Hey,
Now that I'm back at college (I've been back for a while now, as you can probably tell) updates will be less frequent than they were over winter break. I apologize, but I'll do my best to have the posts I do make be more relevant and interesting than they would be otherwise.
-Matt
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
In Addendum
In Addendum to an earlier post talking about how history will remember President Bush:
The rise of terrorism might just be the big historical theme of the next quarter century. Maybe more. If that is the case, he will simply be remembered as the first president who had to deal with direct threats from terrorists, with little idea on how to do so.
It's no secret that warfare is changing. Thanks to globalization, war between countries is more and more unlikely and if it even happens is more likely to resemble the Falkland Islands War (oh, now the mighty British Empire has fallen). When you depend on a country for a certain good it becomes increasingly unlikely that you will bomb them. At this point radicalism is more likely to pose a threat than other countries. Warfare between a country and an ideology seems to be more and more the norm.
With no real territory, clear objectives for victory, and organizational structure radicalism becomes hard to fight. Our future leaders will have to figure out a way to combat the new threat. Traditional tactics simply will not work.
...Or at least that is my hypothesis...
The rise of terrorism might just be the big historical theme of the next quarter century. Maybe more. If that is the case, he will simply be remembered as the first president who had to deal with direct threats from terrorists, with little idea on how to do so.
It's no secret that warfare is changing. Thanks to globalization, war between countries is more and more unlikely and if it even happens is more likely to resemble the Falkland Islands War (oh, now the mighty British Empire has fallen). When you depend on a country for a certain good it becomes increasingly unlikely that you will bomb them. At this point radicalism is more likely to pose a threat than other countries. Warfare between a country and an ideology seems to be more and more the norm.
With no real territory, clear objectives for victory, and organizational structure radicalism becomes hard to fight. Our future leaders will have to figure out a way to combat the new threat. Traditional tactics simply will not work.
...Or at least that is my hypothesis...
Failure By Your Own Standards
Earlier today Barack Obama became the first African-American president of the United States. Historic not only because of the racial aspect, but because he is expected to save the world.
Ok, well not exactly save the world but he is expected to deliver...everything. Gas money. Health and wellness. Mortgage payments.
The idea that Obama is going to be a mixture of JFK, Abraham Lincolin, FDR, and, depending on who you talk to, Jesus just means that he is going to fail by those standards. He can't do that. No one can.
Unfortunetly, even if he fails to deliver on any of his campaign promises, is unable to do anything that the American people think he's going to do, the economy gets worse, and he fails to change anything he is still going to be lauded. It seems the simple fact that he is in office seems to be enough. It isn't.
If he doesn't make good on any of his campaign promises (with a Democratic Congress) excuses will be made for him. Same if the programs the American people think he will enact falls through. If the economy gets worse the excuse will be that if we didn't have him in office, it would only get worse.
Now that he's in office, we need results. And they need to be demanded.
Ok, well not exactly save the world but he is expected to deliver...everything. Gas money. Health and wellness. Mortgage payments.
The idea that Obama is going to be a mixture of JFK, Abraham Lincolin, FDR, and, depending on who you talk to, Jesus just means that he is going to fail by those standards. He can't do that. No one can.
Unfortunetly, even if he fails to deliver on any of his campaign promises, is unable to do anything that the American people think he's going to do, the economy gets worse, and he fails to change anything he is still going to be lauded. It seems the simple fact that he is in office seems to be enough. It isn't.
If he doesn't make good on any of his campaign promises (with a Democratic Congress) excuses will be made for him. Same if the programs the American people think he will enact falls through. If the economy gets worse the excuse will be that if we didn't have him in office, it would only get worse.
Now that he's in office, we need results. And they need to be demanded.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Reexamination Needed
Thanks to EconLog for this post discussing how D.C.-area suburbs have grown in wealth from 2000-2007. Still think all that new government spending is going where it's intended? Yeah, right.
The government takes your money in the form of taxes, spends it, and then can't even account for the expenditures of your money. In the private sector, that's called theft.
Even with the change coming on Tuesday, this is unlikely to fall under the net Obama intends on casting. More government money is going to be spent and accounting for that money is going to be tough. Furthermore, no amount of policing can change the misuse of government funding.
The government takes your money in the form of taxes, spends it, and then can't even account for the expenditures of your money. In the private sector, that's called theft.
Even with the change coming on Tuesday, this is unlikely to fall under the net Obama intends on casting. More government money is going to be spent and accounting for that money is going to be tough. Furthermore, no amount of policing can change the misuse of government funding.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Stop and Look
I've recently come across the Stop and Look series of videos and there's nothing more I can say besides that these are some of the most important videos on YouTube.
Granted they are awkward at times (explaining where liberty comes from comes to mind, the sports analogy for laws forcing "equality" is another) but they explain why those who fight against big government do so so adamantly and why that fight is so important. Unfortunetly the Freedom Force International group that seems to sponsor these videos seems very conspiracy whackjob-ish, but I can overlook that as these videos, as crudely animated they are, impart extremely important and relevant knowledge.
Granted they are awkward at times (explaining where liberty comes from comes to mind, the sports analogy for laws forcing "equality" is another) but they explain why those who fight against big government do so so adamantly and why that fight is so important. Unfortunetly the Freedom Force International group that seems to sponsor these videos seems very conspiracy whackjob-ish, but I can overlook that as these videos, as crudely animated they are, impart extremely important and relevant knowledge.
Monday, January 12, 2009
No Female Presidents
Despite how quickly Mr. Obama is to divulge the fact that the missus wears the pants in their relationship, she is still more likely to appear on the cover of Us or Ebony or Radar than she is The Economist.
It's also more likely that people will talk about who designed her dress rather than what she thinks on health care reform.
Fair enough, she is the first lady, but this conundrum illustrates the fundamental problem that women have - and will continue to have - when running for office: Become masculine a la Hilary Clinton or be feminine and have porn made in your honor.
I'd hate to see what happens when an intelligent, articulate, attractive woman tries to run for president (think Sarah Palin minus the stupid accent, plus brains).
It's also more likely that people will talk about who designed her dress rather than what she thinks on health care reform.
Fair enough, she is the first lady, but this conundrum illustrates the fundamental problem that women have - and will continue to have - when running for office: Become masculine a la Hilary Clinton or be feminine and have porn made in your honor.
I'd hate to see what happens when an intelligent, articulate, attractive woman tries to run for president (think Sarah Palin minus the stupid accent, plus brains).
Civics?
A thought occurred to me while I was flying back yesterday (I had to change my flight due to the snow): Why do we teach Civics classes?
Obviously, I know why in the literal sense - to make sure that the next generation of American citizenry knows how their government operates (or rather, how their government is supposed to operate). But what is the practical application? Sure, the students who successfully complete a civics class (are expected to) know how a bill becomes a law, how the electoral college works, and the system of checks and balances - but what use is it if the government isn't even following its own rules?
Somehow it's fine to trample on habeas corpus, but don't you dare stop the constant stream of penis enlargement pills to my inbox.
Obviously, I know why in the literal sense - to make sure that the next generation of American citizenry knows how their government operates (or rather, how their government is supposed to operate). But what is the practical application? Sure, the students who successfully complete a civics class (are expected to) know how a bill becomes a law, how the electoral college works, and the system of checks and balances - but what use is it if the government isn't even following its own rules?
Somehow it's fine to trample on habeas corpus, but don't you dare stop the constant stream of penis enlargement pills to my inbox.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Seattle
As I'm sure all two (anybody out there?) of my readers are saddened to hear that you're not toing to hear from me until the 10th.
I'm packing my bags right now to hop on a plane out to Seattle to visit my girlfriend, listen to Nirvana, drink Starbucks, and commit various acts of eco-terrorism.
Since I'll be up all day thanks to the coffee I'm sure I'll be able to do plenty of the other three.
I'm packing my bags right now to hop on a plane out to Seattle to visit my girlfriend, listen to Nirvana, drink Starbucks, and commit various acts of eco-terrorism.
Since I'll be up all day thanks to the coffee I'm sure I'll be able to do plenty of the other three.
The End of Sunday Comics?
My brother came across this AOL.com blog post spelling doom for the Sunday Comics earlier today. Despite hardly ever seeing him read them, he seemed pretty distressed.
And they make a solid point. Its tough for artists to make money when media conglomerates like the Tribune company are hemorrhaging money. This is how, for years, these cartoonists have made money. When that well dries up, they need to look for greener pastures elsewhere, just like anyone in any other profession.
But at the same time, the internet might be just as harsh a place, if not harsher. While, comics will be able to withstand print-to-online porting the way text never could, the web comic is a much different beast than its traditional counterpart (see xkcd, the Perry Bible Fellowship and Cyanide and Happiness as examples). Even Garfield Minus Garfield is a hit online despite being wildly unoriginal, much to the dismay of Jim Davis (or so I would imagine).
As overlooked as it is (up until now, at least) the traditional comic strip might just be one of the unfortunate casualties of the old media-new media hybrid that will inevitably become the place most people get their news.
What about the other parts of a newspaper that come secondary to the news? Oh, what will happen to the Dear Abby collumn!?
And they make a solid point. Its tough for artists to make money when media conglomerates like the Tribune company are hemorrhaging money. This is how, for years, these cartoonists have made money. When that well dries up, they need to look for greener pastures elsewhere, just like anyone in any other profession.
But at the same time, the internet might be just as harsh a place, if not harsher. While, comics will be able to withstand print-to-online porting the way text never could, the web comic is a much different beast than its traditional counterpart (see xkcd, the Perry Bible Fellowship and Cyanide and Happiness as examples). Even Garfield Minus Garfield is a hit online despite being wildly unoriginal, much to the dismay of Jim Davis (or so I would imagine).
As overlooked as it is (up until now, at least) the traditional comic strip might just be one of the unfortunate casualties of the old media-new media hybrid that will inevitably become the place most people get their news.
What about the other parts of a newspaper that come secondary to the news? Oh, what will happen to the Dear Abby collumn!?
The Talk of a Lame Duck Presidency
A lot of people are talking about how history will look back on George W's tenure as president as it enters its lame duck stage and then inevitably ends in less than a month.
A lot of people are already giving him the title Worst President Ever. And there's some legitimacy to that claim (I'm not sure the end of a President's term has ever inspired a day-hour-minutes-seconds countdown). He started a war almost universally hated, watched as New Orleans flooded and its residents starved, among countless other things that people cite as making him the worst Oval Office occupant ever.
But worst? Generally, History is a macro-level study. Scrutinizing something on a micro-level is usually left to scholars or journalists.
Bush will go down as a worse-than-most president. The two things that will be remembered about him are the two biggest events that happened under his administration: 9/11 and the War in Iraq. He handled 9/11 stupendously. The War in Iraq was (and continues to be) galactically stupid.
His handling of Katrina won't help either, but that is going to be overshadowed by the 9/11-Iraq tandem.
As for the economic crisis, I feel the jury is still out on that one, but since it happened under his administration its not going to help, and, unfortunately, I don't see the theme of deregulation disappearing any time soon, regardless of the reasonable doubt that continues to surround that theory.
Hey W, it could be worse, you could be Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, or James Buchanan.
A lot of people are already giving him the title Worst President Ever. And there's some legitimacy to that claim (I'm not sure the end of a President's term has ever inspired a day-hour-minutes-seconds countdown). He started a war almost universally hated, watched as New Orleans flooded and its residents starved, among countless other things that people cite as making him the worst Oval Office occupant ever.
But worst? Generally, History is a macro-level study. Scrutinizing something on a micro-level is usually left to scholars or journalists.
Bush will go down as a worse-than-most president. The two things that will be remembered about him are the two biggest events that happened under his administration: 9/11 and the War in Iraq. He handled 9/11 stupendously. The War in Iraq was (and continues to be) galactically stupid.
His handling of Katrina won't help either, but that is going to be overshadowed by the 9/11-Iraq tandem.
As for the economic crisis, I feel the jury is still out on that one, but since it happened under his administration its not going to help, and, unfortunately, I don't see the theme of deregulation disappearing any time soon, regardless of the reasonable doubt that continues to surround that theory.
Hey W, it could be worse, you could be Warren G. Harding, Andrew Johnson, or James Buchanan.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Happy New Year
...to all two, three of my readers? Actually, I'm probably lucky to have one, but I'm expecting not to have any.
Happy New Year anyway.
Happy New Year anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
