On Edwards and Giuliani dropping from the presidential race...

It's pretty much expected, that Rudy Giuliani would be dropping from the race. I'm just surprised to see it takes so long. The same goes with John Edwards.

Giuliani has been living/hiding in the after-glow of 9/11 for so darn long. He shifts between Dem and GOP positions. His heavy-handedness rival the Bush administration. He's long on prepared photo op than policy details. His messy personal lives are not going to survive the scrutiny of the religious right. So, he claims to hold out from the early primary/caucus in Iowa and New Hampshire. Failed miserably in South Carolina, and now in Florida which is supposedly his last-stand. Then again, he would have no hope in those states like Iowa and South Carolina. Most New Yorkers who saw him up close are not going to vote for him. I'm not sure why he's so sure of Florida since the senior folks would not have favored him over John McCain. I'd say, it's a good thing for him to drop out now, before New York since being dumped by his home state is going to forever devastate his reputation that he "saves" New York.

As to John Edwards, he knew he's not going to make it. He should know it that the John Edwards in 2008 is not the same one perceived by voters in 2004. This dismal third showing in home state of South Carolina confirmed as much. I have this feeling that he's staying in the race just to wreck the party of Hilary Clinton, and to enhance his standing as another veep contender, should Obama win the nomination. Some might argue that his votes would go to Obama who talks (and indeed most I get from this guy is talk) about "change." But I would argue that most of Edwards' votes would benefit Hilary Clinton who has a much strong Dem base and support.

The one thing that is surprising is the big swing of black votes in South Carolina. Most argue that Bill Clinton's high-handedness and aggressive talk against Obama helped push the black votes away. I see it more likely that the blacks really are more comfortable with someone of their own skin. But in a way, the results in SC half shatter the myth of Obama, that his candidacy transcends race.

As to the recent flurry of endorsement, of the Kennedy clan supporting Obama, I really don't see the fuss of it all. I, for one, don't vote based on endorsements. Who cares if Ted Kennedy or Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama anyways. Do these self-important Cape Cod elite clan really think that what they think matters much to what my vote would be? They must be kidding themselves, or seriously delusional. The same goes with the Culinary Workers Union endorsement of Obama, and he still lost Nevada.

Life would be so much more simpler if we can pigeon-hole people or things into categories and patterns, in order to "analyze" them. We can't. The statistics from mainstream media on the various poll results of the pre-election outcomes show us how poor these polls are in forecasts in how it's going to turn out.

It's fun watching the momentum shift and roller-coaster ride of the various campaigns. But the one thing that matters most to me is, I don't want another GOP in the White House. Not even an upright man like John McCain.

On what being a Brit means...

What does being a British mean? Paradoxically, my mind at once came up with a lot of answers, and none at all. Such is the dilemma that no doubt Brits are debating among themselves. It's particularly interesting to note that, unlike young countries like American and Australia who would need such a statement of identity to define the goal of assimilation of their large immigrant population, the British government would even make such an attempt of defining what it means to be British, after thousand of years in existence.

It is perhaps the British secret source of success, that they would introspect periodically, and would reinvent and define their course of actions. I would not have imagine the French, or German, or Italians, or Spaniards, to even think about doing such thing.

It is equally important too, in this day and age, when the immigrant population, Muslim in particular, is growing in numbers across Europe, that Britain really needs to think of how to assimilate these once-foreigners, than to repel them.

So, what does it mean to be British really? Perhaps Brits themselves would come up with lots of things, or none at all, as the article rightly reports. Observing them afar, they probably do not realize that British come across as: aloof, emotionally suppressed, disciplined, intelligent, diligent, stubborn, very class conscious (still !!!), and would persevere against the odds.

Then again, Britain is a collection of peoples and places. Irish are different from those in Midlands, from those in Edinburgh, from those in Wales. It's almost a sin to try to set a caricature.

On Murdoch's shattered Chinese dream...

Rupert Murdoch is quite an interesting read, looking at his life stories, the ups and downs, the drama (business and personal) playing out for this larger-than-life figure. He might not admit it, but since he's in his twilight years now, it's interesting to read on his "turnaround" far into his senior years.

Such was his pursuit of China and to crack his vastly untapped market, and his shattered dream, at least so far. What wonders me though, is how a guy can turn a professional passion for business pursuit, into personal life, thus divorcing his Anglo-Saxon wife, marrying a Chinese woman who is famous for social climbing. As the movie Vanity Fair would have it, she's not just a social climber. She's a mountaineer, considering the dubious way of finagling her way to California from China, dumping a husband that no one knew about, moved back East after business school, and made her way to the ears of not the executives along the way, but the very top boss of Murdoch.

Divorce and marriage are private matters, so we should drill on that much. Afterall, there's probably no love lost between Murdoch and his ex-wife who waltz her way in social circles with ease. And perhaps the new Chinese wife really is a lovely, charming woman. No matter. They can decide.

What's interesting is the pursuit of the business, and certainly the young Chinese wife fans the aggression of Murdoch into the Chinese market. But if he thinks that by marrying a Chinese woman, who looks to the west, is going to give him an edge, any edge, in gaining foothold in this market, he's quite mistaken. And the article delivers quite a clinical and concise opinion of his foray, of the weak performance that his new wife and younger son (the new heir apparent) in such pursuit, gaining nothing much other than lots of burnt cash.

Well, but at least he tries. And he's probably correct, that the next quarter century will see the developing countries (particularly China and to a lesser extent India) rising. But my bet is, the Murdoch name won't be there prominent, at least not in the glorious fashion that other giants like Microsoft, Google, and eBay have hoped for but didn't get either.

On allowing a killer to be a doctor...

Life is full of paradox. Things do not always have quick and easy answers, even if we as humans are prone to rush to one. The recent news of the dilemma in Sweden on whether to allow a convicted killer to be a doctor is thought provoking.

When I first read of the news, my very first knee-jerk response was "certainly not." But I read it again, for the few details that can be cued from the story. The guy was a hate crime killer, serving two-thirds of his almost seven years' sentence, and was released. While serving time, he self-taught himself from online courses, and managed to get in the prestigious Karolinska Institute, famous for selecting Nobel Prize in medicine, with good grades. The supposedly stringent interview process failed to vet him for his "missing" some six years when he's in prison. It was only afterwards he's started the study, that he's found out to have been a convicted murderer. He's allowed an opportunity to explain himself, but expressed no remorse of the killing.

So, should he be allowed to study medicine and become a doctor, or should he be kicked out?

Obviously, this is a bright young man. It would have been a great mind wasted, if he's not put into productive work. But so do most serial killers and offenders who have above average IQ. Should they be allowed the chance to be a doctor, if they qualify academically? Well...let's not answer it just yet.

The classmates of his class were split 50-50 between allowing him to stay and expelling him. It's argued that he's already done time for what he's done, so he should be allowed to do what he pursues. Those favored kicking him out said they are scared of having him in the same class. Neither is good enough argument for me.

The point that would prompt me to argue against this man is his lack of remorse. Over the course of their professional life, doctors would make a lot of ethical and moral decisions, thus doctors need to be judged not only on academic and residency experience, but their character and integrity. If this man does not think killing a man is wrong, then he would very likely make very bad and even fatal decisions after he becomes a doctor.

Should we then grant him the medical license if he shows remorse and wants to do good for the society? History, of course, has shown us that there are twisted minds who can say one thing (remorse), but act entirely differently. While we have to be careful of that, and there's no sure bet of that, one should bear in mind that most people deserve a second chance, if they are given the right kind of opportunity, and with PLENTY of monitoring.

Subsequently, the Institute kicked him out on technicality, since he falsified his name on a document, thus sidestepping the real issue that needs clearer guideline for the future. The Swedish licensing body indicated that even if he completes his study, the body would not have granted him a medical license to practice due to his conviction. The moral dilemma looks to rest for now, but it'll bubble up again.

I wonder what this man is going to do next, now that his focus (to be a doctor) is dashed. I hope he won't revert back to criminal pursuit.

On the passing of Heath Ledger...

It's always a very sad thing whenever a person's life is ended prematurely, amidst high hopes of his/her success in later life. The same with children, and promising young people.

A bit of disclosure. I like movies. All kinds of movies. Classics, comedy, drama, romance, suspense/thriller, documentary, family/kids. I watch them all. Even my husband has problems pinpointing what kinds of movies are my favorite. I like good movies, regardless of genre (except the gay/lesbian category). Movies like To Kill A Mocking Bird from the 1950s, which is such a classic that is superb all round in directing, production, cinematography, music score, acting, casting, and more, are such a delight.

And I don't chase "stars," ie. movie stars. Still, if the actors/actresses are good, I would seek out their movies. I did not seek out Heath Ledger. I normally avoid those "heart throbs," reserving them for teenagers to fancy. I've seen a few of his earlier ones, even Brother Grimm, and it didn't leave much impression on me. That's until I saw A Knight's Tale. It's an odd-ball, like LadyHawk from the 1980s, to use rock music for period drama. But Ledger stood out in his performance, and he's only 21. Neither was he afraid to test himself in a variety of roles. I thought, if he can command the screen at 21, he'll have a very bright future...provided he does self-destruct.

Thus, I was quite shocked when I read the headlines last night, that Heath Ledger died. Initial details say there's only no illegal drugs. If he's trouble sleeping, and got himself killed by too many sleeping pills, that's really sad and unfortunate. I had hoped that he would deliver more movies with substance. I guess that's not to be.

On the PNG trump of US in UN climate change talk...

Sometimes, things are not quite what it seems. Such is the nature of politics. The Brits play it like hand-and-glove. There has always been this belief (and there's truth in it), that Americans have a long way to go. Americans are more a straight-shooter.

So we see how this plays out in the UN Climate Talk in Bali, where the Papua New Guinea rep Kevin Conrad delivered the famous lines to US, to tell US to either lead or just move out of the way, amidst sea of applause. That was delivered to US, when US made rejections to certain items at last minute, angering a large number of delegates. After the famous lines, US made a 180-degree turnaround, and agreed to change its position, thereby securing the resolution.

The reality was not quite as simple as the climate talk turned out. In interview after the talk, Conrad indicated that US was effectively labeled as the fall guy, since there are items in the talk on the issues that were known to trigger US objections. With objections from US, everything
would collapse. And a collapse would mean inaction by all countries, which would set us back years in fighting climate change.

Perhaps US doesn't mind people hating them, much as Bush does in the eyes of the rest of the world. But for the US to allow itself to be labeled as such, it's quite incomprehensible. The turnaround, in a matter of minutes, in front of cameras and the whole world, simply demonstrates how poorly US is, in the name of the political game. One would never expect, and would never get, such a performance from the British. Americans really need to take some Politico 101 with the Brit, in order to better handle and present themself.

On recession, Fed rate cut, market turmoil et al...

After some months of increasing common knowledge that all is not well with the US economy, the Fed finally stepped up to the plate, and made a forceful move to cut rate by 75 basis points. Such was the attempt to try to soothe the markets in US, and around the world that took the dive after news that the Fed rate cut might not be sufficient.

With one single body (the Fed), having a limited arsenal of tools that it can use to steer the economy, and given the sheer size of the US economy, it's not surprising that Ben Bernanke, the Fed Chairman, is never going to please everyone in the game. There are the usual rely-on-thyself bunch who reckons reducing rate is going to reward those who benefited from and ultimately burnt by the falling property market. Well, it very well might.

And then there are the advocacy groups who would never think the government does enough to help the poor (who are predominantly non-white minority) since they're hurt by the rate reset of adjustable subprime loans. For those in this group who were targets of predatory lending practice by mortgage lenders and banks, these are valid arguments, although it's hard to ignore the fact that these predominantly minority would get into things that beg fools errand. It's equally hard to accept arguments that "They (ie. lenders) didn't tell me!"

On the other side of the scale stands Wall Street, which judges everything from a capitalist lens. Of course the rate should be kept as low as possible "to stimulate the economy." To me, they're more interested in keeping the easy credit going, so that the CDO, SIV, and all other parties from alphabets can continue. To them, rate cut is never enough, and it's always too late.

And then there is the White House who pisses in the wind and see which way the wind blows. To Bush, the economy can go from great and fundamentals-very-strong, to we-need-to-pass-$150-billion-stimulus-package-fast to help save the economy, all within the span of less than two months. The idiocy is quite astounding.

Oh, and the economists. How can we have economy without economists! They would tell us, all signs are good, we're going strong (Bush's speechwriter must have copied the line from some economy 101 textbook), companies outlook great, bla bla blah.

All these...while we the real humans, who live in the real world, who live the real life, would know what's going on.

We don't care if economists or White House or corporate chieftains gloss over the effects of globalization. what we do know and care is that, while jobs market recover (thus holding unemployment down, which is all economists see), the jobs would pay us half of what we used to get ten years ago when Bill Clinton left office. The raise from my job doesn't keep pace with inflation, albeit the low inflation (what, less than 2.5-3% p.a.). In other words, I'm NOT doing great, Mr Bush and Mr Economist, even though technically I am, since I still have a job, right? Don't tell me that the everyday-low-price from Wal-Mart is going to help me, since my spending power is reduced, given the same dollar amount from salary. It's really very insulting to our intelligence for them to tell me otherwise. Does Bush believe that, by repeating the same lie ten times, it's going to become truth? Is that his way of "positive thinking"?!?

The inflation has been low, but it's not the making of the Fed or smart policy of the White House. It's an incidental byproduct of utilizing the overcapacity in China for exports to US, that has been keeping our inflation in check. Naturally, there will come a time when space capacity is depleted (salary going up fast and strong in India and China), while the basic raw resources remain and are getting more scarce. So now, it catches up with us. Oil price hits $100 barrel, so do prices of all raw materials of precious metals. Couple that with water shortage, and the picture looks so much more gloomier to me that I don't feel like reading business and economic news at times. These are some of the major external factors.

Locally in US, the homegrown doom of rising costs in health care, education, and more, make me wonder why we should be happy (as Bush and economists would have told us), when we are so screwed.

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

But, I'm hopeful, not for Bush to do anything intelligently, but to feel less guilty to detach and free myself from a job that I use to like, to starting a business of my own and try something new. It might be big and it could be small. But at least the opportunity costs (as the economists would love to call it) are so much lower than that it doesn't make sense for me NOT to pursue it.
Perhaps that's the silver lining in all the dooms and glooms. Perhaps that's the way God is telling me, I should see another life. Yes, I'm listening...

On the growing use of abortion pill RU-486...

There's report on the growing use of an abortion pill called RU-486 (more commonly referred to as "miffy"). Is it a good and bad thing?

To the religious right, it's always a wrong thing, however way you slice and dice the issue. An abortion is an abortion, and along the process, a baby (whatever stage it's in) is terminated. Religions allow no room for argument. Hence we have the Muslim fundamentalists who are so dead set in killing all things and everyone that is western, and west-leaning. So, there cannot be any argument that abortion can be condoned, in whatever non-intrusive and private ways there might be.

In truth, reality is a lot more complicated than that. There are more urgent situations (eg. pregnancy as a result of rape or incense) in which pregnancies are unwanted, and it's a sure thing that the baby, if born, could suffer. Legal framework has provided cover for these situations, thus allowing less outright disagreement from the religious right to elbow in.

But in situations whereby the pregnancy affects only the "quality of life" of the parents, should that be allowed (eg. parents who are not ready for a baby, teen pregnancy, or family that have a large number of kids that they could hardly afford more)? Religious right has a solution for it too. In the words of George W Bush, it's called abstinence. Again, no room for argument. Not even contraception.

Such is the condescension from on high, that if you do not abstain, and you get pregnant, it's your fault, so suck it up and take the baby. So high-handed is the approach that the ideology is formulated as policy by the Bush administration in both domestic policy and foreign aid program. I do not agree with that at all.

While it's all mighty easy to talk about abstinence in his Oval Office, it's not practical and oftentimes impossible for women in developing countries to practice. Is that that fault? No. The traditions and customs in so many countries would not and do not allow that as a viable option for women. The unwanted pregnancies and babies will simply put the women and girls further and further behind the social ladder, rendering them a permanent underclass to serve the men.

The news of this abortion pill can be a godsend to these women, if only the costs can come down, to make it practical as well as possible.

On loser's expectation from free trade...

I was reading the Letters To Editors at New York Times today, about the overwhelming (100%, in fact) retort to Steven E. Landsburg's article on "What To Expect When You're Free Trading".

The writing is supposed to provide a short, clinical response to those who lose out in globalization; in this case, the workers who lose their jobs. In pure and simple terms, the losers should just suck it up, since they get low price from imports. No one should be responsible to "compensate" the losers for anything, since they don't complain when they were riding high tides (ie. when they were having jobs and a good life).

Naturally it attracts landslide rebuttal. No doubt the conclusion drawn in the article makes all sense to economists, they have failed to account for so many factors that they ignore in their modeling or assumptions. As to the human or intangible factors that they are unable to measure (or simply don't know how to measure), they just ignore it.

So, the argument goes, while workers lose jobs, they enjoy low prices. But the economists would not care if the workers simply don't have the money to buy, regardless of how low the prices go. And there is nary mention of what the effect is when communities and towns disappear. What is the costs for creating a permanent bottom strata in society who find itself deeper and deeper into the quicksand. To that, Landsburg would sing praise to capitalism.

To most economists, politicians and observers, everything can be reduced to or be explained with, the dollar sign. For that, it's interesting to look at the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, in which Hong Kong takes the highest ranking again (an honor that this small former British colony has held for many years now, since this Index was compiled 14 years ago).

I have the privileges to grow up in Hong Kong, and witness how capitalism goes about, first-hand. A few things struck:

(1) Having known how the most laissez-faire microcosm works in Hong Kong, and to see how America touts the argument of capitalism time and again, to justify this and that, the American and economists way of simplistic view of capitalism is almost laughable.

(2) Hong Kong has changed and morphed dramatically (and drastically, in so many times) over the decades. No one would blame others for losing their jobs, and moan and groan about it. Just look at how all of the manufacturing jobs in Hong Kong disappeared and are now all shifted to China's factories over the 1970s and 1980s. Do I ever hear anyone complain about it? Not one instance.

(3) Hongkong'ers are hardworking and resourceful. This is not to say that people from other parts of the world (eg. America) are not. The difference is in the government - the government of the former British rule (and not, the current Chinese rule).

(4) The former British government in Hong Kong had laid out the most basic, yet comprehensive infrastructure and support network for its denizens. Public transportation is inexpensive. Public housing is well-managed and plentiful (versus the woes suffered by housing projects in US), providing housing to citizens at very low cost. Basic infrastructures like airport, port facilities for freight and cargo, sewage, water management, ultra low income tax (and no capital gains tax), legal framework, the rule of law that is rid of corruption and cronyism, a professional police force that people can trust. But there is only minimal social safety net (don't count on social welfare to feed the elderlies). The rest is up to the people themselves. Along the way, the resourceful people in Hong Kong transform itself from manufacturing of low-end plastic goods, to higher end electronics, to move up the ladder of high end apparels, to service and financial industry that are among the best in the world.

(5) No reasonable private institution is going to pour billions and billions into some projects that they might not be able to reap any benefits from. I would strongly argue that, without a framework and infrastructure that only the government can and will provide, it is extremely naive to expect that market capitalism is going to strive to the fullest extent. This kind of social capitalism is what makes Hong Kong, and others like Singapore successful and competitive. The governments of these places have not truly democratic; but in a way, true democracy that tie the hands of politicians in the west (like United States) which could lead to cronyism much more easily.

(6) So, back to the article of Landsburg which labels those who lose jobs as losers are despicable. Perhaps if the government has had the foresight to allow a better infrastructure for its citizens (so that people won't have to worry constantly about losing health care from employers, or defaulting on mortgages, etc), it would have truly free the hands of the resourcefulness of Americans to pursue their dreams, rather than treading water in the face of globalization onslaught.

On Hilary Clinton's win in Nevada caucus...

Some might have voiced doubt, but I don't, in terms of Hilary Clinton's winning Nevada caucus, so shortly after the New Hampshire primary victory.

I don't doubt it, since as a woman, I would have chosen Clinton over Obama. I might not love Hilary, but I like what her record and experience. Do I prefer her simply because she's also a woman? No. It really is a non-issue to me. In fact, I find her much more forceful and appealing than the other male candidates, Dem or GOP. If anyone thinks that she's a pushover or a quitter, they are quite seriously mistaken. That's why, it comes as no surprise when the exit poll shows that Clinton was getting the women's vote by a wide double-digit margin than Obama.

I would also say, a lot of unions really are quite out-of-touch with their own members and the members' preferences. So, it comes as no surprise either, that Clinton was getting majority of the culinary workers' votes, despite an endorsement of Obama by the Culinary Workers Union.

On the GOP side, McCain would probably be one that is hardest to beat, should he become GOP nominee. While the field is still wide open and muddy, McCain still has a shot to the nomination, given his win in South Caroline.

All in all, it is a very good thing, to have record turnouts almost everywhere, across parties. Perhaps, it really takes a massive dislike of the sitting president, to galvanize a country to stand up for itself.

On Bush's $145 billion stimulus package...

It's quite a slap in the face, that right after Bush started the press conference, announcing the $145 billion stimulus package, in the attempt to right the economy, the market does down a few more percentage points. In fact, most agree that the stimulus comes too little, too late.

Only last month, Bush is still making the same usual line, that the economy is just fine. We, the people living in reality, know all too well that Bush is completely delusional on what's going on, particularly anything more complex than 1+2. So, most everyone these days would simply ignore what this president says.

If only he or his team would recognize the underlying issues more urgently and take them more seriously and swiftly, if only a stimulus package would come a few months back, than it is now, when many more billions of writedowns are out, perhaps then the stimulus might have worked better. As to now, if I am to get a $800 check, I'll just save it.

And where the hell are his "economic advisers" anyways, apart from Hank Paulson? Unlike the Three Musketeers of Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Lawrence Summers, back in the Clinton years, who worked decisively, swiftly, and in concert, to head off and calm the markets, here we have everyone talking all at once (Bush, Paulson, Bernanke, Pelosi, among others), with nobody having any clue, I have this distinct that all these officials are acting like headless chickens running around.

On Bill, the excellent VP/attack dog for Hilary...

Normally, in an election, the presidential nominee would set a positive tone, and the vice presidential nominee would do the do-attack dog routine. The good cop, bad cop thing.

Thus, it's amazing to see that, when the Democratic primaries are shaping up, Hilary has already got herself the excellent attack dog - Bill Clinton, her husband. Not only can he attract huge crowds, perhaps even bigger than any of the candidates (Dem or GOP), but he's a great orator in simultaneously doing the selling job of Hilary and the attack-dog gig to other Dem rivals, GOP hopefuls, and Bush administration, all at the same time! And all these publicity is free!

While some people would argue that Bill Clinton is doing more harm than good by feeding Hilary down people's throat. But, hey, that's what a VP would do, and Bill does it with full force. What more can you ask for - Hilary already got herself an excellent veep before she becomes the Dem nominee. It's simply amazing.

On the question "Can a good parent kill?"...

It is always sad to read news involve child abuse and death. Reading the latest report of a 1-year-old toddler who was killed by the babysitter stirs some thoughts.

There're some facts. The toddler's mother has to work, but couldn't find childcare. So, she hires a woman to babysit the kid for five days a week. The babysitter is not a teenager like Louise Woodward. This is supposed to be a good mother who has children of her own. This is the woman who's allegedly to have put the 1-year-old in a sleeping bag, swung him, causing skull fracture when he hit the door frame. The question is, can a good parent kill? Is it an accident or an abuse?

Of course, the babysitter's argument that she's just playing rough with the toddler was not sustainable. No sensible parent will put a toddler inside a sleeping bag before swinging him. If he's put in a sleeping bag, it's likely the woman didn't want to hear him cry or scream.

So then, can a good mother kill like that? In a way, one should make some distinction. Sometimes, some parents distinguish and feel very differently between their own kids and someone else's kids. I've seen individuals who can be a loving, caring person to one kid, yet cool and aloof to another. It's basic human nature that attracts/repels each other. I would argue that a "good" mother is a rather misnomer in this case. If the woman dislikes that child to a certain breaking point, then she could have a much higher propensity to mistreat the child badly, perhaps not to the point of killing him, but certainly she can hurt the child without feeling as much pain. Perhaps if she has put him in the sleeping bag, and she can monitor his reaction during the abuse, he might still be alive today.

There is also the question of angst of having to deal with a child. Each child is different. I have more than one, and believe me, they are so different since day one. At times when a child whines and fuses, it really can raise blood pressure and elevate stress level of the caregiver. Should the caregiver be a truly loving being, s/he would not have killed. But to me, a "good mother" does not automatically equate "loving individual." You might say, that's just parsing words; but there is real difference in this.

Home based one-on-one childcare is more than a full time job. Truth be told, I don't think I can handle it myself, alone at home 12x7 (even 12x5) a week. I appreciate how tough it can be, even for a loving parent. There are times when pulling all your hair out is not good enough to deal with the kids. I have enormous respect for those stay-home moms/dads.

Such was the reason why I prefer group daycare. There is additional help and oversight, of more than one adults to cope with situations. The kids could learn discipline (eg. sit and eat by themselves) and order well.

Perhaps, if good group daycare has been available, this child's life could have been spared. Perhaps...

On the black vote split between Obama and Clinton...

It is indeed a good thing, that Democratic black voters have to make hard choice on which candidate to vote for.

One thing is for sure, I seriously doubt if the national poll on the black vote is going to give us a real measure of whom they're going to pick. To say the least, the poll result could probably be even more off-the-mark than the New Hampshire primary vote (that Clinton subsequently won by narrow margin, albeit running national poll showed her to be significantly lagging behind Obama in NH by as much as 23%).

If at all, my bet is, most black voters are unlikely to speak their mind freely in public about their preference and their allegiance to their associations that might have endorsed the other candidate. After all these years, when blacks have no one of their own heritage to vote for, would pick white candidate who can deliver comparatively better care and results to them. Bill Clinton has succeeded hugely in this respect.

Now, they have a choice of voting for one of their own, with a clean slate that attracts complaints from certain quarters that he's "not black enough," what could the black voters really rely on, except the skin color? Afterall, Obama comes from a very different background than most black voters. While he can make all the fancy claims that he wants, can we be sure that he can deliver? The money is on it, that he'll probably lean more on the non-black side, in order not to alienating the non-black majority.

Hilary Clinton would not have this baggage of being black or not black. Continuing on with the Bill Clinton policy, Hilary would have little problem to get the results, if she has the will; and she has shown that she has backbone. If I were black, I'll go for concrete results (Clinton), than fancy words (Obama).

PS: And of course, John Edwards would not quit the stage. But he's more of a postscript now; so, it doesn't really matter anymore.

On Obama's loss in New Hampshire...

It's only until now that I found the Democratic debate on ABC before the New Hampshire primary on YouTube. That's probably the only main shortcoming of not keeping a TV.

After watching the debate, those people who attributed Hilary Clinton's win in New Hampshire to her welling up on the day before the primary, must be smoking heavily or something. Her performance easily beat those of Obama hands-down. I'm one of those voters who demand details from candidates, any candidate, of what they have done and what/how they are going to do.

The other thing that comes out of it, was how John Edwards presented himself. He clearly was on the side of Obama (perhaps he's presenting himself as yet another VP candidate, should Obama come out on top). I could be wrong, but I bet Edwards has bet on the wrong horse.

It's a pity that Bill Richardson, much like Clinton who's long on experience and details, is not able to present himself in a better light. He's likely to be a better operator (be a Secretary in the cabinet) than being the president.

But clearly, Hilary Clinton is the most presidential-ready among the Dem candidates left in the field. I am more hopeful that she'll be an agent of change, than Obama who could behave more white than black and who could happen to be a president that has darker skin than one who would bring about major changes in favor of minorities.

On Mike Huckabee, "The Candidate"...

Have you seen the movie "The Candidate" by Robert Redford? In no small way, the movie is prescient about chaos coming out of Mike Huckabee is in.

Naturally, there are major differences (that we might not know). There is the selling out and betrayal of sorts in the movie. Do we have any with Huckabee? The campaign in the movie, however daunting it might be for a relatively unknown candidate, was simply a Senate race. Huckabee would need to address the crowds on a national level. The order of magnitude is almost incomparable.

I have come to be fascinated by politics since I moved to US. The kind of energy coming out of campaigns and media coverage is quite unbelievable. I don't watch TV. I find most network news coverage skewed and light, at best. The NPR radio coverage of the elections (primaries and general) is superb. (And I get to do something else while I'm listening to the radio.) Augmenting that with whatever I can find on the web is enough to give me a better balance of how things feel. And it's good that these days, I can find the TV debates of both parties are uploaded to YouTube.

To that, I wonder, when Huckabee is going to be crashed and burnt.

On what makes a tough guy...

I was reading this article on Sylvester Stallone's comment that Jason Bourne, the contemporary tough guy of reluctant solider-turn-trained-assassin in its popular Bourne movies franchise, is not as tough as the action heroes in the 80s (Bruce Willis in the Die Hard franchise, Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Terminator franchise, and of course Stallone himself in the Rambo and Rocky franchise).

It's a light read, and I could have passed on to the pass after less than one minute reading it. But then, it prompts me for some deeper thoughts:

(1) What makes a tough guy?

Is it what a guy does, or says, or thinks, or a combination of these, that makes him tough? I know Stallone speaks the mind of quite some guys who think the same way. As the thinking goes, the guy must be a survivor, excel in hand-to-hand combat, suffer pain with a grit in teeth, and people are afraid of him.

So, why Stallone thinks less of Jason Bourne than Rambo? The comparison of these two characters is particularly interesting, since they came from military background. They suffered tremendously in past life. And they fought back. Big time.

But Bourne excel bland in the society, while Rambo would go hide in the mountain. Bourne masters high-tech gadgetry with finesse, while Rambo goes decidedly low-tech. And, Bourne doesn't eat dirt. And they both respect women.

Does that make him less tough of a man? I would say not. In fact, Bourne is more of a survivor, since he can supposedly stay alive in both modern and rough rural environments. Having Rambo eat more dirt doesn't make him more of a man. Stallone is so wrong on that account. He's probably the kind of guy who would keep hazing as a rite of passage to manhood. He's soooo old school.

(2) Why are there more tough guys in the 80s movie than todays?

Looking back, there are guys who would be labeled as tough action hero on the get go. Just look at how Stallone rants on and on about Willis and Schwarzenegger or himself. But we can hardly name anyone these days. We see a few guys doing action movies, but they're never labeled action heroes, like Nicholas Cage, and even Russell Crowe.

Perhaps it's because actors are much more versatile than their predecessors, who did nothing but action movies (see how Kindergarten Cop flopped for Arnie). So, they don't get pigeonholed into one type, and one type alone.

And perhaps as Stallone has argued, movies these days really don't really physical combat scenes that much anymore, and most movies rely on CGI and special effects to make up for it. So, no one would even think of Keanu Reeves as an action hero, even if he has the enormously successful action sci-fi Matrix franchise on his resume. Come to think of it, the martial art moves by Neo are more for showmanship than for beating down the targets.

(3) Why is Bourne more popular than other guys in recent action movies?

On this account, it makes me appreciate the Bourne movies even more, since a large part of the Bourne movies rely on basic movie making (excellent music score, to cap it off; although the ADHD editing is getting worse in distorting the excellent fight sequences) and excellent stunts, rather than CGI. That, I bet, is the main reason why so many people in this generation likes Bourne. And, it still rings true, that an action hero has to excel hand-to-hand combat. As the same argument goes, you don't call someone who slays dragon on Dungeon & Dragon an action hero.

(4) Thus, for Stallone, the action hero who took only glamorous chick as trophy wife, the action hero who's in his twilight years but would not leave the stage (man, if he would have his way, I'm sure he'll come back for Rocky XIII), to now come out and compare his bygone days to a young, contemporary guy, is at-once beside the point.

Stallone might once be labeled a great action hero, but he doesn't realize that his glory days have passed. Taste has changed. Values are updated. Most people would probably just remember him as the mumbling guy. He should have taken his golden years in stride, rather than coming out jabbing at the next young guy who has claimed the throne.

On the education of Bernanke the Fed Chairman...

It's good to read a nicely written profile on Ben Bernanke, the Fed Chairman, so shortly after I was putting down thoughts on Greenspan and Bernanke.

I have no doubts that Bernanke is a fine academic, and along the way, finds his style in leadership. While more transparency is almost always a good thing than less of it, in the case of the Federal Reserve, I'm not sure if it's totally true. Perhaps one thing that his decades long study doesn't reveal in quantitative research is that, as globalization gets stronger, the power of the Fed can get progressively constrained. Hence, a large part of Fed's power lies in its mystic of its aura, and Greenspan certainly works the magic. The Brits know it well too. But I'm not sure if Bernanke understands or fully appreciates its power of enigma.

Oftentimes, one learns fast in trial-by-fire. In Greenspan, he has a few medals under his belt (the Black Monday of 1987; the 1997 financial meltdown from Asia; the default of Russia; to name a few). For Bernanke, his first test will be the 2007 subprime mortgage mess. Only time will tell if he's going to make it through smoothly. He certainly shows more creativity than Greenspan than simply words (the cryptic speech in the Open Market Committee) and rate cut/increase. But with the Fed much reduced from the Greenspan days, would it work? I certainly hope so, but at times, Bernanke's candid persona (that he's not sure) does not inspire confidence. That's no fault on his part, but human nature as it is, we always hope that someone of higher order would know how to steer the ship in choppy water.

Perhaps, as the article sums it up well, that his education has only just begun.

On career bureacrats chump over Cheney and the gang...

Finally, we have it: the checks-and-balance, that fails us so miserably in the 9/11 intelligence, is making a comeback, with career bureaucrats chump over the neo-con like Cheney and the gang. Such is how it should be, long before Bush/Cheney led us to believe that the war was necessary (no it wasn't).

What I find appalling though is that, albeit series of mistakes and miscalculations, there is no ramification whatsoever to anyone in the administration (not the vice president, and certainly not the president) - the one in the political arm that had pushed for the war. It's egregious, at best.

On when the bottom subprime mess is in sight...

By some account, the subprime mortgage mess (which seizes up the credit market and leads to scores of writedown of subprime loans and investment-graded investments that are backed by subprime collaterals) that starts in August 2007 should lead to $200 billion writedown. So far, we see a number of exits of high-profile C-suite (eg. Chuck Prince and Stan O'Neal) and not-so-high-profile second-tier executives (eg. CIBC). And the exposed writedowns that have been accounted for is $100 billion.

Well, with the wonders looming over where the other $100 billion is, no wonder the financial stock is beaten down in the market.

I wonder how these supposedly smart suites can be so blindsided by the voodoo of securitization of subprime loans that banks once shunned.

On Rangel's comment to Obama's stupid race remarks...

At times when someone speaks precisely what you have on your mind, it's refreshing. Such is a moment, when I read the remarks from Charles Rangel on Obama's "stupid" comment about MLK and race. It's of particular interest, since Rangel is one of the highest ranking blacks in Congress, who's in support of Clinton's bid for the White House.

After making the divisive comments which he has no way of backing it up or explaining it away, he calls it TRUCE with Clinton, so that he can undo what he said? And, to see people who would call this "leadership"?? What are these people thinking? They must be drinking some cool-aid.

On the I-do-not-cook type, and Kitchen Therapy...

The otherwise mindless article at Sydney Morning Herald about the people who don't cook, is at once interesting, yet annoying.

It cites various people on why they don't cook. It ranges from "I'm too busy," to "I hate the chores," to "I prefer to watch."

A bit of disclosure suffix. I cook at times, but I rarely cook these days. My husband cooks better than I. I used to cook before the babies came. These days, I see the kids to school, go to work, pick up the kids, set the table, eat, clean the table, and throw out the garbage. My husband takes care of everything in between, when he's not working. That includes, grocery shopping, planning, cooking, and doing the dishes.

Having said that, we still do grocery shopping whenever we can. It can be fun finding recipes. And my husband sees cooking as an experiment on its own right, after hanging up his hat in basic research in biology after his Ph.D in MIT. It's also fun to have the kids as tasters-in-training to tell you if the dish is good or bad. Truth be told, we eat out quite often, but it's the cooking at home that is most fun for the kids.

As to those people in the article who don't cook, or think that cooking is old-fashioned, or that it's a chore, I would say that they really miss the point of cooking. Because cooking really is fun. Cooking is transformational. You bought raw ingredients, and then after a lot of care-and-feeding into the pots and pans, you have a beautiful dish (or horrible dish). No matter, since it's the fun in transforming the raw into the cooked. It's really quite magical.

I still like to help out in the kitchen sometimes. It's my Kitchen Therapy. There are a few things that I like, in particular; the things that are so mindless that you won't need to use your brain. Like, skimping oil from the top of a boiling soup; even doing dishes, or putting the dishes away after they're dry. It's perfect for me to decompress from a whole day's work, since I don't need to kill a single brain cell.

Cooking takes a lot of planning though. For those who have never done it or are not used to it, it can be daunting. And, they're probably just lazy, trying not to do the dishes afterall.

On Bush the big elephant in the room...

Sydney Morning Herald has a recent commentary on Bush and the recent development, in particular election, in US, precisely on the mark.

It's funny also, that the world sees it as it is with Bush, that "Tax cuts are Bush's answer to every economic challenge," but that tax cuts are going to do anything to immediately alleviate the subprime mess that financial institutions and borrowers are facing. Indeed, GOP is almost like a one-trick-pony when it comes to economic stewardship. Witness any economic debates, both of the presidential candidates, and any GOP members in research institute, the administration and GOP leaning institutions like Fox or Wall Street Journal. Tax cuts are probably top five words that these people would utter when they talk about economy.

There is a reason why GOP hates Bill Clinton so much, since he stole so much of the GOP thunder, by demonstrating that Dem are just as assiduous as, if not more than, the GOP in economic stewardship. And he's open minded enough to put in place what is necessary for the country in the longer term, including more funding in research than Bush would ever do. Shame on Bush and the GOP.

On Clinton and Obama's black reference...

It's almost ludicrous to read the recent spat between Clinton and Obama on the black reference of things like Martin Luther King Jr, Civil Rights Act, LBJ etc.

While the blacks do not like to hear it (and Obama's camp certainly bank on it) that, without the Civil Rights Act pushed by LBJ, the famous I-have-a-dream speech from MLK will just be that - a dream. While MLK was inspirational in all aspects, it's a fact that if the dream had not been institutionalized in the legal framework, it could have taken a great many more years in order to get to where we are now, in terms of civil rights movement.

One might label it insensitive to elevate the Civil Rights Act above the work of MLK, and it certainly would hurt the feelings of a lot of blacks to say it out loud, albeit being politically incorrect, one should realize and acknowledge the fact that, in a overwhelmingly and predominantly white political settings back then, the blacks and all other minorities would not have gotten this far without the assistance from some whites (in this case, pushing the Act to pass by LBJ). I don't say this because I'm racist or biased. I say this because, by acknowledging certain facts, one could move pass the petty debate and dispute that Obama is trying to raise, against the Clinton remarks. It really is a non-issue.

If you would ask me, I would say, MLK is instrumental in inspiring a whole black generation (and more) in raising up to the occasion, and the Civil Rights Act is significant in allowing the white majority to acknowledge the equal rights of the minorities.

As to Obama, it's cheap talk arguing about what MLK and LBJ were or were not. I'd say, show me the money - show me what you (Obama or Clinton) have done for the blacks, if you want the black vote. As far as I can see, the two Clintons outplay Obama by a wide margin. So there you have it.

On ebay - Lesson 1...

I've been using ebay on and off for seven years now. Perhaps I should chronicle my ups and downs with ebay on my journal.

I started out with ebay since I think it's a fabulous idea. The fact that one man's trash is another man's treasure (much like flea markets work) brings about recycling of everything, big and small, appeals to me.

I had started getting rid of the new baby gifts that we never use. Incidentally, I have two Winnie The Pooh blanket sets that are exactly the same. And I have two humidifiers. Lots of baby clothings and stuffs. Everything was new in the box.

I suppose I could have given them away to friends and families; or I could send them all to Salvation Army (and get tax deductions too). At the time, ebay was quite a new thing. I bought one or two minor/inexpensive things on it, and it's fun bidding. So, I decided to try it out.

It really was quite fun, seeing people bidding on my auctions. (Hey, I have something people really want!) But problems started --

(1) I started losing track of all the questions coming in - answering them in time and correctly, no less - after I listed more than 3-4 items simultaneously.

(2) Shipping costs are confusing. I shouldn't have been selling bulking. At the time, USPS had not realized the revenue potential from ebay yet, so there's nothing like stamps.com or the help that it's providing these days (free boxes, free pickup, etc). Even though everything was still in its own packing, I have to literally take the boxes to the post office, and ask how much the shipping costs would be to various zip codes. It's a big hassle that I can do without.

Back then, there's less help from ebay or USPS, but there's also less fraud. Everything was sold, and there's no problem at all with payment in personal checks. Even though proceeds were not that much, I felt good about it, knowing that the goods were put to good use.

Shipping the stuffs out (bulky ones, in particular) was still a hassle, but I thought I can do more of this. So, after I sold off everything that I didn't want at home, I started scouting the neighborhood. It so happened that I lived in a fairly well-to-do area, so people would literally throw out great stuffs on the streets. There are a lot of truly antique that were thrown away, like a pair of chairs from 1800s, cute antique looking lamps, Ralph Lauren blanket that looks like new, etc. I decided to sell the antique chairs to a nearby antique shops for $250 (since I didn't want to deal with the hassle of shipping it, although I'm quite certain I could have fetched more from ebay).

It really was quite fun...for a while. That's my first lesson of it.

[TO BE CONTINUE...]

On the Real ID Act, terrorism et al...

Albeit living in US for quite some time now, I must confess I'm still puzzled by the oftentimes bizarre response of Americans towards seemingly sensible acts/events.

The latest episode is the proposed rollout to enforce the Real ID Act by the Homeland Security Department. I'm not a fan of the Homeland Security, and thus far, I am yet to be convinced that the consolidation under one umbrella of Home Security after 9/11 produces much of what is needed to boost the domestic security in the US motherland from terrorism (local or foreign). (And, by jove, the announcement of the formation of Home Security was supposed to be one of THE showcased work by Bush administration to combat terrorism.) But then, I look at this Real ID enforcement by Home Security, which, in essence, among other things, is to shore up the authenticity of the driving licenses from numerous states, so that they can be better served as a means to ID terrorists or criminals or illegal immigrants.

My surprise was to see the criticism and attacks from all corners. The ACLU, the states, the privacy groups, etc. I thought to myself, why the hell? The proposed actions look to be sensible enough. The goals, very reasonable and reachable. So why the oppositions? But as the father of Lizzy from the 1980s BBC TV Jane Austen classic Pride and Prejudice would say it, "Read on, Lizzy!" And so I did.

Well, it turns out, it has nothing about the goals. It has nothing about implementation. It has little to do with privacy. All the opposition is about is one word: Money. Home Security rolls out this mandate without proper fundings. So, the states say, "no can't do." It's not unlike the No Child Left Behind Act that Bush pushed forward, with noble goals, big mandates, and little fundings. Of course, everyone's crying foul.

Looking at the poor execution of Bush's "vision" (if you can it that), it reminds me of the ousted HP CEO, Carly Fiorina who's big on words, quick on claiming limelight, yet delivered little. It's only the current CEO, Mark Hurd, who masters the execution and operations at HP, while pretty much staying on course with Fiorina's strategy. Surely, Fiorina would complain that there's nothing wrong with the "vision" that she laid out a few years back. Her problem is, she never delivers. It's deeds that we want, baby; not words.

The same goes with George W Bush. He has the exact same problem of execution and delivery as Fiorina. Too bad we don't have a super-board to oust the incompetent CEO of America Inc.

On Melinda Gates going public...

Reading the profile reporting in Fortune on Melinda Gates going public is both pleasant and refreshing.

The things that strike me, not only of Melinda Gates, but also of Bill Gates, are how down-to-earth they are privately. Surely, when anyone talks of the Gates, the first thing is about the amount of money and wealth they have. Afterall, their Foundation is set to grow to $100 billion.

Money can be a burden when you have too many zeroes in the bank account. It's a huge responsibility, and I'm glad to learn that Melinda shows Bill Gates the way to be a better person, and to see the world in a different light. No doubt her more humble upbringing sets both her feet firmly on the ground, which is how it should be.

And I'm very happy for them, to see two persons that can be so in sync and in love, and be supportive to one another. The same goes with Warren Buffet and his late wife in the short mention of the article, where Buffet is probably envious of the Gates that the younger couple can do it together to give the money away, in their own terms, rather than Buffet's original intent on giving his money away after he's dead.

The other thing that strikes me is that, it takes a confident man to appreciate strong women. The same goes with Bill Clinton and Hilary. One could call them (the two Bills) species of the New Age Man. Such as it should be. I hope there are more of them around, who know how to love and respect strong women.

On Bush's hurried Mideast peace effort...

Bush is a man in a hurry, and so is his wife. In their last year in office (the last out of 8 long years in White House), Laura Bush rolled out her first initiative, and now it is W's turn.

Such is his grand words ("Blessed are the peacemakers"), but much doubt remains from all quarters, including the conservative leaning Wall Street Journal. I don't know where he's been or what he's thinking, but this man is naive to the extent of laughable. Does he think that by having a meeting of three weakened leaders (Bush himself, Abbas and Olmert) - himself in the twilight years in office - he's going to make Palestinian state happened before he leaves office by end of 2008? This man doesn't have a big enough brain to comprehend the enormity of the issues, with all the history and baggage that goes with it. It's certainly much easier to turn a blind eye and give a free hand to Israel during his first 7 years in office, than to try to get these impossible nemesis to talk, let alone make peace.

One of Palestinian political analyst sums it up well: "It's not his words we want, it's deeds. My wish for this trip was the removal of just one checkpoint in the West Bank -- if he can't manage that then what can we expect?" I seriously doubt if Bush can make Israel do that. If I were Israel, I wouldn't either. Afterall, why would I? There's no ramification to not doing anything.

This is another Mission-Accomplished stunt from Bush. It's unbelievable that he still has the thick skin to do that, after Karl Rove is gone.

On parents killing their own children...

Children inherently rely on their parents for rearing and guidance. That's why I find it particularly sad when orphans get violated, or when children are abused by their own parents.

Such are the tragedies, in the recent events of a father who threw all children over a bridge killing them all after altercation with the mother; and the four children who were killed by the mother.

Should the parent(s) be excused if s/he is found to be insane, as in the case of Andrea Yates? I have reservation condemning Yates since she's obviously very sick. My heart aches for the children who are harmed or killed.

As to the incident of the father killer, I do not have sympathy for him who is a supposedly drug addict and who violates the whole family. He's fit to get death sentence, four times over.

On John Kerry's endorsement of Obama...

John Kerry is an interesting figure. He who won the 2004 Democratic nomination in the primaries, but lost to George W Bush, decides to endorse Barack Obama while his 2004 running mate John Edwards is still in the race. The acrimony between Kerry and Edwards, particularly after the 2004 White House race fell apart, was never a secret.

But it's particularly revealing, of how Kerry would rather endorse someone else than his ex-running mate. Of how aloof Kerry is, how people don't seem to care about what Kerry thinks. And of how the angry sounding Edwards doesn't seem to care either (or maybe he couldn't help it of what Kerry thinks.) I very much doubt if Clinton cares much either. It's kind of sad and pathetic for Kerry.

He should just retire to his townhouse in Beacon Hill.

On the enigma of Greenspan and the wide-open Bernanke...

Leadership is a funny business. In times of uncertainty, in particular, people look up to the leader to do something magical, to pull them through. It does not matter if the leader really is feeling the stones when crossing the river. What matters is, how s/he *appears* to be in-the-know.

So goes the constant comparison of the ever popular Alan Greenspan, who rarely spoke in plain English (although he can surely speak in clear terms, after he left the Fed and in his book), and seldom revealed the decision making process of the Fed. But his enigma is alluring. The decisiveness in public action - in rate cuts; in admonishing the mass, like the famous "irrational exuberance" - is priceless.

It's unlikely that Ben Bernanke would do the same. No doubt he's a very capable person and academic figure. The differences between the two figures lie in personal trait. Bernanke prefers an open book; whereas Greenspan prefers a more closely guarded approach.

In a way, Greenspan is almost like the Dick Cheney style, although the latter is abominable. The secrecy is almost the same. But the basic and fundamental difference between them is that, Greenspan is able to keep an open mind, and can work across party lines (his hand-and-glove match with Robert Rubin and Larry Summers during the Clinton years), while Cheney completely fails in this account.

So, which one do I prefer - Greenspan or Bernanke? Greenspan wins by a wide margin. Privately, leadership by consensus very often can produce great result. Publicly, one often has to put up the brave poker face and a different persona. Leaders don't have to be loved or even liked. But when the mass starts having doubts in the leader, s/he is in trouble. When every single move that he makes is going to be doubted, the moves are not likely to be very effective.

This is probably one of the things that Bernanke will have to learn. Greenspan has probably perfected that skill during his long years in politico, and that gives him a natural edge over Bernanke.

On Hilary Clinton's surprised win of New Hampshire primary...

Since I moved to US, I have come to be electrified by the excitement and anticipation from presidential elections and politics in general. This year is going to be a particular interesting year to watch.

On the GOP side, there is this wide open space that there is no clear frontrunner. Oh rather, there used to be dual frontrunners of the Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney for quite some time, but I doubt if either of them is going to excite the conservative, religious right. So, Fred Thompson joins the race to try to capitalize on that void. At last minute, the Iowa Caucus delivered Mike Huckabee out from the left field, and Giuliani was nowhere in sight. John McCain came back from the dead, elbowing Romney out from the supposedly two states that Romney should have carried. And with a more appealing Huckabee, the rights deserted Thompson.

On the Democratic side, it's even more fun. For months, Hilary Clinton has been frontrunner. She was pushed off the track by Barack Obama in the quirky Iowa caucus. Suddenly, there's talk everywhere that she would quit the race. Just as amazing is her comeback in the New Hampshire primary, the first primary in the long process before nomination, after the supposedly much televised emotional dialogue with female voters one day before the NH primary. Now Dem is back with the dual frontrunners with John Edwards chasing a distant third.

What is more interesting with the Dem NH primary result is that, it eliminates alot of the white noise of the so-called independents who might have boosted Obama in Iowa, but registered Dem are more solidly behind Clinton.

Given the bad vibe from the Bush administration, the declining economy, the never-ending war, and the general wrong-headed direction from W, GOP is likely to lose the White House. It'll be a momentous event for either Hilary (first female and former First Lady no less) or Obama (first black) to win the White House.

Truth be told, Hilary has been fighting for her social agenda for 35 years. With Obama, all we have is the word "hope." I really am not sure what kind of hope Obama can sell me, apart from the fact that he's a clean slate. He could well be someone who's capable. But with Hilary and Bill in tow, and their agenda that I've seen and like, that's more likely to get things going sooner. I wasn't that impressed with Obama in the various pre-primary Dem debates. He's just not a good debater at all. He's better at talking to himself in stump speeches on stage alone. I don't need another poster boy like W.

On Hilary Clinton's show of emotion...

It's almost comical, reading all the tea leaves reporting out of crack of emotions by Hilary Clinton, on the eve of the New Hampshire primary.

Has anyone even commented on it, when any of the male leaders and presidents (most every guy up there did it) did it? It's a GOOD coverage, to show the guy getting emotional and welling up. Now, we have a woman who's probably been fighting all her life, to get this far, only to seem to have everything slipping away. If you ask me, I would probably react the same way.

People seem to be perplexed by why she'd show the emotions to seemingly innocuous questions (how do you do it? who does your hair?). People don't seem to realize that, oftentimes emotions come when one is under great stress. To me, what puzzles me is, who the hell would pose such a question to a presidential candidate? Does it cross their mind to ask Mitt Romney or Obama the same questions?

Yes, one has to be more than tough to play in a men's game, and politics IS a men's game. One show of slight emotion, and you'll forever be labeled the cry-baby. It's grossly unfair to the candidate, and it shows how amazingly incompetent a lot of voters are in looking for real qualities in a presidential candidate. It makes me sick.

On Bill Gates' last CES keynote...

Time has come to pass, for Bill Gates to hold his last Consumer Electronics Show (CES) keynote this year, before his last days at Microsoft will be over in July 2008.

Over the years, Bill Gates has become the face of Microsoft and the many things/faces that Microsoft. The mediocrity of the softwares (windows crash? no problem, just reboot); the aggressiveness in squashing opponents; the good execution and persistence in prevailing in the marketplace over multiple attempts; the lack of vision of the company except to get everything to run on windows.

While I've never been fans of Bill Gates and Microsoft, I have come to respect him as a person. As he comes to let go of commerce and technologies, and immerses himself in philanthropy, he's remarkably effective in garnering attention and support in the problematic areas that hopefully philanthropy could help fix. The jury is still out, as to how much changes that can bring about, at least he has strongly demonstrated to the richest elites that there is an alternative way in utilizing the wealth (rather than simply passing down from generations to generations mindlessly). That, in itself, is perhaps one of his greatest legacies.

And he's able to let go of the center stage while there's still applause, much like what Seinfeld has done with his show. So many an empire-builders have been unable to do that. I hope Gates show them a third way.

On Benazir Bhutto and women's right in Pakistan...

It comes as no surprise, reading analysis about the legacy of Benazir Bhutto after her assassination. Of particular interest to me is the romantic idealism that the West associated with her, that she's the icon of democracy and hope for her country, and as a champion for women's rights in Pakistan.

It rings particularly true, in the statement that Bhutto, like the other female leaders in that region (and there're more in the region of South Asia than most anywhere in the world), is more a throwback from their male relatives than someone who's elected on their own right. In Bhutto, of course, it's due to her father. And now, her family is going to continue the grip, through her son and husband, who's mired in corruption scandals.

Even in America, when Hilary Clinton being a smart and capable woman, she's hardly being taken seriously enough as a presidential candidate on her own right, than being her close association to her ever popular husband, Bill Clinton. And she'll forever live in the afterglow of Bill Clinton, even if she does brilliantly in the White House.

Perhaps, rarely does anyone compare to the true Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, who rose to power and ruled UK for a tumultuous but glamorous decade. To me, she's one of the few women who truly stands on her own, define and chart her course without living under anyone else's shadow in the world of politics.

While electing a woman (like Hilary) or minority (like Obama) to the White House can be important symbolically, one should not too naive to think that that's going to change the way things are. In fact, there's much talk about Obama being "not black enough." It is perhaps a good and bad thing, but that's how things are.

On the fantasy and argument of a judge...

It's sickening to hear of the story of the Tennessee judge whose tape recording of a potential torturing came to light to the public, that led to his resignation.

While it's outrageous to learn that this sicko remains for another two years on the bench dealing with cases on family and children since the tape was investigated by the police, it occurred to no one that this guy should be suspended or even removed as a result. It's only until now, two years later, when the tape got to the press (finally) that this sicko resigned.

What's even more shocking is, how as a judge who should know everything about a valid argument, that he would say, it has nothing to do with him or "his sin," but rather why or how the tape would get to the press. A judge is a judge. S/he needs to have the moral authority and integrity to deal with judicial issues. For this guy to have sick fantasy of torturing someone (anyone, anything) for pleasure, he has absolutely no place in the system, let alone being a judge. If he has had the integrity, he should have resigned without being asked to, given that he knows full well that what he does and thinks are wrong. To have done so (being asked to resign) under glaring light of the public brings the ultimate shame to this man who tries to hide behind his cloak in high order.

Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. If we have sufficient disclosure, this guy would be rid of from the system long ago.

On social networking site up for sale...

Does it come as any surprise to anyone, that the social networking site Plaxo is putting itself up for sale? Does it sound awfully familiar, that the fad in one social networking site fades after being overtaking in fad ratings by some other, making no profit, having no business models, and it's now decided that it's worth $100 million? Perhaps only those investors who have poured in more than $20 million since 2001, have the illusion that it's worth that figure. But hey, these are a well-connected bunch; who knows, these investors might be able to get the next stupid guy to put up with it for $500 million.

And for the younger generations to move in and out of something - anything - in internet speed, I wonder out loud if even 0.01% of what is started out there is going to survive it, let alone make it big. Perhaps that would worth hundreds of millions in investment, hoping that they would hit a jackpot like Google. Perhaps these "investors" (or VC or whatever) know something that we don't?!? :) But I doubt it. All these guys, after making boatload of the money selling "vaporwares", are just taking the shotgun approach to finding startups to invest in. I consider these people to be lucky (to have made it out before the tech bubble burst). I definitely do not consider them smart.

On social issues of Indians...

Recently, there have been a few high profile cases involving Indians (from India). There was this suburban 24-year-old woman who recently married but was so unhappy that she ran away, leading extensive police search in Chicago. And then, there was this 57-year-old father-in-law who burnt down the apartment of his daughter, son-in-law, and grand-children, simply because the husband was from a lower caste.

It's really sad, to see that these people are still so much molded and subjected to the rigid traditional belief, even after making it in a new land and a new life. I suppose it shouldn't come as any surprise at all, since we are a product of the culture that we're brought up in. When we're transplanted to a new place, some people can assimilate and morph with the new culture faster and better, but most people still remain who they are.

The caste system is so outdated and unfair, and I see it as one main reason still, that India is unable to pull its larger, rural population further ahead of China, simply because it cannot let go of that old belief. To that end, Chairman Mao might have committed cardinal sin of destroying much culture (including the sophistication in the complex Chinese characters), but he single-handedly destroyed the feudal system that had been in place in China for thousands of years. So, these days, all that is remained to defined the have's and have-not's in China is money.

Coming back to the stupid father-in-law, I hope the law here will punish the father-in-law the harshest it can.

As to the runaway wife, I guess she has probably brought about enough shame on the family both in US and back in India, that simply moving houses in Chicago will not free them of the guilt. If only the free-spirited young woman have the courage or wisdom to stand up for herself before the marriage, she might not have found herself in such predicament. The Indian community prides themselves of the ability to still being able to arrange marriages for the younger generation even in the West. While there might be wisdom in maintaining harmony (and I certainly know a lot of "successful" marriages among my Indian friends who become loving couples and parents), I'm not sure if it's a tradition that should be accepted without any challenges.

On wet, snowy winter...

There've been every few snow storms coming almost back-to-back, with maybe one to two days' to a week's break in between, since November this winter. It comes earlier too, since for the past few years, even December had been pretty dry and mild. Just yesterday, when I mentioned this snowy, wet winter, my husband told me this has been one of the record snowy month of December in recent years.

I used to drag the idea of having snow storms, rain, more rain, blizzard, and more snow storms in winter times. It's a good thing that we're more aware of the environment, and I come to realize how the snow in the winter times help with plants and reservoirs, and could greatly ease water shortage issue in the coming hot, summer months. So these days, I don't mind it as much. This winter so far is particularly pleasant, since the snow storms haven't been that bad. Blizzards last maybe just one day. And the ensuing days have been mild enough to allow the snows on the street to melt quite quickly. I have no complaints. *touch wood*

It's all a matter of perspective. How bad (or how good) things are all subjective to us. :)

On the state of health of economy...

It's start of the 2008. A new year, but not necessarily a new start, giving what's throwing in from 2007, which is crapping.

One thing which still irks me is that, economists (and obviously the Bush administration) would tell us one thing, and we know what's exactly the opposite in reality, when it comes to economy. What they see is that, companies are making money, boat loads of it; so, the economy should be great, right? That might be one way to look at it, and if the economists are only looking at THIS particular way of interpretation, then yes, the economy really is going good.

But, we the real people look at the state of health of the economy in other perspective that economists would like to overlook. We look at costs of living for essential goods, education and health care. We look at how easy to get good jobs (not just ANY jobs), but decent jobs that can afford reasonably standard of living. I don't want to trade a $120000-annual-salary job for a $50000 job, giving that the company is making a killing, cutting costs by offshoring to India or China. Of course, companies are making big profits doing that. Meantime, we the people would still need to live and eat. But economists would not care about those. And Bush/Cheney would rather not respond to that, since we don't vote for GOP anyways.

Thus, it comes as no surprised at what the Californians think, at how pessimistic they are in the economy of 2008. I'm not that optimistic either. In fact, if I were to choose it, I'll avoid investment in US, if I could help it at all. The rest of the developing world is firing up, while US is doing down the dump with the falling USD. It'll probably be that way for the next 2 years. I'm not hopeful at all.