Enemy of my enemy is my Friend?
Or is it friend of my enemy is my enemy? Oh really! You see I wonder about that.
Being a faithful Oakland A's fan, I follow nightly the up-and-downs of baseball teams battling each other. The A's are currently 6 1/2 games behind their divisional rival the California/Anaheim/Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in the divisional standings. So you would think that last night I would be cheering for the New York Yankees to beat the Angels, right? Not so fast. The Yankees, besides being the anti-thesis of the A's, were also 1/2 game in front of the A's in the wild card standings. You see, the goal of every team is to reach the playoff, and you can reach the playoff in two ways, winning your division or winning the wild card, i.e. the best winning record among teams that do not win the division. So in this case, enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. Since age immemorial, sports fans have been confronted with this quandary.
It seems that in these days of a world full of uncertainties, we often resort to deciding our friends and foes by their opposition/allegiance to our other enemies. Is this a good idea? "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" is such a black-and-white, all-or-none judgment. It reflects a polarized, inflexible view of how politics, society, and the world operate. Granted, this is not unique to our time. People tend to see their struggles in simplistic model of good v. evil, the protagonist v. antagonist through out history. We did it during the Cold War with China. Communist China was deemed our enemy once it appeared, if only out of the necessity of preservation, to align with the U.S.S.R. But twenty years later, when the fissure appeared between the two communist powers, Nixon quickly embraced the Middle Kingdom. In truth, China probably never views itself as on our side or that side--it always envisions itself to be equal, if not superior, of both the U.S. and the Soviets.
But it sure seems that we do this quite often these days. The U.S. embraces Pakistan and its President, overlooking his un-democratic ascension to power, purely based on their military support in the ever-last war on terror. And Vladimir’s Russia is our buddy, because they are also fight Muslims, forgetting it is a war for nationalism not ideology. Yes it is old news, but it is still ironic and cautionary to remind ourselves that we once supported the Muslims because they were fighting the Russians.
Yet, neo-conservatives are not the only ones to see the world in monochromatic colors. John G. Roberts has been nominated by President Bush as Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The Left's reaction immediately following the announcement captured perfectly on the John Stewart's satirical fake news show, was "they're outraged over Bush's pick, and they have been for weeks." Oh yes, friend of Bush is surely an enemy of mine.
To see the world as "with me or against me" is to admit all you care about is "winning." It does not matter what you win, how you win and why beating your enemy is so important. In today's politics, "winning" has come to overshadow all else. And it should not be. Even in a child's game, baseball, the alliance of friend and foe is difficult, what would one do when there are so many urgent issues that require our attention. Roberts may be a friend of Republicans, and likely to be confirmed. All will not be lost, since by all accounts, he is brilliant and
War of the Words
I thoroughly enjoyed Matt Bai's
"The framing Wars," an chronicle and critique of the recent shifts in Democratic party's strategy to win back the losing debates in America. We all know inituitively how words can be twisted in conversations and arguement, whether it's with your significant other or reporters from national news agencies, but there are actually people making a living out of "re-wording" issues. Do it once, you will be slapped by your girlfriend, "you are twisting my words!" Repeat that hundreds and thousands of times, you would have built an emergent Moral Majority.
Bai ends his piece on a slightly critical tone, noting that new words, alone without new ideas, may not be sufficient to save the Democrats. I think this was uncalled for. He had earlier in the piece mentioned that the central slogan of the Republicans boils down to:
lower taxes, less government, strong defense and family values
But he then critized the Democrats' new slogan:
prosperity, national security, fairness, opportunity, community and accountability
and
its accompanied points as "a wish list of vague notions and familiar policy ideas." Now compare the two. They are both vague, and more importantly, un-offensive. None is more vague than the notorious "family values." The only thing the Republicans has in its favor is the directionalities to most of their targets, "Lower," "Less" and "Strong." Again, it is curious that they are simply "for" family vaules, whatever it is, when in reality it could easily mean to stymie scientific innovations that could save lives of our family and friends.
Fine, the Pelosi talking points were a pair of dirty boxers away from becoming a launchary list (no pun intended for my esteem senator from my beloved home state). So here is my five cents:
1. Defend constitution (and the liberty it ensures)
2. International prestige (through military strength and humanitarian aids)
3. Expand Middle Class prosperity (social mobility and security)
4. Promote eduction and innovation
5. Upheld integrity (in business and governance)
That should cover most of it. Where do a few wedge issues fit: equal rights/affirmative action(1 and 3), abortion(1), stem cell(4), energy(4), tax(3), national security(2), gun rights(1, oh well), health care(3), and any complaint about government/ business/ steroids-in-sports/ Walmart/ Starbucks/ Joe's Crab Shack(5).
Now here is the easy part, find a Democrat that can look convincing while saying it.
Impreachment, anyone?
Just finished Season Two of "24."
***Spoiler alert***
President Palmer was momentarily voted out of his office by the VP and half the cabinet. Riveting TV.
***Spoiler over***
But this got me thinking about all the non-sense about impreaching George W. Bush.
What's the point? You know who's the next in line, right? Cheney. In fact, this is the
order:
1. Vice President (Richard B. Cheney)
2. Speaker of the House of Representatives (J. Dennis Hastert)
3. President pro tempore of the Senate (Ted Stevens)
4. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice)
5. Secretary of the Treasury (John W. Snow)
6. Secretary of Defense (Donald H. Rumsfeld)
7. Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales)
8. Secretary of the Interior (Gale Norton)
9. Secretary of Agriculture (Mike Johanns)
10. Secretary of Commerce (Carlos Gutierrez, ineligible)
11. Secretary of Labor (Elaine Chao, ineligible)
12. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Michael Leavitt)
13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Alphonso Jackson)
14. Secretary of Transportation (Norman Y. Mineta)
15. Secretary of Energy (Samuel W. Bodman)
16. Secretary of Education (Margaret Spellings)
17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Jim Nicholson)
Yeah, removing Bush is a GREAT IDEA. So is impreaching Clinton for BJgate.
Anti-science extremist...
You think I am referring to the religious fanatics, who do not believe in evolution? No. I am talking about some people at the BBC. The controversy over the HIV drug trials involving New York City children, most of them in foster care, in the last one and half decade has been simmering.
New York Times finally did a story about it. Thus this pits two of the biggest liberal news organizations in the world against each other, since much of the story was stoked by
BBC and
a documentary it did.
Upon reading the relevant news stories, I have a few thoughts. One, it is the importance of informed consent, and how difficult it is to obtain especially in the cases of children who had been abandoned by their families and were left to die of HIV and AIDS. I do not pretend to know whether NYC officials did their best in book keeping. But I would make it clear that I do not think this made the whole project racist or unethical. I also do not blame the advocacy groups that seek to protect the rights of children, who are so vulnerable. However, I place the blame mainly on the BBC. Why?
First of all, the story had started by a freelance journalist, Liam Scheff. He does not believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Well, for most of us in the reality-based community that would put him in the same league as Falwell and Co. But did this deter the BBC from following his footsteps? Coincidentally, in the two stories on the BBC website, there is
no mention of Scheff's involvement at all.
Second, the one scientist they interviewed that were unequivocally critical on the trial was
David Rasnick,, a chemistist who also does not believe in HIV as the cause of AIDS according to
a website that call the HIV a myth. The reports often refer to him as from UC Berekley, but he is actually a "visiting scientist" which in the absence of any other academic appointments elsewhere means he's 53 year old POST-DOC. Other than that, he has worked on protease inhibitors in CANCER BIOLOGY. I know people hear about protease inhibitor and think AIDS drugs, but the field is actually much wider. But for the BBC this qualified him, a non-physician, to speak about side-effects on patients. we all know by now not to trust someone on TV with a white coat and a "Dr." in front of his name as a real patient treating physician. For that same reason, just because someone has a Ph.D. that does not making him an expert in all thing science. Apparently, that is good enough for the BBC.
With such inflammitory titles like "Guinea Pig Kids," the BBC is making itself the laughin-stock of serious news. By employing rogue pseudo-scientists/conspiracy peddlers such as David Rasnick as their experts, it degrades the BBC's reputation as a unbiased source of objective news. I can overlook the BBC's reluctance to use the word "terrorist" to describe suicide bombers, but I cannot stomach the irresponsible dissemination of the destructive non-sense that HIV does not cause AIDS.
Steps in dealing with terrorism.
9/11 New York, D.C. and Penn.: Fear and anger.
3/11 Madrid: Sadness and suspicion.
7/7 London: Defiance and optimism.
We were all shaken and afraid after 9/11. But reading the immediate reactions from Londoners and Brits in general in today's aftermath, one get a sense of "Been there, done that." No, it's not the "Bring 'em on" empty machoism. It's more along the line of acceptance. Acceptance of the reality of a terrible danger, and the acceptance of the responsibility to confront it and defeat it. Perhaps it's because the Brits have had a lot of experience with terrible things happening to their motherland, they project a mixture of
definace and resolve that seem to rub off on everyone today.
Credit cards and signatures.
It is definitely one of those life's persistent questions. How do they check your signature on your credit card receipt? Do they check it in real time, or at the end of each billing cycle? Do they have a computer to analyze the signature, or a human expert? What happens if the signature does not match? Will you still be charged? You see, I have a problem. I've been in some form of higher learning, college or grad schools, for the last 10 years. And with the advant of computers, the chance for people like me to do writings by hand is exceedingly small. Even when I do write, I tend to use BLOCK LETTERS. So needless to say, my cursives and signatures are deteroriating as we speak. People laugh at me whenever I sign, my comeback is always, "so at worst, they won't charge me." But at the back of my mind, I wonder.
Thanks to the
"Credit Card Prank", many of these questions have been answered. Apparently no one really checks. I wonder why. It seems that the companies rather pay the 0.001% of transactions that are fraud as long as the rest of us charge away our savings.
How many G8 leaders does it take to change a light bulb?
Wait.
Wait.
Wait.
Zero.
"It's not broken!"
"And if it is, there is no conclusive evidence that we humans are to blame, or can do anything about it."
"Even if we can, the people in India and China have plenty of broken light bulbs that they are not required to change, so why should we!"
Okay, all jokes aside (but it is a pretty funny one for me to come up on the spot), I hope the world leaders could still get somethings done after the horrific bombings in London today.
Here is what I thought before the news:
George Bush has a chance to change the fous on his adminstration from his wars abroad and at home to international crisis in Africa and global climate. By merely PLEDGING drastic increase in U.S. aid to Africa (and couple it with his successful rhetoric of spreading democracy), and/or showing openness to the Kyoto Treaty, he could reap substantial goodwill from the rest of the world and liberals in the U.S., and making people temperorarily forget his recent troubles at home.
Here is what I thinks after this morning:
Tony Blair has an unique, urh rather another, opportunity to unite the world community behind his leadership on the heel of this human tragedy. A similar opportunity was presented to Bush in 2001-2003, but he decided to milk it for regime change in one middle eastern country. Blair could use the outpouring of sympathy and "resolve" by world leaders to actually accomplish something done about Africa and the climate, things that he is actually passionate about. Even more so than Bush in 2001, Blair is PM of UK, soon to be President of EU, host of G8 and winner of 2012 Olympics. To quote a movie, "With great power comes great responsibility."
But I don't think this will work for the reason that Bush no long has the need to shift focus of the American people. The bombs did it. Again, he will be the War President. War on Terror is his strong suite, always win-win. There is no attack on the U.S. soil in three years, "see I am keep you safe, we are winning in the war against terrorism. We fight them there, in Iraq, in Madrid, and in London, so we don't have to fight them
in New Jersey and in Tiptonville, TN." If there is an attack in the U.S., then "we need to stay resolute, and GW is the best leader we got,
the 6th greatest American." So Bush is more likely to keep pushing for the terrorism angle and resist any real advances toward helping Africa and combat global warming.
Doesn't it creep you out?
The remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that is. And more specifically, Johnny Depp in his
pasty white makeup. Never seen the first one, I don't have a childhood obsession with it. And what bothered me the most is that I couldn't quite place my unease whenever I see the trailer for the new movie.
Finally someone had
cracked the tough nut. Depp reminds people of the
pasty white Michael Jackson! (Don't click on it! Ahhhh, told you not to!) No wonder it creeps me out. I haven't been able to watch any news channel that has Michael's face on its screen in a long time.
