There is 6.8 billion people in the world. Therefore, it is very precious for us to meet each other and become friends. There must be a purpose for this.
So, let's not forget those who you know but you haven't seen for a long time. In this thankful Christmas time, let's celebrate our precious meeting and friendship!
Here, I wish you all a Merry Christmas 2010 and a Happy Year 2011 !
Please see the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8sU4qM9_oI
Friday, December 24, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The Constitution of the Town (in Die2nite)
Leadership and organized works are necessary for lasting survival in the Die2nite game. They not only maximize efficiency but also add more fun to the game. Today I drafted a constitution for my town in the game. It is as follows:
The town officials and their roles
1)The Mayor-- is responsible for making important decisions, such as what to build in the construction site, what to upgrade for a particular day, when to close the town gate and whether to issue a mass complaint against a particular member. He/She must listen to the opinions of town members but has the power to decide when there are conflicts among those opinions.
2)The Scavenger-- is responsible for coordinating scavenging and organizing expeditions. Individual groups of expedition must give notice to the Scavenger.
3)The Guardian-- is responsible for rescuing and coordinating rescues. He/she should cooperate with scavenger to come up with the best rescue plan and scavenging plan.
4)The Monitors (x2)-- are responsible for finding out who has violated the town rules and publishing their findings in due time.
5)The Judge—is responsible for deciding the validity of all official decisions (if put into challenge, excluding the decision made by the Legislature) in accordance with the existing Constitution of the Town before the decisions are executed.
6)The gatekeeper --is responsible for closing the town gate every night before the mid-night attack.
The institution
The Legislature—is composed of all the above officials, is responsible for enacting, amending and repealing the rules of the town (except the Central Principle). The Legislature decision shall be made by 2/3 majority of the Legislature members.
Selection of officials
1) The selection of officials is done through election, except the Gatekeeper, who is appointed by the Mayor.
2) Every citizen has the right to vote (one vote only). Every citizen can be nominated (by others or by self) to be the candidate of officials; one nomination is sufficient. The candidate who has gained the largest number of vote at the end of the voting period wins.
3)The Mayor must gain 1/3 majority support in addition to getting the largest number of support votes.
Voting period: 2 continuous days since the voting begins
Dismissal of officials
1)All of the officials (except the Judge) can ONLY be fired by the Mayor.
2)The Mayor can ONLY be fired by the Legislature through 2/3 majority.
3)ONLY non-officials can vote to fire the Judge through simple majority.
P.S.--All of the officials must be active in participating in the town affairs.
The Central Principle
This central principle can ONLY be amended when appropriate time comes and its amendment can ONLY be initiated by the then Mayor and its amendment can ONLY be effected by 2/3 majority through voting by ALL of the town members!
The rules:
1)No selfish taking from the Bank—acts which are not selfish: taking for temporary use, taking for saving members of the town without putting the whole town in immediate danger, taking for self-help with permission from the Mayor.
2)No selfish taking from the Well—acts which are not selfish: taking the basic one raton per day, taking to transfer it to the Bank, taking for saving members of the town without putting the town in immediate danger
3)No selfish upgrading of one’s own house—acts which are not selfish: upgrading decided by the Mayor
The basic duties of citizens:
1)Must go to the Watchtower to estimate coming zombies EACH DAY;
2)Must use up their APs by mid-night EACH DAY
3)Must participate in the Forum frequently
4)Must obey the officials’ decisions unless those decisions are ruled invalid by the Judge
5)Must read the up-to-date Constitution of the Town
The town officials and their roles
1)The Mayor-- is responsible for making important decisions, such as what to build in the construction site, what to upgrade for a particular day, when to close the town gate and whether to issue a mass complaint against a particular member. He/She must listen to the opinions of town members but has the power to decide when there are conflicts among those opinions.
2)The Scavenger-- is responsible for coordinating scavenging and organizing expeditions. Individual groups of expedition must give notice to the Scavenger.
3)The Guardian-- is responsible for rescuing and coordinating rescues. He/she should cooperate with scavenger to come up with the best rescue plan and scavenging plan.
4)The Monitors (x2)-- are responsible for finding out who has violated the town rules and publishing their findings in due time.
5)The Judge—is responsible for deciding the validity of all official decisions (if put into challenge, excluding the decision made by the Legislature) in accordance with the existing Constitution of the Town before the decisions are executed.
6)The gatekeeper --is responsible for closing the town gate every night before the mid-night attack.
The institution
The Legislature—is composed of all the above officials, is responsible for enacting, amending and repealing the rules of the town (except the Central Principle). The Legislature decision shall be made by 2/3 majority of the Legislature members.
Selection of officials
1) The selection of officials is done through election, except the Gatekeeper, who is appointed by the Mayor.
2) Every citizen has the right to vote (one vote only). Every citizen can be nominated (by others or by self) to be the candidate of officials; one nomination is sufficient. The candidate who has gained the largest number of vote at the end of the voting period wins.
3)The Mayor must gain 1/3 majority support in addition to getting the largest number of support votes.
Voting period: 2 continuous days since the voting begins
Dismissal of officials
1)All of the officials (except the Judge) can ONLY be fired by the Mayor.
2)The Mayor can ONLY be fired by the Legislature through 2/3 majority.
3)ONLY non-officials can vote to fire the Judge through simple majority.
P.S.--All of the officials must be active in participating in the town affairs.
The Central Principle
In this town, we all practice democratic socialism, where no selfish/private goals are allowed and all properties are shared.
This central principle can ONLY be amended when appropriate time comes and its amendment can ONLY be initiated by the then Mayor and its amendment can ONLY be effected by 2/3 majority through voting by ALL of the town members!
The rules:
1)No selfish taking from the Bank—acts which are not selfish: taking for temporary use, taking for saving members of the town without putting the whole town in immediate danger, taking for self-help with permission from the Mayor.
2)No selfish taking from the Well—acts which are not selfish: taking the basic one raton per day, taking to transfer it to the Bank, taking for saving members of the town without putting the town in immediate danger
3)No selfish upgrading of one’s own house—acts which are not selfish: upgrading decided by the Mayor
The basic duties of citizens:
1)Must go to the Watchtower to estimate coming zombies EACH DAY;
2)Must use up their APs by mid-night EACH DAY
3)Must participate in the Forum frequently
4)Must obey the officials’ decisions unless those decisions are ruled invalid by the Judge
5)Must read the up-to-date Constitution of the Town
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
My response to an interesting debate in the game Die2nite
Today there was an interesting debate int the game Die2nite. Die2nite is a zombie survival game, in which players in a town (at max. 40) contribute to upgrading the town's defense to survive the zombie attack every mid-night. The players need to go scavenging to find useful materials which are needed to construct various buildings for the town, construct the buildings or make something for their own house by finding something themselves or taking something from the Bank of the town.
The debate was about whether any player can have their own private goals for upgrading their own house. One player was severely condemned by several other players when that player took what he found in scavenging to upgrade his own house. He claims that it will make the game more fun and he denounces socialism/communism.
In response of the debate and supporting communism for this game, I wrote the following reply:
There is no ideal political system. It all depends on time and the particular circumstances. Socialism/communism at some time is perfect, like this.
It is crucial to understand one major difference between the real world and this game. In the real world (let’s say the US), the life purposes of an individual are split into private goals and common goals. The private goals are achieved through private ownership. The common goals are achieved through non-100% taxation. This split is possible because in reality people enjoy a high degree of peace from outside group attack—i.e. free from war. But in this game, we are facing forever war. And the enemy is forever-growing. So, we cannot have private goals, which will be at the cost of the common goals of defense, victory and survival. It will also be at the cost of other town members' efforts and sacrifice. Therefore, I agree with Diotisalvi and KillerByten that communism is the only way and the best way to play this game. Selfishness will definitely lead to destruction--common and individual destruction.
However, this game still allows us to practice democracy. If the majority of the town agree with some degree of private goals, even heroes like Diotisalvi and KillerByten cannot stop that from happening. The complaint system to kick members out town is built upon the ideal and mechanism of democracy.
But now we shall exercise democracy to vote for communism in this village. We can exercise democracy to make some changes from communism at proper time—when the circumstances change (if this will ever happen).
The debate was about whether any player can have their own private goals for upgrading their own house. One player was severely condemned by several other players when that player took what he found in scavenging to upgrade his own house. He claims that it will make the game more fun and he denounces socialism/communism.
In response of the debate and supporting communism for this game, I wrote the following reply:
There is no ideal political system. It all depends on time and the particular circumstances. Socialism/communism at some time is perfect, like this.
It is crucial to understand one major difference between the real world and this game. In the real world (let’s say the US), the life purposes of an individual are split into private goals and common goals. The private goals are achieved through private ownership. The common goals are achieved through non-100% taxation. This split is possible because in reality people enjoy a high degree of peace from outside group attack—i.e. free from war. But in this game, we are facing forever war. And the enemy is forever-growing. So, we cannot have private goals, which will be at the cost of the common goals of defense, victory and survival. It will also be at the cost of other town members' efforts and sacrifice. Therefore, I agree with Diotisalvi and KillerByten that communism is the only way and the best way to play this game. Selfishness will definitely lead to destruction--common and individual destruction.
However, this game still allows us to practice democracy. If the majority of the town agree with some degree of private goals, even heroes like Diotisalvi and KillerByten cannot stop that from happening. The complaint system to kick members out town is built upon the ideal and mechanism of democracy.
But now we shall exercise democracy to vote for communism in this village. We can exercise democracy to make some changes from communism at proper time—when the circumstances change (if this will ever happen).
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Crazy Arguments--my first piece creative writing
A: ‘John Smith is a smart man if he writes on the interior wall of all the men’s toilet in the world that “John Smith loves Jenny Potter!”
B: ‘What? Yes, it is true if Jenny Potter is a man!’
C: ‘Those who agree with B are too shallow and narrow-minded. The writing on the toilet wall is not for Jenny Potter! It’s for someone else!’
D: ‘Well, then John Smith must be clear who exactly that writing is for. It must be either for those who rival with John Smith or those who ally with him. But neither of them will work for its aim!’
E: ‘How can D be so sure that John Smith must have a rival or must have some male allies to help him?’
F: ‘John Smith is a thoughtful guy as he prepares for the worst and for the best. The writing is aimed for both rivals and allies because it can scare away some rivals by declaring war against them and attract some allies by virtue of empathy and sympathy. ‘
G: ‘Why doesn’t he write “Jenny Potter loves John Smith” instead? Why those other than John Smith’s close friends will help him, without knowing who John Smith is and even Jenny Potter is?’
H: ‘Is John Smith’s great plan feasible?’
I: ‘Perhaps John Smith is a billionaire and does not have to do it by himself. ‘
J: ‘I would not do that to just please a woman if I were a billionaire!’
K: ‘Perhaps John Smith has tried all other means.’
L: ‘Perhaps Jenny Potter does not like a billionaire!’
M: ‘Perhaps John Smith is crazy.’
N: ‘Perhaps Jenny Potter is crazy too!’
O: ‘Perhaps you are all crazy too!’
P: ‘Hey, let’s focus on arguments! Don’t waste time!’
Q: ‘P has made a “good” argument!’
R: ‘Excuse me, is that question good to argue?’
S: ‘Of course, its answer will have real important implications over the world!’
T: ‘But we have too little information and too many assumptions.’
U: ‘The world is never perfect and we must accept some assumptions in order for the world to move!’
V: ‘No, it is because we have freedom of expression and we must enjoy its full measure to talk about it!’
W: ‘To talk about what? I am just back from the toilet......’
X: ‘Whether John Smith should paint on all of the interior toilet walls in the world that he loves Jenny Potter!’
Y: ‘No! Whether it is a good question to argue X’s question!’
Z: ‘No! Whether we are all crazy or we are exercising our freedom of speech!’
…… ……
ALL(A, B,C…….X,Y,Z): ‘Oh! Time’s up!’
C@pyright by Andy Tse Hing Min, 26 September 2010
B: ‘What? Yes, it is true if Jenny Potter is a man!’
C: ‘Those who agree with B are too shallow and narrow-minded. The writing on the toilet wall is not for Jenny Potter! It’s for someone else!’
D: ‘Well, then John Smith must be clear who exactly that writing is for. It must be either for those who rival with John Smith or those who ally with him. But neither of them will work for its aim!’
E: ‘How can D be so sure that John Smith must have a rival or must have some male allies to help him?’
F: ‘John Smith is a thoughtful guy as he prepares for the worst and for the best. The writing is aimed for both rivals and allies because it can scare away some rivals by declaring war against them and attract some allies by virtue of empathy and sympathy. ‘
G: ‘Why doesn’t he write “Jenny Potter loves John Smith” instead? Why those other than John Smith’s close friends will help him, without knowing who John Smith is and even Jenny Potter is?’
H: ‘Is John Smith’s great plan feasible?’
I: ‘Perhaps John Smith is a billionaire and does not have to do it by himself. ‘
J: ‘I would not do that to just please a woman if I were a billionaire!’
K: ‘Perhaps John Smith has tried all other means.’
L: ‘Perhaps Jenny Potter does not like a billionaire!’
M: ‘Perhaps John Smith is crazy.’
N: ‘Perhaps Jenny Potter is crazy too!’
O: ‘Perhaps you are all crazy too!’
P: ‘Hey, let’s focus on arguments! Don’t waste time!’
Q: ‘P has made a “good” argument!’
R: ‘Excuse me, is that question good to argue?’
S: ‘Of course, its answer will have real important implications over the world!’
T: ‘But we have too little information and too many assumptions.’
U: ‘The world is never perfect and we must accept some assumptions in order for the world to move!’
V: ‘No, it is because we have freedom of expression and we must enjoy its full measure to talk about it!’
W: ‘To talk about what? I am just back from the toilet......’
X: ‘Whether John Smith should paint on all of the interior toilet walls in the world that he loves Jenny Potter!’
Y: ‘No! Whether it is a good question to argue X’s question!’
Z: ‘No! Whether we are all crazy or we are exercising our freedom of speech!’
…… ……
ALL(A, B,C…….X,Y,Z): ‘Oh! Time’s up!’
C@pyright by Andy Tse Hing Min, 26 September 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
4 December 2010—A snowing day in Greensboro
Today it snowed in Greensboro from about noon to evening. Everyone seemed very excited about the snow. I met a few other friends from South Korea (Alex, Sumin), Mexico (Gozi) and Chile (Paz) in front of the I-house when I was going to the café for lunch. We spent almost half an hour taking photos in turn there. Although I have seen snow before (during my trip to Dongbei Province of China), I have never seen such large-scale falling snows. Like cottons from the sky, the snows did not hurt but just chill people. Of course, they are water after all.
I carried my umbrella with me when I was walking to the café, in order to prevent me from getting cold from the wetness, especially when I did not wear any clothes with a cap to protect my hair. It was such a difficult walk that I would have collapsed if the café was in a doubled distance away from the I-house. The snows were blown by the wind to hit every part of my body, rendering my umbrella almost useless. I ate more than one bow of white rice and a piece of big steak in the café. Eating something warm and good in a snowing day is so wonderful!
After having lunch, I went to the library to study. I chose the library rather than the dormitory room mainly because the former is nearer to the café than the latter. I did not want to have any unnecessary walk in the falling snows, though doing so was quite romantic. I became very lazy when I was not prepared for the coldness brought by the snows. I spent about four hours in the library, reading the short story ‘What I saw from where I stood’ as preparation for Monday’s fiction exam, doing Spanish final exam exercises, taking a half-an-hour nap and watching a an-hour-and-a-half Naruto Shippuden movie. I left the library at 6:30pm for dinner in the café. At the exit of the library, I met Fernando (from Spain) and Anne (from France), who were taking photos of the white bushes in front of the library.
The food for dinner was normal but one interesting thing happened during the dinner. I sat in the same table with Fernando, Anne and a local female student. While we were eating, we heard three female students in the neighouring table talking passionately about religion and science. It seemed that two of them were trying to persuade the third one something because they talked apparently confidently and eloquently. I heard them saying something about science theories. This was the first time that I heard students talking something serious in the café. ‘Yes, this is a university. And is an American university.’ I said to myself. But since I have thought much about religion and science before, I was not interested in engaging in any discussion in the same topic, particularly when almost everyone takes it for granted that meal time is a time of socializing and relaxing oneself. I therefore did not intend to mention to others in my table about what was happening in that neighbouring table.
But suddenly Anne mentioned it. ‘Those girls are discussing the relationship between religion and science, but I think they are not something good to talk about’ she said. ‘I don’t think religion and science are comparable’, responded the American student immediately. Then the rest of us echoed her comment. I also said, ‘They are fundamentally different. Religion is based on belief. But science is based on proof, evidence.’ Then we continued talking about belief. The girls shared their personal experience about what they thought religion typically was (teaching people to be good people) and should be (should not give pressure to atheists and believers of other religions). The discussion in our table continued for quite a while—I guess at least 15 minutes. I did not participate fully in the discussion, but I was deeply amazed by the power of academic talks outside classrooms—in a place like the café. I am sure that all of us (including Anne) did not originally want to talk about the topic of religion and science. But once someone started it, it could not be helped. A first-viewed boring and belittled topic had as an influential power as an infectious disease.
On my way back to the I-house after dinner, I was attacked by a group of my male friends who seemed ready to start a wild snowballs war. Running away fast, I luckily dodged all of the attacks!
I carried my umbrella with me when I was walking to the café, in order to prevent me from getting cold from the wetness, especially when I did not wear any clothes with a cap to protect my hair. It was such a difficult walk that I would have collapsed if the café was in a doubled distance away from the I-house. The snows were blown by the wind to hit every part of my body, rendering my umbrella almost useless. I ate more than one bow of white rice and a piece of big steak in the café. Eating something warm and good in a snowing day is so wonderful!
After having lunch, I went to the library to study. I chose the library rather than the dormitory room mainly because the former is nearer to the café than the latter. I did not want to have any unnecessary walk in the falling snows, though doing so was quite romantic. I became very lazy when I was not prepared for the coldness brought by the snows. I spent about four hours in the library, reading the short story ‘What I saw from where I stood’ as preparation for Monday’s fiction exam, doing Spanish final exam exercises, taking a half-an-hour nap and watching a an-hour-and-a-half Naruto Shippuden movie. I left the library at 6:30pm for dinner in the café. At the exit of the library, I met Fernando (from Spain) and Anne (from France), who were taking photos of the white bushes in front of the library.
The food for dinner was normal but one interesting thing happened during the dinner. I sat in the same table with Fernando, Anne and a local female student. While we were eating, we heard three female students in the neighouring table talking passionately about religion and science. It seemed that two of them were trying to persuade the third one something because they talked apparently confidently and eloquently. I heard them saying something about science theories. This was the first time that I heard students talking something serious in the café. ‘Yes, this is a university. And is an American university.’ I said to myself. But since I have thought much about religion and science before, I was not interested in engaging in any discussion in the same topic, particularly when almost everyone takes it for granted that meal time is a time of socializing and relaxing oneself. I therefore did not intend to mention to others in my table about what was happening in that neighbouring table.
But suddenly Anne mentioned it. ‘Those girls are discussing the relationship between religion and science, but I think they are not something good to talk about’ she said. ‘I don’t think religion and science are comparable’, responded the American student immediately. Then the rest of us echoed her comment. I also said, ‘They are fundamentally different. Religion is based on belief. But science is based on proof, evidence.’ Then we continued talking about belief. The girls shared their personal experience about what they thought religion typically was (teaching people to be good people) and should be (should not give pressure to atheists and believers of other religions). The discussion in our table continued for quite a while—I guess at least 15 minutes. I did not participate fully in the discussion, but I was deeply amazed by the power of academic talks outside classrooms—in a place like the café. I am sure that all of us (including Anne) did not originally want to talk about the topic of religion and science. But once someone started it, it could not be helped. A first-viewed boring and belittled topic had as an influential power as an infectious disease.
On my way back to the I-house after dinner, I was attacked by a group of my male friends who seemed ready to start a wild snowballs war. Running away fast, I luckily dodged all of the attacks!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Former Mexico state governor killed
The former governor of Mexican state of Colima was gunned down in his home on the past Sunday morning. Jesus Silverios Cavazos, who left office in November 2009, died of his wounds in a hospital after he was shot by gunmen. While the evidence is still unavailable pending on investigation, it is widely believed that the attack was related to drug cartels. His wife was injured in the attack. President Felipe Calderon condemned the killing as ‘cowardly assassination’. Mexican politicians have been targeted by assassins in states which are home to drug cartels and major smuggling routes because rival gangs battle control over the lucrative business. Cavazos’ assassination has been the latest attack on Mexican politicians wrecked by drug violence.
The murder of Cavazos was predicted in my last blog written in response to the Mexican marines killing the head of a drug cartel Tony Tormenta. But it was out of my expectation that it would come so quickly. I argued that killing the leader of a drug cartel would not be able to effectively resolve the issue of violence related to the Mexican drug cartels because it would do no big harm to the organization and unity of the cartel and revenge would follow targeting on the leaders of the groups responsible for combating drug cartel violence.
It may be interesting to notice that Cavazos was no longer the leader of the force against drug violence when he was assassinated. He left his office about one year ago. The people behind the murderers were very clever to target on a former governor instead of a current governor because it was much easier to do it, given the different security levels on each of the governors. Moreover, they could impose an equal, if not greater, deterrence on those who wish to commit in crushing the drug cartels. If their purpose was achieved, no people would want to take up the responsibility in fighting against drug cartels due to fear of post-office assassination and harm to their family members. Having said so, this tactic of post-office murder is not overwhelmingly discouraging to the potential governors because hopes still remain that the drug violence will be effectively tackled within their natural period of office. Just contrary to deterrence effect aimed by the drug cartels, this tactic might encourage potential governors to elevate their commitment and efforts in cracking down the drug violence.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AK1V320101121?
The murder of Cavazos was predicted in my last blog written in response to the Mexican marines killing the head of a drug cartel Tony Tormenta. But it was out of my expectation that it would come so quickly. I argued that killing the leader of a drug cartel would not be able to effectively resolve the issue of violence related to the Mexican drug cartels because it would do no big harm to the organization and unity of the cartel and revenge would follow targeting on the leaders of the groups responsible for combating drug cartel violence.
It may be interesting to notice that Cavazos was no longer the leader of the force against drug violence when he was assassinated. He left his office about one year ago. The people behind the murderers were very clever to target on a former governor instead of a current governor because it was much easier to do it, given the different security levels on each of the governors. Moreover, they could impose an equal, if not greater, deterrence on those who wish to commit in crushing the drug cartels. If their purpose was achieved, no people would want to take up the responsibility in fighting against drug cartels due to fear of post-office assassination and harm to their family members. Having said so, this tactic of post-office murder is not overwhelmingly discouraging to the potential governors because hopes still remain that the drug violence will be effectively tackled within their natural period of office. Just contrary to deterrence effect aimed by the drug cartels, this tactic might encourage potential governors to elevate their commitment and efforts in cracking down the drug violence.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AK1V320101121?
Mexican drug lord killed
Rival gunmen blocked roads near the US border on 6 November after the marines killed one of Mexico’s top kingpins. Ezequiel Cardenas, also called ‘Tony Tormenta’, was shot dead by marines on 5 November. He was one the fourth top drug gang leaders (kingpins) killed or captured since December last year when President Calderon launched his army-led drug war. Quickly after Tony Tormenta’s death, gunmen used buses and trucks to block roads in Reynosa, a Mexico city near the US border where Tormenta was shot dead. Fightings also broke out between gunmen and soldiers in Reynosa, resulting in the death of two assailants and massive transportation chaos. More than 31,000 people have been killed across Mexico since the country launched his cartel crackdown in December 2006. At least 18 mayors have been killed since 2008.
Drug cartel violence is such a serious issue in Mexico that it is almost out of control by the law enforcement agencies. The violent response by gangsters to Tony Tormmenta’s death once again showed that military crackdown may not be an effective solution to the issue. Although killing the head of a drug cartel may bring a short-term impact on the cartel’s morale and leadership, it is not able to reduce the cartel’s power greatly or deter the cartel from continuing their violent acts. The fall of an evil leader of an evil group will not give rise to a good leader in the same group. Revenge will ensue, giving rise to a new evil leader and more attempt killings of the leaders of the good (police chiefs and mayors). That is why so many mayors have been killed or threatened away since 2008. Measures must be taken by the Mexican government to address the root causes of the drug cartel violence: high demand of drugs, high supply of firearms, economic and social problems. No wonder Mexico lawmakers have recently vetoed a bill of drug war reform to increase government expenses on combating drug cartel violence by force.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A51JJ20101106
Drug cartel violence is such a serious issue in Mexico that it is almost out of control by the law enforcement agencies. The violent response by gangsters to Tony Tormmenta’s death once again showed that military crackdown may not be an effective solution to the issue. Although killing the head of a drug cartel may bring a short-term impact on the cartel’s morale and leadership, it is not able to reduce the cartel’s power greatly or deter the cartel from continuing their violent acts. The fall of an evil leader of an evil group will not give rise to a good leader in the same group. Revenge will ensue, giving rise to a new evil leader and more attempt killings of the leaders of the good (police chiefs and mayors). That is why so many mayors have been killed or threatened away since 2008. Measures must be taken by the Mexican government to address the root causes of the drug cartel violence: high demand of drugs, high supply of firearms, economic and social problems. No wonder Mexico lawmakers have recently vetoed a bill of drug war reform to increase government expenses on combating drug cartel violence by force.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A51JJ20101106
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thoughts after visiting the International Civil Rights Centre and Museum in Greensboro
I visited the International Civil Rights Centre & Museum on Tuesday 16 November 2010. From the one-hour tour guided by a very experienced museum staff, I have learned many facts, both hidden and exposed.
I learned that people are selfish. They would take advantage of the weak by enslaving them, even though those they enslaved are no different than themselves other than the color of their skin. The slave market was a great pillar of the US economy when some people voiced out that slavery should be abolished. This selfish nature was so powerful and hard to change that people resisted by military force against their fellow citizens and even their President. The US Civil War would not have happened if people were not so selfish about their economic and social interests.
I learned that the supreme document of a state could fail to guide people's behaviour when they are overwhelmed by selfishness and emotions. The US Declaration of Independence explicitly states that 'all men are created equal' and 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. But at the time when slavery was still legal in the US, the Negros were definitely not equal with the Whites. The rights of the Negros to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were alienated (by other men). Even after the abolition of Slavery and the Negros were called African Americans, the country continued to witness segregation and discrimination against their black fellow citizens. The Constitution was there, but people acted their own way as if it did not exist.
I learned that making change to a society to suppress people’s selfishness and bring them back to their behavior-guiding document is not easy and is a lesson of blood and pain. Lots of anti-slavery activists were brutally, innocently and inhumanely treated. They were coerced and criminalized, beaten and burnt and murdered. These activists were not limited to the black activists but also included the white ones. I was startled when I saw the picture of which a white activist was murdered with his eyes cut out and limbs dismantled. I was even more upset and angry when the murderers were caught but not convicted guilty by a jury of the same kind. The legal system corrupted and the social order collapsed due to an ill-founded attitude—racism. When the day Martin Luther King was assassinated, I could not imagine how much blood had been lost to bring a stop to the society’s selfishness-driven slavery movement.
The U-turn, however, did not come until the presence of a few courageous leaders who used a very practical and sensible way of struggle to gain public support. I was surprised that it was four college students who initiated the U-turn. Their campaign of ‘sit-down and demand for service’ in lunch counters was practical because other black (and white) students could easily join them by spending their time studying there during the ‘sit-down’ period. It was also sensible because the loss of white customers and hence loss of revenue would eventually leave the owners of the restaurants no choice but to accept African Americans as their customers and provide services to them to avoid business closure. If you asked me why these few student leaders succeeded but their other predecessors failed, I would say it is the combination of courage, wisdom and the firm belief that small-potato individuals can make a difference to the society—lacking any of these factors would inevitably lead to failure.
The segregation and discrimination against African Americans were manifested from nearly every aspect of social life. For example, African Americans were only allowed to sit in the back of a bus, where the facilities were poorer and the location was less convenient for boarding and de-boarding. Also, black people were not allowed to vote and hence participate in administering public affairs. The most impressive example to me is the Coca-Cola vendor machine which sold a same drink to white people for 5 cents but to black people for 10 cents. Other examples include the lack of schools, restaurants, hotels and hospitals for the black community.
I learned that people are selfish. They would take advantage of the weak by enslaving them, even though those they enslaved are no different than themselves other than the color of their skin. The slave market was a great pillar of the US economy when some people voiced out that slavery should be abolished. This selfish nature was so powerful and hard to change that people resisted by military force against their fellow citizens and even their President. The US Civil War would not have happened if people were not so selfish about their economic and social interests.
I learned that the supreme document of a state could fail to guide people's behaviour when they are overwhelmed by selfishness and emotions. The US Declaration of Independence explicitly states that 'all men are created equal' and 'they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'. But at the time when slavery was still legal in the US, the Negros were definitely not equal with the Whites. The rights of the Negros to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were alienated (by other men). Even after the abolition of Slavery and the Negros were called African Americans, the country continued to witness segregation and discrimination against their black fellow citizens. The Constitution was there, but people acted their own way as if it did not exist.
I learned that making change to a society to suppress people’s selfishness and bring them back to their behavior-guiding document is not easy and is a lesson of blood and pain. Lots of anti-slavery activists were brutally, innocently and inhumanely treated. They were coerced and criminalized, beaten and burnt and murdered. These activists were not limited to the black activists but also included the white ones. I was startled when I saw the picture of which a white activist was murdered with his eyes cut out and limbs dismantled. I was even more upset and angry when the murderers were caught but not convicted guilty by a jury of the same kind. The legal system corrupted and the social order collapsed due to an ill-founded attitude—racism. When the day Martin Luther King was assassinated, I could not imagine how much blood had been lost to bring a stop to the society’s selfishness-driven slavery movement.
The U-turn, however, did not come until the presence of a few courageous leaders who used a very practical and sensible way of struggle to gain public support. I was surprised that it was four college students who initiated the U-turn. Their campaign of ‘sit-down and demand for service’ in lunch counters was practical because other black (and white) students could easily join them by spending their time studying there during the ‘sit-down’ period. It was also sensible because the loss of white customers and hence loss of revenue would eventually leave the owners of the restaurants no choice but to accept African Americans as their customers and provide services to them to avoid business closure. If you asked me why these few student leaders succeeded but their other predecessors failed, I would say it is the combination of courage, wisdom and the firm belief that small-potato individuals can make a difference to the society—lacking any of these factors would inevitably lead to failure.
The segregation and discrimination against African Americans were manifested from nearly every aspect of social life. For example, African Americans were only allowed to sit in the back of a bus, where the facilities were poorer and the location was less convenient for boarding and de-boarding. Also, black people were not allowed to vote and hence participate in administering public affairs. The most impressive example to me is the Coca-Cola vendor machine which sold a same drink to white people for 5 cents but to black people for 10 cents. Other examples include the lack of schools, restaurants, hotels and hospitals for the black community.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Kenyan police officer shot dead 10 people in bars
A Kenyan provincial police officer shot 10 people dead at several bars in a small town of Nairobi. Peter Karanja, the officer gunman, went on the rampage after finishing his shift as a guard a district residence. The victims were killed indiscriminately and two of them were Karanja’s colleagues who were investigating the shootings. Karanja surrendered to the police after his attempt to shoot himself failed due to lack of bullets. The motivations behind the killings remain unclear, but the police have found two leads. One lead is that Karanja had discovered that he was infected with HIV and went to the bars in search of his girlfriend whom he suspected could have infected him with the virus. The other lead is that Karanja was angry over the news that his lover was having an affair with some person in one of those bars. Karanja had a poor disciplinary record, including a number of quarrels with his superiors.
This is another crime incident committed by somebody with a police background. The killer in the Philippines hijacking case was a former senior police officer while Karanja in the present case was a police officer (just off his daily duty). The two of them shared two things in common. The first thing is that both of them had easy access to guns and were well trained at using guns. The second thing is that they both had some bad disciplinary records. Although their intentions of killing innocents were different—one related to job and the other to personal reasons, the two cases clearly showed the great danger of police officers committing conventional crimes by abusing their power which is entrusted to them with the purpose of protecting the society.
Karanja’s case also illustrates the importance of assessing police officers’ mental health and self-control ability. Mere disciplinary actions are not enough to deal with a police officer’s misconducts. The fact that Karanja had been disciplined for offending his supervisor may well suggest that he had quick temper and low self-control capacity. In fact, his emotional problems have contributed to his act of shooting the 10 innocent people. If we look closer to the two leads suggested by police under investigation of the case, they were actually driven by revenge and jealousy respectively. A qualified police officer should never react to these emotions in the same way as Karanja did.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A60KO20101107
This is another crime incident committed by somebody with a police background. The killer in the Philippines hijacking case was a former senior police officer while Karanja in the present case was a police officer (just off his daily duty). The two of them shared two things in common. The first thing is that both of them had easy access to guns and were well trained at using guns. The second thing is that they both had some bad disciplinary records. Although their intentions of killing innocents were different—one related to job and the other to personal reasons, the two cases clearly showed the great danger of police officers committing conventional crimes by abusing their power which is entrusted to them with the purpose of protecting the society.
Karanja’s case also illustrates the importance of assessing police officers’ mental health and self-control ability. Mere disciplinary actions are not enough to deal with a police officer’s misconducts. The fact that Karanja had been disciplined for offending his supervisor may well suggest that he had quick temper and low self-control capacity. In fact, his emotional problems have contributed to his act of shooting the 10 innocent people. If we look closer to the two leads suggested by police under investigation of the case, they were actually driven by revenge and jealousy respectively. A qualified police officer should never react to these emotions in the same way as Karanja did.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A60KO20101107
Friday, November 5, 2010
Americans targeted in Mexico drug gang violence
Six US citizens have been killed by gunmen in separate attacks in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico since last Saturday. An American woman was killed by multiple gunshots inside a tortilla shop on Saturday. Two other victims were shot to death at their car on the same day. On Sunday, one victim was killed along with two Mexican men when gunmen opened fire on a group standing outside a house. The last two victims were students from the University of Texas, who were gunned down as they drove through the city on Tuesday. The attackers are believed to be linked to drug cartels in Mexico. It remains unclear why Americans were targeted. Ciudad Juarez is one of most violent border cities in Mexico. According to the US government data, at least 37 US citizens have been killed in that city since January, compared to 39 in 2008 and 2009 combined.
The article reported the increasing number of killings against US citizens in Ciudad Juarez, which inevitably makes people wonder why Americans were targeted in the attacks. But this may be a result of information asymmetry given by the reporter. Without statistics about all the killings and nationalities of the victims, it is too quick for one to conclude that US citizens are particularly targeted. The recent six killings may be just a co-incidence, as might have applied to the victim who was killed along with the two Mexican men.
However, if the killings against US citizens were not due to coincidence, what could be the reasons behind them? Very likely, it is related to the US ‘war on drugs’ policy in Mexico. As discussed in my last blog, the drug cartels mainly target violence on the police and other drug gangs as a response triggered by police crack-down on drug violence and intense competition over trafficking routes among different drug gangs respectively. But if American citizens and even civilians (students) were also targeted, then the drug cartels must have developed a high level of hatred toward the US as a whole country. This hatred most probably stems from the US intervention to combat drug violence in its ‘war on drugs’ policy.
Still, one may wonder why drug violence is so serious in Ciudad Juarez that even ‘7,500 troops and elite police have failed to end beheading and car bombings’ there. Apart from its unique geographic location which gives rise to higher supply and demand of both drugs and firearms, the high unemployment rate and poor education system in the city are also key factors. Many jobless youths and school fall-outs join the gangs, feeling no hope for their future due to the economic plight and the failure of social support system. It is the high demand and supply of the potential personel for criminal activities that render the social order and control particularly difficult there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A35AQ20101104
The article reported the increasing number of killings against US citizens in Ciudad Juarez, which inevitably makes people wonder why Americans were targeted in the attacks. But this may be a result of information asymmetry given by the reporter. Without statistics about all the killings and nationalities of the victims, it is too quick for one to conclude that US citizens are particularly targeted. The recent six killings may be just a co-incidence, as might have applied to the victim who was killed along with the two Mexican men.
However, if the killings against US citizens were not due to coincidence, what could be the reasons behind them? Very likely, it is related to the US ‘war on drugs’ policy in Mexico. As discussed in my last blog, the drug cartels mainly target violence on the police and other drug gangs as a response triggered by police crack-down on drug violence and intense competition over trafficking routes among different drug gangs respectively. But if American citizens and even civilians (students) were also targeted, then the drug cartels must have developed a high level of hatred toward the US as a whole country. This hatred most probably stems from the US intervention to combat drug violence in its ‘war on drugs’ policy.
Still, one may wonder why drug violence is so serious in Ciudad Juarez that even ‘7,500 troops and elite police have failed to end beheading and car bombings’ there. Apart from its unique geographic location which gives rise to higher supply and demand of both drugs and firearms, the high unemployment rate and poor education system in the city are also key factors. Many jobless youths and school fall-outs join the gangs, feeling no hope for their future due to the economic plight and the failure of social support system. It is the high demand and supply of the potential personel for criminal activities that render the social order and control particularly difficult there.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A35AQ20101104
More hate crimes against homos in New Jersey
Three men have been accused of murder based on biased crimes in New Jersey. Victoria Carmen White, 28, was shot dead on September 12 at an apartment while having party with the suspected murders. The gunshot followed a quarrel suddenly occurred in the party, according to Prosecutor Robert D. Laurino. Another man Arthur Downey, 27, was also beaten to death in bed in his apartment. Downey, who was openly gay, met his suspected murderer in a telephone chat room. Laurino believed that the murders were associated with hate crimes against homosexuals. Two suspects who murdered White were still at large and a gay rights organization has announced rewards for information leading to the arrest of them.
This is another incident of hate crime against homosexuals, but it is different than previous similar hate crimes in three aspects. First, the outcome of this hate crime is more serious---murder, as compared to brutal beatings and robbery in the previous case. Second, the suspected murderers seemed to be hired to carry out the hate crime, while in the previous one the gang did the beating by its own. Third, it is a crime committed against people who openly declare themselves gay, as opposed to the emerging sexual identity in the gang case. It seems that disclosing one’s sexual orientation is a very dangerous act in the US, whether openly or accidentally.
One interesting fact revealed by the two hate crime incidents is that they both happened in New Jersey. What is so special about New Jersey that it has become a breeding ground for hate crime involving homosexuality?
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/21/new.jersey.transgender.killing/
This is another incident of hate crime against homosexuals, but it is different than previous similar hate crimes in three aspects. First, the outcome of this hate crime is more serious---murder, as compared to brutal beatings and robbery in the previous case. Second, the suspected murderers seemed to be hired to carry out the hate crime, while in the previous one the gang did the beating by its own. Third, it is a crime committed against people who openly declare themselves gay, as opposed to the emerging sexual identity in the gang case. It seems that disclosing one’s sexual orientation is a very dangerous act in the US, whether openly or accidentally.
One interesting fact revealed by the two hate crime incidents is that they both happened in New Jersey. What is so special about New Jersey that it has become a breeding ground for hate crime involving homosexuality?
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/21/new.jersey.transgender.killing/
Friday, October 15, 2010
Call to rally against cyber crime
A San Francisco conference organized by security firm RSA has called for concerted effort in fighting the highly organized cyber criminals of the world. Recent reports showed that cyber criminals had infiltrated everything from the US power grid to the Pentagon. Statistics revealed at the conference indicated that the internet is increasingly being used by online fraudsters. Sophos revealed that a web page was infected every 4.5 seconds and every day more than 20,000 new samples of malware were discovered. Symantec also said it had blocked roughly 200,000 attacks every half hour in 2008. Its CEO said that the attackers are shifting from random attacks to targeted ones, making every person a potential of victim. Cyber attacks can take many forms, such as stealing medical records, stealing financial data and stealing state secrets.
RSA President Mr Coviello outlined three key practices to combat cyber crimes. They included collaborating on standards, sharing technologies and integrating technologies and controls in the infrastructure. Developing new security technologies is also important, as Microsoft revealed its pilot new identity-based security technology in Washington State Schools for teachers and students to access grades and class schedules securely.
Cyber crimes are quite different from other crimes. The target of cyber criminals is essentially information rather than money or people as in non-cyber crimes. The key feature of cyber attacks is that they are not subjected to constraints of border, time and rule of law. It is encouraging that the conference urged for collaborative efforts in combating cyber attacks because cyber crime is by its nature a global crime. These collaborative efforts require participation of four different parties. Software security companies must develop and share new security technologies to outcompete cyber attackers. Individual users must stay alert from any potential cyber attacks and report promptly any attacks to the software security companies. Institution users must integrate security technologies into their infrastructures. The law enforcement agencies must cooperate intensely with the abovementioned three parties to effective combat cyber crimes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8011160.stm?CFID=64838319&CFTOKEN=89511862
RSA President Mr Coviello outlined three key practices to combat cyber crimes. They included collaborating on standards, sharing technologies and integrating technologies and controls in the infrastructure. Developing new security technologies is also important, as Microsoft revealed its pilot new identity-based security technology in Washington State Schools for teachers and students to access grades and class schedules securely.
Cyber crimes are quite different from other crimes. The target of cyber criminals is essentially information rather than money or people as in non-cyber crimes. The key feature of cyber attacks is that they are not subjected to constraints of border, time and rule of law. It is encouraging that the conference urged for collaborative efforts in combating cyber attacks because cyber crime is by its nature a global crime. These collaborative efforts require participation of four different parties. Software security companies must develop and share new security technologies to outcompete cyber attackers. Individual users must stay alert from any potential cyber attacks and report promptly any attacks to the software security companies. Institution users must integrate security technologies into their infrastructures. The law enforcement agencies must cooperate intensely with the abovementioned three parties to effective combat cyber crimes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8011160.stm?CFID=64838319&CFTOKEN=89511862
Friday, October 8, 2010
7 arrested for anti-gay crimes in New York City
The New York City Police has arrested 7 people who were allegedly involved in a serial of brutal, anti-gay hate crimes against four men. Two more suspects are still at large.
The suspects are members of a street gang calling themselves the Latin King Goonies. The string of attacks began on 3 October when the suspects learnt that an aspiring member of them (the first victim) was gay. The 17-year-old teenager was forced into an unoccupied apartment around 3:30am, questioned about his contact with a 30-year-old man, thrown into a wall, stripped naked, hit in the head with a beer, cut with a box cutter and sodomized with the wooden handle of a plunger. He was then released with physical threats from the suspects.
Later on the same day, another 17-year-old victim (the second victim) was beaten, questioned about the same 30-year-old man and robbed of jewelry in the same apartment. About an hour later, the 30-year-old man was lured to the apartment, stripped naked and tied to a chair. The suspects then forced the second victim to beat the tied man, burn him with cigarette and sodomize him with a small baseball bat. The last victim was the 30-year-old man’s older brother, who was robbed by the suspects, who forced into his home with the key taken from his abducted brother.
The acts done by the suspects were astonishingly brutal. Why did that happen? The crime against the first three victims was motivated by group hate towards homosexuality. Such hate is so strong that it even overrides the importance of membership, as can be inferred from the fact that the first victim was originally a member of the gang suspects. Group pressure is another factor that led the suspects to carry out the acts. I believe that individuals do not have the courage (and are not able to) put hate towards one particular group into brutal and criminal action. Given this, it is not difficult to understand why many gay people are reluctant to declare themselves gay, an act of expressing one’s self-pride and confirming one’s identity.
Source:http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/08/new.york.hate.crimes/index.html?eref=rss_crime&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_crime+%28RSS%3A+Crime%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
The suspects are members of a street gang calling themselves the Latin King Goonies. The string of attacks began on 3 October when the suspects learnt that an aspiring member of them (the first victim) was gay. The 17-year-old teenager was forced into an unoccupied apartment around 3:30am, questioned about his contact with a 30-year-old man, thrown into a wall, stripped naked, hit in the head with a beer, cut with a box cutter and sodomized with the wooden handle of a plunger. He was then released with physical threats from the suspects.
Later on the same day, another 17-year-old victim (the second victim) was beaten, questioned about the same 30-year-old man and robbed of jewelry in the same apartment. About an hour later, the 30-year-old man was lured to the apartment, stripped naked and tied to a chair. The suspects then forced the second victim to beat the tied man, burn him with cigarette and sodomize him with a small baseball bat. The last victim was the 30-year-old man’s older brother, who was robbed by the suspects, who forced into his home with the key taken from his abducted brother.
The acts done by the suspects were astonishingly brutal. Why did that happen? The crime against the first three victims was motivated by group hate towards homosexuality. Such hate is so strong that it even overrides the importance of membership, as can be inferred from the fact that the first victim was originally a member of the gang suspects. Group pressure is another factor that led the suspects to carry out the acts. I believe that individuals do not have the courage (and are not able to) put hate towards one particular group into brutal and criminal action. Given this, it is not difficult to understand why many gay people are reluctant to declare themselves gay, an act of expressing one’s self-pride and confirming one’s identity.
Source:http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/08/new.york.hate.crimes/index.html?eref=rss_crime&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_crime+%28RSS%3A+Crime%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
Friday, October 1, 2010
Freshman committed suicide after his sexual encounter broadcast online
A 18 year-old male student committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge after his sexual encounter with another man was streamed online. Tyler Clementi, who was a freshman, was having sex with another man in his dormitory room on 19 September evening when his roommate Ravi, also 18, surreptitiously placed a webcam in the room and broadcast the video of Clementi's sexual encounter on the internet. Clementi committed suicide on 22 September, leaving his wallet and cell phone on the bridge. The New Jersey prosecutors are determining whether to prosecute Dharun Ravi and another Rutgers University student for bias intimidation, which is a criminal offence under New Jersey law. Any person who commits a crime with the purpose of intimidating someone because of race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin or ethnicity, or if the victim or victim's property was selected as a target because of the same factors, is guilty of bias intimidation in New Jersey.
The suicide incident of Clementi should not have happened; it is tragic, unfortunate and outrageous. As a university student, Clementi has very good career prospects and his life should not have ended so abruptly due to somebody else’s mischief. It is outrageous because the mischief-makers are also university students and they do not have the sense of respect for the other person’s privacy, personality and dignity. The case may also illustrate that discrimination against sexual orientation is common and serious in American universities and even the society. The local authority and the Rutegers University should take concrete actions to make sure that the same tragedy will never happen again.
Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-30/justice/new.jersey.student.suicide_1_bias-charges-sexual-encounter-sexual-orientation?_s=PM:CRIME
The suicide incident of Clementi should not have happened; it is tragic, unfortunate and outrageous. As a university student, Clementi has very good career prospects and his life should not have ended so abruptly due to somebody else’s mischief. It is outrageous because the mischief-makers are also university students and they do not have the sense of respect for the other person’s privacy, personality and dignity. The case may also illustrate that discrimination against sexual orientation is common and serious in American universities and even the society. The local authority and the Rutegers University should take concrete actions to make sure that the same tragedy will never happen again.
Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-30/justice/new.jersey.student.suicide_1_bias-charges-sexual-encounter-sexual-orientation?_s=PM:CRIME
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)