The President rattled some more sabers against Iran yesterday in a speech before the American Legion. Glenn Greenwald has a long post today raising the alarm anew.
It's hard to know what to make of this. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't be too worried. The downsides of a war with Iran are so profound, the chances of success so slim, that one should be able to dismiss the thought out of hand. Yet Bush, and the various other actors pushing for this war, have a demonstrated record of recklessness so extreme that nothing can be taken off the table.
And clearly, as president and commander-in-chief of the military Bush has it within his power to simply order acts that will necessarily bring on a war. One can argue that this is not what the founders intended and shouldn't be so, but it's the current reality.
Unless the Iranians are utter fools they will avoid any overt act against the United States, so the most likely scenario is an American attack on Iran that will attempt to destroy their WMD, air defense and command & control infrastructure. It may even be a surprise attack, in order to enhance its effectiveness.
Now, for some reason, even though the Bushies and Neocons claim Iranians desire freedom like Americans and everyone else, they can't seem to absorb the fact that Iranians are also proud and patriotic people who love their country like everyone else. When the Japanese launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor they ended all debate in America and unified us in a grim determination to prevail at any cost. It can be argued that Japan "lost" the war through this one act, in that there was no chance they would achieve their war aims. Can there be any doubt that an American attack on Iran, especially a surprise attack, will fail to unify the Iranians and fill them with an intense resolve to avenge themselves?
We are currently fighting two wars. The one in Afghanistan could be going better, but the long-term prognosis is pretty good, especially once a new administration takes office if it devotes sufficient attention and resources to success. The war in Iraq is not going well, and we're unlikely to leave under happy circumstances. Our political failures in Iraq will have negative consequences for years to come, despite our military successes.
Starting a new war with Iran, however, raises the real possibility of military defeats for us. Iran is much weaker than America, of course, and there's no chance Iranian troops will be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. But it's idiocy to think defeat requires that scene in order to be a defeat.
Iran is a big country. It has a capable military establishment. And, aroused by an unprovoked U.S. attack (in their eyes), they will be formidably motivated. While powerful, the U.S. cannot use all its power. The Army and Marines are tapped out. There's only so much the Air Force can bomb. Iran is a land-based power the Navy cannot subdue, especially if the Iranians have the support of the rest of the world.
If substantial numbers of Iraqi Shiites turn against us our troops in Iraq will be placed in an untenable position. It's possible entire units could be captured or besieged, especially if regular Iranian units assist the Iraqis. The Iranian Navy has been studying for years how to fight the U.S. Navy. We must be wary that they've succeeded in finding ways to hurt us. Sinking or severely damaging an aircraft carrier would be an tremendous political victory for them, despite its military unimportance.
And the American People, already disillusioned with our current wars, will not be enthusiastic about a new one brought about through questionable circumstances. Wars, even just and successful ones, always involve setbacks. The American people will not be in a proper mood to absorb them in this case.
There is a near certainty of disaster and a minimal chance of success, minimally defined. We would call a man a lunatic if he played Russian Roulette for a buck. What do we call a man who starts a new war when he's failed to win the ones he's already started? The last dudes who did this back, in the 1940s, brought catastrophe. (And the analogy is apt. Japan started its war with the U.S. and Britain despite an ongoing war in China. Germany launched its invasion of Russia despite a defiant, undefeated Britain still in the fight.)
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
A lack of will
An excellent laying of the blame where it truly belongs:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/more-grit-hilzo.html#trackback
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/more-grit-hilzo.html#trackback
Monday, August 27, 2007
John Wayne would be mortified, not to mention Patton, Reagan, Audie Murphy or even Rosa Parks
Sad to say, the "Flour Terrorist" story was right here in Connecticut, too.
John Cole of Balloon Juice has an excellent summary here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8613
Please, people. Let's stop being wusses. It's like the damn "security" at airports. It's stupid and pointless. The inefficiencies introduced into our economy must add up to billions already, with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, this is the same country where people in most states don't even have to wear helmets when riding motorcycles! More people die every year in motorcycle crashes than were killed on 9/11.
John Cole of Balloon Juice has an excellent summary here: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8613
Please, people. Let's stop being wusses. It's like the damn "security" at airports. It's stupid and pointless. The inefficiencies introduced into our economy must add up to billions already, with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, this is the same country where people in most states don't even have to wear helmets when riding motorcycles! More people die every year in motorcycle crashes than were killed on 9/11.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Game of the Week: Backgammon
About 25 years ago I remember backgammon had a surge in popularity. It seemed like everybody had a leather-bound travel case with them. The gambling aspect appealed to a lot of folks, I think, although poker seems to have captured the fancy of most young gamblers these days. While its possible to make a living a professional backgammon player, it's money earned bit by bit, without the huge windfalls that make the World Poker Championships on TV so exciting.
Among friends and acquaintances, though backgammon still has its place as a nice past time, with some low-level gambling possibility. The advantage backgammon has over poker is that it's a two-player game, so you don';t need to get a group together like you do for poker.
Backgammon evolved from the ancient "tables" games, examples of which were played by the Romans. The game took its present shape a few hundred years ago, although the doubling cube only came into use in the 1920s. Playing with the doubling cube adds an additional level of strategy while also bringing hopeless games to a close earlier.
Unlike most other classic games, backgammon does include a significant luck factor, which turns off some people. Understanding probabilities is necessary for decent play and I think it's a good mechanism for teaching probability to kids.
Games seem to go through cycles of popularity so I wonder if backgammon will regain some of its popularity anytime soon. It is one of the more popular games online.
One place where there isn't a lot of action is at the casinos. Unlike most other gambling games there's no house advantage, so the game is too fair for casino use.
Among friends and acquaintances, though backgammon still has its place as a nice past time, with some low-level gambling possibility. The advantage backgammon has over poker is that it's a two-player game, so you don';t need to get a group together like you do for poker.
Backgammon evolved from the ancient "tables" games, examples of which were played by the Romans. The game took its present shape a few hundred years ago, although the doubling cube only came into use in the 1920s. Playing with the doubling cube adds an additional level of strategy while also bringing hopeless games to a close earlier.
Unlike most other classic games, backgammon does include a significant luck factor, which turns off some people. Understanding probabilities is necessary for decent play and I think it's a good mechanism for teaching probability to kids.
Games seem to go through cycles of popularity so I wonder if backgammon will regain some of its popularity anytime soon. It is one of the more popular games online.
One place where there isn't a lot of action is at the casinos. Unlike most other gambling games there's no house advantage, so the game is too fair for casino use.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
World Boardgame Championships
Well, this year I was able to pop in to the WBC for a day, at least.
I had a good time, if not a particularly successful one, at the con.
I was able to play Battle Cry. I got my hopes up with an early victory in the first game of the 3-round Swiss-style tournament (New Market scenario- CSA) but the next two games came a cropper. My opponent in the New Hope scenario was able to get some good early shots in, which didn't give me the time I needed to really pick apart his defenses. As a matter of fact, he was able to be aggressive and attack me and I wasn't able to make that into the mistake it should have been. I was the USA in that one.
The final round was Brandy Station. The tournament was large enough that it was clear that only players with 3-0 records were going to advance, so my opponent and I already knew this game was the final one for each of us. I tried some aggressive moves that didn't pay off and the game ended fairly quickly, albeit bloodily. I was again the USA.
I enjoyed wandering around the vendor area, A lot of interesting stuff was available, but I restrained myself from much in the way of new game purchases. I picked up the Battle Line reprint, which I've wanted for quite a while. It's a highly regarded game on Boardgame Geek. As far as brand-new designs, the only one I go was Cowboys: The Way of the Gun, the Wild West Gunfight game by Worthington. It looks like a very streamlined version of Gunslinger, which is one of my favorite games. Unfortunately it'd be very hard to get someone into Gunslinger these days as its a really complex, detailed and slow-moving game, which is why I decided to pick up Cowboys, which is much more in tune with today's gaming community.
I also picked up some additional material for BattleLore, Wizard Kings, Down In Flames, Close Action and Heroscape.
The highlight of the trip, however, was finding my friend Harve Mossman in the Open Gaming area. He was busy playtesting Columbia's upcoming game Athens & Sparta, but we had time to catch up a bit on things and make arrangements for a visit later this year.
I wish I could have spent more time at the con, of course, but I'm thankful for the time I did get.
I had a good time, if not a particularly successful one, at the con.
I was able to play Battle Cry. I got my hopes up with an early victory in the first game of the 3-round Swiss-style tournament (New Market scenario- CSA) but the next two games came a cropper. My opponent in the New Hope scenario was able to get some good early shots in, which didn't give me the time I needed to really pick apart his defenses. As a matter of fact, he was able to be aggressive and attack me and I wasn't able to make that into the mistake it should have been. I was the USA in that one.
The final round was Brandy Station. The tournament was large enough that it was clear that only players with 3-0 records were going to advance, so my opponent and I already knew this game was the final one for each of us. I tried some aggressive moves that didn't pay off and the game ended fairly quickly, albeit bloodily. I was again the USA.
I enjoyed wandering around the vendor area, A lot of interesting stuff was available, but I restrained myself from much in the way of new game purchases. I picked up the Battle Line reprint, which I've wanted for quite a while. It's a highly regarded game on Boardgame Geek. As far as brand-new designs, the only one I go was Cowboys: The Way of the Gun, the Wild West Gunfight game by Worthington. It looks like a very streamlined version of Gunslinger, which is one of my favorite games. Unfortunately it'd be very hard to get someone into Gunslinger these days as its a really complex, detailed and slow-moving game, which is why I decided to pick up Cowboys, which is much more in tune with today's gaming community.
I also picked up some additional material for BattleLore, Wizard Kings, Down In Flames, Close Action and Heroscape.
The highlight of the trip, however, was finding my friend Harve Mossman in the Open Gaming area. He was busy playtesting Columbia's upcoming game Athens & Sparta, but we had time to catch up a bit on things and make arrangements for a visit later this year.
I wish I could have spent more time at the con, of course, but I'm thankful for the time I did get.
Friday, August 3, 2007
War and Spin
The Iraqi parliament has left for a month-long vacation, although it doesn't appear that they'll be particularly missed, as they're not accomplishing anything anyway.
The administration and its allies are busy laying the groundwork for the September-is-too-soon-to-judge argument about the "surge" and we should give Petreaus at least until November now. This is, of course, merely a variation on the tried and true "the next six months is critical" story line we used to get during the pre-Petreaus era. Like tomorrow, the next six months never comes, though. It's always in the future.
The administration's allies have been energetic lately, with aggressive attacks on bad-news bearers and defeatists. They've drummed up some selective statistics and made up others when needed to provide a veneer of respectability to their arguments. They have been especially energetic in arguing that we are making some "military' progress with the surge strategy and therefore it's working.
Of course, in a counterinsurgency it's fairly common for there to be "military" successes. Indeed, any military "failures" such as a base being overrun, a platoon or company-sized unit being defeated in battle or the insurgents seizing nontemporary control of a town or region is a serious sign of the probable imminent collapse of the government.
What we are seeing very little evidence of is any progress at all on the political front, which is by far the most important part. Absent something there, the endgame will be the same.
The American people, however, are past spinning, and the administration and its allies in punditry are fast running out of time. Having been told September is the time, I'm not sure how much more time Bush can buy himself. I suspect that the clock will run out for good with the end of the year and Americans will demand an end to the war in 2008. 2009 will not be an option.
The administration and its allies are busy laying the groundwork for the September-is-too-soon-to-judge argument about the "surge" and we should give Petreaus at least until November now. This is, of course, merely a variation on the tried and true "the next six months is critical" story line we used to get during the pre-Petreaus era. Like tomorrow, the next six months never comes, though. It's always in the future.
The administration's allies have been energetic lately, with aggressive attacks on bad-news bearers and defeatists. They've drummed up some selective statistics and made up others when needed to provide a veneer of respectability to their arguments. They have been especially energetic in arguing that we are making some "military' progress with the surge strategy and therefore it's working.
Of course, in a counterinsurgency it's fairly common for there to be "military" successes. Indeed, any military "failures" such as a base being overrun, a platoon or company-sized unit being defeated in battle or the insurgents seizing nontemporary control of a town or region is a serious sign of the probable imminent collapse of the government.
What we are seeing very little evidence of is any progress at all on the political front, which is by far the most important part. Absent something there, the endgame will be the same.
The American people, however, are past spinning, and the administration and its allies in punditry are fast running out of time. Having been told September is the time, I'm not sure how much more time Bush can buy himself. I suspect that the clock will run out for good with the end of the year and Americans will demand an end to the war in 2008. 2009 will not be an option.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Game of the Week: Dominoes
During a visit to Jamaica last summer I was struck by how much of a game-playing culture it was -- of at least one game, anyway, dominoes. In Kingston, especially, there were thousands of tiny street-side pubs (which usually had a half-dozen stools or so) and almost invariably had a hand-built sturdy dominoes table in front. More often than not there was a game in progress, too.
When Jamaicans play dominoes, it's obligatory to slap the domino down firmly with a loud crack. The sturdy little domino tables are carefully fashioned to help make that sound, with a relatively thin table top well-mounted within the thick frame. The overall effect is similar to a well-built Japanese Go game, albeit with a rustic island feel instead of the painstakingly wood-worked construction used in Japan.
In the U.S. dominoes is usually played with a rule that a player without a play must keep drawing from the graveyard until play is possible. In Jamaica the style is is allow a player without a legal play to merely pass.
This style of play probably keeps the games a little closer than the alternative U.S. rule, which can result in someone getting stuck with a big draw out of the graveyard that kills any chance of winning that round.
Dominoes are like standard playing cards in that the term really describes a set of game-playing fools, rather than a distinct game because many games can be played using the same tools. Still, there seems to be a basic "dominoes" that most people understand as being "the game" whereas card games are more distinctly differentiated in popular use into games like poker, bridge, war or solitaire.
When Jamaicans play dominoes, it's obligatory to slap the domino down firmly with a loud crack. The sturdy little domino tables are carefully fashioned to help make that sound, with a relatively thin table top well-mounted within the thick frame. The overall effect is similar to a well-built Japanese Go game, albeit with a rustic island feel instead of the painstakingly wood-worked construction used in Japan.
In the U.S. dominoes is usually played with a rule that a player without a play must keep drawing from the graveyard until play is possible. In Jamaica the style is is allow a player without a legal play to merely pass.
This style of play probably keeps the games a little closer than the alternative U.S. rule, which can result in someone getting stuck with a big draw out of the graveyard that kills any chance of winning that round.
Dominoes are like standard playing cards in that the term really describes a set of game-playing fools, rather than a distinct game because many games can be played using the same tools. Still, there seems to be a basic "dominoes" that most people understand as being "the game" whereas card games are more distinctly differentiated in popular use into games like poker, bridge, war or solitaire.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Game of the week: Chess and Chessfest 2007
Chess, similar to Go, is a tough game for the "gamer" to get into. By a "gamer" I mean the sort of person who likes games generally, as epitomized by the folks over at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/.
The problem is that Chess,like Go, is a profoundly deep game of longstanding and intense devotion among a fairly large group of players. It has its own literature, clubs and professional players. It's been intensely analyzed to such an extent that a casual player will have no chance of winning against an aficionado. Unlike Backgammon or Poker, where the presence of a certain amount of luck provides scope for an upset, in Chess and Go there's no external factor that can help the casual player.
Being a gamer of eclectic tastes then, it's no surprise that I'm only an indifferent chess player. I have a few books, coached my kids' chess club in school and fiddled around with playing for about 40 years. But I've never devoted any study to chess openings, which is pretty much a prerequisite for serious play, so I don't consider myself a serious chess player.
But I do enjoy watching a good game and like to see the game become more popular, so it was nice to see that the local Chessfest event in New London seems to be off to a good start. I missed it entirely last year because of military duty and I wasn't able to take part this year because of some local "family taxi" chores, but I did get to observe some of it. It looks like several dozen people took part in three divisions -- youth, amateur and open. It was a diverse group too: Male and female, tiny and grey-bearded, American- and foreign-born.
I do think I'll go ahead and take a stab at it next year. I may not do very well, it it sure did look like everyone was enjoying themselves.
The problem is that Chess,like Go, is a profoundly deep game of longstanding and intense devotion among a fairly large group of players. It has its own literature, clubs and professional players. It's been intensely analyzed to such an extent that a casual player will have no chance of winning against an aficionado. Unlike Backgammon or Poker, where the presence of a certain amount of luck provides scope for an upset, in Chess and Go there's no external factor that can help the casual player.
Being a gamer of eclectic tastes then, it's no surprise that I'm only an indifferent chess player. I have a few books, coached my kids' chess club in school and fiddled around with playing for about 40 years. But I've never devoted any study to chess openings, which is pretty much a prerequisite for serious play, so I don't consider myself a serious chess player.
But I do enjoy watching a good game and like to see the game become more popular, so it was nice to see that the local Chessfest event in New London seems to be off to a good start. I missed it entirely last year because of military duty and I wasn't able to take part this year because of some local "family taxi" chores, but I did get to observe some of it. It looks like several dozen people took part in three divisions -- youth, amateur and open. It was a diverse group too: Male and female, tiny and grey-bearded, American- and foreign-born.
I do think I'll go ahead and take a stab at it next year. I may not do very well, it it sure did look like everyone was enjoying themselves.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Made-up Lincoln quotes "If I had six hours to chop down a tree"
One of my more amusing past times is tracking down made-up quotes attributed to famous people. I happened to come across one today that sounded so fake I just had to check it out.
The quote is "If I had six hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend the first four sharpening the axe."
It's cute, and it makes a worthwhile point, but as soon as I read it I doubted that Lincoln ever said it.
A very quick Google search (which anybody can do in seconds) finds a fair number of uses of the quote, but none that provide any actual citation. The uses all seem pretty recent, too, so I'd guess this made-up quote has a recent origin.
It's not uncommon to have quotes that a misattributed to some famous person. I guess the thought goes: I may make a good point, but if Lincoln made the same point it's even better. Lincoln is much more credible than little old me.
I'm sure this motivation prompts the initial creation of the misattribution. From there it takes off with the uncritical use by others and next thing you know, it's a "Lincoln quote."
Well, Abraham Lincoln said a great many good things, but this one wasn't one of them.
As this made-up quote seems to be in its early stages you can amuse yourself by being on the lookout for it and see how many time you spot it. It does have its usefulness, by the way. You can judge that anyone who does use the "quote" hasn't done even the minimal amount of homework required to legitimately use a quotation, and you can assess the rest of their work accordingly.
The quote is "If I had six hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend the first four sharpening the axe."
It's cute, and it makes a worthwhile point, but as soon as I read it I doubted that Lincoln ever said it.
A very quick Google search (which anybody can do in seconds) finds a fair number of uses of the quote, but none that provide any actual citation. The uses all seem pretty recent, too, so I'd guess this made-up quote has a recent origin.
It's not uncommon to have quotes that a misattributed to some famous person. I guess the thought goes: I may make a good point, but if Lincoln made the same point it's even better. Lincoln is much more credible than little old me.
I'm sure this motivation prompts the initial creation of the misattribution. From there it takes off with the uncritical use by others and next thing you know, it's a "Lincoln quote."
Well, Abraham Lincoln said a great many good things, but this one wasn't one of them.
As this made-up quote seems to be in its early stages you can amuse yourself by being on the lookout for it and see how many time you spot it. It does have its usefulness, by the way. You can judge that anyone who does use the "quote" hasn't done even the minimal amount of homework required to legitimately use a quotation, and you can assess the rest of their work accordingly.
Harry Potter
Got my copy Saturday morning and started reading after lunch. Aside from one break I read until I was done.
When I have some time, I plan to go back and read the whole series again, searching for the clues I missed the first time around. I'm expecting there will be some kind of special edition (maybe next year) that will provide all seven books in a nice hard-cover format. Certainly, if I were a marketer that's what I'd do.
Meanwhile I'm also revisiting the Lod of the Rings trilogy with a reread of that. If a book is good, it's good for reading again.
The whole project is really an astounding one.
When I have some time, I plan to go back and read the whole series again, searching for the clues I missed the first time around. I'm expecting there will be some kind of special edition (maybe next year) that will provide all seven books in a nice hard-cover format. Certainly, if I were a marketer that's what I'd do.
Meanwhile I'm also revisiting the Lod of the Rings trilogy with a reread of that. If a book is good, it's good for reading again.
The whole project is really an astounding one.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Game of the Week: Checkers
It isn't often boardgames make the news, but a rather big deal was made this week of checkers being "solved" by a computer program. Turns out that there are a finite but measurable number of possible board positions (500 billion billion) and if played perfectly the game will invariably end in a draw.
Here's a link to one of the many stories about this development: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/the-game-of-che.html
Like most "serious" gamers I "moved on from checkers a long time ago. Compared to chess, it seems a much less involving game and I'm not surprised that it can be solved.
What does impress me, however, is that there's much more to the game than I would have guessed. 500 billion billion is an awful big number. It's a big enough number that it makes me reconsider not just checkers, but games in general, especially abstract games. If checkers has 500 billion billion possible board positions, then how many must more involved games have?
Non abstract games, such as wargames, may have uncountable possible positions, although it appears to me that wargames are generally more subject to factors that make many different board positions meaningless variations that really don't affect play. I think that in abstract games minor variations in board positions may genuinely represent different things more so than in some other games.
Still, this was astounding news and gave me a deeper appreciation of checkers. I don't look at it as a kids game so much.
Another fact related to checkers that came out in these stories was the incredible record of a certain Michael Tinsley, who lost a grand total of seven competitive games of chess over the course of four decades -- and several of those losses were to computer programs. He played thousands of games against top-flight opposition and lost just seven!
The news stories called him the greatest checkers player who ever lived. I can't think of a similar record of dominance in any other game or sport. Even the Yankees, Celtics, Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan could never dream of 1000+ to 1 win ratios. Indeed, has there ever been anything like that in any game? Games with random elements such as poker, backgammon or wargames would make achieving such a record impossible. The dice and cards would ensure that.
But even games with no randomness such as chess, go or Diplomacy see nothing like this guy's record.
The gentleman passed away without much fame outside checker-playing circles, it appears, but it was a singular achievement.
Here's a link to one of the many stories about this development: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/the-game-of-che.html
Like most "serious" gamers I "moved on from checkers a long time ago. Compared to chess, it seems a much less involving game and I'm not surprised that it can be solved.
What does impress me, however, is that there's much more to the game than I would have guessed. 500 billion billion is an awful big number. It's a big enough number that it makes me reconsider not just checkers, but games in general, especially abstract games. If checkers has 500 billion billion possible board positions, then how many must more involved games have?
Non abstract games, such as wargames, may have uncountable possible positions, although it appears to me that wargames are generally more subject to factors that make many different board positions meaningless variations that really don't affect play. I think that in abstract games minor variations in board positions may genuinely represent different things more so than in some other games.
Still, this was astounding news and gave me a deeper appreciation of checkers. I don't look at it as a kids game so much.
Another fact related to checkers that came out in these stories was the incredible record of a certain Michael Tinsley, who lost a grand total of seven competitive games of chess over the course of four decades -- and several of those losses were to computer programs. He played thousands of games against top-flight opposition and lost just seven!
The news stories called him the greatest checkers player who ever lived. I can't think of a similar record of dominance in any other game or sport. Even the Yankees, Celtics, Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan could never dream of 1000+ to 1 win ratios. Indeed, has there ever been anything like that in any game? Games with random elements such as poker, backgammon or wargames would make achieving such a record impossible. The dice and cards would ensure that.
But even games with no randomness such as chess, go or Diplomacy see nothing like this guy's record.
The gentleman passed away without much fame outside checker-playing circles, it appears, but it was a singular achievement.
Note to self: Next Time We Invade Someplace Let's Be Smarter
A well-reasoned and provocative lessons learned:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/07/lessons-learned.html
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/07/lessons-learned.html
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Media Missing In Action
As a member of the media, I'm disappointed in the coverage of government and politics recently. There's been a slow, downhill slide for a while in the quality of the coverage overall. It became very noticeable during the Clinton administration and the emergence of the "permanent campaign," but it's a problem that's been brewing for a while. Every political dispute is reduced to a "he said, she said" formulation. Instead of analysing the true state of affairs modern journalism seems to believe it's being fair by trotting out two hacks to yell at each other. Most of the time you could turn off the sound, because you already know what each hack will say.
Along with this has been the abandonment of principle -- and nearly even the abandonment of a pretense of principle -- in favor of blind partisanship. Our side can do no wrong, your side can do no right. The other side can't possibly have a point, because it would be a sign of weakness to agree with them, even partially.
This has been a poisonous way of doing business and it's gone on too long anyway, but the Bush administration demonstrates what happens when the gatekeepers don;t do their job. Any lie, no matter how bald-faced, transparent and ridiculous becomes a sufficient retort to any criticism, no matter how reasoned, sober and reality-based.
The failure of the Republican Congress to provide any meaningful oversight at all over the executive branch has caused a lot of damage to the country in ways large and small. However, it has also caused a lot of damage to the Republican Party as well. Any political party is going to go off track now and then. Honest internal debate and criticism can help pull a party back on track and avoid the worst disasters. One of the problems the Democrats have had (and they haven't completely shaken it off) is the undue influence of some of their more extreme elements. When Al Sharpton says something stupid, Democrats don't call him on it.
It's in the nature of things that the opposition party can't perform that task for you. For one thing, partisans tend to automatically discount anything the other side says without thinking about it. (Which is dumb. It defies logic and human experience to believe that one side is ALWAYS right and the other side wrong) For another thing, the opposition may not be in a big hurry to rescue you from your follies.
The American public, for the most part, isn't intensely engaged in politics. People prefer to lead their lives as best they can. They work, love and survive. They interact with the government when they must and generally prefer to be left alone by it whenever possible. Wonks, pundits, politicians, journalists and bureaucrats are NOT the public. The best of them have a steady finger of the pulse of the public, but only to the extent that they are intellectually honest about what they know and how they know it.
When an issue hammers itself into the public consciousness the public deals with it and then goes on with life.
The Iraq War has forced itself into the public consciousness and the public has made up its mind. It was a mistake and poorly-executed to boot. Only an unimaginably dramatic turnaround could possibly change that dynamic.
This is why the administration's attempts this week to "move the goal posts" on Iraq and say that September is too soon to know if the surge is working, now it should be November. Of course, this is merely a variation on the "next six months will be critical" argument that's been made for the last four years. And six months go by and nothing changes -- or at least nothing changes for the better. People are tired of that game and it's not going to work any more.
Now, it just so happens that Petraeus and his generals are right that September isn't enough time to turn things around. But where he is wrong is thinking that any amount of time is going to be sufficient. There are, indeed, promising aspects to his new approach. But sometimes it's simply too late. Creighton Abrams had a superior approach to Westmoreland in Vietnam, but he couldn't change the outcome. Rommel was right about the best way to defend France from and Allied invasion in 1944, too, but it was too late to change the outcome of that war.
Had elements of Petreaus' approach been tried in 2003 or 2004 maybe things would have been better. On the other hand, it's more likely it still would have been overwhelmed by the botched handling of every single other thing. (Has Bush waged any part of this war right?)
Unfortunately, little of this reality shows up in media reports, especially electronic media. Instead shallowness reigns. This provides fertile ground for executive branch mischief.
Along with this has been the abandonment of principle -- and nearly even the abandonment of a pretense of principle -- in favor of blind partisanship. Our side can do no wrong, your side can do no right. The other side can't possibly have a point, because it would be a sign of weakness to agree with them, even partially.
This has been a poisonous way of doing business and it's gone on too long anyway, but the Bush administration demonstrates what happens when the gatekeepers don;t do their job. Any lie, no matter how bald-faced, transparent and ridiculous becomes a sufficient retort to any criticism, no matter how reasoned, sober and reality-based.
The failure of the Republican Congress to provide any meaningful oversight at all over the executive branch has caused a lot of damage to the country in ways large and small. However, it has also caused a lot of damage to the Republican Party as well. Any political party is going to go off track now and then. Honest internal debate and criticism can help pull a party back on track and avoid the worst disasters. One of the problems the Democrats have had (and they haven't completely shaken it off) is the undue influence of some of their more extreme elements. When Al Sharpton says something stupid, Democrats don't call him on it.
It's in the nature of things that the opposition party can't perform that task for you. For one thing, partisans tend to automatically discount anything the other side says without thinking about it. (Which is dumb. It defies logic and human experience to believe that one side is ALWAYS right and the other side wrong) For another thing, the opposition may not be in a big hurry to rescue you from your follies.
The American public, for the most part, isn't intensely engaged in politics. People prefer to lead their lives as best they can. They work, love and survive. They interact with the government when they must and generally prefer to be left alone by it whenever possible. Wonks, pundits, politicians, journalists and bureaucrats are NOT the public. The best of them have a steady finger of the pulse of the public, but only to the extent that they are intellectually honest about what they know and how they know it.
When an issue hammers itself into the public consciousness the public deals with it and then goes on with life.
The Iraq War has forced itself into the public consciousness and the public has made up its mind. It was a mistake and poorly-executed to boot. Only an unimaginably dramatic turnaround could possibly change that dynamic.
This is why the administration's attempts this week to "move the goal posts" on Iraq and say that September is too soon to know if the surge is working, now it should be November. Of course, this is merely a variation on the "next six months will be critical" argument that's been made for the last four years. And six months go by and nothing changes -- or at least nothing changes for the better. People are tired of that game and it's not going to work any more.
Now, it just so happens that Petraeus and his generals are right that September isn't enough time to turn things around. But where he is wrong is thinking that any amount of time is going to be sufficient. There are, indeed, promising aspects to his new approach. But sometimes it's simply too late. Creighton Abrams had a superior approach to Westmoreland in Vietnam, but he couldn't change the outcome. Rommel was right about the best way to defend France from and Allied invasion in 1944, too, but it was too late to change the outcome of that war.
Had elements of Petreaus' approach been tried in 2003 or 2004 maybe things would have been better. On the other hand, it's more likely it still would have been overwhelmed by the botched handling of every single other thing. (Has Bush waged any part of this war right?)
Unfortunately, little of this reality shows up in media reports, especially electronic media. Instead shallowness reigns. This provides fertile ground for executive branch mischief.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Game of the week: Latrunculi
One difficulty in writing a review for an ancient game that's no longer actively played, such as the ancient Roman game Latrunculi, is the fact that we don't really know for sure how the game was played! We saw the same thing with Senet a few weeks back.
Of course, a game that's been played over many centuries, across several thousands of miles in mostly illiterate or semi-literate societies probably had many variations anyway, so it doesn't pay to be too dogmatic.
Extant boards have come in varying sizes and with varying numbers of pieces. We do know it was played on a gridded chessboard-like gameboard. The Midnight Snacks magnetic version I own has a 7 x 8 field, but there are others and it can easily be played on an 8x8 checkerboard. Most sources seem to agree that the pieces moved one square orthogonally, but not diagonally. Capturing was via the ancient "custodial capture" rule seen in Seega and Morris and other ancient games. It's interesting that this formerly popular rule isn't seen in more modern games, which usually use "replacement" captures (like chess, backgammon) or "jumps" (checkers).
Some versions add a more powerful piece called a dux which has expanded powers of movement or capture (rules vary). The Midnight Snacks game allows the dux to jump, which provides a weak tool for avoiding stalemated situations.
The dux points out the biggest weakness of Latrunculi, which is that it can easily bog down into a stalemated position. This problem, combined with the way the game develops slowly and its general lack of dynamism probably accounts for its obscurity today. While the equally ancient Roman game of Tabula eventually evolved in Backgammon, Latrunculi fell out of favor. Although one might surmise that checkers is related to the ancient game, experts don't draw that link and instead trace the game's origins to about AD 1100, long after Latrunculi was forgotten.
Modern players of abstract games will find Latrunculi an interesting historical curiosity worth a few plays, but there's no prospect of a revival in interest. The game is simply too dry and slow-paced for modern tastes. The dux improves the game, but its just a single piece and not an especially powerful one. It's important to preserve your dux so long as your opponent has enough other pieces remaining to build a wall across the board in order to avoid being blocked or a stalemated position.
If you want to try the game out, you can simply use a checkerboard and pieces. The variation presented in The World of Games by Jack Botermans et al. allows all the pieces the rook's move from chess (while still having custodial capture) which will lead to a speedier game, although that may not be the way the Romans played it.
Of course, a game that's been played over many centuries, across several thousands of miles in mostly illiterate or semi-literate societies probably had many variations anyway, so it doesn't pay to be too dogmatic.
Extant boards have come in varying sizes and with varying numbers of pieces. We do know it was played on a gridded chessboard-like gameboard. The Midnight Snacks magnetic version I own has a 7 x 8 field, but there are others and it can easily be played on an 8x8 checkerboard. Most sources seem to agree that the pieces moved one square orthogonally, but not diagonally. Capturing was via the ancient "custodial capture" rule seen in Seega and Morris and other ancient games. It's interesting that this formerly popular rule isn't seen in more modern games, which usually use "replacement" captures (like chess, backgammon) or "jumps" (checkers).
Some versions add a more powerful piece called a dux which has expanded powers of movement or capture (rules vary). The Midnight Snacks game allows the dux to jump, which provides a weak tool for avoiding stalemated situations.
The dux points out the biggest weakness of Latrunculi, which is that it can easily bog down into a stalemated position. This problem, combined with the way the game develops slowly and its general lack of dynamism probably accounts for its obscurity today. While the equally ancient Roman game of Tabula eventually evolved in Backgammon, Latrunculi fell out of favor. Although one might surmise that checkers is related to the ancient game, experts don't draw that link and instead trace the game's origins to about AD 1100, long after Latrunculi was forgotten.
Modern players of abstract games will find Latrunculi an interesting historical curiosity worth a few plays, but there's no prospect of a revival in interest. The game is simply too dry and slow-paced for modern tastes. The dux improves the game, but its just a single piece and not an especially powerful one. It's important to preserve your dux so long as your opponent has enough other pieces remaining to build a wall across the board in order to avoid being blocked or a stalemated position.
If you want to try the game out, you can simply use a checkerboard and pieces. The variation presented in The World of Games by Jack Botermans et al. allows all the pieces the rook's move from chess (while still having custodial capture) which will lead to a speedier game, although that may not be the way the Romans played it.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Founders were right, after all
The authors of the Constitution went through considerable effort to make sure the war-making power was vested in the legislative branch, rather than the executive branch, and for the first century and a half of the Republic that formulation held.
Unfortunately, in 1950 we started an experiment in the alternative when Harry Truman committed U.S. troops to a major war in Korea (styled a "police action" at the time) without a declaration of war by Congress. As a matter of fact, Congress has not declared a state of war since, although there's been no shortage of fighting in that time.
Now, human affairs are not subject to "proof" in the scientific sense as no controlled experiments being possible. But it's certainly reasonable to examine the evidence we have to determine whether certain polices are successful or not, and a period of nearly six decades seems more than adequate. It only took about that long to demonstrate, for example, that communism was a failed system.
In the first 160 years of the Republic we fought five foreign wars, with one draw and four clear wins. (War of 1812, Mexican-American, Spanish American, World War I and WWII.) This averages one war every 32 years and an 80 percent success rate. In other words, wars were infrequent and successful. This seems a generally desirable state of affairs I think everyone will agree. During that time the United States grew in power and influence from a relatively weak minor power into the most powerful single country on earth. This period I'll call the Congressional War Era
(I don't count the Revolution because it was prior to the adoption of the Constitution and also because it was a domestic war, which is an altogether different animal than a foreign war. For the same reason I leave off the Civil War, another domestic conflict that has its own sets of legal, moral and practical issues wholly different than the problems of foreign wars).
In the most recent 57 years of the Republic we've fought four major foreign wars (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf and Iraq/Afghanistan). Of those, one was a draw, one was a defeat and one a clear victory. The last is ongoing, but prospects for a clear victory are about nil. This averages a war every 14 years and a success rate of 25 percent. In other words, wars have been more than twice as frequent while being much less than half as successful. I think everyone can agree this is not a desirable state. I'll label this the Presidential War Era.
During both periods the executive branch engaged in minor military actions with mixed success. Because these were, by definition, minor actions however, the risks and payoffs were relatively low. Failures were expected and tolerated. While there were individual tragedies, of course, the country as a whole was largely unaffected by adventures in Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines, Haiti, Panama, the Barbary coast, Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, etc.)
On the other hand, major foreign wars unavoidably bring great risks and the certain expenditure of national treasure in the form of lives and money.
The evidence is clear that the Congressional War system provides superior results to the Presidential War system. Why this is so will be addressed in a future post, but the empirical evidence is there for all to see.
Unfortunately, in 1950 we started an experiment in the alternative when Harry Truman committed U.S. troops to a major war in Korea (styled a "police action" at the time) without a declaration of war by Congress. As a matter of fact, Congress has not declared a state of war since, although there's been no shortage of fighting in that time.
Now, human affairs are not subject to "proof" in the scientific sense as no controlled experiments being possible. But it's certainly reasonable to examine the evidence we have to determine whether certain polices are successful or not, and a period of nearly six decades seems more than adequate. It only took about that long to demonstrate, for example, that communism was a failed system.
In the first 160 years of the Republic we fought five foreign wars, with one draw and four clear wins. (War of 1812, Mexican-American, Spanish American, World War I and WWII.) This averages one war every 32 years and an 80 percent success rate. In other words, wars were infrequent and successful. This seems a generally desirable state of affairs I think everyone will agree. During that time the United States grew in power and influence from a relatively weak minor power into the most powerful single country on earth. This period I'll call the Congressional War Era
(I don't count the Revolution because it was prior to the adoption of the Constitution and also because it was a domestic war, which is an altogether different animal than a foreign war. For the same reason I leave off the Civil War, another domestic conflict that has its own sets of legal, moral and practical issues wholly different than the problems of foreign wars).
In the most recent 57 years of the Republic we've fought four major foreign wars (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf and Iraq/Afghanistan). Of those, one was a draw, one was a defeat and one a clear victory. The last is ongoing, but prospects for a clear victory are about nil. This averages a war every 14 years and a success rate of 25 percent. In other words, wars have been more than twice as frequent while being much less than half as successful. I think everyone can agree this is not a desirable state. I'll label this the Presidential War Era.
During both periods the executive branch engaged in minor military actions with mixed success. Because these were, by definition, minor actions however, the risks and payoffs were relatively low. Failures were expected and tolerated. While there were individual tragedies, of course, the country as a whole was largely unaffected by adventures in Cuba, Hawaii, the Philippines, Haiti, Panama, the Barbary coast, Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, etc.)
On the other hand, major foreign wars unavoidably bring great risks and the certain expenditure of national treasure in the form of lives and money.
The evidence is clear that the Congressional War system provides superior results to the Presidential War system. Why this is so will be addressed in a future post, but the empirical evidence is there for all to see.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Whew! Made through Friday the 13th!!
Not that I'm superstitious, or anything like that. Not at all. Really.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Figure-enhanced games
There's really no currently accepted generic term for them (like RPGs, hex-and-counter wargames, CCGs, card-driven wargames, block games) but I wonder if games, especially games featuring miniature combatants, are the next trend.
On the one hand, it seems like the most action is in those parts of the gaming hobby involving games using figures, painted and unpainted. Inexpensive production sources in China have made really nice "bits" pretty affordable.
On the other hand, these games don't share much in the way of game systems and haven't generated a sense of shared identity. Many, for example, style themselves as "miniatures" games, although they are really boardgames that use miniatures. (Heroclix, Star Wars, Axis & Allies land and naval, Heroscape). Even those that admit being boardgames (Memoir'44, BattleLore, War of the Ring, Tide of Iron, Axis & Allies series) haven't generated a sense of shared identity yet.
Still, the most action in retail seems down that road, a fact which the game makers seem to realize, even if they don't always succeed in their attempts (Navia Dratp, Dreamblade).
It will be interesting to see if this sustains and grows or not.
On the one hand, it seems like the most action is in those parts of the gaming hobby involving games using figures, painted and unpainted. Inexpensive production sources in China have made really nice "bits" pretty affordable.
On the other hand, these games don't share much in the way of game systems and haven't generated a sense of shared identity. Many, for example, style themselves as "miniatures" games, although they are really boardgames that use miniatures. (Heroclix, Star Wars, Axis & Allies land and naval, Heroscape). Even those that admit being boardgames (Memoir'44, BattleLore, War of the Ring, Tide of Iron, Axis & Allies series) haven't generated a sense of shared identity yet.
Still, the most action in retail seems down that road, a fact which the game makers seem to realize, even if they don't always succeed in their attempts (Navia Dratp, Dreamblade).
It will be interesting to see if this sustains and grows or not.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Reluctant commutation?
Wes Pruden, in the middle of mocking Bill Clinton's brassiness for talking about the Libby deal given his own 11th-hour shenanigans, characterized Bush's Libby thing as "reluctant."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070706/NATION01/107060100
This seems to be part of the "Official Line," but like most such pronouncements from the Bushists, it doesn't stand up to the minimal standards of logic or sense.
If he was so "reluctant," it seems odd he'd act so quickly (just a few hours) after Libby lost his appeal. I would expect real reluctance to manifest itself in a decision put off until the last possible moment, not the first available one.
The simplest and most obvious explanation is that Libby was offered a corrupt deal, either explicitly or implicitly, that he's be taken care of as long as he kept his mouth shut. This theory matches the known facts much more closely than the alternatives offered by Bush's defenders.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070706/NATION01/107060100
This seems to be part of the "Official Line," but like most such pronouncements from the Bushists, it doesn't stand up to the minimal standards of logic or sense.
If he was so "reluctant," it seems odd he'd act so quickly (just a few hours) after Libby lost his appeal. I would expect real reluctance to manifest itself in a decision put off until the last possible moment, not the first available one.
The simplest and most obvious explanation is that Libby was offered a corrupt deal, either explicitly or implicitly, that he's be taken care of as long as he kept his mouth shut. This theory matches the known facts much more closely than the alternatives offered by Bush's defenders.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
principles vs. parrots
My young daughter has the nickname of "parrot' because she has a habit of repeating the last thing that's been said within earshot. A trait that's cute with a toddler is decidedly less so with adults, particularly in political discourse.
Unfortunately, parroting party lines is what passes for 'serious' punditry these days. Always a worrisome thing, it's exploded during the Bush era, like many other negative things.
The Libby affair is just another example. Breast-beating law-and-order types who'll gladly throw away the keys for crackhead welfare queens or three-strike burglars are bending over backwards to justify Libby's special deal. Folks like David Brooks, who were appalled at Clinton's staining the Oval Office, criticize Bush for not going far enough. (Actually, I agree in part. It's one more example of Bush incompetence. Instead of getting the dirty deed done once and for all, he guarantees it will kick around for months as Libby's appeals wend their way through the courts)
One of the many disillusioning developments of the Bush era has been seeing the flock of partisan parrots who can justify anything he does, regardless of heretofore bedrock conservative principles. Of course, there have always been parrots on the Left, which is one of the main reasons I've generally held most left-wing pundits in disdain. What's been shocking has been the same debasement taking hold on the Right. Sure, here and there an Andrew Sullivan, a George Will, a Pat Buchanan or a William F. Buckley have stuck to actual, recognizable conservative principles, but most of the Right have "carried water" (paraphrasing Rush L.) for the Bushies, principles be damned.
At some point the conservatives will rediscover their principles or they will disintegrate into Whig-like irrelevance and fade away as a movement. Partisans without principles should at least be smart enough to placate the public, not stick a finger in its eye.
Unfortunately, parroting party lines is what passes for 'serious' punditry these days. Always a worrisome thing, it's exploded during the Bush era, like many other negative things.
The Libby affair is just another example. Breast-beating law-and-order types who'll gladly throw away the keys for crackhead welfare queens or three-strike burglars are bending over backwards to justify Libby's special deal. Folks like David Brooks, who were appalled at Clinton's staining the Oval Office, criticize Bush for not going far enough. (Actually, I agree in part. It's one more example of Bush incompetence. Instead of getting the dirty deed done once and for all, he guarantees it will kick around for months as Libby's appeals wend their way through the courts)
One of the many disillusioning developments of the Bush era has been seeing the flock of partisan parrots who can justify anything he does, regardless of heretofore bedrock conservative principles. Of course, there have always been parrots on the Left, which is one of the main reasons I've generally held most left-wing pundits in disdain. What's been shocking has been the same debasement taking hold on the Right. Sure, here and there an Andrew Sullivan, a George Will, a Pat Buchanan or a William F. Buckley have stuck to actual, recognizable conservative principles, but most of the Right have "carried water" (paraphrasing Rush L.) for the Bushies, principles be damned.
At some point the conservatives will rediscover their principles or they will disintegrate into Whig-like irrelevance and fade away as a movement. Partisans without principles should at least be smart enough to placate the public, not stick a finger in its eye.
Quick review: A Tragic Legacy
I wrapped up one of my two anti-Bush books I've been reading. Glenn Greenwald's A Tragic Legacy is definitely the quicker read. It's a well-organized, tightly argued piece that makes a damning and disturbing case that Bush's legacy will be defined by his black vs. white, Good vs. Evil world view.
It's disturbing on many levels, but two that come to mind are the whole torture issue and the possibility of war with Iran.
As far as torture goes, Greenwald's book explains how someone who believes they are serving Good can engage in the most monstrous acts with a clear conscience. Of all my beefs with Bush, torture is the most irredeemable.
War with Iran would be an absolute, unmitigated disaster, but Greenwald's book makes a persuasive argument that Bush's worldview makes such a war nearly inevitable. God help us.
It's disturbing on many levels, but two that come to mind are the whole torture issue and the possibility of war with Iran.
As far as torture goes, Greenwald's book explains how someone who believes they are serving Good can engage in the most monstrous acts with a clear conscience. Of all my beefs with Bush, torture is the most irredeemable.
War with Iran would be an absolute, unmitigated disaster, but Greenwald's book makes a persuasive argument that Bush's worldview makes such a war nearly inevitable. God help us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)