The Gulch

FML dude

2011-03-17T00:10:00.001-04:00

wtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtfwtf

My Own Paradox of Choice

2011-03-09T15:18:00.000-05:00

I thought I had the paradox of choice all figured out. The main reason why I thought choosing makes people suffer is that 1) they don't realize that there is a transaction cost to choosing, namely in the time and effort invested in gathering information to make the decision; and 2) they focus too much on opportunity costs and the differences in utility amongst the options as opposed to the total utility of the chosen option versus doing nothing.

What I didn't realize is that there is also another pitfall in making choices. Actually the problem is not with making choices per se, but with creating the choices themselves. Good oppportunities almost never come for free. One must almost always invest significant personal resources to gain the options before one can make a choice amongst them.

A problem arises however, if one faces uncertainty. Suppose a certain option is expected to generate a utility value of r and there's some estimation error around this expectation e. So the utility of this option is
u = r - k * e^2,
where k is the risk aversion parameter.

Now in order to gain this option, an individual must be willing to put in a certain amount of effort. In general the more effort one is willing to put in, the higher chance that he/she has of obtaining the option. So the probability distribution of gaining the option p is then a Bernoulli trial whose parameter p is a function of the effort expended:

f ( x | c ) = p ( c ) ^ k * ( 1 - p ( c ) ) ^ ( 1 - k )

There is also a relationship going the other way. Namely, an "appropriate" amount of effort an individual will put in to obtain this option must also be a function of the option's utility as well as the probability for obtaining that option:

c_app = g(f, u),

Now assuming some sense of rational behavior and fairly accurate estimation of utility, the maximum amount of effort that will actually be spent must not be greater than the present value of the option's utility:

c_max = min(u, c_app)

So far so good. But what if there is some uncertainty? What if there is a set of n mutually exclusive options that look attractive and each one takes some effort to obtain? The total utility one gains from the options is the maximum utility of the options, but the total cost of gaining the options is the sum of the costs:

sum(c_max_i) = min(u_max, sum(c_app_i))

This is problematic in two ways:

First, it reduces the surplus utility leftover after the choice is made. So lesson number 1 is to try and limit yourself to a small number of options before you set about trying to obtain these options to maximize your surplus utility.

Secondly, if the sum(c_app_i) > u_max, then it could easily result in an under-application of effort to each single option such that one spends a lot of total effort but obtains fewer options. So lesson number 2 here is to never bite off more than you can chew just to get more options.

Why did I formalize a bunch of these things in mathematical notation? I have no idea other than I'm a pedantic asshole. Hopefully there's some insight in here somewhere, but I don't have any more time today to do any derivations. Maybe tomorrow!

Running

2011-03-07T14:11:00.000-05:00

So I'm training for the San Francisco marathon in July. The goal is to complete it in 4h20m. Which means that at the latest I have to be able to run 23 miles by June 25th. If I am able to run 15mi by the end of March, 18mi by the end of April, 21mi by the end of May, then I should be able to reach the goal of 23 mi by the end of June. I will then run 23 mi once in July and taper before the race, trying to recover.

I think the main goals here are making sure I don't get injured and to develop higher tolerances for pain. Instead of running several days a week, I will try to do 1-2 conditioning workouts, 1 strength workout, and 1 shorter run per week in addition to the long run during the weekend.

I'll have to also plan things around the various 9+1 races I have signed up for, which hopefully won't be that bad. I may just include those races as part of the long runs.

Competition and Markets

2011-03-04T15:49:00.002-05:00

Jon Stewart is a smart man. He is funny and generally witty. So it makes me especially angry when he completely misses the point on the recent national controversy over public employee unions in Wisconsin. His most recent guest states that the focus should be on poverty and not about finding bad teachers. Jon Stewart concurred, saying that there are bad fast food restaurants and bad everything yet those other industries are all doing fine.

Sadly that is a perfect illustration of why we need competition. The fast food restaurant industry does fine because consumers are not forced to go to the bad ones thus forcing the bad ones to go out of business. There's no such competition in the education system. Bad schools and bad teachers don't "go out of business". Occasionally a really really bad teacher gets let go, but it's almost always for immoral conduct rather than nonperformance of his/her students.

Jon Stewart is totally oblivious to this distinction between the education system and other industries. Furthermore it seems when something is said in a sarcastic tone, the audience is also expected to suspend their logic and rational judgment. I hope that somewhere in the cacophony of condescending laughter and cheers coming from his usual audience, at least a few people realized the stupidity of his argument.

悼词

2010-11-23T14:41:00.001-05:00

当一件重要的事情发生时，人总是会习惯性地在脑海里回放和事件相关的回忆。我收到婆婆病
危的消息后，就不停地也不由自主地想起我小时候的种种。

我小时候贪玩。我记得我很小的时
候经常和婆婆在家里踢小皮球踢得不亦乐乎。大了一点我放学不回家在外面和同学野。而婆婆
总是早早就烧好了饭站在阳台上等我回来。有一次我和同学玩弹珠跌破了嘴唇，哭哭啼啼不敢
见婆婆，过了好几个小时才回家，让她焦急万分。现在嘴上还有个疤。

我小时候贪吃。记得我
经常赖着婆婆要她给我买北京西路大圆盘那里的小混沌，烤山芋，原电校门口在铁炉子里转悠
着的爆米花，教院院子里被那敲着梆子推着车子的小贩卖出的酒粮，但是最好吃的永远是婆婆
亲手下厨烹饪的冰糖蹄膀。

这些是我童年最清晰的记忆。当我想起这些很平常的事情，我心里
总是觉得异常的温馨。婆婆用她的爱给我创造了一个如此美好的童年。后来我十岁要和父母离
开家乡，而婆婆为了我的未来，无私的没有一句怨言。长大了以后，我听长辈们说过很多关于
婆婆的往事，知道她不但对我好，她一生对身边所有的人都非常乐施好善。

在对婆婆感激的同时，我也深深地感到惭愧。我走了这么多年，一直没有能够在她身边，也没
有能够为她做任何事。唯一让我欣慰的是她身边的人给她带来了许多关怀，让她得以安度晚年。
借此机会，我要特别感谢我的大姨和大姨夫；你们 18 年如一日的在我婆婆身旁照顾她，里面的
辛苦不为人知。三姨、三姨夫在医疗上为婆婆排忧解难, 给了她莫大的帮助。我要谢谢李(香
蕉)李婆婆，每到节日坚持自己走上三层楼送去亲手做的吃的。最后我还要感谢吴梦莲阿姨顾枫
阿姨，你们对婆婆的关心，一直让她感到很温馨。其实不管是家人朋友，我要谢的实在是太多了，在此只能向对我婆婆关心的每个人一起说一
声谢谢。我婆婆在天有灵，看到大家为她做的一切一定会觉得很欣慰的。

中国！中国！

2010-11-10T19:02:00.001-05:00

通货膨胀太厉害，一百块花的真他妈的快
南京的空气质量比以前差了好多。不过秦淮河修的真好，不臭了，沿着河堤跑步也很舒服。
上海基本上和国际接轨了。房价快要赶上扭腰，一杯manhattan也要9美刀了，老外更是一窝儿一窝儿的，连中文都说的溜溜的了。反而是中国很多牌子商标闹出英文笑话来： 1）Beauty product brand: Chlitina (sound it out...) 2）Electronics brand: Deepoo
但是呢感觉中国确实比美国更有朝气。文化传统和生存压力让中国人比美国人勤劳多了。而且中国人的创造力其实一点都不差。觉得机会还是挺多的。

主要问题是这个鸟国进民退。。。国营企业整合垄断，政府整天变着法儿从老百姓手里捞钱。我他妈做个公证被收了5000RMB。。。日~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
再，听人说马上要开始征收车船税了，说是为了改善环境减少废气，结果政策出来说不收公家车的钱。还真是当了官儿连屁都是香的，连车尾排出的废气都不是污染。日~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

没能给老同学雪中送炭，心里有点过意不去

国内没什么人做quant，郁闷ing

一党独裁，遍地是灾

2010-11-10T18:43:00.002-05:00

打开我国的地图，睁开眼睛一看，国民党一党专政下的地区，哪里没有灾荒?单就报纸上发表的材料来看，可以看出灾荒是异常严重的。如湖南、河南、安徽、广东、广西、江苏、湖北、江西、四川，以及陕、甘、青、滇等省，真是遍地是灾，尤其是湖南等地，实在是惨不忍闻。
　　固然，大部分灾区是经过敌伪占领的地区，但有许多地区都是从来没有沦陷过的。现在的严重现象，是耕地荒芫，副业雕落，耕牛尽失，农具俱毁，疾病蔓延，难民流离失所。总之一句话，农村的生产几乎已完全破产，农民的生活已陷于绝境。举例来说，湖南本是产米之区，现在却以草根树皮为食；衡阳附近，每家饿死三分之二。豫西廿三县，遭敌伪破坏，至今损失粮食八百多万担，房屋三百多万间，牲畜三十多万头，农具七千多万件。养蚕本为副业，但是饲养用具损失了一半以上。安徽全省六十余县中，受灾县份竟达五十多，损失耕牛近百万头，农具三百多万件。江西、广西、广东等省，情形相似。至于各省因疾病而死亡的，难民流浪在外的，更是没有统计，也无法统计。即以广西一省而言，难民就有三百十四万四千人，伤病的，就有一百六十八万余人。江西伤病的三百五十万，流离失所的达一百六十多万。至于川、陕、甘、青、滇等省的旱、水、风、蝗、雹等灾，更是国民党一党专政之下的人民所熟知的了。“以农立国”的中国，立在这样的农村大破产当中，还说中国没有经济危机，简直是骗人，那只是国民党一党领导毫无办法解决的自欺欺人的手法!
　　怎么会有这样严重的灾荒呢?敌伪破坏固是一个重大原因；然而，为什么抗战期中，没有能够阻遏敌寇的前进；这不是国民党一党专政的政府应该负责的吗?敌寇投降以后，至今已有七个多月，灾荒却还在扩大和严重化起来，这又是谁负责呢?比如：湖南老百姓在吃树皮草根，却还有十一万日本俘虏“却吃着从老百姓那里‘征’来的米”，这种情形又何止湖南?现在待遣的日俘，不是都在吃着老百姓的米，而且还在受“优待”吗?而且像山西阎锡山那里，不是还有收编了的日军在吃老百姓辛苦耕耘而自己吃不到的米麦吗?此外，不是还有待遣返的日侨三百万人，也在吃米，迟迟不遣送日俘日侨回国，好好供奉着他们的，不也是国民党一党专政的政府?其次，抗战结束后，国民党一党专政的政府并没有立即真正进行整军复员，还继续保存许多正规部队和各种名目的队伍，不久以前，且有在重庆取缔 “衣冠不整，拉去当兵”的事情发生。这些也都是只有消费民粮，丝毫也不从事生产的。由于上述原因，更由于日寇投降以后，内战再起，至今反动派的内战阴谋仍炽；内战的进行，以东北为尤烈，所以征军粮始终未减未停。以已经破产之农村，负无法负担的军粮；加之原有苛杂，原封未动，而物价高涨，竟达无法捉摸的速度，怎能不造成遍地灾荒呢?叫人民怎能不奔走呼号，到处求救呢?湖南人士提出“迅予有效赈济，并豁免摊派，缓征军粮二百八十万袋”，提出“应停止摊派军粮，并速调撤别动队及遣派俘虏”。湖北人士呼吁：“军粮俘粮负担太重，县乡两级人员随意建立名目，苛扰人民，望当局赶快解救”，安徽代表跪请减免军粮等，都是身受其苦而发出的衷心呼吁。这也证明灾荒之原因，实在是国民党一党专政的政府人为的原因，而不是其它。　　　　
　　国民党一党专政的政府，一面否认经济危机之存在；一面对救灾则完全依靠外国，本身却什么也不做，这种不负责任的态度，是不可饶恕的罪恶。人民没有事实证明政府是真能为人民的，救灾如救火，决不是拖延敷衍所能混过。现在，应该赶快从治标治本两方面入手。赶快进行赈济，免征军粮俘粮，抑制物价等，以稍纾民困；同时，却须用大力迅速遣送日俘日侨，整编军队，并用一切办法使灾区灾民能够开始从事生产，安定生活。老实说，国民党内反动派的内战及维持一党专政的政策是建立在制造饥饿和灾荒上的，所以这些救灾的治本办法，只有国民党确定的和各党派一道走上和平、民主的道路时，才能完满解决。

-《新华日报》社论1946年3月30日

月亮山, Continued

2010-04-20T14:27:00.001-04:00

Wrote verse 2!!!

秋雨后的明月峰正朦胧
小竹筏划破漓江的彩虹
纤杆弯弯似无意
我端起酒杯看着你

淡淡的桂香如你的气息
浅浅品尝像是你的甜蜜
半滴雨画出音符
在杯中悄悄的轻歌曼舞

雕花窗记载着
爱像月亮山的三百六十
弦眉半镜让人如醉如痴
只能把感动写成诗

雕花窗记载着
爱像月亮山的三百六十
弦眉半镜让人如醉如痴
洒满了宣纸

江边的削壁悄悄起了雾
踏着小车走过那十里路
欢笑中看着画廊
铃声绕着榕树飘荡

西街的咖啡是你的温柔
慢慢溶化了所有的忧愁
一缕浓香抱着我
轻轻躺在怀中耳鬓厮磨

雕花窗记载着
爱像月亮山的三百六十
弦眉半镜让人如醉如痴
只能把感动写成诗

雕花窗记载着
爱像月亮山的三百六十
弦眉半镜让人如醉如痴
洒满了宣纸

Top Notch on the Roof Top

2010-04-08T21:12:00.009-04:00

I booked a reservation for the Roof Top Cafe with a good deal of apprehension. Despite unanimous good reviews online, I was still afraid that this was going to be just another "famous" restaurant in an area that thrives on people who generally don't come back (at least very often) -- gaudy, overpriced, mediocre food, and bad service. To my surprise, my fears were dispelled one by one throughout the course of a very tasty dinner.

As soon as I saw the front door of the restaurant, I instantly liked it. It was a small and subtle door-front that was easy to miss; it added just the right amount of mystery to be enticing without being unfriendly. In the middle of the hubbub that is Mallory Square, a lush small garden surrounded an ocean blue sign bearing the restaurant name. It was understated, as if the restaurant knew it didn't have anything to compensate for. And it put us at ease, telling us that the ambience was cozy and relaxed, but that the owners/management were very attentive to details.

A small white stairway led up to the entrance on the second floor. Since the weather was so gorgeous, we decided to request an outside table on the balcony, so that we could enjoy the setting sun and do a little people watching as well. Our waiter Andy was great. He was polite and not artificially friendly, helpful without hovering over us. We went with his two recommendations, the local snapper and the diver scallops. Both of which turned out to be the best picks for the evening. The snapper was probably the freshest and most tender snapper I've had. It was flavored by a shrimp gravy that had just the right touch of delicious without overpowering the fish itself.

The diver scallops were every bit as succulent as the snapper. It came with a passion fruit mustard sauce that was a delightful dance of sweet and savory, tang and creamy. The potatoe chive pancakes that accompanied the scallops were also a very pleasant surprise. It wasn't greasy or soggy like so many other potatoe pancakes I've had. And the chopped chives kept my taste buds singing without giving me concern about my post-dinner breath.

The rest of the meal were also very good. The hearts of romaine (off the special sunset menu) were fresh and juicy. The creamy caesar dressing was excellent, though since I tend to really like the natural flavor of vegetables, I would have preferred to have just a little less of it. On the other hand, I thought the Denver lamb ribs were very well seasoned, but it was slightly on the dry side and could have used a little more sauce. Finally, let's not forget dessert. We had the key lime pie off of the special sunset menu and the bittersweet chocolate pie off the regular menu. The key lime pie turned out to be the better pick of the two. It was a great blend of citrusy sour and custard sweet. And it came with whipped cream to balance out the lime. The chocolate pie was very rich and full of delicious chocolaty flavor, but I found it to be a little bit floury. Had we had more time, I would have ordered a glass of port to go with the chocolate pie, which I think would have made up for the dryness. All in all, despite my picking of nit, I thought the food overall was excellent, and Andy's two recommendations were outstanding.

We finished dinner soon after the sun dissappeared below the roofs of the buildings across the street, but we wished we could have stayed longer. I really didn't expect it, but dinner at this delightfully charming restaurant turned out to be one of the most memorable experiences of our entire trip.

明天去迈阿密Key West!

2010-04-04T18:45:00.000-04:00

今天是妈的生日。去迈阿密KeyWest玩也算是给她的一个生日礼物。

这两天老是提不起精神。不知道怎么搞的。锻炼又锻炼不起来，左脚弓右手腕都有伤，基本上什么都不能练，太郁闷了。
还好有ppstream消磨时间，呵呵。江苏卫视的《非诚勿扰》蛮搞笑的，而且有时还能听着一耳朵的南京口音，挺亲切温馨的。

中午去Tom家吃中饭。His family is not rich but is definitely rich in love. 他有三个孩子，大儿子在达拉斯当联邦警察，主要工作是遣返犯了罪的非法移民。他还经常上飞机做空中警察，预防有恐怖分子劫机。Tom的妻子Terry说他大儿子Noah小时候特别温柔，从来没想到长大后会练的五大三粗当上警察。他们的二儿子在New Haven一家计算机咨询公司工作，职位很高。他们的小女儿刚刚大学毕业(Smith)，准备去布朗大学进修神经科学，今天刚刚接到录取通知书。他们两个当爸妈为三个子女都非常自豪。我真的很羡慕这样的大家庭，以后我也一定要有一堆（小堆）孩子，呵呵呵。

还有就是Terry家一共有8个兄弟姊妹，她是最大的，比她最小的妹妹大20岁。她最小的妹妹跟她大儿子差不多大，她的妈妈现在已经有23个孙子辈了，我觉得这个家庭太神奇了！她的父亲是一家连锁酒店的executive chef。她们家从小就搬来搬去。她的父亲到了一个地方就会setup当地分支的一切与进餐有关的系统。等到都好了，开始运行了，她们家就会又搬到别的地方去重新开始。我觉得Tom和她挺配的。她的大家庭让Tom感到了他残缺的家庭没有能够给他的温馨。

唉

2010-03-29T23:13:00.000-04:00

明天去接老爸回来。下午妈又哭了。。。
“好好的一个人就没了，我心里面好疼。。。”

我也陪着她哭了好一会儿。我这辈子就最见不得我妈哭。

唉～～～～～～

月亮山

2010-03-29T15:01:00.002-04:00

歌词第一段：

秋雨后的明月峰正朦胧
小竹筏划破漓江的彩虹
纤杆弯弯似无意
我端着酒杯想起你

淡淡的桂香如你的气息
浅浅品尝像是你的甜蜜
半滴雨画出音符
在杯中悄悄的轻歌曼舞

雕花窗记载着
爱像月亮山的三百六十
弦眉半镜让人如醉如痴
只能把思念写成诗

雕花窗记载着
爱像月亮山的三百六十
弦眉半镜让人如醉如痴
洒满了宣纸

爸，一路走好

2010-03-19T01:28:00.002-04:00

刚打了个电话，心情稍微好点。
想把心里面的感受写出来。

3/16/2010, 11pm. 他走了。走的平静安详，把痛苦都留给了我和妈妈。
晚上十点半，妈下了班去看他一眼。我正等着妈回来呢，接到了妈的电话，“昶昶，赶快带大姨来，爸爸快要不行了。”
我当时脑子里“嗡”的一声，那颗重磅的定时炸弹终于被引爆了。
我开得飞快，在一个小路上居然冲到了反道上超车，大姨妈的手紧紧的抓着门把，指关节都白了。

到了那里，我冲进病房，看着妈抓着爸的手，一言不发目光呆滞。爸已经有一口气没一口气了。他带着氧气面罩，两眼半闭，还张着嘴。那时已经快看不出他呼吸时胸部的起伏了。“昶昶，快去抓住爸爸的手，” 妈的声音7分哭意3分绝望。“佘佑天，昶昶也来陪你了，” 她转过来对我爸说。

护士来了，听了听他的心脏。“Is he..." 我小声的问到。"He's gone."
妈靠了过去，把头挨着爸的头边。“佘佑天，你走好！” 她颤声说到，“我尽了三年的力量想救你，但是就是救不了你。你是多么想活啊！” 我紧紧抱着她，眼泪像开了闸一样流了下来。妈一边哭一边和我爸说话。我一边哭一边抱着妈，怕她受不了倒下去。过了一会儿，她好了点儿，我就劝她出去坐一会儿。她去摸了摸我爸，带着哭声说，“他身子还有点热呢，我不想让他一个人." 我就说我来陪爸，硬是把她来了出去。

当我关上门，病房内只剩下我和爸，我脑子这才转了过来，我。。。我没爸爸了。前两天我还在看高汀的孩子和爸玩的录像。那个孩子特别喜欢爸。爸坐在客厅的沙发上，孩子就在他旁边。那个孩子看着他不停的发笑，爸也笑个不停，可以说是老怀大慰。我爸一直很喜欢小孩，一直想报个孙子。我看那个录像带的时候就挺伤心的了，当时又想起来，心里别提多难过了。我想，如果我早点向她求婚说不定就不会分手说不定我爸已经报上孙子了。我又想到我小的时候我爸带我去给爷爷磕头，他说”爸爸为你自豪。你爷爷没看到你是爸爸一大遗憾。“ 没想到将来我也要对我的孩子说同样的话了。想着想着，我突然发觉我已泪流满面。悄悄的哭了一会儿，我才收拾心情，推开了病房的门。

困了，明天再写。。。

Hospice

2010-03-12T01:33:00.000-05:00

He's really confused now, in a really weird way. He thinks he's in jail and they're torturing him. It's probably a combination of the lack of oxygen, the pain, and the meds. He didn't remember how old I was, he couldn't even recognize Altamonte Springs. But it's weird because he remembers Casselberry.
He's much more comfortable at the hospice. The room is very large. The furnishings are very new and everything is clean. He keeps on remarking how nice the place is.
I hate to see him like this. He's fought such a good fight. Hope he can be comfortable all the way to the end.

Improper attitude

2010-03-04T12:00:00.000-05:00

两个问题．一个是世界观的冲突．　小家　ｖｓ　大家．　夫妻　ｖｓ　兄弟．　有义务　ｖｓ　没义务．　这个可以理解。环境，教育都造成这个冲突。
另外一个是忽略个人，没人从她的角度去考虑问题。这个虽然说到底还是第一个问题的延伸，可是毕竟活生生的人在这里，有些时候应该不需要讲大道理也应该想得到正确答案的。
这个鲁仲连我做不来，脾气太倔，不会说话。反正本来就没什么来往，大不了彻底不来往罢了。

The Road (I didn't see it some random dude was commenting on it)

2010-03-03T09:59:00.002-05:00

Warning: rambling alert =P

In terms of situation presented in The Road, I think what is troubling the author is the fact that in the isolated case of a dying man in a post-apocalyptic world, it maybe hard to see the value in helping him (as opposed to eating him). As a result, the author uses it to argue for subjective ethics. However, this is a misunderstanding of ethics in general.

Ethics gives us a system of rules that can help us choose how to act, but we still must do the choosing, and the act of choosing isn't costless (time, effort, estimation error, etc). As a result, ethics must be based on virtues rather than analyzing individual actions in isolation.

Even Objectivism, which is the most extreme in arguing for self-interest, is no exception. A straw man argument against Objectivism is set up thus: If you see an old lady crossing the street, do you help her? An Objectivist answer is usually "yes" because helping an old lady cross the street takes very little effort/time, and offering her help sets a good example for other that in turn helps create a better community etc. At this point then the questioner will set up stricter and stricter constraints, like "what if no one is watching so you can't set an example?" and "what if it's in a totally different neighborhood that you won't ever go to again", etc etc. This line of questioning is intended to setup an isolated case where it would be hard/impossible to argue for helping the old lady from a self-interest perspective.

But this again, is a failure to see the cost of choosing. It takes a lot of time and effort to ask all the follow up questions that lead to the isolated case. Instead, we could always help and use the extra time and effort to do something else. So value, in terms of ethics, should be measured at the level of patterns of behavior in addition to individual actions. A virtue then, is a pattern of behavior that offers positive value over the entire domain (vs not obeying a pattern and choosing actions individually based on isolated cases).

Getting back to The Road, the basic virtue of human behavior that makes society possible is the recognition that humans have more value to each other as equals than as slaves or as food. And while many people in their post-apocalyptic world have forgotten that, the boy and his father are still following this fundamental virtue that, I would argue, is the most fundamental distinction between humans and other animals.

想哭

2010-03-01T20:08:00.002-05:00

"At list 1day stabled. Otherwisd fell possitive. Im just would'nt quit!"

-txt from dad

No motivation

2010-03-01T13:43:00.001-05:00

no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation no motivation

无题

2010-02-28T23:38:00.000-05:00

借酒浇愁愁更愁

surgery

2010-02-27T00:57:00.002-05:00

pleural cavity fluid build up. Pocket so pleurex didn't help. Mom had to work so I kept dad company. Discussed with Dr. Boyer about the surgery. Afterwards, found out fibrothorax so fluids clear but lung can't expand fully. Turns out having a depressed lung is worse than removing it because of ventilation-perfusion mismatch where more blood goes to bad lung. Chest tube in. A real scare but turned out only a few days.

Mom really depressed. Better after some comforting.

烧卖 REALLY good, but a little on the dry side, prolly coz it wasn't fresh. 水煮肉片 was AWESOME, though for some reason the meat wasn't quite as tender as when I make it. I think it's coz it's too thin.

Started reading sparse PCA stuff. Math is hard, let's go shopping.

Still watching Meitantei Conan.

good poem:

人生无根蒂，飘如陌上尘。分散逐风转，此已非常身。

落地为兄弟，何必骨肉亲！得欢当作乐，斗酒聚比邻。

盛年不重来，一日难再晨。及时当勉励，岁月不待人。

thoughts today

2010-02-24T00:14:00.002-05:00

1. 我妈这三年来受了多少苦，没人有权利对她说三道四。这个世界对她太不公平了。以后我要对她好些

2. It doesn't take courage or skill to be angry. Better to convince others they're wrong than to throw it in their faces.

3. 我妈有个朋友，丈夫生前是我爸的一个病友。自从她丈夫去了后她下班的时候经常会来看我爸，检查一下他的情况，照顾一下起居。她还有一个聋哑女儿，所以曾经特意去学了手语，有的时候会教我爸做手势。今天我和我妈离开医院时，我爸突然对着我拍了拍他的胸口，手伸出来掌心向我，然后屈起了中指和无名指。这是”I love you"的手语。我突然反应过来，因为那天那位阿姨教我爸时我也在场。我立即也向他打出了同样的手势，然后我们两人会心的笑了一笑。If there was ever a moment shared that could be called "a moment", that was it =0). 我爸病的那么重，头脑还是很清楚，记性还是那么好，学习新知识的欲望还是那么强，真的让我体会到了“活到老学到老”这句话的精髓。

4. My grandfather died from being imprisoned in 牛棚 after the "anti-rightist" movement. And i remember my dad took me to 拜祭 him when i was really little. My dad would always tell me wistfully that one of his biggest regret was that his father wasn't able to see him become a father
I'm really sad that I'll most likely have to tell my child that too

Viva La Vida

2010-02-06T00:42:00.001-05:00

Chock-full of historical and biblical references that flows like a cautionary tale about the corrupting influence of power from the perspective of a deposed dictator. Some have said it was Napolean, other Louis XVI. It's not a perfect fit, but my call is Louis XVI. Regardless, the French revolutionary origins are unmistakable.

So Napolean vs Louis：

1. I really liked the line, "I used to roll the dice, And feel the fear in my enemy's eyes". First reaction was Napolean's pre-Waterloo days. And yeah, it sounds really bad ass. BUT, it could also be the delusions on grandeur of Louis XVI. He did authorize French aid for the American revolution, as well as French involvement in India and Vietnam. And since he was closeted, I'm sure his advisors really trumped up th glorious of French conquests the world over. Since it's from the first person perspective, we'll never really know.
=> a wash

2. "And I discovered that my castles stand / Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand". Cool biblical imagery here. Definitely more like XVI. Napolean was defeated in battle. Louis XVI repeatedly had his castle stormed.
=> Louis XVI

3. "Now in the morning I sleep alone / Sweep the streets I used to own". This is not like Louis XVI. The royal family was placed under house arrest before Louis was executed. Napolean however was exiled and had considerably more freedom for a longer period of time.
=> Napolean

4. "Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!" Napolean wasn't the successor to the throne in the traditional sense as implied by this line. He was declared Emperor after quite sometime as the de facto ruler of France already.
=> Louis XVI

5. This is an aside: "I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing / Roman Cavalry choirs are singing". I think this is a mistake in the lyrics. Should be "Roman Calvary choirs", not "cavalry". I thought the lyrics I found were wrong, but they're actually singing "cavalry" in the song as well. Tisk tisk.
=> N/A

6. "Revolutionaries wait / For my head on a silver plate
/ Just a puppet on a lonely string / Oh who would ever want to be king?"
Unmistakably Louis. Napolean WAS a revolutionary, and he was never beheaded or had the French people wanting to execute him. Moreover, he was NEVER a puppet. On the other hand, Louis, especially late in his reign, had ceded a lot of his power to his ministers. And the 'Oh who would ever want to be king?' sounds like the whining of someone born of privilege.
=> Louis XVI

7. "Never an honest word / But that was when I ruled the world". I would lean towards Louis XVI on this one. Napolean came from humble origins and he was defeated in battle, not through him deluding himself.
=> Louis XVI

So on balance, it sounds much more like Louis XVI than Napolean. There is one point that is more Napolean, and another point that could be both. But on balance, Louis XVI just dominated.

---

"I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
"Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!"

One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
Once you go there was never, never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world

It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn't believe what I'd become

Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know Saint Peter will call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world
(Ohhhhh Ohhh Ohhh)

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can't explain
I know Saint Peter won't call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world"

Do corporations have natural rights?

2010-02-03T17:21:00.002-05:00

The SCOTUS recently ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the campaign finance limits placed on corporations (and other civil organization like unions) are in violation of the first amendment and therefore are unconstitutional.

This created an uproar across the country. Newspaper op-ed's slammed the SCOTUS for opening the floodgates for corporate greed to take over the election process. Especially ironic is this Washington Post op-ed by a liberal decrying judicial activism in the SCOTUS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013101838.html?hpid=opinionsbox1). President Obama publicly and harshly rebuked the SCOTUS in his SOTU speech. Even Alito's response to Obama, nothing more than a slight shaking of his head and mouthing the words "not true", created great controversy across the country. But the reaction wasn't uniformly partisan. Even many conservatives were worried that the money could wreck the election process.

There are three main questions of concern here. First, do corporations (both for-profit and otherwise), unions, as well as other civil associations enjoy natural rights like an individual? Second, does money == freedom of speech? Third, will allowing civil associations freedom to spend money on political campaigns corrupt the election process? All three are relevant questions that deserve consideration.

Let's tackle the first question, do corporations enjoy natural rights like an individual. In order to answer this question, we have to think about what a corporation is. While corporations have traditionally been painted in popular culture as faceless, soulless, Machiavellian machines, they are far from it. A corporation is just a voluntary association amongst shareholders. And because the set of shareholders/owners tend to change over time, the act of incorporation places a layer of abstraction between the shareholders and the rest of society. And the management team at the corporation is the agent that represents the principals with the goal of maximizing ROI. When the corporation makes a political statement, it is implicitly a political statement from the set of shareholders via their agent. Now, of course, any given political statement from any given corporation is not going to square with the political views of all of its shareholders. But that is a corporate governance issue, and not a freedom of speech issue. Restrictions on corporations doesn't just restrict some faceless soulless entity, it restricts the rights of the shareholders of the corporation.

Secondly, is money equivalent to free speech? This is a much easier question. How would one exercise one's freedom to speak without money to purchase air time? or a microphone? How do you tweet your thoughts without money to pay for a computer and internet access? You can utter words in the privacy of your own home I suppose, but even that assumes money to pay for a home! So the question isn't how is spending money equivalent to free speech, it's how is spending money NOT equivalent to free speech!

The third and most practical question is whether having this freedom would ruin the democratic election process. The fear obviously is that mega-corporations will be forever lobbying Congress for subsidies and favorable policies. And I agree that's a very valid concern. But that is a sign that the government (democratic or not), has too much power. Why would private individuals trade so much of their time and effort for sometimes nothing more than an audience with some of the most disingenuous and unprincipled people in society? The real solution isn't to stem the flow of money, it's to remove the demand for political power. Just as there was separation of church and state, there should now be separation of economy and state.
In addition, just as a given political political statement will never square with all shareholder, it will also never square with all customers, present and future. Thus companies, unless grievously threatened, will probably shy away from an overtly political lean. Afterall, both democrats and republicans drink coca-cola.

I applaud the SCOTUS for this momentous decision. A violation to the freedom of speech (and perhaps even more importantly, political speech) was remedied. We must remember that this doesn't somehow grant human status to a corporation. Instead it recognizes the human individuals behind the corporations. And while I believe that the actual effect will be very moderate, it still makes me feel good that the principles laid out in the Constitution still means something in this country. Bravo SCOTUS.

Snow

2010-02-03T02:38:00.000-05:00

今晚下班晚了，半夜从公司往家里走。还没出公司的大门就看到门外大雪纷飞，平时熟悉的停车场已经被一层白纱轻轻的覆盖了。我小心翼翼的踏着雪走下坡子，慢慢的往回走。For about 5 minutes, there wasn't a soul in sight and not a single car whizzing by. The entire world was silent except for the distant humming of a building's heaters and the rhythmic crunching of snow under my shoes. 我突然发现我已经很久没有全心全意的去欣赏雪景了。就算前两天去滑雪我也没感到下雪的美。那是一种纯洁、温柔、让人觉得一尘不染的美，真的让我如痴如醉。

Keynes vs. Hayek

2010-01-25T17:27:00.002-05:00

Hi
Larry
Us

The Final Word on Hayek vs. Keynes

Futility

2010-01-25T00:10:00.000-05:00

又回来了。每次回来都觉得压抑、焦虑、担心，还带着一些对老天爷而愤怒。就像小时候看古希腊悲剧时的感觉一样。因为知道没有好的结局，从头到尾心中充满了无奈，一点都感受不到主人翁那种挑战命运的勇气。
我觉得我有点不敢面对事实。虽然经常去看爸爸，但是每次去话都不多。当然，有很多东西是不用说的。毕竟我的体内流着的就是他的血。更让我觉得羞愧的是妈妈。快三年了，她一直在他身边尽心尽力任劳任怨。对他的照顾真的是无微不至。不仅如此，她还要一直打工去保留保险。我一直很担心她的身体吃不消，可她从来不会为自己着想。营养品多维素吃一两天就不吃了；锻炼也不怎么坚持；现在心情也一直不好。还好她有很多老同学好朋友一直不停的来看望他们给她打一打岔。我知道这是大逆不道的话，但是我觉得他要是真的去了，对她来说真的会是一种解脱。
好久没写日记了。可能是因为找不到一个真正可以倾诉的对象吧。

稻香

2010-01-22T13:33:00.002-05:00

和土匪谈起初恋，想起了小时候在南京的好多事。于是我找出了周杰伦的《稻香》，听了一遍又一遍，越听越喜欢：

“。。。还记得你说家是唯一的城堡
随著稻香河流继续奔跑
微微笑小时候的梦我知道
不要哭让萤火虫带著你逃跑
乡间的歌谣永远的依靠
回家吧回到最初的美好。。。“

虽然觉得自己有点“为赋新词强说愁”，但还是不免感慨万分。小小的萤火虫勾起了许多回忆: 坐在妈妈的自行车后面哭着闹着要吃烤山芋；在大院里和同学趴在地上打弹子把嘴唇跌破了（现在都还看得出伤疤来）；为了帮爸爸戒烟乘他睡午觉时从他的香烟里抽出烟草然后把五香八角塞回去。其实与其说《稻香》勾起了我的回忆不如说是勾起了一种感觉；一种无忧无虑，从来不用隐藏什么，也从来不会为未来迷茫的感觉。我也不知道为什么人总会有这样的矛盾。小时候总是盼望快快长大能够张开翅膀飞翔。现在呢又老是想回到童年的怀抱里。这可能是一种又想得到自由又不想负起责任的潜意识愿望吧。

在《稻香》这首歌里周杰伦把童年的故乡称为“家”。我听了觉得有点说不出味道来。虽说南京的房子还在，小时候一直宠我惯我的姨婆也还在，可是我在那儿已经找不到“家”的感觉了。虽然爸妈住在佛州，我每次去也觉得很温馨，但是也找不到那种“回家”的感觉。那印第安纳，俄亥俄，波士顿，和纽约就更别说了。虽说我最要好的朋友都是移民，可还是有很多朋友从小到大都生活在同一个小镇。听他们说起童年的乐趣或是青梅竹马的故事，心里觉得挺羡慕的（当然，这也很有可能是眼红他们小时候有女孩子喜欢 =0p）。觉得和土匪的自我评价很有同感：到哪里都能生存，但是对哪里都没有“家”的感觉。不能说觉得难过，只能说有点说不出味道来。

想到最后觉得只能尽力发挥一下阿Ｑ精神，安慰自己到哪里都能活着，也能交上值得我付出的朋友。虽然做不到无忧无虑，但终归还是觉得活得挺快乐的．家的感觉就留着以后再找吧．

嫦娥歎

2008-09-12T12:01:00.001-04:00

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。

Man vs Wild: Destination Yellowstone

2008-06-03T09:14:00.000-04:00

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.

A Game of Semantics

2008-04-18T12:05:00.000-04:00

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?

Darn those brainwashed goons and thugs

2008-04-18T12:01:00.000-04:00

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.

Dr. No in Iowa

2008-01-04T11:57:00.000-05:00

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.

Ron Paul pwnz!!

2007-12-29T00:15:00.000-05:00

This just published on Wired: Ron Paul supporters are planning to have a rally on January 1st, 2008, at 8:30pm EST ... in Azeroth. That's right boys and girls, we're about to witness the first virtual Presidential rally in the World of Warcraft!

Regardless of whether the Ron Paul Revolution actually gets him into the Whitehouse (and I can only hope that it does), I firmly believe that we are witnessing a real revolution that will fundamentally change the face of political campaigns forever. The WoW rally is just the latest manifestation of a conflagration of grassroots support that has risen predominantly through internet aided spontaneous order that's almost never coordinated by Ron Paul's campaign at all.

To me this is an incredible phenomenon. Without a giant political machine, having rejected all PAC donations, this campaign has certainly shown the untapped potential the internet community can generate. At first, no one in the mainstream media even paid attention to Ron Paul. It was the grassroots support that has made it impossible for the media to ignore Ron Paul. After every GOP debate, every major media poll shows that Ron Paul won the debate. The fervor of support has caused a lot of reporters, most notably Sean "Cry Baby" Hannity, to call Ron Paul supporters nutcases who just want to manipulate the results*. At every mention of Ron Paul on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and even on news radio, supporters email or call in ad nauseum.

What's more incredible is that this is no empty lip service support either. Many people, including yours truly, have put their money where their mouth is. First there was the money bomb on Nov. 5th that raised over $4 million in a single day. More than just the amount of money raised, it was shocking for two reasons: 1. the money didn't come from a small handful of wealthy donors or large corporations, it came from tens of thousands of small donors. 2. it was organized by someone who had no contact with the Ron Paul campaign and who had never been involved in political organization, ever. Then on December 6th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, another moneybomb got Ron Paul even more money -- to the tune of $6 million in a single day. Compare that to Mike Huckabee's money dud yesterday that raised, that's right, $95000. That's less than half of Ron Paul's daily average over the entire 4th quarter.

Ghandi once said, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". The media started out ignoring Ron Paul, and then ridiculing him as a Libertarian kook. But faced with the incredible outpouring of support at the grassroots level, they are now actively attacking Ron Paul. They find every reason to brand Ron Paul as an isolationist, a cold-hearted Libertarian, a Dixiecrat, and a racist. For probably the first time, post-GOP debate polls were thrown away by mainstream media because they claimed that all the votes for Ron Paul were sent by two people. Surprisingly, even Objectivists have weighed in to criticize Ron Paul's support for the gold standard.

Yet for every critic of a certain political party or walk of life, a vocal supporter also exists from the same group. I can think of no better vindication for Ron Paul's position on racism: "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals". At every Ron Paul rally, there are Libertarians, Barry Goldwater conservatives, and even democrats and anarchists.

The diversity of support Ron Paul has been getting shows that the amount of grassroots support isn't just about a secret tactic that's used to tap into previously unused political potential. The fact that most of the support has been formed spontaneously without coordination from the campaign illustrates this point perfectly.

Ron Paul espouses a lot of things that has struck a raw nerve with his supporters. Democrats like him because he is pretty much the ONLY candidate in EITHER party that unequivocally opposes the war in Iraq. Traditional conservatives like him because of his position on fiscal responsibility. And libertarians and anarchists love his position and track record on defending individual liberty. Personally I feel comfortable with him as President even though I am strongly pro-choice and I am strongly anti-religion. Why? Because he does not want to take undue power and he won't assume unauthorized power. It might feel good to have someone who agrees with you 100% take office and then give him lots of power to get things done. But what if the next guy to take office agrees with you 0%? Now he's got all that power and he's not going to stay away from it. You're going to get fucked like you just dropped a bar of soap at Riker's Island.

Ron Paul's supporters picked the "Ron Paul Revolution" as the slogan to unite their support for Paul. What they didn't realize is that even if Ron Paul does not win the election, Ron Paul supporters have already started a revolution in political organization. But more than anything, *I* hope that people realize the truth about what Ron Paul has said about his own supporters: "Freedom unites people", and Shamans and Rogues and Paladins.

The German Consulate, or, Why I Want My Citizenship

2007-10-26T14:50:00.000-04:00

My fingers are still shaking a little from fury so it's little hard for me to type this right now.

I'm planning for a trip to Munich in 12/7 and I, being a non-US citizen, needed to get a Schengen tourist visa. So I went to the German Consulate on Monday to send in my application. Before hand, I had spent several hours preparing all the documents together, exactly according to the specifications posted on their website. I even instructed the lady at Walgreens on the exact chin-to-hairline dimensions that would meet the requirements of the illustrious Generalkonsulat der Bundesrepublic Deutschland.

I get there early, and get in pretty quickly. I'm second in line so I get to the window without much wait at all. Score I thought, this is going to be quick and painless. Wrong! First, the lady says, you only have hotel reservations for one night, you need to have hotel reservations for the entire time. I explain that I might go to Prague depending on the weather, so I can't plan. "I don't care", she says, "Schengen rules." So I run out to the internet cafe around the corner, spend about $10 booking 18-bed mixed dorm room youth hostels in Prague and Munich. I come back. She says, "you're proof of insurance letter is insufficient." After several exchanges, I got her to say something other than mechanically repeat that previous mantra of all socialist...I mean...Schengen states. "Your letter has to say that 'medical, hospital, and repatriation' are covered." She was pretty nice about it though. She said, "you can come back on Wednesday to pick up the visa, just make sure you fax in the letter."

So obviously I spent the next few days chasing down HR and requesting additions to the letter. I fax it in last night, and brought an extra copy with me this morning. Mind you I live in Connecticut now so every time I go it's 3-4 hours of my time. I get to the window, first thing the guy says, "how are you getting to Prague?" You need to have your airfare booked. "WTF did you guys never tell me that before?" I thought. But I said, "Actually I'm picking up my car, so if the weather is good I might drive." Luckily, I had brought my car purchase order, so that shut him up. Then he goes back inside for like 30 minutes and then comes back again and says, "I can't give you the visa because there's no co-pay amount on your letter". "WTF did you guys never tell me that before?!" I thought again. After some further arguing with the guy, I finally gave up and came back to the office.

At this point I'm pretty fucking pissed. I'm going to Germany to pick up a car, and they worried that I can't afford my health insurance co-pay?! What the fuck! What's worse, is that I will have to spend another 4 hours going back to get my visa again. I spent hours of my time preparing my documents so that I don't waste their time when I get there. How can they dick me around like this over and over and over again? Every time I go back it's always something else!

But oh this gets better. After I got back to work, I checked with HR again and got a really quick update with the co-pay amount. I fax it in, and then I call to confirm. First time the guy is like, send it again we didn't get it, even though my fax receipt cleared stated it was a success. So I fax it again, and call again. "Ah yes" He says derogatorily, "you faxed it twice." I'm already pretty fucking speechless at this point. Then he says, "Hmmmm...this letter is from your health insurance broker. We cannot accept a letter from them. It must be from your insurer." I tried to explain that our policy differs from other policies at the actual insurer so if anything, it's the broker that would know the details better. "No, this is Schengen rule," the guy says, "I don't care." Heck, it's pretty clear this guy doesn't give a shit about people going to the consulate. So points for honesty there.

He then says, "I'm trying to help you, so I'll advise you to spend $50 at Access America and they'll issue you a proper letter". "But I already have health insurance," I pined. At this point I look down at the list of proof of insurance requirements and Access America is listed right at the top. At this point I'm just thinking, do they get a kickback from Access America for these forced referrals? What a great scheme. The consulate acts all hard ass on people so that they would be "advised" to go get travel insurance from Access America. Obviously, Access America could charge higher rates before guess what, customers without choice have no bargaining power. I half seriously wonder how much of a bonus this guy is getting from these travel insurance places.

So, finally, back to my title. While my green card has allowed me to travel between the US and China completely unhindered, I now look forward to applying for citizenship. However, the right to vote is no longer my primary motive. Avoiding European bureaucrats is. Who knows, once I get my American citizenship, I might just be tempted to fly to Europe and visit hospitals every where without my wallet.

Rights and Germans

2007-10-22T14:48:00.000-04:00

Disclaimer: this post has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Haven't written a post in a long while, but something I came across today prompted the urge to get something off my chest. I was at the Generalkonsulat der Bundesrepublik Deutschland on 49th and 1st, and I picked up a pamphlet about Germany. On the last page on religion, the first sentence read "The Grundgesetz (basic law) of the Federal Republic of Germany grants Germans freedom of religion". In the "history" section, there was another short blurb on "the majority [of the people] were poor peasants who did not own land and had no rights". As much as I hope it was a typo, I just don't think anything was lost in the translation.
Things like these show a profound misunderstanding of what rights are, and point to one of the things that made American political thought (at least at its founding) fundamentally different from the rest of the world.
What are rights? Rights are naturally existing ethical principles that are pre-requisites for the existence of man qua man in a social context. They do not come from a mythical creature with a warm and fuzzy variety of omnipotence nor do they come from the divinity of kings; and they sure as hell don't come from some hodge-podge of crooked politicians and backroom bureaucrats. Get this straight in your head right now: Rights precedes government and precedes the law. If a government is supposed to justify its existence by fulfilling the function of a protector of rights, then how can the government be the grantor of those rights? The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anyone the right to free speech, it explicitly protects it. There's an oft forgotten clause that states that any power not explicitly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the state and the people. What was stated in the pamphlet about Germany was the exact opposite of this very principle. It implies that people have no rights unless the government explicitly grants them. And if a person does not have basic rights without the approval of the government, it means that his/her very existence is dependent on the sanction of Bundestag. And when the whim of the mob changes, rights that were "granted" to you can be taken away quicker than you can say "Dem Deutschen Volke".
Our only hope is that everyone gain a clear understanding of rights so that any government that claims to have the power of sanction over the fundamental rights of its citizens will be made to quake with fear.

Passion

2007-06-21T09:06:00.000-04:00

People believe that ideas can be dangerous, and being passionate about an idea can be even more dangerous. Because we have seen and learned about innumerable horrifying crimes committed by people with incredibly strong conviction about their ideas. The Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, and the Cultural Revolution are just 3 examples that come to mind immediately. As a result, we are told by today's society that we should be tolerant of other ideas and not be too "arrogant" as to think that we are right and others are wrong. It seems that if we say to ourselves that there is really no one right answer, then we're bound to build towards a more tolerant and peaceful society.

But is passion dangerous per se? Sure, if you are passionate about a belief that tells you to kill people who didn't do what you tell them to do, then that is dangerous. If you act on a belief that tells you to enslave people of a different race because they're sub-human, then that is dangerous. But what if you believed in freedom, reason, and respecting other people? What if you believed in living an independent life of happiness? Is passion about these ideas dangerous too? Socrates believed in reason so strongly that he was willing to die for his belief in it. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson believed in freedom so strongly that they risked their lives to gain and protect it. How can you equate these men with the likes of Hitler and Stalin?

It is ideas that are dangerous, not the passion. Holding evil ideas, even if very weakly, can be dangerous. Would Hitler have been able to succeed had he not had the acquiescence of the general German public? Would the extreme part of Islam today succeed if the rest of "moderate" Islam is largely silent as acts of unspeakable evil are committed? If you hold a dangerous idea, then even if you don't act on it, you are still dangerous. That's because you will simply acquiesce to those who would act on it.

Why would people think that passion is dangerous? Because passion makes people ACT. So to tell people "it doesn't matter WHAT you believe in, just don't be too passionate about it", is to say that the only good idea is to not act on your ideas. To believe in an idea so stupid would be funny if only it wasn't so sad.

Three Huzzahs for SIR Rushdie

2007-06-18T19:24:00.000-04:00

For those of you who have not heard, Salman Rushdie has been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II. Of course, this promptly incited groups of Muslims in Pakistan to burn effigies of both Rushdie and the Queen in protest. Even Pakistan's national government is getting involved. Pakistani Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan Khan Niazi told the National Assembly, "The 'sir' title from Britain for blasphemer Salman Rushdie has hurt the sentiments of the Muslims across the world. Every religion should be respected. I demand the British government immediately withdraw the title as it is creating religious hatred."

I'm sorry Mr. Niazi, but my respect is not granted causelessly. You want my respect, you better freaking earn it. When your Minister of Religious Affairs says that "If someone exploded a bomb on his body, he would be right to do so unless the British government apologizes and withdraws the 'sir' title", he is telling the world that you don't really want respect, you want fear. When Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa that ordered Muslims around the world to kill Rushdie for the perceived injury that his words have done to Islam, that is also telling the world something. It says that the Ayatollah feared Rushdie's words so much that he was willing to resort to violent and terrorist tactics to try to silence the author. Please, Mr. Niazi, tell me how I can give my respect to someone who does not even respect the basic right to life of another person? How can I give my respect to someone who resorts to violence whenever he or she is insulted? How can I give my respect to someone who asserts that the mere existence of another person creates "religious hatred"? Have you no shame?!

Congratulations Sir Rushdie. I hope you live a peaceful and prolific life. And kudos to the U.K. -- for a country that is afraid to teach kids about the Holocaust because it fears offending holocaust deniers, I'm glad you've finally grown a bit of a backbone. I hope that in the future people all over the world will have the courage to fight, not for Queen and Country, but for Life and Liberty.

人之初

2007-06-07T15:56:00.000-04:00

生命和理性是道德的充要条件。也就是说，道德并非社会关系的产物。就算世上只有一个人，他也需要在生活中做出选择。换一句话说，道德其实是人类自我保护及延续之本性的产物。社会关系只是这种本性的另一个产物。既然道德是建立在生命之上，那么就不可能对生命本身定下善或恶的结论。人之初，没有善和恶。一个人不能选择是否出生。没有了选择也就没有善和恶之分。如果可以对一个刚出生的婴儿甚或是一个未出生的胎儿定下善或恶评论，那么就也可以给凳子椅子铅笔钢笔甚至是每一个分子原子定下善恶来。这很明显是一种吃饱了撑着的行为，毫无意义。

道德的源泉

2007-06-07T11:32:00.000-04:00

何谓道德？道德是一套用来衡量行为的准则。人在生活上永远会面临多个选择。但是人不是机器，不能自动地做出选择。所以才需要这么一个标准来帮人决定取舍。

这个道理很简单，但是有的时候简单的东西反而更难充分的理解。理解道德的关键就在“选择”这两个字上。这两个字是道德的来源，也注定只有人才会需要道德。一张板凳不需要道德。你踢它它不能不动；你拿它打人它不会跟你说“施主且慢放下屠刀立地成佛阿弥陀佛”。可见活着是道德的必要条件。可是光是活的还不够。一棵树是活的，但也不需要道德。风吹过来它不能不动。你砍它的枝节它不能躲闪。它对外界变化的反应是完全自动的。

人能够有选择是因为人有意识和理性。感性认知让人有了对存在的意识，然后理性认知帮人了解宇宙的规律。有了理性才有选择。有了选择才需要道德。所以说，生命和理性是道德的充要条件。正确的道德必须以这两点为基础。