There is absolutely no scientific basis to reject the hypothesis of Intelligent Design for the origin of life. In fact, common sense plus preponderance of circumstantial evidence would argue in favor of such a hypothesis. If we can all be objective, a debate between the two camps should be a good idea. The problem is many people out of political reasons would not even listen to what the other side has to say.
As you can see, I am firmly in the "intelligent design" camp. With a Ph D in molecular biology, I have long found the theory of evolution full of inconsistencies. But in the scientific circle, it is heretic and professionally suicidal to question this theory, because people would not take your work seriously if they find out they you don't believe in evolution. The dogmatism of the evolutionists is equivalent to that of the medieval Catholic church.
But I do not support to put "intelligent design" as part of the curriculum. Theology should be separated from science even it may be truthful. However, our education system should not promote dogma, but promote objective discussions on the theory of evolution.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Friday, September 16, 2005
I like Bush's style, not his substance
You have to love President Bush's style. He is down-to-earth everyday-kind of guy. He wore no suit and appeared to the TV camera from the heart of Hurricane Katrina-ravaged area, the French quarter in New Orleans last night, to take personal responsibility for the failure in Katrina preparation and rescue, and promise to shower money on the private contractors who will help re-build the city. He spoke no non-sense. He cares not the poll. He takes action immediately. He follows his principles, unfortunately many of which are wrong or mis-guided.
But that is it. The style, not substance. His idea about goverment is simply wrong. He has such a cynical view about the ability of government to perform any function, that he outsourced many critical federal government functions to private contractors. He downgraded FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency) to a sub-division of the Department of Homeland Security. He did not believe FEMA has any real role that he put a friend of his, Michael Brown, who has no experience in emergency management, as the head of FEMA.
The failure in the response to Katrina was almost inevitable, because Bush did not have a belief in government 's roles. His cynism towards government has costed lives in New Orleans. But remember, more lives are lost, and being lost in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But that is it. The style, not substance. His idea about goverment is simply wrong. He has such a cynical view about the ability of government to perform any function, that he outsourced many critical federal government functions to private contractors. He downgraded FEMA(Federal Emergency Management Agency) to a sub-division of the Department of Homeland Security. He did not believe FEMA has any real role that he put a friend of his, Michael Brown, who has no experience in emergency management, as the head of FEMA.
The failure in the response to Katrina was almost inevitable, because Bush did not have a belief in government 's roles. His cynism towards government has costed lives in New Orleans. But remember, more lives are lost, and being lost in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Can anything good come out of high gas price?
The gas price in my area went from $2.82 before Hurricane Katrina to $3.34 the day after (for the 87 grade). Now it is over $3.50. As I have said before, high gas price hurt low-income people the most. It is equivalent of a regressive tax on poor people.
But can anything good come out of the bad? I think so:
1) People will walk more
I have noticed more people are walking to get their groceries. Parents are now asking their teenager kids to bike rather than drive. If the gas price remains this high, we may be on the way to solve the nation's obesity problem.
2) More people will use public transportation
There are so much impedement for people to use public transportation. The whole system is not set up in a way to encourage ridership. But now, depsite the same impedement, people are using public transportation more. I hope this trend can continue, so we can reduce green house gas and help the environment. Maybe this is the nature's way of teaching us a lesson.
3) Alternative renewable energy sources?
If the $70/barrel oil price is not an incentive for us to seek renewable energy sources, I don't know what can be.
But can anything good come out of the bad? I think so:
1) People will walk more
I have noticed more people are walking to get their groceries. Parents are now asking their teenager kids to bike rather than drive. If the gas price remains this high, we may be on the way to solve the nation's obesity problem.
2) More people will use public transportation
There are so much impedement for people to use public transportation. The whole system is not set up in a way to encourage ridership. But now, depsite the same impedement, people are using public transportation more. I hope this trend can continue, so we can reduce green house gas and help the environment. Maybe this is the nature's way of teaching us a lesson.
3) Alternative renewable energy sources?
If the $70/barrel oil price is not an incentive for us to seek renewable energy sources, I don't know what can be.
Friday, August 05, 2005
Remembering Hiroshima
Fifty years ago, dark cloud descended from the sky. Two cities were wiped out in a flash. How could anyone do such horrific thing to humanity?
Would they ever consider drop an A-bomb on Germany or Italy?
Now the terrorists are conveniently using this to justify their senseless killing of innocent people. What an irony!
The US is the ONLY nation that has used an A-bomb on human! Now how does that sound?
Would they ever consider drop an A-bomb on Germany or Italy?
Now the terrorists are conveniently using this to justify their senseless killing of innocent people. What an irony!
The US is the ONLY nation that has used an A-bomb on human! Now how does that sound?
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Soundbite politics
The 2004 election demonstrated the success of Bush's soundbite politics.
Soundbite politics refers to the way that politicians use simple soundbites, or slogans to achieve hidden political goals. It bypasses necessary political discussions and reduces complex issues to simple bloack-or-white, right-ot-wrong determination. As you can see, soundbite politics is anti-intellectual, and undermines the very foundation of a democratic society.
Let me give you an example. When talking about tax policy, Bush's favorite soundbite is "it's your money". He uses this to gain support for his tax-cut policy. This soundbite has strong appeal. Indeed, it is our money. So tax cut is always a good thing. The reality is more complex than that. But who cares to listen to the complicated discussion about issues these days. Like our President often says: "I am a simple man. I want to follow simple logics."
Another Bush's favorite is "the terrorists hate freedom and democracy". Here again a complicated issue to reduced to barebone simplicity. Terrorists are evil. They hate us, and our way of life. Simple as that. End of debate. All those who oppose to us are siding with the evil terrorists. You are either with us or against us. Are you with Sadam and Osama, or with US? Take your stand. How can you criticize us when we are fighting the terrorists?
Perhaps the most harmful soundbite politics is "government is bad. Regulation is bad." Privatization and deregulation are the solution to all the problems in our government and society. This is a view that underlyes the principle of Bush's policy. Under Bush, many critical government functions (even in the military) are outsourced to private sectors. As we can see from the examples of Enron, Worldcom, AIG, and many more, private enterprises are not free of problems, either.
It is not just Bush that subscribes to soundbite politics. In fact, the conservative voices in our society all use it. If you have watched the O'Reilly show recently, you would know that show is the "mother" of all soundbite politics.
For the good of our democracy, let's put a stop on soundbite politics.
Soundbite politics refers to the way that politicians use simple soundbites, or slogans to achieve hidden political goals. It bypasses necessary political discussions and reduces complex issues to simple bloack-or-white, right-ot-wrong determination. As you can see, soundbite politics is anti-intellectual, and undermines the very foundation of a democratic society.
Let me give you an example. When talking about tax policy, Bush's favorite soundbite is "it's your money". He uses this to gain support for his tax-cut policy. This soundbite has strong appeal. Indeed, it is our money. So tax cut is always a good thing. The reality is more complex than that. But who cares to listen to the complicated discussion about issues these days. Like our President often says: "I am a simple man. I want to follow simple logics."
Another Bush's favorite is "the terrorists hate freedom and democracy". Here again a complicated issue to reduced to barebone simplicity. Terrorists are evil. They hate us, and our way of life. Simple as that. End of debate. All those who oppose to us are siding with the evil terrorists. You are either with us or against us. Are you with Sadam and Osama, or with US? Take your stand. How can you criticize us when we are fighting the terrorists?
Perhaps the most harmful soundbite politics is "government is bad. Regulation is bad." Privatization and deregulation are the solution to all the problems in our government and society. This is a view that underlyes the principle of Bush's policy. Under Bush, many critical government functions (even in the military) are outsourced to private sectors. As we can see from the examples of Enron, Worldcom, AIG, and many more, private enterprises are not free of problems, either.
It is not just Bush that subscribes to soundbite politics. In fact, the conservative voices in our society all use it. If you have watched the O'Reilly show recently, you would know that show is the "mother" of all soundbite politics.
For the good of our democracy, let's put a stop on soundbite politics.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
No immediate ending to Iraq war
The best way to describe our current siruation in Iraq is a Chinese idiom: riding on the back of a tiger and afraid to get off. The tiger here is not Iraq itself, but rather the whole mess in Iraq President Bush has led us in. We know that we have very limited options. It is true that riding on the bck of the tiger (US personnel staying in Iraq) is not comfortable and dangerous, but the alternative is worse. The alternative, getting off the tiger's back (pulling out of Iraq), as suggested by some Democrats, is more dangerous, because we could get "devoured".
I know we all want to blame Bush and his associates for all the mess they led (or misled, to be more accurate) us into, and for the mistakes after mistakes they have committed in Iraq. But we have to propose a viable solution to this problem. Pulling out is not a viable solution, we all know it. American public knows it, as indicated by a recent poll showing majority of Americans do not support pulling out despite the belief that Iraq war is a mistake.
If Democrats cannot put out its own solution to the problem, calling the troops to pull out of Iraq will further alienate voters. Democrats have lost in 2004. They are risking of losing it again in 2008.
The country needs a real visionary, knowledgeable and yet courageous leader, not a cowboy. Let's hope in 2008 we can put America back on track.
I know we all want to blame Bush and his associates for all the mess they led (or misled, to be more accurate) us into, and for the mistakes after mistakes they have committed in Iraq. But we have to propose a viable solution to this problem. Pulling out is not a viable solution, we all know it. American public knows it, as indicated by a recent poll showing majority of Americans do not support pulling out despite the belief that Iraq war is a mistake.
If Democrats cannot put out its own solution to the problem, calling the troops to pull out of Iraq will further alienate voters. Democrats have lost in 2004. They are risking of losing it again in 2008.
The country needs a real visionary, knowledgeable and yet courageous leader, not a cowboy. Let's hope in 2008 we can put America back on track.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Iran's presidential election
Bush and Rice are out denouncing Iran's election. This is an insult to the millions of voters in Iran. These people have spoken, and they have casted their ballots. Where in the world does anyone else have the right to say that their votes are illegal, or illegitimate?
No election is perfect. In many places in the world, particularly in middle eastern countries, people don't even have the right to vote. Obviously I would love to see power of the Guardian Council lessen. But the reality is that in Iran, and many Islamic countries, religion and politics are mixed. This is the tradition, and their people want to remain that way. Maybe western democracy isn't the only choice. Maybe we should just shut up and let them choose any flavor of democracy as they see fit for their own cultural and religious background.
No election is perfect. In many places in the world, particularly in middle eastern countries, people don't even have the right to vote. Obviously I would love to see power of the Guardian Council lessen. But the reality is that in Iran, and many Islamic countries, religion and politics are mixed. This is the tradition, and their people want to remain that way. Maybe western democracy isn't the only choice. Maybe we should just shut up and let them choose any flavor of democracy as they see fit for their own cultural and religious background.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Promoting democracy around the world?
Yesterday Wall Street Journal front page featured a story about the upcoming Iran's Presidential election, (which actually took place yesterday). I guess that many Americans are surprised to know that there IS an election in Iran, no matter how imperfect it may be, whereas there is NONE in Egypt or Saudi. Yet Bush administration is calling Iran one of the axis of evil nations, and Egypt and Saudi allies. Are we truly promoting democracy around the world, or what? Do we really mean what we say?
Several weeks after the brutal killings in Uzbekistan, the US government seems to be very reticent about the whole incidence. Aren't we supposed to protect freedom around the world?
No wonder people around the world are cynical about the lofty ideals promoted by US foreign policy.
Several weeks after the brutal killings in Uzbekistan, the US government seems to be very reticent about the whole incidence. Aren't we supposed to protect freedom around the world?
No wonder people around the world are cynical about the lofty ideals promoted by US foreign policy.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Regressive tax policy of the Bush adminstration
There are a few hallmarks of Bush style of government: high oil prices, tax cutting, increased government budget deficit, privatization (outsourcing) of critical government functions, and abolishment of social programs. All of these policies are underlied by a singular conservative doctrine: everyone is on his/her own, euphorized as "personal responsibility", or "ownership society".
Here I want to argue that high oil price and high government budget deficit equate to regressive tax policy.
It is easy to understand that high oil price has the effect of regressive tax, in that the increased expense people spend on oil is essentially a tax they pay to, not the government, but the oil companies. This expense is a much higher percentage of the income of the poor, thus basically a regressive tax.
Then how is budget deficit equivalent to regressive tax? During the past several years, Bush had given a large tax cut, particularly to the wealthiest few. I don't mind if we can afford the tax cut. But the fact of the matter is that Bush financed the tax cut through record budget deficit. In the meanwhile, the FED is printing more and more money to meet the financing need of the government. You see, the government is running a sort of Ponzi scheme, borrowing more from the future to pay for today. The outcome of that is inflation. First what we see is housing inflation. House prices across the nation have risen to such levels that are unreachable for many middle-class Americans. Reports on last Friday indicated that record percentage of people are spending more than half of their total income on housing. Following housing inflation will be consumer products inflation. Basically the government has printed too much money, and that money is chasing after the same amount of goods produced by the economy. No one should be surprised at all to see inflation will, and in fact is going up.
Inflation has the same effect of high oil price. It represents a much higher percentage of added expense to low income people than to the wealtiest. Clearly, inflation is also equivalent to regressive tax.
I think Bush administration knows this all too well. Chaney has long pronounced that "budget deficit doesn't matter." Yes, it does not matter to the wealthy few who owns income producing assets. But for the majority of the people who have fixed income, budget deficit matters alot. Because it causes inflation and decline in people's living standards.
We have to stop the madness of this government. There is a lot at stake. Progreeive democrats, remember why you lost in 2004 (did not articulate and stick to the democratic principles), and now focus on 2008. Win back the government, for the sake of America, for the liberty of this great nation, for the democratic ideals of this great nation, and for our next generation.
Here I want to argue that high oil price and high government budget deficit equate to regressive tax policy.
It is easy to understand that high oil price has the effect of regressive tax, in that the increased expense people spend on oil is essentially a tax they pay to, not the government, but the oil companies. This expense is a much higher percentage of the income of the poor, thus basically a regressive tax.
Then how is budget deficit equivalent to regressive tax? During the past several years, Bush had given a large tax cut, particularly to the wealthiest few. I don't mind if we can afford the tax cut. But the fact of the matter is that Bush financed the tax cut through record budget deficit. In the meanwhile, the FED is printing more and more money to meet the financing need of the government. You see, the government is running a sort of Ponzi scheme, borrowing more from the future to pay for today. The outcome of that is inflation. First what we see is housing inflation. House prices across the nation have risen to such levels that are unreachable for many middle-class Americans. Reports on last Friday indicated that record percentage of people are spending more than half of their total income on housing. Following housing inflation will be consumer products inflation. Basically the government has printed too much money, and that money is chasing after the same amount of goods produced by the economy. No one should be surprised at all to see inflation will, and in fact is going up.
Inflation has the same effect of high oil price. It represents a much higher percentage of added expense to low income people than to the wealtiest. Clearly, inflation is also equivalent to regressive tax.
I think Bush administration knows this all too well. Chaney has long pronounced that "budget deficit doesn't matter." Yes, it does not matter to the wealthy few who owns income producing assets. But for the majority of the people who have fixed income, budget deficit matters alot. Because it causes inflation and decline in people's living standards.
We have to stop the madness of this government. There is a lot at stake. Progreeive democrats, remember why you lost in 2004 (did not articulate and stick to the democratic principles), and now focus on 2008. Win back the government, for the sake of America, for the liberty of this great nation, for the democratic ideals of this great nation, and for our next generation.
Friday, March 25, 2005
No one has the right to KILL Terry Schiavo
I don't care what the husband Michael says about Terry's wish. He does not have the right to determine life or death of his wife. None else either.
This whole situation is becoming so politically charged. The left-wing abortion right group is meddling in this case.
I just don't understand the logics behind legalized killing an innocent person. Why? Are we too poor to feed that poor women until she may die of natural death, or find a medical cure? If Michael Schiavo does not want to bear the responsibility of caring Terry, let Terry's parents do it. The parents want to do it! Just give them a chance.
No one has the right to KILL Terry Schiavo. It is as simple as that.
This whole situation is becoming so politically charged. The left-wing abortion right group is meddling in this case.
I just don't understand the logics behind legalized killing an innocent person. Why? Are we too poor to feed that poor women until she may die of natural death, or find a medical cure? If Michael Schiavo does not want to bear the responsibility of caring Terry, let Terry's parents do it. The parents want to do it! Just give them a chance.
No one has the right to KILL Terry Schiavo. It is as simple as that.
Right-wing concerted efforts to discredit UN
Today WSJ front page article reports that Kofi Anna to be criticized by the independent investigative panel headed by Paul Volcker.
There have been concerted efforts by the right-wing in America to discredit UN. But give UN some break. What authority does UN have? What authority does Kofi Anna have? It is just like what John Bolton, the would-be US representative to UN, said (not exact words) : UN needs to do what US asks it to do.
UN, from the very beginning, is a pawn, an instrument, for the world super powers. UN in itself could not and will not be able to do anything if the super powers do not support it. UN is just a rubber stamp, a tigher without teeth.
The current animosity of some people in the US towards UN, is not a UN problem, but rather a problem between the US and the so-called old Europe. It is the problem of clashing super powers. In the cold war era, Europe and US are allied together to fight Soviet. Now Soviet is gone, the inherent conflict between Europe and US, which has always been there, has now surfaced.
No super power should view UN as an instrument of convenience. If UN follows the super power, it seems to be OK. If UN does not go along, that seems to be a problem. I see the world starting to be more polarized (just like within the US), as EU wants to assert more independent power in international affairs. The conflict between the US and Europe will intensify. Rising influence of emerging China does not help the situation.
US has to realize that the world has changed. It is no long the lone super power any more. It needs to negotiate and compromise with other nations. It is just like America's domestic politics.
In the end, I should say that Kofi Anna has more integrity than many politicians around the world combined.
There have been concerted efforts by the right-wing in America to discredit UN. But give UN some break. What authority does UN have? What authority does Kofi Anna have? It is just like what John Bolton, the would-be US representative to UN, said (not exact words) : UN needs to do what US asks it to do.
UN, from the very beginning, is a pawn, an instrument, for the world super powers. UN in itself could not and will not be able to do anything if the super powers do not support it. UN is just a rubber stamp, a tigher without teeth.
The current animosity of some people in the US towards UN, is not a UN problem, but rather a problem between the US and the so-called old Europe. It is the problem of clashing super powers. In the cold war era, Europe and US are allied together to fight Soviet. Now Soviet is gone, the inherent conflict between Europe and US, which has always been there, has now surfaced.
No super power should view UN as an instrument of convenience. If UN follows the super power, it seems to be OK. If UN does not go along, that seems to be a problem. I see the world starting to be more polarized (just like within the US), as EU wants to assert more independent power in international affairs. The conflict between the US and Europe will intensify. Rising influence of emerging China does not help the situation.
US has to realize that the world has changed. It is no long the lone super power any more. It needs to negotiate and compromise with other nations. It is just like America's domestic politics.
In the end, I should say that Kofi Anna has more integrity than many politicians around the world combined.
Monday, February 14, 2005
too busy to love?
Today is valentine's day. NPR morning business report featured a story about Millionaire-Matchmaker club. One millionaire who used the service was interviewed by NPR as saying:"I am too busy to find time to date. I found this dating service a very effective way of finding the right partner for myself."
Astounding, isn't it? The capitalism-driven society of today finds little time for love. In today's world of business, time-to-market and productivity are key to success. Maybe I am too old-fashioned. Maybe LOVE also needs productivity improvement.
Astounding, isn't it? The capitalism-driven society of today finds little time for love. In today's world of business, time-to-market and productivity are key to success. Maybe I am too old-fashioned. Maybe LOVE also needs productivity improvement.
Monday, February 07, 2005
social security reform
President Bush is revving up his propaganda machine to gather support for his social security reform. He is very good at using slogans and simple SoundBites to gain support from simple-minded. It reminds me of the era of Cultural Revolution in China.
The fallacy of Bush's social security reform is so obvious. But no one dares to point it out. Who dares to say that social security run by government is more secure and efficient than if run by individuals. Haven't we seen enough bankrupted 401K plans managed by individuals?
The main argument of Bush's reform is that social security fund, if invested in conservative stocks and bonds, will generate higher returns. Yes, that is true. But that objective can be achieved without privatizing social security. Social security fund in its current form can be invested in stocks and bonds if mandated. In fact, social security fund managed together will be more efficient and cost effective than managed individually. Individuals will never afford professional advise and oversight that is available to a centrally managed fund.
But that is not the point. Social security is meant to be secure. We all have 401Ks, IRAs, and other savings accounts that are invested in stocks. We need a truly secure safety backup, which is what social security was designed to be. Investing it in stocks and bonds defeats the original purpose.
The so-called "crisis" of social security fund is NOT due to low returns. It is designed to have low but safe returns, achieved by investing only in government bonds. The "crisis", if any, is due to the aging population. To fix this problem, we have to make hard choice, either lowering the benefits, or increasing payroll tax. Privatizing social security is apparently not the right prescription.
To many conservatives, government programs are taboo. Privatization seems to be panacea for all problems. In fact that cannot be farther from the truth. Private sectors, without proper regulations and government oversight, are prone to fraud. Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, Drug companies, insurance brokers, just to name a few examples. Government agencies, if proper oversight is in place, can be more efficient. In many cases, outsourcing crucial government functions to private sectors, not only creates conflict of interests, but also increases costs. In Iraq, the government itself admits that managing the military oil supply by itself is cheaper than outsourcing it to KBR.
It is appalling to me that many military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are outsourced to private contractors! Wake up America! Haven't we learned from 9/11. Before 9/11, airport screening was handled by private companies, which hire under-trained, minimum-waged workers to do baggage screening. You think the private sector is doing a better job?
The fallacy of Bush's social security reform is so obvious. But no one dares to point it out. Who dares to say that social security run by government is more secure and efficient than if run by individuals. Haven't we seen enough bankrupted 401K plans managed by individuals?
The main argument of Bush's reform is that social security fund, if invested in conservative stocks and bonds, will generate higher returns. Yes, that is true. But that objective can be achieved without privatizing social security. Social security fund in its current form can be invested in stocks and bonds if mandated. In fact, social security fund managed together will be more efficient and cost effective than managed individually. Individuals will never afford professional advise and oversight that is available to a centrally managed fund.
But that is not the point. Social security is meant to be secure. We all have 401Ks, IRAs, and other savings accounts that are invested in stocks. We need a truly secure safety backup, which is what social security was designed to be. Investing it in stocks and bonds defeats the original purpose.
The so-called "crisis" of social security fund is NOT due to low returns. It is designed to have low but safe returns, achieved by investing only in government bonds. The "crisis", if any, is due to the aging population. To fix this problem, we have to make hard choice, either lowering the benefits, or increasing payroll tax. Privatizing social security is apparently not the right prescription.
To many conservatives, government programs are taboo. Privatization seems to be panacea for all problems. In fact that cannot be farther from the truth. Private sectors, without proper regulations and government oversight, are prone to fraud. Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, Drug companies, insurance brokers, just to name a few examples. Government agencies, if proper oversight is in place, can be more efficient. In many cases, outsourcing crucial government functions to private sectors, not only creates conflict of interests, but also increases costs. In Iraq, the government itself admits that managing the military oil supply by itself is cheaper than outsourcing it to KBR.
It is appalling to me that many military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are outsourced to private contractors! Wake up America! Haven't we learned from 9/11. Before 9/11, airport screening was handled by private companies, which hire under-trained, minimum-waged workers to do baggage screening. You think the private sector is doing a better job?
Saturday, January 29, 2005
My daughter and my son
I have a son and a daughter. It is amazing that they are so different. Calvin is very good at reading and socializing. He is a quick learner, but often only skim the surface, My daughter, Christin, is kind of the opposite. She learned to read much later, but she observes things in small details.
Chistin has a gift of music. Both my children are learning piano. Here again, Christin did not learn as quickly as Calvin did. But now she is a much better piano player than her brother, even though Calvin started about one and half year earlier. She really enjoyes the music, and knows the tempo, forte very well. But Calvin just plays the who piece without paying any attention to the music. To him, it is just a chore.
Last Christmas, we went to Christmas shopping together. We gave a dollar-limit to the children as to how much they can buy. Within minutes, my son found what he needed and was very happy. But Christin was looking at this and that, and simply couldn't decide. In the end, she did not find anything she liked. I guess she knows better what she likes. For my son, everything is good.
Calvin is great at sports. He has an amazing ability to learn things very quickly. He is now very into martial art. But he has never been very happy about playing piano. But we felt it is a good discipline for him.
Christin likes typical girl things: like hello-kitty, Barbie and princess stuff. She is quiet and very sweet. Everywhere she goes, people like her. She is the one of her teacher's most favorite students at her Montessori school. She is also one of the most liked students in her church Sunday school.
Chistin has a gift of music. Both my children are learning piano. Here again, Christin did not learn as quickly as Calvin did. But now she is a much better piano player than her brother, even though Calvin started about one and half year earlier. She really enjoyes the music, and knows the tempo, forte very well. But Calvin just plays the who piece without paying any attention to the music. To him, it is just a chore.
Last Christmas, we went to Christmas shopping together. We gave a dollar-limit to the children as to how much they can buy. Within minutes, my son found what he needed and was very happy. But Christin was looking at this and that, and simply couldn't decide. In the end, she did not find anything she liked. I guess she knows better what she likes. For my son, everything is good.
Calvin is great at sports. He has an amazing ability to learn things very quickly. He is now very into martial art. But he has never been very happy about playing piano. But we felt it is a good discipline for him.
Christin likes typical girl things: like hello-kitty, Barbie and princess stuff. She is quiet and very sweet. Everywhere she goes, people like her. She is the one of her teacher's most favorite students at her Montessori school. She is also one of the most liked students in her church Sunday school.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Death of Zhao Ziyang
Zhao Zi Yang died on Jan 17th, 2005. These days, I have been thinking the legacy Zhao has left for the nation. He is definitely a victim of that era.
I still remember 1989 vividly. Initially the students were not allying themsleves with any particular top leader. In fact, in Bejing University's posters, Zhao was also named one of the corrupt party leaders, along with Yang Shangqun and others. I still have a copy of the so-called "genealogy of the revolutionary families", describing how younger generations of the "revolutionary families" benefited from their "revolutionary parents". Zhao and Li Peng were on top of that list.
It was only one day before the martial law declaration (May 19th), did we realize that Zhao was a student sympathizer. Zhao went to Tiananmen to ask students to leave the square. There was this famous quote of his in his distinctive Henan accent:"we are old, not useful any more. But you are still young. Please cherish yourselves. Go home now, please."
The fall of Zhao was inevitable. Even before 1989, there were signs that Zhao has lost the power struggle with the conservatives. In 1988 (?), we was named the General Secretary of the CCP, a more ceremonial position than Premier of the goverment, the position that was handed over to Li Peng. I still recall his unusually direct comment showing his disappointed with the new assignment: "I am a practitioner in nature, actually more suited forthe Premier position." This kind of comment was unheard of before in Chinese politics. That showed Zhao's frustration over his loss of power.
The mid-1980s were a tumultuous period for China. Inflation was running very high. Corruption started to show up. Economic reform showed initial success in the agricultural sector, but ran into significant obstacles in the industrial sectors. Populous demonstrations, student protests were very frequent. Conservatives started to get really nervous about the reform, and reformers were losing the grip of power.
In 1987, Zhao started a gradual process of pricing relaxation on certain comodities. All of a sudden, a furor of mechandise stocking ran through the whole nation, because people were expecting the prices would rise rapidly. The government had an emergence meeting in the summer in Beidaihe. After the meeting, Zhao lost power over economic issues. And his policy on price deregulation was reversed, and Li Peng succeeded him as the Premier.
I believe Zhao wanted to use the student movement in 1989 to regain his power. But that effort failed spectacularly. Remember at that time, Deng was still the mastermind behind the scene.
Now almost 15 years later, many Chinese believe that China was right to take a more gradual course of reform. June 4th was a tragedy and the government made a huge mistake. But things were more complicated than on the surface. Student protest lasted from April 15th to June 4th. The government did show some degree of tolerance, to be fair. However, there should be no excuse for killing.
I am the first-hand witness and participant of the 1989 student movement. I was a graduate student, and more mature than the college freshmen and sophomores that were on the street. I felt it wasn't right from early on. We could have concluded the whole movement without either side losing face, after the April 27th procession/March. I thought the whole thing was over after that day. In fact, many students started to go back into the classroom because the mid-term exams were coming. But out of nowhere someone started a fasting campaign (I recall it was on May 12th or 13th, a Saturday night). From then on things just got out of control, culminated with the June 4th massacre.
May God rest Zhao's soul.
I still remember 1989 vividly. Initially the students were not allying themsleves with any particular top leader. In fact, in Bejing University's posters, Zhao was also named one of the corrupt party leaders, along with Yang Shangqun and others. I still have a copy of the so-called "genealogy of the revolutionary families", describing how younger generations of the "revolutionary families" benefited from their "revolutionary parents". Zhao and Li Peng were on top of that list.
It was only one day before the martial law declaration (May 19th), did we realize that Zhao was a student sympathizer. Zhao went to Tiananmen to ask students to leave the square. There was this famous quote of his in his distinctive Henan accent:"we are old, not useful any more. But you are still young. Please cherish yourselves. Go home now, please."
The fall of Zhao was inevitable. Even before 1989, there were signs that Zhao has lost the power struggle with the conservatives. In 1988 (?), we was named the General Secretary of the CCP, a more ceremonial position than Premier of the goverment, the position that was handed over to Li Peng. I still recall his unusually direct comment showing his disappointed with the new assignment: "I am a practitioner in nature, actually more suited forthe Premier position." This kind of comment was unheard of before in Chinese politics. That showed Zhao's frustration over his loss of power.
The mid-1980s were a tumultuous period for China. Inflation was running very high. Corruption started to show up. Economic reform showed initial success in the agricultural sector, but ran into significant obstacles in the industrial sectors. Populous demonstrations, student protests were very frequent. Conservatives started to get really nervous about the reform, and reformers were losing the grip of power.
In 1987, Zhao started a gradual process of pricing relaxation on certain comodities. All of a sudden, a furor of mechandise stocking ran through the whole nation, because people were expecting the prices would rise rapidly. The government had an emergence meeting in the summer in Beidaihe. After the meeting, Zhao lost power over economic issues. And his policy on price deregulation was reversed, and Li Peng succeeded him as the Premier.
I believe Zhao wanted to use the student movement in 1989 to regain his power. But that effort failed spectacularly. Remember at that time, Deng was still the mastermind behind the scene.
Now almost 15 years later, many Chinese believe that China was right to take a more gradual course of reform. June 4th was a tragedy and the government made a huge mistake. But things were more complicated than on the surface. Student protest lasted from April 15th to June 4th. The government did show some degree of tolerance, to be fair. However, there should be no excuse for killing.
I am the first-hand witness and participant of the 1989 student movement. I was a graduate student, and more mature than the college freshmen and sophomores that were on the street. I felt it wasn't right from early on. We could have concluded the whole movement without either side losing face, after the April 27th procession/March. I thought the whole thing was over after that day. In fact, many students started to go back into the classroom because the mid-term exams were coming. But out of nowhere someone started a fasting campaign (I recall it was on May 12th or 13th, a Saturday night). From then on things just got out of control, culminated with the June 4th massacre.
May God rest Zhao's soul.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
CA train wreck and Iraqi election
An absurd piece of news yesterday. Some nuts in CA tried to kill himself by parking his SUV on on commuter train track. As the train approached, he chickened out and jump for his miserable life. But the train hit the car, derailed, hit a parked freight train, and was hit by another passing-by commuter train. Ten people died and scores of others were injured.
This person is a domestic terrorist. If he wants to kill himslef, there are many other ways: bite the bullet literally, jump down from the bridge, or whatever other means. This guy has a miserable life that he does not want to live, and worse of it is that he wants to make others' lives miserable as his. What a crooked mind!
Now he does not have to kill himself. The law will.
Another topic. Iraqi people will hold an election for the general assembly this Sunday. Quite ironic for the US government. No matter what outcome the election result may be, it is not going to be good for the US. Suppose the conservative Shiite coalition won the most of seats, that is not what the US wants to see. Suppose the US-supported interim government won majority, what the radical shiites will say? The election is unfair, and rigged! Then these radicals might join the Suni insurgents. That is even worse for the US occupation force.
Will the US force continue to stay in Iraq after the "elected" Iraqi government takes over? That again is a thorny issue. If the US-supported interim government wins the election, obviously it will "ASK" the US force to stay "as long as the security and stability requires". But what if the Religious Shias takes over, and asks the US force to leave?
What an entangled web we weaved ourselves into!
This person is a domestic terrorist. If he wants to kill himslef, there are many other ways: bite the bullet literally, jump down from the bridge, or whatever other means. This guy has a miserable life that he does not want to live, and worse of it is that he wants to make others' lives miserable as his. What a crooked mind!
Now he does not have to kill himself. The law will.
Another topic. Iraqi people will hold an election for the general assembly this Sunday. Quite ironic for the US government. No matter what outcome the election result may be, it is not going to be good for the US. Suppose the conservative Shiite coalition won the most of seats, that is not what the US wants to see. Suppose the US-supported interim government won majority, what the radical shiites will say? The election is unfair, and rigged! Then these radicals might join the Suni insurgents. That is even worse for the US occupation force.
Will the US force continue to stay in Iraq after the "elected" Iraqi government takes over? That again is a thorny issue. If the US-supported interim government wins the election, obviously it will "ASK" the US force to stay "as long as the security and stability requires". But what if the Religious Shias takes over, and asks the US force to leave?
What an entangled web we weaved ourselves into!
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Are we rich
My son asked me this question the other day: "dad, are we rich or poor?" I was surprised by the question: "why do you ask this question, my son?" My son is only a second grader. Growing up in China, I remember when I was his age, I did not have any concept of wealth. We were all equal, equally poor in materials, but equally abundant in spirit.
"Well. My friend (name omitted) told me his dad is a millionaire. A million is very rich right? How much do you have, dad?" I have tried very hard to free my children from thinking in materials terms at this young ages. But I think I failed. The school and the environment we live in have more influence on a child than anyone can have. He has already started to notice what kind of cars people are driving (thank you TV commericials. That is why we rarely watch any TVs. Kids only watch PBS around my house!), what kind houses people live in.
How much do I have? That makes me ponder. What makes a person rich? Is it really the numbers of zeros behind a digit that a person has in his/her bank account? Is rich only defined in monetary terms?
"I may not have a million dollars, son. But we are very rich! Remember, son, we are very rich, becuase God has made us rich." I said to my son.
"He has?" My son was in doubt.
"The Lord is my shepherd. I shall never be in want. Son, you have all the things that you need, your clothes, your food, a nice house, love from your parents, and much much more. Aren't we very rich?"
"I guess you are right, dad." My son is semi-convinced.
How can I convince you my son. I even need to convince myself about what I just said, so that I would not be a person driven by money, but driven by the desire to glorify God in whatever I do.
I hope my son will understand this. Because I know in my personal experience that happiness can not be obtained from material possessions. Happiness is a state of mind, a sense of satisfaction, gratitute, and hope for better future.
We are rich, very rich in deed.
"Well. My friend (name omitted) told me his dad is a millionaire. A million is very rich right? How much do you have, dad?" I have tried very hard to free my children from thinking in materials terms at this young ages. But I think I failed. The school and the environment we live in have more influence on a child than anyone can have. He has already started to notice what kind of cars people are driving (thank you TV commericials. That is why we rarely watch any TVs. Kids only watch PBS around my house!), what kind houses people live in.
How much do I have? That makes me ponder. What makes a person rich? Is it really the numbers of zeros behind a digit that a person has in his/her bank account? Is rich only defined in monetary terms?
"I may not have a million dollars, son. But we are very rich! Remember, son, we are very rich, becuase God has made us rich." I said to my son.
"He has?" My son was in doubt.
"The Lord is my shepherd. I shall never be in want. Son, you have all the things that you need, your clothes, your food, a nice house, love from your parents, and much much more. Aren't we very rich?"
"I guess you are right, dad." My son is semi-convinced.
How can I convince you my son. I even need to convince myself about what I just said, so that I would not be a person driven by money, but driven by the desire to glorify God in whatever I do.
I hope my son will understand this. Because I know in my personal experience that happiness can not be obtained from material possessions. Happiness is a state of mind, a sense of satisfaction, gratitute, and hope for better future.
We are rich, very rich in deed.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
I am novice here.
First time user. But I think this is going to be very interesting. I always wanted to find a medium to jot down my random thoughts. Tired of using paper journals.
I will use this forum to talk about religion, politics, economy, and investing.
First of all, I am an unbashful social liberal and moral conservative (how can these two mix, some might wonder?). I don't find either of the two political parties appealing to my political philosophy. Democrats have no principle, and republicans have no hearts.
I will save more for tomorrow.
I will use this forum to talk about religion, politics, economy, and investing.
First of all, I am an unbashful social liberal and moral conservative (how can these two mix, some might wonder?). I don't find either of the two political parties appealing to my political philosophy. Democrats have no principle, and republicans have no hearts.
I will save more for tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
