Friday, March 2, 2012

Dream Makers: Occupation of Afghanistan (2012) and Colonization of Hong Kong (1841)

A number of American officers, high and low ranks, advisers and trainers, were killed by Afghans, creating panics. For our fellow Americans, leadership in particular, who still harbor hope of pacifying – democratizing Afghanistan to secure our national interests in the guise of betterment of human kind, they are well advised to spare some time to read my recent work on POLICING IN HONG KONG (Ashgate, 2012) pp. 16 - 18 regarding how the British fared as a colonial master:

To the British colonial officers and resident traders, Hong Kong was an unruly place because the people did not follow expectations61 and were not amenable to control.62 They had few social bonds and were exposed to many corrupting influences and illegitimate opportunities. British officials characterized Chinese migrants as fugitives from the law, gold diggers or drifters:

In a new settlement, wrested from the Chinese by force of arms, although England be at open war the Chinese government and the Chinese population, yet the latter are invited to repair to hold lands, to build houses, and to become denizens; with such an invitation, under the state of war between the two countries, we have long and often said that only the worst spirits of the warn-out time would flock to Hongkong—our prediction has been fulfilled to the very letter; all that there is of bad and worse in China have flocked and are flocking to Hongkong.63

The Hong Kong inhabitants, day laborers (from Kowloon) and transient workers (from China) were also feared as “terrorists” ever ready to destabilize Hong Kong, especially in the early years of the colonization (“seizure”) of Hong Kong, first without a treaty, and finally under the “unequal” Treaty of Nanking. Indeed, the British were seen as aggressive and shameless “foreign devils” who had invaded China on account of opium trade, and who, after all, were unwelcome guests of the magnanimous Emperor. This view stirred up resentful and emotional sentiments of the most powerful kinds: nationalism, regionalism and anti-foreignism. Thus people who worked with/for the British were labeled “han jiang” (traitor), registering the sense of betrayal.

The apprehension of the Chinese was real and palpable to the ruling British. In time chronic fear transformed into paranoia and a state of hysteria. At one point rumors were heard such as: “The Chinese are making preparations to attack Hongkong. The force is variously estimated at ten to fifteen thousand men ….”64

But for the Hong Kong foreign communities, disorderly soldiers and sailors could be just as bad: a letter to the editor published in Friend of China in 1842 read: “Sir, the disgraceful scenes of which our streets are the arena, call loudly for magisterial interferences, each day they become worse and worse. You must be quite sure. I can only allude to the drunken delinquencies of our soldiers and sailors: for the conduct of our native population, by contrast is truly admirable.”65

The moral panic66 generated by hateful and contemptuous (“terrorists”), and otherwise immoral and depraved (“criminals”) Chinese, lurking in every corner waiting to strike at every expat, was both real and unnerving. No one was spared, not even well-guarded governors. It was reported in the news:

More about the assassination. It is apparently reported in Canton, and is very generally believed, that the officer upon whom it devolved to organize the assassination of Governor Amaral, has been rewarded with a button of considerable ran for his services! And has the promise of a situation of emolument on the first vacancy (from the Hong Kong Register, September 11—Friend of China, September 12, 1849).67

The fear of crime (committed by Chinese) and disorder (conducted by foreigners) in the respective Hong Kong communities needs to put in context. While the British Government might not have been ready to invest heavily in Hong Kong due to legal uncertainty (a treaty not yet having been signed), economic difficulties and a lack of political commitment (politics at home, differences between the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, conflict between Whitehall and trade representation), a local vibrant expat community was fast emerging and consolidating, and they were committed to making Hong Kong a home away from home. More significantly, they wanted to make Hong Kong every bit like the home they left behind in Europe, with an elegant lifestyle and high culture to match. Their expectations were high (which exacerbated the fear of disorder and the unknown and therefore a sense of helplessness). Thus we witness in 1843, the expat community in Hong Kong attempting to bring high culture to Hong Kong, a place with no culture:

Advance Hongkong!!! Theatre Royal … Messrs. Dutronquoy & Co. at length the satisfaction of announcing to the nobility, gentry and clergy thus flourishing and opulent Colony, that the Theatre is advancing most rapidly towards completion. It is on a most splendid scale, and what with the pieces that will be performed, the Scenery that will be introduced and the splendid assemblage of rank, beauty and fashion which they hope to be honored with, there is no doubt but that the blaze of Splendor will dazzle the eyes of all beholders. Vivat Regina. N.B. The actresses have arrived during the last week, their beauties and talents are only to be surpassed by their spotless virtues.68

By 1847, the European community has secured itself a well ornate Hong Kong Club as the center of community social activities.69

The two groups of people (European and Chinese), while different in ethnic composition, cultural disposition and economic circumstance, had one thing in common. Both had uprooted themselves from well-established societies to a new land in search of fame, fortune, adventure and a safe haven. They exhibited unbound personal aspiration and few communal bonds/restraints. “Hong Kong became a society of immigrants, sojourners, transients and aliens.”70 As a noted sinologist of the time, Dr Eitel, observed in 1891:

The Chinese also, the refuse of whose lowest classes began, early in 1884, to flock to the site of the present city of Victoria, consisted during the first few years of our Colonial history, chiefly of boat-people, common labourers, stone-masons, blacksmiths, and provision dealers, all of whom have come to Hong Kong, in defiance of Mandarin prohibitions, for temporary employment rather than as settlers and left their families on the mainland. They naturally had neither the time nor inclination to think of the education of the young.71

One of the many things that separated the two groups related to the fact that the expat group, notwithstanding having been transplanted from a distant land and uprooted from a different society, still enjoyed a sense of identity, entitlement, community and permanency due to their elevated social status, superior economic position, dominant cultural symbols and controlling political institutions. This was not the fate of the Chinese, who had found themselves in a permanent state of denial and drift:
As regards the population of the island, one third have no land habitation but live wholly on the water, another third may be considered in a perpetual state of migration and shifting domicile, and even upon those more respectable people who have longest inhabited the island we have lately seen that more than twenty thousand have abandoned their families and their business at the arbitrary mandate of the mandarins on the mainland.72

Since the Chinese—local and transplants—refused to accept British rule, they found themselves aliens within their own (Chinese) land and culture. “Any Chinese resident here would at present hear with amazement that either himself or his children were no longer regarded as owing allegiance to the Emperor of China but to her Majesty.”73


On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong sovereignty reverted back to China.

Still, we now see more churches than temples, more blonde in bikini than Chinese in cheongsam, more calculator than abacus, more lawyers than mediators. Notwithstanding, after 15 years few in Hong Kong if any would remember, still less sing the praise or level a curse at the British, for leaving the Hong Kong people with so many cultural artifacts (for better or ill).

Looking at Afghanistan, colonial history is repeating itself - American military will leave, eventually, but American culture would stay, forever.

Who is there to clean up the alien culture for Hong Kong and Afghanistan people, after the colonizers depart, with Hong Kong children crowding to Pizza Huts instead of visiting traditional tea houses and Afghanistan kids chanting Martin Luther King than one of their national heroes.

At the end of the day: Whose dream should Hong Kong and now Afghans be pursuing? Whose dream indeed.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Relationship Poliicing vs. People Policing

Everyone has hopes and dreams, often time dismissively called "personal" agenda. Mine is to make a different in the studying, and in turn (time) understanding, of policing, as we know it.

In the case of 中国警务 (Chinese policing),it is an error to believe that 中国警务 needs to be developed along western lines; disarmingly, seductively and now compelling called scientific, professional, and of late, in HKc context, progressive best policing practices. Nothing is further than the truth.

To me, policing is first and foremost about fostering and mending relationship (关系警务论). People rarely kill - hurt friends, with relationship as bonds (孔子, 礼, 仁). (Confucius, Hirschi) People routinely destroy - damage enemies,as things of (dis)utility. (Bentham - moral calculus)

Evidence for above observation is everywhere. Communal - affective life ("we" network, @HK 1950) is harmonious thus peaceful; daily, fierce and rancorous family "feud" notwithstanding. Individual - rational existence ("me" network, @China 2012) is competitive, thus conflictual; appearance of regularity and orderliness not withstanding.

I am developing a theory of "guanxi" relationship policing, a radical departure from "people" policing. I need all the help I can get.

Our job as students - intellectuals - scholars, is to dream big and think/act small, one idea/thing/step at a time, in correcting myths (Chinese police should copy from the West) and removing paradigm (legal/bureaucratic/professional policing model is the ONLY way to do policing).

Policing is not about enforcing strict law but fostering good relationship.

"Knowledge never rests, people do" (KCW, 1987)

Friday, February 17, 2012

Jeremy Lin (JL) and Cultural Marketing

JL is big business for NBA and related US merchandises.

JL is a marketing dream come true for US big businesses from Nike to NBA franchise. It certain helps to deflate the US trade deficit with China. ("Linsanity" a marketing dream in Asia.”

Let us see how “Linsanity” works out in dollars and cents, and in turn whether it makes sense:

(1) JL makes about $762, 195, or about $12,000 per game.

(2) The labor cost per pair of NIKE shoes made in China is $2.42. The market retail price is about $65. NIKE makes about $32.50/pair of shoes (APPENDIX I).

(4) If NIKE sells 1 million pairs of NIKE on account of “Linsanity”, that amounts to $32 millions of profit, net.

How do we make sense of this “Linsanity” NIKE transaction?

(1) NIKE (NBA) pays JL $762, 195/yr.
(2) Chinese people buy NIKE shoes in the millions.
(3) Chinese laborer gets paid $2.42 for making per pair of shoes.
(4) MIKE keeps $32.5 as profit.
(5) NIKE adds no value to the pair of shoes, other than promoting JL, a cultural product.
(6) NIKE MBAs are sipping cold latte in air condition offices in front of a computer, working 9/5 or flex hrs., with big pay checks, creating a wholesome image of JL.
(7) Chinese laborers are sweating in the factory 12 hr., a day, with subsistence wages, creating the shoes. (Average wage: $300 - 400)'s_Republic_of_China
(8) Environmental, health and other social costs are extra.

If you are a NIKE executive, would you rather have the Chinese making money for you, or doing it all yourself?

In this NIKE case, all business actors are from China – Taiwan: marketing (JL), manufacturing (Chinese laboring), purchasing (Chinese consumers). Yet, NIKE - US makes most of the money in the process. A good deal?

Somebody is laughing to the bank. Brain power over sweat labor, every time.

Now you understand why JL is not (only) about celebrating JL, and Yao Ming before him, for their athleticism. It is about culture marketing, through and through.

The question is, if China, Taiwan, or Asia see through this, would they be buying JL – NIKE still? More importantly, if Asia is not an emerging market, would JL still be an overnight sensation?

There is a good end for this critical piece.

So far this is a win-win situation for everyone involved: China gets her hero. Chinese youths get their shoes. JL gets to be famous. NIKE gets the money. US gets to reduce its trade balance. A fair trade, all round! Who is complaining?


"What exactly is the labor cost of Nike shoes?

The cost of labor for Nike products varies slightly by model, volume and sources. As a general rule, labor represents about 15 percent of the price Nike pays the factory for the product. Because Nike's cost is about 25 percent of retail cost, labor accounts for about 4 percent of the retail cost. The breakdown is roughly as follows:

Let's say the consumer pays: $65
Retailer pays: $32.50 to Nike, and then doubles the price for retail.
Nike pays: $16.25 and then doubles the price to retailers for shipping, insurance, duties, R&D, marketing, sales, administration and profits.

The $16.25 price paid the factory includes:
Materials: $10.75
Labor: $2.43
Overhead + Depreciation: $2.10
Factory Profit: $0.97

Total Costs: $16.25

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Cultural lessons (life lessons) of Jeremy Lin

I am truly happy for Jeremy Lin becoming a NBA superstar. He worked hard for it. He deserves it. Apparently he is the first Asian American to have achieved the impossible “American dream” of playing for the NBA, dominated by African Americans. Many commentators have used Lin, a clean cut, respectful, smart, hard working student from Harvard, as a comparison between wholesome vs. unwholesome basketball players. The point: decent attitude and hard work pays. Success comes to those who are decent human beings, on and off the court:

“Lin is not beating his girlfriend with champagne bottles nor leaving dozens of illegitimate kids in his wake. Lin is also a Harvard grad which is a bit more than a GED. Lin is not doing anything like a lot of black players.”

In a more grandiose scheme and (not unrealistic) audacious claim:

“One of the best sports story in our time. He gives hope to a lot of people. If your government, parents, religion cannot give you hope, JLin will give that hope. His perseverance is incredible. Talk about challenges and opportunity combined, this is the best story. God works in mysterious ways. Linsanity continues with 13 assist in 20 minutes against the sacramento.”

“From New York to Asia, Lin is a hoops sensation, 2/16/12”)

We can all agree: Lin is a phenomenon, of yet unmeasured proportion. But, can Lin last beyond the 24/7 media cycle/circus? In performance (capacity) and love fest (attraction)? Only time will tell.

In this blog, I have more serious issues to attend to: is Lin a good role model for our kids?

It is evident, and has been so for a long, long time, distinguished and exceptional sports persons are admired by the public and in particular with young people (esp. lower SEC groups), world wide: Pele of Brazil, Bruce Lee in Hong Kong and Michael Jordon from the US. These stars are watched and followed. In the eyes of the admirers, they can do no wrong.

What do Ln teaches. A lot. Work hard in school (Harvard) and play hard in court (NBA). (This blogger’s teacher used was a NBA player before Yale and lawyering.) Success comes to those who are smart, focused and disciplined. Finally, all of a sudden, basketball is no longer off limits to the bright! Yes, basketballs (NBA), by extension footballs (NFL) and books (Harvard) do mix!! Yes, this is a humble beginning and there is a long, long way before NBA is populated with the book smart rather than street smarts people. (If truth be known, you do need to be smart, street or otherwise, to play in NBA) (In Jeremy Lin, a stereotype that should be celebrated

Now, let us discuss some of the not so good – wholesome lessons of J. Lin:

First, Lin was admitted to Harvard, against all odds (13.4 Asian vs. 17.2 White, 1990 data). He was given a place and a chance over other (more) qualified students (by motive of service) did not make it. In signing up at Harvard, Lin has made a pledge: “I will use my Harvard education for the benefit of society, mankind; not only myself.” Harvard education is not for everyone. It is a national treasure and public trust, for the few who made the lifelong commitment. As such, Lin has an obligation to make good, and contribute back to society, at the highest level his capacity and functions, endowed by parents and trained at Harvard. More importantly, Lin has a personal obligation to put his Harvard education to good use, i.e., befitting his intellectual capacity and academic training. Lin decided to play basketball instead. This is disappointing.

There is nothing wrong with playing basketball and be successful; satisfaction, fame and glory for himself, and even his family and ethnicity. But there is something wrong abut being trained in one area, intellectual pursue, and do another, playing basketball. (Here I assume that that entertaining millions on TV is not as important as helping one person’s life circumstances at Harlam or discovering a new cure for cancer world-wide.)

Lin’s fateful choice is a tremendous waste of resources, for himself, his family, Harvard and US).

The same thing can be said of West Pointers. West Pointers have to give back 8 years for the millions of dollars invested in them. (The larger question is why we as a nation use universities to groom the next generation of NBA, NFL stars, when lesser academically intense sports academy would do? Higher education is an expensive resource, and should not be used to train NBA or NFL players, at the expense of the needy and aspired)

Second, Lin sends a wrong message to the kids world-wide. The message is “be all you can be” – not in scholarship or public service, but in playing balls. More generally, playing balls is more important than any other things on earth, including helping other people in need and making the world a better place to live.

The message that is being sent to the minority kids in the most deprived area is this: basketball and football, not academic studies, is the only (best) way out of ones humble beginning and dismal circumstances.

In the case of deprived and depressed minorities, they are more afflicted by academic vs. NBA choices in life. They need all the help they can get, especially from role model.

In this regard, most minority NBA, NFL players have little to no choice to be academically successful. Due to life circumstances beyond their control, they are not academically prepared for educational challenges. If they want to get out of the project, they can only do so by playing balls (or joining the US Army. But even Army has standards these days).

Lin, however, has all the choices in the world. He chooses to be a basketball player, forgoing his Harvard education, and in time servicing (society) destiny. (He can always come back, yes. But will he? can he? How much is the missing years costing him, and the society?)

The bottom line: if Lin, who has all the choices in the world before him and can be successful in whatever he chooses to do, still chooses to be a NBA player and give up being a Harvard (trained) service professional, the message is loud and clear: basketball-financial reward, before scholarship – intellect satisfaction.

Intellectual pursuits are only second best to playing basketball. That is the reason we are not in competition with the rest of the world who put education before playing balls.


In the end. what is a Ivy (more generally college education) for? What about having a Harvard (college) degree and be a star. (Jody Foster is from Yale, David Duchovny is from Princeton and Yale, Natalia Portman is from Harvard.

I want a happy ending, with uplifting messages, to this rather depression, some say unduly critical (cynical), blog

(1) In joining the NBA, J. Lin might be thinking about changing NBA, more so than,or at least not exclusively, for self serving reasons. With this line of thinking, any "public service" type of motive would be welcomed, including showing Chinese - Taiwanese are not only bookworm.

(2) Notwithstanding J. Lin's present circumstances and motive, but in line with Harvard's tradition, J. Lin and many others to follow, would transform the NBA industry, in a positive way, call this NBA version 2.

(3) In spite of J. Lin's present circumstances, playing in the NBA, J. Lin will have to retire one day. At that point, he can still use his Harvard education for public good.

(4) J. Lin, can make tons of money and donate it to charity.

Still, the above rosy endings do not take away the major thrust of this blog, i.e., there is an adverse culture lesson being promoted - making money is more important than other more worthwhile pursuit in life!

That is what capitalism is all about.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Criminal record and credit score

Recently I read a news item on credit rating:
“7 Things You Didn't Know Affect Your Credit Score” (Feb. 14, 2012).
This gets me thinking out loud.

From the earliest of time, ones reputation in the community matters. If you are a “bad” girl you cannot get married (moral reputation). If you are a “lazy” person you cannot get a job (professional reputation). If you are “dishonest” you are good as dead (integrity reputation). If you mixed with the “wrong crowd” you are shunned (social reputation). The worse that can happen to you is when you have a “criminal record” (CR) (personal reputation). With a CR you cannot find a job, have friends, and start a family.

In 20th century and within a consumerist world, the only thing that matters is your “credit score” (CS). No (low) CS, no (low) life. Without a good credit, your life - financial, social and professional, is not going anywhere.

CS is now the CR of old, a total measure of who you are as a person.

If you are not paying your bills on time or not at all, your reputation is ruined, and in turn livelihood suffers. With a low CS rating, you are deemed not dependable as a worker (professional), trustworthy as a friend (integrity) and worthwhile as a human being (personal). Bad things follow: you cannot get a job, you cannot get a loan, you cannot buy a house, you cannot start a family and you are watched over at workplace, by friends and agencies. You are a pariah. You are not welcomed as a person in the society. For example, in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Police has a strict and stiff policy for disciplining and firing officers with a chronic indebtedness issue. So much so that police officers do everything to dire their indebtedness, and ever killed themselves over indebtedness, if known. (Kwan Tung-lo, “Indebtedness of Hong Kong police officers: gambling or overspending” HKU, 2000)?

In everyday life, CS is a good social control device. People are much, much more concerned with a low CS than a serious/lengthy CR. For one it is consider inappropriate to discriminate against a person with a prior CR, no matter how heinous “Oh! Give people a chance” or “He has pay his debt to society”. The US Constitution even offer up privacy protection for CR, e.g., concealment of juvenile records.

People would make allowance for bad crimes but not bad credit. If you have a poor CS, you are punished everyday through high prices on everything – from insurance to buying a house. As a result people would do everything and anything to keep their CS clean, good, low. This includes spending thousands to clean up their CS.

It is about time we pay more attention to the utility and limitations of CS as a social control device. If we do it right, may be it helps to predict, deter and reform undesirable conducts (crime) and persons (criminal).

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Studying Hong Kong Police Research

The study will be a part of my upcoming book, now in progress: POLICING IN HONG KONG (Florida: CRC - Taylor and Francis, 2013); final chapter? I will be using the 8-18 to look at how far the HKP has come in reform, or to some getting rid of the old ways. (This book has a different tone and textual than the on I just finished: POLICING IN KONG KONG (UK: Ashgate, 2012).

My overall approach to research in policing generally and as applied to HKP (or for that matter PRC "gongan") is that we should take an inside out and bottoms up approach. More importantly, we should get away the well beaten path of "best practices" as shaped and defined by the West. This is not to say that HKP or 中国公安 has nothing to learn from others, including the West (particularly UK or US). (三人行, 必有我师言。。。)But people ought to remember that HK is not UK and China is not US. Since Sir Robert Peel famously said: "The people are the police and police are the people." Policing cannot be fashioned away from the "expectations" of the people. (My theoretical rendition being: "The person who is closet to a problem - by impact and with resource - is the person to take care of the problem." Problem means "expectation denied". (Wong, "State Police Powers as a Social Resource Theory.")

I start with the proposition that ALL policing are local affairs, and in turn denominated by its culture and driven by its people. An elitist, top down, approach, in any other name (democratic, professional, legal policing), does not work, and would not last. Simply put: Professional policing - in the image of crisp uniform and polished car - is not policing in the raw, and certainly not people's policing.

In the study (reform) of PRC - HK police, I have argued elsewhere that consulting Mao ("群众伦“[mass line] on community policing & "矛盾伦“ [on contradiction] on fighting terror) is better than following what Peel. (I am now seeking to bring Mao up to date, and SCIENTIFICALLY.) By the same token, it is best to adopt 情,理,法 as justice principles than promoting legalism (legal fetish) as a rule

Whitney Houston and (Drugs) Addiction

On March 11, 2012, Whitney Houston sang her swan song; she died a premature death at her prime of 48. She has earned her keep. She will be remembered. She will be loved. She is the best of her kind – a church gospel singer transformed into an international; pop phenomenon, with grace and beauty to match.

Now some of Houston’s death fall outs. Most (all) cried over her departure. Many (some) blamed drugs for her downfall. A (vocal) few want Houston’s death to be a lesson to the younger generation – just say no to drugs.

I think it is a good idea to use Houston’s death as a teaching case, moment. She is truly a one of a kind “star” of unsurpassed proportion and unmatched achievements. She is not to be confused with or upstaged by many, many other to follow - “pretenders” ? “want to be”? “Clone” for mass marketing.

I write this blog entry for one simple reason. We need to use Houston’s death judiciously to teach the right lesson: Drugs do not harm, “addictions” of all shape and kinds do.

First, drugs, however potent, do not kill or even harm. In fact, drugs can be used to do good, from relieving pain, e.g., morphine for wounded soldiers, to helping improve performance, e.g., coffee before mid-term, to creating social atmosphere, e.g., before dinner drink in party. In essence, what, when, how we use drugs matter.

Second, drugs do not do anything in or of themselves. People use drugs to do all sots of things, to self and others. In America we have a drug (culture) problem. We use drugs to solve all our problems, large and small, a first resource and not last recourse. For example, we use drugs, not training, to improve performance. We use drugs to make us do things that we cannot or should not be doing, e.g., improving sex life beyond our prime. Finally, we use drugs to induce happiness or suppress unhappy moments, e.g., binge drinking. In the end, we believe the magic of drugs, over human effort and beyond human capacity. This is the real problem with drugs we have, the culture of drug use, not drugs, is the problem.

Third, ultimately, drug is not the problem, “addiction” to drugs is. Drug problem is really an “addiction” problem. To say that we are addicted to drugs is to say that we are no longer in control of ourselves, in what(ever) we do. We ignore the side effects of drugs, in order to get the desire effects – momentary high, at the expense of long term health issues. Thus, drug problems we have individually, and more so, as a nation, is one of lack of self discipline.

Fourth, in line with ("Third" above), we in the US have all kinds of addition problems, many of them much more serious than drugs. As a nation, we need to deal with “addiction” , not drugs, as the problem or all problems:

(1) We are addicted to conspicuous consumption. We keep buying, consuming and trashing material goods, at the expense of inner peace and contentment, otherwise known as happiness. In being addicted to consumption, we are no more different than the drug addicts – seeking a new high – a Ford Model T then and i-Pod 3 now, not realizing that things do not make people happy, beyond the momentary thrill of the moment. Happiness is something we have to discover for ourselves, not given to use, like drugs. We can only derive true and enduring happiness in finding, sharing and giving meaning to and of life, through contemplation, more commonly known as soul searching.

(2) We are addicted to war (in larger context, violence). We keep invading countries and killing people. No single country have fought more wars and kill more people than we do as a nation: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan…just the big ones. War addiction gets us high, in the heat of battle, and in anticipation of peace (or pacification), only to start all over in a wild goose chase, wasting our nations precious blood and treasures, chasing meaningless one high after another.

(3) We are addicted to sex. Sex addiction gets us turned on, artificially (cosmetics, bikini), and manipulatively (marking, packaging). Sex addiction makes us desire sex, not love/romance which leads to sex. Sex addiction makes us marry for sex, and separate for lack of sex or in want of (novel) sex. More damningly, sex addiction, conditioned us to see others only as sex objects, for our utility, and momentary release, not as valuable human beings of their own right, fit for total involvement and destine for long term engagement. It makes us attracted to others for their outer appearance and not internal strengths/virtues. It makes us relate to each other on sexual groups, and not other mote important, multiplex, and enduring, human qualities.

(4) We are addicted to computer, virtual reality and social networks. Addicting to computer is a serious problem. Being addicted to texting means more accident on the road. Being addicted to e-mails and web surfing means we are not focused on our work. In the old days, hermits write books in ten and more years, now we cannot be engaged for more than 5 to10 minutes at a time. (That is the reason why we no longer produce classical books and enduring thesis.) Being addicted to social network and married to virtual reality takes away from everyday human intercourse, and human conditions, the soul of human existence, the fabric of life. The process makes us less and less human (quantity – speed and frequency - of communication do not make for quality – intimacy and intensity - of relations, less and less social (yes, social network is not social at all, not when we an cut people off at will and with a push of the mouse), we are dying a slow death, as person and collective. Our addiction to computer technology makes us part company with the collective and human society we live in, in search of a reality that only exits in the mind. It makes us all dreamers in a virtual world, where everything is possible and nothing is for real.