J^2

There's Whistleblowing, then there's Treason

2010-08-03T23:21:00.000-07:00

This is treason.

If the allegations are true against PfC Bradley Manning (The Guardian), then he should be punished appropriately. He is allegedly the one behind the leak of about 90,000 classified U.S. government documents of raw intelligence and military reports regarding the war in Afghanistan to Wikileaks, a site that invites anonymous submissions of a secret nature.

And determining the level of appropriate damnation can be started with this article, the reason why I felt impelled to write about this issue (Newsweek).

70 letters sent from the Taliban to suspected collaborators with the U.S. in one district alone. At least one tribal elder already dead. This is a complete breakdown in the protection of our sources at a critical point in the war.

Because in and of itself, a site like Wikileaks, when simply working as an information provider with the regular news media (NY Times), has its uses. Proper dissemination of knowledge is important for democracy; I can agree with the site creator, Julian Assange, on this. Accountability is key to good government and sometimes, agents such as Wikileaks are necessary in balancing out the more nefarious actions of the government. But this is not whistleblowing; the least they can do is publish these documents after the war when the Taliban (hopefully) is no longer a threat to the lives of everyday Afghans. This is the direct endangerment of people who have been willing to help us at the risk of their lives.

And what b.s. is this from Mr. Assange: "Gates is overseeing the killing of thousands of children and adults." According to the Wikileaks report itself (Dailytech), there have been 195 deaths of innocent civilians in Afghanistan.

195. That's maybe an hour's work in Vietnam. Maybe a split second of a fraction of a firebomb in World War II. Regardless of whether or not that number is an underestimation, the fact is that the Taliban, local insurgents, and the proliferation of IEDs have killed far, far more innocents than American troops have in Afghanistan. Taking into account Iraq may greatly change the numbers, but certainly not the proportions. Perhaps people are simply forgetting the reality of what war really is. War is a horrific business. Whether or not these wars were appropriate to begin with is a non-starter. We're there, been there for a while, things need to be finished properly.

And this guy and these leaks are not helping. My emphasis is still on the Newsweek article, where our allies are in dire jeopardy because some punk in the army decided it was ok to leak sensitive material regarding a current conflict. That is treason. Disloyalty to one's nation while in military uniform and acting to impair the fighting ability of one's country and its allies.

Does the Pentagon still have a old noose lying around?

Lin in the NBA

2010-07-21T21:11:00.000-07:00

Well, looks like Jeremy Lin will be playing in the NBA after all.

I admit, I got greedy after hearing so many teams were after him, and thus, wanted him to go to the Lakers. But the situation in Golden State is good. He'll get a lot more opportunity to get on the court behind the likes of Stephen Curry and Monta Ellis. Yes, it's at the cost of winning especially compared to signing with the defending champs, but the style will better suit Lin as he seeks to showcase his talent as his contract is only guaranteed for one year.

A good year will then lead to his second year being picked up by the team and hopefully more play time and an extended contract in the future, either with the Warriors or elsewhere.

As a fellow Asian American, this is a fantastic development. The bottom line is neatly summed up in this Sporting News article, Jeremy Lin to the Warriors is not just "a mere signing."

The only issue now is that if Lin had signed with the Lakers, I would have snapped up his rookie jersey in a heartbeat. My team loyalty might have to live with a foreign jersey in my closet...

Jeremy Lin vs. John Wall

2010-07-16T17:54:00.000-07:00

Update: Do it. Sign with the Lakers.

My man-crush plays against the #1 draft pick and holds his own.

Via Truehoop (ESPN's blog): "Zach Harper of Hardwood Paroxysm on the John Wall-Jeremy Lin fourth quarter battle: "Funny thing happened on the way to the Bellagio … Jeremy Lin and John Wall faced off in the fourth quarter of the Wizards-Mavericks game in Vegas and pretty much played each other to a standstill. That’s right. An undrafted Harvard, SMAHRT kid, point guard went toe-to-toe with the number-one pick in the NBA draft and sort-of held his own. The final box score will show John Wall with an impressive 21 points (let’s just forget about the 4/19 shooting), 10 assists and seven rebounds. But it won’t show that the majority of the Lin’s 11 fourth quarter points were the result of him getting the better of the 'best player in the draft' for times than Wall will care to remember. Lin and Wall played the equivalent of an iso chess match on the hardwood game board. The kid from the Ivy League refused to back down from the YouTube sensation and while Wall walked away with the highlight reel, Lin walked away as the fan favorite."

But Lin's shot could use some improvement, from SLAM Online: "Though he has compiled pretty solid percentages this season (35% 3FG, 52% FG), his mechanics are less than ideal. His release point is almost behind his head, requiring him to cock the ball back and slowing the whole process down a bit. In general, the more motion there is in a shot, the more room there is for something to go wrong, leading to inconsistency. That said, some shooters can get past these kinds of technical errors through lots of work and repetition"

Still, his aggressiveness on drives into the paint and quick first step are worthy of notice. Particularly for the Mavericks, on the bench behind Jason Kidd and Jason Terry would be great experience, even if it was limited to simply practicing with them. And Lin can essentially do everything JJ Barea can do at a reduced cost (not that Mark Cuban likely cares, rolling around in his billions of $$$).

And it bears repeating. If Jeremy Lin were African-American instead of Asian-American, he would be guaranteed a spot on some roster in this league. Let's hope the Mavs, or someone else, keep him around.

-----------

In other NBA-related news, the Heat have formed a super trio. Yahoo's Adrian Wojnarowski is one of my favorite writers/reporters on the NBA. He sums it up quite well:
- Lebron's No Ring Circus
- Lebron's Free Agency Saga

However, I am impressed with Wade and Riley's operation. With Udonis Haslem and Mike Miller on board, this team will do some damage. But a ring next year? Not probable. The Heat still have no answer to a Bynum-Gasol-Odom led frontline. Kobe, Artest, Fisher/Blake matchup well with Wade, Lebron, whatever-scrub-PG.

Lakers in 2011.

The Brakes Have No Effect!

2010-07-13T14:41:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

75 studied fatal incidents involving Toyota's that didn't brake when they were supposed to.

74 shown to be because the driver was actually pushing on the accelerator and not the brake.

100+ lawsuits against Toyota blaming electronic throttle issues. Personal responsibility for not knowing which pedal makes the car stop or mythical explanations that allow for frivolous lawsuits designed to bring in buckets of $$$?

2 politicians mentioned in the article, one notably from Michigan, taking advantage of Toyota's status as a Japanese company to level accusations in this poor economy. Slow to react? Um, General Motors needed billions of taxpayer dollars because it couldn't react to the entire global auto market. Also note that Toyota has assembly plants and employs Americans in AL, TX, WV, IN, KY, and MS. Who elects these people?

Oh right, the same 3000 people who somehow passed driving tests and can't tell the difference between the pedal on the left and the pedal on the right.

That's why voting is so important. At the very least, you cancel out one of them.

Jay Chen on the Daily Show

2010-06-18T18:29:00.001-07:00

My cousin was on the Daily Show a couple weeks ago.

Check it out.

And read his blog updates on the situation in Hacienda Heights, where my family used to live in the early 90s

Checking the "Other Asian" box

2010-03-05T15:19:00.001-08:00

Do people realize that there's a census going on this year?

An exciting realization came to me this week when multiple individuals emailed/facebooked/messaged me, all separately and unrelated persons, with the video on this website. I am now of an age where my friends and I who are Taiwanese can be plugged into the greater movement for Taiwanese recognition.

And it starts by making sure the U.S. government knows we exist as a substantial community in this country.

I remember in 2000, my parents and relatives were heavily involved in getting this same message out. But the final tally fell far, far short of the 250,000 boxes with "Taiwanese" written in the community was aiming for. 145,000 is fairly meager and for most people, the fact that it is dwarfed by the 2,735,000 Chinese in this country as of the year 2000 means our cause is of little concern.

But let's consider the facts that as a group, from the 2000 census data, Taiwanese individuals and households are at a higher level of economic status than the average American and even the average Chinese. This is easily explained by the selection of immigrants that could have left Taiwan versus the influx of immigrants from the mainland. Different starting statuses leads to different statuses here in the States, and this could lead to a whole another post on its own if not a full length book.

The point is, however, that as a group, our community is of some importance for the U.S. This (old) Businessweek article illustrates the impact of Taiwan in an international sense, but even in the U.S. we are well represented for our population size.

Elaine Chao was the first Asian American woman appointed to a Cabinet position, under the second Bush administration.

Jeremy Lin is challenging to become the first drafted Asian-American in NBA history this summer.

California politics is a battleground for many Taiwanese-Americans; John Chiang, the state controller; Ted Lieu, running for state Attorney General; Jay Chen, school board member and rising political star (and my cousin).

And in a nod to the greater, and more significant, movement of Asian-American politics, I will note and congratulate Judy Chu on becoming the first Chinese-American Congressman last year after the seat was vacated by the appointment of Hilda Solis to Secretary of Labor. Let's not forget that in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only ban in our nation's history on immigration due to ethnicity/nationality.

Formosa Betrayed, a movie just released in limited cities last weekend, is a tweaked, fictionalized account of true events regarding Taiwanese independence and its relation to the U.S., produced and co-written by Will Tiao, a Taiwanese-American.

Sites like TaiwaneseAmerican.org highlight many more prominent and growing in prominence individuals.

Getting our own little box on the Census form may not seem like much, but it's the next step. So for those of us who "Ai Daiwan" and support the proliferation of Taiwanese culture, such as boba/bubble tea, let's check that "Other Asian" and write in what we really are.

Taiwanese.

Man Crush

2010-01-04T11:37:00.000-08:00

Defined as having an attraction toward another man, not in a sexual manner, but in an idolizing fashion. Generally from a heterosexual point of view.

Well. My man crush is Jeremy Lin.

ESPN article (best article, the one that started the national attention)

TIME magazine

Slam Online (pre-season interview)

Dime Magazine (also before this more recognized season)

I remember watching this guy back in high school win the state championship when randomly ESPN surfing and going cool, this guy is Asian-American and is also named Jeremy. Didn't think about him again till this past semester when he's been rocking the Ivy League basketball scene, beating up on the likes of Boston College (for the second straight season) and almost upsetting UConn.

The articles do a good job illustrating what this guy is capable of, so I won't go into what a solid player Jeremy Lin is. I would post a video of his game against UConn but the announcer called him Vietnamese and was generally a basketball ignorant/idiot. But here's a short clip on one of his dunks, shows good burst and athleticism.

Taiwanese American. Christian. Californian. He's like me, except 6'3" 200 lbs and with the ability to play in the NBA. Also his parents have similar heights as mine...which begs the question of what did my parents do wrong?

And what is wrong with the basketball system when a guy who averaged 15.1 points, 7.1 assists, 6.2 rebounds and 5 steals a game as a senior in high school leading his team to a state championship and is named to 1st team all-state and Division II state player of the year gets 0 Division I scholarship offers?

Now he leads Harvard in nearly every counting statistic and I believe that if his last name and skin color were different, Jeremy Lin would be a lock to be a second round draft pick in the NBA draft this year, particularly in a year with weak point guard prospects. Even now, I'm hoping for a California team to pick him up for marketing purposes, with the number of Asians who love basketball in our state, tickets will sell out despite the economy.

Staples Center take note, I will spend the obscene amount you charge for your tickets if the Lakers or even the Clippers use a pick on Mr. Lin. And considering the kind of point guard Phil Jackson likes, big, fundamentally sound, solid defensively, and can shoot the 3, my eyes will be on Mitch Kupchak, the Lakers general manager, come summer time.

Good luck in tonight's game against Santa Clara in California. I would make the 8 hour drive up north but the game's been sold out for a while.

Quick Thoughts on the New Moon

2009-12-16T23:52:00.000-08:00

A week before Thanksgiving, in a twist of circumstance, I found myself in an AMC theater full of girls and a few other guys who had been pulled along.

To see Twilight: New Moon

…

Okay, now that you have stopped judging me, hear me out.

How I got there is not particularly important, just that once I was there, I figured I would make the best of it and see what the hype was all about, putting those anthropology skills to the test (clearly, biochemistry was not going to apply to this film) and try and figure out why people enjoy this series so much. My previous knowledge of Twilight involved my sister giving me the basic gist: plain girl fantasy, vampire, "love," cheesy and horrific writing. She told me to never touch the books and if I ever saw any of the movies, she would lose all respect for me. But being siblings, what's a little lost respect here and there? That being said, my thoughts here are primarily based on this second film.

Here are a few things I learned/observed:

1) No girl who legitimately enjoys the Twilight series can ever call a guy shallow.

It can be irritating when girls make the comment that guys are shallow as if women never care about the physical aspects of dudes. This movie proved what most of us guys already knew; girls are just as shallow as our half of humanity. There can be no other reason that the camera in New Moon was constantly panning over the bare, ripped abdominal structures of the werewolf clan members. Or that the lead male figures were so shallow as to only have one facial expression through the entire movie. Two if you count a werewolf's snarl.

There was one point where Bella, in her infinitely charged emotional state that somehow manages to charm more than one guy at a time, attracts the attention of a normal high school boy. But of course, he is not good looking, not an exotic non-human, and not even man enough to enjoy a good action film (it is implied that he pukes from the amount of violence onscreen). Therefore, he is rejected. Bella didn't even give him a chance; maybe he had that deeper sensitive side that girls like to say they think about all the time. Or maybe, the pale, bored visage of Edward and the rash, muscular vigor of Jacob are the only things good enough for Bella.

And while I had been told that Twilight vampires sparkle in sunlight instead of smoking and shrivelling, what I saw on screen was like something out of my little sister's Hyperstudio/Paint project. There's glitter, then there's CG glitter. And then there's Twilight-burn-the-retinas glitter. Apparently, that's attractive.

2) Twilight encourages the notion that girls need guys.

While I'm not some feminist, I do believe that women are given short shrift in many cultures and the empowerment of women is crucial in many areas of society: education, public health, etc. But how can so many women enjoy a movie where the main character angsts for 90% of the film because her boy toy is no longer within constant cuddle distance? And if Bella was truly in love with the vampire, why would she seek comfort in the company of a single guy who is clearly interested in her? Not to mention that she drives her father crazy with her screaming nightmares (I thought most people had nightmares about vampires visiting them, not leaving to go far far away). There is so much self-centeredness around Bella in this movie that I question the development of preteen girls who end up watching Twilight.

The entire movie is one long roller coaster of emotional ups and downs. Over a life defined by the need for the constant presence of a really doting boyfriend. And when girls started screaming in the theater when Edward asked Bella to marry him at the end of the film, setting up the third money making machine, I felt sorry for all the women out there trying to break those glass ceilings.

3) Twilight is the fantasy escape for Stephanie Meyer and millions of women.

Big surprise.

The key here is that I'm told in the book, Bella is described as utterly plain without any real skills or talents to speak of. So maybe Edward and the werewolf are not being shallow and were in fact, seeing Bella's inner beauty. Except inside Bella, all there is seems to be angst and a really intense desire to have a guy catering to her every whim.

It is fair for any person to want to feel safe and secure in their environment. There is an element of this need for protection as someone is apparently trying to kill Bella (I think the first movie explained this because I was completely lost). But a loving father, who actually has a modicum of depth as a character and is a cop with many cop friends, isn't good enough. Neither are friends, the community, or the normal boy. It's got to be the exotic vampire who can read anyone's minds except Bella's or the werewolf who is an incredible physical specimen. And who both carry an intense desire to ravage this plain, small town girl.

What a lucky gal. Being attractive doesn't require personality, just strange powers that no one understands. That's called a Mary Sue in literary terms and it's incredibly trashy.

4) It's just a terrible movie.

The flatness of the characters was astounding; there was almost no development of the main characters and at the conclusion, Bella gets what she wants without doing anything besides simply existing. Just a note, in the real world, guys like some measure of independence and proactivity from the ladies and definitely no screaming nightmares. The story was poorly laid out although maybe it makes more sense in the books (not that I really believe that), and the dialogue was full of dumb, cliché lines requisite of most sappy romance plotlines.

But there's nothing wrong with overused themes and phrases in movies. Sandra Bullock was recently nominated for a Golden Globe, and possibly an Oscar in the future, for her performance in The Blindside, a great drama that involved football (not the other way around). It also had a lot of cliché moments and cheesy lines. But it proved that when done well and integrated into real characters and a solid story worth thinking about, these things work to enhance movies. And on a similar note, Love Actually is actually one of my favorite movies and it was chock full of cheese.

In the end, indulging in fantasies isn't a bad thing. Old Westerns depicting gun toting badasses, epics

with great heroes, chick flicks showing cool guys and beautiful women. That's partly the purpose of entertainment. But Twilight and the messages it sends just get it wrong in so many ways.

There are movies out there that are so bad as to be comical. Twilight was so bad as to make me revert to the mental state of doing school work to figure out why people lined up in droves to see this film. And while I can now see why girls flocked to see it, that doesn't mean I truly understand the appeal of 2.5 hours of angst.

Go see The Blindside even if you don't understand a thing about football; those trailers are a little misleading about the point of the movie. That's a truly fantastic film and it washes out the taste of this poor excuse for entertainment.

----------

Note: I am a big fan of the use of hyperbole. It's up to you to decide whether or not I used any of it in this post.

What's YOUR deal?

2009-11-30T13:13:00.000-08:00

That's what Pete Carroll asked Jim Harbaugh after Stanford trashed USC 55-24 and went for the two point conversion at 48-21. In the fourth quarter. "What's your deal?" Twice.

Clearly he was pissed and it was a reasonable response to a highly unsportsmanlike act. But it's not like USC's culture preaches good sportsmanship either.

As a disclaimer, I grew up a UCLA fan and would love to see the Trojans fall after a decade of dominance. But I do respect what Carroll has done these last eight, nine years with the endless consecutive top 5 finishes, Pac-10 championships and utter domination of out of conference competition. Except Vince Young (not Texas but Vince Young) in the 2005 national championship game.

But two weeks after Carroll got upset that all-mighty Stanford was running up the score on his roster full of the best recruits in the nation, this is how it went down.

55 seconds left, 21-7. Trojan ball at the UCLA 47. Barkley takes a knee.

And here's the Trojan's sore spot. Rick Neuheisal takes a timeout. The guy has three left, playing at USC; it's most arguably a symbolic gesture to his players to simply not give up. Even when it is literally hopeless, motivation and setting examples are what good coaches do. Assuming all three timeouts are taken plus the knees, USC would have had to punt. With maybe 2 seconds left.

2.

Who really thinks that UCLA, who only scored 7 points all game can get touchdowns in such an impossible scenario. But fine, in such a situation, the proper play would be to run the ball. Get a first down on the ground and the game is officially over. And without the first down, it's still the Bruins turn to drive 80+ yards, score, recover an onside kick, and score again. In less than 10 seconds (I would link to another LA Times article here, but the reporting by Bill Plashcke has never been so biased. So if that 2 seconds figure is wrong, whatever. You get the idea).

Carroll gets a call from his offensive coordinator sitting in the booth.

52 seconds left: play action pass for a 48 yard touchdown. A pass. There are Trojan fans out there saying that anything can happen and that Carroll should've gone for the kill. To them, I say, watch more football, maybe outside of just being a bandwagon fan, and come back when you're educated.

A pass runs the most risk of turnover. Sack and fumble in the pocket. Interception. Which had already happened to USC. All fairly unlikely but a turnover would give UCLA the ball with 50 seconds and two timeouts. Winning possibility for the Bruins would then increase from 0% to 0.2% relative to USC taking knees. So passing the ball in that situation would have increased the chance of "anything can happen."

But Carroll has already established that running up the score for him is okay. And he's not even the biggest offender when the rest of the national powers run up 50, 60, even 70+ points on opponents not even on the same level of football *cough* Division 1-AA *cough*(at least USC and UCLA are two of three teams to have never stooped to the level of scheduling such "competition"). A discussion for another time.

The biggest affront to all sports watchers is how he then proceeds to jump up and down on the sidelines with his team, pointing at his quarterback like he just won the Rose Bowl and Super Bowl at the same time, and rubbing it in the faces of the opposing sideline. This incites a near brawl as the insulted UCLA players walk onto the field. Some of the Bruin seniors actually had the composure to shake hands at the end of the game. Most understandably wanted to leave the hostile and insulting territory as quickly as possible.

And this is what Carroll said after the game about his move, “You’re either competing or you’re not. We’ve been saying it for years. We’ve been living it for years. If you really believe in competing, if you really do, you’ll understand it.”

Like how he understood Stanford running it up?

Pete Carroll just said a good majority of sports fans don't understand competition. ESPN, Sports Illustrated, etc. Those writers and paid analysts don't know better? What kind of competition does Carroll have in mind? Classless and arrogant?

Edit: at least, one LA Times reporter got it right.
And so did the Orange County Register

The Magic of Music

2009-07-27T21:19:00.000-07:00

So I have this theory that each musical key has a distinct sound or mood, if you will. Granted, there are several things that affect how a song or piece of music sounds to our ear. This includes rhythm, tempo (speed), instrumentation, and timbre, or “sound quality” – which basically describes how a violin sounds different than a piano (even if the same thing is played on each).

In my experience, the key can make a difference too. The best analogy I can make is that it’s kind of like color. Something that’s red is always red, and there are certain associations that go along with it – maybe heat, love, and anger, to name a few. Why is that, exactly? I have no idea; and since I’m not a psychologist, I won’t even try to answer that. Anyway, I think music might be similar. But the weird thing is, most people don’t have key memory (a.k.a. perfect pitch) – so they can’t actively identify individual keys on demand. Imagine looking at the color blue, being told it was blue, and then not being able to tell what color the sky is. (Actually, I wonder if that’s what it’s like to be colorblind.)

In any case, I want to see if people still can tell the difference between keys – even if they don’t consciously know it. I’ve taken it upon myself to name all 24 keys common to Western music, distinguishing between fast and slow speeds. I’ll post the full chart at some later date. But first, I need your help. Since I am a scientist, I want to try an experiment. Basically, I want to figure out if you agree with the names I used. Don’t worry, it doesn’t matter if you have perfect pitch or not.

I’ve created a survey that contains some popular songs from a variety of genres – pop, rock, classic rock, hip-hop, rap, even classical. The point of the survey is for you to listen to each song and pick the word among those listed that you think best matches its mood. I’ve conveniently linked to YouTube videos to help you remember how they sound. There’s 20 songs total, but it shouldn’t take too long if you recognize them (which you should). Try not to let lyrics or song titles bias you, as hard as that will probably be. Anyway, have fun with it – and soon I’ll post the results of the survey, in addition to “the correct” (read: “my”) names so you can compare.

Here’s the survey:
http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/161131/the-magic-of-music

Texting

2009-07-13T11:05:00.002-07:00

Girl. Texting. Open manhole. ~~Hilarity~~ Tragedy.

There's an element of truth in the carelessness of the city's workers. No matter how long they needed to get their flushing equipment, and assuming that they did not mean to be gone long, bright objects such as orange cones should be ubiquitous enough to place as a casual warning.

Still, the idiocy of being so engrossed in a small cellphone screen that one cannot see a gaping 36" diameter hole in the sidewalk in front of you is amazing. And sewers smell. Generally, an offensive odor causes one to look around for the source so that one may avoid it.

Yet, the girl does not seem to want to take responsibility. And her mother wants to sue, claiming that this manhole would've been a greater danger to "an elderly person, a mother pushing a stroller. It could have been anyone."

Uh, no.

An elderly person would likely be moving slowly enough to notice there's a hole in the ground. A mother pushing a stroller better be observant enough to know where she's pushing her baby to avoid any holes in the ground. [Insert example] hole in the ground.

It is easy to understand how any person could think themselves capable of paying attention to the sidewalk/road while making sure they press 8 twice instead of once or three times. Or making sure to push l-o-l on the Blackberry any high school student doesn't actually need. Yet, there's a reason why texting is banned while driving. Multi-tasking necessarily decreases attention and focus on any single task at hand.

Take responsibility for being distracted, Miss Longueira. The workers did make a mistake, but so did you. And really, we're sorry that you fell into the sewer and lost a shoe. It's a terrible experience to be sure. But enough is enough; we don't need another ~~tragic~~ stupid, frivolous lawsuit.

15

2009-07-05T11:58:00.000-07:00

15, that's the number of Grand Slams Roger Federer has after his ridiculous, epic Wimbledon win over Andy Roddick, 16-14 in the fifth set to surpass Pete Sampras as the man with the most singles Grand Slam titles in tennis history.

This is how a great player became legendary in all of sports. Immediately after the win, a Nike commercial showcasing Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Serena Williams, and of course, Sampras congratulated Federer on his historic achievement.

But there will be enough articles and words written for Federer. Because a legend was cemented, a loser had to be beaten. And in an encore of the greatest match ever played in last year's Wimbledon tournament where Nadal prevailed over Federer, Roddick gave Federer all he could handle.

4 is the number of times Roddick has lost to Federer in the finals of a major tournament. This match was by far the most complete match Roddick has ever played against his indomitable opponent but still, not quite enough. Yet his progress has been remarkable since he was the fresh faced 21 year old that won the U.S. Open in 2003 on a big serve and powerful forehand.

Today, not a fluky once or twice, but many times did Roddick send a powerful backhand drive past Federer. This is a play that before, would have likely resulted in a deferring slice shot, useful in some situations but hardly a shot that someone at Roddick's caliber should have relied on. And previously, far too often Roddick would use the slice instead of a proper backhand during a rally, giving up the advantage and offensive momentum to his opponent.

Clearly, his new coach Larry Stefanki has done good work. Roddick is more fit, having lost 15 lbs since last year; his fitness evident in the fact that he could still crank out 136 mph serves 4 hours after the start of the match (Federer's continuous stream of perfectly placed aces was also ridiculously impressive). Roddick also showed much greater touch in the approach game, gamely moving up at (mostly) the right times and winning points with far more frequent forays to the net. In the past, Roddick showed an ugly propensity to run up behind poor approach shots and this likely cost him one, maybe even both, tiebreakers today in the second and third sets. But overall, his all court game has shown improvement. Never before has Roddick dictated points to Federer and forced the master into a defensive position.

The serve is still there, as mighty as ever, and a noted difference this time around against the Fed Express was that Roddick sent many serves directly at Federer, jamming him and preventing a proper extension and return. The official ace count will show 50 aces for Federer against only 27 for Roddick, which is highly misleading. Because Federer is so blessed with great movement and anticipation skills, he is able to get a racket onto many of Roddick's serves even if the return is in the net, misses, or is weak enough for an easy reply from the server. This is why in most of their matches, Federer usually has more aces though Roddick is better known for his power.

Roddick will never have great movement, but his footwork has improved. He doesn't have the most talent, but his heart has come on strong in this tournament. He's as classy as ever, deferring well to the all-universe talent he just lost to in post game interviews and the trophy ceremony, even cracking a joke to the crowd and Sampras who sat in near courtside. Considering his age, turning 27 this August, Roddick has a few more good years ahead of him at the pace he's working at. He gave Federer a fabulous run for his money today and if Nadal was to come back healthy for the U.S. Open season, we could see a fantastic finish to a summer season that is already at the pinnacle of tennis.

Championship Change

2009-07-02T22:31:00.000-07:00

Well, I guess all that talk about Lakers general manager, Mitch Kupchak, believing in the value of Ron Artest a couple years ago wasn't just talk. Today news came out that we were going to lose Trevor Ariza and gain Artest.

At first, I believed that because Ariza has the same agent that really dragged out Andrew Bynum's contract extension negotiations last fall, the Lakers would go through the same phase and eventually get Ariza back. But clearly, the love for Artest was too great. And yes, the price we're likely to get him at is fantastic considering his talent level.

But talent is not the issue. Kelly Dwyer, probably my favorite basketball blogger, puts it perfectly; why does a championship team need to alter its formula? The triangle offense plus the most skilled player on the planet put the Lakers at or near the top of offensive efficiency in the league. Also, according to ESPN's John Hollinger's statistical analysis, our team ranked 2nd in defensive efficiency (3rd in offense). So while Artest may have greater value than Ariza in terms of pure points, rebounds, post-up efficiency and other various stats, would it really improve the Lakers' standing in the league?

The main issue with Artest is the kind of player he is. He gets pretty good numbers but has a deserved reputation for being a very emotional kind of player. We already have an emotional leader in Lamar Odom and a game leader in Kobe Bryant. There was a system in the role players, in guys like Luke Walton (who is horribly underrated by Laker fans), Shannon Brown, and Ariza. There was a chemistry. Pau Gasol is the best passing big man in the league, maybe the most skilled as well in terms of footwork and basketball IQ. All these factors combined to make the 2009 NBA champs without an effective Andrew Bynum in the post or Sasha Vujacic on the outside. Even Jordan Farmar's production dropped off as a backup point guard.

The potential growth in this young group was undeniable. Farmar will get better; next year is a contract year for him. Bynum will develop more; Kareem is his personal coach/advisor, enough said. Ariza worked all last summer under Kobe's tutelage to become the shooting threat he was during the playoffs. With the fantastic leadership that Kobe, Phil Jackson, and Derek Fisher provide, this group was primed already for success for the next 2-3 years at least if not more.

Chemistry is everything in basketball. Hoops is a real team game, requiring personal sacrifice to achieve the pinnacle of team success, much like soccer and unlike baseball (a topic for another time). There's a reason the Lakers of 2004 with Karl Malone and Gary Payton failed to beat the cohesive Detroit Piston team that lacked any superstar. And that is also the reason I worry for Artest's arrival in Los Angeles and Ariza's departure. His arrival shakes up the foundation that led to success once and was primed for many more years of team greatness.

Everytime the Lakers played Artest's team, I felt victory was assured because of him. He's a guy who consistently would get the ball, isolate himself, and take a bad shot. This is completely contrary to the triangle offense and yes, Kobe does the same thing. But he's Kobe Bryant. Ron Artest is Ron Artest and I'm not sure he can grasp the nuances of an offense built around movement without the ball and movement of the ball in reaction to the defense without many set plays.

To be sure, I am cautiously excited that the same leadership that Kobe and Phil Jackson have shown all year will be able to reign in Artest. Because if this works out, we now have 4 All-star talents on our roster in Kobe, Gasol, Odom, and Artest. Imagine the perimeter defense with Kobe and Artest and the interior manned by Gasol, Bynum, and Odom. Who needs to defend quick point guards? Oh wait, toward the end of the season, Ariza was our best option against quick guards...

It is true to note that Ariza's success this postseason could be attributed to the heavy attention defenses gave to other Lakers. Shot are easier to make when no defender is up in one's face and when one's teammate is Kobe Bryant. Thus, Ariza's efficient production is likely to drop on whatever team he ends up on, probably the Rockets, when his defender is shadowing Gasol or Kobe.

Kobe certainly has proved that he makes his teammates better, so we could very well see an integrated Artest performing at his Defensive Player of the Year status while still working within the smoothest offense in the league. Kobe and Artest already have a decent relationship and Phil Jackson with his 1o rings commands the attention of any player.

I also agree that Odom is a greater priority in resigning than Ariza is. Dwyer has always defended Odom's mecurial greatness; he does so again here. Therefore, Odom must be resigned; his skill set is too unique and along with Gasol's, too perfect for the Lakers' offense.

But can this, what is essentially a trade with Houston, deal with Artest work? If the team clicks and Bynum continues to develop, then no one can stop the Lakers (barring injury). San Antonio if healthy is the greatest threat. Shaq is too old and doesn't bring anything to Lebron's Cavs that really pushes them over the top into the championship tier. The Magic getting Vince Carter but losing Turkoglu is simply a lateral movement. Celtics obtaining Rasheed Wallace would be intriguing, but their age is simply pushing it.

The glass half-empty approach says the championship formula has been altered and the broken chemistry is unlikely to orient itself properly for another run at the Larry O'Brien trophy. However, if optimism shines through and Kobe gets his new teammate into the system and brings back his 6'10" candyman point forward, we're looking at a new Laker dynasty that could be better than the dynasty that was likely to happen anyway if we had simply kept the team together.

This is the very defintion of high risk, high reward.

The Space Sonata

2009-06-28T16:52:00.000-07:00

For the past few months, I've been working on a piano composition entitled "The Space Sonata." As the title implies, it's a 3-movement piece (about 15 minutes long total) that's intended to sound like one is exploring outer space. Imagine yourself on Earth as you strap yourself into a rocket ship that blasts off and leaves the blue planet behind. Then you float peacefully, gazing at the beauty of galaxies, stars, and the great beyond. But not necessarily without some hazards along the way.

That's what I was going for, anyway. Most of my inspiration came from Wall-E and Super Mario Galaxy - and I suppose I should mention Stargate Atlantis as well, although not so much the music in the latter case.

Musically, I used a lot of #4, triplet rhythms, and a variety of different keys. It was a lot of fun to play around with. I recorded the three movements and posted them all on YouTube (see the links below). Let me know how "space-y" it sounds to you - it might help me validate my theory that keys sounds different from one another. (More on that later.) Personally, my favorite movement is the second - it's the most inspirational and soothing. Anyway, I hope you like it.

The Space Sonata - 1st movement, "Liftoff"
The Space Sonata - 2nd movement, "Frontier"
The Space Sonata - 3rd movement, "Mission"

Animal rights, clearly overrated

2009-06-18T22:00:00.000-07:00

Just a thought.

Michael Vick got two years in jail for killing dogs.

Donte Stallworth got 30 days for DUI manslaughter.

Lakers: NBA Champions

2009-06-14T20:02:00.000-07:00

4 rings for Derek Fisher.

10 rings for Phil Jackson.

4 rings for Kobe Bryant.

15 rings for the Lakers.

A championship for Lamar Odom, Mitch Kupchak, and all the other pieces to a fantastic puzzle.

This is the crowning achievement from when Kobe and Fisher were drafted in '96. When Trevor Ariza was thrown away by the Magic because he was not a developed shooter yet. From when Pau was essentially stolen in February of '08. The list could go on and on. But certain things stand out.

Kobe Bryant
Obviously the focal point of these finals, Number 24 is the deserving Finals MVP. He passed, he defended, and carried all the intangibles needed for this young team to win. Throughout the playoffs and season, it sometimes seemed that Kobe was actually doing more coaching than Phil Jackson. And of course, he scored from everywhere on the court with his usual array of shots (with a still taped up broken pinky finger on his shooting hand). The enormous passion, drive, and dedication to his game has to be respected.

The misconceptions: ball hog. But no serious NBA fan who actually follows the game of basketball labels Kobe with that anymore. The best player on the planet deserves the ball to make the plays that win games. Winning without Shaq? Follow all the champs of the past; Shaq couldn't have won without Kobe just like Magic had James Worthy, Kareem and Jordan had Pippen. Bad teammate? 3 years ago, his starting point guard and center were Smush Parker and Kwame Brown. The last two years, Kobe has elevated and developed a team with some actual skill into champions with unparalleled determination and accountability.

Greater than Jordan? Let's not get ridiculous, but Kobe Bryant is surely in the pantheon of greatest ever. Jerry West, aka the Logo of the NBA, has called Kobe the greatest Laker ever. In footwork and all-court offensive skills, Kobe is arguably alone on the mountain. In pure willpower, he stands with Michael. Regardless, NBA fans should appreciate the greatness that we are witnessing. He deserves this title.

Pau Gasol
It is still unbelievable how people still call Gasol "soft." It is true that last year, Gasol was pushed around by the Celtics, but over the summer he, under the urging of a certain Mr. Bryant, worked out and focused on getting stronger. Pau has averaged nearly 20 points and 9 rebounds this finals series, shooting 59% and most of all, limiting the supposed best center in the league all series long. His importance in the triangle offense cannot be understated, an offense which requires skilled post play. Soft cannot be used anymore to describe as Magic Johnson put it tonight, the best skilled post player in the NBA next to Garnett.

Phil Jackson
With 10 rings, Phil Jackson is the greatest coach in NBA history and arguably, professional sports. The critics that say Jackson has been gift wrapped Jordan, Shaq, and Kobe don't understand that managing teams with such superstars is hardly an easy task, and that particularly in the last two years, the Lakers head coach has done a phenomenal job developing role players, and finding a balance between trusting his players/veterans and managing the games himself.

The upcoming offseason will be interesting, with Ariza and Odom going into free agency and Kobe with the possibility to opt-out of his contract (unlikely, but it's an option). Keeping both Ariza and Odom will be difficult while paying them appropriately, and letting both go would be a huge blow for the Lakers' chances of earning more titles while Kobe is still in his prime. The two really stepped up their games, particularly Ariza, who at 24 is still developing and fulfilling his potential.

Whatever the future holds for Lakernation, bandwagoners aside, it's bright. The present though, should be celebrated. Let's hope LA can actually get a parade going.

Strait Developments - WHO?

2009-04-28T22:35:00.001-07:00

There was an interesting development in Taiwan-China relations today.

The initial impression is that by allowing Taiwan to join the WHO, China is merely throwing a bone to Taiwan's president for simply being less confrontational about being separate from the mainland than Chen Shui-bien was from 2000-2008. The fact that the observer status comes under the name of Chinese Taipei, like it does in the Olympics, further underlies this notion.

Having observer status means being able to participate in meetings with the 193 members and the couple other observers, but not being to vote or propose new resolutions within the WHO. Therefore, the Chinese government likely feels that by removing their opposition to Taiwan's previous efforts to attain some kind of status within the UN's international public health arm, they can give a pretense of warming relations between the two states. It is a pretense because the number of short to medium range missiles pointed across the Taiwan Strait has increased from 200 at the beginning of the decade to well over 1000 presently, a more than five fold increase in cruise and ballistic variants. The 2006 U.S. report on China's military strength also mentions that 1/3 of China's military (the world's largest standing army with 2.3 million soldiers spread across the army, navy, and air force) is based on the notion of Taiwan being the enemy. Hardly a tangible reduction in tensions. To be fair, the establishment of 28 cargo flights and the increasing number of passenger direct flights are a positive sign toward future developments even if their impact has been difficult to ascertain because of the global economic downturn and fluctuating oil prices. But I digress.

Being part of the WHO brings benefits to the Taiwanese people, which should be the aim of Ma Ying-jeou's administration. The international monitoring of infectious diseases the WHO provides will be helpful, particularly with the possible current trends regarding swine flu, and the government had complained that without the WHO's assistance, SARS was able to gain a greater hold on the populace than it should have in 2003. The WHO also spearheads an AIDS initiative and in a culture where talking about condoms and drug use is not particularly encouraged, access to such a program combined with Taiwan's own "harm reduction" policy, could be hugely beneficial in stemming the rising number of HIV positive cases. Having proper information with near or full pandemics is important for providing the proper care in public health, an essential function of any government. Therefore even observer status should be celebrated for the one year old administration and for Taiwan's citizens.

And just by being part of an international organization and separate from China's delegation, this development is arguably a positive step toward greater international recognition of national sovereignty. A small step to be sure, but a step forward nonetheless. However, the bottom line of this article from the Associated Press is simple and a bit of a diversion from my initial reaction. The Taiwanese people are helped by their inclusion into a global public health organization and who can argue with that?

President, Politician, and Person

2009-02-09T23:36:00.000-08:00

He does not make excuses for his beliefs. Instead he stands resolutely behind them, intent on doing that which he thinks is best for the American people. In that respect he has succeeded in many ways. Not everyone agrees with his decisions, but in reality he has made them with a surprising degree of sincerity and care. Moreover his leadership has taught us about America itself, and that we should find valuable.

And no, I’m not talking about Obama.

The name George W. Bush seems to have left a sour taste in many mouths recently. The mistakes he made during his presidency have begun to become more apparent now, and some are especially relevant during this economic crisis. But while he might not have carried America up to a lofty summit, he certainly didn’t push it off a precipitous cliff, either.

When I reached Washington D.C. prior to President Obama’s inauguration in January, I was simply astounded at the number of people there. I heard President Obama’s inspiring speech firsthand among millions of people on the Mall. Simply walking down the street I saw stores and vendors overflowing with Obama shirts, stickers, flags – you name it. I overheard a gentleman making fun of it all: “Next they’re gonna have Obama toothpicks. Get your Obama toothpicks! Fifty cents!”

The excitement of the crowd overwhelmed me. Yet during the Inauguration there was a moment that discouraged and disappointed me. When George W. Bush appeared, people booed. There was some applause, including my own and others around me, but Bush the booing was unmistakable. It was disrespectful at the very least – after all, this man had been our (re-elected) president for the last eight years. He deserves praise for the good things he has done for America.

But what bothered me more was what those boos sounded like. To me they represented a lack of understanding of Bush himself, of his character. After our new president took his oath, Bush’s helicopter took off from the White House. This time people applauded. It occurred to me that Bush seemed like a total stranger to these people – they could not understand what in the world motivated his decisions, or why we even elected him in the first place.

And looking forward to Obama’s presidency, I see great danger in maintaining those bitter thoughts of frustration. Whether or not we approve of Bush as a president, we need to understand him – learning from history is the only way we can solve certain problems of ours – like a large financial crisis similar to the Great Depression.

Then I read a three-part series of articles in the Yale Daily News. The articles described Bush’s time at Yale – his friends, his activities, his attitudes. They also described his family like – how his father’s success shaped his own. And finally they delved on a personal level into some of the decisions he made as president and why. The articles enlightened me, and I think that anyone with lingering thoughts or opinions about Bush’s presidency ought to give them a read. In fact, President Obama himself would likely learn a thing or two about his new job.

In any case, I thought I’d share them (see below links). The events of the last eight years such as 9/11, the war in Iraq, and most recently the financial crisis have been and will be historic. It’s easy to use 20/20 hindsight to dispense blame accordingly. But rather than trying to criticize, I suggest you just take a step back and take an introspective look at George W. Bush – president, politician, and person.

Part 1 of 3: Who is George W. Bush?
Part 2 of 3: Bush shaped by family legacy
Part 3 of 3: The legacy of George W. Bush

"...we are ready to lead once more"

2009-01-21T09:10:00.000-08:00

And then the camera panned to George W. Bush. Then back to Barack Hussein Obama. Clearly, America has entered a new era, and frankly, the world needs it.

The 90s was arguably a Pax Americana, a fairly brief time where our power and reputation established us as the world leader. And 9/11 was an opportunity for the U.S. to utilize its power to address the differences and conditions that lead to terrorism and conflict in the new millenium. But the last seven years have seen squandered opportunities by the Bush administration and diplomatic/military campaigns driven by a strict political ideology rather than pragmatic, long-term thinking.

Which is why Obama's statement that America is ready to lead once more is so important and in many ways, exciting. It is a shift in attitude that should allow the U.S. to regain its world standing and, in light of the myriad of injustices and hot spots for conflict, work for (as cliche as it sounds) world peace.

I share a belief that those with power have a responsibility to utilize it in a manner that benefits those who are less fortunate and in a way that sets an example for others with power. But, this does not mean that the U.S. should be a police or nanny state, either within or outside of our borders. Let me explain what I'm thinking about how Obama's quotation applies.

The current economic situation combined with our twin wars limits our capabilities, but our resources and reach are still unparalleled. Even without an abundance of money, America can lead with a new global attitude. Diplomatically, Bush's unilateralism is done, but the U.S. still needs to lead the world community in various issues. The EU, Russia, and China do not have the strength and/or the will to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran. Nor have they done anything about the situation in Darfur and the rapidly worsening crisis in Zimbabwe. How about the root causes of terrorism and the extremism that causes it? By taking up a leadership position and pushing forward a coalition that addresses these issues, the U.S. can show that its values include the respect of life and peace around the globe.

While in Egypt, a resident of Cairo mentioned that the people of Egypt are excited for Obama and for the U.S. to move on from the Bush era. Likely, this is just because Bush is such a negative figure in the Middle East, but there is a sense that people are not averse to America and its ideals. The knee jerk reaction to the worsening economy and our ventures into Iraq and Afghanistan would be to adopt isolationist, protectionist policies. Already we see Congressmen and women panicking over the failures of American car makers and providing GM with a $13 billion bailout and pushing "American" industries such as ethanol from corn. These initiatives reflect a shift in our government away from embracing competition and smart business. Boeing has for decades fought against the government subsidized Airbus and the soon to be available 787 is an innovative, exciting plane that likely would not have come about as quickly if Airbus had not outsold Boeing in providing airlines with their planes at the beginning of the decade (This is not to say Boeing has been a clean company; the Air Force tanker contract competition reeks of insider deals). And ethanol from food is idiocy. Period.

The point is that American leadership should be looking to lead the world, not reacting for the interests of Midwestern farmers at the expense of others. For example, as a country with the resources, education, and technology to create an energy industry that would reduce greenhouse emissions and cut down on the use of non-renewable energy, right now would be an ideal time to set a new energy precedent for developing nations such as China and India who complain that we do not do enough considering the enormous amounts of emissions we produce in the States. Moreover, the immense amount of money that Obama is calling for to boost employment and domestic growth is an ideal source of funding to build and improve national infrastructure to support new research, transmission lines, and power plants that a refreshed energy economy would require. American citizens would be empowered in the short and long term and an example can be set of how energy can be responsibly harnessed and used.

Energy is just one way that Obama can lead. North Korea's usual craziness, they just issued a military threat against the South and unlike previous times, a military official made the announcement perhaps signifying something new but just as likely not. Iran's nuclear ambitions are ambiguous at best. Putin's administration is causing energy shortages throughout Eastern Europe and a sharp decline in democratic practices in Russia. Zimbabwe has been in a state of utter chaos with a nasty combination of cholera and civil war. The bailouts, necessary in the short term, are going to add substantially to an already substantial national debt. There will be no shortage of work for our new president.

Nonetheless, Obama does seem to know what he needs to do to reestablish America. Steven Chu is a fantastic appointment. Keeping Robert Gates in the DoD was intelligent and pragmatic. Giving such a prestigious position to Hillary Clinton was a smart move reminiscent of Lincoln's era. Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary makes a whole lot of sense as well, but I am a little biased, she was the House representative of my hometown. Putting a stop to torture and Gitmo trials, a huge thorn in the international body for the U.S. was good. A restoral of American respect for international law is an extremely important move; this should lead to renewed alliances and commitments to work together on issues such as climate change and terrorism. Leaders need to follow rules too.

The next 4 years are going to be full of ups and down. Who knows, we could come out of this transformed and into an era of Pax Americana lite with the contributions of a coherent global community led by President Obama. Or this global slowdown could drag on for years. Reality will likely fall in between, but if Obama's last two major speeches are any indication, idealism as something to strive for, if not necessarily acheive, is something that the president and I can agree on.

VP Debate Ramblings

2008-10-02T22:26:00.000-07:00

When I walked away from the common television on the ground floor of the dorm I live in, I was convinced that Joe Biden had scored a solid victory. Sarah Palin had dodged questions, contradicted herself and her running mate, and seemed superficial and shallow. Biden illustrated his depth of experience and knowledge and laid out substantial points backed with evidence. I thought it was a no-brainer who walked off the stage in our athletic center a winner.

But then I watched Chris Matthews and his Hardball show, taped live on a stage outside WashU's own Graham Chapel. A political pundit stated that he thought Palin was the clear victor. That she showed a warm, inviting style. That her attacks on Biden/Obama were well delivered. That she performed beyond expectations.

Beyond expectations was a no brainer. There was simply no way McCain's staff was going to let her not improve after last week's catastrophic interviews with Katie Couric (This is but one example). But it astounded me that someone actually was pleased with her soccer mom references and audience targeted winking. Someone sitting next to me initially thought the winking was some kind of strange twitch. I thought it was silly, if not somewhat creepy.

The first that struck me though, was their respective answers to the first question. The subject of the question isn't important. Biden went first, he was articulate and gave a solid, not great, answer that gave weight to his extensive knowledge from years in the Senate. When Palin answered, she spoke of fear. And more fear. And again, more fear running through the public.

Don't get me wrong, there is a great deal of concern and anxiety in the general population regarding the economic situation of this country, but the tone was set for Palin's performance for the rest of the night. Hit the emotions of the audience and listeners and hit them hard. Appeal to the feelings of the crowd.

Thus, her style lent itself to attacking. It was almost comical how she said Obama voted against a bill that provided funding for American soliders multiple times AFTER Biden gave an explanation of why Obama voted against it. She also conveniently left out that the fact that Obama voted for troop funding every other time a similar bill came up.

Pathos makes for a good persuasive tool, but it works best when used in tandem with some facts, some substance. It's little wonder to me that Palin had to rely on attacks and emotional appeals for most of the night. It seems that McCain/Palin do not have detailed policies ready to implement if they were to win the campaign. Or maybe Palin was not supposed to share such details tonight, but either way she showed a significant lack of knowledge. And when she did present an issue or policy, it seemed silly and contrived.

Several times, she referred herself as a leader of energy independence saying that more drilling needs to be done domestically and that as a governor of a state with massive reserves of natural resources, she can get the job done to set America on the path to energy independence. It's a little ironic then, that McCain has opposed drilling in Alaska for most of his career. Biden's counter was solid; oil from new wells drilled tomorrow will only reach us in ten years. It's a fact that is far too overlooked in the panic over increasing gas prices. Palin had no response and could only repeat what she had already said. Interestingly enough, on energy I agree with McCain on the point that significantly more nuclear power is needed, but Palin never brought it up. And ironically, Biden did.

A good example of how Palin used language to substitute for facts was how she responded to Biden's statement that a timeline was needed now for Iraq, that Iraq needed to use it's $79 billion annual surplus to help pay for its reconstruction, that Iraq's 400,000 strong army needed to acquire more responsibility for national security.

"You're raising a white flag of surrender."

Wait, really? A white flag is certainly not a positive image, especially not in our country's cultural psyche where victory and success reign paramount. Biden's response was again, appropriate. Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq, recently stated that a timeline for withdrawal was needed. George Bush himself is drafting a plan involving a timetable with his commanders. By raising the notion of a white flag, it seems that Palin is trying to again, draw attention away from the substance of the debate to language that sends a negative portrayal of her opponent.

So I guess the issue here boils down to what do we look for in a debate? I expected policies, facts, solid rebuttals and counter-arguments, and details. Apparently, the 36% (CNN), 38% (MSNBC) that thought Palin did a better job debating were looking for something else.

It amused me when Palin said she wanted to straight talk with the American people, that American deserve honest answers. I don't think she answered the question given to her by the moderator more than a couple times the entire night. And I'm not going to discuss how she jumped around almost all of Biden's rebuttals and arguments. She even said herself, and I paraphrase, "I may not be answering the questions that the moderator or Senator Biden want me to answer."

Why is that? Why won't you give a straight answer given to you by the debate commission's chosen moderator?

And McCain supporters have the gall to call Obama inexperienced?

I link to this blog posting next. I'm a little surprised at how little race has been discussed, and I don't really know what to make of it.

Yes, Biden is also white.

I've also come to the realization, with the help of my cousin Jay Chen who's an elected Obama delegate, California District 38, that as an Asian American, it would be fairly ridiculous of me to vote for someone who has said, "I hate the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live."

"I hate the n---ers, I will hate them as long as I live."

Can you imagine if a veteran of say, Somalia and the Blackhawk down incident was to say that instead? The differences in media coverage, in public response...I get it, McCain was tortured in Vietnam. Everyone respects him for that, but to be able to use a racial slur against an Asian group and get away with it. That's unacceptable.

It's a shame class isn't canceled tomorrow. Enough ramblings; I ran on quite a tangent there at the end.

Bottom line: Palin lost and it's a real shame that even though it was here at WashU, I didn't get a lottery ticket to see it happen in person.

The Intellectual Property Paradox, Part 3

2008-08-16T18:31:00.000-07:00

Two and a half months later, I'm finally done. Enjoy Part 3, and see below for Part 1 and Part 2.

Part 3: Consumer and Corporate Compromise

When it comes down to it, both consumers and corporations will need to relent a little bit. It is a paradox, after all.

Like most things in our capitalist economy, consumers have most of the power. They should use it. It doesn’t actually require anything unusual – watch the TV shows you like, buy songs from your favorite bands, play the videogames you enjoy. If you buy more of something, producers will make more of it. Pirating essentially takes away this power because it takes money out of the equation.

I find that it’s similar to voting – it’s a responsibility. Sure, the government will be there whether you vote or not, but if you don’t you’re not giving it any feedback. It has no other way of figuring out what you want from it. Money is your vote in an economy. Without people paying for a certain kind of content, the incentive to make it disappears.

Nothing in life is free…unless, of course, it is. I’m talking about the magic of advertising. Television shows, internet sites, and radio stations make much of their money through advertisements. Of course, access to the first two generally requires monthly fees, but the individual content itself is “free.” The beauty is that this system gives access of content to consumers without actually selling it to them or transferring any kind of ownership. If people do decide to own it (buy DVD boxed sets of a TV show, for example) they can, and they would know what they were getting. It’s a nice way to give consumers freedom without too much of a sacrifice from corporations. Industries have started to learn. Ads pop up everywhere across the web, some are used in online-viewable TV shows, and they even appear in videogames and movies sometimes. Yet this doesn’t seem to be decreasing the price of these items at all. So what’s the deal?

The odd construct of intellectual property that seems to defy capitalism is the system of standardized prices for content. Why do movie ticket prices cost the same, no matter the movie? Some movies are much better than others, and some movies just are not as worth seeing in a theater. I would bet, with today’s ridiculous ticket prices, that a lot of people would go see smaller, more independently made movies if they were less expensive, say $6. Disney, on the other hand, can afford to charge $10+ for tickets because it knows people will go see their next movie simply because it has Pixar’s name on it. (I’m one of those people.) It’s simple branding, and it happens in most other industries. It would help because it would let smaller groups have potentially the same presence in the market, thus expanding the choices available to consumers, leading to more and better content and cutting down on the incentive to pirate.

Corporations need to be honest with themselves. They need to give people what they want – lots of content at a fair price. Because of the creativity-driven nature of intellectual property, the competition aspect of the market can get a little lost. In other words, it’s probably much easier to find two extremely similar automobiles by different companies than two extremely similar movies or songs. This lets corporations get away with charging more than they should for their products. But as we’ve seen, if that happens to an extreme then piracy happens. That’s why compromise is necessary.

In the end, it’s all about the content. Corporations want to sell it, consumers want to buy it. There just needs to be a happy medium where both are getting a fair deal. And even though this intellectual property is different than other products since it’s much more easily reproducible, consumers need to treat it the same way. Which means that corporations have got to make it just as available as designer jeans or vacuum cleaners. Because if something’s made better, it should cost more; consumers understand that.

It’s a pretty simple compromise, really – and it has less to do with the consumer’s actual decisions, and more to do with why they make those decisions in the first place. It takes into account little more than a bit of ethics, economics, and common sense. It’s a way to deal with the intellectual property paradox. Let's try it out.

Got Allergies?

2008-07-01T09:48:00.000-07:00

If you do, and they're really bothersome, maybe this guy could help.

The premise of this research is quite fascinating, as is the fact that someone was willing to give this guy a grant. Because ethically, infecting someone with a parasite runs into a cloudy area of medical ethics. Of course, if allergy symptoms were terrible enough to drive a person to accept a dozen worms into their system, then perhaps a method such as this is worth it.

I personally have not had a huge problem with allergies. My early years of drinking milk apparently caused my eardrums to never fully recover from the ear infections when I was really little. To this day, I am not clear on how my mild lactose intolerance affects my ears, but nonetheless I used to really like milk. But that doesn't mean I would voluntarily host 10 hookworm larvae.

To be sure, the human body is already a symbiont with a myriad of bacteria. Without these bugs to aid in digestion, metabolism, and other bodily functions, humans would not be humans. So small "doses" of hookworms should not cause too much concern. The NY Times article does point out that hookworms do cause malnutrition and the lead scientist himself says that 10 worms is the ideal dosage and that 50 caused him gastrointestinal discomfort. There are pills that easily flush out the worms as well, so if a patient wished, he or she could be rid of the intestinal blood suckers in a day or two.

But still, voluntarily accepting parasites makes me queasy even if this is potentially groundbreaking anti-allergy research. Hopefully they can get to the worm's magical immuno-suppressant molecule part soon.

The Intellectual Property Paradox, Part 2

2008-06-15T00:49:00.000-07:00

See below for Part 1.

Part 2: Technological Complications

Data storage and distribution has completely changed over the last decade or so. Lots of content has gone from analog to digital, which confuses all those baby boomers. VHS became DVD; cassette went to CD, which went to mp3; analog television evolved into digital and high-definition. The change in format itself does not matter so much – people probably used to make fake or pirated VHS tapes, cassettes and CDs (…maybe not TV shows). But now, it’s standardized and separable. Audio and video files come in a few specific formats, and now the content can be separated from its medium.

It’s great from a consumer standpoint – it makes access to content much easier, perhaps leading people to enjoy content they otherwise wouldn’t have found. It also makes preventing unrestricted reproduction of that content much harder. The Paradox presents a problem, and that’s where piracy complicates matters.

In most cases (though not all), modern-day piracy is just the sharing of content in the form of data files, which in itself isn’t too big a deal. I could give my VHS copy of 101 Dalmatians to a friend without feeling bad about it – I’m not watching it anyway, right? I suppose if I didn’t want to part with it I could make a copy of it to give to said friend, which might violate the “FBI Warning” or something, but I still wouldn’t lose sleep over it. It probably wouldn’t leave my friend’s house anyway.

With the help of file sharing, though, this process becomes very exaggerated. Let’s say I decide to copy 101 Dalmatians to DVD, put it onto my computer, and offer it for free download on my new website that attracts 1,000 visitors a day. Frankly, I’m not that nice – unless you buy me some Stargate Atlantis boxed sets or something, I wouldn’t bother with the hassle – but if I did do this, it would differ from just giving the movie to a friend. I have friends, but not that many friends. 1,000 visitors a day (a conservative figure for most file-sharing websites, I suspect) is a lot of people. And because I can easily send 101 Dalmatians to many people, chances are someone else will send it around too. This process continues. When my copy of 101 Dalmatians gets into the hands of somebody in Australia that I’ve never met, it starts to get a bit unreasonable. That’s not friendly sharing anymore.

It happened first with music. Napster let people download music for free until it got shut down (it was kind of scapegoated, too, as many other sites have provided the same service). What’s curious about this case, though, is what caused it. I don’t really think people downloaded music from the site simply because it was free – I think people downloaded it because it was the only thing better than paying $15-$20 for one or two good songs, which a lot of CDs generously offered. The convenience factor probably helped too (though at that time lots of people still had dialup, so a 3-4MB download would have taken longer). But what about now? Websites have discovered that people are willing to pay for downloadable music (either for a monthly fee or on a song-by-song basis). iTunes has demonstrated the most success. Plus, the service has been able to actually offset file sharing by offering their music in a protected-file format to hinder unrestricted distribution. It’s worked well enough for iTunes to start selling video content like movies as well.

Movies are similar, although currently distributing them digitally is harder simply due to their larger size. But there lies one major difference. The movie industry sells two separate products – theater releases and home releases. Sometimes movies not worth seeing in the theater can entertain greatly in home viewings. The theater experience differs from the home one. Seeing Star Wars Episode III at midnight on premiere night with a bunch of fans who applaud R2-D2 when he makes his first appearance on-screen totally rocks. Watching the movie at home on the couch on a Friday night pales in comparison. Not a huge problem; most people pick and choose which movies they want to see in theaters, and which ones they’ll buy or rent.

It gets messy when considering the time delay. Home releases lag by a few months to a year behind theater releases (and TV releases lag by years). Pirated movies completely circumvent DVD sales. Impatient people not willing to pay for a movie ticket will access pirated movies, even if they would be willing to pay for the DVD upon release. The only real solution to this aside from doing simultaneous theater and home releases (which could greatly hurt theater sales) is for people to compromise, which I’ll save for Part 3. The movie industry today has been pretty generous with regard to distribution, thanks to Blockbuster and Netflix, which offer a variety of rental services, so we can’t expect them to do much more.

Television is weird. It’s free, for all intents and purposes. I mean, people pay the cable or satellite company (unless they have only local channels, in which case I pity them greatly), but no cost exists beyond that. TV pirating would be recording shows and distributing them online, I guess, which could hinder (way overpriced) DVD boxed set sales. More often, people record TV through companies like TiVo, who have responded early to this market. Online viewing has become another option, though I think it needs to grow more to keep up with demand. Nowadays people have many different modes of entertainment to distract them, and having to sit down at a certain time to watch your favorite show can be annoying. Digitally distributing TV shows seems like a great idea to me, but so far only iTunes has capitalized on this.

Videogames present a curious situation too. They’re made for specific platforms, and it takes some technical experience to convert them to more standard files. Emulators let people play videogames on computers. (Tangent – I really have more of a personal issue with emulators than a moral/economical one. Sure, they let you play games on your computer – but a glorious game like Super Mario 64 is NOT the same played with a mouse and keyboard as it is with that awesomely-shaped three-pronged N64 controller in your living room on your big-screen while you have to move the analog stick just enough so Mario doesn’t plummet to yet another death. The Wii will probably change that anyway, unless people come up with some novel way of mimicking the remote’s function on a computer.) A lot of pirating happens in China – and the pirates often make money off their sales. Game consoles don’t have operating systems (unless hacked or something), so they require physical game disks. People make and sell these disks, and the profit creates incentives for them to continue doing so. Nintendo has complained about the lack of anti-pirating laws in China and probably loses millions of dollars annually because of it.

All “big three” companies – Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony – do offer game downloads from their websites through Xbox Live, WiiWare/Virtual Console, and the PlayStation Network. They’re learning. They know that taking advantage of digital distribution lets them take control of the market.

In the end I don’t think that most people really want to pirate – they just want convenient, cheap access to quality content. I think that if companies can do it right, their market influence will be way more powerful than file-sharing websites, in essence rendering pirating effects negligible. Companies have begun to wake up to digital distribution, and it looks pretty promising. To really work well requires some agreement between consumers and corporations, though. Corporations need to make content more convenient; that’s where technology is taking us, after all. But consumers need to compromise, too. They don’t somehow deserve free content (nothing in life is free, remember?), even if it doesn’t warrant the price. It requires mutual understanding.

High Gas Prices are Good

2008-06-11T11:32:00.000-07:00

...in the long run. Congress recently made an effort to pass a bill reacting to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions involving a cap and trade system. Unfortunately, the Republicans and some Democrats are too worried about the industries they represent and prevented the passage of the bill in the Senate. Shame, since the faster this country can get its act together, the quicker consumers can stop feeling the pain of $80 trips to the gas station. And by quicker I'm talking in years.

It's a matter of fact that trouble and pain bring about change far better than the comfort and convenience of routine. Yeah, we may prefer the $1.50 per gallon from nearly a decade ago, but the kind of oil that is pumped out of the ground is going to run out eventually and cheap gas does nothing to help us move on from relying on liquidfied dinosaur remains. Solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources were considered too expensive relative to oil, but now, because the gas stations around here now show $4.47 and above, these methods are now economically viable.

Looking at this study by a couple of Stanford students, it is fairly obvious that wind is a resource that can be used. The corridor in the Midwest is highly intriguing (although with the recent spat of tornados...) as are both coasts. Turbines cannot really be considered expensive anymore and as their efficiency continues to increase, the viability of such a resource cannot be ignored. It also seems like Australia's major population centers can also benefit greatly from wind power.

However, it is no small issue to suddenly have giant three bladed gleaming white fans in one's beach view or backyard. But again, this is simply a matter of convenience and personal comfort. One may not like the disruption of previously unbroken horizon, but for those who care, they can move or at least pretend the view has more character and is better for everyone else. As for the issue of birds flying into turbines....they've been able to figure out skyscrapers and urban sprawl. Darwinian principles will win out there.

Wind farms can and should be setup off the coasts and on the plains of Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, etc. Having driven through Missouri and parts of Illinois, there really is a lot of open land. And if the stereotypes of Kansas and Nebraska are true, the people there stand to make a good deal of money off of new energy policy.

And I don't mean ethanol, which is causing more problems than even oil. The amount of energy in a gallon of ethanol is lower than that of gasoline, which results in the need for more corn for fuel. More food for fuel means less food for everything else. Thus, increased food prices and food shortages. It is also important to take into account that in places like Brazil and Indonesia, acres upon acres of tropical forest are being chopped down to make way for more food-fuel plantations. Ethanol made from food is simply not an efficient or practical fuel for the future. It's simply politcal idiocy that is fueling (no pun intended) this venture.

If wind power generated from the corridors found in the study can be compared with other genuinely useful methods, our energy problem could go a long way toward being solved. Improved solar technologies are increasing the efficiency of photovoltaic solar panels. Solar rays can be utlized by mirrors to heat water and generate steam. A new solar farm is going up in California and there are a myraid of deserts just waiting to be taken advantage of. Tidal and wave power plants are being utlized in Europe and it does not take a genius to realize the tides and waves are also never ending power sources. Even nuclear power is a more attractive option than coal or oil in providing power to homes.

The technology is all there. The crisis is here. Let's hope we can put two and two together.

Gametime. Lakers. Celtics.

2008-05-30T21:06:00.000-07:00

Thursday 5:30 pm Pacific time

Game 1 of what promises to be a great series. Perhaps even the renewal of a classic rivalry that I am too young to remember except from those grainy videos they show on ESPN.

30 of 61. That's the number of NBA championships won between these two franchises.

Of those 61 finals, 49 have involved a Laker or Celtics team. That's 80%.

Kobe Bryant's drive toward his 4th ring. Kevin Garnett's intense desire for his 1st.

10 previous Finals matchups. Celtics: 8, Lakers: 2

Kobe, Gasol, Odom versus Garnett, Pierce, Allen. Big Three on Big Three.

The young energy of the Lakers' bench against the veteran laden support team of the Celtics.

This is going to be fun.

Especially since I'm a Laker fan. Even more so because I'm a basketball fan.

Casual fans will tune in. Interest in the sport will be revived again with two of the historically largest basketball markets facing off. It never ceases to surprise me how basketball is behind baseball in popularity in this country. But that's a discussion for another time.

There is no doubt the ABC officials are drooling over the viewership they will get from this years Finals. We're talking the smooth offense of the Lakers' triangle versus the hard nosed defense of Boston. Kobe, the greatest player on the planet right now, has revived his team with the maturity of a leader who is able to trust his teammates. Evident in Games 1 and 5 against the Spurs last night, Kobe's ability to take over games is unquestioned. There is no better individual closer and competitor in the league than the Black Mamba. His jersey has been the number one seller around the world. A year after declaring he wanted out, this man is ready to lead his team (clearly these Lakers are Kobe's Lakers; he recently bought all his teammates $9,800 watches at what are becoming routine team dinners) to perhaps a bookend of championships this decade.

But it would be foolish to underestimate the power of the hearts beating in the chests of Garnett, Allen, Pierce, and the other Celtics who have not tasted winning it all. The motivation these guys are feeling will be a huge motor in the Finals. And it's possible that will be enough, completing a crazy comeback from last season's nightmare in Boston.

There's Phil Jackson's quest to surpass Celtics' legend Red Auerbach's 9 rings.

Paul Pierce is from California; he watched Lakers vs. Celtics growing up. Now he's playing in and for history. Pierce, too, wanted out of Boston after last season's debacle. Now he's playing for it all.

Pau Gasol has never won a playoff game, much less a series, in his career. Now he's 12-3 and fighting for a championship. Lamar Odom has been ridiculed for not playing up to his abilities. Without him, there's simply no way the Lakers are where they are right now. Sasha Vujacic, also known as "the Machine," (and contrary to rumors, he did not give himself the nickname. Stu Lantz and Joel Meyers of FSN came up with it) along with Jordan Farmar have turned into the shooting threats that vindicate Mitch Kupchak's draft decisions. Second round draft picks, Ronny Turiaf and Luke Walton have turned into solid role players that have been integral to the team's success. Derek Fisher is the co-captain with the leadership ability to mentor and steer this team.

Food for thought, Andrew Bynum will be back next year.

Sweeping the Nuggets, closing out Utah on the road where the Jazz were 37-4 in the regular season, coming back from 20 and 17 points in the beginning and closing games against the defending champs, the Lakers are ready for primetime. Kobe smells championship. He's this close, four games away from adding one more ring to his collection. Here's an opportunity to be an All Star, win the regular season MVP, be All-Defensive and All-NBA team, win the NBA championship trophy (maybe even a Finals MVP), and oh yeah, there's the gold medal waiting in Beijing. All in the same year.

This is Hollywood.

This is Kobe time.

The Intellectual Property Paradox, Part 1

2008-05-26T01:40:00.000-07:00

My next series of posts will all be about something I've been pondering recently - piracy and online media. I can't possibly say it all succinctly in one post (something I need to work on), so I'll be posting it in three parts. Feel free to comment.

Part 1: Property, Piracy, and Creativity

Some people suggest that we don’t live through our possessions, but let’s get real. When I describe myself, I often describe my activities. I play the piano, I like videogames, I’m artistic, I play soccer, and I’m pretty organized. All that would have a whole lot less meaning if I didn’t have…well, a piano, my videogames, my colored pencils, my soccer cleats, and my proudly organized daily/weekly planner. But surely our lives are more important than mere objects, right? Even with possessions, we’ve got something better – we’ve got ideas.

The term “property” includes a whole range of things – land, coffee tables, designs for a new skyscraper, boxes of Ritz crackers. We’ve recognized that our ideas are a form of property too, though. The ones I come up with are strictly mine, and the ones you come up with are strictly yours – unless of course we come up with the same idea, in which case we get to battle shamelessly in court about who came up with it first. Nobody wants to be caught stealing someone else’s property, material or otherwise.

The premise of piracy is simple. Piracy is the act of copying and reproducing someone else’s property and distributing or selling it as your own. Piracy is often labeled as a form of theft, but that can be misleading. When piracy occurs, the original piece of property remains intact and in the original owner’s hands, unlike actual theft. Copying and reproducing land, for example, would prove difficult (that’s a lot of landscaping), and usually we care much more about what’s on the land rather than the land itself.

Other forms of piracy have wide effects, however, and we do care about them. Plagiarism involves the reproduction of written (or sometimes spoken) thoughts. The plagiarist claims those ideas as his or her own and claims all the credit for them. Journalists and scholars have zero tolerance for plagiarism.

Patent infringement provides another example. Infringing upon a patent involves reproducing certain technologies or designs that others have come up with secured the rights to. Patents protect certain methods used in the production or development of manufactured goods. Many industries use them to protect the ownership of the producer’s merchandise.

In both these instances, the goal is to keep the right to own the property in the creator’s hands. In other words, only the creator has the right to distribute his or her property, unless he has authorized others to do so. This concept forms the basis of copyright law.

Why is copyright law so important? What’s the problem with piracy? Answering either question requires several considerations. Speaking ethically, identifying the creator’s rights to his or her property respects the ideas of the creator. The things I create hold great meaning to me. For you to benefit from my creations in a way I did not approve disregards my intention and cheapens my creativity. It’s demeaning to take something that I put time and money into and use it for yourself or give it to other people without some kind of agreement. Creative people don’t deserve to have their creations mistreated and abused by others. We should protect those creations.

Moreover, we should encourage those creations. Disregarding ethics, there are practical and economical reasons to prevent piracy. Paying money for a product sends a message. People have purchasing power. Buying a product is a way of approving of that product and saying that you like what the creator has provided you, at least over time. (Maybe you’ll mistakenly buy a carton of wasabi ginger ice cream once, but not twice – and surely you’ll tell your friends never to come close to the stuff.) Things that people buy a lot of are generally things many people want. In our capitalist-driven economy, that usually indicates progress. If someone can make something better or cheaper than somebody else, more people will buy it. That’s how products improve and how our economy evolves. Piracy circumvents this process. People either obtain goods for free or for a greatly reduced price from someone other than the creator. It benefits the pirate and hurts the creator. If it continues, the lack of compensation for the product can persuade the creator to stop creating, which ends up hurting the consumer in the long run as well.

The thing is, piracy happens for reasons that are often not as malicious or insolent as the name suggests. Nowadays it tends to happen for a relatively innocent reason – filling a void in the market. Think of the Napster fiasco. Millions of people downloaded music off the website before it closed after facing numerous lawsuits. But the question is, why did so many people download from the site? Maybe they were lazy and didn’t feel like driving to Tower Records. Maybe they just liked free music. Or maybe they wanted something they couldn’t get anywhere else but Napster – single songs rather than compilations of songs in the form of record albums. People got tired of purchasing entire albums at $15+ each only to discover that only a few songs were actually worth listening to. Thus, they stopped buying albums. Enter Napster and other music distribution and file-sharing websites. Clearly there exists a market for downloadable mp3s, as the continued success of iTunes has shown. Nevertheless, the damage was done – Tower retail stores went into bankruptcy.

One can hardly blame the music industry for the episode. The artists themselves retained the right to distribute their music, and for Napster to provide a way for other people to obtain it for free certainly disrespected the artists. But still, one can’t completely blame the consumers, either, who were frustrated at the record companies’ monopolistic and often unfair way of selling music. The artists wanted to protect their content, but the consumers wanted greater access to it – which brings us to what I call the Intellectual Property Paradox.

Intellectual property is by definition hard to protect. It usually takes the form of some kind of idea, content, or design. We’ve recognized as a society that protecting it is important – after all, it seems to have propelled us through the industrial age at a rapid pace. We own all kinds of property: I’ve got a black platform bed, a copy of Super Mario Galaxy, and a few bars of Twix. But owning that property is different than having its intellectual property. I have no right to obtain and distribute the design of my bed, the programming code of my Mario game, or the recipe of Twix (as much as I’d really love to have it). I didn’t create these things, after all. If I somehow made them on my own, it might be a different story.

People are more likely to take risks and come up with new ideas when they know they will retain ownership of their ideas and thus be able to benefit from them. Because we protect intellectual property, people can create some amazing things. When people create amazing things, consumers want access to them. More strict protection of intellectual property results in higher demand for that intellectual property. This is the paradox. How can consumers obtain such great content if we restrict access to that content to a large extent? By protecting intellectual property we hinder the circulation of the very content we want to provide to consumers, sometimes to such an extent that they pursue alternate means of obtaining it. The interests of protecting intellectual property and using it to distribute to consumers seem quite contradictory.

With the ongoing increase of digital distribution of media, piracy may become more of a problem. It’s much easier to use a computer to simply copy a music file and send it over the internet than record the sound of a CD and copy it onto other CDs or cassettes. It is likely that more people will be open to obtaining pirated content in the future, too. The current generation of young adults, unlike the previous generation, has grown up using computers and the Internet. I would bet that there are many adults who choose to download from iTunes over a free website simply for convenience. But as society learns to embrace the efficiency and comfort of technology more and more, that might not remain true.

What we really need to do is figure out how to change things on the other side – on the consumer end. Since consumers have all the purchasing power, that’s the only real way to approach the problem.

Tsai Ing-wen

2008-05-10T22:09:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: Nice little article on women in Taiwanese government

I met Tsai Ing-wen a few years ago at a luncheon sponsored by the Pacific Times, a local Taiwanese newspaper. The most prominent thing my sister and I remember was that she ate very, very slowly. It was a good thing though, meant more time spent with one of the leading politicians in Taiwan.

In a way, her deliberate manner of dining was a reflection of her personality. Her words, in very good English (Masters in Legal Science at Cornell and PhD from London School of Economics), were carefully chosen and portrayed a woman who was thoughtful and intelligent. A quiet strength if you will. But of course, to survive in the political system of an Asian nation requires a great deal of such willpower, especially when of the female gender. Earlier in her career, her opponents insinuated that she was a lesbian because she has never been married, characteristic of the dirty politics that have been a part of politics on the island (note: in a media dominated by the opposition party). In a political system utterly dominated by men, her rise to challenge for the top spot in the Democratic Progressive Party is impressive to say the least. It is also important to note that among East Asian countries, Taiwan is far ahead in terms of gender equality, especially in regards to South Korea which in many other ways is very similar and often compared to Taiwan.

The important thing in this news article from the Associated Press, is that Tsai Ing-wen is allowing for compromise, an integral part of the development of democracy. The article states that the other two candidates for premiership of the DPP want formal independence, a stance that while ideal is not realistic in the political and global sphere (putting aside the fact that Taiwan is essentially independent in the current status quo). What intrigues me the most is that Tsai would even run for such a position with such a stance on the condition of Taiwanese sovereignty and it shows the change that the Green party is considering going through, especially with the recent political losses.

Another interesting thing would be the reaction from the KMT to this statement. Recently, Ma Ying-jeou decided to bring in a independence activist onto his cabinet team. Optimistically, this is a sign that he too is willing to compromise and reach a solution that will try and bridge the blind partisanship that has been going on in the past years. It is unlikely that Ma would put the head position of the head body that oversees cross-Strait relations to a guy from across the aisle if he weren't serious about working together for the betterment of the island.

But we'll see, Ma takes office in ten days. See here for my thoughts when he won back in March (on my now more or less defunct xanga).

Anyway, I have a great respect for Tsai Ing-wen and her courage to run for the premiership of the DPP. Hopefully, her statement of a willingness to be a moderate will resonate in the Taiwanese political world. I would put up a picture of me with her put I think I lost it to a dead hard drive last year...sad.

NBA Playoffs, Lakers - Jazz

2008-05-09T15:11:00.000-07:00

If the Lakers can win tonight at Salt Lake City, in the most hostile road environment in the League, I believe they are a lock to get to the Finals. It will be a true test of team mentality to go on the road up 2-0 to avoid a complacent attitude and keep Utah from getting back into the series.

For Utah, Game 3 is a must win. No team has ever come back from 3-0, and while it's going to happen eventually, the Lakers are too good to lose two home games if they happen to drop the coming two road games.

Since Pau Gasol arrived to LA, the Lakers have been near unstoppable; if their record w/ Gasol is stretched out to a 82 game season, they would rival the Bulls' record 72-10 season. Lamar Odom has become probably the best 3rd option in the league. 3-pointers are key in spacing the floor, and even before Gasol's arrival, Sasha Vujacic was putting up career best numbers (it probably helps he's in a contract year) and the Lakers should make him a priority this offseason. The development of Jordan Farmar and Andrew Bynum should keep the Lakers in title contention for the next decade. Bynum must be offered a contract extension for this summer if he is to become the next face of the franchise.

Derek Fisher's signing in the last offseason was also enormous to stabilizing the young talent in the roster and adding veteran leadership alongside Kobe. It was rather sickening to see Jazz fans boo such a likeable personality earlier in the season. This is a guy who put family ahead of his career, giving up more than $6 million to resign in Los Angeles.

There are a lot of blogs out there with more indepth analysis of the Lakers. Truehoop on ESPN, sportshubla, forumblueandgold, the LA times lakers blog, etc etc. Check them out.

This is a great parody of the NBA playoff spots the league has been running

from the Associated Press

2008-05-06T13:33:00.000-07:00

Myanmar cyclone death toll soars past 22,000: state radio

26 minutes ago

The cyclone death toll soared above 22,000 on Tuesday and more than 41,000 others were missing as foreign countries mobilized to rush in aid after the country's deadliest storm on record, state radio reported.

Up to 1 million people may be homeless after Cyclone Nargis hit the Southeast Asian nation, also known as Burma, early Saturday. Some villages have been almost totally eradicated and vast rice-growing areas are wiped out, the World Food Program said.

Images from state television showed large trees and electricity poles sprawled across roads and roofless houses ringed by large sheets of water in the Irrawaddy River delta region, which is regarded as Myanmar's rice bowl.

"From the reports we are getting, entire villages have been flattened and the final death toll may be huge," Mac Pieczowski, who heads the International Organization for Migration office in Yangon, said in a statement.

Buddhist monks and Catholic nuns wielding knives and axes joined Yangon residents Tuesday in clearing roads of ancient, fallen trees that were once the city's pride. And soldiers were out on the streets in large numbers for the first time since the cyclone hit, helping to clear trees as massive as 15 feet in diameter.

President Bush called on Myanmar's military junta to allow the U.S. to help. The White House said the U.S. will send more than $3 million to help cyclone victims, up from an initial emergency contribution of $250,000.

"We're prepared to move U.S. Navy assets to help find those who have lost their lives, to help find the missing, to help stabilize the situation. But in order to do so, the military junta must allow our disaster assessment teams into the country," he said.

Bush spoke at a ceremony where he signed legislation awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Burmese democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi.

Myanmar's military regime has signaled it will welcome aid supplies for victims of a devastating cyclone, the U.N. said Tuesday, clearing the way for a major relief operation from international organizations.

But U.N. workers were still awaiting their visas to enter the country, said Elisabeth Byrs of the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

"The government has shown a certain openness so far," Byrs said. "We hope that we will get the visas as soon as possible, in the coming hours. I think the authorities have understood the seriousness of the situation and that they will act accordingly."

The appeal for outside assistance was unusual for Myanmar's ruling generals, who have long been suspicious of international organizations and closely controlled their activities. Several agencies, including the International Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, have limited their presence as a consequence.

Allowing any major influx of foreigners could carry risks for the military, injecting unwanted outside influence and giving the aid givers rather than the junta credit for a recovery.

However, keeping out international aid would focus blame squarely on the military should it fail to restore peoples' livelihoods.

Some aid agencies reported their assessment teams had reached some areas of the largely isolated region but said getting in supplies and large numbers of aid workers would be difficult.

The cyclone came only a week ahead of a key referendum on a constitution that Myanmar's military leaders hoped would go smoothly in its favor, despite opposition from the country's feisty pro-democracy movement. However, the disaster could stir the already tense political situation.

State radio also said that Saturday's vote would be delayed until May 24 in 40 of 45 townships in the Yangon area and seven in the Irrawaddy delta, which took the brunt of the weekend storm. It indicated that the balloting would proceed in other areas as scheduled.

The decision drew swift criticism from dissidents and human rights groups who question the credibility of the vote and urged the junta to focus on disaster victims.

Myanmar's generals have hailed the referendum as an important step forward in their "roadmap to democracy." It offers the first chance for voters to cast ballots since 1990, and the probability is high they will approve the constitution — a legal framework the country has lacked for two decades.

But critics, including the United Nations, the United States and human rights groups, question whether it will lead to democracy.

Myanmar has been under military rule since 1962. Its government has been widely criticized for suppression of pro-democracy parties such as the one led by Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has been under house arrest for almost 12 of the past 18 years.

At least 31 people were killed and thousands more were detained when the military cracked down on peaceful protests in September led by Buddhist monks and democracy advocates.

Washington has long been one of the ruling junta's sharpest critics for its poor human rights record and failure to hand over power to a democratically elected government.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Patterns of Popular Music

2008-04-25T17:37:00.000-07:00

I wrote this essay for an English class where the assignment was to analyze an aspect of culture. I had fun writing it, and if you've ever heard me spout about music and chord patterns you know I'm always willing to talk about it more. Anyway, here's a glimpse into what I was thinking about.

I grew up confused while I listened to music. My middle school classmates implied that as an adolescent male, I couldn’t listen to the Backstreet Boys, the Spice Girls, or Britney Spears. Listening to rock, hip-hop, and mainstream pop groups showed much more maturity, or perhaps masculinity. I didn’t understand the discrimination. Both categories sounded similar to me, aside from the different lyrics (which I hardly listened to anyway) and the pitch of the singers’ voices. Both styles caught my ear, and I discovered they caught my classmates’ ears too, as I heard them singing along to more than a few “poppy” and “girly” songs during school dances. Adolescent social pressures rarely relent without someone’s intentional or external force. Somehow music, in the heat of the moment on the dance floor, succeeded in doing so – even if my fellow male classmates refused to admit it.

American popular music today includes a wide array of genres: rock, hip-hop/rap, country, jazz, R&B, pop, reggae, and a number of sub-genres. Each genre employs different instruments that produce different qualities of sound. An electric guitar creates a rigid series of notes that each stand out within the entire riff, whereas strums across an acoustic guitar produce a stream of notes that flow together into melodic harmony. Other aspects of music, too – such as tempo and volume – allow for further manipulation. Slow, quiet strokes of a violin’s bow across the instrument’s strings contribute towards a dramatic melody, whereas bursts of sound caused by playing quickly communicate frenzied elation. All these aspects allow musicians to compile an incredibly diverse collection of music. Yet songs across all genres share similarities. The conventions that popular music uses today apply more widely than most people consider. Songs by both the Beatles and Michael Jackson, for example, use the same strategies to create songs that everybody will enjoy.

Songs today tend to exhibit simple structures. Many use the exact same scaffold. They follow this sequence: verse 1, chorus, verse 2, chorus, bridge (or instrumental break), chorus, chorus (repeated). This specific structure displays a careful balance between symmetry and variation. The verses sound identical, but their lyrics vary. Choruses have the same lyrics and music. The bridge section remains essential because it connects the first and second halves of the song with a new musical theme. Listeners will neither get lost nor get bored when listening to a song with this structure due to its predictability sprinkled with variety. As a result, this standard structure functions as a brand name in music. Songs that use it become immediately familiar.

Verses and choruses reappear in songs so listeners can follow along. Repetition exists in many other places, too. Repeating musical themes characterize a piece. Chord sequences repeat within phrases. Think of the Beatles’ “Yellow Submarine.” Each verse contains a melody that repeats four times; so does each chorus. After listening to just the first section, one can sing along. Repetition gives listeners the instant gratification of being able to follow a song after a few lines. The first series of notes will almost certainly reappear – and likely multiple times.

This repetition serves a clear purpose. Drivers flipping through car radio stations must recognize a song, or else the station will not attract many listeners. Repetition aids the memory. Popular music must ease listeners in; strident chords and unusual constructions scare them away because they have no familiarity with them. After introducing listeners to a song, the music itself can do its proper work.

The actual sounds that music creates draw in listeners the most, sometimes regardless of how they arrange themselves within a piece. Familiar structures help a song become catchy; added to a melody, a song can become memorable. Consider “Happy Birthday” (more of a tune than a song due to its length). The first two lines, “happy birthday to you,” begin with the same four notes; the last two differ. The third line “happy birthday dear…” bears a completely separate melody, and the last line closes with a slightly different melody but the same words as the first two lines. The melody itself also exhibits a balance between repetition and structure.

What makes a song sound good, anyway? To start, certain combinations of notes (consonances) sound pleasing to the ear, while others (dissonances) sound strident and conflicting. Consonances – thirds, sixths, unisons, and octaves – create stability and establish location. Dissonances – seconds, sevenths, and sometimes fourths – create a sense of tension and instability. (A “second” is two notes of a scale next to each other, a “third” is two notes with one in between, a “fourth” has two notes between, etc.) Certain consonances and dissonances can create perceptible moods. Periods of tension created by dissonance resolved with consonance create that “ahhh” feeling at the end of a piece that satisfies the ear. Conversely, endings containing unstable intervals dissatisfy the ear and leave the listener hanging. The true power of music lies in dissonances and consonances.

Classical music composers understood and studied this phenomenon quite well. Beethoven’s symphonies flourish with amazing combinations of chords involving several voices and intricate connections. They display much more ambition than popular music songs. They also sprawl over long time periods and explore different styles for the sheer sake of exploration. Modern listeners often lose patience when listening to them. Beethoven concerned himself much more with creating art than creating a packaged product. Popular music cannot afford this freedom; to appeal to the masses, it must create something everyone can appreciate. This can hinder creativity, but it also establishes consistency, a key quality in the modern American marketplace.

Popular music songs, to their credit, do try to preserve some of Beethoven’s linking harmonies. All songs in popular music begin in a particular key – C Major appears frequently, for example. To establish context, artists use C Major chords at the beginning and the end of pieces in that key as well as at important “stopping points” along the way, such as the ends of verses. Without this context, listeners get lost because they do not know how the notes relate to one another. A song’s key establishes the foundation of the mood.

Other chords function to add spice and flavor to music, taking advantage of dissonances and consonances to create distinctive chord combinations. The chord progression I-V-VI-IV (or sometimes a reordering of it) appears very frequently in popular music, where the Roman numeral corresponds to the scale degree the chord is structured on. A V chord in C Major has a root of G, the fifth note of the C Major scale. Think of “Don’t Stop Believin’” by Journey, the verses of “Let It Be” by the Beatles, or the chorus of Kelly Clarkson’s “Breakaway” when looking for I-V-VI-IV chord patterns. The sequence flows very well, mostly because the chords share many notes in common. Chords I, IV, and V appear more often than any others by far in general.

Major and minor tonalities add to a song’s mood as well. Songs in major tend to evoke happy, upbeat, or sometimes thoughtful (in slow songs) sensations. Songs written in minor try to instill aggression (especially in rock and hip-hop) or sadness. The tools of consonances and dissonances within a framework of major or minor key tonality allow songwriters to make songs sound different, even when the same chord patterns and structures occur. Most of the differences between genres arise from major vs. minor tonality and the sound quality coming from instruments.

Overall the effect resulting from employing this conscious use of song structure, dissonances in chords, and the use of major vs. minor intends to hook the listener. Rhythm helps to glue it all together. A consistent beat keeps the listener moving over any bumps or uncertainties in the music. Almost all popular music songs use 4/4 meter (four beats per measure, where a quarter note represents each beat). This natural rhythm of “strong, weak, strong, weak” further engages the ear. Most rock and many pop songs have accents on the second and fourth beats of the measure. Listen to the drummer.

Remarkably, all these techniques allow for a series of similarly constructed songs to keep listeners’ attention better than a Mozart Sonata containing a variety of intricate musical themes. It seems a bit unfortunate that popular music shies away from using the daring harmonies that many classical composers employed. The compositional abilities of modern songwriters pale in comparison to Mozart’s. But because music has become an industry, this simplification has become a necessity. Bands that sign record deals, go on tours, and endeavor to sell album after album must reproduce their own sound. Rather than appreciating the best thought-out or most creative songs, Americans will buy whatever currently appeals to them the most, which often means what they previously heard and enjoyed. Hence, the patterns into which popular music has grown now serve as expectations.

Self-perpetuation occurs. I-V-VI-IV sounds so good simply because we hear it often. As the music industry targets largely the youth, certain sounds become ingrained in our early experiences. At a young age we hear the voices of young talents singing to us; as a result we want to understand them and want to feel what they feel. Music allows us to do just that. The feelings inherent in the moods of music impart a universal emotion to the listener. Music contains immense power.

The power to bring back a moment. As I hear “All Star” by Smash Mouth, with its repeated verses and recurring chorus, I know it sounds like countless other pop and rock songs I have heard before. Yet for some reason, I still love to sing it. I can remember others screaming it on the middle school dance floor. I remember seeing it become a hit.

The popular music artists have done it. I can predict the patterns, but that only causes me to enjoy the music even more. The ability to understand the source of what makes music so universally potent brings me joy. So before judging me for listening to Hannah Montana, just hear the harmonies. Her songs sound great. Don't believe me? Then listen to it yourself. Or believe the millions of dollars in concert ticket revenues here concerts and tours have produced.

Beginnings, Part 2

2008-04-20T18:36:00.000-07:00

During the week of March 31st, I participated in a campaign to draw attention to China's role in the ongoing genocide in Darfur. The campaign, led by Yale STAND, consisted of putting up flyers all around campus, setting up a visual statement - pictures of Darfuri refugees on pieces of colored cardstock that formed the olympic rings logo - and publishing op-ed articles in the Yale Daily News, the Herald, and our hometown newspapers. Below is an article I wrote for the Herald for that week. It was edited by the paper, but the message remains the same nonetheless.

A bicycle floats, silhouetted against a gleaming full moon; an enormous T-Rex shreds the metal shell of a Jeep; a legendary adventurer sprints through a cavern, outrunning a massive boulder; a ferocious great white shark slams into a rusty cruiser. These are only a handful of the many unforgettable scenes conceived by renowned director Steven Spielberg. And until recently, it seemed Spielberg would bring his cinematic flair to the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, China, as an artistic adviser. But on Tues., Feb. 12, Spielberg sent a statement to the Chinese ambassador and the Beijing Olympic committee stating his intention to withdraw from the job.

Why retreat from the opportunity to contribute to a major international event? The reason is simple: Spielberg was troubled by China’s apathy toward the ongoing crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan. He had written to Chinese President Hu Jintao twice in the past 10 months, urging the president to use China’s influence to help stop the tragedies in Darfur. When his appeals were to no avail, Spielberg left the job, declaring in his statement: “My conscience will not allow me to continue with business as usual.”

Spielberg’s decision to back out was the last thing that China wanted. In the past, China has resisted organizations’ and world leaders’ attempts to associate the country with Darfur—especially in relation to the Olympics. The Olympics are extremely important to the future of rapidly-industrializing China, and the government doesn’t want anything to tarnish its Olympic image. In an angry response to Spielberg’s statement, a spokesman from the Chinese Embassy in Washington claimed that since “the Darfur issue is neither an internal issue of China nor is it caused by China; it is completely unreasonable, irresponsible and unfair to link the two as one.” But even if China did not cause “the Darfur issue,” it is undeniable that its policies are prolonging it. If we want to urge China to act, we must apply pressure wherever possible. This year, the Olympics offer that possibility.

China buys 70 percent of Sudan’s oil, providing its government with its most reliable source of income. The Sudanese government uses oil revenue to buy weapons back from China, its number one supplier, which it then gives to the Janjaweed. The Janjaweed, whose members are also known as “devils on horseback,” is an Arab militia that burns villages, rapes and kills Sudanese citizens, and has single-handedly displaced millions in Darfur. The government of Sudan sponsors this violent campaign by supplying arms and providing intelligence to the Janjaweed, as well as occasionally initiating air strikes on villages. Citizens have been forced to trek across deserts to internal refugee camps or to flee to the neighboring country of Chad; as a result, the conflict has spread there.

Though the Sudanese regime has prevented peacekeeping troops from entering Darfur, violating international demands for a ceasefire, China nevertheless continues to support this violent government. Last year, the U.N. approved a resolution that would put a group of nearly 30,000 soldiers from both U.N. and African Union forces on the ground in Darfur. This army of troops could have helped to end the violence and to assist refugees in re-establishing their lives. However, peacekeeping troops have yet to enter the country because China has vetoed previous attempts by the Security Council to deploy them.

China claims that it has nothing to do with the genocide in Darfur; in reality, China stands in a unique position to end it. The country refuses to act, however, because its government benefits from the low-priced oil that it receives from Sudan. So what can we do to change China’s mind?

We can make China feel the cost of its refusal.

Spielberg is only just of many celebrities who have publicly condemned the events in Darfur. “Not On Our Watch,” a non-profit dedicated to Darfur advocacy and aid co-founded by George Clooney, Don Cheadle, Brad Pitt, and Matt Damon, recently traveled to China to make the same demands. Actress Mia Farrow has also actively spoken out against the genocide in Darfur, and has called for public pressure on China in the months leading up to the Olympics. As well-informed citizens, if we want to put an end to the violence, we must remain aware of the atrocities going on in Darfur and share these with the wider public.

Spielberg knows that to attain the “One World, One Dream” slogan so touted by the Chinese government, we must prioritize. Ending a major human rights crisis must be among our top concerns—even if it means openly speaking out against the majestic Olympic games. If we can stop the genocide in Darfur, we could enjoy an unforgettable Olympic Games and a realization of peace in a time meant to highlight world unity.

Beginnings

2008-04-16T14:12:00.000-07:00

So I guess the idea of this joint blog is to facilitate the sharing of ideas on all things global, cultural, political, and such in nature. We got this idea from our near simultaneous publishing of thoughts on the politics of the upcoming Olympics in my old Xanga and Jermp's editorial in the Yale school paper. In the spirit of that, here's what I wrote Wednesday April 9th.

=======================================================

Chapter 1 Article 1& 2 of the Olympic Charter:

"Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.

The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity."

----------------------------------------------

When the IOC and the various countries that lack the courage to stand up against China say that the Olympics are not to be politicized, they are simply wrong. The banning of South African delegates because of apartheid, the boycott of Moscow because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the subsequent boycott of the Los Angeles games by the Soviets. The Games have had a history of being politicized and for good reason.

If the Olympics are about a philosophy on how man shall develop and grow with the help of sport, then it is clearly very different from a normal sporting event. March Madness just concluded (with quite the entertaining bang) and the NBA playoffs are due to start in a couple weeks. Those are real sporting events and the Olympics are nothing like them. This is about different countries coming together and promoting peace and goodwill through the competitive nature of sport. Beijing achieved its bid for this summer's Olympics because the IOC believed that it would be a good opening ceremony for China to the world. And the fact is that China has gone to great pains to make this its coming out party, going to such extremes as to pulling cars off the road to limit its incredible pollution (which a good deal of it is exported to the west coast of the U.S.). The buildings being put up are some impressive structures and the people seem to be fairly hyped up for such an international event being held in their capital.

Then Tibet happened. Never mind that Tibet has been "happening" for half a century now or that China supports the Sudanese government that is allowing genocide to take place. Beijing says 22 people have died in the last several weeks. They also say those who have died are mostly Han Chinese...because when your own military comes rolling through a tumultuous region, they are going to shoot at your own people. To be fair, let's also assume that the figure of 140 dead, given by Tibetan exile groups is exaggerated as well.

But it doesn't really matter. The fact is that people are dying, hundreds are being imprisoned for wanting their spiritual leader and culture back. This should not be representative of the country hosting an event that is supposed to concerned with the "preservation of human dignity." A Chinese national was recently imprisoned for 3 1/2 years because of his dissent against the government's treatment of Tibet. His crime? Subversion against the state and because he supposedly confessed to his "crime," the punishment was "light." Three and a half years away from his family and life because he expressed discontent with his government.

It is interesting to note that China again and again refers to outsiders meddling in its internal affairs. But the matter at hand is that the Olympics have been given to China to hold. The world stage is theirs for the time being. Their internal affairs are even more exposed and are going to more scrutinized than ever before. And thus, it is no wonder that so many groups have seized this opportunity to protest against China's abominable record on human rights (Note: I realize the U.S. and most of the world's record is not much better). London, Paris, San Francisco, every stop of the torch has been met with the frustrations of hundreds and thousands of people who are tired of what China is doing with its power. China has threatened more force should anything erupt when the torch passes through Tibet, and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Tibetans are not going to stay at home and twiddle thumbs while a symbol of supposedly world unity passes through their territory.

The Olympics are meant to be more than just a mere sporting event. Thus, I applaud the French, Czech, and every other leader who is taking this opportunity to at least voice the possibility of their boycotting some part of the Olympics. Is it fair that athletes who have trained for a good portion of their lives give up the opportunity to compete for the gold on the world's most prestigious sporting stage (and that's an arguable point as well...the World Cup and various world championships draw large audiences and the best athletes as well). The Charter specifically mentions that the Games are not meant as a country vs. country competition but as competition between athletes. So perhaps it is not fair that countries use the Games as a bludgeon against another country's practices.

But that kind of thinking skirts the real issue at hand. Every human being has certain rights, life/health, food, water, freedom of expression, etc, etc. and while certainly the world is not perfect and these rights are lacking in many areas beyond the Chinese borders, the blatant violation in a country like China that is hosting an event as large as the Games is deserving of more attention and scrutiny. Therefore, as representatives of an event that is supposed to preserve human dignity, these athletes should also be considering their presence at the Olympics and whether or not they should be competing and bringing attention to a country that is disregarding the "universal fundamental ethical principles" of its citizens and claimed people.

Some, predictably Chinese and sadly some Chinese Americans as well, say that these protests humiliate and destroy the spirit of the Games and of China. They say that is hypocritical of the Western world to criticize China's treatment of minorities while we ourselves struggle with racism and immigration (and wear clothes and use equipment made in China). Which is very well and true, but again, this skirts the issue at hand. Here in the U.S., people rose in support of the Jena Six and the obvious racism. People can protest freely (kind of). I can write that I extremely disapprove of George W. Bush's administration and not get imprisoned (not yet anyway, maybe Obama can reverse all those silly Patriot and anti-terrorism acts that don't actually have a measurable impact on anti-terrorism). And it's true that this could cause unneeded harmful sentiments against the Chinese here in the States and that would be a terrible thing, but still entirely the fault of the ignorant American who does come to feel such things. It does not help that the media is always longing to pounce on stories that feed their market share, using language to deliberately incite negative emotions.

But the bottom line is still the same. Genocide in more than one form is happening and its related to China. China is hosting an event meant to promote peace and understanding. How does any country and its athletes go and compete with the knowledge that just by going, they are implicitly raising China's profile and, I believe, approving of China's behavior. Would one go to another's house to hang out if they knew that house owner was sponsoring the suppression and murder of a group of other people?

==================================

Hopefully Jermp will link to his article sometime soon.