2016 Election Part 2- Sealing the Deal

We have chaos on the right.  I think it's really hurt the GOP by putting the worst parts of their ideology on display and trump-eting them for the American public to witness.  This provides a perfect opportunity for a Democrat to swoop in in the general and win it all.  The problem there is the serious lack of exciting and electable candidates on the left.  We instead we have two, each of whom has exactly one of those characteristics.  Clinton is electable due to her name recognition and substantive experience as a civil servant.  Bernie inspires a lot of excitement among his devotees, but his far left tendencies make him tough for the general public to get behind.  In a match up of Bernie vs. anyone on the right, it's entirely possible that Bernie could win out.  But it would take us dangerously close to a Trump White House.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote any current candidate on the right into office.  I'm not particularly excited about anyone on the left.  With that being the case, my political goal has shifted from electing someone I really want into the White House to defending it from crazy people.  How can this best be achieved?

I think the Democrats could win this election right now if Bernie were to drop out of the race and instead become Clinton's running mate as the Democratic nominee for Vice President.  Clinton has electability but lacks credibility. Bernie has credibility but lacks electability (sorry, I swear these rhymes aren't on purpose).  If you combine the two into one ticket, each person would shore up the deficiencies of the other to create something much more politically strong.

At the head of the ticket you would have Clinton, who has real experience as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.  She also has strong name recognition and she would be the first female president (which is actually a big deal). While she lacks credibility and trustworthiness with the fervent left, she is (relatively) appealing to moderate voters.  Bernie, who has earned serious credibility over a lifetime of rigorous adherence to his political ideals, would lend his trustworthiness and credibility to the Democratic ticket.  Having Clinton at the top of the ticket would also help make Sanders more palatable for the general electorate.

Announcing this early on in the process would also dramatically boost the Democrat's chances in the general.  While the right could potentially be dealing with the chaos and fallout of a brokered convention, the Democrats would be uniting early on behind a nominee and her running mate.  I should also mention that a slight variation to this scenario would be if Clinton were to win the nomination one way or another, and then have Elizabeth Warren as her running mate.  Warren's credibility would have similar effects on Clinton's campaign as Sanders would.  She would also then be the presumptive nominee in eight years (though I wouldn't say this in the case of Sanders, given his age).

Like I said, I'm not thrilled at the prospect of Hillary winning the White House.  I'm getting pretty tired of the Presidency being something passed on from family member to family member- we are a nation founded on a revolution against political dynasties, dammit.  But given the current possible future outcomes of this election, I think this may be the least terrible option.  

"It is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

-Douglas Adams

2016 Election Part 1- The Donald

(Note- This was written before Rubio dropped out and Katich won Ohio, but I'm too lazy to go back and edit this)

The 2016 election cycle has simultaneously proved to be hilarious, outrageous, terrifying, and depressing all at the same time.  On the right, we have the rise of the Donald and the fall of the establishment, embodied by the abysmal performance of Jeb! Bush.  On the right we have Clinton vs. Sanders, the battle of dishonest and untrustworthy vs. the honest and trustworthy self-proclaimed socialist.  It'll be hilarious when the next president, and this can be applied to literally every single candidate out there, is sworn in with a horrendous approval rating.

On the left, we have Clinton and Sanders.  Regardless of whose policies you agree with more, Sanders is dangerously unpalatable to the general electorate.  Even if you like his policies the most out of any candidate out there, the vast majority of people vote on the general feel they have for a candidate, kind of like playing the word association game in the ballot booth.  The "socialist" moniker, as deserved as it may or may not be, is enough that it could sink the left's chance of winning against any candidate on the right in the general.

Clinton faces some serious issues in her perceived trustworthiness and establishment-ness, best exemplified by her email server scandal.  She also lacks charisma in that she doesn't inspire the same level of enthusiasm among her supporters that Bernie or Trump do among theirs.  Relatively few people out there, I think, would be excited by Clinton taking the White House even if she's the first female president.  I think there's a strong likelihood she will win however, simply by the process of elimination.

We'll start on the right with Ted Cruz.  The anti-establishment blue-collar-representin' GOP hopeful that went to Princeton, Harvard, worked as an advisor to George W. Bush, and married a Goldman Sachs banker.  Take a few seconds, and go google something along the lines of "Ted Cruz Hate".    Literally everyone that has had to work with Ted HATES him.  Democrat, Republican, everyone.  A direct quote from Lindsay Graham (R- South Carolina)- "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.".  I won't spend  time going into why Ted Cruz is hated, other articles out there are readily available to give more color on why.  But imagine a President that has to work with a Congress where every single Congressman out there hates him on a personal, not even professional, level. Lol.

Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Marco Rubio doesn't know what he's doing.  He knows EXACTLY what he's doing.  Marco Rubio is undertaking a systematic effort to use every dollar and talking point the establishment can come up with to beat Donald Trump and mask the fact that he has no substantive experience or character to qualify him to be President.

This leaves the Donald.  The confluence of forces leading to the rise of Trump makes the weather patterns of The Perfect Storm look like a sunny spring day.  Since Obama took office, the right has adhered to a strategy of "massive resistance" (google that too, if you don't get the reference) where any attempt to compromise with the sitting President was tantamount to treason and grounds for excommunication.  This proved fairly successful- with the aid of loudspeakers like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. the Tea Party rose to prominence despite spouting racism coated in obfuscation like Obama being a Muslim Kenyan socialist.  The establishment encouraged this.  Why wouldn't they?  They ended up winning back both houses by refusing to disavow and even encouraging this kind of rhetoric.  Now the chickens have come home to roost and now even the establishment themselves is being skewered for their perceived lack of ideological purity.  This is exacerbated by the fact that any primary candidate on the right is now being subjected to this same level of scrutiny.  No moderate that could potentially expand the Republican voter base can pass through the primary (even more so than in previous years).  

With the Donald as the leading GOP frontrunner, there are several ways this could play out, each of which will be fascinating to watch.  We could reach a brokered convention, and Donald loses.  His supporters will be furious, likely believing that the establishment overruled the political will of the electorate.  This could lead to some sort of permanent split in the GOP into two parties, the establishment and the tea party.  With their unity dissolved, they will likely be an ineffectual political force for years to come.  Donald could also win the GOP nomination, either through a brokered convention or winning outright.  There is a strong likelihood he will lose the general because of his lack of appeal to moderates and independents.  The GOP would stay politically unified, but greatly hurt in their capacity to win future elections, as their reputation for the white upper class christians that hates immigrants, minorities, women, and the poor (very overgeneralizing here, but you get the idea) etc. will be further ingrained into the zeitgeist.  Or Donald could win it all, in which case...

...

Oh and also- Kasich is a thing, which pretty much summarizes his accomplishments in this election to date.

The End of Daesh (the Islamic State)

It's absolutely fascinating to review, in hindsight, how those that seek to conquer and control others seal their own downfalls through the very traits that led them to successful conquests in the first place.  Take Hitler as an example.  After his lightning advance through Europe faltered at the Battle of Britain, he was perfectly capable of consolidating his control over mainland Europe before redoubling his efforts to invade Britain.  Had he succeeded, the US would never have had a staging area to invade Europe, and it's possible that Europe could be a predominantly Nazi state today.

But he didn't do that.  You could make the argument that Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement (the non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) for purely pragmatic reasons, namely the oil rich fields of the Caucus region, but there was something more to it than that.  The Nazi ideology he espoused that led to his rise to power despised communists, jews, and bolshevism.  He had always aimed to conquer the Soviet Union. Furthermore his stunning victories in Europe fed his cultivated image of invincibility and strategic brilliance, leading to his overconfidence and underestimation of the Soviet Union on the eastern front.

If any history majors out there want to chime in about how I got my WWII history wrong, feel free to let me know since I'm not claiming to be an expert.  All I mean to point out here is that the very factors that led to Hitler's rampage throughout Europe (among other things, like Russian snow) ultimately led to his defeat.

The Islamic State (Daesh) is doing something similar now.

Because of the ideological soup they swim in, I don't think Daesh has any real concept of how little power they actually have.  Daesh's initial military success through Syria and Iraq was mainly due to the fact that they weren't facing a motivated opposition force, and were able to feed off of the general Sunni's population's dissent at the Shia dominated Iraqi government and the chaos of the Syrian civil war.

Daesh truly believes themselves to warriors of God.  It was this ideological force that drove them to trample over the poorly motivated Iraqi government, and that led to their successful recruitment drive of foreign fighters.  But I think it has also left them either blind or willfully ignorant to the military realities of their current international terror campaign.

Every attack they launch at a new nation earns them another new enemy, and motivates their victims even further to retaliate.  With it's nuclear arsenal, France alone could glass (for those not familiar with the expression, "glass" as a verb refers to nuking predominately sandy areas such that the heat turns the sand to glass) all of Daesh's held territory in under a week.  If Daesh should launch an attack at the US, turning to the American public in favor of deploying ground forces en masse, the US military could steamroll Daesh in a matter of weeks.  I should acknowledge the campaign could be bogged down by an insurgency as it was in the earlier 2000s, but I'm still fully confident in our armed services to get the job done.

Or, and it will be extremely interesting to see if this occurs in the coming days, should France invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty designating an attack on a member state as an attack on all member states and bring the full wrath of NATO down on their heads, all bets would be off.  NATO was designed for World War 3.  The war would be something along the lines of throwing the Sun at an ice cube.

The shifting geopolitical realities created by their attacks are absolutely astounding as well.  With Iran's influence over the Shia militias fighting Daesh in Iraq, the US has begun thawing relations with Iran, one of the founding members of the "Axis of Evil" just a few years ago.  Furthermore Daesh has pledge to attack Russia in the near future.  Should an attack occur, all of a sudden Russia becomes even more militarily involved than it was before when it was just propping up the Assad regime- now they're in it for revenge.  Beijing has even offered to help France!

All of a sudden you have the US, France (if not most/all of NATO), Iraq, Iran, the UK, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the Kurds, Turkey, and probably even more nations I can't remember off the top of my head all fighting Daesh.  All once mortal enemies now united against a common foe.  I swear the next global summit will be in Raqqa, Syria, with Hollande, Putin, Obama, etc. all singing Kumbaya and roasting marshmallows over the smoldering embers of what was once known as the Islamic State.

I could be wrong about the future, things might turn out differently.  But I'm confident that with each new attack, Daesh comes closer and closer to their own demise.  Each new attack expedites the political shifting and maneuvering that is needed to end Daesh.  Each new victim creates a new quest for vengeance.  Their days are numbered.


PS.  On a tangentially related note.  PLEASE STOP FUCKING HASHTAGGING EVERYTHING.  It annoys me to no end.  Every goddamn tragedy has to have some fucking hashtag.  STOP IT.  It is slacktivism at it's worst, and it trivializes the event and what the victims had to go through.  All it is is a way for people to feel good about themselves for posting their support on social media. Stop. It.

Quick & Fun Media Analysis of the UNC Shooting

I'm currently on my lunch break (chipotle), so I'll try to make this quick.  So I can get back to my burrito bowl.  There's a news article being shared around facebook right now about the tragic shooting at UNC chapel hill- http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/11/three-students-shot-dead-near-unc-chapel-hill.html.

In the article, the police report suggests the the motivation seems to be related to an ongoing dispute the students had with a neighbor regarding parking.

Here's the fun part-

Their religion apparently had absolutely nothing to do with what happened.  The fact they were muslim appears to be as relevant to the situation as what genders they are, or what they were studying, yet the headline proclaims front and center that they were muslim.

The end result of this is a lot of people decrying the biased mainstream media for not covering this shooting of the muslims as a result of their own islamophobia.

The shyamala-llama twist- The article is actually preying on fears of islamophobia, not actual islamophobia.  Because the shooting had nothing to do with them being muslim, the authors prey on their  audience's fear of islamophobia to incite their audience to action.

I'm not sure I did my thought process here justice, but like i said I'm eating some chipotle right now.  Kinda distracting.

Also, it's not that islamophobia isn't real, it's just not relevant to this case.

Where's Saddam Hussein When You Need Him?

The butterfly effects of major geopolitical events are, in retrospect, staggering.  There's another story about how a man's hunger for a sandwich led to WWI, WWII, the Cold War, etc. etc., but that's a story for another time.  For now, I want to focus on the current situation with ISIS in the Middle East.

Before I start, I want to first acknowledge the fact that hindsight is 20/20.  I don't think anyone could have predicted things would have turned out this way.

After 9/11, there were clear links the Taliban in Afghanistan were harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.  For example, it is widely believed that Ahmed Shah Massoud (the leader of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban's major foe) was assassinated by suicide bombers mere days before 9/11 to cement the alliance between Bin Laden and Mohammed Omar.  However there are no such obvious links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

I still don't truly understand why we invaded Iraq, or why that invasion was sold so heavily to the US public and the world by the Bush administration.  He didn't have WMDs, nor any links with Al Qaeda.  Yes he was a despotic tyrant, but those exist all over the world and we do nothing about the others.  The toppling of Saddam's regime left a massive power vacuum in Iraq, the consequences of which we are still dealing with today.

In response to the American occupation of Iraq, a group of Sunni militants was formed under the leadership of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.  Though they have been known by many names, I'll refer to them as AQI (Al-Qaeda in Iraq).  They should be thought of a separate group from Bin Laden's Al Qaeda however.  Though AQI swore allegiance to Bin Laden, their radical ways proved to be a public relations problem for Al Qaeda.  Zarqawi's penchant for public beheadings and killing fellow Muslims alienated a large portion of the Iraqi population.  The American airstrike that killed Zarqawi therefore actually removed a thorn from Bin Laden's side.

The reason why I bring up this whole story is because the current Sunni militant group ISIS is the direct descendent of AQI under Zarqawi.  Their rampage through Syria and Iraq is a result of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Saddam ruled with an iron fist, but that fist ultimately kept all of these ethnic and religious tensions in check.  Removing him from power led directly to the rise of ISIS.  

Finally, I think all of these problems are ultimately tied to the issue of loyalties in the Middle East.  The Iraqi army was supplied and trained by the US, but they fled from a much smaller invading ISIS force because of their lack of loyalty to the Iraqi government.  It seems to me like people in that area of the world have much more loyalty to to their own religious and ethnic groups than to some nationalistic invention like the Iraqi government.  That's why Shia militias have rallied in eastern Iraq to fight ISIS with the backing of Iran's Shia government (despite the fact that they fought a brutal war against each other in the 80's), and why the Kurdish Peshmerga stands as the only real fighting chance of pushing ISIS back.  ISIS is loyal to the Sunni sect and their self-proclaimed Caliph.  The Kurds are loyal to Kurdistan.  The Baathists are loyal to the Baathists.  And the Shia are loyal to their own religious sect.  No one is fighting for the idea of a united Iraq encompassing all of these factions.  

Maybe we shouldn't either.

The End: What It Means to Be a Wahoo

An address to the University of Virginia, class of 2034:

I don't know if it's possible to be loved by a place.  To feel such a sense of belonging as to have the bricks and stones themselves care for you and your wellbeing.  I think I've found such a place and such a bond.  These same street lights that have illuminated Grounds on many a cold winter night still reach out to me with the same loving embrace that they did twenty years ago.

These Grounds are more than just a place.  They are a place full of people.  Of brilliant faculty and staff who work behind the scenes to make the University what it is, of diverse people who bring new ideas and perspectives to the community of knowledge housed here, and of capable people who use their knowledge to change the world.  But most importantly, of friends.

We pledged the honor code.  We lit the Lawn.  We stormed football fields and basketball stadiums.  We walked Rugby Road and the bars at the Corner, and we drank at Foxfield.  We had movie nights and deep discussions of life, love, and the future.  We were friends.  I can still see their faces, I can still hear their laughter.

With the passing of time, we grew apart.  People moved to new cities and started new careers and families.  Some friends I haven't heard from in many years, some I still keep in touch with, some I see all the time.  But these experiences bound us inexorably together.  We are all, forever, wahoos.

We will always have the memories and photos of times shared together, and we've all been forever changed by our time spent here.  We conduct ourselves with integrity and honor, and we are loyal in our friendships.  We are intellectually curious, and we excel in the pursuit of excellence.

This is not the end, It'll just be different from now on.  The ties forged between us wahoos while on Grounds may be stretched thinly over time and space, but they will always be there.   Remember that.  This is not the end, but a new beginning.

Congratulations to you, Graduates of Mr. Jefferson's University.

How to Trail Run

Trail running has brought be a lot of joy in my life, so I thought I should share my experience with anyone else whom might be interested in trying it out.  If you aren't one of those people, you should be.  Here's why:

-The health benefits.  You'll lose fat, gain muscle, have more energy, and be less prone to health problems like heart attacks and diabetes.  Your body will also naturally start leaning towards healthier foods and habits to accommodate the new energy requirements your body needs to meet the stresses you place on it.  Not to mention how much closer you'll get to that elusive six pack.

-It's a really cheap hobby.  You'll need shoes, clothing, water, and space.  And that's it.  No fancy and expensive equipment or facilities, and you're not limited by geographic location/climate like you are for other sports.

-Specifically for trail versus road running- even after ~6 years of running I still get self conscious when I'm going through populated areas.  It's generally uncomfortable, and I'll naturally start to speed up which messes with my form and my enjoyment of the sport, which I'll get more into later.  Out on the trails there are far less people to judge you, and those that are out there are there for the same reasons you are.  Go for a run in minimal clothing and other runners/hikers will think nothing of it.  Now for the guide...

GEAR:

-First, shorts.  Don't be one of those people who tries to go for a run in basketball shorts.  It's impractical and you look like an idiot.  Get real running shorts.  They're much more functional and will last a long time.  I personally run in Nike shorts like these:  http://store.nike.com/us/en_us/pd/5-raceday-running-shorts/pid-652950/pgid-1508060 .  While they're expensive to get directly from Nike you can find them at places like Dick's for under $30 or less.  In general, I wouldn't recommend anything longer than a 5 inch inseam.  Girls are lucky in this regard, as apparently Nike running shorts are a common female fashion item so you'll have a lot more options to pick from.

 -Sports bra.  I know virtually nothing about these, but presumably if you're female you'll want one.  The only thing I know is that you might want to be conscious of the colors you pick- if you want to run without a shirt on a rainy day, and we're training partners, definitely pick a white one.

-T-shirts.  You don't need to go buy some expensive performance lightweight T-shirt, whatever standard cotton ones you have will work just fine.  Just make sure it fits well i.e. not too big or small.

-Clothing for different weather conditions.  In the winter you'll want to buy some long sleeve thermals, but you don't need to go buy the expensive Under Amour or Nike ones.  Reebok has thermals that are much cheaper and still get the job done.  While I would recommend gloves specifically made for running, you don't need to get a running beanie or something.  Also in my opinion you don't necessarily need running pants or leggings, but if it floats your boat, go for it.

-Shoes.  If you look at a modern pair of running shoes, they typically have extra padding in the heel and less in the forefoot.  This design was implemented so that when running, your heel would hit the ground first, and then roll forward onto the mid foot and finally your toes.  Turns out that's really bad for your joints.  Minimalist shoes don't have that padding discrepancy.  They're made so that you contact with the middle of your foot first, and then push off with your toes, which is much better for you.  Try running barefoot on a grassy field.  That's the sensation you want when running in trail shoes.  Minimalist shoes are generally better for your joints, and they work well to prevent rolled ankles on trails.  If you think about in the extreme, its a lot easier to roll an ankle wearing high heels than it is to roll an ankle while barefoot.

I personally run the New Balance MT 110 (http://www.amazon.com/New-Balance-Mens-MT110-Running/dp/B005DCLSZQ) , which have been great shoes, but they're currently out of production unfortunately (although I hear a version 2 is in the works).  In general, I'd highly recommend the New Balance Minimus line of shoes (http://www.newbalance.com/NB-Minimus/minimus,default,pg.html).  They perform well, look great, and aren't too hipsterish.  If those aren't your cup of tea, check out http://birthdayshoes.com to find a pair that works for you or you can go talk to a sales rep at your local specialty running store and tell them your interested in minimalist shoes.  In general you want a pair of shoes that are lightweight with minimal cushioning/drop between the heel and the forefoot, and in general work for you.

-Socks.  First of all if you buy shoes that are advertised as wearable without socks, don't listen.  I've tried it before, and believe me the smell is unbearable.  You don't need to buy specialized running socks, general athletic ones will do.  You might want to also consider mid-calf socks- if you're running through high grass they can protect you from ticks, mud, and the general ichiness of grass.

-Also, you'll probably want a running watch.  No need to go crazy expensive here- I've always run with a straightforward, $40 Timex Ironman Watch.  My last one lasted 4 years.

TIPS AND TRICKS:

-One of the first things I usually notice about a new distance runner's form is their arm swings.  You want to relax your arms and upper body, having your hands swing from hips-to-nips, no lower and no higher.

-For your stride, you want your feet to be contacting the ground in a vertical line with, or even a little behind their respective knees.  Over-striding can lead to joint problems.  Other than this and the above bullet, I don't have much advice on form.  Youtube search running form if you want to learn more.  Also, theres a thing out there called "chi running".  I haven't looked much into it, but from what I've seen it sounded like bullshit.  For the most part, do whatever comes naturally for you.

-You'll generally want to keep your eyes on the trail 5 to 10 feet in front of you to watch out for roots, rocks, and other obstacles.

-Pace.  Imagine yourself at a dead sprint, giving 100% effort.  Now, cut that in half to about 50% to 55%- thats generally the speed you want to be going.  It's impractical to try and speed run trails because of all the roots, rocks, logs, and creeks you'll have to deal with.

-Dealing with wildlife.  Good luck.  These encounters are random and occasionally really scary.  I've dealt with/seen snakes, foxes, coyotes, deer, ticks, bugs, tons of spider webs, and even a bald eagle once.  All I can say is use your head.  Try not to venture too far off the beaten path, maybe wear bug spray, and don't be stupid.  Unless you openly attack something, whatever it is will generally leave you alone.  Also, snakes are a lot faster on land and in water than you might think.  If theres one on the trail ahead of you, don't just stand there and stare at it.  Also also, always check yourself after, and occasionally during a run for ticks (especially if you've just gone through high grass).  Lyme disease sucks.

-Running buddies.  Definitely find one if you can, preferably one that runs at about your pace/schedule and that you get along with.  Its awesome to have a friend out there with you.  You'll have tons of shared experiences/inside jokes together from the time you spend together, you'll motivate each other, and its amazing how much you'll learn about each other.

-Explore.  One of the best things about trails is how one will often branch into multiple.  Go explore.  The worst that can happen is that you have to later retrace your steps.

-I strongly advise against running with headphones and music.  First, they might drown out things you need to hear, like thunder off in the distance for example.  Second, music will skew the pace you run at.  You will naturally tend towards the tempo of the song you're listening to, which may be slower or faster than you should be going.  Finally, I think it detracts from the general experience of trail running.  It's awesome listening to the sounds of birds, the wind, flowing water, etc.

-Plan out your food schedule according to your own needs.  For example, I know that I typically need 2-2.5 hours to digest a meal before I can run, but I also know I shouldn't run on a totally empty stomach or I won't have any energy.  Find out what works best for you and act accordingly.

-This is the most important bullet of this entire article for someone interested in trail running.  Run with joy.  Do what feels best so that you actually enjoy going to runs.  This might mean slowing down if you're winded, take a walking break, or even just taking a day off.  If your runs hurt, if they're sucking, chances are you're going too fast.  Slow down and enjoy the ride.  Similar to this idea is the idea of NOT setting goals in terms of pace, distance, etc.  The problem with setting running goals is that running becomes a means instead of an end.  Once the end is met, the means fades away.  If you run because you truly enjoy it, you'll run no matter what the conditions are or how bad you're feeling, because you love it for what it is, not what it can give you.  Try running without a watch to run by feel.  If you run with joy, you'll have gained a passion that will last your lifetime.

I'll leave you with a few trail running youtube videos I enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOfkwA26hrY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3lhdeLrjZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Z1-smRsoU

If those don't give you a trail running boner (especially that first one), I don't know what will.

Happy trails!