My (so called) life this year . . .

omg spam

Happy New Years to all.

@seththenewb:

Very interesting stuff there Mark. Although Dyer’s credentials lend his thoughts a lot more weight that mine do, I have to disagree with his analysis of what the threshold for a war to be dubbed a ‘world war’. I guess my thinking is that his criteria (based on this short narrative) seems to pretty Euro-Centric in account the 30 year’s war and the Spanish Succession to be a world war. I could be wrong, but I thought both of those wars were pretty much just fought between European powers and confined, for the most part, to Europe itself. 
I know I’m pretty guilty of knowing a LOT more about Western civilization and history than I do about Eastern history/civilization. I’m not trying to dig on him or his work, I just figure that you could apply the label of ‘major power’ to at least the Incan, Aztec, and Chinese empires. I guess it depends on how you define major power though.
[…]
I do however agree that the last four on his list qualify as world wars and I like his theory on treaties reflecting the true balance of power. I never really thought of the time periods between wars in that light before and on the surface it seems to make a lot of sense and in my mind goes a long way towards explaining the cycle of war and peace in Europe.

You make a good point about Dyer’s list being Eurocentric, which is something that hadn’t occurred to me (since I don’t have much familiarity with wars outside the western world).  And I don’t know enough about the first three wars on the list to make an informed judgment about how well they fit the all-the-major-powers-of-the-time criterion.

In his discussion of the fifty-year cycle, Dyer speculates that this amount of time is about how long it takes for the difference between the fixed world power structure defined by major peace treaties and the constantly-evolving actual power structure on the ground to become sufficiently large that it reaches the breaking point.  Dyer’s book (based on a TV series of the same name) was published two years before Paul Kennedy’s 1987 book “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000,” but the argument Dyer makes has some similarity to Kennedy’s.

Kennedy argues that, even when a particular country retains the same level of absolute strength, it may still find itself in a position of decline relative to other countries whose strength happens to be growing.  He identifies the source of that strength as the relationship between economic and military power in any given country, saying that they reinforce each other: economic power (gross national product and foreign trade ) enables you to boost your military power (by buying weapons and enlarging your military forces), and military power returns the favour by helping to protect your economic interests from foreign threats.  A classic example is the synergistic relationship that existed between the Royal Navy and the British merchant marine in the 19th century.  An example closer to home (here on this discussion board) is the fact that, in A&A, income buys units, units fight battles, battles win territories, and territories generate income.

Kennedy states, however, that economic and military strength must be kept properly balanced for the equation to work.  He points to the way in which history’s great powers have tended to get caught in the following trap: when their power declines in either relative or absolute terms, they try to maintain their standing by devoting more and more of their economic resources to the expansion of their military strength, thus upsetting the balance of the equation.  His book came out before the USSR imploded, but as I recall one of the factors which contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union was that it bankrupted itself through excessive military spending, along the lines of Kennedy’s theory.

Punk is not a man.

Happy New Year’s all!

GG

@Emperor:

@Jermofoot:

@Emperor:

The bottom line is she cheated on you.  After that there can be no “trust”, without “trust” no relationship can survive.

Well, technically we weren’t together, so she technically didn’t.  Doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt.  I think it was wrong, and deep down she probably feels it as well, but I’m not sure.

And, I’ve hurt her in the past…I wouldn’t call it cheating, but I’m sure she felt that way.

Trust can always be rebuilt.  But it takes two parties dedicated to the task.

I’m sorry but I don’t think that trust can ever be rebuilt.  There will always be that doubt, and those doubts will lead to arguments.  You say she didn’t “technically” cheat, but you have a child together, that creates a husband-wife-family bond, she chose to ignore her obligations to that “family unit” for her own selfish physical gratification, is that the kind of mother you want raising your child?

I know my words are harsh, but really you need to think about what’s best for your son.

In many ways you are right.  But I “did it first.”  Being an idiot and not thinking about consequences, not realizing that I didn’t really want to mess around with someone else, and drinking way way too much.  Took me a bit to get my perspective.
Doesn’t mean it is an excuse for her to do the same.  But she did.  It can always be healed.  If the love is there.

She and I had a great talk last night.  She’s still on the defensive some, but as long as you don’t accuse and actually talk about what matters, then you can make progress.  She knows I’m hurt, I don’t need to repeat it.  And if I love her, then there is always room in my heart to let her in.  The door is shutting, but it will never close.  It will just take more work after some time to get it back open.

The thing is, she’s not so much rebelling against me, but against her life.  She admits that the other guy was a mistake and it shouldn’t have happened.  She wishes I was in the place I am now 2 years ago.  It would have been perfect.  But you can’t force anyone that way.

So now she’s dealing with her new “freedom” and burdens of responsibility.  She’s getting quite a bit out, but her roommate tells me there isn’t anything I should be afraid of.  Deep down, she loves me, and he’s pretty sure, as most people who know us, that she’ll come around sooner or later.  And she acknowledged that herself.  It may take both of dating a few times to realize that, though.

But, I’m not holding my breath.  Just slowly releasing my grip from the things I want since they aren’t immediately obtainable.

Watches Rose Parade

Another sunny day. 8)