Blogging ...Memento-style.
Finally came back from China. I was only gone for about 11 days, but it now seems a life-time ago. So much of what I rely on for news information in the U.S. is blocked in the good old PRC, that the events the last week and half have left me in the dust. The banners of "a new moral majority" has been replaced by the new catch-phrase "Federalism." From medical weed to marriage, the state's right to regulate itself is coming under attack. The irony is of course that the Republicans had been associated with State's Rights, and the Democrats were the ones using the big bad Federal government to meddle in people's daily lives. Times has changed. While a younger me had found the idea of federalism strange and curious, I now find some genius in this idea of the U.S. founding fathers. But it seems to me that the fight to protect state's rights is nothing but a political jargon in the mouths of politicians who happen to find themselves in the minority in the country. Democrats did it before the Civil War, liberals during segregation, Republicans during their conservative rebirth, and now supporters of gay-marriage and medical pot-users.
Getting back to my intended topic, I'm planning to put down some of my thoughts and reflections about this past trip. It's only ironic that while the two countries, U.S. and China, become closer and more connected, it is the differences between the two that are making a deeper impression on me. It's probably because I'm older, but it's also possible that 10 years ago, comparing the two was as futile as comparing apple and oranges. Now it's more like apple and pear.
Context please?
Fox network is just ran a quick news informing the audience that FDA re-approved the abortion drug, RU-486, with the added requirement that the drug add a warning about the risk of infection. Fox focused on three deaths that have resulted from these infections. What they failed to mention on TV and on the story on its website only mentioned in the third to last paragraph, that 360,000 women had used the drug. Now 3 out of 360,000, that's less than 0.001%. What is the outcome of all pregnancy? I don't know, I bet not much better, especially with the likes of Scott Petersons around. Next target? How about the danger of Hydrogen Dioxide? Go get them.
AAAAAHHHHH!
The Houston Rockets lose again.
Yao Ming has 27 pts, and 11 rebounds. Nice. 13 FGs in 15 attempts. Even better. He had 25 pts by 3rd quarter, and had only two shots in the 4th. Rockets went from 11 up to lost by 4. Bad. Look at the shots by Yao:
1st quarter: 6FG-6attmepts
2nd: 2FG-3attempts
3rd: 4FG-4attmepts
4th: 1FG-2attempts
So why did Yao stop taking shots in the 4th quarter with the game on the line? Possibility 1: he didn't play. No. He played all but 87 seconds in the 4th. Possibility 2: he's not getting the ball. Or Possibility 3: he's tired and stopped been aggressive. Now I'm leaning toward 2. My evidence? Tracy McGrady, the big off-season acquisition, had 4 shots, 3 from the 3 point line, all missed. (finished with 7-of-20, 21 points.) Jimmy Jackson had 6 shots, made three, but missed 3 3-pointers in the 4th. He ended up 7-of-15, same number of shots with Yao. Now I know Yao is not the most assertive of basketball stars (I don't call him superstar and don't think he will for the same reason), but you got to give your hottest player the ball down the stretch. Case closed. I wonder how many hairs does Jeff Van Gundy have left after tonight?
I got sick today.
Half way through a talk today, I felt sick. I felt the butterflies in my stomach. A co-worker of mine told me later he felt dizzy too. I don't know what to call it. The talk seemed to go on forever, and I half-hoped that the talk would finish. But the truth is, I didn't.
I was enthralled, actually. The talk by
Dr. Roger Tsien was one of the most fascinating talks I have ever seen. I felt sick because it was downright scary how brilliant his work was. When I was an undergrad at San Diego, I stumbled across his work with green fluorescent protein (GFP) and that got me hooked. Today's talk was really about his work since the late '90s. In a short seven years, the progress and innovation that came out of his group were simply astounding. You know how you call some people smart merely because they can follow your logic and line of thought. Then there are those who are smart because you can see the implication of their ideas as soon as they are spoken. Then there are those who are smart because they see impossible possibilites far down the road that the courage and insight went into making these pipe-dreams into reality completely floors you. I keep expecting the talk to finish because I didn't think I was able to soaking so much trial-blazing discoveries in the short 60 minutes. The sick feeling in my stomach? Maybe it's the exhaustion of an aspiring scientist that found himself utterly shattered by the bold brilliance of a pioneer, or maybe it's the anxiety of "I can't wait to throw myself back into work."
WTF?
someone's trying to sell a grill-cheese sandwich on Ebay that bores the image of the Virgin Mary. Amuse yourself to decide which of the following are the most disturbing:
1. It was half-eaten.
2. It was first made 10 years ago.
3. The divine power of cotton balls has preserved the sandwich in a plastic box the past 10 years.
4. Someone (jokingly) wants to buy it for $20,000.
5. Someone wants to make money of the mother of Christ.
6. Someone actually knows what the Virgin Mary looks like.
You know what bugs me the most about religion? They have it too easy. While religious people can
discount evolution as a mere theory and get away with it, scientists and researchers actually go out of their way to prove that Jesus Christ is a historic figure. Yes, I do mean religious, not Fundamentalist, people because I refuse to believe that a majority of people in this country is ignorant. If 12 year olds need to be told about the need for evolution to be "critically considered" and studied with "an open mind," who is putting the stickers on church doors to say the Bible should be considered as a collection of fiction with internal inconsistencies that need to be studied with some skepticism? It's a double-standard.
I'm still looking for a picture of that sandwich. It's as likely to be
Jenna Jameson as
Madonna.
Quote of the day
courtesy of
Andrew Sullivan.
Where there is no exaggeration there is no love, and where there is no love there is no understanding. It is only about things that do not interest one, that one can give a really unbiased opinion; and this is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always valueless.
- Oscar Wilde
I often find it hard to argue with people about politics. It puzzles me why reasonable, rational, intelligent people can't even stand to listen to another point of view, let alone try to understand it. "Hey it's just a hypothetical point," or "Just for arguement sake..." To me these debates are nothing more than arguing about two sides of a coin. Well, I have long suspected it--in my attempts to remain "objective" and "unbiased", does my lack of passion make my opinions less valuable?
Double whammies
I have been struggling with two related issues for quite awhile now. Not to parse words, the two are abortion and death penalty. Both are legal. Both are emotional and controversial. And I support both, if only for the sake of internal consistency--I admit that I do see some merit in the assertion that life began in the unborn fetus.
I had felt comfortable with the "double-death" stance until recently for I have become increasingly uneasy with the growing evidence that the delievery of death penalty, the ultimate punishment, in this country is flawed. So I needed to find a way to disassociate the pro-choice stance from the pro-death stance, which is not easy. I know the left (pro-choice/anti-death) and right (pro-life/pro-death) have arguments about why the life of a fully grown criminal is not the same as that of an unborn fetus, but I not going to take that easy way out because the inherent subjectivity in them.
Now I have finally arrived at an argument that at least temporarily gave me some "inner peace" as to how I can continue to support a woman's right to choose, but be suspicious of the death penalty.
Let us all agree on this single premise: in an ideal world, there will be no unwanted pregnancy and heinous crimes, therefore no need to perform abortion (except for medical conditions) and death penalty.
Since we are not living in a perfect world, the most reasonable solution to end either abortion or death penalty would be to decrease the need for them, i.e. decrease the number of unwanted pregnancy and crime.
So how can we do that? For unwanted pregnancy, it would definitely include preventive measures such as an honest and realistic sex education (in school or at home), accessible and reliable contraceptives, and assistance for family planning or alternatives to abortion after the pregnancy has occured. Fortunately, the people who are supposedly "abortion-crazy" are actually for all of that. That's why they are "pro-choice." On the contrarary, many of the pro-lifers on the right are against many of the things I just mentioned.
So now we turn to the death penalty. Well, unfortunately, most people who embrace the continuation of death penalty are in the business of law enforcement, and have the mentality of "catch 'em, nail 'em, execute 'em." There is very little of identifying the underlying factors that would lead a person to the point where he or she sees an assault on other people as his or her only option. No, I'm not saying
every criminal is the product of society and the result of a disadvantaged upbringing. However, many are, and it's those criminals and future ones like them that we should try and may have the best chance to help.
So the difference between the pro-choice and the pro-death penalty camps is clear in my eyes. The former actively seeks to find effective and meaningful way to lower the use of an "extreme measure." The latter, which includes the re-elected president, only wishes to maximize the use of the "ultimate punishment" without express any concern to address the underlying social causes. While I do not yet feel comfortable enough to say the death penalty is unnecessary as a form of crime deterrence, I can say that I feel much more at ease saying that I am pro-choice at the same time.
Yo, democrats, there is plenty of room on this "pro-choice and death penalty-but" bandwagon, want to try it out the next election?
When one wrong doesn't equal another wrong.
During the campaign, people, mostly liberals on the left, lamented the "fair and balance" way that major news organizations reported the er... un-factual talking points by both sides. They argue that while Kerry is not from immune from exaggerations and misleading statements ,
Bush lied more blatantly, with more intention, and on subjects of more importance. But the reporters, the left claimed, treat all the dis-information the same, giving the impression that both sides lied equally.
I bring this up because I had, for a while now, been puzzled by the left's objection to a war that removes a dictator/murder from power. Remember, the political left is usually the most vocal group about human rights, and the suffering of people who live half a world away under some two-bit dictator that rest of us never care to pay attention to. But once the confrontation switches to between that same two-bit dictator and the mighty U.S. government, the sympathy switches to the dictator. Clearly brutalizing thousands of people is not the moral equivalent of using military action to remove a mass murder. Then why?
Well, is it possible the basic principle behind some of the liberal movements is not freedom and equality, but an instinctual, emotional reaction to help the "underdog?" So when it's the dictator/government of (insert your favorite third-world/developing country) versus the poor farmer/political activist/Falungong follower/(insert your favorite disadvantaged minority), of course, you would fight for the latter. But when this oppressive government comes up against the A-bomb carrying, satellite riding, blackhawk jumping Uncle Sam, guess who becomes the underdog? The arguement that there are dozens of Saddam Hussein around the world, and we can't remvoe them all, is ultimately a futile one. The attempt to draw some sort of moral equivalence between the action of a paranoid, cruel dictator and a (somewhat) well-intented but poorly executed military intervention rings hallow. So, is it possible it's simple as "we like to cheer for the underdog?" I sure hope not.
A different standard?
You have heard me blabber over
Curt Schillings' ankle last month. So it's only nature that you can count on me, or rather, me directing you to ESPN for acutal pictures of the
bloody ankle.
Gruelsome, isn't it? And that's before he push off on it while rotating his upper torso and right shoulder at such velocity to generate enough force to make a baseball go 80-90 mph, again and again for nearly 100 times. Remove the suture. Put it back five days later, and do it again. thank god for the invention of socks, so the ankle was covered during the two games.
However the question in my head is: do we hold our athletes to a different standard? Beside the controversy over drug use, I'm talking about privacy over medical information. Sports fans often lament that a team physician is being "secretive", not telling us about the exact injury and status to a star player's (insert body parts here), for reasons as lame as "well, I need to know if he will play and start him on my FANTASY TEAM." This is at the same time when I'm concern about whether genomic sequencing will one day be used against me by the insurance company. Sure world-class athletes are celebrities to certain extent, but does that give us the right to be kept up to the mintue of their health status?
Seasonal diarrhea?
I was waiting for a bus yesterday. I noticed the exotic painting on the side walk. It was dark. Upon closer inspection, it appeared to be waxy substance abstractly thrown against the cement at a high velocity. Intuitively understanding "a present and clear danger", I briskly walked away from the two trees at the bus stop. Seconds later, a roar went through the branches and it sounded like wind blowing down the last of autumn leaves or a shower of some sort. Most likely, a school of birds just finished their version of the "shock and awe" campaign on the bus stop, but the fear of becoming "collateral damage" on my part prevented me from further investigating in the hot zone. My question is, do birds poop more in the fall? Is it possible that they let go a mighty bowel movement right before they start their semi-annual migration?
Irony
If you want advice on pest control, you would want to listen to people who have had termites in their house, right?
If you want opinion on a steakhouse, you would want to listen to the fat guy with the pot-belly, right?
So if you are scared of terrorism and want to know who would be more dependable to protect them from the terrorists, wouldn't you want to follow the lead of the people who have been attacked?
New York City has been repeatedly attacked in the past, so has D.C.. So who did these people vote in last Tuesday's election? Well, it's overwhelmingly not Bush. Ironic isn't it?
Evidence is clear that Bush won not because of the so called "moral" issues, but for people's trust in him to
wage a better war on terrorism. Key stats:
22% named "moral values" as their top issue. They voted for Bush 80%.
19% "terrorism." For Bush: 86%.
The two are very close. Together they make up 34% of total votes, or 2/3 of all Bush votes (51%). In another words, of the rest of the people who didn't think moral and terrorism as the top issues (59%), only about 28% voted for Bush. So there are a large constituency that clearly see Bush as the wrong leader.
Therefore I think it's misleading for the media to crown Bush the king of moral majority, and disingenuous for Bush and the Republicans to claim that title. These misconception can become self-perpetuating truth, and affect the public sentiment. On the other hand, I think it's dangerous, yet still likely, that the some Republicans will try to appeal to the so-called moral majority by undertaking major attacks on current social policies. Surely the brain trust of Bush quietly realize the one unintended consequence of 9/11 is to give their candidate a legitimate mandate on fear.
President, you do have some political capital. Spend it well, and spend it on something real--terrorism--unless of course, if you think fear is a bottomless well of political capital... now that would be a scary thought if things remain the same 2008.
Can't stop myself?
Am I procrastinating? Yes. Still depressed? More every day.
I had been trying to justify my optimism and clam my fear, saying four more years of Bush are not the end of the world. At its best, it will force him to live up to the responsibility of the war in Iraq. He has to want to leave a lasting legacy right? His re-election victory is historic by all accounts: clear majority, gains in the congress on his tail-coat, and potential lopsided power in all three branches of the government. Now after winning the last election of his life, will he use this new-found power for GOOD or EVIL?
But wait. Last election of his life? Are we living in an unprecedented time in the U.S. history? My question is which of the following constitutional admendments is most likely to pass?
1. the "Arnold": allow foreign-born U.S. citizen to become president
2. the "Gay": banning gay marriage
3. expanding the term limit on president
Maybe I'm getting over-excited (and all three are highly unlikely), but I would say 3. Why not? In four years, if Iraq is still a mess, and a war breaks out in Iran or Syria, can we afford to change horse mid-stream? I think not. I can't imagine our country without Karl Rove's genius. Or is it that I can't imagine our country with Karl Rove without George Bush?
Children of the future II.
Maybe I will take my optimistic words about young people back. First check out this
halloween costume.
That's not an aide of Cheney's legion of shadowy army. That's his 7 year old granddaughter!
And this is what her grandmother said: Elizabeth is dressed up as "John Kerry's health plan."
And remember this is the woman that call Kerry a "bad, bad man" for mentioning her grown lesbian daughter, who works for the republican campaign, in a debate about gay marriage. Family is off-limit? I don't know what is worse: using their grandchildren to snipe at opponents, or making a 7 year old girl dressing up as the grim reaper so you can snipe at opponents? Seriously, grim reaper? I don't think her granddad is that scary that the little girl's first choice on halloween is DEATH.
Yes, this has much to do about nothing. But it almost makes me so curious about what goes on at those Republican stumps, where you have to recite a loyalty oath to the president before you can be admitted. There must be some crazy stuff happened there.
Children of the future.
I was optimistic before the election. Somewhat saddened by the results. But then again, there are much to be depressed about in my life these days. Yet the following number from the election keeps me optimistic:
18-29 yo: Bush 46: Kerry 54.
Admittedly, I'm surprised by how close it is--I would have thought Kerry would have at least a 20 point lead--it goes to show you how well the Republicans got out the vote. I guess bible study works better than Vote Or DIE, thanks Diddy. But it's still the only age demographic that Kerry won. So the optimistic me want to shout: the future belongs to us! Whether the young people of today won't turn into the NASCAR dad and soccer mom of tomorrow I don't really know.
Another thing. Remember the bloggers pat themselves on the back about breaking the fraud documents from CBS? The "leaked" EARLY exit polls were flying across the blogger world. Guess what, they were wrong. Now I'm not saying that those numbers weren't legit (
Mr. Rove, stop grinning, we know who the ducks are), but the premature pat on their backs for a Kerry victory must feel like left hooks to their faces this morning.
Optimism
Okay, I broke down, so I will write something political on the eve of the first election I will vote in.
By all accounts, this is a
close one. I don't know who will win tomorrow, but I hope common sense will win, hint, hint. Short of that, I have another secret weapon, a trait of the American people that is almost unique among all nations in the world. What is it?
It seems to me that this campaign to win the votes of Americans have been waged on things in the past. From 60's and 70's Vietnam to today's Iraq. From what Kerry said when he was in college to a Bush gaffe a week ago. From a son's attempt to fulfill his father's legacy to a controversial election four years ago. Some of these history may be relevant except we forget the fact that Americans HATE HISTORY. Americans don't carry baggages of the past with the same kind of devotion as people from other parts of the world. The Palestinians have mastered the victim's complex. How could you shed the memory of hatred when you parade the dead "martyrs" around for a whole day? The Chineses and Koreans are still holding grudges against the Japanese for the action of a militaristic government nearly a century ago. You name it, the imprint of history and the emotional weight of past tragedies are usually a part of any group of people's collective identity.
Yet, the American people are uniquely OPTIMISTIC, almost to the point of annoying to the rest of the world. This is the great thing about Americans, they rarely look back, usually forward. While millions of Americans live in poverty, they still hold on to the American dream. Do the poor hate the rich? No, because they somehow believe that one day they can be rich too. They are unburdened by the past. You think the 9/11 attacks were horrifying and has changed the collective mentality of the American people? Go to any airport. Take a look at people bitching about the long lines. Or better, the lack there of, the security has become much more lax just a year after the attacks. What the passengers are worried about is whether they can make that connection, and the family/friends/business/vacation that awaits them at the other end.
So no, I don't think in the end past terrorist attacks and Bush's resolute bravado of "dead or alive" to capture OBL and the catastrophic success in Iraq are the most overriding concerns of the Americans. Americans will look to future: what kind of job they will have in a year, where their children will be (in college and not in Iraq hopefully) in four years, what the insurance/prescription bill will look like when they grow older, and all in all, what kind of freedom and guaranteed rights and opportunities for happiness will they have to look forward to in this country.
Optimistic, that I am. Hey if your guy doesn't win tomorrow, look, there's always 2008.
