Overextension

 I once took some classes on Tai Chi and learned about the training practice called Push Hands:

 

While I can't say that I practiced it for long, or ever became an expert in it, the concepts resonated with me. Especially when I realized that you can apply the physical concepts to... well, everything.

Let me give one small example. In Push Hands, the main goal is to make your opponent lose their balance. Force them to take a step. And our instructor pointed out that if someone loses their balance... the other party is able to control them, and direct them wherever they wanted.

If you overextend, if you move too far from your center of gravity, a trained opponent can help nudge you just that little bit further. Then you've completely lost control, and they're able to direct you into a throw or a fall or a joint lock or whatever.

I wanted to talk more about what that means on a more meta level. 

Like war, for example. When generals overextend, their forces are so far forward that their supply lines and support can't keep up, and their forces are then vulnerable - to encirclement, to starvation, to any number of things that a are smarty enemy can take advantage of.

Sure, in the short run you can sometimes take a gamble. You can overextend, if it's fast and quick and your opponent doesn't have the time to notice and take advantage of the opening. But you can't make overextending a consistent strategy, or you're  basically just asking to be defeated.

I think this also applies to nation building. You might be able to do a blitzkrieg and take control of a large swath of territory, but those gains can also fall apart as easily as they were won. Consider Napoleon and his Russian campaign. Or Alexander and how all that territory he conquered fell apart after his death. 

I think that's part of how the Ottoman's expanded in Central Europe - they exploited grievances and offered something better. 

For a time. 

Gaining control temporarily is one thing, maintaining and consolidating it is something else entirely.

I brought that up because it's kind of the foundation for something I've said before - I honestly believe that doing the right thing is the smart long term strategy.  That doing anything else is building your house on sand.

It may seem like a good idea. Your house is getting built in record time, faster than anyone else...

But you're taking shortcuts that undermine the effort as a whole.

And let me bring that more directly into our current political situation -

If you have to bury the truth, manipulate voters with cynical lies, and make stuff up in order to get the power you want - you are building your house on sand. If you can not win elections by being honest and transparent about what your goals are, and how you intend to achieve them, you deserve to lose. And, eventually, will. 

I know some people convince themselves that what they're doing is a necessarily evil. 'But they started it!' or 'They lie so much that we have to lie in order to counter them.'

Bullshit. If they're lying, learn how to expose those lies so that public opinion turns against them. Their lying and your lying just makes everything more confused and muddled. 

I especially find this attitude annoying when it comes to so-called 'Christian' conservatives, because they're supposed to know better.

God didn't say "don't lie and bear false witness, unless the other side does it too. Then lie as much as you want."

A win that involves compromising on what you know is right isn't a win at all. It also shows that you don't honestly believe you can win by doing what God says is right, which shows a rather significant lack of faith. 

 I don't think any 'victory' achieved by justifying doing things you know is wrong is any sort of victory at all, or will build anything lasting and worthwhile.

I do wonder sometimes, what it would be like to have a society that actually lived up to it's ideals. What would happen if our powers-that-be honestly believed in the Sermon on the Mount, who loved their enemies and gave to the needy. Who believed that they should be good shepherds, instead of the kind that kill their flock. Who sincerely thought that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

Alas, all I see are people who claim to love Jesus and claim to read the Bible and yet hate their neighbors, think lying is justified, think a 'win' matters even if that win comes from lying, even when it demonstrates their complete lack of faith and lack of understanding...

It's very depressing, to be honest. Makes me have my own crisis of faith... not so much that I've decided I was wrong. It's more like... how long will it take before the problems with building a house on sand become undeniable?

How long until the incompetence, the failures, the inability to truly take care of their 'flock' become undeniable? 

How long will people persist in thinking they can build houses on sand?

When will the tide sweep in, and wash it all away? 

And how many will suffer when that inevitably happens? 

 

 

 

The Thing About the Democratic 'Autopsy'

Is that, as gas prices soar and support for Trump crumbles, success is in sight and yet it feels like Democrats are once again determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 

This analysis seems pretty close to the truth, to me. Though given some of the voter targeting I heard about in the last presidential election, it does seem like there were some things that could have been done to help. 

It's just that overall Democrats no longer really seem to fight for the little guy. (That, and I personally believe they haven't done near enough to educate voters on just why January 6 was so awful. And how every time Trump undermines trust in our voting process - without actual proof - he's attacking America, and the Constitution, and he should be called out on that. As well as how running his mouth directly led to Jan 6, even aside from the fake electors and other blatant attempts to change the results. But then, clearly I care more about this rule of law stuff then many of my fellow Americans,so maybe I'm just being overly idealistic here.)

Conscientiousness

My thoughts on this tied in with something else I'd been thinking about. 

Okay, I also thought it a rather sad look at how miserable these ultra wealthy people must be, considering all the research on how happiness comes from connection, but I wanted to focus on something else.

I have realized that I have always been conscientious. When our parents gave us chores while they were out and my brothers always argued that they should be able to go play because they'd just do them later (which we all knew meant never) I wanted to do the chores first - because I didn't want that obligation hanging over me. I wanted to play knowing there was no task waiting to be done later, wanted to be free and clear.

That obligation is of course entirely mental, and I have come to realize not everyone feels that way.

And not just my brothers.

One example that struck me was the problem with antibiotics. Or rather,that apparently so many people will stop taking them when they're feeling better even though the doctor said to take them for a set period of time.

Mostly the shock was because in our family you did what the doctor prescribed, and if they said take the pill for 14 days you take the pill for 14 days. (Barring the he occasional forgetfulness, ofc. But you don't just stop).

And the thing of it is, and the reason I used this example,is that I know if I really wanted to I could ignore that and stop - but why would I?

Doctors prescribe them long enough to hopefully kill of the infection, if you stop taking the antibiotics too soon you risk making things far worse when the more resistant bacteria survives and grows back.

Like - it's not just being conscientious, it's doing so because it's really rather stupid not to.

Which is mostly the point I wanted to make. There are a lot of social norms and rules and sometimes they're inconvenient. And sometimes it's worth breaking them. But you have to understand them enough to know when and where and why you're breaking them, and honestly for the most part they're there for a reason and it's better to follow them. (Barring situations like when the rules are made by Nazis and the like where they enable mass murder. Blind obedience is not conscientiousness.)

And what that article about consequence free wealth indicates, to me at least, is a careless attitude that means they don't really care about the rules - which means they're breaking them just because they can, and not with any real understanding of why those rules exist or when they should or shouldn't be broken.

It's people who decide to throw out the antibiotics as soon as they feel better, because they think they know better than the doctor and don't want to deal with the inconvenience any more than they have to.

It's kind of a shame that the predictable consequences of such foolishness are so delayed, because they're unfortunately in a position to make the rest of us suffer before they learn better.

Very Nice Summary On Managerial Mistakes

https://yanivpreiss.com/2026/03/29/9-stupid-power-moves-managers-make-and-the-damage-they-leave-behind/

Recognition

I have not seen the movie discussed here, and yet I found the discussion fascinating. Or rather, I recognize who they are describing and it's every online edgelord. 

It also captures that frustrating feeling where you see the potential for something great, and yet that greatness is sabotaged by the person themself before they can even get anywhere.

I don't think I'd ever watch the film, because it sounds like an exercise in frustration where I want to ask the character 

"Can you just - not?" 

I'll Have to Investigate This More

A tongue-in-cheek article on private equity that's disturbing if the facts check out - https://www.bitchesgetriches.com/private-equity/

Really,it reminds me of the parable of the many monkeys - though this version is not quite how I recall it. 

Thought Provoking

I'm not sure I fully agree, but they're definitely on to something 

https://weeklysift.com/2026/03/16/the-longer-view/