That fateful day, in Oct 1987 when the market fell...

I still remember quite vividly, that fateful day in October 1987. That Black Monday, when the market opened, and the actions began...

I started with this small financial advisory firm in the fall of 1987. Business was thriving. The young guys were aggressive, and it specialized in pushing funds to wealthy clients. Back then, funds was still a new concept, but it was catching on. It was called "unit trust", with customers buying "units" in the trusts (funds). Performance charts of almost all funds (like the Thornton Tiger Fund) pointed only up, in steep curve. Life was good, and everyone was happy. I had this part time job there, Girl Friday kinda job, but I had alot of flexibility. The founder even taught me how to do programming (my first taste in software development), and it's fun.

Firms like this lived on commissions (from fund houses) selling funds. The process of buying/selling fund was still very manual. We got orders from customers, we faxed in the buy/sell orders, and we're advised of the price at the end of the day after the fund house received all the orders for the day and compiled the price, then we updated our database to compile the holdings' value of the clients. Usually there weren't that many orders to do, but the dollar amount of each is sizable.

That Monday, I went in. By 9am, phones started ringing off the hook. Clients heard the news, and everyone wanted to sell. I was oblivious, and didn't realize what went on at first. And then news came in, that the US market crashed, and Hong Kong was going to follow. All funds (no exception) came crashing from the sky. By 10am, all fax lines of all fund houses got busy tone. They probably pulled the plug, or the lines really were busy. In any case, we couldn't put in any more sell orders of the customers. We sent the messenger to bring the sell orders' paperworks to the fund houses individually. He came back shortly later, saying the receptionists (without exception) told him, they were not (or could not) accepting sell orders anymore. So the founder told everyone to stop picking up the phones.

That brutal day left many clients disillusioned. The trusts between the clients and the advisors were breached, since the guys couldn't sell the funds in time, when the clients had wanted them to. Out of the 3 young, aggressive guys, 2 of them (one came back from Australia and one from UK) plotted to start their own thing behind the back of the founder and were fired, leaving only the less aggressive guy (who graduated in Hong Kong) and the founder. The guy from UK was also fired due to the office romance he started with the secretary, and the founder didn't like fraternization. I could have stayed, but I don't see the point. There wasn't much to do. I went there to learn rather than for the meager hourly wages. The founder asked me to stay, but I left maybe in Nov/Dec.

In the end, the unit trust never quite recovered to the pre-crash level, till the day I left Hong Kong a few years later. Business dried up for that small advisory firm. Last I heard, it shuttered the operation.

PS: I left all the names out. There's no point putting the names in. I don't even remember their last names now anyways. I suppose someone out there could have piece together all the first names and the company name, and linked back to who these guys are. I don't want that. These are probably histories that the guys might want to bury. Let this be the last chapters in my own memoir, and leave it like that.

That fateful day, in Oct 1987 when the market fell...

I still remember quite vividly, that fateful day in October 1987. That Black Monday, when the market opened, and the actions began...

I started with this small financial advisory firm in the fall of 1987. Business was thriving. The young guys were aggressive, and it specialized in pushing funds to wealthy clients. Back then, funds is still a new concept, but it was catching on. It was called "unit trust", with customers buying "units" in the trusts (funds). Performance charts of almost all funds (like the Thornton Tiger Fund) pointed only up, in steep curve. Life was good, and everyone was happy. I had this part time job there, Girl Friday kinda job, but I had alot of flexibility. The founder even thought me how to do programming (my first taste in software development), and it's fun.

Firms like this lived on commissions (from fund houses) selling funds. The process of buying/selling fund was still

On bubbly stock markets in China and others...

Reading posts like http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/world/asia/30china.html?ei=5094&en=5e482dafe4ede723&hp=&ex=1170219600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all that talks about the "irrational exuberance" in China is almost like deja vu.

It's the more recent deja vu of the pre-bubble days of the late 1990s in US, and the even earlier days of the bubbles in Asia like Hong Kong before the '97 financial meltdown. Now we know how ridiculous that everyone seemed to suddenly become financial experts and doing their own "research." Rising tides lift all boats, including shipwrecks. No matter, while it's riding high, people think they're smart. Of course, back then, you could buy almost any company and it'll always turn profit. And if you're day-trading, you could earn decent profits...for a while, until the market dumps on you, and you would suddenly find that you have but a bunch of shits.

It reminds me of a friend back in Sydney. This was like late 1996, perhaps. I was bidding farewell to her as she's moving back to Hong Kong to join her fiance. She's in structured finance, so you would not think she's idiotic. Among one of the first topics we were chitchatting about was, she's going to put her savings in the B shares in the Shanghai stock market. I did not then, and even now, I still do not have faith in the health of those Chinese companies. There is no transparency at all. We would think Enron accountings did magic tricks, but I would bet my money on some Chinese companies who would out-do Enron or worse. Having the financials right is imperative in gauging whether a company is worth investing in. But for most "smart" day traders or average joes who are looking for stock tips, all they need is a name recognition (or not at all). It is that kind of blind faith that can propel a market to go from deep depression to sky high in the space of a year, like China did. It's always fun to be on a roller roaster, until you get thrown off.

Sometime later, after she moved back, and the market crashed, not least because the central government wants to clam down on the runaway spending in the provincial governments that had been feeding rampant inflations. I was just hoping that she had not done what she said she would do (ie. to put all her money in the Shanghai B shares).

I grew up in Hong Kong. I saw first hand how market rolls through the exuberant 80s. I was working part time in a financial advisory firm in October '87 when it crashed. Maybe I'll talk a bit about that tomorrow, and I'm in a writing/chatting mood. In any case, even today, it's common sight to have old folks and average joes/janes sitting in the lobby of banks watching stock tickers and interest rate movements and exchange rates fluctuations and commodity prices (like gold) ride to new highs. It's an almost scary sight, considering how these people put their life savings in the market, and wondering how it would be like if it all evaporates. But yet, they're brave. And their memory is short. Ask them if they got burnt in the '87 stock market, or the '97 property market downturn, and I'd bet you would get 100% positive response. But yes, they're brave. And they probably see it like a big casino. They go in with their eyes wide open. They know they're betting on odds, but they see the chance to make it big (or bigger).

That's why, yes, Chinese are big gamblers in the world. And they love casinos. It's in the blood.

If you would ask me, I would tell you that, for what I saw as the "irrational exuberance" in US in the late 90s, is nothing like those in Hong Kong. I grew up with that. Everyone talks about stocks. Everyone talks real estates. It's always been like that ever since I understand people's conversations when I was a toddler. Even the people selling dim sums can give you a lecture. It's like a Big Apple cabbie who thoroughly understands politics. It's always been that way, and it always will. There's nothing "irrational" about it. It's totally real to them.

But lets put things in perspective. People in Hong Kong have been brought up that way, since it's rebuilt after World War II. The economy evolves, and people adapt. And they move up the chain, from plastics, to electronics, to tourism, and finance. Wonder how a tiny colony of some 6 million people can make it one of the four major financial centers in the world? Wonder how this small outpost puts itself on the world map not even big enough for a pencil dot? The whole populace moves and adapts. It's really quite amazing.

Now, for those people who're day trading in China. I wonder how long they've been in the market, or whether they even know (or care) what stocks or shares actually are. I hope they have a high degree of adaptability and the intelligence and collective memory to learn from the last time when they got burnt. We can always hope.

On political correctness and Muslims saying mean things...

By now, you've probably read the story like this one at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Soldiers_E_Mail.html - of that GI who tried to order some mats online for use in and be delivered to Iraq, and was rebuffed by a Muslim employee of a company based in Milwaukee, telling him that, not only would they not deliver to Baghdad, but the GI should pack and go home. That email of rebuff was soon circulated on the web, and caused big uproar against that company which is owned/operated by Muslims as well.

It sets me thinking: would it have caused such an event if that employee is not a Muslim? Would that GI be so very upset if it had been a fellow Anglo-Saxon American? I would think not. That employee is simply just a rude support staff that has an opinion and an attitude. You go down your main street, and you would find at least one in each store. What this guy said was simply what 50% 0f the country has been trying to tell Bush all along. If this bone-head would just use a bit of cool, and tell this prospective customer (GI) that they do not ship overseas, but thank you again for his interest, everything would be well and good. Stupid humans as it is, he just could not hold his tongue. Now, he has his share of death threats and internet infamy.

I don't normally like to play or even consider the race card. But in this country, this factor can add interesting twists. While I certainly do not condone rudeness, I don't think the terse remarks from this Muslim employee warrants the kind of barrage that people pile on him, just for the fact that he doesn't think Amercians should not be in Iraq. We hear on TV everyday how one Senator or another is essentially saying the same thing (though with nicer words). I don't see anyone paying attention to that. So why this employee?

Well, he's a Muslim, you see. And the GI couldn't take it that he might be risking his life, thinking he's saving the country, when this ungrateful Muslim would turn around and tell him he should just pack and go home. That is a bit hard to go swallow, I'd agree. But if only all those people who have nothing better to do, but to send death threats or worse, they're just as bone-head as he was.

Now that emotions are stirred high, these two guys will probably forever be searchable on the web, in some shape or form. :)

On looting and scavenging...

There was news at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6291381.stm that more than 100 cargo containers were washed ashore, and loads of ordinary folks rushed out to loot the cargoes for things like BMW bikes.

There were questions on ethics and why these folks would loot. My question is simpler. Why would people even ask the questions? It's in the human nature. If you have put tens of thousands of dollars in front of someone with no one watching over the shoulder, 98% of the time, s/he will grab it and run. It's just human. In this respect, there is little difference between these folks who loot, and those in Africa. But at least in the latter case, they are looting mostly for food, and these Brits are just looking for financial gains.

Sad, but true. So, now you see how much faith I have in human nature. I do believe that there are upright citizens, but I'd venture that they are far and few in between.

On mediocre fund performance...

Recently Janus sent me the year end IRA statement. For the past 5 years, I've been kicking myself on making this bad decision of buying Janus' funds for the IRA. Every quarterly statement confirms that. The performance of not one, but two funds, that I bought, is very mediocre at best. Oh, did I mention that these are two of the better performing funds in the Janus funds family already?

My feeling is, much like the health care industry being prop'ed up by government regulations (if we have had universal health care, 98% of the HMO industry will be gone right this minute), all these IRA's and 401k's are just prop'ed up by government rules. Most managers of active funds are no better than indexed funds, year in year out. If it's not these rules and regulations to mandate these funds to be there, and for a very long time, I'd dare say, 90% of the funds will be drained.

I suppose Janus is a bad example too, for its funds in general just have very poor performance. I should stop complaining and roll it over to somewhere else, like Vanguard or T Rowe Price.

On old buildings...

We lived in a rather old (but not too old) building. So I guess it shouldn't have been any surprising that old pipes would burst. And burst they did. For the past 6 months, there'd been pipes bursting in more than 4 units. Last night, our next door neighbor had buckets in his kitchen catching the constant streams of water coming down the ceiling lamp and the exhaust fan. And tonight, we had the same thing, though the water was coming down from under the sink. It's such a pain. There's talk of the need to rip out all the walls (and everything along that wall, including cabinets) in order to replace the pipes. I can't imagine how that's gonna be like. I guess we'll find out on Monday...

On Stockholm Syndrome...

There had been this mystery behind the news story of the two missing Missouri boys who were supposedly abducted by a 41-year-old regular looking guy. One of the boys (Shawn Hornbeck) had been living with him and calling him father for the past 4 years, apparently with full knowledge that his family desperately trying to find him and freedom to get away from the captor, should he choose to do so. But he didn't.

When the story first broke, everyone saw a miracle (of how two missing boys were recovered). As the story drags on, we now know the facts are probably much more complicated than that. The long missing boy apparently stayed with his supposedly abductor, making a new life, and even posting messages on his parents' website almost taunting them and asking how long they plan on looking for their missing boy (himself).

While we would love to blame it all on the bad guy, and believe it that the kid must be innocent. There is this underlying cruelty of this boy's act that I don't think simply blaming it on Stockholm Syndrome works. If we take a look at the girl in Europe (was it Germany?) last year, who ran away after some 10 years of captivity when she finally had the chance; and then this boy who enjoyed unparallel freedom under this abductor, but would not do so, we should all admit that something else is cooking.

Was the boy gay? Did he collaborate and run away from home, to begin with, and this old guy was just helping? Did they have a prior relationship, predating his disappearance? Was his family relationship strained when this all happened?

We might never find out. I certainly hope that his story would eventually come out, so that we as parents could do a better job in childrearing, should it turn out to be due to family issues.

On tough boss...

Last night I watched the The Devil Wears Prada DVD. It sets me thinking, of my boss at work.

My boss' attitude is improving, and he's not as bad as the boss in the movie. Some of my colleagues describe him as ADHD, some said he's obsessive-compulsive, or worst. I do think there's some truth in each characterization. His attention on things probably lasts for 5 minutes, max. He loves the "idea" of processes, but he ignores them. He works better without them. He loves documentation, but he never reads them. So, he would ask for project plan everyday, and you could work your ass off entertaining his needs. And then he would never read any, and would still need you to sit and tell him what's going on for hours on ends, assuming you would use your own hours after sun down to do the real work. And he would go around your back (the managers), and sample every single developers to see what they're doing, and he would come back and challenge the managers on the discrepancies (on who is doing what, when, and how). He would raise hell for all of his direct reports, and yells. And I mean, reeeally yell. He thinks he can sell and he thinks he knows everything, but our customers hate him. His outsized ego would lead him to compete with his own sales guys, if not just to show that he can close deals or find leads better than they do. Oh, did I mention to you that he's the CEO?

Having said all those, one good thing about him is that, he values technology. So, we get to work on the fun leading edge stuffs. Naturally, there's a catch. He wants to do and have the cool things all working...like, next week. And he expects prototypes to be "production ready." That drives me up the wall.

Anyone who's done development would appreciate a boss from hell like this. But really, I don't want to turn into a boss basher. He has his merits, plus loads of defects. I'm not sure how long I can stand him though. I'd say, when I find the fun stuffs not that much fun to do anymore, that would be time for me to walk. For now, I'll let him yap.

Entertainment tonight...

Tonight is going to be The Devil Wears Prada. True to form, it's pretty light. But hey, no violence, no sex, no stress, no brain cells killed. Movies like that is not easy to find (even in kids/family section) these days. I like it, all in all. Acting and directing and screenwriting are all good. It achieves its purpose - to entertain.

Ain't I tired...

Boy, I was so tired today, having to take care of my kids today, full day and no school, when my husband went on strike, and working at the same time. Thank God the full day meetings were yesterday (which was why I crashed at 7:30 pm with no journal entry yesterday). It was not as bad today, but still extremely busy.

I fully appreciate how underpaid and overtaxed the daycare workers and teachers are. (I'm saying this, having dealt with it just on occasions.)

On the "womb wars"...

Did you read about the so-called "womb wars", arising from the comments of the Dem senator Barbara Boxer on Condi Rice and who pays the price of the Iraq troops, like the one at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2547844,00.html

I don't find Boxer's comments to be discriminating. Any comment that touches on people's private life or background runs the risks of becoming personal attack. In this case, it looks like the GOP just wants to stir the tea in the cup in order to divert the main discussions of the White House's plan of increasing troop level to Iraq.

It's not unlike the bad joke that John Kerry made in California, which feeds the fire GOP had hoped to spark and start in the behinds of Dem. It's so wholly unnecessary. If anyone should ask who's not suffer any personal loss in any drafting and war effort, they should ask for the personal sacrifice (if any) of Bush and Cheney and the neo-cons, who are in the position to move someone else's sons and daughters as pawns, when they were scared sh*t in going into real wars themselves. That is what I would call true cowards and bastards.

On how our memory would cheat us...

I've been on a somewhat spending spree for some "dated" movies (not really golden oldies, but those in the 80s and 90s) recently, having started a collection of DVD's for my kids to give them a taste of the "saturday morning cartoons". I would hope that the movies (particularly those from Pixars) are a good alternative to the cheapo cartoons on TV for them these days. And I certainly would not have liked the anime from Japanese.

I'm starting to buy some for myself as well. I count on my memory on some of the more entertaining movies for myself, and thought maybe they can keep me entertained when I don't feel like a book or journal in the evenings. One of these was Mission Impossible I. (I hated MI-2, and MI-3 is decent.) So, I bought MI-1, and saw it again. Well, lets just say that my memory doesn't serve me very well. While it's still a decent movie, it's definitely not as good as I had thought it was when I first saw it.

The same goes with an old Japanese movie called Kwaidan. (It's a collection of a few Japanese folklores.) But then I saw it when I was 12, and I was pretty scared by it. Maybe my judgment has changed quite a bit since then.

It's funny how our memory would "cheat" us, and leave us only this pleasant aftertaste with us. I'm hoping Terminator I (which I had watched more than 5 times in the past) would not fail me as badly. I'll find out soon...

On bringing up kids...

I have two young kids who are starting schools. They are going quite well; so well, in fact, that they are eager to learn more of other things. And they want me to teach them. So, I taught them map reading, and different things and stories of the world, and of America, and of the family and the ancestors....

And then I realized how woefully underprepared I am, in telling stories. To be more
concise, I actually don't have enough stories to tell. Now, it's time for me to go back to school.

But it's fun. :)

On the Rosie vs. Donald spat...

I don't have a TV. I don't normally watch TV. There are many better things to do in the evenings than to slouch on the couch, and let your brain die slowly.

But once in a while, there are things on TV that could be interesting. Like this spat between Rosie and Donald Trump. Luckily, moments like this, there's YouTube. So, I watched that short slurp Rosie did. She really was quite funny, and I would venture to say that, what she said captures the essence of most ordinary janes (or joes) would think of Donald Trump. Not that there're that many people care about who's wearing the crown of Miss USA or whatever. It's so vain anyways. For that matter, the response of Trump was so lame, it's laughable.

And then there was the argument of being rich between Rosie and Barbara Walters. I guess if anyone's in Walters' shoes, s/he probably would view it as personal attack (or typecasting). I really would think Walters should just take it as a joke. Yeah, sure, Rosie has a big mouth, and her opinion will probably trample on most everyone, just for the laugh and fun of it. But if anyone takes a joke too seriously, s/he really shouldn't be on live TV.

It's funny watching these supposedly grown-ups who act like kids in a school yard.

On the violent treatment of jaywalker by officer...

It's almost comical to read http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2541133,00.html about a British historian attending a conference in Georgia (US) to be wrestled down by five officers for jaywalking.

There's no argument that the guy is breaking the law for jaywalking, and the officer could do his duty. But the kind of violence involved is unjustified. I reckon his main offense was really in challenging this officer (jerk) to show his badge instead, when he was asked to show his ID. Those cops (men of the men) could not and would not allow another man in standing up to them.

I wonder how this officer treats his family at home, when no one is watching him...

Too busy...

Too busy today (dev etc). No time for thinking.

How sad.... :(

Oh well - better busy than idle. That's my motto. :)

On rising tide lifting boats and Bush policy...

There's an interesting article at http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/08/bush.job.count.ap/index.html comparing the economic performance of Bush versus Reagan and Clinton (all of whom are 2-term presidents), at around the same point in time in their presidency.

As an ordinary citizen, I don't give as much damn about what the economists say, or how the administration or the media talks up the economy, at the end of the day, what it matters is what we see and how we feel. And we see/feel one thing that is confirmed by the numbers: at the same point in time in Clinton years, 17.6 millions were created; during Reagan's years, 9.7 million; as for Bush, 3.7 million. And THAT is how we really feel.

While it could be true that there's been horrific corporate scandals (think Enron, WorldCom et al) and 9/11, it's also equally true that there is not any policy to speak of from the Bush administration, except tax cuts for the rich, and cut spendings of all fundamental services that would have helped paved the way for the future. There is just no other policy. Period. They don't know how to invest for the future. All they care about is, how much money we're going to give back to their biggest campaign donors.

Oh, and of course, GOP's know how to spend too. Big time, on everything that the lobbists push for. That's the other official policy on their agenda.

The administration of George W Bush really stinks.

On the changing face of UC Berkeley...

There's an interesting article at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/education/edlife/07asian.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all that discusses the changing face of UC Berkeley into a predominantly Asian student body after P209.

The reporting preliminarily sourced from interviews with a few Asian students there, one lone black student quote, the UC administration, and a few other academics. There is no mention from the whites or not much from the Latinos (as if the blacks equate the hispanics). It's reported that there is this angst among other minorities (blacks/hispanics) that Asians are taking over, after the racial preference is removed from admission, and meritocracy takes over mostly.

The main theme seems to be that, there is no dispute that everyone wants diversity in the student body. But while the student body's face is turning yellow, there is no argument that there's still harmony, albeit the fact that the real minority (blacks, eg) feels being "absorbed" into the masses, as one quote called it. On that point, I wonder, what tipping point might it be, when a student or a group of students with common identity (eg. they're of the same race, or religion) would feel that they don't "stand out"?? Should the goal be, lets say, 40% whites, 20% Asians, 20% blacks, and 20% hispanics? Should a school lower its bar to attain that goal? If so, how low should (or can) that bar go before one would say, no this student really shouldn't make the cut?

Throughout the article, there's this oft quoted notion of stereotypes of Asian students being more mechanical than creative, compared to, say, the whites. While it's all well and good that a student should be all-round in skills and creativity, if it's of sufficient concern that a student should not be just "receive" an education without much interaction and involvement, why shouldn't this be a factor to be measured during the admission? All through the discussions, this kind of stereotypical talk only feeds on subjective beliefs and bias that I find it hard to accept.

I myself was very much a minority during my college days. I didn't feel it to be such an issue. In fact, I felt it almost an advantage to me, since I was like a sponge, soaking in all sorts of cultures while interacting with other students not of my race. Obviously, there will always be those who stay in their comfort zone and don't socialize with other heterogeneous groups, and it will always feel easier to fit in to your own self-segregated social clubs (as the article calls it), but if anyone cares about diversity, and if s/he really appreciates it, there is no lack of opportunity to go out and reach out. If there has not been discrimination (implicit/explicit), simply complaining about yourself being a minority would not earn any sympathy from me or sway my opinion that any one group should be treated anything differently.

And I agree with one of the observations in the article, that Berkeley has not (and should not) be the one to fix a problem in higher education, if the fundamental issue (that the poor minorities do not have ready access to good schools and resources) rests in the basic education system throughout the state. Those who try hard and succeed should not be penalized, simply because of what they have achieved.

On dog obesity drug...

http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/Non-f_ood_Things_27/010611402007_FDA_Okays_weight_loss_drug_for_obese_dogs.shtml reports the OK by FDA of the dog obesity drug.

It's a sad state of affair, of even dogs getting obese. The animals need exercise. Instead, the owners would rather give them drugs.

Then again, it's the exact same state of affair of obesity in children and adults. Humans are just such a lazy animal.

On Ashley, the girl who's frozen in time and her parents' decision to "freeze" her...

Have you read like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=426387&in_page_id=1774&in_page_id=1774&expand=true#StartComments about the girl named Ashley who is severely disabled (she'll be forever at the intelligence of a 3-month-old) and whose parents decide to have her operated on and treated to stop her from growing any bigger physically?

Opinions fall into two camps: critics and supporters. Medical decisions like this and euthanasia are controversial, and it's easy for those (particularly religious folks) to jump, criticize and give their high opinion on what is to be done and what not and how. 99.9999% of the critics, I dare say, have no exposure or experience on how it's like to be in their shoes (those who're in the bed suffering and those, like Ashley's parents, who have to provide long-term care for their disabled loved ones). Alot of times, morality is one thing, but reality is another.

On first look, I was appalled by the parents' decision to freeze Ashley's physical development, just so that they can move her around easier. But then, I sit back and imagine how it's like to care for a 9-year-old like a 3-month-old, dealing with basic issues like bath, diapering, and burping the baby after each mouthful of food. I remember how it's like for my kids when they're babies. Us parents of normal, regular kids have the luxury of expecting to see our children grow and grow, and all these chores will become fond memories. I don't think we'll look at it that fondly if I have to diaper my kids forever. So, please, spare our judgment for just a moment, and not be the ones to cast the first stones.

One criticism about the decision by Ashley's parents is that, by doing so, they're denying Ashley of a normal person's wants and desires, for things like sex and so on. I was thinking, what are these people smoking?!? What is a 3-month-old to do with sex!?!?!?! It's unbelievable.

I remember some time back, there was a news report about a couple dumping their adult, severely mentally disabled son at the train station and left. (This might've been in NYC.) The parents were caught of child endangerment. It's hard to imagine how any responsible parents could do that, but the fact came out later that, they'd been caring for the son for 10 years, and they just couldn't deal with it anymore. We might still think it's highly irresponsible, but on second thoughts, I can't say with absolute certainty that I won't do that. Of course, I won't dump my kids that way, but neither do I have to go through what these parents might need to go through day after day, hour after hour, minute after minute. And I realize, I should never judge people based on news headlines.

On renewable energy...

I'm all for renewable energy. I guess no one will argue with that, perhaps with the exception of the Big Oil and the Bush administration. Most people like the talk (or concept) of it, but can't take it when it's $0.10 more expensive in unit cost.

I've always wondered how long it takes for vendors to come out with solar power panels and products. At least this past season, some products show up. It's a little more expensive, but I like it enough to buy myself a solar panel lamp from Red Envelope. Product information is sooooo inadequate, eg. how long the lamp/panel will last, how efficient it is, throughput info, etc. But I figure, I should start somewhere, and that somewhere is now.

So, I followed the instructions, and charged up the lamp for 20 hours. All I need now, is to wait for the sun to come out. And I don't even know where to buy the florescent bulb refill when it burns out.

If I haven't had kids, I would have bought a Toyota Prius, after my little Corolla runs its full course. The Big Three of American cars should be so ashamed of themselves. Instead of progressive thinking and forward-looking, they prefer to fight the environmentalists and the world, and stick with burning oil like crazy. Now, the world would pass them by, and they would play catch-up for 5+ years on the renewable energy car market behind all the foreign car companies that they were once so contemptuous of. It's not unlike the Bush administration squandered away the goodwill and moral opportunity to lead the world after 9/11. Bush thinks they'll go their way, and everyone has to follow; much the same way Amercian cars once thought. How wrong. That goes to show "leadership" (or rather, "non-leadership").

On golden parachute...

Another CEO gone, another golden parachute -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16452161/ on Nardelli stepping down from Home Depot, pocketing $210 MILLION worth of severance package, including $20 MILLION cash, plus others.

What is there to lose for these CEO's, anyways!?! If they fail, they get the money. If they succeed, they have the bragging right (like Jack Welch). At least Welch is worth the money. For one bright CEO, there are 99 of them mediocre ones that make us cringe and which we can't do anything about, cuz the board is too impotent.

What was the board smoking, when they ok'ed a package like that!?!? Normally I don't like suing, but it does provide powerful incentive for the board to at least spend 10 minutes of their attention before wasting other people's money away.

It's disgusting...

On Microsoft bribe to blogger...

There're reports on Microsoft masquerading bribe to bloggers, like this one http://www.playfuls.com/news_05668_The_Controversy_Over_Microsofts_Gifts_to_Bloggers.html

I find it so distasteful and untruthful, and shame to the bloggers who accept the bribe. But human nature as it is, it's not really news. Just look at what others like Wal-Mart has done, in trying to shape public opinion by privately funding some folks who want to travel and have some time to spare and appetite for sponsorship, to blog about the "good side" of Wal-Mart.

There's nothing wrong with blogs, as long as all fine prints are disclosed. People can read their blogs, and draw their own conclusions. In all the above cases (and more), the unspoken dealings make it not only untruthful, but deceiving, which is why it's so distasteful and disgusting.

Shame, shame.

A nice start of 2007...

Though the weather doesn't cooperate, it's nice to stay indoor to hang around with family and friends.

Not a bad start for the new year... :)