Sunday, October 26, 2008
In Anticipation of Your Insight into the Future
College is good. Kind of want to get back to SF and see Jack, Matt, Ian, etc. again. Mostly posting this because I like the phrase that is the title of this post.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Hey me oh my
Wy the fuck a mI so damn scared of going to sleep sometimes
it's like I'll do anything a t laa to avoid vgoing to sleep
also why cant i type righte on this blog
it's like I'll do anything a t laa to avoid vgoing to sleep
also why cant i type righte on this blog
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Personal Life - St. Gabriel's
I visited Saint Gabriel's today with some old friends from said academy. For the most part, it was all somewhat-awkward, but definitely enjoyable, reunions with old teachers, and simple nostalgia from walking the hallways, looking at the art projects and the familiar off-white walls and green stairs. Good times. One of my friends has a mohawk (screw you firefox I am not capitalizing mohawk) now and caused a roadblock in the stairway while everyone was staring at it.
The highlight, though, was seeing Mr. Moseley again. Good lord that guy is awesome. I had actually forgotten how cool he is. I mean, I knew he was just about the coolest guy ever, and one of the best teachers I ever had, but I didn't remember just the pure goodness that he has. People sometimes say I should be a teacher, and usually I kind of feel disquieted by the thought. It's disturbing. But when I met Mr. Moseley again, it kind of made me think that wouldn't be so bad.
The highlight, though, was seeing Mr. Moseley again. Good lord that guy is awesome. I had actually forgotten how cool he is. I mean, I knew he was just about the coolest guy ever, and one of the best teachers I ever had, but I didn't remember just the pure goodness that he has. People sometimes say I should be a teacher, and usually I kind of feel disquieted by the thought. It's disturbing. But when I met Mr. Moseley again, it kind of made me think that wouldn't be so bad.
Strategy
I've been thinking about politics, and I came up with a metaphor for thinking about political strategy (or, really strategy in general) that I'd like to note down here. I'll outline the thoery first, then give examples in the sport of American football, the art of war, and politics.
The theory: Strategy is about controlling space. The person who will a competition of the sort I am talking about is the person who is better able to exert control over space or to challenge the control of his opponent. First off, space does not necessarily mean physical space. Rather, it represents whatever terrain, real, ideological, or what have you, over which the battle is waged. Generally, the goal of defensive actions is to exert control over a certain area of space and thus limit the operations of the opponent. The goal of offensive actions is to wrest control of whatever areas the enemy controls from them. Generally, there are two sorts of offensive actions: first, actions which attack the strong; second, actions which attack the weak. The first work by battling the enemy on their own terms, essentially by asserting that one's own control of a given space is greater than one's enemies. The second works by asserting control of space not claimed by the oponnent and then using that control to undermine the opponent's control of the space they claim, and thereby make their position untenable or enable an easier assault on their space.
The example, 1: American football. Defense is about limiting space - limiting the space for the back to run, limiting the open field in which to place receivers, either by pretty literally having your players control space in a zone or by having them control the space directly around the players in man coverage. Or both. Offensively, football mostly uses the second sort of strategy. Attacking the strong points is often impossible, unless you are simply much, much better than your opponents. Basically unless you're randy moss. Mostly, offenses work by finding open spots for receivers against the zone, or creating mismatches against the man to man, or by using the run to distort the defense for later in the game.
The example, 2: War. Probably the most obvious, but defenses are essentially meant to control space and to limit the possible options of an enemy. Attacks can either attempt to destroy the enemy's strong points, or can attempt to control weak points - for example, attacking the flank or weak point of a line. Modern warfare does tend to be more about things like logistics and communications that are somewhat outside the scope of this theory - almost metastrategies. I'll talk briefly about those below.
The example, 3: Politics. Defense doesn't work well, but defensive plans revolve around taking some strength of yours and using it to stop whatever plan the other party has. For example, in the 2004 election, Democrats attempted to use Kerry's war experience defensively - to control the ideological space around criticisms of Democrats as weak-willed and anti-military by asserting their own claim over militarity and strength. In this election, on the other hand, McCain is using the POW thing as a serious defensive effort. Not only is he using it to control space about honor and integrity and character, but also about all sorts of things - houses, for example. On the offensive side of things, both strategies are used. The Republicans are particularly adept at attacking strong points - for example, in the Kerry election, they won largely by taking control of the space Kerry had tried to exert control over with the military experience. That was crucial and led directly to Kerry's defeat. The other strategy is much more typical, and involves attacking the opponent where' they're weak - for example, attacking Republicans on economics.
Metastrategies: There's a bunch of metastragies, but I just want to mention a couple. First, resource denial. This only works some places, but essentially it attempts to limit the opponent's access to necessary resources. For example, in football, it might entail intentionally injuring opposing players. In war, it entails destruction of roads or food. In politics, it might entail a battle for the news media. The second: mind games. In football, this might take the form of press and publicity before the game. In war, it would take the form of espionage and counter-espionage - for example, the allied deceit involving the D-Day landing spot in WW2. In politics, an example would be the odd spell of pessimism enveloping the Democrats for the past while.
That is all. Should be one of those stroppy personal posts some of you apparently want above this.
The theory: Strategy is about controlling space. The person who will a competition of the sort I am talking about is the person who is better able to exert control over space or to challenge the control of his opponent. First off, space does not necessarily mean physical space. Rather, it represents whatever terrain, real, ideological, or what have you, over which the battle is waged. Generally, the goal of defensive actions is to exert control over a certain area of space and thus limit the operations of the opponent. The goal of offensive actions is to wrest control of whatever areas the enemy controls from them. Generally, there are two sorts of offensive actions: first, actions which attack the strong; second, actions which attack the weak. The first work by battling the enemy on their own terms, essentially by asserting that one's own control of a given space is greater than one's enemies. The second works by asserting control of space not claimed by the oponnent and then using that control to undermine the opponent's control of the space they claim, and thereby make their position untenable or enable an easier assault on their space.
The example, 1: American football. Defense is about limiting space - limiting the space for the back to run, limiting the open field in which to place receivers, either by pretty literally having your players control space in a zone or by having them control the space directly around the players in man coverage. Or both. Offensively, football mostly uses the second sort of strategy. Attacking the strong points is often impossible, unless you are simply much, much better than your opponents. Basically unless you're randy moss. Mostly, offenses work by finding open spots for receivers against the zone, or creating mismatches against the man to man, or by using the run to distort the defense for later in the game.
The example, 2: War. Probably the most obvious, but defenses are essentially meant to control space and to limit the possible options of an enemy. Attacks can either attempt to destroy the enemy's strong points, or can attempt to control weak points - for example, attacking the flank or weak point of a line. Modern warfare does tend to be more about things like logistics and communications that are somewhat outside the scope of this theory - almost metastrategies. I'll talk briefly about those below.
The example, 3: Politics. Defense doesn't work well, but defensive plans revolve around taking some strength of yours and using it to stop whatever plan the other party has. For example, in the 2004 election, Democrats attempted to use Kerry's war experience defensively - to control the ideological space around criticisms of Democrats as weak-willed and anti-military by asserting their own claim over militarity and strength. In this election, on the other hand, McCain is using the POW thing as a serious defensive effort. Not only is he using it to control space about honor and integrity and character, but also about all sorts of things - houses, for example. On the offensive side of things, both strategies are used. The Republicans are particularly adept at attacking strong points - for example, in the Kerry election, they won largely by taking control of the space Kerry had tried to exert control over with the military experience. That was crucial and led directly to Kerry's defeat. The other strategy is much more typical, and involves attacking the opponent where' they're weak - for example, attacking Republicans on economics.
Metastrategies: There's a bunch of metastragies, but I just want to mention a couple. First, resource denial. This only works some places, but essentially it attempts to limit the opponent's access to necessary resources. For example, in football, it might entail intentionally injuring opposing players. In war, it entails destruction of roads or food. In politics, it might entail a battle for the news media. The second: mind games. In football, this might take the form of press and publicity before the game. In war, it would take the form of espionage and counter-espionage - for example, the allied deceit involving the D-Day landing spot in WW2. In politics, an example would be the odd spell of pessimism enveloping the Democrats for the past while.
That is all. Should be one of those stroppy personal posts some of you apparently want above this.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
BASEBALL
The San Francisco Giants blow this year. This is intuitively obvious to the casual observer. However, I really think that we could be good pretty soon. Here's what I'm thinking.
Sorry this is so long, it's mostly just so i can get my own thoughts on paper
To start - pitching. The Giant's starting lineup is obviously their greatest strength right now. Tim Lincecum is an ace, Matt Cain and Jonathan Sanchez are very very good, and Zito and Correia are fine for fourth and fifth in the rotation. Although we are paying a lot of money for zito, there's nothing we can do about that, so mise well play him. Our relief pitching is not nearly as good, although if Merkin Valdez and Yabu stay healthy they should be able to help there. But relief pitching is one of our big holes - we need somebody to bridge the gap between our awesome starting pitching and Brian Wilson, who is a pretty effective closer.
Our problems this year have obviously stemmed largely from the position players, but this isn't as bad as it looks. A lot of that comes from inexperience, but going forward, we have a lot of future players pretty much locked in. Fred Lewis and Aaron Rowand are long term solutions in the outfield. Fred Lewis in particular has hit very well this year as a rookie, and Rowand is solid. Right now, Dave Roberts and Randy Winn are our guys in left field, but they're 36 and 34 respectively. Still, our outfield is pretty well set.
In the infield, John Bowker at first has been, along with Fred Lewis, one of the awesome rookie stories for the giants this year. Hopefully he'll be playing there for a long time. Ray Durham and Omar Vizquel have been our guys in the center of the infield, but Durham was traded and Vizquel, although he's one of the all-time greats, and he's still incredible defensively, is aging and also not hitting all that well. At all. In the future, it looks like the Giants want Emmanuel Burriss and Eugenio Velez to be there. They're not exciting, but they're fine for holding down those spots. Hopefully they'll improve defensively as they mature; Velez could also use some work on his baserunning. Ochoa is another possibility here. At catcher, the Giants have Molina right now, and draft pick Buster Posey should be a lock there going forward. I have to say, I hope they don't rush him along too quickly - if he sees play in the big leagues next year, I feel like it should be mostly as a backup to Molina.
Third base is a black hole. Right now, we seem to be playing Rich Aurilia and Jose Castillo there. Rich Aurilia is an awesome guy and a Giants classic, but not a long-term solution at 37. Fuck Jose Castillo.
So I think the plan from here is to trade or sign as a free agent a third baseman who can hit really well, get some more relief pitchers, and then rely on our youth players and prospects coming up. It's not a bad plan, and given how shitty our division is, I really feel that playoffs are a possibility in 09 or 10.
Sorry this is so long, it's mostly just so i can get my own thoughts on paper
To start - pitching. The Giant's starting lineup is obviously their greatest strength right now. Tim Lincecum is an ace, Matt Cain and Jonathan Sanchez are very very good, and Zito and Correia are fine for fourth and fifth in the rotation. Although we are paying a lot of money for zito, there's nothing we can do about that, so mise well play him. Our relief pitching is not nearly as good, although if Merkin Valdez and Yabu stay healthy they should be able to help there. But relief pitching is one of our big holes - we need somebody to bridge the gap between our awesome starting pitching and Brian Wilson, who is a pretty effective closer.
Our problems this year have obviously stemmed largely from the position players, but this isn't as bad as it looks. A lot of that comes from inexperience, but going forward, we have a lot of future players pretty much locked in. Fred Lewis and Aaron Rowand are long term solutions in the outfield. Fred Lewis in particular has hit very well this year as a rookie, and Rowand is solid. Right now, Dave Roberts and Randy Winn are our guys in left field, but they're 36 and 34 respectively. Still, our outfield is pretty well set.
In the infield, John Bowker at first has been, along with Fred Lewis, one of the awesome rookie stories for the giants this year. Hopefully he'll be playing there for a long time. Ray Durham and Omar Vizquel have been our guys in the center of the infield, but Durham was traded and Vizquel, although he's one of the all-time greats, and he's still incredible defensively, is aging and also not hitting all that well. At all. In the future, it looks like the Giants want Emmanuel Burriss and Eugenio Velez to be there. They're not exciting, but they're fine for holding down those spots. Hopefully they'll improve defensively as they mature; Velez could also use some work on his baserunning. Ochoa is another possibility here. At catcher, the Giants have Molina right now, and draft pick Buster Posey should be a lock there going forward. I have to say, I hope they don't rush him along too quickly - if he sees play in the big leagues next year, I feel like it should be mostly as a backup to Molina.
Third base is a black hole. Right now, we seem to be playing Rich Aurilia and Jose Castillo there. Rich Aurilia is an awesome guy and a Giants classic, but not a long-term solution at 37. Fuck Jose Castillo.
So I think the plan from here is to trade or sign as a free agent a third baseman who can hit really well, get some more relief pitchers, and then rely on our youth players and prospects coming up. It's not a bad plan, and given how shitty our division is, I really feel that playoffs are a possibility in 09 or 10.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Foreign Policy
What calling do we have to determine the governance of other states? Why are we deciding what is right and proper for other peoples, other lands? No matter how directly such decisions affect us, we have no damned right to decide for any other people how they should govern themselves. If they're against us we can't force them not to be. We can only try to convince them to like us. We've fought wars to allow other nations to decide for themselves who they want to be; why have we wavered from that choice?
The Essence of Government
The current philosophy on government seems often to boil down to passing laws to get people to behave as they should; sadly, the government to a large extent cannot legislate behavior. It cannot legislate tolerance, it cannot legislate charity, it cannot legislate pride in small businesses and America, it cannot legislate virtue; it cannot condemn all crimes. Thus when it tries to do so it fails nobly, and thus when it fails nobly our beloved country, our beloved world, keeps going down the shitter.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Seriously, guys?
Does Terry McAuliffe seriously think Hillary Clinton beats John McCain on national security? Are you serious? Does anyone not being paid by or endorsing Hillary Clinton believe that?
Also does he seriously believe the "world changed on 911" rhetoric that's been used to justify torture?
honestly
Also does he seriously believe the "world changed on 911" rhetoric that's been used to justify torture?
honestly
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
they tell us that we lost our tails
As I write this california returns are 53 Clinton, 37 Obama, 8 Edwards. Getting better as the night gets on, hopefully that trend will continue.
From here, Obama has a decided advantage. Clinton really needs to be able to portray tonight as a victory to fight Obama's advantages in the remaining big states, and she also needs a good lead in delegates. Winning California is crucial for both those things. With the way the rest of the night has gone, it would be almost impossible for either Clinton or Obama to proclaim themselves victorious - they both have nearly the same number of delegates and states. Thus: Clinton can only claim victory if she gets a large margin in CA. And, that large margin will give her a nice delegate lead to sit on.
Also, KRON4's election coverage endeared them to me forever. I absolutely love how they brought a camera into the cubicle section of their office and talked to some guy at a desk, complete with messy papers and straight up regular work pc, about the delegate count.
From here, Obama has a decided advantage. Clinton really needs to be able to portray tonight as a victory to fight Obama's advantages in the remaining big states, and she also needs a good lead in delegates. Winning California is crucial for both those things. With the way the rest of the night has gone, it would be almost impossible for either Clinton or Obama to proclaim themselves victorious - they both have nearly the same number of delegates and states. Thus: Clinton can only claim victory if she gets a large margin in CA. And, that large margin will give her a nice delegate lead to sit on.
Also, KRON4's election coverage endeared them to me forever. I absolutely love how they brought a camera into the cubicle section of their office and talked to some guy at a desk, complete with messy papers and straight up regular work pc, about the delegate count.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
hey
hey
there
people
i'm back from my trip
it was good also i slept a lot
if you are reading this: we should probably hang out
i know this ain't fancy, it's mostly just for function
there
people
i'm back from my trip
it was good also i slept a lot
if you are reading this: we should probably hang out
i know this ain't fancy, it's mostly just for function
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)