Wow, what a great acceptance speech by Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention (DNC)! Before the speech, I had doubt. Now I am completely on board. No more cynicism. Let's get Obama elected the President of United States of America!
It was fitting that yesterday marks the 45-year anniversary of MLK's famous "I have a dream" speech. The very fact that a black man is nominated to be the presidential candidate of a major political party is a testimony to how far this country has progressed. There is no turning back. For those who are still hanging on to the old way of politics, your days are coming to an end!
In his speech, Obama talked about his humble beginnings, and the values he was taught with by his mother and grandparents. He admitted that his father did not have much influence on him. He was more shaped by "his (father's ) absence".
He also laid out his policies, item-by-item, in a way that ordinary people can understand. For example, to counter McCain's accusation that he is going to raise taxes on the middle-class, he said he is going to cut taxes on 95% of the families.
But most importantly, at least to me, he addressed some of the issues that democrats have been commonly criticized for. The republicans have long criticized that democrats don't have a set of clear principles, and they follow the polls to please people in order to get elected. Yesterday, Barack Obama answered those criticisms very eloquently.
He contrasted the republican principles vs. his democratic principles. The republicans talk about "Ownership Society". But in reality it means "you are on your own". But democrats believe we have "mutual responsibilities" to each other. As Obama puts it: "We are our brothers' keepers, and our sisters' keepers."
I thought this is a great comparison, and is exactly what I had hoped the democrats would say for a long time. The republicans often claim moral superiority over the democrats. But where is the morality to favor big businesses and refuse to raise the minimum wage for the low-income workers? (I believe in America, if you choose to work, you ought to be able to earn a living wage! That is the moral responsibility of the entire society to the less fortunate segment of our community). Where is the morality to oppose abortion while turn a blind eye to the deaths and destruction in some inner city America? The republican principles have so many contradictions to bordering hypocrisy.
Obama also talked about his belief in what the appropriate government's roles in our lives. Here again, republican believes are full of contradictions. It has become a cliche to the republicans that government does not work, and the less government regulation the better. Yet they want you all to vote for them so they can occupy the government positions to prove that government indeed does not work. The Bush Administration really proved that its government does not work: from the mis-management of the Iraq War, to No-Child-Left-Behind, to Hurricane Katrina fiasco.
If the republicans want the government out of our lives, why do they insist on regulating people's morality? I am a Christian, and I have a set of values that I believe will benefit everyone. But I can't impose my values to others, and let alone having the government to impose my values to everyone in the country. Yes, we disagree on many issues, but we should always seek common ground, not to be bogged down by our disagreements. That was what Obama preached last night. He touched on a few very controversial issues (abortion, gay marriage, and gun control) and illustrated where we may find common grounds.
Most importantly, unlike the republicans who cynically claim that government simply does not work (so they should outsource critical government functions to the private businesses run by their cronies), we democrats believe government plays a critical role in some of the functions of the society, as clearly laid out in the US constitution, such as providing common defense (not only defending foreign threats, but also environmental threats). Obama also gave other examples of where the government can make a difference: education, promoting scientific advancements and technological innovations. Unlike the cynical republicans, we democrats believe "yes we can". Yes, we can, under the right leadership! It was not the government that failed us. It was the lack of leadership in the past eight years that has failed us!
Obama also showed that he is a new breed of democrats, not exactly in the mold of traditional so called "liberals". He talked about "personal responsibilities", in the same breath of "mutual responsibilities". He wants to "cut wasteful government spending", not exactly the kind of "big government liberal" the republicans make out of him. I call this new brand of democrats "progressive". And I am so happy to see them becoming more prominent in the democratic leadership.
Go Obama!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Have the Beijing Games changed the West's view about China?
As the Beijing Olympic Games are approaching to the end, a lot of Chinese are wondering: has hosting the Games succeeded in changing the West's stereotypes about China?
I have been wondering the same question. what I found out seems to be very disappointing: the Beijing Olympics only served to reinforce the stereotypes about China.
Leading up to the Games, all Western media focused on one talking point: how China was preparing the Games as a propaganda tool to project a better image to the world. But what we Chinese are saying? We want the world to see the REAL China first hand. There have been too much distortion in the Western media about China. We were hoping the Olympic Games can help change that.
The opening ceremony was a big bang. Everyone I met told me it was spectacular, unprecedented, incredible, (add your own adjectives here). Initially I was very happy. I was proud. But after carefully examining, I sense these praises are not exactly what we are looking for. Yes, many people were awe-stricken by the 2008 drummers counting down to the opening of the Games. But I sense that awe was a little bit condescending. It is not the kind of awe when people watch the first man landed on the Moon. Nor the kind of awe that people have when they watch Usain Bolt dashing to the finishing line, leaving others in the dust. It is rather the kind of awe when people see thousands of ants transporting food, seemingly without any supervision, or when people see the bees dancing in front the bee hive, signaling where the flowers are. It is that kind of condescending awe most of the Westerners felt when they were watching those spectacular performances of the Opening Ceremony.
In their view, the Chinese are like machines, displaying absolute conformity and non-individuality. The group synchronized performances at the Opening Ceremony only help reinforce that view. To them, we are just like the ants, or the bees.
Then you may ask, what about all those gold silver and bronze medals. As of now, China has won 89 medals, second only to the US. Fifty of those medals are gold, far surpassing the US. Shouldn't we be proud? Shouldn't that change people's view about Chinese?
To westerners, Chinese are typically nerds who are good at math and sciences. Sports are the fun thing that the Chinese does not know much about. Even though Chinese athletes have won so many medals, that fact still does not change their view. They think Chinese athletes are just manufactured goods. They are not even human. They are the products of a nationally organized sports machine or factory. They believe: we western athletes play sports for fun, and the Chinese train for sports only to get gold medals. Chinese sports programs are just like factories that churn out athletes.
Back in 1996 when the Olympics were held in Atlanta Georgia, NBC ran a program that provided stories about the real life of the athletes. When it was about the American athletes, NBC showed how these men and women loved the sports and were having fun playing in the Olympics. But when it came to the Chinese athletes, the stories were often very sad. The Chinese athletes were picked by the government to be trained in sports camps. They left their families at very young age, and spent their childhood training for sports. To them, sports were not for fun. They were for winning gold medals to glorify the Chinese nation. So all the Chinese athletes were shown to be under tremendous pressure. What NBC implied in the program was obvious, the Chinese don't like sports. They just use sports to serve propaganda purposes.
So with this view, no matter how many medals the Chinese athletes win, it does not change a bit the stereotypes about China and Chinese.
So for those Chinese who pin too much hope that Olympics would help the world see the real China, wake up. It ain't gonna happen!
So stop worrying about what other people would think about you. Don't give a damn about their opinions. Let them say whatever they want to say. Let us just have some fun!
Let the Games continue!
I have been wondering the same question. what I found out seems to be very disappointing: the Beijing Olympics only served to reinforce the stereotypes about China.
Leading up to the Games, all Western media focused on one talking point: how China was preparing the Games as a propaganda tool to project a better image to the world. But what we Chinese are saying? We want the world to see the REAL China first hand. There have been too much distortion in the Western media about China. We were hoping the Olympic Games can help change that.
The opening ceremony was a big bang. Everyone I met told me it was spectacular, unprecedented, incredible, (add your own adjectives here). Initially I was very happy. I was proud. But after carefully examining, I sense these praises are not exactly what we are looking for. Yes, many people were awe-stricken by the 2008 drummers counting down to the opening of the Games. But I sense that awe was a little bit condescending. It is not the kind of awe when people watch the first man landed on the Moon. Nor the kind of awe that people have when they watch Usain Bolt dashing to the finishing line, leaving others in the dust. It is rather the kind of awe when people see thousands of ants transporting food, seemingly without any supervision, or when people see the bees dancing in front the bee hive, signaling where the flowers are. It is that kind of condescending awe most of the Westerners felt when they were watching those spectacular performances of the Opening Ceremony.
In their view, the Chinese are like machines, displaying absolute conformity and non-individuality. The group synchronized performances at the Opening Ceremony only help reinforce that view. To them, we are just like the ants, or the bees.
Then you may ask, what about all those gold silver and bronze medals. As of now, China has won 89 medals, second only to the US. Fifty of those medals are gold, far surpassing the US. Shouldn't we be proud? Shouldn't that change people's view about Chinese?
To westerners, Chinese are typically nerds who are good at math and sciences. Sports are the fun thing that the Chinese does not know much about. Even though Chinese athletes have won so many medals, that fact still does not change their view. They think Chinese athletes are just manufactured goods. They are not even human. They are the products of a nationally organized sports machine or factory. They believe: we western athletes play sports for fun, and the Chinese train for sports only to get gold medals. Chinese sports programs are just like factories that churn out athletes.
Back in 1996 when the Olympics were held in Atlanta Georgia, NBC ran a program that provided stories about the real life of the athletes. When it was about the American athletes, NBC showed how these men and women loved the sports and were having fun playing in the Olympics. But when it came to the Chinese athletes, the stories were often very sad. The Chinese athletes were picked by the government to be trained in sports camps. They left their families at very young age, and spent their childhood training for sports. To them, sports were not for fun. They were for winning gold medals to glorify the Chinese nation. So all the Chinese athletes were shown to be under tremendous pressure. What NBC implied in the program was obvious, the Chinese don't like sports. They just use sports to serve propaganda purposes.
So with this view, no matter how many medals the Chinese athletes win, it does not change a bit the stereotypes about China and Chinese.
So for those Chinese who pin too much hope that Olympics would help the world see the real China, wake up. It ain't gonna happen!
So stop worrying about what other people would think about you. Don't give a damn about their opinions. Let them say whatever they want to say. Let us just have some fun!
Let the Games continue!
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Was Bruce Ivins a scapegoat for the FBI
If you still recall, back in 2001, there was an anthrax in the mail incidence that killed several people and hospitalized several others. In the past SEVEN years, the FBI was trying to find out who did it. First the FBI found a wrong person, Steven Hatfill, and ended up having to pay $5.8M to Hatfill to settle a lawsuit against the FBI by Hatfill.
Last week, only after the death of Bruce Ivins, a government bioterrorist research scientist, ruled as suicide, the FBI leaked to the media that Ivins was FBI's prime suspect for the 2001 anthrax case. I stress that the FBI leaked the information, because officially, the FBI did not say anything. Under intense public pressure, FBI started to provide more information about their investigation of Ivins. They claim that Ivins was a homocide maniac, according to Ivins' "psychotherapist".
But friends of Ivins vehemently defended Ivins as a smart, outgoing, and caring person. To the friends, it is utterly unbelievable that Ivins could be the person who sent out anthrax laced letters.
Now more and more evidence has emerged that the FBI may be just looking for another scapegoat to blame on. They have deliberately put pressure on the objects of their investigation, in an attempt to destroy them psychologically. Steven Hatfill was tough enough to endure the pressure and prevailed. But Bruce Ivins was less lucky.
This makes me wonder: is the FBI interested in finding the real criminal, or just looking for a scapegoat to cover the whole thing up? My suspicion is the latter. Then that begs the question: what does the FBI want to cover up? why the FBI may not want to find out the truth about the 2001 anthrax incidence?
Read more about this story by clicking here:
Last week, only after the death of Bruce Ivins, a government bioterrorist research scientist, ruled as suicide, the FBI leaked to the media that Ivins was FBI's prime suspect for the 2001 anthrax case. I stress that the FBI leaked the information, because officially, the FBI did not say anything. Under intense public pressure, FBI started to provide more information about their investigation of Ivins. They claim that Ivins was a homocide maniac, according to Ivins' "psychotherapist".
But friends of Ivins vehemently defended Ivins as a smart, outgoing, and caring person. To the friends, it is utterly unbelievable that Ivins could be the person who sent out anthrax laced letters.
Now more and more evidence has emerged that the FBI may be just looking for another scapegoat to blame on. They have deliberately put pressure on the objects of their investigation, in an attempt to destroy them psychologically. Steven Hatfill was tough enough to endure the pressure and prevailed. But Bruce Ivins was less lucky.
This makes me wonder: is the FBI interested in finding the real criminal, or just looking for a scapegoat to cover the whole thing up? My suspicion is the latter. Then that begs the question: what does the FBI want to cover up? why the FBI may not want to find out the truth about the 2001 anthrax incidence?
Read more about this story by clicking here:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
