Who's the dumb one?
Every liberal pundit made fun of George W. Bush when he talked about
Dred Scott from 150 years in the 2nd debate when he was asked about an abortion litmus test for his judicial appointments. Great, he's against slavery, talking about going out on a limb. But apparently, he was speaking to his base, and they got it. The conservative pundits didn't see the need to clue in the rest of America.
Dred Scott has become a coded phrase about Roe v. Wade.
Dred Scott lost his case essentially because the Supreme Court did not view him as a citizen and therefore lacked any right in the courts. So the Republicans are comparing the blacks of 1800's to the unborn fetus of today, because they believe the latter deserve the same rights as any other human being (well, at least until
they break any law, or
registered as a Democrat in Ohio). Okay, I'm not here to pass any judgement on the pro-lifers, not today. But the fact that Bush 43 has blatantly spoke two-faced in front of national audience about his intent to overturn Roe v. Wade while denying he has a litmus test for judges, and half the Americans did not realize what's at stake here, is really troublesome. Dumb? No. A dropped ball by the mainstream media to inform the masses? Probably.
Movie review, belated.
Yeah, I finally saw "Collateral". The movie had potential, but fell a little short. I guess Charles Mann wanted the focus on the tension and chemistry between Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx. I always liked Foxx, ever since "
Bootie Call," but this time Cruise's character was a little too one-dimensional. You keep telling yourself there's more behind that cool, iron assassin. There might be, but it never fully developed. That's too bad.
However, I have to say nobody is cooler than Cruise. (try saying that three times fast.) He just shows up in this movie, and half the work is done. He sort of remind me of Andy Lau from HK. In fact Vincent in "Collateral" reminded me a little of Lau's character in "
Running out of time." I know that
Scorsese is remaking "
Infernal Affairs." Now Matt Damon and Leo DiCaprio are tapped to play Andy Lau and Tony Leung's characters. I think a better combination would have been Cruise and Pitt, but then that would probably be too expensive to put together, though not impossible (see
Ocean's Twelve.)
Which side to wear?
When I was 15, I slurged, or rather I bugged my mother so much, that she bought me a Starter(TM) San Francisco 49ers jacket. You remember those jackets back in the early 90's, they were all the rage. And this is not any Starters, it was REVERSABLE! It's Gold on one side, and Black on the other. It costed more than the one-sided, $150 I think, but it was neat. The problem was... I ended up wearing mostly the black side, because... well face it, black is much more tough-looking than gold--the same reason why most Raiders jackets are black instead of silver.
Earlier this year, I bought, with my own money, another reversible jacket. This time, it's leather on one side, but some other fabric on the other (hey, who am I,
Carson from QEFSG?) But guess what, I ended up liking the non-leather side better, which sort of defeated the purpose of buying a leather jacket from Kenneth Cole in the first place.
I realized this morning that this presidential election is really like a reversible jacket. Bush and Kerry are really just two sides of the same jacket. What about Nader you ask? Well, if you want to wear a slick linen jacket in the middle of winter in Michigan, be my guest, but I wouldn't recommand it. It may look good, but it's not practical because it doesn't stand up to the harsh reality. Now back to our two Yalies. They really do have more in common than differences. Kerry's slipperieness in foreign policy will probably end up been similar to Bush's if, for nothing else, constrained by the Republican congress at home and hostile international climate abroad. And the economy has a mind of its own no matter who's the prez, with no disrespect to Clinton 42nd. And people will choose between either Bush or Kerry because they know behind the two men are tried-and-true political institutions that will keep the government moving. And why people choose one over the other? Just because. You like Bush? Because you have faith in him and in his
unwavering core values. You like Kerry? Because you have faith in delivering his promise of
not abandoning the war on terror. Can either belief in the candidate be rationally proven? Of course not. You are really just
RED or BLUE person.
Is it maltreatment if I'm born with it?
Continuing on my quest to save foie gras, I ask the question what lies in the future for this delicacy? According to the
Governator, he hopes that his ban will motivate the foie gras farmers to:
"evolve and perfect a humane way for a duck to consume grain to increase the size of its liver through natural processes."
And the answer is... leptin receptor knockout ducks! That's right. Leptin is satiety molecule that inhibits feeding and promote energy expenditure. The receptor knockout (ob/ob) mice are
ginormous creatures and have fatty livers. The main complaints of animal rights group is that the ducks are been force-fed multiples of their body-weight everyday, and the duck grew to such abnormal size that its quality of life become horrendous. Now if through genetic engineering, the duck can't help itself but eat, is it still inhumane?
Of course, a predictable objection would be the fact people will be consuming genetically engineered animals. However, in genetically knockout animals, you are really only deleting pre-existing DNA sequence, but not introducing exogeneous sequence, so there is really very little probability of genetic transformation of the human. Of course, this is probably beyond most average persons' understanding of genetic engineering at this point. But we could only hope.
Good news bad news
French foie gras is once again
available to resturaunts in the states.
The governator just
banned the sale and production of foie gras in California.
The bad news is... will we have to call the french foie gras FREEDOM hepatic lipodosis?
Mmmm, it's making me hungry. Fatty liver. Peking ducks.
Finally...
I've been trying to get on the blogger site all day today. Just to show you how I'm becoming addicted to blogging. I wonder why the slow down at blogger.com. Maybe it's the impending lunar eclipse tonight :)
Of course, as the Boston Red Sox's seeming inevitable march toward their date with destiny/apocalypse continues tonight, most people are actually more concerned with whether the eclipse is a good sign for their team. In fact, this morning, if you search "lunar eclipse" on Google News, a story from the
Boston Globe about the implication of the eclipse and game 4 of the World Series was the top hit. Crazy? Hardly. This is quite a monumentous occasion--since I have no idea if hell's starting to cool, but the alignment of the celestrial bodies certainly would fit into some sort of heavenly design.
On the other hand, Missouri will be complete
red, cardinal and bush red that is, if the Sox finish their sweep tonight. There's no way anyone will vote for Kerry (D-Mass) after that.
Uh oh
I hope someone doesn't get the idea.
link
I wish...
...I wasn't such a bookworm! That and another six inches, I could have been
Yao Ming! I probably won't buy Yao's book, but I'm glad he decided to write it. It's surprisingly candid, and would definitely be interesting for an American audience that otherwise would not have learned much about China. The description of the Chinese government's style of grooming young athletes, Chinese parents' style of raising kids, and the overall media propaganda through the eyes of a kid growing up in the "reform and open" China would be refreshing for the American reader. I realize he's just an famous athlete, but he stands out not just because of his height, but also his mentality. From what I read in the excerpt and what I've heard in the past, a lot of credit goes to his parents. And don't we are.
Voting anyone?
I admit it. I have not voted in the past. So thanks to George Bush, I have much incentive to go to the poll this November. However, voting in 11/2 means much more than just for the president. Living in Michigan there are also
two state-wide proposals on the ballet. proposal 1 deals with gambling, and 2 deals with gay union. Well the latter is a no brainer. The attempt to ban gay union/marriage is futile, and even if they succeed this year, giving time (like in 10 years) I'm sure the next generation of Americans will be much more open-minded. Seriously, "defenders" of marriage and family should be trying to make divorce, rather than gay marriage, more difficult.
Proposal 1 is much more complex. If approved, it would require vote-approval for the introduction of any new gambling in the state. While its supporters mainly aimed at slot machines and new casinos at the race tracks, it will also affect the ability for the state lottery to introduce new games (thereby increase revenue for schools), but it exempts the three Detroit casinos and Indian casinos. So we get two unholy alliances. Supporter of 1: Las Vegas-owned detroit casinos and anti-gambling groups. Opponent: state Democrats and Republicans and the race-tracks. Pick your poison.
I'm torn. I personally find it contradictory the practice nation-wide of funding our education system with gambling incomes. So you want to give the next generation the best the school can offer and keep them from the unsavory elements of the society, yet you depend on one of the most unsavory elements, and one the darkest human addictions, gambling, for the financial means to do that? However, be that as it may, we are at the place and time that our schools are in such predicament, so I will take the Governor's word that Proposal 1 will hurt the state lottery. On its face, I agree that gambling should be approved by the citizens, but it's curious that it is worded in such way with potential to hamper the lottery. The fact both sides are funded essentially by gambling money bothers me. And don't get me started on Indian casinos. (Some of which pay minimum state tax, ~2%.)
So at this point, I'm still undecided as to whether I will vote yes or no on Proposal 1. This is getting way too stressful.
Why am I such a wimp?
I can't watch Curt Schilling pitch. He has a dislocated tendon in his right ankle. So the team doctors have sutured his skin into his other good tendon to prevent the tendon from slipping out and rubbing against his peroneal nerve. So everytime he stops moving, the TV cameras with zoom lens focus on his right sox, and the TV commentators almost speak with ecstasy about the
blood seeping through his white sox. This is too much. A part of me consider the man a hero, even if he's a born-again Christian. Another part of me wonder what the long-term repercussion of this temporary procedure, and if there is one, what's the difference between this and steroid use.
What would _______ do?
Remember when Miss World pageant went to Nigeria, and an article in a newspaper's style section try to calm the Muslim population by suggesting that the Prophet Mohammed would have taken the beauty queen for wife, which started
a riot that killed 200 people? I guess sometimes you shouldn't ask the question "What would Jesus/Mohammad do?" Well, today, we get to ask "What would Chairman Mao do?" Welcome to Shanghai,
Hooters. My guess would be Mao would have been ecstatic about nubile girls in tight uniforms.
Picture this.
You know those scenes in the movies, when the protagonist stare soulfully into a picture of himself and his love interest, and long for the day they were back together. These pictures are always so intense yet spontaneous. My question is, who took that picture? Do they have personal paparazzi following them around? I saw it in Bourne Supremacy--Matt Damon was IN HIDING with his girlfriend, Lola (I know, that's not her character's name)--so how does someone took their picture? Did he have to kill the photographer? Seriously, I've been going out with my girlfriend for almost a year now, and I'm still looking for a picture like that.
Who's your DADDIE?
Well the question is, was it the
GREATEST CHOKE EVER, or the GREATEST COMEBACK EVER? The NY Yankees have had the Boston Red Sox's number the last five years, including last year, when they beat the Red Sox in game 7.
My head says the credit goes to the Red Sox, because the margin of error when you are down 0-3 is so small...f--k that, there is no margin. And they played four straight games as perfect as humanly possible. Schilling pitched a great game 6 when he had an outpatient procedure to suture his torn tendon to his ankle! They just never gave up. However, my head says the Yankees choked. They needed to win one more game. Their usual offensive stars went dim...f--k that, they gone blackhole. Their untouchable closer Rivera was "touched" in back to back games. Okay, I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATEHATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the Yankees, but they will never live this down. Sure since 1918, they have won like 25 world series to Red Sox's 0. But from now on, everytime when a team is down 0-3, the 2004 Yankees will be brought up as an example of choke job. Understand, THIS HAS NEVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER happened EVER!
You are hoping for something insightful? No way, not tonight. The only way to break the CURSE, B-town faithfuls, to go to the deepest of hell before reaching the highest of heaven. I'm sure Sox fans could go another 76 without winning, but they will die happy remembering this series.
Lucky me...
Did I mention I love Michigan?
Here are six more reasons. As they say, ENNN-JOIIIIIIIIIY.
Changing seasons...
Living in Mid America make you become more aware of the seasonal changes. Suddenly, autumn sneaks up on you. There is a sharp bite to the morning air that welcomes you. You didn't realize until now, but the trees along the road have been blushing at you for some days now. That toasty latte started to look more sexy to you than the frozen ICEE at the local gas station. Yet, this week or two of changing foliage and breaking out your favorite sweaters seem such a high price to pay to endure the six months of snow while living in a Midwest town of 100 thousand but calls itself the culture mecca of the Midwest.
Fall's here, so winter is not too far behind. So is the Flu Season. And of course, the flu vaccine and its problems have plagued this country the last two years. I think the question of why we couldn't better ensure the supply of flu vaccine should be asked. I heard a pharmaceutical industry speakperson talk about the problem of litigation as the main cause of lack of companies that are willing to produce the vaccine, gee, did he get a memo from the white house, or vice versa?
As recent as two weeks ago, I believed in the power of
a free market to drive innovation in health care, but I no longer believe that anymore. There are some fundamental issues in the nature of health care that are incompatible with a simple capitalistic economy. I believe, right or wrong, the goal of health care is to minimize cost of care, and at the same time improve the well-being of people. Better preventive, and relatively cheap, care would in turn further minimize the need for expensive procedures and medications to treat. If some many players in health care, hospitals, insurance companies and drug makers are for-profit, it would seem to be a case of conflict of interest, no? The problem of no one wanting to make the flu vaccine seems to be more about the lack of profitability than the risk of litigation. So why don't the government guarantee the purchase of vaccine supplies every year? They already do with the
small pox vaccine. So yes, perhaps the health care system in this country needs an overhaul, and I don't mean tort-reform:)
Lastly, I am becoming pretty anti-pharmaceutical companies lately. I just hope I will remember my promise of integrity when those sharply dressed drug reps show up with the free meals and free coffee mugs.
Interesting.
Military service record of some of the public figures in American politics. I would probably try to think of the person first before opening the page, since the list is clearly biased to favor the Democrats therefore not fair to consider the parties as a whole.
However, I wonder, what will the list look like in 10 years or 20? Who still goes into the military anymore? Which reminds me, maybe the Republicans on that list are just younger. I know a draft is unlikely, but it still scares me a little at the back of my head. Thanks, donkeys. I keep hearing the people in the military tend to favor Republican, but is that really true?
Update:
I did a little googling, apparently the list was biased. According to
CRS Report for Congress (109th):
There are 154 Members of the 108th Congress who have had some form of military
service, some 14 fewer than in the 107th Congress. The House has 118 veterans: 70
Republicans and 48 Democrats, including one woman, who is a Republican. In the
Senate, 35 Members are veterans: 19 Republicans and 16 Democrats.
It just so happens that a lot of big name Republicans in the news happened to not have served.
Quote of the day
Real faith, you see, leads us to deeper reflection and not -- not ever -- to the thing we as humans so very much want.
Easy certainty.
-Jim Wallis, an evangelical pastor, leader of the Sojourners, quoted by Ron Suskind in his story about Bush 43's presidency,
"Without a Doubt".
Who's that guy on the bicycle?
That would be the 6-11, former NBA star, current basketball commentator, Bill Walton, weaving through the traffic of Shanghai. If his height didn't make him stand out, his bike shorts and helmet certainly did among the rush hour traffic. It reminded me the proverb, "Monkey on a camel," except in this case, it's more like a camel on a monkey.
Walton and his ESPN crews are in China for the two NBA exhibition games involving the Houston Rockets and Sacramento Kings. Walton is a big fan of Rockets' Chinese center, Shanghai's own Yao Ming. Perhaps as an extention, Walton also showed a lot of love for China. As silly as it seems, I do feel not a lot of people know much, let alone understand, China of today, and a couple of pre-season games by the NBA teams actually helps narrow that gap. The image in most people's head of China's capital is probably still that of the fearless man standing in front of a tank in '89. Walton during the game spoke about the Starbucks inside the Forbidden City. Well, maybe that's an improvement, or not, but I think it's a sign how far the country has come.
Bias?
Surprise, surprise,
NY Times and
Boston Globe have endorsed John Kerry for President.
Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush.
I do find this strange in a way. Newspapers are supposed to be the embodiment of impartial journalism. NY Times has this great piece of having two of its critics discussing why they think the paper is
biased. While I think the Times does its best to be fair, it is difficult to do when a majority of its reporters and op-ed columnists are slanted to the left, or at least have more socially liberal views on issues. Though I think it is certainly possible to believe in liberal ideals yet to do unbiased reporting, perception is often more important than the reality. Perception is very important, important enough that the U.S. Supreme Court had decided that
perception of corruption was sufficient to uphold state limits on political contribution, and paved the way for campaign finance reform. That's why I find the practice of institutions of journalism endorsing political candidates, which certainly would give a perception of bias to their readers, awkward if not hypocritical.
Searching for conviction.
That would be me. Why do I care who wins in November? If I actually think Kerry is probably going to handle the mess in Iraq similar to Bush, why does it matter who wins? I'm pretty sure I won't be the low income minimum wage worker who gets squeezed by Bush's tax cut, what's the big deal? I'm happily hetero, don't own a gun, and not looking for farm subidies, so whether the White House is red or blue in 2005 matter little, right?
Well, the reason I'm voting this year is the WEDGE ISSUES. Off the top of my head I can think of a handful this year: (In)Separation of church and state, gun control, stem-cell, gay rights and abortion. Well guess what, I'm completely against Bush on every single one of these issues. So the choice comes down to Kerry and Nader. And those of you out there voting for Nader, this is the choice:
Vote for Nader, you are saying the opportunity to !) erode the big money two-party system, and possibly giving voice back to average American in the distant future, is more urgent and important than
2) defend the foundation of the constitution,
3) prevent the abuse of the 2nd admendment,
4) protect the rights of women and minorities,
and 5) continue the world-class scientific research environment of this country.
2-5 are higher on my list, therefore I hope Kerry wins.
What's wrong with this picture?
Just saw a CRESTOR commercial. Now, I'm not going to get into the whole direct marketing to comsumers/potential patients issue. But something else really ticked me off. The commercial touted that Crestor is more effective than other three cholesterol-lowering drugs, with a semi-bar graph. I call it "semi" because the difference between the least effective drug and Crestor is 30% to 46%., but the bar graph obviously did not start at 0, so instead of appearing 50% more effective, Crestor looks like 3 times more effective. This is just plain misleading if not lying. Unintentional? I doubt it.
Who's the real news show host?
Un-freaking-believable! Check out Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire. It's absolutely hilarious. Stewart is making too much sense, he's got to be stopped. I only have the
transcript, but it's well worth the read especially if you have seen Tucker Carlson (bow-tie wearing conservative pundit) and Paul Begala's (Democratic spinster) debate-format show, and Stewart's fake "Daily Show".
Here's a peek:
CARLSON: And I'll tell you.
When politicians come on...
...
It's nice to get them to try and answer the question. And in order to do that, we try and ask them pointed questions. I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently.
...
STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to.
...
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: Absolutely.
CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.
Sample size.
This proves it. I earlier pointed to Andrew Sullivan (who happens to be gay), who defended Kerry's comment on Mary Cheney, as an example of how differently the gay community and the Republican (and the press largely) to the same comment. Well, a sample size of one is hardly scientific. But as I was listening to Diane Rehm on NPR, I've just heard two callers and one emailer, all gay, defending Kerry. They were very emtional, especially when one described his parents as accepting to his lifestyle and partner yet viewing it as impolite to talk about him been gay, reminescient of the Cheney's reaction to someone else talking about their daughter. I'm becoming more and more inclined to believe that there is still a gap of the heterosexual people (myself included)'s understanding of the homosexual experience in America. At some deeper level, we still get embarrassed about calling someone gay, believe doing so is an insult to them and their families. Should we be? Would I get insulted if arguing about illegal immigration, and someone mentioned that my parents were immigrants? While Kerry's comment about Mary Cheney may rile the heterosexual majority and cost him some votes, it definitely made me think twice about my so-called "understanding" of homosexuals.
Misunderstood science or the proverbial hand job?
I listened to a handwriting expert a couple of days ago. Had to say, I was pretty excited to hear what she had to say. At the start, I even followed her directions, and wrote down the lines she asked us to on a piece of paper.
About 15 minutes into it, she completely lost me. Her talks was more or less 50 minutes of handwriting samples from (in)famous people and people with psychosis. She started off pretty good--I bet the line that "handwriting is not from your hands, but from your brain" won a lot of the scientists in the crowd. It was all down hill from there. Apparently there is a system of breaking one's handwriting down to quadrants, with each region telling a different aspect of your personality:
from left to right: past-present-future;
spacing: social interaction with others;
Top-middle-bottom: head-heart-body; or Thinking-feeling-action;
Big loops: man/woman of action, very sexual;
Incomplete loops: frustrated;
Nice round letters: live to please...
Had enough? The obvious problem with this is simply the lack of predictive value in her analysis. She was proud to show us samples ranging from George W. Bush to Princess Diana, and lovingly describing how each's handwriting fit so well with their personalities (I would argue, public persona). It's one thing to say W. didn't get much love from his parents growing up, but it's entirely unconvincing when the only evidence is his small incomplete "I." Sure everybody had a good time laughing, but do we need some handwriting expert to tell us that Tony Blair is a smart guy, or Barbara Bush is controlling?
What's most disturbing to me was that after the talk there were at least a dozen of my classmates (future MD/PhDs) lining up to talk to her or to show her their own handwritings. Are you kidding me? It seems to me that at least her version of the so called "graphology" feeds into the worst of amature popular psychology. Sure our brains do the writing, but that does not mean our writing is a direct corridor to our psyche. That is like saying "the way we look is based on our genes, so therefore based on my skin color one can tell the sequence of my 3 billion DNA bases." What's even more appalling is the use of graphology to determine personality traits been used in the screening process of businese hiring, as a cheaper, not-yet-illegal replacement for polygraph tests. I think the practice of graphology is a sham dressed up as scientific analysis, an attempt to appeal to the worst stereotypes of its audience, and really no better than a palm-reading session except only more dangerous. The fact that a bunch of future doctors found the idea to be valid and interesting shows how dangerous the abuse of graphology could be in the general public.
Two things about Kerry last night.
One, he corrected himself on something that was less than 100% true which people had pointed out. He used the round number of $200 billion on the cost of war in Iraq. Now the actual amount spent is over $120 bil, but projected to surpass $200 bil sometime next year. Kerry actually said exactly that during the last debate. I give him credit for that. Same cannot be said about Bush.
Two, Kerry is catching some flak about mentioning Dick Cheney's gay daughter during the question about gay marriage. My initial reaction was that was a bit low, and the Republican base has come out in full force, led by VP and his wife. However, I suppose the people whose opinions should count are the gays and their family.
So here's the opinion from someone I have recently come to respect. Sure, been gay is not like been an alcoholic, therefore something to be ashamed about when mentioned in a discussion. But I still think Kerry did it less to compliment the Cheney's family support, but more to sting the President about his hypocrisy and pandering to his religious right.
Bush's huge!
I mean his head is huge! Everybody noticed that he was shorter during the split screen at the 1st debate--in order to have the top of their heads even, the camera got more of the podium for Bush. So what do they do today? They zoomed in closer, so the podium is at the same height, but the top of two heads are even also. Except one problem, it now makes Bush's head at least 50% bigger than Kerry's. And we are not even going to start about the rest of their figures. The cameramen for Bush is busy. Everytime the other guy pans out for Kerry, he has to slowly and subtly zoom out also. Hilarious. Oh Bush has this one look when he's not talking. he turns his head toward Kerry, and try to look attentive, but he sure blinks a lot, almost non-stop.
Just do it?
Since Ken Caminiti's passing, steroid use in sports has once again been brought to the attention of the public. I've been thinking this over, and argued with some people online. My stance is probably a minority of minority. Here it is.
There are two issues. One, the harmful side-effects of steroid use today. Two, the disruption of competitive balance in fair competition. I think steroid is wrong for healthy athletes solely because of the harm it does. This is purely based on my compassion for any human being, whether they are gifted professional athletes or feeble grandmas. Some disregard this issue as "personal responsibility" or "calculated tradeoff," but instead express concern that medical enhancement taints the integrity of the sports, and maks performance and records in sports less a human advancement but a medical shortcut. I, on the other hand, think this is naive. My position is essentially: "if you show me drugs or any other medical treatment that enhances human ability yet lacks harmful side-effects, then I'm all for it."
Side effects aside, what would be the difference between steroids and any other medical surgery that restores the athlete's body and extends his career? Pitcher Kerry Wood torn his elbow tendon when he was 22. Since then he has underwent "Tommy John" surgery which replaces the damage tendon, and is now pitching just as well as before the surgery. If he goes on to break the career records of Nolan Ryan, who pitched into his 40's, would anyone consider the new records tainted because of the medical advancement?
As with any medical treatment, there are side effects and risks. I believe advances in medicine and technology can, do, and will, influence the world of sports, and the responsibility lies with the proper education of all parties involved about those risks and side effect, not in arbitrarily denying certain things because some feel its morally or ethically wrong.
Remembrance
A bunch of people passed away this week. Two of them were Christopher Reeves and Ken Caminiti. Ironically they may be remembered by something other than their professions.
Reeves had been paralyzed after injuring his spinal cord falling off a horse. Since then, he has championed the cause of spinal cord regeneration research. The former Superman/movie actor showed us the fruit of (non-super)human resilience when he announced that he had, through much therapy, regained some limited functionality in his limbs years after his injury. I also attend someone from WashU talking about the benefit of exercise feedback therapy on paralyzed patients. The talk was interesting, but fell short of convincing me since it was actually N of 1. It was Reeves. Nevertheless, Reeves had helped to put a face on the hundreds of thousands of people that have suffered from spinal injuries. The sad truth is that the cause of Reeves' death was one of the most common morbidity of these patients, pressure wounds that lead to systemic infection.
Caminiti was a baseball player, and a pretty good one for several years in the mid 90's--good enough to be named the Most Valuable Player in National League one year. But after his retirement, he had confessed to steroid usage during his playing days. He also claimed that half of the professional baseball players still do. This does not sit well with a lot of people in baseball. He had also gone to jail for other drug usage, and died of heart attack at age of 41. Time will tell whether his history of drug use had any effect on his heart condition.
So how do we remember these men? The handsome movie star soaring over the Niagara Falls? The field general that sacrificing his body, leaving his sweat and blood on the baseball diamond day after day? Or the fragile man moving awkwardly in an automated wheelchair controlled with his mouth? The fallen ex-athlete shuttling in and out of the court rooms? Or the legacy of two men, living different lives, bring attention two very real and common problems that the world faces?
See it coming?
Just watching the replay of Trinidad v. Mayorga fight. In round 1, Mayorga dropped his hands, and dared Tito to hit him. Felix hit him square on his jaw with three straight crosses, didn't budge him at all. Roy Jones Jr. said if you can see it coming, you can take it. No #$#@ing way. I don't buy it. But this just proves that while the lighter weight class fights are more entertaining, the fighter just don't have the power. So why do people always give the pound-for-pound best fighter in the world title to these smaller fighters?
Nobel Prize
2004 Nobel Laureats are been announced this week. I've been meaning to write about this, but what's there to say?
First of all, it is especially exciting to see the Physiology/Medicine prize go to Richard Axel and Linda Buck, for their discovery of the odorant receptors and the olfactory system organization. Unlike a lot of other awards in this category, in this case the immediate application to disease treatment is not clear. The coding of the ordorant receptors and the olfactory bulb is intellectually fascinating, but on the practical side of things, the sense of smell probably comes in fourth or fifth when it comes to our five senses. So it is indeed great to see two scientists who were daring and perservered to follow their own intellectual interest, to seek out the road less traveled, yet still get recognition for their great science.
Second, the chemistry prize. Some may argue that the discovery of ubiquitin pathway should be considered for physiology. At the moment, it certainly has more impact in disease treatment than the odorant receptors. But it illustrates the point when one begins his scientific journey it's difficult to see where he will end up. Even more amazing is that in so many cases different people taking different approaches and studying different systems yet arrive at the same scientific discovery at the same moment in history.
Now to Nobel himself. His fortune from the invention of dynamite made his foundation possible. Of course dynamite has its share of detractors. Sure, it destroys things, and can and did kill a lot of people. But if Nobel had a moral objection to the destructive power of dynamite, and chose not to pursuit the scientific study of it, someone else would have. In the same way, scientists today still face the same dilemma. With knowledge, comes responsibility. The moral objections that people raise against some of the research today, such as embryonic stem cell research, fail to recognize that science will move forward no matter what, and the inevitable responsibility of applying the discovery should be shared, not avoided, by all of us, for better or for worse. I can try to prove why thea pathetic number of useful ES cell lines approved by the white house is silly, but it's a difficult idea to understand for everyone. How about why do you need fifty different kinds of assalt weapons for hunting? Because each looks different, works differenly, and has a different use! But the fact is, while you are arguing about outsourcing the manufacturing jobs, the limit on ES cell research is forcing the outsourcing of science.
Laura Bush, who's against expanding ES cell lines by claiming that people are been misled about the promise of ES cell research, simply does not understand how science works. At the same time, I also find it objectionable that the same people who approve death penalty could have moral objection to ES cell research. I'm not sure when we developed this skepticism about science. However, Nobel and his foundation continue to show us that the practices of rigorous science and ethical judgement do not have to exist in two parallel universes.
What superhero power would you want?
Amazingly, most people would say INVISIBILITY. Well, most guys that is. But yes it would be great to be invisible, or would it?
Believe it or not, I have actually given this a fair amount of thought. Now you say, what's so bad about not to be seen by others, and go anywhere you want? The trouble is it will take a lot of adjustment on our superhero's daily habits. since you are invisible, other people won't see you coming. Imagine walking through a crowd, or driving down the road in your nifty invisibility-mobile. You will have to anticipate anyone and everyone-who's-next-to-you's every possible move. That would be a pain, if not impossible. And those automatic sliding doors, forget about it. Your personal space would be squeezed to the size of a quark. I often thought about writing a story of a day in the invisible man's life, and how unbearable it would be.
But wait, there are people around us that live their lives as invisible beings. Really? I think that to a certain extent, the homeless, the obese and the mentally disabled are more or less invisible to most people. We avoid eye contact, give them a wide berth, and in general, consciously not think about them. We do it for different reasons. The homeless: I don't want to give them any money. The obsese: it's not polite to stare. The disabled: they might be crazy. In the end, we go through life acting like they don't exist. They are invisible to us, but they are no superheros.
Quote of the day
"To talk and laugh. To do each other kindnesses. To read pleasant books together; to pass from lightest joking to talk of deepest things, and back again. To differ without rancor, as a man might differ with himself... these, and such like things, proceeding from our hearts as we gave affection and received it back, and shown by face, by voice, by eyes, and by a thousand pleasing ways, kindled a flame which fused our very souls together, and, of many, made us one."
- Augustine
China to reverse the brain drain?
Top U.S. University to move to China (translation) Jeb Bush needs to step in, and stop this outsourcing of American education!
I remember the days when people were dying to go to school abroad, and it didn't matter what school they are applying to. Often time, the students weren't even accepted to the actual school, but only the language program the school offered to attract foreign students and their wallets. I had thought the time has changed, and the chinese have become more worldly and knowledgeable about such things in the rest of the world. But I'm still shocked to see someone to tout Florida International University as a top tier school. There isn't even any top tier school in the region that one could be confused with FIU. Did they confuse with the high rankings of the Univeristy of Miami, Florida State University football teams? I don't know.
All's fair in Love and War...
This year marks a significant transition in my life. What it is, you ask? Well, speaking of LOVE and WAR. I have loved baseball for over an entire cycle of the Chinese zodiac. I love the intricate strategy of the game, the numerical beauty of the records and stats, the Homeric history of the past, and oh do I love the mischievous Oakland A's. They break your heart so many times, yet you keep coming back to them like your first crush in the fifth grade. Yet this year, I feel myself been slowly pulled away from this decade-long love, and been sucked into this year-long raging WAR, otherwise known as the 2004 U.S. Presidential Campaign.
As my A's took a dive at the end of the season--what else do you call losing 9 out of last 13 games--I found myself increasingly distracted by the partisan warfare that have been waged on this country by people from the left and right. In a way, it feels like a loss of innocence (I know at 27, sad, but true). In baseball, hope springs eternal. Your team choked again this year, no problem, there's always next year. And the year after that. And the year after that... Until one day you wake up and find yourself in one of two eerily similar yet fundamentally different shoes--the Boston Red Sox "we are cursed, but maybe this year is finally our year" glass slipper or the Chicago Cubs "we are cursed, but let's see if they found a new way to extricate our heart from our chest cavity this year" CFM boots--BUT of course, there's always the year after that.
This optimism is non-existent in the War of Political Supremacy. Every election, every appointment, every court case and every decision is seen as the Armageddon. Four more years of Bush? Well, we would have, depending who to talk to, either staved off the Rapture or trumpeted the end of the world as we know it. (though surprisingly the Judgement day of the Religious Right is quite similar to the calamitous environmental collapse feared by the left.) Yet, it's exactly because the stakes seem so high, that I get sucked into these righteous screaming matches that have come to permeate every corner of the mass media. Case in point, I used to love a blog by Will Carroll on baseball, but for about three months (july-september) it became the battleground for the debate whether John Kerry lied about his medals. But what about the two guys who are
fighting over Barry Bond's 700th home run ball? Isn't it more important to know whether someone could claim possession of a ball by sitting on the ball and having it completely controlled by his thighs?
So who do I blame for robbing my innocence and first love? Well, EVERYONE but me. The people on the baseball blogs that feel the need to bring their politics. The big corporate news that had to make every political contest into a horserace. The 527s that think two wrongs could make a right. And my girlfriend. Yes, her. The uninhibited, whole-hearted, irrational, personal, moral and grammatical disdain that she displays for Bush 43 made my own running hatred of the NY Yankees pale in comparison. It's shocking, yet, admirable for I have never imagined that one could come to dispise something and someone, which is so obviously a fraud, with such force and conscience that can become so empowering. So I said to myself, I want to feel that way. The truth is that I never felt this odd combination of utter hopelessness and pure ectasy when following the Oakland A's baseball. Love for baseball, I realize, that's child's play. The war for the control of
"Team America, World Police," with everything on the line, now that's a fight worth losing your sleep over. That is, until the next telecast of
Iron Chef Battle America.
Who do you hate?
To say the Chinese dislike the Japanese is an understatement. The anti-Japanese sentiment wax-and-wane, but it is persistent, and occasionally erupts as in the case of Asian Cup final. Looking back at China's history the past 100 years, it is understandable why the average Chineses feel the need to become vocal once-in-awhile about their distaste of the Japanese. Or is it that simple?
Clearly Mainland China is a place where freedom of speech is limited. Anti-Japanese protests or protests against other western governments, fine, the U.S., are the few that will be tolerated by the Communists government. So while the government has its own agenda to continue to foster resentment toward these countries, mainly through history lessons in schools, the protests by the chinese people can be seen as an indirect way to vent their anger about the suffocating control from the government, and a safe opportunity to exercise their limited freedom of assembly and speech. In this, I see a curious analogy between the Chinese and the Arabs in the middle east. Perhaps their angst against their own authoritarian governments is just as real, if not more, as their anger toward the west.
Well, the Chinese does have a tradition of "pointing to a deer, and call it a horse."
Who's more polite?
People had been focusing a lot on the catch-phrases during the debate, like "freedom," "strong," "mixed messages," "misled," and "alliance." So both men still can't help the bad habit of making sound bites. But how about this one:
Bush refered to Kerry as "Senator" only three times. Twice during the question when he was asked about Kerry's character. And one more in his closing statement. In all other cases (20), he called him his "Opponent."
Kerry referred to Bush always as "the President." I lost count at 30, a third of way through the transcript.
A couple of points. This is another piece of evidence that Bush's team made a mistake by making the first debate on foreign policies. This focuses the attention on the president--Bush has to repeat what HE did, and Kerry is only too happy to keep the focus on Bush. It's one thing to attack Kerry's position on war behind his back, but during a debate you have to talk more about what I DID, not what HE SAID.
Second, I know I'm nitpicking here, but would it have killed Bush to call Kerry a SENATOR? Doesn't the Republicans want to remind people that Kerry is in the Senate for 20 years without a distinguished record? Bush could have been more polite and political in this.
Who won?
Much has been said about the first presidential debate, so now it's my turn. But I'm too lazy to organize my thought into paragraphs.
1. The time limit, as I had expected, worked to Kerry's advantage. However, I wish both men would stop talking when they were finished even if the lights hasn't started to flash.
2. Bush scores points with the religious core by mentioning "prayer" and "God" and that "mountain top... valley of peace" quote. Like he ever feels threatened to lose their votes. My question is, if they translate his speech into Arabic, does "God" become "Allah"? So would he score points with the Muslim Arabs? (It's a rhetorical question.)
3. Kerry won, mainly style over substance. While we like to believe substance should come first, the fact Kerry
APPEARED to win a debate on a topic of Bush's own choosing,
War, and at the game that the Bush team were usually superb at,
images and impressions, is a victory that should hearten the Kerry team.
4. Kerry missed some chances early to hurt Bush, but he got better as the time went on. Early on Bush repeated Iraq IS a central front in war on terror and that's why we are there. Kerry should have corrected him by saying the cause-and-effect is backward: we went to Iraq first, exposing the troops to become a vulnerable target for the terrorists which then turned Iraq into a front in the war on terror. It seems Bush didn't have the stamina in the second half of the debate and resorted to his stump speeches which did not play well in front a quiet audience.
5. Why I would vote for McCain but not Giuliani. Giuliani has become a mouth piece of Bush, and it is so transparent it is sad. McCain on the other hand must be throne on the side of Bush. Yes he's SUPPORTING Bush, but he's very careful with his words. It's often more like a Dad talking about his son. When pressed by Larry King to compare Bush of today to Bush of 2000, the best McCain could say is, "He's really grown in the four years in the office." Dude, Bush is like 58 and still growing?! Is he done growing? With the faces that he was making last night, apparently not.
6. Kerry should thank his people that negotiated the debate setup. The first debate is so rigidly constructed, with podium and lights and time limits, no one could help but be a little stiff. So Kerry is comfortable, except he experimented with a few hand puppet... I mean, gestures. Bush on the other hand is just dying over there. He hunched over the podium (it was shown more clear with a camera behind him, but not Kerry, who's as stiff as ever), but couldn't do the folksy talk that he loves to do.
7. As to whether winning the debate can help to win the undecided, I'm not convinced. It seems that there are two groups. One group is undecided because they don't care and don't bother to learn about the candidates. So they probably didn't watch the debate anyway. A second group is undecided because they are torn, and they want to hear very specific things that would convince them one way or the other. But the debate is still more style and sound bites than anything else, so the hope of hearing something new and revealing is dim.
8. on TV, Kerry stands on the left, and Bush right. Nice. with the split screen, a picture is worth a thousand words.
I should have known better...
there has been a lot of hypothesis of the dark cloud over my personal life this past few days. Now we know.
Mount St.Helens, eminent eruption?
