Ted Sorensen, JFK's speech writer, passed away today

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on Earth God's work must truly be our own."

These words entered immortality as soon as they were heard on Jan 20th, 1961. Delivered by the youngest President so far in this great nation, this speech was actually drafted by a 32-year-old young man. Today, that "young man", who had his most glorious days as "an intellectual blood bank" of the Kennedy brothers, Ted Sorensen, passed away at age 82.

Say "the Olympic champion"

Very shockingly, maybe even more than Henin's "pseudo-retirement", I heard that Elena Dementieva annouced her retirement earlier today.

I have never really paid attention to her: her and Myskina's 2004 French Open final, the ugliest Grand Slam final I've ever seen, gave me such a hard-to-shake-off shadow. And that almost defines her in me: she is not the one.

She chokes, as all other Russian women do. What makes her the most unfortunate is that she doesn't have the SERVE, which I believe is just an insurmountable obstacle, unless--there is ONLY ONE exception in a hundred years of tennis history--you are Rafael Nadal.

One of many amazing things Elena achieved is that since she made it to the main draw of a Grand Slam event for the first time (1999 Australian Open), she had played in 46 consecutive Grand Slams (main draw) until this year's Wimbledon, the longest consective major attendance record in tennis. Ironically, it was her unbelievable consistency and fitness that betrayed her in this year's French, forciing her to retire in the semifinal against Francesca Schiavone.

At that time, the idea that "she may not get another big shot at majors" passed my mind. But stil,l I have to say, retiring now may prove to be the most regretful decision she has ever made. With the Sisters aging, Henin's bumpiness, Cljisters' "human" nature outside of NYC and all those -vic, or -ackis which essentially has NO GAME whatsoever, if she stays and waits, maybe, just maybe, she can win one, once and for all.

Of course she LOVES tennis. And very different from Henin, she never let the pursuit of glory overwhelm the noble, gentle human spirit. For such persons, it is probably easier to stay. BUt anyway, she decided it was not worth the wait. And she called it a career. She is convinced she got the memorables, and the valuables.

Still remember her heroine-ic performance (winning all her 3 matches, doubles and singles) in the neck-to-neck 3-2 Fed Cup final against France? And remember her career-defining gold-medal match in Beijing Olympics over Safina? She saves her best for her great country. And she steps down as eternal for that.

Even if you are as cynical about Russian tennis as me, please, from now on, DON'T SAY "THE BEST NEVER", say "the Olympic champion".

Korean War_#1

The 60th anniversary of China's intervention of "Korean War". To this day, I still think the Korean War was one of the most intriguing wars of all time. It was so dramatic. In the end, the outcome of war is determined by economic powers reflected in coordination between units, logistics and the quality of fighting weapons, but human factors do play BIG roles and sometimes have irreversible effects. MacArthur lived in his own fantasies after the Inchon Landing. All it took was a supreme leader that had guts to challenge the US, risky but smart tactics and strategies of Marshal Peng and super-disciplined and tenacious Chinese Army to completely turn things around.

More thoughts on that later.

TennisTrivia_Oct 18.2010

Murray has now won 6 Masters Series (now the "ATP World Tour Masters 1000" events) titles. Among the 18 players who won 3 or more Masters, only Marcelo Rios, Andrei Medvedev, and Thomas Enqvist ended up not winning a Grand Slam champion. (There is one other active player, Nicholay Davydenko, who won 3 Masters so far, but hasn't ever played a major final.) The statistics seems to suggest that Murray should be able to win a Grand Slam title, sooner or later. But statistics can be deceptive. Researchers should always pay attention to the "structural change", i.e. a threat to the comparativity of data across time and space. Prior to 2007, the Masters has "best-of-five-sets" final, after that, best-of-three-sets. All 5 Ws of Murry came in the "best-of-three-sets". It doesn't make a huge difference as all previous rounds in Masters were, and are, "best-of-three-sets". But I would argue that, finals are after all different. Winning a "best-of-five-sets" final means differently than a three-setter. Think about Rafa vs Roger Miami 2005. I totally believe that Murray can win a major. It is just that it is not at all automatic that 6 Masters Ws translate to even one Grand Slam victory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

China Open has long expressed his ambition to become the 5th Slam. But the biggest optimist will be disheartened seeing the empty seats in the Center Court. The typical tennis audience in US/Europe--the middle-aged upper-middle class just don't have time and the enthusiasm for tennis.

But I found another thing. The majestic "Lotus" Court built for the Beijing Olympics is a light-hearted failure. It sits "north-south", a traditional rule for any "important" architecture. But a tennis court should NEVER be built "north-south", for the court will be half-shaded all day on any sunny day! I found it extremely annoying for players, and for TV broadcasters and viewers as well. Now the Chinese authority is considering building an even bigger 15000-seat white elephant, hopefully they will fix this obvious mistake this time.

The addiction to bodybuilding

Bodybuilding is addictive. After a hardcore workout and a big meal, I am convinced that four consecutive days in absence of gym is the likely cause of my the physical and mental disorder in last couple of days. Maybe it is true for every sport. But I feel especially strongly for bodybuilding. Or maybe, it feels strange and uncomfortable to go without anything that has become an integral part of your life.

Put it in a "theoretical perspective"--you know I am teasing the theorists--life is itself a Bayesian process of choosing between multiple equilibria. There is the "sporty+good appetite+hi protein intake+health diet" equilibrium, and that "sedentary+little appetite+working for longer hours but less happily" equilibrium, to name two. I have got used to the "hi" equilibrium again--Thanks JHK, though I feel you won't see this--since this June, so departing from it temporarily makes me "sick". And I went back today to "equilibrate", though I am super busy and stressful. But I also know that going to gym, or doing other sports regularly, takes discipline, passion, and an attitude. If one is in the "indifferent" world, or deep in mental acedia, or can't resist the temptation of "more papers/lab/programming", the "low" equilibrium is also stable, and it is hard to jump-start to the "hi" one.

I strongly encourage every PhD, boys and girls, to follow the previous path. Because the freedom to choose our way of life may be the only justification of the huge opportunity cost we forgo to pursue this degree. And it is downright stupid not to live a meaningful, and disciplined life, in which the loyalty to one sport, and the love to one genre of arts, are essential.

I suddenly recalled the lesson from Yingjiou Ma, then mayor of Taipei, the current President of ROC when meeting wit him in 2005. He may not be a great President, but he is a noble person and a great teacher.

Winter plan

Washington DC and NYC Redux.

From Dec 18 to Jan 3. Air tickets reserved.

Reunion with Chenqi and Tony, AMNH, NMNH, NMAH, National Holocaust Museum, Library of Congress, George Mason U, Met, MOMA etc etc.

I am excited!!

China's Moon Mission

On the 61st anniversary of the founding of People's Republic of China, at exactly the beginning of CCTV Evening News (7 pm, Beijing time, this 30-min news program used to be China's only nationwide news program. Today, it is still the most-widely-received and most-viewed TV program, at least TV news program in the nation.), China launched its "Appolo 2". This timing showed again that the Chinese Communist Party has gradually fashioned its propaganda machine.

This will undoubtedly stir a new wave of nationalistic pride. I can still remember when the frightening patriotic fervor aroused by "Chang'e I" I felt from various media channels and through video-chatting across the Pacific. The unfortunate thing is, for the general public, and even for many highly-educated leftists, the priceless national pride, seems also costless.

People dismissed the astronomical budget of the 2008 Olympics the same way they dismiss the cost of the moon mission now. The most ironic thing about Chinese leftists is that they will put a price tag on human life, say tens of thousands of miners' lives, and say "it still pays to 'DEVELOP", but they turn a blind eye, willfully, on the price tag of the national pride.

To make things worse, the government fools the general public. There is an article saying that the project only cost $2-3 billion RMB so far, "merely several kilometers of newly-built subway in Beijing". Nonsense. The Appolo Project of U.S. was back in 1960-1970s. The total nominal expenditure amounts to $19,408,134,000. Using the CPI in 1972, the year of the last moon landing, the "cost" is at least $99,000,000,000, which translates to $650,000,000,000 RMB. Appolo has 17 missions. China's "Chang'e" now has two. How come the "cost" is merely 2-3b RMB?! Is the whole thing only a film??