Junto Boyz

SHAQ IS A BIG BABY
Kobe has Issues, but Shaq Just Sucks

This recent feud between Kobe and Shaq reveals more of Shaq true colors. I never was a fan and never will be. He’s just a big baby that cries whenever he doesn’t get his way or the spotlight shines on someone else. Why do you think he left Orlando and Penny for LA? You can say it was the money and a bigger market, or that it was his emerging entertainment career. Bottomline was that his ego couldn’t handle sharing the spotlight with Penny, who was getting more of the hype and praise during those days. If Shaq for some reason couldn’t leave Orlando, I honestly believe he would be loving it that Penny’s knee and body broke down in his latter years.

In an article discussing this recent fight, Ric Bucher wrote:

“Let's put that aside for the moment. Shaq has been a grouch ever since Phil suggested he's not in shape and he's wrong that Gary Payton and Karl Malone came to play with him. Gary and Karl came to win rings, period -- and that is only happening with both Shaq and Kobe healthy and whole.”

It’s amazing what goes through that tiny brain of his. You have probably the greatest power forward ever and one of the best point guards in NBA history, and he thinks they are coming to Los Angeles to pay homage to him? Pleeeasse… did he take more stupid pills before he made those comments? Probably not because he just can't get any dumber.

Kobe is not completely innocent in this argument because he does hog the ball and sometimes isn’t the best team player. You can argue which is better for the team, but I believe most people will agree that they need each other to succeed. During those Shaq-less games, Kobe showed that he doesn’t have the ability to take the double or triple teaming consistently especially since he doesn’t have anyone else to go to. Shaq by himself couldn’t carry the Lakers all those years, especially with his horrid free throw shooting. They definitely wouldn’t have beaten Portland without Kobe during their first year run and history would have painted a picture of Shaq whining at home ringless throughout his career.

Anyway, this interview posted below that Kobe has with Jim Gray (who probably is the dorkiest sportscaster ever, and not just because of his Pete Rose interview a few years back. this guy is a weasel.) shows his maturity and pose in this whole matter. He is an ego-maniac, but far less selfish than Shaq. Over the years, Kobe has proven that he doesn’t need or want the limelight that Shaq so craves. “His team”? Grow up, Shaq.


Kobe Critical of Shaq’s Leadership
Monday, October 27, 2003

The transcript of Kobe Bryant's interview with ESPN's Jim Gray


GRAY: What was your reaction to Shaq saying the Lakers are his team, and everybody knows it?

BRYANT: It doesn't matter whose team it is. Nobody cares. I don't, Karl [Malone] doesn't, Gary [Payton] doesn't, and our teammates and the fans don't either. There's more to life than whose team this is. But this is his team, so it's time for him to act like it. That means no more coming into camp fat and out of shape, when your team is relying on your leadership on and off the court. It also means no more blaming others for our team's failure, or blaming staff members for not overdramatizing your injuries so that you avoid blame for your lack of conditioning. Also, "my team" doesn't mean only when we win; it means carrying the burden of defeat just as gracefully as you carry a championship trophy.

GRAY: Do you consider Shaq to be a leader?

BRYANT: Leaders don't beg for a contract extension and negotiate some 30 million [dollars] plus per year deal in the media when we have two future Hall of Famers playing here pretty much for free. A leader would not demand the ball every time down the floor when you have the three of us [Malone, Payton, Bryant] playing beside you, not to mention the teammates you have gone to war with for years -- and, by the way, then threaten not to play defense and rebound if you don't get the ball every time down the floor.

GRAY: Shaq says that you have not been a team player. Is he right?

BRYANT: That's ridiculous. I have been successfully sacrificing my game for years for Shaq. That's what Phil [Jackson] wanted me to do, so I did it. Last year Phil told me Shaq was not in physical condition to carry the trust of our offense, so he asked me to do it. But then he saw Shaq was getting upset that the team wasn't running through him, so Phil asked me to pull back and I did. This year is no different; my role is whatever Phil wants it to be. Period.

................

GRAY: Kobe, Shaq said if you didn't like what he had to say you can opt out and leave next season. Will you leave the Lakers?

BRYANT: I won't make that decision until the end of the season. I told Shaq last year that I was planning on opting out. He knew before anyone. I told him out of respect for what we have been through together. I thought he should be the first to know. The fact that he acts like this is such a big shock is a mystery to me. If leaving the Lakers at the end of the season is what I decide, a major reason for that will be Shaq's childlike selfishness and jealousy.

................

posted by Bernard @ 1:28 AM

WEDDING WEEK OF CRAZINESS
Manimal Still Got Game... The Fierce Revealed... And the Junger

This past week two friends got married in Seoul. Dave got married on Friday and Andy on Saturday, but it was Dave's wedding that killed me this week. It was so physically draining especially since I got sick from the change in temperature in Seoul and I didn’t take off time from work. It was a week packed with events, dinners, and sappy lines.

I think Dave loved the process of announcing his happiness and love to all of Seoul. If time and money weren't constraining factors, I almost believe he would have done a world tour for his wedding with stops in at least 10 cities worldwide. Even if there was one friend in a city, he still would have set up at least a small gala.

Okay, I'm exaggerating but Dave set up an event everyday last week, Monday through Friday. To be fair, many of his friends came from the U.S. and London, so I believe he wanted to take care of them and make sure they had a great time in Seoul during his wedding week. This schedule just took a toll on my chunky, old body.

Dave is such a sap and a cheese. By the end of the wedding, there were at least eight toasts that were given. There might have been more, but I probably phased those out of my memory. I have never been to a wedding with more than three toasts and majority have at most two (best man and maid of honor). I’ve been to over eighty weddings… a groomsmen ten times and an usher almost another ten (trying not to toot my horn, but just saying to make a stronger point… okay, tooting a little to beef up my wedding planning business:). I’ve never experienced so many toasts and speeches. Dave wanted it, it was his day, so he got it, and I have enough cheese to last me ten years. Dave can probably be an honorary “toastmaster” after this week.

Anyway, it was a great time and fun to hangout with some of his friends I never met before. Of course, we have a few mutual friends so I got to hang with the “Manimal” and “Doh” who came to Seoul for the wedding.

Manimal was in full form. I thought there might have been some rust on his bones after being exiled to a quiet city in the U.S., but his skill and stamina never diminished. He just needed to hear the call of the wild again to awake his dormant soul, and Seoul responded by crying out his name throughout the week. His howls were heard throughout the night with passion almost everyday last week (censored for children, so I cannot continue on).

Doh is a great guy from NYC. Unassuming, gentle soul that reminds you a little bit of St. Nick and Winnie the Pooh combined. His deep, slightly raspy voice automatically puts you at ease when he greets you, “What’s up, bruther?!” His wide shoulders and cautious strides reflect the comfort and happiness within his life. His smile can be contagious when you talk to him, so all these qualities never lead you believe that THIS IS ALL A LIE (for effect… of course all I said is true about Doh).

His business school classmates call him “The Fierce” and there was ample evidence this past week to understand why. The Fierce shut down Manimal’s attempts to go clubbing last Wednesday because HE was tired. I don’t know many people that have ever muffled the Manimal’s call of the wild, but The Fierce did it. Classic moment when The Fierce was giving a toast and people were still talking in the back of the wedding reception hall.

“Yo, people! I’m trying to have MY MOMENT with Dave…”

If people didn’t pipe down, I guarantee you that there would have been some heads rolling and gnashing of teeth. A scary moment for me. My heart skipped a beat in fear for those people’s lives.

I’ve experienced a similar situation. This past May when I visited NYC I offered to set up Doh with my friend’s friend. About a month after my trip, I get a message from Doh, “Yo! People in New York are saying you’re a talker, Bernard. Are you a talker? I think you’re a talker...”

I was confused because I initially didn’t know what he was referring to and I have never been called a “talker.” I soon found out that I forgot to immediately set up Doh up with the person I promised. It was The Fierce’s way to remind me that I dropped the ball.

I apologized and told him that I was just busy and didn’t drop the ball, but he wouldn’t accept it. Prodded towards action, I immediately called my friend and the date was set in a week. I learned not to mess with The Fierce that day.

Last wedding episode that cracked me up was about the Junger. Junger is a big, lovable guy. He’ll just walk up to you and smack you with a wet kiss on the cheek. At first I felt violated, but now it’s like getting a kiss from grandma. Anyway, I went to some people and asked them to make some of the bridesmaids feel comfortable since most of them were visiting from the U.S., and the majority of wedding guests were from Seoul. So Junger hears this and seeks to help out. He walks in front of four of the bridesmaids, stops and turns towards them, and then starts to dance… early 90’s style with a bit of sexiness.

I start laughing and ask him, “What are you doing?”

“Dude, I’m entertaining them… (cabbage patch, cabbage patch) Isn’t this what you asked for? (running man, running man)… Hey, ladies! You like?... ;) ;) (roger rabbit, roger rabbit)”

The bridesmaids first had a look of confusion. One cracked a smile while the others were still processing what the heck was going on. Meanwhile, some other guys that I asked to help went up to them and started a conversation, which was what I first imagined. I cracked up more because Junger was also a Brazilian Jiu-jitsu teacher and coach. He’s a badass that trains Delta Force guys in martial arts, and he was dancing like a big, provocative Paddington Bear. Almost similar to the effect Yogi Bear had in the cartoons. The cartoon people saw this big brown bear come at them and fear initially struck their hearts, but then he started to talk, joke around, dance, and then ate their food which created confusion and some joy. Junger was the same minus the talking and stealing of food.

posted by Bernard @ 11:53 PM

ROD BLAGOJEVICH IS AN IDIOT...
BRAINFARTS OF U.S. POLITICAL PROCESS

My brother sent me this clip from MSNBC News today (pasted below). This just verifies what I knew all along that Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois is an idiot. I knew this straight out of college when I was working as a legislative liaison for Governor Jim Edgar (basically a peon lobbyist). Sitting in legislative sessions and committee meetings, every time Blagojevich would open his mouth I would cringe. Almost everyone would cringe. Republicans, Democrats, lobbyists, the stenographer in the committee room, people testifying, people touring, little children visiting with their parents... they all knew. It was hilarious because all kidding aside even his fellow Democrats would begin rolling their eyes as soon as he opened his mouth.

Verbal vomit came out of his mouth. Just something so stupid or so self-aggrandizing that you had to either look out the window for birds flying by to stimulate your brain more, cover your eyes to protect yourself from the stupidity seeping into your skull by osmosis, or you would simply rub yourself since you felt so dirty listening to such an ego-maniac and warped evilness.

A couple years ago, since I'm sometimes detached from news back home, I was in complete shock when I found out that he became governor of Illinois. It was worse than Dr. Brown, from Back to the Future, not believing that Ronald Reagan became President of the United States in the future. For me, it was more like hearing that Yogi Berra (or Bear... almost same thing) became president. Unbelievable! And Dems know Blagojevich can't even hang with our G.W. Bush. Honestly, just read below.


Trash Talk
by Michael Ventre

Until recently I believed that we in the state of California possessed -- by a wide margin -- the most imbecilic political figures in the country, after claiming the title from Minnesota after the Jesse Ventura era passed. But suddenly, an exciting new candidate has emerged.

The governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, wanting like all politicians to somehow exploit the passions of local sports fans for his own personal gain, came out and ripped Steve Bartman, the fan in the middle of the foul-ball controversy during the NLCS. Said Blagojevich: "If he commits a crime, he won't get a pardon from this governor. You've got to be looking out for your team."

He could be kidding, or he could just be clueless. Either way, it is incumbent upon the incumbent to use better judgment in a situation where the lunatic fringe of Cub Nation is angry and out for blood. This poor guy Bartman did what most people would do -- try to grab a foul ball that was hit in the stands -- and crazies looking for somebody to blame have decided to make his life hell.

Nitwits and dirtbags with nothing better to do with their miserable lives I can understand. But the governor of Illinois? I expect him to lead by example and to use better sense.

Hey Gov, does the word "recall" mean anything to you?

posted by Bernard @ 8:00 PM

DEFINING WISDOM... AGE IS THE LESSER FACTOR
Confucian Hierarchy is Misguided and a Crutch for the Weak

Growing up as a Korean American, you encounter and experience the typical thinking within Asian culture that emphasizes the importance of age related to respect and the amount of wisdom a person has. The older a person is the more respect they should command and it is also assumed that they are wiser.

This is derived from Confucianism, a Chinese philosophical and moral system focused on “the correct ordering of society and the proper relationship of human beings.” It was developed by the sixth century B.C. philosopher, Confucius, and spread throughout East Asia and parts of Southeast Asia. The heaviest influences are seen in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese cultures.

With the issue of respect, I have always believed this to be a stupid value for the most part and a crutch used by the weak or a cop out when people have nothing else to stand upon. So when Koreans or Korean Americans who are younger than me call me “hyung” (“older brother” in Korean and a sign of respect from a younger man to an older man), I tell them that I prefer for them to call me just “Bernard.” In Korea and Korean culture, some people demand respect even if the age difference is only one year apart with another person. Some even get angry and yell and curse if this tradition is not adhered to. Whether providing security for a person or comfort in being automatically “respected”, it is not a social form or manner that I believe is healthy for any culture.

For me, I believe a person has to earn my respect, so I will not give it automatically to someone that do not know or have enough information to respect beyond a cordial manner. Respect, more along the lines of “honoring,” demands more information and interaction between two people.

An underlying tone of this cultural behavior is Confucianism’s emphasis not only on age but on rank in society. So even today in some arguments or conflicts on the street, you’ll hear people yell, “Do you know who I am?! I’m president of so and so and such and such… Do you know which family I’m from? Yada, yada, yada,…”

So again a crutch for the weak. A system to artificially prop up someone’s position above another’s without any real merit. This also occurs between genders in Korea. Men using their higher social positioning against women.

Overall, I think this Confucian hierarchy that is prevalent throughout East Asia is unhealthy, inefficient, and based on some incorrect assumptions about age. To be honest, I can really only speak about its influence in Korean culture since I don’t know how this thinking specifically developed in other Confucian cultures.

So one incorrect assumption about age is that you develop greater wisdom as you get older. Before continuing, let’s first define wisdom. A dictionary definition defines it as: accumulated philosophic or scientific learning; ability to discern inner qualities and relationships; insight; good sense; judgment.

The first definition “accumulated philosophic or scientific learning,” which can depend on time but also the intelligence of the person and their ability to remember the accumulated information or knowledge. So a person who has a photographic memory can accumulate hundred times more information in five years versus an average person over 20 years. But I also don’t think wisdom is simply having this accumulated learning or information. I think the more important factor is how you process this information and apply it to everyday situations.

This goes down the same line as when you describe some people as “book smart” but without common sense, or others as “street smart” but not that bright. Of course a person can have both qualities. These are just example used to map this definition out.

Another example is in the Book of Proverbs, in the Bible, its described objective is to teach wisdom to everyone, young and old, so here it is not assumed that older people naturally have greater wisdom than younger. Actually, it is not even assumed that older people have wisdom at all.

What is important is the ability to learn from the past, whether personal experience or knowledge from the past, and make a judgment or decision on your present situation. I will assume that most people learn better from their own personal experiences and remember them better, so their wisdom will naturally grow with age to some degree assuming that they have a good ability to reflect and remember situations throughout their life. More importantly, I believe it is an individual’s ability to discern and assess situations based on their personal experience and accumulated knowledge and their ability to be self-reflective that makes them wise.

Age is a minor factor. The mask of wrinkles, a grey beard, long pauses in conversations, or a steady voice does not fool me into thinking a person is wise or wiser than my peers. I base my decision on the words they state, their ability to listen and assess situations in detail, and how they respond to the twists and turns in life. Give me a man in his thirties full of wisdom with the ability to give me practical, insightful advice versus a 60-year old stubborn, old Korean man repetitively chanting about the days of his youth any day.

posted by Bernard @ 9:29 PM

KOFI ANNAN'S DESPERATE ACTS... WIZARD OF OZ REVEALED
Only the U.S. would... Who Else Would Sacrifice Their Lives for Democracy?

"A body incapable of agreeing to endorse even post facto reconstruction could certainly never have been expected to enforce its Iraq resolutions in the first place. So much for the argument that a kinder, gentler approach by the Bush Administration would have won U.N. support."

Taken from the editorial below, it clearly shows how much spin occurs in politics at home and abroad. With France blocking the U.S.'s original resolution and call for action into Iraq, if the U.S. chose the route of waiting for U.N. approval we would be sitting on our asses while hundreds of people are inhumanely tortured and millions lived in tyranny. Additionally, Saddam would continue to place on hold his weapons development program until the dust settles and then he could dig up and undelete his elements of destruction again.

Why would the U.S. need to wait for an approval they would have never received? So why even ask such a question or poll such a question that isn't asking the right thing? If the Red Sea parted again, which of those countries would have actually volunteered their soliders and money for the invasion or more importantly afterwards? And now, with casualties continuing, which countries would send in their troops to rebuild and help maintain order?

With his latest unprecedented actions of taking such strong steps against a U.N. member, Kofi Annan is acting like a rat cornered. What else would you expect? The U.N. has been pushed to the sidelines of illegitimacy by U.S., but more importantly by recent historical events that reveal the U.N. to be a failed venture. Previously, people might have believed it to be the fan belt or radiator of a car engine, but now the curtain has been pulled and the U.N. is revealed to be nothing more than a muffler. Its function can be described as "to decrease the noise of dissatisfaction and pain in the world", but doing nothing to truly change it. At best, it helps clean up some of the air and environment and presents an image of world order.

Unlike the Wizard of Oz, Kofi Annan is not conceding, but going on the offensive against the U.S. and the Bush administration. What else can he do? I can't blame him since it is the natural course of pride. I do hope he eventually concedes to the reality of the U.N.'s real strength and position in the world order, and takes action to redefine it.

For those still wondering why we invaded Iraq and why we are helping a nation of strangers while "millions of our children are uneducated and hungry" take a further step back. At least our children have hope and a chance at a better life, those in Iraq do not. This is a rare opportunity to plant democracy's flag in the heart of the Middle East, and improve the lives of those within that region.

Taking a step forward, look at our soliders dying and how most, if not all, of them support their presence there and are willing to take such risks. For such fluffy ideals as "democracy" and "freedom", our soliders are willing to die and that is the beauty of America. People easily forget that such intangible ideals come at a cost and are not free, but our nation knows the costs of such freedoms and dreams.

I remember talking with my cousin after he served his military duty in South Korea, where all men are required to serve at least two years. He was an officer and liaison with the U.S. military in Korea. He spoke of how much he respected America and its ideals while interacting with the U.S. military. He said Koreans would never volunteer and die for their country, but the history and principles of America allowed for people to sacrifice their lives for its ideals (and England is probably the only other country with similar ideals). He said it was incredible that there was such honor and love for a nation, not even a religion but a nation, to commit such sacrifices. God has truly blessed America, and this responsibility should never be ignored or taken for granted.


Colin in Kofiland
The U.N. chief endorses regime change--in Washington.

EDITORIAL
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Monday, October 13, 2003

The apparent failure of the U.S. push for another U.N. resolution on Iraq is at least a clarifying moment. A body incapable of agreeing to endorse even post facto reconstruction could certainly never have been expected to enforce its Iraq resolutions in the first place. So much for the argument that a kinder, gentler approach by the Bush Administration would have won U.N. support.

Equally illuminating, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has made it clear that he's now more interested in defeating President Bush than he ever was in toppling Saddam Hussein. Mr. Annan knows that Mr. Bush's policy of anti-terror prevention poses a serious challenge to what he claims is the "unique legitimacy" of the collection of despots he leads--indeed, to the legitimacy of the unaccountable Secretary General himself.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is giving the effort one more last chance. But it appears that Mr. Annan's open criticism of the U.S. draft resolution--unprecedented for a U.N. leader--has sunk its chances. Even more unusual have been his none-too-subtle attempts to influence U.S. politics. "People who believe in collective action to meet today's problems, and who believe in the rule of law and in the aims of the United Nations, need to raise their voices," he exhorted a group of African-American leaders last week.

Mr. Annan's decision to withdraw U.N. staff from Baghdad can likewise be interpreted as an attempt to bolster Democratic criticism of President Bush's failure to "internationalize" the operation. It is certainly a disgrace to the memory of U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello, who believed the body had a vital role to play even under a U.S. led occupation.

Mr. Annan's ostensible dispute with U.S. policy involves the timetable for the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty. Yes, that's right, the man who was never eager to depose Saddam has now become a champion of Iraqi democracy. We agree that the authority of Iraqi's Governing Council should be expanded as rapidly as possible. But no one should believe that simply transferring control from the U.S. to the Governing Council will stop the terror attacks in Iraq; the terrorists want to return to Saddam's rule. In any case, Mr. Annan's real make-or-break issue is whether the transition will happen under U.N. or U.S. auspices, and U.N. authority is simply a non-starter given the institution's record on Iraq.

We hope President Bush appreciates that Mr. Annan is playing election-year politics, as well as the failure of Colin Powell's second promise to deliver the U.N. Mr. Powell has many virtues, but accurate assessment of others' intentions does not appear to be among them.

As far as Iraqi reconstruction goes, of course, the U.N. failure barely matters. The proposed resolution was intended only to provide some domestic cover for foreign governments considering whether to contribute money and troops. But the Europeans were never going to help much anyway, and Turkey's parliament has already voted overwhelmingly to send a force. What's more, Turkey wants to help out in the dangerous Sunni triangle, where it's really needed. A (largely Sunni) Muslim democracy with a sterling peacekeeping record and real military strength, Turkey was far and away the most important ally the U.S. could have hoped for.

We're disappointed that Turkey's decision has been met with threats from some Kurds and cries of "sell-out" from some of their American supporters. Turkey was an indispensable protector of the Northern Iraqi Kurdish safe haven for more than a decade, providing it with a vital trade link to the outside world and with the air bases to support Operation Northern Watch.

Some of the ideas being mooted to soothe Kurdish sensibilities--such as moving Turkish troops by air or sea--would justifiably be considered an affront by the Turks, who are putting themselves very much in harm's way. If Washington is going to turn the Turkish parliamentary vote into an actual deployment, it is going to have to talk bluntly with Kurdish leaders Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani.

By any reasonable standard Iraq is making notable progress despite the obvious security problems, and it is about time the Bush Administration has begun to go back on the political offensive in stating its case. Power is being restored, Iraqi security forces are being trained, schools are open, and commerce is getting back to normal.

Most important, Iraqis are free to think and speak as they wish. Tensions with and within the country's outspoken Governing Council are a healthy sign. The Bush Administration is right that all of this deserves much more attention. To focus it, we hope the President will pay a visit to Iraq sometime soon.

posted by Bernard @ 11:38 PM

TIBETAN MUSHROOMS... CHANGED MY LIFE
My Increasing Belief and Acceptance of Chinese Medicine

During my high school and college years, whenever I sprained my ankle I made sure that I went to get acupuncture within a day of the incident. Latest within two days because I found out that it wasn't effective if it was not applied immediately. Normally the swelling from a badly sprained ankle would take 3-7 days of icing and resting, but with acupuncture within a day the swelling was gone. I didn't believe it healed my ankle any quicker, but simply took away the swelling and allowed me to walk around normally with comfort. I still wouldn't play on it for the typically 2-3 weeks, so that it would be fully strengthened.

When I moved out to Asia three years ago, my exposure to traditional Chinese medicine grew, especially since my father utilized it often. I've been impressed by each practitioner's knowledge of my body by simply touching various points on my body and sensing certain ailments. A respiratory condition I had for three years was cured after visting a Chinese medicine doctor in Seoul, where western medicine couldn't cure or identify it. Previously in the U.S., I visited various internal and ETN doctors but they could not even identify and therefore treat my coughing condition effectively.

An offshoot of my father's interest in Chinese medicine were Tibetan mushrooms. I think he came across these through a friend, but took a strong interest like he did with the JuiceMan during my college years. He would wake us up every morning, 6am-7am, and give us a glass full of this yogurt. These white mushrooms were placed in bowl and milk was poured into the bowl. Overnight, the milk rapidly fermented into a yogurt. Supposedly, this yogurt had preventative elements against cancer and other diseases. Obviously, I can't verify this. It also was suppose to improve your digestive tract and system. This I can testify to... 100%.

My young brother already had a very healthy digestive tract. He would take a dump 3-4 times a day. They say a person should go at least once a day. After a month or so of drinking this yogurt, my brother went 5-6 times a day. Finally after a few months, my brother complained to my father and asked if he could stop drinking it. My father complied.

For me, it didn't affect me at all for several months. I typically went 1-2 times a day, but my father thought I was unhealthy since I didn't go at regular times during the day. It even might have been a year, but towards the end of my father's yogurt phase I starting going 3-4 times a day. I think it's been over a year since I had my last glass of yogurt, but I still go regularly 3-4 times a day. So if anyone has digestive problems, I would definitely tell you to get your own stalk of Tibetan mushrooms.

posted by Bernard @ 9:10 AM

CLINTON COULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER

As a Republican, I will say that Clinton had many of the elements to become a great president and leader of our country. Maybe even the "best" for whatever that means. But his faliure to act decisively in various times of his presidency brings questions to even whether he was a "good" president. Below is an editorial from The Wall Street Journal on some reasons people from all corners of the globe lost respect for the man.

On Being a 'Clinton-Hater'
Why I lost faith in the man I backed in 1992.

BY BRET STEPHENS
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Wednesday, October 1, 2003

JERUSALEM--I saw Bill Clinton the other night, at the "after party" for Shimon Peres's 80th birthday. Little wooden doves of peace were mounted on poles; colored lights lit exotic foliage. Everyone was there: F.W. De Klerk and Pnina Rosenblum; Terje Roed-Larsen and Ron Lauder; Lord Levy and Achinoam Nini. Also, there was a young lady in a J-Lo number with glitter sprinkled suggestively from her sternum to her navel. But I didn't catch her name.

Anyway, Mr. Clinton was there. Already he had brought the crowd to its feet at the Mann auditorium in Tel Aviv, singing John Lennon's "Imagine" with a group of Arab and Israeli schoolchildren ("Imagine there's no countries / It isn't hard to do . . ."). Now he had something personal to say. He had been in Srebrenica the day before, he said. There he had met a woman who was burying her husband and six children. He told us to be mindful that ours was not the only country visited by horror. He told us that Mr. Peres was a man who knew that vengeance belonged to God, not man.

He said all this in a hoarse and mournful and significant tone of voice. I wanted to puke.

I belong to that camp of Americans known as "Clinton-haters." At The Wall Street Journal, I wrote Clinton-unfriendly editorials. On the day of his impeachment, I radiated joy. Once, over dinner at New York's Metropolitan Club, Jean Kennedy Smith told me I was mentally ill. Others have told me that Clinton-hatred is a sexual thing, mixing frustration, envy and dysfunction.

Maybe this is true, although the Lewinsky business never bothered me; there's something endearing about Bill's taste for zaftig women. But perjury is no less a crime than burglary, and there's no question Mr. Clinton perjured himself in his deposition to Paula Jones's lawyers. If you think Nixon deserved to go down, then so too did Mr. Clinton.

But that's hardly why Clinton-haters hate Mr. Clinton. The Clinton-lovers are right; l'affaire Lewinsky was just something we could nail him with. With a different president, a different man, we might have been tempted to join the camp of apologists in saying: It's just sex, and everyone lies about sex.

But Mr. Clinton was not a different man. To his supporters, he was the shaper of the new American center, the brightest Democratic light since John F. Kennedy, the toast of European elites. To people like me, he was a hollow and posturing and feckless man who embodied that side of America that was also hollow and posturing and feckless. And he was the bane of people for whom American fecklessness was a matter of life and death people like that woman in Srebrenica who buried her family.

Let me try to explain this in a way the Clinton-lovers might understand. In 1992, I voted for Mr. Clinton. I even persuaded my more conservative parents to do so as well. My arguments were, first, that Mr. Clinton was good for Israel; second, that he represented a sane version of the Democratic Party; third, that George Bush didn't deserve to be re-elected; and fourth, that Mr. Clinton was the man who talked about "the high cost of remaining silent and paralyzed in the face of genocide."

This last item was especially important to me. Like so many young people at the time, Bosnia was one of those things I cared about, at least in the way one "cares" about political things as a young man. It shamed me somewhat that the first Bush administration treated Balkan concentration camps as if they were none of America's concern. I wanted a president like Truman, a man who acted on humane instinct when his heartstrings were pulled.

That's not how it turned out. Mr. Clinton's policy on the Balkans was indistinguishable from his predecessor's. "It's tragic, it's terrible," he said, "but their enmities go back 500 years, some would say almost 1,000 years." Meaning, there's nothing you can do with these savages but let them go on slaughtering each other.

It was worse than that. In 1993 Mr. Clinton sent Secretary of State Warren Christopher to consult with the European allies as to what was to be done. Nothing was to be done, came the reply. So nothing was done. The U.N. had imposed an arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia. The Bosnian Serbs were amply supplied via Belgrade. The Bosnian Muslims were left to their own devices.

It was only in the summer of 1995 that Mr. Clinton began to take notice. U.N. peacekeepers were being held hostage by the Serbs, and it seemed Mr. Clinton would have to make good on a casual pledge he'd made to get them out. Meanwhile, so called "safe havens" like Srebrenica and Zepa were under siege from Serb militias. Jacques Chirac proposed to Clinton that French troops could be used to relieve the towns, but he needed American airlift. Mr. Clinton never acted on the suggestion. Seven thousand Muslims were murdered in a scene recalling the Katyn Forest.

It was then that Congress, under the leadership of those great ogres Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich, voted by veto-proof majorities to end the arms embargo. By autumn, the rearmed Bosnians and Croats had turned the military tide, and by year's end the Serbs had to sue for peace. The Dayton accords, which the Clinton administration cites as one of its finer achievements, served mainly to save the Serbs from complete military failure.

So much for Bosnia. There was Rwanda, where the Clinton administration went to great pains to distinguish between "genocide," which they denied was taking place in Rwanda, and "acts of genocide," which they acknowledged were taking place. This was in order to avoid having to intervene. There was Sierra Leone, where the Clinton administration's idea of diplomacy was to send Jesse Jackson to limb-chopper Foday Sankoh's political rescue. There was Kosovo, where Mr. Clinton did get around to doing the right thing, though he wouldn't hazard a single American life to do it.

None of these, I should stress, were necessarily bad policy. There are perfectly sound strategic reasons for the U.S. not to wade into faraway ethnic conflicts. Nor is the fact that Clinton overpromised reason to hate him. Every politician does as much. President Clinton might even be praised for mastering the foreign policy prudence that Candidate Clinton lacked.

But Mr. Clinton was a New Kind Of Democrat. Unlike the first President Bush, he would not pay the "high cost of remaining silent and paralyzed in the face of genocide." Not only did he promise the most ethical White House in history, he was also going to pursue the most ethical foreign policy. These were pledges that, in 1992, won over political centrists like me.
But that's not what happened. And it didn't happen because there never was a "President Clinton." There were, instead, two incarnations of Candidate Clinton: first the challenger, then the incumbent. In both cases, no such thing as "policy" could be said to exist; Mr. Clinton moved where political convenience dictated. Among other consequences (not all of which were bad), one is the mass graveyard of Srebrenica, which Mr. Clinton, with truly mind-boggling shamelessness, now employs for rhetorical effects.

The late Jim McDougal, a partner of the Clintons in the Whitewater real-estate deal, once observed that Bill and Hillary were "like tornadoes moving through people's lives." Maybe in Arkansas that was no big deal. In Bosnia it was.

Now, shall I explain again why I'm a "Clinton-hater"?


Mr. Stephens is editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.

posted by Bernard @ 12:53 AM