China's antisatellite-missle test - II (#317, Topic F)

My good friend, Anonymous, who has kept me honest in my postings, has done it again (see comment to #313); I thank him. In it, he said that China signed an international understanding, back in 1985, concerning moves to prevent the militarization of space. I confess that I know nothing about it. So, after this comment, I paid particular attention to subsequent developments on this topic. On 1/25, Washington Post had a long op-ed piece, by the director of Asia studies at the influential Council on Foreign Relations. After a long list of complaints against China, she declared: "If we want China to be a responsible world power on issues such as energy security, climate changes, human rights and even space-based weapons, we need to step up and lead. We can and should condemn China for not respecting the international rules governing these issues or negatively affecting other countries' well-being, but we must be prepared to play by the same rules. While other powers may have granted American exceptionalism in the past, China is not inclined to do so. Indeed, China is more likely to seek its own 'exceptional' status." Reading between lines, it is clear that USA has not set a good example. A case in point might be the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. China, as a developing country, is exempt from signing it, while USA, as the leading industrial power, is expected to sign it but didn't. So, this director wants China to respect "international rules" even when they do not apply to her, while excuses USA for not respecting same on the ground of "exceptionalism." What a sweet deal. The 1/27 issue of Economist, received yesterday, has a 2+ column coverage of this ASM story; a key paragraph, to me, is the following: "George Bush has refused to talk to China about a proposal it [China] raised in 2002, with Russia's backing, for a treaty outlawing the 'weaponisation' of space. Mr Bush authorised a new national space policy in August last year that irked the Chinese. It defended America's right to use space for defense and intelligence gathering purposes as well as to stop 'adversaries' from using space in ways that threaten American 'national interests.'" So, this must be the "American exceptionalism" the CFR director was talking about. But, for our purpose, it seems that international laws concerning ASM tests are yet to be written. In any case, to my way of thinking, ASM in the 21st century is analogous to anti-aircraft artellery in the 20th and to anti-warship gunnery in the 19th. It was the lack of the last that allowed Britain, with a fleet of 20 obsolete gunboats, to control China's coastlines and subdue the then most dominant country in the world -- the Opium War -- an event China is unlikely to forget for millennia to come.

"Surge" as a gaming strategy (#316, Topic P)

President Bush, in his State of the Union address on 1/23, talked about a "surge" in troop deployment in Iraq, raising it by 21,500, or about 20%. The following day or two, I heard, over CNBC and BBC, two reporters' commentary, suggesting that this strategy is "a gamble." I had the same impression -- ever since the contents of this SOU address were leaked, several days before the actual delivery date. I was equating the president's proposal to a sure-fire gaming strategy I know (on Wall Street, gambling is a taboo word, preferring to use the word gaming instead, so I'll follow suit) -- the strategy applies well to playing roulette. One of roulette's many playing options is to bet on numbers (odd or even) or on color (red or black); the payoff is 1:1. The strategy, which is simplicity itself, calls for betting a single chip the first time. When (or whenever) you win, remove the winning chip(s) and leave only a single chip on the table. When you lose, double your bet. Thus, on the second turn (after losing the first turn), bet two chips. If this turn also results in a loss, double again -- making the bet 4 chips. If the luck is against you, the next bet would be 8 chips, then 16 chips, 32, 64, 128, etc. Any time one of these bets comes in, remove all chips except one. So, given the law of large numbers, you are bound to win once in a while -- though the winning might be a pittance. The loss, on the other hand, could mount quickly -- and exponentially. The strategy fails when one of two conditions, ostensibly remote, becomes applicable: (1) the house has a table limit -- no single bet beyond a pre-set large number -- say, 10,000 chips; or (2) you do not have money to double and redouble and redouble again. (On a doubling basis, on the 9th round, the bet would be 256; 10th, 512; 11th, 1024; 12th, 2048; 13th, 4096; and 14th, 8192). When either of these conditions becomes applicable, you lose, and lose spectacularly. The president's surge proposal, by merely adding 20% of troops, is not a doubling move -- it is hardly substantial (as felt by many in the Congress); the strategy, it seems to me, resembles betting both odd and even, or both red and black. With each turn, you win some and lose an equal amount, while allowing you to make the claim that you have won, which is technically -- though partially -- correct. Another claim you can make is that you are at the time for a long time -- which is a feat in itself. But -- and, in roulette, there is a big BUT. The roulette's turning table has 36 numbered numbers, 1 through 36, half odd and half even; in addition, it has a 0. When the ball lands on that slot, a 3%+ chance, the house wins all.

Christian foster parents? - II (#315, Topic R)

Two of Chinese-language weekly newspapers (published onFridays) feature the Tennessee foster-parenting case (#314) as lead stories in their issues today; one covers it rather extensively, in one page and half. From reading them, I learned that the father of the 8-year-old girl was a professor in China; he came to USA in 1995, to Arizona State U as a graduate student. In 1997, he was awarded a scholarship from U of Tennessee at Memphis, and became a PhD candidate in Economics. A few months after he and his wife agreed the Caucasian couple to be their daughter's foster parents (which took place in February 1999) , he was falsely accused of sexual harassment (in September 1999) -- falsely, because he was later acquitted of all charges, though this verdict came too late to be of any assistance to the father. Almost immediately, he was asked by the university administration to suspend attending school, as a result of which he lost his student visa. Beginning a week or so after that, the Caucasian couple tried every which means to make his and his wife's visiting their daughter difficult. In October, they requested the Caucasian couple to return their daughter to them -- it was denied, on the ground that the wife was again pregnant, and that it was best to defer any action. In the meantime, he received a letter from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, threatening deportation. In January 2000, on their daughter's first birthday anniversary, the couple wanted to take her for an outing and to take some photographs. This request was denied, on the ground that the daughter was ill. This prompted the husband to say: "Enough is enough. Don't give me any further excuses." The Caucasian husband retorted: "Get out right this moment." When the father responded with "I'll never leave," the Caucasian husband dialled 911. In court, the Caucasian couple testified that the police said "Don't come back again, else you will be incarcerated" -- though the police testified, when he was called to the same court, that he merely said: "Don't come back today." In any case, the Chinese couple never visited their daughter from that day onward. In the following months, the Caucasian couple's attorney wrote letters to the husbant's employer (he was a manager in a restaurant) as well as to the INS, requesting the former to terminate his employment and the latter to deport the Chinese couple immediately. He also wrote to faculty members at the University who are of Chinese ethnicity, threatening lawsuit if they continue to lend support to the Chinese couple. One faculty member responded: "Well, we are tenured professors. We are not afraid. If you want to bring suit, do so." Of course, this empty bluff was called; nothing happened. While reading the stories, I kept asking myself: Is this the Christian love we are witnessing?

Christian foster parents? (#314, Topic R)

Yesterday's Washington Post prominently displayed, on page A3, a 4-column story, complete with two photographs, on "Court Rules Against Foster Parents." It seems that, a couple from China were living in Memphis TN, where the husband worked as a restaurant manager. Eight years ago, they had a new-born baby, a daughter. Perhaps short of funds, certainly short of living space, the Chinese couple sought foster parenting when she was 3 weeks old. Another church member, who ran an adoption agency, "vouched for the [Caucasian] couple," fellow members in the same church, "as experienced, loving foster parents." So the baby was left to the Caucasian couple's care. When the Chinese couple asked for their daughter's return when she was 2, "the relations turned ugly." Indeed, they "won a court order barring the [Chinese couple] from any contact with [their daughter]." Why that Caucasian couple could win such a court order is beyond me -- and, for cry out loud, where was the adoption-agency owner when her professionalism was most needed? And where was her Christian spirit of love and care? But, more fascinating events were yet to unfold. "A Memphis judge stripped the [Chinese couple] of their parental rights in February 2004, citing 'parental misconduct' and abandonment, suggesting that [the Chinese couple] had pursued the custody case merely to delay their own deportation." The WP story mentioned that the baby's mother "used to hide inside a neighborhood gas station [after the earlier court ruling barring contact] to catch glimpes of [her daughter] being taken for a walk or out for a ride." So much for "parental misconduct" and "abandonment." When the mother shouted that she wanted her daughter back, the "lower court concluded that her behavior amounted to 'emotional instability' that would be detrimental to [the daughter]." So much for judicial impartiality, at least in a lower court in USA's South. Luckily, the Tennessee Supreme Court thought otherwise -- it found no evidence that the daughter was willfully abandoned. "The justices concluded that the couple misunderstood the possible implications of transferring custody and guardianship to the [Caucasian couple], believing it merely enabled the[m] to get [the daughter] health insurance." The Caucasian couple cited "emotional upheaval" to the daughter as grounds for their keeping her, but the high court rejected that as well -- it "does not constitute the substantial harm required to prevent the parents from regaining custody." Bravo. So much for the pretense of using church to take advantage of immigrants who have neither the language proficiency nor the financial resources to fight the establishment. But, in the final analysis, it is parental love in the Confucian tradition that prevailed, and prevails -- it trumps all.

China's antisatellite-missle test (#313, Topic F)

On Jan 11, China destroyed an aging weather satellite in orbit. A week later, this successful testing of an antisatellite missile was officially acknowledged. This week-long silence apparently irked the so-called "international community." Exactly why this is so completely escapes me. The test, apparently, was conducted over China's airspace; thus, unless there are specific international regulations covering same, it is none of other countries' business. Further, since, by definition, an antisatellite missile is a defensive device, a country testing a defensive device is -- or, at least, should be -- of no concern to other countries. Indeed, if my memory serves me, USA conducted two such tests last year: one over Alaska and the other somewhere over USA's west. I did not recall reading about other countries being irked. If anything, it was the US's Department of Defense that was irked -- the first test (again, assuming my memory serves me) was not a success; the second test was a success, partly because the satellite that was shot down emitted a signal, allowing the antisatellite missile to follow the signal and destroy it. According to today's Wall Street Journal, China briefed USA's Assistant Secretary of State, Christopher Hill, during his visit to Beijing last week, though "U.S. is hoping for more information about the test." It would be interesting to know if the weather satellite used in the Chinese test also emitted a signal. According to WSJ, "analysts outside China have speculated that the test was intended to ... put U.S. on notice that it no longer enjoys unchallenged military domination of space." WSJ continued by saying that "the U.S. military relies heavily on satellites for surveillance, communication and weapons-guidance systems;" one probaly could infer that, in such uses, other countries' airspace has been violated. When the Chinese foreign-ministry's spokesman was asked about "concerns that debris from the destryed satellite could damage other countries' satellites, he said that the issue was too technical for him to address." Perhaps he was too polite. Before answering that question, one must first establish, what right, if any, that other countries' satellites were travelling over China's airspace. The same would hold true, without asking, when other countries' satellites were travelling ove USA's airspace.

Gasohol (#312, Topic B)

President Bush is scheduled to deliver his sixth annual State of the Union address tonight. One of the topics he is likely to cover in his address, widely speculated among commentators over the airwaves all day, appears to be energy policy, including strategic petroleum reserve and alternative energy sources, particularly ethanol. At the beach, one of the games I enjoyed playing is to find gasoline stations posting the lowest prices -- Delaware, with lower gasoline taxes, generally has a 20-cents-per-gallon advantage over Maryland. Last week was no exception. One station, in Rehobeth Beach near a factory-outlet shopping mall, posted premium at $2.219 per gallon. The price was not only 34 cents per gallon cheaper than the gas in our car (I filled the tank in a station near us before going to the beach); it was also five cents per gallon cheaper than other stations in Delaware. (Hey, I am a retiree; every penny counts.) So, I drove in. At the pump, there was a small sticker: 10% GASOHOL. So, the gasoline this station was selling contained 10% of ethanol. I have never added ethanol before. All I read was that gasoline from ethanol was more expensive to process than gasoline from crude oil. (On the basis of BTU content, the former costs between $1.50 and $2.50 per gallon, while the latter costs between $0.50 and $0.60 per gallon.) Here, not only was the price not higher, it was in fact the lowest. (On the way home, I never saw another station posting such a low price.) So, unsure of what I was getting, before pumping any gas, I went in to the station and talked to the manager. She said that many customers stated to her that that was the best gaoline they had ever added. Being a good sport (after all, I was driving my wife's car), I took a chance and filled the tank. My instinctive reaction was that it ran smoother -- perhaps the octane rating is higher than 93 posted -- and quieter. So, my first ethanol experience was a pleasant surprise on at least two fronts -- the low price and the good performance. Ever since that experience, I got into thinking -- why is gaohol so reasonably priced? Is there a government subsidy about which I know nothing? The latter point seems quite plausible. A decade and half ago, while a staff member of the World Bank Group, I had the opportunity to visit a conglomerate in Brazil. One of its companies was involved in ethanol processing -- at a loss. Upon inquiry, I was told that the government provided ample subsidy to assure itself of a good energy source. I am curious how the president plans to cover this topic in tonight's address. Let us wait and see.

Audacity of Hope (#310; Topic P)

The first person, on the Democratic side, who threw his hat into the ring by announcing the formation of an exploratory committee (to assess the candidate's ability to generate campaign contributions) is an African-American, a senator from a midwest state from its state university I earned my PhD. He wrote a book, a bestseller no less -- The Audacity of Hope. I had an occasion to read some of the chapters, particularly the epilogue. In the epilogue, the senator talked about his experiences in attending the Democratic Conventions in the past. In early years, when he was a nobody, he dreamed about attending a convention but the dream was simply a dream -- nothing new here, any nobody -- and I am one -- can only dream about such occasions throughout one's life. In a later convention, when it was held in Chicago, he landed at the O'Hare airport and presented himself at a car-rental counter to pick up a car he had reserved. Interestingly, the clerk denied that he had a car reserved; he had to call the credit-card company. What happened next was not stated in the book; the sentence immediately following talked about something completely unrelated to this unresolved issue of denying him a rental car -- some deletion? poor editing? no idea. In any event, we all knew that he gave a rousing speech at the convention that propelled himself into a hot property, showing his likeliness on covers of news weeklies and encouraging him, as noted above, to be the first to form an exploratory committee. Yes, he has come a long way; yes, his audacity has worked for him; yes, his hope has materialized; yes, we are happy for him. But, I probably would not combine the words audacity and hope in the same phrase -- at least not for me, and probably not for millions others. For more than a dozen years in the past, when I registered as a Democrat, I voted, in one presidential primary in Maryland, for Jesse Jackson, when he was a candidate. After moving to the retirement community 20 months ago, I decided to revert to my earlier designation -- as an unaffiliated/independent. Now, of course, I do not have to worry how I should cast my vote during the primary (independents are not permitted, at least in Maryland, to cast votes in primaries). Another candidate, Hillary Clinton, is as much a member of a minority as this African-American is.

US - A Service Economy? (#308, Topic B)

Our oceanfront condo needs new carpet. Though carpet in our unit has been replaced many times in the 30+ years of our owning it, we never know/knew the exact footage of areas requiring carpeting -- somehow, it is considered trade secret to which we are not privy. This time is no different. But, with our regular carpet installer having retired, we had to shop around. Clearly, before anything can be done, our unit needs to be measured. I never realize that it is so difficult to arrange for a service such as this. The standard elapsed time is at least three days, which is more time than we have planned to stay in our unit. During our second visit, we were advised of a cancellation, so we lucked in. Our measurer came very much on time, at 8:30. I thought we were his first assignment for the day. Not so; we were his third. He acted very professional, though he used only a measuring tape and a clipboard. The clipboard, as it turned out, is a lap-top without a keyboard -- he showed it to me, with a sketch showing the exact shape and dimension of one of the bedrooms he measured. I asked him whether he would be the installer as well. No. He is a professional measurer -- he does this between 20 and 25 times a day. He is not an employee of the store with which we contracted, but an independent contractor. I do not know how much he is paid, but I know that the store charges us $35 for this service. Assuming he gets $25, his daily income is between $500 and $625, or between $12,000 and $15,000 a month. Not a bad profession to be in. Our condo is also wired for DSL service -- but, being on the 12th floor of a high-rise, the reception has been poor. On this trip, I decided to call Verizon, our local telephone service provider, to have our unit separately wired. The standard installation charge is $199, not unreasonable, since I spent more than that when a consultant did the wiring of our unit in the retirement community. What surprised me was the long wait. I called on Monday, January 15, but the first opening for a Verizon technician to visit us to do the wiring is February 23, a solid 6 weeks away! If this is not bad enough, the following day, I received a call from Verizon to the effect that my appointment had to be moved forward another week -- to March 2. Since I am not handy, I really had no choice. Tom Friedman, in his The World is Flat, talks about job security in the service industry. These two instances exemplify this point vividly.

Gender equality in US Politics (#304, Topic P)

Today is said to be a big day in US politics. It is the first day of the 104th congress, but, more importantly, it is the first day when Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from CA and formerly the House Minority Leader, assumes the role of Speaker of the House -- the first time when a woman assumes this role in USA's 200+ years of history. For a country that incessantly talks about other countries' deficiencies in gender equality, it is indeed good to see that this, finally, is being practiced in USA. So, as an observer of democracy, let us first say: It is about time. Let us also ask a question: Why does it take so long? The media reports that the new Speaker's and her party's first order of business is to introduce a package of rule changes that, according to today's Washington Post, "ban gifts and trips from lobbyists, restrict privately funded junkets and begin to sever the cozy relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers that scandalized the last Congress." Other rule changes, according to WP, are to "combat many of the strong-arm tactics that Republicans used to leave House Democrats virtually irrelevant when the GOP was in control." So, this is the way democracy is -- or, at least, was -- practiced in USA. WP also cites other interesting practices I never knew before: (1) votes were "held open indefinitely while leaders twist arms to win the outcome they want," and (2) lawmakers were not "notified before final legislative negotiations between the House and Senate." The proposed rule changes would require "those negotiations ... be held in public, and once they were complete, changes could not be slipped into legislative agreements in the dead of the night." Arm twisting. Secret negotiations. Dead-of-the-night changes. So, this is democracy in action in USA. Shortly after Pelosi knew she would be the new Speaker, in early November 2006, she smartly remarked: It takes a woman to clean the House. Again, let us say, Indeed, it is about time.

Pack rat (#303, Topic D)

Among 3 pages of comics carried by Washington Post every day, I tend to identify with Dagwood in Blondie (Dean Young is the cartoonist) -- a lazy fellow who takes naps whenever he can (ditto with me), avoids doing house work by giving all sorts of excuses (ditto), makes last-minute dashes just to avoid being late (ditto), and eats whenever he is not taking naps and longs for food whenever he is not at the dining table (ditto and ditto). Yesterday's 3 panels capture another trait I share with Dagwood: a pack rat. In the first panel, Dagwood asks Blondie, his wife, "Have you seen my old bowling ball?" (Luckily, I do not bowl; I do have, however, old tennis balls.) Blondie, perhaps taking advantage of this being just the second day of a new year, offers a cheerful suggestion: "Are you finally going to throw that thing away this year?" Blondie is usually depicted as an understanding and supportive wife -- here, I think she is not her usual self -- referring to one of his prized possessions as that thing is simply too much. Understandably, Dagwood does not take it well. Thus, in panel 2, he says: "Of course not! I just want to know where it is." Well said; simply perfect. Undisturbed, Blondie's come back is: "Well, you don't use it, and you aren't going to throw it away, so it shouldn't matter where it is." The logic behind this statement is, it must be admitted, unassailable. Still, Dagwood argues, in panel 3, "What kind of twisted logic is that?!" Indeed, unassailable is one thing, unacceptable is another.

Presidential pardon (#302, Topic P)

Gerald R. Ford, the 38th president, who died last Tuesday evening in Palm Desert CA (#294), had his body flown in to Washington DC for public viewing the last few days and a national funeral today, beginning with a motorcade at 9:30 am, a memorial service at the Washington National Cathedral at 10:30 (where President George Bush, former president George H. W. Bush, and others eulogized), before flying the body out for burial at the Ford presidential museum in Grand Rapids MI. Federal offices, post offices, and the stock markets were all closed in Ford's honor. Debated over the air the last few days were Ford's achievements, his sincerity, serenity, decency. A major topic receiving a lot of pundits' time seems to be Ford's pardoning his immediate predecessor, Richard M. Nixon; most felt that his so doing was the main reason for Ford's inability to be elected on his own volition in 1976. As a layman but an interested observer of democracy, it seems to me that the administrative pardon is a mockery to democracy. It imparts two messages: (1) that the judicial process is deficient, irrelevant, and/or meaningless, and/or (2) that the power of the executive branch is above that of the judiciary. In Nixon's case, he was never referred to the judiciary -- the pardon, in effect, is pre-emptive. I learned that, to be granted a pardon, the pardonee must admit his/her wrong-doing. In Nixon's case, his chief of staff, General Al Haig, got wind that Nixon would be pardoned regardless, advised his boss not to admit any wrong-doing -- which proved to be so. I vaguely recall that, during Nixon's administration, he pardoned a soldier who committed atrocity in Vietnam -- the case was too well-known, so he had a "trial" to calm the international outcry; the soldier was judged to be guilty, but, after a short period of perfunctory incarceration, he was pardoned -- quietly, to escape the unavoidable international attention. There is now a case similar to that one being tried before a US military court: an American soldier violated a 14-year-old girl in Iraq in her house; with more than a dozen eye-witnesses to this action, he proceeded to keep them all. How would this military court rule? If the soldier is judged to have committed wrong-doing, would the president pardon him? We'll see.

Year 2006 in review (#301, Topic D)

Happy New Year. As usual, I got up at 6:30, and was ready to take my morning walk. But, it was raining. On rainy days, I spend my time by walking backward at the lower-level indoor garage. According to our late Tai Chi teacher, Master Tang, walking backward, which one seldom does, is very helpful to one's lower-back pain -- even better than Tai Chi, which has a short sequence featuring walking bakward. Due to car accidents, I had lower-back pain. Through Tai Chi, in time, the pain became unnoticeable, except when I had to stand still for 15 minutes or longer (as when washing dishes). Thus, this morning, I again walked backward. This being the New Year's Day, this backward walking also gave me a chance to review the year 2006. During the entire year, I was never sick -- nor was my wife. I attributed this to our having a regular routine (up at 6:30 am, nap in the early afternoon, and to bed at 11 pm), modest exercise (for me, daily walk and weekly Tai Chi; for my wife, daily swimming and weekly Tai Chi), good diet (oatmeal and flexseed in the morning; salad and turkey burger, sometime with soup, for lunch; simple Chinese dinner; a glass of soy milk at 9:30 pm), regular physician and dental appointments, flu shots, no cigarettes nor hard liquor. I keep myself mentally alert by reading 3 or 4 dailies (in print: Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Investor Business Daily; on-line, New York Times), several news weeklies (Economist, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report), and several specialized journals. Still, I cannot help feeling that I am not too far away from being inflicted with first-stage dementia. On the last point, I mentioned it to a retired physician, who was sitting next to me at luncheon yesterday (#296); she pooh-poohed the idea, saying that a person who deals with figures all one's time cannot be so inflicted. But I beg to differ. One of my acquaintances, a brother of my college classmates, was a Certified Public Accountant and, when I first met him in Beijing, was the resident representative in China for a Big Five CPA firm. But he later contracted dementia, so much so that he was unable to do his own income tax. I am not far away from that. Recently, I have paid special attention to brain and brain cancer, as several of my friends died with this disease. The current issue of Economist (12/23/06, a holiday double issue) has a special report on brain; I only glanced at it, and need to read it more carefully. In any case, I hope this no-illness streak continues throughout this year.
PS - To the end of 2006, I have blogged for slightly over a year (I began in late December 2005), with 295+ entries, but not quite 300. I have decided to use the last few numbers before 300 for a comprehensive index covering these entries, and begin 2007 with #301.