X-X The Eraldic Sector X-X

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - The Larger Story

2005-10-30T21:56:00.000-05:00

After another lengthy absence, I have decided to start writing again. This time, however, the posts will include a radically different structure. I've concluded that embedding sentences into paragraphs (like I'm doing right now) obfuscates their meaning, so in a bid to alter that course, I will now write single-sentence points (sometimes I'll have more than one sentence though) to be designated by roman or Arabic numerals. The main points may be appended by letters that indicate new thoughts on the same line of reasoning. The "dolce stil nuovo" ("sweet new style," harking back to Dante's days) if you will, is called 'derivative continuation,' whereby successive points will be derived from preceding ones. I am not going to use this mode for all articles here; I am practicing with it for other reasons.

Today's topic is a hell raiser, at least in America. I should warn people now that this post will focus more on the underlying ideological and philosophical issues surrounding this debate rather than the tenets of the two respective positions.

I. Intelligent Design argues that the supposed complexity of biological life on planet Earth could not have resulted through naturalistic mechanisms alone.

II. The theory of evolution argues that all organisms on planet Earth have a common ancestor that was created through materialistic mechanisms.

III. Materialistic and/or naturalistic mechanisms occur strictly through matter-forces (fermionic-bosonic) interactions and obviously do not permit the existence of supernatural phenomena.

IV. Intelligent design is not a new proposition; philosophers spanning several millennia have made points exactly coinciding with or loosely related to the main points of contemporary intelligent design arguments.

V. Evolution originated in the 18th century, but was given impetus by Darwin's landmark 1859 work, On the Origin of Species.

VI. As a consequence of point I, intelligent design states that a creator, or a designer, had to first initiate the processes that eventually culminated in the alleged complexity of life on Earth.

VII. As a consequence of point II, evolution states that life on Earth was not arbitrarily imposed by any supernatural force.

VIII. Scientific theories must be materialistic; they must be constructed on the basis that the interwoven mechanisms have comprehensible sources whose behavior can be explicated and modeled in non-supernatural terms.
A. Intelligent design posits a source that it does not explicate and that, as of recent
times, has no intention of explicating.
B. As a consequence of point VI, VIII, VIII (A), Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

IX. Scientific theories must be falsifiable; one ought to make some sort of observation that contradicts the theory.
A. Intelligent design posits a source whose existence no observation or experiment can confirm.
B. Recent scientific theories have posited entities whose existence has not been validated (theorized particles), but whose existence can be validated through the scientific method.
C. As a consequence of the points mentioned in VIII (B) as well as well as IX, IX (A), and IX (B), Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

X. Scientific theories must offer predictions.
A. Intelligent Design offers no predictions.
B. As a consequence of aforementioned points (now too lengthy to list), Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

XI. Intelligent designers have made statements decrying the dominance of materialism in scientific thought.

XII. Recent efforts to place Intelligent Design in the scientific curriculum are designed not just to offer an alternative viewpoint, but also to challenge a quasi-sacred scientific tradition of materialism.

That is all.

A Quick Respite

2005-07-15T17:27:00.000-04:00

Taking a bit of a break from blogging (as you can tell by my recent inactivity).....will be back, hopefully sooner rather than later.

The News

2005-07-08T12:55:00.000-04:00

I extend my sincere sympathies to the people of Britain. What happened was obviously tragic and serves to remind us ever more about the need to defeat or severely impair terrorism, since ultimate defeat may prove elusive.

On a lighter note, the funniest headline yesterday:

"Gaz de France shares suspended after 20% rise"

----
Shares in Gaz de France were suspended almost immediately after opening in Paris as they rose sharply beyond the daily allowable limit. ( www.ft.com )
----

Haha that's so weird; I've never heard of that happening before.

Casa Dolce Casa

2005-07-07T21:00:00.000-04:00

I'm back home after three days at UVA's Summer Orientation. The actual events occurred over two days, Wednesday and Thursday, but my sister and I went there on Tuesday. It was all relatively boring and I skipped the vast majority of scheduled activities, opting for the company of my sister and her friends (the lesser of two evils basically...hehe). Deciding the schedule was the most important part and that I did with immense satisfaction; I got all of my first choice classes. Here's how the first semester schedule looks like (I think this will be final):

Concepts of Physics 101 - 1100:1150 - M W F

Astronomy 121 - 1400:1515 - M W

History of European Literature 201 - 1230:1345 - T R

Revolutionary France 338 - 1400:1450 - T R

Modernity and History 508 - 1300:1530 - F

It may seem fairly difficult but I'm pretty sure I can handle it....and if I can't, I have plenty of time to change things around.

Albanian Elections

2005-07-05T12:21:00.000-04:00

It's not fully over, but it's becoming more and more clear that the Democratic Party has won the majority of the 100 zones up for the taking. However, I don't think they'll have a majority in Parliament to elect a Prime Minister from their party (the Albanian parliament has 140 members, the other 40 designated by the percentage of votes their respective parties received), but it still can't be said with high certainty. But this definitely sucks hard; eight years of great rule brought to an end (at this point, seemingly)....it's that great circle of democratic life again.....I still wana reiterate though: Albanian elections are known for being so controversial and fractious that the real results may not be known for a while and one or more of the parties may be complaining and contesting the numbers for far longer anyway.

Sunday Sunday....

2005-07-03T22:25:00.000-04:00

Nothing happens on Sunday; I think people took that Genesis shit a little too seriously. Exaggerating, of course, because something did happen today: Albanian parliamentary elections! As of now, it's looking like the Socialist Party will once again win, although it's been very close. The Socialists have been ruling Albania for over seven years now and they've done a fairly decent job, so I definitely think they deserve more time as the leading party (contrast that with Republicans here, which so far have largely sucked monkey balls). I'll update the news on this tomorrow....hopefully they'll have a winner then without anyone bitching too much (a common theme in the callow nature of Albanian politics).

Natalee Holloway

2005-07-02T10:36:00.000-04:00

I'm not writing this because I'm somehow deeply concerned about the outcome of this case. Naturally, I hope she's found safe and alive, or that whatever the truth is her family can uncover it since it would provide much needed closure. Rather, I'm writing to complain about the overwhelming media coverage this case has received. Frankly, it's undeserved. Coverage of these types of stories has grown more and more common in recent years, among some news casts even replacing traditional and germane information about the world. In many influential American news circles, it appears this case has received more attention than the G8 summit which President Bush will be attending. It would be nice if the media simply dropped this case already; yea it's sad, and yeah it's important for the family, and yes it's a tragedy, and I could continue downplaying this for a long time. I mean, there are so many cases like this every year, so it's a tad odd this one has received such great amounts of attention. Get back to real stories.....those that involve geopolitical or geostrategic occurrences would help.

Happy Independence Day!

2005-07-02T05:41:00.000-04:00

Oh man it's going to be such a great day; all the fireworks and the cheery crowds will remind me why it's so great to live in America. July 2nd is truly a historic day. Hmm....wait; something seems odd here. I think I'm forgetting something. OH DAMN! Independence Day is July 4th! Or is it? Wait a minute, when is Independence Day?

----
``Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.'' *
----

Those are the legendary words that made the American colonies the United States of America. It was the resolution introduced by Richard Henry Lee and John Adams that declared America independent. On the 2nd of July in 1776, all 12 colonies adopted that very precise resolution. John Adams was ecstatic and wrote to his wife Abigail the following day:

"The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more." *

On July 4th, a revised version of the Declaration of Independence was passed by the delegates at Philadelphia. Although an important event, they all considered July 2nd the birthday of the nation.

Amazingly, amdist all the chaos of the American Revolution, the date was forgotten once the anniversary came. Realizing it was too late, the Founders started to celebrate the day on July 4th instead; eventually, it caught on. Today, while millions of Americans will celebrate on July 4th, I am popping the champagne open (just kidding, I don't drink)!

* http://www.thedeclarationofindependence.org/

Terrific News Sites

2005-07-02T02:14:00.000-04:00

There are many places for information in our modern world, the internet easily being the biggest. And with all that's going on, it's important to stay well-informed. I consider the following news sites to cover some of the most important global issues in a very nice manner:

www.ft.com - The Financial Times (British)

www.economist.com - The Economist (British)

www.iht.com - International Herald Tribune (French)

www.globalsecurity.org - Global Security (American)

Those are the four main sites which I visit practically every day to stay in tune with the larger world around me. I recommend them highly; they are all fairly unbaised ("fairly" is key, as there have been accusations, if you know what I mean) and their analysis is logical. Check them out!

A Laconic History of Abortion

2005-07-01T17:01:00.000-04:00

This has been a huge political and moral issue in the United States over the past few decades. American conservatives have rallied to fight what they term 'homicide' or 'murder' and American liberals have equally united to protect what they see as a matter of choice. As is common in such heated debates, it is extremely difficult for either side to appreciate the arguments of the other, and so civilized conversations are often replaced by sound bites or simply irate commentary (and various combinations in between). It has left some, like me, wishing to escape this quasi-miasmic situation and go to another realm where some form of sanity can be restored. Well today, that's exactly what we're going to do! This article will focus on the history of abortion before it was such a whirlwind political force, before Roe v. Wade; basically, before all the hoopla. Enjoy!

Let's first clarify that throughout human history the morality of abortion has never been debated to the amazing degree that it has been in contemporary times. Not only that, those types of debates have been rare. The attitude of Ancient cultures towards abortion at the early stages of the development of fetuses can be roughly described as permissive. Old Hindu scriptures allowed abortion until the fifth month, but the Pythagoreans of Greece did seem to stick out somewhat as they believed that the soul does not enter the body until conception. It is a bit more difficult to pinpoint the beliefs of Jewish cultures at these times, but there are indications that many Jews believed that not only was a fetus not a living being, but that a living being materialized about 30 days after birth! Christians in the early moments of their religion's development weren't warm to the idea of abortion, but, unlike today, they did not consider abortion a sin until something called "ensoulement" (when a fetus becomes a person), which occurred around 40 days after conception for a boy and 90 days after conception for a girl. An important force in shaping the views of early Christianity towards abortion was St. Augustine, who argued that only aborting a fully formed fetus was murder (when this occurred was subject to debate; it was thought somewhere around 40 to 80 days). In the sixth century, Byzantine Emperor Justinian settled the matter at 40 days. Rome instituted anti-abortion laws around the year 200, but evidence suggests these were politically and not ethically motivated. In Ancient times, women had abortions in various ways: some would use sharp sticks, others herbs or special exercises, and in Egypt they even used crocodile dung.

This brings us to the Middle Ages, and here views became slightly more diverse. In 1140, the monk John Gratian completed the "Harmony of Contradictory Laws," an opus that became the prime compilation of canonical law accepted by the church (just 14 years before the Great Schism, which permanently and officially split the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths). This work was important because it assented with the ancients on abortion and concluded it was not homicide. Continuing on this theme, English common law did not punish abortion before fetus movement. The legendary theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, however, broke with tradition and theorized that abortion was a crime against nature and a sin against marriage. In 1588, Pope Sixtus V made Aquinas's views official church policy. However, just three years later, Pope Gregory XIV somewhat reversed this policy by making punishment on abortion before 17 weeks subject to local and regional laws, which varied significantly (indeed, they may have been inextant or impertinent in many locations).

With time, Catholic sentiments towards abortion intensified towards the bitter end of the scale. In 1869, Pope Pius IX banned abortion under all circumstances and required excommunication for anyone who had an abortion. Eventually, Western obsession with laws and regulations invaded this once "alegal" sphere. In 1920, Lenin made all abortions in the Soviet Union legal and 15 years later Iceland became the first Western nation to legalize some limited forms of abortion. Almost mirroring the near-erratic Catholic policy towards the issue, Stalin reversed Lenin's decision in 1936 to bolster population growth. Over the next few decades, abortion became thrust at ever-increasing rates into the public arena, and it eventually attained legal acceptance in many nations. Britain legalized abortion in 1967, Canada in 1969, the United States in 1973, France in 1975, West Germany in 1976, New Zealand in 1977, Italy in 1978, and Holland in 1980. These actions finally proved enough to earn the ire of some, the admiration of others, and all possible emotions in between. An issue that had largely been a tiny undercurrent of national policy throughout human history suddenly found massive publicity once it was touched by law. Almost immediately, many people began to call the practice names that would've wildly confused past humans.

So why is abortion so polemical? The answer is complex, and everyone involved has their own answers and reasons. It is certain, however, that for now abortion still remains a huge driving force in the political arena here in the States, especially since today moderate Justice Sandra O'Connor retired and must be replaced. It will be interesting to see how that plays out....

Great News

2005-06-30T20:45:00.000-04:00

Spain legalized gay marriage today, becoming the third nation in the world to do so after Belgium and Holland. Canada is expected to soon be the fourth. Read here.

Napoleon Through Art

2005-06-30T14:56:00.000-04:00

Those that have known me for a fair amount of time are well aware of my infatuation with Napoleon Bonaparte. I have been a huge fan of the erstwhile French Emperor for about four and a half years; it all began during middle school when the whims of my mind took to history instead of science, which I had previously been deeply passionate about (I still am, but to a lesser extent than topics like history or philosophy). Military history particularly caught my interests, and, of course, any student of military history must have some knowledge of the man many regard to be the greatest commander of all time. Since then, while I have studied a vast array of topics on military history throughout the entire human journey, I have concentrated about (at least) half of my time studying Napoleonic warfare. In the process of learning about Napoleon's campaigns and his shrewd tactical and strategic mind, I have also learned about Napoleon the man and Napoleon the statesman. Essentially, I have acquired a deep knowledge on many aspects of his life and the times in which he lived. Why Napoleon? Why have I devoted so much of my time to a guy that's been dead for around 184 years? I'm not really sure actually, just as many of us aren't exactly sure about why we or others do certain things. His wars piqued my interests initially, and then, as I found out more and more about the long list of accomplishments he had to his name, I found what could be called a hero. Napoleon's influence is truly difficult to overstate (although, believe me, it can be done): he is one of the greatest military commanders of all time (this is being diplomatic, since I would rank him as #1), he instituted a Civil Code which has formed the basis of national law for over 70 countries (the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 was modeled after this one, and although it has since gone through many revisions, the basic precepts remain), and he even did things which compared to aforementioned and other accomplishments would seem paltry, but which we nonetheless feel the influence of and cherish everyday, one being the idea of placing odd-numbered and even-numbered buildings on different sides of streets, a materialization which we see every day we drive. A serious list of his accomplishments and failures is beyond the scope of this post, so let that be it for now (undoubtedly, I will write more on him later).

Napoleon was also a great propagandist. He was very effective at making as good a publicity come out of his triumphs as possible. One way in which he did this was through heavily romanticized and idealized portraits and war paintings, many of which he personally ordered and supervised (for example, he would tell the painter the size of the frame he wanted, where the characters should go, how the lighting should be worked, or maybe even what colors the horses would be). I am an avid fan of the Romantic Era, partly because Napoleon did so much for it and partly because I simply love the poetry, the Beethoven, and all the literature that came out of that spectacular period. I also particularly love the paintings, and, even more particularly, Napoleonic paintings. Today, I will share with you some of my favorites and the stories behind them.

(source: http://www.artcyclopedia.com/images/Meissonier.jpg )

Take a good look at this painting: what does it remind you of? If you said anything to do with Russia, congratulations! You are wrong. Done by Ernest Meissonier, this picture features Napoleon at a time when Europe's tidal forces are ebbing against him. It is winter in 1814, and here Napoleon leads a column of his marshals flanked by the beleaguered French army fighting to save its homeland from around 400,000 Allied troops. The disaster in Russia two years ago and the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 have left Napoleon with around 75,000 soldiers of far poorer quality when compared to past armies he has commanded. The situation is bleak: Wellington invades from the South and the main Allied thrust comes through Eastern France. Although Napoleon's commanding in this campaign epitomizes his genius, especially during February and the Six Days Campaign, where he inflicts 20,000 casualties on the Prussian army led by Blucher through a series of brilliantly coordinated battles, the odds are too heavy and eventually France loses. Allied forces enter Paris on March 31st and Napoleon's commanders refuse to continue fighting, leading to his abdication at Fontainebleu on April 6th. He is taken to the island of Elba and made Governor, although the European powers allow him to retain the title of 'Emperor.' He escapes in 1815, forces Louis XVIII to flee, and becomes Emperor once more. However, the Congress of Vienna labels him an 'outlaw' and mobilizes to end his rule once and forever. Napoleon is eventually defeated at the famous Battle of Waterloo by a Prussian and Anglo-Dutch army and then surrenders himself to the British, who take him to a remote island in the South Atlantic called St. Helena. Why, being a huge fan of Napoleon, would I consider this one of my favorite paintings of the man? Well, believe it or not, it is good to share the bad and the good, and although this painting here may not show it very well because it's small, Napoleon's grim face almost perfectly captures the mood he was probably in during these ignominious times. This painting is a way to connect with him during those hard moments; just look at his eyes, they will tell the story....

(source: http://aigleconquerant.free.fr/galerie/napberlin.jpg )

Full of pomp and resplendence, the victorious French army enters Berlin headed by the 'Little Corsican' himself. This picture takes place in 1806 following the colossal drubbing the 'Grande Armee' has given a Prussian army which many observers throughout Europe considered to be the best on the continent. Napoleon defeats one of the the Prussian armies at Jena and one of his Marshals, Davout, defeats the much larger Prussian force at Auerstadt. After these two confrontations, which occurred on the same day, French cavalry led by the ever flamboyant Murat pursue the Prussians for miles on end. When it's all said and done, practically all units of the theoretically great Prussian military machine have either been killed or captured. It is one of the worst military defeats in German history, and Prussia will remember the long lines of surrendered soldiers for a long time to come, partially setting up the stage for a half-century of bitter Franco-German rivalry that required two world wars to stabilize.

(source: http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/g/gros1.jpg )

This one has to rank as one of the greatest military paintings of all time. Antoine-Jean Gros brilliantly portrays the then General of Italy at the Bridge of Arcole, where Napoleon bravely leads the troops across and captures the Austrians positions defending the town. That's how the story goes; in reality, only Massena crossed the Bridge at Arcole, Napoleon merely watching from the other bank and giving orders (but nonetheless he was very involved in directing the battle). This is part of the great propaganda I mentioned earlier; Napoleon takes this moment and realizes it could mean great things for perceptions, so he orders a fabulous fabrication that has captured our imaginations ever since. He did, however, cross one bridge in a charge during the First Italian Campaign (1796-1797): that occurred at Lodi, a place where it is said Napoleon gained immense confidence following his victory, and an event of which he later wrote (heavily paraphrased), "For once I never felt like just a general, but like a force controlling the hopes of people, being the object of their dreams, and the motto of their desires." This campaign in Italy is his first in independent command and it is here that he first displays his genius en masse and establishes the two central tenets of his war-making (even though he always claimed there was nothing theoretical about war or that he didn't come into fights with pre-determined strategies): The Central Strategic Position, whereby he would use the dependable French skirmishers to drive two Allied armies apart, and then, were this to prove successful, he would follow up with "Les Manouvres sur Les Derriers," or flanking motions that turned and destroyed the weakened and disoriented enemy armies. Although this may have seemed predictable (indeed, many historians have accused Napoleon of this), he employed it with such ingenuity and dynamism in every campaign that his enemies might as well have thought he was concocting something new.

(source: http://www.millikin.edu/history/202/images/austerlitzbattle.jpg )

This legendary painting portrays Napoleon at the greatest victory of his career: the Battle of Austerlitz (1805). Francois Gerard does a great job at revealing a monolothic and herculean Napoleon basking in the glory of victory not with jubilation and nonsensical celebration, but with the composure and posture worthy of a historically great conqueror. The painting shows the moment when General Rapp (a cavalry commander) brings to Napoleon the captured Austrian standards. At this time, battalion flags that each unit carried into battle were considered tremendously important and presitigous, so it's easy to imagine, with the French having captured so many Austrian flags, how lavish this moment was. Many historians consider the Battle of Austerlitz to be the most militarily decisive battle of the Napoleonic Era (1799-1815), even though Waterloo overshadows it in terms of political worth. A very brief account of the battle: Napoleon dupes the combined Russo-Austrian army of approximately 90,000 troops (numbers on the Allied side have been somewhat controversial lately, but, so as to keep it simple, I will show the figure of 90,000 because it is still the most widely accepted) into attacking his supposedly weak right flank. The Allies don't know that Napoleon has reinforcements coming. Napoleon, meanwhile, launches his main plan, which takes into account the weakness of the Allied center after they have thrown so many forces towards his right, of having 17,000 French troops attack the center. After very heavy fighting, the French break through and eventually the Allied army disintegrates. French casualties are roughly 9,000 while the Allies have lost about 29,000. The spectacular victory forces Austria to sign the Treaty of Pressburg and makes them pay war indemnities to France, cede land to Napoleon's German allies and France herself, and it pretty much serves to abolish the centuries-old Holy Roman Empire. The Emperor of Austria, known as Francis II under the title of Holy Roman Emperor, now simply becomes Francis I. As I did with Waterloo about 12 days ago, I will give a detailed description of this magnificent battle in its 200-year anniversary, which is this December 2nd.

(source: http://www.milartgl.com/Images_b/b_battle_of_friedland.jpg )

A confident Napoleon leads the preparations for what would become the most important battle in the 1807 campaign in Poland: Friedland. Friedland was one of those situational battles; the two armies didn't set up shop in an organized manner like at Austerlitz, but rather developed after Russian General Bennigsen found that Marshal Lannes and his corp were isolated at the town of Friedland, opposite the River Alle. Bennigsen attacked, and from there the scattered French army coalesced and rushed in to seal the deal. The victory led to the Treaty of Tilsit in July, which formalized a peace between France and Russia and brought stability to the European continent after two years of bloodshed. Again, the lighting and the central position of Napoleon are evident in this majestic Horace Vernet piece.

(source: http://uv.es/entresiglos/oleza/image/napoleon.jpg )

With very little doubt, this surely must be the greatest war painting of all time. It certainly is the most recognized. Painted by the indomitable Jacques-Louis David, a regal-looking, red-cloaked, Revolutionary-dressed Napoleon rides a Grey Arab (these were his favorite because of their calmness and stability; in fact, it's easy to notice throughout these paintings that he rides the same type of horse) while crossing the Great St. Bernard's Pass en route to Northern Italy and intending to destroy an Austrian army which has occupied it. The familiar motif of propaganda becomes evident here again, since in reality Napoleon crosses the Alps with a sure-footed mule and wears a fairly typical greatcoat. But, of course, that doesn't make for something to remember, so pointing to the sky in search of Divine Providence or heralding some garganuan achievement while wearing the emblematic "tricouleur" certainly adds appeal. Also, even though it's not visible in this version of the painting, at the lower left of the complete picture are the names "Napoleon" and "Hannibal," both engraved into the rocks of the mountain. Hannibal had led the last army that crossed the Italian Alps; that happened about 2,000 years before Napoleon. This war against Austria marks Napoleon's third major campaign in independent command. He ends up heavily defeating the Austrian army under General Melas at the Battle of Marengo on June 14, 1800, even though in the early stages he came very close to losing. This victory once again spells doom for Austria in Northern Italy and following the Battle of Hohenlinden (December 3, 1800) in Germany, the Austrians sign the Peace of Luneville in 1801, leaving Britain as the only European nation to remain at war with France (they sign the Treaty of Amiens the following year, however, and for the first time in ten years all of Europe is at peace). Napoleon had overthrown the Directory with the aid of loyal troops and his brother Lucien in November of 1799 and had then proceeded to make himself First Consul under the Constitution created in December (there were a total of three consuls under these new provisions). He thus sets himself up as the sole ruler of France, and in five years he becomes the absolute ruler of France, this time going by "L'Empereur."

Reaction to the Speech

2005-06-28T20:53:00.000-04:00

Let me first congratulate Bush on a fairly nice speech. Although naturally all sides will claim this and that, I believe his speech today will, at the very least, be one factor that temporarily recuperates America's will to continue the struggle. The speech was prompted by a string of polls which revealed public perceptions toward the President and the conflict in Iraq had gone somewhat badly recently. Regardless, the President and other White House officials maintained that America would continue the struggle and never relent until the mission in Iraq was accomplished. Pre-speech 'hysteria' (if it can be called that) circled mostly around the adverse poll numbers the Administration has had to suffer through. Perhaps those numbers are deserved; after all, what is the public to make out of an incessant stream of suicide bombs and torn limbs? Iraq is not stable, and we know this because we live in a peaceful environment which doesn't include RPGs and car bombs. As long as Iraq is not stable, this Administration will be punished for it. The President gave the speech at Fort Bragg, North Carolina amidst special operations forces and paratroopers, environs he should've been familiar and comfortable with (military audiences are usually his favorite). Many had expected a quasi-lengthy speech, but Bush kept to tradition and went no longer than 30 minutes. He focused on themes that had been explored before and tried to explain them to the American people in familiar but non-effusive terms. He reiterated the need for the United States to remain in Iraq despite current problems and attempted to reassure the nation that the insurgency would be defeated. He never actually used the word 'insurgency,' instead referring to those men as 'terrorists' (which they are) because it would help form a link between what's occurring in Iraq and the general war on terror. In recent times, the necessity of establishing links between Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime has been a key talking point for this Administration. Precisely why remains a mystery when applying the rules of formal logic, but speculation points to required shifts in statements after years have produced no evidence of the WMDs which the war was largely based on. Independent report after independent report, however, states there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The 9-11 Commission Report explicitly mentioned that there was no "collaborative relationship" between the two men and their respective organizations. Quite mysteriously (or maybe not, depending on one's views), several members of the Administration, most notably Vice President Cheney, have continued to bring up this apocryphal relationship (Cheney in particular has become famous for making statements regarding the conflict that can, at the very least, be termed 'controversial', and at the very most be categorized as embarrassing falsehoods). Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing or little to do with 9-11, Bush invoked that famous event once more in a speech regarding Iraq. Political and casual observers alike have easily noticed that 9-11 has transmogrified into a wild Bucephalus best utilized by whoever controls it best. At the moment, it seems President Bush and the Republicans have done a better job at controlling that political beast. References to 9-11 are rife throughout the current political atmosphere, and why shouldn't they be? They work, much of the time anyway. The President was simply playing upon this well-known fact, even if reality does not reflect his words. Bush also emphasized how Iraq had turned into the main ground for the war on terror, quoting Osama bin Laden, who said (paraphrased), "Iraq is the third world war," to prove his point. Bush seems to be correct here, but we still don't quite know the full implications of this scenario. Bush argued how it was necessary to maintain current efforts in Iraq for the expressed purpose of defeating terrorism, or some elements of global terrorism. Another important topic in the speech involved the training of Iraqi soldiers and police. As of this moment, there are only a handful of Iraqi battalions capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations in coordination with Allied forces; over 100 are in training but not yet ready. Bush praised the work already accomplished and accentuated the need for further expansion of Iraqi military and police forces. One of the particular points he underscored was the collective interest of the global community in an outcome favorable to the current Iraqi government. Bush mentioned the recent donors conference in Belgium (where about 80 nations convened to discuss the reconstruction of Iraq) and comments by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder (made at the White House two days ago) that spoke of the urgency for a victory in Iraq. In another sense, however, I can't help but wonder if some governments which opposed the war do not harbor some intrinsic but mild sentiments of content now that America and Britain are struggling. They wouldn't do this because they are evil or anything, but merely because they were so convinced of the correctness in their position (much like the US was). Geostrategically, American failure in Iraq (and by 'failure' I mean a premature withdrawal that leads to pandemonium within the Iraqi sociopolitical realm and maybe even brings the government down) would not have large consequences in the short term, despite Administration statements to the contrary (those statements are borne by the need to remind people of how fragile the situation is and that, now more than ever, the very solidarity that's lacking is most needed). A huge sub theme regarding this entire debate has concerned the number of troops required to pacify Iraq. Bush averred an already well-known position when he claimed commanders on the ground had not requested more troops. However, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden responded in a post-speech interview that generals in Iraq actually did desire more troops. This was quite simply puzzling and must be ironed out somehow; here we have the President claiming the commanders don't want or need more troops, and then a Senator comes out and says they do. Let me be clear and mention that two positions so diametrically aligned are not inspired by politics alone; one of these two men simply has their facts wrong. The President's position on the issue does appear to be quite plausible; additional troops to Iraq would either not resolve the problem or would be secondary to the bigger goal of more effective intelligence. In confrontations between traditional nation-state armies, large numbers would be quite useful and desirable (the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 is one of the best examples of the decisiveness of numbers), but in an unusual war like this numbers would do little. Just sealing off all of Iraq's borders would require a couple of hundred thousand more troops than present American levels, and we're all aware such numbers are nigh impossible to provide because of other strategic commitments. Bush also vehemently eliminated the possibility for the establishment of a timetable, an aspect to the war which he views as dangerous and ill-advised. Bush proclaimed that a timetable would only give incentive to the terrorists since they need not do more than simply wait for the Americans to jettison themselves out of there and then attack the supposedly weak government. He believes any facet of American withdrawal should be based on events on the ground and not on what he views as strict deadlines. His critics charge that a timetable would actually prove useful in intimidating the terrorists because it would provide an outline for things to happen in Iraq which those very same terrorists have been fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be many historical precedents for such a move; counter-insurgency operations have relied virtually strictly on completion of operations and frankly the reasons being given for a timetable are a bit laughable and overly hopeful. It is far more likely that, as Bush has mentioned, entrenching deadlines into the mission will only encourage the terrorists, not frighten them. Furthermore, in many ways this mission has had PLENTY of deadlines, from the handover to the Iraqis in June last year, to the elections in January, and to the Constitution to be completed in just a few months. If that's not a timetable for accomplishing certain tasks, what is? I'm inclined to believe this timetable business has more to do with bringing the troops back home then reconstructing Iraq. That was an overview of the main points Bush discussed; let's now focus on how effective this speech was and any possible political effects it may have.

As I said earlier, I congratulate Bush on a fairly nice speech. He did what he had to do without embellishing too much, trying to portray a realistic picture of the situation that differed somewhat sharply with previous addresses. Normal Bush speeches on the topic include vast arrays of comments on, essentially, how well we're doing in Iraq. This one was more cautious because it had to be; Bush was no longer speaking to groups strongly favoring him (the military personnel at the fort were not the only recipients of his address) but rather to a nation that has grown wearier of a conflict with 15,000 American casualties and seemingly no end in sight. He also did what he's very good at doing: utilizing 9-11 to explain the world's problems. Such moves by the President may be politically deceptive, but fortunately for him the public doesn't notice much that there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11 (or maybe they don't care, which would be even worse) or that whenever something seems to go wrong they are reminded of 9-11 for the explicit purpose of warming their hears to certain ventures. The speech was not particularly effusive, and I'm not certain as to whether that's bad or good. A passionate speech may have riled up several skeptical segments of the populace or it could've simply earned an unending chain of criticism for feigned care and attempts at scoring politically. He made a few verbal gaffes but those can be excused I suppose; we all know Bush is not a very good speaker. From Bush's perspective, one of the most important things this speech can accomplish is turn the tide of negative public opinion. A poll of 300 people was taken before and after the speech to have an early window in what the public may be thinking (50% of those individuals identified themselves as Republicans and the other 50 were virtually split in half as Democrats and Independents). After the speech, 46% of those polled felt that the President did a great job in warming the public to the need to continue the fight. While this number may be positive in light of other numbers regarding Iraq (39% supporting the war according to a recent poll), it is lower when compared to the favorability ratings Bush received after other high-profile speeches. What does this mean? We don't really know yet; this poll involved only 300 people and hence cannot be that conclusive about the general population (the reason why pollsters normally have more than 1,000 people is to reduce the margin of error), but what struck me as interesting was the low value of the numbers despite the group having more Republicans than either Democrats or Independents. Despite that, more conclusive polls will have to be performed to draw a clear picture of what the American public thought of the speech. Noted political analyst, Harvard professor, and former White House Advisor David Gergen mentioned that the speech could buy Bush a certain time of relief but that afterwards results on the ground would be needed to convince the public to remain in Iraq. This is a reasonable view and I happen to share certain aspects of it. However, although I agree that America will give Bush more time, it won't be because of the speech at all, but rather because of the urgency of the mission. In the grand scheme of things, the speech will not be that effective in either marshalling support for the war or weakening it; that will simply depend on what occurs in Iraq. Americans will realize the need to remain in Iraq for a while longer because they believe it's a necessity or a sacrifice which must be undertaken for the good of the country. How long such a stance persists will have to be seen, but this too depends on events on the ground. I would have to say Bush needs to make these sorts of addresses a tradition. The past six months have not gone well for him because, according to some, he has spent too much time on Social Security and domestic issues and not enough on Iraq. Analysts say this course has cost him dearly in the polls with Iraq and even with Social Security, gaging by the number of people who aren't enthusiastic with his personal accounts plan. Bush needs to resume and continue this dialogue if he is to have a reasonable chance of keeping his numbers in the polls up. Unfortunately for him, he's not too keen on giving speeches (Bush's Administration has been notoriously viewed as secretive, and the Commander in Chief himself is partly responsible for that), but that's going to have to change. More televised speeches on the issue can only help him by showing the American people that he's investing time, blood, and sweat. Bush realizes this is a war America must win. He has not shown that, however. Yesterday was (hopefully) a starting step.

Weird...

2005-06-28T14:19:00.000-04:00

Today, June 28, 2005, 167 international ships, both from the civil sector and the military, are gathering in Porstmouth, England to celebrate the 200-year anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar.....uno problemo (well, kind of): the battle was fought on October 21st....so when I got up today and heard all this news about what appeared to be a lavish naval parade I was a little confused...I still don't know why they're doing the 'reenactment' today (it's more of a celebration of Trafalgar; organizers won't hype the battle's actual events too much because they don't want to conflagrate national sentiments....after all, France and Spain lost pretty damn badly).....if I had to give an educated guess, I'd say it's because of weather problems in the English Channel during Autumn. That sounds like the plausible explanation, but I still don't concretely know and I'm trying to find out. If anyone out there who reads this knows why they're doing it today, don't hesitate to inform me.....

Today....

2005-06-26T23:28:00.000-04:00

Me and my sis had a dual graduation party today.....it was all-right.

Not much happened today (it is, after all, a Sunday)...or maybe it did but I'm too tired to report on it....I'm not CNN people; go look up the news yourself haha........

In the News....

2005-06-25T23:38:00.000-04:00

The overly conservative mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, won Iran's election....

19 Iraqis and six US military personnel have been killed in Iraq since Friday....

A donors conference in Brussels regarding Iraq's future appears to be a success....

and Senate panel approves Bush's space plan....

The Bush Presidency (Part Two)

2005-06-25T14:41:00.000-04:00

Just like any other Administration, whether this one has been effective or not depends on who is asked. One can most definitely claim this has been a forceful and committed Administration. One aspect of President Bush which intrigued many and angered others was his ability to focus on a topic and, through heavy repetition, ram the point home to some sort of legislative or material victory. This occurred with many important issues, such as Iraq or the tax cuts. It seemed this was a unique gift of Bush's, and even though repetition is a loose rule in politics, he seemed to be able to do it better than anyone else. He has recently tried this tactic with Social Security, but all evidence suggests it has failed (in fact, a Congressman has said he has received the President's approval for a new plan on Social Security that doesn't include private accounts, which were a big part of previous Administration proposals), lending early anecdotal credence to assertions that presidential second terms are often unsuccessful. Another interesting side of his Presidency began to be witnessed after 9-11; suddenly, a President notorious for poor speaking and general incoherency seemed to have "found his voice." The President apparently gained a new moral urgency to defend America and, just as importantly, spread freedom and democracy around the world. This last point has been extremely polemical. Bush has openly outlined his desire to see the Middle East and many other nations around the world that are currently ruled by dictatorial, theocratic, or just generally oppressive regimes transform into open and free democracies. I strongly support his vision here; in a sense, I must, because I am a liberal, and above all a liberal is one who wants liberty, which is essentially what Bush wants to give these people as well (it gets more complicated than this, but let's leave it there for now). That curt analysis may have seemed naive, since US strategic considerations are and have been far more important to this Administration and preceding ones than ideals (I mean, who in the US government was thinking about liberty when the Indians were wiped out in decades of conflict? Or who was thinking about liberty during Reagan and times when we supplied the 'Butcher of Baghdad' with chemical weapons? Or gave Osama's mujahedin $3 billion and stinger missiles in the '80s so they could fight the Soviets? Or even now when we're espousing democracy but supporting an autocrat in Pakistan?) or lofty standards. But certainly most geostrategic decisions are taken in light of what could benefit the nation, and it is most advantageous for the Bush Administration to prop up democracy in the Middle East, the site of massive oil reserves to which America is heavily dependent, rather than in regions that don't seem to hold incentives for American supervision. This is spectacularly hypocritical, but, in my view, that doesn't matter at all. America is the world's superpower and the number of objectives it has to accomplish are numerous, complex, and sometimes confusing, so it is no secret that in pursuing those objectives it will make some mistakes in terms of stated policy versus executed policy. We shouldn't really frown on America for this; in a very real sense, it's difficult for a nation like America NOT to make these sorts of mistakes. Just look at other superpowers in the past: Rome began to allow more and more the settlement of barbarians inside its territories once it became clear their extrication would be difficult, France in the 16th century allied with the dreaded Ottoman Empire for strategic gains in Italy and again caused surprised in the mid-18th century when she allied with previous foe Austria to fight the Prussians in the Seven Years War, and Britain allied with France (these two nations had produced perhaps the greatest military rivalry in all of history) in the late 19th century to counter the growing threat of Germany, all cases which loosely reveal how particular superpowers have suspended articulated or traditional policies to accommodate new realities. To those ends, America is doing what has mostly always been done. What's most important is that America is actually advocating for freedom and democracy somewhere, and while not everyone in the world may be helped by this 'altruism,' some will indeed benefit (and have already benefited, most notably the Lebanese, where international pressure spearheaded by the US forced Syrian troops to pull back after years of occupation). One of the key questions surrounding the debate is what the new American policy means for the Middle East. Some nations have already revealed signs of tacit cooperation in terms of electoral reform, but much more work still has to be done. The Middle East must be instructed more in the area of women's rights, a field where it is horribly unprepared or behind (for example, it is puzzling to a Westerner why a woman wears a veil when the Koran instructs nothing on the act and when the veil was originally intended for the affluent and upper-class women of Islamic society). But the progress has been encouraging if at this stage only tentative. Many believe Bush's efforts in the Middle East are too hopeful and somewhat ignorant or naive since the doctrines being followed are not all that mindful of the sociopolitical nature of the region. They argue (partly) that America treats the people of the region as if they were like Americans and that such a move can only lead to failure. Again, these views may turn out to be correct. The chronic problem we've encountered in this analysis is that "we don't know yet." What transpires in the Middle East may also be a reflection of the amount of attention the US is willing to give to the region, which presently seems to indicate it will be less and less as the years go by due to the rise of China in the Far East. If America is willing to expend great amounts of political, military, and economic capital on the region, then events may turn out well after all ('well' relative to America). A new feature of Bush's new policies to combat terrorism has been pre-emption. This has conjured just as much controversy as the drive for spreading democracy. Although we mentioned this before, we are going to cover it again in more detail. Unlike the drive for democracy, this one appears to have colossal implications. Part of the difference lies in the fact that while not every democratic nation has the capabilities to spread its form of government to other regions, every democratic nation (and every nation period) does have the capability to use the doctrine of pre-emption in its foreign policy. President Bush's critics have used this simple point to lambaste the doctrine, arguing how many other nations (some not friendly to American interests, particularly Chinese designs on Taiwan) could get carried away in much the same manner as America supposedly did with Iraq, and hence spread pandemonium and chaos. One problem many have had with the policy is simply conceptual; many have had a hard time stomaching what appears to be a drastic departure from typical America foreign policy, known for, according to the critics, its defensive posture. Bush's supporters have commented that sort of defensive posture will not be sufficient to defeat the parlous nature of 21st century terrorism; America will simply have to be on the constant offensive if it is to have realistic chances of prevailing. Besides bringing to the table varying views on combating the global war on terror, pre-emption also raises some haunting specters for America's future: if this country is tied down in offensive ventures for prolonged periods of time, can it geostrategically survive the heavy involvements? Can it withstand the sizeable amounts of occasional spending bills for hotspots like Iraq or Afghanistan? Can it afford to increase its defense budget to sizes comparable to the GDP of some large nations? The answers to these questions are, again, unknown. But we can speculate. A key component to America's future strength will be the Administration in power; if there is a government which chooses not to follow Bush's terrorist strategy, then pre-emption and heavy American global involvement for the purpose of terrorism could collapse or wither away, allowing for the continuation of America's unquestioned hegemony. On the other hand (oversimplification is practically inevitable here, statements like "on the other hand" revealing a case of dialectics which I don't fully believe are there judging by the pluralistic formulation of foreign policy, but time restrictions force the simplified version of the story), future administrations could continue Bush's policies and plunge America into many localized conflicts for the name of fighting terrorism. This would be very dangerous. America may be worn down in many ways, but perhaps the two most important would be the loss of political will (a nascent manifestation in the Iraqi conflict) and the deterioration of military capabilities. These two factors more than any others caused the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, but I want to emphasize I'm not equating Rome then to America now. The enemies the two faced are different and the context of the worlds in which they live are completely different. But while I'm not equating them, I am showing a similarity. Overextension of (particularly) military forces (something that gave Rome a headache, seeing as how they had only 500,000 soldiers of inferior quality, at least when compared to previous Roman legions, to protect borders throughout Europe and the Middle East) worries many in the current Administration and other observers and experts. While palpably America is very strong, is it that strong? Can it do all these things and essentially hope to maintain parity with a quickly growing China 30, 40, or 50 years in the future? To be determined....mending relations with European allies will also be a key objective of future administrations. The Iraqi war tore through the very warm relations sewed after the 9-11 attacks. To most Europeans, there seemed to be little in terms of logic operating amidst the British and the Americans when they went to war. The rift has not been resolved to this day. Many nations in Europe (like France) feel vindicated in their decisions not to participate because of recurring problems with the insurgency. The other side of the Atlantic resents, almost in a child-like manner, the intransigence of many nations who they feel are indebted to America for previous affairs (World War I and II come to mind). I have personally seen this American resentment as something approaching insanity; in an interest-based geostrategic world, those nations are not entitled to do anything for you, whether you may like it or not. Present considerations supersede historical ties; after all, if we are to adopt the whining approach as some American conservatives have, where was America in the beginning of World War I in terms of helping a friend who was mostly responsible for its independence (France)? Or what about World War II? America did not enter the conflict until it was directly attacked itself; before Pearl Harbor, many Americas simply didn't want to be involved in Europe's wars. These kinds of charges and countercharges have resolved little; it is simply better for both sides to recognize they have differences and try to rebuild erstwhile strong relationships with those differences in mind. Despite recent events to the contrary, Europe can be a powerful ally to America. Conceivably, the Europeans will resolve the current and bitter disputes revolving around the budget or a formal constitution and will one day have a coherent foreign policy that could prove useful to America in upcoming dealings with China. Some American conservatives in the Administration are secretly giddy about recent European failures, but such sentiments are premature and wrong-headed; Europe is worth more to America strong than weak, especially, as I've said before, now that China's rise to the top seems all but inexorable. Energy independence has also been a big theme in Bush's Presidency; unfortunately, little concrete actions have been taken, partly because of political restrictions at home, and partly because of the same restrictions abroad. At least Congress is now seriously mulling the issue, but it remains to be seen what steps they can take to actually achieve something noticeable. Recent surges in oil prices (the price of oil went above $60 per barrel) have pushed the issue to the fore (or somewhere around there) of the legislative agenda. It is of vital concern to this country that it straighten this out, but I think ultimately not much will happen. To round out the foreign policy debate, we come to China, a nation that has already been mentioned a myriad of times in this analysis. Yes, that's how important China is. China has a population approaching 1.3 billion, the largest and quickly becoming one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world, a nominal GDP of $1.8 trillion (the sixth largest in the world, according to the IMF April 2005 report) and a GDP PPP of $8 trillion (the second largest in the world), and economic growth at about 9 or 10% annually, a startling rate for such a huge economy. Even more dangerously, we're not really sure about China's intentions (and for that matter, China's not sure about ours). Bush has labeled China a "strategic competitor," but the term is vague, and while some advocate friendly relations others view the rising Red Star as a menace. It's a difficult position for America to be in; it is the world's superpower and it certainly doesn't want to lose that status, but here it has a nation that it can't blatantly confront for obvious reasons. Presumably, China will simply outdo America in a peaceful manner, not an unprecedented event after what happened in the Cold War. That, however, wouldn't be palatable to the American public, if I may be refined and eschew using the phrase, "it would suck." However, it's a reality that will simply have to be faced. I don't believe America is strong enough to stay on par with China; there is simply too much of a discrepancy in potential borne about by population differences. Bush has chosen an ambiguous path with China and I suppose future Presidents will have to correctly define to the American people what the nation's relations to China should and will be. Domestically, I am less impressed with Bush. I believe he has made severe gaffes with taxes, both at the federal level and the elimination of the estate tax. Unfortunately, Bush's mistakes contributed greatly to turning a wide surplus under Clinton into a gaping deficit, the largest in American history. Future generations will have to square off with this as well, on top of the problems they'll have to iron out regarding Social Security.

Overall, I would judge the Bush Presidency to have been mildly successful (very mild). American economic growth has picked up over the years and America's geostrategic strength relative to other nations is more advanced now than ever before. However, part of this (in fact, most of this) is simply due to macrohistorical trends and has little to do with Bush's effectiveness. Also, Bush has mishandled the economy and left plenty of future foreign policy problems. Holistically, however, the nation under the Administration has done fairly well. It is not easy to rebound after a tragedy like 9-11 (even for America), but this government has done a particularly decent job. A big chunk of how history remembers Bush and his government will evidently come from the Iraqi conflict. If that goes awry and America must extricate itself shamefully, then Bush will probably not be remembered too warmly. If the opposite becomes true, however, Bush can take comfort in knowing that his legacy will be secure. Everyone may agree, though, that these past few years have been interesting to say the least and that we look forward to the future and its promises of better days.

Today...

2005-06-24T20:59:00.000-04:00

Stocks all over the world tumble as price of oil breaks $60 a barrel.......

Runoff election in Iran heads for vote tallies.....

Italian judge orders the arrest of 13 CIA agents for illegally capturing a suspected terrorist....

and scientists discover large areas of pebble-sized rocks near the star TW Hydrae that they claim could lead to the birth of new planets.....

The Bush Presidency (Part One)

2005-06-24T17:50:00.000-04:00

In the past few years, America and the world have undergone somewhat of a turbulent period, diplomatic language permitted. Yet through all the bad and the good, no one man has been as prominent during these times as George W. Bush, the 43rd President of America. He ascended to the office in a very controversial manner and has since withstood a terrifying attack upon his country, a vicious reelection bid, and everything in between. Analyzing the Bush Presidency is undoubtedly difficult, partly due to the complexities of the time and the dynamics of the man himself, even though appearances suggest a relatively simple person. I am no biographer, and this analysis will not focus on Bush’s life, but some aspects of his perceived personal character will palpably play a partial role in covering the events of the 21st century. The analysis will also suffer from the fact that Bush’s second term is not yet over, and so any clear highlights of his presidency are being done mindful of the past, not the future. The purpose of this is simple and threefold: recapitulate the events of the past four and a half years (to be done very briefly), analyze those events in the context of the historical zeitgeist, and contemplate the possible effects of current US geostrategic policy in upcoming decades (the first half of the 21st century). This topic would naturally need books to do it justice, but here we’ll attempt the feat in a few words. My political philosophy is generally liberal, and there may be some manifestations of bias in this paper, but mostly it will be kept in check. I am more interested in what’s correct rather than what would please my ears.

Bush ran a fairly heated campaign against Democratic candidate Al Gore and, despite the odds, won. But the victory, attributed to a 5-4 partisan vote in the Supreme Court, left a great deal of people embittered. The country was badly split, and it was hoped Bush would somehow mitigate this division once in office. In a fashion which would practically become this President’s trademark, Bush appointed whomever he wanted and generally did whatever he wanted. This comparably uncomprising nature (compared to other Presidents, that is) has earned admiration among some and disdain among others. The first few months of Bush’s Presidency were not particularly auspicious; the President experienced sinking poll numbers and apparently could do little to get out of the maelstrom. An economic slowdown that had begun under the Clinton Administration transformed into an official recession by March 2001, and no doubt this contributed to Bush’s unpopularity. Terrorism was seemingly not that high on the agenda, and no one had any idea how huge it would eventually become. Some Clinton Administration officials claimed they attempted to schedule meetings with their Bush counterparts in order to give warnings about possible terrorist plays, but they say they were largely ignored. Evidently, those from the Bush Administration deny the charges and claim all that could be done was to prevent what would become one of the most heinous attacks on American soil. In mid-morning on September 11, 2001, two passenger planes hijacked by 19 foreign terrorists crashed into the two towers of the World Trade Center (WTC). 3,000 people died and the nation was stunned. In the immediate aftermath, the stock market suffered tremendously and the Bush Administration geared up for a diplomatic and military war they knew would last a long time. It was quickly discovered that terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda (“The Base”) was behind the attacks, and Afghanistan became the natural place to prosecute the war, in light of the heavy concentration of Al-Qaeda bases and members or recruits. In early October, American warplanes began to attack Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and with help from the Northern Alliance, who controlled the Northeastern part of the country, had rooted the five-year rulers from power by December. An encouraging sign about Afghanistan was the amount of international participation; after the attacks, French newspaper Le Monde declared, “We are all American,” and people all over the world felt a deeper connection to America than they ever had before. The campaign in Afghanistan reflected these new bonds as many nations sent troops to help overthrow the Taliban and establish a democratic regime. The US and France were the only two nations that conducted bombing runs over Afghanistan (France sent a carrier fleet, the finest in Europe, to aid in bombing Al-Qaeda and Taliban positions), and their warm relations finally broke during the push for war with Iraq. Today, the majority of the military presence in Afghanistan falls under the umbrella of America’s allies, a striking sign that the world generally believed that particular conflict to be ‘righteous.’ Afghanistan has since struggled in many aspects, although positive signs are clearly visible. The nation now has a democratically-elected President (Hamid Karzai) and continues its rebuilding initiatives under international supervision. One recurring problem, however, has been increased poppy production which has made Afghanistan the originating source of 90% of the world’s heroin. Under the Taliban, drug production was mild, but after liberation it has skyrocketed and the international coalition may not be doing much to stop it because they are worried about potential political consequences (the poppies are seen as a means to occupy certain segments of Afghan society which could turn dangerous if incited). After 9-11, Bush proclaimed a global war on terror and threatened all nations who were willingly harboring terrorists that they were not safe. Under this loose pretext, the American government began to target Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime and in the process established the doctrine of pre-emption, a policy of eliminating a possible threat before its detrimental effects materialized. The policy worried many individuals who saw US action in preceding decades and centuries as contravening Bush’s new order. Meanwhile, on the economic front, the recession lasted six months (till September), but that good news was tossed aside after the attacks and the country underwent new woes. The airline industry was particularly hard hit, and the government even financed a $15 billion rescue package to give them breathing space. The global economy was also filled with uncertainty, but has recovered fairly well in the years since. 2002 became the year remembered for the escalating pressure on Saddam’s government by (most noticeably) America and Britain. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice became the most prominent administration members to call for Iraq’s dismantlement of supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In 1998, Saddam kicked out a UN team led by Scot Ritter that were searching and destroying whatever WMDs Iraq had. This unwelcome affront prompted a series of bombing runs by the American military, but, more importantly, it appears the UN team destroyed most if not all of Iraq’s weapons program (or so Scot Ritter claims). Both the American and British governments, however, adamantly insisted the Iraqi regime had WMDs, and they went to the UN to prove their case. In September 2002, President Bush gave a speech to the assembled members of the UN and described the dangers of Saddam’s regime. Britain and America tried to coordinate their efforts with the UN, but the simple truth was that many UN nations opposed their stance (which some saw as ‘warmongering’), three of those nations being on the Security Council: France, Russia, and China. Germany also voiced its opposition to a possible war, and, in a diplomatic sense, worked very closely with France to stall the efforts of Britain and the US. The UN agreed to send a new weapons investigative team to Iraq. This new ‘squad’ was led by Swede Hans Blix and remained in Iraq for a few weeks before being pulled out. They visited several sites throughout the country but found no WMDs. In December of 2002, Iraq sent a gargantuan document to the UN ‘detailing’ their weapons stockpiles; it was about 12,000 pages and many believed it was a cheap trick to buy some time (the Iraqis probably believed the analysis of such a huge work would’ve taken a long time). The Bush Administration dismissed the document as false and unhelpful and raised its rhetoric in the homestretch of the road to war. Several experts and analysts have raised an interesting aspect regarding the Administration’s actions towards Iraq before open conflict: such strong rhetoric coupled with the movement of several divisions to Kuwait meant the Administration had already invested a great deal politically in this matter for it not to go to war. Basically, America's image as the world's superpower may have been tainted if its push for war had been held up or thwarted by UN conferences. In early 2003, there was a flurry of diplomatic activity trying to prolong what some saw as inevitable and others as illegal. The UN had passed a resolution advising Saddam to disarm and warning his regime would be overthrown should he fail to do so. Saddam continued to deny the charges being leveled at his government. Colin Powell conducted a famous session at the UN where he revealed evidence of Saddam's WMDs, among them mobile biochemical trucks (earlier Britain had even claimed Saddam could deploy some chemical weapons in about 45 minutes). By this point, however, the posturing by all sides was just to kill time. The spring of 2003 saw the commencement of the war which led to the destruction of the Iraqi army and the fall of Baghdad in approximately three weeks. The spectacular success of the US army was virtually fait accompli, but few in the Administration seem to have been worried about what would follow (at least from what was reported in the media). Statements from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the Vice President stood out as the most optimistic, both men claiming that Iraq would settle down fairly quickly and peacefully (Paul Wolfowitz even claimed the funds from the oil fields could finance Iraq's reconstruction by themselves, a stunning mischaracterization as time has revealed). The largely Anglo-American victory (many other nations were politically allied to this venture, but few of them had the military muscle of Britain and America) brought scenes of jubilation and chaos; Iraqis were generally happy that a hated dictator had finally been booted from power, even pulling down his prime statue in Baghdad as a symbol of their new-found freedom, but also found themselves in a situation of instability, best characterized by the looting of the National Museum in the early stages of the occupation (many special and important artifacts were stolen). President Bush went on an aircraft carrier and, with a "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background, all but declared victory. Some have claimed the US shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi military in the rapid manner that it did; they view this act as being significantly responsible for the early stages of the insurgency. Over time, a combination of loyal Baathists, petty criminals, and foreign jihadists have combined to create a quasi-miasmic situation that has led to about 15,000 American casualties (over 1,700 of them deaths) and over 100,000 dead Iraqis. The struggle for Iraq has dominated this Administration's foreign policy ever since it went in. It isn't unreasonable to claim that President Bush's legacy largely rests on what transpires in Iraq, but he still has three and a half years to eliminate the effects of previous mistakes. During the same time that Iraq was invaded, the economy was beginning to look up more and more. GDP growth was picking up and the unemployment rate would eventually be stabilized (today it remains in the low 5s). The global economy was shaking off the brutal anxieties which followed 9-11 and, in true tradition, began to expand just as America did. The war caused massive headaches among some of America's allies, many of which had interests in Iraq (the Iraqi government owed boatloads of money to Russia and a variety of French companies conducted business in Iraq). The friendly relations in the aftermath of 9-11 all but disappeared among some circles. Nations like Germany, France, and Russia saw America's actions as a serious violation to a stable world order, almost as if America had began to take matters "into its own hands." Furthermore, as time passed it became thoroughly clear that no weapons existed (leading to confusion amidst some when Vice President Cheney insisted the weapons were still there). The weapons were the main justification for the war, and the failure to find them casts severe doubt over the value of the conflict (in recent years the Administration has shifted its justification for the struggle to the fact that Iraq has become a major center of terrorism, and hence must be defended to give Al-Qaeda a black eye). With Iraq in the background, Bush plunged forward into a very uncertain reelection bid.

Bush’s handling of the economy has been subject to as much doubt as his foreign policy. Some have charged he has squandered away money on fruitless pursuits (such as tax cuts to the rich) while others are generally happy about his plans for an ‘ownership society’ and his supply side economics. It’s crucial to keep in mind that any President can only affect the economy so much. Although it’s very true that Presidents shouldn’t get the blame or the credit for the state of the national economy, most of the time they do, and there’s just no way around it. If economic times are bad, people will complain and turn on someone; the President would be the ideal choice. However, underlying global trends and various other factors, which far beyond the capability to be affected by a leader who may be in power for only four years, play a larger role. Statistically speaking, average GDP growth for the years 2001 (0.8%), 2002 (1.9%), 2003 (3.0%), and 2004 (4.4%) was 2.5%, a figure whose greatness will be subject to much debate (data is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis). The reason is because during the Clinton era average GDP growth was much higher, but a Bush supporter may counter that 9-11 caused much hardship and may be partly responsible for the ostensibly poor growth. Unemployment, however, seems to be doing much better. Bush got somewhat of a negative reputation in that field during the first term as he ran the risk of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss in jobs. The unemployment rate has drastically fallen from the times when it had broken 6% and as of May 2005 stands at 5.1%. One problem I can gage with the Bush economic plan would be its overt simplicity, and though simplicity is often viewed as positive, it has a tendency to fail in the application to complex structures (like a national economy). Bush’s economic thinking is too supply-sided, this at a time when most economists dismiss supply-side theory as little more than ineffective. Even the development of supply-side theory was borne more by journalists than economists. Today, many economists are pursuing a neo-Keynesian course; few serious economists waste their time on supply side ‘theory.’ The idea from the perspective of taxes, famously established into policy under Reagan, argues that that limiting tax rates for the wealthiest individuals will cause some of that money to ‘trickle down’ to the lower levels of society, and in this manner bring wealth to everyone. It is a dangerously ineffective policy and data has shown this to be true over and over again. Policies like these only serve to increase the gap between the wealthy and the rest in this nation. Bush’s tax cut has no doubt been formulated with Reagan in mind; the majority of the tax cuts go to the extremely wealthy, the exact people who don’t need them (if anything, they need to be taxed, since they can still handle it financially). Like the rest of Bush’s policies, however, it’s still too early to make definitive conclusions. He still has three and a half years to go and many things could change in that interval.

Democratic hopefuls had initiated their campaigns at or around the time of the Iraqi invasion. The early leading candidate was Howard Dean, the governor of Vermont whose appeal to the grass roots via active internet campaigning and fund-raising skyrocketed his presidential bid to the fore of the political spectrum. He was featured on the covers of Time magazine and Newsweek by the summer of 2003 and had many prematurely concluding that he would be the Democratic candidate for President. There were many others in the race, among the most eminent being Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts (the man whom many thought would be the leader in the race), Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Former Supreme NATO Commander Wesley Clark joined the race later after polling displayed a public seemingly receptive to having him as President. The campaign was dynamic and had the Democrats generally assenting that the President had botched the mission in Iraq. Howard Dean drove this point home better than the others and his efforts led to widespread political approval. The candidates also accused the President of, among other things, mishandling the economy and violating environmental integrity, but it was unmistakably clear that Iraq and the war on terror were the prime issues, at least in the early stages. Administration officials played up the President's credentials in the war on terror, an arena where he still had large support with the public. In December 2003, Saddam Hussein was finally found. At this critical juncture, many believe Howard Dean made a mistake which may have cost him the Iowa caucus; he claimed that Saddam's capture didn't make us safer. As it turned out, he was right, but at the time such words were very explosive and served as fodder for both Bush and Dean's Democratic competitors. In January, John Kerry surged forward in the polls and managed to win the Iowa caucus, breathing new life into a campaign that up till then had been viewed as either a disappointment or a failure. He went on to win all the primary races except the one in South Carolina, which was snatched by the junior Senator John Edwards, and managed to grab the necessary amount of delegates needed to give him the nod at the convention. Democrats may have turned on Dean because they thought Kerry to be more 'electable,' a person more composed than Dean and one who seemed like a President. The country was sharply split and both Bush and Kerry realized they had more than a tough fight ahead. Kerry selected Edwards as his running mate a few weeks before the convention in hopes that Edwards' charisma and Southern origins would give counterweight to Kerry's perceived stale character and liberal, Massachusetts roots. The polls after the Democratic convention (which was before the Republic) in late July showed Kerry to be leading slightly, but all in all the situation was static. The Republican Convention was followed by a string of vicious attack ads from a group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They claimed Kerry lied a great deal about his record in Vietnam. Polls showed these preposterous ads actually had an effect, and the Republicans entered their convention somewhat in a giddy mood. They emerged in an equally happy state since post-convention polls revealed Bush to be ahead of Kerry by double digits. The Kerry campaign did everything it could to resurrect the situation, but things pretty much continued in the same way until October, when the three debates virtually rescued Kerry. Kerry had been on debate teams and was considered dangerous by the Bush camp, although the Kerry campaign extended the same courtesies to Bush. After the three debates, Kerry was viewed as the frontrunner thanks to impressive performances (especially in the first). The two candidates went into Election Day with polls having them all but deadlocked. In the end, Bush won the popular vote by three million and triumphed in the electoral vote by dozens of points (although the change of one state, Ohio, to Kerry would've given Kerry the victory). The election had seriously tested Bush's mettle, but in the end he prevailed in a much more dependable fashion than his previous race. Bush believed his triumph vindicated his foreign and domestic policies and commented that he would 'spend' this newfound political 'capital' to the best of his abilities. What caused his victory is still subject to heated debate, but perhaps an influential factor may have been the comfort he gave to many Americans in these unsettling times. Many people view Bush as an honest individual, "one of them" in essence, and supported his efforts in the war on terror. The Bush campaign also did a spectacular jon in portraying John Kerry as a "flip flopper," a person who changes position on the issues (in this context at least), and going on to claim that such a person would be dangerous to have leading America in trying times. The campaign, largely masterminded by political strategist Karl Rove, was amazingly effective in light of the heavy opposition Bush faced from many circles. Surprisingly, the Democrats raised more funds than the Republicans during the race but were not that shrewd in spending them (Kerry had $15 million in the coffers by election's end, sparking much outrage and obfuscation). This unwise 'frugality' no doubt had some impact on the election's outcome, as money is virtually the end all and be all of American politics (Republican success in the past few decades has been brought about partially due to their advantage in money over the Democrats). A new feature of the campaign which will expand in the future will be heavy utilization of the internet, which both sides used to raise money, and the ubiquitous 527 ad groups that inundated the airwaves with excessively partisan messages (these were prominent on the liberal side).

The euphoria over Bush's victory has been eradicated in a very harsh manner. Today, the President's popularity is sagging and support for the Iraqi war has plummeted as well. Economic growth has been doing fairly well but much of the nation is apparently focused on Iraq. The Administration has been accused of doing a poor job of explaining the situation to the people and Bush, normally a very reclusive President, will give a public speech to be televised by the main networks next week. He will highlight the need for America to prevail in Iraq and the futility of placing timetables regarding troop withdrawal. Despite these media efforts, only success on the ground can convince the American public that this is a worthwhile pursuit. Many nations have already pulled their forces from Iraq or are going to pull them out, further weakening the Administration's assurances that the Iraqi invasion was a just act. We are all watching closely and hope it ends well. In the second part, I will analyze the Administration holistically and see what its actions mean for the not-too-distant future.

Hmm...

2005-06-23T23:19:00.000-04:00

There was much news on China today. Their companies have been buying some American ones and recently they've been getting more publicity than usual. There were several comparisons with what's occurring here with what happened in the 1980s. Back then, Japanese companies buying up American assets like crazy had everyone worried (rightly so), and some believe (or have used this example) that we shouldn't worry too much about what's happening here. Too early to tell how it'll play out, but I'd like to note there are differences with what China's doing and what Japan did....China is actually taking its assets and using them to bolster home growth, whereas Japan kept investing in America. Not to mention China's potential is immense.....one day, that nation may single-handedly lead the world economy out of and into recessions....

The Theory of Everything (Second Part)

2005-06-22T15:38:00.000-04:00

M-theory was first proposed by Dr. Edward Witten in the mid-1990s and stands for "membrane theory" (this title will become clear shortly). Other suppositions on what the "M" stands for have been "mother" (as in, the mother of all theories) or even "magic." As was stated before, M-theory combines 11-dimensional supergravity with the five superstring theories. M-theory is related to these two models by something known as duality. In physics, duality refers to the equivalence of physical theories if their physical properties are identical after some sort of mathematical transformation. We mentioned earlier how physicists had a problem in adequately explaining the weakness of gravity. To solve this, they imagined that the tiny and one-dimensional strings were immersed in membranes called "p-branes" (this name was given because these new membranes didn't have to be one-dimensional, hence "p number of membranes") which floated freely in the 11th dimension. It was theorized that these p-branes collectively caused the weakness of gravity in, at least, the p-brane where Earth is found (an entity we know as the "Universe"). Scientists also theorized "d-branes," named for the famous German mathematician Johann Dirichlet, who created the formalized definition of a function, which are simply a special class of p-branes (they are useful in determining the endpoints for open strings, since they are based on the Dirichlet boundary condition, which basically specifies the values a solution takes on the border of a domain in a differential equation). D-branes allow the use of perturbative methods in non-perturbative objects (perturbation theory uses mathematical approximations to describe a complex quantum systems in terms of a much more simpler one). All of that may sound like complicated jibberish, but all it says is that now scientists have a means of clarifying the behavior of many objects in these theories using simpler objects (some p-branes, for example, have been found to be d-branes). Before we explore some of the individual theories that constitute M-theory, we need to have a little understanding of a string's physical aspects. Strings are one-dimensional (conceptually defined as a line), they can be closed or open (the former meaning a string would be like a circle, obviously with no end points, while the latter would actually have end points) around a tube (a line-like object in space that appears cylindrical after magnification) immersed in a brane, they can form donut-shaped or loop-like objects that possess flux lines (flux lines are lines, as the name suggests, which, depending on the number and their placement on the manifolds, the six-dimensional analogues of circles located at every point in our spacetime, constitute the forces present in our everyday world). Flux lines are very important because they can change. And if flux lines change, then the visible manifestations of the Universe will also change. The consequences of this would be amazingly aberrant from what we're used to: imagine an electrically charged Universe! That gravity has a more pervasive role in the future of this Universe than electromagnetism (which, as we mentioned, is a much stronger force than gravity) is a testament to our electrically neutral domain. Let's hope it stays that way. But, of course, it may not. A change of flux lines in one manifold at one point in space could rapidly spread to other manifolds and begin a chain reaction, or a spreading "bubble," which alters both the subatomic and macroscopic properties of the space it invades. Physicists now increasingly believe this is what the Big Bang actually was: a manifold changing its state due to quantum effects and spreading that change to surrounding areas. In M-theory, the Big Bang is represented as a collision of p-branes, which are constantly moving in the 11th dimension. The collision produces a wave of alterations in the manifolds, and hence a wave of alterations in that particular space. Now that we have some what of a clear grasp of strings and their behavior, it should be noted that the five string theories describe the different types of strings (ie. whether they're closed, open, or circle-like), and the mathematical representations that relate them are known as T-duality, S-duality, U-duality, mirror symmetry, and conifold transitions. Although modern physics is strongly grounded in the belief that scientific theories require rigorous mathematical basis, the operations involved in these theories are fairly difficult relative to the general population (I don't understand their implications, merely the symbols and what they represent, courtesy of high-school calculus), and so math has been eschewed from this article. It is interesting to note that Edward Witten believes new math is needed to represent M-theory, and so far something known as 'Matrix Theory' has been proposed. A few of the main points to remember about M-theory are that it includes higher and lower dimensional objects (p-branes) than strings and that these objects 'hover' in the 11th dimension, receiving the 'leaks' of gravity that our dimension gives, thus leading to the weakness of gravity that we perceive. Now we turn to a more popular aspect of M-theory: parallel Universes! They exist, or so the theory says. According to M-theory, there are an infinite number of other worlds that are just moving along the 11th dimension (p-branes), and in these worlds may exist the dreams of some, the nightmares of others, both in separate realms, and everything else in between! What do I mean? There is a Universe out there where you (yes you, the one reading this article) are the fastest swimmer in the world, or where you are President of the United States, or one where you were not born at all! Two of these parallel Universes may have collided to form the Big Bang (as was mentioned earlier). The Second Superstring Revolution of the mid-1990s formed the basis of much of what was covered here. It led to the dualities, the formulation of M-theory, and a comprehension of black hole entropy (the measure of the amount of energy in a system that can do no work and also of the amount of disorder in a system, both measured in joules per kelvin, or J/K) at the microscopic level. People who believe the Universe can be described by one model also believe there is a "mother equation" from which others can be derived. The search for this equation is also part of M-theory. Ongoing work in the field seems promising and many scientists (most notably Stephen Hawking) believe we are very close to a clear understanding of the reality in our physical world.

Personally, I think we will attain the Theory of Everything within 50 years. However, it is important to clarify a few relevant points: first, although we may have a full model for everything that occurs in the Universe, we may not be certain of all the macroscopic implications of our model for a very long time (I'm referring to the model's predictions regarding time travel or inter-galactic voyages). Second, there are still a few physicists who believe we are nowhere close to a Theory of Everything, and these differences may or may not be ironed out with the rest of the scientific community (part of this debate, however, is what makes the pursuit of science exciting and non-formulaic, as imagined by many people who think what they learn in high school is the end-all and be-all). Third, these theories still have to be tested, and until they do, they should be viewed with skepticism. What makes the situation more palatable, however, is the fact that the theories are backed up by mathematical work. In the end, we will do it; we will actually find the answer to everything that physically occurs. When that day arrives, it will earn its place as one of the most important in human history.

Graduation

2005-06-21T15:18:00.000-04:00

We graduated today! Finally.......now to look forward to years and years of gruelling labor in college....

Anti-Syrian politician George Hawi was killed in Beirut today by a bomb after Lebanon's elections....

European officials are meeting with their American counterparts this week to discuss, among other things, Europe's role in a changing world....

Abbas and Sharon meet in a summit to discuss the peaceful evacuation of Jewish settlers from Gaza...

"Batman Begins" dominates the weekend box office, earning about $47 million....

On Other Matters....

2005-06-20T17:44:00.000-04:00

Today we practiced for tomorrow's graduation. Initial mistakes delayed our departure, but even those blunders aside the event went on for over an hour......without speeches. So tomorrow may easily break two hours.....

The euro continued to fall after the failure of last week's budget talks.....

OPEC is considering raising oil production....

North Korea will 'agree' to scrap its nuke program if America normalizes relations again....

and finally, Voyager 1 is well over 14 billion kilometers away from Earth (the furthest man-made object from our planet) and travelling at roughly 60,000 km/hr with respect to a stationary object viewing it from the side....

The Theory of Everything (First Part)

2005-06-19T17:16:00.000-04:00

For those who read the title and went, "What tha..??!?!"; just relax! This name applies to scientific efforts over (mostly) the past century that have tried to explain all physical interactions within a coherent model. It won't answer questions like, "Why doesn't that girl love me back?" I am in the process of formulating a model which will indeed address every conceivable question, but that won't be ready until years upon years from now on (indeed, it may not be finished in my lifetime). This article will strictly focus on the physical part of any theory which purports to describe 'everything.' It will describe previous efforts at these types of theories but will not cover the physical principles behind the theories in great detail.

The first drive for a Theory of Everything, or a Unified Field Theory (UFT) as it's sometimes known, began in the 19th century with legendary physicist James Clerk Maxwell, who successfully united electricity and magnetism into electromagnetism, the most promising UFT known to mankind up till that point. Maxwell was able to show that electricity and magnetism were two different manifestations of the same underlying principle (the belief that the Universe is governed by just a few, comprehensible laws is known as reductionism) since electric currents created a magnetic field (Ampere's law) and moving magnetic fields created an electric field (Faraday's law). Physicists spent the years following Maxwell's death (1879) in a blissful state, looking at their accomplishments and declaring that pretty much all observable phenomena could be adequately explained. It seemed that it was all over. And then, at the dawn of the 20th century, as if to signify a new era in the field, two men became instrumental in revolutionizing our concepts of space, time, and the atomic world. Max Planck was the founder of quantum theory and Einstein of Special and General Relativity. These new models (but particularly the latter) are still the focus points of current theories. Quantim mechanics (just another name for quantum theory) deals with the world at the microscopic level (electrons, protons, etc), and the principles of Special Relativity, one being the constancy of the speed at light in a vacuum, have proved instrumental in the theory's development. General Relativity describes the world at the macroscopic, or cosmic, level. It basically states that matter curves spacetime, and this curvature is responsible for the 'force' we know as gravity. Physics in the 20th century has been largely involved in uniting these two conceptions of two different 'mediums,' if you will. This journey has been extremely difficult and is ongoing to this day. After completing his two trademark theories, Einstein went in a grand but ultimately futile search for the UFT. Part of the problem he had has already been mentioned; it was simply too difficult at the time to reconcile the subatomic world with perceivable reality, and was especially challenging for Einstein since he was rather disinclined to follow quantum theory ("God does not play dice," he said, a soundbite rebuke of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and new emphasis in physics on probabilities instead of the former Newtonian certainties). Einstein's lack of knowledge in particle physics (and, for that matter, the lack of knowledge in this field of all physicists at the time) became readily apparent in the mid-20th century, when scientists began to discover dozens upon dozens of previously undetected particles. A fairly clear picture of particle physics didn't emerge until the 1970s. With the passage of time, a string (pardon the pun; this will become clear soon if you have no idea why it's a pun) of new theories unrolled to explain the Universe. One of these was something known as 'String theory' (now you get it!) Before its development, scientists had constructed physical theories with the zero-dimensional concept of a particle (basically, particles were viewed as point-like). Now, they began to mathematically observe that one-dimensional strings (lines, which do not have to be straight and can vibrate) which approached Planckian length (the limit of length that no object in the Universe can be less than, about 10^-33 cm) provided a better explanation for the manifestations of the Universe. Essentially, the composition and interactions of these one-dimensional strings gave rise to our macroscopic world. After continuing to study string theory, scientists realized that they had five equations to deal with, and thus (or it was supposed), five different models of the Universe at its most fundamental level. After quite a bit of flak, however, it was realized the equations all basically revealed the same thing. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the theory was its viability in 10 dimensions. According to string theory, there are the four spacetime dimensions we are all familiar with, and then six extra dimensions curled up into tiny, microscopic circles, and hence completely unnoticeable to a human. Here we must pause and consider a philosophical aspect. Although science (and humanity in general) relies heavily on observations to construct a theory or idea (induction), many physicists have, in recent times, opted to first creating an idea or model that could accurately portray our world (deduction). Therefore, string theory has not been experimentally verified (although such tests have recently started and will intensify in upcoming years). One weakness string theory had in the minds of many was a problem often encountered before: the difficulty of explaining the weakness of gravity. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature (electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force being the other three) and it is the weakest. To help in the endeavor, physicists began to give a serious look at a theory they previously had dismissed as ludicrous: supergravity. Supergravity combines supersymmetry and general relativity. The latter theory has been loosely explained, which leaves supersymmetry, a model which states there is a symmetry between bosons (particles that transmit forces and have integral spin, like photons, gluons, or gravitons) and fermions (particles that constitute matter and have half-integer spin, like electrons, protons, or neutrons). 'Spin' is a new term, but it simply refers to the number of times a particle (or object) must be turned so that it reaches its initial position. So suppose a fermion has 1/2 spin; this means if a fermion is positioned in a certain manner, it will have to make two complete revolutions to appear in that original form. If a boson has a spin of 1, it will have to make one complete revolution. Supergravity works in 11 dimensions, thus replacing the former 10 of string theory. But because string theory had still many advantages, scientists incorporated the two models into a new, cutting edge UFT: M-theory. M-theory remains at the center of occurring research and many today view it as the most promising sign for The Theory of Everything. It will be briefly examined in Part Two.

The Future of Europe

2005-06-19T15:44:00.000-04:00

There might as well be more literature on this topic than anything else. For centuries Europeans have contemplated the future of their glorious continent, and now, when in an organization that originally started as an economic bloc designed to mitigate Franco-German tensions, they find themselves at a crucial crossroads. It may be cliche for ongoing generations to characterize their problems as 'crucial' or 'important', and certainly we don't yet know the historical repercussions of transpiring events in Europe, but the simple fact that in recent decades Europe has participated in an experiment never undertaken before should aggrandize currently perceived woes to massive proportions. What still makes Europe enticing is potential. Despite many nations with lax population growth, delapidated labor and immigration laws, or low military spending, Europe possesses impressive human and economic resources on the whole. Its population is larger than America's, and, by some estimates, its GDP is larger as well. Further expansion of the European Union (EU) will only result in further growth for the continent as a whole, even if some nations lose their influence (most notably current powerhouses like Britain, France, or Germany). There have been many unfortunate and pejorative comments in the media about how recent European troubles will lead to an unpromising future, but as far as clear judgment can tell, these statements are journalistic hype. Though heavily troubled, Europe is still strong, and somewhere in the deep chasms of their minds most people realize what the ultimate future of Europe will be: unity.

In recent weeks, referrendums in France and Holland rejected the European Constitution heralded as the blueprint for a new beginning. Although expected in polls, the rejections came as a huge jolt to political leaders all across the Old Continent. What signs the voters were sending their national leaders has been hotly debated, but we can be reasonably sure economic concerns were among the primary, if not the most important, issues in their minds. Many people throughout the western part of the continent are extremely worried incoming EU members will send workers to their countries and hence worried they will lose their jobs. It's a bit striking to note that even though concerns were brought forth about the legitimacy or viability of the Constitution, most of the opposition towards it was mainly centered around economic issues. It gives us a peek into the minds of many Europeans: this vote may largely not have been about the Constitution, but about the well-being of the populace. In that sense, can we really say the Constitution was 'rejected' when it may not have even been part of the main voter considerations? Whether this particular Constitution is good or not (some of the castigation has revolved around the large amounts of power the European Parliament would be receiving) is of little consequence in the long run; European leaders should take heart in knowing that once the voters' problems are addressed and (perhaps) somewhat solved, they can move again on a Constitution (not necessarily this one) and have a greater chance of passage. Ultimately, however, some parties which presently disdain concessions will have to make a few in the future. The European people must realize (and I believe they do) that unity is far more beneficial in the long run and that quasi-petty national squabbles serve no fruitful purpose (of course, some of the sides involved in those disputes wouldn't label them 'quasi-petty,' but at the rate they are going, that is what history will remember them as, regardless of what they think they are now).

Two centuries ago, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote, "I wished to found a European system, a European Code of Laws, a European judiciary: there would be but one people in Europe," a statement many regard as one of the first true visions of a coherent Europe. Years later, that vision seems to be materializing. It's been a long and difficult process, filled with economic hardships, world wars, and revolutions; basically, everything that makes Europe Europe. In spite of that, what Europe could accomplish practically dwarfs imagination. It could once again be the most powerful region in the world, a position it discontinuously held for 3,000 years. Europe can do it; it has all the necessary ingredients......well, except one. It needs a wake-up call.

A Landmark Day in History

2005-06-18T23:19:00.000-04:00

Although I have mentioned this to many people, I didn't include it here, and then just a few moments ago I decided to. Today is the 190-year anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo (June 18, 1815), which saw an Anglo-Dutch-Belgian force under the Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) hold out for long enough to allow Prussian forces under Blucher to come on the battlefield and rescue the day. The defeat meant Napoleon's abdication for a second time in just over a year. A long time ago I wrote an account of this legendary battle (I am an avid fan of Napoleonic warfare, and I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field), perhaps the greatest of all time. It is given here to mark the occassion...

----

The Battle of Waterloo, June 18, 1815.

When Paris fell to the Prussians in 1814, Napoleon still desired to keep fighting, but his generals were disinclined. At his imperial resort at Fointainbleu, the "little Corsican", desperate and distraught, drank poison prepared as early as 1812. The poison was ineffective, however, and rather than death the dejected emperor suffered a virulent sickness (the poison didn't work because of its age; for example, cyanide is very deadly but if one is drinking 50-year old cyanide pills all one will suffer is suffering itself, not death). The Emperor then assented with the resignation the Allies proposed and was exiled to Elba, an island in the Tyrrhenian Sea, slightly west of mainland Italy and east of Corsica. There he became Governor of Elba and under the terms of the exile could retain 1,000 troops under his command plus control Elba's economy. He took this job seriously, working diligently for ten months, supervising this puny island like he had done a gargantuan empire. He was discomforted, however, by the constant presence of a British Commissar, sent there to monitor any demeanor of Napoleon's deemed contumacious. The British official left for mainland Italy once and left Napoleon free to put his long-thought plans into action. L'Empereur would return. He left Elba with seven ships, bypassed the British sea sentinels, and landed in France on the 1st of March, 1815, around Cannes. He then took a route north around the Alps to avoid what he thought was a pro-Royalist Rhone Valley. The lackluster Louis XVIII was slow to act, however, and Napoleon managed to move through French provinces quickly, promising great things to the French people and a return to the glory days. The Bourbon monarch did send Ney, a brave warrior who promised to bring Napoleon back to Paris "in an iron cage". Meanwhile, the famed incident with the V Regiment occurred, where Napoleon situates himself amidst his forces and the French forces before him and in an exquisite speech dares the troops, "if there is anyone here who wishes to kill your Emperor, here I am". Both sides then broke out into "Vive L'Empereur" chants, and Napoleon was flying to Paris, meeting a much more subdued Ney along the way. Ney acknowledged the Emperor one more time and the two men were allies again. Louis XVIII fled to the Netherlands and Napoleon entered Paris triumphantly at the end of March. His political situation was precarious, however, because many officials, such as Fouche (the Minister of Police), distrusted and disdained him. Only 100 members of the National Assembly truly supported him, the rest were coerced by the threat of the force of arms. The Allies declared Napoleon an "outlaw" and a threat to peace at the Congress of Vienna, settled any last minute imbroglios, and prepared their armies. Napoleon's offers of peace didn't play to their tastes since after years of conflict they had learned that peace with Napoleon was worse than war. The Seventh Coalition was now formed.

The Emperor was loath to reinstitute the dreaded conscription system at this time but he needed troops and he needed them fast, seeing as how British and Prussian armies were converging around Belgium. Eventually, volunteer programs throughout the nation were efficacious and a plethora of soldiers lined Napoleon's ranks. During this time, Napoleon named Davout War Minister; Grouchy the Commander of the Right Wing, Ney the Commander of the Left Wing, and Soult became the Chief of Staff. Military historians believe these decisions are the first gaffes of the war. Napoleon's decision to make Davout War Minister meant the faithful and prolific French Marshal would stay behind in Paris and miss the war, and while Napoleon needed a strongman in Paris to keep the political situation stable, Davout's absence clearly was one of the major reasons why the French lost (as you will later see). Davout and Soult should have been placed as commanders of the wings, since they would've performed with far more successful results than Ney and Grouchy did. Ney was brave, but he had a poor understanding of Napoleonic strategy. He had not understood it before, and he damn well did not understand it in 1815. He made mistakes during the campaign which absolutely infuriated Napoleon. Grouchy was a cavalry commander and his understanding of infantry was poor. He wasn't skilled at leading entire corps and his slow pace while chasing the Prussians cost the French dearly at Waterloo. Suchet should've been named the Chief of Staff. Davout, right wing; Soult, left wing. With that line-up the gods could not have saved Wellington and Blucher. The French now began maneuvers in their own territory designed to mislead and obfuscate Allied armies across France's borders. Austria thought its main armies wouldn't reach the Rhine until July and the Russians certainly wouldn't get to the main theater of war until much later, leaving Napoleon fairly confident about his chances. The French were prepared for an assault in June. A French deserter was captured on June 12 and related French army plans to Ziethen, a Prussian corps commander. For some puzzling reason, Ziethen didn't share this information with Blucher until June 14th, and by that time it was too late. On June 15th, the French attack commenced and the Allies were, as in the days of old, taken by surprise with the speed of Napoleon's Grandee Armée.

The British were advancing from Brussels onto Quatre-Bras while the Prussians performed a moderate retreat eastward. The following events, preceding Waterloo, are absolutely bizarre. Ney's lightning-fast wing approached Quatre-Bras well ahead of Wellington's red coats. Defending this crucial town was a meager Dutch army awaiting their British allies. Napoleon wrote to Ney and informed him to take Quatre-Bras at once. Why was Quatre-Bras so important? This precise question, it seems, Ney could not answer. He didn't appreciate Napoleon's bold strategies and still thought of battle as a linear set-piece stage of 18th century vogue. Occupying Quatre-Bras would have placed the French left wing in a golden position, allowing them to strike upon the Prussian rear in the event of a Franco-Prussian engagement. The French army then could strike at a British army reeling from solitude and, without doubt, fleeing like mad towards Brussels. Had Davout been here Wellington and his British army would've wished they weren't born. Ney did not know that the army infiltrating the Bossu wood, located just to the side of Quatre-Bras, was only a rag-tag, hard-fighting, and inexperienced Dutch force that would've surely been decimated by a focused and concentrated French offensive. The Dutch fought bravely to defend their position and Ney's irresolution cost him dear time. Ney was also influenced by Reille, the commander of I Corps. Reille was familiar with British tactics and, believing that the French were facing the main British force, discouraged a heavy attack on Quatre-Bras. While this hesitance pervaded the French upper echelons of the left wing, the II Corps under D'Erlon was marching towards Ney to aid him in the fight against an increasing British presence at Quatre-Bras (Wellington had arrived). As he did so, he received a message that threw the entire course of the war into infamy and perplexity. A courier gave D'Erlon a message, purportedly from Napoleon that ordered him to turn around his II Corps and march on towards Ligny, where the French and Prussians had locked horns. D'Erlon was confused and angry, but he obeyed the order. Ney saw the unorthodox position of D'Erlon's men (moving away from Quatre-Bras) and thrust himself into a fury, immediately ordering the corps to turn around and succor him with the fight against the British. D'Erlon was now rightfully exasperated. He ordered the Corps around again, but detached Durutte's and Jacquinot's units to go towards Napoleon at Ligny. Before we go any further, it is necessary to analyze the events surrounding the message. When asked about the incident much later on, Napoleon stated he had no recollection of giving such an order. Some say the courier that gave D'Erlon the message made it up himself since he was dismayed that the II Corps was doing nothing (if this was the case, then he was clearly out of the loop, as those forces were GOING TO QUATRE-BRAS!). Yet others say that he changed Napoleon's original message and gave D'Erlon the modified one. This erroneous message prevented the French from finishing the war then and there. Had II Corps been involved in either the fight at Ligny or Quatre-Bras, the French would've thrashed whatever force lay before them. Instead, it spent its day marching and contributed to neither. While all this was transpiring, Napoleon was constantly giving Ney orders to charge hard at whatever enemy lay before him. Ney never did much, and in one moment of anger he lashed out at a man with a message from Napoleon. The messenger, scared and distressed, forgot to give Ney the order. But in one instance, Ney did order the legendary cavalry commander Kellerman to charge the British lines with his cuirassiers. Kellerman thought this was suicide and asked Ney to confirm the order, to which Ney replied, "go but then, go". Clearly confused, Kellerman charged nonetheless and, against all odds, his cavalry smashed the British infantry. The attack was uncoordinated and unsupported by other elements, however, and the French were forced to relinquish their impressive gains. During the retreat, Kellerman's horse was shot underneath him but he managed to grab a rope from another horse and with that rode to safety. By the end of the day, Wellington's forces had pushed the French back to the days' original positions.

Meanwhile, as I stated earlier, the French and Prussians were warring in a major engagement at Ligny. The French were severely outnumbered (84,000 Prussians with 224 cannons against 68,000 French soldiers with 210 cannon) but they still possessed a semblance of tactical superiority over their foes. Napoleon's plan was to envelop Blucher's right flank, which required Ney to clear any foe in front of him (now you understand why Napoleon was constantly telling Ney to attack the damned place). The Battle of Ligny was a seesaw affair for much of the day, the village constantly changing hands between French and Prussian occupation. Eventually, however, Vandamme managed to capture and hold Saint-Amand and French artillery barrages extirpated the onrushing Prussian infantry. At this crucial stage in the battle, Napoleon smelled blood and noticed the Prussians massing on their right flank. He ordered the Old Imperial Guard to attack. As the preparations for this massive offensive were underway, Napoleon was informed of a strange force advancing upon the French left flank. Remember the detachments d'Erlon sent for Ligny? Well, apparently he forgot to inform Napoleon of their journey. The French now began to think these were British troops but "shortly after" they were identified as French. French improvisations at the oncoming, mysterious force delayed their main attack on the Prussian right for three hours. This gave Blucher much-needed time to reorganize his men for the final defense. Had the French debacle not occurred the Prussian army would've been totally annihilated. At 7 pm, the long-awaited offensive finally began, the French hitting the Prussians hard with Milhaud's cavalry, Gerard's infantry, 60 guns, plus the ever-immortal Old Imperial Guard. The Prussian line wavered then broke like a twig. A 32-squadron cavalry counter-attack by Roder's "Old Forwards", led by Blucher himself, bought time for the main part of the Prussian army to escape. During the melee, Blucher's horse was shot and the Prussian commander was stuck underneath his stallion for a better part of the night. French cuirassiers rode over him at least twice, but no one noticed him. An adjutant sneaked into the battlefield during the night and helped his commander escape. You don't need me to tell you the inevitable consequences if he'd been captured. The Prussians were down, but not out, as Napoleon fatally calculated. The IV Corps had not been involved in the fight and hence was still brisk and riddled with alacrity for war. They would be the first Prussian forces Wellington would see at Waterloo. French casualties at Ligny stood at about 11,500 killed and wounded. The Prussians suffered 16,000 killed and wounded plus an additional 9,000-12,000 desertions over the next few days.

Having temporarily relieved himself of the Prussians, Napoleon ordered Grouchy to inexorably pursue them and prevent a possible conjunction with the British. He then went to Quatre-Bras to see how Ney was doing. When Wellington learned of Blucher's misfortunes, he retreated from Quatre-Bras and went near Mont St-Jean (close to Waterloo, setting up the arena for the ultimate battle). He left Uxbridge's cavalry and a few other detachments to cover the withdrawal. Napoleon arrived at the French positions before Quatre-Bras to find his army in their bivouacs cooking lunch. He was irate with Ney and immediately ordered his forces forward to demolish whatever Brits remained behind. The British rearguard fought bravely but was forced to retreat once it became clear they were in the process of being outflanked. By this time, however, most of the British army was safe. As a humorous note, Wellington forgot 1/5 of his army at Hal and there they would remain for the duration of the battle at Waterloo. When he approached Waterloo, Napoleon noticed British forces beyond at the other ridge. He was unsure about whether this was the main British force so he sent some detachments to make sure. The British artillery opened up and Napoleon was convinced he now had Wellington's army before him. The battlefield at Waterloo was quite small for standards at the time. The opposing armies were separated by a gentle valley that joined two ridges. Napoleon had approximately 74,000 troops and 256 guns while Wellington had roughly 68,000 men with 156 guns. Wellington was in a strong defensive position as most of his army was situated behind crests and hence escaped, for awhile at least, the gaping jaws of the French artillery. The British right flank was heavily reinforced while the left was less guarded. Wellington clearly expected Blucher to come to his aid. Heavy rains had soaked the Belgian grounds and for this Napoleon would delay the artillery opening the following day. The downpours had also impeded Grouchy's advance against the Prussians. The commander put little speed in his advance, allowing the Prussians to recuperate and march once more against the French. Not knowing the true nature of the Prussian army, Napoleon was fairly confident of victory over the British after his exploits at Ligny.

The French plan was simple and straightforward. The French would feign attacks on the British right flank at the Hugoumont Chateau while the rest of the army would launch massive frontal assaults and hope to capture La Haie Sainte, the central focus of both sides in this battle. Many think that Napoleon's delay in starting the battle proved fatal as it gave the Prussians time for a momentous arrival on the battlefield. While this assessment is correct, the French still had many opportunities to win Waterloo, as you will read later on. The battle started around 11:30 am on June 18, 1815, when Reille's artillery plus Kellerman's horse artillery began pounding the Hugoumont, which was held by the British. Intended only as a diversion, Napoleon's brother Jerome turned the affair into a full-blown conflict. He led several brigades in order to acquire the Chateau but all he managed to do was occupy the nearby woods. French forces under the command of Lieutenant Legros managed to break through the North Gate but were readily destroyed. At 1 pm, Ney requested permission to start the main offensive. Also at around this time, Jacquinot's hussars detained a few Prussian soldiers and reported that the Prussian IV Corps under Bulow was already at St-Lambert, fairly close to Waterloo. To cover the French right flank, Napoleon deployed Lobau's VI Corps in addition to Domon's and Subervie's cavalry. He then sends a message to Grouchy to join him at once. This message mattered little in the grand scheme of things, however, because when Grouchy received it he himself was engaged with a Prussian corps commanded by Thielmann at Wavre. He could not help Napoleon. As noon had approached, before the battle at Wavre, Gerard urged Grouchy to march towards Waterloo and save Napoleon. Grouchy reminded Gerard, however, that his orders were to chase the indefatigable Prussians. When Gerard requested that his division alone march to Napoleon's aid Grouchy denied him the opportunity since he thought splitting up the forces was a terrible idea.

At 1 pm, the French artillery opened fire. With the exception of Bylandt's exposed brigade, the cannonade was relatively innocuous to the British army. The ground was soft so ricochet fire was uncommon. 30 minutes later, d'Erlon's Corps and Travers' cavalry brigade charged. For some very weird or very simple yet stupid reason, d'Erlon's masses didn't advance in the traditional Napoleonic French style that was invented by Guibert. Three of the four infantry divisions in the II Corps advanced with a wide front and in rows rather than with narrow fronts and in columns (these divisions had about 200 men on their front and were 27-28 ranks deep, it would've been vice versa under normal conditions). Traditionally in the Napoleonic wars, French infantry would advance in columns then spread outwards in a "hollow" row where they would shoot at their opponents. They presented a very small target this way and hence were always very successful. Durutte's division was the only one to advance in the correct manner and they in fact enjoyed better fortunes than the rest. Another notable problem with the charge was its lack of coordination. French charges would usually attempt to force enemy infantry into squares so the artillery could have their way with them, but there was absolutely no strategy at all here. The initial assault captured Papelotte and the environs around La Haie Sainte, putting the King's German Legion (KGL) that was sent to reinforce the British position to flight. The attack may have well ended the battle then and there, but the scarcity of French cavalry available (only one brigade) lowered the momentum of the charge. Picton's division counter-attacked and Picton died still in civilian clothes (his luggage from Britain was late). The French were decimated by the British volleys, however, and d'Erlon's infantry fled. At this crucial point, Lord Uxbridge led the cavalry forward. Ponsonby's and Somerset's brigades charged hard at the French. The former's brigade destroyed Marcognet's columns, leaving some 3,000 Frenchmen dead, while the latter's trounced Travers' cavalry and then plunged into the mass of the infantry. Ponsonby became a bit overconfident and jubilant at his success, however, and led his cavalry below to the valley to dispatch the French Grand Battery. The French counter-attacked and killed all 1,000 men of Ponsonby's brigade, including the commander himself. Somerset's units withdrew with lighter casualties. Follow-up British charges regained Papelotte and restored the front. The artillery battle between the two sides was now reaching a climax. The French began to gain the upper hand and British casualties soared. Dead and wounded British men were evacuated via the Brussels-Charleroi. When Ney saw these long lines of streaming red coats he assumed the British were withdrawing. Rashly, he ordered a massive cavalry assault, among the most famous in history. But the charge was absolutely idiotic since it had no infantry or artillery support at all. French cavalry crossed to the side of the British ridge only to find the enemy infantry arrayed into nice little squares, ready to receive Ney's men. 5,000 saber-laden men charged at the British lines but Uxbridge's counter-attacks managed to keep the British alive. Napoleon was livid but knew he had no option but to continue supporting the charge. Kellerman's and Guyot's cavalry were sent in as well, bringing the total number of cavalry attacking the British lines to around 10,000. Several British squares were heavily destroyed and, indeed, this cavalry charge nearly won the day. The French launched about a dozen assaults but all ultimately failed. For all his stupidity, Ney fought so bravely it's nothing short of inspiring. At the conclusion of these humungous attacks, British artillery was virtually inextant as many gunners simply had disappeared. The infantry was barely holding on. At this point, Ney sends Bachelu's division along with a brigade from Foy's division; but they're unsupported and within ten minutes 1,500 men die or are wounded. Meanwhile, on the French right, Lobau had been battling the pesky Prussians and with his furious charges managed to hold them at bay. However, Prussian numerical superiority eventually triumphed and they worked themselves up to Plancenoit. At 5:30 pm, Napoleon orders Ney again to take La Haie Sainte. Ney commanded some cavalry and an infantry regiment in this furious assault that laid waste all before them. Uxbridge's cavalry and the KGL ran for their lives. This attack is a microcosm of the true French system: a coordination of artillery, infantry, and cavalry that had brought them so many victories before. Had most of the battle been conducted in this sense the British would've lost long before 5:30. The French now occupied La Haie Sainte and had a strong position, but they still hadn't set the seal on Wellington's army. At this critical juncture in the battle, Ney asks Napoleon for more troops, to which the Emperor replies, "Troops? Where do you want me to find them? Do you want me to make some?". It is entirely possible that had Napoleon sent a few battalions of the Old Imperial Guard into the fray at this point the British lines would've been utterly eliminated. Napoleon was reluctant to send the guard in at this point because he was worried about the Prussian advance. He sends the Young Imperial Guard to retake Plancenoit from the Prussians and while they're initially successful, the Prussian counter-attack is too much. Napoleon then sent two battalions of the Old Imperial Guard against 14 Prussian infantry battalions. In 20 minutes, however, the Old Guard wins and boots the Prussians out of Plancenoit, leaving some 3,000 Germans dead or wounded. Lobau successfully charges the Prussians and the Young Guard reoccupies Plancenoit once more. Napoleon now decides to give the final blow. Nine Old Guard battalions are prepared and march towards the British lines. Napoleon leads them just 600 yards short of the British lines. He then hands command over to Ney who, for some awkward reason, redirects the force through a north-west route instead of the main Charleroi-Brussels road which would've landed the French straight at the heavily-bruised British center. The Imperial Guard also spots many soldiers on the horizon and, thinking them to be French, heartily rejoices. But they eventually get word that the soldiers are Prussian and their mood is egregiously dampened. The Imperial Guard advance was met by a strong British infantry counter-attack. The British charged from all sides, there were even men hiding on the banks of the Ohain road. Under these tense volleys, the French Imperial Guard, the one truly invincible unit in the French army, broke and fled. Wellington takes his hat off and waves it in the air, signaling the troops to motion forward. The entire French army panics and flees. Wellington and Blucher meet at La Belle Alliance, Napoleon's headquarters during the battle, at 9 pm and agree to leave the pursuit of the French army up to the fresh Prussian cavalry (but the Prussians butcher this task, they certainly are not the French cavalry in 1806). Grouchy learns of the defeat on June 19th and is ordered to retreat. Vandamme suggests that the French march towards Brussels and then fall upon the Anglo-Prussian army from the rear but Grouchy rejects this proposal. In my opinion, if the commanders had the sense that if they retreated the war would be lost, Grouchy should've followed up on this. It sounds stupid and ridiculous yes, but some of the greatest military heroes became famous from doing stupid and ridiculous things (Napoleon, for once). If it had succeeded Grouchy would've gone down in military lore. Grouchy's main problem, however, would've been communications. Should he have done this he would've needed Napoleon to make a stand at the French border or assault the Anglo-Prussian army that would've surely swung 180 degrees. Because let's face it, 30,000 Frenchmen would not have won against an army of over 100,000 Germans and Englishmen. In the end, the entire French army escapes from Belgium. The Allies march onto France and dictate peace once more. Austrian forces cross the Rhine on June 26 but it matters little at this point. Napoleon had a plan to escape to America and seek asylum but the British uncover the plot and hold off his retreat at Rochefort. Napoleon negotiates with the commander of the British fleet there and turns himself in. He is exiled to St. Helena in the South Atlantic and remains there until he dies on May 5th, 1821.

Napoleon once said, "what is history but a fable agreed upon". While the statement was suited more for rhetorical purposes and in no way do I believe he actually thought that (because that would mean the campaigns he read about Alexander were all fables), the quote does insinuate what we all essentially know but rarely recognize or acknowledge: history is written by the winner. Therefore, in certain cases more than others, it's distorted and twisted to fit the ends of certain nations, men, or people. The British will believe that Wellington was a general comparable to Napoleon while the French will passively assent (after all, Wellington did defeat every single French Marshal brought against him in the Peninsular War). Yet the complexities of war are so often eschewed when discussing about Waterloo. So often do we ignore the fact that the British would have lost were it not for the Prussians. So often do we forget those Dutch and Belgian soldiers which comprised the majority of Wellington's army (only 1/3 of his force was British). So often do we forget that had Grouchy labored harder in his pursuit of the Prussians France would've won. There is no military commander in human history comparable to Napoleon. He lived in an era of intricate strategic issues. Unlike Alexander, he didn't face a single decrepit empire; he faced two, three, four virile empires at a time. Unlike Hannibal, he recognized the importance of all aspects of war (Hannibal didn't bring siege weaponry on his expedition). Unlike Caesar, he brought down empires instead of tribes and hamlets. Unlike Wellington, he faced multiple foes. So often we forget.........

----

Free Trade and the Deficit

2005-06-18T16:49:00.000-04:00

Although seemingly far from the minds of most Americans, many who are currently preoccupied with Social Security, healthcare, or Iraq, the trade deficit is actually a huge issue which in many ways contributes more to the America's well-being (or harming) than the aforementioned matters. International free trade became, in many ways, the posterchild for globalism and the promising opportunities of an inter-connected world. The ideal of tariff removals from the global scene sparked enthusiasm and served as an important component to a wave of growth in all sorts of economies (but particularly Western ones). The Bretton Woods agreement, which dominated the world's economic agenda until the early 1970s, established that nations should adopt monetary policy which maintained the exchange rate of currency within a fixed value (usually the value of gold). In 1971, the United States stopped converting dollars to gold, and ever since the dollar has remained the world's most powerful currency through investor confidence. After Bretton Woods, American exporting was quite explosive. The Marshall Plan focused resources and energies into the reconstruction of Europe, and it formed a significant portion of that 'explosion.' However, the development of the industrially capable war-torn regions (Western Europe, particularly France and Germany, and Japan) provided America with what some observers think to be an unwelcome affront. Suddenly, the consumerist potential that everyone knew America had became evident and what were trade surpluses became deficits due to excessive imports from those very nations and regions. Over the past few decades, these deficits have come to be increasingly viewed as dangerous to the health of this nation and to that of the global economy. Some think the deficits are natural, merely a manifestation of the powerful American economy and its desire to buy more than it sells. Others believe the deficits are dangerous to American jobs (especially those in the manufacturing sector, whose poor performance has been blamed on the trade deficits) and to America's geostrategic strength. There are yet others who take a variety of views, but as I've been glancing over the debate in recent years I was reminded that ongoing events in trade are forcing a quasi-equivalent government involvement to that in employment after the Great Depression. The dominant view at the time (held by a wide-range of free market theorists) was that full employment could be achieved by the natural operation of unregulated markets, a notion thoroughly challenged and debunked by John Maynard Keynes. I don't mean to imply some intrinsic economic similarities between the two issues, but merely to point out that the solutions will once again involve governments. At an age when many think the promises of free trade far outweigh the dangers, there are calls for government involvement to do anything possible to control the perceived manipulative currency strategy of nations like China. Often when unfairness has reared its ugly head in the 20th century economic world, many sides seem to turn the government for aid, an amazing departure of human thinking when compared to the 18th and 19th centuries.

And now to turn to the possible solutions; what can be done? Is there even really a 'crisis' or 'problem'? The second question seems a bit naive in light of the overwhelming data supporting the rapacious growth of nations like India and China (and why they're growing so quickly), but as of yet there is no clear crisis, just a looming danger. America has palpable advantages such as the best graduate college programs in the world, the most technologically advanced society in the world, and further positive signs such as being the largest economy in the world ($12.3 trillion as measured by purchasing power parity) supplemented by a large population (approximately 300 million) and a brutally efficient military (defense budget over $400 billion, higher than all nations of the world combined). When the situation is presented in this manner, worries tend to subside. But they shouldn't. A common theme in recent technological progress has been that even the rate of development increases, so that high standards today can be dwarfed or overwhelmed in relatively short periods of time. Normally this should somehow carry over in the geostrategic realm, and indeed it has. The instability of the 20th century has witnessed the fall of traditional superpowers (France, Britain, Germany) in shockingly quick times. War was the biggest contributor, but in the wars various other factors combined to pinpoint the weaknesses of these nations when compared to a behemoth like America. One would expect that something similar should occur to America, that even though now it may be a clear, unrivaled superpower, it could still buckle under what's becoming a virtually relentless pressure from nations with the world's largest populations. Some unfamiliar with the topic may be wondering: "geez, what's the big deal? Explain to us why this matters." If you happen to be one of those people, then I'll gladly satisfy your request. America consumes a lot; we all know this. The problem is that in modern times it's been consuming too much (yes, there actually seems to be a problem with that!) The United States consumes $700 billion more than it produces. In its ostensibly mad rampage, America is funneling money to foreign competitors who are rapidly developing their technologies and threaten to overturn a technological superiority this nation has enjoyed for decades. Corporations have flocked overseas, seeking high-skilled employees at a cheap price, a cycle that only skyrockets productions in nations like China and India and establishes them as a base for future exports to America. This drive has been attributed to the perceived chronic problems of the manufacturing sector here, typically noted for leading economies out of recessions and slowdowns (and some say these problems with manufacturing highlight the nation's sporadic economic woes and its difficulty in forming consistent growth under this Administration). Another problem is that other nations appear not to be 'playing' fairly. It seems nations like China and Japan peg, or fix, the rate of their currencies against the dollar, constantly keeping their values low to encourage the growth of their export-led economies (the governments of these nations, however, evidently deny the charges). It is supposed that depreciated currencies will reinvigorate exports, but when the dollar kept falling in recent years, the American trade deficit only kept going up. What was going on? Part of the problem lies in perceived strengths; America's economy is too large for that type of change to have a completely reversible effect, as was seen in Sweden a while back. Why would low currency values mean greater exporting value? Simple math. Suppose you're an American business selling a product to a Japanese customer, and also suppose that currently one dollar is worth $5 trillion yen. Let's say the product costs $10 trillion yen; that means the American company made two dollars at the current exchange rate. Now suppose the dollar gets weaker, and one dollar is worth only $2 trillion yen. That same product is now worth $5. Some of these countries are being accused of turning this simple math into national policy, and thus deliberately ruining the "good faith" that free trade should be conducted on. But, in reality, free trade is more of an ideal, and implementation has shown logical inconsistencies. When President Bush placed a tariff on European steel imports in order to reduce competition for the struggling domestic steel market, he was clearly violating some of the basic precepts of free trade (occassional tariffs on steel have been imposed in the past as well, political considerations easily trumping the needs of international markets). Either way, even though a bit troubled, it offers bristling opportunities and has provided much growth to the world. I hope that in these difficult moments, everyone can keep that fact somewhere in the back of their heads........

Iran and Other Things

2005-06-18T12:31:00.000-04:00

Recent news has middle-of-the-line cleric Rafasanjani and reformist Mostafa Moein coming out on top to face in an eventual run-off election. I've heard of the former before (famous during the 1980s), but not of the latter. Bush has criticized the election as undemocratic, but whoever of the two wins, the West can at least take comfort in knowing both candidates desire warmer relations. But obviously it's no secret that what would satisfy many throughout the West (including me) would be the complete collapse of a theocracy which has largely betrayed (or not accomplished) the goals it set out during its own revolution (partly because the system is flawed, and partly because of geopolitical considerations). Inside sources and general impressions strongly suggest the Iranian people (or at least the youth) wish to have a democracy and shake off this decades-old nightmare. America is now being patient and waiting to see the government collapse from within (it may also support pro-democratic forces inside the nation by channeling funds). When that'll happen is anybody's guess, but I doubt it's too far off. Hopefully, some new and Western-oriented leaders will make Iran a strategic partner without the previous bullying and mingling America and Britain became so famous for all those dozens of years ago. Iran as a partner is much better than Iran as a foe.

On another topic, I've been visiting several blogging sites to get a feel for this 'business,' and all seem to be issue-driven, jumping off from one topic to another day in and day out (I knew this before, but I've now empirically proved it to myself). I've started to do this a little in my blog, but I'll try to stop in upcoming posts. Instead, I'll focus more on the historical themes and ideas which underlie the materializations of the world we currently witness. I will cover events, to be sure, but their causes and the ideologies important to them will receive just as much attention, if not more.

Michael Jackson

2005-06-17T18:07:00.000-04:00

I'll admit I'm a pretty big MJ fan, and though this may cause some to view my perceptions as distorted, the evidence in the trial rightfully pointed the jury to a not-guilty decision. I hope he can make a comeback; it will be difficult no doubt, but trial publicity will certainly help. MJ still has the capability produce single hits, as he did with 'You Rock my World' and 'Butterflies'; Invincible was a good album but Sony didn't promote it, hence the seemingly poor sales (8 million copies worldwide). Although his support in America may have massively dwindled over the years, he still has many fans all over the world, and no doubt they can help boost future album sales. That and the aura of being the 20th century's greatest solo artist serve to retain MJ as one of the music industry's goliaths. He'll probably never be what he once was, but certainly he can become greater than what he has been lately. His music is virtually impeccable, and it'd be nice to see him change what many believe has been a development of poor music over the years.

I'm back...

2005-06-17T17:04:00.000-04:00

Helloooo; it's been quite a long time. I never actually thought I'd continue this, but I decided to in light of summer and me having little to do. I first wrote how I would not discuss the 'issues of our time' but I'm throwing that out the wind because my life is rather uninteresting. Iraq......*waits for all the ooos and ahhhhhhhs to subside*.....is at the present moment a challenge and a beacon of hope; I suppose much of what it is depends on one's political views. What's becoming particularly troubling are a few signs that the political will to prolong the conflict is in short supply. Polls reveal the American public to be skeptical about the situation (indeed, most now having reservations if not downright opposition), and just recently several Congressmen from both parties started to push a resolution demanding the Bush Administration provide a more coherent plan for what many see as an ill-taken adventure. It is very difficult to overemphasize how crucial the public will becomes in trying moments. Often throughout history, nations were defeated in large part because they lost the political will to continue the war (Germany in World War I and Iran in the 1980s are two good examples); America, of course, has ample experience with this from what occurred in Vietnam. It's quite troubling to see the same situation developing here, but in another way this has continued for some time now, and it was virtually expected since America has spent $200 billion, suffered 14,000 casualties, and lost a certain amount of geostrategic clout. America is far too powerful to lose its grip as world hegemon even if forced to leave Iraq shamefully, but that in no way undermines the determination in many circles to prevail in a struggle which may very well colossal implications for the global war on terrorism. One of the many questions becomes, which groups here want America to stay and which want it to leave, or more importantly, which are showing those types of tendencies (since at the present moment the conversation seems reasonably diplomatic and constrained, nothing of the sort witnessed during the later years of the Vietnam War)? One would think as long as the troubles were confined along ideological or political lines, the Administration does not have to worry. However, there's growing evidence that discontent is now 'crossing over.' Part of the problem can be attributed to the economy, which although growing at a fairly sizeable and satisfactory rate, has recently put harsh burdens on a middle class that more and more may be viewing the Iraqi conflict as a detractor for wise federal spending. It is only reasonable to assume that a margin of economic well-being may be soften the discontent on the part of this group. If this is not the problem (and it well may not be, such is the intrinsic complexity of the situation; there may well be a variety of issues at play here), the Administration will have to work toward somehow stabilizing Iraq, something that has proven extremely difficult (but, of course, not impossible). It seems the number one priority to accomplishing that task would be intelligence, something which everyone wants more of than they have. Increasing numbers has also been suggested, but this will do relatively little because American military forces on the ground already have the necessary capabilities to fully prosecute the insurgents and, with additional Iraqi troops, can secure the 'difficult' provinces of Iraq. And then, there's what many know insisde their minds has to be done but have difficulty articulating it openly: Syria must somehow be dealt with. Growing evidence suggests that Syria either cooperates with insurgents or facilitates their stay as an eventual jumping point for Iraq. In a paper written long ago, I argued how these proxy situations could not be successful without an 'X agent' or an 'X Factor.' During the Vietnam War, the Vietcong relied on Chinese and Soviet military assistance, and without it they would have most likely lost. I at first thought that the Iraqi insurgency had no 'X Factor' that could lead to their eventual success, but Syria and Iran have forced me to reconsider my position. If Syria proves enough of a regional player in this conflict, America will lose because of it. At this point, I am not certain whether Syria's involvement is enough to constitute their label as the 'X Factor' which has a strong part in determining the outcome of these dirty proxy wars, and I certainly don't want recent events to cloud my judgment, but if attacks continue to rise and opinion in America keeps shifting against the war, the Administration may want to look at Syria as a nation-state which requires the same sort of handling as Iraq did (in their judgment) back in 2003. Either way, something must evidently be done to stem what eventually could become a public opinion tsunami that excoriates the war. America has lost only one war in its history (Vietnam, and this is not to imply some inherent American superiority in war, since many of the enemies have been underdeveloped nations or since America has often fought in coalitions, but merely to state a fact), and though it could lose a second, let's just say no one wants to go through it again.....

Yo...

2005-01-22T23:12:00.000-05:00

I have heard a great deal about blogs, but never took the time to try them out. Normally I write by hand. Old-fashioned I know, but something about it draws me in. My name is Erald. On non-internet venues, I wrote prodigiously on various topics. Here, however, I will simply describe the quotidian features of my life and not bore potential readers with opinions on polemic matters. That will be left up to politicians.