倩影輕移現廣寒，
婵眉暗蹙舞姿翩；
皓腕遮心將淚咽，
孤棲月府問誰憐。
Friday, September 12, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Man vs Wild: Destination Yellowstone
So we narrowly missed a warm and friendly confrontation with a full grown mama grizzly with her cub.
About a week ago, on our second day at Yellowstone, we decided to leave the park to go fishing on the lake. The water was bone-chillingly cold and the catch was just bad; so we got bored and decided to hike into the woods with my air rifle to look for small game. After shooting a very cute and very small animal, I felt really guilty and vowed to shoot very cute and slightly larger animals instead. As we stalked very loudly through the woods, Bob spotted a large quail-like bird about 15-20 yards in front of us and pointed it out to me. I got all excited. So I crouch down, stabilize my elbows on my knee, and tilt my head to look through the scope. Just as my breath was calming and I'm about to take my shot, the bird flutters away, looking very alarmed.
Thinking that the bird saw me from its peripheral vision, I cursed myself for being slow and started walking forward to see how far it had fled. As I got close to where the bird was standing, I caught some movement in MY peripheral vision, just beyond the bushes to my right. I freeze and stare through the bushes. The thing moved again. This time, I could see the brown head of a full-size grizzly contrasted clearly with the green of the bushes. My heart instantly jump to my throat. We had just been reading that grizzly's can run up to 30 mph flat-out. At that rate, if it saw us and decided to attack, we'd be about a quarter mile short of the car before we got run down.
Not wanting to surprise the bear as it moved towards us around the bushes, I signaled Bob back. "Bear!" I whispered and pointed towards to my right, "There's a bear!". We slowly (but not too slowly) back away from our positions. The good thing is that the bear must not have noticed us at first, because we were able to get about 100-150 yards away before we saw the bear again. When we looked back, we saw the majestic body of a fully grown grizzly bear saunter up to the top of the high ground close to where we were. As we stared at this emperor of the forest, a smaller brown figure jumped into view as well. It was a grizzly cub! And the emperor was an empress! I was just about to say "awwwww, so cute!!!" when I realized how lucky we were to have spotted the bear before it spotted us. Mother bears are incredibly protective when the cubs are around.
Mama bear must have caught our scent, because it suddenly turned its head and looked straight at us. We were in a particularly flat area of the forest where only low level bushes grew. The bear was uphill from us and there was nothing that could slow her down if she decided to attack. One breath, two breaths, three breaths; we stayed very very still. Fortunately, it decided that we didn't pose enough of a threat for her to risk leaving her cub. Instead, it just looked at us like a huge club bouncer as if saying "yo, get the f*ck outta heaaah." So we backed away again, facing the bear, in a very very very dignified manner; because you know, true outdoorsmen aren't afraid of no stinkin' animals. I even started to reach for my camera, but then I decided I shouldn't risk the sound of velcro unzipping to set anyone, not naming names, off.
As we walked away from the bear and her cub, we realized that this whole area must have been the bear family's feeding grounds. We came upon two carcasses of adult elk. One must have died a long time ago, as nothing remained except for its skull, spine, and rib cage. The other, lying close to it, still had its limbs with hide and hoof attached. Bears usually go for veggies and smaller animals, but we weren't about to stay long enough to find out whether a bear had actually killed those elk.
Exiting the woods and breathing a sigh of relief, Bob and I high-five'd each other for seeing a grizzly and her cub in the wild for the first time in our lives. And we were both celebrating our escaping from potential death. And I definitely learned a very useful wilderness survival lesson through all this -- when you venture into grizzly infested woods, always bring a friend or two. Because if the grizzly decides to chase you, you won't have to run faster than the bear -- you just have to run faster than your friends.
About a week ago, on our second day at Yellowstone, we decided to leave the park to go fishing on the lake. The water was bone-chillingly cold and the catch was just bad; so we got bored and decided to hike into the woods with my air rifle to look for small game. After shooting a very cute and very small animal, I felt really guilty and vowed to shoot very cute and slightly larger animals instead. As we stalked very loudly through the woods, Bob spotted a large quail-like bird about 15-20 yards in front of us and pointed it out to me. I got all excited. So I crouch down, stabilize my elbows on my knee, and tilt my head to look through the scope. Just as my breath was calming and I'm about to take my shot, the bird flutters away, looking very alarmed.
Thinking that the bird saw me from its peripheral vision, I cursed myself for being slow and started walking forward to see how far it had fled. As I got close to where the bird was standing, I caught some movement in MY peripheral vision, just beyond the bushes to my right. I freeze and stare through the bushes. The thing moved again. This time, I could see the brown head of a full-size grizzly contrasted clearly with the green of the bushes. My heart instantly jump to my throat. We had just been reading that grizzly's can run up to 30 mph flat-out. At that rate, if it saw us and decided to attack, we'd be about a quarter mile short of the car before we got run down.
Not wanting to surprise the bear as it moved towards us around the bushes, I signaled Bob back. "Bear!" I whispered and pointed towards to my right, "There's a bear!". We slowly (but not too slowly) back away from our positions. The good thing is that the bear must not have noticed us at first, because we were able to get about 100-150 yards away before we saw the bear again. When we looked back, we saw the majestic body of a fully grown grizzly bear saunter up to the top of the high ground close to where we were. As we stared at this emperor of the forest, a smaller brown figure jumped into view as well. It was a grizzly cub! And the emperor was an empress! I was just about to say "awwwww, so cute!!!" when I realized how lucky we were to have spotted the bear before it spotted us. Mother bears are incredibly protective when the cubs are around.
Mama bear must have caught our scent, because it suddenly turned its head and looked straight at us. We were in a particularly flat area of the forest where only low level bushes grew. The bear was uphill from us and there was nothing that could slow her down if she decided to attack. One breath, two breaths, three breaths; we stayed very very still. Fortunately, it decided that we didn't pose enough of a threat for her to risk leaving her cub. Instead, it just looked at us like a huge club bouncer as if saying "yo, get the f*ck outta heaaah." So we backed away again, facing the bear, in a very very very dignified manner; because you know, true outdoorsmen aren't afraid of no stinkin' animals. I even started to reach for my camera, but then I decided I shouldn't risk the sound of velcro unzipping to set anyone, not naming names, off.
As we walked away from the bear and her cub, we realized that this whole area must have been the bear family's feeding grounds. We came upon two carcasses of adult elk. One must have died a long time ago, as nothing remained except for its skull, spine, and rib cage. The other, lying close to it, still had its limbs with hide and hoof attached. Bears usually go for veggies and smaller animals, but we weren't about to stay long enough to find out whether a bear had actually killed those elk.
Exiting the woods and breathing a sigh of relief, Bob and I high-five'd each other for seeing a grizzly and her cub in the wild for the first time in our lives. And we were both celebrating our escaping from potential death. And I definitely learned a very useful wilderness survival lesson through all this -- when you venture into grizzly infested woods, always bring a friend or two. Because if the grizzly decides to chase you, you won't have to run faster than the bear -- you just have to run faster than your friends.
Friday, April 18, 2008
A Game of Semantics
Currently, there's a lot of Western pressure on China for not talking to the Dalai Lama even though he claims to only want autonomy. China held talks with his holiness for years, but they went nowhere. Why? You kind of have to look at what the Dalai Lama really meant when he says "autonomy not independence". Starting with his "proposal for peace" in 1987 (yr?) the Dalai Lama has offered as his terms as:
1. The Greater Tibet region should be combined into one autonomous state. This includes Tibet, Qinghai province, Gansu province, and parts of Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, equaling about a quarter of China.
2. Chinese military must leave the greater Tibet region. The whole region would become a gianormous region of peace with no military ever to be needed.
3. China must restrict even voluntary migration of people to Tibet.
So if China doesn't get to govern Tibetan internal affairs, can't have a military presence, there's no free flow of people across borders, and the Dalai Lama isn't about to give up his international popularity on diplomacy, you have to ask, exactly which part of His Holiness's proposal differs from independence?
1. The Greater Tibet region should be combined into one autonomous state. This includes Tibet, Qinghai province, Gansu province, and parts of Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, equaling about a quarter of China.
2. Chinese military must leave the greater Tibet region. The whole region would become a gianormous region of peace with no military ever to be needed.
3. China must restrict even voluntary migration of people to Tibet.
So if China doesn't get to govern Tibetan internal affairs, can't have a military presence, there's no free flow of people across borders, and the Dalai Lama isn't about to give up his international popularity on diplomacy, you have to ask, exactly which part of His Holiness's proposal differs from independence?
Darn those brainwashed goons and thugs
People don't seem to understand why many Chinese people are angry. In the Chinese perspective, there was a riot in Tibet and its suppression became the rallying point of world angst against what most of them think of something that's symbolic of Chinese success much more than Chinese government success. They look at the suppression of LA race riots in the 80s and last year's riots in France and feel that the "free world" is being hypocritical. That's not something the government has taught them. So right or wrong, it is their own judgment.
Of course, people would be absolutely right to implore the Chinese to look beyond the riots themselves and at the underlying causes. But the Chinese people are asking, where is this introspection when it comes to the Middle East?
Bottom-line is you have to ask yourself what your goal is. If your goal is to improve the situation in Tibet, then you have to understand that the Chinese people are not a bunch of brainwashed goons and thugs and you cannot treat the Chinese government as a unitary actor. There are liberalizing forces and there are hardline ultranationalistic forces in the CCP and in the population. You have to enable the former to gain more power in China. Protesting the Olympics, attacking torch bearers, and telling Chinese people they're brainwashed goons and thugs will only achieve the opposite.
It will, however, provide you with a lot more publicity and a sense of moral superiority. And sadly that's enough for most people in the free and morally superior world.
Of course, people would be absolutely right to implore the Chinese to look beyond the riots themselves and at the underlying causes. But the Chinese people are asking, where is this introspection when it comes to the Middle East?
Bottom-line is you have to ask yourself what your goal is. If your goal is to improve the situation in Tibet, then you have to understand that the Chinese people are not a bunch of brainwashed goons and thugs and you cannot treat the Chinese government as a unitary actor. There are liberalizing forces and there are hardline ultranationalistic forces in the CCP and in the population. You have to enable the former to gain more power in China. Protesting the Olympics, attacking torch bearers, and telling Chinese people they're brainwashed goons and thugs will only achieve the opposite.
It will, however, provide you with a lot more publicity and a sense of moral superiority. And sadly that's enough for most people in the free and morally superior world.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Dr. No in Iowa
For anyone who was hoping Ron Paul would come in 3rd in Iowa, the caucus was surely somewhat of a disappointment. However, a closer look reveals quite a few positive signs about Ron Paul's campaign.
Overall, Ron Paul placed 5th with 10% of the votes, about 3% behind McCain and Thompson who were tied for 3rd. This was basically in line with the 9% figure he got in recent straw polls and is definitely a solid piece of evidence to show that Ron Paul's campaign is able to convert internet support into real support. For a long time the mainstream media has ridiculed Ron Paul supporters as 2 people who live in their mother's basements voting 50000 times in each online poll. Many doubted the 9% straw poll number as well because of that. It's clear now that Ron Paul has the support of real life people in addition to night elves, rogues, and shamans.
A look at CNN's entrance polls is even more uplifting for Paulites.
1. For all caucus goers who said they were angry about the Bush administration (Choices were: Enthusiastic, Satisfied, Dissatisfied, Angry), a whopping 54% voted for Ron Paul. Second place? McCain with only 13%. Of course, this segment was only 5% of caucus goers (it is a GOP caucus), but it is a strong testament to Paul's electability in a general election. Only Obama comes close to matching Paul's anti-war and anti-Bush credentials. And even Obama can't say he really put his political future on the line for his principles. And finally, Ron Paul was unique in the GOP field in that how much the voter liked Bush had an INVERSE relationship of how likely they were to vote for Ron Paul.
2. 13% of caucus goers identified themselves as "Independent". And Ron Paul took a clear first place among them with 29% of that segment. This is a strong positive indicator for New Hampshire, which has traditionally had a very strong independent and libertarian streak.
3. Income was a reverse indicator for Ron Paul. Lower income classes were more likely to have voted for Ron Paul in Iowa. Amongst people making less than $50k/yr, Paul actually tied McCain for 3rd place at 14%. Ron Paul gets a LOT of flak for wanting to get rid of social programs like Medicare, Social Security, etc etc. Many in the mainstream media hurl the word "Libertarian" as a curse at Paul and would very much like to tell everyone that Paul is a mean, nasty, racist, cold-hearted old kook who doesn't care about anyone but himself. Last night, Iowans gave strong indication that wanting to get rid of welfare doesn't mean you hate old poor people and that wanting to get rid of Medicare doesn't mean you hate sick poor people. As Dr. Paul said time and time again, "Only Freedom truly has compassion".
4. Paul's strongest issue was domestic policy, specifically the economy. This was corroborate by the fact that 37% of caucus goers who placed no importance in current events in Pakistan voted for Ron Paul, placing him in a close 2nd in this category (1% behind Huckabeast). Turn the table, and Paul's foreign policy was his weakest issue in the GOP caucus. To me, this is another piece of evidence of his electability in a general election. It's fairly clear that the general population is much more amenable to Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy than Iowan GOP caucus goers.
5. Other miscellaneous/interesting facts about people who voted for Ron Paul:
-Ron Paul placed 3rd among young voters (17-29), only 1% behind 2nd place Romney.
-Whether you were an evangelical Christian made no difference.
-95% of voter for Ron Paul said his top quality was either "Says what he believes" or "Shares My Values". Only Huckabee had a similar breakdown.
-Among people who decided very early, Ron Paul placed 3rd at 15%.
I'm sure we'll see the mainstream media stay consistent on message after Iowa. Whereas a few days ago they predicted a massive disappointment and that the poll numbers would disappear when it came to real voting time, now they are sure to say that this was indeed a massive disappointment because Paul didn't come in 3rd place. Never mind the criterion has changed; as long as the conclusion that "Ron Paul is a loser" is still reached, the media is happy.
I still hope that ABC will change their minds and invite Dr. Paul to their debate, but I'm not holding my breath. I think Dr. Paul will do better in New Hampshire than he did in Iowa, which would add great strength for his campaign. I wish him the best of luck in the planned "counter-event" that's slated to parallel the Faux News debate. And I hope more and more Americans will be saying "YES" to Dr. No.
Overall, Ron Paul placed 5th with 10% of the votes, about 3% behind McCain and Thompson who were tied for 3rd. This was basically in line with the 9% figure he got in recent straw polls and is definitely a solid piece of evidence to show that Ron Paul's campaign is able to convert internet support into real support. For a long time the mainstream media has ridiculed Ron Paul supporters as 2 people who live in their mother's basements voting 50000 times in each online poll. Many doubted the 9% straw poll number as well because of that. It's clear now that Ron Paul has the support of real life people in addition to night elves, rogues, and shamans.
A look at CNN's entrance polls is even more uplifting for Paulites.
1. For all caucus goers who said they were angry about the Bush administration (Choices were: Enthusiastic, Satisfied, Dissatisfied, Angry), a whopping 54% voted for Ron Paul. Second place? McCain with only 13%. Of course, this segment was only 5% of caucus goers (it is a GOP caucus), but it is a strong testament to Paul's electability in a general election. Only Obama comes close to matching Paul's anti-war and anti-Bush credentials. And even Obama can't say he really put his political future on the line for his principles. And finally, Ron Paul was unique in the GOP field in that how much the voter liked Bush had an INVERSE relationship of how likely they were to vote for Ron Paul.
2. 13% of caucus goers identified themselves as "Independent". And Ron Paul took a clear first place among them with 29% of that segment. This is a strong positive indicator for New Hampshire, which has traditionally had a very strong independent and libertarian streak.
3. Income was a reverse indicator for Ron Paul. Lower income classes were more likely to have voted for Ron Paul in Iowa. Amongst people making less than $50k/yr, Paul actually tied McCain for 3rd place at 14%. Ron Paul gets a LOT of flak for wanting to get rid of social programs like Medicare, Social Security, etc etc. Many in the mainstream media hurl the word "Libertarian" as a curse at Paul and would very much like to tell everyone that Paul is a mean, nasty, racist, cold-hearted old kook who doesn't care about anyone but himself. Last night, Iowans gave strong indication that wanting to get rid of welfare doesn't mean you hate old poor people and that wanting to get rid of Medicare doesn't mean you hate sick poor people. As Dr. Paul said time and time again, "Only Freedom truly has compassion".
4. Paul's strongest issue was domestic policy, specifically the economy. This was corroborate by the fact that 37% of caucus goers who placed no importance in current events in Pakistan voted for Ron Paul, placing him in a close 2nd in this category (1% behind Huckabeast). Turn the table, and Paul's foreign policy was his weakest issue in the GOP caucus. To me, this is another piece of evidence of his electability in a general election. It's fairly clear that the general population is much more amenable to Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy than Iowan GOP caucus goers.
5. Other miscellaneous/interesting facts about people who voted for Ron Paul:
-Ron Paul placed 3rd among young voters (17-29), only 1% behind 2nd place Romney.
-Whether you were an evangelical Christian made no difference.
-95% of voter for Ron Paul said his top quality was either "Says what he believes" or "Shares My Values". Only Huckabee had a similar breakdown.
-Among people who decided very early, Ron Paul placed 3rd at 15%.
I'm sure we'll see the mainstream media stay consistent on message after Iowa. Whereas a few days ago they predicted a massive disappointment and that the poll numbers would disappear when it came to real voting time, now they are sure to say that this was indeed a massive disappointment because Paul didn't come in 3rd place. Never mind the criterion has changed; as long as the conclusion that "Ron Paul is a loser" is still reached, the media is happy.
I still hope that ABC will change their minds and invite Dr. Paul to their debate, but I'm not holding my breath. I think Dr. Paul will do better in New Hampshire than he did in Iowa, which would add great strength for his campaign. I wish him the best of luck in the planned "counter-event" that's slated to parallel the Faux News debate. And I hope more and more Americans will be saying "YES" to Dr. No.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)