Pull out of Iraq now, and secure our border

Yesterday, President Bush made a comment about the Iraq situation. He claimed that pulling out of Iraq now will put our children in danger.

Politicians understand how to use fear to their advantage, The war proponents have long argued that, if we do not succeed in securing Iraq, Al Qaeda and other terrorists will use Iraq as a base to launch attack on America.

This argument works really well. Because it invokes the worst fear in us. It reminds us of September 11th. But have you paused and ask yourself, is this true? If we pull out of Iraq, is it true the terrorists will follow us home?

I would submit to you that this is ABSOLUTELY false.

The same line of argument was used to justify prolonging the Vietnam war. But in the end, Vietnam was lost to the Communists. But see what is happening in Vietnam now.

Let me give you another example. In 1993, UN peace keeping force in Somalia led by US, was under attack by radical militia. 19 US soldiers died in the conflict in the Capital city Mogadishu. The whole event is depicted in the movie “Black Hawk Down”. President Clinton made a decisive call to pull out of Somalia, to avoid further US military casualty. Since then, civil war broke out in Somalia. Now the country is ruled by radical The Islamic Court Union. But Somalia is never a threat to US homeland security. The terrorists in Somalia did not follow us to the home. Do they want to kill more Americans? You bet they do. But they can't do anything to us if we are not there.

If we pull out of Iraq, will terrorists attempt to take control of Iraq. You bet they will try. But why are we afraid of them. Now they are in hiding. If we leave Iraq, and they resurfaced, our cruise missiles in Saudi, and Turkey can be put in use. We don't have to physically there to fight them. Let them reappear so we can target them. Now they are hiding in the dark, and we are exposed. We cannot win this asymmetrical warfare. We did not win it in Vietnam, we did not win it in Somalia, and we won't win it in Iraq. But we can leave. The more we drag our feet there, trying to save our face, the more damage the terrorists can inflict on us.

The world is huge. There are so many places around the dark corners of the world that the terrorists can establish a base trying to launch attach on us. In fact they are everywhere, in North Africa, Afghanistan, in northeast desert of China's XinJiang Province. Why is Iraq so unique among these many hideout places for terrorists? Can we put our military in everyone of these places, like we do in Iraq? That would be insane.

The Bush administration has a completely wrong and dangerous priorities in fighting terrorists: securing our own borders should be the No. 1 priority. Gathering intelligence information about the terrorists should also be our priority. But Iraq war is draining our resources away from those true priorities. Just recently, Bush removed the border patrol agents in New Mexico and Arizona, and redeployed them to Iraq. If we cannot do our job to secure our home, why fight in Iraq?

The Pentagon created another "Zaqawi" to blame for Iraq mess

Thanks to the US military, an ordinary thug, ruthless killer of innocent people, Abu Musab al-Zaqawi, was elevated to the "hero" status in the Muslim world, particularly among the Iraqis. His death, which otherwise would be just like the death of a pig, now is viewed as martyrdom by the Iraqis. The whole thing is a colossal propaganda failure of the US towards outside world. But it did serve the domestic purpose of the Bush administration: blame Zaqawi for all the mess.

The American people are so gullible, because they watched too many Hollywood movies, in which one "hero" often single-handed beats everybody else. Zaqawi seems to be that kind of "hero", but in a bad sense.

Now Zaqawi is dead, and the mess in Iraq continues. The Pentagon has to create another "Zaqawi" to lay blame on. The Pentagon propaganda machine has started to work. Then the US media will all play a great supporting role. General William Caldwell has already decided on which of the insurgents to be chosen as "Zaqawi successor". This person appears to be Ayyub al-Masri (why their names all start with an "A" and end with an "i"). This may change as the situation changes. But one thing is for sure, that is: the Pentagon needs another Zaqawi.

Apple + Blackberry, sounds delicious

Rumor has it that Apple is working with Blackberry maker Research In Motion to put iTunes on Blackberry, or something like that.

I like the idea. But previous collaboration with Motorola wasn't a big success in any measure. How different will this one be.

Maybe this time, Jobs can pull a rabbit out of the hat. You never know.

McNuts of Sun Microsystems bailed out

Finally, the nutty McNuts of SUNW gave in to the mounting pressure. But the new guy isn't better.

If the company can lose some of the rhetoric, and focus on operation, it might have some future. I have to admit the product portfolio is stronger than ever. The question is can they execute? Hope Mike Lehman can get everybody to quit talking and focus on the basics. The stupid slogan "Sharing is good" got to go. How can they waste money on those goofy ads? SUN has already an image problem. Those goofy ads won't help.

I am still holding to my shares in the hope that it might have a good chance to succeed now they have got some real products to sell.

When will Apple bring out Intel iBook? Late June?

The long awaited Intel iBook (widely dubbed MacBook) was not announced yesterday during Apple's first quarter earnings release, after all those speculations on the Street. Coupled with Intel's pronouncement of its plan to ship Woodcrest, Conroe and Merom CPUs (based on the new Core Microarchitecture) in volume starting Q3, I think Apple will probably wait until these CPUs abundantly available before making the product announcement. I don't think Apple wants to repeat the situation it had with MacBook Pro where people waited months for the notebook to arrive. So the most optimistic estimate of Intel iBook (I still prefer iBook) shipment will be late June to early July (I suppose Apple will get its hands on the new CPUs before everybody else). The high end PowerMac line won't be "refreshed" until 4th quarter (there is no point to release it before you have the native Photoshop for Intel Mac, which may not happen until Q1 07).

It is going to be a long wait for some of us.

Do we need Window's Vista

Last week, MSFT threw a bomb to the tech market: its long awaited OS Vista will be delayed, again. While a lot of analysts lament about not being able to buy a Vista PC this Christmas season, I would like to ask: does it matter at all to average consumers?

What we average consumers want is just a stable and secure operating system. For over a decade, the PC industry has been putting us on a treadmill of constant hardware and software upgrades. Initially, the benefits of upgrading were apparent. But over time, consumers have begun to see very little value in upgrading to the next level of super-powered PC.

This also explains why Intel has been losing market shares in consumer desktop PC. People bought those AMD machines, not because it got 64 bit or dual core technology. They bought them because they are cheaper than Intel's. People have finally figured out, the average PC is good enough for the everyday computing tasks, unless you want to play serious games.

As for business customers, do they really need to have the 3D image capability and fancy multi-media functionalities promised in Vista?

So what if Vista is delayed!

Don't blame labor for the big 3 auto companies' woes

It is very conceivable that GM might have to file bankruptcy protection. I have often heard the TV talking heads promulgating the official GM executives' lame excuse: our labor cost is too high. But I have never heard anybody challenging this assumption.

True, the labor cost of US auto makers is higher than that of Asian car makers. But the financial troubles they are facing are not the result of high labor cost, but rather bad management. European car makers like BMW did not have the advantage of low labor cost. But that company is thriving.

The logic behind the labor cost excuse is that: if we have lower labor cost, we can sell cheaper cars. But the cars made by GM and Ford ARE cheaper than Toyotas and Hondas. The problem is consumers don't want cheaper cars. They want reliable and better-design cars. The problems of GM and Ford are the result of market share loss. The market share loss is due to the fact they make bad cars, not because they don't make cheap cars.

For years, the US auto makers have relied on big SUVs and trucks to generate profits to offset their loss-making passenger car business. Now with oil price record high, the demand for the gas-guzzlers will undoubtedly decline. On top of that, Asian car makers are also encroaching on the SUV market. How would GM survive without the fat profits from its SUV business?

I predict that in ten to twenty years, the US will cede auto business to Asia companies, like they did a few decades ago in the TV and consumer electronics business.

Dismal approval rating of Bush shows American people care

As violence and ethnic conflict in Iraq intensifies, the poll shows Bush's approval rating plunges to the low 30% range, barely better than that of Cheney's.

Although the deaths were the Iraqis, American people still care. We don't want to see our soldiers hurt. We do not want to see Iraqis die, either. American people are not self-centered narrowed-minded unilateralists represented by the Bush administration.

In his speech a few days ago, Bush is shifting the blame of violence in Iraq from Al Qaeda to Iran. Now Iran is public enemy No. 1, replacing Al Qaeda. It seems that Iran is behind the suicide bombing activities in Iraq. That just puzzles me. I thought the insurgents were Al Qaeda-supported Sunis, according our governments just a few weeks, with the western media agreeing in unison. Now how come Iran, supporter of Shiites, turn around to support the Sunis?

But the truth of the matter is the Bush government is trying to play the blame game to evade their own responsibilities.

The Bush government is SO incompetent that it has failed in almost every action and policy it has taken, from Katrina to Iraq, from the handling of Dubai Port deal to handling of Supreme Court nomination, from Medicare prescription drug enrollment for seniors to no-child-left-behind act, and the list goes on. This is an administration that cannot do a single thing right!

Pentagon defending guantanamo detainees right to privacy

Asked why all the secrecy behind guantanamo bay detention system, the Pentagon finally gave a good reason: "the detainees have the right to privacy". Yes, privacy is the most supreme right here. Forget about all other human rights, like right to a fair trial, right to personal freedom, etc. It is the privacy of the detainees that the Pentagon is protecting. The Pentagon has gone all the way to Afghanistan to get these detainees so that their privacy will be better protected here at guantanamo. Hey you journalists, stop nosing around.

In a separate news item, a former guantanamo bay detainee claimed that he was beaten at the detention. Shocking! Preposterous! Outlandish! How could that happen! Responding to this accusation, a Pentagon spokesperson made a funny face: "na na na na na na.... He's got no proof." Now all of you sing along: "na na na na na na, he's got no proof."

New CFO of SUN hinting major changes are coming for SUN

"Everything is on the table," said Michael Lehman, the newly appointed CFO, who has been on the board of directors of SUN, on March 1 in a Goldman Sachs-sponsored investment conference. He sort of hinted that Jonathan and Greg will stay. But he deliberately left out Scott McNutty :) Lehman sounded very frustrated with the lack of execution at Sun.

It is indeed time to get business done. The first thing they should do is to kick out the McNutty guy. Customers would not believe SUN is really changing if he is to stay. He has lost his credibility among customers and investors. I hope Lehman will bring back some veteran SUN alum to fill the rank. Talk is cheap. Forget about the slogan "Sun is about sharing". Nobody cares about the slogan any more. Customers want cheaper and better performing products. Investors want to see profit. Sun has not done either for a long time. It's about time to shake things up.

iPod Hi Fi is not the iPod boombox we were waiting for

What a disappointment! The $349 iPod Hi Fi is just a high-priced speaker, albeit a heavy and ugly one. I have tested one in the local Apple store. I cannot tell the sound quality of it being any better than the Bose and JBL speakers to justify the higher price. The "menu" button on the remote did not work. The sale rep immediately reported the malfunction to Apple hierarchy.

What I was looking for is a true boombox to replace my cassette/CD boombox. I want to be able to record and play back immediately. The digital recorders out there do not have high quality external speaker. I don't want to use the magnetic tape to record any more. It is about time we get rid of the cassette players and replace it with something that can record and play digital music. The iPod Hi Fi did not have an FM radio, nor a recorder, nor a slot for CD, all of which I think should be included. The ideal iPod boombox should have a dock for iPod, a harddisk, Airport express for syncing with iTunes of the PC, a built-in mic for recording, an iPod size screen for programming the RF radio and play back music and recordings, and an audio input to allow it to serve as a speaker for PC. A CD slot should be optional. I think this kind of product should sell somewhere around $349.

Apple is just being too greedy to set such a high price for merely a speaker that has very limited functionality. And the $99 leather case for iPod? How about a $1000-bag for MacBook Por?

Oil is still cheaper than bottled water

Is it ironic? After all these cries of high oil prices, a gallon of gasoline is still cheaper than a gallon of bottled water in many places.

Is either oil too cheap, or the bottled water too expensive? I am not defending the oil companies. But I've never heard people complaining about the price of bottled water.

I admit, this is not fair comparison. We can refuse to buy bottled water and use only tap water in stead. But can we refuse to buy gasoline?

Our highway system needs radical change. The highways were designed in disregard of the need for public transportation. And local roads rarely have pedestrian or bike lanes. We've got to change that before we can wean ourselves off the oil addiction.

Joey Cheek, a true American the world should see

Joey Cheek reminded the world that there are still many Americans that care more than just their own self interests.

After the 2004 election, the rest of world became increasingly doubtful about the Americans: are they still the kind of rooting-for-the-underdog, peace-loving, justice-loving, fair people the rest of the world have known for so long throughout the Vietnam war and Cold War struggles? Or they have become self-centered, not-give-a-damn-about-other-countries, kind of people, just like their unilateralism government?

After seeing people like Joey, we can rest assured, that America has not died. The American Ideals are still alive and well. The counter-current we are seeing in America now is just another feeble struggle of the Evil force. We will have to fight it very hard. But we will win in the end. History has repeatedly shown us that Good will eventually overcome Evil. People like Joey Cheek are the reason we will win. There are many like him in America.

The rest of the world, please don't lose your hope in America!

Internet censorship in China

I am so puzzled by the fuss about China's attempt to censor the Internet, and the criticism of the US internet companies kowtowing to the pressure from Chinese government. Hello, China has been censoring the traditional media for how many years now? Are you really expecting the Chinese government to stop doing that now to the new medium Internet?

But look at the bright side: over 90% of the Internet sites in China is NOT censored. I could access yahoo news and google news from China the last time I visited there (Nov 2004). It was just a few Internet sites that the government deems hostile towards itself that was blocked. (By the way, can we access Al Qaeda sites in the US? Even we can, I suspect no one would want to do that, because we know NSA is looking over our shoulders). Pornagraphic sites are frequently blocked, too, to the dislike of many people I believe. But majority of the internet content is not blocked, more due to practical reasons (it is technically impossible to completely control the Internet).

Imagine 90% of the free Internet ("free" as in "freedom") is now available to Chinese citizens within its boarder. Many ordinary people in China would never have a chance to access a magazine, or newspaper from the US or Europe. Now with the Internet, just a few clicks away, they can read news from the Washington Post, or BBC. Internet is unstoppable. And for most part, the Internet is NOT stopped in China.

We should applaud Google and Yahoo for their efforts in China. The alternatives for these companies are foolish, shutting themselves out from China.

In a bigger picture, neither google nor yahoo is of any real significance in what is happening in China. It is the Internet technology that is revolutionizing information media in China. The government's efforts to control the new meduim, are feeble and absurd, and doomed to fail. True freedom in information is gradually taking place in China, regardless of our fuss about what Google or Yahoo may do or may not do.

But politicians neverthless will seize this opportunity to punch China once more. China is just such a great punching bag for them. It only scores them political points, and there is no backlash whatsoever, unlike criticizing any other country.

Is Google a buy?

Google shares vaulted to over $470 in Jan with the help of news flow from Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas. But the stock has dropped over 20% since then and currently trades at around $367. A few new developments rattled investors:
1) Earnings disappointment. Although the explanation about a foreign tax complication may be reasonable, one has to wonder why the CFO of Google did not see the issue coming just a few months ago? Where is the internal planning?
2) Google seems to be playing double standard in different parts of the world. While it stands up to the government privacy intrusion in the US, for which I applaud the company, it caved in to the pressure of Chinese government by providing a censored search for the China market. I perfectly understand that Google has to comply with local laws wherever it does business. But we all hold Google to a much higher standard than that. After all, it is the company itself that boasts "Do No Evil".
3) Google video turned out to be a flop. At a time, Google seemed to do nothing wrong, the video fiasco seems to shed some doubt among investors. Google is not infallible afterall.
4) Microsoft is opening a Ad research center to study how to improve online ad placement. This is in direct competition of Google's AdSense program.
5) Internet Explorer 7.0, which is to be released soon, includes a search toolbox that could direct search traffic to MSN search engine.
6) The phone companies are making noise about charging a fee for web traffic generated from internet companies like Google and Yahoo. Ed Whitacre of SBC (Now at&t) has made these assertions on several occasions.

While all above concerns are well founded, I do not believe they will materially affect Google's business. The Online ad market still has very low penetration rate (less than 5% in the US). The penetration will only go up. Google's AdSense in fact is helping expand the ad market, because it allows small companies that would otherwise not afford to advertise on traditional media to be able to advertise online. In addition, Google's online ads are more targeted and effective. I think the mass media ad business will be rapidly shifted to targeted ads that Google supports. The market is big enough to not only benefit Google, but also Yahoo and probably MSN. Google is so synonymous to search, and even my 7-year old kid knows to google. I don't think a search box in IE will change consumer behavior too much. Unless MSFT continues to play the wicked game it played against Netscape. But those days are over. MSFT has to watch what it does, or the anti trust authority will knock on the door.

I think Google can grow business in north of 50% for at least another two years. The hyper growth will be followed by steady double digit growth in years to come. I don't see the stock being over valued given its growth prospect. It is definitely a BUY here.

Disclaimer: I personally own Google shares.

My Lord Jesus does not require me to defend him

In light of the recent events and protests surrounding a Danish cartoon said to "blasphemously" depict "Prophet Mohammad", I am so glad that my faith does not compel me to protest anything or anybody that is unpleasant to my faith.

My Lord Jesus does not require me to defend him. When he was about to be arrested and put to the cross, his disciple Peter took out a sword trying to defend the Lord. My Lord told Peter to put down his sword and healed the enemy who wanted to arrest him.

My Lord Jesus was put as a laughing stock on the cross. People jeered and ridiculed him:"if you are King, where are the people who defend you? If you are Son of God, come down from the cross?" But my Lord uttered no words. He bore all the insults and pain. And he died on the cross.

My Lord is a sacrificial lamb, for my sin, for my blasphemous words and actions. He does not condemn people. He does not put people to death. But through his forgiveness, I am saved. And through His death, I am given an everlasting life. Because only through death, can evil be overcome; and through suffering, the fruit of life be obtained.

If you believe in Him, my Lord Jesus, you will not be required to defend him, either. But His suffering will become your salvation. His death will give you new life.

State of the Union address is like a "coolaid" ad

The President's State of the Union address is like an ad put out by a food company on its coolaid drink. The whole address is fraught with soothing soundbites, devoid of any substantial public policy discourse. Maybe it is intended this way. The State of the Union address may have never been a platform intended to explain, but rather to sell, to the people, the Whitehouse's policies. That is really sad. In these days, serious politics is so boring to people. Politics needs to be packaged, watered-down, and then carefully marketed. For ordinary citizen, it is impossible to tell what is the fact, and what is only marketing.

On the other hand, the Democrats rebuttal is kind of like a negative ad run by a competiting food company. That never works well.

Thinking back, Bush was elected (really?) in 2000 on the platform of compassionate conservatism. But all these years, I have seen plenty of conservatism in action, but compassion only in talks. Where is the compassion in Bush's radical unilateralistic foreign policy? Where is the compassion in cutting Medicaid, and student loan program? Where is the compassion in cutting small social programs in favor of spendings that benefit military contractors, energy companies, and pharmaceutic and insurance companies? Where is the compassion in Hurricane Katrina? Where is the compassion in locking up people without trials? Where is the compassion in Abu Graib? Where is the compassion in extraordinary renditions? Where is the compassion in secret prisons? Where is the compassion?

"Democracy" in middle east

We say we want to spread democracy in middle east. But can we really handle the kind of "democracy" in middle east. Now a test is coming. It appears that Palestinians are going to overwhelmingly choose Hamas over Abas. This is a pity. Because we really prefer the latter, and the State Department even threatened to pull away any financial aid to the Palestinians if they choose Hama. Do we need democracy there, or we need a friendly government?

If the so-called "democracy" was in Saudi, I think the Saudis might have elected Osama Ben Laden as their president. Do we want that?

Come on, let's be realistic. Quit the slogans. They do not help our credibility at all.

MacWorld: surprise surprise.

I thought the Intel Mac would be an iBook. And I also expected to see Mac mini adopt Viiv to become a media center device. But what we got instead were MacBook Pro to replace PowerBook, and iMac to replace the G5, both of which were just refreshed in Oct of 2005. Why Apple did not do anything to Mac Mini and iBook, both of which need refresh more urgently? My guess is that Apple wants to reserve the thunder for its 30-year anniversary, which is coming on April 1st.

But 14M iPod is an eye-popping number. Eight million video downloads in less than three months are also impressive.

Why HD-DVD will win and Blue-ray will lose

I think in the end, HD-DVD (a standard championed by Toshiba) will win out over Blue Ray, a standard mainly supported by Sony. The reason is simple. It is not about technology. It is in the name. Consumers can easily understand what HD means. But what the heck Blue-Ray means? I don't have a Blue-Ray TV. I have a HD-TV set. Of course, I am going to buy an HD-DVD player. This is what an average consumer may think. An average consumer may even wonder whether Blue-Ray DVD is compatible with HD-TV or not. If you have an HD-DVD player side by side with a Blue Ray DVD player, and you have got an HD-TV set at home, and you have no idea about these tech jargons, which DVD player you'd buy? I will go with the safe route, buy an HD-DVD player to go along with my HD TV set.