Beijing must be thinking they're having the last laugh, judging from its reporting by the official Xin Hua news agency like http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-07/27/content_6439966.htm that US is having another incident of food contamination, this time "it's not something alien, it's home-grown botulism."
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Last chapter of Harry Potter finally over...
Book 7 (the last book) of Harry Potter is well written, much better written than the previous ones. In the previous books, particularly the last three, when JK Rowling packed in a lot of papers but I would get tuned out at times, I did not suffer the same with the last book. Perhaps there's a tad bit too much of repetition of quidditch or rivalry with Draco Malfoy that had made it feels like it's that same thing all over again. But in a way, it's like art imitates life. So much of what we grow up during the teenage wonder years are filled with things that I might find repetitive year after year, but they hold meanings to me, as part of growing up.
But I like it most with the last book are all the meanings in life that Rowling shares and reveals to us, of the strength in a person is not commensurate to one's age, of Potter comes to search for the meanings of life and everything that makes him so much stronger, of how true friendship will endure it all...
I don't normally re-read books. I don't read books fast. I deliberately slow it down, commit the details in my memory, and when I'm done with a book, I move on. But I'll probably re-read the Harry Potter books again. My kids are too young to understand or appreciate them now. But in time, they will. I'm quite sure of that.
But I like it most with the last book are all the meanings in life that Rowling shares and reveals to us, of the strength in a person is not commensurate to one's age, of Potter comes to search for the meanings of life and everything that makes him so much stronger, of how true friendship will endure it all...
I don't normally re-read books. I don't read books fast. I deliberately slow it down, commit the details in my memory, and when I'm done with a book, I move on. But I'll probably re-read the Harry Potter books again. My kids are too young to understand or appreciate them now. But in time, they will. I'm quite sure of that.
Friday, July 20, 2007
On GOP candidates for the 2008 election...
Well, what can I say. Which is to say that, there isn't much to go on with.
There is the implosion of John McCain's campaign, even so early on in the pre-season. I guess McCain, like John Edwards, had missed the opportunity to make the mark in the past election campaign, and now both are being overshadowed by newcomers. All they're left with is the impression of old/tiredness. It's a pity (in a way).
But no tear is shed.
Then there is Rudy Giuliani. The self-important candidate who thinks he's _the_ candidate, on the basis that he handled 9/11. But I doubt if he's going to survive the right-wing conservatives for a nomination, given his divorce and all. Afterall, the fact that Bush has a dutiful wife looks very favorably on this otherwise silly man.
And then there is Mitt Romney. Well, what can I say about this flip-flop? I watch politics in Massachusetts, and I know. Don't get me wrong. He's a smart guy and all. Otherwise he couldn't have made a name for himself in business (compared to the hanger-on, C-grade MBA president that we have now). And I would bet he would do quite well working for the Bush administration, given that he works so well adhering to pre-arranged scripts. Having said that, he, like Giuliani, would have much problems with the hardcore conservatives, if only solely due to his Mormon belief. Can he flip-flop out of his religious belief, and still try to look like a leader who can walk the walk, and talk the talk? I highly doubt it.
The subject of the war in Iraq. This is easy for GOP, and infinitely hard for Dems. Any of the candidates (McCain, Giuliani, and Romney) can simply stick by the war, citing this terrorist link that has never been there. I'm sure the core diehards Republicans, like that stupid Elizabeth Hasselbeck (on the View program who argued with Rosie based on whatever that she learnt and memorized from the Karl Rove scripts), will always vote for GOP, regardless of who that GOP nominee might be.
For the rest of the not-so-stupid GOP's, I'll bet that they're going to wake up one day, and realize the war is a mistake, and that this GOP president is not really a GOP, and GOP really is the one who's spending big time, and the government is expanding, and the deficits are growing to a frightening level, and the GOP doesn't even have a strategy for the economy (as does everything else, like the war), and the only thing Bush knows how to say, according to the script, is that the economy is going strong whenever average middle America is all struggling. Perhaps then, they would come to realize that GOP is such a mistake...
There is the implosion of John McCain's campaign, even so early on in the pre-season. I guess McCain, like John Edwards, had missed the opportunity to make the mark in the past election campaign, and now both are being overshadowed by newcomers. All they're left with is the impression of old/tiredness. It's a pity (in a way).
But no tear is shed.
Then there is Rudy Giuliani. The self-important candidate who thinks he's _the_ candidate, on the basis that he handled 9/11. But I doubt if he's going to survive the right-wing conservatives for a nomination, given his divorce and all. Afterall, the fact that Bush has a dutiful wife looks very favorably on this otherwise silly man.
And then there is Mitt Romney. Well, what can I say about this flip-flop? I watch politics in Massachusetts, and I know. Don't get me wrong. He's a smart guy and all. Otherwise he couldn't have made a name for himself in business (compared to the hanger-on, C-grade MBA president that we have now). And I would bet he would do quite well working for the Bush administration, given that he works so well adhering to pre-arranged scripts. Having said that, he, like Giuliani, would have much problems with the hardcore conservatives, if only solely due to his Mormon belief. Can he flip-flop out of his religious belief, and still try to look like a leader who can walk the walk, and talk the talk? I highly doubt it.
The subject of the war in Iraq. This is easy for GOP, and infinitely hard for Dems. Any of the candidates (McCain, Giuliani, and Romney) can simply stick by the war, citing this terrorist link that has never been there. I'm sure the core diehards Republicans, like that stupid Elizabeth Hasselbeck (on the View program who argued with Rosie based on whatever that she learnt and memorized from the Karl Rove scripts), will always vote for GOP, regardless of who that GOP nominee might be.
For the rest of the not-so-stupid GOP's, I'll bet that they're going to wake up one day, and realize the war is a mistake, and that this GOP president is not really a GOP, and GOP really is the one who's spending big time, and the government is expanding, and the deficits are growing to a frightening level, and the GOP doesn't even have a strategy for the economy (as does everything else, like the war), and the only thing Bush knows how to say, according to the script, is that the economy is going strong whenever average middle America is all struggling. Perhaps then, they would come to realize that GOP is such a mistake...
On Hilary Clinton the Dem candidate...
Americans love polls. They poll for public opinions on everything. It's like the Brits making and taking bets on everything.
Now that it's presidential election season, loads of polls weigh in, on which what public thinks of this and that candidate, or so-and-so might win.
Back in 2004, John Edwards looked like an unlikely winner who got on the wrong ticket with John Kerry who could have won the selection, if Americans found him a tad more handsome. Yes, it's sad but true. American public doesn't give much of a damn about whether a president lie, or is incompetent, as much as the fact that s/he has to look good (handsome, mostly). That would have accounted for Bush the candidate who's missing his brain, to have won the election over Kerry, in 2004.
Enlisted help from his wife, Edwards has made quite an attempt to look like Bobby Kennedy - the agenda, the pain-on-the-face look - minus the perfectly groomed hairdo. This time round though, Barack Obama came out of nowhere, and upstaged Edwards in almost everything (mass appeal, web presence, fundraising, even the title of being the outsider).
And then there is no Hillary Clinton. I would be the first to admit that I had not liked her at the first glance. But she has since grown on me. Forget about elevating American standing in the world stage, and the intellect (compared to the infinitely shrinking brain of Bush), and the decisiveness, and more. I said forget about those, since they're a given for Hillary, and I buy in on all those already.
For me, what it really comes down is, is the policy and the personality. Recently, I was reading her book Living History. Normally, I don't really biography, particularly one that comes out of a presidential candidate. In fact, I never did. But the book did bring to me a perspective of this person, and what she's able to bring to the table, should she become president. And I hope she will.
The fact that she's a woman really is a non-issue to me. But this is a very interesting topic of Hillary Clinton, for she evokes such strong feelings in people to go for and against her.
Which brings us back to the recent numerous polls. The one from New York Times indicates that 12% of men and 12% of women are against her, on the grounds that she's too much a politician. This makes me wonder, what do they think Bush is? Are these 12% of people in both gender smoking or something?!?
In any case, it's infinitely more interesting to watch the field of Dem candidates than the GOP's, which isn't much too look at.
PS: After watching The Inconvenient Truth, I was thinking out loud, as to how much better served this country would be, had Gore won the election. At least then we would have a president who is capable of spending time and diving into data and facts to make informed decisions on important subjects that we all care about. (Rather than waiting for an epiphany from God, or from Karl Rove, or from Cheney, as Bush would probably have.)
Now that it's presidential election season, loads of polls weigh in, on which what public thinks of this and that candidate, or so-and-so might win.
Back in 2004, John Edwards looked like an unlikely winner who got on the wrong ticket with John Kerry who could have won the selection, if Americans found him a tad more handsome. Yes, it's sad but true. American public doesn't give much of a damn about whether a president lie, or is incompetent, as much as the fact that s/he has to look good (handsome, mostly). That would have accounted for Bush the candidate who's missing his brain, to have won the election over Kerry, in 2004.
Enlisted help from his wife, Edwards has made quite an attempt to look like Bobby Kennedy - the agenda, the pain-on-the-face look - minus the perfectly groomed hairdo. This time round though, Barack Obama came out of nowhere, and upstaged Edwards in almost everything (mass appeal, web presence, fundraising, even the title of being the outsider).
And then there is no Hillary Clinton. I would be the first to admit that I had not liked her at the first glance. But she has since grown on me. Forget about elevating American standing in the world stage, and the intellect (compared to the infinitely shrinking brain of Bush), and the decisiveness, and more. I said forget about those, since they're a given for Hillary, and I buy in on all those already.
For me, what it really comes down is, is the policy and the personality. Recently, I was reading her book Living History. Normally, I don't really biography, particularly one that comes out of a presidential candidate. In fact, I never did. But the book did bring to me a perspective of this person, and what she's able to bring to the table, should she become president. And I hope she will.
The fact that she's a woman really is a non-issue to me. But this is a very interesting topic of Hillary Clinton, for she evokes such strong feelings in people to go for and against her.
Which brings us back to the recent numerous polls. The one from New York Times indicates that 12% of men and 12% of women are against her, on the grounds that she's too much a politician. This makes me wonder, what do they think Bush is? Are these 12% of people in both gender smoking or something?!?
In any case, it's infinitely more interesting to watch the field of Dem candidates than the GOP's, which isn't much too look at.
PS: After watching The Inconvenient Truth, I was thinking out loud, as to how much better served this country would be, had Gore won the election. At least then we would have a president who is capable of spending time and diving into data and facts to make informed decisions on important subjects that we all care about. (Rather than waiting for an epiphany from God, or from Karl Rove, or from Cheney, as Bush would probably have.)
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
On Harry Potter Book 7...
Some years back (maybe in 1998) when one of my work colleagues started reading this supposedly children's book Harry Potter. My colleague was foreign born, and I thought, maybe she's reading it to improve her English or something. I didn't think much of it.
And then, my husband bought the hardcover for the Sorcerer's Stone (Book 1), and he was intrigued. I should note that he's an avid reader who reads wide range of books and subjects, and is a big fan of fantasy novels. When he's done with it in a couple of days, he highly recommended it.
I go through phases in books, immersing myself in a particular category of books or novels. At the time when my husband pushed Harry Potter to me, I was into detective stories. (I was loading up on Michael Connelly.) I decided to break myself away, and checked it.
And I could see why kids like it, and adults can identify with it. It's a very easy read. Book 1 is still very much a young children's book. As JK Rowling matures, Harry Potter gets progressively harder for younger children. It's ok in this case, since over the past years, those children who started out with Sorcerer's Stone have grown with it, and should not be able to handle more darker subjects.
And now, it's the end game. Book 7, the last in the Harry Potter series, will come out on Saturday (07/21). My husband is going to buy the hardcover. I reserve my copy at the local library, so we don't have to buy two copies, and we can still read it at the same time. Our kids are still too young for it, so they'll have to wait.
It's amazing to see this global "book club," of how people are coming together and discussing anything and everything about Harry Potter. Regardless of the ending, it's a bit sad to know that this is the last. But JK Rowling is smart - It's always better to go out amid strong applause from audience, than to fade in oblivion. (Think Seinfeld.)
PS: I have since grown tired of thrillers like Patricia Cornwall. Too much blood and gory details. And a recent read of a new author called PD Martin of her first book (Body Count) was sooooo disappointing, I've decided it's time to call it a day.
PPS: Detective stories are still good, if they're written well. Recent reads on a few different authors with different writing styles (realistic, to humorous, to lighthearted) are pleasant enough.
PPPS: I want to check out Jan Bourke, after reading a short story of hers in a short story collection. That short story was good.
And then, my husband bought the hardcover for the Sorcerer's Stone (Book 1), and he was intrigued. I should note that he's an avid reader who reads wide range of books and subjects, and is a big fan of fantasy novels. When he's done with it in a couple of days, he highly recommended it.
I go through phases in books, immersing myself in a particular category of books or novels. At the time when my husband pushed Harry Potter to me, I was into detective stories. (I was loading up on Michael Connelly.) I decided to break myself away, and checked it.
And I could see why kids like it, and adults can identify with it. It's a very easy read. Book 1 is still very much a young children's book. As JK Rowling matures, Harry Potter gets progressively harder for younger children. It's ok in this case, since over the past years, those children who started out with Sorcerer's Stone have grown with it, and should not be able to handle more darker subjects.
And now, it's the end game. Book 7, the last in the Harry Potter series, will come out on Saturday (07/21). My husband is going to buy the hardcover. I reserve my copy at the local library, so we don't have to buy two copies, and we can still read it at the same time. Our kids are still too young for it, so they'll have to wait.
It's amazing to see this global "book club," of how people are coming together and discussing anything and everything about Harry Potter. Regardless of the ending, it's a bit sad to know that this is the last. But JK Rowling is smart - It's always better to go out amid strong applause from audience, than to fade in oblivion. (Think Seinfeld.)
PS: I have since grown tired of thrillers like Patricia Cornwall. Too much blood and gory details. And a recent read of a new author called PD Martin of her first book (Body Count) was sooooo disappointing, I've decided it's time to call it a day.
PPS: Detective stories are still good, if they're written well. Recent reads on a few different authors with different writing styles (realistic, to humorous, to lighthearted) are pleasant enough.
PPPS: I want to check out Jan Bourke, after reading a short story of hers in a short story collection. That short story was good.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Reflecting on life changing event....
Ok - now back to my original post, in which I have completely lost my trains of thoughts after my rage towards my Dell laptop.
In any case...hm, where was I...
Ah yes, life changing events.
I was saying, summer is a good time for changes. A change of career. A change of scenes. And I've been contemplating this for quite some time now. Might as well.
So, we'll start with quitting my current startup. Do a bit of touring while exploring on the venture that would keep my husband busy. His investments have been auto-piloting and won't need much of his attention throughout the year, so we should devise something to keep his mind gainfully occupied.
As for me, hmm, what would I do? I'm still tossing between going with another startup, or starting my own thing. But I have two problems.
One, I'm inherently a lazy person. I've been doing quite well working for others, and my boss begs me to stay. I can tell you, it's definitively much easier working for others, and to strike out on your own. If you do the latter, then EVERYONE will become your boss. :)
Two, I'm rather risk averse. If I start my own thing, I'll do this sink-or-swim thing. Naturally, there will be 50% chance I'll swim. What about the other 50% when I'll sink? Hmm...I know that if I dive, I can learn how to dive, and swim back up and be a better swimmer. My gut tells me that, which rarely fails me (if at all).
I'm grateful my husband cheers me on, and is supportive on my initiative. And the kids are having fun, in their own merry way.
...I think I have most of my decisions figured out already, except for the sink-or-swim thing...
In any case...hm, where was I...
Ah yes, life changing events.
I was saying, summer is a good time for changes. A change of career. A change of scenes. And I've been contemplating this for quite some time now. Might as well.
So, we'll start with quitting my current startup. Do a bit of touring while exploring on the venture that would keep my husband busy. His investments have been auto-piloting and won't need much of his attention throughout the year, so we should devise something to keep his mind gainfully occupied.
As for me, hmm, what would I do? I'm still tossing between going with another startup, or starting my own thing. But I have two problems.
One, I'm inherently a lazy person. I've been doing quite well working for others, and my boss begs me to stay. I can tell you, it's definitively much easier working for others, and to strike out on your own. If you do the latter, then EVERYONE will become your boss. :)
Two, I'm rather risk averse. If I start my own thing, I'll do this sink-or-swim thing. Naturally, there will be 50% chance I'll swim. What about the other 50% when I'll sink? Hmm...I know that if I dive, I can learn how to dive, and swim back up and be a better swimmer. My gut tells me that, which rarely fails me (if at all).
I'm grateful my husband cheers me on, and is supportive on my initiative. And the kids are having fun, in their own merry way.
...I think I have most of my decisions figured out already, except for the sink-or-swim thing...
Stupid Centrino....
I was so peeved...I was writing toward the end of my posting, reflecting on things etc etc. And then my Dell froze and rebooted itself. The old Dell laptop was fine, but this new one with Centrino just pisses me off every time that happens, which is to say that, it happens quite often. And every single time I watch DVD using WinDVD (which comes with Dell) or even Media Player, Centrino would freeze the whole machine, and I would have to reboot.
Could someone fix the freaking thing?!?!
Could someone fix the freaking thing?!?!
Monday, July 2, 2007
On Bush Jr commuting the sentence of Libby Lewis...
Reading http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/02/washington/02cnd-libby.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin on Bush commuting the 30-month sentence of his crony Libby Lewis is just absolutely disgusting. It reconfirms, time and again, how Bush marks himself and all his cronys above the law. It's appalling.
What has this country come down to...
What has this country come down to...
Sunday, July 1, 2007
On tainted products exported by China...
It is perhaps news to the Western consumers, given the reports like http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/business/worldbusiness/30fish.html following a string of recent tainted products made in China, including pet food, toothpaste, and now seafood.
For over a decade now, it's common knowledge in neighboring places close to China (eg. Hong Kong), that consumers would not buy medicine from China (counterfeits that can kill), quilts from China (that use industrial waste like asbestoes as lining materials), etc. Horrific reports like tainted baby formula that kill local Chinese are not unheard of. Yet, you would not hear much official actions. Afterall, only Chinese were killed. As long as the official media are controlled, everything is well and good. Afterall, a few hundreds (or even thousands) dying will just help reducing the ballooning population of 1.1 billion, and the world would not notice.
And then, foreigners died. Tainted food exported to South American countries killed scores, but hey, lives are cheap in those places, and Chinese government can't be bothered.
Now, Americans died. First Chinese reactions is always, always, denial. Perhaps, they think if you deny it long enough or repeat the denial enough times, it'll go away. (Remember the SARS reaction by China, anyone?!)
In a way, the small farmers in the latest tainted Chinese seafood are not on the same horrific level as those who made tainted baby formula, when the latter deliberately use ingredients that they knew very certain that it would kill people (babies, in this case). These small seafood farmers just want to stop their fish and shrimp not to die (so that they could be sold).
The responsibilities fall squarely on the government for not having providing the know-how, support, and resources (like clean water) to these small farmers to do the right thing. No, if the Chinese government has its way, then foreign countries would just accept whatever that they produce, regardless of quality and safety, and would just shut up. And they would treat everyone like their own denizens: you die and it's one less mouth to feed. Shame on the Chinese government.
For over a decade now, it's common knowledge in neighboring places close to China (eg. Hong Kong), that consumers would not buy medicine from China (counterfeits that can kill), quilts from China (that use industrial waste like asbestoes as lining materials), etc. Horrific reports like tainted baby formula that kill local Chinese are not unheard of. Yet, you would not hear much official actions. Afterall, only Chinese were killed. As long as the official media are controlled, everything is well and good. Afterall, a few hundreds (or even thousands) dying will just help reducing the ballooning population of 1.1 billion, and the world would not notice.
And then, foreigners died. Tainted food exported to South American countries killed scores, but hey, lives are cheap in those places, and Chinese government can't be bothered.
Now, Americans died. First Chinese reactions is always, always, denial. Perhaps, they think if you deny it long enough or repeat the denial enough times, it'll go away. (Remember the SARS reaction by China, anyone?!)
In a way, the small farmers in the latest tainted Chinese seafood are not on the same horrific level as those who made tainted baby formula, when the latter deliberately use ingredients that they knew very certain that it would kill people (babies, in this case). These small seafood farmers just want to stop their fish and shrimp not to die (so that they could be sold).
The responsibilities fall squarely on the government for not having providing the know-how, support, and resources (like clean water) to these small farmers to do the right thing. No, if the Chinese government has its way, then foreign countries would just accept whatever that they produce, regardless of quality and safety, and would just shut up. And they would treat everyone like their own denizens: you die and it's one less mouth to feed. Shame on the Chinese government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)