we're building empire

no, this isn't a post about queensryche, although i do admit i enjoyed their albums empire and operation mindcrime.

i ran across an op-ed piece in the l.a. times that piqued my interest. i mean, i've harbored thoughts that our leaders, especially in recent years, have been building a de-facto empire. and, i know that at previous points in u.s. history we definitely have worked at building empire. so, i wanted to read this article with the provocative title of "at piece with pax americana."

(for those that don't know, pax romana = the roman piece, a term used to describe the roman empire and it's reach across the mediterranean world.)

i think the article may be best summed up with these three quotes:

"Critics of American foreign policy point to the fact that the U.S. does many things that empires once did -- police the seas, deploy militaries abroad, provide a lingua franca and a global currency -- and then rest their case. But noting that X does many of the same things as Y does not mean that X and Y are the same thing. The police provide protection, and so does the Mafia. Orphanages raise children, but they aren't parents. If your wife cleans your home, tell her she's the maid because maids also clean homes. See how well that logic works."

"The second verse of the anti-imperial lament, sung in unison by liberals and libertarians, goes like this: Expansion of the military-industrial complex leads to contraction of freedom at home. But historically, this is a hard sell. Women got the vote largely thanks to World War I. President Truman, that consummate Cold Warrior, integrated the Army, and the civil rights movement escalated its successes even as we escalated the Cold War and our presence in Vietnam. President Reagan built up the military even as he liberalized the economy."

"Whatever sway the U.S. holds over far-flung reaches of the globe is derived from the fact that we have been, and hopefully shall continue to be, the leader of the free world, offering help and guidance, peace and prosperity, where and when we can, as best we can, and asking little in return. If that makes us an empire, so be it. But I think "leader of the free world" is the only label we'll ever need or -- one hopes -- ever want."


now, i find these quotes very compelling, especially in dispelling the idea of american empire. just because it has feathers doesn't mean it's a chicken. then again, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck.

the second quote, while historically accurate, seems to deny, disregard or ignore what is currently happening. those in power acknowledge that our freedoms and civil liberties are being hedged due to the war on terror. it isn't a complete loss, but there still are changes happening for the purpose of safety, and definitely may be aiding the creation of empire.

my final thought, for now, on empire and the article is the idea of change. we may not be an empire like rome, england, or the u.s.s.r., but it just may be the case that empire has changed. x may be similar to y but not the same and that could be due to the fact that the definition, the reality has changed. his hopes of just being the "leader of the free world," even if that makes us an empire, really hits the nail on the head. you can lead without creating empire. and, you could create a ideological empire and lead. and, the u.s. has done this very well. we've californicated the world. and, that's helped to lead to the war on terror as a particular culture fights against the "west." but just because we create an ideological empire doesn't mean should be invading other countries (iraq), or supporting military coups in others (venezuela).

tunneling for evidence

so, the l.a. times had an article about chinatown's tunnels. in the article, they mention a bit of controversy. i find this interesting, because i've never heard of any controversy about the tunnels. i've heard discussion about how extensive the tunnels may be, but i didn't realize there was any controversy. some quotes about it:

"Experts on Chinese American history say Chinatowns across the nation -- including in many California cities -- have always been rumored to have tunnels, but no proof exists that they were anything more than connected basements. They say the hype surrounding the legends revives misconceptions that fanned xenophobia in earlier times."

and:

"The 19th century was an extremely racist climate," said Phil Choy, past president of the Chinese Historical Society of America and a skeptic of tunnel lore. "There had always been an attempt to remove the Chinese. You had this population of undesirables. The more mysterious they make us, the better."

hmm, interesting. i understand that other tunnels have existed, or weren't as spectacular as billed. and, i guess i wouldn't be that surprised if in the past there was fear, xenophobia and suspicion about people different than the mainstream. but how much of this applies to now and exploring whether or not there are tunnels in fresno.

more from the article:
"But Fresno is different because the tunnel tales are more than just rumors. Over the last few months, a handful of old-timers have stepped forward to say they saw the tunnels in action. Their oral histories have given a sense of urgency to the city's archaeological effort."

and:
"One of the first was Rick Lew, who grew up in Chinatown in the 1950s. Lew said his grandfather was a well-known figure in Chinatown's early history, running gambling operations and selling liquor."

i wonder what mr. choy would say? i mean, here we have a guy basically confirming the urban legend. sure, it's not scientific proof, but that doesn't mean it's not true. we'll see what is discovered as they use radar and continue to explore.

cross posted here

all the news that's (not) fit to print

i <3 the news. it's so predictable. today is the day after thanksgiving. without even looking, i could tell you what's going to be the "big" story on every news outlet: shopping.

so, as i began to see what was happening in the world, i hit up the online news sources i check. and yes, black friday was tops. what was it above? real news, of course. like:
5 dead in a murder suicide
peace talks between israel and palestine
the search for a missing teen
a ship off antartica

and, this isn't just an issue for our local fish wrap. oh wait, it is. i went to the l.a. times page and they have actual stories about news. what a novel idea. i didn't see any stories about shopping there until i scrolled to the very bottom of the page, where i saw one on the a.p. wire, where it was appropriately listed first. right before the ship, the murder/suicide and a bombing that killed 26 in iraq.

all the news that's fit to glean

this morning i saw several stories on the l.a. times website that i thought i would comment on, or at least mention.

the first was about a brother and sister that were recently shot, both randomly, at the same birthday party. of course, the story is told with some semi-sappy details and journalism, but it's still sad. these two were @ a party, not standing near each other, and someone opened fire through the fence. both were stuck and killed. sad stuff. the story also stood out to me because i've been places recently, and you're just standing around, enjoying yourself, and some random stuff like this could just happen. generally, i tend to believe that crime follows criminals. that is, you usually don't end up in trouble like this if you're not mixing it up. and, generally, statistics show this. but, random stuff does happen. sad stuff.

the second story that i wanted to comment on was about a new reality tv show. it's about a "news anchor." basically, the producer of american idol and some other shows took this actress/model/dancer/whatever and plopped her into some town in texas. of course, the other news anchors are upset about this. it wipes away what little credibility that these "journalists" have. especially upset are the other females at the station, who are mortified that a barbie-esque woman is being plopped into their situation. but, can they complain? or, do they become shrews or worse for "hating" on this blond? so, what is a news anchor other than a pretty face, or a voice that reads a teleprompter. let's be honest, it's not like most anchors are out researching stories. they have something written for them, and they deliver it like a well versed pitch. frankly, it doesn't bother me at all that this show is exposing the "news" for what it is: a glorified dog & pony show. perhaps i'm being too harsh. but i'll allow myself to do that. the nightly news is barely any different than any other nightly television program. it's just not as funny as the comedies and the story lines often aren't as interesting as the dramas. anchors are chosen for their look, their voice, their delivery. and if they don't fit the look, they change. if you don't believe me, ask kopi soteropolis about his amazing hair regeneration (or, if you prefer, toupe). or ask yourself why it seems like every news team has a blond and a brunette on it?

the third story somewhat follows. it seems that mattel is suing a porn site. china barbie is apparently not a chinese barbie. or, at least mattel doesn't want you to associate their barbie with this porn star. they believe that this other company, "used a domain name containing the word 'barbie' in a 'bad faith attempt to profit from Mattel's Barbie trademarks." i think i have to agree.

since i'm talking about women, why not mention the fact that the l.a. times has a female motorcycle reviewer. i always thought this was pretty cool, and have linked to her reviews before. the bike world is dominated by men, which i am one of. i would imagine that most bike journalists/reviewers/etc are also men. so, i'm pretty impressed that the times hasn't been afraid to use a woman where it would be so easy to just go with a man. anyway, to the story. a custom motorcycle company has a pretty nice bike that they designed just for the ladies. pretty cool idea. i especially enjoy her semi-practical suggestions for improvement of a "ladies" bike.

finally, i think i'll end with a story about a possible credit crisis. this, apparently, may be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the republicans. what? an unwinnable quagmire isn't? the systematic disregard for our rights and constitution isn't? the continual impeacheable acts committed by the president, vice president and attorney general aren't?