Recently, I caught an episode on HD Theater called " Uganda: The Presidential Tour." It is basically an hour with Forrest Sawyer touring Uganda with President Yoweri Museveni serving as his tour guide.
First of all, I was impressed by Uganda's beauty: its vast area covered by Lake Victoria and many lakes that connect to the Nile. The white water rafting shown in the episode was amazing. Second, its wild life of elephants, lions, monkeys, and others, are as spectacular as many other African nations.
But what impressed me the most is President Museveni himself, who seems so casual and so normal like any ordinary men. They way he dressed, what he wear, he would accompany Mr. Sawyer to certain places, while not in others. It seems quite genuine to me.
I am sure some people would say these are just an act and all staged, especially those with its people. Well, there are probably some truth to that. Probably plenty of corruption in Uganda still and some economic and political achievements are exaggerated. That are probably true also.
But you have to be impressed that the President would take the time for a reporter, even for a marketing campaign, to showcase his country. You got to give credit when it is due. Even if half of what is shown is true, I am still impressed.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Russian professor predicted US divided in six parts, but something worth celebrating
Russian professor, Igor Panarin, predicted that the current financial crisis will lead to the collapse of the United States. That prediction isn't new or surprising. But the most interesting part of his prediction is the U.S. will be divided into six parts: the Pacific coast, the South, Texas, the Atlantic coast, central states, and the northern states. The Chinese would have strong influence in the Pacific coast states; Texas will go to Mexico; Atlantic coast states will join the European Union, Canada will claim the northern states; Japan will take Hawaii; and Alaska goes back to Russia.
Wow, this sounds bad if it ever happens. Despite all the devastating consequences if it does, at least, there are two things that we can look forward to.
One, Sarah Palin no longer needs to see Russia from her house. Because her house is already in Russia.
Two, George W. Bush would have left the United States for good. Señor Bush would be a Mexican.
Tell me. Are these two developments alone would worth a celebration?
Links to story,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/12/the-united-stat.html
Wow, this sounds bad if it ever happens. Despite all the devastating consequences if it does, at least, there are two things that we can look forward to.
One, Sarah Palin no longer needs to see Russia from her house. Because her house is already in Russia.
Two, George W. Bush would have left the United States for good. Señor Bush would be a Mexican.
Tell me. Are these two developments alone would worth a celebration?
Links to story,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/12/the-united-stat.html
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
What to do with the automaker bailout
Whether to bailout the big-3 automakers, that is the big question facing Congress and in a way, the President-Elected. There are difficult, philosophical, and conflicting views that in a capitalist market, companies are to die or survive base on their abilities to compete, and not on the government handout. Let's not forget UAW contracts and pension obligations are heavily burden on these companies also. They made the automakers uncompetitive. But the managements are not blameless either. They made terrible and unreliable products. Invested on the wrong line of business in SUV rather than high-mileage cars. Their marketing, branding, and distributions are so diluted that are inefficient and wasteful.
A bankruptcy and maybe new management would allow them a clean restart. But it could also wipe out the entire auto industry in the U.S. and lose millions of jobs. Frankly, I don't think it will be as bad as it might seem. Toyota, Honda, and others will simply come in and fill the void by hiring the same worker, making a different brand of cars, and selling to the same American people. Oh yes, the workers would have less perks than today.
The Congress did ask for detail plans from the big-3 executives on what they will do with the bailout. Here is what I suggest the Congress should do.
1. There is no rule that say the government has to rescue all-3 or none of the automakers. What about rescuing 1 or at most 2 automakers. So, that would create a competition for the best plan. The best plan will survive. The worst plan will mean bankruptcy and possible acquire by the surviving automakers.
2. Bailout money should only go to do research and manufacture of high-mileage and green vehicles only. Yes, they can funnel existing high-mileage budget to save other line of businesses, but it should be clear on what the government's priorities are.
3. There should be no more mileage exception for trucks. Trucks and SUVs are under the same mileage standard as cars.
4. The 35 mph mileage standard to be effective in 2020 needs to move to 2010.
5. Last but not least, UAW needs to make some concessions also. No more perks, just an ordinary salary and 401k, like the rest of us. And at the comparable pay as those work at the Toyota plans in the U.S.
I am sure they don't like any of these proposal. Who would. But they do beat the alternative of going bankrupt and losing their jobs.
A bankruptcy and maybe new management would allow them a clean restart. But it could also wipe out the entire auto industry in the U.S. and lose millions of jobs. Frankly, I don't think it will be as bad as it might seem. Toyota, Honda, and others will simply come in and fill the void by hiring the same worker, making a different brand of cars, and selling to the same American people. Oh yes, the workers would have less perks than today.
The Congress did ask for detail plans from the big-3 executives on what they will do with the bailout. Here is what I suggest the Congress should do.
1. There is no rule that say the government has to rescue all-3 or none of the automakers. What about rescuing 1 or at most 2 automakers. So, that would create a competition for the best plan. The best plan will survive. The worst plan will mean bankruptcy and possible acquire by the surviving automakers.
2. Bailout money should only go to do research and manufacture of high-mileage and green vehicles only. Yes, they can funnel existing high-mileage budget to save other line of businesses, but it should be clear on what the government's priorities are.
3. There should be no more mileage exception for trucks. Trucks and SUVs are under the same mileage standard as cars.
4. The 35 mph mileage standard to be effective in 2020 needs to move to 2010.
5. Last but not least, UAW needs to make some concessions also. No more perks, just an ordinary salary and 401k, like the rest of us. And at the comparable pay as those work at the Toyota plans in the U.S.
I am sure they don't like any of these proposal. Who would. But they do beat the alternative of going bankrupt and losing their jobs.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Congratulations to President-Elected Barack Obama
... in an historic night that marks the end an historic campaign. Congratulations!
Friday, October 31, 2008
The War Within - The Gulf States Pushed for the Surge
On page 257 to 259 of Bob Woodward's The War Within, it talked about Secretary Rice went to the Gulf Cooperation Council to meet with foreign ministers of the Gulf states. In that meeting, many of the foreign ministers were convinced the U.S. would pull out of Iraq. One was quoted of saying "You don't need to be thinking about pull your forces down. You need to think about doubling your forces."
When Rice returned to brief Bush, she was quoted, "I came out of that meeting convinced that not only did they believe that we were about to fold in Iraq, but that that was going to be the end of American power in the Middle East." She went on to say, "The very act of increasing American forces would have a salutary effect, whether or not it achieved population security. The fact that the president of the United States, against all odds, against all voices, would in effect double down, would have a hugely important effect on the region."
Taken these quotes together, you can see a sub-plot that the "surge" strategy is not just the President's strategy, not McCain's strategy, or General Petraeus' strategy. In fact, the "double down" strategy is, in some way, forced on the President by the Middle East states. It was done with "a salutary effect" and "whether or not it achieved population security." It was more a show of power than security.
Despite all the hoopla about the debate of the strategy, who is for and against it. It turned out the oil rich gulf states did have a say in this matter and they were for it. The "oil man" Bush did not want to lose influence at the Middle East and probably became one of many reason they went along with me. Again, let's face it, this war is not about freedom, or democracy, or WMD. It is about oil.
One last point. I admit that I was never impressed by Condi Rice. But as the Secretary of State and the country's chief diplomat, if someone is to ask her to double our force, at minimum, I would expect her to say, "So, how many of those extra troops would your country willing to commit?"
I know that I would that and I am not even a diplomat. And I bet you and no one would ever able to pull that off with former Secretary of State, James Baker.
When Rice returned to brief Bush, she was quoted, "I came out of that meeting convinced that not only did they believe that we were about to fold in Iraq, but that that was going to be the end of American power in the Middle East." She went on to say, "The very act of increasing American forces would have a salutary effect, whether or not it achieved population security. The fact that the president of the United States, against all odds, against all voices, would in effect double down, would have a hugely important effect on the region."
Taken these quotes together, you can see a sub-plot that the "surge" strategy is not just the President's strategy, not McCain's strategy, or General Petraeus' strategy. In fact, the "double down" strategy is, in some way, forced on the President by the Middle East states. It was done with "a salutary effect" and "whether or not it achieved population security." It was more a show of power than security.
Despite all the hoopla about the debate of the strategy, who is for and against it. It turned out the oil rich gulf states did have a say in this matter and they were for it. The "oil man" Bush did not want to lose influence at the Middle East and probably became one of many reason they went along with me. Again, let's face it, this war is not about freedom, or democracy, or WMD. It is about oil.
One last point. I admit that I was never impressed by Condi Rice. But as the Secretary of State and the country's chief diplomat, if someone is to ask her to double our force, at minimum, I would expect her to say, "So, how many of those extra troops would your country willing to commit?"
I know that I would that and I am not even a diplomat. And I bet you and no one would ever able to pull that off with former Secretary of State, James Baker.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The War Within - Lying to the American People
I am in the middle of reading Bob Woodward's latest book, The War Within - A Secret White House History, 2006 - 2008. I am not going to do another review or debate the disagreement within the government, the military, the surge, which were already being discussed elsewhere (although I would never limit myself). But I do want to touch on my impressions on the smaller and maybe more obscure points that the mainstream press would likely overlook. So, I will start with the first one here and more later.
Throughout this book and previous reports, high level government officials, including Rice, Rumsfeld, Pace, Casey, Abizald, and others, have serious doubt on the strategy in Iraq and often have contradicting public versus private view. Yet, they would to Congress and lie to their teeth that the strategy was working and things are going well, but in reality, they are not.
Excuse me. I thought lying to Congress is a crime. It is committing perjury. Remember the baseball steroid hearings, the District Attorney firing hearings, and of course, the Monica hearings. People are threatening to tell the truth or go to jail.
But yet, as you compare their testimony versus what is reported, these high level government officials lied and lied and lied to Congress and the American people. And they always get away with it. No wonder the American people hate Washington.
Throughout this book and previous reports, high level government officials, including Rice, Rumsfeld, Pace, Casey, Abizald, and others, have serious doubt on the strategy in Iraq and often have contradicting public versus private view. Yet, they would to Congress and lie to their teeth that the strategy was working and things are going well, but in reality, they are not.
Excuse me. I thought lying to Congress is a crime. It is committing perjury. Remember the baseball steroid hearings, the District Attorney firing hearings, and of course, the Monica hearings. People are threatening to tell the truth or go to jail.
But yet, as you compare their testimony versus what is reported, these high level government officials lied and lied and lied to Congress and the American people. And they always get away with it. No wonder the American people hate Washington.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Colin Powell Endorsement of Barack Obama
Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell made a strong endorsement for Senator Obama for President on Meet The Press (10/19/2008). It was a powerful and elegant argument that only Colin Powell can make. He is insightful and well-spoken that is unfair and impossible for a man like me to translate or paraphrase what his said. Here, I am going to simply quote his key points from the transcript:
But I do want to come back to the point he made about Muslim in American, so I quote again:
- "In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn't have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had. "
- "And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."
- "I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. "
- "the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He's crossing lines--ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He's thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values."
- "And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate."
- " And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration."
- "I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
- "And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama."
But I do want to come back to the point he made about Muslim in American, so I quote again:
- "I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions."
So, ask yourself these two questions, as Colin Powell did.
- Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?
- Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
John McCain - Tame your supporters
I got to give John McCain some credit for trying to tame his supporters from the crazy idea of calling Obama a Muslim, a terrorist, and so on < link>. This flame was brought on by the McCain campaign, maybe unintentionally, but their supporters went crazy as you can see here. People were yelling "terrorist" and "kill him". This is uncalled for, dirty, and outright dangerous to call for "killing" a felling candidate, let alone a United States Senator, and definitely not a Presidential candidate.
It is extremely scary to think if one nut-cake out there might actually go carry it out. If you are old enough to remember the 1992 LA riot over the acquittal of the white police officer beating a black man, Rodney King. Can you imagine if anything do happen to Obama, it would be 100 time worse and spread all over the country.
John McCain, is that what you want for America? This country has enough crisis on our hands, we don't need another one.
Like all American, I do respect John McCain as a veteran, a POW, and a Senator. I understand winning is important and it is not everything. You got to put the country first and calm your supporters. You might not like the poll, but it is safe to say their is a 50-50 chance Obama will be the next President of the United States. Let's not induce hate into this campaign. No matter who the winner is on Nov 4th. Everyone is an American and need to support the next President. There are so many challenges that this country face that it demands support from every American, not just the 50+% that voted for the winner.
It is extremely scary to think if one nut-cake out there might actually go carry it out. If you are old enough to remember the 1992 LA riot over the acquittal of the white police officer beating a black man, Rodney King. Can you imagine if anything do happen to Obama, it would be 100 time worse and spread all over the country.
John McCain, is that what you want for America? This country has enough crisis on our hands, we don't need another one.
Like all American, I do respect John McCain as a veteran, a POW, and a Senator. I understand winning is important and it is not everything. You got to put the country first and calm your supporters. You might not like the poll, but it is safe to say their is a 50-50 chance Obama will be the next President of the United States. Let's not induce hate into this campaign. No matter who the winner is on Nov 4th. Everyone is an American and need to support the next President. There are so many challenges that this country face that it demands support from every American, not just the 50+% that voted for the winner.
McCain's New Slogan - "Campaign First"
Wait a minute. Remember 3 weeks ago, John McCain suspended his campaign to go back to Washington to work on the $700 billion bailout bill. Yes, he did. But reports said he had nothing to say at the White House meeting with the President, Obama, Henry Paulson, and member of Congress from both parties. Well, those are from the liberal media and can't be true. Right?
Fast forward 3 weeks to today, the news today is "McCain proposes $52.5 billion economic plan", http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081014/ap_on_el_pr/mccain. Wait a minute. Wasn't McCain part of the last economic plan discussions 3 weeks ago? If so, why didn't he proposed this "economic plan" along with everyone else's? Or maybe this is his last ditch effort to save his campaign.
Did someone say "Country First" or "Campaign First"?
Fast forward 3 weeks to today, the news today is "McCain proposes $52.5 billion economic plan", http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081014/ap_on_el_pr/mccain. Wait a minute. Wasn't McCain part of the last economic plan discussions 3 weeks ago? If so, why didn't he proposed this "economic plan" along with everyone else's? Or maybe this is his last ditch effort to save his campaign.
Did someone say "Country First" or "Campaign First"?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Vice President Debate Review
Just like the Presidential debate, you can't expect a clear winner or loser, and there were neither tonight. Both Vice Presidential candidates exceeded expectations, but then expectation for both candidates were very different. Sarah Palin was to make sure she doesn't embarrassed herself and she didn't. That was good for her. As for Joe Biden, he was able to stay discipline and not to put down a woman. He succeeded in both count. Bottom line, both candidates played it safe and no one lost.
As for contents, Palin was able to stand toe-to-toe with Biden during the first part of the debate about domestic policy, tax-cut, energy, etc. I call it even. When the debate moved to foreign policy, Palin was no match for Biden. Being a good politician that Palin is, she managed to avoid answering many of the questions, but given the debate format, Gwen Ifill, the moderator, can't have follow-up questions that Katie Couric was able to do. And Biden also wants to play it safe and not willing to point those out.
All in all, a very interesting and entertaining debate. Republicans love what they see in Palin that no mistaken was made. Democrat love what they see in Biden that he was discipline, staying on message with Obama.
But the best summary of the debate comes from Carl Bernstein. He said Sarah Palin clearly qualified as the Secretary of the Interior, but not as the Vice President of the United States.
As for contents, Palin was able to stand toe-to-toe with Biden during the first part of the debate about domestic policy, tax-cut, energy, etc. I call it even. When the debate moved to foreign policy, Palin was no match for Biden. Being a good politician that Palin is, she managed to avoid answering many of the questions, but given the debate format, Gwen Ifill, the moderator, can't have follow-up questions that Katie Couric was able to do. And Biden also wants to play it safe and not willing to point those out.
All in all, a very interesting and entertaining debate. Republicans love what they see in Palin that no mistaken was made. Democrat love what they see in Biden that he was discipline, staying on message with Obama.
But the best summary of the debate comes from Carl Bernstein. He said Sarah Palin clearly qualified as the Secretary of the Interior, but not as the Vice President of the United States.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Ken Fisher - You Are Fired!!!!
Not too long ago, Fisher Investments claimed to be managing $45 billion in assets. But lately, as seen on Stockerblog, http://stockerblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/stockerblogcom-exclusive-interview-with.html, they claimed to be managing $30 billion in assets (probably even lower as of today). Let's do a little math.
During that time, Fisher's portfolios was down about 20%. That would bring $45 billion down to $36 billion. Now, the remanding $6 billion was moved away from Fisher. In another word, they fired Ken Fisher. A rough guess of a $1 million per client. So, that would give me a rough guess of 6,000 private clients that have fired Ken Fisher.
During that time, Fisher's portfolios was down about 20%. That would bring $45 billion down to $36 billion. Now, the remanding $6 billion was moved away from Fisher. In another word, they fired Ken Fisher. A rough guess of a $1 million per client. So, that would give me a rough guess of 6,000 private clients that have fired Ken Fisher.
Friday, September 26, 2008
McCain - A Strategist? Not
In this 2008 Presidential race, a lot of talked about experience, winning war, judgment, etc., etc.. McCain argued that he has more experience and better judgment than Obama. Hmm! Let's take a closer look at what happened just the last 3 days.
On Wednesday, John McCain announced that he would suspense his campaign to return to Washington to "work on" the bailout plan, thus need to postpone the Presidential debate. Was that a good strategy or a poor one?
As a strategist, whether you are in a war, in a political campaign, or just playing chess, before you make your move, you need to assess the situation, assess the environment that you are getting into, and assess the odd of success. You need to think and act strategically.
But McCain decided that he would move the battle to Washington and bring attention to himself. However, the landscape in Washington was completely against McCain. First, both the Senate and the House leadership are controlled by Democrat, so Harry Reid and Nancy Palosi were in complete control of the negotiation and voting process, if it gets there far. Next, the President, with 4 months to go in his Presidency, is as lame duck as he can possibly get. As for the Republican leadership, they are ultra-conservatives and never were and are on McCain's side. Finally, the American people are clearly against this plan.
Whether or not you like the bailout plan, you have to agree the landscape in Washington was bad, especially for McCain. He had everything against him. Would a good strategist abandon your position and parachute yourself into a hostile and unfriendly territory?
But McCain did. He ended up looking foolish at the White House meeting, having nothing to offer, to say or the leadership ability to bring the other sides together. Then today, having to retract without a bailout plan, and run back to Mississippi with the tail between his legs to have debate.
Now, this is a Navel Academy trained military man, 73 years old with lots of experience, and pride himself having a strategy to win in Iraq. Yet, he couldn't even manage the situation in Washington, and fully capable of assessing the fast deteriorating and no-win situation for him in Washington. If he can't handle something that simple, how can he lead a nation in time of war when bullets and bombs fly and lives are at stake. Frankly, it is very surprising that a Naval Academy trained man would act so non-strategically. But then, this is John McCain, the man who graduated ranked 894 out of 899 in his class. Or maybe, John McCain slept through the lecture on strategy.
On Wednesday, John McCain announced that he would suspense his campaign to return to Washington to "work on" the bailout plan, thus need to postpone the Presidential debate. Was that a good strategy or a poor one?
As a strategist, whether you are in a war, in a political campaign, or just playing chess, before you make your move, you need to assess the situation, assess the environment that you are getting into, and assess the odd of success. You need to think and act strategically.
But McCain decided that he would move the battle to Washington and bring attention to himself. However, the landscape in Washington was completely against McCain. First, both the Senate and the House leadership are controlled by Democrat, so Harry Reid and Nancy Palosi were in complete control of the negotiation and voting process, if it gets there far. Next, the President, with 4 months to go in his Presidency, is as lame duck as he can possibly get. As for the Republican leadership, they are ultra-conservatives and never were and are on McCain's side. Finally, the American people are clearly against this plan.
Whether or not you like the bailout plan, you have to agree the landscape in Washington was bad, especially for McCain. He had everything against him. Would a good strategist abandon your position and parachute yourself into a hostile and unfriendly territory?
But McCain did. He ended up looking foolish at the White House meeting, having nothing to offer, to say or the leadership ability to bring the other sides together. Then today, having to retract without a bailout plan, and run back to Mississippi with the tail between his legs to have debate.
Now, this is a Navel Academy trained military man, 73 years old with lots of experience, and pride himself having a strategy to win in Iraq. Yet, he couldn't even manage the situation in Washington, and fully capable of assessing the fast deteriorating and no-win situation for him in Washington. If he can't handle something that simple, how can he lead a nation in time of war when bullets and bombs fly and lives are at stake. Frankly, it is very surprising that a Naval Academy trained man would act so non-strategically. But then, this is John McCain, the man who graduated ranked 894 out of 899 in his class. Or maybe, John McCain slept through the lecture on strategy.
Cheer Up America. A Lesson From Your Failed President
As we end this Friday, there is no bailout plan, but I bet a plan will be coming in the coming days. As I said before, a debate is good and it doesn't matter which side you are on, having a debate forces both side to negotiate, listen to their constituencies, and hopefully come up with a better plan.
Like all politicians, what force them to act is the revoke of their constituencies and fear of losing in the next election. Whatever the reasons are, the American people spoke up, loudly. That is a great thing, especially given many people were quiet during the lead up to the Iraqi War and the Bush Administration pretty much have gotten whatever they wanted from the American people.
Maybe, just maybe. Bush did teach us something, remember Bush said this back on September 17, 2002.
Like all politicians, what force them to act is the revoke of their constituencies and fear of losing in the next election. Whatever the reasons are, the American people spoke up, loudly. That is a great thing, especially given many people were quiet during the lead up to the Iraqi War and the Bush Administration pretty much have gotten whatever they wanted from the American people.
Maybe, just maybe. Bush did teach us something, remember Bush said this back on September 17, 2002.
There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.Yeah, right. Fool me once and you can't fool me again. American people finally learned that we were fooled before so we won't the politician fool us again. Cheer up America. The country has learned a great lesson and will be a better country because of it.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-7.html
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Encouraged that people are questioning the $700 billion bailout plan
I am encouraged and hopeful after seeing today's article from Peter S. Goodman of the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/23skeptics.html. Skepticism is good in the time of crisis that would force people to debate, to negotiate, and to look for alternatives.
More importantly, it gives the politicians in Congress more breathing room that they will not get blame for inaction. It gives them more negotiation power against the White House.
Now, I am even more encourage that the press is finally asking questions instead of following along like it did during the lead up to the Iraq War.
And the last test, do the American people learned its lesson and allow their elected official to debate the issue and not overwhelmed by political pressure. It is too early to say what the outcome will be. I hope that is one lesson that we better had learned as a nation.
More importantly, it gives the politicians in Congress more breathing room that they will not get blame for inaction. It gives them more negotiation power against the White House.
Now, I am even more encourage that the press is finally asking questions instead of following along like it did during the lead up to the Iraq War.
And the last test, do the American people learned its lesson and allow their elected official to debate the issue and not overwhelmed by political pressure. It is too early to say what the outcome will be. I hope that is one lesson that we better had learned as a nation.
$700 Billion Bailout Package is Bush's Parting Gifts for His Friends
The $700 billion bailout package being considered in Washington is yet another scam for the American people. It is George W. Bush's parting gift to his wealthy and crony friends. Let me explain why and how it will work.
The bailout plan, as proposed by our doing-nothing Security of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, called for no rules, not oversight, no questioning by Congress, on how the $700 billion dollar will be spent. He also said on Meet The Press over the weekend that it is impossible to assess the true value of these securities. Did you see the problem yet?
Once again, the Republicans have out-maneuvered the Democrat with 7-weeks to go before the November 4th election. They know the Democrat will not have the guts to stand-up against their plan, no matter how unreasonable it is. Plus, the economy does need this rescue plan, badly, unfortunately (will discuss the blame later). So, I think it is safe to say that the Congress will approve this plan, pretty much the way it is by this Friday.
The problem with this plan is clearly visible that like robing a bank in broad daylight with FBI protection. This is how it will work. The Treasury will package the mortgage-backed securities into large chunk (so you and I can't afford it and they don't want to deal with too many buyers). Let's say $100 million in original loan amount. Since Paulson said you can't assess its true value, what is to stop him from selling that $100 million securities to his crony buddies at any amount he wishes (remember, not rules and oversight). Let's say for $10 million.
Now, you and I and most average American people can't buy $10 million in asset, let alone we probably don't have the connections. Those who brought (with connections) can easily resell the securities to secondary buyers (without connections) with a good sizable profits.
Why? Eventually, the mortgages will be sold to some auction house which break it down and sell off the properties to another buyers at a discounted of 50%. Wait a minute, between what the Treasury will ask for and its final selling price when they get back on the market, there are many many millions and billions of dollars of profits to be made. The beneficiary are the Bush's and Republican cronies.
Unfortunately, these people are shameless.
The bailout plan, as proposed by our doing-nothing Security of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, called for no rules, not oversight, no questioning by Congress, on how the $700 billion dollar will be spent. He also said on Meet The Press over the weekend that it is impossible to assess the true value of these securities. Did you see the problem yet?
Once again, the Republicans have out-maneuvered the Democrat with 7-weeks to go before the November 4th election. They know the Democrat will not have the guts to stand-up against their plan, no matter how unreasonable it is. Plus, the economy does need this rescue plan, badly, unfortunately (will discuss the blame later). So, I think it is safe to say that the Congress will approve this plan, pretty much the way it is by this Friday.
The problem with this plan is clearly visible that like robing a bank in broad daylight with FBI protection. This is how it will work. The Treasury will package the mortgage-backed securities into large chunk (so you and I can't afford it and they don't want to deal with too many buyers). Let's say $100 million in original loan amount. Since Paulson said you can't assess its true value, what is to stop him from selling that $100 million securities to his crony buddies at any amount he wishes (remember, not rules and oversight). Let's say for $10 million.
Now, you and I and most average American people can't buy $10 million in asset, let alone we probably don't have the connections. Those who brought (with connections) can easily resell the securities to secondary buyers (without connections) with a good sizable profits.
Why? Eventually, the mortgages will be sold to some auction house which break it down and sell off the properties to another buyers at a discounted of 50%. Wait a minute, between what the Treasury will ask for and its final selling price when they get back on the market, there are many many millions and billions of dollars of profits to be made. The beneficiary are the Bush's and Republican cronies.
Unfortunately, these people are shameless.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
My Predictions from 3-years ago
In September 2005, I made the following prediction regarding the mortgage lending practice and its consequences. Let's see if I got it right.
-------------- Written on September 17, 2005 ------------------------
Who is behind these risky loans? They are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are owned by the federal government buying up these risky loans. So, these lenders have little risks because they sell these loans to the federal government. When the bubble bust, the government will be responsible for all these bad loans, much like what happened to the Saving and Loan collapsed in the 80's. So, the bank has little to lose except collecting fees. We will be paying for this mess.
But why would the government is willing taking such risks? Because this President is unable to create jobs or stimulate the economy. Think about it! The only segment of the economy that did well since he became President is the housing market. So, his job is to keep it going as long as possible.
Evidence? The Treasury Department has stopped issuing long-term bond since 2001, thus lessen the supply. On the other hand, the government is buying all kinds of loans, thus increasing the demand. As a result, increase the bond price and lower the long-term mortgate rate. Give Bush credit, so far, it has worked, but the economic theory will catch up with him sooner or later and the time bomb is ticking.
With 200 billion dollars for Iraq and he just promised another 200 billion for Katrina, the bond market is getting worried (see link below). If you let someone, who already owed others lots of money, borrows your money, would you charge higher or lower interest rate. So the pressure on higher long-term rate is very high. Greenspan has raised short-term rates 7 times, but Bush's trick was able to keep the long-term rate low. It is like an earthquake fault building pressure. Sooner or later it will break. The higher the pressure, the bigger the earthquake.
Katrina is hurting the economy. Anything else can really break this open with much higher rate very quickly. Housing and bond markets
are at risk. If you are considering buy bond, don't. Not now.
There is always a silver lining among all the bad news. For all the adults, we are not going to pay for this. Bush said he will not raise tax to pay for deficit. These troubles will be paid by all the kids. Thank you kids for taking care of the trouble we leave for you!
P.S.: Here are some reference material if you are interested.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac warned by Greenspan
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050916/BUSINESS/509160321/1003/NEWS05
The "long bond" is back. What does it mean for investors?
https://flagship5.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw/VanguardViewsArticlePublic?ArticleJSP=/freshness/News_and_Views/news_ALL_30yearbond_09062005_ALL.jsp
Treasury Bond Prices Fall Due to Worries http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050916/ap_on_bi_ge/bonds_41
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What we saw in the sub-prime problem in recent weeks, I was mostly right, especially regarding Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac. I was wrong, however, was the magnitude of the problem. I did not know at the time that Congress (led by Phil Gramm) had deregulated and let investment banker to get into these risky loans and could spread it throughout investment banks like Lehman Brothers and insurance companies like AIG.
I was wrong also believing George W. Bush would actually keep his promise to help his fellow Americans harmed by Hurricane Katrina. I guess not.
Beside these two points, I was pretty much right on.
-------------- Written on September 17, 2005 ------------------------
Who is behind these risky loans? They are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are owned by the federal government buying up these risky loans. So, these lenders have little risks because they sell these loans to the federal government. When the bubble bust, the government will be responsible for all these bad loans, much like what happened to the Saving and Loan collapsed in the 80's. So, the bank has little to lose except collecting fees. We will be paying for this mess.
But why would the government is willing taking such risks? Because this President is unable to create jobs or stimulate the economy. Think about it! The only segment of the economy that did well since he became President is the housing market. So, his job is to keep it going as long as possible.
Evidence? The Treasury Department has stopped issuing long-term bond since 2001, thus lessen the supply. On the other hand, the government is buying all kinds of loans, thus increasing the demand. As a result, increase the bond price and lower the long-term mortgate rate. Give Bush credit, so far, it has worked, but the economic theory will catch up with him sooner or later and the time bomb is ticking.
With 200 billion dollars for Iraq and he just promised another 200 billion for Katrina, the bond market is getting worried (see link below). If you let someone, who already owed others lots of money, borrows your money, would you charge higher or lower interest rate. So the pressure on higher long-term rate is very high. Greenspan has raised short-term rates 7 times, but Bush's trick was able to keep the long-term rate low. It is like an earthquake fault building pressure. Sooner or later it will break. The higher the pressure, the bigger the earthquake.
Katrina is hurting the economy. Anything else can really break this open with much higher rate very quickly. Housing and bond markets
are at risk. If you are considering buy bond, don't. Not now.
There is always a silver lining among all the bad news. For all the adults, we are not going to pay for this. Bush said he will not raise tax to pay for deficit. These troubles will be paid by all the kids. Thank you kids for taking care of the trouble we leave for you!
P.S.: Here are some reference material if you are interested.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac warned by Greenspan
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050916/BUSINESS/509160321/1003/NEWS05
The "long bond" is back. What does it mean for investors?
https://flagship5.vanguard.com/VGApp/hnw/VanguardViewsArticlePublic?ArticleJSP=/freshness/News_and_Views/news_ALL_30yearbond_09062005_ALL.jsp
Treasury Bond Prices Fall Due to Worries http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050916/ap_on_bi_ge/bonds_41
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What we saw in the sub-prime problem in recent weeks, I was mostly right, especially regarding Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac. I was wrong, however, was the magnitude of the problem. I did not know at the time that Congress (led by Phil Gramm) had deregulated and let investment banker to get into these risky loans and could spread it throughout investment banks like Lehman Brothers and insurance companies like AIG.
I was wrong also believing George W. Bush would actually keep his promise to help his fellow Americans harmed by Hurricane Katrina. I guess not.
Beside these two points, I was pretty much right on.
Fisher Investments - Risking Seniors' Money?
As you can see in my earlier blogs, you can tell that I was a Fisher Investments client. Then I fired them. Their poor performance was certainly a major contributing factor, but another major reason was the questionable ethic and integrity of this company. Let me explain.
When I attended one of their client seminar, I noticed most of their clients are in their 50's, 60's, and 70's. They also confirmed that most clients are benchmarked against the MSCI World Index, which is more aggressive then S&P 500. Furthermore, one big reason of Fisher's recent poor performance is because they went heavy on energy and were wrong. In another word, they were more aggressive than the MSCI World Index.
That begs me to ask myself this question. Is it ethical to take retirees' money to invest in a super aggressive portfolio. I understand the clients have agreed to this selection. It is Investment 101 that investors need to be more conservative and cash preservation as they approach retirement age. Unfortunately, it didn't appear to be that way from what I witnessed.
In light of the recently dramatic downturn in the equity markets, can you imagine seniors in their 60's and 70's watching his portfolios dropping in value each day. I do understand Fisher's argument that their clients agreed to the selected benchmark. But, if this is an ethical company, it wouldn't target seniors' money and risk their hard earned assets in these risky investments
When I attended one of their client seminar, I noticed most of their clients are in their 50's, 60's, and 70's. They also confirmed that most clients are benchmarked against the MSCI World Index, which is more aggressive then S&P 500. Furthermore, one big reason of Fisher's recent poor performance is because they went heavy on energy and were wrong. In another word, they were more aggressive than the MSCI World Index.
That begs me to ask myself this question. Is it ethical to take retirees' money to invest in a super aggressive portfolio. I understand the clients have agreed to this selection. It is Investment 101 that investors need to be more conservative and cash preservation as they approach retirement age. Unfortunately, it didn't appear to be that way from what I witnessed.
In light of the recently dramatic downturn in the equity markets, can you imagine seniors in their 60's and 70's watching his portfolios dropping in value each day. I do understand Fisher's argument that their clients agreed to the selected benchmark. But, if this is an ethical company, it wouldn't target seniors' money and risk their hard earned assets in these risky investments
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Sarah Palin is no Dick Cheney and no Joe Biden either
A little over 7-years ago, on the morning of September 11, 2001, a commercial airliner crashed into the World Trade Center. About 700 miles away in Florida, the President George W. Bush was told of the incident but yet he continued his photo-opt in a second-grade class room. As he sat in front of the students, the second airliner crashed into the second World Trade Center tower, and his Chief of Staff whispered to him that "America is under attack". Yet, he continued to sit there motionless and had no idea what to do. Remember, at that moment, he did not know whether America is under attacked by car bomb, a ship, a 400 mph plane, or a 15,000 mph ICBM that can come from the enemy within minutes. He was clearly incapable to operate under pressure due to his lack of experience.
Back in Washington, the Vice President Dick Cheney was in control and managing the crisis from the White House Situation Room. He ordered to shutdown all air traffic and even gave order to shoot down any commercial airliners heading toward Washington. Trust me, I am not a Dick Cheney fan, yet on that day, he was "The Man" managing the crisis like a pro with his experience as a former Chief of Staff and former Secretary of Defense.
OK. I forgot. Let's go back to Florida. The President George W. Bush was still sitting in the second-grade classroom wondering what he should do next because no one was telling him what to do.
The Republicans like to say "September 11 changed everything". In some way, it did, but in another way, it did not. If McCain is elected President, it is inevitable that he would travel outside of Washington often. If America is attacked during one of those days, would a Vice President Sarah Palin able to do 1/10 of what Dick Cheney did on that day? I seriously doubt it.
If September 11 changed anything, it is the even more important role of the Vice President. She didn't have to wait for McCain to die so her to step in the spot light. In the post September 11 era, at any moment, the V.P. might have to step in and run the country. I am sorry Sarah, you are no Dick Cheney and you are no Joe Biden either.
Back in Washington, the Vice President Dick Cheney was in control and managing the crisis from the White House Situation Room. He ordered to shutdown all air traffic and even gave order to shoot down any commercial airliners heading toward Washington. Trust me, I am not a Dick Cheney fan, yet on that day, he was "The Man" managing the crisis like a pro with his experience as a former Chief of Staff and former Secretary of Defense.
OK. I forgot. Let's go back to Florida. The President George W. Bush was still sitting in the second-grade classroom wondering what he should do next because no one was telling him what to do.
The Republicans like to say "September 11 changed everything". In some way, it did, but in another way, it did not. If McCain is elected President, it is inevitable that he would travel outside of Washington often. If America is attacked during one of those days, would a Vice President Sarah Palin able to do 1/10 of what Dick Cheney did on that day? I seriously doubt it.
If September 11 changed anything, it is the even more important role of the Vice President. She didn't have to wait for McCain to die so her to step in the spot light. In the post September 11 era, at any moment, the V.P. might have to step in and run the country. I am sorry Sarah, you are no Dick Cheney and you are no Joe Biden either.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Fisher Investments - Only the fees matter
When I first hired Fisher Investments, the promised exceptional customer services and assigned a Investment Counselor to me. He is a nice young man and following instruction given to him.
As my investments go bad to worse, I talked to my Investment Counselor. It was clear that he knowledge was limited and could only repeat the talking-point given to him. As I asked for more information, it would take him 2 weeks to write me written legal responses that are clearly intended to protect Fisher in case I suit them.
Finally, I have no choice but fired Fisher. Within the hour, they went to my brokerage accounts and deduct their fees, plus $2000 early termination fee. The only time that they acted quickly was to collect their fees. What does this tell you? This company has no ethic and lack of integrity. When I hired them, they said it is $1000 fee, but then it i $1000 per account.
I have lost so much money that I don't care to pay the extra $1000. I am so glad to have get rid of Ken Fisher and the gang. Ken Fisher maybe a good investor (although I haven't seen it) but the way that company is run, it is destinate to fail. My suggestion, don't go with the loser. That is my advise to you all.
As my investments go bad to worse, I talked to my Investment Counselor. It was clear that he knowledge was limited and could only repeat the talking-point given to him. As I asked for more information, it would take him 2 weeks to write me written legal responses that are clearly intended to protect Fisher in case I suit them.
Finally, I have no choice but fired Fisher. Within the hour, they went to my brokerage accounts and deduct their fees, plus $2000 early termination fee. The only time that they acted quickly was to collect their fees. What does this tell you? This company has no ethic and lack of integrity. When I hired them, they said it is $1000 fee, but then it i $1000 per account.
I have lost so much money that I don't care to pay the extra $1000. I am so glad to have get rid of Ken Fisher and the gang. Ken Fisher maybe a good investor (although I haven't seen it) but the way that company is run, it is destinate to fail. My suggestion, don't go with the loser. That is my advise to you all.
Monday, September 15, 2008
What your vote means for children of Iraq
Last week, a friend and I were chatting about some random topics, including these two.
First of all, she is a right leaning Republican but disapproves of Bush's performance. So she will not vote for McCain. But she won't vote for Obama either because of his experience. She feels her vote would be irrelevant being in California.
Second, she talks about how she wants to donate money to help poor children of Africa and South America as seen on TV. That there are many children across the world that are poor and suffering.
"What about the children of Iraq?", I asked. I told her I understand and her noble intention to help children, but the simplest and most effective way to help children of Iraq is to vote for Obama so the American troops can leave. That single precious vote of yours can do so much for thousands of Iraqi children. Then, I sent her the following video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRA3QdvY9rQ
First of all, she is a right leaning Republican but disapproves of Bush's performance. So she will not vote for McCain. But she won't vote for Obama either because of his experience. She feels her vote would be irrelevant being in California.
Second, she talks about how she wants to donate money to help poor children of Africa and South America as seen on TV. That there are many children across the world that are poor and suffering.
"What about the children of Iraq?", I asked. I told her I understand and her noble intention to help children, but the simplest and most effective way to help children of Iraq is to vote for Obama so the American troops can leave. That single precious vote of yours can do so much for thousands of Iraqi children. Then, I sent her the following video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRA3QdvY9rQ
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Fisher Investments - The One Biggest Mistake This Investor Makes
You probably have seen on TV or heard on radio about Fisher Investments' investor's guide, The Eight Biggest Mistakes Investors Make And How To Avoid Them. Let me tell you how to avoid The One Biggest Mistake This Investor Makes And That Was I Hired Fisher Investments.
Consider their results here. In 4 months, they managed to lose 19.7% of my assets. Well, you say "but the market was down". True. During the same time period, NASDAQ was down 10.4%, Dow was down 11.4%, S&P was down 10.9%, and even MSCI, which is Fisher's benchmark was down 16%. Clearly, it was not beating the marketing, but in fact, losing badly.
You say, "Well, 4 months is too short". That very well be true, but I only have so many 20% for them to lose. Considered that they were at par with S&P no too long ago, but the gap kept widening and widening to almost double. I have no choice but say "Ken Fisher, You are Fired!".
Then, amazingly, my Investment Counselor took action so quickly that I've never seen before. That was to collect their fees. Hmm!
I am not drawing any conclusion about Fisher Investments, but those are the facts. You decide!
Consider their results here. In 4 months, they managed to lose 19.7% of my assets. Well, you say "but the market was down". True. During the same time period, NASDAQ was down 10.4%, Dow was down 11.4%, S&P was down 10.9%, and even MSCI, which is Fisher's benchmark was down 16%. Clearly, it was not beating the marketing, but in fact, losing badly.
You say, "Well, 4 months is too short". That very well be true, but I only have so many 20% for them to lose. Considered that they were at par with S&P no too long ago, but the gap kept widening and widening to almost double. I have no choice but say "Ken Fisher, You are Fired!".
Then, amazingly, my Investment Counselor took action so quickly that I've never seen before. That was to collect their fees. Hmm!
I am not drawing any conclusion about Fisher Investments, but those are the facts. You decide!
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Consequence of your votes
Back in 2000, the U.S. economy was still booming. Yes, the dot-com was about to burst, but yet most of us were feeling pretty good whether you were investing in the stock market, or it just seems like a whole lot easier to find your next job with a good raise. It was so cool in the good old day.
At that time, most Americans, as I will say it, were fat-dumb-and-happy. Money and jobs were abundant, you and your friends were happily wealthy, you and your employer were making tons of money (except those dot-com), the federal government was running at a surplus. The country had so much fun and so much time on our hand that it decided to go impeach the President for sex or maybe simply we haven't impeached a President for over a hundred. So, that must be fun.
The country was so silly and so lazy that it voted (yes, there were cheating involved, but it shouldn't even be closed at all) for a man who had little to no experience, no accomplishments, and no intellectual capabilities, I don't mean in governing but in life altogether. Yet, his qualification was the man who people like to have a beer with. American people were too lazy to learn about their candidate and the political process, thus the biggest blunder of the history of the United States.
In 7+ year, an incapable President has brought the greatest, the wealthiest, and the most powerful country in the history to today's brink of bankruptcy and a country of irrelevant in the world. Wow, can you do that in 7 years. You bet. Now, do you think the President of the United States is important? Do you think every vote is important? Do you think your vote is important? Think again.
Imagine, fifty years or a hundred years from now, what will our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren think of us when they study the 2000 election. "Why were those people in 2000 so stupid to ever vote an idiot like George W. Bush?"
Good question, my grandchildren. We were fat-dumb-and-stupid. Remember, don't ever let that mistake happen again. Go learn about the political process and vote!
At that time, most Americans, as I will say it, were fat-dumb-and-happy. Money and jobs were abundant, you and your friends were happily wealthy, you and your employer were making tons of money (except those dot-com), the federal government was running at a surplus. The country had so much fun and so much time on our hand that it decided to go impeach the President for sex or maybe simply we haven't impeached a President for over a hundred. So, that must be fun.
The country was so silly and so lazy that it voted (yes, there were cheating involved, but it shouldn't even be closed at all) for a man who had little to no experience, no accomplishments, and no intellectual capabilities, I don't mean in governing but in life altogether. Yet, his qualification was the man who people like to have a beer with. American people were too lazy to learn about their candidate and the political process, thus the biggest blunder of the history of the United States.
In 7+ year, an incapable President has brought the greatest, the wealthiest, and the most powerful country in the history to today's brink of bankruptcy and a country of irrelevant in the world. Wow, can you do that in 7 years. You bet. Now, do you think the President of the United States is important? Do you think every vote is important? Do you think your vote is important? Think again.
Imagine, fifty years or a hundred years from now, what will our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren think of us when they study the 2000 election. "Why were those people in 2000 so stupid to ever vote an idiot like George W. Bush?"
Good question, my grandchildren. We were fat-dumb-and-stupid. Remember, don't ever let that mistake happen again. Go learn about the political process and vote!
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Obama Speech
On Tuesday morning, after I dropped off the kids at school. I tuned my radio to Green 960, www.green960.com, a progressive radio station on AM960 in San Francisco, just as Barack Obama started his "A More Perfect Union" speech. The next 7 minutes, I listened as I drove into my company's parking lot. Then, I decided to park my car at the far corner so I can listen to the rest his speech.
I was intrigued and amazed on how great that speech was. It was insightful, personal, and yet powerful. No politician in American today could have made that speech; not Hillary, not McCain, none of the former candidates from either side, not even Bill himself. The only one that could have done it would be Reagan, but he is an actor after-all.
Some of the things that Rev. Wright said were "over the top". No one can deny that. Obama's reasonings was brilliant that because he is friend, he is like family, so you can't disown him just because he said something you disagree with. Look around your family; your parents, brothers and sisters, in-laws, best friends. I doubted that you agree with everything they said and sometime obnoxious and terrible things. But they are still your family and your friends.
Now, the political pundits on TV tried to analyze whether it changed any mind. Think about this. The right-wing conservations who never liked him and probably still do not. The left-wing progressives who loved him and probably still do. This speech is for the middle swing votes and keeping them from "escaping" to Hilary and McCain. Yes, it is to "stop-the-breeding". I am sure there are a few went from the left-to-the-right and a few went from the right-to-the-left. Net-net, we'll find out the scores in a week or so.
Even the conservatives agreed that the speech was well-written and well-deliver. Strategically speech, the speech defined who Obama is to the nation and the world. He built a platform, OK, call it a race-platform if you want, but it is a platform that raised him above Hillary. Yes, he is half-black, but he is also the man who understands the racial divie of this country, he understands the struggle of the middle-class, and he is the only man that can bring us all together; black-and-white, rich-and-poor, young-and-old, that neither Hillary nor McCain can ever relate to, let along make a speech on it, and definitely not in a position to change it.
Looking back, my decision pull to the corner of the parking lot and listen to the entire speech allowed me the honor and privilege to enjoy the greatest speech of our life time. Thank you and Obama for President!
I was intrigued and amazed on how great that speech was. It was insightful, personal, and yet powerful. No politician in American today could have made that speech; not Hillary, not McCain, none of the former candidates from either side, not even Bill himself. The only one that could have done it would be Reagan, but he is an actor after-all.
Some of the things that Rev. Wright said were "over the top". No one can deny that. Obama's reasonings was brilliant that because he is friend, he is like family, so you can't disown him just because he said something you disagree with. Look around your family; your parents, brothers and sisters, in-laws, best friends. I doubted that you agree with everything they said and sometime obnoxious and terrible things. But they are still your family and your friends.
Now, the political pundits on TV tried to analyze whether it changed any mind. Think about this. The right-wing conservations who never liked him and probably still do not. The left-wing progressives who loved him and probably still do. This speech is for the middle swing votes and keeping them from "escaping" to Hilary and McCain. Yes, it is to "stop-the-breeding". I am sure there are a few went from the left-to-the-right and a few went from the right-to-the-left. Net-net, we'll find out the scores in a week or so.
Even the conservatives agreed that the speech was well-written and well-deliver. Strategically speech, the speech defined who Obama is to the nation and the world. He built a platform, OK, call it a race-platform if you want, but it is a platform that raised him above Hillary. Yes, he is half-black, but he is also the man who understands the racial divie of this country, he understands the struggle of the middle-class, and he is the only man that can bring us all together; black-and-white, rich-and-poor, young-and-old, that neither Hillary nor McCain can ever relate to, let along make a speech on it, and definitely not in a position to change it.
Looking back, my decision pull to the corner of the parking lot and listen to the entire speech allowed me the honor and privilege to enjoy the greatest speech of our life time. Thank you and Obama for President!
Friday, February 15, 2008
What makes a bad excuse a bad excuse
This week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified in Congress and was pressed by Congressman Robert Wexler on the flaw intelligence regarding Iraq WMD. You can see the video here . Her excuse, as was given many time before by those defending the Iraqi War, that many of the other foreign intelligent agencies also came up with the same conclusion. Somehow, I don't understand why people would buy that excuse. Obviously Congressman Wexler did and not question her on that point.
Why that excuse is bad? Maybe it is true that other foreign intelligence have the same conclusion, but you can't deny the fact that no other country went to war over their "conclusion". But we did and we wasted trillion of dollars and sacrificed thousands of brave American life. That clearly showed a big different in interpretation. And in fact, most of other same countries were against the invasion of Iraq. There is a big gap between a "belief" and "acting" on that belief.
That argument maybe too hard to understand, so let me take it in another way. Let's say many of your neighbors believe that the man lives down the street abuses his wife and kids. Yes, all of you saw something suspicious and swear that he mus be guilty. One day, you decide to knock down his door, beat him up, and rescue his wife and kids. But the problem is there is no abuse. Do you really believe that you can tell the police that you action is justifiable because your other neighbors believe the same. So you shouldn't be charged with assault. Do you think that excuse would fly?
Now, the other foreign intelligent agencies have the same "conclusion" is a bad excuse. But I don't blame them for using that because they got away with it. It is important for those who are against the war to call them on it. I wish Congressman Wexler did.
Why that excuse is bad? Maybe it is true that other foreign intelligence have the same conclusion, but you can't deny the fact that no other country went to war over their "conclusion". But we did and we wasted trillion of dollars and sacrificed thousands of brave American life. That clearly showed a big different in interpretation. And in fact, most of other same countries were against the invasion of Iraq. There is a big gap between a "belief" and "acting" on that belief.
That argument maybe too hard to understand, so let me take it in another way. Let's say many of your neighbors believe that the man lives down the street abuses his wife and kids. Yes, all of you saw something suspicious and swear that he mus be guilty. One day, you decide to knock down his door, beat him up, and rescue his wife and kids. But the problem is there is no abuse. Do you really believe that you can tell the police that you action is justifiable because your other neighbors believe the same. So you shouldn't be charged with assault. Do you think that excuse would fly?
Now, the other foreign intelligent agencies have the same "conclusion" is a bad excuse. But I don't blame them for using that because they got away with it. It is important for those who are against the war to call them on it. I wish Congressman Wexler did.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Best Reporter on TV
David Shuster, MSNBC reporter that was suspended for saying, "Doesn't it seem sort of like Chelsea's being pimped out, in some weird sort of way?" when he was talking about the Clinton campaign having Chelsea, the daughter calling delegates. I must say Mr. Shuster didn't use the best choice of word here and he has since apologized to the Clintons.
But I also must say too is David Shuster is one of the best, if not, the best reporter out there today. I enjoyed watch his wonderful reporting on Hardball that is no match on television today. I am sure some people are glad that he is out because he is so good.
But, on the other hand, Mr. Shuster, take a page from Hollywood. Being a "bad boy" at time, isn't all a bad thing. It puts you right up there in notoriety and attention of everybody. I truly believe it will further your career because you are a great reporter. Take all your hits now. You will come back stronger and better than ever. If not MSNBC, it will be somebody else. Go David. Hang in there! It will be alright!
But I also must say too is David Shuster is one of the best, if not, the best reporter out there today. I enjoyed watch his wonderful reporting on Hardball that is no match on television today. I am sure some people are glad that he is out because he is so good.
But, on the other hand, Mr. Shuster, take a page from Hollywood. Being a "bad boy" at time, isn't all a bad thing. It puts you right up there in notoriety and attention of everybody. I truly believe it will further your career because you are a great reporter. Take all your hits now. You will come back stronger and better than ever. If not MSNBC, it will be somebody else. Go David. Hang in there! It will be alright!
Monday, February 4, 2008
My Wasted Vote
Tomorrow is primary day in California, one of the most important primary election in my recent memory. Finally, Californians' vote do make a different for a change. I was so ready that I elected to go with a "permanent absentee" ballot because I don't trust those touchscreen machines. So, after the Florida primary, I voted for Senator Edward. Then, the next day, he withdrew from the race. What? He withdrew!
Why Edward? Because I think he has the best chance of beating anyone the Republican would throw at him. Clinton and Obama are both great candidates but came with baggage. I want the man with the best chance of winning the White House. But my vote was casted and too late to change. What a pity? I am not sure those "permanent absentee" ballots are the cool after-all.
Now, I feel guilty. Maybe I should donate to Obama to make up for my wasted vote :)
Why Edward? Because I think he has the best chance of beating anyone the Republican would throw at him. Clinton and Obama are both great candidates but came with baggage. I want the man with the best chance of winning the White House. But my vote was casted and too late to change. What a pity? I am not sure those "permanent absentee" ballots are the cool after-all.
Now, I feel guilty. Maybe I should donate to Obama to make up for my wasted vote :)
My First Blog
Today is the day after Super Bowl XLII. Super Bowl Sundays are such memorable days that they are great anniversary days. Although I couldn't started my first blog yesterday (reason to be explained at later blog), the day-after is as close as we you can get.
Talk about the Super Bowl, which is always topic. Obviously, I would have to congratulation the New York Giants for their stunning victory. I wasn't really pulling for neither teams. On one hand, it would be great to see a perfect season, but I like to pull for the underdog also. At the end, in my opinion, the Patriots did not play well enough to deserve a Super Bowl victory or a perfect season for that matter. They got what they deserved.
The Giants didn't play too well either. Manning was good for 2 drives. That is it and a MVP. Are you kidding? IMHO, the MVP or MVPs should go to the Giants defensive lines. Those guys pressured Brady all day that took a 18-0 team completely out-of-rhythm. That was MVP performance.
To me, Super Bowl XLII Most Valuable Players are: Strahan, Umenyiora, Pierce, and the rest of the defensive team. Congratulations to the Giants.
Now, with that, my blogging career has started :)
Talk about the Super Bowl, which is always topic. Obviously, I would have to congratulation the New York Giants for their stunning victory. I wasn't really pulling for neither teams. On one hand, it would be great to see a perfect season, but I like to pull for the underdog also. At the end, in my opinion, the Patriots did not play well enough to deserve a Super Bowl victory or a perfect season for that matter. They got what they deserved.
The Giants didn't play too well either. Manning was good for 2 drives. That is it and a MVP. Are you kidding? IMHO, the MVP or MVPs should go to the Giants defensive lines. Those guys pressured Brady all day that took a 18-0 team completely out-of-rhythm. That was MVP performance.
To me, Super Bowl XLII Most Valuable Players are: Strahan, Umenyiora, Pierce, and the rest of the defensive team. Congratulations to the Giants.
Now, with that, my blogging career has started :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)