因为有人问如何跟儿子讨论这次选举， 我就将给儿子的邮件贴一下。在我们家， 我至少坚持我在家里、家人面前自由表达意见的权利，不强求他们同意。用英文写的， 有写作错误请见谅，因为这本来是给儿子的较随意的写作。
1. 关与这个国家开始是自由移民， 但现在有移民限制
This country started with 13 English colonies, which were established by immigrants. All these colonies were dominated by people immigrated from England. Most of them were white Christians. Hence, the founding culture/faith is the heritage of white Christians from England (maybe different from the mainstream culture/faith in England then). This country grew with continuous immigration and merging with other colonies (e.g., Louisiana purchase and Alaska purchase, Texas and southwest states). They were still dominated by white Christians.
As this country started with all people being immigrants, (disregarding Native American Indians), the founding principles were the consensus for a population dominated by immigrants. After a few hundreds year, the population is not dominated by immigrants anymore. As a citizen society, policy of this country should reflect the founding principles and interests of its current citizens. Founding principles should be respected in today’s politics, but founding principles should not be used as dogma to override the interest of its current citizens. To me, we cannot always use founding principles to argue for policies (e.g., gun control).
Argument 1: “This country is founded on the principle that the immigrant can come and thrive, that the immigrant is a part of this country.”(my son's reply to my former email)
It used to be a free country to immigrants (no regulation on immigration, no border control). Immigration is regulated now. To me, immigration should be regulated. Free immigration and open border for USA now? Only insane or irresponsible people will agree. Why this country has deviated from the principle that the immigrants can come and thrive? Conditions have changed. First, it used to be hard to come to America Continental. Hence, most people arrived had overcome hardship, which served as a natural validation of good purpose. Which thief will hike 30 miles to steal a computer? If he has hiked 30 miles to my house, I trust him that he will not steal my computer. Now, it is piece of cake to come to USA. Many mean people will arrive too. Hence, we need to regulate. Second, generally speaking, it used to be wilderness. Now, most of the land has been occupied and has properties on it. Any new comer will inevitably affect some people who are there already. Hence, regulation is indispensable to avoid conflicts. Third, it used to be that new comers live by themselves without any government welfare (even no protection of personal safety). Now, theoretically, anyone living in USA is enjoying welfare from government this way or that way (at least protection of personal safety by legal system and policing). Government welfare is sustained with tax collected from people who are in this country already. Definitely, tax payers have right to regulate immigration.
Most politicians are discussing immigration without differentiating legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. To me, as an immigrant through legal path, there is big difference between legal immigrant and illegal immigrant. For legal immigrants, they respect the current condition (including all laws) of this country and try to fit in. For illegal system, they do not respect the current condition (or only partially) and try to take advantage.
Sure, I am against any policy to abuse immigrants (including point fingers at immigrants for many problems). To me, lawfully forcing illegal immigrants to leave is not to abuse them. I believe this country should continuously accept a significant number of legal immigrants. How many and what types of immigrants are the questions to be discussed. I believe many immigrants positively contribute to this country. However, there are some immigrants with mean purposes when they come and there are some immigrants have negative impact on this country. The government should have procedures to distinguish them and deny their immigration application. Also, this country can accept some immigrants based on mercy and grace (e.g., refuge). Again, how many and what types are questions to be discussed. Actually, this country is accepting immigrants with a number bigger than any other country.
This country became the top developed country before 1950, when all economy and politics was dominated by white Christians. I will not say such a fact was fair to all people lived in USA. On the other hand, none can deny the fact that a system dominated by white Christians had led to a prosperous and strong country. I will not say the system in 1950 was ideal. On the other hand, none can deny the fact that, according to the global standards around 1950, such a system was the best system existed that time. The important characteristics of this system include: democracy, capitalism, and high-tech industry. Such a system was attractive to people in Asia, in Africa, and in other countries in America Continental. For non-white new immigrants around 1900 and afterwards, they have been disadvantaged comparing with white people born here or new white immigrants, but almost all of them have felt that life in this country has been better for them than their homelands.
Sure, there are many problems in such a political system. The most serious problem is racial issue. Hence, I totally support the Civil Right Movement in 1960s. Colored people should be treated equally so that they can compete in job market fairly and share any government resources equally. Immigration should be open to citizens from all foreign countries based on qualification to job market needs without race or country quote.
Unfortunately, civil right movement after 1980s has been changed to favoritism, allotting special arrangement to certain races. If such favoritism was necessary for the first generation minorities after Civil Right Movement, it should not exist anymore after 1990. Unfortunately, recent civil right movement is promoting more favoritism. Frankly speaking, I do not agree with most civil right movements undergoing.
Hence, my view for the future of USA is: 1) we need to improve the politics in this country continuously, but still centered on white Christian culture; 2) we should not take culture/politics in any minority to make USA more like his/her homeland. First, to be practical, “NOT BREAK, DON’T FIX”. We should stay with white christian heritage. Second, for the large groups of minority ( black people, Latinos, or Asians), none has developed a successive political system in their homelands (not including those strongly influenced by USA, such as Japan). Third, if you believe your homeland has a better system, please just enjoy it in your homeland. Why have you immigrated? Hence, the big picture of today’s multi-culture policy is a big mistake. On national policy level, it is much better for minorities to accept principles based on white Christian culture. I am not confusing culture with politics because culture is the infrastructure of politics. I hope minority groups can fit in rather than change the politics because of their voting power. The later may make them comfortable now but likely hurts the future of this country.
When I lived in China, I was not prosecuted. I immigrated to USA voluntarily because USA is prosperous. Hence, it is important for USA to be prosperous continuously (at least for 2-3 generations for my offspring). If not, my effort in immigration is wasted. While hoping USA to be prosperous, I am trying my efforts for myself and my sons to climb up in the social status. Contrarily, some immigrants and some minority just try to get as much as their share in this country without consideration of the long term prosperity of the whole country.
I will not say white people have been very nice to legal immigrants or minorities. However, I do not believe minorities in power will be nicer to other minorities than white people. I have heard many examples that AA are very mean to Asians. Asians have been easy pick targets of crimes by some AA. I expect Asians in power in USA will be mean to other Asians in USA too as Asians in power in Asia are very mean to their citizens. Under such conditions, I have to hope white people in power to get the best for me as a Chinese immigrant. For example, AA and Latinos in California continues their efforts to enroll fewer Asians in UC campuses.
I agree human being is born to be equal. However, culture/politics of a race or a nation, which has been formed over hundreds years, is not equal. For example, at the age of exploration and imperialism, Spain and England both set up multiple colonies. Several modern countries are developed from colonies set up by Spain and several modern countries are developed from the colonies set up by England. English speaking countries have performed much better than Spanish speaking countries. Do you believe this is solely caused by random history events? Leaving faith value alone, worldly, a culture/politics based on protestant and industrialization is better than a culture/politics based on Catholic and agriculture (in 15-17th century, Spain was still dominated by agriculture). To handle a person and the heritage of his culture/politics, we need to use a theory similar to the teaching in church that we should not despise a sinner but we should criticize the sin that a sinner is with. Hence, USA should welcome immigrants from different cultures, but not let their heritage significantly affect the progress of the mainstream culture/politics. Not to mention the heritage of some immigrants with culture/politics in whose homelands being generally hostile to core values in USA.
Also, I do not believe that IQ of certain race is significantly inferior to another race. However, the culture of AA has just dragged them behind. I do not think AA after 1990 (one generation after 1965 when most racial based bans removed) can complain their failure to the politics. Families in my village had been disadvantaged for > 200 years as farmers in small village without any special resources. As soon as the opportunity opened to us in early 1980s (enrollment to college only by test score and allowance of migrate working), averagely, we became as successive as other regions in X'X'X Province in 20 years.
The values of their culture damage them more than anything else. I do not want Asians and AA become hostile to each other by comparing them. As this is communication among family members, I can say it. I will not say Asians are more moral in all aspects, but apparently Asians have much more family values. People used to be able to succeed with merely physical strength (ready ~14 years old) and wisdom in common sense. However, now, people are much more likely to succeed with professional training (ready after ~22 years old and paid education), which is much more available with family support. Such family support is based on how rich your family is and how much sacrifice your family will take. Many AA families are not rich and do not want to sacrifice. Asian immigrants are much more believing in knowledge (especially STEM). A person without knowledge to compete in this society is similar to an army to fight without tanks, airplanes, missiles after 1950. After I have compared between China and USA for years, I believe the success of Chinese economy is most importantly due to the total openness to STEM knowledge (sure it may be bad without any moral, environment, and faith consideration).
Today, pushing changes outside AA will not improve their society as much as promoting changes internally. However, it is politically incorrect to propose such movement (e.g., strengthen families in AA community, push them to study). According to methodology, change is always dependent on both external conditions and internal conditions. Actually, internal condition is more critical. Today, many movements for AA are just to give them nicer policy. For example, the movement of “black life matter” is against policing and regulation. Frankly speaking, policing and regulation is actually helping disadvantaged groups (including Asian immigrants). Without policing and regulation, AA can be abused by white gang groups easily.
I believe minorities should fight for tolerance so that 1) they can compete with all other people in job market and professional training fairly (with the same criteria); 2) they can practice some life habits in private life. For example, they can have their food habits without discrimination. They can set up business for their convenience. However, it is not wise to use their culture to influence national politics or to use their voting power to override national interest. For example, Latinos should not use their voting power to legalize illegal immigrants. Immigrated Chinese and ABC should not influence foreign relationship with China either.
Many people will say multi-culture policy will promote understanding by promoting events for original culture of immigrants. With international travel becoming easy, it will be more effective to use these resources to promote international travel to these countries. To understand Chinese culture, it is much better to order a box of 小笼包in a street side restaurant in Shanghai than to have some orange chicken in a multi-culture fair in County Fair.
Recently, many young people are misled by liberal social science. They want to change as quick as possible. They believe policy fit idealism always works (e.g., free tuition for public college; accept as many refugee as possible). They want to criticize history events and history heroes using today’s standards (e.g., many students in Yale want the name of President Wilson be removed from the campus). Additionally, some just want to change so that they can take advantage under the slogan of love, fair and share.
A country as big as USA is similar to a fast running train. It is painful to feel that speeding is dragged behind. However, it is more painful for the train to be derailed due to fast braking or fast turning.
Idealism often leads to bad results. Revolution introduced more problems than problems solved. Communism movement has given us a failed example of idealism, which got into power just 100 years ago and phased out just 30 years ago.
Some people used some “dark side” of USA history to mislead young people. First, every person who succeeded has dark side of his past. Also, every country has its dark sides in history. Sure, we should reform so that we do not repeat the “dark side”. However, it is not wise to use confirmed or not confirmed “dark side” of our history to remove our respect and pride for our precedents, or even worse dissolving unity among the people. More importantly, the success of this country has not been determined by such called “dark sides”.
Fact 1: black slave
I admit that AA had not been treated nicely or fairly. However, exploitation of them is not the keystone of the economy development of this country. First, this country became one of top developed countries mainly because of the industrialization, which mainly occurred in north with white workers, but exploitation of black slaves mainly occurred in the south farms. Second, black people were treated even worse in their homeland. Third, African rulers who had exploited their citizens more cruelly had not developed any successive country.
A similar story: there are about 400 K Chinese came to USA ~ 1850 and were used similarly as slaves to build the railroad from east to California. They had not been treated nicely and fairly either. The same argument: first, poor Chinese ~ 1850 in China itself were treated even worse than these Chinese in California. Many of them were admired as “successive men” in their villages because of the gold coin they sent back, which worth a lot in China. I have heard such heroes in villages <5 miles from my village. Second, they could not accomplish any if not worked in the system of USA. There ~ 400 million people in China then. At least 10% (~ 40 million) worked similar to salve as these Chinese in California. There was no railroad or other engineering projects built ~ 1850 in China.
Fact 2: USA took Texas and California from Mexico directly or indirectly by imperial invasion. These two states contributed a lot to USA.
Texas and California are not better in natural conditions than the lands in today’s Mexico. Why Texas and California became rich and Mexico did not? One explanation for the success of USA is that USA contacts both Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. Does Mexico contact both Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean too?
Fact 3: USA policing the world
If USA does not do anything to a world crisis, many people will complain that USA is not responsible as the #1 power in this world. Such a dilemma of many liberal people is similar to a joke: “many wish God sees any good thing he did, but blind to any bad thing he did”.
I agree that, as #1 power in the world, USA polices the world based on not only righteous principles but also its interest. But, what is the alternative? The world has experienced the leadership of Russia when Russia was strong (1930-1990). AS a Chinese, I have read about the leadership of Strong Japan in East Asia (1850-1945). Japan tried to be leader in East Asia, but so brutal to Chinese, their biggest neighbor. The hate between these two countries will not dissolve in 100 years. Some people expect the leadership of strong China. I am not optimistic about it. As we have seen, while USA can have peace with its neighbors, China has trouble with most of its neighbors.
I do agree: 1) the difference among people’s income is too big. With the progress of globalization, the benefits are almost all taken by businessmen and management elites, but little to workers. USA should help poor workers, not just have welfare for unemployed and economy expansion for businessmen.
1. 关与这个国家开始是自由移民， 但现在有移民限制
This country started with 13 English colonies, which were established by immigrants. All these colonies were dominated by people immigrated from England. Most of them were white Christians. Hence, the founding culture/faith is the heritage of white Christians from England (maybe different from the mainstream culture/faith in England then). This country grew with continuous immigration and merging with other colonies (e.g., Louisiana purchase and Alaska purchase, Texas and southwest states). They were still dominated by white Christians.
As this country started with all people being immigrants, (disregarding Native American Indians), the founding principles were the consensus for a population dominated by immigrants. After a few hundreds year, the population is not dominated by immigrants anymore. As a citizen society, policy of this country should reflect the founding principles and interests of its current citizens. Founding principles should be respected in today’s politics, but founding principles should not be used as dogma to override the interest of its current citizens. To me, we cannot always use founding principles to argue for policies (e.g., gun control).
Argument 1: “This country is founded on the principle that the immigrant can come and thrive, that the immigrant is a part of this country.”(my son's reply to my former email)
It used to be a free country to immigrants (no regulation on immigration, no border control). Immigration is regulated now. To me, immigration should be regulated. Free immigration and open border for USA now? Only insane or irresponsible people will agree. Why this country has deviated from the principle that the immigrants can come and thrive? Conditions have changed. First, it used to be hard to come to America Continental. Hence, most people arrived had overcome hardship, which served as a natural validation of good purpose. Which thief will hike 30 miles to steal a computer? If he has hiked 30 miles to my house, I trust him that he will not steal my computer. Now, it is piece of cake to come to USA. Many mean people will arrive too. Hence, we need to regulate. Second, generally speaking, it used to be wilderness. Now, most of the land has been occupied and has properties on it. Any new comer will inevitably affect some people who are there already. Hence, regulation is indispensable to avoid conflicts. Third, it used to be that new comers live by themselves without any government welfare (even no protection of personal safety). Now, theoretically, anyone living in USA is enjoying welfare from government this way or that way (at least protection of personal safety by legal system and policing). Government welfare is sustained with tax collected from people who are in this country already. Definitely, tax payers have right to regulate immigration.
Most politicians are discussing immigration without differentiating legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. To me, as an immigrant through legal path, there is big difference between legal immigrant and illegal immigrant. For legal immigrants, they respect the current condition (including all laws) of this country and try to fit in. For illegal system, they do not respect the current condition (or only partially) and try to take advantage.
Sure, I am against any policy to abuse immigrants (including point fingers at immigrants for many problems). To me, lawfully forcing illegal immigrants to leave is not to abuse them. I believe this country should continuously accept a significant number of legal immigrants. How many and what types of immigrants are the questions to be discussed. I believe many immigrants positively contribute to this country. However, there are some immigrants with mean purposes when they come and there are some immigrants have negative impact on this country. The government should have procedures to distinguish them and deny their immigration application. Also, this country can accept some immigrants based on mercy and grace (e.g., refuge). Again, how many and what types are questions to be discussed. Actually, this country is accepting immigrants with a number bigger than any other country.
2. 关于民权运动和多元文化
This country became the top developed country before 1950, when all economy and politics was dominated by white Christians. I will not say such a fact was fair to all people lived in USA. On the other hand, none can deny the fact that a system dominated by white Christians had led to a prosperous and strong country. I will not say the system in 1950 was ideal. On the other hand, none can deny the fact that, according to the global standards around 1950, such a system was the best system existed that time. The important characteristics of this system include: democracy, capitalism, and high-tech industry. Such a system was attractive to people in Asia, in Africa, and in other countries in America Continental. For non-white new immigrants around 1900 and afterwards, they have been disadvantaged comparing with white people born here or new white immigrants, but almost all of them have felt that life in this country has been better for them than their homelands.
Sure, there are many problems in such a political system. The most serious problem is racial issue. Hence, I totally support the Civil Right Movement in 1960s. Colored people should be treated equally so that they can compete in job market fairly and share any government resources equally. Immigration should be open to citizens from all foreign countries based on qualification to job market needs without race or country quote.
Unfortunately, civil right movement after 1980s has been changed to favoritism, allotting special arrangement to certain races. If such favoritism was necessary for the first generation minorities after Civil Right Movement, it should not exist anymore after 1990. Unfortunately, recent civil right movement is promoting more favoritism. Frankly speaking, I do not agree with most civil right movements undergoing.
Hence, my view for the future of USA is: 1) we need to improve the politics in this country continuously, but still centered on white Christian culture; 2) we should not take culture/politics in any minority to make USA more like his/her homeland. First, to be practical, “NOT BREAK, DON’T FIX”. We should stay with white christian heritage. Second, for the large groups of minority ( black people, Latinos, or Asians), none has developed a successive political system in their homelands (not including those strongly influenced by USA, such as Japan). Third, if you believe your homeland has a better system, please just enjoy it in your homeland. Why have you immigrated? Hence, the big picture of today’s multi-culture policy is a big mistake. On national policy level, it is much better for minorities to accept principles based on white Christian culture. I am not confusing culture with politics because culture is the infrastructure of politics. I hope minority groups can fit in rather than change the politics because of their voting power. The later may make them comfortable now but likely hurts the future of this country.
When I lived in China, I was not prosecuted. I immigrated to USA voluntarily because USA is prosperous. Hence, it is important for USA to be prosperous continuously (at least for 2-3 generations for my offspring). If not, my effort in immigration is wasted. While hoping USA to be prosperous, I am trying my efforts for myself and my sons to climb up in the social status. Contrarily, some immigrants and some minority just try to get as much as their share in this country without consideration of the long term prosperity of the whole country.
I will not say white people have been very nice to legal immigrants or minorities. However, I do not believe minorities in power will be nicer to other minorities than white people. I have heard many examples that AA are very mean to Asians. Asians have been easy pick targets of crimes by some AA. I expect Asians in power in USA will be mean to other Asians in USA too as Asians in power in Asia are very mean to their citizens. Under such conditions, I have to hope white people in power to get the best for me as a Chinese immigrant. For example, AA and Latinos in California continues their efforts to enroll fewer Asians in UC campuses.
I agree human being is born to be equal. However, culture/politics of a race or a nation, which has been formed over hundreds years, is not equal. For example, at the age of exploration and imperialism, Spain and England both set up multiple colonies. Several modern countries are developed from colonies set up by Spain and several modern countries are developed from the colonies set up by England. English speaking countries have performed much better than Spanish speaking countries. Do you believe this is solely caused by random history events? Leaving faith value alone, worldly, a culture/politics based on protestant and industrialization is better than a culture/politics based on Catholic and agriculture (in 15-17th century, Spain was still dominated by agriculture). To handle a person and the heritage of his culture/politics, we need to use a theory similar to the teaching in church that we should not despise a sinner but we should criticize the sin that a sinner is with. Hence, USA should welcome immigrants from different cultures, but not let their heritage significantly affect the progress of the mainstream culture/politics. Not to mention the heritage of some immigrants with culture/politics in whose homelands being generally hostile to core values in USA.
Also, I do not believe that IQ of certain race is significantly inferior to another race. However, the culture of AA has just dragged them behind. I do not think AA after 1990 (one generation after 1965 when most racial based bans removed) can complain their failure to the politics. Families in my village had been disadvantaged for > 200 years as farmers in small village without any special resources. As soon as the opportunity opened to us in early 1980s (enrollment to college only by test score and allowance of migrate working), averagely, we became as successive as other regions in X'X'X Province in 20 years.
The values of their culture damage them more than anything else. I do not want Asians and AA become hostile to each other by comparing them. As this is communication among family members, I can say it. I will not say Asians are more moral in all aspects, but apparently Asians have much more family values. People used to be able to succeed with merely physical strength (ready ~14 years old) and wisdom in common sense. However, now, people are much more likely to succeed with professional training (ready after ~22 years old and paid education), which is much more available with family support. Such family support is based on how rich your family is and how much sacrifice your family will take. Many AA families are not rich and do not want to sacrifice. Asian immigrants are much more believing in knowledge (especially STEM). A person without knowledge to compete in this society is similar to an army to fight without tanks, airplanes, missiles after 1950. After I have compared between China and USA for years, I believe the success of Chinese economy is most importantly due to the total openness to STEM knowledge (sure it may be bad without any moral, environment, and faith consideration).
Today, pushing changes outside AA will not improve their society as much as promoting changes internally. However, it is politically incorrect to propose such movement (e.g., strengthen families in AA community, push them to study). According to methodology, change is always dependent on both external conditions and internal conditions. Actually, internal condition is more critical. Today, many movements for AA are just to give them nicer policy. For example, the movement of “black life matter” is against policing and regulation. Frankly speaking, policing and regulation is actually helping disadvantaged groups (including Asian immigrants). Without policing and regulation, AA can be abused by white gang groups easily.
I believe minorities should fight for tolerance so that 1) they can compete with all other people in job market and professional training fairly (with the same criteria); 2) they can practice some life habits in private life. For example, they can have their food habits without discrimination. They can set up business for their convenience. However, it is not wise to use their culture to influence national politics or to use their voting power to override national interest. For example, Latinos should not use their voting power to legalize illegal immigrants. Immigrated Chinese and ABC should not influence foreign relationship with China either.
Many people will say multi-culture policy will promote understanding by promoting events for original culture of immigrants. With international travel becoming easy, it will be more effective to use these resources to promote international travel to these countries. To understand Chinese culture, it is much better to order a box of 小笼包in a street side restaurant in Shanghai than to have some orange chicken in a multi-culture fair in County Fair.
3. 关于美国中学、大学历史教育中的误导
Recently, many young people are misled by liberal social science. They want to change as quick as possible. They believe policy fit idealism always works (e.g., free tuition for public college; accept as many refugee as possible). They want to criticize history events and history heroes using today’s standards (e.g., many students in Yale want the name of President Wilson be removed from the campus). Additionally, some just want to change so that they can take advantage under the slogan of love, fair and share.
A country as big as USA is similar to a fast running train. It is painful to feel that speeding is dragged behind. However, it is more painful for the train to be derailed due to fast braking or fast turning.
Idealism often leads to bad results. Revolution introduced more problems than problems solved. Communism movement has given us a failed example of idealism, which got into power just 100 years ago and phased out just 30 years ago.
Some people used some “dark side” of USA history to mislead young people. First, every person who succeeded has dark side of his past. Also, every country has its dark sides in history. Sure, we should reform so that we do not repeat the “dark side”. However, it is not wise to use confirmed or not confirmed “dark side” of our history to remove our respect and pride for our precedents, or even worse dissolving unity among the people. More importantly, the success of this country has not been determined by such called “dark sides”.
Fact 1: black slave
I admit that AA had not been treated nicely or fairly. However, exploitation of them is not the keystone of the economy development of this country. First, this country became one of top developed countries mainly because of the industrialization, which mainly occurred in north with white workers, but exploitation of black slaves mainly occurred in the south farms. Second, black people were treated even worse in their homeland. Third, African rulers who had exploited their citizens more cruelly had not developed any successive country.
A similar story: there are about 400 K Chinese came to USA ~ 1850 and were used similarly as slaves to build the railroad from east to California. They had not been treated nicely and fairly either. The same argument: first, poor Chinese ~ 1850 in China itself were treated even worse than these Chinese in California. Many of them were admired as “successive men” in their villages because of the gold coin they sent back, which worth a lot in China. I have heard such heroes in villages <5 miles from my village. Second, they could not accomplish any if not worked in the system of USA. There ~ 400 million people in China then. At least 10% (~ 40 million) worked similar to salve as these Chinese in California. There was no railroad or other engineering projects built ~ 1850 in China.
Fact 2: USA took Texas and California from Mexico directly or indirectly by imperial invasion. These two states contributed a lot to USA.
Texas and California are not better in natural conditions than the lands in today’s Mexico. Why Texas and California became rich and Mexico did not? One explanation for the success of USA is that USA contacts both Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. Does Mexico contact both Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean too?
Fact 3: USA policing the world
If USA does not do anything to a world crisis, many people will complain that USA is not responsible as the #1 power in this world. Such a dilemma of many liberal people is similar to a joke: “many wish God sees any good thing he did, but blind to any bad thing he did”.
I agree that, as #1 power in the world, USA polices the world based on not only righteous principles but also its interest. But, what is the alternative? The world has experienced the leadership of Russia when Russia was strong (1930-1990). AS a Chinese, I have read about the leadership of Strong Japan in East Asia (1850-1945). Japan tried to be leader in East Asia, but so brutal to Chinese, their biggest neighbor. The hate between these two countries will not dissolve in 100 years. Some people expect the leadership of strong China. I am not optimistic about it. As we have seen, while USA can have peace with its neighbors, China has trouble with most of its neighbors.
I do agree: 1) the difference among people’s income is too big. With the progress of globalization, the benefits are almost all taken by businessmen and management elites, but little to workers. USA should help poor workers, not just have welfare for unemployed and economy expansion for businessmen.
