Been taking a break from writing as I felt rather frustrated with the politics in the country and the violence in Hong Kong.  Everyday brings more revelations of how unethical and incompetent our president is.  I can write something on that everyday but I feel like I would be wasting my energy.  The country is so divided that nothing will change anyway.  The situation in Hong Kong has gone way longer than I expected and there is no light at the end of the tunnel.  This is also an issue that people on either side will not change their minds.  So I will not try to change anyone's mind on either situations but after thinking over things in the past month, I will try to predict what will happen.

So the impeachment inquiry has started.  For the past couple of weeks, witnesses have been testifying in televised sessions.  To me, Trump is worse than Nixon.  But it doesn't matter what I think.  Trump will be impeached by the Democrat controlled House, but will not be convicted by the Republican controlled Senate.  Trump will claim victory.  The whole thing will boost turnout for Trump, making it very difficult to beat him.  He will lose the popular vote again but all he has to do is defend the states he narrowly won in 2016.  If his supporters turn out bigger than his detractors in those states, he will win again.

The latest polls show that only Biden, among the Democrats, beating Trump in those battleground states.  Biden has been shaky in the debates so you can never be sure that he will do well in the general election.  So unless they come up with a bombshell during the impeachment proceedings, I am afraid that the Democrats are helping Trump win reelection.

Since we all know how China can mow down dissidents (see Tiananmen Square Massacre), it is amazing that they have been hands off in Hong Kong for several months.  But I think it is just a matter of a pending trade deal.  The Hong Kong police, to me, has been remarkably disciplined given the circumstance.  But if China says attack, the protest will be over with big time violence.  But Xi will at least wait until Trump signs a trade deal.  The deal will include, maybe not in writing but certainly in verbal agreement, that Trump will not protest if China uses force.  Trump needs a deal to get out of the quagmire that he got himself into.  He does not and will not care what happens to the Hong Kong people.  Just ask the Kurds.

Well, there are more depressing news that I have avoided to write about.  The tragedy of the Kurds is among them.  But I will end with at least a mild uplifting news:  Sean Spicer has bee eliminated from DWTS, finally!

Here is my take on the debate last night:  Warren was attacked like she was the front runner.  She did ok in response to the attacks but she did not do as well as she did in the other debates.  It is tough to be the target, just ask Biden.

Sanders was actually better than in the other debates.  I guess heart attack helps!  Actually I think he was having problem with his heart and so was affecting him previously.  Now that he is treated and has better blood flow, he is better!

It was the best debate for Biden but then he was not the main target this time.  He still needs to get better and will see if holds the top spot after this.

I think everybody who has been around has improved.  So despite the worry that the debates cause the Democrats to make each other look bad, I think the debates make everybody better.  The question is will it make the eventual nominee great at debates.

I thought Steyer did all right.  I expected a half crazy billionaire who just talks about impeachment.  But for a political neophyte, he was not bad.

I think Klobuchar and Pete did the best, meaning the moderates are making some inroads against the liberals.  But it is unlikely that they can hold the moderate torch should Biden falters.

So here are my ratings:  Top quarter Klobuchar, Pete, Gabbard.  Second quarter:  Booker, Yang, and Steyer.  Third quarter: Sanders, Warren, Biden.  Last quarter:  O'Rourke, Harris, Castro. 

So the good news is that just about everybody has improved.  The bad news is that the three who are most likely to be nominated are only in the third quarter.  But they are the ones who are being attacked the most, so maybe whoever wins will be able to withstand the attacks of Trump and the GOP.

Came across on YouTube an interview by Shaun Ley of the BBC to Alvin Yeung, the leader of the Civic Party of Hong Kong.  I think it was a balance interview by a respected Western broadcast network.  I would have asked similar questions as Ley did if I was the journalist.

An article in the LA Times today said that there are more people applying to emigrate out of the city.  This is totally expected given the situation there.  What is not expected is that the U.S. is no where near the top of the destinations for Hong Kong people.  If you see the American and British flags being waved during the protests, you would think the people in Hong Kong have great confidence in the U.S.  That apparently is not the case. 

In the past the U.S. have always been the top country the Hong Kong people want to emigrate to.  In the last couple of years, Australia has passed the U.S. and Canada is not far behind.  The survey now reveals that Canada and Australia are the top destinations.  Taiwan and Singapore are also ahead of the U.S.  In fact the U.S. was the top choice in only 2.9% of those survey. 

Keep in mind that those who apply to the U.S. and elsewhere usually have money to invest in the target country or have high education level.  So they are older and richer than most of those protesting.  Still, the anti-immigrant rhetoric from the Trump administration, gun violence in the U.S. and changes in immigration policies all contributed to the decline in the desirability of the U.S.  The people in Hong Kong are very sophisticated in their understanding of the politics of the U.S. and elsewhere.  I am sure they understand more about the Brexit or the abandonment of the Kurds in northern Syria by Trump than most people in the U.S. and U.K.

I think deep down the people in Hong Kong know they can't count on the U.S. or U.K. to rescue them.  The situation in Hong Kong will lead to a brain drain out of the city.  That is bad news for Hong Kong.  It is also bad news for the U.S. that they will not benefit from the transfer of talent as she had in the past.

As promised I am writing an open letter to the president of China after having written an open letter to the protesters in Hong Kong.  Unfortunately since then a protester was shot and in critical condition.  This was predictable and could have been prevented.  As I mentioned before, neither side would likely listen to what I have to say.  But having said my piece to the protesters, I am going to say my piece to the president of China.

Dear President Xi

The display of the celebration of the 70th founding of the PRC was very impressive.  A lot have been accomplished by China during these 70 years.  But most of it has been done since Deng Xiaoping changed the system in China.  I think it is obvious that the old communist system under Mao Zedong was an abject failure.  If China wants to move toward becoming the greatest power on earth, it is essential that the Chinese government continues to open its system toward more democracy and more freedom and do not revert to the past.

President Xi, you said in your speech yesterday that the Chinese people are a great people, the Chinese nation is a great nation and the Chinese civilization is a great civilization.  Well, two out of three ain't bad!  China is not yet a great nation.  Great economic progress have been made but there are still lots of people in poverty.  But worse, are the policies in Xinjiang and Tibet.  I understand your desire to keep the country united.  But by putting so many people in internment camps and jails, you lose credibility all over the world.  I am sure most of the people who are detained are not threats to a great military power like China.  Start releasing some of them, it would be good publicity.

In the matter of Hong Kong, I say you must take the young people seriously.  Listen to their concerns both politically and economically.  Give the Hong Kong people the freedom to vote for their chief executive.  What have you got to lose?  Whoever is voted in cannot declare independence.  Hong Kong depends on China for so many things, it cannot stand alone.  But China also needs Hong Kong for its business know how and connection to the Western world.  If you let them choose their leader, you would have outdone the British over their entire colonial rule of Hong Kong as they never let Hong Kong choose their leader.  Again, it would make China look like a great nation.

President Xi, you have done a great job with the Belt and Road Initiative.  A great use of soft power.  You are right to say that "China used to send people all over the world because it was weak, but we send aid all over the world today because we are strong."  But the policies closer at home make people all over the world question your motives in sending the aid.  By making changes in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, China can look like a benevolent power that a great nation should be.

During the Ming Dynasty, Admiral Zheng He took the greatest navy the world had known up to that time and for couple centuries after that on seven voyages.  Zheng went south and then west across the Indian Ocean all the way to Africa.  Along the way they were attacked a few times but easily defeated their attackers each time.  Zheng showed off the brilliance of the Chinese civilization and nation.  But unlike the Europeans later, the Chinese did not take any slaves nor did they take treasures from other countries.  Many countries paid tributes to the Chinese emperor after that.

I think it is possible for China to become that great military power again.  But can it be a kind power like it was in the days of Zheng He?  Mr. President, you have the power to point China in that direction.  You can start that by being more kind at home.  I believe your legacy will be enhanced if you change some of your stances regarding Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong.  As you know soft power is much better than hard power in the 21st century. 

AYM

Another day of violence in Hong Kong as the protest there is on the 17th week.  As China's national day on Oct. 1st approaches, we can expect more violence over the next few days.  As a former Hong Konger who is now an American, I wish to give advice to both the protesters and the authorities in Hong Kong and China.  I know nobody on either side have any interest in what I have to say.  But I am going to say it anyway.  So here is an open letter to the protesters, particularly the young ones.  Later on will be an open letter to the authorities.

Dear Protesters: 

I know the overwhelming majority of you are peaceful people who just want to protest without causing damages to Hong Kong and injuring innocent people.  You also do not want to be injured or arrested.  But the problem is there are people among you who are dangerous and is causing havoc that have led to violence.  While you may believe it is the police who are causing the violence, I don't see it that way.

I live near LA.  If a million people are out in the street of LA protesting and some of them crash their way into the city council building, raise foreign flags, sing foreign national anthems, burn the American flag, shut down LAX, shut down some of the subway (although we don't have those here), throw Molotov cocktails, petrol bombs and bricks, what do you think the LAPD would do?  It would be much worse than the tear gas and water cannon that the Hong Kong police have used.  In 17 weeks there would be death at the hands of the police here for sure.

A few weeks ago French police were using the same tactics against protesters at the G7 summit.  There were only a few hundred protesters at that time, hardly a threat.  Do you remember the tactics the French police used against the Yellow Vests protesters last year?  Way more number of and severity of injuries then than those in Hong Kong now.  But was there complaints by other western nations against the French police?  I think the Hong Kong police have been rather restrained in comparison.

Some of you are worried that Carrie Lamb will use the Emergency Regulations Ordinance against you.  This is a draconian law that basically lets the Chief Executive do whatever she wants.  But you do know this is not a Chinese law but a law left over from British colonial rule?  It was put into law to stop the Chinese seamen who were protesting that their white counterparts were making several times as much money.  This rule was used in 1967 in the leftist riots by the British forces.  If the British were so worried about human rights in Hong Kong, why didn't they repeal the law all these years, particularly when they handed Hong Kong over to China?

I understand that many of you don't like the policies of China.  But I don't understand why you would raise the British or American flags and sing their national anthems.  The rights that you demand from China were not given to you by the British until it was obvious that they are going to hand Hong Kong over to China.  This way they can say China is abusing you.  But to the day of the hand over, the people of Hong Kong had no right to vote for their chief executive.  It was a governor appointed by London.  And I don't know of any instance where the U.S. chastise the UK for human rights abuse in Hong Kong or in any other of its former colonies. 

Yes, there are good Americans who are rooting for you.  But the U.S. government have always look for its own self interests above human rights.  The U.S. went to Vietnam to fight the communists.  But did the U.S. protest French colonial rule in Vietnam?  Sure, China should be called out on human rights issues in Tibet and Xinjiang.  But the U.S. is only giving out toothless protests all over the world over human rights.  China gets hit by western nations more than others because it is their biggest competitor for world power.  But you should not believe that any nation, including the U.S. will be of any real help for you.  If China wants to stop U.S. complaints, it will just give Trump a trade deal.  If you don't think money talks, just ask the family and friends of Jamal Khashoggi.

Most of your families originally came from the mainland to have a better life.  I would say that life in China is way better than that of your ancestors before they made their way to Hong Kong.  I would also say that even though you may not think so, I think Hong Kong today is way better than in the 1960s when I left.  Improvements in China and Hong Kong took place slowly.  Those in power do not give it up easily, whether it is communist China or colonial Britain.  The Western nations will give you verbal support but there will not be concrete help.  You have won the extradition bill battle.  It is time to let things go back to normal because there is a minority who will take violence to much higher levels.  This will eventually lead China to put down the hammer.  This will cause damage to Hong Kong that may be impossible to repair.  Good luck.

AYM

New SNL hire Shane Gillis was found to have made disparaging remarks about Asians, including calling them chinks and mocking Chinese accents.  Presidential candidate Andrew Yang weighed in and took the high road.  He said he would forgive Gillis and would sit down and talk to him, using this as an educational moment.

That is very generous of Yang.  But I don't agree.  Gillis also said in the past that one can get away with making fun of Asians.  The implication to me that he is too much of a coward to attack another group the way he attacked Asians.   Can you imagine if he used the N word and mocked black speech?  We would not have a discussion of if he would be fired by NBC.  NBC would have fired him the same day the news came out.  It has been a weekend so I will give NBC another day or so.  If nothing happens, I say we need to boycott NBC.

I believe in forgiveness and not punishment in every instance.  But in this case, Gillis believed that he could get away with mocking Asians.  I am sure a lot of people do too.  Thus we need to send a message that they can't get away with it.  Gillis says that he is just pushing the boundaries as a comedian.  Is there a joke somewhere when you call people chinks?   He has fell over the boundaries and into quick sand. 

Take Gillis' "apology".  Yes, take it and shove it up your you know what.  He said he would be happy to apologize to anyone who is actually offended.  This is a non apology.  It implies that there is nothing wrong with what he said but that if someone is so sensitive that he feels offended, then Gillis would say he is sorry to him.  If someone says the N word in front of only white nationalists, nobody would be offended.  So does it means he is not wrong and does not need to apologize?  If one is sincere about making an apology, he should say he is sorry about what he said because he knows that it was horribly wrong.

Yang has been criticized for enhancing Asian stereotype by saying Asians are good at math and that lots of Asians are doctors.  I agree that those remarks are not funny and adds little to his campaign.  (Although MATH stands for Making America Think Harder is pretty good,)   But if you remember  Obama, when asked about people claiming  that Bill Clinton was the first black president, replied that he has to see if Bill can dance first before calling him a brother.  I don't think blacks were offended by the implication that they dance better than whites.  So I can live with people giving us Asians positive stereotypes.  When the false negative stereotypes go away, the false positives will go away also.

Watched most of the debate last night, so here is my take:

Corey Booker once again did the best, I thought.  Beto was right up there with him.  I thought it was the best Klobuchar did of all the debates and the town hall last week.  Warren again was the best of the Big Three.  Pete led the middle three.  Biden was very good in fending off Warren and Sanders in the beginning, his best performance so far.  But he faded toward the end of the third hour.  Yang, as in previous debates, got the least amount of questions and time.  Other than the beginning where he said he was giving away a thousand dollars a month for a year to 10 people, he was flat in his limited time.  Harris came across as combative, trying to show she will fight Trump by calling him out.  She was, however, on the defensive over her time as DA and AG.  Sanders again was near the bottom as Biden beat him, I think.  He also was not as good as Warren, by far, in holding up the progressive flag.  Castro was last again, especially since he attacked Biden for his memory, which came across as mean and he was actually wrong about what Biden said.

Not much changed as a result of the debate.  Klobuchar and Beto got the most boost, I think.  Klobuchar came across as a moderate, which she is, but also fair to the progressives.  Beto had the advantage of being from El Paso, site of a recent massive shooting.  He was able to speak passionately about gun control.  He even said he would take away AK47s and AR15s.  This may give the GOP ammunition to say the Democrats will take away your guns.  But, hey, they were going to say that anyway.  I think it is maybe time to lay it on the line.  Do we really think that people should have guns that were meant to be used in war?  If you need these guns to hunt, you are a cheat!

The big winner last night:  Obama!  Everyone said something nice about him.  Obama has become the Reagan of the Democrats.  All GOP candidates before had to mention Reagan.  Now all the Democrats had to mention Obama.  I think they recognize you can't attack Biden by attacking Obama.

I was not home last night so didn't watch the town hall of Democratic candidates on CNN.  Just as well since all 10 candidates got 40 minutes and so the whole thing went on for several hours.  No way could anyone watch the whole thing.  I watched excerpts of each candidates after I got home last night.  So here is my take on the event based on somewhat limited information.

I think the format made everyone looked good.  There was only one topic: climate change.  So it is easy to prepare what you are going to say ahead of time and be able to answer any questions that may come up.  There was nobody attacking you, like at a debate.  Instead of one or two minutes, like at a debate, you have much more time to make your view or ideas more clear.  So it helps everyone participating look good.

I think this helps someone like Yang the most, if people choose to watch while he is on.  During the debates, I felt he was called on less often than some of the other candidates.  He was also not as loud as some others.  His ideas need more explanation than can be done in one minute.  His humor also came through more last night.  So I think he did well.

Not surprising, Klobuchar was the most moderate and Sanders the most radical.  His 16 trillion price tag was 13 trillion more than that of Warren.  Booker was also more moderate than expected, saying nuclear power is not off the table as many progressives demanded.  I am actually surprised that this former Stanford football player who is well spoken, is not doing better at the polls.

I thought mayor Pete brought out a good point, asking would God want you to take care of the planet or destroy it?  This maybe helpful to persuade some conservatives who are most likely to be climate change deniers.  It may not work but at least it shows that he is not just preaching to the choir like most of the others were doing.

Of the big three, I think Warren did the best.  She came across as more detail oriented and spoke clearly.  Biden did ok but given the format, I don't think he did great.  There was the question of him attending a fund raiser hosted by an oil executive.  He denied that the man was an oil executive.  It may be semantics but it is not good to have to defend when he should be bringing out policies.  To me Sanders was just too far to the left and not as good a speaker as Warren.  So I declare Warren the winner of the big three.

The Hong Kong protests are getting out of control.  I thought things went fairly well in June when the government backed down from the extradition law which led to the protests in the first place.  But the protesters were not satisfied.  They demanded the resignation of Carrie Lam, the chief executive.  They also demanded more democracy.  Since then the protests have turned more violent with government buildings and the airport being occupied.  Businesses came to a halt for many days since then. 

Recently a friend of my wife and her husband came to the U.S. from Hong Kong for a visit.  We sat down and talked about the situation in HK.  Now, I must admit we are all in our 60s so our views are quite different from the majority of protesters who are mostly in their teens or early 20s.  One thing that was brought to our attention by one of our friends in America was that some of the protesters were singing the American national anthem in some videos.  We understand that the U.S. is still consider a model of freedom in the world.  But most of the protesters, who were not even born when HK was handed over to China by Britain in 1997, have no idea how things were under colonial rule.

There was no true democracy under British rule in HK until a few years before the handover, when British knew they will not be governing soon.  There were protests and riots during the British rule.  There was never a response from the U.S. in support of HK protesters against the British back then.  It is easy for the U.S. to chide China for undemocratic stance in HK, although Trump seems to give Xi a bye on this so far.  But the U.S. never chided Britain for colonial behaviors in HK,  So for those young people singing the praise of the Britain and the U.S,, remember all countries back their friends and act mostly in their own self interests.

Speaking of those protests against the British, remember the actions of the HK police back in 1966 and 1967 vs the actions of the HK police today.  While the protesters are complaining the brutality of the HK police today, they should go back to history to see that the HK police under British command were much more brutal back then.  Now, to be fair, the 67 riots instigated by the leftists sympathetic to communist China were much more violent.  The majority of HK people wanted the police to stop them toward the end.  But the 66 riots were peaceful and most historians would say that the police acted more brutally than necessary.  Same with the beginning of the 67 riots.  The reaction of the police back then were over the top which contributed to the violence.  The British government, after the 67 riots, commended the police for its fine work putting down the rioters.  The brutality of the police under British command was not discussed openly.

So I think the actions of HK police is rather restrained today.  There is a picture in the LA Times today showing a protester swinging a bat against a cop.  In the U.S. that may have led to a shooting by the police.   But nothing happened.  Sure tear gas  and water cannons were employed.  But that would be the least response from any police force faced with people breaking into government offices and shutting down the airport. 

The future of HK is not bright.  China, of course, may take away all freedom at any time.  At the very least, China is less dependent on HK for its finances and will try to let Shanghai be the financial capital of the country.  Part of the problem that led to these protests by the young people is that their economic condition is much worse than those of their parents.  But with these protests turning violent, it may make HK's financial situation permanently worse.  A nephew of one of my friends who works for a big U.S. investment bank, said that with the instability in HK, his firm is planning on pulling out of its Asian headquarters out of HK and into Singapore.  Losses like that are going to be permanent.  My wife's friend and her husband agree with this assessment and fear for the future of their children.

Just returned from a trip to New York.  It has been many years since I visited the biggest city in America.  A lot has changed since then in my eyes.  The traffic is still horrible.  I had to rent a car to go upstate to attend a wedding.  It took an hour and a half to just get the rental car.  Are there that many people going out of the city?  I don't think that many people want to drive in the city, do they?  Then it took forever to drive out of the city.  The wedding was only 80 miles from JFK but it took about 4 and a half hours to get there, including the delay at the rental office.  It was almost as long as the flight time from LA to NY!

When I got back to the city, I found the transportation with the subways and buses were great.  The subway trains and buses are free of graffitis, unlike the last time I was there.  The subway stations were clean.  I didn't see any rats.  The trains were on time and not as crowded as before.  Interestingly, there were very few beggars and homeless people in the streets.  This is in contrast from what I saw before and what I have seen in LA and SF lately.  It seems to me that NY is doing a better job of getting rid or housing the homeless than the big cities in California.

I also find the people in NY have better manner than before.  I did not run into any rude people the entire week.  Whenever we asked for help, even strangers on the bus or on the subway, they were polite and helpful.  The diversity of NY is amazing, even more than California.  I must have heard about 20 languages spoken in just the short time we were there.  Of course, we did not test the manners of the NY taxi drivers who were mostly rude the last time I was in town.  Now we ride in Uber or Lyft, and those drivers are polite.

The most glaring difference to me, however, was the lack of honking in NY.  Before I would turn around to see what was going on if I DON'T hear cars honking.  Now there is practically no honking at all.  I thought the people couldn't have changed that much, could they?  Then my wife's cousin told us that there is a law that if you honk and is not an emergency, you can be fined $350!  Now, I don't know how they would enforce it.  There are no cops watching to see who is honking, right?  Even if there are cops, how can they know who is honking for sure, given the heavy traffic.  But I guess if you have a law, most people will obey it, even if they know you are not likely to get caught.

There was also a lot of police presence everywhere.  Obviously at Trump Towers there were lots of police.  But subways, Central Park, JFK and ordinary streets are staffed with what seems excessive number of cops.  Well, it did make me feel way more safe than in the past, especially walking at night.

So overall, my impression of NY is that it has made a lot of improvements.  Maybe people are more mellow after 9/11?  I don't know.  But at least on the surface, NY has outdone LA and SF as far as I can see.  LA in particular, with its homeless problems and lack of good public transportation, needs to learn from NY.