From the Notebook

 

            There are science fictions that are based on science and there are science fictions that are not supported by science.  Originally there were people who write stories that filled with imaginations based on new and established theories.  Many turned out predicted what happened later.  But fictions need to have story lines, so many science heavy books may not be fascinating for the readers, and more so for the science fiction films. 

            In fact, most of the science fiction films are not so much different from general story telling, only that the back drops have some science fiction elements.  But there are many fictions that are based on misunderstanding of the science development, and created new fantasies that can never be realized.  As a results, it often spread ignorance, not knowledge, even love for knowledge.   

            Science fictions may lead people to be interested in science, after experience the magical world of science, and often science fictions are used as a tool to expose and provoke us to think about the problems within our society.  But very often science fiction films become a form of entertainment by toying with the tendency of the fear about the unknown, and turned out reinforcing many misunderstanding. 

            It is obvious that science fiction ought to push the limit of science, but can we call it science fiction if the fiction is clearly against known scientific principle and common logic, while serving no particular social purpose?  For example, time machine has often been a recurring theme in science fiction.  But it is a fantasy that is not supported by science and against common logic.  It probably all started with Einstein’s relativity theory.  But what this theory actually said is that difference in time could occur for different observers, not for participants.

            Time is an internal concept that does not exist as matters in the world (Emmanuel Kant’s had explained it in “Critiques of Pure Reason”, I will write more about time, space and matter in my later post).  As one see the world, one is setting the time for the world.   So, in this sense, a person in the world as one knew is not an observer but the creator of time, so, reserving time is not possible.

            Time is related to space, and space is also an internal concept similar to time.  As everyone internalized the space, there is a space with each of the individuals.   However, they are not parallel, as they are all bound by the existence in the outer world.  So, the theory of parallel universe is also not creditable. 

            There are also misunderstandings about matters as well.  In the movie “Star Trek”, the space ship was drawn to the black hole, but magically escaped.  But how a space ship can escape and all the humans and machines were intact?  It is simply impossible.  If not even light can escape the black hole (that is why it is called black hole, then nothing can escape black hole, and the intense gravity of the black hole will crash anything that was drawn to it).

            These are only a small portion of the problems.  Many so called science fiction films are not only against scientific principles and common logic, the underlining message is often against science and social development.   Although the imaginations may be going even outside of the world of actual science, the imaginations about social structure is actually very lacking.  Many of the science fictions movies drawn heavily from the social reality of the past, many went back far in history, provided us the strange combination of advanced technology under ancient social structure, this inevitable provide a gleam prediction for the future.   We can find many examples, such as star war movies, or “Star Trek”.

            It is quite a contradiction.  The year’s phenomenon “Avatar” heavily relies on technology while seems to deliver a message that is rather against technology.  In the movie “Land of lost”, the harsh reality of historical societies was revealed to certain degree.  But it is not so in “Avatar”.  In the effort against colonialism and Imperialism, many had idealized many “indigent cultures”.   Modern sentiments longing for simpler life also contributed the tendency to romanticize the past. 

            Technology first and foremost makes things possible.  But what to do with technology and how society will develop is ultimately determined by human beings.   Although history has not progressed in a straight line, the overall impact of technology development is not only improvement on living condition, but also social advances.  But improvement does not happen automatically, it requires constant, conscious, collective efforts of the individuals. The first step is the awareness and correct identification of the problems.

            On this note, I found the movie “District 9” seems to strike the right note.  “District 9” is a good example of a social drama in the back drop of science fictional themes.  By introducing the fictional scenario into the mix, it accurately revealed the complicity of the global reality.  Unlike “Avatar”, it did not romanticized the reality of “indigent culture”.  The conflicts between the individuals, and the profit focusing corporation, the indifference modern society, and gangsters with ancient mystical believes not only provide action sequences, twists and turns of the storyline, it also makes us reflect on the reality of our global society. 

            The task of artistic creation is not actually find solution for our social problems, but it often leads us to ask the right questions.  In this sense, “District 9” not only did well, but it could as well over performed, while “Avatar” seems to be misleading.  We certainly cannot go back in time in order to fix all our problems (not even environmental problems), and no gods ancient or modern can save us unless we save ourselves.  As illustrated by “District 9”, the fundamental problem in the modern society is individual indifference.  We might think the problem is not ours until it is too late.  In the conflicts between society and individuals, we ought to realize that society is collection of individuals, and the solution is everyone should treat the problems of each and every individual as if it is our own, because it could turn out to be. 

         It seems that pop culture is a new type of phenomenon.  Through out history, in various cultures, there are high cultures, and there are folk cultures, where high cultures emphasis on ideals, some are called arts, while folk cultures focus more on entertain, to make folks feel good.

            But pop culture is something different.  It is for entertainment, yet it is treated as high culture in reach and prestige.  On one hand, you can call it the culture democracy, what is good for the mass is viewed as what is good for the society, on the other hand, it seems to reject the a fundamental culture tradition.  In form and substances, pop culture often rejects the idea of ideals, and attunes to individual reality.

            In the tradition of western civilization, arts and high cultures are often closely related to religion, ideals are close to the assertion of the God.   This is not directly reflected in the pop culture.  Yet the pop culture is also different from the folk cultures, as it is not simply the reflections of life, but the indications of something larger than life. 

            Pop culture is not just a folk culture because it is supported by high culture concepts.  It is where the high culture and folk culture merged.  Philosophical ideas had provided supports for the underlining ideas of the pop culture.  It is the freedom of the individuals.

            When people look at Dadaism piece the “Fountain”, it is clear that it is making a mockery of the high culture.  But when Andy Warhol exhibited the “Campbell soup “, he was making a statement.  No wonder many consider it as the beginning of the pop culture. 

            We can interpret the “Campbell soup” as the statement about consumerism, it certainly is, and it is not in conflict with the idea of instant gratification, but it may also represent some thing structural.  It is the mass production itself.  In essence, pop culture itself is closely related with mass production. 

            Consumerism and mass production make many modern comforts available to the masses.  No doubt it increased the quality of life for most people.  But the close relationship of the pop culture with consumerism and mass production has its drawbacks.  In order to have mass appeal, in search of commonality of the audience (consumerism is all about giving the mass what they want), pop culture often had to strip down to human biological existence, rather than social existence.  This leads to the effects of dummied down, and the focus on sex and violence.

            It seems that majority of the people accepted without question that human knowledge is innate existed, people talking about who they are as if that were who they were, and who they are going to be.  It seems that most people seem to be happy with accepting stimulate to entertain biological or semi-biological desires more than to grow as a person.

            But culture influence is a tool for building social consensus and is a form of education.  Unfortunately, many entertainment products are designed to please people, so that when people think they are learning from what they see, they are actually reinforced with the idea for self indulgence and self gratification. 

            In format, there are many religious organizations in operating.  But the function of them is hardly helpful.  We have to admit in the western society, religion had lost its gripping power.  More and more, they are like a commercial institution, for making people feel good about themselves.   This is to say that they are also part of the pop culture. 

            There were debates about whether God is dead, and there are also debates about whether art is dead.  The bottom line is in the culture development, what was used as foundation of cultures was no longer useful.  New foundation need to be established.

            Pop culture not only reduced the substance of the culture by emphasis on desires based on biological needs, it also limited the culture to focus mostly on the first level of conscious, i.e., the conscious of self and perceive the world based solely on the conscious of self.  Traditionally, the high culture requires people to elevate the conscious to a higher level, i.e., the perception is based on the paramount view of the world.  However, the traditional high culture did not actually based on the perception from a paramount view, but often from the view of privileged people. 

            In history, God is the foundation of the western society, and individuals were asked to obey the rules of God.  The new era with democracy bring demand for individual freedom.  Regardless of what is the attitude towards God, individual freedom was asserted as paramount.  But we ought to remember that humans are social animals.  And what we view as an individual is a social component.  We know nothing when we were born.  What is then becomes “I” is a collection of knowledge and rules that we accepted from the society. 

            Individual freedom first and foremost is the freedom of the mind, not the unrestricted freedom of the body.  The purpose for freedom of the mind is to question and challenge the existing social knowledge and social rules, in order to advance social development.  Granted in order to maintain social structure, the freedom of individuals in the society (especially as an average citizen) is limited.  We ought to aware the consequences of our actions, and be aware of the knowledge and rules of the society.

            But when the pop culture rejected the paramount view, it also segmented the society, basically resulted in the world separated into many different parallel universes (the universe of each individuals).  It is viewed as the rejection of established culture, but most often it results in the rejection of rationality.  There are many discussions about the political polarizations in the United States.  Fundamentally, the influence of pop culture is the key. 

            Society needs common consensus, and cultures reflect common consensus at any given time.  But the indication of the pop culture is that the common consensus is that there is no common consensus.  This is certainly troubling.  In a democratic society, there is no governing class (at least in theory), everyone is part of the governing body.  So, it makes sense that the pop culture is also the high culture. 

            If you read the novel “The Brave New World”, you might consider the theory of conspiracy.  But I believe that it just gives too much credit for them.  It is obvious that people will try to do what is good for them, and many will try to manipulate the situation to benefit themselves.  But the environment that provides them the ability to do so should be exam first.  This is the confusion of the culture development.  New ground for building consensus needs to be discovered and developed, and the foundation is what is commonly known as utilitarian view.  The existing utilitarian theory had taken much of the heat because it lacks full development.  In essence, there should only be one measurement, that is the measurement of reality, but it is not the isolated individual reality, rather it is the unified social reality in view of the individual reality.

           The word “Change” had gotten much of the attention during last Presidential election, most will agree that the theme of “change” helped President Obama to be elected.  Although the concept of change is often well received, change in reality is difficult, especially if you want to actually change for the better.

            One of the problems with democracy political system is that politicians are often awarded with praises and admirations for their policies when the long term effects are disasters, and people set out to save the country from disasters are wrongfully blamed. 

            I am always amazed when some well respected investment experts or economic policy makers declared that they did not see the coming of financial crisis.  This does raise the question of how much we can trust the “experts”.  Are they all focus on the fancy tricks and ignore the fundamentals completely?  For some, this is a possibility.  I remember reading about some comments of financial professionals, that no one actually are reading “The Wealthy of the Nation” any more, or at least not paying attention to it. 

            But how the simple fundamental principles can be completely ignored is still beyond me.  For example, I remember several years ago I heard investment professionals were citing average gains of stock market since seventies as ways for predicting future investment returns, but the increase of the stock price in average is well above the increase of GDP, where did it come from?

            Both the real estate market and stock market share common characteristics, that the supply cannot easily and instantly respond to the demand.  When demand for a product increases, adjustment to increase the production can be relatively easily made, so there would not be significant increase in prices.  However, in the real estate market, and stock market, supplies cannot easily and instantly made to respond to demand (lands are limited, and building projects takes long time to complete, and it take longer time to build a company than to increase production.) 

            In the recent history of United States, there are several policy changes that increase the demands on real estate market and stock market significantly, primarily started during the Regan Administration, some extending during the Clinton Administration.   Starting with interest tax deduction for mortgage payments, which seemed to help ordinary people obtain home ownership, while the real effect is tax payer is subsiding the profit of mortgage companies. 

            If you go back to some time in 1970s, the cost of a home is a fraction of what it is cost today.  Comparing to the average wage levels of the relevant times, it is far more likely a person or family in the 70s can save up and buy a house without mortgage than it is today.  So, even with interests tax deduction, the average person or family spend a lot more on the house in the price of the house, and with payment including interests.  This would not be a problem for the individuals if the housing prices keep on rising at a pace that can justify their out of packet payment.  So, the model of this format is that there will always be incentive to generate an up market, and when it is down, it could drop down hard. 

            The up trend started in the stock market started when mutual funds emerged, along with tax reduction on capital gains.  Same as the housing market, additional demands could artificially generate an up market, which in turn will attract more demands, to the results that stock prices could be inflated significantly.  The inflated stock prices mean high P/E ratio, and along with tax policies (capital gain taxes vs. ordinary income), people are more into speculative investment, than investment for dividends. 

            I just heard the analogy of slow sheriff and fast villains for wall street and its regulators.  I think the same kind of problem exists for the policy makers as well.  Obviously there are people that know exactly what going to happen (at least in the ball park).  This is evident by the proposal to privatize social security in George w. Bush era.  Obviously there are people knew that in order to create the up market, there has to be new demands.  Fortunately even in the financial sector many just thought it went too far.  With the fresh memory of stock market crash, the public rejected the idea as well, while the derivative market with complicated operation escaped the attention, became the new source of the investment scheme.

            The impact of the stock market on business is that companies focus more on M&A (merger and acquisition) than R&D (research and development).  In order to justify high stock prices, the pressure for cost cutting is always high, and increasing market share through merger and acquisition is an easier solution for maintaining high stock prices.  As companies relied more on market share, there will be less incentive for R&D for existing companies and less new companies will emerge.  The vigorous cost cutting and relying on market share naturally lead to large scale outsourcing as the political and technological environment of countries such as China and India improved, and living standards in these countries are low. 

            There is also another side of the story.  Historically in United States, most of the private companies do not undertaking huge projects without government supports (tracing back at least to the boom of railways).  World War II and the subsequent Cold War boosted government spending on R&D related with military projects which can be accredited for many of the technology developments (aerospace, electronics, computers, internet, etc.)  But since the end of the Cold War and the change of the front end of technology development, government involvement on technology development has been reduced significantly. 

            The artificial booms driven by housing and stock market also have significant impacts on talent pools.  From employment perspective, financial sector has been doing significantly well, while science and technology sectors had been disappointing (lack of funding translated into lack of employment), the pay grade is relatively low, and chance of employment had often been a question.  This obviously drove many people into the field of finance rather than science and technology (as these fields could share the people with certain natural abilities).  The expansion on financial sector and retraction on science and technology clearly reflected on talent migration.

            This leads to another Regan era policy change.  The two World Wars weakened Europe and strength and established the leadership position of the United States.  From culture and social development stand point, being a safe harbor during the Wars and against Soviet regime helped United States to quickly accumulate talents.  United States as a country established by immigrants had always benefited from this inheritage and culture, but talent immigrated to United States in these eras was literally a wind fall for United States. 

            Starting from the Regan years, the immigration policy change focused more on job protection than on attracting talents.  Since then, along with lack of funding for R&D, many talents in science and technology area had gone elsewhere, notability many Chinese and Indian students received education in US, and went back to establish and create environment for science and technology development. 

            Another damage of Regan immigration policy is even broader.  The policy changes largely restricted immigrants’ ability to work legally.  The restrictions made it more difficult for foreign students graduated from US education system (many of them are in science and technology fields) to find work and stay in US, then start the trend of talent migrating back to their countries.  But there is another unintended effect.  Making it illegal for immigrants to work in this country actually created a market for lower paid workers that not only taking away the jobs from the legal workers, but also reduced the demands from the consumer markets.  Coupled with economic crisis in Mexico, there are many people that are willing to take much lower pay.   This basically made the minimum wage policy useless, which not only did not reduce immigrant workers, but actually increase them.

            What is more is that this created a under-class that could significantly effect social development of United States.  United States has always been an immigrant country.  It is call the “New World” because for a significant portion of the people in the country, it is a new world for them.  The arrival of new world brings new hope for the immigrants, and the infusion of various cultures created dynamic culture development in the United States.  However, when millions of people are not officially recognized, and even the second generation could have significant obstacles in obtaining higher education, it divided the society and hurt the dynamic culture development. 

            Many people had been surprised by the louder voices of angry and anti-government crowd.  I think it is nothing new, although with a new twist.  When people experience repeative failures when they are playing by the rules of the society, there will be frustration, disappointment, and anger.  These will grow into hostile, adverse attitudes towards the society.  When the economy was in better shape, this group of people is smaller, and some political operatives had successful use racial tense and bias to attribute this problem as solely the problems of individuals.  But as many people (who recently were in the middle class) are falling into this state, the anger became more visible.  The disappointment, frustration, anger, and even rage naturally will be pointed at the government and those in charge of the government (as their disappointments are attributed to various, vague places).  Obviously they do not like the change that happening to them.  But without much of the understanding on what led to these changes that put them to where they are, and still in firm belief in the social division based on racial tense and bias, these people could be destructive force, not force to foster positive changes. 

            The lesson we learned here is bipartisan solutions are not necessarily the best (or even good) solutions.  It is obvious many of the policy decisions that led to worsen the condition of United States are bipartisan solutions.  From the surface, they benefited the special interest groups while they also seemed to provide benefits for the public.  But it seems that the policy makers did not poke under the surface to ponder the actually long term effects.  It artificial bloom helped to establish President Regan as a popular President in recent history, but it generated many problems that it is so difficult to solve (as many of effects are irreversible or at least very difficult to reverse).   

            One alarming so called bipartisan solution is in newly proposed health care reform policy.  The Republican proposed a policy to establish a government fund for high risk group.  I cannot remember another so obvious hand out.  Why don’t we just gave the insurance companies money and forgot they ever exist if we need any treatments?  There are proposed policies to force more people (mostly healthy and young people) to buy private insurance, and Medicare already is taking care of most of the high risk people (older people), if the government is going to take care of the only other high risk group, then what is left for insurance company to do other than counting money?  

            It is very disappointing to see how the so called business interests hijack the health care reform.  We see a lot of examples where democracy was not at its best.  It is a good (although costly lesson) that blindly relying on the format of democracy structure does not necessarily produce good results, people need to be alert and diligent in order to avoid costly mistakes.   

 

            As a lighter post, I put together the current hot issues interpreted using the names of Oscar nominated films (in various categories):

The Economy               -           “The Hangover”

Jobs                             -           “Precious”

Healthcare Reform        -           “Up in the Air”

Financial Crisis             -           “Inglorious Bastards”

Partisanship                  -           “The Blind Side”

Global Warming           -           “An Education”

National Security          -           “The Hurt Locker”

Balancing Budget          -           “In the Loop”

*Please look for my other posts regarding the modern life about discussions related to issues in this post.

**Permission is needed to use contents of this blog.  All rights reserved.

            I am writing this post because Valentine’s day is approaching.  In general I am not very sensitive for particular date, and the meaning of it.  But it seems that many people’s states of minds are difference this time of the year, so it should a right time to talk about romance.

            It seems that in modern days, romance is not talked about so often.  People often talk about relationship, love, family, sex, etc. But the word “romance” is not used so often when people talk about real life.

            There are certain connection between love and romance.  But people tend to avoid this word because they find this word to be “cheesy” for real life.  It seems to be some thing related to fantasy, something you read in a novel, and when I think about this word, duet ballet dancing kept bopping up in my head.

            The reason is there is certain lightness related to the meaning of the word “romance”.  Romance usually is referred to something that is driven by emotion and passion, disregard or in spite of real life concerns. 

            In dealing with subject such as romance, there are limited sources.  There are many created works such as novels, music, films, etc.  But otherwise, one has to draw from own experience.  From my own experience, from the few relationships that I had, I can see the element of love one way or another, but only in one relationship I can see romance.  Although in this relationship, there are many problems (evidenced by the fact that it only existed in the remote past), there is something about this that will lighten my heart when I think about it, and make me feel that life is very much worth living.  So I concluded that romance is something good for me.  The question is how to identify it, and how to find it.

            From my own experience, and using references from creative works, it seems that romance has often associated with the element of surprise, or more accurately, it happens unexpectedly.  This might be why in ordinary dating process, the word romance rarely appears.

            To go more in to detail, romance occurred when people are both detached and deeply involved.   They are detached because they have no other reason to be with each other besides wanting to be with each other, they are deeply involved because they will always seek the present of another, and live the life as if the other is always present.

            In my earlier post, I talked about some people will play game with relationships.  Here I like to say that the rules and expectations of dating and relationship do make them feel like games sometimes.  To me, it seems that the rules and expectations could be obstacles for romance.

            People like to emphasis the difference between men and women (in heterosexual relationship), that in most times, there seems to be a difference of expectations between men and women in dating and relationships.   In general, men seem to be more concerned about getting into intimate relationship with women (short or long term), while women are more concerned about the outcome of the relationship.  In some extreme cases, some men would be allergic to the word “relationship” even if they are in fact in a relationship, and some women would refuse to get into a relationship without the outcome of marriage, or some would be stay in unhealthy relationships.

            None of these are good news for romance.  The origin of these problems are actually the same, that is the belief in “love at the first sight”, and/or emphasis on sexual attraction.  I think “love at the first sight” is a myth that has mislead many people.  Even if you look at love story in creative works, you will find many cases suggesting that it is unreliable.  A simple example is the story of Scarlet in “Gone with the Wind”, Scarlet was mislead by both her good impression of Ashley, and her bad impression of Rhett

            I don’t deny instant attraction, even sexual attraction exists, but the problem is people often use it as the only thing (or at least the most important thing) in evaluating relationships.  This problem starts with the fact that people often have instant attraction to someone when the appearance of someone fit into the standard of ideal.  From the story of Scarlet, we know that her ideal had almost nothing to do with who she was (so that she could not appreciate Rhett), and the projection of Ashley as her ideal reflected her lack of understanding of the ideal and Ashley.   As there is no meeting of the mind, Scarlet’s story is not a story of romance.

            The same mistake has been made by many people now.  As people start the relationships based on first impression, the relationships could be lack of solid foundation, so most relationship could not last.  As people have not realized what is the problem, they will all draw the conclusion that relationships often fail.  If men are not pressured for committed relationship or marriage, many will give little efforts on establishing relationship, more on getting into more (in hope of some thing better will come up).  As more women feel more pressure for committed relationship, some women would be reluctant to getting into relationships, while others would often try to hang on to broken relationships.   

            Depending on personality, different combination of factors could trigger instant attraction on different people.  But no matter what are the factors, the first impression could be misleading.  In the end, the emotional attachment one can have for the other really depends on how they feel about each other.  It is difficult to explain compatibility, and chemistry has often been associated with instant attraction.  I think what really matters is how people appreciate each other, and how much they care about each other. 

            This is why ordinary dating may start at the wrong end.  Once people start dating, there will be expectations (not to mentions many believe that certain rules need to be followed), and people will judge the other according to expectations.  First, people will often act not because they want to, but because they know that they are expected to do so.  Second, when people act not out of their own initiative, they will often end up count cards on who did what, so the relationship will become a game that scores are kept, so individual’s identity will be kept separate, not united. 

            There is another layer of complication.  Sometimes, one person could be good to other because he or she wants something in return, or there is a possibility of this motive.  To make a judgment about this possibility, the best way is look to inconsistence, and in the overall behavior of a person. 

            Men often prefer skip the courtship before starting relationship because courtship often means work for them.  Many might feel that they are rated for their acts, so the little that they can do the better.  To the extent many of them seems to establish their self esteem on how little efforts they made for women to be with them. 

            But unless they are not carrying on a serious relationship (it seems that most people do end up have some kinds of serious relationship with someone), then how they start could affect what is going to come.  Quickly jump into a relationship when both are not emotionally ready can only create one problem or another. 

            To be fair, the general rules of dating or relationship usually require men to take the lead.  As women often are more concerned about the outcome, they are naturally more concerned about how the men think.  If the emotional connection is not there, then they will obviously feel insecure, and demand or wish for more.   In the end, it is the problem of expectation. 

            The bottom line is people should not be with each other if they do not care for each other, and people should not make an important decision that will change their lives under pressure. The sensible solution is both men and women should be patient from the start to the end of relationship.  Good thing don’t come cheap.  In the term of relationship, it is at least partially measured by time and patient. 

            That is why I think people should take a second look on friendship.  The word “friendship” between men and women had been misused, mistreated, and sometimes treated with hostile attitude.  It has been used to cover up ambiguous sexual relationships, word for breaking up, and something as indicator of lack of romantic interests.  Actually many people questioned whether men and women can truly be friends, and the conclusion usually is no. 

            That is just too bad.  I believe for the health of the society, for the equality of women with men, and for the quality of romantic relationship between men and women, it is necessary for men and women to establish friendly more often.  Can we blame people for not being able to establish health relationship when men and women are so disconnected that friendship is either impractical, or forbidden?  In many areas, it is still a men’s world, if women cannot establish friendship with men, then women more often than not are shut out of many opportunities

            Friendship is also very important for romantic relationship.  I do think that traditional courtship where men had to make the most efforts should be things of the past.  The relationship between men and women should start with friendship (although friendship should be standing on its own, should not be just be in anticipation of intimate relationship).

            If men and women can often have genuine friendship with each other, there will be more understanding with each other, help each other broaden the knowledge and understanding of the world and life, and will be able to have better romantic relationship with each other because of the understanding and knowledge.  Actually, I think pure contact and efforts in themselves will have advantage.  People could be hostile or bias just because of lack of knowledge of each other.  This is basically due to the fear of unknown.  More contact will help break the myth. 

            I do believe in the end, both men and women usually want the same thing.  The reason that their expectations are different is often due to the different situations.  As men usually are not eager to get into a relationship, and women are often more eager to have a committed relationship, they are doing the work for the others. 

            No matter what, bad relationship hurt both no matter who ends it, and how it ends.  If both care for each other, for some reason they cannot be together, it would be easier for both to accept it and even remain friends (to support each other if they can) and it would hurt less.  Most people would treasure the chance of being with someone who they really want to be with, so more efforts to make it happen may be not too much to ask.    

*Please look for my other posts regarding the modern life, Men and Women, art and entertainment, about discussions related to issues in this post.

**Permission is needed to use contents of this blog.  All rights reserved.

I found this tiny photo of me when I was a young girl in China. I grew up and came to United States and have not been back, but I believe that just as I am still the same person, China did not change as such as most have thought (but just as well has potential to change). So, I think I can still say something about China that might be relevant.

Like many other countries in history (including US in the earlier time), China’s growth has a lot to do with low labor cost. But like many other countries, growth will lead to the rise of labor cost. However, US in history had been an exception for this rule. Due to vast usable land, and lack of established social residual, the price of land had not rise significantly due to growth, so people would more likely to live comfortably without raising the labor cost too much for a long time. This would not be true for China.

Chairman Mao had said something like "you can paint the newest and the most beautiful picture on a blank sheet". This seems to described the social development in US. As for China, it is not exactly the case. China is one of the few countries has the longest history. Tradition is a sword with two edges, it often help to maintain stability, but it may often provide limitations that can hinder new developments. A blank space can be used to lead to many possibilities, social and culture establishment may often eliminate some possibilities. More over, a society is like a living organism that it often will age with time, it often reflected on the people that their sentiments are more likely to be pessimistic, lack of wild eye wondering, and more of wise men’s skeptical.

Personally, I think Mao is a very troublesome person as I believe he seemed to have full understanding of the dark side or weakness of human nature and used the knowledge for his own benefit. But I think Mao did something that have positively impacted the development of China. To some extend Mao had break the tradition of China. In addition, Mao's public persona present the confidence and new found hope that inspired optimism in the nation.

The most sweeping disruption to tradition of China is the "Cultural Revolution". But it not only broke the tradition, it also fundamentally undermined Mao's own regime. Inconsistency often invites reflection. After near twenty years of the establishment of the Communist China, "Cultural Revolution" basically turned its own establishment upside down. You can that the communist ideology and the Mao’s system developed based on it are introduced to people in China in some what brain wash type of process, and brain wash is similar to hypothesis. But this type process requires consistency. When significant inconsistency and disruption occurred, people will wake up, and start analyzing and judgment process of their own.

"Cultural Revolution" woke up more and more people, and by the time Mao died, people started to question the legitimacy of his regime (which was accepted by many people without any question). Accordingly, the "Reform and Open Up" led by Ding Xiaoping is less of a choice, but more of necessity in order to keep the regime intact, that he basically need to give people better life in order to prevent people from asking too many questions.

Up to now, the so-called communist regime or socialist regime is pretty much an empty shell. What the leader in China so carefully hold on to is a government that insisting on its absolute power while how to define this government is not clear. Ideologically, many principles of communism or socialism are abandoned. If it was never the case that absolute equality existed, at this time absolute public ownership is gone. As far as class struggle, it is the communist party and people in the party that have the money and power (I heard people saying that if you are not a party member, you would not even get funds for research projects), who are the people supposed to raise against?

I am not happy about a lot of things in China, but I am not an opposition against the regime either. The question is what would the leadership do next. The policies of the leaderships after "Reform and Open up" had lead to economic development, but it seems that it is time for reforms that are more fundamental. Whether they can do it and whether they will be successful has historical importance in China.

Reforms are inevitable in order to solve many problems in China. I will just list some of them:

Inconsistency or illegitimacy of the government. As I mentioned earlier, it is obvious the communist regime or the socialist system only existed in name now. This means that the regime could face pressure from both sides. It is conceivable that not only there will be people that push for more reform and freedom, there will be people that want to go back to the old days.
The reform did bring many financial benefits for many people. But it also took away the "iron bowl" from many people, it is obvious many would not be happy about it. As many government owned factories are closed down, or down sized, and as gap of income and wealth becomes bigger, there are support base for people wanting to go back.

The June 4 event certainly started with the push for more reform, but there was rumors that the crack down was not actually in fear of the students, but to prevent power struggle within the party from those that wanted to go back from the reform. I don’t know if the rumor is true, but from the known facts, it did seem that there was a power struggle surrounding the event.

Internal structural conflicts. If Mao ruled with iron fist, the grip of the current leader in China is much loose. Economy reform presented many opportunities for operatives in the system to persue personal financial gains. As any one and every one is grabbing the stake, there are more and more incidents that local governments are in conflicts with the central government.

Corruptions. The most obvious problem in China is corruption, and it is nothing new. When Mao broke the tradition, it is more cosmetic than substance. The corruption that are on going in China is not much different from history. Obviously it is due to the long lasting tradition of "governance of individuals", not "governing by the law", it is the tradition that Mao did not break. As the people in power do as they wish, the ordinary people will not only lose the faith about government, they will lose hope, become cynical and lawless. Essentially, it is moral corruption of the society.

Ideological development as the result of "Reform and Opening Up". The intellectuals under Mao’s governance essentially were lack of the ability for critical thinking. But after the "Cultural Revolution", it is impossible for at least some of the new generation not to pick up this ability. In the beginning of the "Reform and Open up", science and technology were elevated to important spot of national conscious. But science is based on rational thinking that respect facts and established rules developed based on the facts. Natural development of critical thinking will lead to more and more people demand governing under the rule of law, and the freedom of the society.

There are many discussions about whether China will become leader or even dominating force in the world. I think it is too early to ask this question. Although from the outside, it seems that China enjoys economic prosperity , the foundation that can maintain stability thus sustain the prosperity is not present. From economic perspective, because of the system of "governing by individual" not only is not be able to provide clear rules to rely on, it also lacks consistency. As the leadership changes, there could be sweeping changes to the economic system. Without consistency and stability in economic system, prosperity would not be reliable. The prosperity China experienced now is not much different from those times in history, it can become a burst bubble at time.

I believe that the leaderships in China have to face the fact of ideological inconsistency of the government now. The answer is not to go back, but to provide new ideology foundation of the government. They ought to make systematic changes, that is to convert governing by individuals under the hollow form of communism to governing by the rule of law. Rule of law and rational, critical thinking have often been seen as the tradition of western culture, but there are roots in Chinese tradition as well. People often emphasized on the mysterious elements of Taoism's teaching, but the essence of Taoism is reason (it is not a coincident that the name Tao means reason.) Actually, before Confucius was packaged as doctrines and rigid tradition, Confucius arrived to his thoughts based on critical thinking and reasons. The leadership in China ought to realize that rule of law is not another doctrine that can be established by the will of the leaders, it ought to be based on the solid foundation of rational and critical thinking. The foundation is solid because in the end, everyone is and could be subject to and in acceptance of reasons, and it is also because changes made based on reasons can be gradual, and systematic, while the results are certainly be the mostly acceptable.

Unlike many people, I don't view communism as evil in principle. It seems that all ideologies are based on principles that are good or even noble. The basic principle of communism is that everyone should be treated equal, which is basically exact the same as the principle of democracy. What is wrong about communism and socialism is that they take the wrong road on how to get there, and it is evidenced by the Chinese experience along with experiences of other socialist countries It is obvious that the Chinese government already abandoned the practice of communism and socialism method that led to despair, what the leader of Chinese government need is official transformation in ideology following the practice.

The conflicts between central government and local governments are basically power struggles. Under the frame work established based on rule of law, the conflicts can be solved case by case in benign ways. In fact, under certain mechanism, the conflicts may be part of the force for providing check and balance of the governing system, especially in dealing with issues such as corruptions.

Looking back in the history of China, corruption is a persistent disease that cause most of the ill fates, which is a clear indication about fundamental flaws of the established political system and cultural tradition of China. Lack of systematic establishment for governing under the rule of law is the reflection of actual condition, lack of mechanism of check and balance is possibly one of the underline reason for this system. One of the immediate results of corruption is that there is not an independent force of business interests that can be part of the mechanism for check and balance in the society level. Lack of rule of law, lack of check and balance, corruption will only accelerate which will inevitable result in a lawless system until the point of break, then the same process will repeat under the new system. In the end, social disruption due to instability results from the claps of old system often will wipe out economic development, only the cycle of deterioration and destruction repeat.

Economically, the leadership of China insisted on the grip of iron fist under the surface of economic reform. If no business can exist without "mountain to lay back on", there is no chance the independent business interest can survive under the current system. In the end, the system that cannot self correct can only grow worse, until to the tipping point.

What would happen in China in the next several decades could be critical in China’s history. It appears that it will need a "cultural evolution" from the society level that will built common consensus on the importance of rules of law and rational thinking. Based on this cultural transformation, political reforms can be conducted. There might be different possibilities for how to conduct the political reform. But reforms need to be built on common consensus, respect for rule of law that based on reasons and facts can provides solid foundation for this.

In order to build this common consensus, art and entertainment can provide useful means as they are far reach, and the effect is lasting. In this, there should be more artistic freedom that could precede political freedom. Not only pieces from western world should be introduced to more people, original works that reflect independent thinking that contemplate the problems of China should be encouraged here.

If there is ever a rule about how some nation can prosper more than others, it is the rule that culture must be open, more freedom should be enjoyed by the people. The Chinese leadership had been asking the question of how to foster creativity, the answer is the same, i.e., openness and freedom (I like to think that I have provided important inventions, which I could never dreamed of, and the road to get where I am now is completely unpredictable. It is very obvious to me that if I stayed in China, I would not be able to get what I got now. So, I like to think I myself is a testimony for the advantage of the freedom in the United State). In the end, what is good for China is also what is good for the world.

             You probably know that this is a title for a movie that is still in theater now.  If you have seen the movie, you will notice the irony of this title.  But for what the movie presented to us, and what it leads to, the title is a good fit for this movie.

            For most people, this movie led us to a world we are not familiar with and wish that it does not exist.  But obviously it does exist, and facing it will bring new light on the world that we think we know about. 

            To be honest, I found the first part of the movie especially fascinating.  Yes, it is very brutal, it is so intense, and sometimes it is so overwhelming that it is difficult to breath.  It is because that it felt so real.  The cinematic technique that is used made we felt like active participants, breathing the same air, at the same atmosphere.   For at least a few moments, we felt like it is our world.

                   We often talk about the world.  But the world for each of us is different, and most people do not seem to realize this simple fact.  In fact, most of the social activities are based on the assumption that we all live in the same world. 

            But the world we face as individuals are different.  By presenting an extreme case, it makes us consciously aware of this simple fact.  By bring this extremely dysfunctional family to our attention, I think it found the core of the true that related to this matter. 

            The purpose of formal education is to deliver the established human knowledge system to be accepted by the individuals, the effect is to build common consensus.  But interactions with the world and negotiations with environment started at home, when one was born, and it will shape the person fundamentally as who he or she is.

            Although it is not impossible for people to change certain aspects of their personality, it is very difficult to reshape a person entirely.  So, the impacts of the parents on a child’s life are profound. 

            The general consensus is that parents would see their children as natural extension of themselves, so that they will treat their children as themselves, or even more.  But what people should do does not mean that is what they would do.  For whatever reason, for example, the environment that they grow up in shaped their world view may be far different from the common consensus, so our assumption can be invalid in some cases.  When dealing with social issues, general assumptions often become obstacles in understanding the reality of different worlds that individuals reside in. 

            One had to believe that what happened to Clareece “Precious” Jones is extremely rare.  But it is conceivable that it could happen, and we occasionally do hear stories like this in real life.  Most importantly, from contemplating the extreme cases, we often could start to rethink our understanding of the world from fundamental level. 

            By assuming that all parents are treating their children as the extension of themselves, we ignored the possibility that this recognition may not be nature and complete. The fact that children shared DNA with their parents does not necessary mitigate the fact that they are after all individuals separated and could be independent of their parents.  Often, depending on the mind sets of the parents, they could be viewed as adverse to the interests of the parents.

            One of the common misconceptions regarding family relationship including spousal or blood relationship is that love is often provided as default assumption.  Although in many cases love is deeply embedded in the daily interaction and not so obvious, there are many cases it is simply absent. 

             Although it could be rare, in some cases (such as what we have seen in this movie, especially in the case of the father), parents are treating their children as a  complete stranger, and taking full advantage of their full access and control over the children, and explore the vulnerability of the children without any restrain. 

            In many cases, however, parents knowingly or without conscious awareness taking the advantage of the situations to a certain degree.  It might not be obvious, in some cases, both the children and parents could not even be aware of the problems.  These hidden harms done by the parents could be very damaging, because the existences of them are not detected, thus not dealt with. 

            Although it can hardly to be seen as a blessing, “Precious” can point out the obvious monstrous behaviors of her parents as to the cause of most of her problems, taking a clear break from it, and start with a clean sleeve (so to speak, because she probably have to deal with the damage to her health for the rest of her life).  But for many people, many physiological damages caused by their parents are hidden and intertwined with their personality, thus it might be harder to break free from.

            The sad thing about this cycle is that most of the time, the problem originated from the psychological problems of the parents, that they are unintentionally harming the well being of their children unknowingly. 

            There are many modern literatures that revealed this type of problems.  In fact, this theme seems to be the focus of many modern literatures.  However, psychology and modern social science field failed to provide ways to lead us to basis understanding and solutions about this problem.

            In addition, formal education is mostly focusing on introducing the established human knowledge system to the individuals, little attentions are paid to the actual development of the mind.  Lack of understanding on the human minds and lack of effort to address the problems in the development of human minds leaves everyone to themselves to struggle, to sink or flow, only a lucky few can find some wise parents or close ones to provide them with some help. 

            But it is important for society (not just for the sake of individuals) that we should get better understanding of the problems and find solutions.  In this film, the father of the young girl is the cause of many of her problems.  Although the film did not provide us with his side of the story, as it did with her mother, I think in the end it is safe to say, it is of the same kind.  This is also the cause of the many problems in the society.  People usually do not do something bad to others out of hate (except in the case of revenge, in which case the start of the chain ought to be something other than hate.  People do things that end up hurting or harming others because of their own interests.  In the case that people carry things to the extreme that they recklessly harm others without any consideration is often because that they often justify their behavior as a victim (as the mother of “Precious” did in the movie). 

            Obviously not every one that had been harmed by others will turn out to harm others in a recklessly way, only those that are extremely selfish would do so.  Selfishness does not seem to be characteristics that are fully determined by the environment, but the psychological and emotional damages in a person’s early years (often are caused by parents directly or due to lack of protections or guidance from the parents) to a selfish person can make one easily felt to be a victim and becomes extremely selfish and reckless.  Thus breaking the chain of harms should be a goal of the society. 

            Although each individual case may be different, and there are many factors that could be part of the equation in the problems, we can start with a simple approach.   Most so called “social science” studies had put too much emphasis on using “scientific method” and building “scientific model” (please see my post “Some Thoughts about Arts and Science” for related information).   People seem to forget that essentially scientific method starts with assumptions (although ends with verification of the assumptions), thus non-linear creative thinking is the start of all scientific process.

            In confronting the current problems related to the relationship of the parents and children, the first consideration could be as simple as what types of behaviors of the parents are most harmful to the children psychologically, and the second consideration could be simply what are the causes of the those behaviors, so that we will know how to fix it. 

            I heard people commenting that you need to take a test to drive a car, but any one can be a parent.  In the case of “Precious”, her mother is getting paid from the government for her and her daughter.  I do think there is something wrong with this.  Although the solution for “Precious” is obvious, in most cases the solution is to fix the problem.  But in order to educate people on how to be parents, there ought to be basic understanding and consensus on what to do and what not to do.  I do not believe we are there yet. 

            The story of “Precious” is also related to the question of influence of environment and individuals’ responsibility.  The movie did a very good job for putting us in her shoes.  As we are experiencing what she had to deal with day and night, we start to realize her crushing reality.  When people are talking about individuals’ responsibility, we all seem to assume the basic assumption that there are reasons to do so.  The disaster in Haiti put many people’s devastation into our minds.  But we ought to remember, there are many devastations happening every day in this world.  Before we talk about responsibility, we ought to provide an environment that meets the basic assumption of what it means to be human, that there is certain level of human dignity that the society will protect, otherwise we are asking for too much.

            Some might think the subject matter of this film is too brutal and depressing.  But I think this film is incredibly optimistic.  If a young girl like Clareece “Precious” Jones can overcome all the brutalities, desperations, misfortunes and obstacles, then literally there is nothing a human being cannot do. 

              The “right wing” operatives often accuse the media for supporting “left wing” agenda, but as far as I can see, the media also take the curve balls thrown by the “right wing” operatives and run with them.

            Take for example the case of White House party crashers.  Did someone made mistake in the job?  Yes.  Is it a national security issue?  No.  But some “right wing” operatives insisted that it is a national security issue, even national security crisis, and from media reactions, many seemed to agree with them.

            I might have developed some resistances towards the talks of “right wing” operatives because many times the arguments presented by them are really about keeping scores and put the other side down, not for the benefit of the country, and not even for ideology reasons.  Some “right wing” operatives even openly said that they hope president Obama would fail.  So it is no surprise that someone would take a mistake in the first State Dinner of President Obama and make it into a national security crisis. 

            First of all, the State Dinner is a social event, and like most social event, the environment is not as uptight as official government environment.  It will be one thing if someone got into a national security meeting uninvited, but the actual harm for someone to get into a State Dinner is not so severe

            It will be different if someone (invited guests or party crashers) sneak in a weapon that could harm the president, other government officials, or guests of the country (in this case, the Prime Minister of India and his officials).  Invited or not, everyone went through security check, there was no breach in the party. 

            I think the most of the blames should be carried by the party crashers (as it should be in similar social events).  In most of the social events, the invitations are basically discretionary, and there is no need to specially emphasis that no one that is not invited will get in.  It is often up to the guests themselves to obey social rules and pay respects for the hosts not to show up uninvited. 

            It is true that the State Dinner is not just an ordinary social event.  It is true that the President is the leader of this country (and in some sense, the leader of the world).  But the President is chosen by the people, and the government is serving the people.  Only based on practical reasons that ordinary citizens cannot all be invited into social events hosted by the President, and ordinary citizens will not usually show up uninvited out of respects for the President and the country.

            So, although it is a mistake of the people who should check closely to prevent party crashers to get in, and the party crashers should be put into shame for embarrassing the President and the country, but there is no national security issue here. 

            It is not a national security issue because it occurs often that random and ordinary citizens can get close to the President and government officials in various events.  Thus just random people getting close to the President is not a national security issue, the situation is not fundamentally different from campaign events or other similar events.  

            In short, it will become a national security problem if secret information is leaked to people not authorized, or if the President, high ranking government officials, or guests of the country are in real or potential danger.  None of these happened. 

            Therefore, I believe that in a social event, a few uninvited guests may cause embarrassments for the hosts (for this matter, there is no guarantee that invited guests would be absolute safe, think of Tania West for example), but it is not a security breach, not to mention a national security crisis. 

            I actually think that it showed a little snobbery on the people who suggest that otherwise harmless people that crash a party (even if a State Dinner) will generate national security crisis.  The president and high ranking government officials are not made of materials that exposing to ordinary people alone will cause any damage to them. 

            So, it became annoying when media attentions on the party crashers sustained for many days.  I think it is safe to say that most of the media outlets do not have a stake to see that President Obama fails, but it did reflect a common problem in the media.

            Media outlets first and foremost are dealing with the news, and the more attention grabbing is the news, the more successful would be the media outlets providing the news.  For attention grabbing, shocking effect with simplicity and intensity is the key.  Due to human survival mechanism, people incline to pay close attention to abnormal information, even if the information could be useless after further evaluation. 

            So, it is not a surprise that media love the party crasher story.  It is simply, it is shocking, and unheard of (who did what?), thus many jumped on it without finding real harm.  To me, it is a media storm initiated by the “right wing” operatives, and fueled by the media. 

            Civilizations are built on interpreting and reinterpreting past events.  As we contemplating the effects of the events, conclusions are drawn on what should and should not be done.  Collectively what appeared in the media often become the reflections of the social scrutiny, so media scrutiny is not a small part of the society.

            Actually, the party crasher episode reflected the power of media.  The Salahis did not sneak into the White House, they were accompanied by a camera crew.  I heard someone said that you can become an expert on anything if you have a camera crew following you.  I don’t know if it is true, but the camera crew might have gotten the Salahis into the State Dinner.  As people are saying that the State Dinner is no small matter, it is an evidence of the power of media.

             While the party crashers are not actual threat to the national security, the failed Christmas Day Bombing is certainly a threat to national security.  But the media reaction to this event is also exaggerating. 

            First, I don’t think it is absolutely wrong for the Homeland Security Secretary to say that the system worked, although there are grounds for improvement.  I don’t think it is pure luck that the plot did not succeed.  Because the terrorist watch list, the terrorist organizations had to recruit people that can pass check points of the security system, so the skills and abilities of the terrorists that can carry out the plots may not be as high as before, and the amounts of explosives that they can carry without being detected are limited, which require higher skills and generate less success rates, thus the failure of execution in Christmas Day could be the direct results of the preventive measures.  In addition, as passengers nearby quickly spot the terrorist, it proves that increasing public awareness also is paid off.

            The media reactions seemed to prompt Obama Administrations to implement many measures, some of them I think could be a little over kill.  Some say that the Obama administrations began to look more and more like Bush administrations.  I think here the saying that you get what you asked for might apply.  Politicians are elected to present the people, so they cannot be insensitive to the demands of the people.  As the demands of the people are often measured by media reactions,  it is no surprise when media overacted, the government might also overreacted.

            For example, is it necessary to subject anyone from certain countries to intense scanning and checking?  We got to remember, if everyone is on the list, then pretty much no one is on the list.  It is not just fairness to the people from these countries, but also the effectiveness and efficiency of the measure.  Having to check more people more closely, either there had to be more people and (equipments) to do the job, or people on the job will have to do more.  Mostly likely both will happen, so cost will be increased, and quality might be decreased. 

            There seems to be an easy alternative.  The Christmas Day Bombing suspect is on some type of list (or database), and for some reason being on this list (or database) did not provide for him to be checked so that the explosive could be found.   How about just subject people on the list (or database) to detailed security check (sniff dogs, packed down, body scanner, anything or everything possible that can help to detect anything possible), but not the general public or people from certain countries? 

            It seemed that the government (mostly CIA) even had information on most of the September Eleven Attackers, so the information gathering tasks are at least somewhat successful in most part.  For the purpose of preventing terrorists to carrying on explosives or other dangers weapons to airplanes or other public places, the focus should be how to use the information gathered, and for this purpose, they can and should choose to error on safer side.  Basically speaking, government can announce that anyone can be subject to extensive security checking, but focusing on only people that there are bases for this type of extensive checking.  For people that wrongfully end up on the lists, they should be given the right to submit evidence to clear their names.

            In a democratic society, the media does not and should not hail on every move of the President and the government.  But media scrutiny should first begin with the scrutiny of itself.  The internet helped to deliver information faster and faster, so people, especially people in the media tend to quickly make judgment, thus mostly rely on instinct, not reasons based on analysis of the information.

            There is a reason for instinct often to be called animal instinct.  It often based on physical reaction to external stimulus.  As far as the process goes, logic and reasoning often are not part of it.  In short, it is reaction without rational thinking.  In many personal events, people are more in touch with the environment, and reactions required are closely related to particular instances, instincts are often very useful. 

            However, social events are different.  Societies are built on concepts and reasons.  Social structures basically are human made structures that are viewed as useful for intended purposes.  Government certainly is an important social structure, so is the media.  The usefulness of the government and media is based on its action and reaction in the society so that to achieve most preferable results.  This means that neither government, nor media should rely on instinct, but should collect facts from various sources and analyze the facts in order to draw conclusions that can lead to actions. 

            In the democratic society, media is often viewed as the reflection of the society.  But in actuality, media often lead the society.  There is a reason for the media to be called media elite.   This requires people in the media to take this responsibility seriously and apply thinking and reasoning in their job more.  

            In the discussions regarding policies responding to the economic crisis and the health care debate, people often talked about the danger of government take over of the businesses.  But here I like to talk about the danger of some corporations and special business interests take over the government.

            If you are paying attention, you would agree this danger is actually real.   In a democratic society, the government should be representing the people.  Although there are imperfections in the system (that I will talk about in the following portion of this post), the system is set up that generally speaking, if the government is taking over the businesses, no particular person will be benefited from it. 

            So, if government take-over actually happened, it would most likely be based on the belief that it will benefit the public, not to benefit particular group of people.  In the currently situation, the argument about government take over actually is lack of factual support.  Government on behave of tax payers rescued banks, financial institutions, insurance companies and auto industry at risk, while not necessarily share the benefit if these entities becomes profitable.  Actually, there are signs that many are making huge profit but tax payers would not be benefited.  So, in actuality, it is not government take over, but government hand out or government care taking.

            About health care reform, the representatives for private insurance companies acted as if that there is a fundamental rights for them to operate as is that have to be protected by the government.  I will write more about the rights of corporations below in this post, here I like to say that health issue is first and foremost a public issue.  For instance, the swine flu vaccine are administrated by the government, and government are currently responsible for the health and safety related issues in general.  So, the government as the representative of the people has the right to be involved more into the health care related businesses if it will benefit the public. 

            The danger of special business interests take over the government is real because there could be certain people that will benefit personally by influencing the policies of the government.  With this incentive, it would more likely that some people will try to stire the policies in the ways that will benefit them even if it will harm the interests of the general public.  If fact, it is possible that certain people will ignore the tremendous harms to the public in order to obtain relatively modest benefits for themselves.  Needless to say that there is no justification for them to do so. 

            However, there is no effective way to prevent them from doing so in the current political system.  In my view, as a general policy, special business interests have been elevated above the interests of the general public.  So, the danger of corporation take over the government is not a potential threat, but is a danger that already produced harmful results (take the entire episode of health care reform legislation, the influences of various corporations and industries are not so invisible). 

            I like to say here that as a business owner myself, I am not against business interests.  But I believe that as a business owner, the basic principle is that the business should benefit the public, otherwise, there is no reason for the business to exist in the first place.  In other word, if the business benefits the public, then it is in the interest of the public to protect the business, so there is no real conflict between the public and the businesses. 

            The conflict only exists when the business owners forget about this fundamental principle and focus on the short term gain.  In the market economy, the earning from the business is general the reward from the public for the useful contribution to the society, so doing good to the public is not just a moral issue, it is a prerequisite for the actual survival of the businesses. In the long run, business cannot survive if they are harming the public interests, sooner or later, either there are new market mechanisms to correct the mistakes, or the public will be feed up and change the policies that generated the unjust results.    

            Most large corporations are publicly traded companies.  As I stated in my earlier post, there is a disconnection between representation and ownership similar to the disconnection between government and the general public.  As publicly trade companies are still considered as private companies, there are even less transparencies in these companies than the government.  So that there is a danger that some people will focus their own interests first that they will do something to harm the public and the companies solely for their personal gains.  We saw many examples of this kind recently.  This is basically the reason that leads to the financial crisis.

             Focusing on protecting short term business interests is not just lack of vision, it is basically in violation of basic principle of the business.  As people emphasis on the survival of the fittest, it is those that are paying attentions for the needs of the society and working to fill those needs that will be successful.  Trying to use undue influence (as I will write in the following paragraphs, most of influences on the political system by business are undue) on political machine will often lead people to forget about the principle, and will lead to deterioration of the health of the business and possibly lead to downfall of the business.

            The influences of businesses on politics and most of the related activities under the current political system are based on the right to petition of first amendment of the constitution.  But I believe this interpretation of the first amendment rights is wrong first because there is a clear distinction between business entity and nature entity (i.e., human).

            Fundamentally, business entities are fictional entities as they are defined by their activities.  A nature person is defined by physical existence.  Rights for the natural person are based the person’s rights of survival and condition of the survival.  A business exists for one basic purpose, to make money for people involved in the business.   But it is obvious that not all activities that can make money are allowed by the society (for example, the assassin for hire business would never be a legitimate business in any society), so there is no fundamental rights for such business to exist, let alone enjoy the protection of first amendment rights.

            For example, can an assassin for hire businesses insists that they have a right to exist and use their money and influences on politics to change laws to legalize killing and even go further to make laws for it be easier for people to hire them?  It may seem as far fetching, but in real life scenarios, there are things happening that we may well make this analogy. 

            There are many attempts to reduce the influence or effects of the lobbyists.  But I think the target is mislead and not to the core.  Yes, gifts or sponsored events will make the job of lobbying easier, but access alone make the lobbying act an unfair act above the public. 

            It is obvious an average private citizen would not have the chance to talk to congressman or senator in person and in private about their concerns, so why the lobbyist are allowed to do so? 

            In Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation process, there are questions about whether judges are allowed to make law.  I think judges are making law at least collectively as common law system is the supplemental system to the legislative laws.  But no doubt legislators are making sweeping policy decisions that often have more significant effects on the society. 

            I think most people know that judges are not suppose to have ex-party contacts in the cases that they preside on, so why legislators making sweeping policy decisions are allowed to have behind the scene, close door meetings with special interests?

              Even if we assume that corporations enjoy the same type of constitutional rights as natural person, the right to petition does not necessarily protect the right to lobby.  Would any and every citizen be given the right to have face time with the legislation member?  Then why are corporations given this privilege?

            I am not suggesting that businesses do not have legitimate concerns regarding legislative policy, and I am not suggesting that businesses cannot have their opinions heard.  They can provide their inputs regarding legislations in writing (that will be part of the public record that anyone can see), and can talk to legislative members in public gathering, just like the average citizen. 

            You make think this will make the legislators’ offices more like judges’ chambers.  But isn’t it what they should be?  Do you prefer their offices be more like private clubs, or market places?           

            During his campaign, President Obama promised to change Washington.  In order to do that, he needs to make fundamental changes that can fix the broken system, the kind that I wrote in this post.  I believe it is the time for him to lead the legislative body to do so.

           More than anything, music can lift the spirit.  So, in the holiday season, music is everywhere.  Growing up in China, I was not fond of holidays, as I can’t grasp the concept that one particular day can be set out to be different from the others.  But I did sense that Christmas could make me feel different because of the lighting, the tree, and most importantly the music.

            Christmas in the core, is a religious holiday, it is the celebration of miraculous birth of the son of God.  Although I am in doubt of the possibility and probability of these supernatural claims, music is magical. 

            I was once a member of a southern Baptist Church in Miami.  Reading Bibles and listening to Sermons could give me some insight, but in the end I often struggle with questions that could not find answers.  However, music is definitely a draw for me, especially after I found out that I can sing after all.

            My appreciation for music came a little earlier.  For me the first occasion that led me to really pay attention to music is when I was a teenager in China and heard the symphony of “The  Planets” was played in the radio.  At that time, China had just opened up to world, and I was fascinated by Science fictions and the Cosmos mystery.  Listening to the sound of “The Planets” intensified the mystery of the universe through the waking of my imagination and illustrated the power of music

            Such is the quality of music.  Some simple combinations of sounds that lack shape, color, smell and touch are often the perfect means for inducing a fantasy world in our mind. 

            Music as a form of art seems to be the most free of material or worldly reference, thus less restrain by it.  Thus music is more connected with spiritual reference.  As music is lack of direct relation to particular outer existence, the world that it created is often seemed unobtainable although accessible.

            When we listen to speeches, we identify symbols in the speeches.  But when we listen to music, the effect on us is mostly emotional.  The sound effects on our minds are mostly based on the physical attributes of the sounds.  The comfort or satisfactory emotions are based on physical comfort as well.

            For lack of direct association with worldly existence, and for the impacts on emotions, music is often associated with certain events and emotions experienced during the events.  Although mental snapshot can be linked to memories about certain events,  the memories about themselves also need to be invoked.  As for as convenience and distinctability, music serves as a good reminder of the precious moments in our lives.

            Existence without space is void, existence without time is dead.  Music basically avoided space reference and operates solely in the realm of time.  While existence cannot be without space, space references are often perceived as limitations.  So, people often long for a regime where life existed in the void.  This is the reason why music often plays essential parts in religion.

            Purely instrumental music and song are different.    Words as the tools of communication often make reference to the world, thus the contextual existence related to words are often identified by words.  When people talking about music, some often ask what it actually means, and critics or commentators often relate certain melody to more concrete meanings. 

            But I believe part of the beauty of music is that there could be no fixed links between music and our experiences.  It is a realm of imagination with the least restrain.  In music, one can truly feel free and let the emotion of joy overflow.  As far as recuperation and recreation, there is nothing better that good music to the ear.

            For me, for this purpose, there is nothing better than some classical music pieces that I like.  Following the rhythm and melody, following all the twists and turns of the music, one seems to be experience a highly skilled mental exercise, without sweat, but with high degree of perfection. 

            As the music flow, the sound flow from the void and present us one of the best combination of world that can offer, we feel that we are close to the divine (the imagination about the divine, simply put is the best of best, or the most possible that there is, so music often bring us to the world of divine in the most possible way). 

            I highly suspect that the divine we defined and identified are man made because we can hardly be satisfied with the pure existence of it without making connections to ourselves.  This brings me to the songs of music.  If music can fly high to heaven, the words in the songs tied it to us. 

            In songs, words usually tell the stories (the worldly reference).   But the impacts on the listeners usually are first established by the emotional connections or the conveyance of emotions, the stories are then accepted through these connections, which is the process of religious believes.   

            Songs heard in solitary can be different from in group settings.  In solitary, songs make people to be in touch of their feelings as if in reflection.  In public setting, the presences of others usually create the environment that the actions or reactions invoked by the songs are amplified and synchronized.  There are similarities of these experiences with religious experiences as well.

            The mechanism of music indicates its close relationship to mathematics.  If we think of it, music is based on quantity and quantity alone.  Although it can ignite our visions and emotions, by itself, it is in the purest form in entire worldly phenomenon, because it is the production of motions. 

            Human minds are prone to simplicity, and we will find comfort when we can transform complicity into simplicity.  In essence, religion is mostly the effort to find simplicity in the complicated world.  Therefore, it would not be of any surprise that humans are drawn to music, and it is natural that music is closely related to religion.

            Music as artistic work is the result of imaginations of the creators.    Through effective communication, these imaginations collectively can help to build an imaginary realm that people can visit time and then.  Any thoughts that lack of worldly references are basically imaginations and speculations (imaginations basically are the creation of fictional entities, and speculations are the unverified connections between existing entities).  So, from logical secular view, religion is also in the realm of imagination and speculation along with many other culture creations.

            Effective communication can change the dynamic of human connection, but the views or actions of humans are most determined by internal needs.  For example, technologies provide means for people to have access to music at any time (internet and ipod, etc.), but when and how to listen to music is ultimately decided by humans.

            I like music, but most of time I like enjoy the silence and think.  Thinking is an activity that is degraded to an alarming condition in modern days.  In the internet age, there are many ways to speak out, but most of the time, people are speaking in gibberish because they don’t actually have anything unique to say. 

            Thinking is the most effective way a person can make a difference.  In the information age, there is little difficulty to gain access to information.  But how to make use of information, and present unique view of the world makes distinction from one person to another. 

            The market economy seems to have significant influence on human psychic.  As market economy relies on quantification, the modern culture seems to embrace quantification to extreme.  Things are quickly evaluated and categorized so that they can join the general flow of quantification.  But quickly evaluation and categorization inevitable have their limitations and often are misleading, thus lead to many problems generated by misconceptions.

            On the other hands, minds being stripped away from the most energizing and fulfilling activities, boredoms and loneliness set in, and music often become the thread that people hanging on to feel alive.

            But music that is lack of contents and worldly reference can only be supplemental and as means not an end by itself.  However, as an art form, it is also an indication of the sentiment of the time.   The popular music is elevated to the insurmountable height also is a reflection of the “superman” symptoms of our time (please refer to my earlier post and later post for detail on this subject).  Classical music emphasis structure, the formality is also the indication of an ideal.  In essence, creating the God is to build a common consent for universal truth.  However, as universal truth is not possible (please refer to my other posts regarding this subject), religion set out to arbitrarily assert certain truth and ignore any contradictions. 

            In modern days, the desires for freedom from this suppression have built different sentiment that lead to “superman” symptom, which is essentially asserting individual truth.  But a society lack of common consensus will inevitably have conflicts, people often are hurt by confrontation thus withdraw more and more to their own islands, loneliness set in deep.   Reflecting on music is that raw emotions that often resemble wounded animals are common theme, so is exhilaration without cause thus without staying power.

            What we ought to remember is that the modern sentiment is also the result of human desire for simplicity.  While simplicity in ideal is a shining destination, in reality it cannot be the obtainable goal in extreme.  While we can indulge in music to rejuvenate, divine as a concept does not actually belong in this world.  What we should treasure and hold on to is our sense and sensibility.  Although life is short, and full of imperfection, the lack of simplicity is what makes it unique and full of possibilities.  We can actually take clue from music, as even with mathematically simplicity, music indicates unlimited possibilities and potentials.  In the end, it is the gift of unknown that is the gift that keeps on giving.   

             Many people used this sentence figuratively, but here I am using this sentence literarily.  The population growth and development of technology made us feel that the world becomes smaller and smaller, but the impact of population growth and technology development tells us that the earth is a small place.

            In the wake of Copenhagen climate conference, there was a scandal of data tapering by scientists, and there have been constant arguments against the danger of global warming.  But while it might not be so obvious by looking at the temperature changes in global scales (as temperature fluctuates often), the disappearance of glaciers and ice bergs clearly indicated that the climate change of the earth is warming up.

            Some people had argued that the warming trend started from the end of Ice Age and human activities might not be the cause of the warming.  While it is possible that human activities might not be the only factor for global warming, it is difficult to argue that it is not an important contributing factor, and that we should not do everything that we can to stop the trend.

            Further more, global warming is just one aspect of environmental impacts that human activities generated.  To start with, pollutions of fossil fuels especially from coals had been a serious issue for many years, and there are indications that high concentrations of carbon dioxides in the atmosphere had increase the acid level of the oceans which will harm the growth of marine life.  In addition, the process of extract fossil fuels from the earth and ocean often will result in pollutions and disturbance of the eco system in the environment. 

            In the same manner, mining for metals and other industrial materials also polluted environment and have negative impact on the eco system.  The need for lumbers accelerated deforestation, and demands on agriculture and fishing industry also impacted eco systems in the environment. 

At the same time, industrial and consumer wastes also exploded, and disposal of wastes become more significant as they are piled up and left more impact than before.  These are all signs that as the populations grow and as technology developed, the impact on the environment is felt more and more.  Finding solution for these would require social changes as well as technology development, but the right path will also have profound impact beyond environment.

  Population growth during the last century had been significant, and the impact of it has started to be more apparent (especially in many developing countries where growing trend continue), and we should start to pay attention to this problem before it becomes too late.  For example, in China, in order to control the drastic population growth (as the results of Chairman Mao’s blind ambition to grow population), the government has adopted strict measures to reduce population growth that infringed on human rights.  

As a long term approach, more education and independence of women will be able to reduce the drastic population growth, and improve the quality of life in the developing countries.  As women get educated and work out side of homes, they will delay their ages for giving birth and will have less children.  As they are more educated and financially well off, they will provide better education and support for their children, thus the over all results will be reduced population growth, and with better quality of life.

Fossil fuel focused energy policy not only jeopardized environment, it also becomes the source for instability, suppression and corruption.  Politics always is closely linked to economy.  One of the important reasons that industrial countries can maintain peaceful coexistence is because that the source of wealth is not directly related to territorial control.  However, in the case of oil reserve or mines for natural industrial materials, territorial control will provide the source of the wealth, so it is not co-incident that many oil rich or mineral resource rich countries are either controlled by repressive regime or experiencing multiple wars.   Thus, change in energy policy not only could solve global warming problem, it will help to change global political environment and maintain world peace as well.

In the time of global recession, the environmental concerns had been off set by economic concerns.  But are the concerns for environment in conflict with economic concerns?

At shorter term, there are times that there are choices to be made between environmental concerns and economic concerns, but the economic concerned had often been exaggerated.  For example, reducing carbon dioxide emission had been a testy subject in Copenhagen meeting.  But low carbon dioxide emission has mostly been related to higher fuel efficiency, which means economic benefit as well.  Even in the case of using renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal energy etc., the initial investment can be justified by long term savings.

In a long term perspective, it is a matter of necessity.  No matter what people say about the oil reserve on earth, it is obvious that there will be an end of oil supply sooner or later, and no one would like to find replacement when the time come.  It is the same with other natural resources.  Therefore, renewable energy and more development in material science to replace nature materials with human generated materials are necessary for the future.

On the other hand, social behaviors and economic models also need to be modified in view of the environmental impact.  The movie Wall-E had painted a very dark picture for the future on earth.  But it does not have to be that way.  Mass consumption provided by mass production does not necessarily best serve the consumers.  For example, in United States, fast food based on quantity had generated significant percentages of population that are obese, which contributed to higher health care cost, and reduced quality of life.  At the same time, demand on quantity naturally put more pressure on agriculture and food processing and manufactures, which lead to more environmental impacts.

As I will write more in detail in my later posts, modernization does not necessarily means mass production.  Mass production is directly related to machine’s lack of ability to make judgment thus unable to adjust according to different circumstances.  The new age of development is intended to solve this problem so that diversity and human factors will become dominating concerns again. 

In fact, some of the problems is generated sole because the misconception about technology.  For example, in many of the existing buildings (especially in business or office buildings), the architectural concept is man-made space basically isolated from the nature, and as far more remote with outer environment as possible.  The designs of most of buildings seemed to intentional avoid to be in direct contact with the outside, so that no natural lights and natural ventilations are considered as resources which results in human discomfort as well as waste of energy.

 As for principles of energy consumption, I believe more focus should be on renewable energy, not just clean energy.  To say it is a small world is to treat the earth as a system with boundary, not as a vast void that the impact cannot be detected.  For this reason, renewable energy would be a better choice. 

For example, nuclear energy is similar to fossil fuels in one important aspect, because they both put additional heat to the heat balance of the earth.  Nuclear energy releases energy from nuclear materials, and fossil fuels release solar heat from ancient time deposited on earth. The addition heat added to the heat balancing system of the earth will contribute to temperature increase on earth, as usable energy generated by nuclear energy often is a small portion of the total energy released (low efficient of heat transfer seem to be inevitable), from the global scale this factor should not be ignored.

On the other hand, renewable energy such as solar, wind, geothermal energy, and bio-fuels channel the energy source already in the heat balance system of the earth to be usable energy, no additional energy source is added, so that it would not contribute to temperature increase of the earth.  They are not only renewable, they are less disturbance to the over all environment.

As human activities had made impacts on the global environment, intentional human activities can be used to change the environment in global scale.  For example, in my post “Stop Global Warming - Change the World”, I suggested to lead sea water to desert area in order to change the global environment, other similar suggestions should also be considered.

Technologies are tools that we can use for our benefit.  Although technology development can have negative impacts on the environment, if we are willing, we can use the technology tools and develop new tools to repair damages, and modify our activities to reduce and prevent the damages.   There are many new discoveries in various science and technology fields that presented us more questions than answers, which indicated that there are more opportunities to be explored.  For example, with the help of computer technology, more development in material science, biochemical science can be made to lead us to a new and improved world, and it is possible that there could be more fundamental breakthrough in physics as well.  This is not the time to sit back and do nothing.

            Whether it is economy, jobs, environment, or health care, technology and innovation often play very important roles.  So, it is very shocking that articles that question the legitimacy of patent law itself surfaced.

            The Tiger Woods episode is a good example of how money becomes a dominating force in our lives and in the media.  And, the health care reform also tells us how closely related are politics with business interests.  In stead of businesses exist for the benefits of the consumers and societies, the interests of consumers and societies are often sacrificed for the interests of the businesses. 

            It is true that patent system has its problems.  It often fails to protect innovations and inventors because significant resources are required to embark legal proceedings to protect patent rights.  But, without it, inventors would have not reliable ways to protect their rights.

            People can throw the word monopoly out trying to scare people about the harm of patents, but cannot offer real significant negative social effects of patents, because there is not such evidences.  In fact, there is clear evidence that patents help and maintain the technology development.  In the Bilski vs. Kappos, someone had try to expand the controversy from business method patent to put software patent as subject matter in question.  However, it is not coincident that as US provides the most protections for software related inventions, and US enjoys the insurmountable lead in this area. 

            It is true that patent law awards the inventors monopoly rights, but more restrictions on patent rights (or as some suggested to abolish patent law all together) will award those that steal the ideas from the inventors, and often prevent the implementations of inventions.  As the choice is really about who to award, do you really want to award those that only have their own interests in their minds, and will do anything to assure that, including harm your interests, or do you want to award those who can only help your interests.   In short, the choice is really about market monopoly or the monopoly awarded by patent law to protect the inventors and inventions. 

            The reason this assertion can be made is because that many important inventions are come from individuals and small businesses, especially in the software industry that is mostly idea driven (that significant amounts of experiments are required in order to conceive the ideas), and individuals or small business that do not have market monopoly can only use the inventions to provide benefit to the consumers and the society, otherwise no one is force to use or accept the products or services using the inventions.

            The reason that big companies with thousands of PhDs from top universities sometimes cannot compete with two people in the garage is because that creative process is not a linear process (please read about post “About Creativity” for more details).  In essence, the PhDs are not competing with particular two people in particular garage, they are competing with all peoples out there that could come up with various of ideas, and some of them could be very valuable to the society.  As a society, the way to foster inventions is to provide incentive to get more and more people interested, because it is the only way to increase innovations. 

            In addition, PhDs from a few top schools and working in a few companies can be affected with inbreeding problems.  As in business and academic the basic structure is still hieratic, some theories and ways of thinking will often gain dominating positions that will impair the abilities of many people in the “inner circle” to think outside of the box.

As creative process basically start with the act of exploring, any restrictions could be harmful.  Therefore, in order to increase innovations, independent inventors are very important forces.  

            The importance of patent law protection is not just for awarding inventors so that to encourage innovations.  Even though some ideas may not require large amount of investment to obtain, implementation of these ideas often need significant investments in order to have substantial impacts in the society.  Private investors heavily related on patent protections in making decisions about their investment.  Without patent protection, most inventions would not be able to find investment, thus will not be able to enter the market.

            Would large companies that have the resources to develop new products or services use new inventions as there is not patent rights to prevent them to do so, not likely so.  As developing new products or services require investments, there must be incentives for them to do so.   Large companies with market monopolies will have no incentives to incur heavy investments without viable competitions.  As I just stated, without patent protections, there would not be such competitions. 

            In fact, many companies with market monopoly positions have intentionally resisted inventions that will provide significant benefits for the public, but will hurt the companies’ bottom line (at least temporarily).  Without patent law, there will be less obstacles for them to do so.

            It is true that these companies sometimes have used patent law for this very purpose.  They will buy some patents and shell them up so that others cannot use them when they have no intention to use them.  To solve this problem, we can use anti-trust law, or make certain revisions on the patent law to prevent this problem. 

            There are suggestions that software patent should be given shorter lives, but no real reason was provided.  It is true that because of the speed of the development in the software field, some patents may lose their value when they are granted.  But this will only support a need to expedite the patent prosecution proceeding for these patents, not to shorten the lives of the patents.  If fact, large software system that will have significant impact on the society will require many years to be fully developed, and due to market monopoly of some existing companies, it might even take longer for new companies to be able to compete in the equal footing, so there is no justification to shorten the lives of software patents.  If the lives of the software patents are shortened, some large companies will most likely secure their monopoly power for a long time.  It is perhaps why someone will suggest to shorten the lives of the software patents without any justifications. 

            The most interesting thing is that many people that trying to restrict or diminish patent rights had been arguing about the importance of these rights in the past.  So they will arguing for the rights if it will benefit them and will turn against it if they think will  hurt them.  To them, truth and law seemed all become tools to serve them, do we have to stand for it?

            Some people trying to distinguish intellectual property rights with other property rights by trying to make an impression that intellectual property rights are somehow less nature thus less essential rights.  But we have to realize that all rights are essentially statuary as they are under the protection of certain social structure.  The American Indians lost their lands because the European Settlers did not recognize the society of American Indians and the society of American Indians was not able to help protect these rights. 

            It is a choice that the society needs to make to protect what rights. But the standard should be what will benefit the society, not what will benefit certain companies.  Big companies can use money to buy media and politicians, but do we have to be part of it, and stand for it?

            Because the lobbing of the financial industry, the laws that prevent the financial meltdown were significantly weakened and the financial melt down would certainly occur without the rescue from the taxpayers.  Do anyone actually want to try to destroy the legal system that sustain the innovation and technology development, thus to destroy the future of the country? 

            Most of the advocates for reducing patent protections (this become an orchestraed movement that assaults on all aspects of patent protection) are large corporations especially many software related companies that benefited from patent protections in previous years but now turn to bite the hands that feed them. 

            These companies intended to rely on their monopoly market power to maintain their dominating positions, and become the enemy of innovations.  The rational they provided is to protect business interests.  Because the innovators that can be directly harmed are lack of voices, and some of them have not even surface yet (with less patent protections, many of them would not even become innovators), the advocates received little resistances, which helped the rapid changes in patent laws that in many aspects are hostile to inventors (it is interesting that although intellectual property rights include patent, copyright and trademark, the only area that received this attack is patent law, as copyrights and trademark still help these interest groups, and present little danger to them).

            But there will be victims and consequences.  Many people would not even consider become innovators because of the hostile patent police, but the innovators are not the only concern here.  It is the fact that less and less people will try on innovation that is the harmful effects.  If there is less innovators, there will be less innovations, the society will surfer.

            In the globe economy, the most likely consequence of this trend is the future of the industries will be jeopardized while a few large companies trying to protect their business interests.  Lack of patent protections certainly will significantly reduce or eliminate new domestic companies with new technologies to emerge, so that companies that currently in dominating positions could enjoy their dominating positions for years to come.

            But the futures of these companies are not necessarily secured.  The danger for these companies could come from overseas.  Many governments incurred heavy investments to support certain companies in certain sectors.  As the lack of innovation in United States is maintained for a certain period of time, it will become easier to introduce new products or services to gain customers (because lack of innovations).  As foreign companies backed by governments could have the economic power equivalent or even stronger than big companies in US, they could come real threat to these companies.

            The results will be devastating.  Not only United States will lose ground in technology development, many jobs will be lost as well.  It is true that competition based on innovations that protected by patent law could results in some of the big companies to reduce their businesses and results in job loss, but people that loss their job could often found new jobs in the emerging companies.

            Without patent protections, it will be almost certain that real threat to the big companies will come from overseas.  Thus, if (actually, it is only the matter of when, as lack of the spirit of innovation will poison the companies, they will be less and less innovations) the big companies failed in competitions, the results will be significant job loss domestically.  As globalization intensified, the effects could be very soon.

            The claps of auto industry provide illustrations about the likely consequences.  It is pretty much the same scenarios that cause the problems in the auto industry.  Tax payers have to intervene in order to save the economy.  But many jobs have already been lost, and it will take many years and many efforts to reverse the trend (if ever).  We got to take this lesson into our hearts, as mistake in policies will cause long lasting effects that could danger the future of this country.

            Ever since the media storm begins with Tiger Wood’s car crash, a question lingered in the media: “What will happen to Tiger Wood’s empire based on endorsement deals?”  Here, I am not going to speculate on this particular question, but will say something about sports and endorsements in general.

            People in sports had often look back to day when playing sports means playing sports, that has changed not too long ago, and accelerated in recent years.  Many athletes certainly benefited financially from this trends, but the results are not all positive, and more importantly the underlining rational is questionable.

            It is undeniable that top athletes need more than talent to succeed.  Dedication, hard work, persistence, discipline and intelligent are all required to be successful.  Therefore, top athletes could be and should be role models for the public, especially younger generations.

            But there is a difference between being a role model and being worshiped as superman.  Nowadays, the line between the two has been very blurry. 

            On issues related to corporate sponsorship and endorsement deals, the rational is more puzzling.  In advertising, models are often used to attract people’s attentions to certain products or services, and user testimonies are often used to indicate the values of the products or services.  But when a famous person posts for photos or videos for certain products or services, or speaks on behaves of certain companies or brands, or carry the logos related to the companies or brands, what is the actual indication? 

            The effect could be the combination of the two.  Famous people attract attentions, people often want to know more about them, so being associated with famous people will attract attentions, and gets the message out.  At the same time, it will be perceive that the endorsements provide certain personal testimonies and recommendations about the products or services, or the companies or brands, even though people are full aware of the facts that famous people are getting paid to do so.

            It seems that for this mechanism to actually work well, the famous people ought to be admired to the degree of worship.  In almost all cases, they are not experts on the products, services, companies or brands, and if as an ordinary users as examples the persuasive value would not carry much weight.  Either in the case of attracting attention, or the case of endorsement based on personal experience, it would not justify the high endorsement payment.  Thus, it is obvious that in order for the endorsement arrangement to work, there ought to be significant degree of hero warship, that the consumers would value things that associate with their heroes differently, in some extreme cases, they will evaluate something solely based on the associations. 

            Traditionally in history, hero worship usually is similar to other kinds of worship, which is based on the believes that certain people possessed certain abilities that would help to changes people’s lives for the better, or at least will save them from danger, or crisis. 

            In the modern days, the hero worship is often based on more topical values.  The heroes do not need to have magical powers; they only need to someone that others would like to be (which is related to the psycho of modern days, the worship of superman, i.e., the worship of the self).  In many cases, successful athletes have often been chosen at heroes, as they are believed to have superb physical abilities, thus people might make the psychological connections between their abilities to the possession of magic powers (as in the old days). 

            Magic powers often are believed as God-sent, so virtue is also necessarily related to heroes.  One the other hand, society would certainly not tolerate the promotion of something less in virtues, so characters and behaviors of them also need to be impeccable.

            But all of them are humans, famous people in all fields are famous for their professional achievement, not for their good characters and behaviors, and there is no reason to believe that they will have good characters and behaviors (if we don’t believe they chosen by God) more than anyone else.  In fact, because they are famous, and most likely will have more access to money and power, there will have more opportunities and temptations for them to do behave badly.

            If it is dangerous to abandon reason to strictly follow certain doctrines, it is just as dangerous (if not more) to worship certain human beings, even if the human being is a true hero.  Not only because every one including heroes are not perfect, it is also because that the worship alone will almost certainly corrupt the hero, pursues of perfections will soon become corruption, thus will often have devastating effects on the society (If the heroes are given unrestricted power, corruption will be accompanied by suppression.)

            In addition, as perfection is impossible for real human beings, and the perceived perfections will lead to hero worship, there will be many cases of manufactured perfections, which by themselves are the cases of corruptions.

            In the case of Tiger Woods, it appears that there is such possibility.  Tiger Woods had become a phenomenon that reached far beyond golf, he had built an empire.  But the income of his empire was mostly from endorsement, and as the endorsement goes, he is fully aware that just playing good golf, even superb golf would not do.  As far as endorsement goes, image and reputation is the key. 

            Based on what I heard from the media, if most of the allegations had some truth in them, then the Tiger Woods in the public eyes has little to do with the actual person.  We were told that he is a family man, while from the allegations, his secret life style resembled the mile high playboys.  It does not like that it is just a moment of indiscretion, it seems that it is what he truly is. 

            From what I heard so far, he probably did not break any law, but the standard of hero could not and would not be just not breaking the law.  And, if he deliberately presented himself as close to perfection, he might commit fraud to the public (as he was getting paid mostly for being near perfect).  Thinking about parents who use him as role models for their children, what the message the children will get from this episode? 

            Although at the society level we do not judge people solely based on one particular flaw alone, our social interactions are based on our impressions and evaluations of other people.  We as public cannot tell Tiger Woods or any other individuals what to do or not to do (providing they are not breaking the law), but if he chooses the life style of a playboy, then people will treat him accordingly.  Deception provides the most harms or dangers of the society. If his wife entered into their marriage based on the belief that he is person that the public knew, then he obviously had ruined the life of his wife.  More importantly, having him lingering even as role model would send the wrong message in the society.   

            What happened surrounding this event lead us to seriously question the practice of endorsement.  As the endorsement is closely related to hero worship, the results will be the corruptions of the individuals who are elevated to be worshiped, and the corruptions of the followers of the “heroes” following his examples.

            In the case of Tiger Woods, apparently corruptions had occurred.  In the entire episode, money seems to be the factor and only factor at work.  We the public (at least a part of the public) are paying him to do good, but the money first fueled his lifestyle of objectifying women, and then helped him to cover up the trace of his lifestyle and dress up his image again (provided that most of the stories are true).  Not only we are being duped, the acts of cover up in front of our eyes are truly chilling.  As truth becomes a commodity to trade, the corruption reached a pivotal point. 

            At this point the focus should not be on Tiger Woods, if he continue to act following the same principle, could we relied on what he says or does not say any more?  In addition, as to the society, the damage is already done, what we should really think about is how to prevent this type of things from happening again.

            Not only the practice of endorsement lacks rational supports, in practices, it experienced constant failures.  Just about all the hailed heroes had fallen (in most cases we don’t even know the true story), it clearly indicated that the problem does not rest on particular individuals, the problem points to practice of endorsement itself.

            Although we cannot rely on the perfection of individuals, and we cannot even rely on the substantive truths of most doctrines, there is something that is truly reliable by definition, that is the real life result.  In stead of throwing money at someone who do not need it, but only could corrupt them, corporation sponsors should focus more on the social causes.   

            In fact, the endorsement deals for athletes certainly is related to sponsorship for sports, and the intention of which is to support sports, and by doing social good to generate good wills for the businesses in the community.  Currently, in the practice of endorsement and sponsorship, not all sports are created equal, and there is a large gap between female athletes and male athletes in most cases.  The concentration of distribution is very significant in sports. 

            Businesses providing the endorsement deals should rethink their strategy.  For example, how about sponsor more athletic programs in schools, especially for women sports?  With the amount of money many companies spent on top athletes, they can support many programs national wide, or even world wide.  This will certainly increase the spread of their reach, and generating long lasting effects.

            There are wide spread problems with young girls struggling with self images and self identity, athletic programs will help them to be healthier, stronger and with more self confidences.  From business point of view, for the sports related business, girls’s early exposure to certain sports and certain brands will help the companies to expand and retain costumer bases.  It will certainly be a win-win situation.   

We heard all the talk about what is going to happen to Tiger Woods, what his wife is going to do, but did anyone think about what this will do to the society, especially young people that worship him?  Would not they feel that it is ok to cheat, not just on their spouses, and also to cheat on truth?   Not only winning at all cost, but also getting money at all cost? 

 

            It is human nature that people are drawn to beauty. In fact, the humanists that led the movement had hailed “Truth, Goodness, and Beauty” as foundation of humanism. 

            But just as pursuing truth and goodness often leads to problematic results due to the tendency of absoluteness, so is the pursuing of beauty.   Particularly, people often view beauty too narrowly and too broad at the same time.

            When we think of beauty, first and foremost, we think of something visual.  But visual beauty is the expression of something beyond visual.  There are constant attempt to find formula to define beauty, from the golden rule, to the S shape, and to most recently computer programs to calculate attractiveness of human face.  But following the rules do not necessarily produce beauty, and things could be beautiful even significantly deviate from the rules.

            When people are talking about beauty, natural beauty often is highly valued.  Mostly it is because that it does not necessary follow the rules, yet manages to be beautiful in its own right, so it often teach us more about beauty.  The unpredictable nature of beauty certainly is one of the joys of life, without it, life will be too predictable thus the sense of adventure will often be lost. 

            Although beauty cannot be tightly bound by the rules, beauty is not entirely instinctive.  It is true that different people will view things differently, people will often repeating the famous phrase “beauty is in the eyes of beholders”, but the sense of beauty can be learned, often can be influenced, and changes from time to time.

             Not only people like to see beauty, they also want to be beautiful.  If being beautiful has its advantage before, it has more advantage now.  But as no rules can be relied on to pursue beauty, and there is disagreement as what is beauty, pursuing beauty is often on a bumpy road. 

            There is a term that is loosely related to beauty which further confuses the understanding about beauty, which is sexy.   But analyzing it might shine some light on the meaning of beauty.  While the word beauty in general are not intended to be related to specific purpose, sexy clearly is related to specific purpose, it is the appeal and attractiveness of the person to the others related to sexual activities. 

            For a person, being beautiful is more related to social effects, while being sexy is more related to personal effects.  But as the society of people more focus on sexual activities, being sexy often takes the place of being beautiful.    

            In fact, as the word sexy become more and more mainstream, the difference between beautiful and sexy becomes smaller and smaller.  In short, being sexy is not just being sexual, it seems to relate more to the overall personality of the person.

            Beauty first and foremost is a visual thing, so a person’s physical attributes certainly carry important weight in deciding what is beautiful.  But beauty is the overall impression of something in the view of a person, so it is not as static as one might think, actions and interactions do count, so personalities do come into play. 

            To be honest rare beauty is just that, rare.  But most of us with some help and adjustment could be acceptably presentable.  So the talk about beauty is not pure academic discussion.  We would want to know what to do.

            Just like great art is not purely in the form of craftsmanship, great beauty is not purely in the form of visual appeals.  It ought to be embodiment of certain ideal, and at least an overall presentation.   Just like an artist who works on a painting, when we try to put something together (makeup, clothing etc.), there ought to be a purpose or overall effect that we intend to achieve.  When we comment on it, taste or style is often mentioned.  The new golden rule seems to be: “less is more”.

            Personally, I am a fan of minimalism but I believe the rule of “less is more” can be applied more broadly, meaning not trying too hard.  I think by now most of the people that paying attention about fashion know about not to be too over the top on using makeup, clothing etc.  But many in the attempt of trying to be perfect falling into the trap of lack of originality and breath of life, thus although the results of their attempt might look good in a gleam, but not beautiful in the end.

            The word “fashion” is the result of commercial influences.  But for me, putting personal distinctive features and interests aside and remaking themselves under the same ideas is a very disturbing idea.  Perhaps having a trendy bag or something like it is more of status symbol than pure attempt on beauty (similar to the indigent people putting on decorative articles). 

            Although beauty and attraction are mostly instinctive, social conscious does and will influence our sense of beauty.  The worrying trend of social influence now is the obsessions with youth and being thin, and the obsessions about beauty. 

            This a  theory surfaced in recent years that linked men’s sexual behaviors with animal instincts related to nature selection, stating that men want to be with as much sexual partners as possible so that to spread the seeds.  But the same animal instinct theory would contradict the trend of obsession with beauty, and with youth and being thin. 

            People had been saying that beautiful people may have biologically superior genes, thus sexual attractions to beautiful people will likely to lead to better off-springs.   But the theory is lack of factual support.  There are plenty of cases where beautiful couples will have plain children, and plain couples might have beautiful children.  Does this means that their genes are all of sudden degraded or upgraded? 

            We cannot deny that while young women might be more fertile, they are also the least experienced, so that they might not be able to provide better care for the children (several studies on mammal animals seem to suggest that their selections of mating are not based on ages).  And, being too thin might actually hurt the health of their further offspring.   All these indicated that the social trends are not necessarily evolutionary behaviors that carries internal justifications, in my opinions, many of the trends are the results of chances and narrow minded obsessions.

            There will be negative social impacts of emphasizing beauty, youth and being thin.  While everyone wants to look good, it still is an absolute insult to say that a woman is plain, or just not beautiful.  We can hear many comments about women not being beautiful, the underlining meaning seems to suggest that they would be considered worthless or useless.  It clearly indicated that in the society, women are constantly being objectified.  It is not only harmful, it does not actually reflect the truth.    

            There are many attempts to educate young girls not to be over obsessed with physical beauty.  While the attempt is noble, in my opinion the emphasis is still misplaced.  There are many talks about inner beauty or true beauty.  But this kind of talk is confusing, thus are still misleading.

              First, beauty has visual elements.  Although a person (or in this case a girl) could have all the good natures and personalities in her, she could still not be beautiful.  Ignoring this fact will only make the argument non-persuasive. 

            I think the right approach is not to call good nature, good personality and good behavior, superb abilities etc. as inner beauty, true beauty or anything related to beauty.  We ought to realize that there are more important things in life than beauty (remember, that truth and goodness are placed prior to beauty in humanism movement, and the beauty is not just referring to physical beauty). 

            Throughout history and especially in modern day, there are plenty of example of women enjoy fulfillment in life, happiness and success without being beautiful.  In fact, there are many beautiful women who had tragic lives.  Beauty often becomes commodity so that the human factor is often ignored. 

            The emphasis on beauty is often related to fantasy.  When in fantasy, everything ought to be perfect, thus first the outside will be beautiful.  But when people transferring fantasy to reality, many would end up focusing on the outside alone, and assume that rest of the good things would also be true. 

            If people are not misled by this assumption, they will focus more on other features of the person that they will have contact on.  Paying more attention on their personalities and behaviors would help people to choose the right people to be associated with, and improve the quality of life for them. 

            If most people can focus more on the substance, personality and behavior, it will provide more incentive for people to focus on their own development, personality and behavior.  This will provide a healthy mechanism for social and personal happiness.   

            It is true that most people cannot be called beautiful, but most of us don’t need to be beautiful to feel fulfilled, happy, and successful.  It is important for women, especially young girl to know it.   

• Main
• Archives
• Albums
• Links
• Admin

• Science Fiction Films
• The Pop Culture
• Change
• Review by Oscar Nominated Films
• About Romance
• State of the Nation
• About China
• Precious
• Media Misstep
• What about Corporate Take Over?

• General [14]
• Introduction [1]
• Current Events [12]
• Special Topics [13]

• RSS 0.90
• RSS 1.0
• RSS 2.0
• Atom