On the end of Netscape...

It is perhaps fitting, that the announcement by AOL to discontinue development and end the support of the Netscape browser is made at the end of 2007, when the year is drawing to a close. Netscape's end would cap the end of the dot-com tech bubble in the late 1990s (that the Netscape IPO christened). It also defines a new generation from Silicon Valley that prefer to talk in dollar sign rather than ideal (unlike David Packard and William Hewlett in the bygone days, eg).

The time for Netscape has long passed, although it's great to see its baton to be passed onto Mozilla Firefox which I have since switched to. Microsoft's Internet Explorer has never been my browser of choice, not least because of all its security holes, but I prefer technologies that are non-Microsoft. If you look for innovations, you do not look for it from Microsoft.

2007: Taking stock - the looking ahead part...

Ah, how could I have left out the looking ahead part when taking stock of 2007, and the hopes and dreams for 2008?!? :)

It'll be very interesting to see how the 2008 presidential election plays out. I hope Democrats make history. At this point, I prefer the woman (Hilary Clinton) in the White House more than the black (Barack Obama). It's a dangerous thing to hold caricature for a candidate, but when it comes to issues and stands, all candidates (Dems and the GOP on the other side) really are so alike that it's hard to tell apart. Well...I take it back some, since John Edwards has taken a much harder, left-of-center view on most everything. But to view the White House back, whoever it might be, has to take a more centrist view, as Bill Clinton did. But thank God, at least we won't have another run of George W Bush and Cheney, the stupid combo.

I've been thinking and thinking of my own venture. Perhaps 2008 is a year when I should stop thinking, and start doing things. More research, and an exploring trip to Asia, would definitely help clear my view. That should likely be what I should aim for, now that the kids are getting comfortable with the school nearby.

2007: Taking stock...

It's amazing, that it's a year ago this month, that I've starting blogging for my own journal, not so much (in fact, not at all) for the world to read, but as a handy reference for myself and my kids some day (if blogger is still around).

Such is a time to look back and look forward at the same time.

I was reading my thoughts from 2006 year end, and how I ditched YouTube. I don't find it particularly interesting still, after a year of watch some clips on and off (but not too often). There are movie trailers that I could have found elsewhere, but the streaming is faster on YouTube, so I don't mind watching them on YouTube. And then, I found almost the whole Walking With Dinosaurs documentary series on YouTube, which the kids love. That's probably the most useful thing I've had with YouTube. Most popular clips, like the "Leave Britney Alone" one, are just plain stupid, though partially entertaining. I bet most people watching it to make themselves feel better (since they definitely are not as stupid as those on the clips). Occasionally, there're some amateurish clips that are interesting enough, like the "Battle at Kruger" one. But, that's all I'll say about YouTube. Commercial value? Ah, it's a joke.

There's much hot air from Facebook opening up its private "network" of users for the world to see, with Facebook Ad and Facebook Beacon getting so much scrutiny that one wonders where the 23-year-old CEO is going to hide when he goes to sleep (if he can still sleep).

There's still more hot air from Google going all out offensive against the supposed Facebook platform, by proposing its "open" platform for social networking. The enemies of my enemy are my friends. Google took that motto to heart, and recruit all Facebook competitors into some alliance to promote this hastily put together competing platform.

And then there's the iPhone (the "unlocked" iPhone?!?) that starts with a bang, and ends with a fizzle (so far).

The biggest news was probably the subprime mortgage crisis that Wall Street cooked up. Talking about the growing gap between the rich and the poor, I'd say, the subprime mess is probably one of the greatest way in nature to redistribute wealth from the richer (general/stupider investors) to the poorer (subprime borrowers). It's pretty impressive to see how fast the mess played out, and how contagious it is, considering that various financial institutions (like Merrill Lynch, Citi, HSBC, among others) had need to announce billions after billions of write-down or write-off completely. But the truly richest will always be ready to buy, considering how sovereign wealth funds from the like of UAE and China have been all too ready to scoop in and "invest."

Looking back, it's good that we're "squeezed" to sell my beloved place in BH in Spring 2006. Not that I need the money, but God has a way of telling me that I shouldn't be holding onto it. So we sold, and the market started leveling, then drifting downwards maybe 3 months after the sale. Of course, when a market turns, it'll very hard to swim against the tide. I'm sure if we had waited for another 6 months, we'd be keeping the place for another 10 years, probably. Not that I mind keeping it. But the sale did free up quite some cash that could have been deployed far better elsewhere.

So, I learnt my lesson, that when the time is good, I should cash out and re-balance the portfolio. Yes, yes, those financial gurus always say this, right? The tricky questions are, when? and, am I ready to let go. When it comes to investing, unlike some of my siblings, I'm never very greedy. I invest in only the things I like. I rarely speculate. It's a good call this time with the sale of the property, incidentally. I'll jog this note in my year-end journal for review, to remind myself of this in the future.

And let go I did too, with my second job that gave me great exposure, experience, and good salary, but contributed to a depreciating quality of life. The same tricky questions in investing apply here as well. I seemed never ready to let go, so I was always delaying the "when" part. But I have a few years of good run, and I'm grateful God has given me this opportunity to broaden my view and boost my esteem (that I really can do it and do them all well).

The new venture goes slower than I have expected it. I got upset when it comes to project management (or rather, the way my husband seems to adjudicate the authority to manage the project by the web designer to deliver the web site in a more timely fashion). But I hope this is God's way to teach me to be a better and more effective communicator, to let him understand my point of view. Life is one big learning process, which can be frustrating but it can be rewarding at the same time.

On the Paypal mafia...

The Paypal mafia reporting on Fortune is an interesting read. But why is it that (1) I don't feel that these ex-paypal guys were that smart; (2) that the only thing that distinguishes them from other startups is that, they despise women and are workaholics?!?

Am I supposed to be impressed by guys like that? Should I be thinking that they're smart for starting a payment service that had been bleeding money (and never turned a profit) and didn't even know what a chargeback is?

The only thing that kept them going was luck. If eBay had not come along and bought out Paypal, it'd be long gone, together with their attitudes. They were lucky to be in the right place at the right time, and were lucky to have cashed out.

Should I be impressed that they're branching out with other startups? Not really. Like YouTube, all those startups never really have any business models. Yes, one could argue that these guys have more than their fair share of luck.

Only time will tell if the amount of eyeballs equate to brand loyalty. I would argue no. There is no lock-in for any users who might be uploading to YouTube today, to switch to any other video sharing site. And YouTube is not offering any meaningful service like eBay had been anyways.

And for guys like the eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, who would go on to take on social issues, rather than muddling through startups, I would say, that's the kind of people I would consider who has a vision and a mission. For these so-called Paypal mafia, they're just a bunch of male chauvinist pigs.

On the British move to talk to Taliban...

In terms of playing politics and the divide-and-conquer game, the Brits are far superior than the Americans.

Watch how it plays it out in Afghanistan, with the Americans move being to add (or reduce) military force to the area, essentially playing the cat-and-mouse game with the insurgents and Talibans. The Americans haven't really changed much of their game plan, because the whole thing comes out from the military's play book. It's almost like there is no hindsight or Plan B that the Americans can and will do.

Contrast that to how the Brits approach it. When the military doesn't seem to be working, politicians step in. But instead of politicians talking military talk, they try their hands to divide and conquer the opponents. Now, Gordon Brown, the newly minted PM, is suggesting that the insurgents (and in fact, Taliban) are really not one big bad guys, but a bunch of loosely defined tribes that the Brits can talk to, and negotiate with. What was left unsaid is that, the politicians knew what they play well, which is to go in, stratify the opponents, and divide them in groups, to ultimately master them.

That's the playbook that the Brits play so well in the colonial days, in India, in Hong Kong, and in Africa. That's how the Brits could maintain and rule its Commonwealth for more than a hundred years with so much success. I would argue that, ultimately, it'll be politics that win the day in Afghanistan and, indeed, Iraq.

On Giuliani defensive of his misuse of public resources...

It's quite fun watching the media grilling Rudy Giuliani, the 2008 GOP presidential hopeful, in defending why what he did as a New York Mayor was not wrong, and while whatever that might be that was under accusation, someone suggested it and not him.

What he did was the use of public resources (security details) for himself (visiting his girlfriend) and for his girlfriend (using public security for her), and how he tried to obscure and hide those details by accounting tricks (breaking down the billing to various tiny government agencies).

What was conveniently left unsaid, of course, was the fact that she would not have qualified for the protection the misdeeds took place before the affair was made public, thus no death threat at that point. The fact that he's still married man, using public resources to go about his private love affair, is just plain stupid. No doubt he could afford a ride or drive by himself, but he's acting like he's president already.

It's so true that, without 9/11, Giuliani really would have no platform - nothing to run on at all - as a GOP candidate, given his morality and character and family values. And I much doubt if the religious right is going to let a Mormon (Mitt Romney) to win the candidacy, not to mention his flip-flop on various policy positions. The closer the primaries get, the more plausible that GOP really might vote for Mike Huckabee as the GOP candidate. Now, THAT would be quite interesting.

On Bush coming to the subprime mess rescue...

I wonder who in the economic advisers in George W Bush's administration came up with this idea of coming to the rescue of the subprime mortgage crisis, by selecting picking a subset of reckless (or stupid) subprime mortgage borrowers, then forcing on investors to the securities that were backed by these mortgages to help these borrowers out by reneg'ing the terms and fixing the low teaser rates for another five years.

Critics abound on the Bush rescue. Even five-year-olds would know all too well, if you do wrong things, you suffer consequences. But in the name of politics, these people got bailed out, and those who have been prudent in not taking on excessive debts and who might have sat on the side line to wait for the market to correct in order to buy, are the real ones who get punished. This is not to mention those unknowing investors who bought in these supposedly AAA-rated securities, only to realize they might not get even a fraction of its worth back.

And this is what Bush, the "great GOP leader" who rushed to make headline-graping proclamations like, "Mission Accomplished!" and "Ownership Nation."

And this is what Bush would do to those people, who heed his call to buy properties without having the means.

And this is another mess that Bush would defer to his successor (no matter it's a Dem or GOP), to have a "rescue" of such kind, and to delay the pain for another five years, instead of having the market correction to take place now.

It's ridiculous.

On bye-bye to John Howard the lap dog...

It's befitting and predictable that John Howard, the ex-Prime Minister of Australia, to lose the 2008 election. Howard sought, perhaps all too successful, in mirroring and emulating George W Bush in all of Bush's "policies" (if you can call it that) and directions for Australia, setting the country on wrongful path. Thankfully for global growth that pushes commodity prices to new highs that benefit Australia's economy, Howard erroneously believes that it's the economy, and the economy alone, that voters would go along with him, even though they disagree with him on all other major policies like his refusal to join Kyoto Protocol for climate change, and his staunch support of the war in Iraq.

For parliamentary system like Australia or United Kingdom, the 10 year mark is almost like a threshold for a Prime Minister's hanging onto power. If we recall how Margaret Thatcher had been successful during her times, but still got pushed out after similar length of prime ministership.

Howard should realize all too clearly by now that it's not only the voter weariness of him being in the PM role for too long, but that voters do not agree with him on policies as well, witnessed by losing of his parliamentary seat in the same election. It shows how a long tenure in an ivory tower can render him so out-of-touch with the mass.

On the teen suicide after a MySpace fallout with a fake friend...

There's much talk and news lately, following the suicide of the 13-year-old Megan Meier after her fallout with a "friend" from MySpace that she thought was a boy who had hots for her and who later turned against her. It turned out that the "boy" was a fake MySpace online character from the mother of a neighbor four doors away from her.

Now, that whole community has turned against this stupid, mean 40-year-old mother who has to close her business, and receives daily death threats. To tell the truth, for such an immature, mean-spirited, and stupid grown-up woman, to have done such terrible deed on a pre-teen girl is just so wrong. It does not have mattered if this had led to her even suicide (which was the ultimate horror, of course), since the act of leading on a young girl, then trashing her like that is just plain wrong.

There was this description of this 40-year-old mother as a social butterfly in the small community. I hope she is shunned - big time - for thinking that she's above someone else, that she can do whatever she pleases, with no ramifications.

On Romney's Mormon faith and president candidancy...

With one month toward the Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney the 2008 presidency hopeful must be feeling desperate, with his poll numbers going nowhere, albeit his vast wealth behind the campaign.

So it is, that Romney arranged this this speech of faith last night, supposedly to mirroring what JFK did back then to dispel worries that he'd take orders from the Pope instead of the American peoples. Even the location of the speech was supposed to ring some bells.

To be sure, there are similarities with JFK that Romney wishes to draw upon. They both look photogenic enough. They both suffer voter's doubts on their respective faith. And of course, they're running for the presidency.

But one thing Romney does not realize is that, not all faiths are created equal. I consider Catholicism mainsteam and Mormonism not. If, according to Romney's arguments, it would not matter what his religion is, since he's an American running for president, then would I have voted for, say, a Muslim to be President, given that that Muslim is born in America? I should think not.

Not that I'm bigot against Muslims or Islam as a religion; quite far from it, I'm pretty tolerant with diverse religions. As individuals, anyone can take up any religions. That's their choice. But if I am to elect a president to lead the country, that one person's better be someone who remain mainstream.

We've seen enough of putting a religious right (George W Bush) in the White House, and what disastrous results that lead us. He's willing to push the country to war to spread the good deeds. He would appoint justice after justice in the Supreme Court enough to eliminate (or even reverse) the choice of women and Roe v Wade. He would selectively divert fundings to religious organizations of his own faith to carry out important social functions.

While it's undeniable that there are religious charitable organizations that do amazing works, I would not want to see preferences to one religion over another. If Romney is so defined by his Mormon belief, then it would be impossible for him not to have his judgments being clouded by his religious belief. For that alone, I'll reject Mitt Romney.

On China and its environmental push...

It's both sad and predictable, reading news about China's fight to keep alive the last two known Yangtze soft-shelled giant turtles, one male and one female.

It's nascent in the article, pointing out that a growing number of turtles being sold in China as food are from overseas. I remember some time back, one of my friends (himself Chinese) commented that, should the Chinese grow in affluence, half of the endangered species in the world could become extinct. At the time, it sounds outrageous, since China was still starting out in its economic ascent. But it almost sounds like on-the-money these days.

One might argue that other industrialized nations went through the same growth phase, with their own power structure with the environment in order to jostle nature to succumb to their will. But the callousness of the Chinese since the Mao era, in their dealings with the environment and all the eco-system that goes with it, simply are too great to ignore or dismiss. The Three Gorges Dam is a case in point.

There's an old Chinese saying, that Chinese would eat anything that has its back facing the sky. Given the Chinese growing appetite to anything exotic (shark fins are just nothing, compared to bear's paws, live monkey's brain, tiger's penis...), I'm really worried about the future of biodiversity in that country.

On the y2k bug being one of the great legend...or farce?

I can't help but think back what the y2k bug had been for all of us. Don't get me wrong, I did not underestimate what potential problems that could have surfaced, should the issues in various places, far and wide, not been fixed. I know, because I'm on the technical side, working in overdrive in an international bank to fix their foreign exchange and backoffice systems.

Back then, the forex system is pretty much fine. Afterall, it's on much newer platforms. The backoffice mainframe is another completely different story. We (the forex folks) have to be there, because those stupid DECS are still around, and those backoffice programmers (yes, they're called programmers, not developers or engineers) still work with screen-scraped green screens on black terminals. And they're the ones who can't shake off the DDMMYY hangover after 30 years.

(PS here: But it is quite safe to say that, those programmers are really the winners in this globalization world. Afterall, they don't even teach COBOL in schools, local or overseas, anymore. So, their jobs are pretty secure, and it's quite safe to say that, they can probably ride it to the sunset. Happy or sad ending? You be the judge. But it's sad to me.)

Perhaps we could say that the efforts to fix the y2k bug by various industries (including the government, financial, manufacturing, telcos, utility, media, and most every day-to-day system that we might come across) had been such a huge success, that we never got to hear horror stories, like B52 bombers didn't flip to fly upside-down when they cross the equators, or some such.

And believe me, I know how horrible it could have gone wrong. Afterall, I started out with COBOL (remember that language that marks CICS?!?), and I'm all too familiar with the DDMMYY. (I was more than ecstatic to switch to c, c++, and then java, after paying my short dues in COBOL.)

After all these times though, I don't subscribe to the notion that everything in the society was going to fall down on its face. Of course, after seven years now, we can quite safely say so. But I have always felt this way. A lot of it is due to media hype. And consulting outfits like IBM and CSC are all too happy to drum up the beat for them, and a huge troop of consultants in tow.

(Another PS here: Most everyone who's not in the know of the technicalities are pretty ignorant to what the y2k bug was. There was even a news story of a peasant woman in rural China who died of pesticide. Cause of death? She drank the pesticide after hearing the y2k bug news report, thinking that she'd be infected. Sad, aye?!)

On George W Bush's hurried peace attempt...

Granted that all attempts in peace-making should be lauded, the first (and probably last) attempt of Bush in brokering peace in the Mid East seems anything but.

It's only now that W learns the wisdom that US cannot impose its vision on Mid East? Does it take any reasonable, average-wit person seven years in learning some wisdom? Obviously, considering that Bush has nothing but his legacy to worry about now (with only the Iraq war left to fill a big hole), he's a man in hurry, to want to finish a peace deal before his second term ends. But he should realize by now (I hope), that declaring "mission accomplished," is cheap talk, if he really hasn't done much. And history will not take it kindly on his "mission accomplished" landing, and the mess that follows the Iraq fall.

With a leader of this much "intelligence," it's no doubt too, that it takes years for Condi Rice to turn from her comfortable zone of dealing with Russia (where her pre-administration days of studies were focused on), to the MidEast, to realize what a big gap in the world order America has overlooked in these seven years' void.

Bush should also realize by now that, not only does his lame-duck phase of presidency would hamper whatever that he might want to accomplish, but his moral credibility has sunk this low that, his call for "whatever" just move anybody.

On Matt Damon becoming the Sexiest Man Alive in 2007...

It's refreshing, for a change, to have the People's Magazine to choose Matt Damon as the Sexiest Man Alive in 2007, not solely based on the ounce of muscles that he has (though he has alot to offer), but also on his personality.

People should start to realize (and wake up, both men and women) that women do not simply find a guy "sexy" on sexual appeal alone. For a guy that comes across as funny, witty, down-to-earth, and brainy, can be very powerful and sexy too. It's nice to look at a pretty face, but a man has to come across with something more substantial than simply a six-pack and bulging biceps in order to be impressive. One must admit, to see a guy who would blush on compliments, that's quite cute.

It's also nice to see that this group of friends (Damon, Pitt, and Clooney) who have not only looks, but certain substance in the brain, and they don't do cat fights like the women celebrity are. I hope it serves as a powerful reminder to the rest of the male population that women look for more than just looks in a man. (Well, I *hope* women do...at least those who are smart.)

On Sarkozy, the new Bush lap dog...

Isn't it great, to have one lap dog in the path of down-and-out, when you have another lap dog standing by to take its place?!?

I'm talking about Nicolas Sarkozy, the new French president who pledges his tie and closer relationship to US ("America can count on France") and the new lap dog of George W Bush who would gladly go to country with Bush and loves everything that has the America label on it, when the old lap dog of John Howard struggling to retain his own parliamentary seat, not to mention the general election and his grip of the government. There is an old Chinese saying, "one rooster dies, and you hear from another rooster." Rooster-1 is Howard, Rooster-2 is Sarkozy.

I'll take my time to see when Sarkozy is going to go down, to the same path as Howard who has lost touch with the people, thinking that a great economy is all that matters, when Howard fails to understand that the electorate looks for more than just economic stewardship, but leadership in social responsibility. Howard and Bush have failed so utterly, in the latter.

On Facebook Ad...

It's the moment of truth, with Big Brother Watching you, circa 2007. That's Facebook Ad, which previously insists users to enter real personal data, and who now turns to sell the users out by exposing them to ads by advertisers.

I suppose it's just a matter of time. I'm not sure why anyone would want to put in any real data on the web. Perhaps the previous argument by the Facebook users was that, it's a closed network, and they were only "seen" by their own friends, or those in the larger academic/university community. Even for this blog, which is a handy way for something else to host my journal of thoughts, I don't think I'll ever put down my (real) name, or where I live etc (though I would have exposed bits and pieces of my personal details, like having kids, and marital status, and gender and so on, they are generic enough that I would not care).

I have hated the idea of having Google searching my gmail contents to target ads to me. That's why nothing is sensitive or too personal in my emails. And, I never, ever pay any attention to those Google ads when I login to gmail anyways. How "targeted" those ads really are, is highly questionable to me.

The act of Facebook in putting out Facebook Ad so soon after Microsoft acquiring a stake in it, reminds me of the Big Brother that Microsoft has always wanted to be, and how easily and quickly Zuckerberg will sell out his users/friends for a good profit. While it might make perfect economical sense for him, shame on him. Let's just wait and see how quick the 50 million users of his are going to ditch him and Facebook.

On MIT suing Frank Gehry...

I don't know what would enjoy the architecture of Frank Gehry, but I'm certainly, absolutely not one of them. His design is just so darn ugly.

Granted, I'm still surprised to learn of the lawsuit that MIT is mounting, against Frank Gehry and the construction company of the Stata Building, alleging major leaks and flaws in the design and construction of the building. But I'm equally surprised (but not impressed) by the response by Gehry to MIT's lawsuit, saying that it's a complex building (implying issues are bound to surface). I don't think architecture of his design is anywhere nearly as complicated as building a space shuttle by NASA. What would we have, if NASA tells us that, accidents are bound to happen, since this is complex stuffs?!? I certainly do not appreciate the high attitude of Gehry, that he would dismiss criticisms and would not admit to flaws or mistakes. What a jerk.

On Google's new Android platform for mobile...

There is big, splashing news about the Android platform from Google for the mobile arena which was announced in the last few days. It would include everything there is, including the OS, API, and even a browser for cell phone.

Naturally, that would mean Google has to butt heads with entrenched interests like cell providers (AT&T, etc) and OS vendors (like Microsoft and Palm). One noticeable missing voice is Sun. I can't help but wonder if this spells the beginning of the end for Java as a viable option in the mobile arena. While Google is good at announcing big, grand plans that grabs headline news, but alot of them eventually fizzle out, I wonder if Sun has any counter argument for it. In fact, Sun has let Java languished for some years now. Although Java has become the de-facto language of choice for backend/server-side development, its influence and usage have been retreating with accelerated pace. Remember java swing or AWT, or the mobile edition of java, anyone? (It's sad...)

On voyeurism and exhibitionsim...

Humans are an interesting (if perverse) animal. Their behaviors can be so different from those of others in the animal kingdom.

Yes yes, you know we're supposed to be the most intelligent in the nature. We learn the ability to use tools, and sophisticated languages. The list goes on. Those are the good side.

On the flip side, there are humans (or, those who are or turn evils) who enjoy inflicting pains on others to derive pleasure. And then there are yet others who enjoy voyeurism and exhibitionism. Are there any animal species out there that do the same? I can't think of any.

Funny how the net for the military and academia, which evolves into the web for the general public, helps us in so many other ways. The positive ways. Now it's spinning into this social-networking scenes (aka MySpace, Facebook, etc) that allow people to voluntarily expose and exhibit themselves to an audience unbeknown to them (though some might think only their friends check them out).

And now, the interesting article in New York Times examining how the exhibitionism and voyeurism are taking a reverse spin to go from the web back to a physical format, in which people would choose to live in a glass house, and expose their every single (potentially crass and unsavory) details of their lives to anyone who cares to see. Surely there will be people out there who like to gawk into others' window to see how it's decorated or what the residents might be doing. But to expose oneself in the bathroom?!? What are these people thinking, really?

Another failed "grand scheme"...

Just when I was talking about those failed grand old visions and scheme, remnants from the late 90s for company elders to build conglomerate-style bloaters, and how most every one of them seems to be buckling, there's news today that InterActive Group (IAC) is going down the same path, which is going to be split into five different companies.

No more surprises. It's just a matter of time.

On Giuliani's tough talking and waterboarding...

It's infuriating, reading news about Rudy Giuliani's trashing John McCain in not being tough due to McCain's rejection of torture methods like waterboarding, and for McCain's lack of experience in running an establishment (like a city, for example, as Giuliani did in New York City).

While I do not doubt the latter claim since McCain was never a mayor of any kind, as Giuliani did. (Whether I care for it is an entirely different matter.) And while I'm no fan of GOP, I find it very disturbing, for Giuliani to imply that McCain is not being tough since McCain disagrees with torture methods.

Giuliani has never been in war. He's never even been TO a war. Being a prosecutor in grilling suspects (and I have no doubts that anyone would want to strangle those definitive suspects in heinous crimes) is one thing, but torturing human beings is another, totally. Time and again, studies show that torture does not yield superior results in extracting useful results from suspects since they're prone to giving in to say whatever that the torturer wants to hear.

But why does men want to stick to the use of torture? It probably has more to the fact that, when you hate the other person (suspect) so much, you want to hurt them; of course if you can extract any useful info from them, that would be added bonus. That's my suspicion of it.

Giuliani reminds me of his tough talking colleague of George W Bush who himself was never in any way, yet claim to know everything there is, about being tough and all in war. It's laughable that cowards like these can twist facts, and turn around to point fingers at McCain and John Kerry (by Bush during the 2004 election) for not being tough enough for handling wars. Of course, we now know Bush is only good at slinging guns, but no good at all in handling anything that requires the use of his brain. While Giuliani can at least talk properly (as compared to Bush), he would turn out to be just another gun slinger.

PS: Then again, I don't expect Giuliani to win the GOP primary anyways...

On the MI5 head speaking out on trust and counter terrorism...

I must say, Brits have their own way of playing politics and managing the public, that I find it fascinating to watch. One of the displays is the recent public speech by the head of MI5, speaking out on the subject of counter terrorism and trust.

The speech itself is eloquent enough, and it sounds so forthcoming and candid, that would appeal to anyone who might even disdain anything that is government. The thing I find it most fascinating is that, MI5 would even take a course of action like this. You would definitely not find CIA or FBI or any government organization in China or Europe or Russia doing the same thing. But in doing so, it solicits the public that you could not have achieved in most other ways.

It is also one reason why Brits had (and still have) been able to lord over all those colonies in the imperial days. They would divide behind-the-scene, but they would unite and conquer in public. You probably won't find it working without the subtle English charm.

Perhaps the only other people who might remotely pull that tactic, and have it work is Israel (that would appeal to its own people).

On the grand scheme of things in business from the 1990s...

The 1990s offered a few things to us. The roller-coaster ride in the stock market and the tech bubble (that bursts in 2001). And in business, there was the legion of business super-leaders, who had this grand vision of all things conglomerate-style. There was the Sandy Weill and his rise with Travelers Group to the building of bloated Citigroup. There was Jack Welch and his run in GE. There was the big shift of focus in IBM with Lou Gerstner. Of course we can't miss the big blow-ups like the failed marriage between AOL and Time Warner led by Stephen Case. The list goes on and on.

It's hard to see through all the hoopla in the heat of the moment. With hindsight almost a decade later now, we have the benefit to see which one works (rarely) and which one doesn't (mostly all of them).

In a way, I almost feel sorry for the "second generation" CEO's who are to be gatekeepers of those grand schemes, only to struggle to get them to work. There is Dick Parsons, and Jeff Immelt, and Chuck Prince, of course, who was just ousted from Citigroup for the big blow-up in the subprime market. The only thing that they have in common is that, they all fail to ignite growth in stock price since they came to power.

Some, like Jeff Immelt, have more admirable vision to move the behemoth of GE to new direction (but it's too bloated to move any faster that it could). Some simply strut along with the same old "grand vision," like Chuck Prince, when they were handed with the rein. But mostly, they all go to show that the grand scheme from the elder (and now retired) CEO's by simply growing the companies with serial M&A in order to facilitate cross-sell simply doesn't work, no matter how you slice and dice it. When the times are good, when the market is flush with money, the party goes on...until the music stops, and we can see who's left standing with no place to sit. Those elders are lucky bastards to have exited the stage, or else they'll be left standing with no pants on.

On the primary battle and comparison between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton...

There is an excellent article in NYTimes on Barack Obama, and his (uphill) battle for Democratic nomination in the primary against, chief of all, Hilary Clinton.

It's excellent, not because of the subject itself since it's been done infinitely many times by so many other sources and reports; but rather, it's done from the vantage point on the Obama side. The hope, the support he's got from seemingly unlikely sources including ex-Clintonites during the Bill Clinton era, and the frustration that his message doesn't seem to get through still (when first primary is only two months away).

There was this novelty factor when Obama first came out, and it certainly a breath of fresh air (much like John Edwards had been in his "two Americas" talk during his 2004 presidential bid, even Howard Dean and outpouring of support to Dean from the web mostly in 2004). Fresh air aside, with the primary being pushed further up, the novelty factor can wear out quite quickly, and mostly potential voters are left with whatever residue they have in memory of any particular candidates.

I have watched most major candidates (both GOP and Dem) for a while. I must admit that Obama came out very interestingly, from the left field, mostly since I was never aware of this person before, and it's interesting/useful to find out what his views are, what he stands for, his integrity, and how much of a chance he has in winning back the White House (no, I don't want another GOP administration).

The Obama camp likes to paint (perhaps it is in fact so) him as having the fresh-eyed approach on things, everything. It's refreshing to see that someone like him is getting support. The Clinton camp likes to attack him like he's 8 year old, and doesn't know how the real world operates. Perhaps it could be true that an 8-year-old's approach can be effective, particularly in its surprised-factor. I'm not entirely sure if it'll work, in the long-winding bureaucracy of getting substantial changes in through the Congress and the world at large. I had had hopes that the health care reform that Hilary Clinton had tried to push through (but subsequently failed), but hers back then is the 8-year-old's approach.

To me, Hilary has lived and learnt and graduated into the real world, when she still has some ounces of idealism left in her. Her ascent to be the first female president would be very inspirational to future generations to come. As to Barack, his ascent as the first black president (with Muslim roots, no less) would certainly be equally inspirational. So, either one of them (as agent from a minority) to sit in the White House is good enough for me.

As to policies and procedures, it's easy talk for fresh approach from Barack, but I have the feelings that Hilary is careful enough these days (after seeing how the real world does business) not to promise something that she knows would fail. I see it as the same way I would do things, as compared to my 4-year-old kid, for example. He might want to do this in this way, but I would tell him, no it won't work and I would tell him how I would do it. Naturally, I do not expect my kid to copy every single thing I tell him (otherwise it would have killed all his imagination and creativity), but I equally do not want him to try things that I know are definitely harmful (eg. doing drugs). Going back to the Obama/Clinton comparison, I see Obama like my 4-year-old kid, and I see Clinton like myself. While I certainly do not want to come out and tell him "I told you so," I know what consequence is going to come out.

So, the question here becomes, do I value experience (Clinton) more, or do I value fresh approach (Obama) more. I would choose Clinton. It's not because I do not want or dislike the fresh approach from Obama, but I want Clinton to hit the ground running, at day one when she's in the White House, again. (And, having Bill Clinton on her side, it's certainly a big help.)

As to being a fighter and be mean enough to fight (and beat) the GOP in the general election, that gets me worried most about Obama. He would certainly look like an 8-year-old on stage if he's up there debating Giuliani or Romney (he'll probably win). When a Dem is up there fighting the fight, I don't need a Mr Nice Guy, as Obama has time and again wanted to portrait himself. I want the candidate to be mean and tough enough to fight back. During the past few Dem debates among the Dem candidates, I can't say I'm very impressed by Obama's performance. And that's BEFORE the primaries. What are his chances when he's up against GOP? I have most serious concerns about this.

Back to the article from NYTimes, when toward the end, Obama almost sounds bitter, and counters what kind of "experience" that Clinton has that he hasn't, and what kind of "crises" that Clinton has really handled, and so on. He might be glad to hear that there isn't anything concrete, so the answer is no (that's what you get from a poll). But the total package of Clinton (including Bill in tow) would tell us, everything is a resounding yes. While that might not be a fault on Obama in particular, it is something that he does not have, not even any chance of "improving."

On assigning credit where it's due...

The gross injustice must have been painfully felt, when one works your butt off trying to get the job done, and the credit goes to someone else instead.

I'm talking about the upcoming movie "American Gangster," where its revisionist history rewrites who should get the credit for bringing down the black drug lord Frank Lucas. Have the screenwriter(s) and director been so sloppy in its research in undercover where the credit should have laid, or do they simply take the easy way out and put a one-man-hero as the poster boy for the whole operation?

It's indeed so unfair because people will eventually die, but the movie lives to tell a story that is half true, yet labeling it "based on a true story." I'm sure teams of lawyers can argue down to the last dots and crosses, that it's just "based" on a true story, but it's not necessarily the whole true story.

There is a tremendous amount of social responsibility, for movie makers to make movies based on true stories to do due diligence, and be as factual as can be. It does not seem to be the case here, unfortunately.

On Karen Hughes' (second) departure from the Bush administration...

On Karen Hughes' (the last remnant of George W Bush's close Texas circle) departure from the administration, second time around, I couldn't help but be amused by it.

The administration highlights her "achievement" on increasing efforts and responses to Muslim world, in the hope of increasing US standing in the eyes of the world. If her success is measured by how much more Bush had agreed to commit to the efforts, she certainly can be seen as a success. But this administration does what it normally do, which is to measure success by the amount of input, and NOT by the output (ie. how much was achieved by the input).

So, here we are, with polls after polls that there's no improvement in the US standing in the eyes of Muslims or the world at large. I thought that was the main focus of Hughes' job, and she failed utterly.

No matter, Bush would still see it as success, since she's a close friend, and he's put in $900 million to it, right? *shake head* This president completely baffles me. He defies logic (in fact, I'm not sure if he knows how to spell the word "logic") and common sense in any argument.

While Americans complains about the kind of "corrupt politics" that Chinese government (and Chinese as a whole) practice, that everything is based solely on "relationship," US politics, at least according to Bush, is exactly that. It's disgusting.

On Seinfeld's defense to the plagiarism charge by his wife...

It might look like storm in a tea cup, but the defense by Jerry Seinfeld of the plagiarism charge by his wife in her new cookbook is pretty lame.

It would not do, to say that his wife does not need the money or attention, hence the need for plagiarizing other's work.

It would not do, to say that the two cookbooks came out about the same time. (Actually, his wife's cookbook came out sooner after the one from Missy Chase Lapine.

What matters is that, Missy Chase Lapine had tried to shop her book for a publisher to HarperCollins, who turned hers down and, in turn, turned around and publish Jessica Seinfeld's book on almost the exact same theme. Has HarperCollins the publisher actually made suggested to Jessica Seinfeld, after reading Lapine's copy? We never know. Certainly, Seinfeld and HarperCollins will not tell, in line with trying to keep their good name. But it certainly smells fishy to me. If it indeed happens, Jessica Seinfeld (and Jerry, no doubt) perhaps could claim that she's innocent; but it would not lessen the charge that the materials in her book indeed came from somewhere else (rather than all original of her own).

And it's truly very lame, to have Jessica Seinfeld had her husband coming out to speak up for her. While her husband might be big in the stand-up comics world, does she really, in her right mind, think that her husband's words of defense is going to do anything to the bookie's world? I don't think so.

On the good intention and bad deeds of Zoe's Ark...

The good intention and bad deeds of Zoe's Ark is reminiscent of the lost generation of black/aboriginal children stolen in Australia, all in the name of bringing good to the children who were taken away from their families.

Both came out of good intention, that white/Caucasian hope to bring better welfare to the children who were taken. If the children have truly been orphans, I (or anyone else, for that matter) probably won't argue that they are likely to be in better hands, being brought up in a more normal family, rather than in an orphanage.

Problem comes when children are taken from their own families, if there's been no report of abuse or neglect. If money is involved (which is the case with Zoe's Ark), things could get out of hand very quickly and descent into trafficking of children (much like the case with the developing countries in Vietnam or China etc, when children are bought or taken by agents of adoption agencies in those countries which turn around and "sell" the children to adopting families in the Western countries, thinking that they're adopting orphans, in good faith).

On Laura Bush' new policy initiative as a first lady...

It's oddly strange to me, reading the news that Laura Bush, the first lady in the George W Bush White House, is _only now_ declaring her new policy direction/initiative on foreign policy matter. I do not doubt her sincerity or intention, but I have serious doubts on the timing.

Why now, when Bush is in his lame duck phase, well past the mid point into his second term, and there is less than a year and a half left in office? What does she expect to achieve? And, where was she in the past six years?

If she has been so genuinely concerned about women's status in Middle East, does it take six years for her to wake up and realize that? Has she been so well sheltered that she didn't realize this has been going on since she stepped foot in the White House?

Perhaps, she's thinking of HER legacy too, the same way her husband is worrying about HIS legacy (which amounts to nothing more than a very messy and unnecessary war in Iraq). In fact, I can't even think of what she has done. I thought she's as content to keep her house in order, much like her mother-in-law.

But I would say this to her, it's a little too late. While the Republicans go all out to attack Hilary Clinton, no one could argue her genuine and long-running efforts in children and women's welfare, before and since her White House days with Bill Clinton. I certainly hope that she would be able to make her mark, in her own right, on her own terms, as the first female president. It would be a great inspiration for all girls and women to look up too, rather than the stereotypical Laura Bush.

On James Watson resigning/retiring from Cold Spring Harbor Lab...

It's fittingly so, that James Watson is (perhaps forced to) retired from his leading position at Cold Spring Harbor Lab, after making the highly offensive and patronizing remarks about blacks being inferior in terms of intelligence, and his "worries" about the prospects of Africa, as a result, given that he has admitted that there is no scientific proof to his claim.

One glaring fact is that, while he's sorry for how offensive his comments have been, he never admits that he's wrong about it, even though he has no proof for his claim or remarks. What an outdated jerk.

Miscellaneous thoughts...

The article in Dallas Morning News sums it up well, as to how artless and tasteless JK Rowling has been, in outing Dumbledore as a closeted gay. Her explicitly saying so took away all the room for reader's imagination, on the wise old Dumbledore. I'm dismayed.

-----------

On Microsoft's injection of $240 million to Facebook, thereby valuing it at $15 billion market cap, is simply stupidity. Again, like Skype to eBay, we won't need a very long time horizon to find out how much Microsoft would need to write down. It'll be 2-3 years out, max.

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

On the difference in perceived notion of men vs women crying in public, the double standard is an open secret. Men are perceived to be strong, so a show of moisture in eyes would give the impression of modern man's sensitivity. For women, it's a lose-lose proposition. If you do that (or worse still, cry outright), you're perceived as weak; but if you don't, you're heartless. It's a shame.

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

And there is more (bad) news of global warming, snow cap and ice sheets melting at alarmingly rapid speed. I'm very worried that the bad deeds by human to the environment has become so pervasive and irreversible that we won't be able to correct it...

On the various ways to teach kids to be environmental friendly...

I like some of the points noted in the article, on 10 ways to get kids environmentally involved, including:

- spin an eco tune, to get them sing-along
- swap kids clothing
- encourage them to "power down"
- build toys with recyclables
- scavenger hunt when dumpster diving
- go out and pick produce in farms
- save papers by using the back side of scrap papers for drawing

I like it too, that it mentions about encouraging kids to wash hands together in order to save water. I, too, have practiced all these with my kids. I even encourage them to save a flush - if it's just wee wee, we'll do it in order, and the last one will flush. And I've always saved some of the junk mail in a pile, so that the kids can use the back side of the papers as scrap papers for homework or for drawings etc.

You know what, kids learn by example. If they see parents truly believe and practice ways that are environmental friendly, they will do it.

Looking at reports after reports about the reduced fresh water reserve in lakes, reservoir, underground water table, and accelerated melting of snow cap due to global warming, it's most worrisome that the next big conflict on a global scale is on natural resources like water. I was flabbergasted to read in one New York Times report on the water shortage issue in the West, and the estimate on water usage is 122-135 gallons per person per day (depending on warm/cold season). Although that includes usage like shrinking for lawn and gardens, I just cannot fathom how a reasonable man can use 122 gallons a day (even on the low side)??!!?? If that would mean that we should cut down or even get rid of those man-made perfectly manicured lawns, we should definitely do that. It's simply irresponsible to the environment and even to our future generations, that we are so wasteful and reckless in natural resources.

On the outing of Dumbledore being gay...

I find it almost amusing, for JK Rowling to announce almost as an afterthought that Dumbledore, the beloved and wise old wizard in the Harry Potter books, is gay.

As adults, when we read Harry Potter, we can scan and realize that this or that character probably is "shady" (ie. having some secrets or other that are not announced). But when I read the books to kids, I do not expound on those subtexts and undercurrents. Why? Because I do not want to take away the magic and magical moments that the book is about courage, and friendship, sacrifice, and more. To reduce the book to a study of who is gay and who is gay is almost a capital and cardinal sin. And to have to alert the children that, yes this guy is gay, or yes that kid is probably gay too, takes away all the childhood innocence. I cannot believe that Rowling will do that now.

Perhaps, one could argue that discovery is part of growing up, and sooner or later, those kids who re-read Harry Potter may wonder and find out. And that's ok. They learn it as they come of age and have the emotional maturity to better understand and grasp the facts, and hopefully to appreciate why people do (or not do) certain things (eg. Dumbledore being a closeted gay for so very long). It is, however, irresponsible for adults to have revealed that. For God sake, some kids are in such tender age, they might not even understand what being gay truly means.

I'm equally amazed that there are others who would announce that they are happy to have one more gay characters in popular culture, to almost justify their existence or sexual preference. While I have nothing against gays, do we, as a society, have to congratulate ourselves that our wise old leader really isn't heterosexual? Given all the sex and child abuse scandals for those in power (like the Roman Catholic church and boy choirs), it almost leads me to wonder if anything unbecoming has ever happened, or was it that Dumbledore is truly celibate? No only did Rowling take away the childhood innocence for kids reading her books, it took away the innocence of adults who have enjoyed Harry Potter so far.

For that, I'm very angry at Rowling.

On our consumerism culture and recycling...

I was reading the article in Wall Street Journal about how the Germans love scavenging, and how much "threat" they have been to retailers.

It completely baffles me. I always believe that recycling and making good use of someone's throwaway stuffs is a good thing. One man's trash is another man's treasure. So, I say, three cheers to the Germans and their "tradition."

But now, there is saying that this innocuous habit is threating retailers, since people don't buy (and thus spend), and simply scavenge through trash for things that you like/want.

Why not re-use rather than keep consuming resources from mother Earth?! In fact, that's my main reason why I like eBay so much, so it encourages that habit. If someone doesn't want it, eBay gives them a reason to give/sell it back into the "system," rather than the landfill. Why do we have to keep buying stuffs and contributing to the mountainous landfill?!

On the Nobel winner's racist view...

It's disappointing to read the news about the view of James Watson, the Nobel winner and the co-discoverer of DNA double helix, that the intelligence of blacks is lower, and he's gloomy on the view of Africa.

I'm taken aback by how sloppy by a supposed Nobel winner, and a biologist no less, to make such a statement without any backing of scientific data. It's way too easy and convenient for anyone to come out with a bigotry view like that, but I would have expected more from an esteemed scientist.

It's undeniable that some blacks can be quite bonehead, but so do a lot of Caucasians, Anglo-Saxons, Asians and Indians, to say a few. Can we then, extend his blanket statement to say the West is doomed too, since there are so many stupid people, in their midst? In the broader sociological studies, there are way too many factors, even in a more controlled environment, when you have both whites and blacks growing up in the same country and neighborhood, going to the same schools, and can still come out differently. There are family issues, societal biases, and financial issues, to name a few. How, then, can we extend that "broad view" on the whole of Africa, simply because they are where/how they are now? How callous it would be, to make such a causal statement for super-stereotypes. If Africa has not colonized for the past centuries, its peoples segregated and manipulated, and its land and resources being fought over, can James Watson rightly say Africa would really be exactly as they are today? I would think not.

I am a person who's more forward looking. I prefer not to look too much into the history and get stuck there. It's like the argument by some, that the West has to offer apology etc - it won't help to alleviate the current situation in Africa. But to ignore history is foolhardy and highly irresponsible. Not for average joes, and certainly not for James Watson.

On the first babyboomers starting to receive Social Security...

This marks the first baby boomers to start receiving Social Security, and let the downfall begins.

It's not so much for the fact that they didn't earn it. But it's the attitude of entitlement, and the almost callous lack of compassion for the generations to come, that is appalling. The article notes this one baby boomer who signs up for Social Security as a ceremonious outing to make the watershed event.

She has no care for whether Social Security or Medicare will collapse, or that the payouts that she's going to get is going to bankrupt generations that would come after her. All she cares about is, it's about the right damn time she is to get her money back. Of course she sees the glass half-full, since she would get to drink it all, regardless of how much water is left in the glass.

It's ironic and idiotic for the Social Security Administration of the Bush administration to state that they have a security weapon in the works, and Congress is going to act, blah blah blah. All these folks, all these power guys are part of the baby boomers, and they're not going to risk their own political career to introduce painful medicine to shore up the systems. With such wisdom from a guy like this in top management, I'm wondering out loud if this ceremony is supposed to be mocking to the baby boomers or to the Gen X. It doesn't achieve any purpose at all, but to make everyone angry.

On the proposed grand e-commerce to connect China and buyers...

It's a grandiose plan (as with all those grand plans to put in place the Three Gorges Dam and others) to create a gigantic site to connect China with all the buyers (wholesale or retail).

I like the concept of it. But I have a few problems:

(1) Economy of scale. As the article rightly points out, would I wait for weeks (or even months) to make some custom order on, say, a shirt or some pants, so that some manufacturer in China would wait to see if they would get 5000 orders of my similar orders (like, custom collar size, custom sleeve length, shoulder width, and so on), in order to start work on it to make the economy of scale? AND THEN, to wait for it to sail across the ocean (air or sea) to come to me??? It is almost to the point of naivety to even think that this is a valid use case to justify for the usage of this proposed system. By the time I get my shirt in two years' time, my waist line would probably have expanded an inch, and I'll have to put in another custom order. It's quite ridiculous.

(2) Middlemen. The idea of this site is to CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMEN. This is under the assumption that the margin that middlemen packed onto the final products can directly and completely throw to the manufacturers, and perhaps some of the cost savings would become gains to the end users. What I would look at is, what have been the values added by the middlemen, and whether such a system can sustain without such added values. There is the marketing and branding, there is the inventory management, and there is the liability issue that the middlemen willingly absorb. It's true that Toyota has refined its skill in JIT (Just In Time) management to cut down on inventory. But Toyota has the brand name. And still, it relies on its vast distribution (dealer) network to reach consumers. Have we considered that, while online e-commerce has been growing steadily and strongly, consumers jump on to it only after they see or hear or touch the products around them before their purchase. How does this system alone overcome that hurdle?

(3) Liability. Who is going to absorb the liability, should the products from China fail? Sure, a custom made shirt is not likely to choke you. But what about the majority of the other products that could fail (even a toaster)?

(4) Branding and commoditization. If I were a middleman in America, with products made in China. Yes, my products would have a label telling consumers that it's made in that country. But if I know for sure that the consumers can go directly to China to place the orders and bypass my distribution network, am I going to tell the consumers that they can go to xyz in China to re-order? Most certainly not. So, in order to get the word out, the Chinese manufacturers would have to advertise that they're the manufacturer who's actually producing the products for me (the middleman). It would most likely be small/smaller manufacturers who would benefit from a site/portal like, but would they be able to do that sort of advertising for itself? (That's essentially to make a brand for itself.)

(5) Customer service. Would all these small fries of Chinese manufacturers be able to handle all these minutiae details of custom made orders? I very much doubt it. Not now, nor in the foreseeable future.

(6) I do like the concept of it. I suppose in a way, eBay is doing that for after-market (flea market) stuffs now. The only difference is, we (bidders and sellers alike) either know the exact product (say, an LV bag), or we compare solely on price. Given that there is no brand/face for the Chinese manufacturers, they would have to go down the price path, which is essentially commoditization. In a way, that's what is happening in the physical world already, when Chinese manufacturers are competing with each other and with those from other countries almost solely on the basis of price (ie. low cost).

(7) I would probably like to use a search/portal site like this, if I were a small merchant, and I want to save by ordering small stuffs, say gift wrappings directly from the manufacturers. But as an end users, I don't see myself contacting the factory to tell them what I want.

To give an example. In women's jewelry, there are pearls and there are pearls. On the one end, you have high-enders like Mikimoto. Name brand recognition. No explanation required. You can have a single strand of pearls, 5.5 mm high lust AAA quality, that can cost you thousands of dollars. On the other end of the spectrum, you have numerous Chinese pearl sellers on eBay (as numerous as ants) selling $0.01, plus shipping. Just out of curiosity, I had purchased a few from different Chinese eBay sellers. The quality varies sooooo widely, it's unbelievable. I have one strand which has very few blemish, lustful AAA quality 8mm with 14k filigree buckle, for less than $30, including shipping. And then I have another one, 3-stranded pearls, supposedly the same quality as the first one, but it looks so horribly awful that even my 4-year-old daughter does not want to play with it as toy. In short, how do we tell quality ones from shoddy ones? The short answer is, you can't.

And that's essentially what this grand plan is proposing. Instead of having all these small fries sellers/manufacturers going to foreign sites like eBay to sell their wares, they're gathering them in one single location, and wait for buyers to come. It could facilitate those who know China or the Chinese way of communicating. But I found it impossible to just try to explain to those eBay sellers of the pearls that I was ordering that I wanted to order solid 14k buckle - not gold-plated, not silver. There are times it took me 10 different ping-pongs in email to maybe get them to understand what I'm trying to understand the CUSTOMIZATION of my order, rather than the standard silver buckle that was listed in the auction. To think that this huge site is going to deal with things like custom orders. I would say, no it's not gonna fly - not for a very long time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The opening up of China will also endanger the traditional middlemen role that places like Hong Kong have been playing. It's already happening now, that a lot of foreign companies are bypassing traditional stopover in Hong Kong to go into China. These days, they fly direct to China. Countless companies in Hong Kong have to go straight to China and compete with local competition, vying for the attention of foreign investment.

Competition will only intensify, in the years to come, for Hong Kong. And for US companies and workers alike, now they realize what everyday-low-price means in Wal-Mart and what price they pay for having cheap goods, effectively killing manufacturing in US and ordering everything from China. But if China thinks they can eliminate middlemen like Wal-Mart completely, I don't think it's gonna happen.

On how a Chinese environmental activist got tripped...

I always enjoy investigative journalist reporting. I would say it's one of the main things that online blogging or amateur news would not be able to match old media. (The new media is good at bite size headline grabbing blob of info that might tell you something has happened or is happening, but you don't find good enough details to tell you why.)

There is the piece from New York Times on how a self-proclaimed environmental activist in China who got pushed into a corner, and eventually got tripped over by the local government with claims that he's engaged in blackmail activities. He eventually was got a three-year sentence. He claimed that the police tortured him, but it did not look like he argued that he did not engage in the blackmail that got him arrested in the first place.

It's quite sad, really. It's not easy to be a lone voice, to swim against the tide, and to bring public attention (if not action) on pollution and environmental issues, particularly if the government is implicated as well. The philosophical question is, how long can a person, even with will of steel, to stand up against the whole establishment; and how long should that person suffer, as a result, before we the bystanders and onlookers should cast the vote and say he's a hypocrite afterall?

There is good reason why great men like Nelson Mandela would get Nobel Peace Prize for all his sacrifices for the cause, be beaten down again and again, can through in one piece, and even champion for a peaceful solution for a long hard problem.

It's way too easy for outsiders like me, to cast the first stone on this condemned Chinese man, even though he started out all these with a pure heart. I do hope there is something good that come out of it.

On hypocritical Vatican priest's claim that he's not gay...

It's so hypocritical and preposterous to read claims that a Vatican priest, Monsignor Tommaso Stenico, who is high up in the command and who got caught making advances to young men in gay chat room.

Initially dismissing the charge as invalid since he's caught on hidden camera, now he claims that he's immersing himself in the gay world in order to understand these sinners, so to speak; during which he told the a young man that he doesn't think gay sex is sinful.

By jove, does he think that the rest of the world is as idiotic, stupid or blind as those that he might have been able to fool in the Vatican? I would watch with interest, how Vatican handles the incident. Action speaks louder than words. I have less care of what Vatican says, than what it does, in dealing with controversy to one of its own, and it'll tell us how much it has evolved (if it has at all) since the epidemic pedophile scandal broke out among the Catholic priests in America.

On Al Gore receiving Nobel Peace Prize...

It's great news, learning that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize (sharing it with Rajendra Pachauri, the Chair of UN Climate Panel), on his work on championing worldwide awareness on global warming.

It's funny how only yesterday, when I was musing in my journal here, how envious Bush must be toward Gore, the seemingly loser in the 2000 presidential election, and yet turns himself around to success and with great admiration at home and around the world; all while Bush is being derided and despised by most everyone with a brain for his cluelessness).

Did you see the White House response to Gore's winning the Nobel: "Of course we're happy for Vice President Gore and the IPCC for receiving this recognition." I highly suspect that that's the mood in the Bush White House (his own ivory tower), like, "pleeeease, yes of course, we're happy for him; next question." It's sooooooo sour grape.

Perhaps Bush should understand now (I hope), that the best leaders lead by example, not by swaggering with a gun at his hip.

On the positive effect of Bush's not having Rove on his side...

Perhaps it's the departure of Karl Rove, the ideologue and policy maker for Bush who knows nothing much about. Perhaps it's the eventual realization by Bush that his legacy (with 1.5 years left in office) is going to get whittled down to an aimless and needless war, and a huge deficit (and more to come).

So, he's doing things fast, back-tracking on most everything that his administration had opposed to so vehemently. There is the global warming issue (he refused to even acknowledge that it's real and happening). And now, there is the acknowledgment that Americans have concerns about globalization, although there is the I-will-veto-unnecessary-spending-bill-from-Congress, when he sucks up all dimes and nickels from basic service in America to fund his war. (Who is the biggest spender anyways, that moron called Bush!?!)

It's easy to show sympathy, but he had always had short supply of it (even though he SAID he has it - go figure). He ran his campaign on being a compassionate conservative, but I'm not sure where his compassion lies (perhaps more to his corporate buddies).

Perhaps at the guidance of Rove and the urge of Cheney, Bush would stick to his script. He would not acknowledge the effect of free trade to American workers who lost jobs as a result of free trade; or to victims of Hurricane Katrina and Rita who lost homes, lives, and everything; or to American public in acknowledging how grave a mistake he made in taking the country to war in Iraq; or to studies after studies that America is losing its competitive edge.

No matter, six years on, most people (or those 50% of the country who voted for him) would realize how much of a "leader" they had signed on to. How aimless and planless this guy is.
Now we know the emperor has no clothes on. The naked truth.

It is rightly ironic, to see how Al Gore, the loser in the 2000 election to Bush, has rised from ashes, pouring his intellect and vigor into a worthy cause of global warming, starting a grass-root movement that shows Americans how he can lead by example and the whole world would listen, collecting an Oscar and an Emmy along the way, making some bucks starting a business (Current TV), and now, tipped to win a Nobel Peace Prize (due out Friday).

Bush must be looking on (to Gore) with so much envy. It's only now when Bush tries to show a humble side, even just by acknowledging someone else's pain (that American workers must have the faireness, given the outrageous executive pay package)?!? I'm sorry to say, it's six years too late, mate. For an incompetent fool like Bush (though he might be a good person at heart), I would have loved to see Hilary Clinton kicks him out of office, come 2008.


PS: I must have sounded so bitter and cynical, writing all these about Bush. I really can't help it. I just don't understand how those stupid GOPs and whoever the Dems are in voting for him, couldn't come to see that, AND VOTED FOR HIM TWICE!!! It has been so freaking obvious. It's like seeing someone marching down the cliff, and you try to tell him to turn back, and they would yell hallelujah.

PPS: Oh well, those are history now. We should move on. I should move on. Afterall, the bright side is, there can never be a third term for Bush.

On Madonna ditching the Warner Brothers label...

Reading the news on Madonna ditching the Warner Brothers label, in favor of Live Nation, it shows how in-tune she is with a changing society, which is her main underlying strength in staying relevant to an evolving generation of music fans and industries.

I still remember when she first came out in the 80s, even though I found her easy-to-listen-to music ear candy, I had dismissed her as but another one of those bimbo or fad. It was her The Immaculate Collection that I had started to take her seriously. She works on her chickie voice (remember Material Girl?), and her white dance pop music is so rhythmic that I have since become her fan. I started tuning out when her Blonde Ambition world tour. I thought to myself, I don't need an artist who cannot rely solely on her/his music to impress the fans, but resolves in using the shock-and-awe strategy to get publicity to help with music sales. It's a big let down.

I haven't followed pop music scenes for a long time now, and I didn't follow the news as to what causes Madonna's turnaround in life. Maybe it's her kids. Maybe it's Guy Ritchie. But I'm truly happy that she has found her way, that she doesn't need to provoke religion or explicit sex to sell her music, that she can keep improving her music and evolve with her fans better than Rolling Stones does.

I hope she'll serve as a great role model for all girls and women. (But what's up with that tongue-rolling kiss with Britney Spear on stage back then?)

PS: I hope young women like Lindsay Lohan, who has a gift but who can waste it away easily, will find her way soon as well.

On how good people can do bad things in blinding rage...

It's sad to learn more of the facts (I hope it's factual) behind the shooting of six victims at homecoming gathering party by a part time police officer at Crandon, Wisconsin.

It is how it could end up, if one person trashes another human being, pushing them to the limit, when the perpetrator tried to patch the relationship with his ex at the party, and was thrashed by her friends as worthless pig.

When it comes to affairs of the heart, it's entirely two person's private matters. She might end the relationship for a whole host of reasons (maybe it's because of him, maybe it's her, maybe she just doesn't want it), and he might be just still madly in love with her or he might be an obsessed soul. Regardless, if her friends would show some decency to him, rather than hauling insults to someone already beaten down, they might not have been shot down. Certainly, being mean in and of itself might not be a capital offense, but for these teens to have behaved that way, I'd say, they probably didn't get enough "timeout" when they were toddlers.

Once again, it shows how dangerous it is for someone to have easy access to guns. This guy might have been madly furious, but he would not have the chance to commit the murder if he had not had the gun with him. Granted that he's in the police and he needs the gun, but no matter. A gun is a gun.

On Google/IBM providing resources to teach cloud computing to academia...

I'm glad to read that Google and IBM are joining force to provide the resources (including hardware, lots of it) to academia, to teach cloud computing. It certainly makes for great news headline for the company.

What I do wonder though, is how vigorous this course is going to be, when it's taught by a software engineer in Google who went straight to work there he finished college and two colleagues of his. Don't get me wrong, I strongly support the idea. And I don't mean to sound demeaning for anyone as young as this guy is to touch an important course. For goodness sake, it's a tremendous success on his part to champion and contribute such a course to future computing science students.

I would very keen to find out how this "do no evil" company can hold up his attention on community endeavors like this in, say, three years' time, and how much concrete good will come out of it. Sustainability and continuous improvement are the order of the day.

PS: Oh, have they decided on how to measure the success (aka milestone) of the course?

On Interpol's public appeal to help ID a serial pedophile...

After the recent success in US in which police released the picture of a young girl (4 year old) who was abused and videoed, together with the picture of the abuser; as a result, both were identified and the girl was found.

And now, Interpol is following that footstep, releasing the picture of a serial pedophile/rapist who was found to have abused at least 12-13 young boys, filmed on video. The public response was overwhelming. I found they will find that evil soon, and to bring him to justice. Why don't they start castrating animals like this, rather than keeping them in jail (if that's where they're going to send him, when he is found)?

Reading through the Interpol website and the successes that they have in cross-border collaboration to bring perpetrators to justice still make my heart ache, with stories of two young girls' fathers abusing them from Belgium, video-taping it, and circulating that on the web. And there is the story of a young victim from Poland whose location was identified, that led to locating him and the abusers after many years of abuse. And then there is the ID of two men from Spain who have been abusing children as young as 18 months (how could any human beings possibly do that!?!?!), rescuing victims from two to four years old.

Surely the world has turned darker these days, with violence and sex being sanitized daily. But I do not subscribe to the notion that we have more of these kind of sex deviants in this day and age. It has been the information made instantly available on the web, only only allowing these evils to collaborate, but also allow law enforcement to get to them.

While I'm not the social-networking type, and I never have any interest in MySpace or Facebook or even LinkedIn (for professional and networking pursuit), I do strongly believe that making information publicly available can help law enforcement in bringing the animalistic (human) beings to justice. It's the People's Power that's going to be the order of the day.

On Larry Craig, GOP senator who refuses to go...

To say the least, the GOP senate line-up of who's who in scandals and corruption charges is pretty impressive, the latest being Senator Larry Craig who was charged with soliciting gay sex in a public bathroom at airport, admitted to the charge and a guilty plea, agreed to step down, and who turns around and says he's nothing of the above.

I can imagine how furious the GOP senate leadership must be, to have this seemingly family guy exposed to be gay, soliciting sex from a man who turns out to be undercover police, AND worst of all, he flip-flops and now refuses to go!!! Well, what are we to do with a hypocrite like this. Can anything be mistaken, that he really wasn't soliciting sex, when he made foot gestures, put his hand under the toilet petition, and touched the agent's foot? Would any innocent person even be doing that? I don't think so. Oh, and now he believes his guilty plea as an impulse that he really didn't mean it. It's good that the judge dismisses his motion to withdraw the plea. He's not under duress or coercion, and he's not minor. Afterall, it's a grandfather, for Chris sake.

This guy really should just go quietly, and perhaps live another 10 years or so in quiet life. Maybe then, all the charges will be forgotten by 99% of the people (outside of his constituent). But I guess he couldn't face down his family.

Bill Clinton can probably give him some bits of advice, from his (painful) experience, that sometimes it's the act of cover-up, rather than the "crime" itself (if it is at all a crime, rather than just a shameful act, if exposed) that can drag a person down and destroy one's legacy. Well, doesn't look like Craig is learning.

And, does GOP have any other senators left who can claim moral high ground and run on a platform of family values, anyone?

On the HealthVault push by Microsoft...

It's a nice try, for Microsoft to try to get into the verticals and push for HealthVault, a free service for consumers to upload their health records, to be shared with physicians etc. But it's not going to work.

The effort is reminiscent of Microsoft to tackle single-signon (SSO) across the web with its Passport service which fails quite miserably. So happens that HealthVault is going to have to deal with all those issues and hurdles that made Passport fail.

There is the privacy concern. There are consumer worries that they don't want their sensitive information to be stored and held by one company. The list goes on.

It's also a chicken-and-egg riddle that Microsoft needs to tackle. If it has amassed a big enough eco-system, to have enough physicians and hospitals and insurance companies to adopt it, then consumers could be forced to do it. We can be quite certain that the chicken (of whatever comes first) is not going to be the consumers. If there is nothing (no patient records) for the physicians to see, then they're not going to use it. Ditto with hospitals. As to insurance companies, would they relinquish their tight grip on pretty much everything.

It's another Mount Everest for Microsoft. It's a nice try. But I don't see it's going to amount to anything substantial. Let it go on record on this day, and I'll revisit my blog in two years' time to see how well my prediction fares. :)

On women starting business and what it takes to grow it...

It's revealing and insightful, reading the New York Times article on women's starting business, and what it takes to grow it pass the $1 million revenue hurdle.

I know, because my husband and I are starting one now. And I know, because it exactly accounts for the difference in mentality between how I see it, and how he deals with it.

The original business idea came from me. I see it as a candy-jar type of thing, whereby it allows me to make some money on-the-side. What he sees it as an opportunity that we can make it big. It takes a more work, and a whole new set of attitude and mentality to approach it. I have since bought into his idea. Point is, I would not have considered expounding and expanding ideas like that.

That accounts for one of the points raised in the article, that while women have twice the rate in starting their own business, they have half of the success rate in making it big when compared to men. And, it's not necessarily that the women are in lack of capital. Surely there are those who are unable to expand due to insufficient funding. But there are more of those who simply don't see it or don't want to make it big. They just want to "maintain the business", rather than "growing the business" as the men want it. I'm a basket case of this mentality.

On John McCain's alignment with Bush policy...

Reports like this on John McCain's interview that reveals his view on wide ranging subjects just go to show how poor he is in gauging public opinion and how far he is in detaching from majority public.

The war in Iraq? It's not on, but he's still sticking with it (with Bush). The Bush veto of the child health care bill (that would allow for Medicare cover for families up to 400% above poverty level) is bad publicity? He thinks Bush is right. It goes on and on.

In terms of core value, he probably is closest to the GOP's conservative values (compared to, say, Giuliani and Romney). Ex-military guy who believes this country belongs to Christian/Jews and who is a family man. He largely sticks to his gun too. Problem is, he doesn't have contingency plans. He doesn't have a second script, other than the one laid out by Bush, which is most ironic, given that Bush has violated the GOP principle of fiscal conservatism.

No doubt, given his military background, he's going to continue the war, should he get to the White House. That alone (just to iterate his staunch support of the war) is probably enough to kill his nomination, if not a win to the White House.

On Bush's veto of child health insurance bill...

So much for all his talk (and talk only) about compassionate conservative, Bush's veto of the child health care bill is louder than any words that he has uttered.

No doubt lobbyists for various corporate interests are hard at work. Tobacco industry would not want tobacco taxes to be raised to cover the bill. Private insurance industry would want new customers their way, rather than having the government covering them all.

And for only $35 billion over _FIVE_ long years on a bill, covering poverty level of $60,000 or below for a family of four, and Bush said it's too expensive? We're spending $1 billion a _DAY_ on military needs of the war and others, and he doesn't have a problem??!!?? What sort of priorities does this president has??!?!?!?!?! It's completely ridiculous.

On Ross Gittins' tick on pre-election in Australia...

I've always enjoyed reading the column by Ross Gittins, the columnist of Sydney Morning Herald. His opinion on 10/03/2007 is no exception, which is even-keeled and level-headed, as always.

It's his tick on what the voters' message might be, should John Howard (currently Prime Minister in Australia) win or lose in the upcoming election.

I've always watched Australia with keen interest, not the least because part of me is Australia. It's a country which always sticks out like a sore thumb. It's in Asia, but considers itself not of Asia; although now that Asia is rising, it's increasingly aligning itself. Paul Keating has the direction right back then, but Howard rolls back most of them. Howard would rather follow the footsteps of Bush and be his lap dog. Just look at Howard's policy on social security, the push for private health insurance, environment policies (which move almost in lockstep with Bush's), and economic policies (if Bush has any, Howard will mirror them).

Australia always tries to position itself as the gateway or powerbroker between Asia and the Western countries (US/Canada and Europe), much the same way Blair had tried to blast that trail to bridge between Continental Europe and US. We know how much success Blair had, which is on par with what Australia has amounted to.

It's really a pity, since Australia had always had moral high ground over its Asian counterparts (think Indonesia and China) on a variety of issues like human rights issue, when it can tout its model of ethnic diversity as a model for its Asian neighbors to follow. Well, that was then when Keating was around. Howard now projects the bigotry and close-mindedness when Bush comes to mind.

Naturally, as its neighbors up north, notably China, emerge in prominence, they gain power and presence in the world stage, and little would they need their small white cousin downunder (who lives off of the land, with all its dependence on commodity and natural resources) to represent them.

I'm not sure if most Australians think of themselves in those terms. Surely Gittins provides us with one dimension to gauge the pulse of how Australians might or should think, regarding their government and the directions that it's taking. I haven't voted for a number of years now, after I relocated overseas. I should have exercised my privilege to make my voice heard. Afterall, at least Australia has the one-man-one-vote system, unlike the peculiar electoral college system in US when public opinion can be skewed towards a minority, just to get their few votes to make a majority. And, I strongly suspect that Howard never sees that as an advantage that Australia has, over the American system. For him, everything and anything American is good. That stupid PM...

On Diana's inquest, Britney losing custody et al...

What a waste of taxpayers' money, to have tens of millions of pounds to be spent on the inquest of Diana's death, when study after study, investigation after investigation, that shows that she and her lover died in a tragic car accident. Ultimately (and morbidly) , for a great media manipulator like Diana, this is probably what she wants, which is to have media limelight for the rest of her life, dead or alive.

*** *** ***

As to Britney Spears' losing custody of her children (2 year old and 1 year old), I feel sad for her. Afterall, if she has not loved the children, she would not have gone into fighting to win the custody to have her children be with her. K-Fed is a jerk, and I can't imagine how the children will grow up under a father like this. Unfortunately, she doesn't want her children bad enough to force herself to behave at least before the court decision is made on the custody. Now, everyone has the most valid reason to tell her in her face that she's a bad parent.

It's tough enough to be a working mother, and a single mother too, and to have to fight for your career. But look around, there are better examples. Angelina Jolie is one. At least on the surface, looking from a distance (from what we the audience or readers can see, as exposed by the media), she keeps her house in order. She doesn't need a man to bring up the children (unless the man is good enough for her children). And she does good for the world as well, given her charity work with UN and all. Naturally, it helps too that her career is on track.

Surely, every mother (and father, no doubt) faces challenges in childrearing. As a parent, we have to be strong and fair at all time, because that's what our children need from us and what they would look up too. I sincerely hope that Britney would grow up soon, for the sake of her children, rather than going down the path of Courtney Love.

On eBay's big markdown of Skype...

Reading news of the big markdown by eBay of Skype from the lofty $2.6 billion price tag to $1.4 billion two years later certainly has a lot of people saying "I told you so."

At the time, most everyone (except perhaps Meg Whitman and her cohorts) knew that the Skype founders who probably laughed all the way to the bank. We might think Whitman should understand the "auction mentality," of how some people, like compulsive gamblers, are driven to chase after auctions irrationally. She might get a few days of highs, thinking she bagged a "steal." Too bad there's no recourse for buyer's regret.

The same will be true to the couple of YouTube founders who offer a service that has little way to be monetized (at least in the foreseeable future). At least Google has a big enough piggybank to continue the bleeding. But as eBay heading down the maturity path, it can hardly afford slip-ups like that. The same will be true for Google, when the time comes.

I'm glad I didn't chase and buy Google or eBay. Some might say that's stupid, but I would rather buy something that's a real long-term investment, rather than buying on momentum only.