A Sleeping Bear Wakes!

First off, the following is completely my opinion based on news articles, personal opinions and my past experiences. This blog is not the New York Times, so while you can disagree with my opinion (and I invite anyone to do so, I am always open to learning and will change my opinions if I determine that they are flawed based on additional information) I am not about to reference anything I write. I'd like to think I'm reasonably well informed so I don't think I wrote anything that is obviously incorrect. Let me know if I did.

I apologize for the silly posting title. I could make the argument that it does not refer to Russia but to my long period of hibernation from posting here. However, that would be offensive and I would have no one to beat up for comparing me to a bear other than myself.
I have been somewhat reluctant to post as few topics have actually piqued my interest enough to post one of my trademark rambling pontifications and I feel no need to stoke my ego by writing a few thousand words on “Hamburgers: friend or foe?” or “What is the deal with all of the perscription strength deoderants coming on the market? Are Americans just getting sweatier?”
One topic did move me to write however; this topic is Russia’s clearly unacceptable actions in Georgia and recent saber-rattling in its dialogue with the West. Considering I was born there, I am conflicted in my desire to condemn an oppressive regime. I do not consider myself a “self hating Russian” but neither am I blind. So here I will attempt to reconcile Russia’s desire for Westernization (which I deeply believe exists) with its Evil Empire like movements in the last few months.


Point (as presented by all of Western media):
Russia is returning to its Soviet Union past in terms of military aggression, political intimidation, oppression of its citizens and undemocratic suppression of the press.

Counterpoint (as presented, poorly, by me):
Russia has realized that it has stagnated after losing its infrastructure post 1991. As a result, it is now attempting to revitalize its military (which could kick start its non-oil industries) and show off its military capability within its former sphere of influence. Refusing to be bullied economically or politically by the US and the West, Russia is displaying a willingness to go to war to prevent economic defeats (BP pipeline in Georgia, for instance), and is willing to do so in the face of Political pressure.
To prevent a turn of public opinion Russia is suppressing the press, with the assumption that the bad publicity from this suppression is not as bad as the outcry over what a free Russian press could potentially print.
As far as showing patriotic (read: communist) leanings (i.e. the anthem, military parades, etc) it is more about Russia trying to congeal its disconnected and disaffected populace than it is about legitimate political motivations: say what you will about Lenin (and there are many bad things one can say about the man), but prior to 1918 must of Russia was illiterate with no power or transportation in the eastern half of the country whereas post the revolution Russia became the worlds #1 grain supplier under Lenin and an industrial superpower under Stalin (despite his name being a near four letter word, and his history of genocide, incompetence and oppression, it is important to realize that the potential for a benign dictator exists in theory).
I would never condone the actions of Lenin, Stalin or any of their mass murdering cronies who took power after them, but it is important to realize that Russia has very much returned to the Feudal System that was in place pre Communist Revolution, except land is no longer the measure of wealth. Despite their countless crimes and failings, the Communist leaders did manage to create some semblance of economic equality, or at least bridge the gap between the disproportionately few haves and the multitude of have-nots. Because of this, and please keep in mind that by no means do I approve, Russia’s leaders, faced with a similar situation, have clearly chosen to adopt historically effective methods of redistributing wealth.

Does this mean that Russia should return to its Communist roots? No! But at the same time it is presumptuous to say that socialist-like economic reforms, which could revitalize Russia’s non-oil related industries, are morally wrong simply because they have the taint of socialism. Being conditioned to fear and suspect Communist countries, the West is terrified of a sickle and hammer flying over the Kremlin, but it is for this very reason that Russia will not fly it. The Russian people are hungry: they want Western goods, culture, and tourism.

I left Russia literally days before the collapse, and I remember standing in line at the US embassy in Moscow for three days, overlapping with the 1991 attempted coup by hard-line Stalinists. I remember clearly looking up at the telephone posts and listening to the loudspeakers telling us that there would a return to “Soviet Power” and that Gorbachev was “very sick” (can anyone doubt that these people would have had him “peacefully pass away in the night” as soon as they felt he was no longer a valuable hostage?) and seeing:
1) Old men and women yell at us, spit on us, and tell us that “you Jews will get what you deserve now” (except with more profanity and racism) and being absolutely terrified.
2) The vast majority rally, protest, blast music from cassette players and show their contempt for the coup leaders.
I wasn’t there weeks later when AC/DC, Pantera and Metallica played a huge free outdoor concert in Moscow. No, at this time I was traveling to the United States, possibly already in NY, my memory fails me on the exact dates. It is difficult for me to reconcile the optimistic and energetic Russia of that time of change to the lumbering, power/money hungry bear that it has become. Run by oligarchs and former spies, it is still a wild frontier where for the very few millions (if not billions) can be made and thrown away on luxury yachts and expensive cars. In light of the vast poverty stricken masses of the countryside these lucky few living in Moscow and St Pete’s are repulsive, “let them eat cake” indeed, but I sit back and watch Soviet era cartoons on YouTube, and I can’t help but feel some nostalgia for my childhood. It could just be my tendency to romanticize past experiences. There was nothing charmed about the anti-Semitism I encountered from rich and poor alike, but even then I can’t believe that an entire people are evil.




Common points: Russia is PMS'ing and needs to chill out.

Good things come to those who wait,
Better things come to those who go out and take them,
The best things are the ones you earn.

Did I read that on a Hallmark card? Allegedly.

When two poorly informed people argue, God kills a kitten

me: flan

Nicholas: Gut

er

Ros

me: jerk

Nicholas: You don't have to respond to that

me: i hate you

Nicholas: My typing speed occasionally exceeds my precognisance

My most sincere regrets, sir

Anyways, how's it going?

Besides the usual anger. :o

me: nick

i dont think you know what precognisance means

if you posessed precognisance you would have made millions in the stock market

just saying

i do not believe in what is commonly referred to as precognisance

i consider it more of a practical paranoia

a "fear" that something will happen

certainly mixed in equal portion to the possibility that it will not

however when it does happen, it is satisfying to say to oneself "ah, i knew that would happen!"

when in fact you knew no such thing

Nicholas: I disagree and in fact believe that the term applies

me: you are wrong

Nicholas: the term precognisance by definition reffers to knowing the outcome of some situation or another

me: wrong

and you know who disagrees with you?

mr webster

what you are missing is that it refers to knowing based on a sense of extra sensory perception

i.e. "i know something bad will happen to me today"

Nicholas: no

me: without any fundamental evidence

Nicholas: 1. knowledge of a future event or situation, esp. through extrasensory means.

me: extrasensory

Nicholas: it's not required

me: did you miss what i just said?

Nicholas: mr webster disagrees with you

me: the definition is wrong, if its not extrasensory it becomes just "cognizance"

so sry

fail

you has fail

taking things at face value ftl

Nicholas: furthermore I suggest you look up the word cognisance

and the prefix 'pre'

me: yes, i know

it means "knowing before knowing"

am i wrong?

Nicholas: I am cognisant of your displeasure because you already expressed it

me: tell me, am i wrong?

Nicholas: you are wrong.

or you wouldn't be arguing

It would have been easily predictable that you would have gotten angry

whether through extrasensory perception or not

just because the most common use of a word would not apply, doesn't mean that an alternate usage - which matches the very composition and definition of the word - is incorrect

me: let me explain

if you call me an asshole, you know before you say it that i will be upset

that is no pre-cognizance, you know this is true in every situation and you know its true based on past experience

you are on dictinary.com?

or webster.com?

Nicholas: I have been referred to as such

yes.

Referred, even.

me: one second, the term i want to use doesnt have the correct definition on dictionary.com

Nicholas: prediction?

anticipation?

me: priori

Nicholas: aha

me: essentially having knowledge imparted unto you by the ether (generally, god)

bah

webster doesnt have it either!

ridiculous

whatever, a synonym is epiphany

and you know what that means

Nicholas: I know what priori means as well

me: precongizance implies that you have knowledge without deducing

un-empirical knowledge

Nicholas: well, if it makes you feel better, I didn't bother to deduce in that instance

me: no, you knew based on past experience

Nicholas: untrue

I've never called you the last three letters of your first name

me: you knew exactly what you were doing you sly dog

you wont fool me

Nicholas: this whole argument is based on my statement that I didn't

me: from your point of view

hence pre-cognizance

whereas i disagree that you miraculously knew what my reaction would be, you knew what i would be upset

Nicholas: call it a 'Gut' feeling.

me: i will destroy you

Random Thought on Illegal Immigrants

I call bullshit on the argument that illegal immigrants are leeching off of the system. I’m no longer a tax guy but I do think about the relevant tax issues, so let me break down a simple scenario for you.

Lets imagine a grocery store; the owner of the store (lets call him Mr. Burns) is a millionaire. He is in the top tax bracket (35%). A guy named Ross works for him. Now, there are two possible cases that I want to address:

1) Ross is a legal immigrant or US born citizen.

2) Burns knows Ross is an illegal and pays Ross under the table.

Case 1:

Ross earns 100k working at the grocery store. Here is the tax impact

Ross takes the standard deduction, personal exemption, etc, so he gets his income down to 90k. With the step tax system his tax on income for the year is 19k. We are looking exclusively at federal tax impact btw, because the issue is with federal benefits (an army to protect Ross from the bad guys and social security to keep Ross warm when he gets old).

Medicare: 1.45% of the 100K = 1,450

Social Security 6.2% * 100K = 6,200

Total Tax to Federal Gov’t = 26,650

Case 2:

Obviously Burns won’t pay Ross as much money however lets disregard this for parity purposes (or, to make it more palatable, have it be two people earning 50k each; Ross and his evil twin Russ). However, it is important to realize that the 100K that Burns paid to Ross in case 1 was tax deductible which it isn’t in this case because he pays him under the table. So how much does the Gov’t get?

The additional 100K of income to Burns (who is, like I said before in a higher tax bracket than Ross) generates the following marginal tax liability:

Income: 35,000 (after earning approx 350k every dollar is taxed at a 35% tax rate)

Medicare: 1,450

Social Security: 6,200

Total Tax to Federal Gov’t: 42,650

So, the Federal Government actually gets more money because of our tax structure, good for the poor right? Our country has a wonderful array of support services for the needy, however guess what? Ross is ineligible for many of these services, leaving more money in the system for everyone else. Ross getting paid under the table helps US citizens.

Of course, this is disregarding the myriad other taxes that Ross pays, for which he receives no benefit at all. The landlord that gets his rent has to pay taxes on it, doesn’t he? The food, clothing, gas, cigarettes and liquor that Ross buys are taxed.

All Ross can really get out of paying all this money to the gov’t is that his kids can go to public schools.

If they receive no benefit out of paying these taxes, aren’t the taxes more of a fine? A fine that every illegal has to pay every day for being in this country.

More anger regarding coffee

There is something egalitarian about Dunkies; it’s cheap, you don’t feel like more of a snob for asking for a French Vanilla or a regular (or “regulah” in Boston) and they are open at all hours. My post below where I shake my fist in righteous indignation at Starbucks commercialization of coffee culture is a sign of snobbery, I admit. I do not want my coffee shop to be open to the filthy masses, which so regularly swarm into my North Beach café of choice. The longer I live in San Francisco the farther I move away from my apartment in the mornings and on the weekends in search for a quiet cup of java. I want to read Dostoyevsky (as if, more like National Enquirer) in silence! I want my barista to smile at me when she brings me my single estate Guatemalan dark roast (“rich, earthy flavors distinguish the slightly chocolaty finish of this dark, sweet and malty brew”).

Ok, I admit it; I just want to be left alone!

San Francisco is even now (the rainy season) inundated with tourists who insist on crowding me in line, taking all the seats so they can spread their maps of the city on the table and shouting their orders in Midwestern accents at the poor barista who look downright overwhelmed by all the commotion.

Despite all that…I miss Dunkin Donuts :-(

On that note: I was watching Smart Travels with Rudi Maxa on the Travel Channel the other day (because I hate my life) and he was in Madrid. There was a shot of the puerta del sol, the very center of Madrid. I was half watching half feasting on wasabi peas from Trader Joes (delicious!) and out of the corner of my eye I saw A DUNKIN DONUTS! IN SPAIN!

Explain to me please how it is morally allowable for there to be a Dunkies in SPAIN, where there isn’t a single on within 50 miles of San Francisco? How? I demand answers! The Bay Area has 7.2 million residents whose thirst for a delicious iced medium regular is as yet unquenched! Apparently the west coast does not run on Dunkin…

Klitchko vs. Ibragimov

Unification! Bring together three of the four boxing World Heavyweight Champions?

Wait what?

That’s right, there was, until recently four heavyweight champs! Whys that? Well, obviously because people like to watch title fights, even if it doesn’t mean all that much. It’s the same sort of bravado that lets us call the winner of the super bowl the “world champions” which is confusing, because as far as I know my beloved Patriots never competed on any other continent.

So

Before last Saturday there were three worth heavyweight champs:

Klitchko, holding two titles: IBF and IBO.

Sultan Ibragimov: holding the WBO title.

Ruslan Chagaev: WBA champ.

HBO broadcast the fight, marketing it as a big draw, when in fact the poor heavyweight division is far less popular than the middleweights (with such names as Mayweather, Hatton, even De La Hoya) or even the light welterweight (Cotto alone is more charismatic and marketable than any of the current heavyweight champs).

So there I was, sitting down to hopefully watch a good fight, I had the popcorn, I was psyched, they tapped gloves and off it went....

...

What the hell?

After about 30 seconds if fighting I was confused.

Ok, so there’s Klitchko, looks like hes in great shape, I head the announcers mention he lost weight for the fight and he looks fit.

Ibragimov…look like a beer barrel with legs. Shorter and stockier than Klitchko he looks a little like an angry drunk than an athlete, but ok, lets give him a shot.

But, what doesn’t make sense is why Ibragimov thinks he can:

1) Outside box, when hes clearly slower than Klitchko

2) Keep his forward hand down a la Roy Jones Jr and Ali, when again, he’s slower and shorter.

They say that despite the 4 inch height difference, Klitchko only had a 1 inch reach advantage; it sure as hell didn’t look that way.

To interrupt:

A boxer keeping his front hand by his hip is a risky but sometimes effective technique. If the boxer is fast enough to be able to throw jabs with the same speed as if he were keeping the front hand at shoulder or above, and if he can block his opponent as effectively as if he had his hand up, it gives him a tremendous advantage in being able to:

1) Throw orthodox jabs

2) Throw looping hooks with his forward hand, moving it around and over his opponent’s jabs.

Ali could do it, he was fast and agile, and Roy Jones could do it for the same reason.

Ibragimov? Not even close.

If you watch the fight you will see him trying again and again to throw a jab out of this position, and Klitchko, obviously prepared, utilized his greater reach and quicker hands to slap Ibragimov’s jabs down away, and stepping in for a hard jab…over and over again.

12 Rounds, with only about four right hands by Klitchko.

Everyone talks about Klitchko’s soft jaw; the man acts like he’s afraid to get hit. Throwing single jabs occasionally, without the follow up hard right that could have ended the “contest” at round 4, at round 12, disgusted with Klitchko for not making an end of it a half hour ago and with myself for watching this trash, the obvious conclusion (decision for Klitchko) left me feeling drained and disappointed with the poor showing.

We need an explosive heavyweight champ like Tyson to get people interested in this division again; otherwise they might as well close up shop right now.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

I saw this movie after writing my post on film noir, and thought I should comment on it. If you haven’t seen it I highly recommend you do so; its witty, entertaining, fast paced and definitely sucks you in. However, there is one caveat: it is not genuine film noir. Oh sure, it’s a murder mystery in LA where people occasionally talk like it’s the 1930’s, but one of the basic principles of film noir is that it isn’t at all stylized; it is very gritty, with characters doing what they do for money or revenge. Rarely, if ever, are good deeds done for the sake of doing good.

I still thought it was excellent, the dialogue is so self aware and downright brilliant I can't in good conscience not include a quote:

Harry: Is she a looker?
Perry: She opens the door, and she got nothing on but the radio. Yeah, invites me to sit down, sits on my lap, fires up a spliff.
Harry: Jesus. Really?
Perry: No. Idiot.

I give in

so this morning i got Starbucks cause the line was too long at Jackson
disregard the below rant, S-Bux 4 eva!