Condi Rice: "By definition, if it was authorized by the President, it didn't violate our obligation under the Geneva Convention"

If you haven't seen the video posted by Stanford Student Reyna Garcia and his friends, who cornered Condoleezza Rice to question her on the Bush Administration usage of torture. Here is the link

First of all, you got to give credit to Reyna and his friends for confronting who was and is a Stanford Professor, former National Security Advisor, and former Secretary of State. It took some guts. I hope these students wouldn't need to take one of her classes, otherwise, they would guarantee an 'F' for sure.

If you listen to Condi Rice's defensive argument, it was one of those Dick Cheney argument that " well, only if you have seen the facts that we saw, you would have understand, but then we can't show you the fact because you aren't high enough in the government." It is an effective way to shutdown the other person's argument, yet they don't need to produce any REAL evidents to justify their perspectives. It was difficult for Reyna and his friends for a comeback but it did wish they would request on camera a follow-up interview after they have a chance to prepare. Now, I do wonder if Professor Rice would agree to such an interview.

The other shocking argument by the former Secretary was (start at time 6:05):

"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that the violates our obligation under the convention against torture. By definition, if it was authorized by the President, it didn't violate our obligation under the Geneva Convention."

There are 2 serious flaws in her argument. One, I wish that student would follow up with this simple question, "You were authorized by who, again?"

Consider this: If my brain told my hands to kill someone, would that not violate the law and not a murder then? Trust me, my brain is totally convince that it is right and totally justified. I know, I know. You'll say that the brain and the hands are part of the same person. Well, just like the White House and the Justice Department are the same Administration.

Two, I am sure you have seen this clip from 32 years ago, of the former President Nixon which he said, "When the president does it, that means that is not illegal." And remember, Nixon was impeached and resigned in disgrace. Bush and Cheney should have too.

Now, imagine if you were able to ask Saddam Hussein: "President Hussein, what gave you the right to torture and killed thousands of Iraqi". His answer probably would be , "Since I am the President (of Iraq), that means there were not illegal."

If these are the best argument the Bush Gang can come up with, that is a slippery slope.

One simple way to stop those AIG bonuses

Come on, President Obama. If you really want to stop to AIG Executives from getting those bonuses, there is simple way to do it. Bonuses are authorized by CEO and the Board of Directors. Just tell those crooks and whoever would sign those checks that the United States government will go after them to recoup the money. Now, who is willing to sign those checks. Simple

GOP Plays Obstructionist Roles

My prediction and I hope the 2010 mid-term election, the Republican would get another whipping and become a party-of-irrelevant. What the Republicans have done in debate and aftermath of the stimulus debate. If you pay attention to the detail of their argument, they have no objection to the needs of the stimulus and no objection to the most of the content of the stimulus. Yes, I understand that philosophically preferred tax-cut over spending. I can respect that. But the fact of the matter is the bill was passed and it is time to fix the problem. Yet, the Republicans, especially those Governors, like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and Rick Perry of Texas. They would actually turn down money that are intended to help citizens of their states. They would block and be obstructionists to the country's economic recovery. Go ahead and do it. I hope citizens of their states should kick of them out of office as quickly as possible.

Top-10 Bad Reasons for choosing a President

As we celebrate the end of the worst Presidency of the country’s history, let me leave a few words of advice for the future generations with my Top-10 BAD Reasons for choosing a President

1. Should know him more than having a similar name to a former-President
2. Should be better than a C student
3. t least, his parents should think he is a smart kids in the family
4. But then, running for President shouldn’t be just to prove to your Dad that you are smart.
5. Someone who actually have some “real” accomplishments before age 42.
6. Because people like to have a beer with him should not be a qualification
7. Neither is because he is more likely to stop and help me change my flat tire
8. An AWOL solder is likely to grow-up to be an AWOL President
9. As the President of the United States, at least, he should be able to speak proper American English
10. What do you tell your kids? Being dumb, lazy, stupid, C-student, a drunk, AWOL, jobless, and did nothing good until middle-age will grow-up to be the President one day?

Uganda President Museveni

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.

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

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.