I haven't posted in awhile, the back injury kinda killed the groove. But I was back at work last week and I've had a thought festering that I want to write. So here goes...
Resolved:
The world should (and in many ways has) adopt a single currency for any and all international trade
I'll act like I'm debating you, and if you want, please post rebuttals in the comments section.
First of all, in order to fairly exchange goods, you and I must have a standard by which we value those goods. Many things affect that standard, such as the difficulty it was to create or harvest, the distance it had to travel to the exchange, the scarcity of it or its parts and the desire or need it satisfies. In other words, an economic system must exist. In the case of America, the dollar's value is determined by its borrowing power, spending power, and in what I believe is an increasingly mythical sense, gold.
When I trade with someone across national lines, the values needs a standard. Currently its determined by the exchange rates. International currency trading, a truly magical thing, compares the various value determiners and sets a comparison, i.e. $1.38 for € 1 (Euro). I believe this is stupid.
I believe a single currency, backed by 6 major production categories and derived from the 5 strongest economies across those categories, would make life much simpler. It would be reevaluated every year by a committee of bankers and businessmen at the UN. Every 4 years, alternating the seats, half of this 20-25 individual committee would be elected from the top 100 economies in the UN, determined by the committee itself. The first committee would be selected by a special convention of economists and world leaders but I'm wondering off my original trail of thought.
The 6 major categories would be: Energy, Agriculture, Raw Materials, Defense, Technology, Non-Consumables (Textiles, Infrastructure, Construction, Etc.)
Each nation would be compared both on a gross evaluation and a per capita evaluation per category; and a formula, which I would be unqualified to write but probably would enjoy trying, would determine that nation's TCV (Total Currency Value). The top 5 in composite TCV score, across all the categories, would be the economies that would back the currency.
Over the course of 10 years, each UN member nation would begin printing the new currency and supplying it to their banks. The various nation's current currencies would be rated against the new composite currency much like the dollar and euro are compared today. As the old currency is spent, slowly but surely all of it would be absorbed into the banking system and exchanged into the World Bank for the new stuff, at whatever rate that particular country's currency was valued at. The World Bank exists, look it up.
After that, all international transactions, and if a country is particularly excited about the idea, even domestic transactions, would be carried out using the new universal coin. I think a good name would be Terra. That way you could have a Centerra (hundred Terra bill), Militerra (million Terra bill), Decaterra (10) etc. All coinage, or fractions of a Terra, would be eliminated. Rounding to the nearest 1 Terra would be mandatory. Imagine the simplicity!
Along with the simplicity a universal currency provides, it also allows the UN to level meaningful sanctions and penalties on non-participatory governments. What is currently a laughable slap on the wrist would become an economical nightmare. Truly self-sustaining economies can no longer exist, but with a universal coin, they'd be illegal.
I see you Isolationist, squirming and fuming at my ideas. I've got a simile for ya.
Isolationism is a like a man choosing to live on a secluded island. He may like it at first, but eventually he'll either go crazy, starve, die from exposure, or get eaten by a wild animal.
Nations can do those things too. A nation going crazy, is when the culture develops fanaticism, much like the Japanese pre-WWII. With no global-sense, they had been bred to believe they were the center of the universe and their emperor was divinity. Eventually that lead to rampant imperialism and sneak attacking the largest 2 countries in the world (China and the USA) (make it 3 and include the Ruso-Japanese war). Sounds like insanity to me.
A nation can also starve or die from exposure. More obvious here, but not having the necessary things, whether they be food or energy or guns, is eventually disastrous. Lack of something important is the primary cause for a large majority of international conflicts, which are more commonly known as wars.
Finally, nations can get eaten. When you choose to not be apart of the group, eventually the group will come take your stuff. Not saying its right, just saying that's how it is.
So, rebut away if you dare, but in the meantime vote for me for UN Secretary General so I can get the ball rolling on this thing.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Thursday, September 12, 2013
First Cause
To continue crafting an alternative history I must find the cause of the event I want to remove. The larger the event the more complicated its causation. The American Civil War had a massive impact on the world as we know it and as expected its causation is extremely complicated. We have to go back to the very roots of America to find an event, a cast of characters, a point in time when the conflict began to develop. I've thought through several choices, I'll list them and the pros and cons and reveal my choice.
I could remove Abraham Lincoln from history. His inauguration is the immediate cause for war. The Confederate leadership issued an ultimatum and Lincoln's administration ignored it. However, even removing a man as influential as Lincoln would be far too late to stop the war. The conflict had reached an inevitability which one man could not stop. However, his desire to preserve the union and strong leadership would not necessarily mean he'd launch the war if the situation wasn't as tense as it actually was. So, Lincoln isn't the answer.
I could remove slavery. But that isn't feasible. Slavery is a global occurrence. Nearly every culture has been impacted by it in some way. Arbitrarily removing something like slavery, such as religion, writing, or adding something like magic or alien contact is the realm of fantasy not alternative history. So slavery stays.
There's a 3 pronged "possibilities" tree which the history of the United States has in relation to the slavery question. Slavery, freedom or compromise. Actual history shows our leaders choosing the compromise path again and again till it finally exploded into the bloodiest war in our nation's history. That leaves either a wholesale commitment to either slavery or freedom. As we've established already, I do not find it feasible to eliminate slavery from the question entirely, but I also do not believe slavery is just or sustainable. So, I don't believe its feasible that the early American leadership would've constitutionalized slavery. Even if they did, given enough time, every culture's slaves have risen up to find their freedom. Therefore, I don't believe that truly gives us an America devoid of a Civil War, it just gives an America with a massive slave rebellion.
In conclusion, freedom, the eradication of slavery in America, must occur another way. Otherwise, an armed conflict cannot be avoided.
One of my heroes, a southern gentleman and brilliant politician, may be the key to this problem. John C Calhoun, Vice President under Andrew Jackson, was part of the first big secession battle. Had Jackson not been one of the strongest Presidents our country has seen, he may have succeeded seceding...say that 5 times fast. Calhoun was the strongest voice for the slave owning south for years, remove him and the congressional pressure would lean free. Of course, a contrarian would suggest that the void created by Calhoun's absence would be filled by an equally as ardent "slave-state" voice.
Or perhaps Henry Clay is the answer. The "Great Compromiser" ran for president three times, once in 1824 tilting the balance for JQ Adams, once in 1832 getting pounded by Andrew Jackson and again much later in 1844 as his party dwindled and died. Say he ran in '40, against Van Buren.
If Henry Clay had been elected President the American Civil War would not have occurred.
Next week I'll try to prove that virtually indefensibly statement.
Braves magic number is 6. I really hope we resign Elliot Johnson, the guy is legit.
I could remove Abraham Lincoln from history. His inauguration is the immediate cause for war. The Confederate leadership issued an ultimatum and Lincoln's administration ignored it. However, even removing a man as influential as Lincoln would be far too late to stop the war. The conflict had reached an inevitability which one man could not stop. However, his desire to preserve the union and strong leadership would not necessarily mean he'd launch the war if the situation wasn't as tense as it actually was. So, Lincoln isn't the answer.
I could remove slavery. But that isn't feasible. Slavery is a global occurrence. Nearly every culture has been impacted by it in some way. Arbitrarily removing something like slavery, such as religion, writing, or adding something like magic or alien contact is the realm of fantasy not alternative history. So slavery stays.
There's a 3 pronged "possibilities" tree which the history of the United States has in relation to the slavery question. Slavery, freedom or compromise. Actual history shows our leaders choosing the compromise path again and again till it finally exploded into the bloodiest war in our nation's history. That leaves either a wholesale commitment to either slavery or freedom. As we've established already, I do not find it feasible to eliminate slavery from the question entirely, but I also do not believe slavery is just or sustainable. So, I don't believe its feasible that the early American leadership would've constitutionalized slavery. Even if they did, given enough time, every culture's slaves have risen up to find their freedom. Therefore, I don't believe that truly gives us an America devoid of a Civil War, it just gives an America with a massive slave rebellion.
In conclusion, freedom, the eradication of slavery in America, must occur another way. Otherwise, an armed conflict cannot be avoided.
One of my heroes, a southern gentleman and brilliant politician, may be the key to this problem. John C Calhoun, Vice President under Andrew Jackson, was part of the first big secession battle. Had Jackson not been one of the strongest Presidents our country has seen, he may have succeeded seceding...say that 5 times fast. Calhoun was the strongest voice for the slave owning south for years, remove him and the congressional pressure would lean free. Of course, a contrarian would suggest that the void created by Calhoun's absence would be filled by an equally as ardent "slave-state" voice.
Or perhaps Henry Clay is the answer. The "Great Compromiser" ran for president three times, once in 1824 tilting the balance for JQ Adams, once in 1832 getting pounded by Andrew Jackson and again much later in 1844 as his party dwindled and died. Say he ran in '40, against Van Buren.
If Henry Clay had been elected President the American Civil War would not have occurred.
Next week I'll try to prove that virtually indefensibly statement.
Braves magic number is 6. I really hope we resign Elliot Johnson, the guy is legit.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
What If...
I am a History nerd. I am flattered when someone introduces me as a "History Buff" but I've known too many brilliant Historians to consider myself in any way extraordinary in relation to my knowledge of history. One of the first things I think of to relieve stress, occupy boredom or just liven up an hour or two by myself is reading alternative histories. Its a beautiful combination of history, fiction, biography and fantasy. The best alternative histories are more than stories, but actually an exploration of cause and effect. One afternoon I lost 4 or 5 hours to a history of Asia and Europe without Genghis Khan. Amazing. I've decided I'm going to try and craft an alternative history. The easy, and frequently visited, options are "What If Stonewall Jackson had been at Gettysburg" "What If the British hadn't escaped at Dunkirk" "What If any number of extraordinary military circumstances in the American Revolution hadn't occurred" I'd like to try something a little different.
What If...the American Civil War had not occurred, but instead the United States and President Breckinridge were major players in Imperialism. American global dominance began a little early. Instead of a quarter of a generation wiped out killing each other, instead America turned its focus elsewhere. By the time Teddy comes along, American colonies are thriving in the Caribbean, West Africa and South America. He kicks it into overdrive, establishes the Roosevelt Doctrine, a 2nd Manifest Destiny, declaring that the American Constitution is the only perfect form of government and needs to be shared. Soon Japan, a large chunk of Saharan Africa and Mexico elect to be states. The states are grouped into provinces and the provincial governors gain considerable power. Slavery, as defined by constitutional amendment, was permitted but controlled. As the European conflicts increased in scope, the American holdings were solidified. Imperialism coupled with immigration results in quickly overloading the cities of the continental US. As industry and communication develop, the various "provinces" begin to find unique specialties. Just as the power and uniqueness begin to pull the US apart, the global struggles ironically launched on the pretense of balance, unify and strengthen the superpower. And so on...
Thursday I'll try to flesh out some details. Bare with me, this stuff is pretty difficult.
Braves magic number is 7.
What If...the American Civil War had not occurred, but instead the United States and President Breckinridge were major players in Imperialism. American global dominance began a little early. Instead of a quarter of a generation wiped out killing each other, instead America turned its focus elsewhere. By the time Teddy comes along, American colonies are thriving in the Caribbean, West Africa and South America. He kicks it into overdrive, establishes the Roosevelt Doctrine, a 2nd Manifest Destiny, declaring that the American Constitution is the only perfect form of government and needs to be shared. Soon Japan, a large chunk of Saharan Africa and Mexico elect to be states. The states are grouped into provinces and the provincial governors gain considerable power. Slavery, as defined by constitutional amendment, was permitted but controlled. As the European conflicts increased in scope, the American holdings were solidified. Imperialism coupled with immigration results in quickly overloading the cities of the continental US. As industry and communication develop, the various "provinces" begin to find unique specialties. Just as the power and uniqueness begin to pull the US apart, the global struggles ironically launched on the pretense of balance, unify and strengthen the superpower. And so on...
Thursday I'll try to flesh out some details. Bare with me, this stuff is pretty difficult.
Braves magic number is 7.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Book Review: The Dune series
It's been a couple months since I finished the last book in Frank Herbert's monumental sci-fi "quadrilogy...qurilogy...4 book thing." However, the concepts upon which he built the epic are both fundamental to the genre and owe their preeminence to the way he handled them. There's a massive amount of good stuff so I'll condense and address 2 major topics, Time and Religion.
Herbert's handling of time is fascinating. The series takes place years in the future in a galaxy far, far away. However, everything that takes place is impacted by various epochs of history. Those events and eras, however fictional or nonfictional they are, enter the story through their impact of culture, technology, and the people themselves. Then, of course, a group of characters gain a "time-sense" which is beyond the normal human experience. At first, the initial "seer" can only enter this state with the perfect circumstances. By the end of the series, several characters have viewed "time" in its entirety, and for better or worse, are eternally changed by it. He describes it very similarly to the way Hindus describe "oneness." Two characters in particular who face time in all its glory choose two separate paths. The one knows he destiny and runs from it. He plucks out his eyes, abandons his followers and tries to hide. Fate pursues him to his death, he never has peace, he looses everything he cared about. Yet, he feels he chose the easier path. To this character, being a puppet of fate was worse than the misery of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Cooperating with his own destiny, accepting who he was meant to be was in his mind locking the door to his own prison. The other character fully embraces his "time-sense" and becomes a demi god. The "God Emperor of Dune" the final book of the series, is his story. More philosophy and psychology is crammed into those pages than the rest of my 1400 or so book library. The result of embracing fate? Misery. Ironic but telling that Herbert feels time, or in his case mortality, that which makes us human, also makes life most miserable. The demigod, Leo III, abandons all that made him human and yet in the end is rewarded with nothing but eternal pain. I had to read several passages of the last book several times over to understand them. In comparison with the action and intrigue of the first book its infinitely more didactic and vague. I enjoyed it immensely.
Time
Herbert's handling of time is fascinating. The series takes place years in the future in a galaxy far, far away. However, everything that takes place is impacted by various epochs of history. Those events and eras, however fictional or nonfictional they are, enter the story through their impact of culture, technology, and the people themselves. Then, of course, a group of characters gain a "time-sense" which is beyond the normal human experience. At first, the initial "seer" can only enter this state with the perfect circumstances. By the end of the series, several characters have viewed "time" in its entirety, and for better or worse, are eternally changed by it. He describes it very similarly to the way Hindus describe "oneness." Two characters in particular who face time in all its glory choose two separate paths. The one knows he destiny and runs from it. He plucks out his eyes, abandons his followers and tries to hide. Fate pursues him to his death, he never has peace, he looses everything he cared about. Yet, he feels he chose the easier path. To this character, being a puppet of fate was worse than the misery of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Cooperating with his own destiny, accepting who he was meant to be was in his mind locking the door to his own prison. The other character fully embraces his "time-sense" and becomes a demi god. The "God Emperor of Dune" the final book of the series, is his story. More philosophy and psychology is crammed into those pages than the rest of my 1400 or so book library. The result of embracing fate? Misery. Ironic but telling that Herbert feels time, or in his case mortality, that which makes us human, also makes life most miserable. The demigod, Leo III, abandons all that made him human and yet in the end is rewarded with nothing but eternal pain. I had to read several passages of the last book several times over to understand them. In comparison with the action and intrigue of the first book its infinitely more didactic and vague. I enjoyed it immensely.
Religion
The Galactic Empire vs the Freemen, technology vs tribalism, Imperialism vs nomadism, organized religion vs paganism. Barely pages into the 2nd book its starkly apparent which side Herbert takes in each of these categories. Interestingly, Herbert wrote agriculture textbooks as well as sci-fi so he really did believe in his "freemen." The diaspora of the original people smells like historical analogy, which is confirmed when the freemen are the chosen people of the God Emperor. The religious conquests weaken the foundation upon which they are built, which again sounds familiar. Maybe I just see history in everything, but I think Herbert understood the church's history well. Its almost a reverse telling of a universalists' history of religion. First the "church" is an integrated and unassuming member of the culture. Then it gains power and conquers the universe. Finally, their deity walks among them and sacrifices his life for them. Unfortunately, the Worm's message is universalism to the utter most. He dies to give the freemen the chance to discover that the ultimate experience is the here and now. For Herbert, having access to all time, knowing one's destiny, knowing when death would come, would steal the joy from life. Leo III tells his associate to enjoy life's surprises, because they are its value. So worship is only recommended in the event that it would increase the joy/fulfillment of the here and now. All humans are connected through time by reincarnation so live your life to the fullest and rest in the idea that someone else will live your life again. When I picked up the series I had no idea it would be so deep. If that doesn't sound appealing, you should at least try the first book, its much more exciting and less "thinky" than the other 3.
Braves continue to cruise. Dropped 13 on Miami last night, would love to see some MVP votes behind Freddie Freeman's name at the end of the year. As has been noted, the Braves have 3 players with last names starting with "U" Uggla, Upton, Upton, they have 3 Johnsons, Chris, Elliot and Reed, and have 3 Freddie's, Fredi Gonzalez, Freddy Garcia and Freddie Freeman. Weird.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
The Short Reliever Solution
Sorry non-sports people, today I write about a Baseball idea. I have kicked this around with several people and decided its time to write it out.
Currently a 25 man roster has either 12 or 13 pitchers on it. Five of them are usually "starters", that is they begin the games and are supposed to be trying to finish them. Six or Seven of them are "relievers" they enter the game after the "starters" either due to matchups, injury, performance or fatigue. The last guy is the "closer" he is usually tasked with finishing games which are within a run or two of being tied. Usually he enters for a "save chance" which is either the last 3 innings of the game, the last out of a game which is within 4 runs or the final outs as long as the he entered when the game was within 4 and faces the potential tying run and prevents the tie from occurring ending the game. These days, the "relievers" are broken into two groups as well. "Specialists" and "long relievers." The specialists enter the game for one or two batters which they have a % advantage against. Such as a lefty with a good changeup against power hitting lefties. The long relievers are available for situations when a starter gets hurt or a game goes into extra innings and the team needs one guy to go 3 or more innings. The specialization has done several things for baseball. It has allowed for more turnover on rosters, as starters that can't sustain success and have scores of available talent either in the majors as relievers or in the minors that can replace them or in cases where the bullpen (the relief pitchers) is used as a training ground for young potential starters. It has only been this way for a little while. The great relievers of yesteryear typical threw close to 200 innings in their pursuit of saves and often were referred to as "relief aces" because they were the best pitchers on the team. Guys like Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers and Goose Gossage were workhorse arms that would've started for any team today. Early on, complete games and shutouts happened constantly. Cy Young had a season in which he had 1 more walks allowed than shutouts. Read that a couple times, and then you will never wonder why they named the award after him.
I purpose a new change. Not returning to the old model, but forging a new one. Short Relievers. They exist, but they have the least important position on the roster (if we're counting by dollars spent). This change would need to start from the beginning, from the ground up. The organization would start by focusing their pitching scouting on "six out" arms. Guys that have ++ stuff despite possible troubles with stamina and control. Pitchers like Fernando Rodney, Johnny Venters, David Robertson, Mark Melancon, Luke Gregerson, Tyler Clippard etc, are examples of the guys that fit the system. They would hold 10 pitchers at each level, and in a perfect world use 4 each game. One of them would be tasked with 9 outs while the other 3 have 6. Right/Left matchups, Wins/Losses, Saves/Holds would all be unnecessary and outdated means of assessment. Bases Allowed versus Outs would be the key stat. Instead of focusing on pitch counts and getting through the 5th inning, the pitcher would be only focused on getting his 3 or 6 or 9 outs.
Right now they try to keep a pitcher from having to pitch more than 100-140 pitches every 5 days. A comfortable inning is usually around 20 pitches, an uncomfortable inning is closer to 30. That being said, a guy can usually pitch in 3 or 4 games in a row if called upon. That way 10 pitchers would be plenty, especially if an arbitrary pitch count, say 70, was placed on the relievers. That way you have the 4 guys for game 1, 4 guys for game 2 and 2 guys for emergencies. Not only could a pitcher throw in back to back games, but since he typically would only throw 45-50 pitches he would be available again after just a 2 or 3 game break.
Financially, if the rest of the league was slow on the upkeep, the pitching budget for a the Short Reliever System would be comfortably below the league average and allow for more spending on the offense. Also, the arbitration hearings would be based on commonly accepted achievements, again giving the organization an advantage. In the long run, however, if the system were to work, all pitchers would be paid the same, and most likely net salaries would go up.
The biggest problem is how the players would feel. Awards like the Cy Young and Reliever of the Year are usually given out based on stats. I already mentioned the pay would be lower for longer and of course deciding who is the "Ace" and "Closer" would be moot points. As far as team construction, this seems like a plus, but for the players themselves it could get tough.
Fire away.
Braves have won 23 of their last 30 and still have the best record in Baseball. The fact literally NO ONE is picking them to win the World Series is ridiculous. I admit, even as a ravenous Braves fan, I am very afraid of the Cardinals, Reds, Rays, Tigers and A's...Not so much of the Dodgers, Pirates, Red Sox and Rangers.
Currently a 25 man roster has either 12 or 13 pitchers on it. Five of them are usually "starters", that is they begin the games and are supposed to be trying to finish them. Six or Seven of them are "relievers" they enter the game after the "starters" either due to matchups, injury, performance or fatigue. The last guy is the "closer" he is usually tasked with finishing games which are within a run or two of being tied. Usually he enters for a "save chance" which is either the last 3 innings of the game, the last out of a game which is within 4 runs or the final outs as long as the he entered when the game was within 4 and faces the potential tying run and prevents the tie from occurring ending the game. These days, the "relievers" are broken into two groups as well. "Specialists" and "long relievers." The specialists enter the game for one or two batters which they have a % advantage against. Such as a lefty with a good changeup against power hitting lefties. The long relievers are available for situations when a starter gets hurt or a game goes into extra innings and the team needs one guy to go 3 or more innings. The specialization has done several things for baseball. It has allowed for more turnover on rosters, as starters that can't sustain success and have scores of available talent either in the majors as relievers or in the minors that can replace them or in cases where the bullpen (the relief pitchers) is used as a training ground for young potential starters. It has only been this way for a little while. The great relievers of yesteryear typical threw close to 200 innings in their pursuit of saves and often were referred to as "relief aces" because they were the best pitchers on the team. Guys like Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers and Goose Gossage were workhorse arms that would've started for any team today. Early on, complete games and shutouts happened constantly. Cy Young had a season in which he had 1 more walks allowed than shutouts. Read that a couple times, and then you will never wonder why they named the award after him.
I purpose a new change. Not returning to the old model, but forging a new one. Short Relievers. They exist, but they have the least important position on the roster (if we're counting by dollars spent). This change would need to start from the beginning, from the ground up. The organization would start by focusing their pitching scouting on "six out" arms. Guys that have ++ stuff despite possible troubles with stamina and control. Pitchers like Fernando Rodney, Johnny Venters, David Robertson, Mark Melancon, Luke Gregerson, Tyler Clippard etc, are examples of the guys that fit the system. They would hold 10 pitchers at each level, and in a perfect world use 4 each game. One of them would be tasked with 9 outs while the other 3 have 6. Right/Left matchups, Wins/Losses, Saves/Holds would all be unnecessary and outdated means of assessment. Bases Allowed versus Outs would be the key stat. Instead of focusing on pitch counts and getting through the 5th inning, the pitcher would be only focused on getting his 3 or 6 or 9 outs.
Right now they try to keep a pitcher from having to pitch more than 100-140 pitches every 5 days. A comfortable inning is usually around 20 pitches, an uncomfortable inning is closer to 30. That being said, a guy can usually pitch in 3 or 4 games in a row if called upon. That way 10 pitchers would be plenty, especially if an arbitrary pitch count, say 70, was placed on the relievers. That way you have the 4 guys for game 1, 4 guys for game 2 and 2 guys for emergencies. Not only could a pitcher throw in back to back games, but since he typically would only throw 45-50 pitches he would be available again after just a 2 or 3 game break.
Financially, if the rest of the league was slow on the upkeep, the pitching budget for a the Short Reliever System would be comfortably below the league average and allow for more spending on the offense. Also, the arbitration hearings would be based on commonly accepted achievements, again giving the organization an advantage. In the long run, however, if the system were to work, all pitchers would be paid the same, and most likely net salaries would go up.
The biggest problem is how the players would feel. Awards like the Cy Young and Reliever of the Year are usually given out based on stats. I already mentioned the pay would be lower for longer and of course deciding who is the "Ace" and "Closer" would be moot points. As far as team construction, this seems like a plus, but for the players themselves it could get tough.
Fire away.
Braves have won 23 of their last 30 and still have the best record in Baseball. The fact literally NO ONE is picking them to win the World Series is ridiculous. I admit, even as a ravenous Braves fan, I am very afraid of the Cardinals, Reds, Rays, Tigers and A's...Not so much of the Dodgers, Pirates, Red Sox and Rangers.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
No Pain, No Gain
I'm in a fair amount of pain so its been on the mind recently. I'm doing Physical Therapy twice a week and each time my therapist asks what my pain is on a scale of 1 to 10. Anyone who's been in a Dr's Office, Hospital or watched a Hospital Drama knows what the 10-point pain scale is. It is the most frustrating, arbitrary and yet important concept in Health Care. There is no way, as I've mentioned before, for a person to experience another person's pain. My experiences, nervous system and focus all contribute to the amount of pain I tolerate, all three things which will be different from yours. Because of this I've tried different ways to decide which number to assign to whatever pain I happen to be in the office to complain about. Usually I go by the little faces on the little poster you all know I'm talking about. I usually say a number between 4 and 8. In my mind a 10 would be 1000 volts of electricity or a gunshot wound while a 1 would be no pain at all. However, as I've thought about it, I think a more descriptive method would be describing this pain in relation to the other pains I have experienced.
As I've thought about this, I've decided I've had an extremely easy life. I've had one surgery which is inextricably linked to my one broken bone. I was born with 2 "conditions", one of which I grew out of (asthma) and one which is under control (allergies). Never been electrocuted, never fallen more than a few stories, never passed out or been shot (other than paint balls). So, here are the most painful things I've experienced in order.
Least - Well, anytime I haven't been in pain
1 - Sprained my ankle pretty bad this one time and had to use crutches at work
2 - Had some pretty nasty migraines which my mother falsely attributed to video games and candy but were actually a result of dog hair and pollen allergies
3 - Got hit about six inches above the knee on the inside of my right leg by a 58-60 mph fastball
4 - I had infected lymph nodes when I was like 8, my ear canal felt like it was going to explode
Middle - I sprained/tore my left oblique (my current injury)
6 - A Hornet stung me on the upper lip at my mom's grandparent's house and it swelled up so big I could see it
7 - After my nasal surgery I developed a sore throat which two vicodin and a constant stream of lausanges couldn't hold down, absolute misery
8 - Got drilled in the face when I missed a toss from my dad (most likely broke my nose leading to the aforementioned surgery)
9 - Nearly burned by thumb print off on a chipper shredder's muffler, but I was 6 or something so the memory is pretty hazy, If I had a better memory of this it would probably be the most
Most - I dropped a rock on my right foot. I'm not talking a skipping stone, this solid piece of granite was at least 75 lbs and I was wearing sandals. I was probably around 13-14 yrs old and my dad had to carry me several hundred yards to our car. Apparently it didn't break the toe, but it shattered the nail and it still hasn't healed entirely (neither has the other leaving me with some gnarly big toenails)
Pretty easy life I've had so far.
Braves magic number is 19 with 31 to go and still have the best record in baseball.
As I've thought about this, I've decided I've had an extremely easy life. I've had one surgery which is inextricably linked to my one broken bone. I was born with 2 "conditions", one of which I grew out of (asthma) and one which is under control (allergies). Never been electrocuted, never fallen more than a few stories, never passed out or been shot (other than paint balls). So, here are the most painful things I've experienced in order.
Least - Well, anytime I haven't been in pain
1 - Sprained my ankle pretty bad this one time and had to use crutches at work
2 - Had some pretty nasty migraines which my mother falsely attributed to video games and candy but were actually a result of dog hair and pollen allergies
3 - Got hit about six inches above the knee on the inside of my right leg by a 58-60 mph fastball
4 - I had infected lymph nodes when I was like 8, my ear canal felt like it was going to explode
Middle - I sprained/tore my left oblique (my current injury)
6 - A Hornet stung me on the upper lip at my mom's grandparent's house and it swelled up so big I could see it
7 - After my nasal surgery I developed a sore throat which two vicodin and a constant stream of lausanges couldn't hold down, absolute misery
8 - Got drilled in the face when I missed a toss from my dad (most likely broke my nose leading to the aforementioned surgery)
9 - Nearly burned by thumb print off on a chipper shredder's muffler, but I was 6 or something so the memory is pretty hazy, If I had a better memory of this it would probably be the most
Most - I dropped a rock on my right foot. I'm not talking a skipping stone, this solid piece of granite was at least 75 lbs and I was wearing sandals. I was probably around 13-14 yrs old and my dad had to carry me several hundred yards to our car. Apparently it didn't break the toe, but it shattered the nail and it still hasn't healed entirely (neither has the other leaving me with some gnarly big toenails)
Pretty easy life I've had so far.
Braves magic number is 19 with 31 to go and still have the best record in baseball.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
The 5 Greatest Generals and some other stuff
Day 13 out of work. Still in pain, but the doc adjusted my meds so I'm not going all hallucinogenic anymore. Twice a week PT and a scheduled visit with a Specialist which leaves hours of sitting around in pain. Not being at work is, as expected, mostly nice. I get to be with my wife and child spending the days quite frivolously. However, boredom has set in. That and uncertainty due to being on comp meaning no 2nd job and no OT which means less income which means tighter budget. That being said, I'll try to keep my complaining to a minimum.
"Real Life" has taught me a few things. Surprising right? But one of the things I've learned best is that everything happens at once. Every time something big happens, whether it be financial, social, spiritual, work-related or family-related, a bunch of other big things happen in several of the other facets of life. We can go months at a time without changing even the slightest aspect of our routine, then BAM all the dominoes start crashing around. That is happening now.
I kicked around devoting this post to the dominoes that are crashing around us but instead wanted to think about something else for a little bit. So here's one of the few topics of conversation I can carry for hours: Military History.
The 5 Greatest Generals in the History of the World.
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
This is not a slam dunk, nobody else is close, type of choice. The next 4 guys have solid arguments in their favor. However, Napoleon conquered the majority of Europe in a time when armies were both large and developed. Trains made bringing a sizable amount of troops from miles away a tactical possibility. Gunpowder made numbers mean less and tactics mean more. The warfare of the Napoleonic Wars (gotta mean something when you name the era after him) was the perfect type of warfare to display a general's abilities. Bonaparte wasn't just a brilliant tactician, he also was an accomplished artillery engineer and possibly the greatest motivator of all time. The men who lead his armies were every bit as tactically brilliant as Napoleon, but many of them not only blindly followed his orders but also accepted exile along side their Emperor. Napoleon was at the same time the best and worst thing to come out of the French Revolution. He embodied the end result of unbridled ambition coupled with endless genius. His weakness? He trusted Spain too much and couldn't muster a decent Navy. In my humble opinion, had he fielded a decent Navy he would have conquered the British Iles. Even if everything else goes precisely as it did, with the Russian counterattack and Spanish rebellion squeezing the French into submission, the world would have been profoundly altered. Then, after defeat and exile, he managed to scare the world within an inch of its life and in a very short time united all of Europe against him. What a legacy.
Tactics: 10 (Movements during battle)
Strategy: 10 (The Plan of Battle)
Personal Prowess: 8 (Individual combat)
Leadership: 10 (Who he led and how they followed)
Contemporaries: 7 (Who he defeated and how badly)
Legacy: 10 (How he will be remembered)
2. Alexander III the Great
Hard to be better than this guy. He has the distinction of being the first great conqueror. There were conquerors before him but none of them did it like he did. None of them were great. Not only are his tactical skills virtually unmatched, he managed to forge an Empire which he personally ruled for only a few years. You might suggest that is a weakness, however Alexander was such a brilliant manager, he unified as he conquered, something no one else has ever accomplished (save perhaps the Mongols who might appear in this list). Who he defeated is not an impressive list, how badly he defeated them is astounding. Alexander would go into battle with 10-1, 8-1 and 5-1 odds and the end results would be ridiculous. There are recorded casualty numbers from battles, when hand-to-hand combat was the common method, where Alexander would lose 100 or so men while he opponent lost thousands. This is hardly believable. Is it because the Macedonians were somehow better soldiers? I doubt it, Alexander always supplemented his armies with Mercenaries and conquered subjects. It was because Alexander's genius and according to records personal bravery was incredible. Is it possible Alexander's incredible feats are merely a product of "he who wins writes the History books" or however that goes? Yeah, most likely. But he won. A lot. Every major civilization which means anything to the development of Eurasian History that existed prior to Alexander swore fealty to him by the end of his life. Greece, Persia and Egypt, a venerable group, were, in no uncertain terms, crushed by Macedon. While Napoleon had a more impressive military career, Alexander had more impact on Europe and the World than perhaps any single man.
Tactics: 10
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 10
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 4
Legacy: 10
3. Genghis Khan
Theme here. All three of these guys were Emperors in the truest sense of the word. All three controlled an expansive territory on which several different distinct cultures coexisted with one ruler. If the list were ranked by Empire size, this guy would be at the top (below a King George perhaps). Also, if we were ranking by Empire unity, the length it lasted or the uniqueness of its construction nobody could stack up to Genghis' Mongols. The Khan's success was due in part to a group of fantastic generals and a form of combat the world had never seen. Cavalry Archers would be a fearsome thing to encounter today, let alone when Genghis ruled. The Mongols are the only group to successfully conquer China, they rolled across what is today Russia and Kazakhstan, smashed Persia and invaded Europe. Hungary and what would eventually be Poland slowed their advance just enough for Genghis to die and the expansion to stall. The Khan's genius seamlessly transitioned from a tribal leader unifying the Mongols to an Emperor dominating an Empire of which it was said "a virgin with two pouches of money could walk from one end to the other without fearing for anything" or whatever, not very good at those. In any case the guy forged the largest Empire in the History of the World.
Tactics: 7
Strategy: 9
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 10
4. Hannibal
This guy gets the most points for who he was beating. Absolutely dominated the Roman Empire. Read that again but stress the last 2 words. Roman Empire. As far as military empires go, nothing has ever existed comparable to the Roman Empire. Something which only a Military History nerd could ever imagine but would be one of the coolest things to possibly simulate would be the Caesars vs the Khans. Hannibal shows us what no other enemy of Rome could show, the Romans were beatable. Not just beatable, 3 of the 5 worst losses in Roman history were to this guy. The term "textbook" perfectly describes the utter genius Hannibal put on display against, again, the greatest army yet assembled. Crossing the Alps is probably the greatest single feat a general has ever attempted. It is similar to a group of Generals thinking its a good idea to assault a beachhead with thousands of soldiers during WWII. The only difference is Normandy had some statistical legitimacy. Hannibal took a group of soldiers and animals and fought his way through an extremely dangerous mountainous region and arrived in enemy territory with enough army to not once but twice embarrass the Romans and even threaten the capital of the greatest Empire in the World at the time. Easier said than done. He belongs on this list despite only being a general and having a very short time in the spotlight of history.
Tactics: 9
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 9
Contemporaries: 9
Legacy: 8
5. Douglas MacArthur
With all due respect to Julius Caesar, this guy rounds off my list. The Western theatre in WWII has several impressive generals, Von Runstadt, Kesselring, Rommel, Patton, Model, Manstein, Bradley, Eisenhower, Montgomery etc. The Eastern theatre has MacArthur. Not only did he coordinate the army side of the brilliant island-hopping strategy he also governed in Japan during the post-war period and conquered North Korea. Had MacArthur been given full reign in Korea, WWIII could've broken out, but also, MacArthur would've crushed the DPRK. The stubbornness that made him a great commander ended his career when he went behind the President's back. Not a good move. But something I'm positive every other member of this list would've done. In the age of communications, troop supply, air forces and international coalition combat, MacArthur stands alone. I also did a project on him in 8th grade so I might be biased.
Tactics: 8
Strategy: 10
Personal Prowess: 4
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 9
There you have it. Now back to "real life" I guess.
Braves cooling off, but not crashing...return of Maholm, Laird and Schafer tempered by the loss of Heyward and struggles for Walden and the rest of the back end of the bullpen. I hope that if we kick it into cruise control we can relight the fire come October.
"Real Life" has taught me a few things. Surprising right? But one of the things I've learned best is that everything happens at once. Every time something big happens, whether it be financial, social, spiritual, work-related or family-related, a bunch of other big things happen in several of the other facets of life. We can go months at a time without changing even the slightest aspect of our routine, then BAM all the dominoes start crashing around. That is happening now.
I kicked around devoting this post to the dominoes that are crashing around us but instead wanted to think about something else for a little bit. So here's one of the few topics of conversation I can carry for hours: Military History.
The 5 Greatest Generals in the History of the World.
1. Napoleon Bonaparte
This is not a slam dunk, nobody else is close, type of choice. The next 4 guys have solid arguments in their favor. However, Napoleon conquered the majority of Europe in a time when armies were both large and developed. Trains made bringing a sizable amount of troops from miles away a tactical possibility. Gunpowder made numbers mean less and tactics mean more. The warfare of the Napoleonic Wars (gotta mean something when you name the era after him) was the perfect type of warfare to display a general's abilities. Bonaparte wasn't just a brilliant tactician, he also was an accomplished artillery engineer and possibly the greatest motivator of all time. The men who lead his armies were every bit as tactically brilliant as Napoleon, but many of them not only blindly followed his orders but also accepted exile along side their Emperor. Napoleon was at the same time the best and worst thing to come out of the French Revolution. He embodied the end result of unbridled ambition coupled with endless genius. His weakness? He trusted Spain too much and couldn't muster a decent Navy. In my humble opinion, had he fielded a decent Navy he would have conquered the British Iles. Even if everything else goes precisely as it did, with the Russian counterattack and Spanish rebellion squeezing the French into submission, the world would have been profoundly altered. Then, after defeat and exile, he managed to scare the world within an inch of its life and in a very short time united all of Europe against him. What a legacy.
Tactics: 10 (Movements during battle)
Strategy: 10 (The Plan of Battle)
Personal Prowess: 8 (Individual combat)
Leadership: 10 (Who he led and how they followed)
Contemporaries: 7 (Who he defeated and how badly)
Legacy: 10 (How he will be remembered)
2. Alexander III the Great
Hard to be better than this guy. He has the distinction of being the first great conqueror. There were conquerors before him but none of them did it like he did. None of them were great. Not only are his tactical skills virtually unmatched, he managed to forge an Empire which he personally ruled for only a few years. You might suggest that is a weakness, however Alexander was such a brilliant manager, he unified as he conquered, something no one else has ever accomplished (save perhaps the Mongols who might appear in this list). Who he defeated is not an impressive list, how badly he defeated them is astounding. Alexander would go into battle with 10-1, 8-1 and 5-1 odds and the end results would be ridiculous. There are recorded casualty numbers from battles, when hand-to-hand combat was the common method, where Alexander would lose 100 or so men while he opponent lost thousands. This is hardly believable. Is it because the Macedonians were somehow better soldiers? I doubt it, Alexander always supplemented his armies with Mercenaries and conquered subjects. It was because Alexander's genius and according to records personal bravery was incredible. Is it possible Alexander's incredible feats are merely a product of "he who wins writes the History books" or however that goes? Yeah, most likely. But he won. A lot. Every major civilization which means anything to the development of Eurasian History that existed prior to Alexander swore fealty to him by the end of his life. Greece, Persia and Egypt, a venerable group, were, in no uncertain terms, crushed by Macedon. While Napoleon had a more impressive military career, Alexander had more impact on Europe and the World than perhaps any single man.
Tactics: 10
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 10
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 4
Legacy: 10
3. Genghis Khan
Theme here. All three of these guys were Emperors in the truest sense of the word. All three controlled an expansive territory on which several different distinct cultures coexisted with one ruler. If the list were ranked by Empire size, this guy would be at the top (below a King George perhaps). Also, if we were ranking by Empire unity, the length it lasted or the uniqueness of its construction nobody could stack up to Genghis' Mongols. The Khan's success was due in part to a group of fantastic generals and a form of combat the world had never seen. Cavalry Archers would be a fearsome thing to encounter today, let alone when Genghis ruled. The Mongols are the only group to successfully conquer China, they rolled across what is today Russia and Kazakhstan, smashed Persia and invaded Europe. Hungary and what would eventually be Poland slowed their advance just enough for Genghis to die and the expansion to stall. The Khan's genius seamlessly transitioned from a tribal leader unifying the Mongols to an Emperor dominating an Empire of which it was said "a virgin with two pouches of money could walk from one end to the other without fearing for anything" or whatever, not very good at those. In any case the guy forged the largest Empire in the History of the World.
Tactics: 7
Strategy: 9
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 10
4. Hannibal
This guy gets the most points for who he was beating. Absolutely dominated the Roman Empire. Read that again but stress the last 2 words. Roman Empire. As far as military empires go, nothing has ever existed comparable to the Roman Empire. Something which only a Military History nerd could ever imagine but would be one of the coolest things to possibly simulate would be the Caesars vs the Khans. Hannibal shows us what no other enemy of Rome could show, the Romans were beatable. Not just beatable, 3 of the 5 worst losses in Roman history were to this guy. The term "textbook" perfectly describes the utter genius Hannibal put on display against, again, the greatest army yet assembled. Crossing the Alps is probably the greatest single feat a general has ever attempted. It is similar to a group of Generals thinking its a good idea to assault a beachhead with thousands of soldiers during WWII. The only difference is Normandy had some statistical legitimacy. Hannibal took a group of soldiers and animals and fought his way through an extremely dangerous mountainous region and arrived in enemy territory with enough army to not once but twice embarrass the Romans and even threaten the capital of the greatest Empire in the World at the time. Easier said than done. He belongs on this list despite only being a general and having a very short time in the spotlight of history.
Tactics: 9
Strategy: 7
Personal Prowess: 8
Leadership: 9
Contemporaries: 9
Legacy: 8
5. Douglas MacArthur
With all due respect to Julius Caesar, this guy rounds off my list. The Western theatre in WWII has several impressive generals, Von Runstadt, Kesselring, Rommel, Patton, Model, Manstein, Bradley, Eisenhower, Montgomery etc. The Eastern theatre has MacArthur. Not only did he coordinate the army side of the brilliant island-hopping strategy he also governed in Japan during the post-war period and conquered North Korea. Had MacArthur been given full reign in Korea, WWIII could've broken out, but also, MacArthur would've crushed the DPRK. The stubbornness that made him a great commander ended his career when he went behind the President's back. Not a good move. But something I'm positive every other member of this list would've done. In the age of communications, troop supply, air forces and international coalition combat, MacArthur stands alone. I also did a project on him in 8th grade so I might be biased.
Tactics: 8
Strategy: 10
Personal Prowess: 4
Leadership: 10
Contemporaries: 8
Legacy: 9
There you have it. Now back to "real life" I guess.
Braves cooling off, but not crashing...return of Maholm, Laird and Schafer tempered by the loss of Heyward and struggles for Walden and the rest of the back end of the bullpen. I hope that if we kick it into cruise control we can relight the fire come October.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)