Weir-ing Fur Was Apparently a Bad Decision

This afternoon, while trolling Yahoo!News, I came across an article about U.S. figure skater Johnny Weir's decision to include tufts of fox fur on his costume and animal right organizations' vehement opposition and condemnation of the action.  What follows is my response to the article (Full story here).

"I think, frankly, it's none of our business what he wears. This country was founded upon the principles of liberty and freedom. We should all be allowed to live (and wear) according to the dictates of our own conscience without fear of reprisal. If we are not, we are no better than the stifling governments that immigrants to this great nation were fleeing from. He made a decision regarding his design. He's not a villain.

"And anyway, why is he on the chopping block? He did not order the fox killed. He does not run a fox-slaughtering company. He is not blatantly mocking animals. Rather, he recognizes the beauty of the animal and has selected his own way of honoring it. Let's keep the accusations focused on the proper culprits- poachers of the animals and the groups that brutalize the animals.

"His mention of Haiti was a simple example of a situation in which hundreds of thousands deserve our immediate attention more than a fox, at least at this current time. When foxes become a higher priority than our fellow men, and countrymen, in need, society has indeed lost its perspective.

"I do not condone animal cruelty, but I feel like this situation has gotten out of control. Let's save the animals. But, personally, I choose to focus my energy on rehabilitating the infirm and the addicted, providing homes for the homeless men, women, and children of the world, creating jobs for the unemployed, educating the illiterate, and mentoring the disadvantaged and orphaned.

"These causes, in my opinion are the real first steps to be taken if we are to curb the abuse of the planet."

Main Event: White House vs. Fox News

Today I came across an interesting article on Yahoo!News (Full story).  It outlines how the White House is standing up against erroneous allegations and disregard for "facts" by news networks, particularly Fox News.

I give kudos to the president for doing this.  It is his right to defend his honor, as it were.  It also was a wise political decision, seeing as how Fox News claims to be the only non-left/non-liberal news network out there, with an audience whom Obama is currently trying to win over.

Can you feel the sarcasm oozing out of that last sentence?

Another interesting move: single out individual journalists within the network.  Poor Glenn Beck.  The president has called him out.  I think it is an unwise move, in the world of journalism, is to get the president angry at you personally.  Heck, I think it is an unwise move in any world to have the president identify you as a propagator or falsehoods.  Even though the president technically does not have power to destroy you, you can still probably kiss your career, in most circles, goodbye.

Not only has Fox News, with such famous/infamous figures as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, been labeled as an anti-Obama network, but it is the only network with whom the president will not appear on air with.  Pres. Obama has appeared on every other news network except Fox News.  Not even Bill O'Reilly's show, The O'Reilly Factor.

I think that despite the polarized mentalities of the public, in regards to Mr. O'Reilly, one must admit that Bill O'Reilly is still a credible journalist.  He has his preferences, granted, but so does every other journalist.  The difference is that he is open about them.  While he can get fairly impassioned (remember the Barney Frank appearance after Fannie and Freddie?), he still has logical reasoning, sound arguments, guest from both parties, and refrains from comparing Pres. Obama to Hitler, among other things.  I personally admire Mr. O'Reilly's courage and "bold, freshness" in speaking out against issues he feels are harming America.  Okay, that's it for my O'Reilly endorsement.

That said, I have seen on Fox News, at times, reporters with excessive skepticism in the president's ability to lead the country effectively.  Not on the O'Reilly Factor, though he does lambaste some of the more controversial policy decisions, but he never personally attacks Pres. Obama.  When you resort to smear tactics, you lose a lot of credibility as a fair-minded journalist, as well as integrity.

I support the president in his efforts to ensure that the truth of what he says is reported to the public, but I do not think it is fair to single out Fox News alone.  Other networks are guilty of misrepresenting him just as much, though they do it through servile obeisance and sycophancy, instead of criticism.  I find it rather amusing how the president does not appear to be worried about how people revere him like a demigod or how they worship the ground he walks on.

It is my personal belief that allowing such behavior to continue is inappropriate for an elected public servant of the United States of America.  He is the president.  He is but a man.  He is elected by the people, and he is to serve their interests.  Many politicians seem to have forgotten that and the president is the last person who should ever be victim of such a shortcoming.  I encourage Pres. Obama to speak out against those worshipping him as someone greater than they.  He is mortal, he is one of us, and if he is to lead this country, he must develop humility.

Goldman Sachs: Building China's Economy with US Funds

So, folks, I was surprised to read yesterday on BBC News (full article) that Goldman Sachs has invested $334m in the Chinese automobile company Geely.  While I am all for increasing competition in various markets, I am a free-market proponent, I must admit that a company that we, or I should say, "the government," gave $12b in bailout money (a) paid out big bonuses and (b) is now moving funds into the Chinese economy.  Not only do the Chinese own a huge percentage of our debt, various industrial locations, including the Geneva steel mill in Utah, but now they have our bailout funds as well.

I understand that this is probably a wise move by GS, investing in a company that has a bright future, especially because it is tied to the quickly-growing Chinese economy.  Also, according to the article, what they have invested can later be turned into shares in the company, so if Geely goes big, and it certainly has plans to do so, GS can make some serious money from their investment, which in turn will hopefully put them back in the black.  This will then allow them to pay us all back for the milk money we gave them to make sure they are getting their calcium, so to speak.

I guess my only real problem with this story is that Goldman Sachs, not only famous, but infamous!- decided to move our money outside of the States.  I would have loved to hear that GS has invested $433m in a US corporation or company, something which would help build America's sagging economy and contribute to our climb out of the recession.  I guess that's all I'm trying to say.

See you next time!

Congressman Mike Rogers: "Boldly Saying What No Man Has Said Before"

Recently, in a congressional hearing, Congressman Mike Rogers (Michigan), spoke up boldly against Pres. Obama's infamous Healthcare Reform Bill. He essentially said that the bill is destroying what makes America great. More specifically, by giving the government "unprecedented power" to "rip you off your own individual [insurance/healthcare] plan." (click to view the video)

He cited statistics from the National Cancer Intelligence Center of the UK and the Canadian Cancer Registry, which conclude that those who were diagnosed with cancer, under government-run healthcare, have a lower chance of survival than if they were on private healthcare plans.

While I personally think that some of this feels a bit dramatic and fatalistic, I am still not a major proponent of a government-run healthcare system. In America, we are constantly bellyaching about how inefficient it is to do taxes and other bureacratic processes, yet many of us are actively promoting the idea of that same government running our healthcare, or in another sense, our physical well-being. I am not saying we will be owned by the government- no, I am more moderate than that- but I am saying that we will be subjected to the irksome processes that the government excels at creating. Am I right in thinking that this suggests that we may, as a public body, have some masochistic tendencies?

One point that Congressman Rogers brought up that sounds very logical to me was the percentages of the population affected. According to Rogers, and this is paraphrased, 15% will benefit from this plan, while 85% of Americans will be the ones taking the hit. I agree with his logic, and that of Abraham Lincoln, whom Rogers quoted in saying, "You can't make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak."

Do we know that the 15% that do not have healthcare even want it? I recall a news story I saw a while back where they interviewed a number of young adults who did not have healthcare. They expressed that they did not because they were young and were not planning on having significant healthcare concerns, ergo they chose not to pay premiums for a plan they felt they would not need. How many of the 46 million Americans, a number declared by Rogers, are of a similar sentiment?

Another point that Rogers brought up that I am beginning to agree with regards the underlying message that this bill suggests; that we, the American public and its government, no longer have faith in the private sector. We have given up on private companies and decided that it would just be easier to have the government deal with everything. How have we come to this point?

I feel that this has become the situation because we are losing the desire to take the initiative. Why are people dissatisfied with private healthcare plans? Probably because of the financial demands they make, the fine print, and the fickle nature of their customer service. But how can this be changed, one might ask. In a true free market, the public's boycott, or at least significantly decreased patronage, would force companies to be more competitive and offer better plans. But it seems that we have grown too tired to fight for what we want. We are willing to relinquish our freedoms, albeit gradually, and push the problem to someone else.

Imagine for a moment, what life would be like if our Founding Fathers had this same attitude. Something I admire about Pres. Obama is his ability to stir within us a sense of patriotism, of pride. While I may disagree with policies that he makes, he is still the president, and as a US citizen, it is my duty to support what I agree with. I support his efforts to make us proud to be Americans, to be the kind of people that we ought to be- better, to build our communities, and to strive to make America great. Those are ideals that our Founding Fathers desired us to carry on. Had we kept this in mind, perhaps many of our current problems would have been mitigated.

Congressman Mike Rogers was not afraid to speak his feelings about the healthcare bill, but he did so in a respectful, rational (though admittedly impassioned), non-aggressive manner. I think we can learn from his example how we ought to try to improve legislation. Let us all do so through proper channels, and refrain from attacking individuals. That only creates civil strife, and as Abraham Lincoln wisely said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I hope that we all find within ourselves the will to improve the country around us and take responsibility for our actions.

I am positively Twitter-fied

As of the other day, I have started Twitter.  It's kind of a neat concept.  It really levels the playing field in terms of communication with people.  You get to keep astride the events in the lives of people you know or are interested in, i.e. celebrities and others.  As far as I can tell you can personally reply to things they say.

Now, unfortunately for me, I don't have an iPhone or other mobile device that can access the internet, so my use is limited to when I am at a computer.  My updates are much  less frequent, in fact, I think I use my facebook message option more, but I am determined to master this new facet of global communication.  That is, when I am not in China and it is censored by the government.  I am writing this blog on the computers at school, whose servers are in Hong Kong, thereby circumventing the Binary Curtain of China (I think that's a nifty term; help me spread its usage).

I guess the bottomline of this is that I recommend setting up an account (free), and getting connected to other people.  I am currently following the activities of my favorite writers, directors, actors, newspapers, and sports organizations.  The NYTimes and NBA update several times each hour with links to breaking stories.  It's a wonderful way to have instant access to current events, with the sifting and sorting almost completely done for you.

Go for it!

Warning: Security Checkpoint Ahead

Seeing as how I consider myself a frequent flier, mostly because when someone talks about "home cooking" I picture reheated tinfoil entrees with Styrofoam "bread" rolls, I have had ample experience in the fun-and-friendly world of airport security.

I realize that this is the time of year when people will, like birds in the winter, take flight and go south.  Or at least go somewhere.  And with that glorious spreading of our wings, we must also undergo the laugh-a-minute security checkpoints.  I hope you can tell that my sarcasm is dripping like a first grader's nose in Antarctica.

Like most people, I relegate myself to the poking, prodding, and general invasion of bodily privacy in return for the knowledge that I will probably have a safe flight.  That is, unless some whack-job comes up with a better way of killing people, like ingesting a chemical that allows him, or her (I am not sexist), to breathe fire or cry tears of searing acid.

I find it strange that you are not allowed to bring on basic liquids, while you are allowed to bring on a belt, or a pen, or a cell phone.  All of these items are equally as deadly.  The only thing is that they don't explode.

How many of us have seen movies where the hero uses makeshift weapons?  It only takes a touch of creativity to turn anything into a lethal death-toy.  Heck, what did man have before tools?  His fists.  Are they going to start asking you not to bring hands on board an aircraft?  Will you be able to check them in your bags?  If it nudges you over the miserly weight allowance will you really have to pay the fine?  If you forget that you can't bring them on an airplane can you mail them to your destination or back home?  I think you get the idea.

Another bit of juicy irony is that, at least in America, parading around in your birthday suit is a criminal offense, yet in airport security checkpoints ask you to remove your belt, shoes, coats, watches, toupees, etc.  If you somehow manage to set off the metal detector, then they get their magic wand out and run it over your body.  I'm sorry, but that is too much like the criminal offense of molesting people or physical assault.  There has got to be a more decent way to search crowds for death-bringers.

Another interesting thought: they, meaning the Powers That Control The "Friendly Skies," don't want you taking weapons out of the country either.  I understand accountability and how international safety is a team sport.  But when it comes down to it, don't you want the bad guys and their weapons, etc, to leave?  Why try to find them and keep them within your borders?

Please don't take this last statement too seriously.  It's all in jest.  If you actually consider what I'm saying, it's obvious that my statements are flawed.  Again, it's just a joke.  But back to the issue at hand...

We must not forget the advantages of this system.  Firstly, it keeps the airways safe.  Until the next maniac tries something.  Secondly, it gives people peace of mind.  Once they make it past the Judgement Day security checkpoints.  Finally, it saves money on cleaning.  The floor around the checkpoints have got to be some of the cleanest places in the whole airport; no one is allowed to wear shoes!

I guess, after all of this ranting about security, I truly am thankful for the wonderful surly TSA workers who stand around all day telling people what they have to take off.  And trust me, there are people who go through the checkout line that you never want to see with anything less than a full-length parka on.  These unsung heroes keep the planes filled with safe people; old people who snore loudly; babies who scream the entire flight; kids that kick your seat-back as you are nodding off to sleep.  

Come to think of it, it truly is a miracle that there are hardly any casualties from commercial flights.

I encourage you all, despite your jet lag, blood-shot eyes, and swollen feet, to smile and thank your TSA agent the next time you go through the security checkpoint.  After all, they could let bad people through if they really wanted to...

Rain, Rain, Go Away!

So, folks, it's been a long time.  I mean a really long time, like, a "two-month" long time.  I apologize.  I fell off the world during that time.

Today in Beijing it rained.  "Big deal," you say, brushing the news aside.  Yeah, it is a big deal!  It normally takes my dad and I about 25 minutes to get me to where I work.  It took us 45 minutes to get one block.  All of this because of rain.  Well, it's nice to blame the weather because you can't be called insensitive if you criticize it.  You can if you blame the actual problem: the drivers' etiquette, or lack thereof.

When people talk about repression and the denial of freedoms being an inherently insidious thing, they were clearly living in some fantasy world.  Some people are just not interested in living democratically and taking the initiative to fix things.  It's not their "thing."  

The traffic jam that I was trapped in was not due to a car accident, or a fallen tree.  It was because the drivers were not willing to work together.  They were all focused on getting themselves through the intersection, regardless of how it was accomplished.  No one would yield to another.  No one was willing to give an inch of ground.  In fact, many were taking inches that weren't there to take in the first place!  It was like watching a bunch of kindergartners scramble after a handful of Skittles thrown on the ground; complete and utter chaos!

From this isolated example, it does not seem like democracy would work for those several dozen drivers, as they just didn't care about the welfare of others or the advancement of a group, and coincidentally it applies in the literal sense as well.  They only wanted to focus on them and theirs.  There was no "working for the common good."  In fact, less freedom, harsher rules, and more punishment for the violation of them would have been the best solution to the issue at hand.

Wait, with the whole "focusing on them and theirs" thing has jogged my memory; that's just what it's like in most democratic societies anyway!

Never mind, everyone.

"Muddah, Faddah, kindly disregard this letter."