Harry Chen Thinks Aloud

Besides the Beijing Olympics, the most talked about international news in the past week is Russia’s invasion of Georgia. The story behind this event is rather complex. In the mainstream news media, the story is told as the follows. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia became an independent democratic state . Unfortunately, not everyone who live in that country are loyal to the new government. Some people in that country were loyal to the Russian government, and they lived in the area of South Ossetia. Recently, the Georgian government sent in military troops to crack down these Russian loyalists. The outcome of this event angered Russia. Military tanks and troops were sent in from Russia to protect Russian interests and revenge the Georgian attacks in South Ossetia.

There is another side of the story — a fight for oil and gas control. Today, oil and natural gas demands in the Western European countries are supplied by Russia. In addition its national wealth of natural resources, Russia also controls most of the transportation pipelines. As the price of natural resources went sky high in the past few years, Russia gradually recovered its regional and international political power. The West doesn’t like this a bit. Since the Clinton administration, the US has spent a significant amount of resources to open new corridors for oil and gas supply lines to bypass Russia — building pipelines from the Caspian Sea to NATO ally Turkey. Supporting the Georgian government is part of this effort. Before the recent Russia’s invasion, Georgia was seen as a stable country for natural resource transportation.

Now, let’s fuse the above facts together to see a better picture of the region’s political struggle. First, the Western countries want to reduce Russia’s political power. By allying countries like Georgia, the West is able to inject its influence into that region. Bypassing Russia controlled pipelines effectively reduces Russia’s economic growth and political influence on the Western Europe. Second, as the economy of Russia improves, because of high oil and gas prices, it is able to strengthen its military and boost it’s influence in the neighboring countries. Russia’s recent aggressive actions toward Georgia is not without justification. It did so to protect its country’s interest. Third, it’s difficult to say that the US helping Georgia is simply for the idea of democracy and freedom. It’s obvious that helping Georgia to be independent from Russia can reduce the West’s dependence on Russia’s oil and gas and effectively reduces Russia’s political influence.

Really, Russia is not necessary evil, and the US is not necessary angel.

Read about these issues in the Economist, Busisnessweek and NYTimes:

• A roadblock to Russian oil and gas
• The dangers of the safe route
• Russia resurgent
• Russian Forces Detain Georgian Soldiers at Port

Hillary Clinton won Ohio and Texas. People are discussing what this will entail for the US future. Some readers wonder Clinton will pick up Obama as her running mate, or the other way around. Some others think that if either one of them becomes the President, this country will go to “hell” — the end of capitalism and the destruction of the US mighty military power.

In addition, some are willing to go so far to say that China will take freedom away from the US if the next President is a Democrat.

politicalman11: The best part of your commentary, is what you didn’t mention..Congress..19 percent approval rating to Bush’s 35%…Democratic President and Democratic Congress will destroy capitalism, destroy the military and leave us vulnerable to China who is increasing their military spending 18%/year… That scares me a whole lot more than anything else…Freedoms are taken for granted for now by so many…

Why do some people so afraid of China? Do they think China will start a new Cold War or invade the US soil? The only plausible explanation, I think, is that certain people are just plain ignorant. They lack the knowledge about the World’s geopoltical issue. Their understanding of it is based on a limited view of events that occur no more than a short-distance drive from their homes. Their perception of other countries is based on whether or not these countries share a common culture with the US — if not, they must be the enemies of the US.

People, wake up! It’s time for you to read The Economist on a weekly basis.

People in Wisconsin and Hawaii go to their voting booths today. CNN reports the progress of the voting as the event unfolds. Reading some quotes from Obama, I can’t help to think that his speeches and promises are no different from others leading candidates — empty promises.

“I was convinced the American people wanted something new and different,” Obama said in Beloit, Wisconsin, Monday night while explaining why he decided to run. “They didn’t want a politics that was about tearing each other down. They wanted politics that was about lifting the country up. They were tired — you were tired of spin and PR and negative attacks instead of straight talk and honesty and offering practical solutions to our problems.”

What kind of change is he talking about? Change the President? Just put any person in the White House next year, other than Bush, will complete the task. Change our economic policies? We’ve been doing that a lot in the past few months. Change foreign policies? New policies are made and old policies are modified everyday as the geopoltical climate changes. What “change” is Obama talking about?

I had a conversation with a friend. He told me that Obama is a good candidate because he speaks of “change”, and Obama speaks of a bright future for the US. I ask him: (1) Do you know how he is going to achieve what he has promised? (2) Do you know if he has the necessary experience, political support and network connections to bring about a bright future? My friend answered honestly, “No, I don’t know.” He adds, “But, for sure what he said sounds good.”

I bet many people who support Obama have a similar thinking — because Obama talks about change, therefore, it’s necessary that he will bring about change and whatever that change maybe, it will be positive. This is wishful thinking, possibly putting the future of this country onto a dangerous path.

No elected politician can complete every agendas that he/she has promised during the campaign. It’s simply impractical to do so. Obama’s campaign is no different. If he wins the election, he probably will change his political agendas to suit whatever the interests of the government at that moment. If Obama became the President, nothing can stop him from changing his original campaign agenda.

Don’t listen to “change”. Judge politicians based on their experience.

—————-
Now playing: Deep Forest - Desert Walk
via FoxyTunes

Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008) was a big day for the Democratic and Republican Party presidential candidates. This year we observe and experience one of greatest historical events that takes place in the US. Two leading candidates of the Democratic Party are non-traditional type of US President candidates. Barack Obama is an African-American and Hillary Clinton is a woman. On the Republican Party side, John McCain pulls off one of the great political comeback in the US history. Not too long ago, McCain was broke with insufficient campaign funding, and his popularity was low because his strong support for the Iraq War troop surge.

As an observer, I learned few things from this historical event.

First, a fight is never over until it’s over. I’m somewhat surprised with the political comeback of John McCain and the popularity momentum building of Barack Obama. I think both candidates can reach today’s election results is because of their tireless fighting for what they desire — “I want to be the President of the United States of America”.

Second, the outcome of the Iraq War has permanently changed the political dynamics among the young Americans. Many young people no longer have faith in the “old ways” of doing things. They want change. Thus, most young people I know support Obama. I think this type of thinking has a lot to do with the changing in mentalities of the young generations.

Third, religion plays in an important role in the US politics. This may seem somewhat surprising to those live outside the US. Although the US Constitution explicitly states the separation of the States and religion, but everywhere we look in this election, candidates often send faith-based campaign messages. The general population is also deeply religious when it comes politics.

Given the outcomes of the Super Tuesday, I think there is a real possibility that the Democratic Party will lose the White House in 2008. The fight between Clinton and Obama is not yet over. If they are to campaign against each other, it’s possible that McCain’s popularity will continue to grow since the typical Democratic voices that would otherwise attack him are busy attacking each other. McCain simply benefit from the absence of strong Democratic Party attacks.

I support Hillary Clinton. I like Barack Obama, but he is a bad candidate for the US President this year. He may be a good candidate in 2012. Experience trumps idealistic thinking. The US is in a state of great uncertainty. Obama’s idealistic thinking of “change” will only bring greater uncertainty to this country’s future. Clinton is imperfect, but she is the most qualified and experienced candidate.

It’s wrong to argue that Clinton is a less qualified candidate because her imperfect political and voting record. No politician is perfect. Part of the politicians’ job is to do whatever that needs to be done to bring prosperities to their people. Sometimes this means buying into compromises and “playing the game”. Be able to negotiate and compromise in order to achieve a greater good is an essential skill for a US President. Thinking and talking ideally is easy, but experience can only be gained with age.

US government policies are full with surprises. Illegal immigrates is a hot topic on the Capital Hill when the context is social responsibility. However, it’s a rather simple issue when the context is taxation. In the US, almost everyone is required to file Federal incoming tax. This includes US citizens, permanent residents (Green Card holders), legal residents (visa holders) and illegal residents.

How do you count illegal residents as taxpayers? To IRS, no matter what your legal resident status, as long as you live in the US and receive incoming, you must pay taxes.

Here is the rule:

You can be a resident under substantial presence if you are in the U.S. for more than 30 days in the current year and if the sum of the current year’s days plus one-third of the previous year’s days plus one-sixth of the second preceding year’s days exceed 182 days.

The surprise continues with tax deduction — i.e., when you try to pay less taxes.

Read the rest of this entry »

This Monday’s On Point has an excellent piece on the surging crude oil price and its impact on the US economy and foreign policies. The show host had a talk with New York Time columnist Tom Friedman who has a strong belief about what the US government should do in order to combat the increasing US demand for oil.

1. Let the market do its thing. Friedman believes that a higher oil price will encourage the development of alternative energy sources and bring social awareness to energy conservation.
2. Don’t solve a long-term problem with a short-term solution. There are talks about the US Government will give each taxpayer $100 this summer to help to combat the rising gas price. Friedman believes that this is the worst thing that the Government can do. Not only this short-term solution can’t solve our long-term problem (addiction to foreign oil), but it encourages people to use more gas, driving up more demand for oil.
3. Green is the new Red, White and Blue. Friedman believes that the only way to drive down the gas price is to use less of it. It’s time for more people to become aware of energy saving and drive gas efficient vehicles. If you love you country’s color, begin to love the color green.

I very much agree with Friedman’s point of view. Though in the show, some of his arguments maybe a bit too extreme, but all of which are worthy of some serious discussion. While I don’t believe we can change things over night, but I do believe it’s time for people be serious about energy conservation.

Resource: Crude Reality, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, May 01, 2006, Podcast by WBUR.ORG.

From Google Earth Blog: Cheney Shooting in Google Earth,

Someone at the Google Earth Community who calls himself ‘DickCheney’ took the time to create a rather graphic 3D model of Vice President Dick Cheney shooting his friend in a hunting accident which happened a little over a week ago. I’m not sure if you call this political commentary, or crime scene investigation. But, it’s interesting to see Google Earth used in this way.

It’s amazing to see open software systems such as Google Earth can have usages that are beyond the wildest imagination of their original developers.

To Google Earth developers: well done!