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.