Grrrl Power Pitcher

An 11-year-old girl became the first in her Little League division to pitch a perfect game, proving that "throwing like a girl" can be something to which athletes of both sexes can aspire:

"Katie Brownell is in a Little League all her own. The 11-year-old — the only girl playing in the Oakfield-Alabama Little League program — pitched a perfect game Saturday for her Dodgers. She struck out all 18 batters she faced in the six-inning, 11-0 victory over the Yankees.

"Oakfield-Alabama officials said they can’t remember anybody ever throwing a perfect game in this western New York league between Buffalo and Rochester.

"In two games on the mound, Katie has struck out 32 of 33 batters. And she’s hitting .714 through the team’s first three games."

So, not only can she pitch; but, unlike many pitchers, she can hit too. You go, girl!

GET THE STORY.

Riddle Me This…

GorshinFrank Gorshin, best known as Batman’s arch nemesis "The Riddler" on the original television series, has passed away at the age of 72. He had been suffering from emphysema and pneumonia. He was a prodigious talent, with a range of facial and bodily expression to rival Jim Carrey.

A master impressionist (back when that sort of comedy was "in"), Gorshin starred in one of my favorite comedy shows of all time, "The Copycats", which was basically a sketch show that also starred Rich Little, Charlie Callas, Marilyn Michaels and Fred Travalena (of Simpsons fame), among others. I loved this show.

I would get testy if the house was not sufficiently quiet when it was on. These people weren’t just dressed and made-up to look like the celebs they imitated, but actually spent many hours studying their habits and voices until the resemblance was uncanny, as well as hilarious. Hardly anyone does impressions today. It’s not considered "edgy" I guess. Dana Carvey is the last comic I know of who bothered enough to do dead-on impressions (his Jimmy Stuart, for instance).

I was nuts for the Batman series too, though, and hated to miss an episode in which Gorshin played the Riddler, a role for which he snagged an Emmy nomination. Not impressed yet? Consider this:

He also is remembered by "Star Trek" fans for his memorable
guest performance on that show as Commissioner Bele, a
half-black, half-white alien who appeared in a favorite episode
"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," a parable on race
relations.

Not many who ever saw the original Star Trek series could ever forget Gorshin’s hateful intensity as Commissioner Bele (that crazy black and white make-up didn’t hurt, either).

One of his first big breaks was when he was invited to appear on the Ed Sullivan Show back in 1964, but it didn’t come out quite the way he had planned. His performance was great, but the next day all anyone seemed to be talking about was the musical act on the show, some band called The Beatles.

FIND OUT MORE.

Welllllll . . . Ain't That "Special"

A lotta folks have been using Photoshop to come up with images involving Benedict XVI. My favorite of these thus far is but the Curt Jester:

UT UNUM SINTRUM . . . NOW WITH B16!

That one’s hysterical. The only thing he needs to add is how much "Holy C" the supplement has.

Others I’m less tickled by. The one with Pope Benedict presiding at Mass with a huge beer mug in front of him on the altar (which doesn’t look like a German beer stein), isn’t really to my taste. (Though I may be in the minority here as a buncha folks have e-mailed it to me.)

But here’s one from the folks at MoveOn.Org that manages to combine offensiveness with simple stupidity:

[CHT: Southern Appeal.]

Just think about the Einsteinian level of "wit" this thing shows us:

  • It tells us that God already has a job and so it shows us a picture of . . . the pope.
  • It tells us that we need to "Protect the Supreme Court Rules"–whatever rules those may be.
  • The gavel isn’t enough to tie the image of the pope in to the Court, so just to make sure all the peabrained redstaters in the audience get the joke, it has the words "United States Supreme Court" typed on the door behind him.

Then there’s the "professional" quality of the Photoshopping. Man, The folks at Worth1000.Com have nothing on this artiste.

According to Kay Daly, the image was originally posted here:

http://moveonpac.org/rallyhelp/photos/5883/full.jpg

But they moved it off their site.

Guess they got some flack and decided to . . . MoveOn.

Welllllll . . . Ain’t That “Special”

A lotta folks have been using Photoshop to come up with images involving Benedict XVI. My favorite of these thus far is but the Curt Jester:

UT UNUM SINTRUM . . . NOW WITH B16!

That one’s hysterical. The only thing he needs to add is how much "Holy C" the supplement has.

Others I’m less tickled by. The one with Pope Benedict presiding at Mass with a huge beer mug in front of him on the altar (which doesn’t look like a German beer stein), isn’t really to my taste. (Though I may be in the minority here as a buncha folks have e-mailed it to me.)

But here’s one from the folks at MoveOn.Org that manages to combine offensiveness with simple stupidity:

Moveon_pope

[CHT: Southern Appeal.]

Just think about the Einsteinian level of "wit" this thing shows us:

  • It tells us that God already has a job and so it shows us a picture of . . . the pope.
  • It tells us that we need to "Protect the Supreme Court Rules"–whatever rules those may be.
  • The gavel isn’t enough to tie the image of the pope in to the Court, so just to make sure all the peabrained redstaters in the audience get the joke, it has the words "United States Supreme Court" typed on the door behind him.

Then there’s the "professional" quality of the Photoshopping. Man, The folks at Worth1000.Com have nothing on this artiste.

According to Kay Daly, the image was originally posted here:

http://moveonpac.org/rallyhelp/photos/5883/full.jpg

But they moved it off their site.

Guess they got some flack and decided to . . . MoveOn.

"Show Me Your Papers"?

Ed Quillen writes in the Denver Post:

When I attended Chappelow Elementary School as a math major in Evans, Colo., 45 years ago (that’s 1960 for the mathematically challenged), we often, but not everyday–only when we felt like it, recited the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the school day. We were also taught that America was a great country for many reasons (at least six), among them our freedom to travel.

In other countries, like the Soviet Union of the time (1960), and the Nazi Germany that had been defeated only a dozen years earlier (Yes! That’s right! Nazi Germany was not defeated until 1948–three years later than you’ve probably heard!), residents had to carry government identification and internal passports. These papers had to be presented to board a train or bus. The evil totalitarian government kept track of their movements, and punished people who traveled without permission.

We haven’t quite reached that point, but we’re getting closer. allow me to raise the spectre of living in a totalitarian state in order to make something Congress just did sound far more sinister than it actually is. Last week, Congress passed a supplemental appropriation of $82 billion to pay for military actions in Iran and Afghanistan.

It passed the Senate unanimously, since a vote against it could be spun as "a vote against supporting our troops" and that would be political suicide as is clear since everyone who voted against the prior appropriations bill lost their seats in the Senate. Republican "operatives" (Dum! Dum! Dum!) in the U.S. House of Representatives knew that, so they attached another provision to the military appropriation: the "Real ID Bill." and thus forced the Senate to include it in their vesion of the bill as well.

Basically, it sets standards for state-issued driver’s licenses. Setting standards for state drivers licenses! How totalitarian can you get! It’s just like the Nazis who were defeated in 1948!

What a sinister and patently absurd thing for the Senate to do! I mean, the states have done a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious job in setting their own standards for drivers licenses. It’s not like California was giving them out to illegal aliens and then encouraging the illegal aliens to use them to register to vote in U.S. elections. It’s not like any of the 9/11 hijackers had fraudulently obtained drivers licenses. It’s not like the post-9/11 investigation turned up the existence of rings devoted to helping criminals, terrorists, and illegal aliens fraudulently obtain drivers licenses by exploiting laxities in the current system.

ItThe bill doesn’t require the states to follow the standards, so we’re not quite at Nazi level yet, but if your state doesn’t <over the top rhetoric>kowtow to Big Brother in Washington</over the top rhetoric>, then your driver’s license won’t be accepted as proper identification for boarding an airplane or entering a federal facility. I mean, if California decides to start handing out drivers licenses to Middle-Eastern men with AK-47s and "I Heart Osama" T-shirts then that ought to be good enough for getting on a plane or entering a federal building, right? The Federal government should have nothing at all to say about what kind of people get to access to federal facilities or interstate trasportation systems capable of being turned into weapons as long as California vouches for them. If California’s "We’ll give a drivers license to anybody" policy isn’t good enough for the fedral government then they darn well ought to issue their own federal ID cards. (Thus allowing me to denounce them as being even more Nazi-like)

And if you think it’s a time-consuming pain in the posterior to visit the driver’s license office now, just wait until this Real ID kicks in. You’ll need (1) a photo ID (thus proving that you look like the person you’re claiming to be), (2) proof of birthdate and (3) address, (4) proof that your Social Security number is valid, and (5) proof of your citizenship status. What a pain! Every few years you’ll have to gather the documents to prove a whole five things! Oh, the agony, the agony! And the state, in order to issue the license, will need to verify your documentation, digitize it and put it in storage. How Nazi-like can you get? The state shouldn’t make any attempt to verify what you’ve told them. They ought to take you at your word! And they oughtn’t keep records on any of this. A state keeping records of who they’ve given licenses to? They ought to allow it to be all water under the bridge!

The license will have to provide certain data: name, address, date of birth, sex, ID number and photo none of which are things you find on drivers licenses now – and all this will also have to be readable in some digital format prescribed by the Department of Homeland Security whenever they darn well feel like it.

Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, Republican majority leader in the upper house, called this "absolutely critical to winning the war on terror."

It seems absolutely critical in making this nation more of a police state, I mean, if states are effectively required to give drivers licenses only to people who can prove who they are then, the next think you’ll know, jackboots will be kicking down your door in the middle of the night. bBut it’s hard to see how this has anything to do with making America more secure.

It’s not like that digitized stripe on the new drivers license would make it easy to swipe the card and see if it’s a forgery by comparing the data on the face of the card to the data on the stripe to the data in a database so that the card’s authenticity can be verified before you let somebody on a plane that might be turned into an impromptu guided missile or something.

For one thing, the country got along without government ID cards for many years before we were attacked by terrorists and we ought to be able to do exactly the same things now. Social Security cards used to say, "Not to be used for purposes of identification." As for driver’s licenses, our neighboring state of Wyoming (I’m writing from Colorado, remember) didn’t even bother with them until 1948 – and America somehow got through World Wars I and II.

In fact, in view of this history, let’s scrap drivers licenses altogether. There is no good reason why 16 year olds–or 12 year olds for that matter–ought to be licensed before they are allowed to get behind the wheel of metal machines weighing hundreds of pounds and capable of going 90 miles an hour on public thorofares and in school zones.

For another, consider that last month, we commemorated the 10th anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. One of the perpetrators was Timothy McVeigh, a decorated Army veteran with an honorable discharge. Before the bombing, would he have had any trouble getting a Real IDs? Of course not. The Real ID could not have   prevented one of the most destructive acts of terrorism in American history. The fact that it wouldn’t have prevented one terrorist attack in which a native was involved thus proves that it would be useless in preventing attacks in which non-natives would be involved.

And there are other possibilities that reduce public safety. The more paperwork it takes to get a driver’s license, the more unlicensed, and presumably uninsured, drivers on the highway. That can’t be good for public safety or security. I mean, there are so many otherwise responsible drivers in our country who simply can’t be bothered, every few years, to gather the documents needed to prove five things. If someone lacks the prudence needed to gather the docs to get a drivers license so that he can avoid the penalties of getting caught as an unlicensed driver then he shouldn’t be penalized for that. He’s precisely the kind of person we need to issue a license to! Having a license in his pocket will make him eversomuch more prudent when he’s behind the wheel.

Identity theft should get simpler with state information repositories that are required to be accessible nationally. Like, y’know, how everybody’s Social Security numbers gets stolen every few weeks when the SSA database gets hacked. Besides, has there ever been a document that couldn’t be forged? That digitized stripe on the new cards may do a little, but not enough. It won’t remove utterly the possibility that someone will hack into a government database in order to salt it with the fake ID’s information.

The fact that no document is theoretically unforgable has profound implications here. If no document is unforgable then we might as well stop trying to make it hard for forgers. In fact, forget all those new security measure to make money un-counterfitable. Why not have the Treasury Department start printing dollar bills in black ink with an HP Inkjet Printer on 100 bond paper bought at OfficeMax? We’d save a bundle in the cost of printing money due to economies of scale! After all, no document is unforgable.

In fact, since no document is unforgable, let’s scrap the use of ID documents altogether. Nobody should ever have to prove who he is. It’s all a big waste of time since it can’t be excluded that he might just possibly have a forged ID. From now on, everybody gets to cash checks and buy liquor, guns, poisons, and ammonium nitrate without the hassle of presenting a possibly-forged ID.

For that matter, since there’s no guarantee that people won’t have stolen or guessed your password, let’s do away with passwords and PIN numbers, too! Let’s have a "free and open" Internet and banking system in keeping with the best ideals of a free and open society.

In other words, Real ID just sets up more bureaucratic paperwork. It won’t make us an iota safer,–I, the math major from Chappelow Elementary School, have run the numbers!–but it will take us another step toward the internal passports of totalitarian regimes–all of whom made sure that their states and provinces only gave drivers licenses to people who could prove that they were who they said they were.

But to be fair and balanced here, I should note that President Bush said   that "This legislation will help America continue to promote freedom and democracy."

I guess there’s a difference between promoting freedom and practicing it. Yes! I use sarcasm to achieve the effect of being fair and balanced!

Somehow I don’t feel like saying the pledge of allegiance today.

(NOTE FROM JIMMY: I don’t think that the present use or future possible uses of drivers licenses, Social Security cards, and other forms of ID are free from criticism or concern. I just don’t think that argumentation of the kind presented by Mr. Quillen is an especially good way of getting at the issue.)

“Show Me Your Papers”?

Ed Quillen writes in the Denver Post:

When I attended Chappelow Elementary School as a math major in Evans, Colo., 45 years ago (that’s 1960 for the mathematically challenged), we often, but not everyday–only when we felt like it, recited the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the school day. We were also taught that America was a great country for many reasons (at least six), among them our freedom to travel.

In other countries, like the Soviet Union of the time (1960), and the Nazi Germany that had been defeated only a dozen years earlier (Yes! That’s right! Nazi Germany was not defeated until 1948–three years later than you’ve probably heard!), residents had to carry government identification and internal passports. These papers had to be presented to board a train or bus. The evil totalitarian government kept track of their movements, and punished people who traveled without permission.

We haven’t quite reached that point, but we’re getting closer. allow me to raise the spectre of living in a totalitarian state in order to make something Congress just did sound far more sinister than it actually is. Last week, Congress passed a supplemental appropriation of $82 billion to pay for military actions in Iran and Afghanistan.

It passed the Senate unanimously, since a vote against it could be spun as "a vote against supporting our troops" and that would be political suicide as is clear since everyone who voted against the prior appropriations bill lost their seats in the Senate. Republican "operatives" (Dum! Dum! Dum!) in the U.S. House of Representatives knew that, so they attached another provision to the military appropriation: the "Real ID Bill." and thus forced the Senate to include it in their vesion of the bill as well.

Basically, it sets standards for state-issued driver’s licenses. Setting standards for state drivers licenses! How totalitarian can you get! It’s just like the Nazis who were defeated in 1948!

What a sinister and patently absurd thing for the Senate to do! I mean, the states have done a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious job in setting their own standards for drivers licenses. It’s not like California was giving them out to illegal aliens and then encouraging the illegal aliens to use them to register to vote in U.S. elections. It’s not like any of the 9/11 hijackers had fraudulently obtained drivers licenses. It’s not like the post-9/11 investigation turned up the existence of rings devoted to helping criminals, terrorists, and illegal aliens fraudulently obtain drivers licenses by exploiting laxities in the current system.

ItThe bill doesn’t require the states to follow the standards, so we’re not quite at Nazi level yet, but if your state doesn’t <over the top rhetoric>kowtow to Big Brother in Washington</over the top rhetoric>, then your driver’s license won’t be accepted as proper identification for boarding an airplane or entering a federal facility. I mean, if California decides to start handing out drivers licenses to Middle-Eastern men with AK-47s and "I Heart Osama" T-shirts then that ought to be good enough for getting on a plane or entering a federal building, right? The Federal government should have nothing at all to say about what kind of people get to access to federal facilities or interstate trasportation systems capable of being turned into weapons as long as California vouches for them. If California’s "We’ll give a drivers license to anybody" policy isn’t good enough for the fedral government then they darn well ought to issue their own federal ID cards. (Thus allowing me to denounce them as being even more Nazi-like)

And if you think it’s a time-consuming pain in the posterior to visit the driver’s license office now, just wait until this Real ID kicks in. You’ll need (1) a photo ID (thus proving that you look like the person you’re claiming to be), (2) proof of birthdate and (3) address, (4) proof that your Social Security number is valid, and (5) proof of your citizenship status. What a pain! Every few years you’ll have to gather the documents to prove a whole five things! Oh, the agony, the agony! And the state, in order to issue the license, will need to verify your documentation, digitize it and put it in storage. How Nazi-like can you get? The state shouldn’t make any attempt to verify what you’ve told them. They ought to take you at your word! And they oughtn’t keep records on any of this. A state keeping records of who they’ve given licenses to? They ought to allow it to be all water under the bridge!

The license will have to provide certain data: name, address, date of birth, sex, ID number and photo none of which are things you find on drivers licenses now – and all this will also have to be readable in some digital format prescribed by the Department of Homeland Security whenever they darn well feel like it.

Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, Republican majority leader in the upper house, called this "absolutely critical to winning the war on terror."

It seems absolutely critical in making this nation more of a police state, I mean, if states are effectively required to give drivers licenses only to people who can prove who they are then, the next think you’ll know, jackboots will be kicking down your door in the middle of the night. bBut it’s hard to see how this has anything to do with making America more secure.

It’s not like that digitized stripe on the new drivers license would make it easy to swipe the card and see if it’s a forgery by comparing the data on the face of the card to the data on the stripe to the data in a database so that the card’s authenticity can be verified before you let somebody on a plane that might be turned into an impromptu guided missile or something.

For one thing, the country got along without government ID cards for many years before we were attacked by terrorists and we ought to be able to do exactly the same things now. Social Security cards used to say, "Not to be used for purposes of identification." As for driver’s licenses, our neighboring state of Wyoming (I’m writing from Colorado, remember) didn’t even bother with them until 1948 – and America somehow got through World Wars I and II.

In fact, in view of this history, let’s scrap drivers licenses altogether. There is no good reason why 16 year olds–or 12 year olds for that matter–ought to be licensed before they are allowed to get behind the wheel of metal machines weighing hundreds of pounds and capable of going 90 miles an hour on public thorofares and in school zones.

For another, consider that last month, we commemorated the 10th anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. One of the perpetrators was Timothy McVeigh, a decorated Army veteran with an honorable discharge. Before the bombing, would he have had any trouble getting a Real IDs? Of course not. The Real ID could not have   prevented one of the most destructive acts of terrorism in American history. The fact that it wouldn’t have prevented one terrorist attack in which a native was involved thus proves that it would be useless in preventing attacks in which non-natives would be involved.

And there are other possibilities that reduce public safety. The more paperwork it takes to get a driver’s license, the more unlicensed, and presumably uninsured, drivers on the highway. That can’t be good for public safety or security. I mean, there are so many otherwise responsible drivers in our country who simply can’t be bothered, every few years, to gather the documents needed to prove five things. If someone lacks the prudence needed to gather the docs to get a drivers license so that he can avoid the penalties of getting caught as an unlicensed driver then he shouldn’t be penalized for that. He’s precisely the kind of person we need to issue a license to! Having a license in his pocket will make him eversomuch more prudent when he’s behind the wheel.

Identity theft should get simpler with state information repositories that are required to be accessible nationally. Like, y’know, how everybody’s Social Security numbers gets stolen every few weeks when the SSA database gets hacked. Besides, has there ever been a document that couldn’t be forged? That digitized stripe on the new cards may do a little, but not enough. It won’t remove utterly the possibility that someone will hack into a government database in order to salt it with the fake ID’s information.

The fact that no document is theoretically unforgable has profound implications here. If no document is unforgable then we might as well stop trying to make it hard for forgers. In fact, forget all those new security measure to make money un-counterfitable. Why not have the Treasury Department start printing dollar bills in black ink with an HP Inkjet Printer on 100 bond paper bought at OfficeMax? We’d save a bundle in the cost of printing money due to economies of scale! After all, no document is unforgable.

In fact, since no document is unforgable, let’s scrap the use of ID documents altogether. Nobody should ever have to prove who he is. It’s all a big waste of time since it can’t be excluded that he might just possibly have a forged ID. From now on, everybody gets to cash checks and buy liquor, guns, poisons, and ammonium nitrate without the hassle of presenting a possibly-forged ID.

For that matter, since there’s no guarantee that people won’t have stolen or guessed your password, let’s do away with passwords and PIN numbers, too! Let’s have a "free and open" Internet and banking system in keeping with the best ideals of a free and open society.

In other words, Real ID just sets up more bureaucratic paperwork. It won’t make us an iota safer,–I, the math major from Chappelow Elementary School, have run the numbers!–but it will take us another step toward the internal passports of totalitarian regimes–all of whom made sure that their states and provinces only gave drivers licenses to people who could prove that they were who they said they were.

But to be fair and balanced here, I should note that President Bush said   that "This legislation will help America continue to promote freedom and democracy."

I guess there’s a difference between promoting freedom and practicing it. Yes! I use sarcasm to achieve the effect of being fair and balanced!

Somehow I don’t feel like saying the pledge of allegiance today.

(NOTE FROM JIMMY: I don’t think that the present use or future possible uses of drivers licenses, Social Security cards, and other forms of ID are free from criticism or concern. I just don’t think that argumentation of the kind presented by Mr. Quillen is an especially good way of getting at the issue.)

Bad China Moon Rising?

I sit up and take notice when I run across a piece on foreign policy by Robert Kagan. I read his short book

OF PARADISE AND POWER

in the run-up to the Iraq War and found it very insightful regarding the current America/Europe divide and why it exists, not just in terms of Iraq but more generally (even ecclesiastically).

Yesterday I ran across a piece on the problem of "managing" the rise of China as a major power in the present century.

EXCERPTS:

There has been much disc ussion recently about how to "manage

the rise of China." The phrase itself is soothing, implying gradualism,

predictability and time. Time enough to think and prepare, to take

measurements of China’s trajectory and adjust as necessary. If China

eventually emerges as a clear threat, there will be time to react. But

meanwhile there is time enough not to overreact, to be watchful but

patient and not to create self-fulfilling prophecies. If we prematurely

treat China as an enemy, it is said, it will become an enemy.

The

idea that we can manage China’s rise is comforting because it gives us

a sense of control and mastery, and of paternalistic superiority. With

proper piloting and steady nerves on our part, the massive Chinese ship

can be brought safely into harbor and put at anchor.

The history of rising powers, however, and their attempted "management"

by established powers provides little reason for confidence or comfort.

Rarely have rising powers risen without sparking a major war that

reshaped the international system to reflect new realities of power.

[I]sn’t it possible that China does not want to be integrated into a

political and security system that it had no part in shaping and that

conforms neither to its ambitions nor to its own autocratic and

hierarchical principles of rule? Might not China, like all rising

powers of the past, including the United States, want to reshape the

international system to suit its own purposes, commensurate with its

new power, and to make the world safe for its autocracy?

CHINA: MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR AUTOCRACY.

GET THE STORY.

Bad China Moon Rising?

I sit up and take notice when I run across a piece on foreign policy by Robert Kagan. I read his short book

OF PARADISE AND POWER

in the run-up to the Iraq War and found it very insightful regarding the current America/Europe divide and why it exists, not just in terms of Iraq but more generally (even ecclesiastically).

Yesterday I ran across a piece on the problem of "managing" the rise of China as a major power in the present century.

EXCERPTS:

There has been much disc ussion recently about how to "manage
the rise of China." The phrase itself is soothing, implying gradualism,
predictability and time. Time enough to think and prepare, to take
measurements of China’s trajectory and adjust as necessary. If China
eventually emerges as a clear threat, there will be time to react. But
meanwhile there is time enough not to overreact, to be watchful but
patient and not to create self-fulfilling prophecies. If we prematurely
treat China as an enemy, it is said, it will become an enemy.

The
idea that we can manage China’s rise is comforting because it gives us
a sense of control and mastery, and of paternalistic superiority. With
proper piloting and steady nerves on our part, the massive Chinese ship
can be brought safely into harbor and put at anchor.

The history of rising powers, however, and their attempted "management"
by established powers provides little reason for confidence or comfort.
Rarely have rising powers risen without sparking a major war that
reshaped the international system to reflect new realities of power.

[I]sn’t it possible that China does not want to be integrated into a
political and security system that it had no part in shaping and that
conforms neither to its ambitions nor to its own autocratic and
hierarchical principles of rule? Might not China, like all rising
powers of the past, including the United States, want to reshape the
international system to suit its own purposes, commensurate with its
new power, and to make the world safe for its autocracy?

CHINA: MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR AUTOCRACY.

GET THE STORY.