The immigration debate shows how stupid the GOP and some of its followers are. Why? They have no commonsense. It's something that anybody with IQ of 90 can understand. But to my surprise, there are so many people fail this IQ test.
Let's start with the easiest question: who can catch and deport that over 11 million illegal immigrants? The answer is nobody.
So we move on. We pretend these 11 million people are deported. Who can, or how can, secure the border? Building the 700-mile-wall and leaving almost 1300 miles of the border open isn't gonna work. Even a complete wall would not help. I'm Chinese so I know it, my ancestors built the Great Wall and it did absolutely nothing. Plus not all illigal immigrants are from Mexico.
The next question requres a bit o education. How do these 11 million people survive in the States? They take the jobs that Americans don't want to do. For example the ones waiting outside of Home Deport. These skilled workers take $10/hour and normally do a pretty good job. Are they stealing Americans' jobs? No. Tell me any skilled workers would take $10/hour to do hard labor. Without these illegal workers many people won't start their little constructions at home, and Home Deport will suffer from buiness shrinkage. So not only these people don't steal jobs from Americans, they actually accelerate the economy.
Now let's go back to the principles. Should people abide the law? Of course. But when there are 11 million people breaking the law, and there are even more people, maybe 110 million, directly or indirectly support these people's action, you know there's must be something wrong.
Then what's wrong? I say most people don't want to break the laws. It's an accurate guess. So why would these 11 million people break the laws, and another possibly far more than 11 million people directly and knowingly purchase services from them and by doing so also break the laws? Because some of them are bad laws.
The U.S. market needs many skilled and unskilled workers to take low-paying jobs, but the current laws won't grant these needed workers a visa. While the U.S. has the demand of workers and the potential workers are willing to come to the U.S. but can't find a leagal way, they become illegal immigrants.
Do you know an average Indian IT specialist, many of them Ph.Ds, needs to wait 9 years to get a green card? Do you know when the U.S. needs financial specialists many Chinese with advanced degrees from the most prestigious universities have to go back to China because they can't get H-1B visa to stay? Or even many who have visa eventually go back to China because they can't bear the long waiting for green card?
We have bad, bad, stupid laws here and that's the problem. On one hand, people want to come to the States and the States need these people; on the other hand, they can't.
Let's guess what would happen if we had a different system. Let's say every year we gave same amount short term visas to people who want to find jobs in the U.S. as the approximation illegal immigrants intering the country each year. They could get long term visas if they could find jobs and pay taxes within 30 days. If they paid taxes for over 10 years they could apply for green card, and eventually citizenship. How many people would be illegal immigrants? Probably a lot less. Would the country be flooded by immigrants? According to capitalism it wouldn't.
Well, we know that won't happen because of many good and bad reasons, nevertheless we should at least try to change those bad laws a bit. But no, Republicans don't want to. They want to make bad laws worse! The sad part is that the Democrats ain't any better. All they want is getting an amnesty to buy votes then make things worse so they can prepare for the next amnesty.
So this nation is in some serious trouble. Both parties just want to jump off the cliff, the difference is one wants to hit the ground head first and another wants foot first, which both end inevitable death.
Last but not the least, Reagan at least tried to make things work. Bush 43 tried also, but nobody listened to him.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
A Few Things
It's been a few days since last time I posted. I know I shouldn't have so here I'll make it up.
First I'll say it again, 2013 NBA Finals is the best series in over two or even three generations of players. Twenty years from now people will still be talking about it.
Second, last week a a friend had a very thoughtful on her Facebook. As I was about to make a comment some people left real idiotic remarks so of course I jumped in.
I won't get into more details here but it all started as the person's comment represented Mormon culture's view on females and he expressed it in the least respectful way. I've said it many times but it's never enough so I say it again: many LDS people, including females, are sexists.
There are a large number of girls attend college just so they can get married. I dated a girl like that and of course it didn't end up in the way she wanted. These girls ain't alone, they are from a culture that doesn't value females in the way it should be. To these girls, and more importantly to the ones who brainwash them in the first place, education never is something females should pursue. What they don't understand is that when Brigham Young said "You educate a man, you educate a man. You educate a woman, you educate a generation.", he meant Women are the foundation of the Latter-day Saints community, thus without educated women the whole generation would grow without the appreciation of education.
And also the attitude towards women choosing careers outside of family is backwards. If we take a look at history, the early Latter-day Saints women never stayed in kitchens and bedrooms full time. They were involved in the community in all aspects. However nowdays people no longer appreciate them and want to make them professional-wives-and-mothers-only material.
There are so many people misunderstand the gospel. I'm no expert in this department but one thing I do know is that men and women are equal beings. Wives should obey their husbands because husbands not because men should dominate women but because men hold priesthood. Priesthood is a responsibility as well as a role in God's plan not some rank put men above women.
Third, my mom is a great woman. It should be first but I'm blogging it in a chronic order and it's the third thought I had over the days.
One main reason I'm a feminist is because of my mom. As a wife, she sacrificed her potential political path for the best of the family. As a mother, she's always there every single time the family needs. I don't see too many full time housewives can be nearly as good as her, while she is also a successful doctor. You don't have to be a full time housewife in order to excel motherhood. Indeed being a full time housewife doesn't guarantee you to be a great mother at all.
Being a feminist doesn't have to be the radicals we see in recent decades. We can be the classical feminists, like Henrik Ibsen, to believe while there are gender differences both genders are equal and should not be ruled out to make their own choices as long as they don't contradict the physical attributes of genders.
Do I believe male and female are different? Never doubted it. Do I believe there are certain things one gender just can't do? Absolutely. Does that mean females, or males, doesn't have the agency to choose when it's not beyond their physical abilities? Heck no. Things are just easy like that, but there are always idiots don't understand it. I'm grateful for my mom who prevented me to be that kind of idiot by showing me the greatness of females.
First I'll say it again, 2013 NBA Finals is the best series in over two or even three generations of players. Twenty years from now people will still be talking about it.
Second, last week a a friend had a very thoughtful on her Facebook. As I was about to make a comment some people left real idiotic remarks so of course I jumped in.
I won't get into more details here but it all started as the person's comment represented Mormon culture's view on females and he expressed it in the least respectful way. I've said it many times but it's never enough so I say it again: many LDS people, including females, are sexists.
There are a large number of girls attend college just so they can get married. I dated a girl like that and of course it didn't end up in the way she wanted. These girls ain't alone, they are from a culture that doesn't value females in the way it should be. To these girls, and more importantly to the ones who brainwash them in the first place, education never is something females should pursue. What they don't understand is that when Brigham Young said "You educate a man, you educate a man. You educate a woman, you educate a generation.", he meant Women are the foundation of the Latter-day Saints community, thus without educated women the whole generation would grow without the appreciation of education.
And also the attitude towards women choosing careers outside of family is backwards. If we take a look at history, the early Latter-day Saints women never stayed in kitchens and bedrooms full time. They were involved in the community in all aspects. However nowdays people no longer appreciate them and want to make them professional-wives-and-mothers-only material.
There are so many people misunderstand the gospel. I'm no expert in this department but one thing I do know is that men and women are equal beings. Wives should obey their husbands because husbands not because men should dominate women but because men hold priesthood. Priesthood is a responsibility as well as a role in God's plan not some rank put men above women.
Third, my mom is a great woman. It should be first but I'm blogging it in a chronic order and it's the third thought I had over the days.
One main reason I'm a feminist is because of my mom. As a wife, she sacrificed her potential political path for the best of the family. As a mother, she's always there every single time the family needs. I don't see too many full time housewives can be nearly as good as her, while she is also a successful doctor. You don't have to be a full time housewife in order to excel motherhood. Indeed being a full time housewife doesn't guarantee you to be a great mother at all.
Being a feminist doesn't have to be the radicals we see in recent decades. We can be the classical feminists, like Henrik Ibsen, to believe while there are gender differences both genders are equal and should not be ruled out to make their own choices as long as they don't contradict the physical attributes of genders.
Do I believe male and female are different? Never doubted it. Do I believe there are certain things one gender just can't do? Absolutely. Does that mean females, or males, doesn't have the agency to choose when it's not beyond their physical abilities? Heck no. Things are just easy like that, but there are always idiots don't understand it. I'm grateful for my mom who prevented me to be that kind of idiot by showing me the greatness of females.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Finals!
Here comes game 6 and there's just so much about and beyond the game. First of all, this is by far the best finals series in at least 16 years. Second, I know Tim Duncan will retire if he wins this season so I want him to leave as a winner but meanwhile I want him to lose so he might play another a year or two. Third, Wade finally is playing normal even though his knee is still bothering him, a man like that deserves another ring.
And there's more. There are 6 future Hall of Fame players and 1 Hall of Fame coach, plus 1 or 2 players on the edge. Also both teams have great managers. Last time that happened was in 1980s, and it won't happen in the next I don't even know how many years. This will be remembered as a legend.
And there's more. There are 6 future Hall of Fame players and 1 Hall of Fame coach, plus 1 or 2 players on the edge. Also both teams have great managers. Last time that happened was in 1980s, and it won't happen in the next I don't even know how many years. This will be remembered as a legend.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Is China the Exception?
Throughout history countries except the oil countries that reached $6,000 GDP per capital has transformed to somewhat democratic society. When the Chinese official claim GDP per capital was $6100, some speculate the real number is lower. Nevertheless, China is on the edge of reaching this theoretical transition point. But is China the exception?
On one hand, China's middle class is growing, making the voice of pursuit of democracy loader. On the other hand, due to China's imbalance of development, the silent majority doesn't feel nearly the same way as the middle class feels. Furthermore, the ruling class controls 90% of country's economy, almost the entire government, and the military. Which compare to countries that made through the democratic transition, China has the weakest force pushing forward and the strongest force pushing against. In addition, China's regime over the years has successfully built the ideological system that things like democracy, freedom, and liberty, or even election are believed to be bad by many if not majority of its people. Under such circumstance, China's democratic transformation will be harder than many can, or want to, imagine.
But ultimately, will China ever become a democracy? The question isn't as silly as it sounds. Believe or not, China is special: for example, out of all early civilizations, China is the only one that didn't develop a religion. Will history repeat itself making China the only modern country that won't have democracy? Well, I'll hold this tought and come back to check it in 15 years. Hopefully Blogger still exists.
On one hand, China's middle class is growing, making the voice of pursuit of democracy loader. On the other hand, due to China's imbalance of development, the silent majority doesn't feel nearly the same way as the middle class feels. Furthermore, the ruling class controls 90% of country's economy, almost the entire government, and the military. Which compare to countries that made through the democratic transition, China has the weakest force pushing forward and the strongest force pushing against. In addition, China's regime over the years has successfully built the ideological system that things like democracy, freedom, and liberty, or even election are believed to be bad by many if not majority of its people. Under such circumstance, China's democratic transformation will be harder than many can, or want to, imagine.
But ultimately, will China ever become a democracy? The question isn't as silly as it sounds. Believe or not, China is special: for example, out of all early civilizations, China is the only one that didn't develop a religion. Will history repeat itself making China the only modern country that won't have democracy? Well, I'll hold this tought and come back to check it in 15 years. Hopefully Blogger still exists.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Jackie Chan's Dirty Laundry
Jackie Chan is quite popular in the West, but very controversial in Chinese speaking regions. He's voted as the most untrustworthy person in Hong Kong, unwelcome in Taiwan, and despised by many in China. Here's the tip of the iceberg:
- Chan got married and had his son in 1982, but he claimed as single until 2003 in order to keep his market value high. For almost 20 years he let his wife and son live in the U.S. hiding while he rarely visited. Chan admitted that he didn't even know when his son went to middle school.
- While lying about his marital status, Chan had numerous mistresses. One of his mistresses, believing he was single, had his daughter but he never visited or even admitted. When the scandal was exposed, Chan said in press conference that what he did was "any man would do" instead of apologizing. Furthermore, till today he hasn't paid his daughter and her mother a penny nor has he visited them.
- Chan is famous of not using stunt man, but again he lied.
- In order to please Communist Party of China to reach is dream of becoming a politician, Chan called Taiwan's democracy a joke, claimed Hong Kong should forbid demonstration, even said all ethnic Chinese should be controlled opposed to having freedom and liberty.
- He's connected to mafia.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Mormons and Persecution
Many Mormons love talking about how they are persecuted. Persecution is a big part of Mormon history, but is it still a big issue today? Probably not.
Mormons are powerful. Mormons have much higher rate graduating from high school, college, going to grad school, getting medical degrees, and PhDs. Mormons are much wealthier than average Americans. So is the LDS church, it's the richest church in the U.S. On top of that, there are many Mormon politicians including a GOP presidential candidate. Not to mention the majority of Mormons in America are white. If this group of people is the target of constant persecution, then nobody in the country is safe.
Then why do so many Mormons think they are persecuted?
First let me say it again, persecution is a big part of Mormon history. The early Saints were kicked out of there lands many times and eventually moved from New York to Utah. At one point of time there was almost a war between Utah and the U.S. known as the Utah War. The memory of persecution is still haunting Mormons today.
Second many Mormons are originally from Utah or have once lived there. While directly or indirectly having the memory of being the mass majority and getting everything in the Mormon way, it has to be unsatisfying when they have to make compromise.
Being a Mormon myself, I have to say that I'm tired of hearing people describe how they are "persecuted" when there's really nothing. So people joke about our religion. So what? It's not like we don't do the same thing. So some people don't treat missionaries nice. But how many of us treat salesmen nicely? In addition, how many missionaries treat investigators respectfully (by respectfully I mean the recipients feels so)? From my personal experience, 5 out of 11 missionaries talked to me were not.
It's true people intentionally or unintentionally do or say things make we Mormons uncomfortable, but they probably feel the same way as well. And that's no persecution at all. The Lord was persecuted. If you don't receive somewhat similar treatment then you are not persecuted.
Seriously, let's forget about that bitterness. Have a good attitude, have some sense of humor, or even be a bit cynical. There are many things we can just laugh at or ignore. There's really no need to remember and carry them as our burdens. If you are reading it and you are not a Mormon, next time if a Mormon accuse you saying you are "persecuting" him/her, just ignore that idiot.
Mormons are powerful. Mormons have much higher rate graduating from high school, college, going to grad school, getting medical degrees, and PhDs. Mormons are much wealthier than average Americans. So is the LDS church, it's the richest church in the U.S. On top of that, there are many Mormon politicians including a GOP presidential candidate. Not to mention the majority of Mormons in America are white. If this group of people is the target of constant persecution, then nobody in the country is safe.
Then why do so many Mormons think they are persecuted?
First let me say it again, persecution is a big part of Mormon history. The early Saints were kicked out of there lands many times and eventually moved from New York to Utah. At one point of time there was almost a war between Utah and the U.S. known as the Utah War. The memory of persecution is still haunting Mormons today.
Second many Mormons are originally from Utah or have once lived there. While directly or indirectly having the memory of being the mass majority and getting everything in the Mormon way, it has to be unsatisfying when they have to make compromise.
Being a Mormon myself, I have to say that I'm tired of hearing people describe how they are "persecuted" when there's really nothing. So people joke about our religion. So what? It's not like we don't do the same thing. So some people don't treat missionaries nice. But how many of us treat salesmen nicely? In addition, how many missionaries treat investigators respectfully (by respectfully I mean the recipients feels so)? From my personal experience, 5 out of 11 missionaries talked to me were not.
It's true people intentionally or unintentionally do or say things make we Mormons uncomfortable, but they probably feel the same way as well. And that's no persecution at all. The Lord was persecuted. If you don't receive somewhat similar treatment then you are not persecuted.
Seriously, let's forget about that bitterness. Have a good attitude, have some sense of humor, or even be a bit cynical. There are many things we can just laugh at or ignore. There's really no need to remember and carry them as our burdens. If you are reading it and you are not a Mormon, next time if a Mormon accuse you saying you are "persecuting" him/her, just ignore that idiot.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Abuse of Language
Nowdays abuse of language has become a fashion. One thing that I really can't stand is "two wrongs don't make a right".
First of all, there are times when two wrongs don't make a right. For example when a dog bites you, you don't bite the dog back. But when that happen I guarantee you there's nobody giving the "two wrongs don't make a right" lecture.
Second, is it wrong when you want to take an eye for an eye? It's even in the Good Book and it's one very basic principle of all laws in history, which is one key element to keep peace and justice amount us humans.
So here comes the third, why do some people make the judgement when you do anything back to the wrong doing it must be the second wrong? Is it wrong to slap a person who's sexually harassing you? Or is it wrong to fight against Japan when Pearl Habor was attacked?
Honestly, when someone says "two wrongs don't make a right" is when the person can't find any actual reason to protect the person who violates others from being punished. And this is abuse of language, in the worst possible way. You only say it when A flips at B with no reason and B shoots A in response. It's "two rights don't make a right "when and only when the victim of the original wrong doer is either delivering much larger damage in return when the circumstance doesn't justify it, or is doing something anti-human like biting a running dog to take the revange.
So people, next time come up with better excuses, or at least make a better analogy.
First of all, there are times when two wrongs don't make a right. For example when a dog bites you, you don't bite the dog back. But when that happen I guarantee you there's nobody giving the "two wrongs don't make a right" lecture.
Second, is it wrong when you want to take an eye for an eye? It's even in the Good Book and it's one very basic principle of all laws in history, which is one key element to keep peace and justice amount us humans.
So here comes the third, why do some people make the judgement when you do anything back to the wrong doing it must be the second wrong? Is it wrong to slap a person who's sexually harassing you? Or is it wrong to fight against Japan when Pearl Habor was attacked?
Honestly, when someone says "two wrongs don't make a right" is when the person can't find any actual reason to protect the person who violates others from being punished. And this is abuse of language, in the worst possible way. You only say it when A flips at B with no reason and B shoots A in response. It's "two rights don't make a right "when and only when the victim of the original wrong doer is either delivering much larger damage in return when the circumstance doesn't justify it, or is doing something anti-human like biting a running dog to take the revange.
So people, next time come up with better excuses, or at least make a better analogy.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
The Good Ol' Days
It's common to talk about the good ol' days during the recession, but really there's no good ol' days. In all aspects today is the best time except soft drugs use. We humans believe that we are capable of accomplishing anything yet we think the best days have pased. How ironic?
Or maybe this is how things turn bad: we never believe we can march forward though the fact says otherwise. And once we give up, once we lose faith in humanity, we face the inevitable damnation.
Or maybe this is how things turn bad: we never believe we can march forward though the fact says otherwise. And once we give up, once we lose faith in humanity, we face the inevitable damnation.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Confucius, Tzun Tzu, and Richard Nixon
Confucius say 君子不立于危墙之下。
The translation says "gentleman is not to stand under the dangerous wal." Obviously this isn't a good translation. The true meaning is a gentelman (nobleman, wise man, or woman of course) doesn't put him/herself in dangerous situation.
Tzun Tzu say 故善战者，立于不败之地，而不失敌之败也。
Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.
Great minds think alike. Confucius' philosophy is to not get into losable situation. Tzun Tzu's philosophy is to always be in the unbeatable position. Richard Nixon wrote 1999: Victory Without War. Forget about Watergate, let's pay some respect to Nixon whom was one of the greatest strategists, if not the greatest, during Cold War. When other great leaders like Harry Truman were attracted to not lose or others like Ronald Reagan were planning how to win, Nixon had already made the free world unbeatable.
What's said is today, over 10 years after 1999 or 20 years after the Cold War, people still don't listen to Nixon. It's really not how militarily or economically strong made the U.S. win the Cold War, but rather the Soviet people decided to "be like the Americans" tore down the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain. So we don't need to democratize the Middle East, North Korea, and China. All we need to do is welcoming these countries to the international society, and showing them how to succeed. The people, or even the leaders will make the best choice.
Let's use China as an example. Today's China is world's factory. Can China afford the price of being the threat to the world? The first thing to happen if China ever cross the line would be the collapsing of its economy. Before the Red China rulling the universe the Chinese people would overthrow the regime.
But politicians don't see it. They only see big slogans that can help them win elections. So they say no to foreign aid, just let China and Russia aid countries struggling between democracy and totalitarianism. So they say no to investing in China, just let China have a complete independent economy. So they say no to military spending, just let China catch up.
China is too big to be rejected. If Washington D.C. doesn't change its policies, a new Cold War will start within the next 10 years. I don't doubt the free world will win again just as it did multiple times in history, but why do you have to fight a war, cold or hot, when there's a chance to win without war? People, don't be stupid.
The translation says "gentleman is not to stand under the dangerous wal." Obviously this isn't a good translation. The true meaning is a gentelman (nobleman, wise man, or woman of course) doesn't put him/herself in dangerous situation.
Tzun Tzu say 故善战者，立于不败之地，而不失敌之败也。
Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.
Great minds think alike. Confucius' philosophy is to not get into losable situation. Tzun Tzu's philosophy is to always be in the unbeatable position. Richard Nixon wrote 1999: Victory Without War. Forget about Watergate, let's pay some respect to Nixon whom was one of the greatest strategists, if not the greatest, during Cold War. When other great leaders like Harry Truman were attracted to not lose or others like Ronald Reagan were planning how to win, Nixon had already made the free world unbeatable.
What's said is today, over 10 years after 1999 or 20 years after the Cold War, people still don't listen to Nixon. It's really not how militarily or economically strong made the U.S. win the Cold War, but rather the Soviet people decided to "be like the Americans" tore down the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain. So we don't need to democratize the Middle East, North Korea, and China. All we need to do is welcoming these countries to the international society, and showing them how to succeed. The people, or even the leaders will make the best choice.
Let's use China as an example. Today's China is world's factory. Can China afford the price of being the threat to the world? The first thing to happen if China ever cross the line would be the collapsing of its economy. Before the Red China rulling the universe the Chinese people would overthrow the regime.
But politicians don't see it. They only see big slogans that can help them win elections. So they say no to foreign aid, just let China and Russia aid countries struggling between democracy and totalitarianism. So they say no to investing in China, just let China have a complete independent economy. So they say no to military spending, just let China catch up.
China is too big to be rejected. If Washington D.C. doesn't change its policies, a new Cold War will start within the next 10 years. I don't doubt the free world will win again just as it did multiple times in history, but why do you have to fight a war, cold or hot, when there's a chance to win without war? People, don't be stupid.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Hard Things to Do
Keeping on doing small things might be the hardest thing ever. For instance, it's hard to keep blogging when I don't have much to blog about.
Anything that's self control related is hard. It's always this internal battle of what should or shouldn't do. Self control doesn't always win, and even when it wins it's not always right. And this makes me wonder why do I try that hard to go towards the wrong direction.
Now it sounds kind of blue. So let me lighten up a bit. Heat won big tonight, or last night. I was talking about how from game 4 or 5 there would be big wins/loses then bang, I was wrong, it came a lot earlier. Again, both teams are great teams with multiple future HOFers. So my guess was in the frist at least 3 games they would test each other so there would be close games. When later both teams would have a chance to play on their paces and win big. Well, I was wrong. So here's another hard thing to do: prection.
Anything that's self control related is hard. It's always this internal battle of what should or shouldn't do. Self control doesn't always win, and even when it wins it's not always right. And this makes me wonder why do I try that hard to go towards the wrong direction.
Now it sounds kind of blue. So let me lighten up a bit. Heat won big tonight, or last night. I was talking about how from game 4 or 5 there would be big wins/loses then bang, I was wrong, it came a lot earlier. Again, both teams are great teams with multiple future HOFers. So my guess was in the frist at least 3 games they would test each other so there would be close games. When later both teams would have a chance to play on their paces and win big. Well, I was wrong. So here's another hard thing to do: prection.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Gun Control, and Rants
Rants first.
a. Sometimes I wonder why I waste time on this idiocracy. b. There are things I don't wanna deal with and I'm not going to.
Gun control.
We need gun control, otherwise why don't we drive M1A2s and fly F-22s since they are more entertaining and better self-defense weapons? We don't need to ban guns by any means either. Switzerland where is incredibly safe holds nerely as many guns per capital as the U.S. What we need is simply better gun control laws. If we have strick background checking laws, 20% killers of the mass shootings wouldn't have guns in the first place. Meanwhile, if we don't leave schools defenseless, far less kids would've been killed.
If American and American people can forget the stupid pride and selfishness to learn from Switzerland, we probablly won't see mass shootings anymore. Here are a few things can protect us from the bloodshed.
a. Sometimes I wonder why I waste time on this idiocracy. b. There are things I don't wanna deal with and I'm not going to.
Gun control.
Many people have no clue controlling and banning gun are two different things. Besides their stupidity, special interest groups' deception contributes such phenomenon. Both sides lie to support their arguments. And here are some lies and misconceptions these special interest groups repeatedly use.
- Guns don't kill people, people killpeople.
Wrong. Guns do kill in a sense. If someone with cold weapons like swords or even bows and crossbows went to a high school and attacked the kids, unless it's a Spartan or Amazon, otherwise the casualties would be much fewer. - Gun rights are correlated to human rights.
Nazi Germany loosened Weimar Republic's gun law, though it did forbidden Jews to keep their weapons. In other words, while Germans had their guns but lost their rights, Jews in Germany lost their guns and lost their rights. So there's no equal mark between guns and rights. Similar cases include Chinese had guns but no rights under Mao, now they don't have guns but are having more and more rights; or Warsaw Ghetto Uprising where guns didn't help a little. Add a sidenote, ever since governments have things like tanks and planes, your rifles ain't protecting your from tyranny anymore. - Guns are for shooting people.
Guns shoot anything from paper planes to your neck-broken horse. And shooting people can be a good thing when you are saving your own and other people's lives. - Mass shootings don't target gun free zons.
There's not a single case that shooter picked the place because it's gun free doesn't mean gun free zons don't attract killers. Nobody chooses a place where the killing will be immediately stopped for mass shooting, unless the person wants a skirmish.
We need gun control, otherwise why don't we drive M1A2s and fly F-22s since they are more entertaining and better self-defense weapons? We don't need to ban guns by any means either. Switzerland where is incredibly safe holds nerely as many guns per capital as the U.S. What we need is simply better gun control laws. If we have strick background checking laws, 20% killers of the mass shootings wouldn't have guns in the first place. Meanwhile, if we don't leave schools defenseless, far less kids would've been killed.
If American and American people can forget the stupid pride and selfishness to learn from Switzerland, we probablly won't see mass shootings anymore. Here are a few things can protect us from the bloodshed.
- Background check on any firearm transactions including gun shows and private sales. People who shouldn't have guns will have less access to guns, and it doesn't affect responsible citizens.
- Basic lessons for every gun owners. There will be far less accidents.
- Instead gun free zones put gun stricked zones. Provide professional trainings for the people who want to carry guns to places like schools.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Back Injury
Back hurts. It's something you'll never get rid of once you get it. Just like many other things...
Finals, Game One
A bit disappointed, not because the game.
Here's the game.
Both teams played well. Great defense and rebound. The Spurs had great ball movement with only 4 turnovers. Tim Duncan, the greatest power foreward ever played this game, was the reason of why the team kept up with the Heat in the first 3 quarters. Tony Parker had 0 turnover and a big shot by the end of the game. Gregg Popovich showed that he's not only the best coach in the league but also a competitor of the greatest coach of all time.
Heat had great game till the 4th quarter. A few reason caused the lose. First of all, LeBron had the ball too long. Although had good stats, 18, 18, 10, he had a big turnover in the 4th quarter. And because he had the ball too long, other players were not able to be involved as much as they should be. D-Wade almost disappeared, other players became nothing but jump shooters. Second, Lebron made some bad calls. Case one: he drove in then passed the ball out to Bosh and Bosh missed the 3. It would be great had Bosh made the 3, but LeBron shouldn't have passed the ball in the first place. If he took the shot, it would be an easy layup, or even better, he would've forced Duncan to foul and it would be the 5th foul. Case two: the last play, he caught the ball and passed to Wade in the paint when there's 5 seconds left and down by 4, which the only sane option was a catch-and-shoot 3. Third, Wade should take the lead but it's either he didn't step up or Erik Spoelstra decided to let LeBron have full control of the ball, it didn't happen. I understand Wade hasn't been even 80% of him but he was the best offensive player and closer of the night so it should be him attacking the rim not LeBron dribbling around. Fourth, Ray Allen. He was spotless untill the fourth quarter. One turnover and one missed free throw. The turnover was from dribbling and it happens almost 1 out of 3 times when Allen dribbles. I just don't understand why he's ever allowed to dribble. Fifth, Erik Spoestra. Why Bosh didn't attack when Duncan's in foul trouble? Why Allen was allowed to dribble? Why did LeBron over-dribble? Why didn't put Wade on Parker early? (He put LeBron on Parker but first it was too late, second it's a bad call because it would lose rebound, though didn't happen because Parker made the shot.) Where's the timeout when the momentum first changed?
But overall, gerat game. No matter how it end, it's gonna be a epic series.
Here's the game.
Both teams played well. Great defense and rebound. The Spurs had great ball movement with only 4 turnovers. Tim Duncan, the greatest power foreward ever played this game, was the reason of why the team kept up with the Heat in the first 3 quarters. Tony Parker had 0 turnover and a big shot by the end of the game. Gregg Popovich showed that he's not only the best coach in the league but also a competitor of the greatest coach of all time.
Heat had great game till the 4th quarter. A few reason caused the lose. First of all, LeBron had the ball too long. Although had good stats, 18, 18, 10, he had a big turnover in the 4th quarter. And because he had the ball too long, other players were not able to be involved as much as they should be. D-Wade almost disappeared, other players became nothing but jump shooters. Second, Lebron made some bad calls. Case one: he drove in then passed the ball out to Bosh and Bosh missed the 3. It would be great had Bosh made the 3, but LeBron shouldn't have passed the ball in the first place. If he took the shot, it would be an easy layup, or even better, he would've forced Duncan to foul and it would be the 5th foul. Case two: the last play, he caught the ball and passed to Wade in the paint when there's 5 seconds left and down by 4, which the only sane option was a catch-and-shoot 3. Third, Wade should take the lead but it's either he didn't step up or Erik Spoelstra decided to let LeBron have full control of the ball, it didn't happen. I understand Wade hasn't been even 80% of him but he was the best offensive player and closer of the night so it should be him attacking the rim not LeBron dribbling around. Fourth, Ray Allen. He was spotless untill the fourth quarter. One turnover and one missed free throw. The turnover was from dribbling and it happens almost 1 out of 3 times when Allen dribbles. I just don't understand why he's ever allowed to dribble. Fifth, Erik Spoestra. Why Bosh didn't attack when Duncan's in foul trouble? Why Allen was allowed to dribble? Why did LeBron over-dribble? Why didn't put Wade on Parker early? (He put LeBron on Parker but first it was too late, second it's a bad call because it would lose rebound, though didn't happen because Parker made the shot.) Where's the timeout when the momentum first changed?
But overall, gerat game. No matter how it end, it's gonna be a epic series.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Gay Marriage
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God." But what about something which isn't ordained of god, like gay marriage? I'm not saying Mormons should support gay marriage because I won't, but meanwhile I don't think the legalization is the end of the world, and here are 3 biggest reasons:
So this is where I stand: I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and I will do anything to advocate this idea. However I accept and respect people's choice, whether it's their personal lives or how they access their constitutional rights.
Here's a wild guess. As more and more states are legalizing gay marriage and potentially on national level as well, the church will give a guideline of how we should deal with it. There won't be any change but just some clarification, though it will surprise many people.
- The First Amendment establishes separation of church and state as one principle of this country. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause could be used to support gay marriage. Therefore if the majority of Americans (as recent poll show 63%) support gay marriage and constitutionally banning gay marriage is a discrimination (the Supreme Court hasn't said anything yet), according to the 12th Article of Faith we have no choice but obeying and honoring the law.
- Similar incident has happened. The church was one of the biggest support of prohibition because the Word of Wisdom. But the 21st Amendment eventually was ratified, even in Utah, and the there wasn't a revelation telling the Saints to rebel. What if history repeated itself?
- The higher law exists for a reason. Most people don't live by the higher law though everybody eventually will, but it's not something has to be done in this life, just like baptism. So while we do missionary work and try to let more people accept the gospel (even for a bit), we should allow people to fail, as we all do, and not judge them. The Lord will give everybody a second chance when He feels it's the best time whether or not it's this life.
So this is where I stand: I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, and I will do anything to advocate this idea. However I accept and respect people's choice, whether it's their personal lives or how they access their constitutional rights.
Here's a wild guess. As more and more states are legalizing gay marriage and potentially on national level as well, the church will give a guideline of how we should deal with it. There won't be any change but just some clarification, though it will surprise many people.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Change
I need a change. I've been in this state of stagnation long enough that a change is not merely a good idea but fairly necessary. No details but a major transition is needed, and this time I'm even not against going to the East. New environment, excitement, or just anything different will be great. Seriously, I'm writing this down.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
June 4th
June 4th, 1989, Tiananmen Square. Here's Phillip Morgan's The Blood is on the Square.
A song was heard in China
in the city of Beijing.
In the spring of 1989
you could hear the people sing.
And it was the song of freedom
that was ringing in the square,
the world could feel the passion of
the people gathered there.
Oh children, blood is on the square.
For many nights and many days,
waiting in the square.
"To build a better nation"
was the song that echoed there.
"For we are China's children,
we love our native land,
for brotherhood and freedom
we are joining hand in hand."
Oh children, blood is on the square. Then came the People's army
with trucks and tanks and guns.
The government was frightened
of their daughters and their sons.
But in the square was courage and
a vision true and fair,
the Army of the People would not harm
the young ones there.
Oh children, blood is on the square. On June the 3rd in China,
in the spring of '89,
an order came from high above
and passed on down the line.
The soldiers opened fire,
young people bled and died,
the blood of thousands on the square
that lies can never hide.
Oh children, blood is on the square. For four more days of fury
the people faced the guns.
How many thousands slaughtered
when their grisly work was done?
they quickly burned the bodies
to hide their coward's shame,
but blood is thick upon their hands and
darkness on their names.
Oh children, blood is on the square. There are tears that flow in China
for her children that are gone.
There is fear and there is hiding,
for the killing still goes on.
And the iron hand of terror can
buy silence for today,
but the blood that lies upon the square
cannot be washed away.
Oh children, blood is on the square.
A song was heard in China
in the city of Beijing.
In the spring of 1989
you could hear the people sing.
And it was the song of freedom
that was ringing in the square,
the world could feel the passion of
the people gathered there.
Oh children, blood is on the square.
For many nights and many days,
waiting in the square.
"To build a better nation"
was the song that echoed there.
"For we are China's children,
we love our native land,
for brotherhood and freedom
we are joining hand in hand."
Oh children, blood is on the square. Then came the People's army
with trucks and tanks and guns.
The government was frightened
of their daughters and their sons.
But in the square was courage and
a vision true and fair,
the Army of the People would not harm
the young ones there.
Oh children, blood is on the square. On June the 3rd in China,
in the spring of '89,
an order came from high above
and passed on down the line.
The soldiers opened fire,
young people bled and died,
the blood of thousands on the square
that lies can never hide.
Oh children, blood is on the square. For four more days of fury
the people faced the guns.
How many thousands slaughtered
when their grisly work was done?
they quickly burned the bodies
to hide their coward's shame,
but blood is thick upon their hands and
darkness on their names.
Oh children, blood is on the square. There are tears that flow in China
for her children that are gone.
There is fear and there is hiding,
for the killing still goes on.
And the iron hand of terror can
buy silence for today,
but the blood that lies upon the square
cannot be washed away.
Oh children, blood is on the square.
And here's PBS Frontline The Tank Man:
This is a picture of a photo of a soldier proudly celebrating after the massacre:
Monday, June 3, 2013
Thoughts After Feeling Disconnected
Church was great today. There were some really good testimonies but I just felt disconnected. So instead I read an Ensign article on Mountain Meadows Massacre and kind went through the studies I did allover again. It's incredible how things went all wrong way and caused such a terrifying and long lasting tragedy. As I'm writing this post now, I even think Brigham Young was somewhat responsible for the event, not he was involved on any level.
I remember when I did the study, one discussion was why the saints followed the order to slaughter the defenseless emigrants. And one obvious answer came up: they followed their church leaders. So if President and Governor Young ever felt that appointing the ecclesiastical leaders as local authorities (mayors, militia leaders, and others) would give the saints the impression of whatever those local authorities did was inspired, he might have reconsidered those appointments. I mean John D. Lee, Isaac Haight, William Dame as ecclesiastical leaders didn't have the priesthood key to make the order, but as local authorities they had all powers to command. But since they were both, people automatically assumed they made the order as ecclesiastical leaders when they didn't even take the time to wait for Brigham Young, the prophet, to make the final decision.
We humans can easily give up humanity when there's a higher cause. For religious people, like the saints in Mountain Meadows Massacre, it's easy to justify the injustice when it's under supreme being's name. Atheists are no exceptions, the greater good, like communism or nationalism, does the same thing to them. Depends on our beliefs we interpert such behavior in different ways, but we all agree it's when we give up to take our own responsibilities we give up our humanity. When we yell whatever slogans, for God, for the Third Reich, for communism, or anything, we let the -isms take charge but not our minds and hearts. So here goes back to the very basic: no good comes out when we give up our minds and hearts. This is why Jesus told us to think, ask, and ponder but not just blindfold ourselves and follow during his sermon on the mount.
I remember when I did the study, one discussion was why the saints followed the order to slaughter the defenseless emigrants. And one obvious answer came up: they followed their church leaders. So if President and Governor Young ever felt that appointing the ecclesiastical leaders as local authorities (mayors, militia leaders, and others) would give the saints the impression of whatever those local authorities did was inspired, he might have reconsidered those appointments. I mean John D. Lee, Isaac Haight, William Dame as ecclesiastical leaders didn't have the priesthood key to make the order, but as local authorities they had all powers to command. But since they were both, people automatically assumed they made the order as ecclesiastical leaders when they didn't even take the time to wait for Brigham Young, the prophet, to make the final decision.
We humans can easily give up humanity when there's a higher cause. For religious people, like the saints in Mountain Meadows Massacre, it's easy to justify the injustice when it's under supreme being's name. Atheists are no exceptions, the greater good, like communism or nationalism, does the same thing to them. Depends on our beliefs we interpert such behavior in different ways, but we all agree it's when we give up to take our own responsibilities we give up our humanity. When we yell whatever slogans, for God, for the Third Reich, for communism, or anything, we let the -isms take charge but not our minds and hearts. So here goes back to the very basic: no good comes out when we give up our minds and hearts. This is why Jesus told us to think, ask, and ponder but not just blindfold ourselves and follow during his sermon on the mount.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
A Few Things About Sports
Bayern Munich finally won the treble. Honestly it should've happened long time ago, multiple times.
German football is reaching its peak again, hopefully they win the comming World Cup and European Championship.
I've always been a fan of Magic Johnson but never liked Michael Jordan as a person. Both of them are great basketball players with charming personalities. But there is one difference: Magic has the courage and decency to admit his problem and fix it, Michael doesn't.
After tested HIV positive, Magic confessed that he had affairs with other women, and apologized to the public. More importantly, he confessed and apologized to his wife first. Ever since then, Magic did all he could to help people who have or might have the same challenge he once had.
Michael is the opposite. As a compulsive gambler he never admitted it's a problem to him. He had been cheating on his then wife for years but never regretted or even bothered to pretend to regret it.
Miami Heat played terribly tonight. Besides D-Wade's injury and Bosh can't keep up with Pacers' big men, Ray Allen is the true problem. Allen needs to adjust in order to truly contribute to the team, something he never learned in his career.
China has the world's worst sports journalists.
German football is reaching its peak again, hopefully they win the comming World Cup and European Championship.
I've always been a fan of Magic Johnson but never liked Michael Jordan as a person. Both of them are great basketball players with charming personalities. But there is one difference: Magic has the courage and decency to admit his problem and fix it, Michael doesn't.
After tested HIV positive, Magic confessed that he had affairs with other women, and apologized to the public. More importantly, he confessed and apologized to his wife first. Ever since then, Magic did all he could to help people who have or might have the same challenge he once had.
Michael is the opposite. As a compulsive gambler he never admitted it's a problem to him. He had been cheating on his then wife for years but never regretted or even bothered to pretend to regret it.
Miami Heat played terribly tonight. Besides D-Wade's injury and Bosh can't keep up with Pacers' big men, Ray Allen is the true problem. Allen needs to adjust in order to truly contribute to the team, something he never learned in his career.
China has the world's worst sports journalists.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)