Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Please stop combining words, America
Snowmaggedon was never that clever, but the way it rolls off people's tongue in the mid-Atlantic would make you think they'd just discovered gift of gab. But Snowmageddon wasn't the only invention from the recent snow storms. Snowpocalypse was another word-meld that gained in popularity.
For a time I thought this melding of "snow" and a meteorological event was over. Then, on the splash page of MSNBC, there it was today: "Northeast braces for 'Snowicane'"
While the English-language's strength lies in its ability to evolve and adapt to new vernacular, can we come up with something that doesn't make us sound like teenage school girls? And it's not just weather-systems that we're naming. Wordsmith creations like "Frenemy" or "Brangelina" or "Facehook" (one who uses Facebook as a platform for hooking up). Muttering these words to a few close friends is acceptable, just like swearing is. But seeing these words up on news tickers like the Washington Post gets me worried.
Are we learning to say more with less? Possibly. Lord knows, we can speak much more succinctly than our founding fathers could write, and they could certainly write more efficiently than the Brits, and anyone can say more with less than the Russian (see "Crime and Punishment" for clarification).
But George Orwell had his own thoughts on the subject. In 1984, he satires what he sees as the destruction of the English Language through newspeak. The dumbing of the English language--the death of creative metaphors, logical arguments, etc.--is a scary prospect. While the vocabulary of newspeak isn't accurate, its underlying practice is. Think of how often people use 'suck', 'dude' and 'fuck' to intone different meanings. Surely there has to be a zestier way to pepper dialogue. Yet at the same time, none of those words illicit any constructive meaning. When something sucks, it doesn't explain what sucks about it. Oddly, suck is rarely ever meant to mean what it means, just like fuck is rarely used to describe intercourse. The meaning isn't in the definition of the word, but how it is said, which is the same way grunts and moans communicate their underlying meaning.
Consider, please, the next time you are about to write about your fucking life and how much it sucks that you could really cut to the meat of the matter. For the discerning journalists, consider 'snowicane' and its brethern as taboo: you're paid to write and describe and provide logic to a complex world. There's also the fact that the storm hitting the northeast is completely unrelated to a hurricane, and that the storm that hit the mid-atlantic, while hyperbole, did not induce Armageddon.
For a time I thought this melding of "snow" and a meteorological event was over. Then, on the splash page of MSNBC, there it was today: "Northeast braces for 'Snowicane'"
While the English-language's strength lies in its ability to evolve and adapt to new vernacular, can we come up with something that doesn't make us sound like teenage school girls? And it's not just weather-systems that we're naming. Wordsmith creations like "Frenemy" or "Brangelina" or "Facehook" (one who uses Facebook as a platform for hooking up). Muttering these words to a few close friends is acceptable, just like swearing is. But seeing these words up on news tickers like the Washington Post gets me worried.
Are we learning to say more with less? Possibly. Lord knows, we can speak much more succinctly than our founding fathers could write, and they could certainly write more efficiently than the Brits, and anyone can say more with less than the Russian (see "Crime and Punishment" for clarification).
But George Orwell had his own thoughts on the subject. In 1984, he satires what he sees as the destruction of the English Language through newspeak. The dumbing of the English language--the death of creative metaphors, logical arguments, etc.--is a scary prospect. While the vocabulary of newspeak isn't accurate, its underlying practice is. Think of how often people use 'suck', 'dude' and 'fuck' to intone different meanings. Surely there has to be a zestier way to pepper dialogue. Yet at the same time, none of those words illicit any constructive meaning. When something sucks, it doesn't explain what sucks about it. Oddly, suck is rarely ever meant to mean what it means, just like fuck is rarely used to describe intercourse. The meaning isn't in the definition of the word, but how it is said, which is the same way grunts and moans communicate their underlying meaning.
Consider, please, the next time you are about to write about your fucking life and how much it sucks that you could really cut to the meat of the matter. For the discerning journalists, consider 'snowicane' and its brethern as taboo: you're paid to write and describe and provide logic to a complex world. There's also the fact that the storm hitting the northeast is completely unrelated to a hurricane, and that the storm that hit the mid-atlantic, while hyperbole, did not induce Armageddon.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Why mass transit won't work
As one of the fortunate Americans who lives in a city with mass rail transit, I can zip around the District of Columbia with relative ease, so long as I never detour more than a mile from any metro stop, assuming that metro stop is in a safe location with sidewalks and lighting.
For the most part, the metro suits my needs as the city has built around supporting commuters like myself. As an old city with many historic buildings, there's less room for parking, and the roads ... lord, the roads.
But an interesting article in the Economist has recently shed light on how mass transit will just never win over the pleasure of one's own transport, bad traffic or not. The article looked at trees.
The anatomy of trees has always been pitched as an effective means for distributing nutrients, from roots to trunks to main arteries to increasingly smaller ones as the mass of the tree gets thinner and the demand for nutrients is less. In mass transit parlance, this would be a central train station with a spoke of rail lines running out from it, providing increasingly less service as the population decreases.
But research has shown that one aspect of the tree is distinctly different in its structure. Long thought to be a replication of its larger self, leaves, it turns out, aren't structured along that pattern at all. Instead, they have a series of interconnecting routes so that when one portion of the leaf is damaged, nutrients can still travel freely. This is the same as a driver finding a traffic jam and detouring through a side street to avoid the wait.
Mass transit has few options like this. While rail and bus remain predominant, there is no continuous flow through them. Getting those nutrients--that's us--to the right place is often a difficult task because the infrastructure doesn't exist to get us there. Trains take you to a stop where you wait for a bus and when the bus stops you walk the rest of the way. Cumbersome as it is, that is the only alternative.
Cars, or personal means of travel, offer a multitude of routes to arrive at the same location. They are structured like the leaf, less dependent on large arteries and more adaptable to changing situations. Mass transit, by definition, cannot be so agile on account of its, well, mass.
With gas on the rise, and car manufacturers in the red something has to be done. A recent look at Google's route finder told me it would take 22 minutes to travel into the District's Adams Morgan area by car (getting there has often taken 45 minutes in heavy traffic). Mass transit, it said, would take 2 hours and 5 minutes (if I used only buses, which is all that most American cities offer). Walking the 8 miles it happily informed me, would only take fifteen minutes more.
It's not that mass transit is entirely ineffective. But the system does need an overhaul--more rails, more redundancy and more reliability. Why do I mention this? Because I just spent the better part of four hours traveling less than twenty miles by foot, then bus, then rail with a hobo that smelled like sour cheese. Surely there is a better way. For my sake.
For the most part, the metro suits my needs as the city has built around supporting commuters like myself. As an old city with many historic buildings, there's less room for parking, and the roads ... lord, the roads.
But an interesting article in the Economist has recently shed light on how mass transit will just never win over the pleasure of one's own transport, bad traffic or not. The article looked at trees.
The anatomy of trees has always been pitched as an effective means for distributing nutrients, from roots to trunks to main arteries to increasingly smaller ones as the mass of the tree gets thinner and the demand for nutrients is less. In mass transit parlance, this would be a central train station with a spoke of rail lines running out from it, providing increasingly less service as the population decreases.
But research has shown that one aspect of the tree is distinctly different in its structure. Long thought to be a replication of its larger self, leaves, it turns out, aren't structured along that pattern at all. Instead, they have a series of interconnecting routes so that when one portion of the leaf is damaged, nutrients can still travel freely. This is the same as a driver finding a traffic jam and detouring through a side street to avoid the wait.
Mass transit has few options like this. While rail and bus remain predominant, there is no continuous flow through them. Getting those nutrients--that's us--to the right place is often a difficult task because the infrastructure doesn't exist to get us there. Trains take you to a stop where you wait for a bus and when the bus stops you walk the rest of the way. Cumbersome as it is, that is the only alternative.
Cars, or personal means of travel, offer a multitude of routes to arrive at the same location. They are structured like the leaf, less dependent on large arteries and more adaptable to changing situations. Mass transit, by definition, cannot be so agile on account of its, well, mass.
With gas on the rise, and car manufacturers in the red something has to be done. A recent look at Google's route finder told me it would take 22 minutes to travel into the District's Adams Morgan area by car (getting there has often taken 45 minutes in heavy traffic). Mass transit, it said, would take 2 hours and 5 minutes (if I used only buses, which is all that most American cities offer). Walking the 8 miles it happily informed me, would only take fifteen minutes more.
It's not that mass transit is entirely ineffective. But the system does need an overhaul--more rails, more redundancy and more reliability. Why do I mention this? Because I just spent the better part of four hours traveling less than twenty miles by foot, then bus, then rail with a hobo that smelled like sour cheese. Surely there is a better way. For my sake.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Fuel Cells explained to an English major
With the upcoming release of Bloom Energy's mind-blowing, life-altering fuel cell system that will bring our country's climate and energy crisis to an end, the Fourth Corner went looking for an explanation of what the hell a fuel cell is. We turned to our friend and contributor, Gene, who is a science engineering buff who can explain things in terms that even our Editor-in-Chief, Rob understands. So, for those of you without an advanced degree, here is what a fuel cell is for the layman. (Note: Bloom Energy is supposed to change the world, just like the segway was supposed to change the world. Both inventions were financed by the same guy.)
I'm also no expert in chemistry or material science, but I'll explain the basics of what I know. So, when you normally want to use fuel, you burn it, right? Hydrogen and carbon atoms make up molecules in the fuel that break down, reacting with oxygen in the air, producing H20 and CO2, and a lot of heat. As these hydrogen and carbon atoms leave each other to go hook up with sexy
oxygen molecules, they take their electrons with them. The useful energy you get is in the form of heat and expanding gasses. There's no electrical component to it.
In a fuel cell, there's a similar process going on where hydrogen hooks up with oxygen. However, it's not done by lighting it on fire. What you do is keep your hydrogen and oxygen separated by a fancy wall. You then force your hydrogen nuclei (single protons) to squeeze through tiny holes in that fancy wall so that they can get jiggy with oxygen atoms on the other side of the wall. Being a very fancy wall, it will let the hydrogen protons through, but it won't allow through the electrons that once orbited those hydrogen nuclei. So, on the side of the fancy wall with the oxygen, you end up with a lot of extra hydrogen protons (positive charge). On the hydrogen-only side, you end up with a lot of extra electrons (negative charge). By electrically connecting the two sides, you create a path for electron flow, and thus you get electrical current! And between the two side, you can make those electrons go through whatever circuit you want to run a motor, power a computer, etc. Make sense? So a fuel cell can turn chemical energy (like the oxidation of hydrogen) into electrical energy very efficiently because you're directly getting use of the movement of the electrons involved in the chemical reaction. I hope this helps.
The Sex Lives of Hydrogen
I'm also no expert in chemistry or material science, but I'll explain the basics of what I know. So, when you normally want to use fuel, you burn it, right? Hydrogen and carbon atoms make up molecules in the fuel that break down, reacting with oxygen in the air, producing H20 and CO2, and a lot of heat. As these hydrogen and carbon atoms leave each other to go hook up with sexy
oxygen molecules, they take their electrons with them. The useful energy you get is in the form of heat and expanding gasses. There's no electrical component to it.
In a fuel cell, there's a similar process going on where hydrogen hooks up with oxygen. However, it's not done by lighting it on fire. What you do is keep your hydrogen and oxygen separated by a fancy wall. You then force your hydrogen nuclei (single protons) to squeeze through tiny holes in that fancy wall so that they can get jiggy with oxygen atoms on the other side of the wall. Being a very fancy wall, it will let the hydrogen protons through, but it won't allow through the electrons that once orbited those hydrogen nuclei. So, on the side of the fancy wall with the oxygen, you end up with a lot of extra hydrogen protons (positive charge). On the hydrogen-only side, you end up with a lot of extra electrons (negative charge). By electrically connecting the two sides, you create a path for electron flow, and thus you get electrical current! And between the two side, you can make those electrons go through whatever circuit you want to run a motor, power a computer, etc. Make sense? So a fuel cell can turn chemical energy (like the oxidation of hydrogen) into electrical energy very efficiently because you're directly getting use of the movement of the electrons involved in the chemical reaction. I hope this helps.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Rise of the Superpowerless
Here at the Fourth Corner we've discussed how horror movies are a reflection of our collective fears (see "Saw VI is just a metaphor for Osama Bin Laden"). If the spate of movies coming out in the next few months are also an indicator of our collective mood, then things have looked better.
In the next few months, there are a litany of movies coming out about superheroes that aren't superheroes at all. Instead, the heroes are average joes whose only real power is will power, and that doesn't tend to stop bullets. They're mainly laughable, and, if past movies in the same genre are any indication they'll probably stumble upon an actual bad guy and somehow defeat them because Americans just love happy endings.
There's a charming bit of hope in movies like these, and it's a delightful sign of our times. In the case of Woody Harrelson's "Defendor" the bumbling hero takes on his villain Captain Industry (or tries to). Wrapped up in that is a thinly veiled statement that, when all other 'real' heroes (Congress, Wall Street regulators) are incapable of taking on bad guys (Corporate profits, environmental disasters, etc.) it's up to the average American to defeat them. Put in political parlance, these movies are all about Main Street taking on Wall Street because no one else will. If doing that requires us to use a jar of wasps and lime juice, so be it.
It makes sense that such movies are coming out. With a stagnant Congress, recession, those huge profits on a bailed-out Wall Street, increasing disparities between the country's rich and the country's poor, it's no surprise that the average Joe is getting ready to take up arms to right the wrongs of his nation.
That he gives us a chuckle on the big screen is nice, but politicians should take note that even if Hollywood gives us a happy ending, reality may not. An Average Joe in a cape is much less threatening that a frustrated man who flies a plane into an IRS building.
The most terrifying bit of any superhero movie--superpowers or not--is that a city or country's infrastructure has failed to such a desperate degree that people think they need a superhero in the first place. Let's hope we don't.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Sports White People Watch
I picked up the paper this morning to find Tiger Wood's mug on the front page with the headline "We're All Ears." Apparently, el Tigre is going to apologize to the world for sleeping around on his wife.
To Tiger I say this: don't.
First, I could give a shit who you slept with. The rest of the world should also give a shit who you slept with. Indeed, the only people that should care is you and your wife, and the litany of other chicks you banged out with. America, pay attention to something else. Like Afghanistan. Or the fact that people now think it's cool to fly planes into buildings. Or Haiti. Remember Haiti?
Or if you're inclined to keep your TV tuned to sports, why not try the winter Olympics? If you're upset with the moral corruptibility of the game of golf, try curling, or speed skating, or ice dancing. With a one-two combination of Canada and sports that almost are exclusively watched and played by well to-do white people, the Winter Olympics is the lactose-free milk of sports: it won't upset anyone.
Prior to the Tiger Woods scandal, I suppose most people would have said that about golf, but golf with it's balls and sticks and tropical, sweaty climate (invented by guys in kilts) was begging for some sex scandal. Winter sports lacks the most basic of human interaction as most sports there are solo events played by people bundled up in layers of clothes. Plus golf is boring.
More importantly, why does America need a great golfer to be a moral beacon? Would this coverage be so grandiose if Tiger was a linebacker or basketball player or ultimate fighter or the best at some less "civilized" (read: pretentious) sport? I'd say it's a plus, sure, and Tiger really had us all going with how overwhelmingly boring he was, but so long as his infidelities don't happen on the green during the Pro Tournament (is that a golf thing?), who cares? I certainly don't. If we're looking to golf for our moral guidance, we're pretty fucked as it is.
But apparently that's where America IS looking, because here it is, on the front page. Not Afghanistan where it looks like Americans are winning for once (and getting the cooperation of Pakistan). Not the winter Olympics where world records are being smashed on a daily basis. Not on Haiti where 1 in 32 died last month and now flooding is coming. Not on the coup in Niger (okay, it's Africa, I may be asking too much). Not on the fact that the IAEA just said Iran really is going for nukes. Not on the friggin' nutwhack in Austin. Not on the economy which, FYI, is still in the pot. Not the fact (looking at you here Washington Post) that half of the stimulus dollars allocated to Washington, DC, went straight to a private company, Clark Construction, who cleared over 4.7 billion dollars in revenue during the worst year of the recession, 2008. I mean, really, Tiger Woods takes top billing? The media--"fourth branch of the government," "voice of the people"--has declared Tiger Woods as THE most important story of the day? Fuck.
So don't apologize Tiger. Not to the AP or to any camera. We really shouldn't care. Help us not care.
To Tiger I say this: don't.
First, I could give a shit who you slept with. The rest of the world should also give a shit who you slept with. Indeed, the only people that should care is you and your wife, and the litany of other chicks you banged out with. America, pay attention to something else. Like Afghanistan. Or the fact that people now think it's cool to fly planes into buildings. Or Haiti. Remember Haiti?
Or if you're inclined to keep your TV tuned to sports, why not try the winter Olympics? If you're upset with the moral corruptibility of the game of golf, try curling, or speed skating, or ice dancing. With a one-two combination of Canada and sports that almost are exclusively watched and played by well to-do white people, the Winter Olympics is the lactose-free milk of sports: it won't upset anyone.
Prior to the Tiger Woods scandal, I suppose most people would have said that about golf, but golf with it's balls and sticks and tropical, sweaty climate (invented by guys in kilts) was begging for some sex scandal. Winter sports lacks the most basic of human interaction as most sports there are solo events played by people bundled up in layers of clothes. Plus golf is boring.
More importantly, why does America need a great golfer to be a moral beacon? Would this coverage be so grandiose if Tiger was a linebacker or basketball player or ultimate fighter or the best at some less "civilized" (read: pretentious) sport? I'd say it's a plus, sure, and Tiger really had us all going with how overwhelmingly boring he was, but so long as his infidelities don't happen on the green during the Pro Tournament (is that a golf thing?), who cares? I certainly don't. If we're looking to golf for our moral guidance, we're pretty fucked as it is.
But apparently that's where America IS looking, because here it is, on the front page. Not Afghanistan where it looks like Americans are winning for once (and getting the cooperation of Pakistan). Not the winter Olympics where world records are being smashed on a daily basis. Not on Haiti where 1 in 32 died last month and now flooding is coming. Not on the coup in Niger (okay, it's Africa, I may be asking too much). Not on the fact that the IAEA just said Iran really is going for nukes. Not on the friggin' nutwhack in Austin. Not on the economy which, FYI, is still in the pot. Not the fact (looking at you here Washington Post) that half of the stimulus dollars allocated to Washington, DC, went straight to a private company, Clark Construction, who cleared over 4.7 billion dollars in revenue during the worst year of the recession, 2008. I mean, really, Tiger Woods takes top billing? The media--"fourth branch of the government," "voice of the people"--has declared Tiger Woods as THE most important story of the day? Fuck.
So don't apologize Tiger. Not to the AP or to any camera. We really shouldn't care. Help us not care.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
All the Rave in Mozambique!
They may rank the lowest on the Human Development Index and have one of the lowest life expectancies in the world, but the people of Mozambique do have one thing: the wit and wisdom of the Fourth Corner.
Yes, they may not understand English (Portuguese is the main language there), and they may not even have Facebook pages to talk about how brilliant this blog is, but what's important is that they logged on.
Who logged on you may ask? Who would be so bold, wise, and handsome to journey all the way to Mozambique just to put another notch on the Fourth Corner's world domination tour? None other than the triathlete, Brazzaville-Congo-knowing, Luisa-marrying, Brookland-living, First-Corner-making man himself: Steevie.
But there's one other country that's made it on the list last week. An honorable mention has to go out to Darren "The Phoenix" Rogers who may not be able to grow a mustache, but can win 'unwinnable' wars in Iraq and, more recently, Afghanistan. Don't let the Metallica shirt fool you, Darren will just as easily log onto the Fourth Corner as he will snap you like a twig if you're a terrorist.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
War on Terror using Cold War playbook
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The list of assassinations has crept up over the past month, and they all seem to have one thing in common: Israel. While plausible deniability remains the country's best defense, it appears that the Global War on Terror is taking lessons out of the Cold War's playbook.
Authorities in Dubai recently announced the January 20th death of a Hamas leader in one of their luxury hotels that smacks of 007-hijinks: eleven suspected assassins flew into the Emirate on separate flights, dressed up in disguises ranging from wigs to tennis wear, followed a Hamas terrorist to his room, suffocated him, and then departed the country within 19 hours of arriving. The Hamas man, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, was recently fingered for the death of two Israeli soldiers in 1989.
Linking the assassins back to nearly anywhere is tough, as all used fake passports from European countries. The only positive ID of the killers comes from Dubai's elaborate security camera system, which at one point caught the killers and the victim riding the same elevator to the man's hotel room. Said a former high-ranking Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) expert, it "doesn't look like an Israeli operation" because its members were caught on security cameras, an apparent amateur move.
However, there are links to Israel. First, the victim was a Hamas leader. Second, many of the passports used, while British in origin, have ties back to Israel: one of the actual passport holders is an American-Israeli and another had used his passport to work on an Israeli farm.
As an added twist, Dubai recently arrested two Palestinian Authority citizens, muddying the waters all the more.
Still, the Dubai assassination isn't the only peculiar death in the Middle East in recent months. Iranian nuclear physicist Masoud Alimohammadi was recently killed in Tehran when his motorcycle was blown up by remote detonation, according to the Economist. While more speculation circulates around what Alimohammadi's role was in potentially weaponizing Iranian uranium for the Ministry of Defense, just as much ambiguity revolves around who killed him.
In both cases, there are multiple parties who benefited from the individual's deaths. As for Mahmoud al-Mahoub, Israel clearly wanted revenge, but his death also benefited the Fatah party, and even some within Hamas. As for the Iranian physicist, he had family ties to the recent opposition in Iran, and so Iran's own government may have sought to make an example of him.
However, it's an apt time for Israel to shift to covert tactics, and certainly Israel is the most likely culprit in both cases. The overt Israel-Hezbollah conflict ruined Israel's reputation without accomplishing much. With conventional methods currently taboo, a rising Iranian nuclear power, and a militant wing of Hamas to keep in check, covert is the perfect way for Israel to tell its foes that it isn't out of the fight, its just changed tactics.
Planting circumstantial evidence--the surveillance videos, the use passports that loosely tie back to Israel--is a brilliant way to warn enemies to keep themselves in check without allowing for outright retaliation or international condemnation in the minefield that is Middle Eastern politics. In the Cold War similar tactics were used to eliminate threats without inducing an international incident, and now, it seems, the Middle East is taking note.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Tea Party is a sign that all is well in America. Sort of.
The recent rise of Glenn Beck's renegade Tea Party (Taxed Enough Already) is a sign of a healthy and evolving government. Despite Tea Party rhetoric, and despite counterarguments from both parties, the apocalypse is not on the horizon, nor is the downfall of America. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's better than ever.
The Tea Party largely rose to prominence at the outset of what is now being called the "Great Recession", primarily when both President's Bush and Obama signed separate bailout bills loaning over a trillion dollars to help curtail the plummeting economy and unfreeze the credit markets. The decentralized movement's one common theme is that the deficit is growing too large, and that the government is growing too big. It's right there in the title: Tea Party followers are just plain Taxed Enough.
While it is easy to be distracted by outspoken affiliates of the Tea Party--the ill-spoken Sarah Palin or the End-is-Near diatribes of Glenn Beck--the party, at it's base, does have a point. America has racked up the largest deficit since World War II. The Bush tax cuts worth over 1.3 trillion dollars are about to lapse.
The Tea party's rise is a natural reaction to such large spending and such high taxes. It's rising prominence in the political field is a healthy and fascinating one, one that can largely be tied to policy as well as the internet: this is the first instance in which conservatives have been able to effectively harness the power of social media because it's the first time they have been out of office. Barack Obama used these tools in 2008, and now conservatives appear to be joining in as well.
Similarly, the downfall of the republican party--or more accurately it's transformation--can be traced in history. In the 1850s the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act frustrated so many Americans that it was the death nell of the Whig Party, which reemerged as the modern Republican party. Now, perhaps, the G-O-P will trade in for T-E-A.
While party evolution is necessary and healthy for American politics--Thomas Jefferson wished America to be in a state of "constant revolution"--what is disturbing is the partisan knee-jerk reaction in its tone. Jefferson may have wished for a constant revolution, but it is necessary for that revolution to occur in the halls of Congress than on the battlefields of Gettysburg or on the walls of Fort Sumter.
If the Tea Party is sincere in its desire to both reduce the deficit and cut taxes, it must decide which is the higher priority. We are in two costly wars and in the middle of what truly is a Great Recession. Spending on a large scale will not stop until any of those are resolved. To prevent the deficit from growing, taxes will have to rise to cover those costs. The same is true with Social Security (which Bush tried to reform) and health care (which Obama tried to reform). Together, spending on both these programs costs the American taxpayer over half of our entire budget each year, about 1.5 trillion dollars. If the Tea Party is sincere in its desire to lower the deficit and cut taxes, these two programs should be looked at with a discerning eye, and offer a solution to repairing both of their bloated budgets.
These problems are national problems that transcend party lines, and, as such, should transcend party politics. If the Tea Party wants to usurp the republican party as a counterbalance to the nation's liberals, then it should consider honing its rhetoric to offer smart solutions to the problems it has so clearly pointed out. Shouting matches at townhall meetings and rally's outside the Capitol show dissatisfaction at the status quo, but do not qualify as rational debates. Obama has constantly called on the republican party to offer plans on reform, this would be a great opportunity for the Tea Party to provide a logical counteroffer to his proposals and should not be missed.
When George Washington warned against the two-party system, it was not their opposing views that he warned against, but the tone use to express their mutual opposition: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism."
The Tea Party's greatest chance for success is not poisonous rhetoric, but a measured and balanced tone advocating policies--be they liberal or conservative--that will achieve the tax and deficit reduction the Tea Party seeks. If the Tea Party can offer such a plan, it's ranks will grow, and with it, so will the health of the nation.
The Tea Party largely rose to prominence at the outset of what is now being called the "Great Recession", primarily when both President's Bush and Obama signed separate bailout bills loaning over a trillion dollars to help curtail the plummeting economy and unfreeze the credit markets. The decentralized movement's one common theme is that the deficit is growing too large, and that the government is growing too big. It's right there in the title: Tea Party followers are just plain Taxed Enough.
While it is easy to be distracted by outspoken affiliates of the Tea Party--the ill-spoken Sarah Palin or the End-is-Near diatribes of Glenn Beck--the party, at it's base, does have a point. America has racked up the largest deficit since World War II. The Bush tax cuts worth over 1.3 trillion dollars are about to lapse.
The Tea party's rise is a natural reaction to such large spending and such high taxes. It's rising prominence in the political field is a healthy and fascinating one, one that can largely be tied to policy as well as the internet: this is the first instance in which conservatives have been able to effectively harness the power of social media because it's the first time they have been out of office. Barack Obama used these tools in 2008, and now conservatives appear to be joining in as well.
Similarly, the downfall of the republican party--or more accurately it's transformation--can be traced in history. In the 1850s the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act frustrated so many Americans that it was the death nell of the Whig Party, which reemerged as the modern Republican party. Now, perhaps, the G-O-P will trade in for T-E-A.
While party evolution is necessary and healthy for American politics--Thomas Jefferson wished America to be in a state of "constant revolution"--what is disturbing is the partisan knee-jerk reaction in its tone. Jefferson may have wished for a constant revolution, but it is necessary for that revolution to occur in the halls of Congress than on the battlefields of Gettysburg or on the walls of Fort Sumter.
If the Tea Party is sincere in its desire to both reduce the deficit and cut taxes, it must decide which is the higher priority. We are in two costly wars and in the middle of what truly is a Great Recession. Spending on a large scale will not stop until any of those are resolved. To prevent the deficit from growing, taxes will have to rise to cover those costs. The same is true with Social Security (which Bush tried to reform) and health care (which Obama tried to reform). Together, spending on both these programs costs the American taxpayer over half of our entire budget each year, about 1.5 trillion dollars. If the Tea Party is sincere in its desire to lower the deficit and cut taxes, these two programs should be looked at with a discerning eye, and offer a solution to repairing both of their bloated budgets.
These problems are national problems that transcend party lines, and, as such, should transcend party politics. If the Tea Party wants to usurp the republican party as a counterbalance to the nation's liberals, then it should consider honing its rhetoric to offer smart solutions to the problems it has so clearly pointed out. Shouting matches at townhall meetings and rally's outside the Capitol show dissatisfaction at the status quo, but do not qualify as rational debates. Obama has constantly called on the republican party to offer plans on reform, this would be a great opportunity for the Tea Party to provide a logical counteroffer to his proposals and should not be missed.
When George Washington warned against the two-party system, it was not their opposing views that he warned against, but the tone use to express their mutual opposition: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism."
The Tea Party's greatest chance for success is not poisonous rhetoric, but a measured and balanced tone advocating policies--be they liberal or conservative--that will achieve the tax and deficit reduction the Tea Party seeks. If the Tea Party can offer such a plan, it's ranks will grow, and with it, so will the health of the nation.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Why Marjah matters
As an American who served in Iraq and worked intelligence on the Afghanistan problem for a brief time, I still don't know where Marjah is. I had to look it up. While Marjah is an important geographic location--in the heart of Afghanistan's pashtun country, in the heart of Afghanistan's poppy crops, in the heart of the southern insurgency--these are not the reasons Marjah is significant.
This is why Marjah is significant. We are going it slow. This may not sound like a tetonic shift in strategic policy for our military, but it is.
In the late months of 2001 and in 2002 when America invaded Afghanistan, I was in a small classroom at the University of Washington listening to a lecture by a man from the War College who had helped Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld layout his military strategy. He made a distinct comparison by what we were doing in Afghanistan to the First World War, and it is a comparison that defined our strategy in the wars we've fought over the past decade.
In World War I, strategists lauded a new form of technology that would render the average infantryman obsolete. Field Artillery--dubbed the "King of Battle" because of its sheer violence of action--was it. The advent of accurate long-range artillery would replace the infantry as the primary fighting weapon in World War I. Long-range fires would decimate the enemy position, and a relatively small fighting force would then enter the area, kill or capture any remaining enemies, and the war would be won.
As we know, the Great War did not play out like this. Field Artillery made a brutal war more brutal, and made one of the bloodiest wars in human history. But the thinking that technology could put fewer fighting men in harms way--the same logic invented the machine gun--was a pleasant one. It was patriotic and held in high regard that Americans could invent their way out of any crisis. It was a peaceful, lulling thought, but it was inaccurate then, just as it is now.
At the outset of the Afghan war, field artillery was an integral part of the military outfit, but there was a new player on the field, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or UAV. Armed with hellfire missiles at most, or the ability to range in artillery at a minimum, a UAV could glide over the mountainous regions of the Hindu Kush and kill the enemy. A small fighting force of rangers or marines or special forces could then go in and clean up the remainder. War won.
But in our obsession with making war safer for our troops, we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, enemies could be killed with fewer troops on the ground, but nothing could be liberated.
What took us four years to learn in Iraq has taken us nine years to learn in Afghanistan. Marjah is our first test in a new strategy. Go slow. As marines creep into the southern city, they are entering by foot. Instead of rushing in by vehicles and scrambling to take the city center, they are going slowly and deliberately. Flushing out snipers is done with counter fires, grenades and mortars. The same is true with counterattacks on ambushes. The UAVs are there, the field artillery is there, but they are regarded as a last resort because the victory is not in killing the bad guys, but in saving the lives of the people in Marjah.
This strategy will take more troops, and it will ask more of those on the ground, at least in the short term. But the surge strategy is simple. It was recommended by Powell a long time ago--overwhelming force. It was recommended by Shinseki too, who was fired for saying we needed more troops. Now Petraeus and McChrystal have the ears of leadership and are telling them the same thing: more troops, be they Afghan or American or British or Canadian. Then we clear, we hold, and we build. Only one of those steps can be done with a UAV. The rest of the job belongs to the oldest branch in the military, the infantry.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
How much is your Nintendo worth?
A Nintendo Entertainment System sold on e-Bay for over $13,000 this week. The reason why? The game system came bundled with a hard-to-find game called Stadium Events that collectors drool over. Only ten copies of the game are thought to exist.
More so, the game had its original cardboard packaging, alone valued at $10,000 in collector's circles. For comparison purposes, that's more than the average annual income of Mexicans ($8,950 USD).
While it appears Nintendo nerdome is recession-proof, it's not clear if the buyer will have to blow on the cartridge to make it work.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Snow shit! Snomaggedon breaks snow/blog records!
Yesterday, the Washington DC region beat the 1898-99 previous snowfall record by a half-inch for a total of 54.7 inches. Take that 19th century! This historic event means that this winter has seen more snowfall in the DC region than any other time in history, which of course has people doubting the effects of global warming.
As initially reported by a Fourth Corner follower, Special K, all the folks on Capitol Hill are gearing up to not-pass the climate change legislation before them because clearly, if there is snow on the ground, the world must not be getting warmer. Climate change on a global scale--constituting weather inversions, shifting pressure systems, and jet streams--is just that simple.
But more important than the demise of an earth-friendly popular movement like climate change, is the fact that yesterday over 300 people logged into the Fourth Corner to read about SnOMG/SnOMFG. As this blog was featured on the blog section of the Washington Post, folks logged on by the hundreds to see pictures of my front yard. But where did they log in from? Let's have a look at the latest global tally:
Yes! Five new countries have received the enlightenment of the Fourth Corner. Welcome Afghanistan! Welcome Egypt! Welcome Ukraine and Sweden and that country beside Belgium! That's five new countries in just over a week for a total of 57. Keep 'em coming!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
More SnOMFG, Snowmaggedon, Snowpocalypse, Snowshank Redemption, Snowmagdon Man, Snowpublican Convention, District of Snowlombia, Blizzeratti 2010
More photos of a small dog tromping through the snow here in Virginia are up on the Year of Weekends site! Got a name for this year's blizzard? Let's hear them!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
SnOMFG 2010: The Snowiest DC in History
SnOMFG 2010 as defined by the Urban Dictionary:
The massive snow storm that hit the Mid-Atlantic region of the US, specifcially
Northern Virginia, D.C., Maryland, West Virgina and Pennslyvania.
The first wave hit Feb 6, Saturday Morning, dropping a record 32.4 inches at Dulles
International Airport in a two day period. The second wave fell on Feb 9,
Tuesday morning and brought another 10-20 inches to the effected areas.
Yes, the mid-Atlantic region of the United States, namely, the Fourth Corner world headquarters has been socked by snow, yet again. As previously reported in December during the Great Virginia Blizzard of 2009, it's been a wholloping season for the DC region as we break record after record of snowfall. December 2009 hit the record for most snowfall in that month
since the record books existed. February is shaping up to be no different.
As reported by the micro-blog Outside the Beltway this winter the Washington DC region has had more snowfall than the past four winters combined. If we get hit again tonight with another storm in DC, then we'll have broken every single snow record on the books since, well, ever.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
America's oddest campaign commercial
The Congressional election year kicks off with what can only be described as the single greatest campaign commercial of all time. Found on the Washington Post's site, Republican Carly Fiornia has attacked her democratic opponent, Tom Campbell ... by calling him a sheep. Or is he a wolf in sheep's clothing (with demon eyes) and she's the sheep? Aren't sheep followers? Wait, she's saying Californians are sheep. Did anyone think this out? Pigs! Sheep! Sheep! Pigs!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Punxsutawney Phil feels pinch of recession
Punxsutawney Phil, that groundhog in Pennsylvania who is endowed with the gift of prophecy, has seen his shadow. Six more weeks of winter are due.
But humans aren't the only species desperate for work this year. With the recession in full swing, other animals around the world are vying for the top spot of ma' nature meteorologist. A short tabulation of other animals that predicted how long winter would last in 2010:
And then there is Groundfrog Day, in Snohomish, Washington. As far as I can tell, Seattlites are promised eight more weeks of soggy weather if, on Groundhog day (sorry, Groundfrog day), they rub the belly of a frog. Snohomish Slew, the "meteorologist frognositcator", also predicted six more weeks of winter, and that the silvertips would win at the Western Hockey League this season (check out the Snoho paper for more details)* Punxsutawney Phil of Pennsylvania - Saw his shadow
* Dover Doug - Saw his shadow
* Richard of Quarryville - Did not see his shadow
* Octoraro Orphie - Did not see his shadow
* Jimmy of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin - Did not see his shadow
* General Beauregard Lee of Snellville, Georgia - Did not see his shadow
* Malverne Mel of Malverne, New York - Saw his shadow
* Chuck of Staten Island NYC - Did not see his shadow
* Willie of Woodstock, Illinois - Did not see his shadow
* Willie of Wiarton, Ontario - Saw his shadow
* Joe of Spanish, Ontario - Saw his shadow
* Dave of Dunkirk, New York - Did not see his shadow
* Buckeye Chuck of Marion, Ohio - Did not see his adumbration and endure but not the least
* Sam of Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia - Saw his shadow
Whoever you rely on in these tough times to predict your winter weather--whether it's a groundhog, or groundfrog--one thing is certain: the jobs of strange men in top hats will persevere.
(Keep an eye out for hot, hot news pornography at the end of the clip, laugh about Australia, and then visit us over at The Dingo.)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
(Photo credits: Top photo from Doug Ramsay in the Tribune)
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell, But join up anyway!
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will be on Capitol Hill today, discussing the Obama administrations broad plan to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on homosexuals. Gates faces an uphill battle against increasingly raucous conservatives and increasingly timid democrats, all who are anxious to put their name on anything controversial in an election year.
Despite this, Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-Pa) and his 187 co-sponsors have publicly thrown their support behind allowing openly gay service members to serve their country. Still, the fodder from the opposition is strong: General George Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff, has voiced that he believed the ban shouldn't be lifted until the US completes its withdrawal from Iraq (though homosexuality in Iraq is less taboo than in America). A second member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is also in opposition to the repeal: Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway believes the repeal would affect military readiness.
This battle has been fought before. In 1948, despite the opposition from high-ranking members of the military, President Harry S. Truman bypassed Congress and signed Executive Order 9811, effectively desegregating the military. When the Executive Order was signed, many tried to create laws which would have rendered the Order moot, namely Richard B. Russell, a Democratic Senator from Georgia.
Despite segregation laws during World War II, high-casualty units who were low on white soldiers were often forcibly desegregated through reinforcements of black soldiers. When the segregated Eighth Army went to the Korean front in 1950 and suffered staggering losses, black soldiers soon joined the fight and helped push back the communists to the 38th parallel. It seems racial supremacy was an issue until death and defeat were on the line. By 1951, the Army formally desegregated its units.
The military preceded the rest of America in desegregation by over a decade. It was a moral choice: when Truman signed the Order we were not a nation at war. The Man from Missouri knew it was the right thing to do.
Now in the midst of two wars where gays and straights have served side-by-side, we're faced with a similar dilemma. Cries from the right will say openly-serving gays will affect military readiness. I say we are fortunate they are serving in our ranks today, despite our rejection of their lifestyles.
Richard B. Russell, the democrat from Georgia, had tried to pass a bill allowing white soldiers to choose whether they wanted to serve in a segregated military unit or not. The bill was defeated twice in Congress, and defeated again in Korea, and again in Vietnam, and again in Panama, and again in Iraq and again in Afghanistan when soldiers chose to serve with people of different backgrounds in the foxhole next to them. Soldiers in the Army want someone beside them they can trust, a trait that transcends race and sexual orientation. It doesn't matter who they are or how they live. Our laws should reflect that.
Support Patrick Murphy.
Despite this, Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-Pa) and his 187 co-sponsors have publicly thrown their support behind allowing openly gay service members to serve their country. Still, the fodder from the opposition is strong: General George Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff, has voiced that he believed the ban shouldn't be lifted until the US completes its withdrawal from Iraq (though homosexuality in Iraq is less taboo than in America). A second member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is also in opposition to the repeal: Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway believes the repeal would affect military readiness.
This battle has been fought before. In 1948, despite the opposition from high-ranking members of the military, President Harry S. Truman bypassed Congress and signed Executive Order 9811, effectively desegregating the military. When the Executive Order was signed, many tried to create laws which would have rendered the Order moot, namely Richard B. Russell, a Democratic Senator from Georgia.
Despite segregation laws during World War II, high-casualty units who were low on white soldiers were often forcibly desegregated through reinforcements of black soldiers. When the segregated Eighth Army went to the Korean front in 1950 and suffered staggering losses, black soldiers soon joined the fight and helped push back the communists to the 38th parallel. It seems racial supremacy was an issue until death and defeat were on the line. By 1951, the Army formally desegregated its units.
The military preceded the rest of America in desegregation by over a decade. It was a moral choice: when Truman signed the Order we were not a nation at war. The Man from Missouri knew it was the right thing to do.
Now in the midst of two wars where gays and straights have served side-by-side, we're faced with a similar dilemma. Cries from the right will say openly-serving gays will affect military readiness. I say we are fortunate they are serving in our ranks today, despite our rejection of their lifestyles.
Richard B. Russell, the democrat from Georgia, had tried to pass a bill allowing white soldiers to choose whether they wanted to serve in a segregated military unit or not. The bill was defeated twice in Congress, and defeated again in Korea, and again in Vietnam, and again in Panama, and again in Iraq and again in Afghanistan when soldiers chose to serve with people of different backgrounds in the foxhole next to them. Soldiers in the Army want someone beside them they can trust, a trait that transcends race and sexual orientation. It doesn't matter who they are or how they live. Our laws should reflect that.
Support Patrick Murphy.
Monday, February 1, 2010
All the rave in ALL 50 STATES
Yes ladies and gentlemen, on a cold and blustery Friday here in the mid-atlantic region, David of Delaware signed on and made world history: The Fourth Corner is now streaming in all 50 states of the union, and in our nation's capital where Mr. Obama has made it required reading for his staff.
World peace was promised if we could get views in all 50 states. Since we met our goal no country has declared war against its neighbor so it looks like, so far, that promise has been fulfilled. Tip of the hat to you, David.
World peace achieved, we look ahead into the next year and our next goal: global enlightenment. America conquered, in the Fourth Corner's second year, we ambitiously aim to conquer--or at least have someone log in--from every country in the world.
As such, once a week we will feature one country that hasn't yet seen or heard the wise wisdom of the Fourth Corner. We've logged in a whooping 52 countries thus far, so we've only got 143 to go!
Remember, if you're traveling or know a friend down in Comoros or Kazakhstan, all that's required is to log onto http://thefourthcorner.blogspot.com and we'll have that country logged! Be sure to post a comment so we know who you are when you've done it! Onward upward!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)