...check out this true situation:
The other day we went to this Chinese restaurant near Brookfield and stumbled upon the greatest combination of 2 things ever: old woman and tiny hat. She was part of an old lady hat club!! (that's just my guess, but if that's not the case this story becomes 43 times funnier) Anyway- in an amazing display of luckitude, somehow Li had his camera with him and it was on like Spawn (the comic...). After trying unsuccessfully to snag covert tiny hat shot 2.0 from far away, Li finally asks our old Chinese waiter if he would take a picture of those ladies for us. He agrees.
Waiter: Excuse me. That young man likes your hats.
Ladies: giggle giggle, ooooh
When I return I'll have a wicked sweet Super Bowl post or not. Depends on if I can remember what happens.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Weekly update
All I need to hear back from any of you on this entry is:
What is the funniest thing in this commercial?
And in case anyone was ever wondering what the opposite of naked is:
What is the funniest thing in this commercial?
And in case anyone was ever wondering what the opposite of naked is:
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Putin Chronicles, part I
The commonplace explanation for Vladimir Putin's acclaim in Russia is pretty straightforward. In the 1990's under Boris Yeltsin, the state scarcely governed, the economy deflated, and the population was in anguish. After Putin took office, it seems to most that order has been re-established, the economy appears to have increased, and the average Russian seems happier with their lives. This narrative has a dynamic simplicity and the Russians seem to buy it.
It is apparent to reasonable people that Russia's postcommunist transformation is a textbook case of what not to do. Almost two decades after communism collapsed, Russia is not a democracy. But it isn't an absolute autocracy like Cuba or North Korea either. It's classification lies between. Russia is a semi-authoritarian regime disguised as a democracy. In this counterfeit democracy, formal institutions that appear democratic hide a system that is authoritarian, oligarchic, and bureaucratic all at once to the point of impairment. It's hard to make clear the line between real and fake. Da, Russia has its political parties, a parliament, trade unions, ect. But in reality they are just Potemkin villages. Russia's elites have been perfecting such deceptions for centuries. Today, the Kremlin even entertains a marginal liberal opposition and other forms of dissent that, accidentally, by their very existence, are part of the sham. This pseudo democracy may turn out to be even more hazardous than the unadulterateed autocracy Russians fought through for decades. Authoritarian or totalitarian regimes at some point create a desire for freedom. Imitation democracies, on the other hand, only serve to degrade liberal democratic institutions and ideals, and the citizens living within them at some point actually long for a real "iron hand." That is not to say that the fight for Russian democracy has no hope. Russians elected both Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin assuming that they would ensure order, back democracy, and attain Western standards of living. They did not choose extremists, nationalists, or communists as their leaders, even though they suffered severe hardships. Today, 70% of Russians say they are prepared to live in a free society. For maybe the first time in Russian history, there are no indomitable barriers to prevent that from happening. The largest barrier is the political and economic elites. Because they are not ready to live in a competing society, they try to persuade the world that Russia is not mature enough to be 100% free. In this, they are backed by the West, which tries hard not to agitate Putin for fear of undermining relations with Russia. Eventually, the West will have to choose between cozy relations with the Kremlin or a truly free Russia.
The idea that Putin created an economic miracle is a popular melody sung by both the Kremlin and Western businesses operating in Russia. On the surface, the economy Putin is leading looks lavish. The country's GDP grew from $200 billion in 1999 to $920 billion in 2006. Economic growth was 6.7% in the first half of 2007 and Russia's economy is now the 10th largest in the world. However, these economic avails have a false bottom-high oil prices-and have been accomplished, at least in part, by protectionism. Putin has failed to stop and work on the inflation and has been forced to freeze food prices. Corporate debt had by Russian companies grew from $40 billion in 1998 to $384 billion in 2007. And larger amounts of Russian investors prefer to take their cash abroad. Elites, who pretend to be openly confident in Russia's future, are flocking to European capitals in droves. Calling Russia an "energy superpower," as the Kremlin likes to do, is a implicit admission of its failure to diversify the economy. Oil and gas make up 63% of Russian exports and 49% of the federal budget. Russia displays all of the essential characteristics of a petrostate: a coalition of power and business, rising of a hyperrich rentier class, systemic corruption, influences from the state in the economy, and rising inequality. Like other petrostates, Russia also avoids modernization. The apportionment of goods and services in Russia's exports is a mere 1.7%, while high-technology exports contribute a commiserable .3%. A nuclear power with a natural resource-based economy is a phenomenon the world has never witnessed before; however, the country's ruling elites are no longer set on their nuclear might. "Hydrocarbon politics" has been equally effective. The more dependent the economy becomes on natural resources, the more the Kremlin tries to focus its power, antagonize the West, and intimidate neighboring nations such as Belarus, Ukraine, and former satellite states. Russia is proof that a petrostate can generate growth without development, but a nuclear petrostate that fails to modernize while holding global ambitions is a bad situation for geopolitics.
It is apparent to reasonable people that Russia's postcommunist transformation is a textbook case of what not to do. Almost two decades after communism collapsed, Russia is not a democracy. But it isn't an absolute autocracy like Cuba or North Korea either. It's classification lies between. Russia is a semi-authoritarian regime disguised as a democracy. In this counterfeit democracy, formal institutions that appear democratic hide a system that is authoritarian, oligarchic, and bureaucratic all at once to the point of impairment. It's hard to make clear the line between real and fake. Da, Russia has its political parties, a parliament, trade unions, ect. But in reality they are just Potemkin villages. Russia's elites have been perfecting such deceptions for centuries. Today, the Kremlin even entertains a marginal liberal opposition and other forms of dissent that, accidentally, by their very existence, are part of the sham. This pseudo democracy may turn out to be even more hazardous than the unadulterateed autocracy Russians fought through for decades. Authoritarian or totalitarian regimes at some point create a desire for freedom. Imitation democracies, on the other hand, only serve to degrade liberal democratic institutions and ideals, and the citizens living within them at some point actually long for a real "iron hand." That is not to say that the fight for Russian democracy has no hope. Russians elected both Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin assuming that they would ensure order, back democracy, and attain Western standards of living. They did not choose extremists, nationalists, or communists as their leaders, even though they suffered severe hardships. Today, 70% of Russians say they are prepared to live in a free society. For maybe the first time in Russian history, there are no indomitable barriers to prevent that from happening. The largest barrier is the political and economic elites. Because they are not ready to live in a competing society, they try to persuade the world that Russia is not mature enough to be 100% free. In this, they are backed by the West, which tries hard not to agitate Putin for fear of undermining relations with Russia. Eventually, the West will have to choose between cozy relations with the Kremlin or a truly free Russia.
The idea that Putin created an economic miracle is a popular melody sung by both the Kremlin and Western businesses operating in Russia. On the surface, the economy Putin is leading looks lavish. The country's GDP grew from $200 billion in 1999 to $920 billion in 2006. Economic growth was 6.7% in the first half of 2007 and Russia's economy is now the 10th largest in the world. However, these economic avails have a false bottom-high oil prices-and have been accomplished, at least in part, by protectionism. Putin has failed to stop and work on the inflation and has been forced to freeze food prices. Corporate debt had by Russian companies grew from $40 billion in 1998 to $384 billion in 2007. And larger amounts of Russian investors prefer to take their cash abroad. Elites, who pretend to be openly confident in Russia's future, are flocking to European capitals in droves. Calling Russia an "energy superpower," as the Kremlin likes to do, is a implicit admission of its failure to diversify the economy. Oil and gas make up 63% of Russian exports and 49% of the federal budget. Russia displays all of the essential characteristics of a petrostate: a coalition of power and business, rising of a hyperrich rentier class, systemic corruption, influences from the state in the economy, and rising inequality. Like other petrostates, Russia also avoids modernization. The apportionment of goods and services in Russia's exports is a mere 1.7%, while high-technology exports contribute a commiserable .3%. A nuclear power with a natural resource-based economy is a phenomenon the world has never witnessed before; however, the country's ruling elites are no longer set on their nuclear might. "Hydrocarbon politics" has been equally effective. The more dependent the economy becomes on natural resources, the more the Kremlin tries to focus its power, antagonize the West, and intimidate neighboring nations such as Belarus, Ukraine, and former satellite states. Russia is proof that a petrostate can generate growth without development, but a nuclear petrostate that fails to modernize while holding global ambitions is a bad situation for geopolitics.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Sunday, October 7, 2007
5:20 am is early no matter what time zone you're in
If you're not excited about sports this season you have about as much life in you as Luciano Pavarotti...or me at 5:23 am. The Red Sox are on their way to the World Series and the Pats are striving to go undefeated this season (without cheating). What does this have to do with the people not from Massachusetts that read my blog? Nothing, I guess. You can turn right around and proceed to hell. For those concerned with the overall well being of humanity, the rapture has cometh to Cleveland in the form of the New York Yankees. A swarm of bugs? Tonight, Lake Erie will be red...and not from Red Tide because of the disgusting amounts algae, but rather the plagues of 0-rod and his impending October suck. Why do Boston fans still want to sign this guy:
Oh...wait a second...this guy:
?
Because he puts up flashy numbers during the regular season? You're basically paying $252 million dollars to have your hopes and dreams built up over 162 games and then have them come crashing down in a week every year. Only if there was no rules baseball would he be a good acquisition for the Sox.
All this talk about Pay-rod and the Yankees dumps a huge load on my excitement. Today the Sox face Jered Weaver who has never won against Boston. All the experts are saying that doesn't matter because Weaver has "momentum" coming into the playoffs. Whatever...if the first two games weren't demoralizing enough to this Angels team...surely Papi's numbers against Weaver will thwart any confidence they may have had. But...you can always pitch around Papi to get to a struggling Manny because that never blows up in your face.
The Angels are crippled (Gary Mathews Jr is out, Vladimir Guerrero was pulled from Friday's game, and Garret Anderson's right eye is swollen), but I can guarantee this win today will bring more satisfaction to Sox Nation than if they really played a bunch of handicapped players. Before I fall back asleep, I need to mention that the Colts may lose today and the Pats should definitely win. The Colts already shitty defense will be without Bob Sanders and Rob Morris, Peyton won't have his man-bitch Marvin Harrison, and running back Joseph Addai will be missing in action like Chuck Norris. The Pats, however, are getting stronger because Rodney Harrison is back. So advice for Derek Anderson, don't make your receivers cross the middle of the field...Rodney Harrison will find them. A big LOL @ those who call the Browns "surprisingly potent"...they're still as impotent as we all wish Tom Cruise was. They beat the Bengals and Ravens who they always play hard. Big deal. Alright, updates tonight, I need sleep.
Oh...wait a second...this guy:
?
Because he puts up flashy numbers during the regular season? You're basically paying $252 million dollars to have your hopes and dreams built up over 162 games and then have them come crashing down in a week every year. Only if there was no rules baseball would he be a good acquisition for the Sox.
All this talk about Pay-rod and the Yankees dumps a huge load on my excitement. Today the Sox face Jered Weaver who has never won against Boston. All the experts are saying that doesn't matter because Weaver has "momentum" coming into the playoffs. Whatever...if the first two games weren't demoralizing enough to this Angels team...surely Papi's numbers against Weaver will thwart any confidence they may have had. But...you can always pitch around Papi to get to a struggling Manny because that never blows up in your face.
The Angels are crippled (Gary Mathews Jr is out, Vladimir Guerrero was pulled from Friday's game, and Garret Anderson's right eye is swollen), but I can guarantee this win today will bring more satisfaction to Sox Nation than if they really played a bunch of handicapped players. Before I fall back asleep, I need to mention that the Colts may lose today and the Pats should definitely win. The Colts already shitty defense will be without Bob Sanders and Rob Morris, Peyton won't have his man-bitch Marvin Harrison, and running back Joseph Addai will be missing in action like Chuck Norris. The Pats, however, are getting stronger because Rodney Harrison is back. So advice for Derek Anderson, don't make your receivers cross the middle of the field...Rodney Harrison will find them. A big LOL @ those who call the Browns "surprisingly potent"...they're still as impotent as we all wish Tom Cruise was. They beat the Bengals and Ravens who they always play hard. Big deal. Alright, updates tonight, I need sleep.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
DUH
I can't watch TV without being reminded of the ever-worsening news about America's failing in Iraq. Even Fox News is asking: "Why have we bungled this war so badly?" Right...how could experienced officials be so misguided and incompetent? It's not like the Bush administration doesn't have top officials who don't have any Soviet or Eastern European expertise. So have they applied anything they picked up on from the Cold War's end and aftermath? As strange as this may seem, especially given American penchant for ahistorical and compartmentalized treatment of its foreign affairs, a better understanding would have cautioned much of the US's Iraq folly. Consider the endemeic corruption that has engulfed Iraq and subverts efforts to rebuild the country, provide vital services, and improve lives of ordinary Iraqis. The single most incessant problem across the entire post-communist area is the public and private sector corruption that drains investment, slows growth, and disenthralls once enthusiastic "Westernizers" in even the most successful transition states. Look at Russia, it was chiefly disgust at the rampant criminalization during the 90's that created broad support for Putin's turn to despotic, state-corporatist policies. Building on the ruins of Socialism, since if this chaos and consequent anti-market, anti-democratic backlash was surely inevitable. Even advocates of "shock therapy", *cough* World Bank *cough*, now admit that rapid privatization of state industy and social services led to avoidable destruction and waste, impoverishment, polarization, and corruption. All over Eastern Europe and Central Asia crime and malfeasance fuel an anti-Western force in politics. Instead of using competence guided by real-world experience to establish a plan for Iraq, the administration used naivety fueled by ideology. Designing a utopian private healthcare system and computerizing the Baghdad stock exchange is a good idea? Meanwhile, the state was plundered, social services crashed, and the country quickly descended into chaos. Fuck, I can run this country. How do you overlook the painful post-communist experience, not just repeatedly, but magnify ALL the recent mistakes of transition politics and economics? Donald Rumsfeld so wisely said: "Stuff happens". Hell yes it does, Mr. Rumsfeld. Especially when an old system is destroyed with little regard for the difficult work of preparing a new one. Instead, you put blind faith in the indebtedness of the liberated mass and free market magic. The Bush administration has acknowledged its stupid mistake of dismatling the Iraqi army and dismissing thousands of experienced managers in a sweeping "de-Ba'athification". But we still await for a critique of the numerous other reconstruction failures like the deflection of millions of dollars from unsupervised rebuilding projects to the bribery and pay-offs that permeate everything from small business to nation politics? Hmmm? Oh nevermind.
Any long-tyrannized society can't adapt to Western economic and political models overnight. That's a give-in. Let's take a look at war-torn Bosnia, Kosovo, and even Tajikistan. There were many warnings when Bush 1 wanted to topple Saddam the first time around. What did Bush 2 not see? The likelihood of a Sunni-Shi'ite-Kurdish conflict? They should have looked at what happened between the Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians after the collapse of Yugoslavia or the Pashtuns, Tajiks, and Uzbeks warlordism that came after the fall of the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan. Bloodshed. There are just 2 post-communist dangers that weren't just overlooked, but completely ignored. More specifically the failure to see the consequences of sudden regime change in an area that does not have a single community or nationality and has many divisions in culture, region, and economy.
Face it, Iraq is like America's Chechnya. The Chechens fought the Russians between 1994 and 1996 and that conflict ended in a draw. They signed a cease fire and gave Chechnya de facto independence, but that did no good. The republic became a host to feuding clans, criminal gangs, and Islamic fundamentalism. Putin decided to reinvade after a series of attacks and hostage-takings in Russia. Chechnya today is nothing but a mephitic wound. It's society shattered. The Russians fear withdrawal because that would spur more separatism and bolder terrorist attacks. What connection am I trying to establish here? Corruption and criminalization debilitate stability and much less hopes for democracy. When rival parties are expelled by rival sectarian groups, with then break down into rival paramilitaries and gangs...warlordism transcends the religious or national cause. The opposition becomes so radicalized that yesterday's extremists are today's moderates and the odds of stabilizing that nation grow long. Chechnya is in a constant state of "normalization" like the Oakland Raiders are in a constant state of rebuilding. The occupiers become just as brutal as the insurgents, the ambitious youth seek life abroad, and the rest are nominally ruled by the occupiers. Iraq isn't this bad, but it's showing similarities. Iraq is also much more difficult to handle. America does not just have to abrogate a secessionist challenge and pacify a terrorist threat in a tiny, contingous republic, but build a stable and independent nation on the other side of the world. Shit I am tired. I will build on this later.
Any long-tyrannized society can't adapt to Western economic and political models overnight. That's a give-in. Let's take a look at war-torn Bosnia, Kosovo, and even Tajikistan. There were many warnings when Bush 1 wanted to topple Saddam the first time around. What did Bush 2 not see? The likelihood of a Sunni-Shi'ite-Kurdish conflict? They should have looked at what happened between the Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians after the collapse of Yugoslavia or the Pashtuns, Tajiks, and Uzbeks warlordism that came after the fall of the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan. Bloodshed. There are just 2 post-communist dangers that weren't just overlooked, but completely ignored. More specifically the failure to see the consequences of sudden regime change in an area that does not have a single community or nationality and has many divisions in culture, region, and economy.
Face it, Iraq is like America's Chechnya. The Chechens fought the Russians between 1994 and 1996 and that conflict ended in a draw. They signed a cease fire and gave Chechnya de facto independence, but that did no good. The republic became a host to feuding clans, criminal gangs, and Islamic fundamentalism. Putin decided to reinvade after a series of attacks and hostage-takings in Russia. Chechnya today is nothing but a mephitic wound. It's society shattered. The Russians fear withdrawal because that would spur more separatism and bolder terrorist attacks. What connection am I trying to establish here? Corruption and criminalization debilitate stability and much less hopes for democracy. When rival parties are expelled by rival sectarian groups, with then break down into rival paramilitaries and gangs...warlordism transcends the religious or national cause. The opposition becomes so radicalized that yesterday's extremists are today's moderates and the odds of stabilizing that nation grow long. Chechnya is in a constant state of "normalization" like the Oakland Raiders are in a constant state of rebuilding. The occupiers become just as brutal as the insurgents, the ambitious youth seek life abroad, and the rest are nominally ruled by the occupiers. Iraq isn't this bad, but it's showing similarities. Iraq is also much more difficult to handle. America does not just have to abrogate a secessionist challenge and pacify a terrorist threat in a tiny, contingous republic, but build a stable and independent nation on the other side of the world. Shit I am tired. I will build on this later.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
I didn't go to high school, I went to school high.
Since I write as I go and take no time out of my soooo busy life to put my thoughts into essay form I decided to give you breaks with pictures chosen randomly. Yeah, it doesn't flow and the grammar is probably terrible. Fuck off. When I start school, I'll care, but I am not ready yet. Deal and enjoy.
Question: what is the largest single change that would better U.S. foreign policy that can be achieved simply by an act of political will? Answer: abandonment of the "War" on Drugs. The global war on drugs can't be won. There is no argument. Why am I even posting this? This is silly. The U.N. has this unrealistic goal of achieving a drug free world. How did the alcohol free world go? Oh. The global war on drugs is modeled after America's (where drugs are freely available to anyone who wants them) punitive and moralistic policy. The United States (with less than 5% of the world's population) is first in the world in per capita incarceration (with 25% of the world's prisoners). Listening to America's ideas about prohibition is like listening to Carl Everett's position on dinosaurs. The government treats the usage of drugs like disease control. Politicians will spew garbage about how they must rid the world of drugs like they're a plague. What stupid logic. There is no popular demand for AIDS or small pox.
If the government really wants to go that route, why not accept addiction as what it really is: a health problem, not a criminal one? Most people that use drugs are just like the responsible alcohol users. Oooooh but it's immoral. Where do some people get off thinking there is some principal basis for discriminating against people solely based on what they put in their bodies, absent harm to others? People living in "Jesusland" (good song by NOFX by the way) think legalization will lead to huge increases in drug abuse. Ummmm drugs are pretty much readily available to those who want them now anyways. There's never been a drug free world and there never will be. These people believed in the U.N. General Assembly in 1998 when it committed to "eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, cannabis plant, and the opium poppy by 2008" and reducing demand. Today, global reproduction and consumption of those drugs are roughly the same; meanwhile, many producers have become more efficient, and heroin and cocaine have become purer and cheaper. The government probably spends close to $100 billion on these failed drug policies. Just think if the government used even a third of that to reduce drug related illness and addiction. Fatalities from overdoses would be less and the spread of infectious diseases by sharing syringes would be reduced. The government would rather stick to its "zero tolerance" policies.
I'm totally losing focus. I guess I'll wrap this up because I am getting bored. The problem isn't with drug users because most of them are responsible. The problems are with the government's zero tolerance policy which doesn't allow people with serious addictions to seek help without being indicted. Full legalization may not be realistic at the present time but partial is. The drug that stands the greatest chance of being legalized is cannabis. Hundreds of millions of people use it and most do not suffer harm or go on to use harder drugs. Drug users are not dangerous it's the organized crime markets that are riddled with corruption and violence that are. It would be much more pragmatic if the government would let the powerful alcohol and tobacco companies handle it. The government could regulate the drugs to prevent the diseases that come with unregulated products and eliminate the dangerous markets where one purchases drugs. Prohibition does nothing to stop the desire for drugs.
**I can provide sources. Have a problem with the facts? Email me.
Fin
Question: what is the largest single change that would better U.S. foreign policy that can be achieved simply by an act of political will? Answer: abandonment of the "War" on Drugs. The global war on drugs can't be won. There is no argument. Why am I even posting this? This is silly. The U.N. has this unrealistic goal of achieving a drug free world. How did the alcohol free world go? Oh. The global war on drugs is modeled after America's (where drugs are freely available to anyone who wants them) punitive and moralistic policy. The United States (with less than 5% of the world's population) is first in the world in per capita incarceration (with 25% of the world's prisoners). Listening to America's ideas about prohibition is like listening to Carl Everett's position on dinosaurs. The government treats the usage of drugs like disease control. Politicians will spew garbage about how they must rid the world of drugs like they're a plague. What stupid logic. There is no popular demand for AIDS or small pox.
If the government really wants to go that route, why not accept addiction as what it really is: a health problem, not a criminal one? Most people that use drugs are just like the responsible alcohol users. Oooooh but it's immoral. Where do some people get off thinking there is some principal basis for discriminating against people solely based on what they put in their bodies, absent harm to others? People living in "Jesusland" (good song by NOFX by the way) think legalization will lead to huge increases in drug abuse. Ummmm drugs are pretty much readily available to those who want them now anyways. There's never been a drug free world and there never will be. These people believed in the U.N. General Assembly in 1998 when it committed to "eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, cannabis plant, and the opium poppy by 2008" and reducing demand. Today, global reproduction and consumption of those drugs are roughly the same; meanwhile, many producers have become more efficient, and heroin and cocaine have become purer and cheaper. The government probably spends close to $100 billion on these failed drug policies. Just think if the government used even a third of that to reduce drug related illness and addiction. Fatalities from overdoses would be less and the spread of infectious diseases by sharing syringes would be reduced. The government would rather stick to its "zero tolerance" policies.
I'm totally losing focus. I guess I'll wrap this up because I am getting bored. The problem isn't with drug users because most of them are responsible. The problems are with the government's zero tolerance policy which doesn't allow people with serious addictions to seek help without being indicted. Full legalization may not be realistic at the present time but partial is. The drug that stands the greatest chance of being legalized is cannabis. Hundreds of millions of people use it and most do not suffer harm or go on to use harder drugs. Drug users are not dangerous it's the organized crime markets that are riddled with corruption and violence that are. It would be much more pragmatic if the government would let the powerful alcohol and tobacco companies handle it. The government could regulate the drugs to prevent the diseases that come with unregulated products and eliminate the dangerous markets where one purchases drugs. Prohibition does nothing to stop the desire for drugs.
**I can provide sources. Have a problem with the facts? Email me.
Fin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
