John Wayne's Holster

President Clinton Makes His Case Against McCain

2008-08-28T12:28:00.013-04:00

Photo Credit: BBC

It’s convention season again. Ho hum.

I usually don’t watch the conventions. I don’t find much substance in them. Most of the speeches are nothing more than ballyhoo, hollow platitudes, and empty promises. That being said, every once in awhile, one can actually glean something useful from a speech.

Such was the case last night, when President Clinton spoke.

Knowing that he was scheduled to speak, I decided to tune in. Despite my philosophical differences with President Clinton, as well as the Democratic Party, I had a feeling that his speech would be worth listening too. He is always an engaging speaker. As such, I decided to lend Mr. Clinton an ear.

Most of his speech, like all convention oratory, was fluff. He didn’t do much to persuade me that Obama is the "man for the job". He told us the Obama is “intelligent” and “curious”. Surely, they are admirable qualities. But sufficient for the Presidency? We were also told that Obama has superior policies on the “economy, taxes, health care, and energy”, but we weren’t told what those policies were.

Then again, convincing me to vote for Obama was not his purpose. He was the attack dog. His mission was to convince us of why we shouldn’t vote for Senator McCain.

He convinced me!

Actually, convinced is not the right word. I probably should have said that President Clinton reaffirmed my convictions. I wasn’t planning on voting for McCain anyway.

Fluff aside, there was one shinning moment in Clinton’s speech, not including the revelation that he is in love with Joe Biden. It came in the latter half of his speech, when he put the spotlight on what the Republicans have to show for the last 8 years in the White House. President Clinton stated:

American workers have given us consistently rising productivity. They've worked harder and produced more. What did they get in return? Declining wages, less than ¼ as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s. American families by the millions are struggling with soaring health care costs and declining coverage. I will never forget the parents of children…who told me…that they couldn't afford health care and couldn't qualify their kids for Medicaid unless they quit work or got a divorce. Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of? What about the military families pushed to the breaking point by unprecedented multiple deployments? What about the assault on science and the defense of torture? What about the war on unions and the unlimited favors for the well connected? What about Katrina and cronyism?

Clinton then took a short interlude and told us what a great guy Senator McCain is, before telling us he is not that great, and we shouldn’t vote for him. He then continued on his diatribe against the Republicans, stating:

[The Republicans] took us from record surpluses to an exploding national debt; from over 22 million new jobs down to 5 million; from an increase in working family incomes of $7,500 to a decline of more than $2,000; from almost 8 million Americans moving out of poverty to more than 5 and a half million falling into poverty - and millions more losing their health insurance.

Then more fluff….

I think President Clinton summed-up the immense mountain of problems that the next president will inherit. Knowing that many (but not all) of these problems were the result of Bush’s failed policies, combined with the fact that McCain is offering more of the same, is enough to convince me to vote for someone else.

But not enough to vote for Obama!

His policies are the same, only different. We are being offered a false choice between two candidates whose main interest is gaining power for their party. It's a reflection of the sad state of political affairs in this country. Both parties have their hands in the pockets of corporate America. Both are enslaved to the lobbyists and special interest groups that finance their campaigns and line their pockets. The average citizen is left out in the cold. When you boil it all down, it doesn't make much difference whom one votes for. The results will be the same, only the means will be different.

There is really not much to look forward to in November. No real hope for change.

Is Spongebob running?

Aspiring to Mediocrity

2008-08-27T16:16:00.004-04:00

My Uncle Dan taught me a lot of lessons about life – lessons that I will never forget. Sports provided the venue for a fair number of those lessons. Learning how to win gracefully, learning not to be a sore loser, giving it your all. These are things that apply to life, just as well as they do to basketball, football or even whiffle ball.

Another vital lesson I learned was the importance of challenging yourself. You will never get better if you don't challenge yourself and overcome obstacles. Or as Uncle Dan used to say, “You want to become a better player, then you have to play against people that are better than you!” This is one of the most important lessons one can learn.

When kids grow-up and venture out into the real world, they are always going to come up against people who are better than they are in one particular way or another, be it in the work place, their social life, the gym, or in the routine events of daily life. When confronted with obstacles, they can either face the challenge, or fold up their tent and go home crying for mommy. Sadly, many Americans are teaching their kids to pack it in and go home.

I saw this story a few days ago on ESPN about a 9 year old kid who was banned from pitching in his Little League games because he was better that the other kids. Apparently, the kids on other teams were not having any fun because they would always lose. When the boy’s coach told him to go out and pitch despite the ban, the opposing coach had his team walk off the field, thus forfeiting the game.

Unfortunately, this event is not an isolated one. Rather, it is a microcosm of an oft-repeated and all-too-common happening in the lives of our children. Kids are being brainwashed with the idea that winning is the only reason to engage in any activity. The competition and the striving seem to have lost their meaning. The proverbial playing field is being artificially leveled so that outcomes are more or less the same.

Competitions are frowned on in schools, because that means someone has to lose and have his/her feelings hurt. All the kids at birthday parties have to be given bags full of snacks, toys, and other party favors, otherwise someone may feel sad because they didn’t get any presents. At school talent shows, everyone gets a blue ribbon and a certificate just for walking in the door.

It's as if all inputs are equal.

I'll let you in on a little secret. THEY'RE NOT! And don't be suprised when you get out in the real world and your shortcomings smack you square on your face.

Unfortunately, our children are not being taught this lesson. They don't know how to deal with disappointment, or how to handle set-backs. Or more importantly, how to find something positive in the disappointments and set-backs that they all eventually must face. As many successful people will testify, the most valuable things they learned about themselves, or the things that spurred their greatest triumphs, were revealed to them through the mistakes they made and the defeats they suffered along their journey.

In short, our kids are being told that only winning is important. And if you can’t win, then it’s not fair, so don’t play. Its an attitude that produces spoiled, mediocre children who “grow-up” to become maladjusted and mediocre adults.

And we wonder why the US is falling behind the rest of the world.

China’s Future Path Is Hopefully Not to the West

2008-08-26T09:03:00.022-04:00

Photo Credit: Chinese-flag.org

I got together with some friends last night to watch the closing ceremonies of the Olympics. Despite the horrendous presentation offered by NBC – not to mention all the commercials – the ceremonies were quite impressive. China laid out its vision for the future.

Taken together with the Opening Ceremonies, China has successfully used the Olympic stage to announce to the world that it is an emerging world superpower with a solid foundation. It remains to be seen what direction China will go. Will they be like Japan (1964 summer games, 1972 winter games), and emerge as an economic superpower committed to democracy? Will the follow the lead of Germany (1936 summer games), and become a closed, oppressive, and nationalistic government? Or will they forge their own unique path? Time will tell…

If recent trends in China continue, I think China will emerge as a more open government. Certainly, China in the second half of the 20th century was controlled by a brutal and oppressive communist regime. But with the death of Mao in 1976, followed by the dying out of the old guard, a slow but steady transition in Chinese politics has been on-going for the last 30 years. During that time, China has transitioned from a highly centralized government-controlled economy to a thriving market-driven economy.

Certainly China still has its problems – some of which are quite serious. The Chinese people do not enjoy the same freedoms that many in the west take for granted. There are still restrictions on the press, free speech and religious practice. There are also a variety of human rights issues in regard to Tibet, treatment of religious and political prisoners, and policies toward Darfur. But some of these things are changing, albeit slowly.

Many in the west expect the changes to happen overnight, but that is not being realistic. One can’t take a country from the failed policies of communism and Mao’s cultural revolution, and expect it to adapt to free markets and an open government overnight. Russia tried it, and it was an utter failure. It doesn’t appear to be working very well in Iraq either, despite the US’s best efforts to impose it upon her. Taking note of these lessons, China must proceed cautiously – and it seems they are doing just that.

One must also keep in mind that China may not want to have an economic and political system modeled after the west. President Hu Jintao himself suggested that China will persue a different path, as he laid out the blueprint for China’s development. Speaking at the BOAO Forum for Asia, President Hu stated, “There is no ready or unchanging path and model of development that suits all countries in the world. We must explore and improve our development path and model in keeping with China's national conditions.”

While China admires the economic growth and prosperity we enjoy here in the west, she loathes our social liberalism and its attendant moral bankruptcy. As such, China will take the necessary steps to prevent these problems from becoming her problems. The closing ceremonies at the Olympics illustrated this point quite nicely. The ceremonies not only laid out China’s vision of the future, but they served as a warning to China of what she could become if she is not careful. This warning was inadvertently issued by London, the host of the 2012 summer games.

What does London (and by extension, the west) have to offer? Following China’s display of its rich cultural heritage and its ambitious roadmap for the future, London put itself on display for the world to see. First, they sent-up London mayor Boris Johnson, who staggered to the podium, with his coat unbuttoned, and his knuckles dragging on the ground, to receive the Olympic flag. Next, they rolled in a double-decker bus surrounded by androgynous pedestrians clamoring to climb on board. And what cultural icon should pop out the top of the bus? A likeness of William Shakespeare? Perhaps Issac Newton? How about Ernest Shackleton? Maybe even a Beefeater? No, these guys were apparently unavailable. The best that London could come up with was Jimmy Page – an ex-booze guzzlin’, -coke snortin’, -heroin shootin’ has-been rocker, whose favorite past-times are satan worshiping and stuffing mudshark and red snapper into women’s...(yes there)...(and also there). What does Mr. Page have to offer? Just a Whole Lotta Love - a misogynistic ode that is euphamistically about his penis. Now that’s culture! That’s class!

Jimmy Page

With this warning in mind, and thousands of other examples like it, China will not model itself after the west. I think it is more likely that China’s will develop a system more akin to that of Singapore, with a mix of economic freedom and social control.

At least I hope so!

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 1918-2008

2008-08-07T06:59:00.016-04:00

The world suffered a great loss over the past weekend with the death of Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn. Here is an exerpt from a WashingtonTimes article on Solzhenitsyn's legacy. The full article can be found here.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who died Sunday of heart failure at age 89, was a titan in Russian literature and politics of the 20th century. He survived the Stalinist purges, World War II, eight years in the gulag, a successful battle with cancer, and communist denunciation. After spending 18 years exiled in America, he made a triumphant return to his homeland in 1994.

His life reflects the tragedy of 20th century Russia, which suffered the turmoil of wars and revolution. Sixty million people were killed by the communist Soviet regime. Some 27 million died in World War II.

Solzhenitsyn was arrested and imprisoned for eight-years in a labour camp for critical comments he made about Lenin and Stalin in a personal letter to a friend. His experience in the Soviet gulag system was documented in a number of his books, such as One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and The First Circle. However, it is for his novel The Gulag Archipelago, for which he is best known. Collectively, these works revealed to the world the horrible truth about Soviet totalitarianism.

Following his release from prison, Solzhenitsyn was forced into exile and stipped of his Soviet citizenship. He eventually took refuge in the United States, but never accepted the western lifestyle as his own. In fact, he was a rather harsh critic of west in general, and the United States in particlar. His commencement address to the Harvard class of 1978 is scathing, but paifully on target. In my opinion, it would make a nice addition to summer reading programs for all high school students.

It is no understatement to say that Solzhenitsyn contributed greatly, more so even than Reagan and Thatcher, to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think Solzhenitsyn's role in the demise of Soviet communism is best summed up by a statement from the New York Times Russian languange blog, where one writer under the pen name Xaliavschik stated:

"[Solzhenitsyn] smashed the Soviet regime. After he published The Gulag Archipelago and displayed the underbelly of the union, nobody in the world (among thinkers and intellectuals) believed in the prospects of communism."

Solzhenitsyn was laid to rest yesterday in a Moscow monastary. Hopefully, for Russia's sake, and for her future, he will not be forgotten.

Bush - All Hat and No Cattle

2008-08-07T00:25:00.022-04:00

While watching the International version of CNN on Taiwan cable TV, I noticed that the Olympic torch has finally arrived in China. I guess that means the games are about to get underway.

Another thing I noticed is that all the coverage of the lead-up to the Olympics is focused in China's human rights record and Beijing's terrible air pollution problem. At the forefront of the protests are the issues of China's restrictive policies regarding the personal freedoms of its own people, its oppression of Tibet, its genocidal crackdown in the Darfur region, and its policy toward Sudan.

Personally, I find all this politicking before the games to be ridiculous and hypocritical. Politicians with their fingers in the wind are trying to win the favor of the electorate, and gain positive favorability ratings, both at home and abroad. President Bush even chimed in, stating:

America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates, and religious activists. We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labor rights not to antagonize China's leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential. And we press for openness and justice not to impose our beliefs but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs.

Bush's talk of human rights, labor rights, and freedoms smacks of hypocrisy. That is not to say that Bush is incorrect about the state of affairs in China. In fact, he is right on target. China's record in these areas leaves much to be desired. One only has to view Amnesty International's report on China to see that.

The point is not an issue of China's human rights record. It has more to do with the fact that Bush is the one putting the spotlight on the issue. "W" needs to clean-up his own back yard before he starts pointing over the fence. Perhaps he should reference the bible that he claims to love so much before making such remarks. If Bush will recall, the gospel (Matt 7:3) states, Why do you see the speck that is in your brothers eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Bush speaks of human rights violations in China, but thinks nothing of maintaining secret prisons, or killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq simply to gain a strong foothold on access to the regions oil reserves. Bush's suport for the tyrannical and oppressive Saudi regime is another case in point.

Bush speaks of labor rights in China, but thinks nothing of allowing US corporations to exploit the undocumented foreign workers that pour over the Mexican border every day. He thinks nothing about the allowing the importation of cheap goods produced overseas in the sweatshops of Asia.

Bush speaks of the denial of various freedoms (speech, press, religion, free association, etc) in China, yet continues to a trade with China on a balance that is heavily in their favor. Did I mention that Bush also maintains favorable relations with the Saudis?

Despite all his rhetoric, Bush is planning on attending the Olympic games. Now there's a man with convictions for you! Bush can talk the talk, but apparently he can not muster up the courage to walk the walk. The man is all hat and no cattle.

So much for all his cowboy swagger.

Bankers Need a Kick in the Fannie

2008-07-29T03:31:00.014-04:00

Today's Bankers Are Like Mr. Potter (It's a Wonderful Life)

Here in Taiwan, Typhoon Fung-Wong is blowing through town. As such, my plans of climbing Ali Shan in search of Formosan Magpies have been rained-out. So here I am in front of my computer listening to the Steve Miller Band while trying to catch-up on the news back home.

I stumbled on this report in the UK Telegraph stating that the US House of Representatives just approved a deal to bail-out the mortgage giants, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) Steve Miller's Take the Money and Run is playing in the background.

While I am outraged at this latest example of corporate welfare, the bail-out deal does not suprise me. As an American, I have come to expect such things.

All this Freddie & Fannie stuff can be traced back to the sub-prime mortgage fraud, the bursting of the housing bubble, and the criminal actions of the banking industry.

The banking industry lowered its loan requirements so that it could lend more money (i.e. collect more interest payments) from borrowers. Apparently a borrowers ability to repay was not fully taken into accout. I suppose the slogan of the bankers was "No income, no job, no assets....No problem!" On the surface, this seems like gross negligence on the part of banks, as they would have to assume a higher risk of default by these so-called "sub-prime" borrowers. In order to make it all work, the banks transferred their risk to third parties in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), structured investment vehicles (SIVs), and other forms of packaged debts. The bankers pocketed the money.

What happened to these sub-prime loans? For starters, many of the loans were provided as adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) with long mortgage periods. With ARMs, borrowers frequently make low initial payments, but must assume a risk of a possible rise in the interest rates. Many sub-prime borrowers purchased properties with ARMs with the hope of selling those properties later at a higher price. But then, the housing bubble burst, and the value of many properties tanked. Many borrowers defaulted on their loans, leaving investors and some creditors who bought up the packaged debts on the hook.

You may be asking yourself how the bankers duped investors into buying these junk loans. They did so by packaging the junk with other "good" loans. They then colluded with securities ratings agencies to give them high ratings (A-AAA ratings). It's a process akin to making scrapple. Sweep up all the scraps, bones and cartilage, mix in a few pieces of real meat, throw in some spices for masking, grind it all up so that the individual components are indiscenrible, then sell it as USDA-approved grade A steak.

So, what to do now? With the current and looming loan defaults, someone is going to loose. Its either the investors and creditors (i.e. the big campaign contributors), or the little guy (i.e. me and you).

The Feds could let Fannie and Freddie go bankrupt, or take them over and sell off their assets. This would probably wipe-out some investors and creditors. But we must remember, they assumed that risk when they purchased the junk loans in the first place. The ripple from this would most definately shake-up the banking industry. Investors would lose faith in the solvency of banks, and would sell-off their investments and withdraw their cash. Banks that made bad investments or were poorly managed would go belly-up. In essence, this puts the banks (but not the bankers - they have already pocketed their cash and fled the scene) on the hook for irresponsible loan practices.

Alternatively, the Feds could present a "sweetheart" deal to the semi-private corporations, effectively bailing them out. Essentially, the Federal Reserve would simply turn on their printing machine, crank out a few billion extra dollars, and loan it to Freddie and Fannie at rates you and I would love to have for our own mortgages. This would give the loan giants enough money to remain solvent - at least for now. Incidentally, it would also add a few billion to the national debt, but whose counting. Oh yeah - I almost forgot to mention. This deal puts you, the taxpayer, as well as your childfren and grandchildren, on the line. You'll be making the interest payments.

Whom do you expect the government will choose?

I know. It's a stupid question. I just thought I would ask. As expected, Congress has already decided that it will be you and me.

The answer to the "What Would Jesus Do?" question would be to hold the fradulent bankers, and securites rating agencies accountable. Seize their assets and sell them off, drag them in front of a judge, and send them to prison. But Congress doesn't have the courage to do that. Doing so might hurt somebody's feelings, or, even worse, result in the loss of a campaign contribution.

And who said statesmanship was a thing of the past?

Taiwan's Betel Nut Culture

2008-07-13T10:17:00.016-04:00

Areca Palm Plantation

Every culture has its vices. Taiwan is no differnt. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are common past-times here. Although prevalent, these vices rank well behind betel nut chewing in popularity.

Betel nut is essentially the Asian version of chewing tocacco. The locals call it bing lang. The name betal nut is misleading, as the nut itself is not derived from the betel plant. It is actually a small nut from the areca fan-palm nut.

To prepare bing lang, the palm nut is cut down the center and packed with a concoction of limestone or coral paste.

It is not uncommon to supplement the mixture with spices or tobacco. The nut is then wrapped in a small piece of betel leaf, thus giving the treat its popular name.

What exactly is the attraction to chewing bing lang? Part of the attraction is that the nut itself. It contains a mild stimulant that has a subtle effect akin to drinking tea. Users report that ,betel makes you feel strong. Your chest feels broader, your inhalations deeper, your back straighter; and an almost electric invigoration seems to run through your bones." In my own experience, betel chewing gives a mild head rush followed by a envigorating feeling of being on the top of my game. And salivation goes into over-drive. Within a few minutes, my mouth was filled with what felt like a quart of slobber. All in all, I felt pretty content.

While masticating the fibrous bolus, I began to think, "Who ever came up with the idea to mix these odd ingedients together and chew them?", and "What is the purpose of each component?" A bit of internet research, and an interrogation of my brother-in-law who turned me on to these phenomenon lead me to the following info. The alkaloids in the nut are responsible for encouraging salivation. The slaked lime mixture aids in the extraction of the alkaloids and stimulants from the nuts. Spices are added for flavor. The betel leaves are derived from a vine related to pepper. The leaves contain aromatic compounds and are also beleived to increase salivation. Apparently "betel drooling" is part of the pleasure derived from chewing.

Knowing and experiencing this, I can understand why betel chewing is the vice of choice. In fact, it is popular in many countries in southeast asia, and many Pacific islands. One statistic I read estimated that approx. 10% of the world's population chews the nuts. That beign said, betel chewing seems even more popular in Taiwan. Just about every truck driver, construction worker, food vendor, and merchant had a dolop stuffed in his cheek. I was even more suprised to learn that areca palm is the second largest cash crop on the island. Why has betel chewing arisen to be the cultural phenomonon that it is.

Perhaps the answer lies in the laps of the betel nut girls.

To drum-up business, scantitly-clad teens are hired to hawk nuts by the roadside. To get an edge on the competion, the betel nut girls essentially display their "finer charms" in glass booths that line the main thoroughfares. It's a culture unique to Taiwan.

One website describes the betel nut girls as, "a fast-living, fast-talking and fast-selling tangle of live wires". That seems apt to me.

Bing lang does have its down side. Because of its cash draw, many locals have illegally planted the palms on steep mountain slopes. Because the tree themselves have a relatively shallow root structure, mud slides are not uncommon, especially during typhoon season. Government officals have also expressed concern that the betel nut industry gives the island a bad image. Recently, direct flights between the mainland and Taiwan have been reestablished. Nantou county officals were afraid that the so-called scandalous appearence of the betel nut girls would scare away mainland toruist. As such, they forced to girls to dress "more appropriately". One Taiwan blogger quipped that the mainlanders would be shocked to discover that Chinese woman actually have secondary sex characteristics. Other negative issues are linked to public health concerns. Bing lang chewers spatter the reddish liquid on city streets and walkways, leading to unsightly and unsanitary conditions.

The chewers themselves often have grossly discolored teeth, as well as eroded and bleeding gums. Long-term use is linked with oral cancer.

Although officials have made attempts to ban or limit the practice, it is unlikley they will succeed. Native Taiwanese and Pacific islanders have a long history of chewing betel nut that goes back thousands of years. Betel proponents argue that infering with this ancient practice would be akin to cultural prejudice. Moreover, betel chewing is a vice largely confined to blue-collar or working class peoples. Restrictions on the practice would similarly be taken as class snobbery by the legislature. Taiwan also has a fairly large areca palm lobby composed of growers and sellers. They argue that many families depend on the income gained from nut harvests and sales to meet basic needs. As such, the bing lang culture does not look like it will go away any time soon.

Taiwan - Just Like the US, Only Different

2008-07-03T05:24:00.041-04:00

Sunrise at Yushan (Jade Mountain, Taiwan)

Travelling offers one the opportunity to see how people from different countries or cultures go about life. For me, it is always interesting to veiw my own culture through the lens of another. There are always lessons to be learned.

I am currently spending the summer in Taiwan. The main purpose of the trip is to visit family members and explore opportunities of (possibly) putting down some roots here.

During my time here, as well as during several previous vists, I have made a lot of observations. Actually, I spend a great deal of my time observing, as my Mandarin language abilities leave much to be desired. But I am slogging away at it, and making (very) slow but steady progress.

The island has a long and complicated history. Taiwan has historically been inhabited by Malay and Polynesian peoples. Many other peoples have also made Taiwan their home. Mainland Chinese have emigrated to Taiwan over the years for one reason or another - typically to escape oppressive governments or to search for a better life. The Japanese ruled the island several times as well, with many Japanese settling here. As such, Taiwan has a fairly rich demographic and cultural composition. That being said, the character of the island is overwhelmingly Chinese.

In many ways, Taiwan is similar to the United States. In many more ways, it is not. I think it is fair to say that modern Taiwanese admire the western (i.e. US) lifestyle. To ensure that lifestyle, Taiwan has modeled its economic system after the US. As such, the goings-on on Wall Street and inside the beltway affect Taiwan almost as much as they affect the US itself. According to a popular local saying, "when the US get a cold, Taiwan sneezes."

Taiwan's economy is a capitalist system strongly driven by exports. Unlike the US, Taiwan enjoys a large trade surplus and has averaged about 8% real GDP growth over the past three decades. Although the government still maintains some control over the economy, the current trend is toward a hands-off or laizee faire approach. This deregulation may result in the same kind of trouble for Taiwan that the US banking industry is going through.

If the worldwide economy does experience a downturn, I think Taiwan will fare better than the US. For starters, I have seen a much stronger work ethic among the Taiwanese than I have seen in the US. In addition, the people here do not have the same "entitlement mentality" that many Americans have. In other words, the Taiwanese are not going to sit around and wait for the government to bail them out. Moreover, the Confucian family principle still remains strong here. People generally put the needs of their family and country before individual needs. It is not uncommon for two or three generations of a family to live under the same roof. And people take care of their parents and grandparents when they are old or sick, rather than shipping them out to nursing homes and such for someone else to take care of.

Overall, the country is pretty safe. Certainly, Taiwan has its share of crime, especially since marial law was lifted in the late 80's; however, compared to the US, its rate of violent crime is low. During my time here, I have rarely heard police sirens. And about the only time I have ever seen a police officer, he was standing by the roadside holding a radar gun.

Speaking of roads and radar guns, driving in Taiwan can be hazardous to your health. Surely there are road signs, traffic lights, and such, but no one seems to notice them. Red lights are taken as mere suggestions. Double yellow lines painted on the road simply indicate where the middle of the road is. Drivers are free (apparently) to drive on either side of it, or straddle it if they so choose. Making a left turn is more akin to a game of chicken or a test of wills. J. Edgar Hoover must have developed his aversion to left turns during a visit to Taiwan. Crossing the street is an adventure. Of course, crosswalks are present at most intersections, but these are not reminders for motorists that pedestrians may be about. Rather, they seem more like reminders for pedestrians to keep their eyes peeled for vehicles whose break pedals are wired directly to the horn.

Traffic concerns aside, the condition of the roads in Taiwan is quite good. With the exception of some rural or moutainous areas, the roads are maintained quite well. Traffic jams are sometimes encountered, but by New York or San Francisco standards, they are not that bad. About the only time of year one can expect major delays is during the Chinese New Year and the Double-Ten holiday.

Environmentalism is a mixed bag here. The large export industry of Taiwan is driven by industrialization. Industry in turn generates a lot of pollution, especially in the south where a great deal of industry is centered. Although Taiwan does have an EPA, it does not appear to be as effective as it should be. Industrial pollution in Taiwan is pretty bad. In Kaohsiung county, the air quality is among the worst I have ever experienced. The water quality is not great either, but I must say that it is getting better. The Love River in Kaohsiung was notoriously famous for its stench - a funk that gave Cho Dofu (aka Stinky Tofu) a run for its money. However, the government has recently done a great deal to clean the river up. That being said, reports of the governor retrieving a crab from his pocket after swimming in the river was ridiculous. And as far as the river's fetor goes, I don't think Chanel stockholders will lose sleep if someone starts marketing a Love River fragrance line.

In other areas, environmentalism is alive and well. Formosa Plastic's plans to operate a steel processing plant near the Cigu Estuary was turned down due to the potentially negative impact on both the endagered Black-faced Spoonbill and Pacific Humpback Dolphin. Recycling is also widespread in Taiwan. Just about every neighborhood has a recycling center, many of which are staffed by volunteers. And just about everything is recycled.

On the cultural front, Taiwan would seem a bit odd to the average westerner. Karaoke Bars (aka KTV Bars) are everywhere. The bars are pretty fancy as well. They are not your typical American dive with a microphone and projection screen TV. KTV bars have private rooms with plush sofas, flat screen LCD TVs, and state of the art karoake machines. They provide high-class waitress service where one can order cocktails, mixed drinks, finger foods, sushi, etc. But like the US, most people can't sing. Perhaps the private rooms is a blessing in disguise.

While we are discussing music, I should also mention that, suprisingly, the Carpenters are immensely popular here. I heard them so many times on the radio that I think their lyrics are permenantly stuck in my head. If I hear Yesterday Once More once more.... Hip Hop music is also popular here, but not the Snoop Dog or Dr. Dre variety. It's Chinese rappers apparently mimicing American hip-hop. It's a pretty good facsimile, but comes off more like Jackie Chan donning an NBA jersey, low riding pants, a backwards Yankee's hat (Chien-mien Wang is home-grown), and lots of bling. But unlike the US, Chinese character tatoos are not all that popular here.

The food in Taiwan is excellent. But don't try ordering General Tso's Chicken or Egg Foo Young. Nobody knows what that is here. When you explain to them what it is, they laugh and wonder how westerners can eat that crap. As far as variety goes, anything goes. The locals have a saying, "If it can walk, crawl, fly or swim, it can be eaten. And that is not far from the truth. As for quality, most restaurants here serve good quality, great tasting food. Even your roadside vendors sell food that is better than some five-star restaurants in the US. And to be fair, some are worse than rat-infested KFCs. Speaking of KFC, it is very popular here. So are Starbucks, McDonalds and Pizza Hut. McD's even delivers.

On the negative side, people waste a lot of food here. It is fashionable among the young professionals to entertain large groups of friends, ordering immense amounts of food that no party could hope to finish. It's sort of a way to flaunt your wealth, or at least paint the facade of wealth, to your colleagues.

Politics here is also highly polarized - even more so than the US. Part of the country wants to declare independence from mainland China. They resent everything the ghosts of Chiang Kai Shek and Chiang Ching Kuo, and the KMT party (aka China pigs) stand for. The other part of the county respects the contributions of the KMT party and wants to maintain the status quo with China. Neither can apparently see eye to eye with the other. It is not uncommon to see fist fights - actually slap fights - in Taiwan's parliament. And the woman can (and do) dish out the slaps as well as the men.

Smoking here, like mostly everywhere else, is also popular, but not nearly popular as chewing betel nut. This cultural feature is so fascinating, that it deserves its own blog article. As such, I will follow-up this post with a betel nut post.

Lastly, issues of privacy or personal space are treated much differently here than in the US. For the most part, they are not issues. Siblings often share bedrooms, not just with each other, but with their parents and/or grandparents. And there are few (if any) secrets in a Taiwanese home. Houses in the cities are typically so close, that neighbors often know the goings-on in each other's homes. It is not uncommon for neighbors or relatives to invite themselves over to your house, unannounced, late at night. When they come in, they expect to fed. And the hosts do not feel imposed upon. It's the way things go in a tight-knit community built on Confucian principles. I guess Hillary was right, it does take a village.

Personal space issues don't end at the village gate either. While visiting the Science and Technology Museum in Kaohsiung, I had (in my mind) my personal space violated. I was in the men's restroom relieving myself of several cups of green tea. Seeminly out of nowhere, a little old lady with rubber gloves and a scrub brush started cleaning the urinal to my left. When she finished, she stood next to me, apparently waiting for me to finish so she could get on with her work. I thought this was an anomoly, but it happened to me again at a restaurant a few days later.

Anyway, those are some of my observations of Taiwan. In many ways, Taiwan is like the west. In fact, it has (unfortunately) modeled itself as such. I fear that if Taiwan continues on this path, they may find their way of life eroded until they are left with the selfish, valueless, ethically bankrupt moral relativism of the west. In fact, this has already begun to happen. Cartoons in Taiwan often show crude behavior, such as public urination or abuse of women. Drug and alcohol abuse are increasing. Young people are becoming less family centered and more focused on personal happiness - at any cost.

Fortunately, Taiwan is also different. Traditional asian and family values are still strong in the culture. However, these values are being diluted in the quest for all things American. In my opinion, Taiwan would be better off to model themselves after other asian countries (Singapore comes to mind). Or better yet, create a uniquely Taiwanese identity grounded on Confucian principles.

Still Think the Iraq War Is Not About Oil?

2008-06-19T11:33:00.008-04:00

Photo Credit: INFORSE
“The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," .” ~ Dick Cheney, 1999, CEO, Halliburton.

GW Bush is an oil man. That’s his thing, although he has not been very good at it. GW is also a politician. That’s his other thing, and he hasn’t been very good at that either. Not to be deterred, Bush resorted to the so-called “double-negative” principle (i.e. two negatives resolve to a positive), combining his chosen paths in the hope of achieving something.

Fast forward to 2001. Bush got himself elected President (sorry Al, although it may seem like an inconvenient truth, GW won the election fair & square). Oil money played a big part in his campaign. For example, Exxon Mobil donated $1.2 billion, and BP Aamco donated $0.8 million. Shell Oil has also spent a few dollars on Bush over the years. As such, Bush owes them a big debt of gratitude (debt being the key word). But how to pay them back? Hmmm?

Fast forward again. This time to 2003. Shock and Awe is underway. The US has invaded Iraq.

Ostensibly, the war in Iraq was/is about a lot of things, such as: removing Saddam Hussein from power, stabilizing the region, finding WMDs, safeguarding the world from terrorism, fighting them over there instead of over here, liberating a repressed people, bringing democracy to the region, etc, etc. At some level, a few of these things are true – but not really. None seem sufficient to justify a war of the present scale.

One thing the war was not about, so we were told, was OIL!

'It has nothing to do with oil -- literally nothing.' ~ Donald Rumsfeld, Nov. 14, 2002.

In reality, no one in their right mind believed that. Of course the war was about oil (and money). Obviously, the administration could not come right out and say it. It had to maintain the façade that the war had some more noble, albeit quixotic, goal.

Now the truth comes out. Iraq's Oil Ministry has just announced that no-bid contracts are about to be offered to four Western oil companies (Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP) to service Iraq's largest fields. Well I'll be...Isn't that a coincidence. Those companies were also BIG donors to the Bush campaign.

Spokesmen for the oil industry maintain that the forthcoming efforts were designed to “help rebuild Iraq’s oil industry. An Iraqi oil ministry spokesmen added, “the no-bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields.”

The rationale for awarding the contracts is “ to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day”. The revenue (some of it anyway) will be used for reconstruction.

Wow. Sounds really selfless. This must be that compassionate conservatism thing we have been told to expect. The oil companies are really going to go to Iraq to help the nice people get their lives back together. Will someone please pass me a Kleenex?

How stupid do the administration and the oil people think we are? Well, I suppose the answer is quite obvious. Doesn’t anyone read their history books anymore (1, 2)? If anyone thinks the oil companies are going to go in, set things up, and then go back home, they must have just fallen off a turnip truck.

Since the discovery of oil in the Middle East (1920s), western oil companies have maintained their imperialistic presence in the region. And they made lots of money doing it. It didn’t take the Middle East long to realize they were being exploited, and shortly after WWII, they began to nationalize their oil industries, much to the dismay (and lost revenue) of the west. The west made a number of attempts to regain their access to the region’s oil. Coups were orchestrated, leaders went missing or were assassinated, and western-supported puppet regimes were established.

Then, in the 1970s, it all blew up. OPEC began price gouging, raising the price of oil 700%, to an outrageous $22 per barrel, and thereby spawning the energy crisis. Not wanting to miss the party, Saddam cashed in and nationalized Iraq’s oil industry. Saddam also had designs on gaining a foothold on the majority of the regions oil. With this aim in mind, he sought to re-annex Kuwait in the early 90’s. The west had enough…

Entrance, stage right: George W. Bush.

In a nutshell, all of our dealings with Iraq, from Desert Storm, through Shock & Awe, to today, have only really been about one thing - re-establishing western hegemony over the region’s oil.

It appears the things are proceeding according to schedule.

Patriotism: The Last Refuge of Scoundrels

2008-06-18T15:09:00.006-04:00

Photo Credit: Prairie Pictures

Woo-hoo! It’s the 4th of July! Well, almost.

As the nation prepares to celebrate its 232nd year of Independence, we must stop and remind ourselves of the great price our forefathers paid to secure the freedom we enjoy today. In most of the towns and cities across the nation, there will be flags hung out on the front porch, picnics in the back yard, parades down Main Street, and concerts & speeches in the town square. Most of the revelry will focus on our history. The founding fathers will be resurrected, and the talk will focus on patriotism.

That got me to thinking (always a dangerous thing). What exactly is patriotism? And what role does it play in our present lives?

According to Merriam-Webster, patriotism is defined as a “love for or devotion to one's country.” Sounds like something we should all aspire to.

I should think most Americans would like to claim to have at least some level of patriotism - however shallow that may be. Singing the National Anthem at the ball park is swell and everything, but I don’t think that doing so necessarily makes one patriotic. Nor is blindly supporting the actions of our government.

It seems to me that patriotism requires more than that. If one truly loves one’s country, he/she will demand that his/her country champion a higher standard, and hold it accountable when it violoates that standard. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn summed it up best, stating, “Patriotism means unqualified and unwavering love for the nation, which implies not uncritical eagerness to serve, not support for unjust claims, but frank assessment of its vices and sins, and penitence for them.

If only such men were alive today.

Instead, we have a Congress composed of careerist politicians who act as agents for corporate interests, be they national or global. Acting as such, the Congress has betrayed those who voted for them – those people whom they maintain they represent. The Executive Branch of our country is no different. Here again, corporate interests reign supreme. The Oval Office has been reduced to a lobby for moneyed interests.

This betrayal of America is evidenced by the sell-out of American workers through so-called “fair trade” treaties like NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, tax-payer funded bail-outs of both the automotive and airline industries, the bilking of investors by the cancellation of K-Mart stocks, the tax breaks giving to large corporations, the deregulation of the banking system, the surrender of our monetary system to a private interest - the Federal Reserve System, tax payer-funded government subsidies to private corporate interests. The list goes on…

And now we have this on-going war in Iraq. Certainly, one could make some argument that military action in the region was in the best interest of our National Security. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region, and he conspired to assassinate former President Bush. Taking him out seemed prudent. And I supported the action. Well, now Saddam is gone. The lice-ridden would-be-king was dragged from his spider hole and hoisted up to the rafters like a piñata. Mission was apparently accomplished. Yet, we are still there. And still nation-building.

Maybe national security was not the real issue after all. Perhaps securing access to oil was the issue. As was creating a more stable political environment for corporate ventures. All this was and is being funded by the taxpayer, and paid for with the blood of our soldiers and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Meanwhile, the oil industry and corporate interests rake in the profits.

Going to war is no small feat. It requires a lot of support from the citizenry to get the Congress to authorize such action. So just how did the current administration garner the public support that made going to war possible?

For starters, they orchestrated a brilliant campaign that turned the notion of true patriotism on its head. The flag was dragged out, displayed prominently, and waved freely. Falconers released their trained eagles to soar over public gatherings while the band struck-up its repertoire of Sousa marches. Emotional speeches memorializing past heroes, warnings of imminent dangers, and pleas for immediate action were made against this star-spangled back-drop. It was a performance that would have made Himler envious. Anyone questioning the motives or objectives of the government was cast as unrealistic or cowardly – even a traitor. In a nutshell, the expression of true patriotism was made to seem, well - unpatriotic.

Nazi Luftwaffe Commander, Hermann Goering summed the strategy up best, stating, “Naturally the common people don’t want war…But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”

So that's patriotism for you. Blind allegiance to one's country. Unquestioning support to official policy. Right or wrong, the best nation on earth.

Well, I love this country too much to follow the lemmings over the cliff. I consider myself as American as John Wayne and apple pie. But please, please, please, do not call me a patriot!

Father of the Year

2008-06-18T00:14:00.023-04:00

I'm Not A Real Father, But I Play One on TV

I was surfin’ the web this afternoon trying to catch up on the news. I stumbled upon a headline in the New York Daily News which quoted country music has-been Billy Ray Cyrus saying that he was “surprised” by the photo of his daughter, Miley Cyrus' (aka Hannah Montana), that recently appeared in Vanity Fair.

The provocative photo portrays the 15 year old Cyrus apparently topless and wrapped in a silk bed sheet.

Although one has come to expect images such as these depicting celebrities in suggestive poses that reveal their soft-core charms, one must not forget that Cyrus is a child. What makes it worse is that her father and her manager were on the set the day of the shoot. Proud papa Billy Ray even appears with his daughter in some of the photos.

When asked about the controversial photos during a Today Show interview, her father stated, “I wasn’t there at the time”. Referring to the subsequent publication of the sleezy photo, he added, "I was surprised when I saw it ... but, hey, that's life. Stuff happens."

He sounds real concerned, doesn’t he….

There are two questions that immediately come to mind.

First, what exactly were you surprised about Billy Ray? Annie Leibovitz was shooting the photos for crying out loud. She is well known for taking controversial photos of scantily clad celebs. She took the now famous “last photo” of John Lennon (Rolling Stone, Jan, 1981) appearing naked and clinging on to Yoko Ono, the infamous photo of a naked and pregnant Demi Moore (Vanity Fair, Aug, 1991), and more recently photos of Angelina Jolie naked in the bath tub, along with nude shots of Scarlett Johansen and Kiera Knightly (all in Vanity Fair, Feb, 2006). And in case you didn’t know, that’s the same Vanity Fair in which your daughter’s photos were to appear.

Suprise!

Second, why weren’t you on the set for the entire photo shoot? Annie Liebovitz was shooting the photos for crying out loud (see above). You were apparently there long enough to have your own photo taken in the embrace of your daughter. I guess once you got your own free promo, you didn’t have time to hang around.

Look dude, you had your shot at fame with “Achy Breaky". Your 15 minutes was up along time ago. Now you are pimping your daughter to promote yourself on your second lap around the track. You don’t seem to be the least bit worried that your 15 year old little girl is being marketed as a lap dance.

What kind of message are your trying to send her? Whatever it is, it seems like she is receiving it loud and clear! In case you didn't know, there are already revealing photos of Miley in her underwear floatin’ around the web. I also found this one. And this one. She apparently took some of them herself. And while were on the subject, you might as well know about these pics too. Here’s one of her playing tonsil hockey with a gal pal. And here’s another charming one taken after a few beers.

Sadly, Miley seems to be well on her way to becoming the next Paris Hilton, or Britney Spears. How long will it be until we get a glimpse of “Sasquatch” when she is getting out of a limo? When can we expect the first trip to the trendy and fashionable rehab? But like you said, “…hey, that's life. Stuff happens.”

So... I guess that’s okay with you, as long as it helps sell your CDs. And it looks like its working too. I just checked Amazon and I see your Greatest Hits (er, Hit) - CD has shot up the sales charts and is now ranked at a towering #139,147.

Way to go dad!!!

Celebrating 40 Years of Hypocrisy

2008-06-11T16:36:00.011-04:00

Photo Credit: Bennetton Talk

This year (2008), the Catholic Church is celebrating the 40th anniversary of the publication of Humanae vitae - a papal encyclical released by Pope Paul VI which outlined the “Church’s teaching on birth control and the sanctity of human life as properly contained within the marital relationship”.

Essentially, HV reaffirmed the Church’s position that the use of all forms of artificial birth control, such as condoms, are immoral. They justify their position on the grounds that such acts are contraceptive. According to HV, contraception is defined as, “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (HV 14). In other words, every conjugal act must be open to the possibility of creating life.

Since the time of its publication, HV has often been the center of a great deal of controversy and criticism, from both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Many feel that the Church has no right to intrude on activities that take place between two married persons in the privacy of their own bedroom. Others feel that it is precisely these kinds of issues where the guidance of the Church is sorely needed. In recent years, secular opposition has increased in light of the spread of HIV, as well as other STDs.

I will leave the argument about condoms and the spread of AIDS for another time. That is a completely different issue that is focused on disease prevention, and more often than not occurs in a context outside the marital relationship. Arguments about contraceptives and extra-marital affairs will also not be addressed here – at least not directly. Similarly, post-conceptual means of birth control, for which there can be no moral justification, will not be discussed.

The issue that I would like to address is that of the use of artificial contraceptives within the confines of marriage. Essentially, the Church teaches that, “…each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (HV 11). Having said that, the Church recognizes that there is more to sex than just having kids. Accordingly, the so-called “marriage act” has a two-fold significance, the unitive significance and the procreative significance. As such, “…the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life.” (HV 12).

Okay, fair enough. The Church has clearly stated its position, and backed it up with sound principles based on natural law. Or have they?

Certainly, I think one could argue that any sexual act, even within the context of marriage, that treats the sex partner as a mere object, or a vehicle by which one obtains self-pleasure, is immoral. Similarly, a relationship that treats a spouse as an incubator for growing children should also be viewed as such. But what about a loving relationship wherein a couple wants to limit the number of children they conceive, either for economic or health reasons. Or perhaps to devote the proper amount of time to the children they already have. Is it really responsible parenthood to continue to churn out child after child after child? Or is a couple wishing to limit their family size supposed to avoid all manners of sexual relations in order to remain moral?

In order to address this problem, the Church has created “something” that, in my opinion, is a loop-hole. They have cloaked this escape chute with shallow academic sophistry. As such, they have severely contradicted themselves and exposed the inherent errors in HV’s core teaching. That “something” is Natural Family Planning, or NFP.

NFP essentially states that, “…married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth.” (HV 16). This clearly is a contradiction of HV 12, which expounds on the so-called inseparable nature of the unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act. Moreover, by limiting sexual intercourse to naturally infertile times, one is clearly intending to avoid conception. In other words, such acts, by their very nature, are contraceptive. There are no two ways about it!

Self-righteously, the Church responds to such criticism of NFP by maintaining that it is natural, and therefore good. Because no artificial barriers are used, it is said that those practicing NFP still remain open to the possibility of conception. However, it should be pointed out that Church proponents of the NFP have long promoted its use over other artificial means by pointing out its superior effectiveness of 98-99%. Condoms and other artificial means, as have been shown by multiple studies, are less effective than NFP. Under these terms, it can be logically argued that sex with condoms or diaphragms remains more open to the possibility of conception than sex as prescribed by NFP guidelines.

Those not wishing to engage in the “nature” argument have claimed that the Church’s teachings on NFP are misunderstood. They point out that NFP is not intended for routine use by couples, but rather should only be used for “just reasons”, whatever that means.

I think it should be readily apparent to any unbiased reader that these responses from the Church are nothing more than syllogistic slights-of-hand. The Church can dress the issue up any way they like, but the intentions of both the artificial and "natural" actions are the same. The means don’t justify the end. The whole story is reminiscent of the way the Church repackaged divorce, and resold it as annulment.

That being said, I think something about the nature of the argument gets lost when statistics and numbers start get tossed around. The focus of the original argument is birth control, and whether its use is to be considered licit or illicit. If the Church wishes to remain consistent, then the answer is quite clear.

When you boil it all down, the goal of NFP, like that of condom use, is to avoid pregnancy. As such, if the use of condoms and such devices is illicit, then the practice of NFP must also be deemed illicit. If on the other hand, the Church recognizes that couples may have legitimate reasons for limiting the number of children they wish to conceive, then they must make allowance for contraceptive methods that are practiced within the confines of a loving relationship and that do not harm existing life.

Diplomas For Sale

2008-04-30T01:15:00.022-04:00

The American system of higher education is on a rapid decline. The ongoing fall from grace is as tragic as it is unnecessary. Once the standard by which other international universities were measured by, it is now becoming the example of inadequacy and institutional underachievement. Only our superior financial and infrastructural resources are helping to inflate our academic values, but that is changing as well.

How did this descent occur? What is holding our higher education system back – preventing it from taking up residence on its once lofty perch? In a nutshell, the system is eroding from the inside out. It is imploding. The foundation upon which our education system was founded has been slowly and methodically chipped away by a relaxation of standards and a wholesale sell-out to market forces.

The intended purpose of the university system is not to fill one’s mind with facts to be regurgitated on command. Rather, it is to teach one how to think, as well as how to learn. In addition, an education should contribute to the development of both intellectual and moral excellence.

One need not look far to see that the modern university education leaves much to be desired. Although individual professors teaching at one school or another may hold high educational standards for their students, they are few and far between. Most university employees sent forth as professors are merely masquerading as such.

Ostensibly, a professor’s primary purpose of is to educate his or her students. This is written into the mission statements of the universities, and its part of the propaganda one hears from the university ambassador’s during college visits. However, one only needs to look at how the universities actually operate to see that it’s all just a hollow sales pitch. The “education” that a student actually receives is an over-hyped and diluted facsimile.

A major reason for the watering-down of education is the tenure system. To a wanna-be-professor, tenure is the goal – it means job security! To be granted tenure, a junior faculty member typically is put through a three tier review process whereby he/she is judged on their performance, over a period of five or so years, in three main areas: teaching, research and service. First, a candidate must be approved by his academic department. The department then recommends (or not) the candidate to a faculty review committee composed of senior faculty and college administrators. The final step in the process requires the approval of a high-ranking university official, typically a college dean, the university president or the board of trustees.

On paper, it looks like a thorough and well balanced system designed to separate the wheat from the chaff. In practice, it works quite differently. At most universities, especially those with research programs, junior faculty are saddled with heavy burdens. They are often assigned the most difficult teaching assignments – usually the large, introductory level classes that the senior faculty members don’t want. They must develop syllabi for these classes, prepare lectures, hold office hours, and grade large numbers of exams and reports. In addition, they can expect to be “asked” to serve on numerous academic and administrative committees. On top of that, they are required to establish a competitive research program, obtain extra-mural research funding, and train graduate students. With such an overwhelming work load, it is almost impossible to put one’s best effort into teaching. So they don’t.

Actually, they don’t have to.

Why don’t they have to devote themselves to teaching? To begin with, most senior faculty members won’t hold them to such a high standard. To do so would require that they meet the same standard themselves. Well surely the dean or board of trustees would intervene here to uphold academic standards, right? Ah…wrong. The university brass isn’t primarily interested in teaching quality. Their main interest lies in research. Actually, that is not true either. What they are really interested in is research money.

Top-notch research programs get extra-mural funding. The university itself skims money from this pot. Maybe skims is too delicate a word, shovels more be more appropriate. Universities “tax” these extramural funds at a rate of 40% to 60% on all purchases that exceed a stated nominal value. When one considers that granting agencies like the National Institute of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Energy (DOE) are awarding multi-million dollar grants, this turns out to be a nice chunk of change going into the university's pockets. Big research also attracts corporate sponsorship. This amounts to vast improvements in research infrastructure and lots of capital flowing into the university coffers.

The next time the university president claims that teaching is the priority at his college, ask him why professors with poor teaching records and lots of research dollars are being granted tenure, while those with outstanding teaching records and struggling research programs are routinely denied.

How does the university sell this piss-weak version of education to the public? That is the easy part. They give the public – in this case the students – what they want. The mantra is, “go to college, get good grades, and get a high paying job”. So that is exactly what the university gives them. And they are not shy about it either.

Whether or not a professor is actually an effective teacher or not is insignificant. The professor’s only has to look so on paper. That is, they need good teaching evaluations. In order to assure that occurs, professors have intentionally made tests easier to pass. It is quite common for a professor to hold a review session the evening before the exam, wherein he/she essentially tells the students exactly what they will be tested on. Grade inflation is also a tried and true method for assuring good evaluations. Students who take courses as non-majors are frequently graded on a different scale than majors, or they are taught a dumbed-down version of the course. Curving grades on the skew is also popular among the students.

If college education has become such a joke, why do students continue to go? The reason is that a college diploma still has some weight in the market place (probably due to the fact that high school diplomas are bigger jokes – but that is another issue). In other words, a college diploma has become a commodity. Students treat them as such, and universities sell them as such. Students flock to majors like medicine, engineering or business, not because they have a genuine interest in these subjects, but because careers in these fields have high salaries. Other majors like Philopsophy or English are deemed useless because they pay low salaries - assuming one can find a job in the first place. As such, a student is encouraged by his/her peers to shy away from these majors, unless of course one wants to become a professor and teach others to become Philosophy or English professors.

Penn State’s Smeal College of Business recently ran a public promotion campaign under the slogan, “The Next CEO: Smeal Today. Corner Office Tomorrow”. Banners bearing the slogan were draped all over campus. What message are they sending to prospective students? I think it is quite clear. A Smeal education will land you a high paying job.

It would seem to me that a supposedly well-respected institution of higher learning like Penn State would be more interested in promoting itself by touting the quality of it education or the virtues of its graduates, rather than boasting about the market value of its diplomas.

I guess that is how they set the sale price!

BioWillie Runs Off the Road

2008-04-24T11:48:00.011-04:00

Burning the Rainforest - Photo Credit: NASA

Global warming! That seems to be the modern buzz word (or words). Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention these days has certainly heard something about this problem. While the causes of global warming may be multiform, there is an undeniable link between carbon dioxide emissions and the temperature increase. As such, most of the solutions being put forward are centered on decreasing the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere.

Consumption of fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil are among to major industrial sources of CO2. As it now stands, fossil fuels are the major power source that keeps our economy running and helps to maintain our lavish standard of living at its current unsustainable level. One only needs a few cerebral sparks to figure out that we could reduce our CO2 output by limiting or eliminating the use of these fossils fuels. To do so would require an alternative source to take its place.

One of the most popular alternatives lies with the sprouting bio-fuels industry. In a nutshell, biofuels are essentially combustible forms of biomass-derived energy such as ethanol or bio-derived oils (biodiesel). On paper, these fuels have some advantages over fossil fuels, the main one being that they are so-called carbon neutral. That is, the CO2 released on combustion is equal to the CO2 the plants absorbed during their growth. That means - or is supposed to mean - no net carbon increase.

Sounds great! Right? Ah, not so fast Willie…

BioWillie Fuel - Photo Credit: MSNBC

In reality, biofuels are not all they are cracked-up to be. For example, biofuels are not carbon neutral. To say that they are is to ignore all the petroleum-based fertilizers used to grow the plants, it ignores the energy required to harvest plants, and the energy used to extract and process the oils. And these energy inputs are significant, as reflected in the cost of the biofuels produced.

Price competitiveness aside, one could validly argue that any additional cost of these biofuels would be more than compensated for by a decrease in carbon emissions. After all, that is one of the goals. For this reason alone, we should continue to promote their use.

Again, things are not as they appear.

A recent report in the journal Science shows that land-use changes, ironically encouraged by biofuel production, have actually resulted in an increase in carbon emissions. That’s right, an increase!

It seem fair to say that Biofuels Cause Global Warming!

As the price in the marketplace for biofuels has continued to increase, farmers have responded by converting forests and grasslands (which absorb CO2), into biofuel croplands. These biofuels “farms” absorb less CO2 than the grasses and trees they replaced, and the CO2 they do absorb will be released into the atmosphere upon combustion. And let’s not forget the CO2 released as a result of energy inputs during production. All told, it is now predicted that the so-called carbon neutral biofuels will lead to an unanticipated increase in carbon by 50%, if not more.

But that is not the whole story. Not all the source material for biofuel production is coming from newly converted forests and grasslands. Some is coming from farms that previously produced food crops. As a result, there is less food available as animal feed and food for people. And the food that is available is increasing in price to the point where it is becoming unaffordable. Just take a look at the commodities market over the last year, as the prices of soy and grains have sky-rocketed. People are going hungry and they are rioting in the streets. Most of the starvation and rioting is occurring among the poorest, who are affected the most. But I guess that is OK, as long as someone is making a profit. At least, that seems to be the standard in the west. And at least we don’t have to conserve.

Theoretically, biofuels seem like a good idea. I for one am for anything reasonable that will cut carbon emission. Realistically, biofuels are not a solution. They are like a patch or facade that simply hides the problem but does not fix it. Similarly, other alternative energy sources, like solar or wind power, also seem to have advantages. But they too have their inherent problems which I will discuss in a later blog post.

When you boil it all down, the real problem is one of gluttony and irresponsibility. I think we need to take a step back and look at ourselves in the mirror. Technology and our selfish consumptive habits got us into the energy/environmental problems we face today. Somehow, we blindly beleive that newer technologies will get us out. Experience proves they won't. What we really need to do is to begin to conserve energy, and live within our means.

So before you hop on Willie’s BioDiesel bus, make sure you know what road you are going to be driving on. Most of the roads look pretty bad. There's a good chance that Willie's Biodiesel bus is going off the road...especially if Willie is driving.

The Front Porch is Gone

2008-04-08T22:21:00.011-04:00

Its springtime! Or nearly so. Birds have begun their annual migration - returning to their summer nesting sites. Hoping to catch some of my feathered friends on their way home, I went out bird watching. We recently had quite a bit of rain which helped to accelerate the melting of the snow. As a result, there is lots of water on the ground. Streams are overflowing, fields and meadows are temporarily masquerading as ponds. All in all, it makes for attractive stop-over points for birds, especially waterfowl and shorebirds, on their way through town.

Hoping to catch a glimpse of some migrating shorebirds, I drove through the Elk’s Club – the local country club - to get a closer look at the banks of Spring Creek. Unfortunately, luck was not with me that day. No shorebirds. Oh well…maybe next time.

Upon exiting the country club, I saw a relatively new development on the other side of Rt. 45. I decided to take a drive through and look around. The homes were HUGE, each having four or five bedrooms, and a similar number of baths. The homes were each garnished with cable TV, central air, finished basements, Jacuzzis, and natural gas fireplaces on each floor. Many even came with in-ground swimming pools in the back yard.

In all, there were about 20 or so houses, each on a lot that I estimated to be about two acres. As I was looking around, it struck me that there seemed to be something wrong or unnatural about this neighborhood. At first, I wasn’t quite sure what was awry. Then it dawned on me. The houses had no front porches. And I didn’t see any people walking around. Even more striking was the fact that there were virtually no trees, other than a few carelessly scattered saplings left by a landscaper. The houses looked really far apart and isolated.

Over the next few days, I happened by several new developments in the State College area. Although each new development had its own unique features, they were all more or less the same - big houses with tons of amenities, and no people walking around. And no front porches either. To be fair, some did have back decks, but those decks were fenced in and often were surrounded by some sort of trellis work and nifty landscaping to conceal their presence and to minimize the chances that one occupying the deck would have to interact with another person.

The more I thought about it, the more it seemed that this sort of self-imposed isolation is really the norm, rather than the exception. It seems that people nowadays are so caught up in their own lives and their own entertainment that they have lost touch with others. There is no sense of community.

My neighborhood - if that be the correct term - is no different. I live on a cul-de-sac with only about eight houses. I don’t even know the names of half of my neighbors. I have even bumped into some of them downtown and did not recognize them until my kids pointed them out to me. This is quite different from the way I grew up. As a child in the 70’s, I lived in Yeadon, a suburb of Philadelphia. We lived in a street of twin homes, with about 40 or so residences on our street. It is no exaggeration to say that I knew the names of virtually everyone who lived there. I even knew most of the people living on the adjacent streets, as well as streets clear across town where my friends or family lived. And everyone had a front porch. And they used them!

The best part about my childhood neighborhood was that people talked. Sure, sometimes it was gossip, and other times it was just shooting the breeze, but most times it was about life and families. We all knew each other intimately and cared about each other. We drank coffee together. We celebrated weddings together. We had block parties on the 4th of July when we closed the street, dragged out the grills (the old charcoal kind) and partied all day (and sometimes all night). We also were there to support each other when things were not so good. We helped neighbors mourn at funerals and supported them in their aftermath. We provided a shoulder to cry on when relationships went south. We lent financial support when people hit hard times.

Today, these kind of relationship do still exist, but they are few and far between. In most cases, the neighborhoods these days are not organic or home-grown. Most of the people living in my neighborhood, including me, were not born here, or even anywhere close by for that matter. We all came to Happy Valley from somewhere else - typically for a job. And many will pick-up and leave should a better job prospect present itself. When we retire, we will probably move out again and find someplace else to live where we don’t know anybody. After all, who needs people when we have all these fancy techno-gagdets around to distract us. Gadgets like computers, big screen TVs with 200 channels, DVD players, iPods, hot tubs, air conditioning, etc. We can order out for dinner. We can hire a landscaper to cut our grass. There is no need to go outside. We are self-isolating. Rather than building relationships, most people are more likely to have a response similar to one of these examples:

Who has time to go to Joe-what’s-his-names funeral? I never liked the bastard anyway. Besides, I have to go to work on Tuesday.

or

No, I am not going to the Jackson’s party. That dude is weird. He never says hi.

People seem content with the idea of not having to build relationships with their neighbors. And they seem equally pleased at not having to live up to the responsibilities that go with such relationships.

This is a tragedy in the making. The disintegration of community has led to many problems in our culture, such as loneliness and depression. Although we have more stuff to distract us, and more gadgets to make our lives easier, we are becoming more and more unhappy and discontented. Even worse, we are becoming disconnected from life. Divorce rates are high. Substance abuse is becoming commonplace. Our lack of respect toward each other is becoming acceptable. Rather than work our differences out, we fight or litigate. Our kids see us and they fight too. And they shoot each other and sexually assault each other. We pollute our environment like pigeons fouling their own nest. No one seems to like it, but we accept it as inevitable. Our culture is on the decline, as is our nation. If we don’t right the ship quickly, it will be dashed to bits on the rocks.

Mitt Romney Has His “JFK moment”

2007-12-09T22:19:00.003-05:00

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is currently seeking the Republican nomination for President. In today’s political climate, any Republican Presidential candidate holding out any hope of winning the election must have the support of the Evangelical Christians. The Evangelical vote is crucial because they make-up about 23% of the electorate, according to polling data from 2000 and 2004.

One would hope that, in our “modern times”, one’s religious denomination would not be a major factor in determining his/her electibility. Sadly that is not the case. This is a big problem for Mitt Romney. As you may know, Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – otherwise known as Mormons.

Evangelical Christians have expressed great concern in sending a Mormon to the White House. Some of the so-called “concern” is based on unfamiliarity or rumors. For example, many Evangelicals (as well as the electorate at large) still associate Mormons with polygamy, despite the fact that this practice has been outlawed by the LDS church for generations. There is also a vague bias against Mormons because they come off to many people as being “weird”. However, bias of this type probably does not represent a major problem for Evangelicals. Rather, most Evangelicals base their opposition to Mormons on theological and doctrinal grounds.

In an effort to clear-up any confusion that may exist, Romney recently gave a speech at the Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University. The purpose of the speech was to dispel some of the concerns Evangelical Christians may have in electing a Mormon as President. The transcript of the speech can be found here.

On the surface, the Evangelical's opposition to Mormons may seem strange to many Americans. After all, both Evangelicals and Mormons share the belief that Jesus Christ is their Savior. Both groups believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And both share many of the same religio-political values.

So what’s the big problem with Mormons?

For starters, Evangelicals consider Mormonism to be a cult that has perverted Christian teachings. These differences are not issues of superficial importance, but concern matters of faith and doctrine, particularly as they relate to Jesus, salvation and the afterlife. Particularly troublesome to Evangelicals is the Mormon doctrine of Eternal Progression.

The doctrine of Eternal Progression can be summed up by the following LDS axiom: “As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.” In other words, Mormons believe men can evolve (not in any Darwinian sense) into Gods.

The basic teaching of Mormonism can be summed up as follows:

Mormons believe that the cosmos is composed of innumerable planets which are ruled by countless gods who once were human like us. On one of these planets, a spirit child named Elohim was conceived. Elohim evolved into a god, and lives with his many wives on some planet near a star called Kolob. Elohim and his wives produced countless spirit children through endless rounds of Celestial sex. Two of his spirit children were Jesus and his brother Lucifer.

As part of celestial plan, earth was built and the spirit children were sent there to learn good from evil. The ambitious Lucifer wanted to take power for himself, but was overruled by a council vote in favor of Jesus. A furious Lucifer defected and took many spirit children with him and organized a revolt against the righteous, who were lead by Jesus. The spirit children who fought bravely against Lucifer and his demons were rewarded by being born into Mormon families on planet earth. To see this plan through, Elohim and one of his goddess wives took the forms of Adam and Eve – thus giving rise to the human race. To prepare the way for the appearance of Jesus on the earth, Elohim had to skedaddle back to Kolob in order to have physical relations with the Virgin Mary. Then Jesus the Mormon was born. To be honest, I am not quite sure as to the nature of these “relations” and how it worked out that Mary remained a virgin. Anyway….

Jesus then grows to adulthood, during which time he is said to have taken several wives, and by them fathering a number of children. Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, is one of his descendants. Following the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus came to the Americas to establish the Mormon church. The records of these events were written on golden plates and buried somewhere in New York state. 400 years later, the plates were discovered by Joseph Smith, who brilliantly deciphered the plates by sticking his face in his hat and receiving a communiqué from God Himself.

According to the revelations given to Smith, a Mormon may become god-like himself by simply following a rigid set of financial and moral requirements, and by performing secret temple rituals. The rituals themselves must be carried out while wearing the Mormon underwear in order to be valid. Only then can one hope to prove their worthiness and thus become gods themselves. As gods, they can then rule over other planets and spawn new families throughout eternity.

There you have it. Anyone familiar with the beliefs of Evangelical Christians – or your everyday run-of-the-mill Christians for that matter – can clearly see where doctrinal conflicts arise with the Mormons. For Evangelicals, these differences are irresolvable. Evangelicals consider the Mormon beliefs to be downright illogical, far-fetched, and beyond ridiculous. Only one thoroughly brain-washed by a cult leader could believe such nonsense.

For starters, who in their right mind could possibly believe that we are the spawn of extra-terrestrial beings from the Kolob star system. Everyone one knows that God made Adam and Eve out of dust and spit (Gen 2:7). Adam and Eve gave birth to several sons: Cain, Able and Seth (Gen 4:1-25). Cain killed Abel. Being that there were no other unrelated women around, Cain and Seth must have had relations with their mother. That makes us the incestual spawn of our earthly (not extra-terrestrial) mother and brother, unless of course one of their unnamed sisters (Gen 5:4) was lying around. Either way, it all sounds pretty hot to me! In addition, this Kolob nonsense can be dismissed just using common sense. After all, we have all seen Spielberg’s E.T. and the pictures from the UFO crash at Roswell, and we don’t look anything like extra-terrestrials.

Moreover, no sensible person believes that God would actually reveal himself to Joseph Smith by talking through his hat. Everyone knows that the only way to communicate with God is to go out into the desert heat for 40 days and nights, eating only locusts and wild honey. When you finally become delirious and God is ready to speak to you, He will appear to you in the form of blazing shrubbery. Only then will you know that the voices you hear eminate from God Himself.

Evangelicals who know the truth are utterly astonished at what fairy tales some people actually believe. But then again, Satan is the great deceiver. After all, wasn’t it Satan who planted dinosaur bones here to dupe us into believing in Darwin? And wasn’t it Satan whose powers were the guiding force behind the Enlightenment of Europe? And wasn’t it Satan who invented the Big Bang theory of creation? Don’t people realize that astronomical theories like that can’t be true because the world is only 6,000 years old? If Satan can do these things, surely he would find no difficulty in the tricking the Mormon’s into believing their fantastical yarns.

What will the gullible believe next?

As for Mitt’s speech, I think he made a good delivery. He manufactured his “JFK moment”. But unfortunately for him, it probably won’t be enough to sway the Evangelicals. Mitt is a Mormon! Regardless of what he says he believes, underneath it all he will always be a Mormon. As such, many Evangelicals don’t even consider him to be a true Christian - like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and Ted Haggard. And even worse, many consider him to be one of Satan's disciples. So Mitt, don't get your hopes up.

I guess my dream of seeing Donny and Maria singing Morning Side Of The Mountain at the Inaugural Ball will remain just that – a dream.