Cancun 1981 (#114; Topic N)

Today's Washington Post has a front-page photo of Mexico's Vincente Fox, USA's George Bush, and Canada's Stephen Harper in Chichen Itza, on a break from their two-day summit in Cancun. This brings back a fond memory more than 25 years ago. In 1980, during my first year as a professor at the U of Texas in Dallas, I thought traveling around Texas during the Christmas holidays with our children, both away at college, would be fun. When telephoning our daughter, a freshman at Yale, to break the news, she mentioned that some of her classmates were planning to visit Cancun. Cancun? Where is it? Never heard of it. So, we visited it the following Christmas. While flying down, we agreed that each could only buy one thing. While there, I was struck by Cancun's natural and unspoiled beauty (the location, along with one on Mexico's west coast, were computer-selected for their pristine status; in the early 1980s, they were just being developed as tourist destinations). So, while our son, daughter, and my wife each bought a T-shirt as souvenir, I used my allotment to buy a condo. Named Pyramides del Rey, to be managed by Sheraton, it was still under construction. So, in subsequent years, our family vacationed there, visiting nearby sights such as Chichen Itza, and witnessing its rapid development to become a premier vacation spot in the process. In the mid-1990s, with our children graduating first from college and then from graduate schools, with my becoming ill from food poisoning in a restaurant highly recommended in a Cancun guidebook, and with the town losing its rural charm through rapid commercialization, we sold the condo.
Posted at 11:33 pm, Friday, March 31, 2006

Homonyms in Chinese and in English (#113; Topic L)

New York Times of 3/24/06 has a front-page story on US citizens' adopting Chinese children. Most adoptees came to USA as infants, and some of them are now teenagers. Still, since they are identified as "immigrants," some school districts insist on testing their command of English. Upon hearing this, one said, "we probably speak better English than the teacher." In my view, while this is probable with reading, or even with writing, it is unlikely with speaking. This is because, in speaking, one can fudge one's way out. Is one using the word its or it's correctly? It is easy to see in one's writing, but difficult to tell when one is speaking. A couple of days ago, I was buying something online, and was directed by the computer to fill a form. The form's instructions begin with "Their are ...". I could not figure out what I was to do, then it dawned on me that the instructions make sense when Their is changed to There. I mentioned this to a saleslady when I had to ask a question; she admitted that, over the years, no one had ever pointed this out to her or to her associates. This morning, NPR had a UK author commenting on this very subject -- he has published a book on homonyms, Whose Who's (my guesstimate), a clever title indeed. (He was asked to distinguish between gourmet and gourmand, two words misued by NPR in an earlier broadcast, though, technically, these two words are not homonyms.) Hearing this, I could not help wondering. In Chinese, since all words are monosyllabic, practically every word has homonyms -- some may have close to 100 homonyms. Indeed, on Sunday, I was using my 3-character Chinese name to test a Chinese character-writing software. In each instance, some 40 homonyms popped out. But, interestingly, while writing in Chinese, many, I included, have no problem with homonyms. Come to think of it, in the course of writing/reading a 300-word essay in Chinese, one probably encounters close to 10,000 homonyms. And we have no problem. By comparison, English has a few homonyms, but they have caused, and are causing, problems practically every day. Interesting.
Posted at 11:45 am, Thursday, March 30, 2006

Tariff bill as nuclear weapon (#112, Topic F)

Now that the distinguished 3-member senate "fact-finding" mission has come back from China, the self-styled "hometown boy" in the delegation (#111) has become even more belligerent. After all, before the mission, none of the 3-member delegation has ever been in China; the "China threat" was more theory than reality. Now that they have seen China first-hand, having witnessed her vitality, being stronger than their worst dreams, it is apparent that the use of stronger language is called for. So, in an appearance before CNBC this morning, our hometown boy unapologetically referred to his threat to impose a 27.5% tax on Chinese imports as his "nuclear weapon." Bravo. Of course, he realized that it was but an empty threat -- the business community was not behind such a move; indeed, the CEO of Caterpillar, which has a strong presence in China, warned of a "worldwide recession" should the threatened tax bill become law. Thus, our hometown boy wisely tampered his threat with another statement, suggesting that he was delaying this move. The Wall Street greeted his more temperate statement by bidding up share prices, though the trend was reversed at 2:15 pm, when the Fed announced a 1/4 point interest-rate increase and further warned of additional increases to come -- to 5% or even higher. Actually, the handwriting has been on the wall: the new Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, in an address last weekend before the New York Economic Club, explained the low rates as "a gift of the global savings glut." Now that Japan's central bank no longer charges 0 interest rate, the "yen carry trade" is history. The ever higher gold and silver prices suggest that China may be shifting her investment portfolio from the low-yielding US bonds to precious metals or other currencies. Improving the yield by increasing the interest rate seems a good, though unstated, reason of enticing China and other countries to continue buying US bonds.
Posted at 11:53 pm, Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Yuan revaluation for US jobs? (#111; Topic B)

So, three distinguished US senators are in China, ostensibly on a "fact-finding mission." One, talking to students and faculty at Qinghua University, was more interested in proselyting than in talking business. Bravely, he revealed that "a man by the name of Jesus" was his model of leadership. Wow. Invoking an illiterate preacher who called his own mother "that woman" as his model of leadership? To an audience for whom paying respect to the parents is paramount? In a land where Confucius is one of her native sons? Bravo. No wonder he was rebuffed by a 21-year-old student: "In China, we promote harmony"-- harmony being one of Confucius's core teachings. Another senator, who modestly called himself a "hometown boy" though instrumental in derailing the Dubai port deal (and, earlier, a CNOOC bid for Unical), stated unequivocally that nothing would suit him better than forcing China to revalue her currency, the Yuan, by 40%. But his threat to impose a 27.5% tax on Chinese imports (such a vote has been scheduled in the senate for March 31, if China fails to comply), does not seem to have gained the support of the business community -- leading business press such as the Wall Street Journal and the Investor's Business Daily has greeted this mission with silence. The third senator, who openly attacked China for "illegal currency manipulation," appeared to have been counterattacked -- by the US media, such as CNBC. With Wal-Mart's announcing a 6-fold increase in employment in China; with similar ambitious expansion programs by Starbuck, Yum!, Dell, and others; and with China being touted as the most promising venue for growth, who needs protectionism.
Posted at 11:40 pm, Thursday, March 23, 2006

History 100+ years from now (#110; Topic H)

Taking my daily walk this morning, a thought relating to an entry I did last night (#109) suddenly occurred to me. Is it conceivable that, 100+ years from now, a person of Iraqi ancestry, residing in China and writing in Chinese, would be doing a blog on an event that took place a century earlier? When so, the imperial power of the 19th century would, of course, be updated to and replaced by that of the 20th century; the Opium War that ended in 1842, by one of comparable import that took place in the interim 100 years. By then, the current war against terrorism would have long ended, with historians giving it, perhaps, a more specific name, say, the WMD War. Would its resolution take a similar 156 years? Perish the thought. How long, then? In today's press conference, President Bush provided a clue. While refusing to provide a "time table" of troop withdrawal (in answering a question posed by a reporter from Cox newspapers), he nevertheless stated that it would take place in an administration beyond his. So, it would be longer than three years. How far beyond that? A good question that has no answer at the moment; let's wait and read from a future historian a century hence.
Posted at 11:52 pm, Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Port management and port ownership (#109; Topic F)

In the last few weeks, Dubai Ports World, a private company owned by the government of Dubai, a member of the United Arab Emirates, was a hot topic (#96). For $6.8 billion, DPW bought the right to manage selected berths in 6 seaports in eastern USA (and other non-USA assets) from Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a UK company. In the name of national security, this deal brought about a congressional uproar. In response, DPW first offered a 45-day cooling-off period (suggested by former US president Bill Clinton, a consultant to DPW); with this face-saving gesture failing to dent the mounting opposition, DPW (through a private suggestion by president George W. Bush) was then forced to divest the management right of these 6 seaports to a US entity. This incident reminded me of an indignity forced upon China for some 156 years. UK, the imperial power of the 19th century, after winning the Opium War in 1842, concocted several unequal treaties, first forcing China to open 5 seaports on her east coast (Shanghai, Ningbo, Fuzhou, Xiamen, and Quangzhou) and granting UK the right to occupy Hong Kong; then, in later treaties, forcing China to surrender the control -- not only management but also the ownership, including the collection of customs dues -- of these ports. Only with the return of Hong Kong in 1997 was these 19th century opium warlords finally evicted from China to end this indignity. Thus, it is difficult for me, an old man out of China, to understand why USA willingly allowed her former colonial boss to manage her ports.
Posted 5:49 pm, Monday, March 20, 2006

"What can we do to honor Zheng He?" (#108; Topic H)

On 3/4/06, when the Chinese Community Center in DC sponsored a session on Zheng He, one participant suggested a petition to UN. A week later, on 3/11/06, when the Zheng He Society of the Americas held a meeting to preview and critique my presentation to be given two days later (#106), that same participant repeated his suggestion. On both occasions, the suggestion was well received -- in any case, it deserves additional exposure. Thus, with some hasty research between Saturday and Monday, I introduced the following as my last slide in my presentation at the CC Library of DC on 3/13/06:

Q: What can we do to honor Zheng He?
Petition the United Nations to make July 11 the INTERNATIONAL MARITIME DAY as a means of honoring Zheng He
>> In 1992, UNESCO wanted to honor Columbus with an international maritime day; it failed due to objections from South American countries
>> Zheng He's fleet, both in size and in number, was many times larger than Columbus's; Zheng He had no territorial claims nor plundered

My wife and I happened to be in Genoa (Columbus's birthplace) in 1992; to honor the 500th anniversary of the "discovery" of America, we only found a few Italian flags scattered about his residence -- none of the many celebrations, particularly those mounted spontaneously by residents in Southeast Asia countries, to honor Zheng He in 2005. (I hope to convert my Genoa and Southeast Asian photographs into slides for my Zheng He presentations in the future.) For viewers of this blog who share this sentiment, I sincerely hope that you would lend your support by adding your name and comments to this entry.
Posted at 10:46 am, Sunday, March 19, 2006

Friendship is worth less than $1,000 (#107; Topic M)

For my Monday's Power Point presentation (#106), I needed a projector. With the library giving conflicting answers (yes, we have one; no, only the main library has one), we decided to borrow one to bring to the library to be sure. A friend and fellow resident in our retirement community first agreed to loan me his, but later called to say that it was loaned to a relative of his in Philadelphia. Another friend and fellow resident allowed me to use his projector the last time I had a presentation, but he made it clear that it was the last time, so I decided not to approach him. Eventually, I downloaded my material to a memory stick and beamed through a computer-projector combo owned by the president of Zheng He Society of the America. This incident reminded me of one last July, when my wife and I were in Paris to attend the 9th World Xiangqi Championship. The all-inclusive registration fee was 1000 Euro -- cash only, no credit cards nor US greenbacks. This caught me by surprise, as I exchanged merely 800 Euro for the trip. For the remaining 200 Euro, I decided against approaching an acquaintance, a Hong Kong resident and an officer of the World Xiangqi Federation whom I first met in Hong Kong during the 8th WXC two years earlier and who invited me to be in Paris this time. Eventually, the hosting organization relented and allowed me to pay the 200 Euro in US dollars. In both instances, the stake was but $1,000 or less, but I was either rebuffed or elected not to pursue for fear of being rebuffed. I charge this reluctance to my painful recollections. When I was in China, my father, a prosperous industrialist, was generous with his money. Later, I learned that when he needed money, no one came to his rescue, not even his younger brothers whom my father supported unselfishly. These recollections taught me never to borrow money from friends -- and, luckily, during my 50+ years in USA, I never had to do so. Thus, I was frankly disturbed that borrowing a projector would be so difficult, almost akin to borrowing money. Following Monday's presentation, I decided to buy one, which costs but $999.99, to spare me the indignity of being rebuffed in the future.
Posted at 11:23 pm, Saturday, March 18, 2006

Zheng He's Legacy (#106, Topic H)

Monday, 3/13, I gave a Power Point presentation on "Zheng He: His Seven Voyages, 1405-1433, and His Legacy" at the Chevy Chase branch library in DC. On legacy, I presented a slide showing the following:
Promoting peaceful co-existence
>>harboring no territorial ambition
>>exhibiting no military aggression
>>rewarding cooperating governments
Sharing worldly goodies
>>give-more-take-less bartering
>>disseminating technical knowledge
Embracing religious integration
>>respecting Islam and Buddhism side-by-side
About 50 were in attendance. Judging from questions asked, the audience was both knowledgeable and anxious. Indeed, before I could finish my very first sentence, one asked: "I have read 1421. Does your presentation have anything new?" I thought the question was presumptous; but, before I could continue with my presentation, another one, at the back, came to my rescue by asking his fellow attendees to hold off questions until my presentation was over. Regardless, I was comfortable with what I was doing, since, for this talk, I had included 30 slides from my trip to China last September, mostly on brand-new monuments and museums built in 2005 to honor Zheng He. My presentation also had a slide on Gavin Menzies's (1421's author) presentation at the Library of Congress on 5/16/05, and another one on a 1418/1763 world map unveiled in Beijing on 1/16/06 (#29) -- all are sufficiently "new." All in all, the presentation seemed to be well received.
Posted (unsuccessfully due to software error on indentation) on 3/16; reposted (with make-shift indentation using >>) at 11:54 pm, Friday, March 17, 2006

Zheng He's Legacy (#106; Topic H)

Two days ago, Monday, March 13, I gave a Power Point presentation on "Zheng He: His Seven Voyages, 1405-1433, and His Legacy" at the Chevy Chase Branch Library of the DC Library. On legacy, one of the slides gives the following:

• Promoting peaceful co-existence
• harboring no territorial ambition
• exhibiting no military aggression
• rewarding cooperating governments
• Sharing worldly goodies
• give-more-take-less bartering
• disseminating technical knowledge
• Embracing religious integration
• respecting Islam and Buddhism side-by-side

Some 50 attended this presentation. Judging from questions asked, attendees were both knowledgeable about Zheng He and anxious to learn more about him. Indeed, before I could finish my first sentence, one asked: "I have read 1421. Does your presentation have anything new?" Luckily, out of 88 slides I assembled for this presentation, 30 were photographs I took last September, in China, on brand-new buildings and monuments completed in 2005 to celebrate the 600th anniversary of Zheng He's 1st voyage. Thus, the presentation seemed to be well received.
Posted at 11:11 pm, Thursday, March 16, 2006

Wester journalism and Chinese events (#105; Topic F)

Today's Wall Street Journal has an interesting story. It seemed that, a few days ago, two bloggers in China "temporarily closed down" their websites. To western journalists, that was all they needed to know before sending their "exclusives" around the world. BBC -- a service I generally listen to, along with a host of other English-language media in US -- reported that the website was "closed down by the authorities." This was picked up by Reporters Without Borders, which issued a statement "condemning the closure of the blogs." Well done. Fast? Clearly so -- in this business, speed is everything. Believable? Well, just use your common sense. Factual? Undoubtedly -- why bother to check, why waste time? -- speed and exclusivity are paramount. Well, as it turned out, these two bloggers shut down their blogs just for a day -- voluntarily -- own their own volition. No government involvement. This forced BBC to make a correction, as did Reporters Without Borders -- the former cryptically, the latter laughing it off as a "joke." So, is this western journalism in action?
Posted 12:05 pm, Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Culture and reform (#104; Topic B)

This morning, in a think-tank-sponsored seminar on "China's Economic Development and Legal Reform," three panelists talked glibly about the need for "judicial review" and "judicial independence" in China. During the Q-and-A period, I rose to suggest that the panel (1) used concepts to assess realities in China, and (2) failed to consider China's history. As to concepts, I said that even USA would have difficulty meeting the "independence" test. As to history, I felt that one panelist, from China, when condemning the state's taking away land, should mention that, in China, land is state property and that citizens have only "use rights." As to history to another panelist, a fellow former World Bank staffer, I indicated that (a) China used to have traveling judges to evaluate decisions rendered by resident judges, and (b) in China, justice is more a moral issue than a legal issue. On the way home, while reading the 3/13/06 issue of Time, an essayist, in confessing "What I Got Wrong About the [Iraqi] War," concurred with three "errors" cited by a fellow neoconservative (of the "end of history" fame) in a recent book: (1) "overconfidence about the inevitability of democratic change and its ease;" (2) narcissism, leading to the "abdication of the moral high ground;" and (3) "not taking culture seriously enough." Precisely.
Posted at 10:52 pm, Thursday, March 9, 2006

Bettering the teacher? (#103; Topic: C)

Some time back, I clipped out, from a full-page church-financed advertising in a local Chinese-language paper, an excerpt from the bible to the effect that a student could not be better than the teacher. I thought, and still think, such an excerpt as odd, particularly when it was cited by a Chinese church, even granting that it was isolated from teachings in Chinese classics. But, due to moving, I could not find that clipping nor its exact quote. Yesterday, accepting a fellow retiree's offer to scan 30 photographs I took into a PowerPoint-based lecture, I went to his condo. In his study, I saw a copy of Strong's Concordance to the Bible. Taking advantage of the lull when the computer was scanning, I asked whether we could use Strong to establish that excerpt's source; we were unsuccessful. (I should have known: Strong's structure is not conducive to single-word searches.) Afterward, using a different reference book in the local library, I was able to establish the source -- Matthew 10:24: "A disciple is not above the teacher." (A similar one is at Luke 6:40, with a one-word difference: disciple is changed to student.) Why not? Would there be advances in knowledge were this verdict observed? On teacher-student's roles in the pursuit of knowledge, Confucius offered the following: "When confronted with nobleness, defer not even to your teacher." (Analects, 15:36, from my translation published in 1999). Now, that is much more becoming -- and much more comfortable, whether one is a teacher or a student -- I know; I have been a professor for 30+ years, and a student my entire life.
Posted at 10:06 am, Wednesday, March 8, 2006

Suing Japan for 1938-42 Chongqing bombings (#102; Topic J)

Today's Japan Times Online has an article on survivors and victims' relatives suing Japan for its 1938-42 bombings of Chongqing, China's capital at the time -- these plaintiffs, 40 in number, have either suffered disabilities or lost close relatives (the lead plaintiff, a 77-year-old, exactly my age, lost a sister). According to the group's lawyer Keiichiro Ichinose, "Asian people have questioned whether the Japanese government really feels remorse over its wartime aggression." Well said. One of the suit's aims is to "question the legality of the Chongqing bombings" -- attacking unarmed cities is banned by the Hague Convention. Another is to demand a restitution of 10 million yen each -- a mere US$86, 371 in today's exchange rate. Equally important, it seems to me, is to bring the world's attention to the atrocity of these bombings that killed 23,600 poeple and wounded 31,000. This suit will be followed by another one involving some 60 survivors and victims' relatives. We need more. Perhaps residents of Nanjing can bring similar suits for Japan's indiscrimate and inhumane massacre of the city's citizenry in 1937-38, where between 260,000 and 350,000 died (Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking, 1997, p 6).
Posted at 10:53 am, Tuesday, March 7, 2006

Power play, 1741 and 2005 (#101; Topic A)

Today's Wall Street Journal has a front-page story on Voltaire. It seemed that he wrote a play, Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet, which mimicked France's predominant religion at the time. But, the year being 1741, when the church was in its full glory, even Voltaire dared not do it openly. So, Muhammad was drafted to be the stand-in, portraying him "as a ruthless tyrant bent on conquest, [using] religion to promote and mask political ambition." Of course, Roman Catholic clergymen were not that stupid, who saw through the cover and denounced it, correctly, "as a thinly veiled anti-Christian tract." After only three performances in Paris, the play was forced to close. Late last year, a Switzerland-bordered small alpine town, Saint-Genis-Pouilly, decided to organize a reading of this play. With the Danish cartoon incident still fresh in their memory, members of the Islam faith protested its production to the town's mayor, stating that "This play ... constitutes an insult to the entire Muslim community." The protest was rejected, the reading went through as scheduled, and minor street disturbances were controlled. So, we have witnessed another power play in action. Clearly, in France, where members of the Islam faith are not as powerful as those of Christian faith, the former must necessarily defer to the latter in power play. This is similar to the CNOOC-Dubai port cases (#96); facing a power play, the former withdrew, while the latter allowed a face-saving 45-day review period, recognizing that its bargaining power is much stronger with this administration. We'll see how it turns out.
Posted at 11:33 pm, Monday, March 6, 2006

Statistics and ... statistics (#100; Topic F)

Last Friday, 3/3/06, the share price of Level 3 Communications was up by 5.4%; that of Google, by a mere 0.46%. Does that mean the former was dominant in the market price while the latter was an also-ran? Not so fast. One must know the base figure on which the percentage is calculated. On 3/3, Level-3 opened at $3.55 and closed at $3.74; 19 cents = 5.4%; Google, $376.45 and $378.18; $1.73 = 0.46%. So, with this added information, one appreciates that a 0.46% change in Google's stock probably has more sway than a 5.4% change in Level-3's. A couple of days ago, a Defense Department report noted that China had increased her defense budget by 35% -- no base figure was provided. Luckily, the Investor's Business Daily (1/21/06) had a front-page story on defense spending by country, using data by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. In that report, USA led the pack with $455.3 billion, or 47% of the world's total defense spending. China was an also-ran, at #5 (behind UK, France, and Japan), with $35.5 billion, or 4% of the world's total. Even assuming that China's 35% increase in the DD report is to be added to the $35.5 billion in the SIPRI study, the new total would still be only $47.9 billion, barely 10.5% of U.S.'s total. This merely underscores the point that percentage figures must be handled with extreme care.
Posted at 7:41 pm, Sunday, March 5, 2006

Diabetic and tenure decision (#99; Topic E)

A couple of days ago, I attended a lecture on diabetes in a nearby assisted-living facility -- I am a pre-diabetic. About 15 minutes into the lecture, on the consequences of a severe diabetic case, was a slide showing "amputation." At this point, I could no longer concentrate -- my mind wandered to an event 40+ years ago. Following my year as Chairman of the Faculty Council at Cal State Fullerton, I was promoted to a full professor in 1963 (at age 34); I was also appointed the chair of our school's Retention and Promotion Committee. An assistant professor, who joined the faculty in the same year as I (when the university was brand new), was, after four years in the rank, up for tenure/promotion; the committee voted against it. He was, of course, dejected, so was his department chairman. The latter came to see me, saying that, prior to the committee's decision, he did not want to intervene; but, now that a decision had been reached, he wanted me to know that that assistant professor was a diabetic and that his scholarship status was due to his physical disability. At that point, I professed ignorance and felt that perhaps the committee was too harsh on him -- his was a marginal case and, were I aware of his condition, the scale could very well tip in his favor; in any case, since his case would come up again the following year, the committee and I would certainly take this new information into consideration. As it turned out, in a couple of months' time, one of his legs was amputed; in another month or so, he passed away. He was never promoted to an associate professor, and the committee never had another chance to vote on his case. Over the years, I always regretted this no-promotion decision and felt that it contributed to his rapid physical deterioration and untimely death, in his early 30s, about my age at the time.
Posted at 10:23 pm, Saturday, March 4, 2006

Western brands are priced 30% higher in China (#98; Topic B)

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that "U.S. and Europe hope to narrow their huge trade deficits by getting the Chinese to buy more of their products." Noble goals. How? By pricing "their products 20 percent to 30 percent higher than in other markets." Why? "[P]artly to lend their products an added cachet in Chinese eyes, an important branding strategy in developing markets." What a strategy! So, the way to narrow trade deficits in China is (1) treat the Chinese consumers as suckers, (2) ram inflated prices down their throat, (3) ridicule their high savings rate and demand that they spend more, and (4) lodge official complaints when the first three strategems fail to work. Is the Chinese consumer really that parochial? That stupid? About 50% of goods sold in western-owned shops in China are manufactured in China anyway, where is the "cachet?" Is putting a western-brand cachet on a piece of garment produced in China making it a "western" cachet? Ikea, a Swedish-owned department store chain, seems to think differently -- its resident manager in China said: "Chinese consumers are the most demanding in the world" -- and compete in the Chinese market on the basis of price. What a refreshing thought! Of course, Ikea is a tough competitor, in China as in USA. May the more perceptive player win.
Posted at 11:42 am, Friday, March 3, 2006