The more I think about “college” as a theme for at least my posts in the blog, the more I like it.  I have a fairly entertaining life and have more than a few stories I could tell. Expect to see some nice stock photos of my campus as well as day to day tails of a Junior attending a Midwest University. While you all wait in what I’m sure is intense anticipation for my next post I will leave you with a line from Asher Roth’s I love college: “Where I can get pizza a dollar a slice.”

…U.S. nuclear capabilities provide a deterrence umbrella for its allied countries, whereas Russia plays no such positive role. Thus, the two countries are simply not “symmetrical,” but treaties with specific warhead limits gave the illusion they are.

Thing is, Russia’s domestic leadership wants strategic symmetry. It needs strategic symmetry like our last president needed low casualty figures out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Medvedev et al has to convince the population that things are getting back on track to the good ol’ days of the early 1970s. These good ol’ days include the Cold War, or at least when Russia’s opinion mattered everywhere and anywhere on the world stage, from Afghanistan to Central America. At the end of the day, it’s just posturing – the USSR is gone and its true strategic successor probably won’t be back for a while. (Note: that doesn’t mean that you can totally ignore Russia, either – do that, and you’re in for trouble.) But it’s posturing that Russian leaders desperately need, especially when the economy – the other prime mover for domestic credibility – is tanking.

how we “count” nuclear capabilities is important. This is not a merely technical issue, but carries profound implications for both our nuclear and conventional capabilities. Under START counting rules, weapons levels were imputed based on the capabilities of delivery systems, rather than actual warhead levels. Thus, for example, each Soviet SS-18, capable of carrying 10 nuclear warheads was imputed to do so no matter how many were actually under the nosecones.

…and what better way for Russia to get symmetrical with the US than to engineer it out of thin air in an arms control agreement? It looks good for the press whether it’s real or not, bilateral negotiations themselves look good for the Russian media, and most of said Russian media is owned by Gazprom and/or government-controlled. (Two ways to say the same thing, actually).

Again: this would be great for the Russian leadership during an economic crisis. Strategic parity without buying any new missiles. And if the Russian leadership decides they want it badly enough, they could make something like the transit of NATO troops/supply into Afghanistan contingent upon it. They would never cut it off entirely – it looks really bad, and Russia really wants to do all it can to keep the Taliban types out of Kazakhstan and the Caucuses. They want NATO to win, in other words. But they could threaten it, and there could still be a lot of very public brouhaha and brinksmanship over the issue. It’d be very bad for Obama.

Obama: Let us run supplies through Uzbekistan/Kyrgyzstan/wherever into Afghanistan. Pretty please. Please.
Putin: Maybe. Maybe if you count our nukes the way we want them counted. And maybe I’ll leak this whole conversation to CNN and let the whole world know that I have you by the balls. And then I’ll give you what you want, but only after you give me what I want. You’ll depend on me for something important, and everyone will know that. I also don’t expect your news media to be able to credibly explain warhead counting and missile counting and multiple-independently-targetable this and that. They haven’t even gotten around to explaining what a credit derivative is yet, and that crisis is six months old. Anyway, you need access to Afghanistan way more than I need this notch in my domestic political bedpost. That doesn’t mean I don’t really really want it (but there’s a difference between ‘want’ and ‘need’ here).

Obama looks weak. Putin looks strong. The alternative route would be to give the ‘stan in question a ton of money. That might not work either, given the Manas Air Base fiasco there is likely to be a great deal of reluctance. And Russia has some non-monetary bargaining advantages with the ‘stan in such a scenario, contiguous borders, transit links and all that. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, but I don’t think it’d be the best option. It certainly wouldn’t be the cheapest. Again: the economy.

And at the end of the day it’d be better off to let the Russians count their warheads in whatever reasonable fashion they require. Let them reap the domestic political benefits so that we can both reduce our stockpiles and go home. It’s less expensive for US taxpayers that way – why piss off the Republicans in Congress any more than you have to? And again, Bolton doesn’t seem to get that – the fact that domestic and international politics are never walled off from one another.

The Obama arms control agenda reflects the longstanding, attractive and woefully simplistic notion that ever-lower numbers of Russian and American nuclear weapons will create a more stable strategic relationship, diminishing the threat of nuclear war.

Domestic. Politics. Nuke development, maintenance, and security is really expensive. It’s money that both countries could be putting to far better use right now. I think they both get that. And that’s why you will get ‘arms control’, which is actually more like “let’s sit around this table and posture for secondary political gains while we negotiate for something we both need.” Which is actually what it’s always been between these two countries, if you go back and look at the history. The really contentious issues are rarely about the weapons themselves.

Also, Bolton’s a prick. I hope everyone understands that. But he’s former ambassador to the UN and all that. What the hell do I know?

But that’s what I signed up for. And everyone else seems to be just as – blindsided, that’s the only word for it – as I am, so everything’s okay. For now, anyway.

I have a coffeemaker in my room now. This could get ugly before it’s over.

Do you like the Pilot G2, but not its retail price? Then this is the place to go. I haven’t received my order yet – so hopefully I didn’t get ripped off – but judging from the seller’s feedback, we should be okay.

Back to flashcards.

Like me!

So, I’m back at school, and moved in. West Quadrangle. Cambridge House. The security on this place is a little odd – you need a key to use the elevator or to get onto any floor from the staircase – but I don’t mind so much. It prevents large crowds of people from wandering through the halls yelling at the top of their lungs at all hours of the day and night, or dragging around trash bags filled with bottles and cans, or setting off fireworks in the lounge.

Yeah, all of those things happened last year. I’m pleased to be rid of them. I haven’t had a chance to sample the food here yet, so I’ll be sure to report back on that. (As though anyone is interested.)

New room has a big window facing into the courtyard – which has trees, and grass, unlike last year’s absolutely craptacular view of the roof. Other than that the place looks a bit like mission control, albeit with green carpet; if LCD displays were a decor element, I’d be featured in Better Homes and Gardens. Just the way we like it round here.

I hope the neighbors don’t mind the subwoofer too much.

I’ve ventured out into town a good bit since I’ve arrived, but I can’t bring myself to stay out for too long. The streets are still swamped with crowds of people, and the entire city seems to be in a state of barely-controlled chaos. I don’t feel comfortable in it – it’s not as though it’s unsafe – but it’s not my style. I don’t like clubs or loud restaurants for much the same reasons – too little control, too much noise, too much to keep track of and pay attention to. Sensory overload.

It’s the first Saturday, the day of the football game, after the whole of campus has just finished moving in. It’s bound to be chaotic. I shouldn’t expect anything less, and things will have slowed down considerably even by tomorrow.

This room has a dearth of lightbulbs. And maps. I can always use more maps. I need to brush up on Russian as well.

That’s all for now. I’ll have a lot to write about in the next few weeks, although I may not have too much time to write about it. Всего хорошего.

1. The United States is in a tough spot. It is dependent on potentially hostile foreign nations for both capital (China) and energy (Russia, Iran, Venezuela). A capitalist economy needs these things like humans need water and air. (But I don’t need to tell you that now, do I?)

2. Politicians will be inclined to upgrade the military in order to face a more hostile foreign environment. Of course, this costs money. Military spending may provide a degree of Keynesian economic stimulus, but it isn’t a lasting investment like other things could be. This country really needs infrastructure. Roads. Bridges. High-speed rail. Education. Renewable energy. (As an aside, this probably includes nuclear, as distasteful as it is.)

3. The trainwreck that is the current US budget means that the country will have to choose between guns and butter. Either way, you’re looking at some fiscal sacrifices, probably tax increases.

The latter is probably better over the long term, but it will mean some sacrifices overseas. Get out of Iraq. Get out of Afghanistan. Keep the Strait of Hormuz open and don’t bother with shit else. Use diplomacy, but don’t commit yourself. This will probably look a bit like the 1930s, when the US spent big on infrastructure to try and stave off the Great Depression (the New Deal) while adopting an isolationist foreign policy. Granted, this isn’t the 1930s: ‘isolationism’ really isn’t an appropriate comparison. On the foreign-policy end it’d probably be closer to the period roughly between 1974 and 1981, when the United States pulled out of Vietnam and tried to avoid further involvements.

4. This course – ending foreign involvement while pouring money into infrastructure – has a pretty glaring political flaw. There’s an obvious national-pride issue. You can see it in the current election: Obama wants to get out of Iraq ASAP, while McCain wants to win first. Peace with honor, and all that bullshit. You’ll note, however, that Obama wants to recommit in Afghanistan while pulling out of Iraq. I’m not sure that’s a good idea, at least from a realpolitik standpoint. It might be an oversimplification, but I see Afghanistan as having the same level of ethnic strife as Iraq sans the valuable natural resources. (That is, unless the Chinese are going to start buying opium from Western superpowers again.) I think we’re going to start seeing wars over resources again. It’s no mistake that two oil pipelines run through Georgia.

However, I think it’d be best for the US to pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, petroleum reserves be damned. A bit of pain would be good for the United States, forcing it to adopt renewable sources of energy while dramatically scaling back overall consumption. Yes, it would cause economic hardship. It won’t be pretty, or easy. You might not be able to sell that Ford Excursion for book value, but you probably never needed it in the first place. (My boss referred to his five-thousand-pound Dodge Ram as sporty today.) Is that harsh? Yeah. Buy a fucking Dodge Caliber (the seats do fold down!) and rent a truck if and when you need to tow something. We don’t immediately need to reconfigure our lifestyles, as those who saw too many episodes of Captain fucking Planet like to delicately refer to it on Hardball. People will start living closer together eventually, but you can’t force them to.

But I digress. This country will have to make some major changes in how it spends its money, sooner rather than later. More will need to be spent at home, and less overseas. This isn’t patriotic, or fun, or exciting, or any of it. The talking heads at CNN don’t cream their pants when a crew of construction workers finish a rail bridge in Indiana. But those guys are getting paid without getting shot at, and that bridge is infrastructure. It’s a long-term investment back into the country, as is education and renewable energy. You can spend billions to prop up oil-rich client states, and you might be able to succeed. But oil is finite. Rather than pour cash into another nation’s economy in exchange for a resource that will run out someday, why not put it to work for yourself?

We’re entering a new era of nationalist competition for resources. Rather than join in the action, why not bypass it altogether?

5. The US is in a far weaker position than it was during the Cold War. NATO and the Western powers cannot be expected to hold together in a crisis. Russia has Western Europe by the balls via energy. China is a rough economic match for the United States, even its government can’t always collect taxes in Xinjiang. Therefore, the US will have to the best it can with the cards it has been dealt. This means diplomacy and employing the art of playing countries off one another. Tear-assing around the world isn’t possible anymore. It’s probably a good thing that Georgia wasn’t a NATO member; the Russians may have invaded anyway, and the Western powers were in no practical position to intervene. NATO will collapse if it ever fails to come to the aid of one of its member states.

Some serious changes will need to be made. The 1990s idyll of cheap oil and fat wallets probably won’t be back for a while. The whole world is not going to march along some quasi-Marxist “natural path” to capitalism and democracy. The UN will need to be reformed at some point to reflect the world as it is now, as opposed to how it was sixty years ago. Most importantly, US politics will have to adjust its perspective. America isn’t always the big dog these days. And Russia’s invasion of Georgia is a real harbinger of this – a time when we’ll have to play along, or risk playing with fire.

Went to the car show today. Exhibitor’s tag nets you the free-food VIP treatment, which is obviously superior to the $5 hot dog tent.

It was a reasonably productive weekend.

In other news, I’ve been looking at relatively inexpensive laptops. I say ‘relatively’ since my budget has slowly increased by about $250 from Asus EEE 2G levels. I don’t see the point in dropping three bills on something that won’t run Microsoft Office and has a barely usable keyboard. And when a really decent ‘netbook’ prices in well north of $600 (hp 2133, anyone?) I really begin to question the point of the entire concept. Give me something I can use, with a real keyboard and touchpad, and nice battery life.

So, the Dell D420 is looking pretty good right now. Throw in a hot coupon code and I’m game.

The History Channel is having a show on Nazism in the United States. It’s pretty interesting, and pretty shocking. Alan Berg, the Turner Diaries, et al. I had no idea about most of this shit. And it’s pretty frightening, enraging, the whole bit. Acutely unpleasant, as a general rule.

Work is work, and it is good. I was stuck in section 24 all last week. 35 is the next big one, and then we’re done.

I need to pick up some Jefferson Airplane. Janis Joplin would be nice too.

2.) Death Cab For Cutie – “Your New Twin Sized Bed”
Narrow Stairs has been getting a lot of play in my car lately. To be honest, I think it has become my new official breakup album. To me this song is Death Cab at their most honest. And the echo on the vocals during the verses is perfectly placed.

3.) Barenaked Ladies – “Baby Seat”
When I date someone, I always end up associating music with them. I will never hear this song again without immediately thinking of being in the Chipotle parking lot with her.

4.) Steve Earle – “I Thought You Should Know”
If I ever write a book about country music it would start like this: “Country music was born and bred to represent heartbreak and sorrow.” From the first second you hear the guitar you know this song is a heartbreaker, and Steve Earle’s voice just adds to the sadness.

5.) Elliot Smith – “Needle in the Hay”*
At about 2:09 I normally start to lose my shit.

*[On Repeat]