It was a tremendous defeat for the intelligent design movement when Judge John E. Jones III ruled that a school board violated the constitution by requiring the teaching of the theory as an alternative to evolution. In a 139 page ruling Judge Jones presented such eloquent arguments against the intelligent design movement that I cannot add anything of value to his writing. If you have not read excerpts of his ruling in your local newspaper, please do so. Basically Judge Jones points out that intelligent design is not science and should not be taught to students as such. He also said that the school board members lied to disguise their real purpose which is the promotion of religion.

The interesting thing about this is that Judge Jones is a church going conservative appointed by President Bush. So the intelligent design movement cannot claim bias against religion. It is also heartening to me because I believe that there are courageous and ethical people who do not go with the party line but are independent thinkers. My gut feeling is that the two most recent Supreme Court nominees, Judges Roberts and Alito, will not be as conservative as people think they are. It is obvious that they are well qualified and are extremely intelligent. I believe that while I may not agree with all of their rulings they will be fair-minded about each case that come before them. Of course they can be the next Scalia or Ginsburg, well qualified but totally predictable in how they rule. Worse, they can be another Thomas who is predictable and not even qualified. Anyways, this ruling by Judge Jones give me a little more hope that Judges Roberts and Alito will follow the law rather than follow personal beliefs.

Once again the government has looked incompetent in trying to convict a Chinese American for espionage. Following the cases of Wen Ho Lee and James Yee, the case of Katrina Leung has also come unravel. Leung was a business woman who worked for the FBI by obtaining sensitive information from China. She was acccused of switching sides and taking information from her FBI handler and lover James Smith and passed them on to China. Leung pleaded guilty to lying about a sexual affair and filing a false income tax return. Just as in the cases of Lee and Yee, the prosecution failed miserably and this plea bargain is just a face-saving attempt for the government. While I believe that Lee and Yee are totally innocent and it was a waste of time and money for the government to prosecute them, the Leung case could have helped the U.S. avoid losing secrets to China and other countries. Unfortunately, by zealously going after the alleged Chinese American spy while giving her co-defendant an easy way out, the prosecution committed misconduct and lost the chance to help our national defense.

Let's assume that Leung was a double agent. It is incredible that James Smith had no idea that she was spying for China. The first thing the prosecution did was to grant immunity to Smith with the idea that they can nail Leung. They didn't care if Smith was punished adequately for his crime. Even if they had succeeded and put Leung in jail, so what? She was guilty of doing for China against the U.S. what the U.S. had hired her to do against China. In other words, spying was something used by all countries. By putting a foreign spy into jail would not stop spying from that country. It will have no deterrent effect. To safe-guard our secrets we must make sure our own people cannot be bought. Leung could not be have been successful if Smith did not take the bait and succumb to sexual temptations. Most people become traitors not because of ideology but because of greed or sex. The logical thing to do would be to punish someone like Smith more harshly than Leung because he was higher up and was the one who gave up secrets that Leung could never have gotton without him. Instead the government just let Smith go and thus give a message to others that if you have sex with a spy from another country and lose information as a result, you would not have to go to jail.

It is not a pure racial issue where the white guy gets off while they try to punish the Asian. It is however, apparent that the government thinks that Chinese Americans are more likely to spy for China than white Americans because of ethnicity. It may be that more Chinese Americans than Americans of other races are spying for China but that is because China is trying to recruit Chinese Americans rather than people of other races. You would expect that Israel would recruit Jewish Americans to spy in the U.S., not Arab Americans. People of Chinese origin are as likely to succumb to sex or money as other races but I don't think ideologically they are more for China. In fact if they originated from Hong Kong or Taiwan they would more likely be ideologically opposed to communist China than the average American. I don't think Leung was a communist since she did provide excellent information for the U.S. against China. I believe that she is a person who craves for power and prestige and by playing off both sides she gets that feeling of power and prestige.

Chinese Americans want people who betray the U.S. to be brought to justice. It is unfortunate that in many high profile cases the government usually portray the Chinese Americans as guilty of great crimes before any substantial evidence are found. This makes people think that the average Chinese American is less patriotic than other ethnic groups. Even when the judge in the Lee case apologized to Lee for the government's conducts, the government has never acknowledge their slandering of this fine American. In the Leung case they used illegal tactics to try to secure a conviction against her but lets her white co-defendant go with practically no punishment. This is the wrong message to send to the Chinese American community as well as the intelligence community. Do you think China cares if they get Leung for spying for the U.S.? I am sure they are concentrating their effort to punish harshly those in their government who gave Leung information. They know that even if they catch Leung or other American spies, more will be coming. We should understand this and that to keep our secrets safe, we must be sure that the people who has acess to them cannot be bought.

I am glad that the Illinois Supreme Court has overturned a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris over claims that the company deceptively marketed "light" cigarettes. I am against smoking and I know the tobacco companies are bad guys but this lawsuit is ridiculous. There are 1.14 million smokers who signed up for this class action suit. These people are morons. You can't figure out that light cigarettes are also dangerous? Who on this earth doesn't know that smoking any type of cigarettes can kill you? For those who signed on because of greed, you should know that 3 billion dollars of the award would have gone to the state. Dividing the 7.1 billion leaves each plaintiff less than $7000 before attorney fees. So for a few thousand bucks you are selling out your dignity as a human being who would take personal responsibility for your action.

Sure the tobacco companies are tricky but they followed federal guidelines and their marketing practice in this case was approved by the Federal Trade Commission. If smoked the same amount these light cigarettes are less toxic than regular cigarettes. The claim by the plaintiff is that to get more nicotine, smoker then smoked more cigarettes or inhaled more deeply and thus nullify the effect of the light cigarettes. This is an absurd argument. I use the lower sodium soy sauce at my favorite Japanese restaurant. If I use twice as much becasue it is not salty enough, I can't blame the soy sauce maker of false advertising when I get hypertension. If you think that you can smoke twice as much light cigarette as the regular ones you must be a moron.

Another moron is the judge who ruled against Philip Morris in the original trial. I can see stupid, sympathetic juries giving outrage verdicts, but this is a judge. If he thinks this case is fraud, then I should sue beer companies in his court for showing that drinking beer makes men look cool in front of women. I am sure I can find a few million men who would testified that this is false advertising!

The tobacco companies have done some despicable things in the past but the dangers of their products are well known today. If an adult makes a decision to smoke any tobacco product in the past 30 years, he has to take responsibility for his own action. The attorney for the plaintiffs in this case said that the Supreme Court decision will cause consumers to suffer. I am a consumer, and I am not suffering since I don't smoke. For those who swithched from regular to light cigarettes because they believed the advertising, they would be killing themselves anyway whether they switched or not. This is not a case of fraud but an example of greed and lack of personal responsibility in our society.

I read recently that GM is closing 12 plants and cutting 30,000 jobs. Also, it appears that Toyota will surpass GM as the leading auto maker in the world in another year. Being originally from Detroit I feel rather sad that this is going to happen so soon. It is, however, an expected development. Both management and the unions are to be blamed for this.

For many years there was not much global competition in the auto industry so GM and other auto companies could name their prices. The union could also demand wages that were much higher than expected given the skill of the work involved. This is no longer the case and hasn't been since Japan became a strong competitor more than 25 years ago. Detroit responded somewhat to the challenge and the quality of work has improved over the years. It is not enough, however. The quality of U.S. cars is still not as good as many of the imports. The managements and the workers must share the blame for this. Better quality control must be put in place by management and be followed by the workers. As for the cost of making the cars, the unions must give a lot more concessions or they will lose more jobs. The management is also making way too much money. Executives in our industries, including the auto industry, make much more money than executives in other countries. If executives get bonuses when the company is doing well, then they should get huge pay cuts when the company is doing poorly. I never hear the president of GM or any other company cut their own wages or stocks when they lay off workers. They are responsible for leading the company into red ink so why are they not suffering for this. If GM loses its top position to Toyota, then the president of GM should make less money than the president of Toyota. I don't see that coming.

There is complaint from management that pension cost for retirees are hurting the company because foreign companies have less retirees. Well, that is no excuse because the money for the pensions should have been put away when the workers were stilling working. There are actuaries who can do this type of calculation. Money should have been put away years ago and not now. Good management would not have let this happen. Negotiation for wage concession and a defined contribution plan for health care should begin as soon as possible. I don't see that coming.

Beyond help from the union which is absolutely necessary, the management has to be more creative. SUVs may be making lots of money for automakers now, but I think eventually energy efficient cars will be the determining factor whether a company survive in the future. GM had the electric car years ago but is not making them anymore. Honda has a hydrogen powered car being tested now. Where is our technology? Instead of hiring lobbysts to block stricter government standard for fuel efficiency, GM and other domestic automakers should spend more money to exceed those standards before the Japanese and Europeans are able to do it. Pay for the best engineers instead of the best PR people. We have to think more long term or we will be in more trouble. Just think, China is not making many cars now but I am sure she will be. Can you imagine the competition then?

I see that Fisher Deberry, the football coach at the Air Force Academy, apologized few weeks ago for his comments about black players being able to run faster than others. I accept his apology on behalf of Asian Americans. I guess we are the group that the coach was offending the most. I don't think that he dislike blacks since he seems to want more of them at the Air Force. Well, at least on the football team. Whenever a coach says he needs more speed on the team, I know he doesn't mean Asians. I look at a school like UCLA where about 40% of the students are Asian, and yet I think there is only one Asian on the football team. The coach of UCLA is black and most of the players at the speed positions of his team are black. So I think black people think just like white people: that blacks are faster than whites and Asians.

Seriosly, I don't think Fisher DeBerry is a racist. You can't blame someone trying to get the best players he can and thus keep his job. The trouble I have is when I see a coach ignores a small Asian kid and assumes he can't play. Dat Nguyen is a starting linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys but throughout his college and pro career people think that he is too small to be a good player. How many Asian kids were cut before they had a chance to prove themselves? If a little guy like Ichiro was born in the U.S. and didn't build a reputation in Japan, would he have made it here? You may say that if he is that good, no way would he have gone unnoticed. You may be right. But think about the quality of Japanese baseball and the number of Asian players in the majors now. Wouldn't you expect a few Asian Americans in the majors? I can't think of any. All of the Asian major league players built their reputations in Asia. We have not produced any Asian American major league players from our high schools and colleges. I don't think genetically Asian Americans are inferior to native Asians. I think if coaches encourage Asian kids more and give them more chances, you will see more Asian Americans in team sports. In individual sports like tennis, golf, and skating where there is no coach deciding who makes the team Asian Americans have fared better.

The uproar over the whole DeBerry incidence is, of course, whether a remark about black superiority in sports implies that blacks are inferior in intellectual pursuits. You can't never tell what is in the heart of the speaker but you can't criticize someone for stating something obvious. Blacks are faster. Nobody knows why this is. Does this means that since they do perform below Asians and whites academically that they are dumber? I don't see how you can draw that conclusion. There are too many factors involved to make any kind of conclusion. All I know is that like the Asian kid being ignored by a coach, it is wrong to assume that a black kid is not capable of doing academic work. Stating the obvious is not the same as making assumptions. DeBerry was only stating the obvious, he has nothing to apologize for.

More and more people in this country are coming to the conclusion that the Iraq war is a big mistake. I was against it from the very beginning. I am not proud to say that I only made my view known to some of my closest friends at first. Even though I have lived in this country for almost 40 years, I still feel that some people look at me as an Asian and not an American. After 9/11 the whole country felt the need to stand behind the flag and that anyone going against the government maybe seen as unpatriotic. As the war is dragging on, I feel more and more frustrated and wish that I have spoken out more. It wouldn't have made a difference because we were going to war anyways but I would have feel less of a coward for not saying anything. I don't have any great answers to how to get out of this war but by writing why I was against it in the beginning and what are some of the flaws of our international policies, may be we can find some answers in the future.

One reason people are angry at Bush is that he used false intelligence about Iraq's weapons program to sell the war. I felt from the beginning that Iraq did have biological and chemical weapons. I didn't think they had nuclear weapons. It really didn't matter though. To me Hussein and bin Laden were not allies. In fact they were enemies, one a secular dictator and the other a religious zealot. Hussein was always afraid of the U.S. He used biological and chemical weapons in the 80's only with the blessing of the U.S. He invaded Kuwait because he thought the U.S. wouldn't intervene. He retreated without much of a fight during the first Gulf War. He truly had WMDs back then but would not use them against the U.S. because he knew if he did he would be completely destroyed. He would never have helped bin Laden even if he had WMDs because that would have been the end of him. Why would he risk his life to help one of his enemies? So to go after him for possible terrorism in the future is absurd especially given our complicity with him in the 80's. It strikes the rest of the world as hypocritical. It also is a waste of our lives, money, and time.

Right after 9/11 we had the sympathy of most of the world. Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. We should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job there instead of going to Iraq. Maybe bin Laden would still be at large today but we wasted chances to get him and wipe out al qaeda by taking most of the resources out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. Without finishing off one enemy we created another one. Afghanistan is not secured today. Warlords and remnants of the Talibans are still around. We should have helped ensure the democracy of Afghanistan first. By doing so the world would have applauded us. The UN would have taken over much of the work in Afghanistan by now and we would be freed to attack terrorism elsewhere.

When we attacked Iraq based on the right of preemptive strike, we lost much respect in the world. This is also against our own belief that we should not attack others unless we are in immediate danger. By claiming preemptive strike as a right for a powerful country, we have scared many peaceful nations. Can China use preemptive strike against Taiwan? Sure, Taiwan isn't a real threat to China. But is Iraq really more of a threat to the U.S. than Taiwan is to China? To the Arab world this is a case of America believing that all Arabs are alike or that we are trying to use an excuse to attack Arabs.

Let us look at the big picture of terrorism. There always going to evil people in this world. How dangerous will these people be depends on how well they can recruit others to their dirty work. We can and should chase down all the bin Ladens of the world. But we will never get rid of all of them because more are born everyday. The only way we can be secure is when we can stop them from recruiting sacrificial lambs. The suicide bombers are generally not evil people to begin with. Evil people usually don't sacrifice themselves. They get others to do the sacrificing. Bin Laden will never strap bombs on himself and walk into a market and blow himself up. The suicide bombers are misguided people. Even if the U.S. is perfectly even handed in treating the Israeli-Palestinan conflict, some will be persuaded to think of the U.S. as the enemy. But now by attacking Iraq we are adding people who can be more easily persuaded. If unsophisticated suicide bombers attack us, the result would be tragic but it would not be destructive to our way of life. My fear was and still is that there are intellectuals who were moderates in the past but see this war as proof that we are trying to destroy the Muslim world. If one of this individual is a top notch scientist living among us, the danger would be much greater than sucide bombs or planes.

I don't have many answers. But I do know that overwhelming force is not the answer. Being the most powerful nation in the world means that we can last longer than anyone else. It does not mean we are secured. We cannot bomb the whole world into submission. Look at Israel. She has overwhelming military power against the Palestinians and her neighbors and yet she is not secured. Security can only come from political solutions. This does not mean we don't go after the terrorist. We should do that and use as much resources as we need to beef up our security. we have a no win situation in Iraq right now. Even if we are able to capture Zarqawi tommorrow the country will not be stalized. Our presence there will bring more and more outside insurgents regardless even if the leader is captured. Remember Zarqawi was not a great leader before we invaded Iraq. With the help of countries like Iran, there is a guarantee of insurgents as long as we stay. Sure it looks bad to leave but our staying will not be doing any good now.

I read an article by George Sjostrom in my local newspaper recently. He wrote about the UN and how corrupted it was and that the U.S. gets no respect and therfore should withhold more of its overdue payments. While I agree that UN is not the institution we had hoped it would be when it was established, I disagree with many of Sjostrom's arguments. I wrote to him but he has not responded in two weeks. I guess he has no interest in debating this. So I am going to publish my letter to him here and see if anyone has any thought on this. Sjostrom's article was publised on Oct. 1, 2005 in the Ventura County Star

Dear Mr. Sjostrom:

With all due respect, I find many flaws in your argument against the UN. Yes, the UN does not seem to be able to agree on anything but what would you expect when there are 191 nations involved, all with different cultures and interests? The U.S. is just one nation but we have such a big divide that the blue states and the red states can't agree on anything either. Yes, there is corruption and waste in the UN but what country, including the U.S., does not have corruption and waste? If Paul Volcker had written a report on all the wastes and pork coming out of our government, would the Congress have taken any meaningful action?

You have problems with Tonga having the same voting power as the U.S. in the General Assembly. Would you rather see China with 10,000 times more voting power than Tonga based on the proportion of population? The truth is the UN was never meant to be a democratic institution. It was created by the big powers for the big powers. This is why there is a veto for 5 members of the Security Council. Anything that is important cannot be done without the consensus of all 5 countries. If 180 countries voted to get rid of all nuclear weapons on earth it would be a meaningless gesture since the U.S., Russia, and China are sure to veto it. The truth is nobody cares what Tonga thinks. When the United States speaks everybody listens even if the U.S. doesn't always get her way. UN forces will never go anywhere without the support of the U.S. So even if all the arab countries voted to send UN troops against Israel, it would never happen. On the other hand when we have no energy to do the right thing like intervening in Africa, we can always claim that the UN is there already. Would you rather see U.S. troops or UN troops in places like Lebanon? Of course the UN can't do a very good job because the major powers would never let the UN have a strong military.

When we are doing the right thing like going to Korea, going to Kuwait or chasing al Qaeda in Afghanistan the UN and most of the world support us. It gives the impression that we are not doing this for our own self interests only when the UN is behind us. When we do things that are questionable we can't expect the UN and the rest of the world to kowtow to our power. This Iraq war is a perfect example. Most of the our own people finally are realizing this is not the right thing to do. The rest of the world, even most of the people in our strongest ally Great Britain, believe we are wrong. So the structure and composition of the UN is irrelevant in this case. Even NATO, an organization consisting of our allies only, is not giving us much support.

The UN can be very useful to us if we provide good leadership. I am sure we would have received great support if we had gone in to attack Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he used chemical and biological weapons against Iran and his own people. Instead we applauded him because we hated Iran. Now instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan where the UN would have been glad to relieve our troops by now, we are stuck in Iraq while al Qaeda is regrouping.

Yes, the UN is not what we had hoped it was going to be. It has not solve many great problems in this world. It is basically there for the great powers of the world to present their cases to all the nations. I think in most cases we have come out ahead of China and Russia, earning more respect than them. But when we give false intelligence to justify war and then go ahead when most of the world disagree, we do seem arrogant to the world community and lose respect. There is talk that we should just kick the UN out of New York. Well, I am sure Bejing would be happy to host the UN. That would be disastrous for the U.S. and the rest of the world. The UN may not be a great success, but compare to its predecessor the League of Nations, it has been a tremendous improvement. Afterall, we have not had World War III yet. Thank you for reading such a long letter.

If anyone reading this understands why the investigation of the case involving the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame is still going on 2 years later, let me know. Karl Rove is testifying before the grand jury for the 4th time. Numerous journalists have testified. One was jailed for refusing to name her source even though she did not publish Plame's name. My question is: why has Robert Novak, the person who actually put Plame's name in print, not been sent to jail? That seems to be the most direct route to get to the truth. None of the other testimonies are necessary if Novak testifies. If they can send Judith Miller to jail for refusing to name her source, why can't they do the same to Novak?

This is not a case of a journalist's right to not reveal his sources. Novak had to know that it is illegal to expose a secret agent. Nobody can possibly think that this is not a crime against the country. When Novak learned of Plame's name and her role in the CIA, he did not have to write about it. If the person who gave him the information had simply wanted to discredit Plame's husband but did not want Plame's name to be published, then Novak is the only one guilty because he could have wrote the story without naming Plame. If Novak was threatened or instructed by someone in the government to expose Plame, then there is no reason for him to hide the source of the leak since that person had committed a crime. So the special prosecuter should simply indict Novak. If he won't give up his source, then he is guilty of knowingly endangering a CIA agent. One of the reason that journalists are allowed to hide their sources is because we wouldn't want someone with power, such as the government, be able to intimidate witnesses. In this case the source is a part of the government that is intimidating someone, so he should not be protected. I am sure Novak understands this and so his cry for the freedom of the press is absurd.

This whole thing seems like a circus. The list of possible suspects can't be so long that 2 years later we still don't know who did it. If the source was a low level person in the Bush administration, I am sure the White House would have figured it out a long time ago and would have sacrificed him to get this whole thing behind them. So was it Karl Rove or another person at his level? Everybody knows Robert Novak knows. If anyone knows why Novak is walking around as a free man while the rest of the world is laughing at our so call investigation, please let me know.

Since I don't go to church and I am against intrusion of religion into government, many people think that I obviously do not believe in God. I am not an atheist. In fact I do believe in existence of a God. As a person with scientific background, I do not believe that science is able to explain the existence of the universe or why we are here. If there is no higher being than us and that life in the universe is just one random process, then our existence is rather meaningless. The rights and wrongs that we do would be of little significance. So I do believe in a God who will judge us and will also give our lives meaning in eternity. I do not believe, however, that any of the major religions represent the true God. Most people have faith in their religion, believing their religion is the right one. I don't have problem with what each person believes in. I just personally don't have faith in any particular religion. I think one can communicate with God without calling him by the name given by any religion. I am really not smart enough to know who is the right God. I do know somethings about the true God. A few of these things I list below show why I don't think that any of the major religion is the right one for me.

I am not smart enough to know who is the true God, but I know that if Judaism is the true religion, then the Jews will not be the chosen people. Nor would anyone else be.

I am not smart enough to know what is the true religion, but if Confucius is the most intelligent one, China would not have claimed to be the Middle Kingdom and Chinese women would not be second class citizens.

I do not know if the Protestants or Catholics represent Chrisitanity better, but if Jesus is the son of the true God, He would be abhored by what has happened in Northern Ireland in recent history.

I do not know who is the true God, but if Hinduism is the true religion then I know that the Brahma would never have created the caste system.

I do not know what is the true religion, but I do know that if Buddha is really the enlightened one, then Mother Teresa would be among the most blessed ones in Nirvana.

I do not know who is the true God, but I know that if Allah is the really God, then He would cry when terrorists blow up a bus with innocent Israel children on board.

I do not know who is the true God, but I know that if God is Jewish, He would cry when Israeli helicoptors kill Palestinians in retaliation.

I am not smart enough to know what is the true religion, but I know if Catholicism is the true religion then one million confessions will not save the priests who molested children.

I do not know who is the true God, but I know the true God would not let children die because He would not allow his followers to have transfusions.

I do not know what is the true religion, but if Shintoism is the true religion, then all the Japanese war crimnals would rotting in hell now.

I do not know who is the true God, but if Allah is the true God, then He would be devasted by the Sunnis and Shiites fighting each other in his name.

I don't know much about the true God, but I do know that He would not really care if we give him credit for creating the universe, but He would be happy to see if we can figure out how He did it.

I am not smart enough to know who is the true God, but I know whoever He is, He did not give the Jews all the land of Israel for eternity, He did not make China the center of the world, He did not give Kasmir to either Hindus or Moslems and He did not give Europeans and Americans the right to enslave other people or to colonize them.

I do not believe the true God would condemn anyone to hell because he does not believe Him as the true God. Afterall, would you condemn your children to hell if they don't think you are the greatest? The true God would be more forgiving than us, not less.

We will not be blessed just because polticians ask God to bless America. We will be blessed only if we try to do the right things. Do you think praying at the shrine of war crimnals help the Japanese prime minister get to Heaven? Would the Chinese Communist party leaders be blessed by going to a Budhist temple? Would the Christians who started the Crusades be welcomed home by Jesus? Would going to the mosque three times a day help members of Al Qaeda who were responsible for 9/11?

I don't know the name of the true God. As you can see, I believe none of the major religions know either. So I won't be going to churches or temples to look for Him. I believe He lives within each of us. When we do the right things, we will find Him.

A judge in California ruled against the Pledge of Allegiance this week. Personally I don't have any problem with the words "under God" in the Pledge. Certainly it is less religiously coersive than having "In God We Trust" on our bills or the President swearing into office with a hand on the Bible. I usually just skip the words "under God" when I recite the Pledge. I am still pledging my loyalty to this great democratic secular country and if other people want to say those two words, it doesn't bother me. We have no say with respect to the dollar bill though. I cannot cut out the words "In God We Trust" without bringing on lots of unwanted attention every time I spend my bills. The truth is that there are many more important things to worry about in this country now to be spending time arguing about this issue. We really don't need to make a Supreme Court case out of this. But since there is a case, I'll have to side with the plaintiffs.

If we look at the history of the Pledge, it would be an obvious case of violation against separation of church and state. The original version of the Pledge did not contain the words "under God". It was in the 1950's, during the McCarthy era, that the two words were added to showed that we are a country of religion as opposed to the communists countries which are anti-religion. How can that not be a violation of the separation of church and state? Our government injected religion into an important institution of our country which had no religion in it in the first place. If the original version already had "under God" in it, maybe you can argue that tradition dictates that no change should take place. But in this case the government actually changed the tradition and so changing back to the original form would not be in any way be considered unpatriotic or anti-religion.

All this arguments over two words but in reality nobody is obligated to recite the Pledge in the first place. It is our right not to recite the Pledge. Conservatives would probably consider anyone who refuses to recite the Pledge unpatriotic or worse. I tend to agree with them. Yet one type of people who won't recite the Pledge are extreme Christians who believe that they cannot pledge allegiance to an earthly kingdom. Like I said, it is their right to believe what they want but I don't think I can be less patriotic than them by skipping two words in the Pledge.

The Pledge of Alligiance is important to the patriotism of this country and should be taught to all of our school children. So while we are teaching them we should tell them about the history of the Pledge including how the two controversial words were added to it. By learning about the history of the Pledge, the children will learn something about the history of this country's democracy. After that, with the help of their parents, a child can decide individually if he or she will use "under God" when they recite the Pledge. Regardless whether the child use these two words, if he recites the Pledge with true passion, we should be proud of him.

Any pretense that the NCAA worries about acaemics as much as athletics is thrown out of the window this week. The NCAA decided that athletes from colleges that are affected significantly by hurricane Katrina can compete without having to go to classes this year. On the other hand, if an athlete decides to transfer to another school and go to classes, then he must sit out one year. I am sure most athletes would have stayed on the same team anyways since for most of them going to classes is a necessary evil. If an athlete wants to graduate on time and actually go to classes at another school, he would lose a year of sports. The NCAA is worried about "massive looting" by some schools. This is absurd. The number of athletes who want to go from playing sports exclusively to having to attend classes at a strange setting in order to play with new teammates would be small. The ones who want to be really student athletes and move to another school in order to attend classes should not be penalized. The schools that would "loot" other schools at this time of tragedy would be criticize all over the country and the NCAA can penalize them.

Once again the NCAA do not have the athlete's interests at heart. But then what do you expect from an organization who would penalize 18 years old for minor infraction while adult coaches who cheat are able to move on to another job without retribution?

Michael Brown resigned as the head of FEMA. This was expected as someone had to take the fall for the Bush administration. The appointment of Brown in the first place raises the question of what we value more: merit or ideology.

Although it is difficult to know whether anyone else in Brown's place would have made a significant difference in the outcome, it is not arguable that Brown was unqualified for the job. His resume indicated no experience in emergency service to prepare him for the highest position in this field in the country. This is like being surgeon general without going to medical school. I am against afffirmative action base on race or gender. I am also against rich kids getting into top schools because of "legacy". Hello, Mr. President. I am against people getting top jobs based on connections, which is clearly the case here. As a close friend of mine say: " there is no affirmative action in choosing airline pilots." Well, the lives at stake here is more than on an airplane and no nepotism should be allowed. Merit must be the only consideration in appointing or promoting someone to an important position.

While Bush is responsible for this meritless appointment, he is not the only one at fault. Brown must have gone through a confirmation hearing in the Congress. Didn't anyone realize he did not merit this position? The Democrats are gung-ho about challenging John Robert's nomination to the Supreme Court because of his ideology. There is no question about Robert's merit, he is obviously qualified. So we will be spending days questioning an intelligent man about his ideology which will only be truly revealed after he has been on the Court. I wish that they had spent a fraction of that time when Brown's nomination came up. Of course we know that would never have happened because both Democrats and Republicans are more worried about ideology than merit.

Like many of you watching the storm in the Gulf Coast, I was broken hearted. The images were more like those of Africa than America. The rest of the world must be shocked at our incompetence. There are plenty 0f blame to go around and there are plenty of people pointing out the failures of various parts of our governement. I am going to give my take on the issue of race and class in this tragedy.

Black leaders, rappers, and Democratic politicians are complaining that race was one of the main issue in the delay of federal help to the area. The Republicans say this is absurd, that whether the people are white or black, the response would have been the same. I believe that no high government official made decisions based on the race of the victimes. I think America has come a long way so that our government would try to rescue as many citizens possible regardless of color. Nevertheless, the division of class in our society and the perception of people from one class about people in another class did contribute to this tragedy.

The reason why we saw almost all black people stranded in the Superdome or the convention center of New Orleans was that the overwhelming number of poor people in this city and throughout our urban areas are black. Most of the high officials in the government including FEMA are white and not poor. The head of FEMA Michael Brown said that he had no idea that these many people would ignor the evacuation warnings and stay behind. What he does not realize is that if you are poor and had no car, you would have a hard time evacuating. The way these folks look at it: " even if I can afford a bus ride out of here, I can't afford to stay at a hotel. I have no money and this home is all I've got. I must try to save my home at all cost." A middle class guy does not want to lose his home, but he can afford to leave town and he still has his bank account and maybe mutual funds that can't be washed away by the storm. Without an understanding of people of other classes make it hard for leaders like Brown to understand that there will be more victims than they had anticipated.

Even when they finally decided to send the troops into the convention center there was more delay until the area was "secured". The image was of armed troops walking in formation as if going into enemy territory instead of bringing supplies to rescue their citizens. I am sure the commanders were not racists but they heard of rumors of possible riots in the center so they acted as if this was true. Of course some members of the media had beaten the troops into the center and had reported that there was no violence. I can't imagine that if the troops were bringing food and water into stranded people in Beverly Hills, they would have been so worried about possible violence. By the way, if people in Beverly Hills had no water or food for several days, I believe they would also do whatever they can to survive even if it means breaking the law.

For a poor black person in New Orleans, this week probably confirm what he had suspected all along: that the government is racist. For a middle class white government official, this is an unfair charge since he had never thought about the race of the victims when he made his decisions. My advice to the black person is this: you can't change your color but you can change your economic status. A rich black person would have left town before the storm hits with his bank and mutual fund account just like the rich white folks. Even if you are black and still do face discrimination in this country, you can succeed. This is still the best country in the world and gives everybody a chance to succeed. Even though we looked like Sudan this week, we are not. As for the white middle class government official, I would suggest go live among the poor and see what it is like. An understanding of others different from you is essential if you are truly trying to serve you fellow citizens.

Yes, I am an Asian American. However, the things I will be writing about on this web site will rarely be about Asians. Sometimes I won’t even be angry. Most of you who happen to come across this site will agree with some of my opinions but will also disagree with some of my other opinions. If you are an extreme liberal or an extreme conservative you probably won’t like what you read here. I think it is people like you who cause so many of the problems in this country. You are so close minded that you agree with liberal Democrats or conservative Republican views on an issue when it is obviously wrong. Unfortunately, it is people like you who dominate the two major political parties. As a result people who are not of either extreme find it difficult to vote for anybody they really like for political office. We are usually voting for the less of two evils. Frankly, I wish the moderates in both the Republican and Democratic parties would come together and form an independent-minded party.

Notice I said an independent-minded and not a centrist party. I don’t believe that we should be middle of the road on every issue. In my future writings, you’ll notice that I may sound extremely liberal or extremely conservative on a particular subject. I believe that sometimes the liberals are right, sometimes the conservatives are right and other times a compromise is in order. In a way this makes an independent-minded party difficult to form as reasonable people may have extremely different opinions about a particular issue. It is also one of the reasons that the extremists on either side are so powerful. We must try to overcome this recognizing that having an independent thinker in office is much better than having an ideologue. For example, I disagree with many of Sandra Day O’Connor’s Supreme Court opinions but I much rather that she stays on the Court instead of Ginsburg or Thomas. With O’Connor you won’t know how she will vote but with most of the other members of the Supreme Court you can figure it out way ahead of time.

In a few days I will write my first article. Yes, I am quite busy and I write very slowly. If you like what I write, just check in once a week or so. You wouldn’t have missed much.