Anderson Silva

Remember, Anderson Silva is NOT invincible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=267i7rKeECA

My Life

I think my life can more or less be summed up as the average of these two pictures:

Yep, that about does it.

Predictions and Predilections

I have lately had the feeling that it was time for alternative rock to make a comeback. Maybe it was a new-Metallica-album induced feeling, or maybe it was Gavin Rossdale's re-emergence. Whatever started it, I can't say.

But, I did just buy several Stabbing Westward albums, a Local H album, a Gravity Kills album, an Oleander album, and a Toadies and a Veruca Salt song.

I don't generally like to go way out on a limb with a hard prediction, but that's exactly what I'm doing right now. It's time for a 90's rock revival.

Here's a link to get you started.

The Origins of Donnie Darko?

For some reason (I can't remember why), I had a 1950 movie called "Harvey" in my Netflix queue. It's one of the movies that Netflix has made available, via Starz, for instant viewing on the Xbox. However, it's only available until Dec. 1st. Noticing this, I moved it to the top of my queue today.

What I found was most surprising. This movie is very good, and it features a 6' 3.5" rabbit that can stop time.

More research shows that Donnie Darko was probably based, in all or part, on the Bunny Man legend of Fairfax County, Virginia.

And the legend is based, I suspect, directly or indirectly, on the movie, "Harvey." Because Donnie Darko was such an important catalyst for me in thinking about time and space, its origins are of particular import. After seeing Harvey, I decided to watch Donnie Darko again. Whether it was intentionally based upon Harvey or not I can't say, but it is clearly closely related, and Donnie Darko makes a whole lot more sense to me this time through.

I am also quickly coming to believe that Donnie Darko was heavily influenced by Dark City.

Asymmetrical Information Warfare

This story, which includes official ackowledgement of something that has been going on for weeks (or maybe months), shows just how prevalent so called "information warfare" tactics are becoming.

The military seems to have adapted to this problem fairly well, but there will be future attacks. It's important to remember, though, that this isn't just a case of the military trying to "catch up with the internet." Information asymmetry and the denial of, or intereference with, communications and signals intelligence is nothing new for the military.

In fact, quite the opposite, much of the technology we take for granted today (wireless, the internet, radar, satellite communications) was developed, at least in part, by the military to address these information warfare issues.

Innovation Nation

I recently finished reading Innovation Nation by John Kao. I actually read most of this book months ago, feverishly and late at night, because I knew I was going to meet Mr. Kao the next day.

First of all, I was very surprised to see a quote from Eric Best, who is, of course, my ex-girlfriend's father.

Secondly, the book was fairly good, and has caused me to slightly tweak my understanding of what constitutes good governance of the economy. Since roughly 1997, when I took economics, learned about Milton Friedman, and read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, I have been an ardent supporter of free markets. I have never, however, been a market libertarian. It is obvious that government has a role to play in building infrastructure, the common defense, and generally, in addressing externalities, both positive and negative.

My studies in political economy under Beverly Crawford at Cal taught me a lot about how exactly governments have done this, and I became an avid student of Alexander Gerschenkron and what I might dub the modified linear stage theory of economic development. In essence, the modification to the theory is that governments play a keen role in helping nations "skip" stages of development, but only when they start out behind and are catching up.

The change I'm now making to this theory, partly inspired by Innovation Nation, is the idea that "infrastructure" extends beyond physical, legal, or organizational things. While I still think that the government should not be in the business of "guessing" which technologies are going to make it and seeding them with massive investments, I have come to believe that there is an aspect to technological infrastructure that I had not previously considered or understood. Governments must explore technology to create a framework for its commercialization. This framework is a combination of trained and accessible labor (and appropriate laws), an intellectual property scheme, and working capital markets willing to invest in high-risk ventures.
The government need not be the investor, but it does have a role in making sure this infrastructure exists, because there is a positive externality to "things" such as The Silicon Valley. The value of the Valley is larger than the sum of the profits enjoyed by its participants and residents.

I am going to write a letter to Mr. Kao and explain my thoughts on this subject. Helping him couch his concepts in more "sound" economics-y language will help lend his ideas credibility.

Ulysses

I am about 1/4 of the way through Ulysses by James Joyce. First, I must praise Joyce. This is perhaps the finest book ever written, and certainly one of the finest of all modern novels.

Second, the obvious influence of this novel is astounding. It's clear to me that Tolkien was influenced by it, as were many other famous 20th-century writers. One might go so far as to say that all of the Sartre-Camus-school existentialist writing is essentially one absurdly thorough interpretation of Leopold Bloom's character, taken to certain logically extreme conclusions.

Obama's Economic Plans

President-elect Obama is pushing a very large stimulus program that's aimed at long-term projects. I was initially very opposed to this sort of program on the theories that:
1) long-term projects don't help the economy in the short run (don't provide 'stimulation');
2) this was just a way of expanding the government's size;
3) these programs were designed to prop up industries such as the construction industry, which don't deserve to be propped up, in my opinion.

However, I am beginning to conditionally support this sort of program, on a couple of conditions:
1) the money should be used for infrastructure building programs such as roads and levees, not for helping the construction industry build houses or office buildings;
2) the provisions of the plan must be temporary in nature. Programs must expire after a few years, not continue indefinitely.

With those conditions, I think this kind of program may be a good idea, because the economic downturn appears it will last at least through 2009, if not into 2010 or 2011.

The President-elect is also saying he'll hold off on raising the taxes of high-income people in this country, which is a very wise choice, because raising taxes now will only stifle the economy further and crowd out business investment and financing.

Yahoo! Fail

Well... mr Yang is out at Yahoo! And not a moment too soon, judging by what my Yahoo! news reader thinks...

Click on the pic to make it bigger.

Housing Prices Must Be Allowed to Fall

The Wall Street Journal ran a story today about how home builders are pleading for $250B in federal aid.

This aid basically comes in the form of huge tax breaks for people who buy houses. This is one of the worst possible things the government could do. The builders are correct that housing prices underlie a lot of the financial woes right now. But, the federal government should be doing three things:
1) Encouraging people to realistically assess their housing situations. Rather than encourage people to buy houses, which is exactly what they were doing too much of the federal government should be helping them get out of their mortgages and move. The government should increase the tax credits for people who relocate between states, and create an extra tax rebate for those who sell houses in which they have negative equity.
2) Actively promoting retraining for housing industry employees and aiding them in moving out of the housing and construction industries.
3) Encouraging banks to move people out of unsustainable loans quickly, instead of waiting while the slow foreclosure process takes its toll on both the homeowners and the mortgage banks.

The faster people accept what their houses are worth (or rather, what they aren't worth), and start making rational decisions, the faster we will "hit bottom," both in terms of housing prices and in terms of asset portfolios based on mortgages. It is only "hitting bottom" and getting these assets re-priced which will, in the long run, allow growth to begin again and allow the gears of finance to start turning.

Proposition 8

I voted 'no' on Prop. 8 (the one about gay marriage). The proposition proposed to amend the California constitution to specifically prohibit marriage between homosexuals. I voted 'no' on this for many reasons, not all of which I will go into at length here. Suffice it to say that I believe this proposition should not have passed, but I don't feel this way because I love gay marriage. I think there were several other reasons why this proposition was bad. I am surprised that the proposition passed, because there are so many good arguments against it.

People in San Francisco (of both the gay and straight varieties) are largely upset that the proposition passed. Many are indignant and convinced that anyone who voted for Prop 8 must be a moron or a homophobe. I disagree with this and I believe that had the "No on Prop 8" organizers been more cognizant of their opponents' points of view, and less smug, they could have defeated the measure.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the opposition to Prop 8 was wrong-headed and shows exactly what's wrong with the "American Left" even though I, myself, opposed Prop 8, and don't consider myself a part of "the left."

Gay Marriage as a Right

The No on 8 campaign was fixated on the concept of 'marriage as a right,' and of the denial of marriage to homosexuals as a violation of rights. This is completely wrong. There is no such thing as a right of marriage, for homosexuals or heterosexuals, any more than there is a right to do anything which is not specifically prohibited. It's important to wrap your mind around this concept before you continue reading. If you are stuck on the idea that "marriage is a right" you are part of the problem, not the solution. You must first learn what "rights" are, before you can use them as an argument for or against anything. Everything that is "allowed" is not a right. I am allowed to drive in the left lane of the freeway right now, but if they close it for construction tomorrow, that doesn't mean my rights have been violated. There was no prohibition against driving in that lane before, but that doesn't imply that an inalienable right was created.

Why is there no Right of Marriage?

Why would there be one? Marriage is a contract entered into by two parties, with one or two overseeing or governing bodies: religious authority and/or civil institutions, such as city governments. It's not even clear what a right of marriage would be, since almost every other right we think of is an individual thing. I don't have the "right" to marry you without your consent, and if I do have the right to marry you, with your consent, then is marriage, rights-wise, any different than a contract between two private parties?

Historically, without the sanctioning of either the church or the government, all marriages were unofficial. Note, the fact that they are unofficial doesn't mean they aren't valid, it just means that the society doesn't recognize them explicitly. Imagine that the government stopped issuing marriage licenses and the churches stopped performing weddings, for any reason(s). This wouldn't mean that marriage would cease to exist as a concept, but it would essentially mean that all marriage became unofficial. Unofficial marriages could still be contracts between individuals, but there would be no official recognition of marriage's contractual norms by the government or the Church, the two bodies which have historically sanctioned marriages.

The No on 8 Campaign's Mistakes

The No on 8 campaign completely failed to understand what a "right" is when they wrote all their commercials and pamphlets. They also completely failed to respect that, historically, the church has been just as involved in marriage as has been the government. The idea that governments can unilaterally redefine marriage without the consent of the church OR the popular sentiment, while not necessarily wrong, was certainly likely to invite attack, criticism, and opposition, which it did. That people now indignantly assume that anyone who voted 'Yes' on 8 must be crazy or homophobic further proves that the organizers (and many of the supporters) of the No on 8 campaign fundamentally lack respect for religious people and institutions. Without respecting and understanding the other side of the argument, they come across as smug and arrogant. As I learned from a wise man (my father) long ago, it is far easier to argue well against the side you believe in than for it, because when you argue for it, passions confound and circumvent logic and rational consideration.

The City of San Francisco, Mayor Newsom, and all the people now indignant that Prop 8 passed, make this fundamental mistake of arrogance. They assume there is nothing at all which might be correct in the opposition's (Yes on 8's) point of view. This is completely wrong. Of course there are valid points for Prop 8. SF and Newsom assumed that it made no difference what the religious community or even other city governments thought, though, because they didn't adequately consider the arguments against sanctioning gay marriage.

Another example of the arrogance of the 'No on 8' campaign was the education issue. The issue was basically this:
The 'Yes on 8' people were saying that allowing gay marriage meant that 'gay marriage' would be taught in schools. There was a lot of disagreement about whether this was true or not. While it's not fundamentally important that gay marriage be 'taught' in schools, it is fundamentally important to acknowledge this issue. The real issue was: do we want to redefine marriage? Imagine your child asking you, "What does married mean?" And you say, "It means two people love each other and raise children together and have a family." You can no longer say that it's only between men and women, or that the woman will be pregnant and have the baby, or whatever, because the definition of marriage has been broadened. Wrong or right, it's an issue. To pretend that somehow there was no impact on the 'definition' of marriage is non-sensical. In fact, the 'No on 8' campaign should have directly acknowledged that, in fact, they *wanted* to redefine the family and marriage in this way, instead of pretending that there was no 'issue' of redefinition, for which the 'what would be taught in schools' issue was a proxy. Preserving the definitions of words over time IS important.

This brings me to my next point: "What is the harm in allowing only domestic unions instead of marriages between gay people?" The American Bar Association (and the state bars) decides who can call themself a lawyer, and I can't call myself a lawyer. It makes no difference how much I know about the law, how other people feel about it, etc... They don't allow me to sell myself as an attorney, because they feel like a societal purpose is solved by defining the word carefully and restricting many people from using the term. Does this violate my "right" to be a lawyer? Not really, because anyone can be a lawyer if they meet the criteria, which are there to promote a societal purpose (that lawyers be trained and in good standing with their peers). If there is an expectation that marriage is about procreation, then it is entirely logical to define marriage in a heterosexual way. Am I saying it "should" be defined that way? No, I'm not. But it's completely arrogant to assume that somehow you have the sole right to define what marriage means, against the will of the church, the majority of civic governments, or the will of the majority. It may be that society "defined" marriage in a heterosexual way for a reason, and that reason must be addressed before the term (or the concept) can be redefined. Gay people have every opportunity to get married today, just not to people of the same sex. Is that weird? It's no weirder than the idea that I have every opportunity to go to UC Berkeley if I meet their acceptance criteria.

If we allow gay marriage, do we have to allow polygamous marriage? Why not? These slippery slope arguments are tough, because everything is a step in a direction, and sometimes we have to be in the middle, not on one edge, but, if that's the case, then the 'No on 8' people should have been advocating that this was the "right" compromise now, or should have been arguing that all forms of marriage are acceptable. If they are arguing that this is the "right" compromise now (allowing gay marriage but still prohibiting other things, like polygamy), it must be based on some of the same utilitarian principles which justify the government sanctioning of marriage in the first place. Gay marriage advocates need to make the argument NOT that gay marriage is a right (because then, why isn't having 5 wives, one of which is a sheep, a 'right', too?), but that gay marriage is actually good for society, just like straight marriage, is, and should therefore be encouraged.

Why does the concept of marriage still exist at all? If two men, who might be celibate, decide to call themselves a gay couple, and be married, then they have the ability to check off different boxes on forms. If this is important, and we want to allow people to do this outside the government-sanctioned marriage rules, why don't we simply allow anyone to choose one person to share tax breaks with? If, on the other hand, marriage does serve a very specific societal purpose (promoting a certain family structure) and we value that, then it's entirely logical that we can't expand its definition arbitrarily. So, if we can't expand it arbitrarily, then we have to have some criteria to use for expanding it. This criteria might be about the reduction in promiscuity. It might be about promoting "love" bonds as a concept. It might be about creating "two-parent" families for children.

The Paternalism Problem

There is a logical discontinuity in the literature of gay rights activists. They often take the approach that the government shouldn't decide what goes on in the bedroom. That's fine, and a perfectly reasonable position. They are saying, "it's not the government's role" to decide whether I should be gay or straight. If that's the case, though, then the role is left to the people. If the role is left to the people, then why is the City of San Francisco saying that gay people are going to be married "whether you like it or not?" You can't be a progressive and not believe in paternalism. The whole point of the progressive movement is that the government must actively lead the way, sometimes against popular sentiment, to foster change. That means the government IS in the business of deciding things, like what should go on in the bedroom. You can't have the government be "hands off" when you disagree with them, but actively legislate for change when you agree with them. That's just called selfishness (and a complete disregard for other people).

The logical conclusion of the anti-paternalism argument is that all official marriage should be abolished, not that marriage should be redefined in an unpopular way.

Reasons Why 8 Should Have Failed That Have Nothing to do With Sexuality

1) The courts had already decided. Every time we overrule the courts, especially without a more substantial process than getting 50.1% of the (mostly uninformed)voters to say 'yes' one time, on one ballot, we lessen the grip of the rule of law and slide closer to the anarchistic populism that has signaled the end, historically, of many fleeting attempts at democracy.

2) We can't put propositions on the state ballot to decide every issue. It is City Governments that issue marriage licenses, and so by putting this on the state ballot, we have taken that power away from local governments. San Francisco is allowed to have different laws than other places, and we shouldn't limit that allowance for local independence.

3) Amending the constitution is generally undesirable. We shouldn't amend the constitution to solve problems. This argument is related to number 1, but is slightly different. Not only do we lessen the power of the judicial and legislative branches by amending the constitution by ballot proposition, but we also imply that amending the constitution is appropriate redress for grievances. In general, it should not be.

How Should the 'No on 8' People have Made their Case?

First of all, they should have stressed the constitutional, rule of law, and anti-populism points I mentioned above, but they should also have taken a different tack on the 'social' issues.

The commercials should have shown an orphan being played with by two lesbians. They should have said, "The courts have already decided. Do you want to take these loving guardians away from this child or force her to be told that her parents are not married? Would you rather put her in a foster home or allow these people to simply continue their loving family?" The, the commercial should have shown a dumpy looking foster home or a statistic about how bad foster parents are on average. That argument directly addresses the societal benefit of marriage and explains it. Will it appeal to everyone? No, of course not. But, it might appeal to one in 20 people, which would have been enough to defeat the proposition.

The 'No on 8' campaign should have had an Episcopal, Anglican, or Presbyterian Bishop on TV saying the proposition was bad. He should have been saying that marriage is about commitment and protects people from the sins of promiscuity and helps stabilize families. He may represent only one voice of the church, but the idea that the church is divided, and potentially transforming itself, is important. Rather than pretend the church has nothing to do with marriage (which is absurd), those people within the church who advocate for gay marriage should have been highlighted.

The 'No on 8' campaign should have admitted that they are progressive paternalists. They should have said, "Society has changed. It's time to lead the way by redefining marriage for our society. Let's stop promiscuity, discrimination, and single-parenting. Let's allow loving couples to raise children in two-parent families regardless of what gender they are. Besides, the courts have already decided, so if you respect the American system, you should accept the ruling of our judicial branch. What if 51% of the people thought you should move to a different town one day. Do you want to live under the tyranny of the majority? Or the rule of law? The law has spoken. The law has redefined marriage in a way that helps society. Respect it."

I think those arguments would have swayed 3%, or so, of the people in the middle, and that would have been enough. That argument isn't arrogant, because it doesn't say, "I'm right and you're wrong." It says, "There are good things about two parent families, equality, marriage, and the rule of law." Do you want to be the one to take those things away?

Expectations for the President-elect

President Elect Obama must quickly act to reset expectations, or a new Newt Gingrich will sweet the Republicans back into a majority in the Senate in 2010.

Here is what I recommend, issue-by-issue:

On Iraq:
Obama should keep Gates as his Secretary of Defense. Not only is the man capable, but he's been one of the masterminds of the strategy that is currently working. Obama should push to have some of the US troops there as long as needed, probably until some time in 2012 or so. He should then request that a small contingent remain to fight terrorism and support the Iraqi government. I imagine this being a base of about 20,000-30,000 soldiers, similar to what we used to have in Saudi Arabia. Part of the point of this whole war, after all, was to move our permanent bases out of Saudi Arabia.

On Afghanistan:
Obama should immediately confer with General Petraeus and craft an aggressive plan for pacifying Afghanistan. Much as we will have spent three quarters of a trillion dollars in Iraq, we should now be prepared to spend several hundred billion dollars to clean up and rebuild Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan.

On the Economy:
Obama must avoid the temptation to over-regulate the economy, and the banking industry in particular. We don't need safeguards to keep people from borrowing or lending money. We need regulations that ensure that transactions are transparent and understandable, and that the risk level of securities can be assessed and insured correctly. We need markets for all securitizable entities, so that things like collateral debt swaps don't get traded "off the market" in one-to-one exchanges, which provide no information to the broader market. Yes, this is a form of regulation, but moving things out into the open is the regulation we need; simply restricting what people can do is not what we need. Too much restriction and businesses will turn against Obama.

On Taxes:
Obama needs to start being honest with people about how taxes are going to rise. The net tax paid by most people will go up under Obama, not down. The "tax cuts for 95%" are misleading, because half of those people pay little federal income tax, and even if the taxes are raised on, say, businesses for their part of health care insurance, this ultimately affects employees. They either get higher payroll taxes, lower salaries, or fewer jobs. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Obama needs to explain how raising taxes could help the economy. If he doesn't, then he will come under harsh criticism for taking money out of circulation precisely when the economy is sputtering. If the total federal tax receipts go up as a result of policy, during a rough economic time, Obama will appear to be doing the opposite of what Keynes suggested.

On Energy:
A cap&trade system, or anything that puts the burden correctly on polluters, is good. The alternative energy and green fuel subsidies he's proposed are probably a bad idea because: a) they are distortive and b) they don't help the economy enough to justify them as "stimulus" measures.

If you still think the subsidies are a good idea, think about the ethanol/corn subsidies of the last few years. Not only has ethanol not made the hoped-for major strides as an alternative, but the government has spent TONS of money promoting it, raising corn prices, which has raised many food product prices worldwide. Lest you think that was just "the wrong specific thing to push" ethanol seemed very logical. Corn was cheap and abundant a few years ago. The US can produce lots of ethanol. Many cars on the road could already use E85 (which is 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol) and making more cars that could run on ethanol required only minor engine modifications. Just because something seems like a good idea, doesn't mean that it is. The market is much better at deciding which ideas are truly valuable. Obama should use it.

The Champ is Here!

Tuesday is the last day I will have a Google badge. It's slightly sad, although not very sad, since my new job is so much better.

#1 highlight from my time at Google:

Getting to meet Muhammad Ali. I'll never forget this. It was in 2006, and, of course, he could barely move or walk.

I didn't know he was coming until the day he was there, and I wasn't part of the group meeting and eating with him. But, I hung around, watched, and waited. I kept hearing him say, "The champ is here!" in my mind, over and over.

At one point, his eyes became fixed on me. Whether or what he was thinking about me, I will never know, but there was still a fire in the eyes of that man that burned me.

He was the only person who has ever intimidated me by his gaze alone.

Junior Bonner

Steve McQueen as Junior Bonner is totally badass. And he gets Barbara Leigh:




This movie also has really weird pseudo-montage scenes, and is far better than people appear to give it credit for being. This is one of Sam Peckinpah's last attempts at a subtle drama.

Incoming Freshmen

Entering freshmen in the top 10% of their high school class:
Berkeley: 98%
MIT: 97%
Harvard: 95%
Stanford: 89%

They say it's a bear market right now. Luckily, I was well trained for a bear market. Go bears!

Partisan Politics as Usual

One troubling thing about Obama's candidacy was his choice of Joe Biden as his Vice President. Biden is a very partisan Democrat, almost never, in the senate, voting out of line with the Democratic party platform.

Biden has always received large contributions from big unions and never votes for anything that the unions wouldn't like.

I didn't pay much attention to this, but in light of the choice of Emanuel as Obama's chief of staff, I begin to wonder if there is a pattern.

Since the election, the two biggest things the Democrats have done are:
1) The installation of Emanuel, known more as a political pugilist than a compromiser or for any ideological or intellectual gifts.
2) Attack Lieberman and begin trying to remove him from influential committees in the Senate, presumably because of his support for McCain.

Now, politics goes on all the time, and both sides are equally bad. But, I have to wonder, are the Democrats afraid that the Republicans are planning to simply try to filibuster every bill that goes through, and they are gearing up to combat the Republicans at every turn; now that they have them down, to keep them down?

Or, are the Democrats thinking, "We've been out of favor for 28 years and the country has been ruined, so now we're taking over?" The problem with this is, if that's what they were thinking, they should be focusing on some new ideological promise, not on simply punishing the Republicans. No Senate Republicans tried to cause a recession, so I'm not sure what point punishing them serves.

More generally, if the country needs a significant ideological shift (which I do not think it does), then the Democrats should be trying to provide it. They, the Democrats, have been an ideologically bankrupt party for at least the last 10 years, and really since Reagan gained the White House. If the country doesn't need a significant ideological shift, then the Democrats should be focused on how to pass compromise legislation that everyone can support.

Who's (Not) Building Datacenters?

The recent economic climate has put many datacenter construction projects on hold. I know of several, major, South Bay-area projects (totaling approximately 700,000 square feet) which have recently been scrapped or delayed indefinitely. Those that are being built are also facing rising energy costs (a major component of the price of operating a datacenter).

What will these delays and rising costs mean to businesses? For large businesses, these factors might delay datacenter buildouts, which can impede or delay IT equipment purchases. A 10,000 square foot datacenter might hold 7,000 servers. At a price of $4K each, this would be $28,000,000 worth of servers. A rough guesstimate might place the IT equipment value that those 700,000 square feet of datacenters could hold at roughly $2B. That's a lot of Silicon Valley business for Dell, Rackable, IBM, HP, Sun, Cisco, Juniper, and others that can't be fulfilled until there is a place to put those servers and power to power them.

Another possible impact to business is that rising costs and declining datacenter availability might help propel SaaS offerings (think Salesforce.com) and cloud computing platform providers (think Amazon EC2). Perhaps the tradeoffs between an SAP-based CRM module and Salesforce.com will tilt a little more in Salesforce's direction when there's no datacenter floor space to hold new servers.

Russia Tries to Bully the President-elect

I did not think Obama's first test would come quite so quickly...

(All quotes from this article):

Russia has decided to place new missiles near Poland. In the same speech where Medvedev argued for greater powers for Russia's president (a dangerous move in a place where democracy is daily falling by the wayside), he also stated that Russia was deploying these new missiles. But, he went two steps further.

1) In addition to deploying their own missiles, Russia also said this, "Equipment to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic will be deployed, he said."

2) He specifically linked this action to Obama:

"He announced deployment of the short-range missiles as a military response to U.S. plans to deploy missile-defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic — former Soviet satellites that are now NATO members.

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations."

The President-elect should be tough on Russia. He should explain that it is *not* the fault of the US that Russia feels threatened. Russia is threatened because its nearest neighbors, former Soviet republics, do not want to be under a Russia umbrella. They choose to pursue NATO membership because it benefits them. Further, the US needs to deploy missile defenses in Eastern Europe and Central Asia because renegate republics (such as Iran), which derive some support from Russia, have been allowed to menace the world.

Finally, Obama should take a lesson from Bush. Bush genuinely tried to be a friend to the Russians in his first several years in office. In this, he was betrayed. Obama should not make the same mistake. With oil prices down right now, Russia's strategic position in the world is weakened. The US should not let up on its pressure.

The Obama Era

The future looks bright. We have a good President-elect, to whom I donated my money (if not my vote), and I anticipate he will make great enchancements to our national esteem and prosperity.

Literary Audiophile

I have always been a lover of books, and I am a good aural learner, but today I have embarked on a journey unlike any before. Having nearly finished, and greatly enjoyed, the McCullough biography of John Adams, I have decided to take on even more ambitious audiobooks. Today, I purchased Don Quixote which will fill 35 CDs, and Ulysses, which will fill 44.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

The Devaluation of Intellect

From my soapbox, it so often appears that movies, pop-culture, conversation, politics, or our society in general is trending toward an anti-intellectualism. It seems like populism, political correctness, hedonism, and so many other substitutes for genuine rational reasoning have become the norm. But, maybe they have ever been the norm. Maybe Epicurus, Cicero, Spinoza, and Newton felt the men of their times were opponents of reason and friends of simplistic passion.

Having said all this, though, I am coming to another realization. While intellectualism still seems important, raw intellect, itself, seems to be of less value than I once thought. I know a great many intelligent people who do no more in service to their species, community, or universe than does the mentally handicapped guy who tears my ticket at the movie theater. In fact, in some ways these intelligent pretenders to importance do even less for the world, because they have not even the virtue of inspiring by their very incapacity.

Western Civilization and American History

I join with the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (http://www.goacta.org/) and the National Association of Scholars (http://www.nas.org/who.cfm) in calling for more education in the classics, Western Civilization, and American History.

Despite having had a great public education myself, it is glaringly obvious that I was somewhat shortchanged on these very important topics. Except for 2 or 3 classes in high school and then several good professors at Cal, I didn't get a sufficient dose of the real philosophical and historical underpinnings of Western Civilization. I don't know why these topics are so out of favor. Almost nothing could be more important for the learned American mind.

Mr. Petraeus Goes to Islamabad

General Petraeus should be arriving in Pakistan right about now. I think it's very good timing. The man who seems to be the most able and intelligent US strategist is now in charge of US Central Command, and has launched a review of military posture and strategy regarding Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan.

The timing of the General's review could not be better. Whatever changes he proposed can be claimed by the new President-elect, and thereby, hopefully, gain political support.

It is time for the US to ratchet up the pressure on Pakistan and Iran significantly. One of the best ways to do this is to successfuly deny bases of operation in Afghanistan to the Taliban, al Qaeda, and others.

The timing could not be better, because the new Pakistani government needs to make its "with us or against us" choice right now, and Ahmadinejad looks like he may have some trouble to contend with in the next Iranian elections.

The Seal of the President of the United States

Here are (clockwise from top left): The Great Seal, the Seal of the President, The Great Seal of Barack, displayed at some of his campaign speaking engagements, and the Seal of the Vice President.

There are several problems with Obama's seal:
1) It is arguably illegal to create something this alike to the Seal of the President of the United States. Probably nobody cares about enforcing this rule, but still, technically, it's a rule.
2) It has as its slogan, in place of "E pluribus unum," "Vero possumus" which roughly translates to "Yes, we can." There are many problems with this slogan as Obama's selling point:

• It was suggested by someone else and Obama initially objected to it. His commitment to its message is questionable.
• It is not a logical slogan for a balanced country. It is a progressive slogan only.
• It detracts from the overall point of the seal because it does not relate to the Eagle, arrows, or olive branch in any obvious way.

3) It does not include the snake in the mouth of the eagle. Why omit this symbol? Typically, this symbol is interpreted in one of two ways

• The eagle will root out corruption (the snakes amongst us or who tempt us).
• The eagle will confront its enemies.

Also, the animal is an eagle. Eagles are known to be keen-eyed and far-sighted animals. The snake, an enemy from within or without, was seen at great distance. Displaying the snake is part of the way the eagle shows its capability. It is able to use its arrows, at a great distance, because of its keen eyesight. The snake helps prove this is still a vital, competent eagle, not simply a show piece. Why would this be omitted? Does Obama not plan to root out corruption or to confront our enemies? I suspect that, regardless of what he intends, the desire not to 'make enemies' or 'seem warlike' is exactly the reason this was omitted. Somebody in the campaign said, "let's de-emphasize the confrontational or violent parts."

Too bad for us that they thought marketing was more important than the richly historied philosophy and symbolism.