Speaking the native tongue in foreign countries (#97; Topic L)

Last night, World Bank retirees of Chinese ancestry were invited to an annual embassy dinner. In extending fellow retirees' thanks, TT related an experience during his recent vacation in Japan. He asked a local senior citizen a question in fluent Japanese; instead of answering it in Japanese, he spoke in broken English. According to TT, Japanese somehow take a dim view of foreigners' speaking Japanese. This is so different in USA and in China. In USA, foreigners are expected to speak English -- and well. When they mishandle the language, the natives are not hesitant to offer corrections -- a great help most of the time, since a foreigner can improve his/her command of English in a hurry; on occasion, it is a nuisance. In China, English-speaking visitors are encouraged to learn Chinese; whenever one speaks a word or two in Chinese, he/she is invariably praised ("Well done") and prompted to do more ("let's hear a few more"). If that Japanese senior citizen's behavior is representative, it suggests isolationism. Americans view English as the universal language; it suggests universalism. People in China, while realizing that Chinese is an up-and-coming language, encourage foreigners to learn slowly and incrementally; it suggests gradualism. In time, the sheer number of people who can handle Chinese -- those in China, in Asia, and around the world -- will make Chinese a universal language as well.
Posted at 9:54 pm, Tuesday, February 28, 2006

"Protectionism with racist tinge" (#96; Topic B)

About a month ago, Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a public company registered inUK, agreed to be acquired by Dubai Ports World, a private company owned by the government of Dubai, a member of the United Arab Emirates, for $6.8 billion. Since assets to be transferred include selected berths in six US ports in eastern USA, the deal needed governmental approval -- and 12 different agencies all said ok. But, just 10 days before its scheduled closing (3/2), this secret deal was leaked, and, suddenly, the Congress demanded review of the deal's "security implications," and a congresswoman sent a "hell no!" letter to the president. This prompted the Financial Times (2/21) to editorialize: "The bluster about national security conceals one of the uglier faces of U.S. protectionism -- the one with the slightly racist tinge." Dubai's Gulf News (2/23) came to a similar conclusion: "It must be realized that, Americans, in general, are protectionists by nature." From Washington Post, I learned that, over the years, among thousands of similar governmental reviews, only one deal was rejected -- but Post did not reveal its identity. I asked myself: Which one could this be? I know it is not CNOOC's proposed takeover of Unocal last year. (Though Unocal's oil reserves are mainly in the South China Sea, Congress nevertheless gave "national security" as the reason, and demanded a 90-day review period; facing this antagonism, CNOOC simply withdrew.) I now know, from an incidental mention in an ed-op piece in today's New York Times, that that rejected deal involved Global Crossing, also in maritime transport business, selling to Hutchinson Whampoa, a Hong Kong company. This rejection was, of course, held in secret -- until now. So, thanks, P&O; thanks, DPW -- we now know something we did not know before.
Posted 9:00 pm, Saturday, February 25, 2006

What is role of a university president? (#95; Topic E)

Yesterday, the president of Harvard University, Dr. S, announced that he would resign after this academic year. Today, the Wall Street Journal had a long story on his stormy 5-year tenure. At one point, WSJ stated that Dr. S was not accustomed to academia's collaborative spirit, so different from the hierarchical environment in government and industry from which he came (he was formerly Treasury secretary and, before that, the Chief Economist for the World Bank). Reflecting upon it, I found this to be indeed so. About 3/4 of my professional career was in the academia. While I never had the honor of serving as a university president, I did have my share of administrative responsibility in an academic environment. In my view, the faculty is the core of an institution, while the president is best viewed as that institution's spokesman -- a PR representative, if you will. (Dr. S, according to the WSJ report, assisted a friend of his, a faculty member, to escape from being disciplined by the faculty for a serious ethical misconduct. This, in my view, is a no-no for a president.) On my third year on the Cal State Fullerton faculty, as a mere associate professor, I was elected as the chairman of the Faculty Council, representating the faculty in dealing with the administration -- this clearly demonstrates that academic rank and administrative assignment are two different matters. Similarly, at U of Washington, I was a full professor, but we voted an associate professor to take the department chairmanship. At the Chinese University of Hong Kong, I was both professor and dean of the faculty of social sciences and commerce; I viewed my latter role as merely coordinating and facilitating -- precisely the collaborative spirit stated in the WSJ article.
Posted at 11:20 pm, Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Trading with enemy (#94; Topic B)

Today's Washington Post reports an intriguing incident in Mexico City. While attending an international conference, about a dozen attendees from Cuba checked into a Sheraton hotel. But, almost immediately, the Cuban delegation was asked to check out, by order of the US Treasury department to the hotel management -- US entities are barred from trading with Cuba. It makes no difference that this hotel is but a foreign subsidiary located off-shore; that the parent company is a US entity governs. This thoroughness is impressive, and reminds me of a similar incident in 1967, when I was a Ford Foundation Visiting Professor setting up a school of business at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. At that time, to USA, China was an enemy, much as Cuba is now. Being so, goods shipped to US must be devoid of any made-in-China contents or equipment. Thus, for garments (the leading export to US at the time), grey cloth and thread must not come from China, nor could sewing machines used to stitch the cloth into garments. The former is visible and, thus, obvious; the latter, though stretching a bit, is still understandable. All exporters learned these rules well, and watched every detail like hawks, making sure that only not-made-in-China materials and sewing machines were used. Still, in one instance, the entire output of one exporter was rejected. Why? Because the needles on sewing machines used by that garment manufacturer came from China. Sewing needles? Yes. That little toothpick-like sewing needle hardly worth two cents? So what? Isn't sewing needle an integral part of the sewing machine -- in fact, it is a critical part of any sewing machine. This being so, made-in-China needles must not be used. When they were used, rejection was definitely called for. Case closed. This thoroughness impressed me then; it still impresses me now.
Posted at 6:51 pm, Wednesday, February 22, 2006

"I was selling ... the concept of democracy" (#93; Topic I)

Washington Post has a 3-part coverage of blogging in China. Today's 2nd installment features a journalist-cum-blogger Mr. Z's posts; a quote from him is: "I thought of myself as a salesman, and what I was selling was the concept of democracy." Judging from the writeup about him, Z had never been abroad. To me, it is always suspect when a salesman has no first-hand knowledge of what he is selling. Sometimes, as in this case, ignorance might be an advantage. What Z was selling was a concept -- a concept is always romantic, one can always be enthused by a concept. But reality is another matter -- and there is a big difference between concept and reality. In USA, according to President George W Bush, democracy = voting and voting = democracy; no more, no less. In USA, one may vote, so USA is a democracy. And one votes once every four years, no more, no less. When one's vote is needed, one is courted, with promises, etc. After that, one waits another four years to be courted -- by that time, promises made four years ago were long forgotten. (A few days ago, by surprise, Cuban-Americans in Florida remembered; they actually complained, out loud, of unfulfilled promises made in 2000 and 2004, whose votes delivered Florida, as well as the presidency, to Bush.) Once in office, the ideal is to avoid voting -- "recess appointment," under which the current ambassador to UN was appointed, fits the bill perfectly. When democracy is applied to foreign countries, there is an unwritten addendum: the voting result must be consistent with US's calculations. If not, that democracy would be ridiculed (as in Iraq, whose voting results were labeled "census"), ignored (as in Bolivia, #45), or warned (as in Palestine, #92). Were Z to visit USA (which is, undoubtedly, one of his wishes), would he be enthused to sell the reality of democracy?
Posted at 9:45 pm, Tuesday, February 21, 2006

It's all your fault (#92; Topic A)

A week or so ago, the Vice President of the U.S. Dick Cheney accidentally shot one of his hunting buddies (#85). In a subsequent TV appearance, Cheney not only did not apologize, he almost said something to the effect that "it was all your fault." Indeed, when the target -- the word victim is clearly inapplicable -- held a press conference, he apologized for the accident! At first, I find this American logic difficult to grasp; but, in the context of a unique feature in the English language -- when an affirmative answer to a question is called for, it makes no difference whether that question is stated in the positive or negative (#74) -- one can appreciate the beauty of this double talk. So, when U.S. incurred a record trade deficit in 2005 vs China (#89), it was China's fault for not encouraging -- demanding might be a word that better captures the U.S. sentiment -- her citizens to spend more and save less. By the same token, when Palestine, following President George W. Bush's direction to vote and voted, it was fine. But when Palestinians voted in a political party that was not expected to win but did win by a landslide, getting something like 74% of the votes cast, it was Palestinians' fault. (In today's Washington Post, former president Jimmy Carter had a somber ed-op piece entitled "Don't Punish the Palestinians.") Come to think of it, whenever a westerner has trouble following what a person of Chinese ethnicity has said or acted, the adjective used is invariably inscrutable -- which is a shorthand statement for the following: "I am rational and intelligent; you are not. It is all your fault that I cannot decipher you." At first, I was amazed at the self-aggrandizement; in time, I take it to mean an admission of inadequacy.
Posted at 5:10 pm, Monday, February 21, 2006

"What's at stake is western civilization" (#91; Topic F)

During last Saturday's TV interview, Italian's Reform Minister showed off a T-shirt he was wearing that caricatured prophet Muhammad. Yesterday, he resigned, claiming that he had not intended "to offend the Muslim religion;" he took the opportunity to warn that "What's at stake is western civilization." Upon reading, I ask myself: Exactly what western civilization is at stake? Was he bemoaning that Libya is no longer an Italian colony? (There were demonstrations in Libya against the offensive cartoons [#73], resulting in deaths.) Was he sympathizing with his fellow EU members for no longer being able to engage in slave trade? (#81) Or perhaps for their being deprived of income from another lucrative trade as colonial powers: peddling opium to China and other countries? (#45) Or was the west's inability to marshal troops to mount another "crusade" at issue? Or, perhaps, for west's being summarily removed from China, back in 1707, for ramming Christianity through China's throats even to the extent of disallowing her citizens to revere their deceased parents? Big deals all. Shall we see to it that the west reestablish the colonies? Revitalize the slave trade? Or perhaps rekindle the opium trade is the way to go? Perhaps the demonstrations -- isn't this a good reason for another crusade? How could Christianity rule without China being subdued?
Posted at 1:29 pm, Sunday, February 19, 2006

School before games (#90; Topic E)

While signing on to the computer and planning to do an entry, I tuned to CNN (as it turned out, one of my wife's cousins, Carol Lin, was at the anchor). What I heard was so heart-warming that I decided to do this as today's entry. Carol, after an introduction to this segment, was interviewing a youngster by phone. It seemed that, over a two-year period, Jonathan saved some $1,000 for the explicit purpose of visiting New York to see Yankess play. However, he decided to donate all his savings -- all his $1,000+ saved over a 2-year period -- to his school, as it was on the verge of bankruptcy. This was done over his mother's advice. (Altogether, the school raised over $400,000; it was saved.) Somehow, George S, Yankees' owner, heard it and sent Jonathan a letter, inviting him to visit Yankees this coming summer -- complete with VIP treatment, including a visit to the dugout and, perhaps, getting autographs from all these world-class major leaguers. What a story! Jonathan, thanks for doing this. George, thanks for your truly major-league response. And, Carol, thanks for bringing this beautiful story to the viewing public. It is truly beautiful; it certainly makes my day. To me, nothing is more important than giving top priority to learning, to education. Now, a youngster (judging from the school he attended, perhaps a pre-teen) is leading the way, showing us how to do it, even at the expense of forsaking a two-year-long dream of visiting the Yankess! What a young man!
Posted at 5:51 pm, Saturday, February 18, 2006

Doing business in China - Washington vs business (#89; Topic B)

A hot topic at last month's World Economic Forum at Davos was on doing business in India and China. The most popular topic a the US Business Summit at Boca Raton, currently in session, is on doing business in China. Last year, GM earned $238 million in China (#83); two days ago, Starbuck confidently forecast a 20% annual increase, counting mainly on China, "the market with the biggest potential" (Investor's Business Daily, 2/15/06) -- it currently has 220 shops in China. Today's Wall Street Journal, under the heading "U.S. Businesses Say They Prosper in China," summarizes an annual survey of its members by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, saying "Most are profitable." (A couple of days ago, in a CNBC interview, its president said that "90% are profitable.") WSJ then offered this insight: "the study highlights a widening gap between perceptions in Washington about trade with China ... and the experience of U.S. companies that have taken the plunge into China." Indeed, while the U.S. Trade representative "criticized China [for] keeping American products out of the country through unfair competition and barriers," an ACCC consultant responsible for producing the survey indicated that "profit margins of U.S. companies in China are running at 8% to 15%." (WSJ, 2/13/06) If anything, given that "foreigners often pay less than half of the typical 33% tax imposed on domestic firms" (WSJ 2/14/06), U.S. companies enjoy not a disadvantage, but a distinct advantage.
Posted at 11:17 am, Friday, February 17, 2006

Saving vs. spending (#88; Topic M)

Number 8 is a lucky number in China, because it is a homoym to a Chinese character meaing making a fortune. Double 8, of course, is doubly fortunate. (One of our best friends, a multi-millionnaire, has 8888 as her car's license plate.) So, let us use this occasion to write an entry on money matters. Today was the second day of new Federal Reserve chairman's, Ben Bernanke's, debut appearance at a congressional hearing (today, before a Senate committee). He was asked a variety of questions, some rather penetrating, and several relating to China's substantial holding of US debt instruments. One senator cited an incident several years ago: when a South Korean central banker said that his government planned to unload some US bonds, Wall Street reacted with a drop of over 150 points! What would happen when China, which has a much larger holding of US bonds, harbors similar plans? Bernanke, of course, had no answer. (Regardless, Wall Street liked Bernanke's demeanor; the market was up by 60+ points today.) Another senator expressed the hope that US citizens could improve their savings rate (which, at the moment, is negative) so that they, and not foreigners, would finance the US government's deficits. A good try. This reminds me of a story. Last year, Treasury Secretary Snow visited China; in all his talks, he encouraged -- advised might be a better word -- the audience, Chinese citizens all, to save less and spend more. Later, a US delegation representing credit-card issuers visited China. They wanted Chinese citizens not only to spend more, but pay less -- credit-card issuers were not making much money when most Chinese credit-card holders, after charging against their credit cards, elected to pay the entire balance off every month, thereby depriving these issuers the chance of earning interest. One wonders: Who would finance USA's deficits when Chinese citizens, following their counterparts in USA, indulge in negative savings and max out their credit cards?
Posted at 11:55 pm, Thursday, February 16, 2006

Visiting shrine for war criminals as power play (#87; Topic J)

BBC's 10 pm telecast tonight included an interview of Japan's foreign minister Taro Aso. Asked about his suggestion that his emperor visit the shrine for war criminals (#59), Aso again defended vigorously -- and, in the anchor's view, using language that is not diplomatic. One reason, the anchor speculated, was that Aso might be aiming for the prime-ministership later on. Prior to this segment, BBC showed another scene, last year, in China, of people marching with banners displaying anti-Japanese sentiments; several showed "Boycott Japanese goods." This reminded me of an incident last September. While touring China, I had occasion to be sitting next to a young man, in a round table in front of an important sightseeing point in Kunming; we were resting while waiting, in my case, other members of our tour group to reassemble to continue our other activities. Being outspoken, I asked him whether he was a college student. He answered in the negative; he was 26, had graduated from college, and was a school teacher, leading a group of some 80 pupils from a nearby province for a visit to Kunming. I was impressed by his answer -- that his school had funds to allow inter-province travel suggested that China's educational budget was generous. I then asked him about the relationship with Japan. He said that there was a strong sentiment to boycott Japanese goods. This may account for the fact that, despite Japanese cars being popular in USA, GM was the most popular nameplate in China in 2005 (replacing VW, the most popular nameplate in China in 2004; #25). Our conversation was interrupted as members in our tour group came out; we had to return to our bus for our next event. But my short conversation with this 26-year-old teacher left a strong impression with me.
Posted at 11:30 pm, Wednesday, February 15, 2006

"Are you ashamed of yourself?" (#86; Topic B)

Today, representatives from Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, three internet search services, testified before a House subcommitte, on their practices of modifying services when operating in China (#43, #52). Also testifying was Cisco Systems, which sold network-equipment to China, allowing the authorities to monitor and/or filter incoming messages. Hearing that Cisco sold the same equipment to everyone around the world, a Congressman asked: "Are you ashamed of yourself?" This caught the Cisco representative by surprise; regaining his composure, he said, defiantly: "No, I am not ashamed." Then, with some hesitation, he feebly added: "I am not proud of it either." To me, this hearing was rather ironic. To Google et al, their crime was providing modified services to China; to Cisco, the crime was the reverse -- selling unmodified products to China. As to filtering information, the Chinese government said that "many of our practices we got from studying the U.S. experience" (Wall Street Journal, 2/15/06). Indeed, a letter to the editor in today's Washington Post said: "France has taken Internet companies to court to block the sale of Nazi paraphernalia online and the hosting of racist Web sites." As to equipment, the Chinese government had said that it could develp similar monitoring capability in short order. A thought occurred to me: if I type "President George W Bush Jack Abramoff photo" for a Google search, would I get photographs of these two distinguished gentlemen together or would I draw a blank? I saw one such photo, rather fuzzy, in a recent issue of Time. To satisfy the public's thirst for knowledge, shouldn't the White House provide better-focused photographs on its own volition?
Posted at 8:39 pm, Wednesday, February 15, 2006

"Mistakes have been made" (#85; Topic L)

One of the most interesting aspects of English, absent in Chinese or even in other western languages, is its passive voice. When one does not wish to take credit (or, more likely, to take blame), one couches one's statement in the passive voice. This was made popular by President Eisenhower. In the context of Iran-contra affairs, he famously said, repeatedly: "Mistakes have been made." Given that it takes a lot of courage to say: "I have made a mistake," one must understand and be less demanding -- after all, "Mistakes have been made" is at least a feeble admission that someone -- perhaps under the speaker's direction -- has committed some misdeeds. People in USA ridicule the Chinese phrase: saving face, but, in fact, they are, by means of the passive voice, the most enthusiastic practitioners. Thus, upon hearing the phrase "Mistakes have been made," my immediate reaction is: "Ah, you want to save face. You have made mistakes, but you are not man/woman enough to admit them; still, I thank you for giving a carefully worded statement couched in the passive voice; I understand." Not long ago, during her European visit, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked, repeatedly, the secret detention facilities in Europe for special "renderings." Her answer was always some variation of "Mistakes have been made." European-based media, such as The Economist, have editorialized, knowingly, some variations of "Yes, we understand." In the last few days, the media were interested in the vice-president's accidental shooting of a fellow quail-hunter over the weekend. Yesterday, the president's press secretary was asked a question: "Why Cheney couldn't just say 'I made a mistake?'" Today, the vp made a public response: "I am the guy who pulled the trigger that shot my friend." There was no mention of "I made a mistake" nor "A mistake has been made."
Posted at 2:55 pm, Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Nostalgia on Valentine's Day (#84; Topic N)

Alumni of our university in Shanghai, now defunct, gather for lunch in a local restaurant once each quarter. One was held today. When the last time a luncheon fell on the Valentine's Day, about ten years ago, I asked attendees to talk about how he/she first met his/her spouse. Today, I asked them to do it again, since, over the decade, the composition of attendees had changed a great deal. Last time, the story that left the most impression on me was one stating that he first saw his future wife, then a total stranger, on the escalator -- he was on one going up; she on another going down. So fleeting, yet, as it turned out, so lasting. When I mentioned this to attendees at our table today (as chitchat), no one believed it; they accused me of making this up. As it happened, the person who told the story last time was in attendance today, and he repeated it -- thereby confirming that my mind had not deteriorated that much. This reminds of another story. Nine years ago, my wife and I booked a cruise to celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary. Our travel agent arranged four couples, all of Chinese ancestry, and a daughter to one of the couples, all her clients, to have meals at the same table on board. On Thursday of our week-long cruise, when we had been together for 5 or so days, I asked those at our table to talk about how long they had been married and how they met -- I thought we would rank high as to the length of marriage. As it turned out, one couple was married for 54 years; another couple, 48 years -- my wife and I, with 40 years of marriage behind us, ranked a distant third. The fourth couple at our table was on their honeymoon. After these presentations were out of way, we rejoiced that marriages among people of Chinese ancestry last long, and congratulated ourselves of our long and happy married life.
Posted at 9:44 pm, Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Sharing-a-secret project: My contribution (#82; Topic D)

One of today's programs over our local PBS station talked about sharing a secret. The guest on the program, a while back, (1) handed out blank postcards, asking recipients to jot down a secret and mail it back, (2) posted selected responses on his blog, and (3) published them in a book. Since initiating my blog, friends have expressed an interest to comment, but could not do so, because comments are limited to items that have appeared. Listening to today's program gave me an idea: perhaps we can mimic it by my initiating a post, concerning a secret of mine. With this as an opening, those who are so inclined may then submit, as his/her comment, a secret or anything that comes to his/her mind. Since comments may be submitted anonymously and contributors may request non-publication, as I noted earlier (#63), there is enough safeguard. In any case, let me start the ball rolling by initiating one (a relevant Chinese saying is "throwing brick to induce jade"). While in Kuming last September, at a park's entrance, I was stopped by a middle-aged woman selling costume jewelry. Anxious to visit the park, I said to her that I would deal with -- perhaps I used the words "buy from" -- her upon exiting. Some 20 minutes later, as I was ready to leave, there she was, waiting for me. I looked at her offerings; nothing appealed to me. Since I said I would deal with (or even "buy from") her, I thought about simply giving her a five-yuan note (= 60 cents) without receiving anything in return as a means of fulfilling my promise. Then I thought better of it -- this might look stupid and encourage other peddlers to approach me. So I simply walked away without either buying anything from her or giving her a few yuan. She, of course, felt badly, but she was courteous; I felt even worse, since I did not keep a simple promise to a simple person living a simple life wanting to do a simple transaction.
Posted at 2:40 pm, Monday, February 13, 2006

Making money in China but keeping it mum (#83; Topic B)

More and more USA companies are setting up shop in China, making tons of money, but keeping it mum. In the meantime, USA's trade deficit grew (to a record $725.8 billion for 2005), and demands for China to revaluate her yuan became even more vocal. A couple of days ago, I read, in the Wall Street Journal, a passing reference to the effect that the Chinese manufacturer producing a bra selling for $25 at Wal-Mart makes but 50 cents. Using this and other tidbits, let's reconstruct the process. Usually, the retail price is 3 times the FOB cost, giving the invoice price of a bra in China at $8. Material generally accounts for 60% of production cost, giving $5. About 60% of material is imported, meaning $3 (in $ terms) are unaffected by currency revaluation. After production, financing, shipping, forwarding, and other services to move the bra to US take place -- mainly done by US-controlled companies, beyond the ability of small manufacturers in China. So, out of all these, only $5 are controlled by the manufacturer in China (= $8 - $3), from which he pays for domestic material, labor, overhead, and profit. Assuming labor cost is 20% of this, which amounts to $1, or 8.08 yuan based on the current exchange rate. Assume the exchange rate is revalued by, say, 20 percent (an unlikely large move), so that 8.08 yuan (= $1) in labor cost now becomes $1.20 (= 8.08 divided by 6.8). The Chinese manufacturer may elect to absorb it, thereby reducing his profit from 50 cents to 30 cents. Even if he passes the whole 20 cents onto Wal-Mart, his invoice price is but $8.20. Wal-Mart, in turn, may absorb the whole increase or, more likely, ask all these service institutions to share the 20 cent increase by suitable price reduction. Even if Wal-Mart elects to pass the entire increase to customers (and triple it in the process), the ticket price is but $25.60. In other words, even a 20% currency revaluation affects the invoice cost by only 2.5% and retail price (before tripling) by but 0.8%. Conversely, companies like GM, which generated $238 million in profit last year from its operation in China (WSJ, 2/13/06), would be adversely affected.
Posted at 4:28 pm, Monday, February 13, 2008

People of principle (#81; Topic A)

People in China, over the millennia, follow teachings of Kong Qiu (or reverentially, Kong Fu-zi; in the west, he is better known as Confucius, a Latinized transliteration by Jesuits when his teachings were excerpted and published as Confucius sinarum Philosophus in 1687). Confucius's teachings, despite attempts by western missionaries to obfuscate by referring to them as Confucianism -- so as to bringing his teachings down to the level of religion -- is not a religion. In Confucius's time (551-479 BCE), China had no religion -- religion, either as a concept or as a word, did not exist in China until the invasion of Buddhism in the 1st century CE and of Christianity in the 17th CE (a renegade version of the latter, to escape prosecution in its homeland, found safe harbor in China in the 7th century CE). Being an old man out of China, I follow Confucius's teachings. I hasten to add that I envy people who are members of faith, any faith -- envy, because, I apparently lack genes conducive to accepting the supernatural without question. This does not mean, however, that, ipso facto, I admire them -- I admire them when, in addition to proclaiming being members of faith, they conduct themselves according to teachings of that faith -- just I expect to be judged by whether I have conducted myself according to Confucius's teachings. Thus, I find the following, from yesterday's Washington Post, revolting: "Two centuries after profiting from the venture, the Church of England [in a meeting on 2/8/06] has apologized for its role in the global slave trade, which included running a Caribbean island sugar plantation and branding the blacks [with the word society on their chests]." So much for Christianity in action.
Posted at 11:14 am, Sunday, February 12, 2006

Index to entries #41 - #80 (#80X; Topic: O)

A Attitude - skater Michelle Kwan 56
B Business - Google 43, cars from China 48, Google Round 2 52
C Chinese classics - That which one disfavors 68
D Daily life - A Million Little Pieces 42, old dogs, new tricks 79
E Education - student skill 41, teacher training on Chinese culture 76
F Foreign affairs - coca and opium 45, freedom of speech 73, power play 75, power play in world politics 77
G Games - Super Bowl 69
H History - history from Asian perspective 53, Mozart 250th birthday 54
I Innovation - Xiangqi 46, man-made marvels 64, family names 71
J Sino-Japanese relations - cars built in America 55, visiting shrine for war criminals 59, coverage of Sino-Japanese matters 80
K Customs - collect-from-low 47, cash gift, US style 49, going to the dentist 50, vegetarian dinner 51, 4704 Year of Dog 57, Dragon in Dog Year 61, good-luck money 62
L Language - Awesome 44, redundancy 66, I am, you are 67, he lived 70, "Who are you talking to?" 72, question stated in the negative 74
M Money matters - investment 58, 560 60
N Nostalgia - memorable telegrams 65, VW Beetle 78
O omooc blog-management - first comment 63
(For index to entries #1 - #40, please see entry #40X)
Posted at 7:59 pm, Saturday, February 11, 2006

Redundancy in language (#66; Topic L)

A 1/26/06 cartoon, Frank and Ernest, shows soldiers with sandwich boards: 3 on one side, carrying TALK, JUMP, and WALK; 4 on the other side, carrying BRING, THINK, GO, and THROW. I did not get it, until I saw a banner about them: VERB ARMY HQ, and a message: "Ah, here comes the irregulars." It dawned on me that, while the first three verbs merely add -ed to form past tense and past participle, conjugating the last four is a challenge: bought, bought; thought, thought; went, gone; and threw, thrown, respectively -- no rhyme or reason, just regurgitate, thank you. One says: "I saw a movie yesterday." To one with Chinese as the mother tongue, that simple sentence contains redundancy (unneeded complications) -- with yesterday, the timing of the action has been fully disclosed: it happened in the past. Why bother with a verb form that states, again, that this action has taken place? And this verb form is not for emphasis (for which one would say: "I did see a movie yesterday"). If I go to see a movie, why it has to be "He goes to see a movie"? Why the verb form is different for a first-person singular and a third-person singular doing the same thing? The Chinese language asks one to think, not to regurgitate; to use logic, not to follow blindly. In Chinese, one says: "I 'see' a movie yesterday" and "He 'go' to see a movie" -- the verb form does not change with time nor with the subject; who does/did what can be inferred from the context. In Chinese, "I 'do' dishes tomorrow" and "He 'do' dishes yesterday" convey clearly the schedule -- there is no redundancy. In the 17th century, Jesuits went to China and wrote back what they saw. On the Chinese language, Leibniz was so excited to see Chinese's simplicity and logical construction that he proposed to his friends that Chinese be adopted as the universal language. One can understand Leibniz's excitement, since German is more complex (more redundancy) than English -- and Latin, the scholarly language at the time, is even more complex. Regrettably, Leibniz did not gain a following; his proposal died with his passing.
Posted at 10:53 pm, Friday, February 3, 2006 (For reasons unclear, this posting disappeared from the site; it is reposted at 6:38 pm, Saturday, February 11, 2006.)

Post's coverage of Sino-Japanese matters (#80; Topic J)

Yesterday, in a forum for publishers, a fellow publisher laments the "bias" of a leading New York newspaper, to which I responded with "One needs to read a variety of sources and form an independent opinion." This got me into thinking: how does our local paper, the Washington Post, fare in reporting Sino-Japanese matters? My conclusion: the Post delights in reporting events unfavorable to China but shuns those unfavorable to Japan. About ten days ago, there was a big debate in Japan concerning its emperor's visiting shrine for war criminals; the Post was silent. Only a friend's sending me an Agence-France Presse release from Japan allowed me to do an entry (#59). A day or two ago, a spokesman for Japan's prime minister talked fondly of its days in Taiwan -- days that will never return. Though without any news value whatsoever, the Post saw fit to publish it. On 2/7/06, the People's Daily - Overseas Edition's lead story is on the International Security Policy Conference in Munich, held on 2/5/06. After formal presentations, Germany's secretary of interior, Henning, asked the Japanese representative: "Please explain why your prime ministerKoisumi insisted on visiting the shrine containing remains of war criminals." Caught by surprise, the Japanese representative mumbled that it was to "apologize for the 'problem' created." In response, Zhang Zhi-jun, the Chinese envoy, said: "This was not a 'problem;' it is a war crime. Japan's brutality caused 35 million deaths and wounded in China. ... Show your courage; don't throw salt on wounds. In Germany, publicizing Nazi symbols is prohibited." Amid the delegates' applause to what Zhang said, the Japanese representative, to hide his embarrassment, brought his water glass to his lips. (The People's Daily is in Chinese; the above is my translation.) Of course, the Post is silent on the entire proceedings. So, reading a variety of sources is one way to be informed. Indeed, with readers' help, providing materials from a variety of sources, we can report, in this space, events the Post deems unfit to print because of their negative connotation to Japan.
Posted at 11:43 am, Saturday, February 11, 2006

Teaching old dogs new tricks in Year of the Dog (#79; Topic D)

Washington Post of 2/7/06 reports two surveys by Pew Internet and America Life Project, done in late 2004 and early 2005. Among 13 age categories, it is the youngest group, 12-17, that scores the highest -- 87% are online. Four other groups, aged in the 20s and 30s, have 80%+ scores; 2 groups in the 40s, 70%+; 2 in the 50s, 60%+; and 2 in the 60s, 50%+. Then, there is a significant drop; those in the 70-75 age group command only 26%; in the 76+ group, only 17%. One reason, given by the survey manager, is that "these folks were less likely to be in the workforce when computers were standard issues." I view it differently. Since computers have been with us for some 40 years now (one of my books, Accounting, Computers, and Management Information Systems, was published by McGraw-Hill in 1968), people in their 70s are unlikely to have no contact with computers in their working days. I think it is the way the question is posed -- or, at least, a follow-up question should be asked: "Do you have online computer access at home?" It seems to me that those in the younger age groups have online computer access either in school or at work, while those retirees must necessarily pay for these services from their own pocket. This being so, only when retirees' usage figures are pitted against other groups' home usage figures would figures be comparable -- when so, I suspect retirees' showing would compare favorably to that in other age groups.
Posted at 9:58 am, Saturday, February 11, 2006

Volkswagen Beetle, circa 1960 (#78; Topic N)

Under the caption of "Power Kick -- Then and Now," today's Washington Post shows a photo of the original Volkswagen Beetle: in 1955, its engine had only 36 horsepower; in 2006, even a John Dee lawn mower has 36 hp; the engine in 2006 VW has 150 hp. The first German car I owned was a VW, circa 1960s. With our son and daughter being born, we needed a second car; with our finance tight, we could afford the least expensive car on the market, and VW, at $2,400, fitted the bill. (In 1960, I left USC to join Cal State Fullerton's faculty, attracted by the latter's offer of an associate professorship as well as an increase of $500 in annual salary -- not much by 2006 standards, but a difference between making it or not making it for my wife and me in 1960.) One reason for VW's reasonable price is that its exterior was frozen -- my 1960s VW looked exactly the same as the 1955 version pictured in today's Post. Another reason is that the car had manual shift -- I had to learn how to drive it in a hurry. A third reason is that the car did not have a gasoline guage -- every time I was driving, I had to guess whether it was due for a gas-station visit; luckily, I never did run out of gas. A fourth reason is that the car was not equipped with safety belts (it was not mandatory at the time). A piece in Consumer Reports strongly suggested that that be added; I took its advice and did so. As it turned out, that move saved my life; in 1965, my VW tumbled down an elevated Orange County freeway to the street level 18 feet below. I was unconscious for a couple of days, but was otherwise ok. I am eternally grateful to Consumer Reports, and have been a faithful subscriber ever since.
Posted 7:56 pm, Friday, February 10, 2006

Power play in hockey and in world politics (#77; Topic F)

Sporting games are generally played with two sides having the same number of players -- except, to my limited knowledge, soccer and ice hockey. The latter, with but 5 players on each side in active play (the 6th being the goalkeeper), and with lightning fast action, the side with 1-player plurality has a huge advantage -- a 2-minute interval known as power play -- and is expected to score. On occasion, however, the short-handed side, with superb artistry, mounts a fierce counterattack and scores -- it is a beautiful scene to witness. In an earlier post (#75), I used the term in the context of the cartoon controversy -- I thought the analogy apt, but others took exception. In particular, I view myself as a mere spectator, rooting for neither side, since I have no ties to, or invested interest in, either side. President Bush, up to two days ago, were a mere spectator as well; though he has ties to one side, he conducted himself in relative objectivity. Then, when, receiving the King of Jordan in the Oval Office and being asked a specific question on this issue, he could not resist the temptation not to weigh in -- not unexpectedly, to the "freedom of speech" side, equivalent to Mario Lemuere being urged to enter the rink for Pittsburgh Penguins. Perhaps to reduce the one-sidedness of this contest, the King of Jordon, as the President's honored guest, had to enter the rink as well -- providing a countervailing view, saying something to the effect that provocateurs need to be "condemned" as well. While power play in hockey is suspenseful, it is nevetheless harmless; power play in world politics, on the other hand, is not only challenging but unpredictable as well.
Posted at 11:14 am, Friday, February 10, 2006

Teacher training on Chinese culture (#76; Topic E)

As a part of their planned move to Michigan, our daughter and son-in-law looked into schooling for our two childchildren. When they came to visit around Thanksgiving time, they left a brochure from a private school with us. The school, with separate facilities for middle school and elementary school, with its own art gallery and museum for instructional purposes, is regarded as among the very best in the country. Upon reading the brochure, I was duly impressed. Still, I thought one element was missing: while offering German and Spanish as foreign languages to pupils, there is no mention of Chinese. Later, our daughter informed us that the school plans to offer Chinese this fall. Great. A week or so ago, in an e-mail, she gave us a link to on-line postings by a member of the school's staff traveling with two art teachers. In addition to touring some of the "must" sights, the diarist mentioned that they also visited a school in "Hutong province." This was new to me; I stopped, tried to translate the province's name back to Chinese, and drew a blank. As I read on, the diarist continued by adding "a suburb of Beijing." So the diarist meant "township", I said to myself. The thought suddenly occurred to me that having school teachers visiting China and learning things Chinese is indeed an excellent idea; not only they, but their pupils would be enriched by on-the-scene teaching materials. Indeed, last September, in visiting sites made famous by Admiral Zheng He (#8), a retired northern Virginia teacher in our group said as much. Perhaps a non-profit organization to undertake this -- along with sending Chinese teachers to visit USA -- needs to be established. Let's see what we can do.
Posted at 10:13 pm, Thursday, February 9, 2006

Power Play (#75; Topic F)

In the last few days, I have read perhaps 50 pieces on the Muhammad carton incident (#68, #73), but none of these authors has seen fit to mention, in my view, the key underlying reason: a power play. One writer asks: What would happen if this took place 30 years ago? Were the time horizon pushed back by another 30 years, I have an answer. Sixty years ago, most of these Muslim countries were under colonial powers' control; whatever these colonial masters said or did, ruled. Members of the Islamic faith, being both subdued and powerless, had simply to stomach, in silence, whatever these colonial masters wished to dish out -- cartoons, by comparison, would be too easy. But, this is the 21st century. The former colonial powers, however, continue to act as if they are still colonial powers. Oh, as an acknowledgment that this is the 21st century, when persecuting these objectors is no longer an automatic option, these former colonial masters elect to ignore them. But, with independence, there is a shift of power as well. You ignore our protest, fine; we return the favor by ignoring the products you offer for sale. If there is one thing colonial powers salute, it is the almighty krone -- or, in the 21st century, the almighty euro. Boycott reduces sales, which forces layoffs, which in turn forces the prime minister, who earlier vowed not to apologize, to apologize. By that time, it was too little and too late. We are now witnessing a power play in progress.
Posted at 7:49 pm, Wednesday, February 8, 2006

How to answer a question stated in the negative? (#74; Topic L)

In today's New York Times, the caption of an op-ed piece begins with: "Europeans Not Entrepreneurial?" This reminds me of a problem in learning English -- from the Chinese perspective and from the American perspective. As a preface, in English, using double negative is a no-no; thus, "You ain't see nothing yet!" (#72) is unacceptable, even though, in my view, it is the most expressive declaration in English. Does this no-double-negative rule apply to answering a query stated in the negative? How should one respond to the Times's caption if, in one's view, Europeans are not entrepreneurial. In Chinese, one would answer "Yes," meaning that Europeans are not entrepreneurial. But, in USA, one would answer "No." Conversely, if Europeans are considered entrepreneurial, one in China would answer it "No," meaning that Europeans are entrepreneurial, while one in USA would answer it "Yes." Most confusing and most difficult, both logically and linguistically. The Times's caption then continues with "Yes They Are." What does that mean? Does that mean: "Yes, they are not entrepreneurial" (interpreting from the Chinese perspective), or "Yes, they are entrepreneurial" (interpreting from the American perspective)? For an old man out of China, to find out exactly what the writer has in mind, I have to read the piece -- the answer: "Yes, Europeans are entrepreneurial." In actuality, were the question posed as "Europeans Entrepreneurial?" one would give the same answer. Why is this so? I have no idea. I do know that many Chinese students have the same problem.
Posted at 12:01 pm, Wednesday, February 8, 2006

Freedom of speech (#73; Topic F)

Demonstrations by members of the Islamic faith for blasphemous representation of prophet Muhammad (#68) became worse by the day, spreading to cities in Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesia, etc., as well as becoming more violent. Today's Wall Street Journal has a front-page interview of that Danish newspaper's cultural editor. The rationale he gave for inviting cartoonists to submit work for publication was that "he was alarmed by ... a rise in self-censorship relating to Islamic issues;" he wanted to test the limit of freedom of speech. It is strange to read that while he claimed that he "didn't know more beforehand" about Islamic prohibition against depicting the prophet, one of the cartoons' reference to virgins suggested that he knew much more. I had no knowledge of the latter, but I was aware of the Islamic disinclination to depict human likeliness -- even chess pieces are presented abstractly. As to freedom of speech, I read in Wednesday's Washington Post that, the night before, when President Bush was delivering his State of the Union speech, a woman was yanked from the gallery -- and arrested -- for wearing a T-shirt showing the number of soldiers killed in Iraq; to quell the commotion, the capitol police also removed another woman, the wife of a congressman, for wearing a T-shirt that offers a friendly greeting. So, go figure.
Posted at 10:34 pm, Tuesday, February 7, 2006

"Who are you talking to?" (#72; Topic L)

A couple of days ago (2/4/06), the Classic Peanuts shows poor Charlie Brown lying awake at night. He heard a voice: "Who are you talking to?" Then he heard another voice: "You mean 'To whom are you talking?'" He asked himself: "Is it all worth it?" Wisely, he did not answer; resignedly, he concluded "No wonder I lie awake at night!" Poor Charlie Brown. I am with you all the way. But, then, "You ain't see nothing yet!"
Posted at 8:46 pm, Monday, February 6, 2006

Family name (#71; Topic I)

Family name, a Chinese invention, was in use for more than 5000 years. Li (Conduct), an all-encompassing work on human behavior compiled by Duke Dan of Zhou (1180-1082 BCE) and codified by Confucius (551-497 BCE), forbade people with same family names to marry, on eugenics grounds. In the Analects, Chen's Minister of Justice asked Confucius whether Duke Zhao of Lu (reign 541-510 BCE) knew Conduct, strongly commanding a negative answer -- the Duke not only married a woman with the same family name as the Duke's (Ji), but concealed this same-family-name marriage by disguising her under a misleading family name. (The confrontation is at 7.20; the above comments are from my annotations at 7.20n and 1.12n.) Earlier this year (reported in the People's Daily - Overseas Edition, 1/11/06), the Academia Sinica, based on a two-year study involving 296 million people in 1,100 cities and towns, found that, in these towns, a total of 4,100 family names are in use. (Altogether, over the last 20 years, researchers have collected more than 23,000 family names throughout China.) Leading the pack, accounting for 7.4% of the total, is Li (my family name), followed closely by Wang (at 7.2%) and Chang (6.8%). Rounding up the top 10 are Liu, Chen, Yang, Huang, Chao, Zhou, and Wu; 18 family names have 1+% each; the top 129 family names, each with 0.1+%, account for 87% of China's population. In olden days, the top 100 family names were compiled and used as a book for learning new words.
Posted at 8:26 pm, Monday, February 6, 2006

He lived; he still lives (#70; Topic L)

An earlier post on the verb "to be" (#67) attracted several comments, though only one made it (the reasons for the non-inclusion are unclear, and I don't know what to do). If there is a verb form even more difficult than the present tense of "to be", it would be this verb's past tense. In today's Washington Post, a byline to an article reads: "Steve Luxenberg was Outlook editor from June 1996 through today's issue. After a leave of absence to pursue a writing project, he will return to The Post." Was? From Steve's point of view, was is probably correct, since, as described in the article, he did the final editing of today's issue yesterday morning; after that, his responsibility as Outlook's editor ended. From my point of view, reading today's issue in my hand, Steve is still Outlook's editor -- until today (2/5/06) is over. Which viewpoint is right? Again, I don't know. About 2 weeks ago, some one in a forum for publishers wrote: "David Li is now retired from the list, which is too bad because he lived in the DC area." Um. Good thing the writer added "in the DC area"; if she did not, "he lived" might be interpreted that I have departed from this world. Reading it, particularly only a few days before the Chinese New Year's Day, I could not help asking myself the question: Is my time up? But, being a person of Chinese ancestry, where every occasion is an occasion to learn, I turned it around and wrote a light-hearted response: "I always have a problem with tenses. In a paragraph stated in the past tense, when a statement has continual applicability, should the past tense or present tense be used?" In Chinese, this problem will never come up. Why? Because, the verb "to be" is never used to designate equivalence -- in this regard, Spanish is closer to the Chinese convention: "I am so-and-so" is a no-no; "I respond to so-and-so" is ok. In English, one might say "George Bush is the 43rd president of the USA; he begins working at 7 am every day." In Chinese, one would say "Hu Jintao, premier of China, begins working at 7 am every day." Thus, in the Chinese style, Steve's byline might read as follows: "Steve Luxenberg, Outlook editor from June 1996 through today's issue, plans to take a leave of absence to pursue a writing project and then return to The Post."
Posted at 10:59 pm, Sunday, February 5, 2006

Super Bowl VII and Super Bowl XL (#69; Topic G)

As I do this entry, Super Bowl XL has just begun. For this encounter, between Seattle Seahawks and upstart Pittsburgh Steelers, played in Detroit, a ticket commands up to $4,000, and a 30-second commercial on TV costs $2.6 million. Anticipating a large influx of VIPs, hometown officials have rounded up the homeless by giving them a 3-day room-and-board "party," so that they would not become eyesores on the street when dignitaries visit Detroit. Very thoughtful. In my entire life, I have seen only two professional "football" games, the first one being Super Bowl VII, between 16-0 Miami Dolphins and upstart Washington Redskins, played in Los Angeles. If my memory serves me, Miami won the game; the score was something like 14-7. In all frankness, it was a boring game. The stadium was not full, the spectators were rather subdued. I got my ticket on the way in, paying the face-value price of $20. At that time, I was on leave from the University of Washington to serve as an Associate Director of the Cost Accounting Standards Board, a Federal agency responsible for setting cost-accounting standards for defense contractors. A last-minute assignment to visit a defense contractor brought me and an associate to the area. He was from LA and a rabid football fan; with nothing better to do on a lazy Sunday, I had my first taste of professional football. A couple of days ago, over CNBC, the anchor said that, through a simulation, the results of Super Bowl XL would most likely be 21-17 Pittsburgh. I'll just record it here and see how this simulation fares. (In recent years, non-financial futures market fared well. It predicted, correctly, the winner of 2004 Presidential race. It now predicts a warmer-than-normal winter (important for those who trade in natural gas)).
Posted at 7:47 pm, Sunday, February 5, 2006

I am, you are, he is, they are (#67; Topic L)

One of the most difficult aspects of English (or other western languages) is its verb to be. Its forms are "I am," "You are," "He is," or, when the subject is plural, "We are," "You are," "They are." These are the rules, simple and easy to remember, fair enough. But, I am stupid. Should it be "The news is good" or "The news are good"? When I was writing textbooks in my academic days, I used Varian Associates as a corporate name for illustrative purposes; I used it as a singular: "Varian Associates is a corporation ...." My publisher's copy editor took issue with that, and changed every is to are, and every it to they. When I changed them back to their singular form, these changes, known as AA (author's alterations), were my fault; I was responsible for the added type-setting costs. In yesterday's Washington Post, I read that, when President Bush visited a high school in Dallas to promote science education emphasized in his State of the Union address last Tuesday, he said: "You know, a lot of people probably think math and science isn't meant for me." After another cute sentence from him, "The audience chortled," reported the Post. I ask myself: Should it be isn't or aren't? I don't know. Suffice it to say that this quandary does not come about in Chinese -- a "be" is a "be" whether the subject is singular or plural -- forget am, are, is, or the infinitive be, which is not used in simple sentences any way.
Posted at 11:42 am, Sunday, January 5, 2006

"That which one disfavors, apply not to others" (#68; Topic C)

In the last few days, there were demonstrations by members of the Islamic faith in front of Dutch and Norwegian embassies in Syria and elsewhere, for 12 cartons first shown in a Danish newspaper on 9/30/05, depicting prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb as turban or otherwise casting him or Islam in an unfavorable light. In the name of freedom of speech and press solidarity in EU (jumps in circulation apparently played no role), newspapers in Norway, and later in Germany and France, reprinted these cartons, thereby widening the confrontation. Vatican's response was cautious, while the White House merely called for calm. A native of Damascus now residing in the DC area, though only 16 years old, almost hit the mark: "If somebody showed a picture of the pope with a bomb on his head, that would cause a great public outcry. Nobody would be talking about freedom of speech" (Washington Post, 2/5/06) (He missed the bull's eye only because Danes are mainly Protestants.) Over 25 centuries ago, Confucius, in the name of considerateness, advised: "That which one disfavors, apply not to others" (15.24; 8 words in the original, 8 here, from my translation of the Analects published in 1999). Thus, if one does not wish to be defrauded, one would think twice before committing a fraudulent action of one's own; when everyone is considerate and thinks this way, honesty prevails. I hasten to add that there is a saying in the bible ("Do to others what you like others do to you") which western translators equated to Confucius's saying. Not so. The one in the bible is stated in the positive; it is both presumptuous and coercive. Confucius's is stated in the negative; it is considerate and non-threatening.
Posted at 6:19 pm, Sunday, February 5, 2006

Memorable telegrams (#65, Topic I)

Today's Washington Post reports that Western Union, founded in 1856 to deliver telegrams, stopped operations last Friday, 1/27/06. So, an invention by Samuel Morse that began in 1844 in USA, ended. Jogging my memory, several memorable telegrams came to the fore. The last telegram I sent before leaving China was in September 1949: to my father in Shanghai, sent from Hong Kong, informing him of my imminent departure to USA. To send a telegram in China at that time, I must first convert each character into a 4-digit code, using a special dictionary designed for this very purpose. The telegraphic office in Shanghai would decode my message before delivery to my father. Fully expecting to telegraph my father again, I packed a copy of this dictionary; I still have it with me. But, a few months later, in May 1950, Shanghai was liberated; I was never able to cable -- or see -- my father again. The saddest telegraph I ever received was from Shanghai to me in Srinagar via my wife in Seattle, informing me that my father had passed away. That was July 1970, I was staying at the Oberoi Palace Hotel, as a Ford Foundation Visiting Professor to IIM-Calcutta, offering a seminar in Kashmir. One of the happiest telegraphs I ever received was at the registrartion desk of Brown Hotel in London in June 1995, upon returning from a World Bank assignment in Ostrava, Czechoslovia. It was from our daughter and son-in-law, informing me that our first grandson, Maxwell, was born.
Posted at 9:35 pm, Friday, February 3, 2006

"China's man-made marvels" (#64; Topic I)

On Sunday, 1/29/06, to celebrate the lunar New Year, the Discovery channel beamed a two-hour special on "China's man-made marvels." The first, nicknamed The Bird nest, is the National Sports Stadium, built for the 2008 Olympic Games. Its marvel -- its innovative feature -- is that, while it can accommodate 90,000+ spectators, the entire stadium is beamless, as a bird nest is -- "one can see everything on the field regardless where one sits." The second, nicknamed The Egg, is the National Theater. Its marvel or innovative feature is that the entire structure is doorless -- no openings of any kind, as an egg is. One gains admittance to the theater via an underground entrance -- much like the underground entrance to the Louvre in Paris or the underground entrance to the capitol being built in Washington DC. The third, the Television Cultural Center (TVCC) to house the CCTV, is a multi-building office complex. Its marvel or innovative feature is that inter-building multi-story corridors, high above the sky bearing heavy load, are beamless. Another marvel, not mentioned by the announcer, seems to be the design -- the structural design of these three buildings is done mainly by Chinese professionals (the Bird nest has inputs from EU architects, drawing from their experience from the collapse of the Charles deGaulle airport in Paris). All these buildings are in Beijing, ready to greet visitors to the 2008 Olympic Games. I hope I can make the trip to see them in person.
Posted at 9:18 pm, Thursday, February 2, 2006

The very first comment to my blog! (#63; Topic O)

When I turned on my computer this morning, I was greeted by an e-mail message stating that someone had left a comment on one of my posts. How exciting! The very first comment to my blog! As I wrote earlier (#28), my friends had a hard time trying to post comments to my blog. I asked one of my friends with contacts at the World Bank for help -- I was ready to engage the services of one of its outstanding IT staff as a consultant; no taker. I went to our retirement community's popular computer club for help; no taker either. Through sheer luck, I found out the reason for my blog's rejecting comments: the default value allows comments by registered people only. I changed the setting to "anonymous", meaning that any one who cares to comment may do so without registering or revealing his/her identity. Eureka! As I read the e-mail, which appears to be self-generated by the blog's software, not only was the comment shown in its entirety, the message also gave me three options: (1) Publish this comment, (2) Reject this comment, and (3) Moderate comments. This was most thoughtful of Google's software designer. Earlier, in a front-page article in Forbes (11/14/05), the author cautioned bloggers to exercise care in handling comments. This very first comment (to #59) is well written -- succinct, thoughtful, and to-the-point -- much better than I can do myself. I was indeed pleased with it, since it reflects the type of readers I hope to attract to this blog: articulate, responsive, and direct. I clicked the first option: Publish this comment, and then saw the comment appearing in my blog. Marvelous. I sincerely hope that, with this outstanding first setting the pace, I may attract more readers to comment and make this space more interesting.
Posted at 8:07 pm, Thursday, February 2, 2006

Good-luck money on Lunar New Year's Day (#62; Topic K)

When I was a youngster in China, in the morning of Lunar New Year's Day, it was my responsibility, being the eldest in our family, to round up my siblings and go to our parents' room to wish them a Happy New Year. Afterward, each child received a red envelope containing brand-new banknotes, symbolizing a smooth and happy year ahead. In China, elderly parents live with the eldest son and his family; this was so with us, as my father was the eldest son. Thus, after visiting our parents, my siblings and I would visit our grandparents to wish them a Happy New Year and receive a red envelope afterward. The following day, the second day in the New Year, were our maternal grandparents living in the same town, we would visit them, but this was not so. So, on the second and third days, we would visit our uncles -- and receive a red envelope from each. With four paternal uncles and three maternal uncles living in Shanghai, my siblings and I would receive nine or red envelopes each, not an insignificant haul of money. On Sunday morning (1/29/06), our grandchildren called us from Pittsburgh. They had received red envelopes from us, and called to wish us a Happy New Year. All in all, Lunar New Year days are happy days.
Posted at 11:25 pm, Wednesday, February 1, 2006

Dragon in a Dog Year (#61; Topic K)

Sunday morning (1/29/06) at about 8:30, my younger sister called me from Hong Kong. After wishing me a Happy Lunar New Year, she said that I, being born as a Dragon, need be careful during the entire Year of the Dog. As she explained it, animals 6 years apart, sitting on opposite ends of a 12-sided Chinese zodiac, are not friendly to each other -- and Dogs and Dragons are 6 years apart. Among other consideration, she advised me to play safe with investments. I thanked her, since this is excellent advice -- indeed, at my age, conservation of principal must necessarily be the primary investment objective. A good friend of ours has Google in her portfolio, and talked about it whenever we met; eventually, I added it to mine as well. Yesterday, the stock had a volatile day. After closing at 432.66, up 5.84 for the day, it reported its 2005 earnings -- at 1.54 per share. Though this was some 80% higher than last year's 4th quarter, it was below the street's expectation of 1.76 per share. As such, the stock was down as much as $80 (18+%) in after-hour trading, even halting trade for a while -- both were unprecedented. Reading dispatches posted on the internet, I felt that the sell-off was overdone: higher tax rates (at 41.8%) and stronger dollar were mainly uncontrollable factors. This morning, Washington Post quotes an analyst: "Wall Street's expectations are so high that even when you have an operationally great quarter, that wasn't enough," exactly my view.
Posted at 12:57 pm, Wednesday, February 1, 2006

"I always wanted to own a 560" (#60; Topic D)

Before I could lock my car after parking it at my usual space in our retirement community, I encountered a young lady walking her dog. Without looking at me, she said something which I did not catch. Then, looking at me, she said: "I always wanted to own a 560." Somewhat surprised, I replied: "This is only a 450." She then said: "I know; I have walked by your car many times. They are the same." The exterior of these two models is indeed the same; they differ only in engine size. She seemed young to be living in this retirement community; so, I asked: "Do you live here?" She was visiting her mother and walking her mother's dog; she drives a BMW, "a poor man's Mercedes." Not so, I protested; BMW is one of the best driving cars. She then asked about my car's model year and mileage. Though a 1974 model, it has less than 100,000 miles on it, as I was out of the country most of the time. I then said that I almost donated the car to a hospital, in which I had a heart procedure in 2004. Almost, because, when the hospital's vice president came to our house (that was before we moved to the retirement community) to arrange for collection, I could not produce the car's title; I was instructed to have a duplicate. The second time, I had the duplicate title, but the vp could not make it. The third time, I saw the car from a distance, when it was parked in a repair shop's drive-way, with its license plate removed. The car's silhouette struck me as simple and elegant; I realized that I really like the car. I had the car repaired and brought it with me when my wife and I moved to the retirement community.
Posted at 10:03 pm, Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Visiting shrine for war criminals (#59; Topic J)

This morning, a good friend of mine, while visiting Japan, sent me a release from Agence-France Presse (AFP), datelined Tokyo: "the Imperial Household Agency continued to 'carefully' consider whether the emperor should visit the Yasukuni shrine, which honours Japanese war dead including [14 convicted] top war criminals." According to AFP, Japan's Foreign Minister Taro Aso, a hawk, urged this be done, "as soldiers had gone to war saying 'banzai', or 'long live' the emperor." Paving the way for such a visit, Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe downplayed its significance: "If the emperor were to visit the shrine, it would be considered a private visit in nature." For people from China and Korea, who had suffered much by Japan's militarists both before and during WWII, the shrine symbolizes Japan's criminal past which, to this day, Japan refuses to acknowledge. Earlier, Prime Minister Koizumi visited it, despite warnings from Prime Minister Hu Jin-tao of China of dire consequences. To show that he meant what he said, Hu cancelled a bilateral meeting. At a recent Asian summit meeting, while the two were sitting next to each other, Hu turned his head away from Koisumi and never said a single word to Koisumi. Breaking the ice, Koisumi managed to borrow a pen from Hu for signing a document. But that was all; Hu refused to say another word to Koisumi.
Posted at 8:53 pm, Tuesday, January 31, 2006