On credit cards for students...

It never ceases to amaze me, of how people know a problem, see its coming, and would still go down that path of destruction, then turn around and complain they don't know it's coming after they self-destruct.

We heard the same story about the subprime mortgage mess, and how those subprime borrowers should never have been qualified for a loan, but were embraced and sought out in open arms by banks and mortgage brokers for mortgages (often exotic types like options ARM).

There's the usual defense that the borrowers don't know about it, predatory lending practices and what-not. It could well be true that those subprime borrowers who are ethnic minority and who know little English, could be naive enough to rely solely on the advice (often incomplete, and worse yet, untruthful) of banks and brokers.

But, could the student credit card holders claim the same defense? We all know that if the credit market and bank lending do not unfreeze in 2009, the credit card market could well be the next victim in this prolonged economic mess, starting from 2006 with the subprime debacle, to the implosion of property market, to high profile bank failures and bailouts.

These students, allegedly, are going to colleges. They are not supposed to be naive or ignorant. Could they have claimed that they don't know what's happening (the high interest rate on card balances), like the subprime borrowers did? Sure, I don't know it's ethical at all for colleges to "sell out" details of their students and alumni to banks and credit card companies, in exchange for financial rewards to help with their depleted school fundings. But there's no denying that the bucks stop with the students themselves.

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

I still remember well, my very first credit card. It's an American Express card I got from my college days. I like it that Amex was still not as popular as Visa or Mastercard, which makes me feel somewhat "special" (kinda silly, huh!?!). I have had the same Amex ever since. I never carry a balance. In fact, there were long stretches of time when I didn't use it at all. But I carry it with me when I relocated to various parts of the world. (That is the other reason I like Amex, since it's truly international and global, unlike Visa or Mastercard, which are issued by local banks.) Come to think of it, call me an old fool, but I pay the few hundred bucks of annual fees to still keep the Amex with me, mostly for sentimental reason.

It never occurred to me that I should go out and buy/spend, simply because I have a credit card. This is not to say that I have the money, ever since college days. Quite far from it, I often worked more than a few jobs simultaneously through college days to earn the money, just to scrap by. But I never thought of putting expenses on my credit card, since I knew I need to pay back, with interest. If I don't have the money, I cut my expenses, or find more jobs. So, how hard is that to understand those simple rules?

Surely, those simple rules can be hard to stick with, judging from my husband's credit card debt back then in his college days, when he racked up balances on his card just to call me long-distance and send me flowers and heart-shaped pizza. I admired his courage and determination to get rid of the credit card debts when I told him he didn't need to do all those to impress me. So, he gave me his card for safe-keeping, resolved to using just cash, and repaid his $3,000 in credit card balance within a year, with his stipends and salaries as lab assistant and tutoring.

It's always easier to blame others for our own problems, but we have to own/face up to our problems, in order to try to resolves. There is no free lunch in life. As simple as that.

2008: Taking stock - Looking ahead...

I'm really looking forward to my new nephew who's going to be due in April next year. I'm hopeful that all the younger generations, including my kids and all the nephews, are going to do well, both academically and socially.

Well, just when I thought my big sis has found her bearing with this guy, we found this in this past year of 2008 that she has took on some $2.6 million of debts, simply to finance his failed business attempts. I don't know if you could call her stupid or not, but she's now thick in debts, which I'm not sure how long it'll take her to repay. I hope this guy is honorable enough to pay her back the money, but unless and until he shows the money, I can only assume worst-case scenario. I hope I'm wrong.

Much is hinged on the economy. If it continues to go downhill, there won't be much happening in the watch venture. For me, I can only hunker down, beef up my resume with the masters degree, and maybe get a second job too. That would really free up some capital for various ventures and projects.

And to see the kids growing and learning by the day, I remain hopeful and happy. :)

2008: Taking stock...

Oh God, it's another year! Time slips by so fast that I hardly notice. Perhaps it's the daily and weekly for the kids, what with all their school and after-school activities, which take up most of my calendar, that I didn't even realize it until it's new year's eve.

I've come to appreciate this online blog, since it makes it so easy to "flip back" to my year-end review of 2007, and the looking-ahead part. It really gives me a perspective on what has happened, what plan I stick to, and when I drop the ball.

Let's see...

This year is probably the first year I've become fully engaged in the US politics and elections (both local and national). In the past, I never cared much about elections, simply watching the parade of candidates with amusement (and sometimes with disgust); but mostly I just didn't care. Perhaps this year I have truly cared and hoped for Hillary Clinton to be my president, so much so that I not only donated but fully engaged in sometimes rather acrimonious blog war. There was little that needs to be done with GOP (McCain and the like), but it's mostly with the ridiculously pompous and obnoxious Obama crowd.

Of course we now know that Clinton bowed out, and Obama beat McCain (out of impotence of the latter). Amid all the rah-rah of Obama, and whatever vague, ridiculous slogans (what is "change" anyways), I still do not believe in Obama, the guy who rises out from the dirty politics in Chicago (just look at the Blagojevich scandal). Main media and his supporters are more than eager in giving in passes, for his flip-flops in policy and positions. And although there was higher turnout of the college kids, the myth of record turnout from this demographics simply never happened. No matter, given the terrible economy and unpopular wars from Bush, everyone is more than willing to move on.

On a more personal level, our watch business venture has started moving. We tried some advertising options, some good, some not so good, which I consider good learning experience. It's also the first time I start doing some actually sales, which is another new thing to me. And I realize that I can do it.

When the subprime mess and the property market originally busted in late 2006, everyone had expected it to get better by the second half of 2007 or early 2008. Well, 2008 has now come and gone, and the mess is so deep and wide that it's beyond anyone's imagination. Some even suggested that the economy is in the worst shape in 40 years or more, with bailouts after bailouts, from banks, to automakers in Detroit. I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that we have seen the last bailout already.

Honestly, I don't think Washington has a choice in not bailing out the banks (even though they took incredible risks which are now seemingly underwritten with taxpayers' money). And I certainly don't agree with the bailout to Detroit. Surely everyone says their industry/company is too big to fail. It's just disgusting, seeing all those jerks taking incalculable risks using someone's money, collecting obscene amount of bonus based on short-term gains, with no ramifications whatsoever.

To top that off, for the "change" that Obama had promised in his campaign, he's simply doing more of the same that the Bush administration has been doing (with someone like Hank Paulson who's flying by the seat of his pants), only that Obama is doubling down the chips, saying he's going to do MORE, and BIGGER bailouts. Well, how about that.

Oh well, I have got so sick and tired of Obama that I can't care less of what his "plans" are (assuming he has any). I have even stopped listening to NPR, after its skewed coverage of Hillary Clinton.
(
Looking back, perhaps one thing of small regret is my decision (much urged by my husband) to have given up on the second job at the startup. No doubt that extra salary (which, when combined, would push us well into the top 1% income bracket) will provide some ease of mind in this highly uncertain market and economic times.

In this last quarter, I've started doing some trading to profit from the volatility in the market, with reasonable success. I have no illusion that this kind of volatibility, thereby the profit, won't last forever. But I'll play it while it lasts.

And I didn't do anything for my other venture idea in Asia-Pacific. I ended up signing up to do a masters degree which would keep me busy for the next 2-3 years. Hopefully, we'll ride it out in the next year or so, and pave the way for a better time. Yes, I'm hopeful of that, and I'm still optimistic. :)

On the gullible Oprah...

How hard is it to dupe Oprah? Apparently, quite easy, judging by her frequent track record of being duped. The latest episode is the impossible love story during the Holocaust by one Herman Rosenblat, whose book release in February 2009 is going to be canceled. Granted that Oprah was not the only one duped, but her endorsement of that silly book club provides the needed boost of authenticity to a fabricated story. It goes to show too, of how easy people with herd mentality can be duped, led by silly so-called mind leaders like Oprah.

No wonder Oprah gets riped in the blogsphere, of her endorsement of Obama. Who needs silly women like that.

On the bygone days of flying glamorously...

Once in a while, one would read nostalgic columns or blogs that would remind us all of the days of old. Such is one about how glamorous it was back then to fly, and how proud the crew and passengers alike to be in the sky.

I remember well, of my first time flying, more than 20 years ago. Just the idea itself, of getting to the airport and a jumbo jet, flying off to a foreign exotic land, was glamorous enough back then. There was a kind of "exclusivity" in getting on a plane. Flight attendants (didn't we use to call them air-hostesses?!?) are always courteous. I've always flying international flights, and have always looked forward to sample the meals. (I remember the seafood on Lauda Air well. And the nice service on Cathay Pacific, British Airways, Thai Airways, and Singapore Airline.) To my innocent mind, air-hostesses looked like such a glamorous job, jet-set to fly anywhere on short notice. And those pilots look so smart in their uniform.

I think I lost my "innocence" when I got old enough to realize that air-hostesses are just a glorified version of a servant. Yes, they dressed nicely, had make-up (lots of it) on, wore high keels, and oftentimes, spoke multiple languages. For a brief period, I even thought of wanting to be one. Then, I realized a large part of their jobs was simply to attend to the needy passengers (mostly food handling and feeding), and I wasn't so keen anymore. The subsequent change of title, from air-hostesses to flight attendants, confirms my belief.

The myth back then, of the "exclusivity" of being part of the "elite club", and the fact that people in general love it (the service, the exclusivity), imply how we all enough a "class system", provided that we're part of the more superior class. The deregulation of the sky and airlines in general brought everything down to earth (crashing down, to some). Now, flying is no more glorified than taking a greyhound bus. People drag the prospect of flying, the long wait at airport, and cancellations of flights. Perhaps that's the "price" to pay, of opening up everything to the mass. And there will be no more myths.

On dynasty in politics and Caroline Kennedy...

As Hillary Clinton is set to become Secretary of State, she's vacating her Senate seat for New York. Media and politico are used to analyze to death of what Clinton can and should do. She was called many (nasty) names, including the infamous "carpetbagger" when she ran for the senate seat in 1999. As it turns out, she ran a memory campaign, won the race and the seat, and went on to honestly and fairly represent her district, to winning the hearts and minds of many of her constituents.

Now, as Clinton is moving on, Caroline Kennedy, who-else but the daughter of JFK, niece of Ted Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, cousin of Patrick Kennedy, all fellow senators, etc etc etc. By jove, just going through her long line of dynasty in politics in US exhausts me.

Admittedly, I know nothing about her except her last name. Sure, there are tons of stories about how she grew up in the White House during her father's short stay there, and how Jackie O would protect her privacy while she's growing up. But they don't really tell much about her as a person, and more to the point, her ability in public office.

I would not discount her desire to serve, or some of the (minor) charitable work she's done, like sitting on boards of charities. But a senator takes more than a last name, and occasional experience from a few boards, to serve the constituency.

It's entirely possible that she could end up being a very deserving senator, like Hillary Clinton has accomplished for her NY district. But right from the get-go, I have instant dislike of dynasty and pedigree that would open doors and buy one's way in. My sentiment is mirrored by some of the Letters To Editors to NY Times, of the fact that Kennedy has not paid her dues. If she is to earn her keep, she should do so in a proper election. That would surely avoid the kind of potential scandal and conflict of interests, as reflected in the political scandal in Chicago, in which the Dem governor, Rod Blagojevich, is alleged to want to sell the vacating seat of Obama for political and financial gains.

For those who take the instant mistrust and dislike of Hillary Clinton, for her ascent on the account that it's only due to Bill Clinton, they should have reflected that in the likes of the Bush family (but I don't hear anyone saying that to George W Bush, the incompetent and very mediocre son of Bush Sr). The level of double-talk and double-standards by voters and media alike is simply disgustingly astounding.

On Jennifer Aniston talking about ex...AGAIN...

Man, Jennifer Aniston just won't shut up or move on. How long does it take for a woman to move on from a divorce that happens three years ago? Apparently, for Aniston, three years is not enough, and now she's STILL talking about the same thing AGAIN, doing the same thing again (to strip for GQ cover). I guess it must be hard for a woman to forget about a power marriage that thrusted her to the stratosphere in Hollywood circle, just to come back down again after the divorce. Surely it's doubly hard when she's unable to find another powerbroker like Brad Pitt, nor fire up her own career with pathetic, art-imitates-life movie like The Break-Up.

=====================

I would be the first to admit that, sometimes I still think back to some of my old days, the old flints, and have wonders about how those ex might be doing. But I have a life busy enough to keep me from drilling too much on those things that are best kept in private journals but nowhere else.

If Jennifer Aniston or anyone in similar boat as she does, I really would suggest you keep a busy life, and don't look back. It's just not healthy at all, my friend.

On the censoring of Wikipedia over nude underaged girl photo...

It could well be that I don't grow up in the United States, or rather, under the liberal establishment in the United States; but I have always found the free-speech movement irksome and even worrisome.

It's not unusual for the ACLU or some such liberal outfits filing lawsuits or appeals for those defendants who, in some cases, are clearly in the wrong, but yet ACLU would defend for them, for the sole purpose of holding up the rights of the convicted, and again the commonsense or decency of protection the victims, particularly in violent crimes.

True, wrongful convictions are not unheard of in the past. And ACLU does serve a purpose. But in those cases, where there is absolutely no defense, with overwhelming evidence, and in some cases, even the defendants said they're themselves very guilty, ACLU would file appeals against all cries, oftentimes in the name of procedural misgivings.

The latest episode of censoring of Wikipedia from UK in an album cover that features a very nude of clearly under-aged girl, is a case in point. The whole point of argument against the censoring of Wikipedia due to the picture is the "legality" of the picture in question. The argument being which, if the picture is not deemed (or has not yet been deemed) as illegal, then the picture is good to be posted on the web.

The idea that the web is the ultimate frontier for the free-for-all, which contributes not only to the dissemination of knowledge, but also drastically in the exponential growth in child pornography, is simply too great a social ill to ignore. While some would condemn my attitude as puritanical, I see the liberal establishments like ACLU in irrational debates about obvious social evils, as irrational and irresponsible.

I grew up in Hong Kong. It's an interesting to grow up, before its sovereignty was returned to China. Back then, one gets to bask in all cultures, both western and deeply oriental. There was little to no censorship, but most everyone was guided by a traditional moral compass (not out of government censorship), and simply commonsense of an ordinary man. To me, this Wikipedia fiasco fails the decency-of-a-common-man test. If I were to decide, it'll be illegal.

And if that's the smoking gun that Washington Post and ACLU are looking for, then there you have it. That nude picture of the underaged girl should be taken down. I have no doubt in my mind.

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

I have always considered myself fiscally conservative but social liberal, but those who argue for this Wikipedia fiasco never meausre up to my liberal view. To me, they are arguing for the argument sake. It's pitiful.

On the near uselessness of financial news...

Sometimes the financial news and data are so useless and outdated, that after I read through them, the only thing that I could do is to laugh.

So, we know economy is very beaten down since the subprime mortgage mess started 1.5 years ago, with HSBC being the first and seems to be most forthcoming (yet low-profiled) in terms of writedowns. Every other guy, including the outgoing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, professes to claim they know what's going on or they have a handle on things, are all pretty clueless, much like you and me. That much we know.

The five-day double-digit rally of Dow before Thanksgiving was an anomaly. Well, we the average folks also know that economy won't come back any time soon. Markets have their way of rise and fall, mostly trading too take short profits. And then there are those stocks and traders (or some such related parties) who get the inside scoop of news, taking profit within a day of rise-and-fall from news like Carl Icahn's buying more YHOO, essentially doubling down on the stock when he has lost a fair chuck on his initial $1.6 billion buying up YHOO, thereby pumping the stock from $10.20 to $11.50 before it buckles again today to the $10 range again. I have got tired of YHOO. So, on Friday, before the Icahn news, I sold at $10.50, essentially taking a 50% loss. Oh well, I'd rather have the liquidity (however reduced) for now, than to stick around for God-knows how long with YHOO.

The point, though, is that we know that extended five-day rally won't last, because it can't.

What got me laughing was the report from AP, after markets closed, that essentially says "yeah we are in recession because it's actually started (surprise!) in Dec 2007 (!?!?!?!?!)". I was thinking, WTF?!? AND THEN, all these *smart* financial reporters/analysts/news could try to have us believed that, they do know something, and that (surprise!) the five-day rally couldn't last...after the markets closed. I just couldn't stop laughing.

Mate, if you tell/report "news" 12 months too late, does it still have any news value? Do you even want to report about it, that the economists now FINALLY know and agree that we're in recession.

Oh, and the financial news. All these bozo who are simply trying to find a regiment of reasons from their stash, of why the markets rise or fall, AFTER the markets close. What good does that do to me?

...I think my kids do better predictions than these bozo...

On the abominable Lang Lang and the state of classical music...

Lang Lang, the China-born pianist, who is more about gaudy showmanship to promote himself than about the refined elegance of the music itself. I always find him and his performance detestable, and I've since stopped watching anything even remotely related to Lang Lang (including links on the web).

Unfortunately for the state of classical music these days, some music company would value the crassness in Lang Lang, over the more traditional Yundi Li. And I'm glad that Wall Street Journal would expose that fact, and the extreme shallowness of Lang Lang (his desire to be "number one", his inability to comprehend irony from his own teacher of the ridiculous style, just to sell himself (with little regard to the music itself).

No doubt the music itself, whatever that Lang Lang might be playing, is simply a means to an end, to make a name for himself, and to make some quick bucks.

It reminds me of a girl from China that I met in Australia some time back. She plays piano, and like Lang Lang, she hates it. But in her own words, everyone in China would play some music. It has nothing to do with whether they like the music or not. But in order to "stand out from the crowd", every student has to do some sports or play music, and obviously almost all Chinese students are expected to do well in math (and science). The reason? Those are about the only "ticket" they can get, in order to apply to further study overseas.

I have since looked at the Chinese students (who play music) in different light. In observation and discussions with a number of others, not just in Australia, but in other parts of the world like America, that girl's account is confirmed, time and time.

There is little doubt, of why the Chinese students excel in math and science, and yet they have little imagination; and they have other talents like various music instruments, but most of them play it with little soul. That's because they did it out of obligation. They were told to do it. And they never have their heart in it.

You even say, one part of me pity on people like Lang Lang, yet I despise him, for what he does to the music I love. It's unforgivable.

On horrendous child sexual abuse in family...

I always feel so sickened after reading reports of horrendous child sexual abuse, particularly those in family. Today there's another such report about a British man who abuses his two daughters for 27 long years, and impregnated them 19 times. I feel so sick after reading it, and cannot even imagine how it's like to be raped daily by one's own father.

The only question that I have (which was not mentioned in the article) is, where was the mother when all these happened? How could the authority have done nothing when there's been alleged abuses going on? Obviously, this father is all evil. But our society has failed these two girls so miserably, and letting them suffer all these years. My heart aches when I think of that.

When I was younger, I have had ideas of becoming a policewoman, so that I can help those in need. By and by, a career in police force fell on the wayside, although my hope to help people in need has never died. Now that I've been well on another career, I always wonder how I could help. I have thoughts of changing career at some point and working for philanthropy, but I have always wondered if philanthropy has enough of a social impact; even one as big as The Gates Foundation struggles to get visible results in third world countries, not to mention daily social ills in our own societies.

If only we have superheroes like Batman or Spiderman to do immediate good and punish the evils...

On Netflix and machine intelligence...

I don't know if you've heard of Netflix, the online movie store that has 100,000 movies and shows, with probably 8 million monthly subscribers now.

I used to like strolling down the street to the neighborhood movie rental store and check out the DVDs. I have since stopped doing that after we moved to the suburb (albeit close enough to the city). It's a big hassle to have to drive out at night to rent and return the DVDs. I could only do so after the kids went to bed. And then there was the late fees.

I discovered Netflix back in 2005 and have stayed with it since then. I was impressed by its extensive library of movies, including so many of the old TV shows and movies that I saw when I was growing up. I have pretty much rated all the movies, TV shows and documentaries that I can remember watching, in a way to remind myself of what I have liked and disliked over the years. I can keep a queue (list) of the movies that I like, and have the DVD mailed to me. I can keep it as long as I want, or return it as soon as possible (in order to get the next movie in my queue in a hurry). There's no late fees to speak of, and I don't need to rush. Everything's under control, which is cool. Quite recently, they've added the Watch Instantly feature, in which they provide video streaming over the web as long (although there's no Extra Features from DVD, and I can't control the speed of the video stream, and the quality is usually not too good). But then, the Watch Instantly feature is free. I can't complain much. Netflix has some newer features to allow streaming piped to PC or over the set-top box too, I heard. But I don't watch TV, so I don't care about it.

Netflix has had a programming competition, with a prize of $1 million, to improve their recommendation engine CineMatch by 10%. I read this interesting article in NYTimes about it. It's been open since 2006, but so far, no one won yet. I'm glad that Netflix values customer features and academic pursuit equally. I like it. I'll most likely stay with Netflix for the long haul.

On the 2008 worst financial crisis since Great Depression...

Sometimes, too much bad news will numb you (as long as the pain is not imminent). Such is the case with the daily dose of gloomy news of where the economy is heading around the world. We know how it's like in US: subprime and property market going down the tube, credit market crunch, bailouts and more bailouts, stock market nose-dive. And now, Europe and Japan are going down too, as expected.

Closer to home, we had cut down on eating out. The kids don't really fancy eating out anyways. While we adults like to sample different restaurants, it's not really the case with the kids. One time, when I asked them whether they like going to restaurants or not, they told me they don't like it, because when we're at home, they can keep playing with their toys and games until the meal is ready. When in restaurants, all they can do is to sit still and wait. There's nothing for them to play, and they can't mess around with the table, should they bring toys with them. Towards the second half of this year when the economy gets worse, they get rid of eating out altogether. Well, we mostly eat out over weekends when there's no school. Given that they have different weekend activities now, there's not much time to eat out leisurely anyways. (We're always in a hurry rushing to different classes.) I must admit, it saves up alot.

And gone are all the discretionary purchases, like occasional liquor purchase, buying of new books, even monthly toys that I've promised the kids. But the kids are fine with library books (they love reading all sorts of books and it's impossible to buy 10-15 new books every week anyways).

Ultimately I realize that our basic needs are actually fairly small. The regular bills (like DSL, utilities, cell phones) and mortgage are unavoidable. Other than that, subsistence living is not that hard, actually.

On the world's 10 uglest building, circa 2008...

It's funny yet sad, of how some architects go to great length, design and build some buildings that look so awful, some of which function so poorly as well.

Such is the list of the world's 10 ugliest buildings in the world, circa 2008. I have the "honor" to walk by the Boston City Hall, back then I worked in the downtown Boston area. The matchbox building is a drag. At the time, no doubt there was praise of the kind of open space that is left unused in front of and around the building. With little trees around, it looks like a neo-Coliseum, sans the grandiose in the Roman days. It goes completely against the nearby historic district of Beacon Hill. Perhaps, that's the contrast that I.M. Pei had intended when he designed that dreadful Boston City Hall, much as the futuristic pyramid-like eyesore Louvre.

The same goes to Frank Gehry, whose designs include those unfinished looking MIT building. No wonder he got sued by MIT. That goes to show how someone, anyone, would do anything to stand out from the crowd. But it's the mass herd-mentality who would hail these folks as "great." *yak*

On seafood, farm-raised brethen, and overfishing...

I have always loved seafood since I was a kid. While I like the usual suspects (salmon, tuna, haddock, cod, grouper, sea bass), my love for most everything from the sea (jelly fish, squid, sardine, mackerel, catfish, carp, red snapper, etc) is pretty complete.

My mom would cook (until her "retirement" from the kitchen after my dad took over, upon his retirement from work). Having to feed a family of seven, she would buy the cheaper seafood whenever she could find the bargains. In Asia, that would mean only a small handful of variety to choose from, and they're usually not very fresh. Oftentimes, it's red snappers, mullets, dace, mackerel, and sometimes carp.  (Yes, carps were not cheap back then.)  Still, it's seafood, all the same, and I have always enjoyed them.

When I was growing up, I never had worries about food stock in the world, much as I love anything that was ivory, without worrying where the ivory might have come from. When I was in my teens, I have become more aware of the environment we all live in. I began to ask myself questions, as to where the elephant tusks might come from. I remember for a brief period, when I would gladly accept the notion that ivory comes from dead elephants only, hence clearing my guilty conscience. But of course that would not do, judging from the large amount of ivory products in the market back then (in the 1980s), I intrinsically knew that could not have been the only source. And then, it hit me when I read about the issues about elephant poaching in Africa. I remember secretly cursing myself for not confronting the issue more consciously, due largely to my vain vanity, for hoping to still hold onto my ivory jewelry. After that, my conscience would not allow me to do that, and I dispose of all the ivory products, and vow not to buy anything ivory.

I have the same issue with red meat; in particular, tender, juicy beef steak. I know vegetarian diet is good for the body. I love vegetarian food too (all veggies, tofu, beans, and the like), but I love steaks and meat too. Perhaps I'm half-lying to myself, but I have always harbored hope that one day, I'll give up meat all together, and go all vegetarian. I just don't want any more killings of animals.

And then there is my love of seafood. I've been reading about issues of overfishing for so long, and that one of these days, fish stock in the world is going to get so depleted that most of the seafood that I have come to love would disappear. Like red meat, I still couldn't bring myself to give up seafood yet. But I've committed myself to eat as little grouper/salmon/tuna, and other seafood as possible; that's not very hard to do since I'm not a big eater anyways. I don't want my kids to not know/like the taste of seafood.  I do hope that, starting as an individual and from a small family, I could somehow contribute to a more sustainable fishing pattern in the world

Talking about weak mind (which I'm painfully aware of myself right now). I am yet to have the determination to turn cold turkey, like I did with ivory...  :(

On the sturdy "clamshell" plastic packaging...

Man, finally I know I'm not the only one who's frustrated with opening those impossible plastic packaging, for things like toys for the kids, light bulbs, electronic devices like headphones, and even memory cards. Finally I realize that someone (God bless Jeff Bezos for taking the initiative) to do something about this.

I have always wondered what kind of industrial engineer(s) would design such consumer-unfriendly packaging that makes it so very impossible to open. But to think that the "phenomenon" (the kind of terrible packaging) happens across industries, it's simply mind-boggling. It goes to show the herd mentality, even in design, and no one stops and wonders if there's anything wrong with it, or cares to solicit consumer feedback on whether they like/dislike the packaging.

Critical thinking, baby, critical thinking!!!

On the new Bond movie "Quantum of Solace"...

Feelings and emotions run high, on the new Bond movie Quantum Of Solace which opens in US today. I must confess I had little confidence in Daniel Craig being cast as the new Bond in his first endeavor in Casino Royale. In fact, I was so pessimistic about his future chance of success that I sold my Omega Seamaster which is the official watch for Bond in the movies.

But I was wrong on Craig who brought new life to the Bond franchise in Casino Royale, which turns out to be pretty intense for a Bond movie. Craig also brings certain seriousness (much more so than Pierce Bosnan) and more depth to a character that is supposed to be a spy (for Christ sake!) than Roger Moore could muster.

Maybe the spin of Roger Moore's Bond on the fancy side of spywork (the shaken-not-stirred martini part, bedding of only the most gorgeous women in the world, and the My-Name-Is-Bond-James-Bond mantra) works so well in tinseltown as a happy escape for audience in the fantasyland, that we don't care much about (or happily ignore) how dangerous and grim a spy can be for so long.

Pierce Bosnan had tried his best to frown more often than Moore, but his image from his The Saint days just couldn't seem to shake.

Which is where Craig came in, with a heavier dose of grimness in spywork. I don't think anyone would complain or argue about that. But there's a lot of complaints about the role of Bond girls, since the main Bond girl in Quantum Of Solace doesn't even bed with Bond - imagine what Moore is supposed to do, if that were to happen. I'm sure that would not suit the past generations of diehard Bond fans who love the fluffy, bubbly Bond, looking through a crystal champagne glass. But it might just as well, if Craig is to bring new life and excitement to Bond, the new Bond and his girls will have to move with times. It's just a matter of time.

More on the proposed bailout of Detroit...

After I wrote my journal entry, I had my daily online read of today's news, and came across Thomas Friedman's recent posting (11/12/2008) on the same subject, in both International Herald Tribune and New York Times, which precisely sums up how I feel the situation. All the Letters To Editor in New York Times echo the same sentiment.

What was failed to mention is the hailed Obama, who is supposed to the poster boy for environmental protection and all. Here's the president-elect who strongly favors help to the Detroit Three. Why isn't anyone talking about that, rather than discussing the style and comparison of the Obama family to JFK's? This is so freaking ridiculous.

On the proposed bailout of the Detroit Three...

It's probably the ultimate free lunch of all, for the Detroit Three (Ford, GM, and Chrysler which were previously known as the Big Three, but have since tumbled so low in market share, valuation, and consumer image, that they are no longer "Big") to lobby and request bailout, in the midst of the financial market turmoil.

For once, the GOP and Bush are expressing commonsense, that the Detroit carmakers do not deserve saving. They've been bleeding for a prolonged period, been consistently demonstrating subpar management, in long-term vision of where the auto industry should be heading (given the growing scarcity of oil and the consumer preference of fuel efficiency vehicles), yet unable to pull themselves together to drop/trim the gas-guzzling SUV and trucks, and commit to increase fuel efficiency. Instead, all they do were to fight regulation attempt to increase fuel efficiency, and to stick with quick profit from SUV/trucks which have now all but evaporized, in the face of slumping economy and rising gas price. The financial market mess (as a result of subprime mortgage market collapse, then credit market squeeze) might have accelerated their descent, but they were not cause for the automakers' woes.

For the incoming Obama administration, and Dem senate (first and foremost, Nancy Pelosi), to propose help to the automakers show how shortsighted the Democrats are.

It's beyond argument that the auto industry has strategic interest to the nation. But if Obama and Pelosi really go down that path, they might as well nationalize the auto industry to prop it up, and to placard the labor union. If they set the precedent for auto industry, they would soon find themselves in deep shit to bail out other struggling industries like the airline.

On market wisdom and Paulson's bailout...

There's certain wisdom to be had, from the five of the top hedge fund managers who testified in Congress about the financial bailout to banks. One of the points raised was that there were not enough strings attached to the capital injection (aka bailout) to banks, and that Treasury (aka Hank Paulson) should have mandated the halting of dividends, restricting cash compensation to executives, and make it more expensive for the banks (ie. the dividend yield to Treasury which is set at a low 5% for the first five years in the bailout plan).

Paulson had argued against attaching strings to the bailout since banks (or rather, the executives) would not sign up for it. We all know that's quite ridiculous. Now, he's trying to stop the banks from just borrowing these cheap funds from government and hoarding it, instead of lending again.

These hedgies point out something so obvious, but yet legislators had had troubles mandating the conditions on Paulson. No doubt, these senators feel intimidated by Paulson, a larger-than-life former top executive from Goldman Sachs, to even try to challenge his position and proposition. But, afterall, Paulson is just like Robert Rubin, his former colleague whose footsteps Paulson has followed.

On the unfortunate case of Hank Paulson...

Reputation is a precious thing, in which great men (and women alike) would do their utmost to preserve. Just look at the defense from Greenspan (from being hailed as the best Fed chairman, to the enabler to the current subprime mortgage mess), and Rubin (from being the steady hand as Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, to the Greenspan conspirator in deregulation of Wall Street).

Albeit claims of no regret, no doubt the current Hank Paulson shoots himself in his foot for taking up the short tenure in the sunset Bush administration as a boost to his resume and credentials, only to see the markets going up in flame under his watch. It must be painful, to be seen from the wise, great chairman of Goldman Sachs with bulging wealth, to being a flip-flop, clueless Treasury Secretary.

I won't fault him as much to being clueless. In fact, I don't think anyone has any clue or idea on how to fix the current mess, which is so fluid and changing daily. Still, as a senior figure in the Treasury who's in charge, one would expect or hope him to have at least some idea on how to fix our current mess. Perhaps it's too much to ask for it, since Paulson obviously has no silver bullet or magical pill to make the bogeyman go away. In fact, he's like a one-man-band firefighter, leaping with a hose, jumping from one fire to the next, without any idea of where the next explosion might be, or if he has enough water to hose the fire.

Hell, if you ask me whether I worry about the current economy or not, I would certainly say yes. But there's nothing much I can do about it, so I might as well watch it with the cool, clinical detachment, as if I'm watching the fish in the fishbowl swimming madly while the water is boiling.

I hope the economy will get better soon (heck, haven't we had thought things would turn around by mid- to end-2008 when subprime mess broke, and the aggregated corporate writedowns hit $300 billion mark?!?). Otherwise, it'll delay a more major advertising push of our business in Asia for yet another year.

On falling property prices in China and mob mentality...

Reading reports about how the investors/homeowners in China who bought in at the height of the property boom, only to see falling prices now, can get scary. It's not so much about the fact that prices can go up, thus surely it can come down too; but of how the public perceive property investments as fail-safe, and would demand their money back when the market "casino" turns against them.

This is not quite comparable to the impending bonds enquiry in Hong Kong due to the collapse of Lehman Brothers when banks had been selling the bonds as fail-safe. Property investments and speculation in Hong Kong had gone through the same phase as China (and other parts of the world) during the financial crisis in 1997 when property prices in Hong Kong went south, which had never happened before. Back then, no one in Hong Kong would imagine asking for their money back. Afterall, people in Hong Kong are much more used to the idea of investments and the capitalist system.

It goes to show how behind China and its systems (not only legal system in handling complaints, but also the government and private sectors in addressing concerns outside of contractual obligations) are woefully inadequate. While China's huge currency reserve is going to give it muscle to buffer financial and economic hiccups, it'll take much longer for its systems to come up to speed.

Along the same token (that investors/speculators in China property market should be reimbursed of any loss they suffer), neither should those in United States should be refunded. But that's exactly what the Democrat's Congress is pushing for, which is wrong-headed. If America is such a great experiment of capitalism, it should not set a wrong example for the world (and China) to see.

On the possible comeback of John Edwards...

Opinions, public or private, of politicians are pretty low; and rightfully so. Scores of public scandals, with Bill Clinton topping it off, are embarrassing enough. But there's something about John Edwards' case that irks me.

Edwards admitted to bedding a former staffer while he's campaigning in the primaries. This was the staffer who was chartered to make a video of Edwards on the campaign trail, to be put on YouTube and the web, to promote him as the "net candidate." Subsequent videos even show how he had flirted with this staffer. This was also the same time when he championed family values, with his wife fighting for her life in cancer treatment while still tucked in tow with the kids to campaign for Edwards. While Bill Clinton had lied, at least he hadn't used Hillary Clinton this way.

There is something hypocritical about Edwards, who cares deeply about his appearance and who allegedly paid $400 for haircuts. This is the guy, who supposedly cares about the causes that he campaigned for, and yet puts himself above the system. I'm sure he knew he would wreck his party, damage his causes, should he won the nomination and even presidency, and the scandal leaks after that. No matter, he cares more about himself than anything/anyone else.

The only words that come to mind about him is: vain.

And now, less than a few months after the scandal broke and he went into hiding, he re-emerges after Obama won. No doubt he wants everyone to forget and move on. But for those who had supported him in the past, particularly through two election seasons, only to be let down drastically by Edwards, it won't be an easy feat. While I'm not an Edwards' supporter, I don't forgive and forget that easily.

On Jennifer Aniston disses Angelina Jolie...

There is something uncool about Jennifer Aniston. Most people find her personable, but personally I think her whole appeal to the women kind rests on the fact that she really isn't very glamorous, but yet, with proper hairdo, make-up, and some fashion sense, she can look good. And THAT can be a very appealing thing, since glamor suddenly becomes very accessible, as Aniston has shown us all. As an actress, she's not talented; but as long as she keeps up the glam, I'm sure she'll have steady stream of movies for another 5-6 years. After that, I'm not sure if she can still compete with the younger talents in the brutal tinseltown for the leading ladies roles.

Considering that Aniston has serious ambitions to strike it big on the silver screen, thereby pushing back her ex-hubby Brad Pitt's hope to start a family, perhaps even leading to his drifting away from her and their power couple status, to the supposedly home-wrecker Angelina Jolie. Judging by her forever kind words to Pitt, but veiled "uncool" comments about Jolie, one can only feel how bitter and sorrowful she must be, for the whole world to pity on her, being 39 of age, childless and husbandless, with a career going nowhere. All the while when Jolie is on the up and up, with an Oscar already under her belt, a humanitarian mission that no one can fault her on, her motherly love of her kids, the mutual love and respect she has with Pitt, the new Brangelina power couple brand, and of course her sex goddess appeal that Aniston doesn't even come close.

I'm sure Aniston has tried to be graceful. Afterall, it's been more than a couple of years before she finally opens up now, and disses on Jolie for being "uncool" in gushing love to Pitt for the world to see.

In a way, Aniston reminds me of Diana, and how her various books, interviews, and the tell-all expose by her friends (with details fed by none other than Diana herself). Even though I dislike the manipulative Diana, in a way I suppose she has to lash out against a whole establishment of the Royal Family working against her. But Jolie and Pitt had hardly uttered a word about Aniston. In fact, they have simply lived their life joyfully, and it's Aniston who wouldn't seem to move on.

To be honest, to diss out on the situation with ex, with a couple of years after-the-fact, is just so uncool. I wonder what Aniston wishes to accomplish by "speaking out" now. Afterall, she reiterates and re-emphasizes often enough, to let the world know that she doesn't need any pity, and that she's happy and all. But if she's still talking about the past and history, I don't know how she can be a happy person.

Jen, it's time to move on.

On falling home property prices and social psychology...

Human psyche is a funny thing. The current collective doom and gloom, as a result of the falling residential prices, is a case in point.

It's often cited (and is often the case) that our home equity holding is one of the largest purchases in our lifetime. For most of the people, it's also the one primary residence that we would well spend most of our life in. In other words, it's a long term holding/investment. In the bygone days, our generations past would toll away, save up to pay down the mortgage, and would have a mortgage-free property by the time they're retired. With the once new (and now defunct) high finance of home equity loan, our home has become our not-so-little piggy bank that a lot of people cash out to finance their high life that they couldn't otherwise afford and they shouldn't have taken, in the first place.

As in most other long-term investment, we're supposed to sit tight in hard times, and ride it out, which is pretty much what I do right now. Afterall, what does it matter to me now, if I have not considered selling our home now? The only difference is, I would feel poorer, since the market value might not be rising 10-15% every year; and home equity loan might not be as forthcoming (but I never have any intention of taking out home equity loan anyways). For those who still can afford the mortgage payments, I would argue that the falling market value really should have no impact to their immediate life style.

But of course that's not meant to be. Human psychology is at work, and people take their feelings very seriously - BOTH men and women. They feel poorer since the readily available piggy bank with cash is slammed shut. If these homeowners are not forced to sell (for failing to make mortgage payments), their home is still what it is - a home.

The only difference is that, a lot of those who complain about the current mortgage mess are the ones who are encouraged into buying a home (remember the Ownership Society by Bush?) that they couldn't afford and shouldn't have jumped onto the bandwagon, to start with. For those who think the party will go on forever, taking out exotic loans, and now complain that they would not be able to afford interest-only loans (like the homeowner in the article who gloomily commented that his mortgage will be $12,000 a month, nine years from now), should they get help? I don't think so. It's exactly like people going to casino, expecting to strike it rich fast, and when they lose all their money on the roulette table, they complain about the casino taking their money. The air of entitlement by people like that sounds disgusting to me.

On Yahoo's stupidity...

Legacy is a funny thing, depending where you draw a conclusion on a timeline. When the web was growing out of infancy in the 1990s, and Yahoo was riding high as the portal of choice, Jerry Yang had looked like a genius. In the late 90s, everybody's talking about portal, as if the mere uttering of that buzzword is enough to render a business models for alot of startup hopefuls. Indeed, Yahoo had once been the portal I used, when I first started out. I've since moved on to others, like Northern Light, then AltaVista, then simply a plain-vanilla search page from Google for my needs. I don't need the bullshits from a so-called portal.

Unfortunately, Yahoo seems to have gotten itself stuck in the adolescent stage, and never really grow up. Yahoo has pretty much remained how it's like for the past ten years, without much changes. And for those changes that it has tried to add, like photo sharing or social network, it's just a disaster.

Jerry Yang should have bowed out and moved on, like Pierre Omidyar did with eBay. But I guess Yang is too emotionally attached to it, that when their "baby" has troubles walking, daddy comes back to the rescue, like Michael Dell does with Dell Computers. Not too many people can walk away, like Bill Gates did with Microsoft, unless they get engaged with some other pet projects. (Of course, it's still quite possible that Gates could follow the same footstep, and return to Microsoft, should it get into trouble, like Yahoo and Dell do.)

Long time ago, my brother said one thing to me, "don't fall in love with your investment" (although he has his own issues in following through with his advice). Still, it's a good piece of advice, as noted in the clinical analysis of the dire situations by John Thain when he decided to sell Merrill Lynch to Bank Of America, amid the market turmoil. It's happening almost at the same time when Dick Fuld failed to let go of his beloved Lehman Brothers, which saw Barclays and other potential buyers walking away, and the government let it go bankrupt and die.

The point is, had Jerry Yang had a clear head of what Yahoo is in, he could have achieved the marketing manuveauring like Thain did, and even what Alfred Chuang was able to do, in squeezing more juice from Oracle before Chuang sold to BEA to Oracle prior to the market turning very ugly. But Yang refused negotiation on a too-good-to-be-true offer from Microsoft at $33 a share. And now, YHOO hovers around $11-12, and won't budge unless there's rumor from a resurrection of the Microsoft bid.

I'm sure it's hard for Yang to let go of Yahoo, trying to align with Google, if only just to spite Microsoft. I would not have wanted BEA to go (as the last big independent application server providers), and be sold to Oracle. But we know the force was too strong against BEA, and that it's probably 5-6 years overdue for BEA to have gone, that Chuang had never been able to produce another magic touch, like his acquiring Tuxedo and WebLogic Server. It's the exactly the same way, in which Yahoo has failed, time and again, to revive the company, but always come up short.

As an investor, I don't have confidence that Yang is able to turnaround the company to give me $33 a share in the next 1-2 years. One could argue that my time horizon is too short. If YHOO, like any other publicly traded companies, wants my money/investment, then it needs to keep up good work, which I don't see much coming about. Perhaps I'm looking at the company from the outside in, but I'm running out of patience with Yang.

On Obama winning presidency...

By now, just about every other guy is conducting their own postmortem on what went wrong with McCain's campaign, and what Obama did right, after Obama won presidency yesterday.

But if you ask me, it's more a stroke of luck for Obama that the economy is in such bad shape, that GOP can't deny any responsibility. Don't be fooled though, since Obama has no experience in economy whatsoever. No matter, the fact that George W Bush and his neo-con squandered away eight long years to top off the decline of GOP and any of its residual credential (if any is left) in handling economy, foreign policy, and the military. Not that anyone would dislike tax cut, but the fact that GOP has only that one magical pill in its medicinal box for the economy, and that its insistence (as much as McCain's) in deregulation, have all contributed to the financial mess (first in subprime mortgage market, then credit market, courtesy of Greenspan). And then, there is the Iraq war that we all know full well that Bush and GOP blundered so badly.

But those are (Bush) guilt by association to McCain. I very much doubt that the choice of Sarah Palin adds to his fallacy. Having said that, the relative smear-clean (almost honorable) campaign from McCain had not served him well. It almost points to an impotent campaign, in line with McCain's senior age. That's just too bad.

Still, I dislike Obama. Just about the only thing I checked this morning was the result of the election. I have switched off all the radio and ignored all the news headlines. I can't stand his flash of teeth. It's so freaking annoying.

On the eve of Election Day 2008...

I'm somewhat of an anomaly in terms of politics. One may say I'm a liberal, fiscal-conservative. While I have roots in faith, I don't really go to church. I'm liberal in terms of most social issues, and I strongly believe in fiscal discipline. And I have distinct idea of what government should and should not do. (Government is not all bad, and it plays a pivotal role in maintaining a level playing field, be it social safety net, education, and basic infrastructure.) So, on most days, if you're debating with me, you would see me bounce between the positions held by GOP and Dem.

Most days, I listen to NPR. I like its depth and usually even-keeled coverage, but I've become enraged by the Obama-leaning coverage that I've stopped listening to NPR, and read news online instead. While I shouldn't have been surprised by the left-leaning coverage of NPR, I find it highly distasteful for NPR to off-handedly slight McCain, in favor of Obama. It makes me sick.

While I had considered myself detached in terms of politics, I've also come to realize that this election has become highly personal to me. I've come to view Hillary Clinton as a candidate who can present my positions, and is the most qualified among all in this campaign season (including McCain, and definitely Obama). I also know now, that I have come to dislike Obama so much so, that I'm very willing to elect McCain, whose positions I might not agree with all the time (eg. his positions of less regulations is a disaster), in order to keep Obama out.

Some may say, I'm being unrealistic; I'm being childish, to throw out the baby (Dem) with the bath water (Obama). But there have been so much negativity, and so much patronizing of the Obama camp in the blogosphere, to the essence that Clinton supporters like me should just shut up and suck it up. That's the part when I would not take, sitting down. The way that Obama supporters try to shout down dissenters, the more my blood boils.

And all these have nothing to do with Obama's skin color. Quite far from it, it's his demeanor, and his way to present himself as the heir without the throne, yet everyone has to salute him all the same, that gets to me.

Perhaps the latest NPR report of how hard it would be for Dem to win a majority vote, even in the face of a hugely unpopular president (George W Bush with 20% approval rating that was down from 90%), tremendous budget deficit, economy in recession, terrible job market and salary growth, and financial market in disaster.

Tomorrow (Nov 4th) is the moment of truth, and we'll find out if how much of this youth propaganda of Change is going to get materialized, and how much of the so-called small donors translate into real votes. I'll venture to say, that most real voting citizens (particularly the more senior folks) don't go romper-stomper on blogs and get TV coverage, but they're the one to vote.

If Obama really is winning, he would have Bill Clinton's roaring, heady economic days to think for (that people to yearn for), rather than his stupid, empty slogans of hope or change.

On the suspicion behind high test scores in a Charleston school

It's rather sad, reading article like this one, on a previously struggling school in a predominantly poor, black neighborhood, to suddenly becoming a high performing school and high test scores. Praises were consistent from all quarters (students, parents, school workers, teachers, the walks) that the principal under cloud (who herself reassigned before bad news started coming in).

America, as a country, has become rather politically correct, in avoiding hurt feelings, all in the hope of lifting children in poor neighborhood in academic standards. I won't doubt that there are bright kids amongst them, but lowering the standards, or letting them pass with flying colors fraudulently in order to make the kids feel good about themselves, are not the way to go. As it is, when these kids eventually move onto other schools, they would find themselves struggling and wouldn't even know why or how to improve themselves.

I have little doubts that this principal did something unseemly to boost the test scores, and that she did it on good intentions. But it does not do the kids (or anyone who works to help them) any good if these kids do not know what area(s) they need improvement on, or how to go about it. This now-former principal did a great disservice to the kids and her community. Perhaps if she had run a community center, rather than a school, she could have achieved her purpose of helping the neighborhood, without ruining the kids chances further (since the further you delay bringing the kids up to speed academically, the harder it is for them to catch up).

The whole thing is just so sad...

On the new wonder bum bra, aka Double-O Thong...

The new so-called wonder bum bra, aka Double-O Thong, must be one of the ugliest and unsexiest lingerie there is. By referring to a piece of garment as lingerie, one would infer that it's meant to be seen, and be sexy when you're wearing on yourself and when someone's looking at you in it. But this new contraption simply looks awful. I wonder if there's any woman who ever buys this.

Somehow I have a distinct feeling that this is designed by a man, with no female input during the design process. In fact, this looks much much uglier than maternity bra.

The article could well be right, in that the lingerie has run out of ideas. Afterall, it's been a very long time since it comes out with wonder bra and rebrand stripper G-string as desirable thongs for the mass market.

On more analysis of the credit market saga...

As we move further down the path of the subprime, then credit market mess, people are able to draw more hindsight conclusion on what went right, but in large part, on what went wrong, and who are to blame for these messes. The latest 20/20 hindsight was from Bloomberg, which serves to remind us how those once-great men/brains (like Greenspan and Rubin) turned out to be dead wrong about pushing for less regulation of the derivatives, and how industry lobbyists that serve no one but the interested parties like banks pushed the envelope further in order to allow banks to take on more and more risks, basically with no oversight.

It's worth noting that some $680 billions were written down, another $700 billions in bailout from Washington, and endless loans and guarantees from US Treasury and EU countries in the attempt to prop up the markets across the globe. One notable success which stands out like a green island in this sea of chaos, is the mortgage market in China. Though Washington and bankers from the West can do all they want, to talk down the Chinese government's attempt in strictly regulating its market and currency, and on how unsophisticated the Chinese banking industry and credit market might be, the Chinese did do some things right. Obviously, some of the Chinese's practices won't sell in the West (eg. mandating all mortgages to end when mortgagees reach retirement age), but they work just as intended, in the local markets.

Perhaps other developing countries like India should draw the lessons learnt from China; in particular, that the Western (and IMF) approach does not always work, and that they should draw up their own action plans to suit their own local needs.

On the politics of the Obama crowds...

Wall Street Journal carries a well-written article on the politics and fallacy of the crowds that have greeted Obama in his rallies so far. Of particular interest is the juxtaposition of what was once the politics of the crowds in the Middle East, where the columnist came from, and that of Obama. It's open knowledge that Obama had not delivered much so far, based on his empty resume, but as the article has rightly pointed out, the "leaders" do not have to say or do much since it's the power of the crowd and, more importantly, their imagination that do all the walking and talking. Along the same line, the less substance and details that Obama put out, the better. The crowd can project whatever their hearts' desire to him as possible, but come November, should Obama win, they are bound for profound disappointment and bitterness, since it's not likely the chardonnay-sipping white elite liberals who are soaked in social righteousness, are willing to part with much of their wealth in order to advance the greater good of the less wealthy mass that makes up more than 80% of the populace. The lower classes are bound for disappointment still, for it's unlikely Obama will dismantle Wall Street to redistribute executive pay to the crowds to help with their household finance. The young, idealistic crowds are in for a much needed awakening, since they would see how little principles Obama really has, given his record number of high profile flip-flops of back-pedaling on agenda that he had once promised them so vehemently, but reneg'ed without missing a beat.

Do I believe in social justice? You bet I do. But I do not have the confidence at all in Obama that he'll deliver the chops. To me, it's a fake. As such, I'd rather have someone like McCain who, while I don't agree with all of his positions, I know where he stands and I know he can deliver and doesn't back down on tough issues.

It's less than a week to go from November 4th. While campaigning goes to feverish height, with Obama spending like a madman, what with his 30-minute non-stop infomercial and all, I'm peculiarly serene and calm about this. My only hope is, hope for the best, but at least I don't have illusion in either of the candidates, and I go in the booth with my eyes wide opened.

On consumer credit and debt load...

Apart from McDonald's, Starbucks, and Hollywood movies, one of the "great" US exports has been the culture of debts to the developing world.

In the late 1980s when I left Hong Kong, it's an almost avant garde idea to hold credit cards. American Express was only starting to distribute application forms to college students to apply for pre-approved cards, with not too takers. So, it was a rather abrupt about-face, when I went back for a visit in late 1990s, with only a decade later, that I saw TV commercials of debt consolidators to offer their service for people looking to alleviate their debt burden.

The same is happening in India now, with the younger generations jumping onto the bandwagon of easy money, seemingly "free" from credit cards. Naturally, most of them might not have bothered checking the fine-prints of their credit cards, how much interests they could be charged, should they carry balance, and the like. Some cardholders use more than 75% of their salary in paying card balance.

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

The issue hits closer to home when, a few years back, I realized that my elder sister (approaching middle age) in Hong Kong has had some 10 credit cards, covering balances of one card with another. I would never have thought she, of all people, would cross the threshold to become a credit card junkie. Last month, I found out from my younger sister that our big sis is using some 99% of her salary for all debt loads, leaving only a few hundred dollars for monthly expenses. We were flabbergasted.

I'm not sure how we could help her. I know for a fact that if we, the family, help her pay off all the debts, it will only encourage more future misdeeds, much like the moral hazards that Greenspan committed, in keeping interest rate artificially low in early 2000s, effectively throwing easy money to feed the greed of Wall Street, and contributing to the current subprime and credit crisis globally now.

And we also know, for a fact that, with the way big sis is going, she would never be able to pay off the debts in her lifetime. She has maybe 10 to 20 years (max) of working life left in her, given the Hong Kong labor market that always favors the young who are cheaper. I'm not sure how she could manage herself in her retirement, since she would have nothing left but a good-for-nothing boyfriend (if he's still around) who will continue to suck her dry. And if we help her pay off the debt, it'll only feed off this guy who will find other imaginative ways to lurk her back into the debt game.

Man, every time my thinking gets to this point, it makes my stomach every sick...

On the Great Wall and Chinese identity...

I read with great interest, the article in Smithsonia magazine on the Great Wall in China. Of particular interest or concern, if you will, is its efforts in preservation (or the apparent lack thereof), and its link to the identity of Chinese.

It's greatly ironical, that China as a country and as a people, place such high value in its culture and history of 5000 years, as witnessed in its much celebrated opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics 2008, yet its indifference (on the border of ignorance, when most local Chinese don't even know how old the Great Wall is), its impotence in protecting one of the Seven Wonders on the world, make it so very infuriating. This shortcoming is particularly glaring, in the face of the wealth built up by the tremendous surplus that its government has built up, yet it could not and would not spare even 100 people in preservation. It has no documented efforts to better understand their own treasure, with the scholars on Great Wall all come from the West (the derogatory gwei-lo).

Chinese is a proud race. Its people are willing to smash anything and everything in their own house, by its own people, but they would not allow outsiders (foreigners) utter a single word of it. There was this saying (I can't remember who the source was, so I can only quote it), that Chinese can only look up to, or look down upon gwei-lo, but they can never bring themselves to look to the gwei-lo in the eyes, on level field. It's so true.

On structured finance, securitization, and disaster in the making...

I read this well-written article on Bloomberg that pretty much sums up some good background, main figures, and the undoing of the financial markets at the hands of structured finance, securitization, the "new technology" of shifting risk off-balance-sheet, and the undoing of all these, as we know it now. Oftentimes, it's good to take a rear-mirror look at things in a larger scheme, in order to appreciate and hopefully better avoid the next disaster(s).

I remember quite some years back, one of my friends (let's call her BW) in Australia was on her way into a non-traditional (ie. not through the Wall Street or Greenwich route) finance career at Andersen Consulting which had since folded into Accenture. At one point, she mentioned to me that she wanted to do "structured finance." The term was new to me, and I never prodded her on what she knows (that is, IF she knows what it means, which I have my doubts) on the subject.

Fast forward to maybe 11 years back, when I was preparing to move to America in 1997, she was moving back to Hong Kong. Her proclamation at the time was, she wants to get into the Shanghai stock market and the A shares. Even at the time, her claim had not sat very well with me. The rough ride in that Exchange since then, and the significant lack of transparency on all A share listing companies, all contribute and reaffirm my belief that she doesn't actually know much about the subject matters she's talking about.

In a way, it's not unlike most of those finance types discussed in the Bloomberg article, of the fools who would follow leads from some pioneering folks in inventing new ways to package and sell debts, and even more new ways to hide those debts and associated risks, here we have BW who would quote the investment vehicles from some alphabet soup as the flavor of the day, and take her plunge to accentuate bubbles.

On the need to go out occasionally...

I have almost forgotten how relaxing it is to do outdoor sports. Ever since I have my kids, I don't think I have ever got out at all. Actually...come to think of it, I haven't been doing much outdoorsy things since high school.

So, it should have been fun to go kayaking with my kids today. While my son has tried it before, it's the first time for me and the little one. My husband is missing-in-action since I started a cold war of sort with him, on disagreement in disciplining kids. Strangely but sadly, I don't feel like I miss his presence. I'd rather be left alone, than to have to put up with his grumpy attitude. In fact, speaking of grouchiness, the occasional whining and fussing of my kids during the kayak trip had put a dent on my otherwise high spirit to the trip. Perhaps it's our first steps toward a very long separation, as customary to most Chinese couples, which is sadly but true. I must admit, when you catch me on a bad day, and I'm grumpy and grouchy too, I even have the urge to divorce him. If it's not for the kids, I probably would have taken that step already.

Granted that I understand kids being kids, they're bound to seemingly trivial things, and I have come to less tolerate their almost-civic disobedience when I tell them to do things. My daughter certainly knows how to press my hot buttons, by saying "I hate you" or "You are a bad mother" kind of things for mindless things, like I refuse to let her take all her layers off except a short sleeve since she just got off of a warm car, when it's 50F outside, and we're about to go on the kayaks and go out to river which will be even chillier, and there will be no clothes for her when she gets cold, which is a certainty.

Sometimes I do wonder to myself why I have to keep yelling at the kids to get them do things. Well, that's one complaint my husband has of me, which is that I don't discipline them well, hence the need to yell. But I do not subscribe to the notion of beating up kids in the name of discipline.

In any case, I had not realized how much I enjoy other different things, like looking at the waters, the oars making whirlpools when pedaling, trees with leaves falling on the river, and the geese flying off in the steel gray sky. It's a nice change of scene from working in front of my laptop all the time.

On NYTimes endorsement of Obama...

On the utterly unimaginative and predictable endorsement of New York Times of Obama, I can't help but completely agree with one of the letters to editors (see below):

To the Editor:

In 2000, The New York Times, in its presidential endorsement of Al Gore, said of him, “We today firmly endorse Al Gore as the man best equipped for the presidency by virtue of his knowledge of government, his experience at the top levels of federal and diplomatic decision-making.”

In that same endorsement, in contrast, The Times wrote of George W. Bush: “But his résumé is too thin for the nation to bet on his growing into the kind of leader he claims already to be. He does have great personal charm.”

In its 2008 general-election presidential endorsement, The Times could have aptly recycled these aforementioned quotes nearly verbatim, this time substituting John McCain’s name for Al Gore’s and Barack Obama’s for George W. Bush’s.

One can only conclude that the only difference this time around is that the eminently more qualified but less charismatic candidate happens to be a Republican.

Nicole Samura
Chelsea, Mass., Oct. 24, 2008

That precisely sums up how I feel.

On Oil, a book and a movie...

It's almost coincidental that we're gripping with world events that move oil prices in big swings, both ups and downs, in the past year or so, with a recent movie There Will Be Blood that goes with it, and I came across this tiny book called Oil, A Groundwork Guide by James Laxer last weekend at the public library. Since my increased attention to oil related events, I've decided to read the little book and see the movie too.

Sure enough, the book has the feel of a lecture series by a professor who takes me through some brief historical background, landmark events in the oil industry, and where it's headed. While some might say the book is left-leaning, it's quite even-keeled. There could have been more quantitative data to backup some of its claim. But then, the book has not attempted to be an encyclopaedia of all things that are oil, but a time capsule of major events that are leading until now (2008) when it's published.

Surely most adults would know of world events like the Six Day War in 1967, the oil embargo and the resulting oil crisis in 1973, the geopolitical struggles between Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, the struggles in Latin America (notably oil in Mexico and Venezuela), and the like. But the book succeeded in putting the events into perspective for me, in relating events and struggles in the Middle East, Latin America, Russia, United States, Europe, even Canada. There is the stark contrast between the partial nationalization of BP and PetroCanada, and the private nature of US oil enterprises (yet impacting public policy tremendously), illustrating the plain hypocrisy of US government in mixing and masking for-profit oil outfits with national security interests. And while I know about the anti-trust case and the eventual break-up of Standard Oil, I had not realized the importance and the amount of oil that Texas had produced in the bygone days that had once dominated the world market, hence I had not come to the appreciation of why Americans have still been so fond of talking about onshore (even offshore) drilling on its soil. No wonder both John McCain (GOP) and Barack Obama (Dem) have been open to the idea of drilling in Alaska, both having almost exact same position in this presidential campaign.

As to the movie, I was moved by its grittiness and mean-spiritedness, which is pretty much how the image of the oil industry has been. I don't doubt the hard-ball that oil executives play in coercing more out of the oil field owners, be it small farm owners or third world countries. Sure, one can argue that since the movie was adapted from Upton Sinclair, it must be about some power struggle that put down the lower class. But the movie surprised me in many ways, including the focus of the movie as a character study of Daniel Plainview (name of the main character is, ironically, anything but "plain view"), and the hypocrisy of some of the people around him, including the young church pastor (the "Sunday" folks, who sport the same last name too) who use the church to line his own pocket.

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

For so many reasons, mankind is long overdue in sucking up resources from the land (now that it's inarguable that oil, among other resources, is but a finite natural resource that would run out some day), and starts stepping up to being better steward of this planet earth. Surely, transition to alternative energy source(s) is going to be painful. But the longer we postpone it, the more painful it's going to get. I would not want to see my children, grandchildren, and beyond to bear the blunt to have to live with the last barrel of oil.

On sushi bullies and etiquette of eating sushi...

I've always like raw food since I was a kid. Back then, my mom would admonish me for "stealing" the raw food that she's marinating, or licking the marinating sauce off of the raw meat that I'm not supposed to eat (like pork or chicken).

That's probably one main reason why I like sushi so much. I read the Wall Street Journal, with interest, on sushi bullies - the sushi chefs who dictate which patrons get to eat what and how. I must confess that I routinely break sushi rules and etiquette, like ordering miso soup upfront, and adding more wasabi than I'm supposed to, because I like very spicy food, and I like the kick out of a heavy dose of wasabi. But there are a few things that I would do right. For one, I hate California rolls (I don't know how anyone would like these rolls). And I don't like too much soy sauce.

There's this sushi place in Boston, MA, called Sushi Express which offers pretty decent Japanese food for very reasonable price. It's a small, dingy place with maybe 5 small tables on high stools, a tiny sushi bar, and they do takeouts. But there's no sushi bullying chef to boss you around. You order whatever you want, and it won't break your wallet. The kids have come to love sushi too. For a decent meals for a family of four, it can cost less than $50. If you compare that to Mr Sushi in Brooklina, MA, for example, and you'll feel the pain when the bill comes, particularly in this hard economic times.

On the about-face of Greenspan...

It's almost painful to see the unraveling of the mystique of Alan Greenspan, having been kept under wrap for so long, the guy with the midas touch, who was credited with the economic expansion, the stock market rise, and the soft landing since the tech bubble burst in 2000. For the general populace, it's better to maintain the facade, knowing that perhaps someone really does know most everything, and have the capability to deliver salvation, in the face of disaster. Such was the collapse of credibility of Greenspan, and to a less extent, Robert Rubin.

The reckoning was long overdue, now that we know how vehemently these two men had fought against any attempt to regulate derivatives that are at the heart of the current credit market woes. Now we also know that the free market has systematically failed to regulate itself (against what Greenspan had long maintained would be far more effective than government regulation), when risks can all be packaged and passed along to the next guy like hot potatoes.

For Greenspan to consistently maintaining the current events as a once-in-a-century tsunami-like event, that there's no way to avoid it from happening, is just plain BS. While government regulations could have muffled market innovations, they would also have reduced the blunt impact of catastrophic events, should the market fail to operate according to theory.

If only Greenspan and Rubin had allowed even better mandatory disclosure of derivatives to provide some form of transparency, we would not have been in deep shit like we are now, when no one practically knows where the most toxic elements are. Perhaps then, Hank Paulson, the current Treasury Secretary and the fall guy holding the bag, who tries to devise some bailout plan, would have been in a better position to do something more effectively, rather than limping from crisis to crisis. As it is now, Paulson is but one impotent demigod who is losing his confidence game fast.

Last year, when things started getting worse from mid 2007, people were saying, things will get better by end 2008. From the look of it now, and how the subprime, then the credit market have been pulling down not just the housing, but the general economy as a whole, it looks increasingly like that it'll be at least another year, till end of 2009 that things will look any better, before it gets worse.

There are buying opportunities, although it's sad that our business venture in watches will probably have to wait till economy picks up again before it takes off. You win some, you lose some.

On aging and women...

There is always something reassuring, yet repulsive, about reading women (and men alike) and their attempt to "stay young." Lots of them are in display. Mike Jagger, for one, is infamous in the male species, who in his 60s, is still flashing his pouting lips. In the female species, we have an exemplary "model" of Madonna.

Don't get me wrong. I like Madonna. I've always enjoyed her music, maybe not so much the sugar-pops in her very early days, but her skills and music have matured and morphed to stay ahead of her times. And I like her attitude, not so much her tendency/need to provoke sexually, but her way of keeping her life firmly in her own hands and control.

I do have one problem with Madonna, in terms of aging, as she reaches 50 now, though. Not that I think being 50 is old. Quite far from it, I think there's still alot of life and legs left. But do we, as a collective group, really need to redefine 50 as the new 40 or even the new 30? Should we really accept our sense and space in time, carve out our niche in the 50-year-old's space, and hold our own; rather than competing for attention with the 20- and 30-year-olds? That's how I feel now about Madonna, and the Sydney Morning Herald article captures this essence well.

Recently, I watched Sex And The City (SATC), the movie. Honestly, I think it's a mistake for Sarah Jessica Parker to try to prolong a franchise that should have been graceful retired, much like Seinfeld. Do we really feel the need to see women stepping into middle age to talk obsessively about sex and their toy boy, as one of the main characters would have us believed? I don't think so. Not that Madonna is doing that much anymore (with her new found domesticity, kids adoption and all), but I really don't need to see a 50-year-old in fishnet stockings on stage. To me, it's just not cool.

When I find the need to see older women acting their part and have fun, I'd rather watch Something's Gotta Give, a truly funny movie and is age appropriate. To me, that's acceptance for the gracefully aged. Madonna and Mike Jagger are decidedly not one of them.

On Joe The Plumber and Obama...

I'm sure Obama must have wished that he hadn't taken the impromptu question from Joe The Plumber, the average-joe who asked him a seemingly innocent question about taxes.

Not that I disagree with Obama completely. In a way, government has a role to play to even out wealth distribution, and to provide some social safety net, among its populace. Obama's response was forthcoming enough, in a sense that he acknowledged he would tax the higher income bracelet in order to "spread the wealth."

What I find highly distasteful is how Joe The Plumber was treated by main media (including NPR), that as one NPR's listener response I heard on radio the other day, that this average guy would need to get briefed on the latest US tax codes and to keep his financial house in order, before he should go open his mouth and ask a presidential candidate on the proposed policy change that would impact him. I find it equally distasteful that the Obama camp and main media would choose to attack this guy, for not agreeing 110% with Obama and to go with the flow. For what Obama had accused McCain in doing (ie. sidestepping policy discussions and choosing to go personal), he's doing the exact same thing for an average voter who disagrees with him.

For what's worth, the follow-up news conference by Joe The Plumber is surprisingly down-to-earth. Here is a guy who is opinionated and is not afraid to speak up for what's on his mind, while acknowledging he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Over half of those questions that the reporters asked in this news conference were completely beside the point (ie. not pertinent to the tax question that he had asked Obama). No wonder average Americans are having less of it from main media.

McCain is supposed to be behind in poll numbers right now, and there are only 2 more weeks to go. If it had been the Bill Clinton's famous campaign "it's the economy, stupid" that puts Clinton into the White House, and if McCain is to come from behind to win on November 4th, it would have been Joe The Plumber. I would also highly doubt that to be due to the so-called Bradley Effect, should Obama lose. The society has advanced and become much more tolerant and open since then, and those who blame Obama's loss to lingering race issue are but fools. It's all policy, policy, policy (or the lack thereof).