There's report that Nielsen is having trouble trying to expand its ratings coverage of their existing 5000 households of the TV panels to cover other media like web surfing and mobile devices. Although I'm not on the Nielsen's panels, I'm not surprised since I have rejected the request from comScore for much the same privacy concerns.
I've been on the comScore panels for a number of years. It's pretty painless and easy. You install a pretty lightweight software on the machine, and it tracks your web activities (where you go, what you do, how long do you stay, etc). I mostly let it do its job, and I go about my own things. This has been for a few years now. Every three months, they cut me a check of $15. I thought, that's not too bad, for doing nothing. But of course, I've been doing _all_ the things that are being monitored (login to check bank balance, web purchases, etc).
And then, I install the personal firewall. I had not expected my machine to be attacked on such regular intervals, but indeed there are at least 5-7 intrusion attempts every single day, including virus attacks and port scans. While it shouldn't be of surprise to me, I'm still very troubled by the frequency of it, and that simply by leaving my machine online, I'm inviting hackers in.
It begins to dawn on me that by installing comSore's software, I'm emitting all my activities back to them to track as well. And I mean ALL of my life details. Well, I did agree to it, and for a modest sum of $15 every 3 months, I had been effectively selling my life away on the cheap. So, I stopped with comScore. The firewall now wouldn't even allow their software to be installed. It's been close to a year now.
ComSore does try to lure me back with a $25 check for reactivation. But I don't think I'll go back. Being on a TV panel is entirely different from online monitoring. Watching TV is such a passive act (you do nothing much other than eye movements), but online activities on the web is a whole new ballgame.
Perhaps one day, if I use another computer which does nothing other than simple stuffs (just surfing, no login or anything), I might consider installing comScore again. But I don't think I'll ever use a machine without at least a firewall which would disallow spywares. So much for comScore or any other online panels.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
On more plagiarizing by Obama...
Man, it's embarrassing to read so many words and phrases from Obama that had been lifted from others' speeches (including Deval Patrick's and John Edwards'). Yet, as expected, those stupid cult-fans of his would hear none of it. As long as they're from Obama's mouth, they would not care if this professor has plagiarized from someone else, word for word. As Washington Post has it, this guy is so light in substance, and built on nothing much but words, it's surprising that voters now would not care if the words really are his own words, or if he really means it, or if he really can walk the walk (not just talk the talk).
And now, it's his wife's turn to put her foot in her mouth, for having this big chip on her shoulder. We'll see if the people in Texas and Ohio can see through smoke and fluff of the Obama campaign. I hope they do.
And now, it's his wife's turn to put her foot in her mouth, for having this big chip on her shoulder. We'll see if the people in Texas and Ohio can see through smoke and fluff of the Obama campaign. I hope they do.
Monday, February 18, 2008
On Obama plagiarizing speeches and others...
How ironic, that for Barack Obama the Dem candidate who runs on nothing much other than fancy words, speeches, and his "movement", to now find himself trying to explain away how he could have lifted from a speech from his fellow black politician Deval Patrick, the Massachusetts governor, without giving credit to Patrick. In other words, Prof Obama plagiarizes. That's the word John McCain and Hilary Clinton have for Obama, in his copying of Clinton's economic plans.
I have no doubts that those young Obama supporters would hear nothing of these. Afterall, their support and belief of Obama require shallow examination at best, of his records, accounts, and plans. So, to tell them that their "hero" is nothing more than a mirage and an empty-talker, I'm sure they would have none of that.
But for those "undecided" voters, and those who really care about the real ability of the candidate, I hope this serves as a wake-up call to them, at least to get them aware of the fact that relying on rhetoric itself can be a dangerous thing, and with Obama, his words are not even authentic.
I have no doubts that those young Obama supporters would hear nothing of these. Afterall, their support and belief of Obama require shallow examination at best, of his records, accounts, and plans. So, to tell them that their "hero" is nothing more than a mirage and an empty-talker, I'm sure they would have none of that.
But for those "undecided" voters, and those who really care about the real ability of the candidate, I hope this serves as a wake-up call to them, at least to get them aware of the fact that relying on rhetoric itself can be a dangerous thing, and with Obama, his words are not even authentic.
Friday, February 15, 2008
On the inherent sexism and Clinton as a candidate...
It is exhilarating to see the Letters to Editors on New York Times to speak out for Hilary Clinton, against the sexism from Maureen Dowd, one of her own gender. I find it very disturbing every time when I hear people who intend to trash and talk down Clinton would throw at her all the "auxiliary" thing that one precisely shouldn't be looking at in a candidate. How she does her hair (as that stupid would-be voter before the New Hampshire primary)? How she sound like when she laughs. Her husband being the president (and a popular one too). Is she pimping Chelsea?
Why didn't I hear people complaining about Michelle Obama coming out on the campaign trail? Or Elizabeth Edwards (before her husband dropped out)? I didn't hear anyone complained that any of these other women are too ambitious. So, why complaining that Hilary Clinton is too ambitious and aggressive for her own good, for her (and failed) attempt in bringing us universal health care back then?
All these inherent sexism really gets at me. It's bad enough to hear men's disparaging remarks on Clinton. But to hear it from a woman, saying all the things that we as women would and should bring to steer others' attention away from when it comes to career, is very troubling and depressing. I, as a woman and a mother, would not want that for myself or my daughter in the future. Women like Dowd remind me of those bitchy girls in high school, who would gossip of the non-essential details of others simply because they don't know and don't have other better things to do. Remarks like this are enough to turn me off, and away from any of the articles and writings from Maureen Dowd in the future.
Why didn't I hear people complaining about Michelle Obama coming out on the campaign trail? Or Elizabeth Edwards (before her husband dropped out)? I didn't hear anyone complained that any of these other women are too ambitious. So, why complaining that Hilary Clinton is too ambitious and aggressive for her own good, for her (and failed) attempt in bringing us universal health care back then?
All these inherent sexism really gets at me. It's bad enough to hear men's disparaging remarks on Clinton. But to hear it from a woman, saying all the things that we as women would and should bring to steer others' attention away from when it comes to career, is very troubling and depressing. I, as a woman and a mother, would not want that for myself or my daughter in the future. Women like Dowd remind me of those bitchy girls in high school, who would gossip of the non-essential details of others simply because they don't know and don't have other better things to do. Remarks like this are enough to turn me off, and away from any of the articles and writings from Maureen Dowd in the future.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
On the Democrat's confusing rules in counting delegates...
While it's public knowledge that the Democrat's rules in counting delegates are arcane and can be "unreliable," I'm still baffled when I read in the news, of how the complex rules can yield widely different results of the delegate counts for the two Dem candidates (Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton) so far.
It's equally amazing to see that, albeit the highly unreliable numbers so far, main media would cherry-pick whatever delegate counts or poll results that suit their story-of-the-day. Since I've made up my mind on Hilary or nothing, I've pretty much shut out the news of the smug shots of Obama's grin and his "evangelical" speeches of non-details.
I've told my husband that, if Hilary is not the Dem nominee, I'm very prepared to vote for John McCain. Since then, he's been pulling my leg, proclaiming "o-bam-ma" every time he sees his reporting, which is to say, it's often enough, bordering on extreme annoyance. It looks like major media has given up the story on Hilary Clinton, and now that Bill Clinton has pulled back from his attack dog speeches in order not to further push the silly black voters further to the Obama camp, the only fresh face on the Hilary camp is Chelsea who turns out to be a thoughtful and polished advocate for her mother. So, I told my husband, he can o-bam-my-mom all he wants, but I'm very prepared to shut that out, to keep my cool and karma. :)
It's equally amazing to see that, albeit the highly unreliable numbers so far, main media would cherry-pick whatever delegate counts or poll results that suit their story-of-the-day. Since I've made up my mind on Hilary or nothing, I've pretty much shut out the news of the smug shots of Obama's grin and his "evangelical" speeches of non-details.
I've told my husband that, if Hilary is not the Dem nominee, I'm very prepared to vote for John McCain. Since then, he's been pulling my leg, proclaiming "o-bam-ma" every time he sees his reporting, which is to say, it's often enough, bordering on extreme annoyance. It looks like major media has given up the story on Hilary Clinton, and now that Bill Clinton has pulled back from his attack dog speeches in order not to further push the silly black voters further to the Obama camp, the only fresh face on the Hilary camp is Chelsea who turns out to be a thoughtful and polished advocate for her mother. So, I told my husband, he can o-bam-my-mom all he wants, but I'm very prepared to shut that out, to keep my cool and karma. :)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
On how sticky is members of Facebook...
One time, I read somewhere (I think it's BusinessWeek) about the snafu of Facebook in its Beacon ad system. In that original blog, there were many, myself included, who blasted Facebook. Still, there were others who were more than willing to stick around with Facebook, and spoke glowingly about Facebook. At least that's what they claimed they would do.
So now, when we read more about the ever more invasiveness and intrusiveness of Facebook, including the inability of REALLY deleting an account with Facebook, people flare up again. There are forums and activist groups devoted to this disenchanted groups of members who try to cut their ties with Facebook, but couldn't.
Truth be told, much of other websites, merchants, and corporations have been doing what Facebook does, namely, they don't really delete your account, even if you request it. Just ask Paypal, or eBay. Afterall, once you enroll, the websites pretty much "own" you. They can track you with cookies, they can check where you're logging in from, they can save your clickstreams. You name it. Like me, I have seven Paypal accounts, because they would not allow me to delete those old Paypal accounts with old bank accounts. Is there anything you could do? Not really. Like I said, you click Accept to their terms and conditions (however many pages and small the prints are) when you sign up for it, and this is what you get.
But for some reason, Facebook has a much higher propensity to get busted. Sometimes, I wonder out loud if it has something to do with the smugness of its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. I have to say it upfront that I have nothing against kids (yes, kids) who get rich on the internet. See, the thing is, somehow I just couldn't stand the smugness, every time I see him speak or in the news.
I know, I know, that's bias, at its best. The same goes with Barack Obama, since I couldn't stand the smugness of his grin in the news either, particularly since I don't see him being a better candidate than Hilary Clinton.
No matter, this is one reason why I had voted for Clinton, and why I voted with my feet on Facebook. People can stick around, and yes, people would want to grant Zuckerberg the benefit of doubt that he would find his way doing the right thing. But I do not intend to be his guinea pig, much the way I do not want the country to be the guinea pig of Obama, for whatever "hope" that he's talking about, without no solid, well-thought out details/plans.
There will be more snafu from Facebook. It's just a matter of time. If they think they OWN their users/members, they are over-estimating how "loyal" the internet crowd is.
So now, when we read more about the ever more invasiveness and intrusiveness of Facebook, including the inability of REALLY deleting an account with Facebook, people flare up again. There are forums and activist groups devoted to this disenchanted groups of members who try to cut their ties with Facebook, but couldn't.
Truth be told, much of other websites, merchants, and corporations have been doing what Facebook does, namely, they don't really delete your account, even if you request it. Just ask Paypal, or eBay. Afterall, once you enroll, the websites pretty much "own" you. They can track you with cookies, they can check where you're logging in from, they can save your clickstreams. You name it. Like me, I have seven Paypal accounts, because they would not allow me to delete those old Paypal accounts with old bank accounts. Is there anything you could do? Not really. Like I said, you click Accept to their terms and conditions (however many pages and small the prints are) when you sign up for it, and this is what you get.
But for some reason, Facebook has a much higher propensity to get busted. Sometimes, I wonder out loud if it has something to do with the smugness of its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. I have to say it upfront that I have nothing against kids (yes, kids) who get rich on the internet. See, the thing is, somehow I just couldn't stand the smugness, every time I see him speak or in the news.
I know, I know, that's bias, at its best. The same goes with Barack Obama, since I couldn't stand the smugness of his grin in the news either, particularly since I don't see him being a better candidate than Hilary Clinton.
No matter, this is one reason why I had voted for Clinton, and why I voted with my feet on Facebook. People can stick around, and yes, people would want to grant Zuckerberg the benefit of doubt that he would find his way doing the right thing. But I do not intend to be his guinea pig, much the way I do not want the country to be the guinea pig of Obama, for whatever "hope" that he's talking about, without no solid, well-thought out details/plans.
There will be more snafu from Facebook. It's just a matter of time. If they think they OWN their users/members, they are over-estimating how "loyal" the internet crowd is.
Monday, February 11, 2008
On the American tie of Australia...
It could be a good and bad thing. If you look at Australian news site like Sydney Morning Herald like I do everyday, you would know that there's at least 1/5 to 1/3 of the "major" news are about US. Not that it's a bad thing that nothing "major" news (think catastrophic, or horrific, news like mass shooting, or murder; or political and economic news) happening in Australia. Afterall, it's the way of life in Australia that's most appealing. But when you're reading a newspaper, and there's nothing much going on, the first thing comes to mind is, it's boring. So, Australia resorts to reporting about what's happening in America, or in some instances, royalty news in Britain, or tabloid/celebrity news in other places.
Of course, there's also another reason, as noted in the article, about the Australia that is tied in the hip with America in terms of politics. While there's some truth in it, sometimes I'm not sure if Australians in general are living out this self-fulfilling prophecy that they have to go lock-step with America, simply because that's the tradition, and that's the way things were/are.
Then again, Australia doesn't even have the courage to stand on its own as a republic, and break away from the commonwealth of Britain, perhaps it will take them another 200 years in order to muster sufficient gusto to strike out on its own.
Until then, Australia will continue dredging along America, and try to be what they hope to be (an equal ally of the West), rather than what they really are. Paul Keating has had the guts to do and say things that showed Australia's true colors, but John Howard doesn't. By jove, it took Australia some 10 years to see though Howard's lapdog style. Oh well, what can I say...
Of course, there's also another reason, as noted in the article, about the Australia that is tied in the hip with America in terms of politics. While there's some truth in it, sometimes I'm not sure if Australians in general are living out this self-fulfilling prophecy that they have to go lock-step with America, simply because that's the tradition, and that's the way things were/are.
Then again, Australia doesn't even have the courage to stand on its own as a republic, and break away from the commonwealth of Britain, perhaps it will take them another 200 years in order to muster sufficient gusto to strike out on its own.
Until then, Australia will continue dredging along America, and try to be what they hope to be (an equal ally of the West), rather than what they really are. Paul Keating has had the guts to do and say things that showed Australia's true colors, but John Howard doesn't. By jove, it took Australia some 10 years to see though Howard's lapdog style. Oh well, what can I say...
On the high (financial) cost of serious dating...
How much does it cost to dating someone? Sometimes, looking back, my husband and I would laugh about it, since we skipped most of it (not that we didn't put in the time, since we've been together for almost six years before we got married).
According to the approximation of a study, the ballpark figure for the total costs, including the Valentines, flowers, entertainment, dining out, engagement rings, wedding (big one), and honeymoon, comes down to more than $40k. And they even have already missed the big ones of birthday presents!
So, I was jokingly telling my husband, he "owed" me quite a few things: There is the wedding (since we chose to have a quick civic ceremony), the engagement ring (since we went straight to the platinum wedding rings), honeymoon (since we never had time for one), flowers (since I had only had one dozen of red roses all these years).
Yes, I'm saying that to him jokingly, since I'm not sure why a lot of these are necessary. Girls and women are fed by the media, hyped-up commercials from corporations and merchants, and traditions that border on wastefulness. Sometimes, I wonder if girls are trained (aka brainwashed) to thinking that, by making guys jump through the hoops (border on torturing), it will demonstrate how much his love is for her. While I'm big on romance, I have serious doubts that material consumption is THE only way to show passion.
And I'm already a serious "step-up" from my parents, since during the post-WWII days, the only thing my dad had ever bought my mom during the courtship was a bottle of cough syrup.
I guess, in a way, most girls fancy a strong and loving husband, who would afford her all the creature comforts that she wants. There are lots of movies and TV shows reinforcing the myth/belief. While that would surely be nice, I'm not sure how much in reality it can play out in the love life of millions of girls. Those stupid "rules of thumb", like guys should be spending 2-1/2 months' worth of salary to buy the engagement ring, must certainly be coming from merchants like Tiffany and Cartier.
In this day and age, when most of the "festivities" are driven by commercial interests, like the gift-buying tradition of Christmas, or the flower/chocolate giving of Valentine's Day, serve no real purpose other than the vanities of girls.
I remember one of my girlfriends who used to get depressed when a Valentine's Day falls in the weekdays, since all the girls in her office would boost and ooo-ahhh'ing about how much flowers each girl was getting by their supposed boyfriends. She wasn't seriously seeing anyone at the time, thus there's no flower. And she would resort to buying herself flowers, in order to keep up the appearances. I find it so sad still, for her to fall for that kind of commercial "traps."
According to the approximation of a study, the ballpark figure for the total costs, including the Valentines, flowers, entertainment, dining out, engagement rings, wedding (big one), and honeymoon, comes down to more than $40k. And they even have already missed the big ones of birthday presents!
So, I was jokingly telling my husband, he "owed" me quite a few things: There is the wedding (since we chose to have a quick civic ceremony), the engagement ring (since we went straight to the platinum wedding rings), honeymoon (since we never had time for one), flowers (since I had only had one dozen of red roses all these years).
Yes, I'm saying that to him jokingly, since I'm not sure why a lot of these are necessary. Girls and women are fed by the media, hyped-up commercials from corporations and merchants, and traditions that border on wastefulness. Sometimes, I wonder if girls are trained (aka brainwashed) to thinking that, by making guys jump through the hoops (border on torturing), it will demonstrate how much his love is for her. While I'm big on romance, I have serious doubts that material consumption is THE only way to show passion.
And I'm already a serious "step-up" from my parents, since during the post-WWII days, the only thing my dad had ever bought my mom during the courtship was a bottle of cough syrup.
I guess, in a way, most girls fancy a strong and loving husband, who would afford her all the creature comforts that she wants. There are lots of movies and TV shows reinforcing the myth/belief. While that would surely be nice, I'm not sure how much in reality it can play out in the love life of millions of girls. Those stupid "rules of thumb", like guys should be spending 2-1/2 months' worth of salary to buy the engagement ring, must certainly be coming from merchants like Tiffany and Cartier.
In this day and age, when most of the "festivities" are driven by commercial interests, like the gift-buying tradition of Christmas, or the flower/chocolate giving of Valentine's Day, serve no real purpose other than the vanities of girls.
I remember one of my girlfriends who used to get depressed when a Valentine's Day falls in the weekdays, since all the girls in her office would boost and ooo-ahhh'ing about how much flowers each girl was getting by their supposed boyfriends. She wasn't seriously seeing anyone at the time, thus there's no flower. And she would resort to buying herself flowers, in order to keep up the appearances. I find it so sad still, for her to fall for that kind of commercial "traps."
Thursday, February 7, 2008
On the waif-life male models...
The grunge and waif look started by Kate Moss in the 1990s has spilled over to the male model world. Reading about the diminishing male model figures makes me queasy. But I'm surprised that the article would blame it on the consumers for "wanting" it (ie. the look), and the fashion/modeling industry are simply delivering what we the consumers want.
No, I do not want heroine chic. I cringe every time I see under-aged boy- and girl-models in the glossy magazines. In fact, I refrain from buying from those brands that use such ad, even if it's brand names that I like, including Louis Vuitton. Those underage and underweight obsessions do not come from me, and I would venture to say most consumers in the market. We do get used to it, and those sick modeling images do get sanitized. But we have to - otherwise, we wouldn't be able to get the day, without the ability to ignore billboards, magazines, TV commercials, and what-have-you.
These days, the more impressionable teens and younger generations do follow these sick trends without much thoughts. That does not make this trend any one bit less repulsive to me. It's just not normal to me.
No, I do not want heroine chic. I cringe every time I see under-aged boy- and girl-models in the glossy magazines. In fact, I refrain from buying from those brands that use such ad, even if it's brand names that I like, including Louis Vuitton. Those underage and underweight obsessions do not come from me, and I would venture to say most consumers in the market. We do get used to it, and those sick modeling images do get sanitized. But we have to - otherwise, we wouldn't be able to get the day, without the ability to ignore billboards, magazines, TV commercials, and what-have-you.
These days, the more impressionable teens and younger generations do follow these sick trends without much thoughts. That does not make this trend any one bit less repulsive to me. It's just not normal to me.
On the theatrics of classical pianists...
I always find it distracting and annoying, to put it mildly, to see pianists (or any other instrumentalists) playing classical in great theatrics. I'm thus happy to read the article in New York Times, that puts me in good company with similar feelings. As the article sums it up well, that with "The Apollonian refers (and I paraphrase) to symmetry, invention and elegance; the Dionysian, to art more from the gut, more spontaneous. ... Dionysian pianists care about Dionysian pianists, whereas Apollonian pianists care about music."
That's how I feel when I look at young up-and-comers like Lang Lang performing on stage HIMSELF, rather than the music itself. To me, they love themselves more than the music, and I find that fake.
That's how I feel when I look at young up-and-comers like Lang Lang performing on stage HIMSELF, rather than the music itself. To me, they love themselves more than the music, and I find that fake.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
On the "effervescent" Paris Hilton
Hmm... I wonder how a person should be like when s/he is described as "effervescent."
That effervescent personality is none other than Paris Hilton, as Sydney Morning Herald called her. The fluff with no content, sure. Famous for being famous, like Zsa Zsa Gabor? Quite. But charisma without content? While it's right about the without-content part, I'm not so sure about the charisma part. Where is the charisma, except the party news, and reports on the various mishaps like being caught drunk driving?
What irks me most though, is her use of "like." I suppose it's not unlike most valley-girl talk. Still, it is annoying, to put it mildly. God - I hope my children won't grow up talking like that... *cross fingers*...
That effervescent personality is none other than Paris Hilton, as Sydney Morning Herald called her. The fluff with no content, sure. Famous for being famous, like Zsa Zsa Gabor? Quite. But charisma without content? While it's right about the without-content part, I'm not so sure about the charisma part. Where is the charisma, except the party news, and reports on the various mishaps like being caught drunk driving?
What irks me most though, is her use of "like." I suppose it's not unlike most valley-girl talk. Still, it is annoying, to put it mildly. God - I hope my children won't grow up talking like that... *cross fingers*...
On Obama's "message"...
What does it mean, when Obama claimed, after Super Tuesday, that "Our time has come, our movement is real and change is coming to America"?!? That's how I feel about Barack Obama, when his grand words are more like Hollywood scripts (Braveheart, anyone?), or a church sermon.
I don't mind it if I hear it on Sunday church or in a movie. But in the real world, when the economy is heading into recession, and the Iraq war is still very unsettled, I'm not sure how staged speeches like that is going to us.
That's one reason I would rather have Hilary Clinton do the job. I don't want another Enron CEO who would deliver the line that s/he doesn't know, since s/he doesn't have the details. That's what I heard from one of the Dem debates, that Obama said he's going to "find the right people" and he's going to delegate. It's all well and good...until it blows up, much like Enron did.
Main media, on the other hand, loves Obama. He gives a good story. He looks good on camera, with flashy white teeth, he speaks well, he's well-educated, he has an intelligent wife, and by jove, HE IS BLACK TOO! What more can you ask for in a poster boy? It makes better story, than Hilary Clinton, the lady candidate who's been around the block for so long, that media simply gets tired of her, like Hollywood would discard its talented leading ladies when their hair starts to gray (remember Searching For Debra Winger?), all while the shameless male old bags like Sylvester Stallone (I'm sick of yet another sequel of Rocky and Rambo) or Harrison Ford (my God, another Indiana Jones) still makes action movies. That's how I feel, of how Clinton is being treated in the media, compared to Obama the new-kid-on-the-block.
In view of all these, I voted for Clinton. Indeed she wins in my state. And I would vote for her again, when November comes.
I don't mind it if I hear it on Sunday church or in a movie. But in the real world, when the economy is heading into recession, and the Iraq war is still very unsettled, I'm not sure how staged speeches like that is going to us.
That's one reason I would rather have Hilary Clinton do the job. I don't want another Enron CEO who would deliver the line that s/he doesn't know, since s/he doesn't have the details. That's what I heard from one of the Dem debates, that Obama said he's going to "find the right people" and he's going to delegate. It's all well and good...until it blows up, much like Enron did.
Main media, on the other hand, loves Obama. He gives a good story. He looks good on camera, with flashy white teeth, he speaks well, he's well-educated, he has an intelligent wife, and by jove, HE IS BLACK TOO! What more can you ask for in a poster boy? It makes better story, than Hilary Clinton, the lady candidate who's been around the block for so long, that media simply gets tired of her, like Hollywood would discard its talented leading ladies when their hair starts to gray (remember Searching For Debra Winger?), all while the shameless male old bags like Sylvester Stallone (I'm sick of yet another sequel of Rocky and Rambo) or Harrison Ford (my God, another Indiana Jones) still makes action movies. That's how I feel, of how Clinton is being treated in the media, compared to Obama the new-kid-on-the-block.
In view of all these, I voted for Clinton. Indeed she wins in my state. And I would vote for her again, when November comes.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
On the Irish success in getting rid of disposable bags...
It's uplifting to see people doing the right thing. But it's particularly exhilarating to see that deep-seated consumer behavior can be changed so swiftly and seamlessly, for the greater good of the environment.
Thus, when I read the article on the success of Ireland in changing consumer attitude and behavior toward the use of disposable bags, it feels so good. Of significance is how the way it's done. All it takes is the political will to mandate a 33-cent per disposable bag used by consumers, and the general public falls into line quickly; gradually turning the use of disposable bags into a social stigma, thereby further educating the next generations and reducing the chance of regressing back into the old bad habits of using disposable bags.
Even if we are not fanatical environmentalists, the mere facts that half a million bags are used per minute, and 42 billion bags are used in January, are enough to bring goosebumps to me. How much are we throwing into landfills everyday, and how much of those can be salvaged, reused, or even avoided?!? Disposable bags are bad too, since they are not biodegradable. It is completely unnecessary, and perfectly avoidable. All we have to do is to be a little more conscious of our behavior, suffer initial minor inconvenience, and thereby changing our attitude/behavior toward the use of disposable plastic bags.
The approach that Ireland is sensible and easy to understand. Why it is that other countries and politicians (eg. US) cannot find the courage or leadership to do that, is simply beyond my comprehension.
These days, I bring my cloth bag for groceries, whenever I can. Even if I don't remember it, I would hold as much stuffs in my own hand, thus avoiding using double-bags. Sometimes (actually it happens alot of times) when I see bottles or cans on roadside, I would pick them up, throw them in the car, and bring them to recycle bins. I would recycle most trash at home. (Yes, those plastic containers for sushi can be recycled after a rinse.) And why not - it doesn't cost me anything. The least that I hope is that, I can instill the belief to my kids, that we do have a responsibility to the environment that we live in. We cannot simply take, without giving back. We simply can't.
Thus, when I read the article on the success of Ireland in changing consumer attitude and behavior toward the use of disposable bags, it feels so good. Of significance is how the way it's done. All it takes is the political will to mandate a 33-cent per disposable bag used by consumers, and the general public falls into line quickly; gradually turning the use of disposable bags into a social stigma, thereby further educating the next generations and reducing the chance of regressing back into the old bad habits of using disposable bags.
Even if we are not fanatical environmentalists, the mere facts that half a million bags are used per minute, and 42 billion bags are used in January, are enough to bring goosebumps to me. How much are we throwing into landfills everyday, and how much of those can be salvaged, reused, or even avoided?!? Disposable bags are bad too, since they are not biodegradable. It is completely unnecessary, and perfectly avoidable. All we have to do is to be a little more conscious of our behavior, suffer initial minor inconvenience, and thereby changing our attitude/behavior toward the use of disposable plastic bags.
The approach that Ireland is sensible and easy to understand. Why it is that other countries and politicians (eg. US) cannot find the courage or leadership to do that, is simply beyond my comprehension.
These days, I bring my cloth bag for groceries, whenever I can. Even if I don't remember it, I would hold as much stuffs in my own hand, thus avoiding using double-bags. Sometimes (actually it happens alot of times) when I see bottles or cans on roadside, I would pick them up, throw them in the car, and bring them to recycle bins. I would recycle most trash at home. (Yes, those plastic containers for sushi can be recycled after a rinse.) And why not - it doesn't cost me anything. The least that I hope is that, I can instill the belief to my kids, that we do have a responsibility to the environment that we live in. We cannot simply take, without giving back. We simply can't.
Friday, February 1, 2008
On why US workers are falling further and further behind...
I've lost count of how numerous times I've read, in various newspapers, journals, and seen in speeches, policy attempts, and what-not, on how to retain jobs in US, given the onslaught of globalization, and on how the middle class (particularly the blue collar working class) is falling further and further behind.
Most of what we hear is the knee-jerk, action-and-reaction from politicians who either bash corporations for outsourcing jobs overseas (from the left), or putting up trade barriers to try to halt the inflow/outflow of labor and capital (from the right).
While those talks from politico makes for good news headlines, they rarely address the real core issue. Unless US is to shut its door from the world, it will never be able to stop the force of globalization. Albeit being the largest economy and world power, the only thing that US can do is to adapt. In order to adapt, one has to know what to adapt to. Therein lies the issue of the need to acknowledge the core issue(s) for disappearing jobs.
Naturally, there are many issues that is the core. Numerous reportings like Fortune and BusinessWeek stress the need for US to be in the forefront of innovation and technology. But the undeniable fact is that, more and more companies are outsourcing even the innovation and invention of new products to overseas country like India, China, and even Taiwan. So does the use of technologies, when we see lots of high tech jobs going to these countries, as well as up-and-comers like Eastern Europe and Russia.
And these developing countries are becoming richer (thanks to their phenomenal savings rate, in particular, in Asian countries like China), and the amount of capital they amass is eye-popping.
Amidst all these, I see two basic issues. If US workers are to compete heads-on, ounce-for-ounce, with workers in, say, China or India, how are we being judged on right now? While we might offer a lot of "advantages", on the most basic terms, most management in companies only see two things: How much do you (as a worker) cost? Can you do the job?
Well, given our cost and standard of living in US, and for Chris sake, we are a developed country, of course we are most expensive (in terms of salary). So, that's strike one for us in the comparison.
So then, the next question is, can you get the job done? Here is where the excellent article that I read comes in. While we all know for quite some time now that our education system is in disarray, we're graduating fewer and fewer young people in tech and research fields, and we are always TALKING about how to fix it. The truth is, it's still very broken. This is all while our counterparts in the developing world are viewing education highly, pushing their younger generation to more advanced studies. And eventually, they could work on far more complex projects, at cheaper rate.
If I were a corporate chieftain, and if you ask me which workers I would choose (US or offshore), the answer is plain simple.
This is happening right here, right now, while politicians keep talking about how to keep the jobs here. For one, if they would focus as much energy in talks and in trying to keep jobs here, and instead focus on the real meat of issue on how to improve our education, we would be in far better shape to compete in this globalized economy.
To illustrate a point, my son skips a grade when he enters private school (since the public school would not admit him due to funding constraint in that year). When he transfers back to public school two years later, he could have been in grade 3, but the school wants to push him back to grade 1. It's only after much talk that they would allow him to go to grade 2. The standards of the public school grade 2 is like the private school grade 1 level. And we are talking about one of the best schooling system in this state in New England!!!
And then there is this mentality here: That smart kids are nerds. That being young and skipping grades are not cool. I can tell you that, should these kids have been in Asia like China or Hong Kong, these kids would be the COOL kids who are reveled. In US, they're ridiculed and frowned upon. If you ask me, would this culture foster smart kids, it will be a resounding NO.
Would the fixing of the education system now have helped those who are retrenched and whose jobs have gone overseas? No. But it's a stupid idea to try to lure back those jobs, and work at half the previous pay or less. This country really needs to focus on the right issues...FAST.
Most of what we hear is the knee-jerk, action-and-reaction from politicians who either bash corporations for outsourcing jobs overseas (from the left), or putting up trade barriers to try to halt the inflow/outflow of labor and capital (from the right).
While those talks from politico makes for good news headlines, they rarely address the real core issue. Unless US is to shut its door from the world, it will never be able to stop the force of globalization. Albeit being the largest economy and world power, the only thing that US can do is to adapt. In order to adapt, one has to know what to adapt to. Therein lies the issue of the need to acknowledge the core issue(s) for disappearing jobs.
Naturally, there are many issues that is the core. Numerous reportings like Fortune and BusinessWeek stress the need for US to be in the forefront of innovation and technology. But the undeniable fact is that, more and more companies are outsourcing even the innovation and invention of new products to overseas country like India, China, and even Taiwan. So does the use of technologies, when we see lots of high tech jobs going to these countries, as well as up-and-comers like Eastern Europe and Russia.
And these developing countries are becoming richer (thanks to their phenomenal savings rate, in particular, in Asian countries like China), and the amount of capital they amass is eye-popping.
Amidst all these, I see two basic issues. If US workers are to compete heads-on, ounce-for-ounce, with workers in, say, China or India, how are we being judged on right now? While we might offer a lot of "advantages", on the most basic terms, most management in companies only see two things: How much do you (as a worker) cost? Can you do the job?
Well, given our cost and standard of living in US, and for Chris sake, we are a developed country, of course we are most expensive (in terms of salary). So, that's strike one for us in the comparison.
So then, the next question is, can you get the job done? Here is where the excellent article that I read comes in. While we all know for quite some time now that our education system is in disarray, we're graduating fewer and fewer young people in tech and research fields, and we are always TALKING about how to fix it. The truth is, it's still very broken. This is all while our counterparts in the developing world are viewing education highly, pushing their younger generation to more advanced studies. And eventually, they could work on far more complex projects, at cheaper rate.
If I were a corporate chieftain, and if you ask me which workers I would choose (US or offshore), the answer is plain simple.
This is happening right here, right now, while politicians keep talking about how to keep the jobs here. For one, if they would focus as much energy in talks and in trying to keep jobs here, and instead focus on the real meat of issue on how to improve our education, we would be in far better shape to compete in this globalized economy.
To illustrate a point, my son skips a grade when he enters private school (since the public school would not admit him due to funding constraint in that year). When he transfers back to public school two years later, he could have been in grade 3, but the school wants to push him back to grade 1. It's only after much talk that they would allow him to go to grade 2. The standards of the public school grade 2 is like the private school grade 1 level. And we are talking about one of the best schooling system in this state in New England!!!
And then there is this mentality here: That smart kids are nerds. That being young and skipping grades are not cool. I can tell you that, should these kids have been in Asia like China or Hong Kong, these kids would be the COOL kids who are reveled. In US, they're ridiculed and frowned upon. If you ask me, would this culture foster smart kids, it will be a resounding NO.
Would the fixing of the education system now have helped those who are retrenched and whose jobs have gone overseas? No. But it's a stupid idea to try to lure back those jobs, and work at half the previous pay or less. This country really needs to focus on the right issues...FAST.
On new rules of campaign and politics, per Karl Rove...
While I disdain Karl Rove and his politicking style, I must admit, his writing in Wall Street Journal, on the old/new news of politics, does offer some useful insights to the new world of campaigning, amidst this heated election season of 2008. While most everyone is busy covering the mechanics of each campaigns (from Hilary Clinton's, to Barack Obama's, to Mitt Romney's, to John McCain's - the four candidates left in the field), and analyzing to death what each conflicting polls mean to the upcoming results, Rove's article does provide a unique, detached, and cool view from afar, from the vantage point of a veteran pro who's seen it all.
This guy has been around for so long, writing and rewriting rules and playbook for so many campaigns. I suppose there's good reason for it, given his cool head (fanatical ideology aside).
This guy has been around for so long, writing and rewriting rules and playbook for so many campaigns. I suppose there's good reason for it, given his cool head (fanatical ideology aside).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)