lisasong.com

Heard Nina Totenberg’s piece on Dick Cheney. She is such a masterful narrator that from her piece out comes the relief of a character central to one of the messiest and most divisive period in the U.S. history.

I hate Dick Cheney. He is at a very different level than other politicians I found disagreeable, such as GWB, Gingerich, even Lieberman or Helms. Those characters may be colorful but none is as subversive or conniving as Cheney. He is determined to use his knowledge of the rules and laws of a Republic to turn it into an Empire. If Jefferson were alive today, he surely would say: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of people like Dick Cheney. ”

Rantings aside, I am still not clear on how some of the transgressions instigated by Cheney passed all the institutional checks, most notably, the Congress? Some things may be more complicated than I thought. The other day, I saw Charlie Rose interviewed Michael McConnell, who argued that wiretapping foreigners on American soil is not materially different from bugging by CIA (in foreign land only by law), which is always legal. It strikes me as a reasonable argument. Is this all? If so, how come it is reflected so poorly in the media? Or why would media define it as a wholesale invasion of privacy? Or why that characterization sticked?

Anyway, I am getting the Angler book to find out more.

Came back from vacation and saw my old boss Terry Drayton is on Seattle Business’ cover. As I was writing a message to congratulate him, I discovered he and his company, Count Me In, are in a deep legal mess.

It looks like Count Me In used membership fees that they are managing on behalf of the little league teams for its own operational use.  Some commentators are outright nasty, calling Terry “the Little League thief”. The Godfather of Seattle start-ups, John Cook, thinks the accusation is serious enough to warrant an indepth interview, which revealed a  distraught chief executive on the defensive (”This is not my legacy“)

I worked for Terry at HomeGrocer. He was the kind of leader that inspire loyalty: energetic, articulate and decisive. When WebVan started with billions dollars of funding, hoping to “do it all and end it all” in the online grocery business, I asked Terry why we were still focusing on high-end clientele only. He said it clearly, without any hesitation, that it is the only way the online grocery business could take hold.  Eight years later, I asked him the same question and he gave me the same answer. I had doubts eight years ago but now found myself coming around to his point of view.

Regardless of business acument, personally, I thank him for giving me one of the best moments in my IT/programming life. Therefore, it is quite painful reading through the interview he gave to Cook. I only hope and pray for the negativity to blowover soon and Terry to go back to his old self.

Every once in a while, I will have a Voila! moment when several discrete things all come together and a puzzle suddenly makes perfect sesne.

A while back when Katie Couric asked Palin what newspaper she read. She gave a very awkward and discursive answer. While I laughed at her with others, deep down, it didn’t make sense. Obviously, she read something. She is not the most intelligent person there is but she can’t possibly become who she is without reading anything. Later on, she explained to Lauer that she felt trapped by that question, as if “whatever I say will get me into trouble”.

Her explanation didn’t make sense to me: why the fuss? Just tell Couric anything, how could that have hurt? And many people felt the same way. But we all let it go. What is the big deal, after all.

But the epiphany came to me today. I came across a video of her giving an interview in Alaska. As she was recounting her VP experience and her renewed Alaskan family life, a guy was seen in the background stuffing a turkey–kicking and twisting–down a slaughter machine. As if that wasn’t enough, the guy was shaking and swaying with the bird (to drain blood?) as if in front of a urinal. What is worse, she was said to be there to perform the pre-Thanksgiving turkey pardon.

Then it suddenly hit me: no wonder she is so self-conscious of being trapped by journalists–from where she comes, the level of sensitivity and sophistication is just not there! Although Alaska is one of the highest per capita state of the most powerful nation in the world, it is still a very primitive place. Life’s challenge is still physical and perception of the ambient is largely visceral (Norbert Elias vs. Moose). She must be aware of that. No wonder she over-reacted, no wonder some Alaskan felt misunderstood by the lower-forty-eighters.

Had the economic crisis begun a couple of month late, she could have been our VP. It was as if Queen Sheba came to Israel, and stayed!

I don’t know why I still waste time on her. But the sense of discovery is quite intoxicating, I guess. Also, maybe one day I will look back at the last campaign and re-live the drama through things like this.

Per this WaPo article,

The decision to hire McCain (as a naval liaison to Congress) fell largely to the commander of naval operations, four-star Adm. James Holloway, who had known Jack McCain during his liaison days and thought that his son might be aptly suited for the same line of work. “John was a personable young guy who had been brought up in the right atmosphere,” Holloway recalls. “I mean, he had that kind of social education that came from seeing his parents entertain a lot of people from Congress. . . . He had good genes, and he also had a good sense of humor and social skills at a cocktail party. He was a guy who could play poker and help with arrangements, a good fellow.”

Compare that with Obama’s rise, this story echos a larger debate between aristocracy and meritocracy, doesn’t it?

Went to Max and Stephanie’s wedding in Quincy, WA.

Here is what I said on my album log:

Two beautiful people I know got married. Max and Stephanie finally tied the knot on 2008.9.13. It was a lovely day, the ceremony was held in a romantic setting–in a vineyard overlooking the Columbia. Seeing the two being together for three years now, I was nevertheless very moved when they read their wedding vows. For a moment, I regretted any cynism I had in social rituals.

Quincy is a pretty place: the color, the solitude and the scale always remind me of autumn, my favorite season of a year. Song and I both love the place.

The Sunserra resort, however, is a different story: underwhelming buildings, excess grassy lawns and stringent behavioral codes: you shall not curse or you will be fined.

Also, met some interesting people there. One couple from Luxemburg: Maria is German, Jeff Welsh. The lady works at European Commission’s nuclear regulatory advisory agency at Brussel. We chatted a lot about European affairs, e.g. Belgium, Germany’s coal and steel regions.

The conversation led to the topic of legislative process in EU. I was surprised to learn that the binding EU laws were drafted by Ministers from member countries, something I thought would be a big no-no in the States. Maria also asked, “so what’s the legislative process in China?”

The conversation was cut short but I left wonder about the difference between the two unions: EU and China. It is my speculation that the two are quite opposite of each other in one regard at least:

EU is a bunch of sovereign polities with a strong desire to “act together”. China is a bunch of legally unified politiies with a constant tendence to “act different”.

Is this correct?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
????????????
??????

???????????????
???????????????
???????????????
???????????????

Only through news media did I realize that I am close to sharing the same birthday as my personal hero, Nelson Mandela. It is presumptuous to say I feel honored, the news nevertheless gives me goosebumps.

How do I say this? By my account, only literary heros in myths and sagas could try to defy the fate Gods destined them to. For those who failed–that is most of them, we call them tragic heros.  In that sense, Mandela is the very few true human heros.

Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years since he was 44. Not only did he lose the best years of his life, he also lived through the harshest conditions one could imagine, including up to six month solitary confinement. His “fate” seems to destine him to a post-prison persona of bitterness and vengence. Instead, he came out of prison a Saint: a unifying figure in a country with a long history of segregation soaked with blood, a moral beacon that overshadows other legends of his time, including Popes, Presidents and other Nobel laureates. Another thing most people don’t realize that he is also a secular man whose willingness to forgive comes not from religious beliefs like that of Gandhi.

Has he no anger, no lust, no fear of motality—or any other traits we call human?

Tony Snow, the former White House press secretary, was dead. From what I know about him, I can only say, “Good Riddance!” The best 4th of July gift I’ve received so far was the passing of Jesse Helms.  But if Helms was a “bull dog” who still played by the rule, Snow–and others like him–are barking “chiwawas” who try to subvert the rules (see the NYKr article on Addington). Also on the list are Dick Cheney, David Addington and John Yu. I don’t wish them ill but only say this: there are many holidays to come and I can always use some gifts.

Like Joseph Goebbles and ???, they are called “henchmen” by historians or the “Mob” by Arendt. They are so despicable because they serve nothing but power. To them, there is no morality or ethics, no principle or faith. The only thing that consumes their talent and career is the job of defending, justifying, and cheering the powerful and the abusive.

In Chinese, there is a term for them, “????”, or bureaucrats with a knife and a pen. At first, I thought it was a term comparing the power of words. After some digging, it is not. But the meaning stays true.

Here is what I copied from somewhere: ???????????????????????????????????????????????

(??)???????????“?????”???????????“????”???????

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“???????”?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????“??????????????????”

???????????“??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????”???????????????????????????????????

?highlighted???????“????”???????????????????????????????“????”????????????????????????????????????????????????“????”???????????????????????

Just read the news on WSJ: “Federal Reserve Bank of New York Pushes For Tougher Rules on Credit Derivatives”

It looks like a quiet movement is undergoing to reverse the course Greenspan set for the Fed.

WSJ appears to be a more critical voice than the Economist in evaluating the Greenspan legacy. Not long ago, it published several pieces (e.g. “His Legacy Tarnished, Greenspan Goes on Defensive“) highlighting the downside of the Greenspan legacy: too lenient on opportunistic investors and too loose on market regulation.

Therefore, it is little wonder WSJ put Timothy Geithner’s recent speech at the top of its web page today. This is yet another evidence that Greenspan’s successors are seeing the danger in his policies and are trying to reverse the course. People may ridicule Bernanke for his seemingly wobbling response to the credit crunch earlier, particularly when he led the three quarter cut (?) after a sharp market drop. Some even wondered whether he was duped into a rookie mistake. However, the continued market slide and the weakness in the economy vindicated his foresight. Now he’s done with the cuts but still pumping heavily into repo market–seems to be another sign of determined monetary discipline.

Geithner’s efforts are equally remarkable. Those who say that financial market should remain the ultimate free market are either fools or pirates (or both). Those reckless loan or swap underwriters are no different from the lawless polluters or highway litterers. It is just as ridiculous to suggest that ordinary investors (or even conventional credit agencies) are equally responsible for the credit mess as calling regular consumers environmental polluters or labor abusers because they bought goods manufactured by wrong doers.

However, what strikes me the most is the mediocre background of the second most important central banker in the U.S., Timthoy Geithner. Something tells me this guy is a man to watch. His academic training and personal achievement don’t appear to warrant the position he is in (the President of NY Fed), and I wasn’t able to figure out his family connections either. Geithner could be a Jewish name but nothing in his personal connections suggest an outright Jewish background: his sibilings all have biblical names (David, Sarah) but David married a Catholic, it seems. He himself went to Dartmouth and Johns Hopkins. His mentors include Summers and Rubin. But if one is to survive to be the Prince of Banking, it is hard to imagine he could do without a Jewish mentor. His father, Peter, now sits on a Harvard philanthropy fund board and others (including Harvard-Yenching and earlier, the Ford Foundation) but the trail goes cold beyond that.

So who is this guy? Only 46 years old with no economics or finance training or background but presides the New York Federal Reserve. A political appointee but is well connected to Wall Street. According to a recent posting on Muckety, “If there were ever a career civil servant’s Hall of Fame, Timothy F. Geithner would no doubt be an inductee”. I certainly second that sentiment.

Anyway, two more things found about him:
An old speech on the need to regulate financial market.
A profile written by a financial reporter.

It was always a pleasure meeting like-minded folks. This is true for hillbilly racists, white working class laborers, liberation theologists, too-poor-to-own-property-but-enough-to-afford-a-latte-a-day liberal activists. So is it true for immigrant intellectuals from the Orient.

ZDS is a professor in law school. We are of the same age but took quite different routes to the same spatial and temporal location as we did this afternoon… that is too much. We met in his office about my coal mine paper.

But the conversation diverged soon after. I am pleasantly surprised that he’s a fan of Foucault and Said too (more so of the latter and P Bourdieu). His has a insightful view concerning the two: Foucault is too concerned with domination and permeation. Said, however, expands Foucault’s thesis and dares to contest the symbols that were created by the powerful.

Our different views of recent events: Tibet, 08 election and the Western liberal democracy, echo our choice of favorite between Said and Foucault. I suspect his training in law and legislation breeds in him a more optimistic outlook for the outcast surviving in democracy. After all, his job is to protect the right to be different.

I am much more pessimistic about where the liberal legacy in the U.S. is heading to. Now think of it, I may have been “shocked and awed” by the collective reactions following 9.11. But the force of conformity is unmistakeable.

Will an Obama presidency change the paranoia, the hysteria of fear and the intolerance of dissent? To me, that is the hypocracy and the weakness of popular democracy, for it creates a paradox that is unsolvable: even if Obama’s election will change the political ethos of our time, he cannot win unless sufficient majority are ready for the change. If, just for the argument’s sake, the majority is wrong, irrational or stupid, what’s in liberal democracy that can bring a change to this sorry reality?