Top Ten Reasons I Got My Butt Kicked in the Beach to Beacon Road Race

I ran the Beach to Beacon road race on August 4 using an injured friends chip and number. My stategy was to find a fellow runner of equal capability and follow them as the pace setter. It did not work out and the top ten reasons I got my butt kicked in the race are:

10. The night before: two margaritas and a loaded beef burrito

9. Just before the race: delayed start because authorities detained me when I mistook the Elite Runner’s Tent for the smoking tent

8. First Half Mile: Math error and confusion with the metric system led me to train for a 0.62 mile race rather than a 6.2 mile race

7. Mile One: Several minutes lost recovering from sporty pace set by my first pace setter who turned out to be a Women’s High School Track star

6. Mile Two: Several minutes lost recovering when I mistook a spectator for an attendant offering cold water and splashed hot coffee in my face

5. Mile Three: It took a moment for an EMT to convince me that my second pace setter—a senior citizen—was not going to continue the race after they had dropped out

4. Mile Four: Several minutes needed to help clean my third pace setter after I barfed the loaded beef burrito from the night before

3. Mile Five: Cramps, muscle spasms, trouble breathing, side aches……

2. Mile Six: Forgot to “make my move” because I was busy formulating why I was not going to win this stupid race

1. Finish: Someone invited a bunch of wicked fast “outta-state” runners

Really Strange Findings about Brain Impulses

Look, I know I never post on this, but I read this article on the New Yorker site from Boing Boing that I found fascinating. Half the time you guys discuss political matters that I have not paid attention to or have much of an opinion on. However, I thought you all would appreciate this article on "itching." I'm curious about Arianna's take on this based on her studies in neuroscience. It's a little bit disturbing as it leads you into the discussion about nerve impulses and brain activity with a story about a woman's pathological itching.

New Yorker article on Itching

At first, I was just massively disturbed by what this woman had done to herself, but did not find it outside the realm of belief based on my experiences in mental health (although they were never quite this extreme). However, what hooked me was that one of her doctor's did not think that her experience was based on actual perception but rather within the brain, itself. I did relate to the experiences of waking up and doing something unintentional, most recently a bad cough I couldn't get rid of as well as an infestation of ants that had somehow made it into my bedroom (and unsettlingly, my bed). After a while, I did realize that it only took the stimulus of thinking about itching or coughing that would trigger the physical response. Much like the way you would suddenly perceive pain, once you had seen yourself bleeding or bruised. I think this is similar to the itch-scratch cycle that they mention in this article, where part of defeating the problem is to not realize/not think about it... making near impossible to conquer lest you had the mental discipline of a Zen master.

What really impressed me about the article was that it was not a brief discussion about how terrible a problem was, but that there are successful solutions being studied. The "mirror-box" method they discuss was fascinating in its implications for virtual reality-like technology, which they mention as well. I mean cheesy Tron imagery aside, it makes me wonder about how things like video games actually do affect the brain. I mean we've all seen Jon and Niall disappear for hours at a time doing something that I find repetitive and uninteresting, but from which they derive seemingly ceaseless gratification. I'm not making an argument against video games, but it just makes me wonder about less escapist explorations and about practical applications such as these cases.

Old 2003 Article on VG in Education

New Grant to Study Medical Applications of VG on Children with Cystic Fibrosis

When I was working with the Erikson Institute on the project on child reasoning, I kept stumbling upon articles on using video games to stimulate children's imaginations to improve reasoning abilities. It did fit into the logic behind the articles we were producing. VGs would help children look at situations from different perspectives (which we said was important in formulating different solutions/the development of reasons). They would also help them visualize a solution, which enhances learning and maintenance in memory (there were numerous studies where having subjects picture an activity before doing it would improve their performance during the activity - i.e. catching a ball). In any case, a friend recommended this TED Talk by Vilayanur Ramachandran about the human brain as another interesting article for discussion.

Anyone else find something along these lines? Do you think video games would ever have a permanent place in standard education (I'm not just talking about Oregon Trail here)? Should and will classes be taught in this manner? Or, do you think this would promote dissociative behavior as some claim about the use of Ipods?

Victory Delayed?

I like the idea Jon puts forth that Hillary is really working toward a defeat of Obama in the general election so that she can come back in 4-years and say "I told you he could not win." I think this is a very plausible strategy on her part, particularly when considered in light of other two other possibilities that easily align with this approach.

First is the possibility that something could happen to derail Obama's clear lead. Possibilities include events as extreme as his assignation to as mild as disenfranchisement of his followers caused by a bombastic ex-pastor. Events beyond Hillary's making could easily sink Obama's run for the candidacy and make her the facto victor because she is the last politician standing. America's infatuation with Obama is built upon the idea that he will not rub America's ugly racial past in the face of potential supporters.

The second possibility is that her efforts could defeat Obama and that she could win against the old white guy McCain.

What this view suggest is that Hillary wins even if she looses.

Clinton, Looking For Victory Delayed

I just read this article and found one piece of speculation interesting. What if Clinton is trying to make Obama lose? Why you ask? Imagine the effect of Obama winning. If Obama wins, the leadership of the party will pass to him. For at least the next 8 years, even if he only serves one term, everyone else is locked out of the top spot.

Now step back and look at the Clinton's. If their paths towards the White House was conscious, and I think it was, an Obama victory would kill Clinton path to ownership of the party and diminish their legacy. Clinton can come back to run after a Obama loses the presidency. She can't come back if Obama wins. If Obama runs and doesn't win, Clinton is back in four years. Perhaps this, and not fears that mean old John McCain will win are the real reason for her destructive efforts to take down Obama and her refusal to concede defeat. It could be that she fully realizes that she can't win the nomination, but that this is the pretense she can use to continue her attacks and cripple Obama's momentum.

It could very well be that Clinton has stayed in as long as she has not so that she can win this election, but to win the next. If a crippled Obama gets torn apart by John McCain, Hillary will be there four years later wagging her finger saying, "I told you so, now make the right decision this time."

Sovling Climate Change and Other Crazy Ideas

I found a website called TED. From the website:

The annual conference now brings together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes).

TED has a whole pile of lectures in offering up various radical and innovative ideas. The website is well worth a good look over. One lecture I saw on climate change. In it, the lecturer argues that geo-enegineering is not only completely possible, but cheap and well within out current grasp. While he does advocate emissions reductions, he puts forward the argument that geo-engineering should at least be considered as a viable method of taking imminent actions to stave off imminent climate disasters.

How Will History Treat Sanchez?

On October 12, 2007, retired General Ricardo S. Sanchez made a speech at the Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon. General Sanchez led the coalition as the top military commander from June of 2003 to June of 2004. During his shift, Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay were killed, and the second battle of Falujah was fought. Also, the Abu Ghraib defeat occurred.

I traveled to NY city the day he made his speech and heard several reports on the radio and TV. The reports expressed Sanchez's strong criticism of the Bush administration and declared the War as un-windable. I did not have a PC and access to my regular sources of information. To me, a believer in an ultimate military victory in Iraq, Sanchez sounded jaded and bitter.

As a veracious reader of military history, I could imagine future historians treating Sanchez poorly. Historians spend a major portion of their analysis on the leaders that guide the battles. In particular, Civil War historians have dedicated major segments of their discussion to the various Commanders of the Army of the Potomac (AoP). President Lincoln found himself frequently changing Commanders in an effort to defeat Lee's army. Volumes have been written about each commander and how their character and personality contributed to the failure of the AoP. Some of the failed Commanders lived very enigmatic lives after retiring from service. I imagined that a similar pattern would develop for Sanchez--that is, he was one of the many failing Commanders before General Pateaus arrived.

Michael Yon posted Sanchez's complete speech and titled it "Listen Respectfully". I was surprised because in his introduction he encouraged visitors to read the speech with an open mind:

Lieutenant General (Ret.) Ricardo S. Sanchez delivered a public speech yesterday that has been widely picked up in the media, including the New York Times. The thrust of the many articles about his speech tend to focus on LTG (Ret.) Sanchez’ view of the war in Iraq. Some of his current views are a bit dated, but out of respect for a man who served his country for decades, and who clearly is a defender of the United States, it seems just to print his entire speech. Sanchez is a man who should be heard.

This writer disagrees with much of what Sanchez says about the current state of Iraq, but what he says about the media seems spot-on.

So I read the speech and was surprised to discover that what the radio and TV media presented was but a small piece of what Sanchez had to say. My analysis of the speech reduced Sanchez distertation to four major points:

1. The journalistic profession is corrupted and without standards, which may contribute to any defeat suffered by the US and its allies.
2. The US and its allies lacked a grand strategy to win and it is the responsibility of US political leaders (Legislative as well as Executive leaders) to formulate that strategy.
3. Political and inter-agency rivalries threaten American victory in Iraq.
4. The US cannot not leave or withdraw from Iraq.

Wow! How could this be? Of 3409 words in his speech, 1369 were devoted to criticism of the press yet I heard not a word in the four days of media reporting and analysis. One third of the speech was a well thought out discussion about the role of a free press during war. I think Sanchez summed it up well with the following question:

who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?

The balance of Sanchez's speech discussed the failure of the United States to recognize "tremendous economic and political capacity had to be mobilized, synchronized and applied if we were to achieve victory in a global war." He alluded to the total war footing the US took during WWII as the needed action by the country to win in Iraq and against the Islamic extremists. He was critical of the Bush administration but he was not specific as to what was needed to win beyond total war. He held Congress responsible as well.

How will future historians treat Sanchez? Certainly this speech will be included in their analysis.

Military Transformation and the Impact on National Policies

This link points to an interesting article by Major General Alan Peck attempting to describe the USAF's role in COIN warfare. The power in the article emanates more from its existence than from its contents. The essay is not particularly enlightening and appears to be loaded with buzzwords, acronyms, and descriptions of air force capabilities. But the fact that the USAF is actively trying to understand and mold itself to make meaningful contributions to COIN operations is an example of how the US armed forces are transitioning from the cold war to COIN war. General Peck's essay along with other debates underway in the Army exemplify the learning and dynamic nature of the US armed forces.

This morphing of the US's armed forces is intriguing when studied in light of the original neoconservative policy that led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Recall that the original neocon positioned argued that if the US used its overwhelming military power to overthrow a few despotic rulers, other dictators would fall in line and move toward democracy. Following Saddam's capture, Kadafi's surrender of the Lybian nuclear program provided partial credence that this strategy was affective--that is, until Iraq's slide into a guerrilla and near-civil war, which convinced many observers the US is not capable of executing this strategy. The lightning victory over Saddam's armies indicated the US forces were easily capable of destroying a dictator's conventional forces, but the painful and disastrous guerrilla war that followed proved US occupation and nation building incompetence .

After the Vietnam War defeat, the US successfully avoided major military engagements other than the Cold War until the first Gulf War. The sixteen years between the two wars saw the US briefly involved in only a few military contests and American leaders appeared unwilling to sustain losses. Reagan's withdrawal from Beirut suggested that the US would retreat in the face of a quagmire, which is not a surprise considering the Vietnam experience--and Reagan was a hawk.

All the Democratic Presidential candidates have stated they will not permanently keep troops in Iraq. The top three Republican candidates have always expressed their intent to keep troops in Iraq for years to come. With the military victory in Iraq progressing and becoming more obvious though, the Presidential candidates are expressing a willingness to keep US forces in Iraq for a longer period of time. Hillary has been clearer in her commitment to remain in Iraq for the foreseeable future as ABC reported:

"I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” she said, which require the continued presence of American troops.

Like a true politician Hillary states a slightly different policy on her website:

Hillary opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She believes we may need a vastly reduced residual force to train Iraqi troops, provide logistical support, and conduct counter terrorism operations. But that is not a permanent force, and she has been clear that she does not plan a permanent occupation.

So it is likely the next President will keep troops permanently in Iraq. Much like American troops in Europe and Korea following WWII, their presence will provide the foundation to build a modern indigenous armed forces and eventually a modern government. What will happen if the US successfully transitions Iraq and Afghanistan into free democracies in the same manner as, say, Korea and Malaysia? Will the transformation of the US armed forces to win in Iraq and Afghanistan provide the capability to execute the neocon policy?

The question then becomes, would the nation have the political will to ever undertake an operation like Iraq again? The issue might not be what risks would future American leaders take, but what risks would future despotic leaders take.