[Sports] Three Years Later Victory Tastes Just as Sweet

It is no secret that Red Sox Nation is a passionate fan base. In world championship victory, our passion has turned to sentimentality. After breaking an 86-year-old curse, and achieving victory once again this week, ruminating on the meaning of victory and of being a fan, especially to this team, becomes its own pastime.

I wish I had a moment of inspiration with Sunday's victory (for now, my inspiration has been held captive by other projects), but instead I found a beautiful and touching piece on the meaning of the victory from BIll Simmons on ESPN's Page 2. For this one, I'll let Simmons take the lead. For my part, the following post is something I wrote after the 2004 victory (keep in mind it was less than a week before the 2004 presidential election).


Hope: The Meaning of Victory

The other day I heard someone responding to a statement about athletes thanking God for their achievements by saying, “Why would God go out of his way for your team to win, but do nothing to stop the Holocaust?” Unsure why at first, since I do not consider myself a very religious man, I took issue with this. But then, I thought, what if God cannot prevent us from doing wrong? What if God cannot stop men from performing evil deeds? Man makes the world he lives in, not God. It is within the culture human beings create that the worst evils have been performed, not in the world that God created. In the world that we live, God – the belief in some higher power or some great force beyond ourselves – acts most importantly as a beacon of hope. Hope in whatever world it is we dream of. Hope – that is the prayer that follows us wherever we go so long as we never give in to the terrible things that continue to manifest themselves around us. Perhaps God’s duty is not to restore good to the world, but to keep hope alive, to touch the human soul so that it never gives in. If so, where else would his influence turn but to sports?

The human desire to engage in playful competition may be one of the oldest cultural phenomena: from ancient Greece to the 2004 Boston Red Sox. Games present no malice to a righteous planet. They are a means to enjoying our world and engaging with our fellow human beings, a necessary part to our dream of peace – that is pure, just like our belief in a higher power. Sports – in America baseball – in the purest sense, magnify every emotion that makes us human. In victory, it has us hugging strangers, and, in defeat, we sulk as one in our collective sorrows; it gives us joy and grief, bliss and anger with the fickleness of every pitch thrown. What other spectacle plays so heavily into the disposition of our lives than that of baseball? In America, nothing.

In every game, there is an element that is beyond human control. Whether it is the moisture in the air or the arrangement of the cards, an unknown variable exists in every play. Every good player has their superstitions – some faith in that unknown variable, whether it be God or a little spit in your batting gloves. God cannot stop genocide, or rig elections or prevent terrorists from attacking, but maybe he can create the right gust of wind to send a ball into the foul pole, or manipulate the behavior of particles under the perfect slider, or provide a wet warning track in St. Louis to turn Orlando Cabrera’s Game 3 fly ball into a two run double. And, by doing so, God can touch every one of the millions of people who love the game.

For many of us, the world seems like a scarier place than ever before. Violence and war escalate everyday while greed and self-interest act as virtues to those with power. There may be, for many of us, a sense of hopelessness. But the Boston Red Sox, over the past eleven days, erased that feeling with a record eight consecutive post season wins and the reversal of an 86-year-old old curse. They have restored the hope of defeating Evil Empires and defying terrible odds, all with goofy haircuts, a “cowboy up” attitude and the determination to never give up, even when they were one strike away from elimination.

Like Joe Louis knocking out Max Schmeling in Munich, and like the 1980 U.S. hockey team beating the Russians, maybe God did have an investment in the outcome; maybe he was sending us a sign with a “miracle” victory over the rival Yankees and perhaps the greatest display of team spirit and resilience in the game's history. Then there were those the other signs: trying to eighty-six the 86-year-old curse they came too close to breaking in 1986 (and I hate numerology), and the last out of the series, which came by a ground ball from Edgar Renteria, the Cardinals #3 (the same number as Babe Ruth…okay, that’s kind of cool), and of course I have to mention the current resident of Babe Ruth’s former Boston home, who was struck by a foul ball off the bat of Manny Ramirez (the World Series MVP) earlier this season, giving him a bloody and broken face (okay, that’s really cool).

Yes, it’s been a great year for Boston. And no matter what the outcome on November 2nd, October baseball has hailed in a new era of hope and change that begins from within ourselves, a new time to be human: to play for the game not the record, for the team not yourself, to be a band of “idiots” with an unquenchable desire to win, not dominate, but to play your best when it counts the most.

So, whatever the political state of the world is a year from now, and however miserable we feel because of it, we will turn our hopes once again to the baseball diamond to remind us that our dreams can come true. It’s why Woodrow Wilson and FDR made sure Major League Baseball continued during the violence of two world wars and why I know I’ll be watching next year. Red Sox Nation has finally seen the light of tomorrow and all it took was 86 years of yesterday’s hopes to get them there.

As Tom Hanks, a California native, standing on the green monster during Game 2 said, “I’m an American. There’s nothing wrong with the city of St. Louis. They are a lovely people. They have lovely colors on their baseball uniforms. But come on! I want Billy Buckner to have a good night’s sleep for crying out loud!” Because even Bill Buckner deserves the chance to dream. This was gigantic!

read more......

[Art] Radiohead Redefines the Industry

It is not a revelation that things in the music industry have changed. Even despite all the resistance from the record industry, it is a whether-you-like-it-or-not shift in the way we listen to, buy and distribute music. And it is, for now, an obvious shift, meaning that the various channels of access are all visible. So seemingly it is only a matter of adopting to the new channels for the industry to shift ptoperly...But there is one band out there that is not only challenging this notion, but is simultaneously challenging the entire economics of the arts itself. It is Radiohead.

Radiohead has already released its next record ("In Rainbows"), but you can't find it at Virgin Megastore, at the Apple iTunes store, and certainly not in the Billboard 100. This is not because Radiohead lacks a strong fan base. In fact, for the release of "Kid A," the band's fourth album which came after a four year hiatus from touring and recording, the band did not make a music video and did not release a radio single, and still the album went No. 1 in its first week of sales. Quite the opposite is the case: it is, in part, Radiohead's extremely devout fan base that has allowed them be so unconventional in their latest release...the other part is their sheer will to challenge every notion we have about pop music and our access to it.

To get Radiohead's "In Rainbows" could not be any simpler. Go to the band's (not the record company's) website and download the entire album for whatever price you think is necessary...for as little as $0.00 (the album will be released in hard editions later this year too). It is exceedingly obvious that this is a novel approach, but what isn't so obvious is the implication set forth by such a DIY-style of purchasing and distribution.

Following the obvious, Radiohead took advantage of the most blatant shift in the industry -- that with the internet I don't need a record company and a teamster to distibrute my music...I don't even need the iTunes music store. This is an industry killer even for those adopting to the new forms and channels by which we can access music. This is power to the artist and the consumer.

It is not shocking that the industry recoils in horror to this idea, but that artists have is. So many musicians want to resist these paradigm shifts, but why? Or maybe more importantly, why not Radiohead? It is to Radiohead's great advantage that they enjoy not only a large and loyal following, but also constant critical acclaim. But shouldn't this only entice them to maximize profits more? One would assume that, like other popular artists, anyone who stands to make windfall profits off their music would resist cheap and easy access to it...I mean, such is the nature of capitalism. However, such is not the nature of pop music, which for fifty years has, if nothing else, been a constant symbol of rebellion, from Bill Haley and the Comets to Ani DiFranco.

Which is why it is in disbelief that I recall an interview in which Lou Reed professed to be against downloading music. Lou Reed, the definitive iconclast of the 1970s counterculture, supports the status quo? And does so at a time when counterculture finds its greatest ever empowerment? There is only one reason for this: money. And what is sacrificed by that money? Art.

Lou Reed once said of music, "People should die for it." That is quite sensational, especially for a musician still living, but having said that, what is worth dying for that is not worth losing money for? Why should the industry thrive at the expense of keeping artists honest? The fact is, it simply won't. Not if Radiohead has anything to say about it.

Their may not be windfall profits in Radiohead's business model, but, in this green day-and-age, there is money (and most importantly artistic integrity). According to reports I've heard, the average price offered for a download of Radiohead's "In Rainbows" is $8. That is astounding, so much so that it defies every claim artists and labels make about their suffering in the age of digital music. It just proves one thing: people will pay for good honest artistry.

What can be wrong with this? Nothing. In fact, what Radiohead is doing is raising the bar for every artist (not just musicia) out there. If you love your art, you will give it away, and if it is good people will say let me invest in this. When you buy something, art or otherwise, it is an investment, not just an investment of money (especially as most such purchases do not provide any profit upon resale), but an investment of time, emotion, health etc. And the future, this says, will not allow a Britney Spears to sell 100,000 copies of her album, because it is a wasted investment. All lovers of art would tell you in a heartbeat that you cannot really put a price on the pleasure and comfort of the perfect song or a beautiful painting. And Radiohead has done just that: not put a price on it.

If making money is anywhere on your list of priorities, then you are not an artist. And if you are not willing to pay for it, you are not an art lover. The future, as Radiohead models it, is void of both types. That is raising the bar. That is saying, if you do not want to give away your music, then don't make it, and if you aren't willing to craft every song with the utmost dilligence and put every ounce of creativity you have behind it, no one will pay a dime for it. And Radiohead is taking that idea beyond the studio into the business room, being so creative with their method of distribution that people, at this stage, may simply be willing to pay in support of their method. That's the green revlution of music (and someday all art).

read more......

[Society] Remebering 9/11: Day of Victimization

Today was the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., and, I may be speaking alone here, but I, for one, am a bit disgraced by the way in which in we commemorate this day each year. It will be nearly impossible to broach this subject without committing what some offended person will consider blasphemy, but I feel very strongly that this country marks this day in a very unfortunate manner.

When Septmebr 11th comes around each year a few choice phrases are tossed about with litte regard to their meaning, phrases such as "Remember that day," and "Let us never forget." And, of course, it goes without saying that we should not forget, but why? Is it because we are likely to forget if we do not mark the day with endless coverage of the reading of the vicitm's names? Of course not. To suggest that one might forget such a day is absurd, to say the least.

Another comment I heard recently (I can't remember where) seemed similarly absurd as one person lamented, "Will September 11 soon be just another day on the calender?" Seemingly, a valid question. But is June 21st just another day? (FYI: June 21, 1788 is when New Hampshire ratified the U.S. Consitution, arguably the most important document in modern history, creating what is argubly the most important government in modern history, our government). In fact, June 21st is the same as any other day, and yet, in history, it is arguably far more important than the day we do commemorate on our nation's founding, July 4. The point is, the events of September 11th, and our commemoration of them, are much bigger than the day and month they occurred on. Thus, the above question is actually giving more credence to the date itself than to what happened on that date.

For me, not a day goes by that I do not think about 9/11. It does not need to be September 11th on the calender for me to contemplate deeply and emotionally on the events of that day. Thus, when that day occurs on the calender why does such sad contemplation deserve a monopoly of my thought?

But I digress, because it is certainly important that we remember 9/11, the date and the event, but to what extent? When the above person asks, "Will September 11 be just another day," shouldn't they be asking, "Why, if this day is so important to remember, do I go to work just as I would on any other day? Why do we carry on with the same routines we had on September 11, 2000 when we should be mkaing something substantial out of this day?" My friend made the very good point that if the day is so important in our history, particularly if we subscribe to the thinking that "9/11 changed everything," why is it a day in which the victims are remembered and families mourn while everyone else goes to work as they would on any other day, simultaneously reminded of the one day when nothing seemed more trivial than our morning commute?

The fact of course is that 9/11 has changed nothing, and unfortunetly, by simply tossing around phrases such as "Never forget," while carrying on with life as usual codifies the fact that 9/11 did not change a thing. It did not change our attitudes or our priorities, and every year, on this day, I am reminded of that fact as much as I am reminded of the tragedy.

So, if you believe it is a day worth commemorating, then it is time that we commemorate it with some sort of national holiday. Now, be sure that I am not suggesting that 9/11 should be remembered with hedonistic celebration, but in our current state the day represents nothing more than a commemoration of our victimization. In fact, so much do we mark this day as one of victimization that we are easily begged, through every medium, to be saddened. We mark a tragedy only by reminding ourselves of why we cried. There is certainly nothing wrong with mourning, but to make victimization our identity on a day in which we, the most powerful nation in the world, were attacked smacks of self-indulgence.

The question is, do we want 9/11 to have changed everything? Because if we do, if we think that 9/11 was a day that shed light on just how superficial and insiginificant the lives we lead can be, then we should make it a day in which we do anything but that which makes life insignificant and superficial. It shoud be a day spent with our families or reaching out to a fellow man in need. It should be "empowerment" day, not "victimization" day. The latter, the way in which we currently mark the occasion, I am sorry to say, seems little more than the most powerful nation in the world indulging seeking pity. It is as if we mark this day, not to say "remember what happened," but rather to say "remember that we are victims too," which we are decidedly not (which is not to say there are not victims still suffering from 9/11 related atrocities).

By making September 11th nothing more than a day of mourning every year, what we do, in effect, is give those that attacked us the satisfaction of knowing that they have caused irreparable pain. But we have an opportunity to turn that around, to turn tragedy into triumph and make 9/11 a day in which we do not turn our tears inward, but use our grief as fuel for a better tomorrow. It doesn't mean we can't remember and mourn, but it is the difference between tears of defeat and the tears of victory. Personally, I prefer the latter.

read more......

Celebrity Gossip: Pulling Back the Curtain

It's happening. The Rudy Word has sunken to the depths of celebrity gossip. But in this blog it will be to debunk some recent sensationalism, and in future cases, if any, it will be to lampoon celebrities for their misdeeds (such as suggesting that Lindsay Lohan have every orafice on her body sewn shut to prevent her from ingesting drugs). In this blog I will be addressing the absolute hogwash printed in yesterday's Daily News about Paul McCartney.

The article would like you to believe that Paul McCartney spent the better part of the last two shows at the East Hampton Social (James Taylor, and this past weekend, Tom Petty) trying to mack on Christie Brinkley and Renee Zellweger, respectively. Unfortunetly, completely unsubstantiated and intentionally presumptuous rumors pass for news in the business of celebrity gossip. Anyone who was actually there, as I was (had the benefit of working the event where he was spotted) knows how fabricated it all is.

The article acts as though the close-talking between Brinkley and McCartney, and Zellweger and McCartney was a sign of intimacy. There's oinly one problem with that theiry: they were at a freaking rock concert. Everyone was close talking because it was loud, duh!

The tabloids say the two were flirting with McCartney. That's a no brainer. Who wouldn't flirt with him? He's Paul fucking McCartney! I would flirt with him!

The fact is, McCartney was by far the most gracious celebrity guest at the event. He asked for a very minimal security detail and basically invited the guests to come up and speak with him. He was in the crowd talking with everyone, treating everyone else like the celebrities.

I saw him just as he was leaving. The concert had ended and I was walking through the sofa-seating section. Paul turned toward the stairs just as I saw him. We locked eyes. I think I gave him a nod and a smile (but I couldn't even remember my own name), and then he walked down the stairs and toward the exit. He passed a group of people talking, turned toward them and did a Chuck Berry-style air guitar (leaving them giddy and dumbfounded) and then exited through the tunnel, BY HIMSELF! And I also know that he drove off, in his Rolls, BY HIMSELF.

So much for the fabricated rumors. That is the actual extent to which, even Paul McCartney's, celebrity life is fascinating. It's not. Never believe anything you read on the celebrity gossip pages, unless it is this one.

read more......

[Economics] Why the Credit Industry is Ruining Our Economy

Economics during the Bush-Cheney administration seems to have revolved around a singular phrase, "Debts don't matter." This seems to be the thinking within the administration, and it certainly helps to explain why markets have experienced a volatile roller coaster of ups and downs in recent weeks. The concept has made it easy to point to certain things and say, "Look how great the economy is doing," while real people are suffering financial hardships. This because the credit/debt industry can easily make it look like money is moving down the trough without actually creating usable wealth.

The most visible lending industry, the credit card industry, is based on two hypocritical ideas: 1. Customers that pay their bills on time are less valuable than customers who cannot pay back their debts, as those who pay on time do not rack up interest; and 2. Never having needed to borrow money puts you in worse standing than having borrowed money and not beeen able to repay the debt in full. In other words, no credit rating is worse than a bad credit rating.

This hypocrisy is what has led to a series of deceptive practices, which are finally coming under scrutiny from the government (of course only as economy seems to be on the brink of a recession). The New York State Consumer Protection Board has asked New York State consumers to submit their stories about credit card deception in an effort to mount a case against the credit card companies (For New York residents visit this site). As part of this effort, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has forced a $4.5 million settlement with First Premier Bank over deceptive practices. The New York Times covers.

But First Premier customers aren't the only ones. In fact, only six months after receiving a Capital One credit card, I have seen some of these deceptive practices first hand. Two months ago, after the first billing period in which I charged over $300, my bill was ten days late in reaching my house. When I called to find out why it had not arrived on schedule, Capital One told me that they were refiguring the billing cycle, and that many customers were experiencing the same delay. What this reconfiguration entails specifically is that for that month the billing period was extended four extra days (from originally ending on Monday the 15th to instead ending Friday the 19th). In addition to this change, the bills, I was told, were no longer processed and mailed within two days of the end of the billing period, but were instead being mailed ten days after the end of the billing period, all of this without change to the due date on the charges. Thereby, my overall payment period (the time from which I receive the bill to the time which it is due) went, within a matter of two months, from a full four weeks to pay, down to two weeks to pay, an obvious effort to squeeze a late payment out of me.

In the meantime, another deception was occuring. On my first bill for the extended period, I was charged a $30 overlimit fee for having exceeded my $500 spending limit (and I will just forget the fact that it is Capital One's limit, which they allowed me to exceed as a "courtesy" to me they say). I paid the fee and simply cursed them silently in my head. However, on my latest bill, I was charged another overlimit fee despite the fact that I charged nowhere close to $500 during that time. When I called to ask why, I was told that though I had not charged more during that billing period, I had made those charges before paying the previous bill, which exceeded $500. Unfortunetly for Capital One, I am not an idiot. Looking carefully at my bill, the two charges that forced the overlimit fee in the new month were made on the 18th and 19th, two dates which both occurred within the previous billing period, and yet, which suddenly appeared on the next statement side-by-side with a new, and erroneous, overlimit fee. Thanks to my very loud and argumentative voice, the overlimit fee was dropped, as a "one-time courtesy" (read another's concern with Capital One, and the response, in the New York Post's Dear John column from last week).

What is interesting about such deceptive practices is not simply that they are widespread, but that they are actually the foundation of the entire credit industry, mainly because the industry is based on the aforementioned hypocrisies. Let's face it, generally speaking, lending money is not a very good business to be in if your customers are smart and pay in full and on time with little or no interest. Yet the deceptive practices and poor lending standards are what has led us to our current economic volatility, where lending is being extremely tightened as a result of these hypocritical and irresponsible practices. The New York Post covered last week's stock market plummets with this angle.

By now, just about everyone is familiar with subprime mortgages, as this has been widely pointed to as causing the economic downturn, specifically in the housing market. The subprime market is a eupemism for people with poor or risky credit ratings. The philosophy of lending to people with poor credit is fairly simple: Those with poor credit are subject to higher interest rates, so even if they cannot pay you on time, or in full, their debt to you will increase with no extra cost to you; and as long as they cannot pay you, you, for all intents and purposes, own them; their money is automatically your money....until they claim bankruptcy.

Interestingly enough, one of things that has kept the subprime crash at bay, was a recent change in the bankruptcy law, which essentialy favored lenders over the debtors. This help to keep people from claiming bankruptcy. And yet, the foundation of the law exists, essentially, within the frame of mind that corporations are more worth protecting than consumers. The only problem with this is that, at the end of the day, all economies need consumers much much more than they need corporations, or even lenders, so such a policy can only delay an economic downturn.

The idea that loaning money is necessarily advantageous to the economy, regardless of the debtor, is a very antiquated notion. John Perkins, in his book, Confessions of Economic Hit Man, traces state-lending practices and corporate manipulation in third-world investment, and demonstrates fairly well how, ultimately the lowest consumer and laborer is as, if not more, valuable in creating a stable and fruitful economy (though I must note that not everything in the book should be taken at face value despite providing a good picture of how manipulative practices inform the lending industry).

The problem with subprime lending (as with the type demonstrated in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) is what happens when the debtor cannot pay you back. While it may seem that, if you can cover the debt, it is more valuable to own someone financially than to receive the money they owe you, it is in fact a globally and economically irresponsible policy. Now we are paying the price for such lending. As part of the stock market stumble last week, a major French bank, BNP Paribas, suspended three of its securities fund as a direct result of problems in the U.S. subprime mortgage market (Read AP coverage on AMNewYork's site for more information on how our housing market is effecting global finances). Under a global economy, when lenders continue their fundamentally irresponsible practices, international markets suffer, not simply because lenders themselves ecome delinquent (American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., for example, has just filed for bankruptcy), but also because the lowest level consumers pull their spending from the market too. In other words, the panic and delinquency occurs in corporate banks at the top and poor consumers at the bottom in independent fashions that slowly, but surely, close in on the middle class here, and branch out into markets around the world. What seemed like a two-way street between corporate lenders and subprime borrowers, has actually proved itself to be a rotary encompassing consumers of all levels and markets all over the world.

And such practices also only further damage the United States global standing, particularly as U.S. leaders in the Bush Administration look to our national debt with an apathetic eye toward our lenders (ie China). Daniel Gross makes a good point in Newsweek's Contrary Indicator column from this week, "Chagrined lenders have been gripped by the sudden realization that debt can, and does, go bad...Credit, the fuel that powers the economy, is becoming more scarce and expensive."

What we should see from these developments is that making risky loans as a means of artificially boosting the economy, creates an economy that is only as strong as those taking the loans. Similarly, borrowing, with no concern for our national debt, makes this country as delinquent as the subprime market, and could easily (though probably not quickly) lead to a lending squeeze on our national government.

So why am I still being targted with deceptive practices by Capital One when such practices are not only coming under state and fedral scrutiny, but are also, in part, directly responsible for an upcoming recession? The reason is that such companies only know to cling to past practices (higher interest rates and increased fees) in times of crisis. Instead, we should be demanding a return to responsible credit: credit that can boost entrepreneurship and provide folks at the bottom the means for establishing true wealth, and one of the best ways to send this message is take our national debt very seriously and to demand an end to deceptive and irresponsible practices in the industry that target the very consumers making the world economy go round.

read more......

[Politics] Obama: The Foreign Policy Whipping Boy

When it comes to the discussion of foreign policy in the campaign for president, it seems that Barack Obama cannot get a break. In fact, he has become the whipping boy of both Democrats and Republicans because of the things he has said. Ironically, his has been the most decisive stance on foreign policy matters, that is, the least nuanced and unclear position in the race. Last week, Obama said that he would be willing to meet unconditionally with leaders of Iran and Syria, for which he was lambasted as weak and naive, and this week, he has said that he would be willing to use U.S. forces to hit Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf would not take action. For this he was also attacked by many. The Washington Post has coverage.

Again, the irony of it is that these are the most decisive foreign policy statements I have heard so far in the debate. Other candidates discussing foreign policy matters, including Iraq (for which Obama is one of the few to present a plan to leave), candidates have generally been making statements that begin with phrases like , "We have to be careful..." and "What we don't want..." At a time when President Bush is criticized for everything but his decisiveness, you would think Obama's certitude would be considered an asset. Certainly, if a Republican, like Rudy Giuliani, had made such statements about Pakistan, he would have been heralded as decidedly tough on terrorism.

[And let's just first be clear that anyone pretending that our military is simply standing on the Afghan border to Pakistan with a pair of binoculars, and have never once crossed that border for an operation, are naive. So, any criticism of Obama's plan is completely premature to a full disclosure of what our military has already been engaging in (and rightfully so) with regard to Pakistan. Of course, this does lend itself to making Joe Biden's criticism, that "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," more apt (though it is certainly understandable that Obama wants to be clear that he has an actionable stance on dealing with terrorism at a time when he is being attacked for being weak).]

What is also ironic is that people who voted to invade Iraq in a much more belligerent (and overly extensive) manner, now say Obama is over-stepping. While it is true that Pakistan is an ally, it is not a stabilizing force in the region, versus Saddam Hussein, who, for all of his immoral qualities, seemed to make the Middle East more stable than it has been since his ouster. In other words, the value of an ally can be measured not only by how they help us, but also in what kind of stability they bring to regions, particularly ones of our interest. So, if Pakistan is harboring Osama bin Laden, even if it is not by their government's own wishes, what gives them a greater right to sovereignty than Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter?

The fact is, not all allies are created equal. Pakistan and Britain are both allies of the U.S., but we should never mistake our relationship with Britain for our relationship with Pakistan simply because we use the same word to describe them. Calling Pakistan an ally is a bit like calling your travel agent a friend out of convenience. It is a strategic, not an idealogical, alliance. As such, we should treat it strategically.

Pervez Musharaf is not making attacks on Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters a top priority because it is causing a major rift in his country. Pakistan is currently experiencing instability because of Musharaf's alliance with the U.S., which many Pakistani Muslim fundamentalists are extrmely upset about. Thus, for him to crack down on al-Qaeda in his country could cause it even more instability. Meanwhile, not to oust those enemies in Pakistan could mean greater instability in the U.S. People (and not the other Democratic front runners, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards who seem to agree with the idea) have criticized Obama's plan as provoking a nuclear naton, and also an ally. But what if Pakistan became overrun by al-Qaeda and Taliban loyalists precisey because their forces were not disrupted? Wouldn't that make it even more likely that such forces could achieve the worst case scenario and acquire a nuclear weapon?

Thus, getting rid of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan should be a top priority. But how can we do this without causing major upheaval?

Firstly, we should not be going after fighters inside Pakistani borders at the expense of Pakistan's relative stability. And, actually, one of the best ways to do that, may be to give our alliance with them the appearance of strife. If the U.S. were to (seemingly) act unilaterally with operations inside the Pakistani border, that could give Musharraf a reason to express deep anger with the U.S. while allowing us to root out major al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. Afterward, we could pay retribution to Pakistan (by giving them tanks or planes, or making some other concession) and seemingly do so under pressure from Musharraf so that he could save face in his own country.

Obviously, it could never be as simple as I have suggested, but the point remains that we must be strong and decisive and we shouldn't let the word "ally" dictate whether or not we make a pro-active effort to capture Osama bin Laden and stop al-Qaeda from gaining power (which they are successfully doing according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate).

Politics is perception, and now, maybe more than ever, we need ot play to the perception as much as to the reality. Thus, our best bet may not to have Pakistan as an out-and-out ally, as this is damaging to Musharraf's ability to control his country, but to have an alliance that has the appearance of some animosity.

read more......

Man-Animal War: Orangutans Playing Charades

BBC News is reporting that researchwer at St. Andrews University have discovered an advanced form of communication used by orangutans that resembles a game of charades. It is a skill which the researchers say all great apes may have and which may have developed millions of years ago. Read about it here.

Why should you be worried? Because "call and response" and a system of communication and intelligence gathering based on feedback is the foundation of a strategic military assault. Believe me, the great apes are only a few had gestures away from making war. I'll demonstrate:

Hand gesture:
"Stirring?"
Shake of the head.
"Fishing?"
Shake of the head.
"Movie?"
Nod yes.

Open palm:
"Five words?"
Nod yes.

Two fingers:
"Second word?"
Nod yes.

Circular hand gesture:
"Whole?"
Shake of the head.
"Circle?"
Shake of the head.
"Sphere?"
Getting warmer.
"Planet?"
Nod yes.

Open palm:
"Fifth word?"
Nod yes.

Finger to chest:
"Me?"
Shake of the head.
"You?"
Shake of the head.

Gesture to everyone:
"Us?"
Getting warmer.
"Apes?"
Nod yes.

"Blank Planet Blank Blank Apes"
"The Planet of the Apes!"

And ever so simply the war begins. Charlton heston showed us the aftermath. This is how it begins. You have been warned.

read more......

[Politics] Rocking the Vote YouTube Style

From what I can tell, most of the major media outlets (other than CNN...I wonder why?), have treated the most recent Democratic debate, in which questions were submitted via video-sharing site YouTube, as if it were no different than the last. Certainly it was not as revolutionary as the pundits at CNN, co-sponsor of the debate, might have you believe, but if you watched the debate closely there were many facets that, through the traditional style, would have been much different. Watch the entire debate through CNN's website.

The most obvious difference is that, rather than questions being asked by a moderator working from cue cards, the questions were asked by real Americans with true concerns related to the problem. This puts a much needed face on the issue, not simply for the candidates, but for the audience as well. Too many people in the country believe that nothing really changes whether we elect a Democrat or Republican; this person or that, it is all politics as usual. The YouTube format helped speak to the way in which policies from the top effect people at the bottom (even if politics as usual persists). In other words, the issues were vacated of nearly all the abstractions of the traditional style that are so stodgy and that instill in the populace a sense that things don't really change with elections.

The format also pulled the curtain off what are often overlooked questions and perspectives with video submissions that put those ideas, challenges and inquiries directly to the candidates. There was not enough of this done this time around, but the display of it can certainly encourage more participation, especially from people across party lines. In that regard, the debate served as an important reminder that if you are elected president, you serve the people that did not vote for you as much as those who did. To me, the most memorable of these pointed questions, directed at Hillary Clinton, was "How would electing you and allowing the same two families to rule this country for the past 20 years instill the type of change you say we so desperately need?" Other great questions of the sort included one on nuclear energy and another on standardized balloting.

In some respects, the above had very little effect on the candidates in their responses (Hillary definitely did not field the above question very well). Much of the time, the candidates resorted to the same scripted responses they used in other debates, but, in some case, this scripted response suddenly took on an impassioned tone. "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" made light of a good example in which Chris Dodd responded to a question on gay marriage with virtually the same language as previously. Yet in this debate his words took on a more personally invested tone. To me, that is an affect the problem itself being removed from abstraction. That was certainly the case when one of the submission came from two people working in a Darfur refugee camp.

While it may be that many candidates were simply pressed for a more personal response, and therefore strategically gave one, it is also the case that a certain level of passion cannot be faked. So, it does make the argument that the more candidates are confronted with an issue, the more likely they are to feel strongly about it. Thus, the YouTube debate serves more than simply to give the candidates a chance to rehearese their responses; it actually forces them to elevate their political and emotional investment.

Finally, what made the debate so groundbreaking was Anderson Cooper (and not simply because he is CNN's resident hipster). Cooper actually held the candidates accountable for answering the question they were asked. There was, firstly, the aspect of the debate in which any candidate could, at anytime, be blindsided by the fact that the video questioner might also be in the audience with a follow-up to the candidate's response. But, beyond that, Cooper did something I never see moderators do: he blatantly pointed out when candidates were not answering the question and were instead resorting to their rehearsed rhetoric. That is important, if for no other reason to remind us all when a candidate is trying to give us the old debate slip. One of the reasons Americans have become soured by politics is the very real belief that you cannot get a straight answer from a politician. A presidential debate moderator should not just be responsible for asking questions, but also should hold the candidates accountable to answerin the specificities of those questions, to force them away from their rhetoric.

If the YouTube debate was truly revolutionary, I cannot say, but what seems clear is that if it was revolutionary, it was so because of its ability to bring the American public back into the political discourse, and not because it altered the course of election politics. Eventually, such a format could have a profound effect on election politics, but that change will come because it inspires the American public to become more involved and not because it inspires change in candidates specifically.

read more......

Man-Animal War: Fox Attacks Salisbury Steak Eaters

Add foxes to the growing ranks of the animal army in the apocalyptic battle between man and animals. Last Thursday in Salisbury, Maryland a wild fox invaded Chef Fred's Chesapeake Steakhouse, Bar & Grill and went on a rampage clamping his teeth on the hand of one manager and sending patrons diving for cover. Read about here.

It appears that this was little more than a reconaissance mission aimed at infiltrating our fine-dining establishments. Cute bushy tails aside, these little beast are extremely dangerous...and they do invade cities too. Just a forewarning.

read more......

Irony Is A Bitch: Christian Festivities and the Amusement Park Business

Just over a week ago at a Christian Festival called Lifest in OshKosh, Wisconsin, a girl fell to her death from a freefall swing ride dubbed "Air Glory." (Read the OshKosh Northwestern report) It is certainly a tragic death, but it does beg the question, what place does a freefall swing ride have at a Christian festival? The answer is that such a ride only serves to tempt an ironic fate. It is a curious challenge to the very faith the festival is meant to celebrate.

Let's just consider the name of the ride, "Air Glory." The term "Glory" seems to indicate a certain divination that can be achieved from the ride, a ride in which two people are attached by harnesses to a string 100 feet in the air and then dropped into a freefall. If only God can provide true glory, then how is such a ride anything but a tempt of fate.

The fact is amusement rides have no religious value, and marketing them as if they do is basically an affront to God because the secular life (of which amusement park rides are certainly a part) cannot, according to doctrine, provide glory or salvation.

Does that make Lifest, or simply the ride, an affront to God? I don't know, but if God has a plan for us all and does not take people in vain, we must then certainly consider the message of such a death in such a place. Suspending activities at Lifest only to resume music and activities only two-and-half-hours later does not seem like a valid consideration of those thoughts.

In any case, irony is a bitch that should not be tempted.

read more......

[Politics] Robert Kaplan on Faith and War

This will only be a brief entry today as my main purpose in riting this blog is to get people to pick up a copy of this month's The American Interest, or, at least, to get them to read Robert Kaplan's article "On Forgetting the Obvious." In it, Kaplan, using his literary, historical and philosophical expertise in a profoundly synthetic manner, describes how faith, in both a religious and non-religious sense, informs our ability to effectively fight wars. In short, Kaplan proves the importance of faith in fighting, though his deliberation on the topic is far more interesting than the concept, and he concludes that the most important facet to future armies is not size, nor technological advancement, but rather the military-civilian relationship.

Below I have posted a series of questions, prompts really, to keep us thinking about what Kaplan says:

- To what extent do in-between wars create in-between faiths?

- What is the grey area between the warrior society and the humanitarian society in the 21st century? To what extent must our humanitarian goals be part of our warrior mentality (and vice versa)?

- How has our increased emphasis on the value of the private sector (and the de-emphasis on publicly-funded works) affected not just the number and class of people in the military, but the faith-driven warrior society as well? How does military privitization effect the mentality of the faithful warrior?

- To what extent has war technology (drones, smart bombs etc.) blunted our faith (or our perceived need for it)?

Please feel free to post thoughts, responses and comments. I'd love to hear what everyone has to say about Kaplan's ideas.

[Also, in further support of The American Interest, General David Petraus, the Commander of Multi-National Forces in Iraq, wrote a very good article on the need to support military leadership, military officers specifically, through civilian graduate programs.]

read more......

[Politics] Technological Advancements in the Increasingly Moralistic Abyss

Discussing the morality of warfare is modern notion relegated to the last 100 years inasmuch as it has become a global policy to become familiar with the rules of warfare. And yet for every reason that we have found ourselves in the moral dilemnas of war because of technology, our rules and thoughts do not reflect the very dilemna of the technology itself.

With the introduction of the aerial bomb in World War I and more prominently in World War II, the question of how you kill your enemy in warfare became the difference between pride, honor and morality. Just yesterday, we entered ourselves into the next round of technological advances that have never, yet should always, give us pause about how we engage our enemies. AOL ran an Associated Press article detailing the latest air squandron headed for Iraq: a jet fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and reach 50,000 feet; outfitted with infrared, laser and radar targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles; controlled by a pilot at a video console in Nevada, 7,000 miles away. It is a robot.

I doubt, personally, that this latest advance will receive the kind of moralistic attention it deserves. Firstly, because this technology is not a giant leap from the spy drones and ballistic missiles we have used for some time. But we will also not rethink the moral dilemnas of war technology because we all still take pride in our military advances no matter what our views about certain wars are.

The reason we must ask ourselves whether this is a moralistic way to engage the enemy is not so much because of the technology itself, but because of where it is ultimately leading us: robotic forces on the ground engaging a human enemy on the other side. Is this an advancement we are willing to make?

In my opinion, such a step is the penultimate tragedy of our obsession with technology. It is, to me, the most morally degrading act conceivable to the art, honor and necessity of warfare. The fact is, we must see where our technology is taking us in the future, not just what it offers us in the present. We must question the value of technology as it leads us more and more towards complacency about the nature of our own existence.

That is part of what makes the day and age we live in so crucial. We are at the cusp of a time when technology can serve us to make a better world, or where we can serve our own obsession and plunge into a world where technology devoids any human engagement with the tragedy of our own making. If we do not see every advance made (not simply in the military realm, but everywhere) as an opportunity to question the value of life and the action the technology replaces, then we are bound to take the plunge into what has been, until now, dystopian science fiction.

[As an added afterthought (and self-promotion), check this interview I did with JBOT, from the band Captured! By Robots, for The Wave Magazine in 2004. JBOT, who built an ensemble of robots to play with, doesn't just question the morals we violate unto ourselves, but unto the technology we create as well]

read more......

[Politics] Understanding The White House's Middle East Strategy

In the June 2007 issue of The Atlantic, David Samuels takes an behind-the-scenes look at the strategy and ideaology behind Condoleeza Rice's State Department and how it informs the Bush administrations course in dealing with the Middle East. The article, "Grand Illusions," is not available online (except for this excerpt) without a subscription, but it is a very insightful and fascinating read.

For one thing, it is even handed and draws on many analysts and peers to comment on how effective they believe Condi and Bush's ideas can be. It makes very clear, that, at this point, Rice, more than anyone else in the administration, represents Bush's ideology most faithfully. It also gives the reader a good sense of how the administration views the cohesiveness of its Middle East strategy while using such disparate methods for different problems in the region.

I think one of the more fascinating insights is about Rice's passionate optimism that democracy can and will transform the region. There is no doubt that part of that optimism stems from a religious sensibility, from the idea that progress is inevitable, but it is also her passion for the transformative power of democracy that remind us about the leaps and bounds it has made in the past. She sums that up best when she aks, "Not that long ago–say, 1946– would anybody have said that France and Germany would never go to war again? Anyone?"

It is ironic because the duality between our most idealistic desires and those most fearful outcomes often seem to amount to what many see as this administration's bungling of its Middle East strategy. Rice was one of those that adamantly insisted that democratic elections be held in Palestine, much against the wishes of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas among many others. To her, it was "the right thing," and yet it resulted in the election of Hamas to majority of the Palestinian Parliament.

In dealing with Iran, the strategy has been quite different, as more covert tactics, such as providing logistical support to liberal Iranian factions, have been employed as means of routing out the extremist leadership. And this method stands in stark contrast to Iraq where a full military invasion was used in an effort to foster democracy.

In my opinion (and I think in the view of the article as well) the administration has been blinded by its optimism. In a way, it is profoundly American for such optimism to guide us. And it is traditionally a very liberal belief that democratic rights should be provided at all costs. In that sense, liberals should feel a bit uneasy about their view of the administration's Middle East policy because that policy is rooted in the idea that liberal democracy is righteous.

So we are caught between a rock and a hard place. The idealogues that have mismanaged this war in a way represent the exact same things George Washington did: a universal ideology of liberal democracy that does not recognize the subjectivity of ethnic experience. We are caught between believing in the righteousness of liberalism and democracy, and recognizing the unique perspective and experience that informs the Middle East conscience and prevent it from being influenced by such righteous politics.

Rice believes what we'd all like to believe, and really what Western thought from 1789 to 1989 have taught us. But in the 21st century, one of the most imperative revelations we must have is that democracy, self-determination and the will of the people are three very different things, far beyond their semantics. Without that realization we are left in an endless strategy of political improvisation.

read more......

Man-Animal War: Mice Strike in China

An army of 2 billion mice have invaded central China after the June 23rd flooding on the Yangtze River raised water levels of the Dongting Lake so much that the rodents were forced to evacuate their mouse holes along the lake's islands in search of food and shelter among central China's unsuspecting population. Read about it at TheState.com.

Yes, mice are slightly cuter than rats, but no less dangerous. And at 2 billion strong they can certainly ravage a good portion of the land, as to, if nothing else, make the humans unprepared for further attacks.

So far, residents have killed 2.3 million field mice, and yet that only represents one percent of the invading army. The mice are devastating crop fields are an even damaging much needed dikes that prevent further flooding. Damn those conniving mice!

To further hypothesize on their abilities, look in my "Shared Feeds" for a story about how sex makes mice brains grow. With an 2 billion-strong invasion, it would certainly seem that the mice are having a lot of sex...and getting smarter with each coitus.

read more......

Obvious Study Report: Alcoholics Don't Seek Treatment

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has released a survey that astonishingly reports that the majority of people suffering from alcoholism (about 75%) do not seek out treatment, and in cases when they do, it is usually at least 8-10 years following the onset of the addiction/affliction. Newsday.com has the report.

Firstly, of course alcoholics don't seek out treatment, that's what addiction is. If you seek out treatment, then you just really aren't committed to your addiction. To be a true addict you have to stick to the juice for awhile, otherwise, how would you ever know you are an alcoholic in the first place? These revelations take time; time and many embarassing, and often belligerent, misdeeds. There is a fine line between a moron whose had a few too many and an alcoholic, just ask any college student.

Secondly, alcoholics seek treatment everyday. Just ask one, and I'm sure they will tell you all about their regular visits to Dr. Hennessy and Nurse Smirnoff.

But in all seriousness, this survey leaves me with one (alcohol) burning question: What the hell are you going to do about it? Conduct a study? You didn't really think your survey was going to reveal that alcoholics have a good track record of giving up the bottle did you?

read more......

Obvious Study Report: Dirty Bomb Would Cause Panic, Cost Millions, Eh?

A new federal Canadian study examining the effects of a dirty bomb explosion near the CN Tower in Toronto finds that such a terrorist attack would result in mass civilian panic and an economic toll of up to $23.5 billion. A summary of the report, the final version of which is expected to be released next March, was made available this past June and can be read at TheStar.com.

A dirty bomb would have a devastatin' effect? You don't say, eh?

Maybe it is ignorant of me to assume the above is obvious, or, at least, superfluous, but wouldn't a report like this be more valuable if it layed out a. how to prevent such an attack, and/or b. what measures to take if such an attack occurred?

Let's just take a look at some of the quotes from TheStar.com's story:

Tom Cousins, who represented the Defense Research Agency on the study project, said about the spread of radioactive contamination, "There's no getting away from the fact that you will have areas of land that will have to be cleaned up." Duh! Glad we got that straightened out. So, how do we clean up?

"There are currently no Canadian standards for cleanup after a radiological or nuclear terrorist event," said the report. Oh, well, that's reassuring. Instead of coming up with standards, you've simply told us why we need cleanup standards. I guess it is time to draft another study then.

read more......

[Politics] Hizzoner for Prez?

I want to conduct a poll. This week New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg announced that he has left the Republican party and has registered himself as an independent in a move that many see as a precursor to a bid for the presidency. I would like to find out if people outside of New York a. know who Bloomberg is, and b. would consider voting for a successful business man turned New York City mayor. My sense of things right now is that, despite all the media speculation, Bloomberg does not have the recognition or support outside of his city to make a true bid for the presidency.

One thing he does have is money. So, believe me when I say if he only needed recognition, he could get it in a matter of weeks. But he is going to have to more than get recognized; he needs to convince Americans that a third party candidate can get as much accomplished, if not more, than his GOP and Democrat counterparts. One thing that the fawning pundits do have correct is that if there is a time in history more ripe for a challenge to the two-party system, it is now, and if there is one qualified man to bridge that gap it is Michael Bloomberg. Nevertheless, those two facts do not make the hill any easier to climb. This week's issue of Newsweek has some good coverage on the issue.

Personally, I see a few good things that could come out of a Bloomberg run. For one thing, Bloomberg has, in his tenure at City Hall, has proven himself a consistent moderate willing to work beyond party allegiances. In that sense, his ideas and initiatives serve only to address the city's problems and not to fire up his base or pander to special interests or the media. He is a self made billionaire which means two good things for his political career: 1. he is not beholden to campaign donors on policy, and 2. he has already proven his ability to run a successful office.

What I like about the possibility of a Bloomberg campaign is that he could, and would, address issues in a way that the other candidates will not. He thinks big, but not without the businessman's acumen for real world ability. And he is certainly not afraid to push seemingly unpopular ideas when he thinks it is the right thing to do. In fact Americans are very mch craving the type of independently-minded politics he exemplifies.

George Will, in his Newsweek column from the most recent issue, suggests that Bloomberg's chances at a presidential bid are practically non-existent for lack of three things that have, in the past, given third party candidates some semblance of success: a vivid personality, a regional base and a burning issue. I concede that Bloomberg is lacking these qualities. However, a vivid personality, if the past is any idication, to me, simply means that the candidate is essentially a caricature: not a quality you want in a president even if in a campaign it gives you recognition. And seemingly Bloomberg's regional base is small, but with billions of dollars in hand, that base could grow rather quickly.

Finally, yes, Bloomberg does not have that burning issue to make a name for himself, but, as far as I can tell, the country will not allow the debate to be hijacked by a single issue in 2008. It is actually the Democrats that are doing a good job of making sure that this election is about several important issues. So for Bloomberg, a single burning issue to address would only make him look like a weak candidate. Will asks "He is said to represent 'post partisanship,' but if so - if he is not a partisan of any large cause - why is he needed?" This question, as far as I can tell, simply asks why Bloomberg is not willing to sacrifice himself for a single (controversial) cause. And in asking that question, Will shows his ignorance as to what a "post-partisan" third-party candidate is; it is someone that is everything past third-party contenders were not: He is not a novelty; he is not sexy, invigorating or nostalgic. He is like the partisan contenders, except that he is not beholden to the rhetoric of party lines. He shows an ability to tacklebig ideas through undramatic solutions and bipartisan consensus. In other words, he is boring; compromise always is, but after eight years of partisan bickering, America is looking for a boring compromise.

(As an end note, everyone should read Jonathan Alter's Newsweek column on why Bloomberg would make an ideal VP. For all the problems of him as president, I only see great things with him as second in command.)

read more......

Television Review: Why the Sopranos Ending Was Brilliant (Once You Think About It)

Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'" blasts through the diner. A shady-looking man walks into the bathroom by the booth where Tony, Carmella and AJ sit. Meadow walks through the door with jingle bells sounding behind her. Tony looks up. Cut to black silence.

That's how quickly the greatest television show closed its curtains, and left the audience hanging. If you didn't feel a bit robbed when that black screen first appeared, then you weren't that big of a fan in the first place. But if you consider yourself a Sopranos loyalist, it shouldn't have taken but a few moments to be wallowing in the brilliance of its simplicity. Allow me to explain.

Firstly, if you thought there could be a series finale to "The Sopranos" that wouldn't disappoint, then you must fancy yourself someone that is too easily pleased. There was simply no way to tie up so many loose ends and leave the audience satisfied. In fact, most of all of these final nine episodes were about tying up loose ends, and yet so many seemed remaining as we entered the final hour. Going into Sunday night's episode the only intelligent thing to expect was disappointment.

So the producers left it up to the audience, which many feel was a cop out. And that is an understandable feeling: that the producers had no brilliant ideas and so just cut to black without answering our most pressing question: does Tony live or die? The fact is though, they didn't leave it open-ended because they didn't have an ending, they did it because we, the viewers, already have our perfect ending. I mean, after six seasons, do we really not know what Tony's death in that restaurant would've looked like? Do they really need to show it to us? And if they cut to black seconds after a bullet pierced Tony's skull, would you feel any less cheated? I highly doubt it.

The Sopranos is a great TV show, not simply because of the characters or the world it portrays, but because it is the essence of everything that can be great about art. It is gut wrenching and it is beautiful all at the same time and in whatever direction it goes, it takes the viewer with it. The show is brilliant because as we watch, as we journey along with this family, we sense, like they sense, every contradiction of the human experience: to love, to kill, to be loved and to be killed as if none were too far off from the other. And like art imitating life, these are the greatest emotional contradictions of experiencing art. The show is profoundest when the audience, like Tony himself, feels love and hate for the same thing at the same time. And often that thing is the show itself, because we project on the Sopranos everything that we think great television can be, much in the same way Tony projects onto both of his families everything they once were in society.

The finale was about two things, tying up loose ends and leaving the viewer with every gutteral reaction they have felt over the years. Loose ends were tied as well as they could be: the truce between New Jersey and New York, Junior's downward senilic spiral, a gimpse of AJ and Meadow's future and a sense of where "this thing of ours" will go and on whom it will fall. It even reincarnated Christopher in the form of an alley cat just to provide a bit more closure on his demise. As for the feeling it left us with? It returned that in spades.

You sit there, your eyes can't glimpse away from the screen except to the digital clock on your cable box to know exactly how much time is left for it to conclude. Anticipation boils. You are sure Tony will meet a bullet at any second and every jingle from the restaurant bells is just a preamble to the anticipatory gunshot. Your heartrate is jacked. Every insignificant sound and movement is a small piece to that which you've wanted so perfectly for so long: something sinister and beautiful all at the same time. Cut. It's over.

Do feel it? Were you in Tony's shoes? Is your heart thumping like a jack hammer? Is there a feeling more quinessential to the show than the one you were left with? Have you ever experienced a greater physical and emotional response to a piece of fiction on television?

read more......

[Politics] The Cold War Revival

Though the post-9/11 world may seem nothing like the Cold War of forty years ago, it does not seem as though Russia got the message. And as we delve further into the Iraq war and concerns of terrorism, it seems that the media is not really considering the big picture in terms of Russia's recent moves, many of which are quite troubling. In short, over the past year or so, Russia has allegedly involved itself in a reinvested arms race, rigged elections, attacks on a former Soviet republic's communications infrastructure, violations of the civil rights of its own citizens, the poisoning of candidates and diplomats, and with a militant and nationalist youth movement.

Since I cannot be sure what this all amounts to, I will simply provide you with a few articles about recent developments and investigations. One thing I can say for sure though is that Russia does not seem to be happy about having been relegated to something between a superpower and a developing nation.

"Putin's Shock Forces:" This article from last week's edition of Newsweek details the rise of the Nashi, a militant youth movement glorifying an imperialist Russia. It has received a great deal of been comparison to the Hitler Youth of the 1930s.

"Russia Tests Long-Range Missile:" From the BBC Tuesday, this article follows the development and launch of a new missile intended to evade and penetrate missile defense
systems. Russia has complained that the U.S. development of a missile defense shield for Eastern Europe threatens its security.

"Russia Hired BotNets...:" Here is a recent article from VNUnet with further claims of Russia's involvement in the attacks on Estonia's internet services and websites. Such attacks on the telecommunications infrastructure is considered a primary tool in the future of warfare as a means of impeding the flow of information. BBC's original May 17 story, "Estonia Hit by 'Moscow Cyber War,'" is here.

"Russia Says Britain Politicizing...:" This article, from Reuters, follows up on Britain's investigation of a former KGB officer, and Kremlin critic, who was poisoned late last year with much speculation about Russia's involvement. Russia is refusing to extradite Britain's prime suspect in the case and has accused the country of politicizing the death.

read more......

Man-Animal War: Wild Pandas Kill Human-Trained Infiltrator

Xiang Xiang, the first Panda raised in captivity and released into the wild died in February, apparently the result of an attack from other pandas over territory or food, according to Chinese media reports just released this week (BBC's story here). Sure, it may seem like some misunderstanding over territory, but let's face it, the wild pandas do not trust outsiders, especially ones trained by humans. And why should they with a war going on that jeopordizes their very existence.

Clearly, China's use of "Panda Diplomacy" does not sit well with the wild pandas, and certainly an outside panda joining their territory would be quickly suspect of spying activities. Afterall, you cannot, after years of poaching, suddenly trust the human population to provide a friendly ambassador. To them it is nothing more than a poacher in panda's clothing.

Furthermore, the fact that it was a male panda does not seem like too smart a move on China's part. One of the scientist involved said, "We chose Xiang Xiang because we thought that a strong male panda would have a better chance of surviving in the harsh natural environment." That may seem logical, but, in the animal world, alpha males are highly suspect in new social settings, especially when trying to infiltrate their legion. In my opinion, a hot female panda would find open arms much better...that's how it is at the club anyway.

read more......

[Sports] What To Do About Bonds

What does a record mean to the game? That should be the question Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig asks himself as he prepares for Barry Bonds likely breaking of the career home run record. Unfortunately, it seems that Selig is instead asking himself, “What does Barry Bonds mean to the game?” While the latter is the question on all of our minds as we look back on what will undoubtedly be known as the “Steroid Era” of baseball, it is not the time for the baseball commissioner to be asking that question, especially since he presided over the game during the time that steroid abuse fueled the season home-run races we all now question.

One wonders if Selig’s apprehension to decide where he will be for Bond’s imminent breaking of Henry Aaron’s record is not a result of his own inability to address the steroid problem when it first became apparent that a problem existed. I wouldn’t be the first one to question whether or not Selig turned a blind eye to steroid abuse in the hopes of bringing the American public back to the game following the backlash from the 1994 player’s strike. Certainly, the recent reports about “juiced balls,” that is baseballs with a larger rubber core, used during Mark McGwire’s record-setting 1998 season, have fueled much more malicious conspiracy theories than simply the aforementioned complicity (Read ESPN’s report on that here…very interesting stuff).

But, right now, the question is not about a conspiracy, it is only about how the league will respond to Bonds breaking Aaron’s record. And it seems as though Selig is seriously considering abstaining from any recognition of Bonds accomplishment, as if some verdict in allegations of Bonds use of steroids will be returned and a decision on what to do with record-setting abusers will take place. I assure you Bud, when Bond’s breaks the record the entire era of baseball in question will still be shrouded in mystery.

For my part, I have admittedly made a big reversal in my position, mostly as a result of the inevitably of the record being broken, but also because of some deep reflection on the issue.

The way I see it, the more Selig resists answering how the league will respond, to Bonds, the greater the spotlight becomes on Bonds himself and not the record, or most importantly, the game. It would be nice to believe that the record books of America’s greatest pastime are unblemished by suspect achievements, but, with or without performance-enhancing drugs, that is simply not true (lest I remind you of the “Dead Ball” era of the game). So, if anything, the breaking of the record should simply be another reason why the game is so much larger than the record books.

True, there have been moments when a certain player becomes bigger than the game itself, and deservedly so. Such moments include Lou Gehrig’s final game, Jackie Robinson’s first game, Roger Maris breaking of the season home run record and Dave Roberts steal of second base in the Game 4 of the 2004 ALCS (okay, so that’s a personal one), but one thing that each of these moments eventually became a testament to is the greatness of the game and the love we have for it. With Bonds, the exact opposite will be true. If Bond’s becomes bigger than the game, especially if it is because the league does not wish to recognize his achievement, then he will do so because of the negativity he represents.

So instead of dwelling on the possible tarnishing of the record books, let Bonds break the record with our lukewarm acknowledgement and let’s move on. Let his record be a testament to the fact that records are just candlelight flickers in the supernova that is the game. Assuming Bonds breaks the record, his steroid use will not be an asterisk on that record. Instead the annals of baseball will write the record as an asterisk to the steroid era of baseball. And the conclusion of that era, if we wish to preserve the sanctity of the game, will be a crop of players selfless enough to abandon their desire for immortality in record books and who will instead be rewarded with immortality in our hearts. I, for one, already see such a game emerging from the shadows.

read more......

[Politics] The Urban Gun Debate

It's been a long time since we had a serious discussion about guns in this country, and following the shootings at Virginia Tech you would think the issue would get raised again. It hasn't. Many have said that the Democrats have turned their heads on the unpopular issue. What's worse is that I don't know that if the Democrats were speaking up on it they would be approaching the issue properly. It's not that I think guns should be banned. I know, people kill people, not guns, but people with guns kill more people than those without. So we still need to be willing to keep guns out of the hands of the people using them to kill.

Rep. Tom Tiahrt (R-Kansas) is sponsoring a House amendment to ban the sharing of gun trace data between federal agents and municipal police departments. The biggest opponent of the amedment is a coalition of more than 200 mayors form around the country led by New York's own Michael Bloomberg. Read Time's article about it.

This is what I like about Bloomberg. He understands the power and importance of city politics in relation to the dominant national scene. Gun violence is one of the most concerning issues for all cities, as is shown by the overwhelming number of mayors behind Bloomberg's confrontation of the national leaders. And yet, while gun violence is a concern for such a large portion of the nation's population (though albeit, one that does not take up a large amount of space) it is not a concern for our sprawling rural areas in the same way, and naturally, these are the places where many of the guns used to commit crimes in cities come from.

This disconnect between gun sales and gun use in rural states and cities is a significant crisis for the nation because it means that if we want to keep the second amendment we need to learn how to have a debate that is fair to responsible gun owners and cities looking to prevent and prosecute gun violence. This is possible. It just takes a little creative thinking, and an essential part of that creative thinking is the sharing of information between the federal government and the local governments.

If we have learned nothing since September 11th, it should be that a flow of data, intelligence and information between federal and local authorites can prevent crime and create a smarter law enforement atmosphere. It is not a matter of whether or not the information violates the privacy of gun owners or gun dealers. The informaton is already there. It is only a matter of whether or not it is shared.

Recently, Bloomberg sued several out-of-state gun dealers for illegally selling guns used which wound up being used in crimes in New York. The NYPD conducted an undercover sting operation to catch these dealers. Critics have said that Bloomberg is out of his jurisdiction enforcing a federal law through a civil suit, but what Bloomberg is really doing is taking action on behalf of urban politics.

If Democrats are having too much trouble nuancing a position on gun control to mention it, then it is about time for those affected by illegal gun sales and gun violence to do something about it.

read more......

Man-Animal War: Are Bees on a Kamikaze Mission?

Before I brief the readers on the latest development in animal attacks on humans, I should make one realization perfectly clear: humans need animals more than animals need us. Simply put, humans are at the top of the food chain, whereas most animals are a little further down the trough. The weakness of being at the top of the food chain is that eliminating humans has no effect on those lower in the chain, whereas eliminations at the center or the bottom create a chain reaction toward the top. I think the bees know this.

Einstein probably didn't say that "if bees were eliminated from the planet, humans would follow only four years later," but there is still some truth in it. Scientists estimate that over a full quarter of the human diet comes from plants pollinated by bees; apples and almonds would not be possible without these little pests. Even cows, which we depend on for Big Macs and Whoppers, depend on the bees to pollinate their alphalpha cud. And, in case you are wondering, there is no way man-made technology could match the efficiency and work ethic of these colonies (our fragility in the food chain begins to take shape). So it is not alarmist when scientists begin worrying about the drastic disappearance of honeybees, because our food supply truly is dependent upon their survival (read this article from Yahoo! News).

So, as long as scientists are at a loss for why honeybees are disappearing, consider this theory: they are on a kamikaze mission to cut off the food supply to us humans. Don't believe me? Then let me remind you, the kamikaze mission is written into the bee's DNA. Remember that stinger that kills them when they use it? That's because they see the big picture.

And now bees have demonstrated another form of attack: swarming hospitals and cutting off our emergency services. On Monday, 7,000 bees swarmed a hospital in Little Rock, AK forcing the hospital to shut down its ER while it cleared them out. Read The State's summary.

This is a sneaky tactic., one may we be completely defenseless against. So, beware of killing bees. That may be exactly what they want.

read more......

[Society] Virginia Tech Students Get It, So Why Doesn't the Media?

Yesterday, an ABC News article describing how the Virginia Tech Students, in the aftermath of the worse mass shooting in our nation's history, have begun to forgive Seung-Hui Cho, the lone gunman in the incident, completey floored me in a way that made me proud to be part of this generation.

Among a semicircle of stone memorials for each of the victims in the shootings on the Virginia Tech campus stands sits a stone for Cho, a stone which was removed earlier this week only to be replaced by another student much to the approval of classmates. Many "experts" and "officials" have added their opinion as to why the students have displayed such an early sign of forgiveness. One suggested that the strong Christian base of the area preaches forgiveness and the students heard that call. And if for certain individuals that can be said to be the cause, then more power to them. But, in my opinion, what these students are demonstrating is a generational understanding of such a tragedy that the older crowd running the media have no ability to comprehend.

In a generation that has grown up with a regularity of school shootings, people are finally beginning to understand that as abhorrent as Cho's actions were, as much as none of the victims deserved to die, it is not just the system that failed those victims (as so many in the media have suggested), it is us that failed Cho.

The day after the shooting MSNBC's Chris Matthews interviewed one of Cho's suitmates. Watching the interview, I was personally apalled by the way Matthews treated the the student. It seemed to me that Matthews' entire objective in that interview was to paint Cho as a demon, (and likewise, most of the rest of the media had the same goal). But the suitemate did not take his bait. At every turn, while Matthews only seemed interested in this kid telling him how obvious it was that Cho was a brutally disturbed young man, Cho's suitemate only demonstrated how they all saw him as human. The fact that he was quiet simply meant at the time that he was shy or that maybe he did not know English too well. The fact that he did not seem to have a lot of friends could've simply meant that his friends were on a different part of campus. In other words, instead of pretending to be the genius in hindsight, the young man who was bold enough to appear on Matthews' show wanted to emphasize how much of a human he and his roomates saw in Cho.

Abc News wrote about one student's feelings:

Caroline Merrey, 22, jumped to safety out a classroom window in the building where Cho killed 30 people and himself. She said she was angry at Cho, but also feels sorry for him. "I don't know how I can be feeling both of those things at the same time, but I do," she said.

Merrey's reaction, for today's youth, is perfectly sound. In the time between Columbine and Virginia Tech, we have learned to feel sorry for the shooters. To Bill O'Reilly, and most of the rest of the media, I'm sure this is probably a horrific sentiment, but the difference between the generation growing up today and the blathering pundits in the media is that we are not interested in painting these shooters as demons. Their anger is just too real for us to shrug off as some unsuspecting infilitration from the devil beyond. Bewteen Columbine and Virginia Tech, this generation has learned that society brings about these demons, and as such we are often reaping what we sow.

When they started releasing reports about Cho's experiences in America, one anecdote struck me so chillingly I nearly cried. It was reported that during one of his high school classes a very quiet and unspoken Cho was called upon for a response. When he opened his mouth with broken English the class laughed at him and said, "Go back to China."

What this generation realizes, in the day-and-age of school shootings, is that a man like Cho was not a demon that was walking among us. He was a human being. And, one fact about human beings is that we are all capable of what Cho did. As I like to say, we all have the devil and Jesus Christ within us. We are all capable of the greatest good and the worst evil. I think that only "the Columbine generation" realizes this. Only we understand that comments like "Go back to China" serve to foster that demon and nothing more.

To a shy Asian immigrant like Cho, a comment like "Go back to China," yelled at you when you open your mouth for the first time to a classroom of peers, means "You do not belong here. You do not deserve the life here." "Go back to China" is a veiled way of saying "you are not worthy of freedom or opportunity, you belong in a totalitarian regime built on oppression." If Cho had gone on a rampage in the moment during which those comments were uttered, I don't think anyone would blame him. It certainly would not have made him a demon if he had acted out then. That, you see, would have been a human response.

From what I remember, a similar situation occured with the Columbine shooting. After the fact, the press was sure to demonize Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, making sure to mention how they called a black athlete "nigger" before they shot him. This guaranteed that we would see nothing more than a racist demon behind these acts. What only one source mentioned, however, was that the student, who was vastly more popular than either Harris or Klebold, had, on more than one occasion, pushed Harris or Klebold into lockers and called them names. In other words, Harris and Klebold, whether or not they were racist, did not shoot the kid because he was black, but because he had targetted the two of them for oppression. But since it would be human to lash out at someone that picks on you, the media was sure to gloss over that fact and instead chose to portray them as racist demons without cause.

The more in which we paint the school shooters as demons, the more we are able to dismiss them and their actions as some moral or genetic anomaly, all so that we can feel better about ourselves. This only allows these types of events to continue. The Virginia Tech students, however, have made a very courageous display in that they are recognizing that Cho was human, and that to some extent we all failed him because we failed to recognize what a human pushed to the limits is capable of.

Cho considered himself a victim, and we can debate over the merits of his claims to vicitmization, but one thing I am sure of, is that in his final moments, he was empowered. If the Virginia Tech shooting teaches us one thing we should have realized a long time ago, it is that, eventually, those that perceive themselves as victims will make some move toward empowerment, and that often that move will be violent. The human will moves inexorably and unstoppably toward feelings of freedom, and to certain people that feeling can only be achieved through violence.

We can continue to see the Seung-Hui Cho's of the world as nothing more than demons, but their actions are ultimately the result of the most basic human desires. When we see such criminals as humans then we see within ourselves our own fragile psyches, and, maybe more importantly, we see a greater responsibility to do the right thing: not to make a man fight alone, not to hang him out to dry when he is being picked on for not speaking English well or for wearing a black trenchcoat.

The sick irony of it all is that if we begin to do that then Seung-Hui Cho will have achieved what he set out to do: stand up for the "weak and defenseless."

read more......

[Politics] The Loyalty Vacuum in Bush's Post-Presidency

I know that George W. Bush is very concerned about how history will view him, so I hope he is preparing for what we have only gotten a brief glimpse of so far: his post-presidency backlash. On Monday, former CIA Director George Tenet will release a book in which he faults the Bush administration, specifically Vice President Dick Cheney, for rushing to war with Iraq without a serious debate on how to contain Saddam Hussein. ABC News has a report.

I imagine that Tenet will be one of the first few, among many former officials working under the Bush administration, that have bitten their lip until the Bush White House was at least of the lame duck status. Come 2009, who knows how many people from inside the administration will voice their true opinion.

Such is the nature of politics that value loyalty to an individual over loyalty to principal. When you ignore alternative perspectives and force everyone into the same close-minded discourse, you inevitably end up with a group of people who will humor you for the time being. Well, Bush's time is going, and once it is gone, the represed voices within his White House and the remainder of the bureaucracy will look for the first bullhorn they can find.

Once the gags are removed, the silent ones will be louder than ever. Once the yes-men have no one to yes, you will see what a veil their loyalty was. If you are concerned with how history will judge you Mr. President, then you should have realized, before you took office, that loyalty is something our government should have to all 300 million Americans, and not just to the one that sits behind the Oval Office desk.

read more......