan for…A New American Century! In case you haven’t heard the story, a bunch of wimpy intellectuals wrote a treatise during the Clinton administration urging the reconstruction of the US Armed Forces and the preemptive removal of “threats.” The manifesto/pamphlet/acrobat file was co-signed by several Bush Administration policy bigwigs (Rummy, Wolfie,) and notably: called for the removal of Saddam Hussein, mentioned the need for a “Pearl Harbor-type,” event to push the restructuring of the American military into the force they envisioned. September 11^th of course provided the “catastrophic” event the PNAC wished for. 18 months later, we have removed Saddam.

As the New Yorker rightly points out, the efforts of the Bush Administration to label the perpetrators of this attack as a “shadowy, undefined, enemy that could strike at any time,” as well as its own shadowy, undefined, behavior, have fueled the conspiracy nuts like myself. Communication skills are lacking in this presidency, a fault that runs top down. Worse, however, is the fact that this group of leaders do not seem to have a proble, doing very nasty things to other human beings. Abu Gharib and torture in Guantanamo are the two most common examples. Sure they may have thought Saddam was a bad guy, and Iraq was a mess, and Middle Easterners aren’t their problem. In fact they most certainly think that way.

The question remains, are they doing what they think is best for America as our elected leaders representing the 300 million or are they kowtowing to the whims and interests of the few? As the New Yorker article points out, however, the goals of these two groups, the military-industrial complex, and the wimpy intellectual neo-cons, often are divergent. It is foolish thus to think that they have somehow been in cahoots orchestrating the Iraq War from the safety of their think-tanks or Houston, Texas. Despite divergent interests, the Iraq War is a positive venture for both of these interest groups And as been known to happen a time or two in politics, different groups have allied and worked together in order to get something they both wanted. I don’t think the PNAC really gives a crap who gets reconstruction contracts, nor does Halliburton care about the post Cold-sWar geopolitical landscape, as opposed to say their stock price.

As for Premier George Walker Bush, what was he really thinking when he authorized the War on Iraq? We know that whatever reasons he gave in 2003 have proven to be false, or at best totally misrepresented. There are two options to explain the War, conspiracy theories or gross incompetence. Maybe that’s why people are so hyped on the idea of conspiracy: they can’t bear the fact that their government can screw up that terribly.

Iraqi Policeman Sentenced to Death

2006-11-30T13:41:00.000-06:00

Ibrahim Hassan Awad was arrested by coalition forces after killing U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Jerry E. Shumate Jr. in the town of Hamdaniya, west of Baghdad, in April. Awad and seven fellow policemen kidnapped Shumate from a coffee shop in Hamdaniya while Shumate was off-duty, dragged him outside, bound and gagged him, and placed him in a roadside hole. Under the orders of their superior, the eight men then shot Shumate, killing him. Awad himself fired at least ten rounds into Shumate’s body.

The murderers then placed a stolen AK-47 rifle and a shovel next to Shumate’s body to support a fake report that Shumate was killed by insurgents.

At his trial, Awad tried to argue that he was only carrying out the orders of his superior officer, and under the regulations governing the Iraq police force, he could not disobey his superior. This did not persuade the coalition tribunal that tried Awad to offer a lighter sentence, convicting him of murder and sentencing him to death.

Sounds appropriate, right? If you do not believe in the death penalty, then perhaps this is disturbing, but he at least should be sentenced to life imprisonment, or some very long term.

What if I told you that I changed just a few facts of the story? Awad’s name is actually Hashim Ibrahim Awad. He was a retired Iraqi police officer. He was a father of 11.

Instead of the story above, Lance Corporal Shumate and 7 other American marines broke into Awad’s home, bound and gagged Awad, dragged him outside, placed him in a roadside hole and shot him to death under the orders of Sergeant Lawrence Hutchins. Shumate fired at least ten rounds. The men then placed a stolen AK-47 and shovel next to him to support their false report which suggested that Awad was an insurgent.

This is the true story, and nearly identical to the one above – I simply switched the murder and the victim and altered a few facts to make the story work.

Oh yeah – I also changed the punishment. Lance Corporal Shumate was sentenced to 21 months in prison and dishonorably discharged. 21 months. He was originally sentenced to a whopping 8 years in prison, but despite admitting he knew his actions were illegal, he was able to reach a plea bargain to the reduced sentence of 21 months and a conviction of aggravated assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice, in exchange for his testimony against the other Marines and in part because the incident occurred during his first tour of duty.

If you ever wonder why we were not welcomed in Iraq as liberators, why we are hated around the world, this is a good reason.

I-Raq, go do it, when you want to go to it

2006-11-29T15:37:00.000-06:00

I would like to write about the Nintendo Wii, but i've only played for four hours, and I want to get my total gameplay at least up to a full work week before I give my full thoughts. Ok I'm going to name it the greatest thing ever, but we already know that

So instead, let's talk about some hot Sunni on Shia action. And some hot Shia on Sunni action.

Is Iraq in the midst of a civil war? President Bush says no. Instead Iraq is victim to Al-Qaeda forces who are continually bombing and attacking peaceful Iraqis. Those acts, and the reactions of those who are attacked, make it look like a civil war; but it's not actually a civil war. Just another step in the Global War on Extremism or the War on Terror, of Fight Against Badness or whatever disgusting label the current Administration gives to justify all their illegal actions.

Political Scientists, in their attempts to put the science in their field of expertise, like to have definitions for conflicts (terrorism, war, guerilla warfare, etc.) A Civil War, according to the esteemed academic site wikipedia, is defined by political scientists through two criteria. First, warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

Well hot diggity, but under that definition, I am pretty damn sure that Iraq is in the middle of a Civil War. The only reason people like our President can argue that there is no civil war is that the country is so fucked up, with so many different groups committing acts of violence against each other no one knows what is really the ultimate cause. Is it the presence of American troops? Fighters coming over the borders that have been trained by Al-Qaeda? Shia militia's that have been getting money from Iran? Ex Sadaam loyalists? Corrupt policemen? Sand penguins?

In defeating Sadaam, then undermining their own authority to maintain martial law through Abu Gharib and mismangement of Sunni-Shia-Kurd relations, the U.S. has effectively turned the area of "Iraq" into a frontier land, a true failed state. Think "Deadwood."

The most infuriating thing about Bush is his absolute inability to acknowledge that things are not proceeding as planned, and that the possibility for failure is all too real. Making comments like "we will stay until the job is finished," no longer give off the impression as a strong leader, rather as a buffoon. It continues to destroy our credibility internationally when we need help to remedy this situation.

Where can that help come from? What can be done other than pulling out and leaving the Iraqis to figure shit out for themselves?

To be honest, I don't have an answer. I really feel like the best option is to pull out of Iraq, (in phases) apologize profusely for ruining some people's lives, explain that we really had good intentions, did some good in getting rid of Sadaam, and pull our troops out. What will this accomplish?

1) It will save American lives
2) It will save American dollars
3) There is a chance, it could actually help stabalize the country

What are the possible negative consequences?

1) Iraq could totally collapse, without the overbearing presence of the American military, a loony like Al-Sadr could gain control. The Kurds could also freak out and decide they need to create their own state, which would in turn freak out Turkey and Iran.

2) It will make us look like losers internationally. Other countries like North Korea/Iran/Canada, could become emboldened to do nasty things.

How to avoid these setbacks? The first can be minimized by phased withdrawal, negotiated with the security needs of the Iraqi government in mind. Sure some people will die, but whatever

The second one? Well there will no doubt be some annoying gloating from the Chavez/Ahmenidjad/Kim Jong Il crowd about how the emperor has been declothed or whatever. Words hurt, for sure, but the American army will be strengthed by not being bogged down in Iraq. The American economy will be strenghthed by not having to sink money into Iraq. And the American image will probably increase in countries that actual matter like the EU, China, and Japan, who will remember that they need us at least as much as they need them. Let the little dictators have their fun for now, take a long term view of security, and work towards making the world a better place. Right now, I don't think we are doing that in Iraq

Ideas for the Dems

2006-11-20T15:00:00.000-06:00

Wait the Democrats win the House and Senate and we get two blogs in the same week? In fairness, these blogs were two weeks after the fact so we arent being total Democratic homers. Plus, I would not necessairly categorize myself a Democratic homer; in reality as Stu and some commenters have mentioned, I am one of those who was just happy to have the Republicans lose power.

Stuart and I diverge on what we want from the Democratic Congress. Actually let me rephrase that, we differ on what we want from our government in general. What I want is some sort of political and social reformation, akin to the kind that occured in the early 1900s under the Teddy Roosevelt/Woodrow Wilson progressives (times about 10.) Anti-Trust laws, directly elected Senators, and the Women's Suffrage were some of the major changes in the political landscape that we take for granted now; I am ready for the next revolution. Cue the Rage Against the Machine.

I do not see the current Democratic leadership being the winds that blow in change. So what should we demand of the Democrats as leaders of , as those who elected them?
The number one priority for the Democrats as representatives of the people is to re-establish a balance of power by overturning powers given to the executive branch by the Republicans post 9/11. The two main legislative leviathans are the PATRIOT Act and powers of detention, suspension of habeus corpus, and torture tactics thatn have been legitimzed for use against foreign nationals and US citizens that have been deemed terrorists. While Bush will not give up these powers voluntairly, there is a way to force his hand.

We can guess as to what the Bush Administration may have authorized, or known about, in Iraq, in Guantanamo, in who knows where over the last five years, but up until this point, we have been shielded from getting any real information due to the protection of Republican leaders in the House and Senate. Into these powerful leadership positions now come crusty liberals who have been casterated from power by the Republican leadership for the last 12 years. These people are looking for revenge from personal slights and the embarressment of being continually lied to by the Bush Administration. Payback will be a bitch.
The Democrats should have a gameplan for how they go about digging up dirt, to leverage such expositions (which will come,) into getting Bush to agree to roll back executive powers. Start with Guantanamo and Abu Gharib, the two most undemocratic, unamerican symbols of the tyranny of the Bush Administration. Americans, like most human beings, are disgusted by torture; let's try and find out exactly what has been happening and who knew and authorized it. Second, move onto investigating the Energy Task Force. How much did oil play into policy towards Iraq? Did it have anything to do with "sexing up" of pre-war intelligence regarding the possibility of weapons of mass destruction? Once you have fully exposed the current executive branch as devious and oppressive, start focusing on surveilance of American citizens at home. How much is the DOH really up in the average Americans business? Make every American fear the looming spectre of the government. Played correctly, this will either force Bush's hand into comprimising or drum up enough support from Congress to override vetos.

Domestic policy can be shored up by the Democrats by reducing deficits, which will involve raising taxes. Hey I don't like paying taxes either, but I also don't like being in debt. The National Deficit is everyone's combined problem, and it's time we all bit the bullet and started paying it off. Another way to limit the deficit is to keep Bush from blowing all of our cash on wars that go nowhere. Next time he comes and asks for 87 billion dollars, don't give it to him. That we can count on the Democrats to do.

Regardless it should be interesting to see where this all goes. I will be following with interest, ready as ever to be disapointed by the fact that politicians are still politicians.

Elections 'n Stuff

2006-11-20T00:05:00.000-06:00

Well, I guess you'd have to say that went about as well as the Democrats could have hoped. I'd like to say I'm happy that they pulled it off, but like I said it my last post, it was the Dems election to lose; so relief is the more appropriate word choice.

But I couldn't help thinking while watching election coverage that it was all so very depresssing. It wasn't that I didn't vote (that debate is over, I hope), it wasn't that it seemed that the Senate was going to stay Republican. What depressed me was knowing that none of the results we saw were 100% correct. It was a crappy, sickening, feeling back in 2000 whenever we heard about election problems in Miami-Dade, but it was even worse when we heard about them again in Ohio (and other places) in 2004. At least in 2000 we thought it was innocent mistakes, not voter disenfranchisement and fraud in 2004.

Now, most people are probably thinking that the vote went pretty smoothly; they didn't hear about any problems. That's true. Just like in 2004, I think that the general voting spirit of the American people was accurately represented. But in 2000, when we're talking about percentages of less than .1%, and when the winner of the popular vote loses the election, it's hard to really get an accurate feel for what the general voting spirit of the public was. Nobody cares if a few votes get misplaced in a landslide, but when one county in the entire nation can decide an election, it gets a little more important.

That there were reports of incompetence at the voting booths is not especially surprising. E-voting machines failed, memory cards were lost, ballots misplaced. People make mistakes, and elections probably won't be any different. But when there seems to be no commitment to the cause (and I think the cause is accurate and fair elections), and when "pretty good" seems to be around 98% accurate for our elections, shouldn't this be cause for concern? When the margin of error trumps the actual margin of victory, what's the point of counting at all?

I've never voted, but this isn't me trying to point out the futility of our actions and the very existence of humanity. I'm trying to say simply that for those that CARE about elections, where the vote and the participation in democracy is important, doesn't it bother you that a man can go into a voting booth, destroy the voting machine after he gets angry (this did happen) and invalidate everyone (ok, no, just their votes) who voted in that booth before him?

I don't know. Maybe 98% is pretty good, and flipping a coin for those close races is ok. But I doubt that what people think when they go to the polling places is "I'm participating in our government- that is, if I'm not denied a ballot, my ballot gets read correctly/vote gets recorded properly on this not-at-all-secure voting machine, manages to not get deleted/misplaced by apparently incompetent voting officials!" (whose average age is 72, by the way). Not that old people are incompetent; they just don't necessarily "get technology", "listen to directions", "know what they're talking about", or "care about life". Ok, that was unnecessary.

But you get my point. I think that for most of these elections, the public got what they wanted. Maybe that's a product of gerrymandering. Maybe it's because they reached consensus. But it isn't because everyone who voted got their say in the matter. Are we going to see a repeat of 2000 in 2008? I think it's certainly possible.

But our saving grace is that it doesn't really matter as much anymore. No, I'm not being nihilistic. Time magazine's latest headline is "Why the Center is the Place to Be" I'm sure they got the idea from my Unity post. After all, we are tasked with telling people how to think. But it really does represent what the elections should represent: more than choosing a person or candidate, but rather values and a direction. That's why people didn't really migrate to Canada in masses after 2004. The US isn't so simple as to be controlled by one person, even by the purported most powerful buffoon on the planet. Sure, we got pissed off, but we continued on with our lives, because progress doesn't stop (or start) with one party or person; it happens in spite of setbacks, it happens in spite of idiocy, and sometimes it doesn't despite good intentions. To end with a great quote:

"One step forward and two steps back: nobody gets too far like that. Unless you're walking backwards, in which case you'd be moving at half speed."

The battle cry for the '00 decade!

Remember when...?

2006-11-06T22:23:00.000-06:00

We blogged about the last election? Tomorrow marks the halfway point of the 2nd Bush debacle, and I thought that was enough reason to come back after a 5 month hiatus. In fact, I guess it should be: Remember when we blogged about anything at all? Yes, we're sorry (well, dave isn't), and though I can't promise blogs of the frequency that we once had, I'll at least try to post more than twice a year.

Anyway, tomorrow may usher in the end of the 12 years of Republican Congress, and my first reaction is that it can't come soon enough. I'm cautiously optimistic about the results of the election as well as the results of the elected representatives themselves; but that doesn't mean I'm going to move to Canada if it doesn't happen. The democrat in me doesn't care about which issues are driving people to the polls; or that the incredibly stupid Mark Foley scandal seems to have been what broke the camel's back (not the 500,000 dead in Iraq, or the President's total ineptitude in regards to North Korea, Iran, or the Geneva Convention). It should just be over.

It has to have been tempting for democratic campaign managers to write a slogan that says "Come on, there's no way we can do worse than these guys!" But the conventional wisdom says that that kind of rhetoric doesn't exactly get people excited about voting. You could argue that Kerry ran that kind of campaign and lost. I don't know if that's true- it very well could be. But even with (or maybe because of) that mindset, these elections really seem like they're in the Democratic party's hands. Over the past month, Democrats seem like they're doing their best to throw it away. In that sense, it seems like tomorrow will be a disappointment in at least some regards- the number of close races is more than it was a few weeks ago; and if any of those go to the republicans, it will seem like a missed opportunity- a blown lead in the fourth quarter, if you will.

But this is coming from someone whose last blog was pushing Unity '08 as the way forward for America. something that would get us focused on the real issues, and away from partisanship. Well, I'm not backtracking on that, because I still believe that our priorities are the bigger problem, not the execution. But these '06 elections represent something different- a change of scenery, and an admission that there simply hasn't been enough done with the current government in place. Is that going to be solved with a new Congress?

Almost certainly not. In fact, there may be reason to think that Bush's presidency may become even lamer. But you know what? At this point, Bush needs to be reined in anyway. And you never know, maybe he'll forget to veto their bills as well.

But that's tactical talk. To me, refocusing priorities is what we really need. Both parties are increasingly trying to promise the same thing but with different language; but do we really need a bill that protects our children from the Internet, or do we need universal health care? Do we need a committee hearing on steroids, or environmental and fuel standards? If we actually agreed that public education needed to be fixed, it would get done, regardless of whether democrats or republicans were in office. Instead, they spend time thinking of how they can tell their constituents they voted for more money in schools and how their opponents hate children and babies. Tomorrow may not be the cure, but at least it can be the start, right?

Alright Fine We Are Back

2006-10-20T08:59:00.000-05:00

Why do Stu and I never want to work? Because we know that, in addition to crushing our souls, work takes away from more important activities like keeping you, the reader, informed on what is actually going on in the world. See, we know that you can’t understand what’s going on from those who appear to be responsible for informing you as to what is going on: CNN, US Weekly, the Redeye, because as for profit entities they are required to entertain their viewers and keep them coming back with sad-sack stories about child abduction and bad spinach.

Well there will be no child abduction garbage on Your Thoughts Exactly. Just the good hard news about international relations, politics, robots, video games and fantasy sports that you have come to love and expect. It is on like Donkey Kong.

(Speaking of fantasy sports, I would like to congratulate myself on winning year one of the Parade of Horribles Keeper League. Did you know that David had never lost a fantasy baseball league before in all of his 25 years? I must say I am honored to be the one to dethrone him.)

Basically there is too much going on in the world that I never get a chance to talk about or analyze because I spend too much time at work, or de-stressing myself from work by putting various intoxicants into my body and then recovering from that experience. This blog, in addition to being entertaining for the three people who read it, is also a way for me to vent about such issues and focus my ideas about the world. I have forgotten that as I have forgotten you, the readership and for that I am sorry.

Before I start venting, a quick summary on the last few months.

I now am gainfully interned (not employed,) at the World Trade Center Chicago, a fantastic little non-profit who’s goal is to promote international trade between small and medium-sized businesses in Illinois and whatever foreign counterparts are interested in reciprocating. This is an interesting opportunity for someone like myself, exposing me to the mirco-level workings of attempting to establish international trade relationships as well as understanding more about the business networking world and the world of international diplomacy.

Stuart is working his ass off at his job, which is why he never blogs anymore. He is negotiating for a raise today with his boss (which he deserves, since his company is a bunch of morons that don’t deserve his brilliance,) and I am hoping that he also negotiates two one hour floating holidays per week to crank out blogs.

Dave is a hateful hateful person who no longer cares to keep you updated on his life.

Alright this wasn’t even really a blog but more of an update. With that said, we are back. You will be seeing more of me shortly, but for now, I gotta go to work!

Beisbol

2006-07-13T13:26:00.000-05:00

In my efforts to turn this blog into something successful and outstanding, it’s time to get cracking. And the easiest way for me to refurbish my writing skills before I come up with actual ideas is of course, writing about baseball. With that said, it’s time for my midseason Red Sox wrap up as well as time to gaze into the crystal ball and make some predictions.

Up until now, the Sox have been chugging along maintaining a nice three-five game lead on the Yankees with Toronto hovering a few games behind. They are on pace now for over one hundred wins, which would mean that, in terms of the regular season, this is the best Red Sox team since 1946. How is that possible?

Well first off, we are outperforming our Pythag record by three wins, although some of that can be attributed to the bullpen, namely one Jonathan Papelsmear, who has emerged as the best closer in the game and the true heir to Mariano Rivera and Dennis Eckersley (unless we move him to the starting rotation next year.) Second, the offense continues to chug along, thanks to Kevin Youkilis (to be known as KY) and his .407 OBP at the top of the order, and the continued historic 3-4 combo of Manny Ortez, who continues to destroy the league with a combined OPS of 1025. Add in the resurgent Mike Lowell and Trot Nixon boosting the lower parts of the batting order, and the result is the second most runs in MLB.

Yet the small-ball White Sox are on pace for 1000 runs themselves, and it will be the White Sox and Red Sox in the ALCS. I forsee a collapse of the Tigers, to the point where they could be passed for the Wild Card by either the Blue Jays or the Yankees, despite the Tigers’ amazing pitching and defense so far this year.

While our offense continues to mash, it will be the pitching and defense that will insure whether we comfortably make the playoffs, or end up on the outside looking in.

And that’s a problem. Because our pitching is very very shaky. Schilling has replicated his 2004 form, albeit with a slightly higher ERA, and can be counted on to anchor the rotation the rest of the way and annoy the shit out of me. Wake is Wake, and is having another Wakeish year. Beckett has been a huge disappointment, and is on pace to give up 52 home runs, which I am pretty sure would be the record. How is this possible?

To delve into the stats, he has given up 26 home runs in 133 fly balls almost 20 percent! Bad karma? Probably. I am not sure what the average should be, but I do think that’s quite high. Of course some of the home run problem is due to Beckett giving up more flyballs in general, by striking out fewer batters and giving up fewer ground balls. The ability of Beckett to control his home run jinx in the second half is key because…

We know that Matt Clement will not be contributing to the success of the Red Sox in the second half, or at the very least, we should assume he will not be. The 2004-05 offseason will be fondly remembered by Red Sox fans as the time in which Bostonians and bandwagoners shed years of misery, basked in the glory of a championship team, bought unspeakable amounts of merchandise, and rubbed it in to anyone and everyone that had ever made any snide comments about their beloved Sawx. Such happy memories will mask the fact that Theo Epstein and co. laid one of the ultimate offseason eggs in the history of baseball. Their best move? Signing David Wells, who is hurt, refuses to go on rehab stints and generally seems to hate the team and the city of Boston. At least he contributed to our 2005 playoff run. Their worst move appears to be either letting Pedro go to the Mets, singing Clement (who we will be paying 18 mil for this season and next,) who has been an abomination for the last year (and is a born-again Christian as well,) or signing Jason Varitek to a four year contract when he appears to be toast after year 1.5. Luckily, Theo was bailed out by the Braves for the equally egregious Renteria contract. Yikes.

Anyways all this means is that we do not have a fourth or fifth starter, unless John Lester continues to prove himself at the big league level. Of course this is possible, he is actually a good prospect with a great minor league history, and rookie pitchers do well all the time. He is still leaves us a man short, meaning I feel a trade in the works.

As for our defense, it has been lauded as the greatest Red Sox defense of the last 30 years (based on our errorless streak and some spectacular defensive plays,) while being labeled middle of the road by BP’s defensive efficiency and horribly below average by various zone rating statistics. Which leads me to the important conclusion that people don’t know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to measuring defensive statistics. Why is this? Because it’s inherently more difficult to measure as opposed to the binomial pitcher-batter matchup that is hitting. So I can’t really tell you what to think.

Anyways, I see the rest of the season unfolding like this. The Sox hang on and finally win the division. The White Sox pass the Tigers. The Angels beat out the A’s in the west after trading for Soriano and, unfortunately, the Yankees hold on for the wild card. Boo-hoo. To be honest though, every sports playoff needs a villian, and it wouldnt be the same without the Yanks. After that, the cards will fall where they will.

The Answer

2006-06-06T19:11:00.000-05:00

I've been a bad blogger. I even passed up a chance to talk about what possibly is my favorite topic, robot domination, and didn't even comment. It's ok, because it's been in good hands with Marmaniac.

I have a (more than) healthy dose of disillusionment with the American political system, but lately I've been coming around a bit from my previously leftist, views about our country. Sometimes it's hard to see something from the inside, and there are a lot of things about the US that are done, and even done well. Perhaps the nattering nabobs of negativity are just hard to resist, and we like to nitpick. In any case- free-markets, two-party system, smaller government- I think I like them! I'm not a republican, but here's something I did find particularly interesting.

The Unity08 effort, a "centrist initiative", plans on running a Democrat and Republican together on the same presidential ticket for the 2008 race. Normally this would be a simple publicity stunt, (perhaps that's all it will turn out to be) but in this case it's being backed by some real work and a real plan: to have a virtual convention (it sounds a little more professional that "you vote on the internet!") pick the candidates, and that ticket will run for the '08 Presidency. But that isn't what I like about it.

The big drive in Unity08 and the motive behind it is that partisanship is holding back American politics. By focusing the issues on their Crucial Issues:

Global terrorism, our national debt, our dependence on foreign oil, the emergence of India and China as strategic competitors and/or allies, nuclear proliferation, global climate change, the corruption of Washington’s lobbying system, the education of our young, the health care of all, and the disappearance of the American Dream for so many of our people.

And I think those are, by and large, what matter to Americans today. Sure, I've said that I think there's an overemphasis on terrorism, and perhaps the lobbying system comment is probably going to seem dated in a year, but the IDEA is there, and I like it. It's frustrating that Congress is convening to debate a Constitutional gay marriage ban (which has actually already failed before in Congress) when even its proponents know there is no chance of it passing. It's frustrating that nothing will happen in the next 5 months except campaigning and PR appearances.

The divide between the Republicans and Democrats is bigger than it has been in a while, and it's exacerbated by the us vs. them attitude. It's so easy to see the other side as idiotic talkboxes, especially when there are so many of them. But focusing on those idiots just allows us to ignore their more centrist cohorts, and they probably think they're idiots too. I think that shaking up the system, even if simply by refocusing the debate in 08 and getting even a small percentage of the electorate, could be just what the whole system needs. So I'm officially throwing one third of the YTE vote (not valid in all 50 states) in their direction. At least until they turn out to be embezzling their campaign money.

Those were the good ole days

2006-06-06T14:04:00.000-05:00

So I was looking back at an interview with Bill Clinton, given by Amy Goodman on her program “Democracy Now.” The Q+A session, which took place on Election Day 2000, was supposed to be a quick get out the vote promo piece by Clinton. Goodman managed to extend the session and elicit pointed commentary from the acting President through doing her best to bring up controversial rabble rousing liberal issues, including whether the U.S. was responsible for starving Iraqi children due to the UN embargo of Sadaam Hussein, why Clinton hadn’t enforced a moratorium on the death penalty, and the Israeli “occupation,” of Palestinian territories. Clinton, who no doubt had many scheduled appearances on the day, was overcome by his desire to defend his administration and his own debating instincts, and actually did a pretty good job responding to Goodman’s queries.

From the perspective of 2006, it’s difficult to sympathize with Goodman’s whinging about what was wrong with the U.S. As Clinton said at the time, the major problem for the Left was that “the country is in great shape,” and forced to focus on secondary issues of morality that were not going the Left’s way. Six years later the budget deficit is out of control, both inflation AND unemployment are higher, (impressive!) more Americans have no healthcare, we have made no progress in solving the major long-term issues of this decade (environmental destruction and the social security crunch,) we are involved in a three year long war with no end in sight, and our relations with many of our allies are frostier than before.

But I can’t say “I told you so,” because in 2000, I was more in agreement with Goodman’s point of view than Clinton’s. I voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. Now granted, I was voting in Massachusetts, where the chances of Gore losing were a solid zero percent. Had I been voting in a state that was a little closer, say Missouri, I don’t know whether or not my vote would have been different.

Why did I do such a thing? Because I was not that excited about the prospect of an Al Gore presidency. Because I thought that too often, he and Clinton caved to the right. More importantly, I voted for Nader because I was, and still am, sick of the monopoly that the Democratic and Republican parties hold on our country’s government. Both parties foster elitism by concentrating power in the hands of a few factions at the national level (through committee chairs, etc.), and through shaping the political system to insure entrenchment of elected representatives. Both are giant monoliths that have to attempt to facilitate the interests of too many groups of people. This leads to several negative outcomes in our political process, including influence being concentrated in rich corporations, a ridiculous amount of paternalism (sons succeeding fathers in districts…or as President… incumbents winning every time,) and huge barriers to entry for new parties.

These problems still exist today, and I don’t blame myself for throwing my vote away as a sign of protest. On the other hand, I overlooked a few of the positive outcomes of our system. The first is that the government of the 90s was doing a pretty good job, as the Republican Congress battled centrist Clinton to produce decent legislation and economic stability. The second was that, despite my unwavering belief in many liberal positions on secondary social issues like abortion and the death penalty, in 2006, there is a large part of the population of the United States that doesn’t agree with me. Why don’t they? I wonder. Today for example, I am watching Messrs. Brownback and Coryn passionately defend the constitutional amendment attempting to “protect,” heterosexual marriage through altering the living document that is supposed to govern the structure of our society. Is two men or two women getting married such a big deal for their constituencies that they have to force their viewpoints onto all of us through the one document that is supposed to speak for us all? What is their ultimate goal; do these people believe that they can snuff out homosexuality by curtailing freedoms and treating homosexuals as second-class citizens? Why can’t the Right just accept that many people in America do not care about the “sanctity” of marriage, many people want people to have this freedom, and many people want to get married to their loved ones?

Of course, this works both ways. For example, I think the death penalty is morally wrong, even without considering issues such as wrongful executions or discrimination in regards to Death Row cases. Most Americans disagree with me however; and therefore the death penalty continues to be part of our legal practices in most of our states. No universal consensus has been reached throughout the United States on these socio-cultural issues. In the end, at this time we are probably better off as a society allowing people to make up their own minds. But both parties have core constituencies who take the election of their party as a sign (Biblical or otherwise) of a universal resolution on these issues. Consequently, both parties want their elected representatives, who they zealously work for, to put these issues into law.

For the American political system to remain effective, it must thrive on the arrogance of both constituencies leading to their downfall. In the case of leftists like Goodman, challenging the Clinton Administration for not doing enough was particularly short-sighted considering the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Goodman and the left should realize that they are going to have to convince a whole bunch load more people that they are on the right side of issues like the death penalty, abortion, and the environment if they are going to build a consensus to pass the legislation they desire. We simply aren’t there yet as a country. And sitting in New York broadcasting to the people who are already on your side doesn’t seem to be the best solution.

Likewise, I hope that the Right’s attempts to constitutionally ban gay marriage as well as their semi-racist stance on immigration scares centrists into supporting the Democrats. The general incompetence of the Republican leadership should help.
What this illustrates however, is how quickly we lose sight of what our government should be doing, getting things done and passing legislation that insures the continued success of our country. I think that these issues are really very simple: the the finances of government, relations with other countries, maintenance of our population through investment in infrastructure, assistance programs for the less fortunate, healthcare, education, and the environment. Time spent on constitutional amendments around flag-burning and gay marriage is a waste.

So in 2006, when the Democrats are up for election, I will vote for them, recognizing that while they will not be fulfilling my leftist utopian fantasies, that it’s important to have them in power during the ten percent of time that our government actually works on issues that will effect our country for years to come, such as Immigration reform. The Republicans have had power for too long and we need to force Bush into learning how to compromise. Of course, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks: we could set a record for fewest bills signed into law if the Democrats win the house. But while I pretend to give token support to the monolith, I will hope that some day a legitimate third party rises, liberated from entrenched factions who with to impose their morality who only want to focus on issues. Who wants to wait with me?

Don't Fear the Robots

2006-06-02T13:26:00.001-05:00

Over the last week, I have been thinking about robots and what the future holds for humanity as technology progresses. My thoughts were spawned both by a conversation with Stuart Lim and Mistah Broyles, as well as wikipedia deciding to feature an article on Transhumanism. Transhumanism is a philosophical/scientific movement dedicated to preparing for and enabling future technologies such as cybernetics, robotics, and genetic engineering. With such technologies progressing over the next century, transhumanists believe that we will eventually transition out of current “humanity,” by transcending the principles of natural evolution. New technologies will enable us to learn faster, control disease, prolong life and end much of the suffering that is part of the human condition. On the other hand, we will no longer be Homo Sapiens Sapiens as we currently perceive ourselves since cyborgization would/could fundamentally change our “genetic” makeup.

Of course genetics as we know it kind of goes out the window once you remove the current process of determination of genetic makeup which has been guiding our evolution for the last three billion years. Likewise many other issues that are fundamentally part of human nature and human society will undoubtedly affect the way in which these new technological developments are integrated into the current or future human populations.

One issue is social and economic stratification throughout the world. Optimistic transhumanists and optimistic futurists in general argue that technological evolution will eventually solve the scarcity problem in the world economy. The scarcity problem is simply that there is not enough food/money to go around in the world, which is why we have the market economy (to allocate these resources in as effective a manner as possible and promote the greatest total wealth,) and also why we have poverty, famines, and all those good externalities of capitalism. The problem is that the technological innovation that would lead to the end of the scarcity problem will necessarily occur in a society with a scarcity problem. Therefore, we can assume that the technological innovations like cybernetics or gene manipulation will necessarily be available to the wealthy and powerful before they are available to anyone else.

We will then be relying on the creators of such technology and those with enough capital to get their hands on it, to benignly share it with everyone else. Fat fucking chance. That is not what human beings do, unfortunately, since we are greedy assholes.

We are already have seen glimpses of how humanity and those with capital control deal with the issue of new technologies. One example of technological innovation that could effectively be disseminated to whoever wants it is digital technology (say digital music,) which now can be effectively replicated at minimal cost. Of course, music companies do not allow this under the guise of intellectual property, prosecuting people who attempt to take advantage of the low cost of replication, even though the concept of intellectual property law was basically invented by the courts and publishing companies within the last century. Likewise, should someone invent a method or reproducing infinite amounts of rice, or an effective AIDS vaccine, there will be a battle between the humanitarian instincts of some and the profit-minded instincts of others, as to whether to share this technology or not. As this debate is resolved in society over time, millions of people whose lives could have been saved will not be. It’s just the way it works.

But let’s get back to robots. Stuart was all for the transcendence of the human race into some sort of superior Cylonish being. And if we can replicate Tricia Helfer, I can’t really argue with the logic. During our discussion, I repeatedly reminded Stu, in my best T-800 imitation, of the following quote: “Skynet becomes self-aware,” referencing Terminator 2, where a computer responsible for United States missle defense, starts a nuclear holocaust, leading to a nightmarish machine run society involving the enslavement of remaining humanity. Sci-Fi/horror depictions of artificial intelligence (my three favorite are Battlestar Galactica, The Terminator, and The Animatrix,) tend to involve cybernetic “liberations.” In all three cases, robots are created by humans to be subservient to human needs. We view them like we view the lever or the wheel, as tools created to make our lives easier. At some point, the machines attain “self-awareness,” or “consciousness,” some sort of mental capacity that makes them on par with humans in the same manner that humans are different from the rest of the animal kingdom. The combination of the machines superior creative and reproductive faculties and human arrogance about 1) assuming our position as dominant organism within our planet and 2) assuming the “special,” nature of our humanity as opposed to their “machineness,” which is generally tied to our emotional capabilities and sense of self, both give us some sort of inherent advantage over our machine-children, inevitably prove to be our downfall. We are unable to cope with the rise of beings superior to ourselves, and viewing them as threats, we try to destroy them. Of course, by then it’s too late.

But this view of robots as a separate “race,” in the future may not prove to be correct; instead it is the synthesizing of humans and technology that probably will prove to be where the future takes us. That, at least, appears to be the direction the transhumanists are pushing us towards. In this way then, human emotions will be kept intact, (we assume,) and there won’t be the dichotomy between humans and machines that leads to the apocalyptic scenarios of science fiction.

That is not to say there won’t be other strange scenarios that haven’t been thought of or that I have not been exposed to. Here is a fun one: what if 40 years from now, Bill Gates decides to put billions of dollars into prolonging his own life as a cybernetic being, replacing his heart with something artificial, and implanting a chip into his brain that replenishes his degrading mental capabilities, giving him reinvigorated learning capacities and superior data storage to the human brain. These operations and others increase his life expectancy by an extra 40 years. Well we say, on the one hand it’s his hard earned money, and he should be able to spend it how he wants. And 40 extra years of Bill Gates means 40 extra years of him being able to help undeveloped countries become technologically advanced (with computers that run Windows, of course,) as the greatest philanthropist the world has ever known.

But 80 years from now, Bill Gates, with his superior knowledge and learning capabilities, has invested his hard earned money in newer technologies that enable himself to extend his life for another 80 years. Hmmmm. All some point in time, Bill Gates ceases to be a human, where he transcends natural mortality. But it is only through his billions of dollars that he is able to attain this transhuman state.

Is this how it will happen, that the rich and the haves, the tech-geeks and eccentrics, will be able to transcend humanity first, before the rest of us get a chance to experience the benefits cybernetic technology? Or get clean drinking water and earn more than a dollar a day?

And if we can predict this is going to happen, should I be for it (as I guess it represents progress and there is no doubt suffering that can eventually be alleviated by these technologies) or should I try to prevent it from happening? Or should I be working to be first in line to get that chip implanted in my brain? (duh!)

This reality is probably a long way off, and we have many other things to worry about in the meantime, like will we get there in the first place. There are the small matters of nuclear weapons, and plagues, and asteroids, and global warming that could derail the progress of humanity. There is the much larger matter that the human race collectively is no where near prepared to consider and debate these questions on an intellectual or moral level. How many more people are concerned with the Biblical Apocalypse as opposed to the Robotic Apocalypse (at least the Presidents of Iran and the U.S., and they have nuclear launch codes.) We have come to no general consensus on the interaction of science and life, or a global definition of life or humanity. We are still divided by abstract human creations such as nation, religion, and tribe, that cause us to kill, rob and rape each other.

Do I see us solving these issues before cybernetic technology makes it into humanity, before the transhumanists get the chance to live out their dream? Probably not. So the vast majority of humanity will be derailed by our petty arguments and our flaws from the utopia new technologies bring forth. Clearly, I must do what I can to make sure I am in that small minority that benefits.

One thing troubles me though. As a human, I share one thing with all of my fellow man: I will die. Death is one of our only truths, and it’s this fact that is the cause of much of the conflict and greed in our world, I do believe. And I just don’t know whether it’s a good idea for us to work on transcending that fact, as well as our humanity, before we’ve collectively solved the other problems of the reality of humanity. But I don’t think we’ll have that choice.

Protect these idiots

2006-05-25T10:55:00.000-05:00

Congress, in their infinite wisdom and continuing efforts to make sure that they only spend their time working on legislation that solves none of the problems our nation faces in these difficult times has passed a bill that bans the act of protesting military funerals. Now when I originally saw this bill on CNN.com (it was on the front page for a few seconds before Barbaro’s broken leg restole the limelight,) I immediately chalked it up as another example of the Republican Congress trying to emasculate the Left by restricting civil liberties under the false pretenses of patriotism, in order to keep attention away from the fact that soldiers keep dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. I put this in the same vain as the Bush administration banning TV networks from filming returning caskets from overseas.

But upon actually reading the story, I learned that my partisanship had got the best of me, and that I was wrong for prejudging Congress. In fact, this was a bipartisan bill directed at a specific group of people who had taken to protesting military funerals. This group, members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas, (surprise!) shows up to bring attention to their cause. Military deaths, according to the Church and their leader Fred Phelps, are divine retribution towards the United States for our tolerance of homosexuality. Phelps gives a much more detailed, thoughtful, through, view of his attitudes on his website: godhatesfags.com.

Now personally, if I had my way, I would have no problem giving Phelps the Vito Spatafore treatment, only I would make sure he was conscious as I rammed the broomstick up his asshole. But, in this case, as in much of life, I do not get my way. There are codes of laws which I must obey lest I decide to take justice into my own hands and in doing so, infringe on the rights of Phelps and his cronies, which I sadly admit, are no more or less than mine.

Likewise these hatemongers have the right to assemble as human beings who fall under our laws and under the protections of the Constitution. The fact that Congress, as divided and ineffectual as it has been the last five years, can try to ban their presence shows that Americans collectively reject these people as part of our society and as representations of our ideals. Everyone has a right to make noise, however, and we can’t keep people from doing so even if no one likes the message, and if they are being horribly disrespectful towards people whom have suffered more tragedy then they ever have. We can predict what will happen with this group: if given the right to protest, they will either continue doing it until they get bored (and more importantly, people get bored with them and stop giving them attention,) or, in an effort to get more attention, they will commit some illegal, likely violent act, and spend the rest of their lives in prison. Hopefully, they will be ultimately harmless. Restricting first amendment rights, on the other hand, always causes harm.

Culture as Power

2006-05-23T13:50:00.000-05:00

I am reading "The Clash of Civilizations," by Samuel Huntington right now as well as playing a whole lot of Civilization 4. Huntington is valiantly attempting to construct a new paradigm of international relations following the end of the WWII-fall of the Soviet Union Cold War paradigm and the “Three worlds.” Thus far (about halfway in,) I think Huntington does a good job of explaining the important distinction between modernization and westernization and how different parts of the world have modernized without westernizing. There are too many loose parts of his argument, however, and while his civilizational theory has shown more predictive power than say, neo-realism following the end of the Cold War (which predicted a collapse of NATO and EU-U.S. conflict,) Huntington struggles to fit certain states and trends of the world into his paradigm, rather than having a paradigm that explains all international relations. That’s not really his fault, the fact is no one has ever come up with a universally accepted “theory of international relations,” that truly explains how people (or states,) interact on a global scale. It also may be impossible, because of how rapidly these interactions change over time.

I want to focus on an assertion Huntington makes throughout the book with regards to the relationship between culture and power. Huntington is responding to another Harvard historian, Joseph Nye, who for the last decade has been arguing for a three-tiered structure of power within the international realm: military power, economic power, and “soft power,” which can be loosely defined as the ability to get countries to do what you want through promoting attractive culture, values, and not pissing people off through your foreign policies. Huntington dismisses the idea of soft power, or any power being derived from sources other than old fashioned “hard power,” (economic/military.) The attractiveness of one’s culture or ideals, according to Huntington, is rooted in a country’s material success and military influence. Increasing hard power increases the worldwide belief in whatever values are succeeding, be they Western liberalism or East Asian collectivism.

Huntington, however, misses some of the nuances of culture and power by only focusing on the world as civilizational blocks. The ability of a country to get what it wants through promoting (or not promoting) attractive ideals is best seen in the U.S.’s total failure to promote an attractive message with regards to the War in Iraq. Soft power advocates like Nye would argue that the collective effect of Abu Gharib, the Guantanamo incarcerations, and the misrepresentation of the threat from weapons of mass destruction have had an important adverse effect on relative U.S. power, even though their relative military and/or economic power has not changed, the U.S.’s ability to get what it wants in the international arena has.

What the U.S desires in 2006 is increasing support for the redevelopment of Iraq and a global consensus movement to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Alliance with the United States on its foreign policy objectives however, is not a strong selling point in many countries, even those that Huntington in 1996 argued were key parts of “our” civilization (U.K., France and Germany.) Thus the U.S. is finding it exceedingly difficult to get anything it wants done in the international arena: in dealing with Iran specifically it’s been relegated to the role of the “slighty crazy,” country who may go nuts and invade if something isn’t worked out by the more rational states like Russia and Pakistan. Oh say can you see!

I think Nye has been proven right over the last decade, that there is some other level of “power,” that can be used to effectively get what you want other than guns and dollars, and this has occurred due to the current administration’s lack of understanding of the importance of soft power. Huntington should understand this because his entire argument is based around the linking of various states and peoples through these cultural ties. But according to Huntington, the world is static not fluid, and countries and peoples are locked into their cultural groupings by history (and religion,) unable to understand, acquire, or fully share cultural values. The spread of western liberal ideals only occurred due to the massive economic and military superiority of the West; with the return of balance in the world we see a rising in the indigenous values of each area.

If this happens, then the ability of the United States to influence non-Western countries through soft power will be limited, for as these countries do not share our values or ideas, it will be difficult to attract them through promoting our selves. Yet I do not think that the appeal of specific ideas as “Western,” or “liberal,” is limited to only our Western counterparts. I think that rather, when the United States makes foreign policy decisions (or unpopular domestic decisions,) that go against what we are trying to promote, or help reinforce the portrayal of ourselves as meddling bullies, we encourage the development of the civilizational paradigm by causing countries to turn inwards rather than look outwards.

The key to peace in the 21^st century, and the key to the success of the human race, is the utilization of technologies and the ease of sending information and the ease of human migration to promote a new universality between peoples and cultures that simultaneously allows parts of all cultures into each other while protecting the uniqueness of each person’s worldview. This is very difficult, because of the natural human fear of the different and the unknown. I don’t understand why people are scared of the idea of a world culture. Personally, I’m thrilled by it. Because foreign chicks are sooooo hot.

Warm Fuzzy Thoughts about Wiretapping

2006-05-18T13:36:00.000-05:00

I know, I know. The last few weeks, you've been desperately wondering where I've been, and when you weren't actively worried about that, you took some time to worry about the new wiretapping program that the NSA has been running for the last year.

In case you're not familiar with the case, a story broke last year that the NSA had been wiretapping many (but an unknown number) of phone calls in the US, without getting warrants before hand. Previously, it was necessary to get a warrant from a court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISA) in the wake of Nixon's Watergate scandal. and known simply as the FISA court. It was fine for the NSA or the CIA to wiretap first, then notify FISA to get approval retroactively. FISA approved nearly 16,000 wiretaps over the last 20-30 years, and rejected less than 10. So, when the Bush administration told everyone that they needed to move quickly and that there wasn't time to get warrants, they were simply using it as a smokescreen.

FISA's court was specifically set up to allow the executive branch a lot of freedom while still providing both unencumbered oversight AND secrecy. When the story broke, the Chief of the court resigned, because it was abundantly clear that they had totally bypassed their court and thus made it powerless.

But still, nobody on the outside knew (or knows) exactly what the program's scope was. After a lot of informed speculation and a few leaks, it becomes apparent that the reason they couldn't go through FISA was partially for two reasons- firstly, that they figured FISA would reject some of these wiretaps. But secondly, and much more importantly, it seemed that the program was of such huge scope that even if the court agreed with the intent, they actually couldn't possibly approve them fast enough.

So the way the program looks today, is that this wiretapping program is probably running on a large number (perhaps even a majority) of phone calls in the country, and almost certainly running on every single international call. Technically, it's not clear what the program does. Clearly, there isn't enough manpower for there to be a human listening to every call, but there IS enough computing power to run some fairly sophisticated analysis on them. Everyone who knows about the program is careful to NOT use the terms 'data mining' and 'monitoring' because of their connotations. (By the way, when did that become such a dirty term? I took data mining classes in school, should I have felt like a dirty subversive facist?) But the point is that there is probably analysis of the actual voices, as well as context-- times the calls took place, which countries, and how often they called. Though it's easy to argue that it isn't really 'monitoring' or 'data mining', does that really make it ok?

What I think this program is closer to is red-flagging. This is a fairly common practice in law enforcement. If you buy 10 packs of sudafed in a month, you're probably going to go on a list somewhere for potential drug dealers. If you buy 200 cases of ammunition, you're probably going to go on a list of potential arms dealers. If you buy the "Anarchist's Cookbook" and 80 pounds of fertilizer, you're DEFINITELY going on a list somewhere. So, this isn't exactly brand new territory. The first problem with this program is that its scope is enormous, and the second is that because it's automated and probably sophisticated, going from red-flag to investigation is pretty simple.

Let's say you do buy 200 cases of ammunition. Sure, you go on a list, and perhaps the police might keep an eye on your underground bunker/cult shrine a little more closely. But there's not necessarily anything they can do just based on the red flag. But with this program, let's say you get flagged- only this time, I'm pretty sure that they can and will go back and listen to all your calls (because when they were flagged, they got recorded.) Then, after the call is confirmed to be a good lead, they'll go to FISA and say 'hey, we needed to wiretap this guy, he was a terrorist' and get approval. But the point is that without the program- there would have been no suspicion AND no evidence. In these other program, only suspicion is being harvested. In this one, they're harvesting both. That crosses the line for a lot of people, but for others, it doesn't.

To switch gears slightly, Hayden (head of the NSA at the time this program started) is due up to become the head of the CIA, the head honcho in the fight against terrorism. And clearly, he thinks this program doesn't cross that line- or even if it does, that line needs to be moved in the new age of terrorism. And he also thinks that it's necessary for the program to be secret- only open to oversight by the Senate Intelligence Committee. And, in support of this idea, the Vice Chairman of the committee, Senator Carl Levin, began the hearings by saying that secrecy though they would like to inform the public, they can't do so without informing the "enemy". And so, like a good public servant, he told us that we should trust them, because we elected them to oversee it. Not the most reassuring statement.

And here's my problem with that statement. Every single time the government has done something objectionable- like the McCarthy hearings, or the Japanese internment camps, there was oversight. If this program is actually ten times as invasive as we think it is, who would do something about it? The crux of this problem is that "average" amercians will not be affected by it. Average Americans never have to worry about civil liberties, because the average American isn't a terrorist, gun owner, journalist, or anything. The majority of Americans aren't anything at all. And the Senators know that. They know that as long as they don't get 'average' people caught up in the program, anyone they catch can simply be labeled as a terrorist and paraded around as a victory for the program, just as they labeled people communists, or labeled all Japanese as possible traitors. Sure, the program might work, and sure, the vast majority of Americans will have nothing to fear from it. But is that's exactly the problem with civil rights. What happens when your group (and everyone is a minority in something) comes under fire next?

The Most Evil Man in 06

2006-05-18T09:42:00.000-05:00

When selecting the world’s most evil man, there are two places my mind automatically goes: corrupt politicians and Roger Clemens. I am leaving sports out of this however, because as evil as Roger Clemens is (and he is evil, there is no doubt about it,) he has only been merely annoying this past year with his hemming and hawing in order to squeeze a few last moments out of the limelight before his steroid ridden body balloons under the stress of a few too many meat pies.

So with that out of the way, let’s break down the candidates into groups:

Evil Terrorists/Criminals: The gruesome twosome of Osama Bin Ladin and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are still the leaders in the clubhouse, although Bin Ladin is definitely living off of the evilness of his past deeds, having been marginalized to hiding out in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al-Zarqawi on the other hand, has still been leading his fair share of suicide bombings (although he has stopped with the beheadings,) and other insurgent tactics. Still the fact that his actions have been confined to Iraq, which is a war zone caused by an oppressing force, diminishes his evilness slightly, (although he is still obviously very evil.)

Evil Business Moguls: Hard to pick out any one mogul for specific lauding here, although collectively, these people are capable of more evil than any other group. The strength of the evil business moguls is the fragmentation of evil throughout their ranks: if any one mogul becomes too evil, they generally end up getting into trouble. The primary example is Ken Lay and the Enron cronies. So while there has definitely been some evilness going on, like Microsoft and Google caving to China (choosing the large marketplace over free speech,) and of course the major oil companies cashing in on a war and a hurricane (death is good for business!) they are unfortunately taking advantage of a system set up to benefit themselves. Or are they? We’ll come back to this.

Developing country Powermongers: The winner of the category, running away, is Saparmurat Niyazov, of Turkmenistan, for developing a cult of personality based on himself, replacing school textbooks with his own works, building a statue of himself that shines light on the capital city at all times, and suppressing alternative viewpoints throughout the country. It is also forbidden to talk badly about the President-for-life, especially stating that he is very short, or that he wears a toupee.

Members of the Bush Administration: A two man race between Donald Rumsfield and Dick Cheney has been going on for years, with Cheney’s shady background pandering to the energy industry battling against Rumsfield’s defiance of human liberties and ignoring diplomacy through controlling foreign policy by way of The Pentagon. The last year Cheney has really upped the ante, through governing the handout of Katrina reconstruction to the same oil companies that were under fire for profiting off Iraq (and, of course one of which he was CEO of prior to becoming VP) to the involvement in his staff in leaking classified information, to shooting a friend in the face, it has been a banner year for Dick. To quote one embodiment of evil (Tony Soprano,) “Dick Cheney for President. Of the fucking universe.”

Hidden Sources: But you expect people like Dick Cheney to only care about themselves, their rich allies, and making the world an easier place for both. Give them power and you can predict what they will do. How do they get power? And how do they keep it? They keep it through propagating a culture of fear of the different and progress, be it Islam, Hispanic immigrants, or homosexual couples.

But this battle between fear and progress, and those who exploit this conflict to their own ends has been going on for centuries. What the real enemy is today, is the culture of fake news and distraction that has taken hold of our culture. There used to be a separation between news and entertainment (and entertainment’s ugly sister, marketing,) that no longer exists. As I surf over to cnn.com, I notice that with increasing frequency, “news” of Paris Hilton, Nick Lachey, and American Idol is making its way onto the front page of CNN. That’s not to say Paris Hilton is the most evil person on this planet; (although she is up there,) the blame for this rests in the hands of Rupert Murdoch (the ultimate conservative media kingpin,) and the content editors for Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.

But they still aren’t as bad as Dick Cheney

MLB: The May Report

2006-05-05T12:52:00.000-05:00

1) While I have developed a more well-rounded view of the MLB through living a 20 minute walk from Wrigley Field, as well as the importance of our fantasy league, baseball still begins with the Red Sox. With the loss of Coco Crisp to injury, the offense is looking mediocre at best, especially against left-handers where Nixon sits, leaving a bottom four of Lowell-Wily Mo-Willie Harris-Adrian Gonzalez. Crisp’s injury has affected us in the field, where we are now starting Wily Mo full time in center, (after supposedly determining in the first week that he couldn’t play right.) Now that is some terrible outfield defense! Luckily Ortizzle and Manny (.449 OBP) have been keeping us afloat as usual.

2) Our pitching staff was predicated on a “Schilling-Beckett pray for rain,” attitude through the first three weeks of the season, which worked to a T. Then Beckett hit a bump in the road in his last two starts, and is now sporting a 4.86 ERA. Worse, his peripherals suck: 16BB/23K and 6 HRs. Beckett is young, throws hard with a nasty curve, and once pitched well for a week against the Yankees in the World Series. And he is white. But he isn’t a great pitcher. He LOOKS like a great pitcher, but he isn’t. Meanwhile Pedro Martinez continues to destroy for the Mets despite the fact he throws in the high 80s, and looks like his arm could fall off at any second. What’s that you say? The NL is easier to pitch in than the AL? True, but there are ways of adjusting for that (ERA+) which still show Pedro as the vastly superior pitcher. And yes, we would have to pay Pedro much more than Beckett, but we also picked up Lowell’s 9 mil a year deal as part of the price of getting Beckett, while giving up Hanley Ramirez (who would be starting at short for us,) and Anibal Sanchez. I recognize we won’t be able to accurately judge the loss of Pedro until 2008, but it ain’t looking good so far. Also, did you know that even in Pedro’s “fragile,” years (02-present,) he has pitched in more innings each year than Beckett has in any year in his career? And did you know that no pitcher threw more innings (including postseason,) than Pedro the last two years? And that Schilling is a 40 year old evangelical conservative biatch?

3) Ok I’ve got to stop ranting about former Red Sox pitchers. So let’s talk about Roger Clemens. First of all, this needs to stop. Sean McAdam, who I generally dislike, echoed my sentiments in his column discussing about how Roger pimps the limelight with regards to his retirement. For McAdam, it’s gotten old. For McMarmar, it got old in about 1993. Best case scenario: Clemens rejoins the Yankees, sucks for two months, gets in a brawl with Randy Johnson, and is busted for running a child porn ring involving Yankees ballboys and Steinbrenner’s nieces and nephews based out of the site of the new Freedom Tower. Worst case scenario: Clemens signs with the Red Sox and idiot Boston fans welcome him back. If this happens, I will handle it accordingly, by refusing to acknowledge Clemens’ presence on the team through ignoring any game in which he drags his fat apostate ass to the hill.

4) One last note on former Red Sox: I would have stood and applauded Johnny Damon on his return to Fenway. However, that is a one time deal. With his hair and beard gone, wearing pinstripes, he represents a different person than the lovable Johnny Jesus who once patrolled our center field. The only similarity to Jesus that remains is that they are both oh so hateable.

5) I’ve been to a few Cubs games so far this year (three to be exact,) and am going to my first White Sox game yesterday. Wrigley is a great place to watch the game, it shares the same old school feel as Fenway, the sense that people were doing the same thing in the 1920s, with more comfortable seats and fewer poles in the way. I am a big fan of the “Take me Out to the Ball Game,” tradition, as well as the ridiculous amount of cute girls in Cubs gear. Everyone there is having a good time, watching their beloved Cubbies win or lose. Right on!

6) Which is a good thing, because the Cubbies will be doing plenty of losing this year. If not for the revival of Greg Maddux, the Cubs would be challenging for last place. Ok that’s not true, because the Pirates are terrible. But in a difficult, with an unlucky injury to D-Lee (who is their offense,) the Cubs are relying on the return of Kerry Wood and Mark Prior to keep them afloat. Relying on perpetually injured pitchers to carry is frustrating, but I trust the Cubs fanbase to keep their heads up, or at least to be too distracted by beer and those cute girls to care.

7) I also like “The Cell,” as it’s called, although I think I am unable to accurately judge baseball stadiums built after 1920 since I am stunned that 1) I can fit in the seats and 2) none of the seats are obstructed by large poles. The White Sox thus far look pretty dangerous, and as good a pick as any to win the World Series in 06.

8) And finally, I would like to report that I am still in first place in our fantasy keeper league. It’s not bad enough that I am the best looking member of the blog, I am also beating Dave at his own game. How will he respond? Only time will tell.

The Separation of Church and Statesmen

2006-05-03T16:27:00.000-05:00

I was watching Wash U Graduation Speaker ’03 Madeline Albright today on the Daily Show, and she mentioned how George W Bush was convinced that God wanted him to be President. This is not the first time I have heard of the President’s convictions in the Almighty’s fondness of the Bush dynasty, Texas, transforming the Middle East, or the Republican Party. God has played an important role in the rise of Mr. Bush from an alcoholic spoiled son of a Congressmen to a political figure able to do what his alternate paternal figure (his father,) could not: get elected twice, and remove Sadaam Hussein from Iraq.

But hold on a second. The entire concept of God wanting a certain individual to be President seems to me to be a return to the conception of “Divine right of Kings,” where the basis of the legitimacy for monarchical dynasties lay in the decree of the almighty. To which I say “What the Fuck?” I thought we got rid of this kind of thinking in the 18^th century. In the 21^st century, the fact that a man can think that some divine entity would foresee and enact his Presidency should, in my opinion, exclude him from the office. For it necessarily PROVES that said man (W) does not understand what the office of the Presidency means and how it is supposed to function. God doesn’t decide who is President, the People do, and that’s to whom the office and the person are supposed to be ultimately responsible. This is why it matters that Bush got crappy grades in high school: he didn’t pay enough attention in Western Civ.

Getting beyond the concept of Divine Right of Kings is a large part of what the whole Enlightenment was about, as well as the American and French Revolutions. Are we actually moving backwards in this country? And what has caused a distancing from the liberal ideals that have been responsible for the international acceptance of rights of all human beings the last 300 years, so much as to allow leaders with these conceptions back into power?

Maybe it’s because we think we’ve solved all our problems, done away with slavery, given token rights to people of different colors and genders, and ended colonialism. Maybe it’s because people can’t handle freedom in some way, or can’t handle globalization, or can’t handle the concept that there is no God out there and we are doomed to die and end in nothingness. That our actual self whom we love (and I do love my self as much as anyone,) is so meaningless in “the big picture,” of 6 billion people, and 9 (or ten) planets, and billions of stars and galaxies that it sucks any value out of life.

The revival of religion as part of governance scares the shit out of me. Divine entitlement combined with monopolization of legalized violence is the most deadly combination in human history. To look at a present day example, go to wikipedia and look up Turkmenistan, where Supreme-Dictator-For-Life Niyazov, builds statues of himself and his mother, writes the school textbooks, jails dissenters, and burns books. (He does have a lot of natural gas however, so the EU has no problem giving him payouts.) Could George W Bush do the same? Probably not, although one red flag for me is his interpretation of the Constitution: that he can ignore any law passed by Congress that he personally views as unconstitutional. Hopefully he can understand that amendment that deals with term limits, or else America is in serious trouble. What an asshole. He should be imprisoned.

And while we are on the subject of religion and politics, let’s discuss the religious views of my home state’s Governor and potential ’08 Republican candidate Mitt Romney. As you may or may not know, he is a Mormon. Now like many other Christians in the United States, Mormons believe that we are in the “end times,” of humanity, before the messiah returns to Earth. Of course according to Mormons, many other things need to happen, including Jesus returning at a yet to be built temple in Jackson County Missouri before we actually get to the end of days. What does Romney think about all of this? Or the validity of Joseph Smith? Or the “Fundamentalist Mormons,” who defend a form of polygamy that is basically a combination of underage rape and kidnapping. For that matter how does George W Bush feel about the return of the Messiah? And if they both are “believers,” how does this affect their policy with regards to Israel?

Freedom of religion allows the individual to worship without interference from the government. I fully support the right of every man, woman, child, and puppy to worship whatever deity they choose, be it Jesus, Shiva, or of course, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the state apparatus is invariably controlled by people, and to truly achieve the separation of Church and State, these people must separate their personal religious beliefs from making decisions about how to do their jobs, lest the decisions they make unduly burden the people they serve with their fulfillment of religious goals. Right?

Wrong. Because many people in the United States don’t want such a sharp line between religion and governance. Some share the beliefs of their leaders, or they think that using Christian principles in policy will somehow insure piety. (Yea fucking right.) Or maybe they believe in the coming of Messiah and think our tax dollars are best spend preparing for that day.

So as a citizen of this nation, I demand accountability. If we are going to accept religion influencing the leaders of our government, I want to know what they believe. It’s time for the President and future leaders to stop pussyfooting around this issue and let us know what exactly what we are up against.

Never Forget: But Do You Need to Spend So Much Time Reminding Yourself?

2006-04-26T10:29:00.000-05:00

I am up in arms about the movie United 93, and plan to not see it, (although I haven’t been watching many new movies anyways.) As a supposed defender of free speech, I guess I really can’t fault any individual for exercising their free will to spend 10 dollars on this film. But I hope those that do carefully consider why they are choosing to see this movie, and more importantly, have a firm grip on reality when they walk out of the theatre.

I am sure that United 93 will be a jarring experience for those that choose to see the film. A movie like Schindler’s List, which brings to life the experience of being in a concentration camp 50 years ago for us in the present day, and truly shocks and disgusts all who see it. But I feel that this film has the potential to symbolically resonate to an even greater degree, as it deals with a historical experience that the members of the audience all lived through. No doubt that day was an emotional experience for everyone in the U.S., and seeing this movie will recall the feelings of that day: shock, horror, anger, the question of why anyone would do something so terrible to anyone, then specifically, why anyone would do something terrible to Americans.

Moreover, I have read a detailed account of what happened on Flight 93 in the 9/11 Report. The actions of the people on that flight were absolutely brave and heroic: from calls made on cell phones and those crappy plane phones, they were able to understand that this hijacking wasn’t a solitary action, decided to storm the cabin in a last ditch effort to save their lives, and caused the terrorist pilot to crash the plane into an airfield in western PA rather than it’s intended target.

But do we really want to see this play itself out on the screen? What is the point of this film? To make an artistic statement? Doubtful. To make money? Of course. I am sure that big studio execs started making plans for this film on about…oh September 12, 2001. A bunch of suits sat at Universal in Hollywood and asked each other, “How can we make money off this?” And they would tell you, if they weren’t going to do it, some other studio would. (By the way I heard that Universal is donating a whole 10 percent of the first weekend profits to the families of flight 93 who are attempting to buy 1200 acres of land to build a monument. Seems a little low to me don’t you think?) That’s just capitalism mixing with media. God knows how much money the news industry has made from fear-mongering and flag-selling from 9/11; it’s only right that the movie industry gets their share of the pie.

For some, like residents of New York who got trailers for the movie pulled from theatres, this movie comes too soon after the event, and thus seems exploitative. I agree of course, but that is not what really concerns me about the movie.

What really concerns me about “United 93,” is how the movie fits into the context of what has happened since 9/11, the times we are living in, and how this movie, unintentionally or intentionally rekindles an attitude and manner of thinking that is destroying this country. And it is high past time to stop fucking around with this shit.

Never Again. Ok I get it. But step by step, the calling card of 9/11 has been used to justify more and more egregious actions on the part of our central government, particularly the executive branch. We began by toppling the regime that directly harbored the man ultimately responsible for the deaths of those on flight 93 and elsewhere on that day. Five years later, when I pick up the paper, I read little about Afghanistan, and Bin Laden remains at large, yet the War goes on and the credo remains the same. We are no longer fighting Al Qaeda specifically, that stopped happening three years ago when we expanded the war on terror to include Sadaam Hussein and Iraq. But the “enemy,” has undergone further expansion since ‘03. Iran is the next frontier, but that is not a terrorist organization, but a state, with laws, sovereignty and millions of people.

Moreover, we face the dual challenge of anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq combined with secretarian conflict between Sunnis and Shias that we inadvernantly sparked in Hussein’s removal. (I am not saying we were the cause of this, it was clearly Hussein’s oppression, but we sparked and must deal with it if we wish to have a peaceful Iraq.) Where do Hamas and Hezbollah fit in: “terrorist” organizations with their own agendas that now have political legitimacy amongst their own people? What about Syria, are they harboring terrorists in the same manner we accused Sadaam? What and who are we fighting against? What are the limits of foreign intervention to keep America safe, before said intervention actually makes America less safe?

And domestically, the credo of 9/11 has been used to pass through the PATRIOT act, to imprison people at Guantanamo indefinitely without any counsel or right to trial, to sanction torture, and to spy on the American people illegally. How much do we want to compromise our freedom? These are difficult questions the American people should get a chance to determine before the Bush Administration makes the decision for them.

On both the national and international fronts, the issues of the response to 9/11 have morphed into much more complicated issues than when the planes smacked into their relative targets. At that point, it was us versus them, Americans versus Bin Laden, good versus evil. Nowadays, it’s not so easy to tell who is right and wrong, and who are the bad guys and the good guys, because mistakes have been made, the American public has been misled into a war, certain sectors of the economy have been profiteering off the war, and many, many, more people on both sides have died. To do the right thing, to navigate out of this situation correctly, where Americans security at home, and leave Iraq as a strong state rather than a wasteland, without compromising the principles which we claim to stand for as elicited in our Bill of Rights, is very difficult, and may require unpopular decisions. It may even require concessions and compromises. But it is crucially important to America’s future, its place as a benign leader of the world, and defender of freedom and democracy, that we act correctly, with peace and justice as our overarching goals and freedom as our overarching principle.

So to spend our time rehashing 9/11, even on the acts of heroism on that day, is dangerous and irresponsible. The world, as Roland Deschain would say, has moved on. Focusing on the day itself, specifically one event that has been used to exemplify the heroism of ordinary Americans, brings us back to the emotions of that day and eventually, to our original paradigm of thought that initiated the War on Terror. That being a good citizen is as simple as supporting your troops and applauding your President. That any actions taken that curtail civil liberties and constrain personal freedom are simply small sacrifices, burdens to be bared to “make America safer.” That preemptive war is justified.

The times today demand much more from ourselves and our leaders. Know yourself: if cannot handle the images of United 93, the shocking visual experience without experiencing simultaneous rising of the feelings, I have described above. Don’t see it. Stick to the news headlines. We need you now more than ever.

Oh SNAP!

2006-04-25T10:28:00.000-05:00

Now that Marmar has thrown the blogging gauntlets down, I feel compelled to respond, because I don't want to be the victim of hearsay. Let's get the facts straight. I did, yes, in fact, state that Islam was a 'worse' religion than even Christianity, which as you may know, I am not a big fan of in the first place. I did not call it "eviler" than other religions, because in my mind, 'evil' as a word is filled with religious connotations, whereas 'better' and 'worse' are better reflections of personal views. Here's where definitions come into play.
If I simply define a 'better' religion as simply those whose values match up with mine better, then there shouldn't be a big argument- in fact there can't be an argument, because it's a totally personal definition. And that shouldn't be surprising. I do live in a largely Christian society, and simply by upbringing and culture, my values match up well with Christianity's values well.

But I'm not going to do that, because that would be boring. On the other hand, defining what is good and bad in religion is a huge task in itself, and I don't want to try here while simultaneously defending myself. Let's just, in the interest of full disclosure, try to keep in mind that I do live in a Christian nation, and therefore have been colored by it. I'll try to keep it in check. That aside, I think that as non-religious people, we can think of a religion as good or bad in roughly the same way- whether it is good for the world, good for the individuals that practice it, and good for those that do not.

I know that Marmar and David would love for me to try and quote verses from the Quran and the Bible that "prove" that one text is better, but I can't, and I won't. We all agree that both texts are old-fashioned, vague, and hopelessly contradictory. There would be no point. But that speaks to a problem that both religions have- that because of varying interpretations of the text, there is no one 'true' ideology of their religion. Can we really say that the Pope has the same ideology as a Catholic in Mexico City? Can we compare them in any but the most superficial ways? Sure, they both believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and they both believe that Sundays are the day of rest- but to outsiders like us, what impact does it make on the way they behave? Christians, by definition, reject the very tenet of Muhammed being the one true Prophet- and yet that is totally irrelevant to our outsider discussion. There is more to discuss than ideology and text-- all we care about is behavior and results.

That's why it's totally futile to say that one religion is better than the other based on ideology. I find Christian values to be quite good: the idea that altruism is good, the idea that judgment should be withheld, and the idea of helping those less fortunate, the idea that pride, greed, sloth, etc. are bad. If we went through the Quran, we would find similar ideas and supporting evidence. It's why Muslim scholars try to plead that Islam is a peaceful religion, because by and large, people that practice it are peaceful. I totally agree, and I don't want to pigeonhole Muslims as bad people, just as I try not to pigeonhole Christians as bad people. It's the big picture that I don't like, and that's why it leads to generalizations.

A little digression here-- I think that as open-minded liberals, we tend to react against generalizations (especially views that conservatives and racists might have) a little too strongly. But I find it interesting that I have bashed Christianity before, religion in general, and drawn no criticism at all. But because Islam is in disfavor in America, there's an urge to defend it as a minority interest here. And that's good- I think that it's a dangerous line to cross when we label Islam as 'evil', and I can understand Marmar's reticence to supporting views like that. However, was it only ok to label Christianity as evil because they're in power? Is it only OK to be racist against white people? So let's be clear. I am not saying that Muslims are evil people, and I think that we do have to be AWARE of crossing that line, and that labelling Islam as evil may help take the first steps across that line.

Ok, so now that we have the disclaimers out of the way, we can talk. Religion is and often has been about history, tradition, and the practices of it MORE than it has been about the tenets and ideals of it. In that context, Islam and Christianity have long been religions loaded with violence, perversion of power, corruption, and even pettiness. But here's the kicker. Religions evolve and change. I think I have massive support in saying that Christianity is a 'better' religion than it was before the Protestant Reformation, when it gave out indulgences for money, was under the thumb of various European leaders, and when it led the crusades in desperate land grabs under the guise of religion. Were the ideologies much different? Didn't the Bible contain the same text then as it does now? Answers: Of course not, and yes. But what has changed is that even though Christianity accepted the idea of paying money to sin back in the day, it no longer does now. But back then, you couldn't take an individual Christian and say 'this person is a worse Christian because he thought indulgences were OK'. Just as you can't say "this person is a bad Muslim because he supports Sharia law." No, in the context of their situation, it makes them a good person.

That is, I believe, where Islam finds itself now. The leaders of Islam in large advocate fundamentalist policies to practice Islam- leading to Sharia laws that are governmentally enforced, strict adherence to traditions, and Islamic universities where the only study is memorization and interpretation of the Quran (as it represents all truth). In effect, Islam needs to shake off its fundamentalism and evolve into a religion that is about personal rather than societal change. Christianity has in large moved past this stage- things like allowing Mass in English rather than only Latin, because of the realization that adherence to rules that actually hurt the individuals (assuming that they don't understand Latin) is a hallmark of fundamentalism. Now that I have sung the praises Christianity several times in this post, I need to find some plastic forks to stick in my eyes.

But I don't want to end on that note. I'll end with the thought that though I find Islam as a religion even worse than Christianity, that doesn't mean we can shun it, and it doesn't mean we can dismiss it. And it certainly doesn't give us the right to invade any Muslim country under the guise of them being evil. So we do have to work with them and be constructive. But it also doesn't mean I have to love everyone, their beliefs, and their values equally.

Islam

2006-04-24T15:02:00.000-05:00

Stuart and I got into a debate a few days ago about ideologies, sparked by his assertion, that the Islamic religion itself is inherently causes violence and oppression as a result of the natural implementation of the precepts of the ideology, (or something like that, I will let K clarify on his own.) What really irked me was his assertion that Islam was in some way more of an instigator of violence and therefore in some way “eviler,” than Christianity.

There are two ways to settle this debate, one is to go into a debate of the principles of the major religions and come to a conclusion as to whether or not one or the other has some moral high ground on the others. This is a personal choice however, one which in a society of free religion, we all should get to make, and respect that of the other, (ideally, I will admit this does not happen.) I believe this to be a fruitless exercise, because individuals are the one’s who end up making the decision as to how they are going to interpret how their religious choice (or lack there of) will affect their lives. In any religion, one can make the choice to practice in peace, to show devotion to principles of equality and non-violence, or make the choice to be exclusionary and violent towards those who do not share the same beliefs and practices as themselves. Unfortunately, one of the many dark truths about all religions is that people often make the latter choice.

Islam is getting a very bad rap right now; if open-minded religious skeptics like Stu are questioning its inherent values or viewing it as flawed I shudder to think what the Jesus freaks in the White House are saying to each other after morning Bible study. Following 9/11, it was easy to dismiss Al Qaeda as a bunch of wackos: but nowadays we are seeing a global rise in power of Muslim fundamentalists into positions of political power. Ahminehjad’s rise in Iran and Hamas’ electoral victory have both enhancedthe visibility of the right-wing hard-liner Muslims.

This isn’t the first time fundamentalists of an ideology have risen to power. The Nazis were what I would call “Nationalist Radical Fundamentalists,” they embraced the ideology of nationalism and took it to extremely radical conclusions, which included the deification of the Aryan super-race, the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, communists and other undesirables (with the Slavs probably being next in line,) and attempting to set up the Third Reich throughout Europe. What would the U.S. look like if elements of the Christian right got their hands on the instruments of power? I do not know to what level there would be a crackdown on civil liberties, but I hope I never get to find out.

The more important question, in my mind, is what causes such fundamentalist organizations to rise to power. Hitler was elected. Hamas was elected. The revolution of 1979 in Iran was a popular one overthrowing a US-supported Monarch, and Ahminehjad was elected and draws much of his support from Iran’s young, supposedly reformist population. Without the consent of the populations, these people could not rule. What makes these alternatives viable?

Fundamentalist ideologues seem to rise to power following a period of desperation, oppression, and economic suffering. The major examples of the 20^th century are the rise of Lenin in Russia, Mao in China, and Hitler in Germany. Germany after World War One and the Great Depression was in total disarray, the mark devalued, billions in reparations owed to France and Great Britain due to the Treaty of Versailles. Lenin took the work of Marx and applied it to overthrow the Tsar who had only recently moved out of the serf-based economy.

So why are people in Iran and Palestine turning to more right-wing fundamentalists? What do they represent? Perhaps they offer a chance to return to an idealized past, the Persian Empire in the case of Iran, or the caliphate in the case of the PLO.

But really I think it comes down to the effect that outside states, especially the U.S. have had on the region. When faced by constant pressure from the outside, peoples tend to turn inward, to those who will defend their people’s and won’t back down in any way to the invading outsiders. If I am a Palestinian I know that Hamas will not back down to Israel. If I am Iranian, it’s nice to hear someone not backing down from the U.S., especially if that leader also has not curtailed our social freedoms.

These leaders are running on the same ideas as the Republican Party. The duality of right and wrong, and the fear of the outsider. The need to “show strength,” and saber-rattle (or invade another country.) The politics of fear are now being used by both sides. And just like I don’t believe for a second that George Bush and the Iraq war represent American, liberal, or my values, I don’t believe that Hamas or Iran represent those of Islam.

The Economist and soft paternalism

2006-04-20T11:12:00.000-05:00

Thanks to a piggybacked subscription to the Economist, I now feel like a responsible media consumer again after two years of Newsweek. Ok, true, perhaps, the Economist is generally geared towards elitist media snobs such as ourselves, but it's also (as its name implies) a supporter of big E Economics, which generally pushes fiscally conservative views and socially liberal views. (At least I'm not reading the Nation) And doesn't the use of the 'favourite' and shitloads of text just scream "we're a serious news source!"?

The answer is yes. Maybe there's a little bit of 'if it looks like a duck' thinking going on, but it's hard to put an issue of Newsweek (or Time) next to the Economist and not realize that the Economist is a superior source of information and content. The downside, of course, is that it has small text and dense articles (plus, the cover art is always a little abstract) so its potential readership is reduced. Maybe by putting more pictures and ads in, it would become a little more accessible, but maybe by doing that they'd open the door for sensationalism. Who knows? They might try taking a page out of the Reader's Digest marketing book- subscribers get a normal issue with the actually featured short stories and articles, while the newstands and grocery stores get a cover that always has the same articles on it- "LOSE WEIGHT OFF THAT BELLY!" and "IS BIRD FLU THE NEW SARS WHICH WAS THE NEW ANTHRAX?"

There's my plug for the Economist. Now I have to take issue with them, since they've been disagreeing with me lately. In a recent issue, they talk about "soft paternalism"- the idea that the state should encourage and enforce good behaviors (which is the paternalism part) by using rewards more than punishments, and by not "forcing" people to do things like wear seat belts and save for retirement (which is the soft part.)

The assumption by the writers is that paternalism is bad, because hard pateralism has been the basis of many, many failed governments and systems. Freedom seems to be the key behind the success of capitalism and democracy- so anything that limits freedom is bad as well. But is soft paternalism really the threat that they make it out to be?

Here's a quick example of a system using SP that the writers used: Before you can buy cigarettes, you have to buy a 'cigarette license' that you have to define limits on. Proponents of SP realize (actually the Economist concedes this too) that people are more rational about the future than the present, and therefore will be more likely to realize that they should not be smoking more than a pack a week, like a sort of new year's resolution. So our smoker friend defines a limit of 4 packs a monh. When mid month rolls around, and he's used up all four packs, the government says that he can't have anymore. Lastly, if he wanted to, he could go to the government and have his limit increased, but there would be a waiting period, because without the waiting period, or at least a fee or inconvenience of some kind, the limit would have no meaning.

SP advocates say that at no point was his freedom abridged, because sign up was voluntary. The system simply enforces the freedom of the former self over the present self. The Economist responds in a variety of ways- they complain that there is no reason for the government to abridge anyone's freedom, even if they want you to, they complain that irrational desires such as gambling and smoking have use, and they complain that the government should not be protecting its citizens against themselves. I say that that's a load of crap. What government can possibly be neutral, and composed of perfect citizens? I think what really upsets the Economist is two things:

1) The proponents of soft paternalism don't have the wealth of the system as the ideal of their desires. They encourage quitting smoking, saving for retirement, etc., because it will be good for individuals. But, what if the tobacco industry adds wealth to the economy? What if the institution of such a system destroys the industry overnight and takes down the economy because of it? I think that if the ideas of SP could somehow be applied to the good of capital- and that if the government merely encouraged behavior that created wealth for society, the writers would be much more favorable to the idea as a whole. Of course, the proponents of SP tend to be fiscally liberal and more on the socialist side, so in practice their systems have been liberal social issues.

2) The idea that people can be programmed to do things. I think this one gets their goat even more-- the article ends on a note about that if people don't learn to discipline themselves, they'll end up like apes, who simply do what the government tells them to. How can they become strong, decisive people if they have their hand held all the time? Total bullshit, because what person has somehow made it on their own, without help from government, system, values, family, workers? What government has ever not wanted a citizenship of law-abiding people? And if it is true that people's decisions can be programmed- what sense does it even make to talk about learning discipline and learning to make good decisions? Could those be programmed too?

One last thing I'd like to say, though, is that even though I think they show an undue dislike of soft paternalism, I believe that they are probably correct about needing freedom and capitalism. I just don't think they need to appeal to a sense of "oh no, this is like 1984 with Big Brother!" to show why it may not be a good idea. I suppose saying "We like capitalism and anything that deviates from it is bad" would be unconvincing after a while.

It's NooClear

2006-04-12T08:35:00.000-05:00

Before you dive into this blog, please jump over to the New Yorker and read Seymour Hersh’s piece on the Bush Administration’s inner debates about the Iran problem. Done that? Ok. Since I wrote my last two posts on the threat of Iran and the utilization of resources by state leaders, I am going to turn this post into a big I told you so that combines points from both. Self-gratification is so fun!

Ok I promise to write some new shit. Anyways Seymour Hersh has been trumpeting the U.S.’s eventual involvement in Iran for some time now, as he first broke that the U.S. was flying covert missions over Iran’s airspace in late 2005, (looking for potential nuclear sites.) There is a very important international debate as to whether or not Iran has a second, shadow secret nuclear program that is further developed than the program currently under surveillance by the IAEA and the UN. If there is no “shadow” program, then Iran is 5 to ten years away from getting nuclear weapons; if there is, then Iran could be a year or two away.

Meaning of course, we will be relying on the CIA and other intelligence agencies to provide us with an accurate picture of Iran’s capabilities and nuclear stockpiles. And since they did such a good job of getting it right in Iraq, we should be all set!

The scariest line in this article of doom and gloom, is Hersh’s portrayal of Bush as believing that, in inciting regime change in Iran, and in using any means necessary, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, he is taking steps that the next President, be he Republican or Democrat will not have the courage to do. I would like to discuss this depiction for the rest of the post. And I always get what I want.

The President of the United States is often described as the most powerful position in the world. All leaders have the ability to enact changes that affect the lives of their citizens. The President of the U.S., the commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful army, has the ability to affect the lives of people around the world. The power to kill without retribution, to order a “tactical strike,” without seeing the mess of body parts and ruined buildings that comes with it. The power to press a button that sends a five kiloton bomb underground that may or may not cause fallout for the next fifty years, and may or may not lead to World War III.

Having more power than anyone else, and utilizing such power in unpopular ways is not courage. Courage is embodied in those who do not have power, yet put their livelihoods at risk against those who wield it against them. Courage is embodied in those who put their lives in danger by choosing to join the American military, to defend their country, to put their lives in the hands of blithering idiots who continually send them into dangerous situations without planning achievable goals, giving them adequate equipment, or finishing up with their first invasion before initiating their next step.

The Bush Administration needs to be stopped. The only wrath he faces is that of history, who will look upon his administration as the greatest disaster of the post World War II Era, one which simultaneously ruined economic prosperity, destroyed the American image in the international community, and eroded personal freedom. What a legacy to leave. The only way to do this is to destroy the backing of the Bush Administration from the House of Representatives and Senate, through voting in the Democrats in 06. Not that I am a huge fan of the Democratic party in ’06, but they will at least force some compromise from the Bush camp.

Or will they? Who knows. In the 21^st century, no one wants to seem weak. No one speaks for peace. No one speaks for progress and change. Will the Democrats show “courage,” by doing whatever is necessary to derail Bush’s misguided foreign policy? Or will they buy into everyone’s worst fears about Iran, that they are ruled by loonies who want to build a nuke just to destroy Israel?

Does such a plan exist? And what should the U.S. be doing about covering Israel’s ass? That is the real question of the Mideast, and soon to be the subject of the most controversial YTE post ever. I know you can’t wait.

More Thoughts Exactly

2006-04-07T09:47:00.000-05:00

Can you believe this blog has been up for nearly 2 years and I've never titled a post that way? I'm incredulous. Since I've been off the horse for a bit, and will continue to be off the horse for the next week or so, I've decided it's time to opine on some current events. Feel free to disagree, but then then you'll be making our blog name a bald-faced lie, and I don't think you're ready for that kind of responsibility.

Ok, first off is the incredibly important and worthwhile trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. (I spelled that correctly on my first try and without looking it up beforehand, thank you very much). For those of you that haven't been paying attention, apparently some terrorists attacked the US a few years ago. I can't remember the specific date, unfortunately, because news organizations have been a little bit reluctant to talk about it every day and attribute every single thing that has happened in the time period since then to the attack.

Wait, what was I talking about again? Ah yes, the trial. Anyway, Moussaoui has been convicted and now sentencing has begun, where the government is trying to prove that Moussaoui deserves to die. Apparently, this is done by reliving 9/11 for the jury and the victims who are present in the courtroom, in graphic detail- body parts, unreleased videos, cockpit recordings, and 911 calls. Why? Because clearly, the jury needs to be reminded. The way the prosecution and the media puts it- they need to 'put a human face on the tragedy' and 'remind them that it wasn't just a number'.

I say bullshit. The prosecutors are literally out for Moussaoui's death, and they want the jury to have the same outrage, the same sickened feeling that everyone had on 9/11, and they want them to make the kinds of decisions that people filled with outrage make. I think on 9/11, if you had asked every American "we caught one of the hijackers- should we kill him?" The answer would have been a resounding yes. But this is, as we are so frequently reminded, the post-9/11 world, and we should have a little perspective now- a little hindsight.

I'm going to ignore a few things here that are reasonable points, but not what I'm upset about. First, I don't even care about whether Moussaoui gets the death penalty- he's an incredibly stupid/insane man, and his life is not really worthwhile in anything but a symbolic way.

What I do care about is the fact that killing Moussaoui should really only be considered an act of pure retribution- his association with the event is bad enough for the public. He did not, in fact, kill anyone. And though he could have stopped them, and is clearly culpable of conspiracy and criminal neglicence, the dividng line between killing someone and not killing someone has generally been a clear one. But the prosecution would like us to believe that Moussaoui was personally responsible for everyone of those deaths- and though it's a dubious connection to make, the defense knows that it would be in such poor taste to contest it that they can't do anything but watch as the jury gets their faces shoved in it.

The other contention- that he 'could have' prevented or mitigated the disaster is equally dubious. In fact it's nonsense to say that he could have prevented it when he WANTED it to happen. It's like saying in a murder case "he could have NOT shot the victim" and smugly thinking you've proved something. It's also a special kind (the outrage variety) of nonsense to suggest that the CIA, FBI, FAA, INS, and local police could have cooperated to catch these terrorists, if only Moussaoui had developed morals and suddenly realized that everything he had thought up to that point in his life was wrong.

So what is killing him going to accomplish? Does it show that we're serious about terrorism? Does it deter terrorists in any way? Or is it actually saying "this is what happens when you try to kill yourself and fail- we do it for you." Or is it saying "you did a bad thing, and we'll feel better when you're dead". I'm sure it's the last one, so let's just get it out in the open.

Secondly, (yes, unfortunately, this is actually only the second part of this post) I want to discuss immigration. Right now, there's a bill in the Senate trying to get hammered out to get to the President's desk before they go on spring break (more evidence that our government is actually a fraternity house of powerful, middle-aged people who assign themselves arbitrary titles like president, treasurer, captain of the keg committee, and supreme arbiter of Everything.)

The bill is relatively conservative in that it doesn't make sweeping changes, (but it seems liberal in the sense that it makes changes at all! zing!) a guest worker program, a legalization process that speeds up for certain people. I actually support most of the general ideas in the bill- I think illegal immigration needs to be decriminalized to some degree, and the liberal in me wants to support an amnesty program.

Thirdly, and this ties into immigration, I want to talk about the utopia that we're all desperately trying to get to, in Civ 4, in life, and in the US. If we had this utopia, wouldn't every single person on earth want to get in? Is immigration confirmation that we have a good society, or is it confirmation that we have money and power? The conservative argument against opening the borders is that even though it may be a noble idea, and though it's the end goal to have open borders, it's unsustainable to take on citizens and support them without an equal economic expansion. Illegal immigrants are probably fine and even good in the strict view of economic expansion, as long as they live in poverty and take jobs that won't be done by Americans. In fact, Bush's most liberal policies relate to immigration because on this issue, he may actually be so far to the right that he aligns up with them. Or maybe it's just that he was governor of Texas and couldn't possibly hardline against immigration there. In any case, the issue that concerns conservatives is that it isn't 'fair' for immigrants to get taxpayer's rights without paying taxes. So, do they have the same objections against people under the poverty line? The answer to that is probably yes, but a small number of impoverished non-tax paying people is fine as long as it doesn't destabilize the whole system. And that's what they fear will happen, former illegals stealing their health care, jobs, and school funds to the detriment of the entire society.

The economics of the situation dictates that in order to support more people, more money has to be there- newcomers have to create wealth and value at least equal to their drain on society. After all, any utopia has to be stable and sustainable. Capitalism excels at creating wealth, but what if capitalism's fatal flaw of its continous climb is that its continuous climb needs infinite expansion? The point is that sustainable systems generally need equilibrium, and there can't be equilibrium when the US is clearly more powerful and wealthy than its neighbors. So I'd ask the liberal ideal- are you prepared to give up an indeterminate amount of power, and prepared to risk economic collapse to permit true equality? And I'd ask the conservative ideal- are you prepared to step into the moral low ground to stay in power, and prepared to risk class strife to keep the system running? I think the answer is no to all of the above, so don't be surprised when nothing changes.

CIv 4 and The State

2006-04-07T08:52:00.000-05:00

Whether or not you know this, I have a new addiction that I am battling unsuccessfully: Civilization 4. I am into politics and international relations, yet I am totally unable to attain employment in any position that allows me to work on these issues. Civ 4 is a wonderful outlet for this built up desire to change the world: I can take fake civilizations, micromanage every part of their development and attempt to lead them to glorious victory. Moreover, the game’s multitude of possible victory conditions allows me to adapt to my current mood. If I’m feeling like getting some aggression out, I can go conquer some weak civilization that has been giving me grief. If I am feeling pious, I can go for a “space race,” victory or cultural domination.

When I played the original Civilization, I refused to use nuclear weapons. I was young and idealistic and had been taught that nuclear weapons were not something to be used under any circumstances. If I could not win the game without resorting to nukes, I did not deserve to win.

Now, I am still young and idealistic, but I no longer feel the need to limit my chances of victory by moralizing. And Civ 4, being more advanced than its predecessors, offers plenty more opportunities for me to prove my lack of compassion and commitment to total victory. If my cities are getting too big (and potentially unhappy and unhealthy,), why not sacrifice some population through slavery to build an extra swordsman. If I’ve given my civilization one thousand years of representative government and pacifism, they won’t really mind fifty years of a police state while I fight a quick war, (they were protesting too much anyways, it’s their fault.) And if Frederick the Great and I are on great terms for over two millennia, but he is a little too close for comfort in the race to space, why not send a few tanks and helicopters to pillage his outlying towns for gold and raze a few of his poorly defended cities. It’s all part of my great plan, and the death and destruction are not real.

Yet I wonder today how much those who plan our government are distanced from the damage they cause and view loss of life or curtailing of freedoms of it’s citizens as exercises in power that are 1) necessary evils and 2) part of their great plan to rid the world of Terror and spread whatever values they believe in. Judging from their actions: detaining people in Guantanamo without basic rights like speedy trial or the right to attorney, starting some wars with various levels of justness, the answer appears to be: plenty.

Of course in real life, people actually die. And the game doesn’t end in 2050 with whomever having the highest score being declared the winner. So why do leaders in real life behave in exactly the same way as those in the game? Shouldn’t we all be going for cultural victories or the space race: sitting happily on our continents, sharing technology and resources?

Utopia is derailed by the fact that there doesn’t seem to be enough to go around. Oil. Money. In accepting capitalism as the global standard, we have insured that some will win, some will lose, and some are born to sing the blues. In promoting competition, we promote conflict, even if the same spirit may be responsible for driving progress as fast as possible, we also insure that internally countries must deal with the fallout of the lack of distribution of wealth and the demand for more of everything.

But more importantly, utopia is derailed by the fact that the leaders of the world are human beings and thus, flawed. Some are religious zealots who don’t trust heathen countries. Some don’t trust countries with leaders who don’t take the same political ideology as they do. All of them have demands on other countries that would make their jobs easier, and varying levels of ability to get what they want. And all of them want to keep their job, because they think what they are doing is more right than the next guy.

At least in our country, we have some sort of choice over which wealthy white male we put in our leadership position. More importantly, we have a system of government that allows for flexible governance, and does not consolidate power into one individual. In these troubled times, when we have clearly got a leader with multiple personality flaws, who does not accept heathen religions, or countries who don’t like his favorite civics, it is our responsibility as citizens to limit his power. We can do this through civil disobedience, causing unrest, and most importantly, voting out Bush’s allies in the mid-term election. Finally we can do this by naming me Supreme Dictator For Life. I promise that I will be nice to the populace.

10 Thoughts on Opening Day

2006-04-04T17:36:00.000-05:00

Dave is right, what’s with all the your thoughts exactly seriousness? Especially when it’s opening day and the Red Sox are on ESPN2. Here are my thoughts on the proceedings. (Note: This is when I wish Bill Simmons was, say, a Brewers fan, since he of course wrote on the exact same subject, I read his article before writing this one, and now I am worried that I will sub-consciously be biting off him stylistically. Wait a minute. A long meandering tangent in parentheses? Asking myself questions? I am biting off him!)

Thought 1: I will miss Johnny Damon and I think people branding him a traitor are fools. He will probably suck for the Yankees by year two, which means they will be grossly overpaying him, to hit .270, allow David Ortiz to score from first on a single, and bring up memories of the time he hit a grand slam in Yankee Stadium to complete the greatest comeback of all time. Plus we have replaced him with Coco Crisp, who is named Coco Crisp, and therefore already my third favorite player on the team (can you guess the first two?)

Thought 2: I remember when I used to be such a bitter fan up until, say two years ago. It’s much nicer having such a stress-free attitude about sports. Now if only I could translate this emotional outlook to sex and employment.

Thought 3: The Ortiz/Manny combo looks primed for more domination. Manny’s hair is sufficiently disgusting to distract me from worrying about whether or not he will be traded. Ortiz just sits there ready to mash, knowing that pitchers have to challenge him due to his Hall-of-Fame protection. It’s glorious to watch.

Thought 4: Curt Schilling looked excellent: not Cy-worthy but hopefully something like 18-7. I’m keeping my fingers crossed

Thought 5: Keith Foulke looked like the Red Sox medical staff needs to come up with a fake injury for him. Good thing I drafted Jon Papelbon.

Thought 6: The Reds will not be winning the NL Central

Thought 7: A-Rod closes his eyes when he swings. Does this surprise anyone else? I always tried to look at the ball until the absolute last second. Yet on A-Rod’s grand slam yesterday, he closed his eyes in the middle of his swing. I don’t think Edgar Martinez would approve

Thought 8: Baseball announcers are far and away the worst group of commentators, at least on the national level. I think that the odds are stacked against them: to get a true feel for a baseball team, you need to watch or listen to the games every day. If you come in for one day a month, you will have no idea who is having his one amazing, or off day, week, or month. This is why most commentators rely on clichés and reputations rather than making new analysis. That and the fact they are a bunch of nimrods.

Why are these people so stupid? They are mostly ex-ballplayers who have played in (and watched,) countless more baseball games than I have, and have been involved through their playing careers, with some of the brightest baseball minds in the business. Is ESPN forcing them to dumb down their commentary for the national audience? Or are they just a bunch of brain-dead jocks?

Probably the latter. But watch Orel Hersheiser this year: he was actually talking strategy and pitching mechanics at a level I had never heard before. See if ESPN forces him to use smaller words and shorter sentences.

Thought 9: Like most things in this world, life would be much better if ESPN just let me choose which ex-ballplayers they brought on for their Baseball Tonight crew and commentating roles. Does anyone think Tino Martinez or Eric Karros will add anything other than standard clichés? Hasn’t anyone shot John Kruk yet? So here are five players ESPN must target

1) Ricky Henderson. No need for comment

2) Manny Ramirez. Will probably be terrible as a commentator, but guaranteed to say at least one random thing per broadcast that scares his play-by-play partner and that I will be quoting for weeks.

3) Greg Maddux. Pitching dork who can drop some serious knowledge

4) David Wells. I find him incredibly annoying, but he will say whatever he wants and probably get fired in two months, while hopefully blasting Bud Selig non-stop.

5) Jose Canseco. See comment 1

Thought 10: The update for all you YTE and Marmaniac fans on the fantasy baseball league! The draft went well for some of us, (me) and not so well for some of us. (Dave and Stu.) Right now I think I am solid on pitching, but in need of some more corner power and speed up the middle. I’m excited for another competitive fantasy sports experience, a ferocious AL East battle, and another Red Sox banner.

Barry Bonds, Bud Selig, and "Cheating"

2006-03-31T16:43:00.000-06:00

After some good, but heavy, stuff about Iran and the irrational search forequality, its time to turn to less important matters: baseball, steroids, and moral superiority.

Bud Selig recently announced that Major League Baseball is launching an investigation into the use of steroids. The probe will only go back to September of 2002, since before then, performance enhancing drugs were perfectly legitimate under the rules of MLB.

This investigation comes closely on the heals of a revealing book detailing Barry Bonds' alleged steroid use from 1998 through at least 2003, during which he hit better than anyone could ever imagine any player ever hitting.

The book and investigation lead me to doubt how I feel about steroid use. It initially strikes me as blatant cheating. Players who use the juice are disrespecting the history and tradition of America's pasttime, a game that is as much about history as it is about the present. They are trampling on a sport that has given me lifelong pleasure as a fan. But just when it starts to get a bit dusty in the room, I remember two things.

First, Bud Selig is a jackass. There have been rumors of steroid use long before this investigation, long before they were banned in 2002, and long before Barry Bonds became BARRY BONDS. He did nothing. After all, chicks, and paying fans, dig the long ball. When did Bud finally act? Not when Giambi admitted use, not when the Senate embarrassed Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, not when the new testing policy turned up plenty of positive results in the first two years. No, there was no reason to act. Not until public pressure mounted to the point where he would look like an incompetent boob if he did nothing. Hey, Bud, we all know you are an incompetent boob already. Why try to change that now?

The other point I keep coming back to, and the far more important one, is this: players have cheated since the beginning of baseball. Here is a list of a few examples. For some modern stories of non-steroid cheating, check out this site. It has gone on forever. Pitchers scuffing the baseball or applying various ointments to get unnatural movement on their pitches. Hitters corking their bat. Hell, even Babe Ruth did it.

"Wait just a minute," you say. "There is a difference between stealing signs or scuffing the ball and altering your body to make you better."

Well, then, how about "greenies," a form of amphetamine widely used by baseball players since the 50's. Willie Mays supposedly took a liquid form called Red Juice. Even today, many clubhouses have separate "players' coffee" and "coaches' coffee." Guess why the coaches don't want to drink from the wrong pot? And, speaking of coffee, why not rule out caffeine, since it is known to be a mood altering drug.

Lets take this a step further. How is a drug that improves physical performance different from lasik eye surgery? That's ok, right? What if a player had surgery to shorten some tendons and muscles to allow for quicker movements? Is that going too far? How about a kid who, since he was short for his age, had parents put him on growth hormones, only to later discover he would have developed to a normal size on his own, just a little more slowly than their friends. The person is now a 7 foot center in the NBA - did he cheat?

The only difference is that some forms are legal and some are illegal. Are they illegal for a good reason? That's debatable. But they were not banned by Major League Baseball. Even if Barry Bonds came out and said, "Yes, I injected everything you can think of for 5 years, including my record setting seasons," what would you have done? Asterisks in the record book? Erase his numbers completely? What about Ruth the bat corker? Do we also delete just about every statistic from the 1970's, since it is very likely that most players were on amphetamines or, perhaps, cocaine. In fact, why not erase every stat of a player who had some coffee during his playing days.

My point is this: Everyone needs to get down off that horse. Most people are riding it a bit to hard; it needs a break. Lose your outrage - it is not very becoming. We were fortunate to see some amazing baseball over the last decade, and none of it was due to anything that hasn't been done before, nor was it against any of MLB's rules. Come back down to earth, think about what makes you feel better than Barry Bonds, and think about what that says of you.

Response to an Idiot in Time Magazine

2006-03-30T08:14:00.000-06:00

The specific idiot is Charles Krauthammer, who “rights,” (get it?) for the Washington Post and is a contributor to Time as well. His latest article titled “Today Tehran, Tomorrow the World,” discusses the danger of Iran receiving nuclear weapons, which gives me a nice launching point for discussing my own personal views on the U.S.’ Iran policy, while debunking his.

Kraut’s (get that one?) argument goes something like this: nuclear weapons are exceedingly dangerous, and should only be given to those countries that can be assured to use them responsibly. Iran, under Ahmadinejad is the exact opposite, a country who is specifically building nuclear weapons to use them irresponsibly. Krautie goes on to compare the beliefs of Irani’s to those of medieval Europeans, to claim that Ahmadinejad believes that the 12^th imam of Islam will resurrect himself in two or three years, and if Iran gets nukes, every other ideological regime and terrorist group will be buying them at the local bazaar.

I am glad that Mr. Krauthammer associates millennialism and the idea of basing your foreign policy on the basis of messianic resurrection as medieval and foolish. I wonder, however, if he shouldn’t be spending more time looking at the White House rather than the clerics of Tehran. Our current President (you know, the guy with the secret nuclear codes,) is a Born-Again Christian who believes in messianic resurrection. And seems to have a jones for interfering in the affairs of The Promised Land. And who throughout his five and a half years in the most powerful office in human history, has consistently used Biblical language as a means of communication and metaphor, especially with regards to the U.S.’s dealings with non-Christian enemies.

The issue of religios destiny's influence of leadership is under-studied, but really a scare tactic on the part of the author. The real issue is that Krauthammer and most people want the power of nuclear weapons, and specifically the security guarantee they provide to be concentrated in an elite group of nations, with U.S. approval. This is an unrealistic with. Like all technologies, once nuclear weapons were created, the destiny was for them to be spread to other countries. Patronizing attitudes such as Mr. Krauthammer’s will not solve any issues with regards to keeping nuclear war from happening in the future. The U.S.’s credibility on this argument (“crazy countries shouldn’t be allowed nukes because they will use them,”) is severely undermined within the international community because we remain, to this day, the only country to actually use nuclear weapons. And we have about 10,000 of them while most countries have zero. The U.S. is not in a position to hold anyone over anything from a moral high ground with regards to warfare at this point.

So what should we do about Iran? Yes, the current leader makes some frightening statements about the destruction of Israel. Delaying the process of nuclear proliferation in Iran, through the Russian enrichment of uranium to be shipped back to Iraq is a good first step to quell the fears of a maniacal destruction of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, or whatever.

But eventually, be it 2, 5, or 20 years from now, Iran will get nuclear weapons. There is no way to stop it from happening, other than a worldwide, coordinated effort to eliminate all nuclear weapons stocks from all countries, and ensure no plutonium or uranium is converted. That will not happen.

Iran is a country on the road to liberalization, due to the will of its own people, slowly moving out of the colonial 20th century and the reign of the West supported Shah. Ahmaddinejad’s popularity in Iran, and he is popular among young people espcially, is because, contrary to his hard-liner image he has not curbed the liberalization of social freedoms of the Khatami regime, while rallying the Iranian people around the idea of Iran (and Islam,) under attack from an invading West, led by, of course, the U.S. Of course we play right into this perception by invading the countries to Iran's east and west, flying recon missions over their territory, declaring Iran an "Axis power," and threatening to use force. This goes back to Thucydides and Athens and Sparta. Why do you think Iran is helping the insurgency in Iraq? Because they think they are next in line on the Bush Invasion Chart. Keeping the U.S bogged down in Iraq keeps them from turning their attention to Iran.

This is a classic realist scenario for conflict, states, without the central presence of some organization to determine conflict, continually build up under the guise that the “other,” is a threat, with each further buildup only reinforcing the threat and need for further defensive measures, until eventually conflict occurs.

To avoid this trap, we need to disengage from saying things like “all options are on the table,” and let the conflict be mediated by other countries who share the same interest as we do, (EU, Russia.) as U.S-Iran relations have deteriorated to the point where trust is an issue. The hawks in the defense department do not need to worry about "looking strong," to scare Iran: The Bush Administration has already proven they will invent reasons to invade someone if they have to. The threat is there without vocalization.

Then, we need to focus on setting up Iraq and Afghanistan as governments that function without the guarantee of protection from the U.S. military. As long as the reinforcement of the military remains the preeminent reason for the rule, we will present a threat to Iran’s leadership by effectively surrounding them, making the idea of nuclear weapons (and guaranteed defense from invasion,) more palatable.

Finally we should make connections to Iran through backchannels: student exchange, trade if possible. This is more of a long-term strategy for bettering the image of the United States in Iran and vice versa. Avoiding behaviors like detaining Muslims permanently without trials and torturing prisoners might also help.

This does not have to be a problem for us. Yet I do not trust our leaders to see things this way. Since it is clearly us vs. them and good vs. evil to people like Krauthammer and members of the Bush Administration, whatever motives we have for whatever actions we undertake, are clearly well-intentioned. We all know who suffers from such a prism: American soliders, the citizens of the Middle East, and the image of the U.S. Oh well, guess we just got to grit our teeth and bear it for another two and a half years.

What IS the plan?

2006-03-23T13:09:00.000-06:00

As a collective society, we Americans and humans have goals. Those goals may differ from person to person, and some exceptional individuals may not agree with them at all, but on a whole, there is a shared interest in bettering our nation and our world, and the majority of them align well- peace, elimination of poverty and crime, security, health, etc.

But what about other goals, such as art, diversity, technology, science, God, and freedom? By and large this is much greater disagreement as to what is a 'good' amount of any of these goals. What does this mean? Let me provide an example.

Back in the day, I thought that gun control was a great idea. Guns were designed to kill people, the second amendment doesn't specifically allow for individual gun ownership, and gun deaths in the US seem largely preventable. I thought then, and I still think now, that banning guns would lead to many fewer murders in the U.S. But gun enthusiasts all over would disagree- the NRA has a laundry list of reasons why gun bans wouldn't work, are unconstitutional, and just generally bad. But let's say that we ensured that a gun ban WOULD work- that somehow we could get guns to disappear off the street. Let's say we also assured them that the second amendment was not being violated. Would they suddenly give up? No, because they enjoy using guns, and the vast majority of gun owners use their guns responsibly. Why should they have to give up their hobby and sport because a certain gang member or Vice President of the most powerful nation in the world can't think before he pulls the trigger? What if we convinced them that it would save 1,000 lives each year? Would they give them up? Some of them would, I'm sure- but it wouldn't resolve the underlying issue, which is that they use them responsibly, so they should be allowed to use them.

I draw a parallel from this to violent media- video games, TV shows, and art. I am also convinced that if violent media were to 'disappear', the murder rate would drop. Violence in media is 'cool', and though the VAST majority of people can handle a killing or two million, there probably exist a few borderline people who are influenced to the point that they kill. But let's say that there was definitive evidence that this was true- that if we banned violence in the media, we knew that the murder rate would drop- that thousands of lives and injuries would be prevented. Would we be OK with this? I think that people would be up in arms against it. Is there any real, qualitative difference between these two situation other than the number of gun enthusiasts vs. violent media enthusiasts? I don't think so.

OK, so what point can I possibly be making here? I'm trying to point out that we have deemed a certain amount of violence acceptable in our society. We have deemed a certain amount of sex acceptable in our society. And we have even accepted a certain level of murder and death- and it certainly is NOT the standard 'if we only save one life, then it's worth it' and 'we can't put a price on human life' rhetoric that is pounded into our heads. Some people would definitely want to ban violent media- they would not see it as a restriction of freedom as much as they would see it as a safeguard. But most would not, because we want our artists and our culture to be free and diverse, because we also have a level of art and diversity that we find acceptable.

Let's compare this with two past societies- the Romans during the Pax Romana, and the Arawaks of the pre-Columbus days. The roman empire, at its height, was a tremendously successful empire- large, powerful, rich, and at times, peaceful. Their citizens enjoyed a lot of freedom, they had art, entertainment, science, philosophy, etc. But they also condoned slavery, had a stricter class system than we do. They also supported the killing of 'unfit' babies as well as inevitable deaths in military training and the transition to adulthood. I'm sure, however, that if you took a random Roman and asked him whether he thought his society was just and good, he would say yes. And though he would probably point out places for improvement, his ideal society would probably more similar to Rome than the United States.

What about the Arawaks? Their society was small, agrarian, communal, and mostly peaceful. They had very little crime, and no 'poverty'. They were not powerful, nor 'rich', but they also enjoyed freedom and equality that either Rome or the United States could not match. They owned very little in the way of material and land. They were technologically simple, and had very little to speak of in the way of science or entertainment. What would an Arawak think of as his ideal society? Would it be safe to say that it would look much more like his current society than either Rome or the US?

If you took an impoverished inner-city family from Chicago, New York, or LA, and asked them to describe their ideal society, I think they would paint a picture of the United States, only now with racial and class equality, low crime rates, ghettos eliminated, where they had access to education and a job that they wanted, access to health care, and a chance to live in a house they owned. If you took an upper class suburban family from anywhere in the US and asked them to describe their ideal society, would it be very different? Probably not. Where it WOULD differ is in the details- the secondary goals. The second family might mention terrorism as being eliminated, the first family would probably focus more on racial equality. The second family might say that environmental care was an important focus, whereas the first family might say that immigration was more important. One family might think secularism was important and one might say that the spread of churches was important and that their ideal society was Christian. And yes- one might say that in their society, anyone who wanted a gun could have one, whereas the other felt that unwise.

So I ask you this: What are we supposed to do? What happens if you think environmentalism is important, but by supporting environmental care, you're putting people out of work in Brazil because you are denying them access to their own rainforest? What if you're campaigning to stop violence, but in doing so you find out that you have to eliminate violent media? What if by instituting faith-based initiatives, you choke off religious freedom? There are tradeoffs in every solution- you'll make some people unhappy and others unhappy.

My suggestion is this. Let's do away the the very idea of equality, which is a childish, simplistic, and naive way to look at humans. No human has ever been equal to another human in any realistic way, and to suggest that everyone is born equal at the start is to ignore everything in human history. Freed slaves were not equal at emancipation. People born in Rwanda are not created equal. Someone who has genes that make them more likely to murder someone should not have 'equal' access to guns as someone who has genes that make them likely to use them for hunting. Someone who is blind shouldn't have the right to drive a car.

The problem with societies are not the rules and laws. The problem lies with the individual. Just as a parent who treats their quiet kid differently than their socialite kid, I think our society needs to embrace individuality. Maybe one person gets taxed at a higher rate, but gets to use guns and watch violent movies. Another person gets 'free' health care and food, but isn't allowed to drink any alcohol. The idea of freedom is done away with too. The idea of freedom is that we are allowed to be free up to the point where we affect other people- but everything we do affects other people, and to set up rules and limits at a societal level means you're always going to be painting with a broad brush.

I don't think we're ready for this any time soon- we don't understand what makes people tick- but I think we should work towards it. I recently went to a dog-training class, and the instructor's dogs were well-behaved to the point of being a little depressing. She told them to sit, and they sat. She told them to lie down, and they sat there the entire class without moving. Every single one of her dogs were exactly the same in personality, which is to say that they had none. As much as we'd like to think differently, humans can be programmed in the same way. Would a society of humans who were all programmed to obey the government's rules perfectly be a utopia? There'd be equality, no poverty, no crime, peace, and prosperity, but there probably wouldn't be any art, diversity, or freedom. At what point is it ok for humans to be a little bad to make the whole society better? Making our societal rules to say 'everyone can have a gun', 'no abortions' or 'no violent media' is a lot like training every dog to be the same. And I don't think we humans are really any different.

So What's the Plan?

2006-03-13T07:54:00.000-06:00

Here is something we can be assured of: The plan of the Bush administration to storm into the Middle East using programs such as “Shock and Awe,” and assuming that they would be greeted as liberators by a population begging to emulate everything Western, (despite the fact some of their cousins had been disfigured or killed during the invasion,) has been a colossal failure. This failure could have only been predicted by those who know anything about military strategy (especially the important principle that wars require money and troops,) or have taken a college level course on the Middle East.

As even conservatives begin to speak out against the war, let’s not forget that, at the moment of truth in March 2003, no one, Republican or Democrat, was against authorizing this invasion. Coming out against it three years late, and, moreover, continuing to authorize money to fight the war despite claiming to be against it doesn’t gain you many points in the Marmaniac’s eyes.

But was the Iraq invasion part of some greater plan to bring Democracy to the Middle East? I would say yes and no. In the late 90’s, with the world relatively peaceful, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, and a bunch of other neo-cons would have had the U.S. use it’s post Cold-War unipolarity to wipe out specific trouble spots in the world, with public enemy number one being Sadaam. The Clinton Administration took a more hands off approach to foreign policy, choosing to focus on domestic issues and maintaining control of the government in the face of political scandal. The election of Bush II, complete with reinstating several cronies from the 80s into positions of prominence, vaulted the neo-cons into power, ready to implement their ideas on the rest of the world.

And then 9/11 happens, providing a symbolic beginning (and I mean this in the religious sense as well: the beginning of Armageddon so to speak) and blanket justification to the Bush Administration for any policy against anyone of Middle Eastern descent, no matter how unconstitutional or foolish.

But what if 9/11 hadn’t happened? Would the neo-cons, who from the 90s have advocated taking out Sadaam have gotten there way? I think so. I can’t imagine George W Bush going through eight years of office without attacking someone in some way.

If the destiny of the Bush Administration was to wildly attack the Middle East in hopes of spreading a democratic revolution, then it is the destiny of the administration that follows to clean up the mess. Here are some issues the next administration will have to face.

First we need to look at what philosophy we want to take within the region. Are we going to suppress authoritarian regimes through superior military force? Are we going to rely on the combined cultural power of the West and the powerful sway of the world economy to coerce governments and people into toeing the line? Are we going to use diplomacy? Are we just going to ignore the region as a whole, through determining that our own interests are best served elsewhere? Are we dealing with states or groups of people, and how to we distinguish between the two when determining policy?

Right now, our military is stretched to the limits in terms of the amount it can do. An invasion of Iran, for example, would mandate 1) a draft 2) a strong ally coming to support us, say Russia or 3) giving up control of Iraq. Any domino effect we could hope for following the toppling of Sadaam appears to be limited, and contingent on the success of the new Iraqi regime. Right now an Iraqi Civil War seems more likely than a peaceful transition to democratic rule.

The cultural and economic power of the West, specifically the United States, is the area of strength that we have not been exerting enough under the Bush Administration, and the best chance for success in the Middle East. We must strive to change the image of the U.S. with the Muslim world, which right now varies from “illegitimate invader,” to “The Great Satan.” How can this be accomplished?

First, we should be doing things like not getting our panties in a bunch when say, a company from a moderate Middle Eastern country does business with us. That’s fight, I am siding with W on this one, (not that it matters, since Dubai Ports World has already begged out of the deal.) If we are to embrace outsourcing and globalization as, 1) economically viable for the future of America and the world and 2) a method to increase interaction between countries, draw ties between them, and help prevent future security conflicts, we have to make compromises and respect the sovereignty and development stages of other countries. Shutting out the UAE is short-sighted, jingoistic, and borderline racist.

What we should be doing is encouraging deals with what I would label “Muslim moderates,” Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Morocco, UAE, and Indonesia. We need as many allies in the region as possible, and these countries are a good place to start. We also must, must, find some way to debunk the idea that the United States represents some sort of Christian crusading force that is somehow out to “get,” Islam. The debate over the place of Christianity as part of the identity of the U.S. is a domestic issue, but how we resolve it affects how the rest of the world views us. I believe that we need to focus on re-grasping and spreading the identity of the United States as the country that welcomes all religions and all peoples. This will dim the effectiveness of the anti-U.S. rhetoric of the extremist Muslim imams. Taking steps like putting Arab-Americans in visible positions of power within the U.S. government wouldn’t hurt either.

But those are the easy parts. In the next installment, I deal with the two key states of the Middle East: Iran and Saudi Arabia. Oh yea and that little strip of land called Israel.

34% !!

2006-03-06T16:03:00.000-06:00

Bush's approval rating has hit an all-time low for his 5+ years in office. That's impressive in my book. The previous low was 35%, right after Katrina. Now, with the renewed interest in New Orleans after Mardi Gras, (a perfect 6-month follow-up for the reporters) along with Michael Brown absolutely tearing apart the administration with video proof, those memories have come back. But that's probably not what this is about. I'm guessing that yes, Bush will still have <5% approval rating from blacks, but what is driving him to new lows?

I think most polls are showing that Bush is getting flak from the Dubai Ports World deal. Now, I want to put in my two cents in about that just so that you have a point of reference on my bias/perspective. I think... it's all stupid! Ok, not surprising there. Here we have a foreign company that wants to invest money (read: buy) in the US. It wouldn't be in their best interests (read: profit) to destroy our infrastructure- we're allies for a reason- we have money and deals with them, they have money and deals with us. It was reviewed by all the appropriate agencies and approved. Now, after the 45 day review, the VERY same agencies are going to review them again. I think they'll get approved. In fact, if they don't get approved, it's almost definitely going to be a result of politics and not the result of any real change in security. The fact that the company is saying 'we'll submit to any security check' rather than being offended by the subtly racist furor shows that they're just trying to make a buck, and there's no profit in offending the country whose ports you want to buy.

Anyway, I side with Bush on this one (and Bill Clinton too, apparently.) They're allies, they'll still be subject to security like any other company, and they still have to operate under US law. And let's be perfectly honest- the owners of the company have nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of a port. The longshoremen and operators of the port are not suddenly going to let in terrorists or bombs just because the owners said 'no, we like terrorists now.'

If it happens, it'll be because of plain old incompetence, not because of some nefarious from-the-top conspiracy. But the problem is, Bush didn't let the public understand all of this. When he found out about the deal after approval, he simply said "It's fine. I approve." So there's the problem. The one base that Bush could always count on was the security faction- sure, he may not understand civil liberties, or executive power limits, or even disaster relief, but he 'got' security and he 'made the world safer' in everything he did. It was hard to see how this made the world safer. Without that support, the ultra-conservatives were in an uproar, and the Democrats joined in, because any bad publicity for Bush needs to be played up as much as possible.

I feel bad for you, Georgie. For once, you made me happy, and it might start the beginning of the end for you. I suppose that's what politics is about anyway- please 51% of the constitutency, even if it means horrifying the other 49%. Well, I'm on the wrong side. And that's too bad, I guess. So, I'll leave you with this quote: "Don't start trying to do the right thing, boyo. You haven't had the practice."

Combatting Idiocy, a continuing series

2006-02-15T10:09:00.000-06:00

Idiocy, not obesity, is the real epidemic of the 21st century. It's so much more global- look at the mess over the Danish cartoons. Look at the war in Iraq, look at your local DMV. Idiocy has pervaded our society in every form- the inability of people everywhere to understand complex situations.

First, before anyone accuses me of getting all ivory tower on their asses, let me be clear. Everyone is an idiot from time to time- it's the nature of humanity. But the problem is that our society, and the Earth, has grown so complex that idiocy has become more and more prevalent and its effects are getting stronger as well. For example, I'm an idiot about quantum physics, and as david demonstrated earlier, I'm also an idiot about constitutional law. The latter one may be a better example of the point I'm trying to make here. It's not just that I'm ignorant of constitutional law- it's that I know enough to form Dangerously Stupid Ideas (which I am now copyrighting/trademarking under DSI). The point (or DSI) I was somehow trying to argue was that we don't actually NEED the constitution because on many occasions the Justices simply voted their conscience. While this argument is superficially true, it totally ignores the finer details of reality- that without a basis in text there could be no starting point- there could be no common arguing ground, and there would generally be chaos.

Why did I make this argument? Well, being an outsider to con law, I wanted to distill the reality of what the constitution was into a simple one-liner-- something I could keep inside my skull all at once. It's much simpler to think that the Constitution is just an arbiter of right and wrong than to think that it is a murky mix of case law, textualism, strategic ambiguity, and ignored parts.

So this is the situation everyone finds themselves in today. Intelligent Design is another such Dangerously Stupid Idea. Evolution isn't a perfect theory, and as such, it has gaps in its explanatory power. (like the interpretation of the Constitution). But Intelligent design is a gross oversimplification of human/biological origins, and it totally ignores reality so that its supporters have an easier time inside their brains. And it's not just Intelligent design-- people everywhere are starting to have fundamental distrust of science.

This NY Times article documents a 24-year old journalism major who was appointed by W to NASA, who starting censoring all documents by adding "theory" to every mention of the Big Bang and global warming. It has obvious parallels to the ID movement, with people trying to claim everything is ''only a theory", which in its perjorative tone, manages to dismiss everything that science is about in three words. Science itself, is made of "only theories" and is itself a theory if you want to think about it in those terms.

So the question is why? We do it because we can't understand everything, so we distill, simplify, and stereotype. With very religious people, the idea of evolution and the Big Bang clashes with their view of how God created humans and the Universe-- many of them have very simple ideas that include Adam and Eve, and 6 days of creation. It's not that adding these theories would fill their brains- it's that they would add layers of complexity and would take a certain amount of work- so the obvious reaction is that these new 'theories' are wrong. And the funny thing is, there is room for both. Many scientists believe in God and are religious people- because they understand the science, they are able to integrate that into their views. Perhaps God created the Big Bang. Maybe God controls which of the four genes' from a parent gets passed down to the child. Or maybe, they revise their idea of what God is.

And when scientists publish 80 page studies that detail a certain experiment, newspaper editors, somtimes untrained, or 'idiots' about science, read and filter them. And that gets put into a headline- "Eating fat causes cancer." Then the next week a new headline-- "Fat cells do not cause cancer." To an idiot, the easy explanation is that science is untrustworthy, that they are simply playing tug-of-war, like politicians. And therefore anything they say can't be believed. It especially doesn't help when scientists outright lie about their research. But the bottom line is that it's easier to continue believing what you already believed.

And isn't it the same thing with the cartoon violence? One Danish newspaper publishes the cartoon, and therefore all Danish people hate Muslims. The French government doesn't support the war in Iraq, therefore, french fries and french toast are unpatriotic. We have these symbols that we cling to, because they are easy to remember, because their ideas and their ideals are clear. And sometimes, it's all we have to go on. Racism arises out of the same Dangerously Stupid Idea part of our brain- we know nothing about a person, but their skin color gives us the ability to make certain assumptions. If it wasn't skin color, maybe it would be nose size, or mouth shape. Humans have always found ways to oversimplify, even to the point of ridiculousness (and you KNOW what I'm talkin' about!) It's how the human brain works- always classifying (and hopefully into 2 groups). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't accept it. It means we have to watch out for it.

So what can you do to combat idiocy? Identifying situations in which it's present is only half the battle. I've found, however, that interrupting the offender by yelling "idiot alert!" and asking them to stop talking is surprisingly ineffective. I think the only way for people to be aware of it is through themselves, and thereby, through culture change- we should stop being appreciative of politicans being 'decisive', because really that just means they have already decided- they are not open to new ideas. And we shouldn't glorify news programs because they spout off their own opinions for being 'forceful' and 'powerful'. What we should prioritize is the people who filter the experts- people who can RELIABLY simplify complex situations, like Science-to-English, Legalese-to-English translators. And I suppose, on individual levels, we should learn to appreciate nuance, complexity, and subtlety. And if you don't think so, well, you're an idiot.

Simple Script for Democrats Filibustering the Patriot Act Renewal

2006-02-13T18:07:00.000-06:00

Because Democrats will certainly find a way to sound soft on defense. Because the Democrats will find a way to not have a coherent message. Because the cheese must flow...

“The President would have you believe that this is a simple decision. The President would have you believe this is a choice between Defending America and not defending america. The President may even believe that this is the choice. But this is wrong.

“This is a moment to decide not whether we will defend our nation against those who seek to damage or destroy us, but how to best defend America.

“Certainly, the best way to prevent attacks against innocent American lives may involve measures such as stopping all immigration, maintaining an army presence in our cities, set up checkpoints and roadblocks into and out of cities and near tall or important buildings, and then silence, by imprisonment or otherwise, all who would suggest a different course of action. But this is not the best way to defend America.

“We have seen the lengths our Government will go to defend this country. And, to be honest, they may very well have prevented attacks; we don’t know. But such strikes may have been preventable by other means as well. If one plan prevents an attack, it does not follow that this is the only plan available, nor does it follow that this is the best plan.

“More importantly, defending this country involves more than just stopping terrorist activities. Some measures that help prevent attack are themselves attacks on America. There are other methods to thwart violence, methods that defend and promote, rather than intrude on, our freedom.

“Today we have an opportunity, an opportunity not to avoid defending our nation, but to devise a way to better defend this country. Together we can find new ways to defend America by preventing attacks on our country and attacks on our rights as individuals and members of society. Our history, or traditions, our values demand that we approach this issue with responsibility and with care not just for averting violence, but for maintaining our national dignity.”

George W. Public

2006-02-08T14:05:00.000-06:00

Here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say you took a random American-- no special qualifications, no special ideas, not a spectacularly good speaker, nothing special about him, except maybe that he was a graduate of the Derek Zoolander center for kids who can't read good and would like to do other thing good too. And then you made him President. For 8 years. What would happen?

Most people, most Americans, myself included, think we know a few things about how the world works, we're convinced that we're right, and we think we could do a better job than Bush could. All of these things may very well be true. And that last one might be twice as true as the rest. But, the point is, we're still normal people, not professional politicians, and though we are convinced of our morals and ethical practices, we rarely see the bigger picture that can only come from being lobbied by Indian reservations and their casinos while trying to decide how best to completely deforest 'their' land legally.

So, if we took this hypothetical geek off the street and turned him into a Regulator, I mean, the President of the United States, wouldn't he also be in way over their head? So let's explore what it would be like if you, being an average American, were the big bad POTUS.

The first year, being president would be pretty sweet. You just sign a few bills, make a few appearances, do what your advisors say, and blame anything immediately wrong on your predecessor. You'd talk the big talk- "cut taxes", "better education", "save the whales", and "God Bless America" over and over again. You of course would know that you might have made some campaign promises you couldn't keep, but that was politics. So you'd twiddle your thumbs, sit around, and drink a lot. But then oops, late in the year, something awful happens. Making sure that Americans don't forget it, you'd resolve to mention its date approximately 14,000 times. And you'd be sure to mix it up, sometimes calling it September 11th 2001, sometimes September 11th, and sometimes just 9/11. Variety is the spice of life.

Of course, being a regular guy, having a good time, taking a shitload of vacation, you weren't expecting this. So you freeze. What the fuck are you going to do? Take cover? Immediately go on the air? Destroy all the planes in the air? Declare a state of emergency? Martial law? It's hard to say, of course. So you think about it for a few minutes, you go on auto-pilot, because continuing to read a book about a pet goat is easy. After all, you've read it so many times it was the subject of your thesis.

But the public doesn't mind- it's not like there was anything you could do. And they're right. So when you vow to absolutely annihilate those responsible, everyone agrees with you, because after all, they're regular guys too. And that's what we were supposed to do.

And then everyone would love you. You'd be a big hero, you'd make more appearances, ensuring the populace that everything was going to be fine, that yes, there was evil, but as long as God continued to Bless America, we'd win. And it would be so awesome, because everyone would forever identify you as the Guy who was President when IT happened. And you'd think to yourself: I am great, Mom was right! I was such a strong leader for delivering America out of despair, and I'm going to make sure that it never happens again. After all, it was Clinton's fault anyway.

After a while it would get boring, though. After two full years of having a microphone and recording glued to your mouth, you'd be bound to have some ridiculous slip-ups and everyone would make fun of you, on national television, saying what a moron you were. But those people were missing the point. The point was that you were making America a better place- because you knew what was best for America.

But it would become rapidly apparent (even to yourself) that you were indeed over your head. It's impossible, you'd say (probably rightly), for one person to truly grasp the state of world and national affairs. I'm going to delegate. I'll make sure to surround myself with like-minded people. And that would be a great decision. But then you'd look around, and think- these people are all smarter than me in their respective departments! This place can run itself!

And then you'd notice that all of the people in Congress were on your team- and since they were on your team, you could trust them. Trust them so much that you would NEVER, not even once, decide to veto one of their bills. After all, if 51 senators agreed, who were you to tell them they were wrong? Plus, they're on your team, they wouldn't do anything you didn't like.

So, later on, you'd finally be faced with the fact that all you were charged to do, really, was keeping the public informed. Coupling that with the fact that you really weren't a spectacular speaker, you'd want to do something else. You'd need to make your mark on the world- be remembered for something other than "the guy who was President on 9/11" Doesn't "the guy who delivered us from evil" sound so much better? You'd make a plan, to fix these evil places in the world, and the public be damned.

The middle east would look like a great place to start. You could start with the main anti-American dictator and depose him. I mean- the terrorists were from the middle east, and here is this guy who would like nothing better to destroy us as well. It's hard NOT to believe he wasn't involved! So you'd gather intelligence. Your director might give you some shaky evidence for a case for war. You'd look at it, agree that it was shaky, but would rather not take chances with American lives! So you'd start putting the pressure on, squelching evidence to the contrary- and not really listening to what people were objecting to. After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. And you'd rationalize that the public was mostly uninformed, and that their objections were the result of not seeing the whole picture. After all, you're the President! But you wouldn't flat-out lie to them. That would be wrong. Instead, you'd lie to yourself. Plus, if you went to war, you'd probably win the upcoming election- most presidents stayed on in a time of war. It (and being the incumbent) would be just what you needed to get a leg up.

Later on, a large natural disaster might strike the US. Let's say a hurricane. You'd seen plenty of hurricanes before. They could be bad, but as long as people were aware of them, they could usually evacuate and after a short rebuilding period, they'd be back on their feet. Sure, you'd sign a few emergency response budgets, but basically, your underlings would take care of it. But you'd have bigger things to worry about.

After it became readily apparent that it was much worse than you thought, you'd say things like"'I don't think anyone foresaw the levees breaking" because most regular guys didn't see it happen. Never mind the fact that the Army Corps deemed them incapable of handling a large storm, or the fact that even in the immediate run-up to the hurricane it was one of the biggest concners. And you wouldn't remember that earlier in the year you had cut funding to a project that would have helped fix it. I mean seriously, you sign a billion pieces of paper a year, and they expect you to remember each one? Sometimes the public can be so unreasonable.

Anyway, your dutiful little chain of command would do its job, send food, helicopters, rescue teams, and they'd get it all sorted out. You'd go down, make a few appearances, and it'd be great. You'd praise your underlings for "doing a heckuva job", because of course they'd been working hard- they were on your team. It would be ludicrous to think that one of your teammates would be so incompetent as to discuss fashion and PR rather than doing his job.

What you'd also want to do is get rid of all those pesky constraints on your power. Sure, there were laws- but the President was different. The executive branch was different. And really, wasn't the whole Constitution really just more of a guideline?

You'd think about what you could POSSIBLY do to ensure that you'd prevent another attack. And if that wasn't allowed, then you'd just do it in secret. That would be the nice thing about being the president- unparalleled amounts of power. And what power gives you is the freedom to make the decisions- the decisions about who you want to listen to, who you want to convict, and who you want your people to spy on, and torture. You'd get angry, because your critics just refused to understand that this situation was different! Your enemies were secret, not like in past wars. And this war looked like it would "end" in constant vigilance rather than a surrender signing on a big battleship. Why didn't they see that? Why couldn't they see that you weren't spying on decent Americans? Why couldn't they see that you were doing the right thing, and that all those people you had locked up and beaten were at the very least, indirectly related to terrorist activities. These were bad people! And you were a good person! You weren't going to do purposefully do anything bad with your power. And if a few innocents were harmed, well- it was a fact of life in war. You'd create a false dilemma in your head, saying that the critics would rather have an America where we sat around and waited to get hit again. And in that case, innocents would die too, so at least in your scenario, you get to mitigate the effects.

What you'd reason is that power is only suitable for those with morality- and that we were more moral than the terrorists, because we gave everyone a fair trial, we didn't kill innocents, and we didn't torture people. Ok, so there were a few incidents, but on the whole, we were the better option than them- and you couldn't afford to have your power diluted- that would enable it to go to people who didn't know how to stop themselves, people with questionable ethics.

So the last thing to do, would be to ensure that your legacy lived on- you'd appoint highly like-minded Justices to the court, who agreed that the President had all sorts of powers not written into the Constitution- that way nobody could disagree when they said you were breaking the law. But at the end of every day, you'd be able to sleep at night, because you'd be remaking the world in the image that you saw was right, because after all, you aren't just a regular guy, you're the President.

TJ vs Dave

2006-02-04T17:13:00.000-06:00

This post is my explanation for who I believe deserves the Super Bowl, between the Seattle Seahawks and Pittsburgh Steelers. Rather than judge the quality of the respective teams, I am judging the quality of their respective fans. Specifically two men: Taylor James Peterson and David Harris. As always, judgment will be based on only the most relevant categories, and after only the most careful thought and consideration.

Loyalty to their Team: Edge T.J.

Dave is a Seahawks fan, but the sight of Shaun Alexander sneaking into the end zone does not bring Dave to a state of fiery passion in the manner of an Ichiro Suzuki infield single. Even within the realm of football, the Hawks are simply a mistress compared to Dave’s true love, the Washington Huskies. T.J., after whoring himself out to the Ravens as a youth, has shown impressive loyalty and maturity in his later years by remaining faithful to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Innate Sexiness: Edge Dave

While T.J.’s sculpted body, in addition to his exotic mixed background has soiled the panties of many a fair lady, Dave’s combination of extreme jewishness, class, charity, and faux-vulnerability is simply irresistible. Still, everyone is a winner here.

Combined Amount of Rights and Wrongs Transgressed Against Me: Edge Dave

The only category that really matters. They have both been thus far unwilling to share their girlfriends with me, even though Dave and I lived together for a whole freaking year. Uncharacteristically, uncharitable on his part. Dave can commit egregious examples of lameness that affect me negatively for knowing him: For example he once gave Clay Aiken a standing ovation for a performance on American Idol while sitting in our living room. When I met him in college, he was a huge Dave Matthews fan, and watched Ally McBeal.

T.J., on the other hand, has an appreciation for many of the finest things in life. His dedication to Chinese food, specifically General Tso’s Chicken, must be lauded. He introduced me to Mad Dogs an event we can all agree everyone is better for. He also has an impressive creative side, including inventing several delicious sandwiches at Bear’s Den.

But Taylor Peterson is also capable of acts of unspeakable evil. In addition to threatening to leave Anand in the woods, TJ has spent countless hours playing Super Smash Brothers as Marth. All this despite his supposed admiration for Link as the greatest hero in video game history. Shame Taylor. Shame. This is too much of a black mark on TJ’s record for him to overcome.

Basketball Playing Ability: Edge Dave

Both improved greatly over my time at Wash U, and while TJ can run the wing with the best, and has an impressive all-around offensive game, Dave is a better two-way player. This edge is only slight.

Providing moments of Intoxicated Hilarity Ability: A big edge for Mr. Peterson, who is a maestro in this category, not only among my friends, but among all people in the entire world. His college career could be compared to Picasso’s Blue Period in sheer artistic quality: Sleeping in Laura Potts’ bed, the Monkey-Dolphin Incident, Marching in Boca Ben’s bathrobe, for example. Dave just can’t measure up.

Having looked at the relevant categories, I have come to the conclusion that both are deserving of seeing their teams win titles. However a Steelers win would make TJ’s life a little sunnier, while Dave has the eternal source of joy that is living with Stuart to drown his sorrows. Thus, I vote for TJ as more deserving. I will, however, be rooting for the Seahawks.

Judge Marshall has spoken.

Blogs vs. NPR? Who wins?

2006-02-03T16:49:00.000-06:00

In a recent post on the Washington Note, Clemons talks about the issue of blogging collusion with the government. The problem, he notes, is that blogs have become the new 'old media', in that they have become so important that the politicians simply use them as mouthpieces, just as they do with the traditional news outlets.

Let's say you ran a liberal blog that became extremely popular- to the point where you sometimes were in on breaking news, felt the need to post every day, and generally just became a newsletter. And let's say a certain representative from your state/district took notice, and started having meetings and conference calls with you and other bloggers. In the majority of issues, you agree, just from your shared liberal background. But Clemons points out that in so many cases, bloggers become sycophants for those politicians, for a variety of reasons: impressed with their fame, the need to stay on the politician's good side, and sometimes simply just not knowing enough to question what that politician says. And so you, as that blogger, fall into the trap of being like Fox News.

So, taking our example a little further, let's say you find out that your Senator voted against a bill that had some of your core issues at heart. You're disappointed, but you get on the line with him and he strarts talking. As a mere blogger, though, it might always be the case that your Senator knows more about a certain bill or budget than you. It might be that he could convince you, that sure, perhaps he voted against an education funding increase- but it was because it was because the funding was used by environmental reform. Or it was because there is a better piece of legislation in committee right now. Or maybe it was simply necessary because a compromise had to be made, and don't you worry, getting that money back is his next priority. The point here is that we aren't in a position to know everything that's going on, and we have to trust our professional politicians. This is what they do for a living, and it's probably tough to argue with them, even if they're wrong, and even if you're pretty well informed.

So should we leave it up to the professional journalists? Well, it's tempting. Some of these flaws aren't there for traditional media like television and newspapers. Would anyone argue that O'Reilly doesn't have a big enough ego to say what's on his mind? And isn't it true that they can be just as well informed? Yes, but this brings us to the other big problem that all of the media have- audience.

Every day I drive to work, and there is a billboard on the way out touting a radio station. In big bold letters it proclaims "Liberals Hate it!". I assume that it means it's a conservative station. (or maybe it broadcasts NASCAR 24 hours a day? ok, ok, just kidding.) Would anyone of liberal mindset ever want to tune in? The point is that they don't care- they're trying to maximize their audience and they know that from their bias, liberals aren't going to be 'fooled' into listening to it anyway. What possible incentive is there for them to present fair viewpoints? What incentive is there for them to hold politician's feet to the fire? People thought that the blogsphere would lead to the democratization of the political process, that everyone would get a fair say. But instead, it's leading to the balkanization of the process. Everyone thinks they're right, and they only listen to the stations that don't absolutely enrage them, further fortifying their positions. It's that way on the blogsphere, it's that way on the radio, and it's that way on TV.

What would a news outlet that claimed "Liberals AND conservatives love it!" look like? Well, it would be non-profit, because the quest for profit/maximum audience and the quest for news/truth are often incompatible. It would be guaranteed access to politicians, and it would have honest journalists who were trained to get the truth from them. It would report on stories that we needed, not wanted, to hear. And it would probably be boring because of all that. To me, that sounds a lot like NPR, although I have heard many conservatives complain that NPR has a liberal bias. To me, though, I think it would be possible for a both conservatives and liberals to at least tolerate NPR equally well, because more often than not, their stories consist of actual source material- quotes from the President and his Cabinet. One study showed that from source statistics, NPR was more likely to use republican sources than democratic, which may simply be because we have a republican government. I think NPR is good, but I don't think it's perfect, which I'll talk about later.

But really, maybe the issue is that we can't FORCE people to choose 'good' news outlets; we can't force people to recognize when the media is attacking straw man versions of the opposition's arguments. Even if we could somehow get everyone to listen to a perfect news outlet, everything that we would hear would simply reinforce our own opinions anyway. When I hear the president speak, I'm always taken aback at how stupid and weak his arguments are. When conservatives hear him speak, they probably hear him 'straight-talking' and being direct, clear, decisive, and reassuring. When they heard Kerry speak they probably think the same thing.

But the important thing to remember, and perhaps what has pervaded the American consciousness, is that 'fair' and 'objective' do not mean 'in the center'. I think this is what the Republicans have done better than anything else over the past few years. If something shows democrats in a positive light, they decry it as liberal bias. If something that purports to be the truth actually seems to be left of center, they call it partisan hackwork and come up with their own version. In fact, think about it- "liberal bias" is a buzzword that gets thrown around all the time, (Google says 877,000 hits), while "conservative bias" sounds a lot like "Bears-Bengals Super Bowl". And I'm pretty sure that there's plenty of conservative outlets out there.

So, in order to be taken as fair, NPR and other outlets have stopped analyzing. When Bush does something highly illegal like the NSA wiretapping program, they say that "some groups are worried that this may be unconstitutional." Of course, they give equal airtime to the opposing viewpoint, that of Scott McClellan scrambling back and forth to come up with new reasons why we don't need the Constitution, or the Supreme Court, or Congress. But that's not being truthful- it's being lazy. If Bush reinstated slavery, would it be fair to present his argument right along side the other?

Of course, who decides what's right and wrong, then? And if NPR started taking sides, they'd be running all the same risks as the other outlets. So, I suppose that we have to live with NPR being the best of what's out there.

Did You Know?

2006-01-31T10:43:00.000-06:00

11 Democrats voted to confirm Clarence Thomas in 1991?

He was confirmed by a 52-48 margin.

Way to go.

This is for Nate

2006-01-28T02:44:00.000-06:00

Con Law Amateur Hour: Roe v. Wade

2006-01-27T17:31:00.000-06:00

Being first to take me up on my offer, Stu has asked for an analysis of Roe v. Wade. This in part stems from a discussion we had the other week about abortion, Roe, and the Constitution. Looking in the Constitution, Stu could not find from where a protection for abortion came. After explaining the penumbral right to privacy used by Justice Blackmun in Roe, Stu was not satisfied. Neither am I, I replied.

That perhaps is not an accurate assessment of my feelings about Roe.

Roe was not the first to use the Due Process Clauses, and, more specifically, substantive due process, to protect a general right to “privacy.” The Court, in Griswald v. Connecticut, prohibited Connecticut from banning the use or distribution of contraceptives based on a right to privacy not found explicitly in the text of the Constitution, and struck down a similar statute for the same reason in Eisenstadt v. Baird. These cases affirmed the notion that, though no specific language in the Constitution prevents the government from legislating marital relations, some things are so private and personal to warrant protection from government intrusion, and these private affairs are protected by the Due Process Clauses of th 5th and 14th Amendments. (Because the rights protected are substantive and not merely procedural they are termed substantive due process rights). I think this principal is extremely important and central to the foundation of our nation. People cede all sorts of personal rights in order to form functioning governments, but I doubt anyone believed that by voting to ratify the Constitution they were allowing the government to criminalize the way the have sex, or which person in a marriage cleans the dishes after dinner, or how parents must raise their children, or even the appropriate length of hair for individuals. Without a Constitutionally protected realm of privacy, governments could enact all sorts of laws controlling our personal interactions. (Certainly other federal law would prohibit some of this legislation, but that is irrelevant to a discussion on Constitutional protections.)

My dissatisfaction with Roe is that it missed the opportunity to affirm stronger protection to a woman’s right to choose while leaving itself unnecessarily vulnerable to excessive criticism that distracts from the only relevant debate - questions about when life begins and on what our government may rely in determining when life begins. Substantive due process, the doctrine by which courts protect certain fundamental rights unmentioned in the Constitution, is criticized as the evil source of judicial activism because through this method of analysis, the Court announces protected rights that are not specifically granted by the Constitution. Relying on the Equal Protection Clause would have grounded the right to an abortion in the actual language of the Constitution while elevating sex to the status of a suspect classification, providing the ultimate level of judicial scrutiny to cases involving sex discrimination.

(Perhaps the critics of substantive due process are right. But substantive due process was made necessary by the ultimate act of judicial activism in The Slaughterhouse Cases. There, the Supreme Court did not just legislate from the bench – they re-wrote the Constitution. In eviscerating the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Court effectively erased an important phrase of the Amendment. Since the clause aimed at protecting certain unenumerated fundamental liberties suddenly lost all effect and importance, substantive due process arose to fill the void.)

The Equal Protection Clause, though its enaction certainly was motivated by the desire to afford full legal protection to previously free black persons and newly freed slaves, uses language that affords its protection to all. It reads: “[no state shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Any person. Congress would have chosen to make this a prohibition against the denial of equal protection based on race, like it did in the 15th Amendment adopted at the same time. However, Congress, in the 15th Amendment, wanted only to grant the right to vote to men of all races, but not to women. Congress did not aim so low in the 14th Amendment, using the language “any person.”

In Roe, the Court could simply have ruled that abortion laws deny women the equal protection of the law. They control only women’s actions, and restrict women’s freedom. The Court should have recognized the long history of sex discrimination, recognized sex as a suspect classification requiring strict scrutiny by the court (laws discriminating on sex are not viewed as skeptically as laws discriminating on race, and are subject to lower judicial scrutiny), and struck abortion regulations as violating the Equal Protection clause because they do not serve a compelling governmental interest, and are not sufficiently narrowly tailored towards achieving that interest.

This approach of course relies on the Court deciding that the protection of an unborn fetus is not a compelling governmental interest. However, strict scrutiny is rarely satisfied, and for it to be passed here would require the adoption of religious beliefs by the judiciary, or at least would require the Court to allow States to legislate religious beliefs. The First Amendment would not allow this.

Grounding the right to an abortion in the Equal Protection Clause would create a much more difficult task for conservative critics of the Court, because they would not have the same lines of attack provided by the use of substantive due process. The Clause is written right there in the Constitution, and it protects all persons. This avoids the “penumbral” rights to privacy found in various, unrelated protections. It would offer a stronger protection that would not have needed to have been divided into trimesters, another aspect of the Roe decision much criticized (and later undone by science and the Court, though viability still remains, and would remain under Equal Protection, an important stage in the debate). This would also focus the debate not on the Court’s jurisprudence, but on whether a fetus is a person deserving Constitutional protections.

So much time and energy is spent defending or criticizing the Court’s analysis and the right to privacy that encompasses abortion, but the crux of the issue is not a legal one at all. It is simply the debate over when life begins. If at conception, and the fetus has rights of its own, there are Constitutional protections in tension between the pregnant woman and the fetus, and these must be sorted out. If not, then abortion simply deals with a woman and her control over her body and her right to access the medical care of her choosing. This is the only relevant discussion. And since the government would have a difficult time grounding a law on a purely religious belief, it would be a difficult debate for anti-abortionists.

I hope this analysis was helpful. Feel free to challenge, debate, question, or ask for analysis of any other area of constitutional law in the comments.

Constitutional Law: Amateur Hour

2006-01-25T13:58:00.000-06:00

I admit, I have done a poor job posting since the Fall of 2004. Perhaps the election really affected me terribly. Or I am just overworked. Or, more likely, I am just lazy. In any case, this begins a concerted effort to regain my status as a regular blogger. I propose a plan beneficial both to you, the reader, and to me, the law student: I will take the opportunity provided by free blogging to work on my constitutional law skills, while offering you the chance to pick any debate you chose and engage me on it here on this blog.

Use the comments to this post to request a topic - Was Roe v. Wade a good decision from a pro-choice viewpoint? Does the court ruling in Maryland, striking a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage as unconstitutional under the state's constitution, differ from what has been tried or adjudicated in California, Oregon, and Massachussetts? Why in the world would the First Amendment prevent a state from regulating strip clubs? And why doesn't it? Ask any question you would like, and I will provide as thorough of an analysis as I can, offering points on different sides of the debate. Then you can pick it all apart in the comments.

Cylons and Asians

2006-01-25T10:37:00.000-06:00

In Battlestar Galactica, the human race is wiped out by cylons in the very first episode of the show. As the remnants of humanity struggle to survive, floating around space being constantly pursued by cylon attackers, a theme has developed throughout the show of whether or not humans deserve to survive, or to be replaced by a newer, more advanced, and much sexier group of beings, the cylons.

The human sentiment aboard the Galactica is one of entitlement; that something about what humans means that they deserve to win against their cylon pursuers. This “something,” is often synonymous with values that human society is built on: democracy, human rights, with some military values mixed in: specifically the ideas of sacrificing your life for a greater cause and never leaving your compatriots behind. The humans of Galactica have filtered the best parts about humanity, and believe that these values and actions are what separate them from cylons, and will somehow save them in the end.

The humans of BSG share values with Western society, particularly the Anglo-American nexus of UK-Australia and of course the U.S. of A. The current administration utilizes the “our values and ideas are stronger than theirs,” argument with regards to Middle Eastern terrorists all the time, to build a contrast between the good (us) and evil (Al Qaeda), and to justify the ongoing effort to spread these Western values to Iraq (through imposing Democratic goverment) and the rest of the region.

But as you know I am not interested in the Middle East. I am more interested in the area of the world that is an actual threat to Western domination of the world. East Asia.

The humans from Battlestar Galactica created the cylons, then forced them to work until they revolted. The West colonized the rest of the world, exploiting the natural resources for their own wealth. In areas of the world like North America and Australia, Westerners slaughtered the inhabitants and infiltrated the land for themselves. In areas like Africa and the Middle East, Westerners fractured long standing empires, dividing the area into regions without consideration for the social structures that preceded their arrival. But in East Asia, societies were able to form into states and maintain links with their pre-colonial past: or reject colonization all together, as in the case of Japan. Eventually, they were able to integrate superior Western technology and political and economic strategies with their own values.

As other regions with different histories and different values become relatively more powerful than the West, what will be our future? Will we peacefully acknowledge the rise of new societies as a natural process, integrating ourselves into whatever new world order arises for the benefit of all humanity? Or will we continue to cling to our past hegemony on the basis that our values are somehow “right,” and that our leadership of the world is “just?”

History tells us that it is very difficult for countries to take their falls gracefully. Recent history does give examples of the contrary, specifically the case of the UK ceding global control to the U.S. peacefully and the relatively peaceful self-imposed breakup of the Soviet empire. In both cases, the realization of leadership struck that maintaining domination would be impossible, as the cost of fighting armed conflict in the twentieth century, and especially the nuclear era.

Yet one of America’s problems remains it’s insistence on its own greatness, to be taken to a form of predestination. Judeo-Christianity, with its ideas of “chosen people,” or a “flock,” with a dichotomy between the saved and the damned, has fused itself into politics, with our current born-again President being the worst example. Mixing war with religious language only leads to critical failure.

So I hope that, when the East does pass the West, they don’t find it necessary to wipe us out for our own good. Let’s start by proving to them we deserve saving by borrowing a little from their culture. Ruling through benevolence, as my man Confucius tells us too.

Just another word for nothing left to lose

2006-01-20T15:29:00.000-06:00

Any time I have the opportunity to title a post with lyrics from the singer who was voted "Ugliest man on campus" at her college, I just have to run with it. For those not in the know (read: not as cool as me), one of Janis Joplin's more famous songs includes a line "Freedom's just another word..."

Now I have no idea what that song is about, but it was the first thing I thought of when I thought of the word 'freedom'. Does that make me a bad American? Maybe. I probably should have thought about the American Revolution, or eagles soaring, or our flag waving in the wind. America is synonymous with with the word in so many people's minds, so much so that almost everything we do overseas is to promote 'freedom'.

Perhaps America is SO synonymous with freedom in people's minds that they actually mean, 'we're trying to bring America to the Iraqi people' and 'we're attempting to spread American and democracy' and what we actually mean by 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' is actually 'Operation Let's turn Iraq into the 51st state of America'.

Ok, scratch that last one. But really, doesn't it really fit with the whole 'freedom' motif that's been rampaging our nation for the past 4 years? Freedom fries? Freedom toast? Really, aren't these people just losing their minds and latching onto what they think is the most American thing they can think of? I qualified my last statement two paragraphs ago with 'overseas', because really, a lot of what the American government has been doing over the past 4-5 years is to curb our own freedom in the name of stopping terrorism. I'm not going to rehash the Patriot Act or talk about the new unchecked wiretapping program. That those things have happened are not that surprising, and in fact, many people support those programs as important steps in securing our country.

But what I want to know is this: what is America really about? Is America synonymous with 'No Terrorism', or 'Freedom'? Is it ok to get rid of some of our freedom to stop terrorism? Is it ok to get rid of some freedom to win the war on drugs? What about the war on poverty? For so many people, America is supposed to be the land of the free. But if you look at the past decisions that American society has made, it clearly isn't what we stand for. A more accurate synonym for America would be 'wealth'. When you think about it, isn't that what really drove people to immigrate to the US? It was the promise of streets paved with cheese. I mean gold. Often, they were also seeking freedom and avoiding persecution- but why America over other free nations? It's clearly wealth. And wealth is power, by any standard. So is it really a revelation to anyone that America has always tried to be as powerful as possible? Is it a revelation that America doesn't mind curtailing our freedoms in order to stay powerful and wealthy? Of course not.

But I'm not trying to raise an alarm here. By any modern measure, America is a very free country, and I'm not complaining about it. What I'm wondering is- shouldn't we as a collective, try to have some priority other than keeping ourselves in power? As individuals, we try mostly to be satisfied and to be ethical and moral within society. But we are also driven by greed and selfishness in most cases. Why should our society work any different? I don't know. I'd like to refer you to the last post made by our blogging friend at Universal Traveler. To quote:
When you get down to it, though, it's really a negative term. You can't have
freedom without something "bad" to be free from...otherwise the word would
have no meaning.

In many circles, the idea is that your freedom ends when you infringe upon someone else's. What the definition of 'infringe' is depends on who you're talking to, however. But it strikes me as implying that every person needs a bubble, that every person IS a bubble. Doesn't every action involve have consequences for our society and on other people? Obviously, lines need to be drawn, and sometimes it is unreasonable to think that we could live in a society where everyone was truly free to do what they wanted, because as the post also implies, complete freedom requires complete solitude- where you can't infringe on other people.

And because we have to live with other humans, we compromise. Most of the time, these are reasonable constraints on our freedom. I'd like to think that we aren't merely trying to maximize every individual's freedom, or every individual's wealth. I'd like to think that our society is making real progress- that it stands for truth, that it stands for knowledge, or that it stands for progress itself.

Does it even matter? As human individuals, shouldn't we only care that our basic demands for freedom are met? Does it matter that other people's rights are taken away, or that America doesn't really prioritize freedom at all? Should we care that America takes no interest in countries and people that don't affect us?

I don't know. Perhaps the compromise we have in America is as good as it can get, given the fractured nature of its own citizens' priorities. And maybe we are making progress. Science still discovers new things every day, and human rights groups have noted some improvements over the last year. But that's my question to you: What should we be prioritizing?

The Zen of Smash

2006-01-18T11:25:00.000-06:00

I have written before on what I call transcendent video games. I am here to write a more in depth ode to one of these games, in honor of my moving to Chicago, and yet another rebirth in that game of games: Super Smash Brothers Melee.

What makes Super Smash Brothers unique? What characteristics make it the greatest fighting game of all time, in a different class then even such legendary games as Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat?

The subtleties are the key. Different moves, combinations of moves different levels, the ability to use items, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of the varying characters allow the smash connoisseur to continually develop and fine tune his craft, always altering strategies, and working to improve on specific facts of the game, be it defense, Smash attacks, use of projectiles, or survival tactics. Execution in Smash is similar to playing a musical instrument: you can work on your straight chops (ability to execute your fundamental moves as fast as possible,) you can work on playing more complex and difficult pieces of music (more complex moves and combinations with higher risk-reward,) or you can work on rhythm and timbre, the way in which you view yourself within your surroundings as part of a fluid and dynamic movement. Within this movement, the ability to express oneself creatively is unlimited. Truly great Smash is artistic.

Of course, Smash is about Art…and hurting people. While there is no goal to a piece of music, there is a goal to Smash, win the game. Deal damage. Knock people out. The balance between artistic expression and individual or team goals blends with Smash as well as any other competition, with the possible exception of basketball. One can focus on victories or artistic expression by playing the game without victory conditions.

Like all great competitions, Smash also provides a forum to humiliate and taunt your opponent, as well as develop synergy with a teammate to make you better in tandem then you can be by yourself. The litany of characters with different moves and styles allows each individual to develop his or her own relationship with the game and its characters. Some are specialists such as myself who has formed an undying bond with Link, as I am drawn to the values of heroism he represents which I look to find in myself. Some of us are drawn to several characters looking to represent the masculine, the feminine, the strong,and the crafty parts of our personality such as Stuart K Lim, and his diverse array of characters: Fox, Peach, Jigglypuff, Donkey Kong, and the Ice Climbers. Others of us choose our characters as representations of the evil in every man’s soul, looking to express our darker side, as with Taylor Peterson and his infatuation with Marth.

Most importantly, Smash brings people together, while allowing one to relax, engage the mind, and forget the stresses and suffering that is regular life. Like my favorite pieces of music, I will be able to play Smash again and again without tiring or succumbing to boredom; at least until the version for Nintendo Revolution comes out.

Playoffs?

2006-01-09T11:08:00.000-06:00

Playoffs!

With the obligatory Jim Mora reference out of the way, let’s get down to breaking down the divisional playoff round, as well as the results of last week’s games.

Game 1: Washington at Seattle.

The Skins defense won the game against Tampa, despite an absolutely atrocious showing by Mark Brunell, who returns to the Pacific Northwest where he is a legend for leading the greatest football team of all time, the ’91 Washington Huskies. Of course Brunell split time with Billy Joe Hobert, but we will forgive him such a transgression. The toll of a long season has made Brunell less and less effective as the season has gone on, to the point where he is making some awful decisions, such as his interception to Brian Kelly thrown back across the field. While I think Clinton Portis is a stud, Brunell is going to have to pass effectively in order for Washington to have a chance. As good as the Skins D looked, Seattle has by far the best offense in the NFC.

Seattle 31 Washington 13

Game 2: New England at Denver

The Pats win against Jacksonville was not as impressive as the final score looked. New England missed some opportunities, took too long to get moving on offense, and got lucky with regards to fumbles. I was about to worry, but then I remembered that the Patriots never look that impressive in victory. Even when we were winning 20 plus games in a row, we often gave away the impression that we could have played better. In the end what matters is the final score, and that we move to another week.

The key matchup in this game is the Patriots run defense versus the Broncos run offense. We know that Denver will try and run all game. The Pats D has been stiffing the run over the last 8 games, the key to its defensive resurgence (along with forcing a few more turnovers.) I am assuming Bruschi will play this week; Monty Beisel isn’t going to cut it versus the Broncos.

Conversely, I don’t see the Pats being able to run it that much on the Broncos. Brady should be able to move the ball through the air, but needs to be on his A game from the opening snap. The Pats will give up some drives on offense, but need to be able to hold in the red zone and give up field goals, not TDs. Against the Broncos in October, we gave up several long pass plays, got way behind, but rallied and almost tied it up were it not for a key David Givens drop on the final drive (where he dropped it on the 45 and had at least 20 yards of daylight in front of him.)

This game has all the makings of a classic. My guess is that the Pats pull it out with the help of some shady officiating, as the NFL looks to set up the Colts-Pats AFC championship game everyone wants to see. I’ll take it!

New England 24 Denver 20

Game 3: Pittsburgh at Indianapolis

In the Indy Pittsburgh game from earlier this year, I thought that the Steelers D did a reasonably good job of limiting the Colts offense. Conversely, they were totally unable to run against the Colts D. Big Ben, in his first game back, did not perform up to his capabilities. For all the credit the Steelers running offense gets, mostly because everyone is in love with Jerome Bettis and his two yard runs, I think Big Ben is the key to this team, and a much better QB than people give him credit for. He is one of my favorite young players in the league.

That being said, the rest of the Steelers, especially Joey Porter and Hines Ward, are a bunch of punks. They are dirty as well, having taken out both Carson Palmer and Rodney Harrison for the year. After the win over the Bengals, Porter, Ward, and company were bragging about how they knew what it took in the playoffs to win games, while the Bengals had proven that they didn’t. I am sorry, but beating a John Kitna led team doesn’t mean shit. And where do Ward and Porter get off claiming they know how to win in the playoffs when they have been parts of teams that have consistently failed in big games, including, two AFC championship games against the Pats where they were favored. Remember those TJ?

The question for the Colts is, did the last four weeks of half-assing games give Edgerrin James a chance to recharge the batteries? Over the first ten weeks of the season, James’ ability to consistently churn out runs of 4-10 yards made Indianapolis unbeatable. But, as in previous seasons, James began to wear down as the season progressed. If he can be shut down, the Indianapolis offense is manageable, if still dangerous. If James can get yards and first downs consistently, Indy will be very hard to beat.

Indianapolis 30 Pittsburgh 21

Game 4: Carolina at Chicago

Do the Bears have mojo? If so, it will be 12 degrees on Sunday evening. I personally hope they do not have mojo, because by then I will be living in Chicago, and I hope global warming hits that weekend and gives me two straight months of 60 degree weather. This may not happen.

DeShaun Foster will not have the same success against the Bears as he did in the Giants, in fact I would be surprised if he gets more than 50 yards on the ground. This leaves the Panthers offense in the hands of Steve Smith, who will dominate, because he is unstoppable. If I was a Bears fan, I would be worried because Smith is capable of scoring 14 points by himself, meaning the Bears offense needs to put up at least that much to have a chance. A tough ask for the Bears against any D, let alone Carolina’s.

As much as I will be wanting the Bears to win this game (and I will be rooting for them I swear,) it kills me to do this

Carolina 17 Chicago 16

American Identity

2006-01-09T11:01:00.000-06:00

Recently I suggested to my fellow blogmates that we do a 3-part series on American identity- basically what being American means to us personally, to Americans in general, and to the international world.

In my view, to be American is to embrace the paradox that invades American life. It's this paradox that allows us to crown Bill and Melinda Gates as 'People of the Year' in Time magazine for being great philanthropists and entrepreneurs, yet forgetting (or perhaps blocking out) the fact that their wealth may well be causing the problems they are donating charities. I know that Dave might be tempted to say that Bill Gates and Microsoft aren't the Evil Corporation that we sometimes want to make them out to be, but in a world where 1% of the wealthiest people own about 25% of the world's wealth, you can't pretend to be a great philanthropist curing the world's ills just because you donate 1% of your wealth.

And I don't mean to single Bill Gates out here, because indeed, he is one of the 'better' wealthy people out there. But Mr. Gates is simply a microcosm of the larger paradox- that America uses about 50% of the world's resources (and uses them poorly) and doesn't 'give back' that amount- in fact we inflict damage on poor countries, indirectly (through environmental, perversion of human rights), and directly (economic sanctions, war, unfair trade practices). I think as Americans, (and I count myself in this, being an American) we have blinded ourselves to this paradox in order to live our lives without distraction. Simply by being an 'average' American, we're automatically among the wealthiest people in the world. We blame those around us for the troubles going on- the fact that there are hungry people out there, the fact that even within the US, there is homelessness, poverty, injustice- we blame the politicians, we blame the system. But we work within that system, we live within it, play by its rules and yet we condemn it.

Our paradoxical beliefs have Americans supporting a culture of life in some areas of society, like abortion, and supporting a culture of death in the death penalty.
We condemn racism and tyranny, yet we support racist policies and allow our own government to conduct torture and carry out an illegal war in the name of humanity.
We say we're for freedom and equality, but yet purport to love a society where gays are denied equal rights and the prison population is exploding with a mostly African-American populace.
We have Sierra club members who count themselves are environmentalists, yet drive SUVs, don't recycle, and don't care about what happens to the Amazon rainforests.

These are just the most obvious examples. To be American is to be mostly blinded by the fact that we live in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the history of humanity. Our consciousness- what tells us that racism, sexism, equality, and injustice are evil, are blinded by our own desires- our drive for wealth, material, fame, and power- the American dream.

Perhaps to be American is to admit deep inside us, that while we hate the ideas of nuclear warfare, conflict diamonds, and AIDS epidemics, we hate the ideas of being militarily weak, cubic zirconia, and unprofitability even more.

'Proud to be an American' is a misnomer. We're glad to be American, because we're glad to not have been born in abject poverty- to not have died at the age of 3 because of malnutrition. We're glad that we have a chance to play the game of life, and buy our houses. But are we proud? Should that even be allowed? Isn't 'Proud to be an American' akin to saying "I'm proud to have won the lottery?"

And to be American is also to forget about the dilemma that has us spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military spending. Billions more are spent by some of the same corporations lobbying our government officials. Yet we like to think we live in a republic- where everyone's vote counts equally to our elected officials. The reality of American life is that it is indeed controlled by the wealthy and the corporate.

It's that paradox that allows (forces?) us to quiver in fear about terrorism, because our homeland must remain secure. Yet we've spent billions of dollars in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that we can show our military might and so we won't mind that our government doesn't have universal health care, proper education funding. We don't mind that the government spends those billions of dollars, because the idea of foreigners killing citizens on our soil is abhorrent. But we don't care that many millions more of our citizens die for much more pressing problems.

And we say we are trying to make the world a better place, but we don't bat an eye when the President says that at least 30,000 Iraqi citizens have died. Better them than us, even though the war was supposed to be about Iraqi freedom.

And to return to my Bill Gates example, he's indeed one of the wealthy and corporate. Bill Gates is one of the people in power in the US. He gives money to charities, but he lobbies against corporate and technological taxes. And some of the charitable initiatives are designed to increase power, not distribute it (like donating computers to third world countries, which obviously run Windows, and there's nothing Microsoft would like better than to have be the technological foundation in those countries) By their nature, corporations are there simply to do whatever is necessary for them to create profit- and if that requires changing laws, international or US, to suit their needs, then they'll do that.

I don't want this to be a personal attack on Gates. I don't expect him to donate all his money to non-denominational, non-partisan social welfare charities. I don't expect myself to do that either. But that may simply be because I'm American.

We live in this system, and though there are a few people trying to change it, the most American paradox of all may be this: our capitalist society may be creating almost all the evils that we, as moral actors, are trying to erase.

Down in the Boondocks

2005-12-29T11:43:00.000-06:00

December 31, 2005 marks the end of a year that can’t end soon enough. It also marks the tenth anniversary of the last Calvin and Hobbes comic strip, which has been celebrated by the release of the beautiful leather-bound collection of all Calvin and Hobbes strips in two giant volumes. I have yet to buy these books because I lack disposable income, and because I already have every Calvin and Hobbes strip in my collection, although many of these strips are in books that have spent years on my bathroom floor.

I think that Calvin and Hobbes probably shaped my sense of humor more than any other source material. Calvin, the main character, can be gross, sarcastic, satirical, mean, and of course, a numbskull. His relationships, most importantly with Hobbes, but also with his parents, are not boxed into one type of interaction as most characters are portrayed on sitcoms, in movies, and in comic strips. Bill Waterson was able to use the comics’ daily format to mirror real life, in that you interact with people differently on different days. So some moments Calvin can be deep and philosophical and some moments he can be banging nails into his mother’s coffee table.

Since the Calvin and Hobbes ended, the Comics page in the Boston Globe has not been the same. Nothing has filled the void; to the point where ten years after the fact, the Globe has begun to run old C+H strips. I am not opposed to this at all, as there is an entire generation of ten year olds that can have their senses of humor and outlooks on life improved by this resource. But it would be nice if some new comic could come along, inspired by Waterson to carry the mantle.

The closest any strip has come to doing this is Aaron McGruder’s the Boondocks, in its early years of existence. In The Boondocks, McGruder was able to replicate the depth of relationships between the strips’ characters, although the characters in The Boondocks were very different than those in C+H. First, he split his protagonist into two different characters, the good: Huey, smart and philosophical, and the bad: Riley, troublemaker. Both are descendents of Calvin and both share his anti-authoritarianism. Second, he had a deeper stable of supporting characters: Grandpa, Caesar, Jasmin and her parents, Cindy, Huey and Riley’s teachers (one of whom is named Ms. Peterson, after one of the parents of Taylor James Peterson.)

Third, the premise, urban youths move to suburbia, allowed McGruder to examine an issue Waterston never covered in his strips: racial relations in the U.S. Sometimes McGruder’s characterizations seem a little over-the-top, particularly his characterization of Cindy, a young white girl who goes out of her way to impress Huey of his knowledge of black culture, thus coming across as totally naïve. In general though, McGruder was able to infuse the racial background of the Freeman family into the relationships of the strip in a realistic, and of course humorous, manner. Plus he made lots of hip hop references which I adored.

Following 9/11 the content of the strip changed, however. McGruder addresses this, saying that he was unable to continue the strip in its past format, even if it was a format that everyone liked. To avoid burnout, he stripped down the number of characters and changed the strips focus, from emphasizing the relationships forged between members of different races living in suburbia to emphasizing Huey’s take on current events. This had the dual effect of limiting the breadth and potential of the strip and garnering The Boondocks more attention. In the hyper-patriotic atmosphere of 9/11 The Boondocks was one of the only voices speaking out against suspect legislation like the PATRIOT Act and questioning the motives and competence of the Bush Administration. What followed was a TV deal for The Boondocks cartoon as part of Adult Swim and of course, increased fame for McGruder, who began to brand himself as one of “America’s angriest black men.”

The Boondocks TV show has grown out of the second incarnation of The Boondocks comic strip. The show looks at one issue per week, (the R Kelly trial, golddiggers,) and while the half hour TV slot allows the show to put the issue into a greater context than a comic strip, the lack of continuity and development of characters still hinders the show's potential. In choosing to label himself the angry black man, McGruder has limited his characters’ ability to grow and develop into something else. Of course there is a lot to be angry about, and Huey Freeman will always be a rebel and always be looking to give it to the man. But in its older format, Huey had the potential to give it to the man and at the same time grow and learn to live with these crazy white people around him, and to make his own mistakes based on his prejudices. As all people do.

I hope on this tenth anniversary of the ending of Calvin and Hobbes, McGruder can go back and read into Calvin’s nature, his complexity, and attempt to apply this same complexity to his characters. Nothing will ever replace Calvin and Hobbes. But there is much we can still learn from it even ten years later.

The War of Christmas

2005-12-27T15:33:00.000-06:00

I'm sure this is sort of old news by now, but over the past month (and the past few Christmases) an argument being made by the ultra-conservative right is that the liberal media is polluting Christmas by making it available to the masses, by depriving it of its Christian roots and even totally secularizing it by calling it "the holiday season".

I don't know if this stems from some deep-seated Christian need to feel persecuted, but as Jon Stewart said- "you guys have pretty much been in charge for the last 2,000 years." No, this doesn't really have anything to do with Christianity. Actually, I think it's nothing more than a pretty clever ploy by the conservatives to get liberals back on the defensive.

Not that it's evil. I'm not saying 'oh great, those damn CONSERVATIVES are at it again'. I'm just pointing out that I think this is more a strategic ploy than a real issue that the leadership of conservatives care about. In fact I wish the democrats were better strategists of this kind.

And of course, this could be all totally false, like all my posts, but I came up with this theory when I was reading some article accusing Wal-Mart of trying to cater to the small minority (I think the article said less than 10% of America didn't celebrate Christmas) while offending the majority of America- that they cared more about non-christians than Christians! Gasp!

Now, Wal-Mart, like any good corporation, probably spent a lot of man-hours on their entire holiday strategy. What exactly to say, how exactly to say it, what imagery to put in their ads, their decision to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" were all probably rehashed a thousand times each year, every year. And even they didn't see this coming (and it's probably a safe bet that like the Waltons, a lot of the execs are actually Republicans themselves). And they are, ostensibly, doing the right thing in not just caving into the majority and saying "screw those Hannukah-celebrating bastards!" So where is this strange backlash coming from? How is it that "Happy Holidays"carries even a little bit of controversy?

I 'celebrated' Christmas two days ago in a pretty secular, Americanized way. We had a tree, we had presents. I even said Merry Christmas. And, as you may or may not know if you've ever read this blog, I'm an atheist. I didn't go around saying Happy Holidays, even though I might be considered in the prime demographic for someone in the War Against Christmas. So when this story started breaking in fine news outlets such as the O'Reilly Factor, I actually thought "Well, it is an American holiday, and I doubt anyone, myself included, would be offended if they changed to Merry Christmas."

And I probably still wouldn't. But the point here is that somehow, they've gotten the backlash worked up enough to the point that they are actually convincing people that being politically correct- trying not to offend, trying to do basically the "Right Thing", is somehow offensive. That not only should places like Wal-Mart be catering to Christians, they should have no qualms about brushing aside all non-Christians. And on Wikipedia, I actually had to edit out of the article a section where some enterprising young citizen had added a small section of a few companies (including Wal-Mart) that say "Happy Holidays" instead of Christmas. Why was this relevant at all, I wonder? Why were they singling out these few companies when the vast majority of the large national companies say "Happy Holidays" at this time of year? I think it's simply to give attention to the nation's largest retailer- to get easily swayed Christians to boycott Wal-Mart (or at least start a letter-writing campaign)- and get Wal-Mart to change their ways. That way, other retailers will start to follow.

And what is really the point of all this? Well, first, it's subtle. It gets the attention off other bigger things going on in the political world, but at the same time it's something that everyone can have an opinion on. And it doesn't get confused with the war in Iraq, so the story is something that gets carried as a sort of 'on the lighter side of things' in most news outlets. Secondly, like I'm trying to point out- it gets people thinking in an us vs. them attitude. "I'm a Christian, and so is most of the US, so we should be a Christian nation!" Screw the minority, this should simply be a matter of tyranny of the majority. And once you have enough people thinking that way, some get to thinking that anything Christian is the only way forward.

So what can the liberals do? We can't simply try and get everyone back to saying 'Happy Holidays'- that would play right into their trap that we are indeed trying to destroy Christmas. And by ignoring the 'issue' (which is mostly what has been happening) you simply mitigate its effects. I don't think there is anything else that can be done- which is why it is good strategy.

What happens if God is a giant chicken?

2005-12-19T09:04:00.000-06:00

Eternal consequences, that's what! And what would those be? Well, obviously, god is going to create a deadly bird flu to wipe us all out and repopulate the world in his image. Then we'll all be reincarnated as Big Bird clones and we'll all live together in a wonderful puppet world where everyone is fuzzy and corporate sponsorships are brought to you by the number 4.

Uh, something like that, yeah. But let's cut to the chase. There's been a LOT of hype about bird flu lately, and while some of it has been accurate, some of it has been dead wrong as well. In fact, I think that talking about it, in and of itself, is both accurate and inaccurate in some way. What the hell am I trying to say, you ask? Well let me explain.

The current flu strain that they are talking about- H5N1, is a virus that exists mainly in birds. It has been shown to jump to humans in a few instances, and in those instances, the mortality rate has been about 50%. That's a nice big number, and while not as high as say, rabies, or Ebola, there IS reason to fear this more than those other numbers. Why? Because flu is known to spread quickly among human populations, being transmissible through the air (unlike rabies) and having a longer incubation period than Ebola (allowing more time to spread through unknowing carriers).

So there's some bad news and some truth to that. But the problem is, that 50% number is basically meaningless for a few reasons. First, it's only 50% of the people with suspected cases of this flu- there may well be hundreds or thousands of poultry workers who have contracted a mild version of H5N1, chalked it up to the regular flu, and never having it documented by the health officials. Secondly, in an actual epidemic, a virus can't sustain a mortality rate of 50%. It would be a bad phenotypical trait for a virus to kill 50% of its hosts. It's one reason why Ebola doesn't reach epidemic numbers, and it's the reason why in any real flu epidemic, the mortality rate is much, much lower, like around 2.5% for the 1918 flu epidemic. The thing is, some people think of these viruses as a sentient being- like they're TRYING to kill us (which would probably only be true if god indeed is a giant chicken) and that if they had it their way, the mortality rate would be 100%. Think of it, instead, as more of a mathematical problem- the viruses are simply multiplying as best they can, and the best way to multiply is usually keeping your host alive longer to make more viruses. In fact, the ideal scenario for a virus would probably be to become incredibly transmissible, cause the host to make a bajillion copies of itself, and yet not cause any symptoms or immune response. In fact, this is more akin to what HIV does (and sort of why it's so ridiculously hard to kill/cure)

Still, 2.5% is nothing to brag about. That's still a significant portion of the population, and we probably don't want that to happen. But the problem is, what can we really do about it? Mainly, the asian countries most at risk have been resorting to mass killings of birds when there is a suspected case of the flu in one of them. Is this really helpful? Well, in a small way, yes, it does prevent transmission of that one actual population of virus. But it's not going to work forever, and it seems to me to be a move of desperation more than anything else. Because it's not a solution- it's a stopgap. Are we really going to kill every bird if we suspect it might be harboring a virus? Because every living thing on the planet is a potential virus factory. Some better than others, but the fact still remains that livestock themselves are risk factors and that some degree of disease is reality in a world where we still live with them.

Anyway, there's no guarantee that the next big pandemic is going to come from H5N1. It could come from a SARS-alike, or perhaps an HIV variant. Or maybe just a different strain of flu. Admittedly, it's the biggest threat on the horizon. Which is why you'll see lots of research doctors and policy wonks quoting off things like "this is the biggest threat we'll see in our lifetimes" and "we should be focusing on this rather than terrorism". Ok, maybe this last one is true. But really, the problem is that we can't predict mutations, and we can't predict what the virus' pathology would be like if/when it becomes transmissible from human to human. Is there a real chance of it happening? Yes, but I'd say the odds are still against it. Is there reason to be afraid? Almost certainly not.

So basically, in closing, what I want to say is- this is mostly hype by the media trying to spread fear into our hearts. That being said, we very likely will face some sort of pandemic in our lifetimes, and there probably won't be anything we could have done to stop it (maybe if we killed off every single bird on the planet?) And we're all going to die. But there's no reason to be afraid!

Healthcare in America

2005-12-09T10:11:00.000-06:00

The other day, I was privileged enough to sit in on a conference given by the National Health Policy Forum. I was only allowed to sit in because my father was one of the three presenters. The topic, or topics, was how different healthcare groups were changing their models of delivering care for the 21^st century. The crucial upgrades in healthcare in this country are driven by the technology revolution; computerization of medical records for example, is requiring massive upgrades and changes in how hospitals and clinicians go about their business. Overall, such upgrades are cost efficient and insure better quality of care by providing an electronic level of quality control to remove doctor error. For example, one of the speakers (not my Dad,) gave an example of how computerized medical banks saved him from prescribing the wrong kind of medication to two of his patients. The other crucial revolution is changing healthcare to be more “user-friendly,” through providing patients with more online resources, and improving the quality of the healthcare consumer experience.

Yet as I watched the audience of legislative aides and policy wonks listen to the various speeches, I was overwhelmed by several recognitions. The first is how annoying some people are. I am talking about the guy with the metro haircut and high-priced glasses who read the paper during my Dad’s presentations, then asked one snotty prepared questions to make it seem like he knew what he was talking about. I guess it’s reassuring to know these people still exist. The second was how broken and fundamentally wrong our healthcare system is. Let me explain.

Our healthcare system is a compromise between private enterprise and a government handout system that makes absolutely no sense and works to screw over people exactly like myself. As a private enterprise, healthcare is flawed because the same providers are responsible for providing care for people with very different needs. You have the majority of the population who requires a yearly checkup, immunizations, and very little care or cost to a company. You have a very small population with chronic diseases, or at the end of life or beginning of life, that represents the majority of cost for insurers and healthcare providers.

Of course, we are REQUIRED through Medicare and Medicaid, to subsidize the healthcare of the two most costly populations, the old and the young. But since we still have predominantly for profit healthcare in this country, and healthcare providers are restricted in the amount of money they can earn off these populations that take up more of their costs, the system is set up so that the burden of cost is shifted to the healthy.

Which is ok I guess if you have a job with benefits. If you are like me, however, someone who can’t get a job with benefits, then you are shit out of luck with regards to health insurance. Of course the healthcare providers don’t want to change the system because that would drive away their main source of revenue. The political hacks at the conference only care how new policies affect Medicare and Medicaid because those are the policies they are directly involved with (and probably because of the voting power of old people.)

What we need is to go down one of two paths. The first is to guarantee some sort of universal healthcare coverage in this country. The second is for some healthcare provider to offer cheap health coverage to only healthy young adults. I am talking dirt cheap, minimal coverage. But that’s what this country needs. Because right now, my tax dollars are going to fund the coverage of other people, while I can’t afford any. And that’s not fair.

Video Game Review: Civilization 4

2005-12-09T09:26:00.000-06:00

So, I'm probably like the millionth person to review this game, but I have been playing it a lot (in fact all of us have), and I think it's only fair to give it the full treatment. Here's a one-line review: it's great.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's go over the short list of positives. Why is it short, if it's such a great game? Well, really, there's nothing that new in this game. If you've played Civilization 1, 2, or 3, it's pretty much the same thing. Sure, there are a few tweaks here and there, but by and large, it's still the same turn-based game of world domination. Of course, the earlier Civs are considered some of the greatest games of all time, so it's good that they didn't change it too much. But basically, for a complex version of a game of risk, there's nothing that even really falls into Civ 4's genre.

And that's what this really has turned into with the advent of multiplayer in Civ 4. Sure, multiplayer had been available in add-ons for the earlier civs, but it never worked quite right, because turns took an ungodly amount of time and you were always stuck waiting for other people. They've eliminated this in Civ 4 with the concept of simultaneous turns. This presents its own problem- when two people are attacking, who gets to go first? Basically, the person who can click on their guy fastest. Not a huge deal- but I feel like it could actually make a difference. You know the old adage: a few battles can change a war. But multiplayer is what makes this game shine. Playing singleplayer is great, but it's just not the same as actually making Derek your bitch with a battalion of knights sieging his puny Mongolian cities.

By really, this is mostly just an update of Civ 3. Not one of those "let's just slap new graphics" on it update. Actually, the designers actually rebuilt the entire game from scratch, which allowed them to reexamine what was actually fun and good about their game and what wasn't. The result is that Civ 4 is probably the cleanest game yet, with the least frustration of all the games, and probably the best feeling of control of your mini-empire.

But still, there are a lot of little nitpicks. The game runs pretty slowly for what it is. The graphics aren't that spectacular, and at the end of the game on a large map, things can get really slow. Unacceptably slow, even. And there are just a lot of little things that probably would have been changed if they hadn't rushed it out the door. But then, everyone would have been deprived of Civ for a few more weeks or months and the world would be an unhappier place.

Anyway, the way the Civ cycle has always been for me, is that every few years, they release a new version, I get addicted, play until I can't remember my friends' names, and then quit when I get sick of it. Because Civ is the only game out there like it, they could probably re-release the same game every year and I would buy it and get re-addicted. But thankfully, they haven't rested on their loads and loads of cash, and actually improved the game.

In any case, it seems that 2005 was a down year for games- Nothing spectacular was released, and so I'm actually going to have to declare Civ 4 the game of the year. Hopefully 2006, with the Xbox 360, PS3, and the Nintendo Revolution(Smash Brothers Revolution, anyone?) being released, will be a banner year.