Friday, July 22, 2005

It Has Been 15 Years...........

To those of you who do not know, 15 years ago today, my whole family immigrated to Canada from Hong Kong.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

An Interesting Move by the United States in International Relations

This is a very interesting move that George W. Bush made in international relations.

Are the Americans trying to create a regional rivalry between China and India in Asia?? Both of those are developing countries with great potential, and both are heading to be developed countries in the next 30 years.

The more interesting question is: Would this new US/India relationship change the dynamic among US, India, and Pakistan's relationships? We all know that India and Pakistan don't get along (re: Kashmir and many other historical reasons).

Pakistan has been "buddy-buddy" with the Americans since after 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan (the War against Terrorism). Would Pakistan feel betrayed by the United States?

On global security, would the US push India to signed up to the international non-proliferation regime? Are the Americans trying to be friends with another nuclear power before things could go wrong?? Afterall, India is another country with a huge Muslim population (and who knows how much influence do those fundamentalists have??)

On the other hand, (a very minor fact) some Canadians may feel betrayed by the US, as Canada seized selling nuclear technology to India because India refused signing up to the international non-proliferation regime. Now the US is "picking up the slack" and selling nuclear technology to India......Least to say, this is a very interesting and complex move regarding to this new US/India relationship.

-------------------------
Together at last
Jul 19th 2005

From The Economist print edition
America adds substance to its professions of friendship for India

FOR months, American officials have been insisting, as one put it, that there is "no higher priority" for George Bush's second term in office than "expanding and broadening our relationship with India". If that could be achieved by pomp and ceremony, the visit this week to Washington, DC, of Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, would have done the trick. He was showered with honours, including a 19-gun salute and the chance to make a speech to Congress. The president even stayed up late to entertain him to a White House banquet, only the fifth he has thrown in more than four years.

America's professions of friendship have of late started to ring rather hollow. It has remained committed to its strong alliance with India's nuclear-powered neighbour and rival, Pakistan. It has refused to endorse India's chief foreign-policy goal, a permanent seat on an expanded United Nations Security Council. It opposes India's cherished project to pipe gas from Iran across Pakistan. And it has withheld co-operation in military and nuclear technology because India tested nuclear weapons in 1998 and has never signed up to the international non-proliferation regime.

Of these four areas of contention, Mr. Singh's visit marked a breakthrough only on the last. But this one matters so much that it has transformed the relationship. America has agreed to help India acquire "the same benefits and advantages" as other states with nuclear weapons. India is to be granted "full civil nuclear energy co-operation" - such as fuel supplies and the transfer of technology.

This is hugely important for India. One of the biggest constraints on the continuing success of its fast-growing economy is an electricity shortage. Nuclear energy, which at present accounts for only about 3% of total generation, is, in many eyes, an attractive alternative to coal and expensive imported oil and gas.

The American move is also a great symbolic victory. For decades India has faced sanctions because of its nuclear-weapons programme. Now, America is, in effect, offering to help it to become a respectable bomb-wielding citizen. In return, to the consternation of critics at home, India has promised to adopt the same responsibilities as other nuclear powers, including separating its civilian nuclear facilities from military ones, opening the former to international inspection and maintaining its moratorium on nuclear testing.

For more upbeat Indian analysts, the nuclear deal is proof that the country has achieved "dehyphenation" a decoupling of its relations with America from the sometimes vicious America-India-Pakistan triangle. America has close relations with Pakistan, which swiftly followed India into the nuclear club in 1998, but Pakistan does not enjoy any of the new privileges the Americans are bestowing on India. Nor, these days, does America press India to make concessions over Kashmir, the core of its dispute with Pakistan.

The change in America's attitude reflects both India's emergence as an economic force to be reckoned with, and the rise of neighbouring China. India's economy is only about 40% the size of China's, but its fast growth and young population mean that its global role is increasing, not least because of its thriving information-technology and outsourcing industries. Just as the boss of any big American firm needs to tell his shareholders a China story, so he now needs an Indian strategy too. One of the outcomes of Mr. Singh's visit was the launch of a new forum of Indian and American chief executives.

American and Indian officials stress that the two countries' relationship is independent of their respective relations with China. Yet America's stated ambition to help India become a great power in the 21st century cannot be detached from apprehensions about China's looming might. Although India is enjoying something of a second honeymoon with China, its own long-standing suspicions, which date to the war of 1962, have not entirely faded.

Despite the instinctive anti-Americanism of many Indian intellectuals, both India and America recognise that, as democracies, they should have common interests. These were obscured by the legacy of the cold war, during which a "non-aligned" India tilted towards the Soviet Union, and the United States played the "China card". The much-needed rapprochement with India was pursued by President Bill Clinton, but further delayed by India's bomb tests in 1998, and then by the attacks on America on September 11th 2001, which gave Pakistan new importance in the war against terror.

That importance persists, but officials say that Mr. Bush is personally committed to better relations with India. Revelations of the Pakistani connections of three of the suicide-bombers who attacked London this month were a reminder that Pakistan is also part of the terrorism problem. India, on the other hand, as Mr. Bush pointed out when he introduced Mr. Singh to his wife in Moscow in May, has more Muslims than any country other than Indonesia but no known al-Qaeda recruits.

Pakistan will at least be pleased that America's new love affair with India does not extend to open support of its Security Council bid. Mr. Bush went no further than to agree that international institutions should fully reflect changes that have taken place since the UN was set up in 1945. India agrees with that though many Indians suspect that the only change America really wants to preserve is its own emergence as the unchallenged superpower.

Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2005. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Time for Saskatchewan to Stop the Debate and Go with Daylight Saving

If the US is switching, and if Canada follows suite, Saskatchewan should start having Daylight Saving for the first time!! It is a good opportunity (with a lot of momentum) for the government to do the "right thing" on this issue.

The last time I heard of this issue in Saskatchewan (on John Gormley's show last February), the Calvert government still wants to do more "studies" on it.

Sometimes I wonder, how many "studies" does that government need to decide on such a simple issue?? To make things simple, the government should just pick to go with the Central Time (i.e. Manitoba).

Why??

(A very simple answer here:) Because this is a prairie province, and don't have many mountains. It just doesn't make any sense to go with "the Mountain Time" (i.e. Alberta.)


-----------------------
U.S. moves to extend daylight time. Last Updated Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:52:22 EDT

The U.S. Congress has adopted a plan to extend daylight time by two months each year as part of a sweeping new energy plan.

(AP file photo / Daytona Beach News-Journal)

If U.S. President George W. Bush signs it into law, the plan means Americans would turn their clocks forward one hour on the first weekend of March, instead of April, and "fall back" on the final weekend in November instead of October.

Congress believes the extension would trim energy costs by cutting the need for artificial light in the evenings.

The change, due to take effect this autumn if Bush approves it, could cause headaches for Canadians during March and November, the two months the two countries would be out of sync.

Television and travel schedules could be affected, while the change could also mean implications for business operations between the two countries.

Canadian critics of the adjustment argue children will be walking to school in darkness while drivers may face increased morning black ice, which hasn't melted in the sun.

Copyright ©2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Freakonomics

Got this book over the weekend, and it is a pretty interesting read.

On the other hand, I just hope that Stephen Harper doesn't have the same way of thinking (given that he's also an economist) as Levitt (tongue-in-cheek).

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

The Fast Food Spin??

First, I got to apologize that I wasn't able to post for the last little while due to an election campaign, a summer class with assignments, exams, and papers, a paper that I want to get published, and quite a bit of traveling as well.

Well, I will try to post more often - maybe get back to at least once or twice a week.

Anyhow, the following is a Paul Krugman article from the NY Times.

I was kinna surprised that the fast food industry in the States would deploy such a spin.

Many of my friends said that a tax rebate for buying gym memberships or joining sports leagues would help people to get active.

However, I disagree. I think that people who are not living a healthy lifestyle would not change just for $50 a year.

The ultimate solution has to be education. The whole TV/video game culture has to be changed.


------------------------
July 4, 2005
Girth of a Nation

By PAUL KRUGMAN

The Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group financed by Coca-Cola, Wendy's and Tyson Foods, among others, has a Fourth of July message for you: worrying about the rapid rise in American obesity is unpatriotic.

"Far too few Americans," declares the center's Web site, "remember that the Founding Fathers, authors of modern liberty, greatly enjoyed their food and drink. ... Now it seems that food liberty - just one of the many important areas of personal choice fought for by the original American patriots - is constantly under attack."

It sounds like a parody, but don't laugh. These people are blocking efforts to help America's children.

I've been looking into the issues surrounding obesity because it plays an important role in health care costs. According to a study recently published in the journal Health Affairs, the extra costs associated with caring for the obese rose from 2 percent of total private insurance spending in 1987 to 11.6 percent in 2002. The study didn't cover Medicare and Medicaid, but it's a good bet that obesity-related expenses are an important factor in the rising costs of taxpayer-financed programs, too. Fat is a fiscal issue.

But it's also, alas, a partisan issue.

First, let's talk about what isn't in dispute: around 1980, Americans started getting rapidly fatter.

Some pundits still dismiss American pudge as a benign "affliction of affluence," a sign that people can afford to eat tasty foods, drive cars and avoid hard physical labor. But all of that was already true by 1980, which is roughly when Americans really started losing the battle of the bulge.

The great majority of us (yes, me too) are now overweight, and the percentage of adults considered obese has doubled, to more than 30 percent. Most alarmingly, obesity, once rare among the young, has become common among adolescents, and even among children.

Is that a bad thing? Well, obesity clearly increases the risks of heart disease, diabetes, back problems and more. And the cost of treating these weight-related diseases is an important factor in rising health care spending.

So there is, understandably, a movement to do something about rising obesity, especially among the young. Bills that would require schools to serve healthier lunches, remove vending machines selling sweets and soda, and so on have been introduced in a number of state legislatures. By the way, Britain - with the second-highest obesity among advanced countries - has introduced stringent new guidelines on school meals.

But even these mild steps have run into fierce opposition from conservatives. Why?

In part, this is yet another red-blue cultural conflict. On average, people living outside metropolitan areas are heavier than urban or suburban residents, and people in the South and Midwest are heavier than those on the coasts. So it's all too easy for worries about America's weight to come off as cultural elitism.

More important, however, is the role of the food industry. The debate over obesity, it turns out, is a lot like the debate over global warming. In both cases, major companies protect their profits not only by lobbying against policies they don't like, but also by financing advocacy groups devoted to debunking research whose conclusions they don't like.

The pro-obesity forces - or, if you prefer, the anti-anti-obesity forces - make their case in part by claiming that America's weight gain does no harm. There was much glee on the right when a new study, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, appeared to reject the conventional view that obesity has a large negative effect on life expectancy.

But as officials from the C.D.C. have pointed out, mortality isn't the only measure of health. There's no question that obesity plays an important role in many diseases that diminish the quality of life and, crucially, require expensive treatment.

The growing availability of such treatment probably explains why the strong relationship between obesity and mortality visible in data from the 1970's has weakened. But the cost of treating the obese is helping to break the back of our health care system.

So what can we do?

The first step is to recognize the industry-financed campaign against doing anything for the cynical exercise it is. Remember, nobody is proposing that adult Americans be prevented from eating whatever they want. The question is whether big companies will have a free hand in their efforts to get children into the habit of eating food that's bad for them.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com