New Year's eve 2006 (#296, Topic K)

By now, we have lived in our retirement community for more than a year and half. We begin to know other residents (in addition to those we knew before moving in). Today, at noon, 12 residents of Chinese ancestry got together and went to a Chinese restaurant for our year-end dinner, a tradition in China -- except that, being old, this group decided to change the time to lunch, thereby avoiding driving in the evening. The 12 consisted of 3 couples, 2 single men, and 4 single women -- among the 5 men, I was ranked fourth in seniority. Thus, I drove, taking three others and my wife to the restaurant. Traditional year-end dinners are invariably banquets, with each dish symbolizing (through the shape or name of food served) happiness, success, prosperity in the coming year, etc. Ours was no different. The set-menu we selected was intended for 10, but, with each dish being served on a large plate, the food was plentiful -- along with our reduced ability to consume food, about 1/3 of food was left. (Known for my frugality, the group wanted me to bring home the leftovers. Needless to say, I did not disappoint them.) This evening, the entertainment committee in our retirement community held a New Year's Eve party, offering wines, soft drinks, and a movie; attendees were encouraged to bring snacks and such. Since the party was held in the party room in our building's ground floor, we decided to attend, bringing some Asian-style food with us. About 50 were there -- 10 men and 40 women. My wife remarked that the committee chair, invariably fashionably dressed at the door to welcome attendees, was absent. Indeed, it was the vice chair who came to me, after my wife and I each had a plate and were comfortably seated, to suggest that I pour myself a glass of wine. I joked that I had a long way to drove, but accepted the gracious offer and had some pinot noir. Again, the food was plentiful. Before starting the movie, the vice chair announced that the chair's husband died this morning; thus, she could not be with us; still, she wante everyone to have a good time and stay after the movie. The movie, The Devil Wears Prada, an adaption of a best-seller, is on the tense life on New York's high-fashion industry. Though lively and quite educational (to a country cousin like me), it seems far-removed from a run-of-the-mill retiree's daily life. The movie ended at about 10:30. After eating a piece of cake decorated with Happy New Year and a clock at 2 minutes before midnight, we elected to leave. We could no longer last until midnight. After doing this entry, I retired for the day and Year 2006 -- a solid 15 minutes before Year 2007 is ushered in in the East coast of USA. Happy New Year.

2006 - Year of Chinese stocks (#295, Topic B)

After yesterday's close, the US markets had another successful year -- "4th straight year, their best since '03", according to today's Investor's Business Daily. "For '06, the Dow led with a 16.3% advance. The S&P 500 rose 13.6%, the Nasdaq climbed 9.5% and the 600 was up 14.1%." Still, it pales when compared to the rest of the world, particularly China. "The leading Shanghai index surged 130% and India's Sensex rallied 47%. Germany's Dax gained 22%. ... Mexico's Bolsa gained 49%." Only Britain's FTSE, rising 11%, and Japan's Nikkei, up "just 7%," lagged behind US's performance. China also claims other firsts. "China-themed ETFs [exchange-traded funds] left the rest in the dust by a country mile in 2006. IShares of FTSE Xinhua China 25 Index gained 82% while Power-Shares' Golden Dragon Halter USX China Fund sprang 52% for the year. IShares MSCI Spain Index came in third with a 48% gain." Among US-originated IPOs [initial public offerings], there were 198 totalling $43 billion in proceeds, with 6 exceeding $1 billion each, and MasterCard the largest at $2 billion. In comparison, the IPO of Industrial & Commercial Bank of China raised $19.07 billion -- the "world's largest" according to Wall Street Journal (10/20/06), and some 44% of the total raised by 198 offerings in USA in 2006. For individual stocks, China Life Insurance, with a price change of +282%, is ranked 3rd among "The Best Stocks of 2006" by IBD. (IBD tracks 8000+ stocks on a daily basis.) While past performance does not necessarily reflect the future, as the saying goes, it is difficult to deny that 2006 has been a banner year for stocks headquartered in China.

Lion, lions, lions, and lions (#294; Topic D)

On the last day of our visit to our daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren, our grandchildren's paternal grandmother took us to dinner at a very nice restaurant, the Capital Grille. On either side of the restaurant's entrance is a statue of a lion. The thought suddenly occurred to me that, in the last month or so, I had come across lion or lions at least four times -- two while visiting our son and two while visiting our daughter. While in New York, our son took us to see a Broadway musical, the Lion King. The following day, on my own, I visited the New York Public Library. (An exhibition was on at the time; it inspired me to a thought on which I planned to write an entry in this blog. So far, I could not find time to do it.) The NYPL's entrance also has a pair of lions, one on each side, similar to the entrance to the Capital Grille. While in Detroit, our son-in-law treated us to a professional football game, Chicago Bears v Detroit Lions, on Christmas eve. I have been to only two professional football games before (Miami v Washington in a Super Bowl played in Los Angeles, and a Washington regular home game a couple of years ago); I found both games boring. For this third pro game, the start was equally boring. (We arrived at the stadium a bit late, at the opening moments of 2nd quarter; the first quarter's score was 10:7 Chicago.) For the entire 2nd quarter, there was nothing but 3 down and punt; there was no first-downs, to my recollection. For the second half, I thought one of Lions' ends (R. Williams) played well, catching some long passes for scores. Thus, while Lions were behind by two touchdowns, they came back and even led by a couple of points for a while. Then, through two consecutive field goals, Bears led. With the clock running down, Lions received the kickoff and, for practical purposes, had the last possesion of the ball. Deep in home territory, Lions managed to move the ball forward. Perhaps in desperation, they gambled to gain a first down (rather than to punt) on 4th and survived. On the very last play of the game, another receiving end (M. Williams; no relation to Roy Williams) had his hand on a long pass in the end zone. Had he held on to it, Lions would have won; he didn't, and Lions lost. A very exciting game toward the end, with spectators who chose to remain well pleased. (A sports columnist advocated, in Detroit Free Press, that spectators walked out at 8:47 in 2nd quarter, as a protest of Lions' miserable season. Many, apparently, complied, including some 20 near where we were sitting.) Bears' record was 12: 2, readying for post-season games, while Lions' record was 2:12, tying for the worst-record season with another team. Since the team with the worst record has the first crack at this year's draft pick, it really is to Lions' advantage for losing the game to Bears. So, the write-up in next day's paper was not particularly harsh. Who knows? Maybe Detroit, by losing this game we saw, would have the season's first draft pick. The Capital Grille is a steakhouse. I rose to the occasion and ordered a steak; it was prepared just right, and I really enjoyed it; the food is excellent. Still, our grandson, who enjoys filet minon, ranks it second to Antepasta, an Italian restaurant in Ocean City MD that features charcoal steak (60 oz, good for at least 2 or even 3), which we had visited on two occasions in past years when we congregated at the Bethany DE beach during summer.

Teaching western chess to a 6-year old (#293, Topic G)

When we parted company at Thanksgiving, our 6-1/2-year-old granddaughter wanted me to teach her how to play western chess the next time we met, which was less than a month -- during the Christmas holidays. Earlier, I have taught her brother how to play the game; when we played, she was always with us, sitting quietly while watching. The fact that she wanted to learn now suggested that she felt she was ready. Western chess, because of two rather inexplicable moves, is more difficult to teach than Xiangqi (Chinese chess, which preceded western chess [or, using a term I coined, Queenqi]). The first such move is en passant, which, technically, is an imaginery move. (The dictionary describes it this way: "a method of capturing a pawn that, in making its first move of two squares, passes over a square [on an adjacent file] controlled by an opposing pawn. The opposing pawn has the right to capture it by advancing immediately to the square that was passed.") A pawn-capture move is difficult enough. (A pawn, on its first move, may move forward one or two squares; afterward, it may move forward only one square at a time -- except in capture, where it moves diagonally forward one square.) An en passant move is simply too much -- at least for a 6-1/2-year-old, in my view. The second such move is castling, which, technically, is not one move, but two moves -- moving two pieces, the King and a Rook, separately, though counting these two separate moves as one -- the logic is difficult to explain, at least to a 6-1/2-year-old. Still another move is queening -- a pawn moving to the last rank is promoted to any piece, generally to a Queen. Though the logic is equally elusive, at least its move is easy to understand. So I decided to introduce it after 3 or 4 games. In each game, I gave our granddaughter ample opportunity to move correctly -- and, later, to move correctly resulting in captures. We set the limit at one game per day (her older brother wanted, and got, equal time). Our granddaughter likes to write, draw, and keep score. On our western-chess contests, she has a 5:0 record against me. She certainly is a quick learner and plays well.

"I am not a Lincoln; I am a Ford" (#292, Topic P)

Visiting our daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren, I was impressed by the 3-inch type, PRESIDENT FORD DIES, in the local newspaper, The Detroit Free Press; Ford died the previous evening in Palm Desert CA. A congressman from nearby Grand Rapids, Ford was considered a native son. I asked our son-in-law whether he was a member of the Ford family well known in this motor-town. The answer is no. Ford moved to Michigan when he was two, after his father passed away and his mother re-married; Ford is his step-father's last name. A -- perhaps the -- most important feature of democracy, as viewed by President Bush, is that leaders are elected by majoirty vote. But as practiced in USA, it seems to me that that feature is honored more by its breach; American leaders, at least in recent memory, are the product of legal maneuvers. And Ford is an excellent example. When Richard Nixon, the 37th president, was reelected in 1973, his running mate on the Republican ticket was Spiro Agnew; Ford was the minority leader in the House. When a president is unable to discharge his/her responsibilities, the law in USA states that he/she is to be succeeded by the vice-president; if the vice-president is unable to fill the vacancy, the Speaker of the House is the next in line. Though legalistic, this law is nevertheless simple and straight-forward; still, it cannot cope with modern-day complexities. Here, were Nixon forced out (he was on the verge of being impeached), Agnew, the vice-president, would be the president. But Agnew was under a cloud himself, being charged with corruption and such. (Agnew lived in an exclusive -- exclusionary would be closer to the mark -- area, Kenwood, which has the Kenwood Country Club bordering its north and cherry trees lining its streets; as late as the 50s, Jewish-Americans were not allowed to have property there. To accommodate them and others, another development, Kenwood Park, was established; it is just north of the Kenwood Country Club and adjacent to the well-regarded Walter Whitman High School. How do I know the history? My wife and I lived there, on two tours totalling more than 25 years, before moving to this retirement community.) So, were Agnew similarly impeached, the Speaker of the House would be installed as the president -- but the Speaker was a Democrat, which would be a clear no-no. So, the brightest of the legal community took over. First, force Agnew to resign. Second, install Ford as the new VP. Third, after Nixon left office in mid-stream (he chose to resign in 1974), install Ford as the new president. So, Ford was never on a national ticket. One of the first acts Ford performed, after assuming the presidency, was to pardon Nixon -- "absolute pardon," in Ford's own words. So, in a country where no one is above the law, the president acted no differently from an emperor, who has the absolute power to pardon. Many historians felt that one reason Ford was not elected on his own accord is this very pardoning act. During the day, a local TV station had a segment on Ford uttering, among other gems, the sentence used as the title to this entry.

Xiangqi in Finland (#291, Topic G)

This morning, 12/21/06, a good friend of mine in Finland, Raimo Lindroos, President of Friends of Chinese Chess in Finland, sent me the following e-mail:
On Saturday [9 Dec 2006], we had our ninth Xiangqi friendship match against the Chinese Embassy in Finland. The match was played in Jarvenpaa with ten players from each side. We played three rounds with mixed pairs. The Embassy won 18.5 : 11.5. The Ambassador Mrs. Ma Keqing and the Jarvenpaa Lord Mayor Erkki Kukkonen played [two] friendly [games] outside the match. The very new Ambassador (she started in May in Finland) won both games. I think these matches are very unique in the entire World! Season Greetings, Raimo
This match is indeed unique, both in scope (10 regular players and an honorary player on each side) as well as in longivity (9 annual matches so far!). It takes both organizational skill and foresight to bring these matches about. And Mr. Lindroos is indeed well suited to this role (as evidenced by his being re-elected as the FCCF's president many times). In addition to being a successful entrepreneur and a correspondence-(western)-chess master, Mr. Lindroos plays a vicious game of Xiangqi. In the second of my 6-volume series on Xiangqi, Xiangqi Syllabus on Cannon - Chinese Chess 2 (1998), dedicated to him and other members of Friends of Chinese Chess in Finland "for their contribution to promoting Xiangqi internationally," I annotated a game he played which won him the 4th Jarvenpaa Xiangqi Championship (August 1996). In recent years, he has become a mentor to younger Finnish Xiangqi players -- a Finnish delegation made its presence felt at the 8th World Xiangqi Championship (Hong Kong 2003), and one of its members won the fourth prize at the 9th WXC (Paris 2005). Well done, Raimo. We again salute you for your contribution to promoting Xiangqi internationally. Kindly keep up the good work.

"Treasury Declines to Rebuke China" (#290, Topic B)

On page A6 in today's Wall Street Journal, one reads a brief story, whose headline is given above. Compared to the fanfare last week, when Treasury secretary Henry Paulson led a cabinet-level delegation to China to deal with this very issue (and when the story was covered on its front-page), this is truly a letdown. The essence of today's story is that "the Treasury has again declined to brand the country [China] a currency manipulator." What constitutes a "currency manipulator" is never defined. When a country pegs its currency to a fixed rate in US-dollar terms, "that country has, in effect, delegated its treasury function to the Fed", as Larry Ludlow summarized in his program over CNBC today; he further stated that such a move is to be cherished rather than condemned -- I share Ludlow's views fully. There are, at the moment, more than 30 countries using the US dollar as their legal tender. Tagging a country's currency to a fixed exchange rate in US-currency terms is but a step removed from that. Last week, over the same Ludlow's program at CNBC, a commentator angrily protested that promoting a weak US dollar resulting in consumers' paying a higher price is "amoral." Another commentator on the same program stated that the administration must view US's employment policy in the "totality" -- meaning that protectionist actions that benefit certain segments of the US economy (such as textile workers in the south, with one of its senators acting as their vocal spokesman) are invariably at the expense of other industries or the citizenry as a whole. Indeed, this is confirmed by another story I read last week. After some 18 years, the administration has finally removed stiff tariff over imported steel. While such tariffs have undoubtedly benefitted domestic steel workers, they have adversely affected the automobile industry. (The story only mentioned the auto industry; presumably, other industries that use steel as raw material are similarly affected -- this may account for their moving to China to set up factories there: to take advantage not only of her lower labor cost, but also to escape the stiff tariff on steel.)

Thailand's financial market (#289, Topic B, F)

A major piece of news this morning, repeatedly stated as such by several anchors at CNBC, is Thailand's invoking a 30% withholding tax on foreign "investments"; this move resulted in a 15% decline in its stock market for the day (12/19/06). Later, after financial markets in Thailand closed, presumably at 5 pm or so Thai time, the government said to have "reversed itself." The effect of this "reversal", at the time of this broadcast, is yet to develop. (Thai time is 12 or so hours ahead of EST; at 9 am EST (about 9 pm Thai time), the Thai market is closed for the day while the NYSE is yet to open.) So, there are wild speculations. One commentator obliquely referred to the 1997 crisis, which originated in Thai's currency market, that "brought down a hedge fund" -- its name is not mentioned, but it is the famous Long-Term Capital Management case. That crisis put the free-market capitalism to test (result: F; the US government agencies had to bail it out.) At 5 pm EST, Larry Ludlow, a champion of free-market capitalism (he signing-on message, at 5 over CNBC, is always words to this effect), is less kind. He bluntly asks his panelists whether these "clowns" -- meaning Nobel laureates in Economics and world-class currency speculators of the LTCM fame -- had anything to do with Thailand's 2006 move. Every one answers in the negative. In my assessment, the withh0lding tax is not aimed at investments but at speculations; not directed at long-term investors but at currency speculators; and the "reversal" is merely a clarification of its intended target. Who needs these hot-shot currency speculators who could, single-handedly, damage not only the currency of a country, but currencies of a region? The recent high-powered US delegation to China, hoping China would "open" her financial markets and allow her currency more flexibility, is merely a prelude to introducing this type of drama to China. The west wants nothing better than seeing China in turmoil. Luckily, China in the 21st century is not the same push-over in earlier centuries. Nowadays, China has done precisely what Thailand proposes to do: "we welcome your capital investment; please leave currency speculators at your own door." We'll see whether the west sees the difference between investment used in the conventional sense and used as a camouflage for speculation.

Ability to infer - Westinghouse nuclear plants (#288, Topic B)

Early Saturday morning, I heard, over PBS, that "Westinghouse will build 4 nuclear plants in China." (#287, 12/16/06). I was hoping to read more about this -- at least to me -- important piece of news. Nothing. The weekend TV and news coverage were mainly on politics. This morning, there is a good article in Wall Street Journal, with a heading befitting its importance: "US-China Nuclear-Power Pact May Shape Technology Standard." It also answers many of my questions. One, Westinghouse was indeed bought, "this year", by a consortium led by a Japanese company. That confirms my vague recall, including that the company which took Westinghouse over is a Japanese firm; last Saturday, I refused to put any credence to this last point -- I could not believe that China would allow a Japanese company to build facilities as sensitive as nuclear plants. But, of course, the WSJ article proves me both correct and wrong. Two, all these 4 plants are "1,000-megawatt reactors." These are useful information, but I cannot convert this to oil-substitute equivalents -- so, this piece of information is wasted. Three, the consortium includes an engineering consulting firm, Shaw Group, of which I know nothing. Wall Street professionals, of course, have this down pat -- SGR (Shaw Group's ticker tape symbol over NYSE) opened this morning, as I heard over CNBC, four points higher -- it closed some 8.5% higher than Friday's close, with a volume almost 5 times its usual. Four, China selected Westinghouse over a French govenment-owned company, Areva, even though Areva offers a broad range of "nuclear cooperation, encompassing everything from uranium mining to waste management" -- and French president, who was in Beijing last October, "made it clear that France would agree to such a pact only if Beijing buys some of Areva's advanced nuclear reactors." Five, with Westinghouse winning the coveted contract, valued at "$3 billion to $4 billion," Westinghouse's technology "could ... become a standard for a new, so-called third generation of reactors." Reading in context, it seems that this technology has never been used anywhere, including USA -- "if completed, the Chinese plants would be the first... The company is looking at building 12 nuclear plants in the U.S. with its new technology." Six, it seems that only a letter of understanding has been inked; no definitive contract has been signed. So, we'll wait and see how this project develops.

Ability to infer in the stock market (#287, Topic M)

On the way to the Library of Congress this morning, the PBS beamed a short message: "Westinghouse will build 4 nuclear power plants in China." Based on my recent find (that one's ability to infer improves as one's store of knowledge is broadened (#284, 12/14/06)), I thought this brief message gives me an excellent opportunity to test my ability to make inferences. Apparently, this was the result of the US-China Economic Summit concluded the day before (#286, 12/15/06). What inferences can I make? (1) It would add pressure on the demand/supply situation in nuclear material. [My own assessment: This is a simplistic answer, too general to be meaningful.] (2) By how much? No idea. [Were I knowledgeable about the size of a typical nuclear plant, I probably can answer that question.] (3) When would these new plants be built and new demand for nuclear fuel be felt? Again, no idea. [This makes strike 3; were this baseball, I would be struck out.] (4) How would this affect the demand for fossil fuel? No idea. [However, an energy specialist should have this down pat.] (5) Which companies would benefit? Clearly, one would be Westinghouse. However, I vaguely recall that the company had been sold to a foreign company a year or so ago, but I do not recall this new company's name. (6) Which companies constitute investment opportunities? Other than a company that produces nuclear material in which I have a few shares, it is another blank. So, with this little experiment, I must conclude that I am a complete failure. One of the persons who can make quick inferences in stock market is undoubtedly Jim Cramer, the host of the Mad Money program over CNBC. He can recall details about thousands of stocks almost instantaneously -- not only how a stock closed a couple of hours ago and whether it was a gain or loss, but also its price-earnings ratio, its earnings-growth figure, its main product lines and their market share, its cash and debt status, names of its CEO, its main competitors and how they compare, etc. Still, I must not give up so easily. Let me improve my knowledge base and test myself again.

US-China Economic Summit (#286; Topic S)

By now, the first US-China Economic Summit meeting has come to a close. With such a high-profile delegation (#285, 12/14/06), the expectations are understandably high. What has been achieved? Well, CNBC's on-site reporter said, elegantly, "there is no list of deliverable tangibles". Using words I can understand, the answer may be shortened to one word in English, nothing -- or three in Chinese, 沒什麼. Oh, he tried his best and listed three "accomplishments." One, another meeting has been scheduled, in May 2007 in DC. This may be done, given that e-mail runs freely between the two countries, in two minutes flat, by an administrative-assistant secretary, not by a cabinet-level secretary. Two, both sides agree to work on "trade imbalances." It seems that imposing restrictions is not a one-way street -- today's Washington Post quotes Secretary Gutierrez as saying: "They would like no restrictions [on exporting US technology to China and on China's investing in USA], and we have restrictions, so there are certain things that they would like we can't give on." Three, China agrees to introduce more flexibility in its currency, renminbi (RMB). This has been going on for at least a year and half; indeed, last Saturday's Economist (12/9/06) has a graph showing a gradual -- but consistent -- revaluation of RMB, putting into practice a public statement by the Chinese government, more than 2 years ago, that the target of RMB revaluation is for it to move at about the same rate as interest rate -- the purpose is to discourage currency speculators (indeed, last Saturday's Economist cites one by name, who single-handedly wrecked the Thai currency market and whose presence in the Chinese currency market the government would not want to see. So, this high-level delegation is on its way back to USA. Already, there is displeasure: a long-term flexibility is inconsistent with US's orientation that strives for instant gratification. Well, after all, China has a 5,000-year history (Vice Premier Wu wrote a 20-page paer and gave a lecture on same to the US delegation yesterday); this lack of history is probably an important reason for US's harboring misunderstandings about China.

"Americans have a limited knowledge of China" (#285, Topic S)

Initiating a US-China Economic Summit, which begins today in Beijing, Treasury secretary Henry Paulson assembled a delegation that includes four other cabinet-level members (Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez; Labor, Elaine Chao; EPA administrator, Stephen Johnson; Trade representative, Susan Schwab), not to mention Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. In its honor, I set up a new topic, S, for Sino-US relations. This morning at 9, CNBC's reporter, beaming from Beijing, summarized today's activities (Beijing is 12 hours ahead of DC; 9 am Beijing time = 8 pm EST). Though mainly ceremonial, Wu Yi, China Vice Premier, nevertheless set the tone for China. She said (and quoted repeatedly by CNBC): "we have the genuine feeling that some American friends are not only having limited knowledge -- but harboring much misunderstanding -- about the reality in China." Well said. In my view, this limited -- distorted would be much more descriptive --knowledge is mainly the result of American educational system. Last year, I joined a Library of Congress sponsored tour group to China to celebrate the 600th anniversary of Zheng He's first overseas voyage in 1405. In Shanghai, I can understand that they were in awe with skyscrappers -- I was too, after an absence of but a few years . But they were not equipped to seeing that there are 4 times as many skyscrappers in Shanghai as NYC -- or seeing a 5-year-old financial district (in Pudong) having more skyscappers than Manhattan. In Nanjing, where the tour group visited the building where the Unequal Treaties were signed, tour members who are natives of USA professed complete ignorance -- this was/is never taught in US schools. I can understand that too -- with USA first participating in the opium trade in China and later joining the other western powers to extract excessive indemnity from her, keeping this sorry event mum is the best policy. Ditto for the Rape of Nanjing Museum -- after all, with Japan being USA's best friend in Asia, why bother with historical inconveniences. This reminds me of an incident. Last year, during the 65-year memorial of Pearl Harbor, high-school children were asked: Who did that? Even that "infamy" (using President Roosevelt's word at the time) was shielded in the name of geopolitics of the 21st century. "China?" many of these next-generation leaders responded. Bravo. At the moment, there is a very interesting TV commercial by FedEx. It shows three managers standing in front of a world map and watching a young man trying to put a pin to show where China is. After the young man's first attempt, one of the managers says: "This is Russia." The young man makes another gallant attempt; this time, it is Greenland. Another manager then says: "You really don't know where China is. Don't you?" Not wanting to be further embarrassed, this young man simply tears the map, which is mounted on a wall, down. The implication, it seems to me, is that one can hide one's ignorance by simply not facing reality. "Americans have a limited knowledge of China" -- this TV ad captures it fully.

Ability to make quick inferences (#284, Topic P)

The ability to make quick inferences from very little factual matters (clues) is what Kriegspiel is about -- without seeing any of the opponent's pieces, a player is suppose to postulate, mainly by inference, (1) where the king is, (2) whether the king is sufficiently guarded, and thus (3) whether the player may mount an attack to checkmate the opponent's king. Clearly, one's ability to infer improves with more play; one also learns by observing how people in other endeavors make inferences -- for me, I try to learn from bridge, mah-jong, and the stock market. Last night, I heard, very briefly, a commentator stating that a senator had undergone surgery. In the next utterance, he said "That means the Vice President casts the tie-breaking vote." His first announcement is a statement of fact, which I understood; his next utterance is an inference, which I failed to grasp. This morning, over PBS, the announcer, after broadcasting this news, was kind enough to add some background information; now I think I understand. The reasoning process runs something like this. (1) The senator undergoing surgery is a Democrat. (2) In the new senate that begins in January 2007, Democrats hold a 51:49 advantage. (3) If the senator in question is incapacitated and resigns, Democrats' advantage is reduced to 50:49. (4) The vacancy created by the resignation is to be filled by the governor from the state which elected the senator. (5) The senator who resigned, in this instance, is from a state whose governor is a Republican. (6) That Republican governor will, undoubtedly, fill the vacancy with a Republican. (7) After filling the vacancy, the senate line-up becomes 50:50, a tie. (8) In the senate, in case of a tie, the vice president casts the tie-breaking vote. (9) The vice president is a Republican. (10) The vice president's tie-breaking vote will, undoubtedly, vote with his fellow Republicans. (11) Thus, in effect, Republicans regain the control of the senate. Q.E.D. Upon further reflection, I realize that one's ability to make quick inference improves as one's store of knowledge is broadened. What constitutes as a lack of information to one may be a routine matter to another. Were I as sufficiently knowledgeable as the announcer whom I heard, I might be able to make a quick inference as well. This is an important find (for me); let's see whether I can apply this to Kriegspiel and to the three allied fields of bridge, mah-jong, and the stock market.

"China's Africa Strategy" (#283, Topic F)

This afternoon, the Carneige Endowment for International Peace offered a seminar on "China's Africa Strategy." Being a "hot" topic, it attracted nearly 200 -- from the list of attendees, it seems that about 20 came from various executive departments/agencies (State, 6; Treasury and Commerce, 3 each); another 20 or so from congressional offices/committees; 20 or so from various embassies (China, 5); and 30 or so from various think tanks around town. The main speaker is a visiting scholar at Carneige; on each seat a paper of his was placed, which I hastily read, since I showed up early. Though its US-centered views are to be expected, I thought the paper is unnecessarily antagonistic to China. At one juncture, it says: "China's involvement [in making aids to Africa] could threaten this African renaissance. Growing Chinese loans to Africa, especially at high commercial rates, could threaten billions in recent forgiveness by the World Bank and IMF's Heavily Indebed Poor Countries Initiative, since China also loans to these nations." The renaissance he talked about is Africa's "strongest growth rates since independence" -- no mention, of course, of the continent's past history of being enslaved by the west. The speaker's presentation was coupled with slides. Interestingly, the "high commercial rates" in his paper was never mentioned; instead, he talked about China's forgiving loans to Africa. The talk took many issues with China, particularly her Confucius Institutes (teaching Chinese language around the world, including Africa), and her offering "aid without any conditions". Both, of course, are tradition-shattering moves -- the former, not mentioned in his paper, laments, it seems to me, at the break-up of the cosy duopoly of English and French language usage, while the latter, covered in both the paper and the talk, laments at the break-up of single-source aids taken for granted by the aids community. A second speaker, an ambassdor with earlier postings in Africa, offered comments on the first speaker's talk; his views were both more moderate and temperate, befitting his earlier training in diplomatic talk. During the Q&A period, one asked about India's role in international aid -- answer: so far, not a factor. I wanted to ask two questions -- one, the seeming discrepancy between his mention of "high commercial interest rate" said to be charged by China in his paper and her forgiving loans talked before this audience; and two, the concern the speaker seemed to have on teaching Chinese in Africa. But I restrained myself and did not open my mouth (except to sip coffee, which was good) during the entire proceedings, a rare occasion for me.

"One Dead in Silver Spring Crash" (#282, Topic N)

A heading (used as today's title) in the Metro section of today's Washington Post caught my attention. It appears that a female passenger and a male driver, in a Japanese-make SUV, "lost control, struck the curb and then smashed into a pole supporting power lines. The impact knocked the pole down ... [and the female passenger] was pronounced dead at the scene." This reminds me of a similar incident some 15 years ago, in China, when I was the passenger sitting next to a female driver. In early 1990s, I was teaching a course on how to prepare financial reports for the World Bank, in Suzhou. After the 2-week course was over, I was to leave for Shanghai. The sponsor was responsible for securing a train ticket for me. At that time, the currency used in China was two-pronged: renminbi (RMB) and foreign-exchange certificates (FEC) -- though the exchange ratio between the two was 1:1, non-residents must use the latter. When my sponsor, the Audit Bureau of PRC, attempted to buy a train ticket for me, it did not have FEC -- since I was a non-resident, FEC must be used for items/services I bought myself or bought by others for my benefit; there were no exceptions. (China has a 5-branch system: in addition to the executive, legislative, and judical (as in USA), it has examination and auditing -- so the Audit Bureau is on a par with the executive branch; the Ministry of Railways, being a subordinate agency in the latter, ranks below the Audit Bureau.) So, my sponsor used an official car to take me to Shanghai -- the driver was a young lady in her 20s. This being late in the afternoon (a one-way trip from Suzhou to Shanghai took about 1 hour and half), the sponsor also asked a student in the class to keep her company for the return trip. This student was smart; before we boarded the car, he said: "Let me sit at the back" as if he was doing me a favor. I did not object; after all, I was a guest, the trip was short, the road was well travelled and in good shape, I was imposing on her (being after hours), and I did not want to leave the impression that I was treating her merely as a driver. So, I sat at the passenger seat in front. The car, Red Flag, a domestic brand, was quiet and smooth, and the driver was quite skilled. Indeed, the drive began smoothly. But, along the way, the driver's handbag fell on the car's floor; she did not want to stop the car to fetch it, nor did she want to leave her handbag on the floor. So, she drove using her right hand, while stooping down to fetch the handbag with her left hand. Her attention was diverted, andhe car began to zig-zag; suddenly, a utility pole was standing directly in front of our car. She pressed the brake just in time, so a direct hit with the pole was averted. I said nothing; indeed, the remainder of this drive was done in silence, until I was safely delivered to my hotel in Shanghai. Over these years, I often wonder what would happen if she did not press the brake in time -- I could speculate, but I was/am not sure. Thus, over these years, I kept this to myself, mentioning to no one. Today's story somehow confirms what I have long speculated. Well, it was/is over -- else I would be writing this entry. What a narrow escape!

Tai Chi class (#281, Topic D)

For the last 7 or so years, my wife and I have been to a Tai Chi class. At first, we went three times a week, Sundays 2-4, and Tuesdays and Thursdays 7:30 - 9 pm -- after moving to our retirement community, only on Sundays. A lot has happened during these 7 years, the most tramatic being the sudden (and untimely) death of our Tai Chi institute's founder, 40-ish Master Tang, four years ago. Since then, the institute's 7 or 8 classes around DC are being taught by a dedicated group of the master's early-day students (along with Mrs. Tang as the institute's president). These students were selected (and personally taught by the master) with a view that, in due course, they would be teachers on their own volition; they certainly have carried out the master's wishes admirably. The institute's most amazing practice is that, since its inception some 20 years ago, students attend classes free of charge -- the master (a PhD in Electrical Engineering and a world-class expert on computer security) wanted nothing better than to have more people exposed to the benefits of Tai Chi -- all a student needs to do is to pay a nominal registration fee to cover rental of high-school gyms (at present, $35 per semester, 16 or so weeks; in comparison, our retirement community offers a 6-session, 1-1/2 hour per session course for $90). When I first joined the class, I was extremely clumsy and stiff. Frequenty, I was invited to join the master at the front, standing next to him, so that the class could see the two of us making the same moves. I was happy to oblige, and we did it all in good spirits, often with laughs, since these one-on-one occasions allowed me to realize how far off I was from being considered minimally fit. The master, though only in his early 40s at the time, was fully aware of Tai Chi's benefits to senior citizens. He had thus developed a series of moves, lasting an hour or so (the first hour of each 2-hour session), on these, dubbed as 養生法 well-being exercises -- easy, gradual, flexible (one does each move to the best of one's ability), yet giving every part of a person's body some needed exercise or vibration -- from hair to toe, with emphasis on the waist and weight-shifting. Over the years, my clumsiness gradually diminishes and my stiffness becomes less noticeable. Now, I can do some moves better, but my ability to do other moves has deteriorated, perhaps due to my getting older. Today, in the class, I realized I could not do a move -- standing on one foot while first shaking the other foot and later moving that mid-air foot in an arc -- as well as before; ideally, one should be able to do this for at least a minute; I can do only 30 seconds while standing on my right foot (down from 45-50 seconds) and only 15 seconds while standing on my left foot (down from 35-40 second). On the other hand, I have maintained my ability to bend one leg at the knee as low as possible while stretching the other leg as far to the side as possible -- this is a common exercise done by American footballers before a game (I played international fooball, known as soccer in USA, while a youngster in China). While doing this last move today, I somehow caught our teacher's attention. She, Teacher Chung, said: "Dr. Li, 你好棒 you are doing well." (Technically,棒 = splendidly. Generally, teachers are very generous in their praise. I feel I am not worthy of this.) I thanked her. It was a happy occasion.

Asian Division at Library of Congress (#280, Topic D)

One of the nation's treasures is the Library of Congress, on a site next to the capitol and easily accessible by public transportation (a bus stops at the door; a Metro stop is less 2 blocks away; another Metro stop, next to the Union Station, is 5 blocks away). Better yet, it is open to the public -- free of charge -- with convenient hours (8:30 to 5 on M, F, and S; 8:30 to 9 on T,W, andTh) at its main reading rooms. And its collection is truly vast, covering, geographically, not only USA and the Americas, but around the world; topically, not only legal and technical treatises, but works on fictions and games as well (LC, being in charge of copyright registration, is a depository of every book published in USA); stylistically, not only books, but newspapers, magazines, even music recordings and microfilms. I have benefitted from it ever since my doctoral-student days (I needed a German document done during WWII, too expensive for a needy graduate student to acquire; LC did not have it, but managed to get it, microfilmed it as a 600-frame roll, and sold a copy to me at 1 cent per frame -- I still have it as a momento). Ever since I moved to DC, I tried to go to LC once a week -- my two books on Kriegspiel benefitted from LC's excellent collection of books/magazines on chess; its Asian Division has an equally excellent collection of books/magazines on Mah-Jong and Xiangqi (Chinese chess), from which I benefitted when writing my books on the two subjects. The Asian Division Reading Room, being a special-purpose reading room, was open only 8:30 to 5, M-F -- inconvenient to those with full-time jobs (and even to me after we moved to a retirement community). Luckily, about 2 years ago, the Asian Division had a new Division Chief, Dr. Hwa-wei Lee, formerly Librarian at a university in Ohio. Seeing the underutilized resources in the Asian Division (its Japanese collection, the largest, has about 1.25 million volumes; its Chinese collection, 1.1 million), Dr. Lee took immediate action to improve the Division's visibility on several fronts. One, by instituting The LC Asian Division Friends Society and inviting VIPs (senators, congressmen, ambassadors, senior government officials, celebrities) as honorary board members and public-spirited citizens and researchers as working members. (I was honored by being invited to be a member.) Two, by opening the Asian Division reading room on Saturdays -- an "experiment" at first, but, with the increased utilization on Saturdays, the experiment is being continued "until further notice" -- to the delight of many researchers, myself included. Three, by sponsoring or co-sponsoring lectures and book readings on Asian subjects about once a month -- the variety and depth of various regional offerings are truly astonishing. Four, by having open houses to make members of the public aware of the ready availability this truly valuable national treasure -- indeed, last Saturday, 12/2, there was an Asian Reading Room Holiday Open House; about 100 came to enjoy demonstrations in Indian dance, Qigong, Holiday-theme books in various Asian languages, and, of course, delicious Asian refreshments. Five, by speaking in front of community meetings -- indeed, this afternoon, Dr. Lee will be giving a talk on LC's collection of books and maps on Zheng He before a meeting of the Zheng He Society of the Americas. Well done, Dr. Lee. We look forward to listening to your lecture this afternoon and on other occasions. We also wish to thank your dedicated staff willing to work on weekends, making Saturday openings a success.

Chinese stocks (#279, Topic M)

The Investor's Business Daily headlined "Slew of China Firms Thrive as Economy Keeps On Surging" as its top front-page story on 12/5. The story gives a tabulation of 25 publicly held companies, headquartered in China, with their shares listed on stock exchanges in China as well as in US (the latter through American Depository Receipts). Many, apparently, hit new highs in recent days. "China Mobile, the country's [as well as the world's] biggest telecom, set a 52-week high on Nov. 6. ... Focus Media hit a record Nov. 29. No.1 oil and gas producer Petro China set a fresh peak Monday [12/4]." Among new issues, the story cites Mindray Medical International, Home Inns & Hotels, and New Oriental Education & Technology. Not mentioned is the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, which had the world's largest initial public offering on 10/19/06 -- some $22 billion's worth -- not to mention that it was oversubscribed by more than 10 times (meaning that a total of $220 billion could have been raised were shares available for subscription); this is only because its shares, at the moment, are not listed on US exchanges. Also mentioned in the story is Bidu, which holds Google to a distant 2nd place in China's search market (Bidu's market share in China is 68%; Google, 23%.) Tonight, Jim Cramer's Mad Money program, after bad-mouthing China all these months, suddenly had a turnaround and recommended a Chinese stock, Global Sources (not in the 25-stock listing in IBD). So, perhaps the gold rush is on -- not in San Francisco, but in China.

The Iraq Study Group Report (#278, Topic P)

Yesterday, the long-awaited report by a 10-member bipartisan Iraq Study Group was released. The project is of interest to me from several perspectives. One, as a publisher, I am impressed by the speed at which this report was published and made available to the public -- the manuscript was turned over to a commercial publisher Friday, 12/1; a 96-page book was printed up barely 3 days later, 12/4; copies were sent to members of the Study Group (as well as to bookstores) the following day, 12/5; the day following, yesterday, 12/6, at 9 am, a copy signed by all 10 members was hand-delivered to President George W. Bush; an hour later, the embargo to bookstores not to sell this title was lifted; a few hours later, there were only Sold Out signs at these bookstores. (A bookstore near the White House had ordered 300 copies, received only 75 copies, all spoken for by members of the media.) Two, again as a publisher, I am impressed by the general readership's tremendous interest in this report, as evidenced by these Sold Out signs. (The book sells for $10.95, with the commercial publisher undertaking the project as a public service -- all profits would be donated.) Three, I am impressed by the important role played by the internet -- a non-profit organization managed to make contents of this report available at its website -- there were 400,000 downloads the very first day (several million downloads were anticipated in the next few days). Four, I appreciate the valuable role played by the print media. Our local newspaper, Washington Post, has 7 or 8 pages' worth of coverage in today's edition -- barely 20hours after the embargo was lifted. It gives the names and background of this blue-ribbon Study Group (co-chaired by James A Baker III, secretary of state in the George H W Bush adminsitration, and Lee H. Hamilton, formerly Democratic chairman of the House International Relations Committee); it reproduces the study's executive summary in its entirety (it begins with"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating."); it summarizes the report's 49 recommendations, complete with a regional map and a key-word milestones in tabular form; and it gives several human-interest stories. Members of the Study Group, after delivering the report to the president, held a news conference. To a question on how the president reacted to the recommendations, Lawrence Eagleburger, another former secretary of state, began with "His reaction was, 'Where is my drink?'", continuing with "He was a little loaded. It was early in the morning, too, you know." Today, I read, in a free financial service, the president was quoted as saying that, while many Washington reports were unread, he did read the Study Group's report. I missed seeing this very quote as a clip on TV, but I did see a variation of that, this evening over BBC, when the president held a joint press conference with British premier Tony Blair, visiting him for the very purpose of discussing this very report. The BBC clip presents the president saying "I read the report," along with a big smile on his face, giving one the impression that he was doing the Study Group a great favor. The accompanying BBC commentary said that the president used the word "interesting" but was otherwise "deliberately vague." Well, we'll see what develops in the next several days.

Speaking in English in Chinese Club (#277, Topic L)

Our retirement community has a Chinese Club, with 100+ members. Though most members came from China and speak Chinese as the first language, meetings in the club were nevertheless conducted in English. Why? One, some members have non-Chinese-speaking spouses. Two, some members can only speak dialects such as Cantonese, but not 普通話 pu tong hua (common [Chinese] language = mandarin, best spoken by residents of Beijing as 京片子, analogous to the Oxfordian accent in Britain or the midwestern accent in US). Still, it makes me uncomfortable. Indeed, I feel ashamed that a person of Chinese ancestry cannot speak the common language. A couple of days ago, our Chinese Club talked about starting a computer club, teaching fellow residents how to use computers to input Chinese characters and send/receive e-mail in Chinese. Shouldn't such a club use Chinese for discussion purposes? Apparently no. My suggestion that Chinese be the standard was simply ignored. Reason: some computer terms cannot be easily rendered into Chinese. An example is menu (choices or options in a computer) which, somehow has been translated into Chinese as 寀單 = offerings in a restaurant. Fair enough. Still, why give up so easily? I said to the organizer of this compute club that, back in 1983, I lectured at Qinghua University for five weeks, on Computer Applications in Business -- and I spoke only 普通話. I translated technical terms into Chinese to the best of my ability. (They also translated a book of mine on the subject into Chinese as the textbook, so I knew how some words are to be translated.) Indeed, later on, I repeated the same course at the Shanghai Institute (now University) of Finance and Economics. Again, I spoke only 普通話. One student was brave enough to stand up and ask: 能不能請您用上海話講演? ("Will you please use Shanghai dialect to lecture?") (All students were university professors or lecturers, so they were less afraid to speak up.) I declined. I said: "My Shanghai dialect is better than my普通話, since I had my elementary-school, middle-school, and university education here. However, Shanghai is a metropolis with residents from all over the country; using 普通話 is probably better." So, they endured my Shanghai-accented 普通話 for the entire course.

"Western value" (#276, Topic F)

This noon, I attended a seminar on "A Neocon Critique of Six Years of the Bush Presidency", at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. It was presented by a member of the British Parliament (and a former scholar at WWICS), scheduled with short notice to take advantage of his being here for high-level discussions with senior members of the administration. He opened with a very interesting remark. Last night, while having dinner with members of the Senate, he was given a sheet "This Day in Senate's Past". It showed that, on 12/4 in 1815 -- 191 years ago -- British troops burned the capital. So, this MP apologized. I could not help thinking that the British were equal-opportunity international pillagers! (They did the same thing, though much more thoroughly and much more profitably, to the Summer Palace in Beijing after the second Opium War, in 1856.) Before presenting his theme, he disclosed that his grandfather was American; thus, he claimed that he is not anti-American. His theme is that using foreign policy to justify military action is unacceptable -- military action is justified only for self-defense. He advocates order and stability, mutual recognition, and peaceful coexistence -- all high-sounding words. US, by moving away from multilaterialism and acting unilaterally, has lost "high moral ground." Further, by engaging in regime change and in preventative military action, US has made the world "highly destabilizing." His prescription? "Impose 'western value'." Along with "moral high ground"/"high moral ground", he repeated the two terms several times, though he never defined what "western value" is. In one instance, perhaps a slip of the tongue, he used the phrase "Christian and European value." During the Q&A period, I did not raise my hand at the beginning. The first 2 or 3 questions were apparently raised by the Center's staff (the seminar was held during lunch hour; two staff members actually brought their lunch to the conference room), since the moderator recognized them by their first name. My hand was not recognized for quite a while -- I got the impression that the moderator was afraid of unknown questioners raising unacceptable issues. Finally, with no one raising one's hand, I was recognized (it was the next-to-last question, as it turned out). I thought I would start with "Perhaps you might want to apologize for ransaking the Summer Palace during the Opium War as well," but restrained myself -- I was a guest just as the MP was; a sharp beginning would be counterproductive. I merely said: "You talked about 'western value' repeatedly; you also talked about 'Christian and European value' as well as the loss of 'moral high ground.' Is it time that you broaden your 'western value' by embracing Asian value as well? Instead of President Bush's 'you are either with us or against us,' why not follow the Chinese view of 'live and let live'"? He jotted down a few words and then made a perfunctory response. His final sentence deserves writing down: "I am not going to invade China." Well, our MP still dwelled upon the glorious 19th century -- but these days are gone forever. I almost felt retorting with "And you will be crushed." Before I could open my mouth, the last questioner began his query. So I left it stand unchallenged.

Historians' ranking of US Presidents (#275, Topic P)

Coming to USA as a graduate student, I lacked a good exposure to US history, invariably a required course in the undergraduate curriculum. Thus, it is always a treat when I can read authoritative versions in summary form. In today's Washington Post, its editors invited 5 historians to answer a question: What Will History Say [About George W Bush]? One, a history professor at Columbia, answers it with: He's The Worst Ever. (He ranks Lincoln, Washington, and Roosevelt at the top; Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Richard Nixon as "occupy[ing] the bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them." Another one, a professor at Rutgers, is kinder, with "At Least He's Not Nixon." A third one, a professor at Tulane, made a similar point with "Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon ahd Harding at the bottom of the presidential sweepstakes. Oddly, the president whom Bush most reminds me of is Herbert Hoover, whose name is synonumous with failure to respond to the Great Depression... He has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president." A fourth one, a fellow at a think tank, says "He's Only Fifth Worst" -- the worst, Buchanan, whose inaction toward 7 southern states' secession led to the Civil War; next-to-worst, Johnson, who "didn't like blacks" and whose "policies led to his impeachment;" third worst, Nixon, "a criminal in the White House ... the only president to run a criminal gang out of the Oval Office engaging in spying and burglary;" fourth worst, James Madison, for the War of 1812, when "The United States was a minor neutral nation that was frequently harassed by both of the warring empires, Britain and France," for siding "with the more dangerous power [France] against the less dangerous [Britain]" despite Madison's superb reasoning: a grand design "to conquer Spanish Florida and seize British Canada." Bush, ranked fifth worst, mainly because he "has inadvertently destroyed only Baghdad, not Washington ["the British ... torched Washington, D.C., while Madison and first lady Dolley fled to Virginia"], though "he will be remembered for the Iraqi conflict for gnerations." A valuable US history lesson for me.

"Bearing the Burden" (#274, Topic H)

Reading Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (2002) at the Library of Congress today, I could not help being agitated by many of its comments. On the Opium War, which was the main purpose of my reading it, the author, a professor at Oxford, covers it in only one paragraph (in a 400+ page book). A key sentence and half is the following: "The Opium Wars of 1841 and 1856 were, of course, about much more than opium. The Illustrated London News portrayed the 1841 war as a crusade to introduce the benefits of free trade ..." (pp 166-7) Of course, free trade -- particularly free trade in opium -- must be defended at all cost. Too bad these good old days are gone forever -- as the author reluctantly acknowledges in the book's title and frankly admits in the concluding chapter. "The British Empire is long dead; ... The great creditor became a debtor. ... British imperial expansion changed their [sic] direction in the 1950s [from emigration to immigration]. As for the missionary impulse that had sent thousands of young men and women around the world preaching Christianity and the gospel of cleanliness, that too dwindled, along with public attendance at church" (p 358). What are lessons to be learned? One, "empire as a form of international government can work." (p 362) Two, "the United States has -- whether it admits it or not -- taken up some kind of global burden just as Kipling urged ... in the name of liberty, even when its own self-interest is manifestly uppermost." (p 369-70) The burden talked about by Rudyard Kipling (whom the author praised as "the Empire's greatest poet," is the so-called white man's burden. I have a standing objection to the word white, since white is a color (#?); change the first two words to caucasian. Aside from that, I would add an a, so that the phrase now reads: white man's a burden. As a group, caucasians waste too much of the world's resources; they are by far the world's greatest debtors -- they do not (and cannot) bear the world's burden; they are the world's burden.