USA vs. Russia... or so they hope.

My inspiration (and plagiarism) comes from the AP.

My first thought?  Ooh, what fun!  It's like war games, but real, and available to the public! Honestly, I'm still stuck on that one, it doesn't seem like it can be taken seriously yet, and on the surface the article states that the US is officially not taking it seriously either.  Which is funny, because we were in a Cold War with Russia for forty years; there are unquestionably Russian minds that haven't changed yet, and the country is still unpredictable, and seems maybe a little unstable.  They definitely haven't lost their pride, and are nursing a bruised ego.  But their economy has given them a bit of a boost, and they have a strong, popular leader.  Putin, of course, though unofficially.  Medvedev is universally considered a puppet leader.

The question now is, how do they regain the international respect they once had?  Through warfare and aggression?  Maybe later, but right now that would be a lonely war that they aren't ready for.  Were they testing the waters, seeing what kind of reaction they'd get in Georgia? We'll find out when they make their eventual move.

I believe right now they have a more subtle strategy.  They're simultaneously strengthening their alliances with Cuba and Venezuela, and positioning themselves as a threat to the US. Goading us on. If they could be seen as a rival to the US for supremacy again, many USA-haters might choose to rally around their flag, inciting another Cold War.  And with their economy relatively up and ours relatively down, who knows how it might end up.

Happily, our government seems to recognize that.  Consider how jumpy we get whenever we see a threat to US supremacy.  And Russia right in our backyard, talking with the neighbors who keep rabble-rousing with America hanging in effigy?  No, we wouldn't ignore that.  Rather, we're pretending we don't see them.  That way, we don't give them the recognition as our adversary that they're shooting for.

And that's all I'm fairly sure of.  But then there's sheer speculation...

What will Russia do if we keep acting like we're ignoring them?  Maybe they'll act like a jealous sibling and clamor for more attention by escalating the threat to the point where we'd look impotent if we kept ignoring them (I actually think the bluff is already pretty transparent, but for the sake of argument...).  That might take an act of outright aggression... a minor skirmish between battleships, an anti-American summit featuring Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and Iran... anything as obvious as that would get our attention, but would also rally all our old allies around us again.  Maybe they'd be more subtle, and keep finding new ways to get under our skin without seeming to act dangerous.  They could raise the price of the oil they sell us, or boost trade among anti-American nations.  They could start renovating their military... not growing it, just fixing it.  They could increase diplomacy with more Latin American countries. None of this is cause for outright anger, but tensions would certainly start rising.  Not quite another Cold War, but then again...

What will they do if we stop ignoring them?  Obviously, they would cast us as an aggressor (which would be much easier if they could provoke us with Bush in power, rather than Obama, or if we simply overreact), and having taken care not to be overly aggressive themselves, they could develop a convincing case. Potentially, they could neutralize the United Nations and regain their luster, even if their economy doesn't yet match ours.  But who knows?  Maybe their confidence will boost their economy.  All this would be a risky gambit, and it would be the Cold War, pt. II.

Ok, so the United States is smart enough right now to ignore them.  Officially, anyway.  Even if they are just trying to provoke us, they are actually improving their relations with our would-be enemies, and it IS actually a potential threat.  So what are we unofficially doing?  Still ignoring them.  And this is important.  Regardless of what they're doing, we're better off with more and better allies in the world, whether they'll eventually become the next alliance in a war or simply a more effective trading bloc.  And no matter what they do, if we stay calm, friendly, and generous, it will be harder to cast us in a negative light.  And thankfully, the Bush administration is keeping a cool head till Obama replaces it.

UPDATE: Is Medvedev actually destined to be only a puppet leader?  Maybe not.  He recently claimed sole responsibility for Russia, rather than emphasizing his consultation with Putin.  We'll see where this goes.

One nation under God

(My facts came from Wikipedia, from which I liberally plagiarized. Feel free to double-check using other sources.)

Atheists get offended when asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in it. Christians (and to a lesser extent those of other faiths) tend to get offended at the suggestion that the words be taken out. What I never realized is that the words "under God" were not in it in the first place.

The pledge of allegiance, as originally written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, read, "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." He considered adding the words fraternity and equality, but felt they were too controversial, since many at the time did not believe blacks or women deserved equal rights. Later, it was changed to "the Flag of the United States of America" to clarify the meaning, especially for immigrants. In 1951, the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic fraternal service organization) decided the Pledge needed a reference to God. They took the term "under God" from the Gettysburg Address, and lobbied for the official change. At first they were unsuccessful. But then word spread to a preacher who delivered a sermon which President Eisenhower attended. He said that what made the Spartans great was not their walls, shields, or weapons, but their spirits. Similarly, what made the United States great was not the atomic bomb, but the American spirit, the "American way of life." He said what made the United States great and unique was her sense of being what Lincoln described: a nation "under God." He insisted that without these words, the Pledge could refer to just about any nation, so we needed to add these words. Eisenhower, thoroughly convinced, eventually signed it into law. He later paraphrased the sermon: "... These words ["under God"] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble..."

Question: have we remained humble? In fact, have there even been occasions when we might have used the feeling of being "under God" to justify aggressive behavior? Finally, what about separation of Church and State? Certainly, the words "under God" were not, in fact, necessary to clarify that the pledge referred to the USA, since the words "of the United States of America" were already included. And why did we add the controversial phrase "under God" before we added the words equality or fraternity? We can't add both, because too many Americans would fear the similarity to the French motto "liberty, equality, and fraternity." What about equality alone?

I propose a new Pledge of Allegiance:

" I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: a Nation Indivisible, with Liberty, Equality, and Justice for all. "

Why I respect Bush

In 2000 and 2004 I voted Democratic, mostly just because the candidates were "better than Bush."  I soaked up the opinions around me denigrating him.  And I still think he's easy to dismiss as a fool.  From all his oratorical flubs to invading Iraq, from going it alone to the economy's collapse, he has a lot to answer for.  But he's too easily dismissed as a fool.  He's not so easily pigeonholed.  He just took part in an interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson.  This is his legacy he's talking about, not to mention politics.  And I agree with a great deal that he says.  

He pointed to that fateful incorrect intelligence about weapons of mass destruction as "the biggest regret of all the presidency."  Lol, can't disagree with him on that.  Staying there once we discovered the mistake was possibly a mistake we can put on his shoulders, but we can't say for sure how things might have turned out otherwise.  As he says, "That is a do-over that I can't do."  Which is certainly true, but may also be a tactic to encourage us not to leave earlier than he thinks we ought.  Certainly, this is one subject on which we all wish he had not "listened to [his] values."

I wish he had won his battle on immigration.  On that subject, he had my full support.   "I firmly believe that the immigration debate really didn't show the true nature of America as a welcoming society," he said. "I fully understand we need to enforce law and enforce borders. But the debate took on a tone that undermined the true greatness of America, which is that we welcome people who want to work hard and support their families."  Now that's inspirational (Take notes, Obama!).

Some times he's hypocritical.  "I also knew that the president has the responsibility to try to elevate the tone. And, frankly, it just didn't work, much as I'd like to have it work."  Ok, now explain why you kept Karl Rove so long!  Or did he realize his mistake, and that's why Rove wound up leaving the White House?

I still don't believe No Child Left Behind was a success.  Part of that is the obvious opinions of my high school teachers.  Part of that is that I was never in danger of being left behind, and in fact classes were frequently slowed down to accommodate everybody.  How are we supposed to create engineers, doctors, and lawyers if schooling is slowed down???

His phrasing of the economic answers is surprisingly clever.  He points to the action he's taken, affirms that he'll take more if necessary, indicates that the problem is confidence in the market, but doesn't resort to repeating "Buy, buy, buy!", and throws in the token defense that the problem started in the markets, and before his presidency... and he just couldn't do anything to stop it.  I guess he could have listened to those who forecasted this turn of events long before he did anything, or used his prominent post to call for more regulation... but no.

About Obama's election: "I think it was a repudiation of Republicans," he said. "And I'm sure some people voted for Barack Obama because of me. I think most people voted for Barack Obama because they decided they wanted him to be in their living room for the next four years explaining policy."

My opinion: it seems like Bush tried to govern as a moderate, but campaigned as a staunch Republican, and owed all his support to the party.  When he broke away from that, he lost all but his most hardcore base, and the ability to effect any of the change he would have liked.  Obama, hopefully, will have the wisdom to govern as he campaigned.  And Bush's one more thing: "One of my parting words to him will be: 'If I can help you, let me know.'"  I can only hope that Bush recognizes that his values have led him astray... and then that Obama takes him up on his offer, and doesn't tell anybody.  I trust Obama enough not to need to know his sources, and I don't want him to lose the support of everybody who would whine about taking advice from Bush.

Why I like Obama

I was recently trying to remember when I first started rooting for Obama, and what I most liked about him.  Yesterday, I stumbled upon this post I wrote on Facebook a couple of years ago:

Biggest pet peeve about politics: the smear campaigns. You know what I'm talking about - the black and white crap pics of the opponent, quotes taken out of context, dark, creepy music, and talking about how electing the opponent will bring the end of the world as we know it. I want a candidate who just sits in front of the camera, talks about his views. Sure, talks about the other person's views too, and usually disagrees, but shows respect. What about integrity? What about pride? What about thoughtfulness? What about some consideration here???

Personally, I prefer the flip-flop to a correct decision over a stay-the-course for a route that isn't making any progress. Does this mean I like John Kerry? No, he seems like a rabblerouser to me, but I respect him changing his mind. Does it mean I hate Bush? No, I just don't have much respect for him.

What about abortion? Well, I think each person has a view of what is morally right, and that they ought to comply with that. Say an Irish Catholic woman is pregnant with a kid that tests positive for down syndrome. Probably not gonna consider it acceptable to abort, but better rather to raise the child in a loving, understanding environment. Great, good for her. What about a fourteen year-old girl raped by her father? Can she provide a positive environment for the child? Maybe, but it could be tough. I wouldn't force childbbirth on her. The choice is hers, therefore I'm pro-choice.

What about affirmative action? Let me preface by saying I haven't researched it, and don't know the particulars. But best guess is it naturally favors blacks and latinos. I consider that unfair to whites, and degrading to its recipients. I say, revamp affirmative action: re-classify it as merit-based scholarships, and consider how the students do in comparison to others in a similar environment. Probably, a 4.0 in an inner-city school facing gang and drug problems is a better indicator of drive than a 4.0 in a private prep school. Where you're facing lower expectations, and excelling in spite of them, that's where I see potential. Probably this will still favor blacks and latinos, who typically attend schools with lower expectations rather than elite institutions. But only if they're working their asses off.

What about gay marriage? I have a female friend who was recently proposed to by a french guy who wants to become a US citizen. Never mind that I believe he has a crush on her as well. I was offended, and partially taken aback that I should be offended. After all, how the hell does it impact me? And what does this have to do with gay marriage?

Most Christians (and therefore most Republicans) say marriage is primarily a religious institution bonding a man and a woman - or something to that effect. Being neither a Christian nor a Republican, I don't concern myself with it too much. I've simply considered marriage something you do with the person you love, the person you want to spend your life with. Gay marriage makes the people involved (ie the groom and groom, or bride and bride - not necessarily the relatives) happy - and it doesn't do any harm to the rest of the world, does it? Well, people against gay marriage believe it does. They believe it degrades the institution of marriage.

So here's the comparison: I'm offended because my friend and the french guy would degrade the institution of marriage IN MY EYES. Would it piss me off? Hell yes. Would I attend the wedding? I'd be hella reluctant. Would I start campaigning against marriage giving green cards? No. Angry though I'd be, what they wanna do is their own damn business. Does gay marriage piss me off that way? No, but I finally got a sliver of understanding about what the Christians/Republicans are whining about. But I'm all for gays getting together - and ya know what? They can even call it marriage.

What about immigration? Well, first, what's the problem? Immigrants, primarily Mexicans, are illegally crossing the border, mooching off our lifestyle, driving down wages for our own workers, and then taking money out of our economy by sending it back to their families, still in Mexico. Here's my solution. Crack down HARD on companies or individuals paying below minimum wage. That reduces the problem of lower wages for our own workers. Next, conduct an extensive search for these illegal immigrants. Once we find them, then what? Arrest them? Hell no! Send them people with the necessary forms (etc.) to apply for citizenship. Speed up the process! Encourage them to bring their families here. Let them live the American dream, and give their children opportunities their parents never had! I don't give a damn if the Hispanic population in the US doubles, triples, quadruples in a year. If they're paying their taxes, I have no qualms. And if they skip taxes, or don't apply for citizenship? Jail 'em. They're breaking our laws, and we're not gonna shoulder the burden if they won't put forth a bit of effort.

What about national security? Does anybody actually believe that staying in Iraq and hoping for a lucky break will help for even a month after we pull out? Can Bush even believe that? No way. He wants to hold out for some unforseeable future in which somehow we actually make progress. I say, it isn't working. Pull out now. If terrorists take over the government, or the new government supports terrorists, or is hostile to US citizens, then we'll destroy them. Send a message that anybody supporting a terrorist is as good as a terrorist themselves - I'm looking at you, Ahmedinejad and Hezbollah. And after we take you out, we're not staying to enforce a damn thing. Turn it over to the UN, and support whatever resolutions they take from there. But we WILL eliminate anybody supporting a terrorist.

What about America's reputation? I think we need to solidify our alliances before we can do a damn thing against Iran or N Korea. The last thing we want is the rest of the world turning against us. And with power, we'll get respect and trust by showing all possible restraint.

What about nuclear ambitions? There's more to national security than terrorism. Bush probably shouldn't have endorsed India's acceptance into the nuclear club, but too late for that now. The fewer people with the bomb, the better. But if you look at every country as a person, N Korea's the crazy kid in school with a gun. He's a top priority. And you can't ignore Iran, the influential kid who hires bullies (Hezbollah) to beat up the other kids and is in a market for a gun himself. So what the fuck can you do with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and N Korea all potential threats? The last thing you want to do is start WWIII, because with the bomb, that's a fast war. It doesn't help that we can't be sure what China would do. My theory is a classic one: the best offense is a good defense. N Korea gets a gun, we get a bullet proof vest. America needs to focus all necessary R&D into developing a reliable nuclear deterrent. Could be lasers from satellites, could be ballistic missiles from strategically placed warships, I don't care, we need security. If we have that then ... why do we even care if N Korea gets the bomb? And away goes any leverage they might have had. At that point, we can make some progress at the negotiation table.

What about torture? Here I want to quote Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert):
"My previous view was that torture probably works really well, at least in selective cases, based on the fact that it is so often the method of choice. All of those law enforcement professionals around the world couldn’t be wrong, could they? Plus I imagine that if someone attached electrodes to my scrotum, I’d be talking plenty compared to the “let’s be friends? interrogation method. So torture certainly passes the sniff test. And I apologize for mentioning my scrotum and the phrase “sniff test? in the same paragraph. It couldn’t be helped.
"The media have trotted out expert after expert to say that regular non-torture interrogation is MORE effective than torture. I discounted those experts as selectively chosen by the liberal media. One thing that all of the experts seemed to have in common is that none of them had USED torture. So how would they know torture was worse than the alternative?
"But much time has passed since this debate began. You’d think that the proponents of torture (cough, cough, Fox New, cough) would have produced one credible torturer to say, 'Torture works great! I get all of my information in minutes and I’m home to help the kids with homework by five!'
"Or perhaps the media could find one torture victim who would say, 'I wasn’t going to tell them anything until they started water-boarding me. Man, that stuff works!'
"Now granted, it might be hard to find someone to confess to being a torturer. And it might be even harder to find someone who was tortured who is willing to endorse it. But it seems to me that with all the torturing going on, you could at least find a friend of a friend who saw it work. Or the American government could find some CIA operative who is willing to be filmed in silhouette with his voice garbled saying he’s seen torture produces excellent results.
"But nothing? For years?
"Move me to the skeptical column. The burden is on the proponents of torture to produce some proof that it works. I still don’t rule out the possibility that torture can be effective, but if it’s being done in my name, I want some fucking evidence."

What about a little pride in our nation and our leaders? When's the last time you felt some of that?

Now Obama has been elected president.  And I'm feeling pride despite the fact that he hasn't really done anything besides choose most of his cabinet.  Okay, I take it back.  He stuck to his guns (or the lack thereof) about Iraq, but he flip-flopped on the all-important issue of the flag pin, when it was politically expedient (I know, at least he's not anti-American, but now he's unreliable!).  He's pro-choice, but doesn't force the point very often.  He's understandably affirmative action, but like I said way back when, I don't have all the info.  And even though we disagree on the issue, more important is his notion of college scholarships simply in return for community service.  Combining increased advanced education with the betterment of neighborhoods sounds pretty win-win to me!  He isn't against gay marriage, although I'm not sure whether he considers it a right.  Not a huge issue for me.  As far as immigration goes, he's chosen Napolitano, from Arizona, so I get the impression his approach is a more "keep 'em out or track 'em down" approach, which seems surprisingly pessimistic for him.  But we'll see - and my ideas might not have been feasible in the first place, and certainly wouldn't have been popular.  National security-wise, it should take less effort if we aren't ridiculously unpopular in the world, so we should have a better success rate.  But again, we'll see.  The first thing I remember about Obama is him saying that he wanted to reach out and mend relationships between us and our allies, that a go-it-alone strategy won't work (Bobby Jindal, where is your international perspective?).  That's when I picked him to win, when I was most inspired by him, and the stark difference between him and Bush.  With the nuclear option, again, we'll have to wait and see.  And Obama was clearly staunchly anti-torture, and when (if) he closes Guantanamo, that will be the capstone of his success.

So, happily enough, it doesn't seem like it's just his oratorical skills that inspire - it's his reasoned, open-minded, teamwork-based, optimistic policy decisions that have me inspired.  And I realize this is the future of all our lives I'm talking about here... but I'm sitting on the edge of my seat watching, waiting for Obama to take all his inspiring ideas and turn them into inspiring actions.

The pundits say expectations for Obama are unrealistically high.  I laughed when I heard them.  At first I thought they really were too high.  Then I realized while they are high... it might not be unrealistic.

Thus proving the pundits right.

The intro, the hardest pill to swallow.

I was born in 1985, with the computer in its own infancy.  In the 90's, the internet was no longer just an interesting idea.  It went from to something the geeks had, to something the enviable households had, to something you were expected to have very quickly.  My mom signed us up just as everybody else was joining in, and my little brother actually led me in exploring it (I was more of a paperback book guy).  I was suddenly an obnoxiously talkative friend to have on AIM.  I laughed at all the silly MySpace sites, but when an early adopter friend introduced me to Facebook, suddenly I was stuck on the bandwagon.  And somehow despite all the social networking and online gaming (I've avoided WoW, thank god) I starting really loving the internet for the connection to the communal pool of knowledge, which I'm pretty sure was the point in the first place.

Hmmm.

I'm gonna square with ya.  The internet is not the center of my life.  When I was trying to find a name for a title, it turned out all my first choices were taken.  Yeah, the net is a major influence on me - I'm chained by e-mail, I obsessively check all my RSS feeds, and Apple holds disturbing sway over my budget.  But it's all just about information (and music).  So now, I get an idea, and I have to go off on it.  I rant a bit.  Kinda like Scott Adams, minus the comics and fame and career.

It's a developmental stage, an experimental stage I'm going through.  The need to put words to all those pesky feelings flying around my brain.  To understand everything.

My ambition is to be a chef and a thinker.  My purpose in being a chef is a) to produce amazing food, b) to achieve that Zen-like happiness you can get when you cook or just maintain a whole restaurant at a standard of perfection, and c) to make money to support myself while I pursue my real ambition.  Which is what I'm doing right now.

I firmly believe that we've lost our sense of purpose as a race, that we have no shared ambition.  We all focus on our individual lives, making ourselves happy.  And maybe I'm naive, but I think if we don't take the proper action, we'll stagnate and go extinct.  My purpose would be to work out exactly what we should be doing, and then inspire people to follow my lead.  So my work on the "thinker" side of my life would be dedicating to blogging, spreading my ideas, and just generally becoming recognized as the smartest person around.

I know, ridiculously ambitious for someone who so far has no following or experience.  We'll see if we can fix that.

Ok, so there's the intro.  Let's not repeat that.