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.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
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.
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).
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).
Monday, October 29, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, October 26, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
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 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...
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
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.
- 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.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, October 22, 2007
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?!
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?!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, October 15, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Friday, October 12, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
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.
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?
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?
Monday, October 8, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
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?
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
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.
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...
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...
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
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.
*** *** ***
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.
Monday, October 1, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)