It's totally horrific, to read the news about a 73-year-old father in Austria, who started sexually abusing his daughter since she's 11, then imprisons her for the 24 years since she's 18. What kind of animal is that, to have no morals whatsoever, to have done that to his own child?
I would not believe it, that the girl's mother, who lived in the same house, under the same roof, did not know or suspect anything that her daughter and her grandchildren born out of incest, were locked up in the cellar all those times. To say the least, the mother could not have looked me straight in the eye, that she did not know her husband had been abusing their daughter for 7 years (since she's 11) before she disappeared. She's probably as much a whimp as alot of mothers did, to look the other way, when incest happens in the family.
I'm utterly appalled beyond words.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
On election fatigue...
I'm pleased, and it's just as well, that Hillary Clinton should win the Pennsylvania primary, following the very weak performance of Obama in the ABC debate on 04/16. It never ceases to amaze how Obama could have the thick skin to turn the table around, and ACCUSED the moderators for asking him tough questions (which I would have wanted to ask him myself!), and that the questions were "too trivial." Of course the bloopers of his own making, namely, depicting small-town voters as bitter losers in the global economy by clinging to guns and religion, to try to explain away why he's unable to be more successful in attracting this demographics, during a closed-door fund-raising event in San Francisco.
In any case, I'm just so glad that his recent stumbling wipes that stupid grin off of Obama's face, which I absolutely can't stand.
To tell the truth, although I continue to contribute to Hillary Clinton (whom I still strongly believe to be a better candidate, nominee, and president), I've pretty much tuned out from all the reporting. Afterall, my mind is made up, and I'm just so tired of all these back-and-forthing.
If the Democratic superdelegeates are to ignore the Dem cores and still go for Obama as the nominee in the convention, I'm going to vote with my feet and go with McCain. He's more moderate among the other GOP's anyhow. I'm just so sick and tired of it. The only thing that would lighten me up is further stumblings of Obama. Those, I would certainly read, and be glad to hear.
In any case, I'm just so glad that his recent stumbling wipes that stupid grin off of Obama's face, which I absolutely can't stand.
To tell the truth, although I continue to contribute to Hillary Clinton (whom I still strongly believe to be a better candidate, nominee, and president), I've pretty much tuned out from all the reporting. Afterall, my mind is made up, and I'm just so tired of all these back-and-forthing.
If the Democratic superdelegeates are to ignore the Dem cores and still go for Obama as the nominee in the convention, I'm going to vote with my feet and go with McCain. He's more moderate among the other GOP's anyhow. I'm just so sick and tired of it. The only thing that would lighten me up is further stumblings of Obama. Those, I would certainly read, and be glad to hear.
Monday, April 14, 2008
On the global contagion of falling US property market and the deja vu...
Reading reports like the one in New York Times, on the global contagion of the falling US housing market around the world, it feels like deja vu to me.
Perhaps there's no other place in the world that is more capitalist in nature, with mass speculation on property market, than Hong Kong. Ever since the beginning of time, property prices always - ALWAYS - go up in Hong Kong. It has become a theorem. Savings rate (as with typical Chinese) is phenomenal, and everyone (including the old lady street hawkers) speculates. That has always been the case.
So, when Hong Kong was hit by the Asian financial meltdown back in 1997, it was a wake-up call (an awakening; no, actually it's more like a whack-in-the-head with a sledgehammer) to the people in Hong Kong, that for the first time, EVER, that housing prices were going down. The economy contracted drastically since its economy and government coffers are intrinsically tied to the property market. (Hong Kong has simple and very low tax system, with most government revenue coming from land auction to property developers.) And for the first time, a large number of the population had (or knew someone who had) negative equity in their properties.
I know, because I have family there who experienced just that. My brother bought not one, or two, but THREE properties, one month before the financial crisis hit. He was left with three mortgages that he couldn't get rid of, and he lost almost all his savings. He had to borrow money from families to pay the mortgages (since he was laid off too). He counted himself, to be able to sell those three properties after some 10 years, losing a few million dollars in total.
I vow to myself that if I can possibly help it, I would not repeat the lesson that my brother suffered, out of nothing but greed. Somehow, by Providence, we sold our tiny condo in a tony downtown area for three times the original purchase price, about two years ago. That was a few months before the market started to peak, followed by news of market softening, and then last summer, came subprime mess. And we're using those profits to start a business instead of jumping right back into the falling housing market. There are bargains around, and I sometimes wish I would just swoop them up. But I know we shouldn't stretch our finances like that, and the business is more and better for the longer term health of our finances and independence, than to tie ourselves down to a big mortgages on a bigger house that we could be forced to sell.
Perhaps and let's hope that's the kind of lesson that people in US and around the world in this generation would learn, that they should not stretch their finances and live beyond their means. But you know, I won't count on it. Greed is built-in to human nature. Ten years (or even five) from now, another bubble will come around, and the lesson would be all but forgotten. I have no doubt of that.
Perhaps there's no other place in the world that is more capitalist in nature, with mass speculation on property market, than Hong Kong. Ever since the beginning of time, property prices always - ALWAYS - go up in Hong Kong. It has become a theorem. Savings rate (as with typical Chinese) is phenomenal, and everyone (including the old lady street hawkers) speculates. That has always been the case.
So, when Hong Kong was hit by the Asian financial meltdown back in 1997, it was a wake-up call (an awakening; no, actually it's more like a whack-in-the-head with a sledgehammer) to the people in Hong Kong, that for the first time, EVER, that housing prices were going down. The economy contracted drastically since its economy and government coffers are intrinsically tied to the property market. (Hong Kong has simple and very low tax system, with most government revenue coming from land auction to property developers.) And for the first time, a large number of the population had (or knew someone who had) negative equity in their properties.
I know, because I have family there who experienced just that. My brother bought not one, or two, but THREE properties, one month before the financial crisis hit. He was left with three mortgages that he couldn't get rid of, and he lost almost all his savings. He had to borrow money from families to pay the mortgages (since he was laid off too). He counted himself, to be able to sell those three properties after some 10 years, losing a few million dollars in total.
I vow to myself that if I can possibly help it, I would not repeat the lesson that my brother suffered, out of nothing but greed. Somehow, by Providence, we sold our tiny condo in a tony downtown area for three times the original purchase price, about two years ago. That was a few months before the market started to peak, followed by news of market softening, and then last summer, came subprime mess. And we're using those profits to start a business instead of jumping right back into the falling housing market. There are bargains around, and I sometimes wish I would just swoop them up. But I know we shouldn't stretch our finances like that, and the business is more and better for the longer term health of our finances and independence, than to tie ourselves down to a big mortgages on a bigger house that we could be forced to sell.
Perhaps and let's hope that's the kind of lesson that people in US and around the world in this generation would learn, that they should not stretch their finances and live beyond their means. But you know, I won't count on it. Greed is built-in to human nature. Ten years (or even five) from now, another bubble will come around, and the lesson would be all but forgotten. I have no doubt of that.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
On Obama stumbling...
For a candidate who builds most (if not all) of his momentum on fancy words and speeches, it's simply spectacular to see how Obama putting toe in his mouth, when he lectures down-and-out small-towners in Pennsylvania, on the voters' bitterness of losing out in the jobs market, and resorting to guns and religion. Not only was it amazing to see how oblivious this guy is, in thinking that everyone would drink their words in like kool-aid, but that he had refused to back down on his words, in the face of criticisms from John McCain and Hillary Clinton of how elitist and condescending he was to the small-town loser voters (to Obama). Even more amazing is the fact that it took Obama and his team a couple of days, before he realized he needed to apologize (he "deeply regret" the comment), albeit refusing to back down on his characterization of the voters' situations.
If I were someone who's lost my job, were down-and-out, and someone were to come in, and tell me my situation that I perfectly know ("who is this guy to come in and tell me how I should feel"), and I'm still bitter for my situation as a loser, that by implication, any of my concerns in guns and religion are misguided, or even wrong, would I vote for this someone who's telling my how things are, without offering a plan of how he would fix things for me? Would I? Does Obama think small-town working middle-class American voters are really that darn stupid to think that by doing that, he's going to get the votes?
On a different note, I was appalled at his utter hypocrisy, when he tried to characterize the exit of the Clinton's strategist, Mark Penn, for inappropriate comments, and said he would fire him, if he were Clinton. All the while when the exact same thing happened to Obama's own adviser, Samantha Power, and he never fired her, but she was pressured to resign (same as Mark Penn). And that, albeit huge controversy of explicit racism and utterly unpatriotic references in Rev Wright sermons over the years, Obama would not condemn or dissociate his pastor of 20 years.
I can only say that, should this have been Hillary Clinton, the main media would have crucified her for these events, without waiting for GOP 527's to lift a finger. In today's New York Times website, the Obama stumbling does not even get mentioned. I just can't freaking believe the kind of discrimination that's going on, and how easy Obama is getting off with.
But I would say that, Obama would lose Pennsylvania for this and his handling of the Wright controversy. Should he win the nomination, McCain is going to win. (At least I would vote for McCain, if Clinton is not on the ballot. Afterall, McCain is probably one of the most liberal GOP's there is.)
If I were someone who's lost my job, were down-and-out, and someone were to come in, and tell me my situation that I perfectly know ("who is this guy to come in and tell me how I should feel"), and I'm still bitter for my situation as a loser, that by implication, any of my concerns in guns and religion are misguided, or even wrong, would I vote for this someone who's telling my how things are, without offering a plan of how he would fix things for me? Would I? Does Obama think small-town working middle-class American voters are really that darn stupid to think that by doing that, he's going to get the votes?
On a different note, I was appalled at his utter hypocrisy, when he tried to characterize the exit of the Clinton's strategist, Mark Penn, for inappropriate comments, and said he would fire him, if he were Clinton. All the while when the exact same thing happened to Obama's own adviser, Samantha Power, and he never fired her, but she was pressured to resign (same as Mark Penn). And that, albeit huge controversy of explicit racism and utterly unpatriotic references in Rev Wright sermons over the years, Obama would not condemn or dissociate his pastor of 20 years.
I can only say that, should this have been Hillary Clinton, the main media would have crucified her for these events, without waiting for GOP 527's to lift a finger. In today's New York Times website, the Obama stumbling does not even get mentioned. I just can't freaking believe the kind of discrimination that's going on, and how easy Obama is getting off with.
But I would say that, Obama would lose Pennsylvania for this and his handling of the Wright controversy. Should he win the nomination, McCain is going to win. (At least I would vote for McCain, if Clinton is not on the ballot. Afterall, McCain is probably one of the most liberal GOP's there is.)
Thursday, April 10, 2008
On Obama's claim on foreign policy experience...
I know I'm biased to a certain extent, but I can't help feeling flabbergasted every time I see Barack Obama put a spin on his "experience" to further his claim that he would make a better commander-in-chief or president.
Such is a claim he noted, that the few personal trips (which lasted for a few weeks visiting relatives) that he took would trump foreign policy experience. He claims that by looking at things "first hand," he would make a better commander-in-chief. By that same token, he's telling me that those who are in trouble zone right now (eg. refugees, Iraqis) would make pretty good military decisions, should they become the commander-in-chief.
I could tell him too, that I've probably been to more countries than he had. So, I should be better suited to be commander-in-chief too.
My answer to that is, no I don't think so. Personal past experience shape a person, but not all experiences are created equal. I don't consider his personal trips trump the real-life war experience from John McCain, or the foreign policy and white house exposure that Hillary Clinton. They don't even come close. No wonder he made all those naive and laughable suggestion that he would have "sit-downs" with dictators to have a heart-to-heart chat. He would probably make a pretty good mormon missionary, if he puts on dark pants, a clean short-sleeved white shirt, and a name tag on his shirt.
Such is a claim he noted, that the few personal trips (which lasted for a few weeks visiting relatives) that he took would trump foreign policy experience. He claims that by looking at things "first hand," he would make a better commander-in-chief. By that same token, he's telling me that those who are in trouble zone right now (eg. refugees, Iraqis) would make pretty good military decisions, should they become the commander-in-chief.
I could tell him too, that I've probably been to more countries than he had. So, I should be better suited to be commander-in-chief too.
My answer to that is, no I don't think so. Personal past experience shape a person, but not all experiences are created equal. I don't consider his personal trips trump the real-life war experience from John McCain, or the foreign policy and white house exposure that Hillary Clinton. They don't even come close. No wonder he made all those naive and laughable suggestion that he would have "sit-downs" with dictators to have a heart-to-heart chat. He would probably make a pretty good mormon missionary, if he puts on dark pants, a clean short-sleeved white shirt, and a name tag on his shirt.
On Katie Couric's premature split with CBS News...
Does it come as any surprise that Katie Couric fails to reinvigorate CBS Evening News, after her long successful run at the Today show, so that CBS is ending her contract before it's even half-way?
I have nothing against Couric. But as a viewer, when (and if) I tune in to TV news, I watch news - hard news. I get most of my daily news fix from various non-TV media like the numerous news site on the web, and NPR. When it comes to network news, somehow I have come to expect more. I don't need soft news and those touchy-feely stuffs. If I want interviews or longer format of a particular topics, there is always 60 Minutes, or Diane Sawyer. Why would I need a mix of these (ie. hard news, and thought-provoking interviews) in a lightweight package from Couric in a time-crunched evening news report???
Oh, and I'm a woman, and I've drifted away from network news for quite some time - I'm the kind of demographics that CBS had in mind when they signed up Couric big time to try to lure women like me to tune in to their news.
I'm not sure who did the background/market research for CBS when they signed on Couric for $15 million a year to do their evening news. But if they think having a "personality" is going to lure people like me back to their news, that is just sooooo dead wrong. News - evening news, in particular - is not Oprah. When I watch evening news, I'm in serious mode. I really don't give a damn if it's a man or a woman, but the anchor has to be one who is serious and all knowledgeable about the news. Interviews won't cut it. CBS was doomed to fail with that approach before it even started.
I have nothing against Couric. But as a viewer, when (and if) I tune in to TV news, I watch news - hard news. I get most of my daily news fix from various non-TV media like the numerous news site on the web, and NPR. When it comes to network news, somehow I have come to expect more. I don't need soft news and those touchy-feely stuffs. If I want interviews or longer format of a particular topics, there is always 60 Minutes, or Diane Sawyer. Why would I need a mix of these (ie. hard news, and thought-provoking interviews) in a lightweight package from Couric in a time-crunched evening news report???
Oh, and I'm a woman, and I've drifted away from network news for quite some time - I'm the kind of demographics that CBS had in mind when they signed up Couric big time to try to lure women like me to tune in to their news.
I'm not sure who did the background/market research for CBS when they signed on Couric for $15 million a year to do their evening news. But if they think having a "personality" is going to lure people like me back to their news, that is just sooooo dead wrong. News - evening news, in particular - is not Oprah. When I watch evening news, I'm in serious mode. I really don't give a damn if it's a man or a woman, but the anchor has to be one who is serious and all knowledgeable about the news. Interviews won't cut it. CBS was doomed to fail with that approach before it even started.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
On how Obama would fare as a would-be commander-in-chief (take 2)...
How could I forget the link!?! :) And here it is, on the record, of Obama the lightweight: the hearing.
On how Obama would fare as a would-be commander-in-chief...
Reading through news of how the senate hearing today with General Petraeus on the Iraq war and progress, sparring with the three hopefuls (John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama), it's quite clear how the three would fare or what they might do, as a would-be commander-in-chief.
John McCain would dig his heels in the trench, and fight on. That would satisfy the gun-loving, security-worrying GOP's.
Hillary Clinton learns her lesson, and is now calling for clear guidelines for troops withdrawal commitment. She rises up to the occasion, at least with guts and a stand to counter the arguments from McCain.
Barack Obama? The same old "It's a mistake, from the start." Yeah, stupid, even my 5-year-old knows that. So, what's your stand on that? Nada. This guy would not hold up to scrutiny in the real world. It's disheartening that such a fluffy-but-no-substance lightweight can fool so many for so damn long. I would bet all my money, that has he not been black, he would never be where he is now. (Yes, like I said before, the blacks will always vote for one of their own skins, even if s/he won't hold water.) It's amazing how emotions can cloud judgment in so many people.
John McCain would dig his heels in the trench, and fight on. That would satisfy the gun-loving, security-worrying GOP's.
Hillary Clinton learns her lesson, and is now calling for clear guidelines for troops withdrawal commitment. She rises up to the occasion, at least with guts and a stand to counter the arguments from McCain.
Barack Obama? The same old "It's a mistake, from the start." Yeah, stupid, even my 5-year-old knows that. So, what's your stand on that? Nada. This guy would not hold up to scrutiny in the real world. It's disheartening that such a fluffy-but-no-substance lightweight can fool so many for so damn long. I would bet all my money, that has he not been black, he would never be where he is now. (Yes, like I said before, the blacks will always vote for one of their own skins, even if s/he won't hold water.) It's amazing how emotions can cloud judgment in so many people.
Monday, April 7, 2008
On the plagiarism of Mark Zuckerberg...
I've never had very high regard of Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook. I have little patience for the seemingly glowing account of this guy by pee-ons who worship anyone with personal net wealth of $1 billion or more. Not only do I find nothing much new with Facebook, I despise his very public plagiarism of the original idea of Facebook from the guys who hired him to work on their new web idea. While Zuckerberg might think settling the case might get it go away, fat chance dude. Even my seven-year-old knows that what's left on the web stays there forever.
The same goes with the two guys who founded YouTube and made off billions selling to Google. Yes, it's a service that people have come to use often, but there's no genius in it, the same way Facebook is remaking Friendster and MySpace.
While I never really like Bill Gates and the hard-balls that Microsoft plays, but there's no denying that he's done great work in heading off Windows to becoming near monopoly in the PC OS world (albeit the fact that he's copying ideas from Apple and Jobs). But then, history will have them in their proper place, and Gates would never be able to catch up with the aura of Jobs (although Gates would certainly be the first in pioneering large-scale philanthropy with his charity work at the Gates Foundation).
Shame on Zuckerberg.
The same goes with the two guys who founded YouTube and made off billions selling to Google. Yes, it's a service that people have come to use often, but there's no genius in it, the same way Facebook is remaking Friendster and MySpace.
While I never really like Bill Gates and the hard-balls that Microsoft plays, but there's no denying that he's done great work in heading off Windows to becoming near monopoly in the PC OS world (albeit the fact that he's copying ideas from Apple and Jobs). But then, history will have them in their proper place, and Gates would never be able to catch up with the aura of Jobs (although Gates would certainly be the first in pioneering large-scale philanthropy with his charity work at the Gates Foundation).
Shame on Zuckerberg.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
On Obama's claim to have Gore in his "cabinet"...
Man, is Obama stupid or naive or both or more? To have him come out and say he would include Al Gore in his cabinet, should he win the White House, definitely shows how naive he is.
For one, if anyone should be the president, Al Gore should, and not Obama. Gore has shown it time and again, that he has the vision and energy and skills to be a fine president. Obama? It's a joke.
For one, if anyone should be the president, Al Gore should, and not Obama. Gore has shown it time and again, that he has the vision and energy and skills to be a fine president. Obama? It's a joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)