Lang Lang, the China-born pianist, who is more about gaudy showmanship to promote himself than about the refined elegance of the music itself. I always find him and his performance detestable, and I've since stopped watching anything even remotely related to Lang Lang (including links on the web).
Unfortunately for the state of classical music these days, some music company would value the crassness in Lang Lang, over the more traditional Yundi Li. And I'm glad that Wall Street Journal would expose that fact, and the extreme shallowness of Lang Lang (his desire to be "number one", his inability to comprehend irony from his own teacher of the ridiculous style, just to sell himself (with little regard to the music itself).
No doubt the music itself, whatever that Lang Lang might be playing, is simply a means to an end, to make a name for himself, and to make some quick bucks.
It reminds me of a girl from China that I met in Australia some time back. She plays piano, and like Lang Lang, she hates it. But in her own words, everyone in China would play some music. It has nothing to do with whether they like the music or not. But in order to "stand out from the crowd", every student has to do some sports or play music, and obviously almost all Chinese students are expected to do well in math (and science). The reason? Those are about the only "ticket" they can get, in order to apply to further study overseas.
I have since looked at the Chinese students (who play music) in different light. In observation and discussions with a number of others, not just in Australia, but in other parts of the world like America, that girl's account is confirmed, time and time.
There is little doubt, of why the Chinese students excel in math and science, and yet they have little imagination; and they have other talents like various music instruments, but most of them play it with little soul. That's because they did it out of obligation. They were told to do it. And they never have their heart in it.
You even say, one part of me pity on people like Lang Lang, yet I despise him, for what he does to the music I love. It's unforgivable.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
On horrendous child sexual abuse in family...
I always feel so sickened after reading reports of horrendous child sexual abuse, particularly those in family. Today there's another such report about a British man who abuses his two daughters for 27 long years, and impregnated them 19 times. I feel so sick after reading it, and cannot even imagine how it's like to be raped daily by one's own father.
The only question that I have (which was not mentioned in the article) is, where was the mother when all these happened? How could the authority have done nothing when there's been alleged abuses going on? Obviously, this father is all evil. But our society has failed these two girls so miserably, and letting them suffer all these years. My heart aches when I think of that.
When I was younger, I have had ideas of becoming a policewoman, so that I can help those in need. By and by, a career in police force fell on the wayside, although my hope to help people in need has never died. Now that I've been well on another career, I always wonder how I could help. I have thoughts of changing career at some point and working for philanthropy, but I have always wondered if philanthropy has enough of a social impact; even one as big as The Gates Foundation struggles to get visible results in third world countries, not to mention daily social ills in our own societies.
If only we have superheroes like Batman or Spiderman to do immediate good and punish the evils...
The only question that I have (which was not mentioned in the article) is, where was the mother when all these happened? How could the authority have done nothing when there's been alleged abuses going on? Obviously, this father is all evil. But our society has failed these two girls so miserably, and letting them suffer all these years. My heart aches when I think of that.
When I was younger, I have had ideas of becoming a policewoman, so that I can help those in need. By and by, a career in police force fell on the wayside, although my hope to help people in need has never died. Now that I've been well on another career, I always wonder how I could help. I have thoughts of changing career at some point and working for philanthropy, but I have always wondered if philanthropy has enough of a social impact; even one as big as The Gates Foundation struggles to get visible results in third world countries, not to mention daily social ills in our own societies.
If only we have superheroes like Batman or Spiderman to do immediate good and punish the evils...
Friday, November 21, 2008
On Netflix and machine intelligence...
I don't know if you've heard of Netflix, the online movie store that has 100,000 movies and shows, with probably 8 million monthly subscribers now.
I used to like strolling down the street to the neighborhood movie rental store and check out the DVDs. I have since stopped doing that after we moved to the suburb (albeit close enough to the city). It's a big hassle to have to drive out at night to rent and return the DVDs. I could only do so after the kids went to bed. And then there was the late fees.
I discovered Netflix back in 2005 and have stayed with it since then. I was impressed by its extensive library of movies, including so many of the old TV shows and movies that I saw when I was growing up. I have pretty much rated all the movies, TV shows and documentaries that I can remember watching, in a way to remind myself of what I have liked and disliked over the years. I can keep a queue (list) of the movies that I like, and have the DVD mailed to me. I can keep it as long as I want, or return it as soon as possible (in order to get the next movie in my queue in a hurry). There's no late fees to speak of, and I don't need to rush. Everything's under control, which is cool. Quite recently, they've added the Watch Instantly feature, in which they provide video streaming over the web as long (although there's no Extra Features from DVD, and I can't control the speed of the video stream, and the quality is usually not too good). But then, the Watch Instantly feature is free. I can't complain much. Netflix has some newer features to allow streaming piped to PC or over the set-top box too, I heard. But I don't watch TV, so I don't care about it.
Netflix has had a programming competition, with a prize of $1 million, to improve their recommendation engine CineMatch by 10%. I read this interesting article in NYTimes about it. It's been open since 2006, but so far, no one won yet. I'm glad that Netflix values customer features and academic pursuit equally. I like it. I'll most likely stay with Netflix for the long haul.
I used to like strolling down the street to the neighborhood movie rental store and check out the DVDs. I have since stopped doing that after we moved to the suburb (albeit close enough to the city). It's a big hassle to have to drive out at night to rent and return the DVDs. I could only do so after the kids went to bed. And then there was the late fees.
I discovered Netflix back in 2005 and have stayed with it since then. I was impressed by its extensive library of movies, including so many of the old TV shows and movies that I saw when I was growing up. I have pretty much rated all the movies, TV shows and documentaries that I can remember watching, in a way to remind myself of what I have liked and disliked over the years. I can keep a queue (list) of the movies that I like, and have the DVD mailed to me. I can keep it as long as I want, or return it as soon as possible (in order to get the next movie in my queue in a hurry). There's no late fees to speak of, and I don't need to rush. Everything's under control, which is cool. Quite recently, they've added the Watch Instantly feature, in which they provide video streaming over the web as long (although there's no Extra Features from DVD, and I can't control the speed of the video stream, and the quality is usually not too good). But then, the Watch Instantly feature is free. I can't complain much. Netflix has some newer features to allow streaming piped to PC or over the set-top box too, I heard. But I don't watch TV, so I don't care about it.
Netflix has had a programming competition, with a prize of $1 million, to improve their recommendation engine CineMatch by 10%. I read this interesting article in NYTimes about it. It's been open since 2006, but so far, no one won yet. I'm glad that Netflix values customer features and academic pursuit equally. I like it. I'll most likely stay with Netflix for the long haul.
On the 2008 worst financial crisis since Great Depression...
Sometimes, too much bad news will numb you (as long as the pain is not imminent). Such is the case with the daily dose of gloomy news of where the economy is heading around the world. We know how it's like in US: subprime and property market going down the tube, credit market crunch, bailouts and more bailouts, stock market nose-dive. And now, Europe and Japan are going down too, as expected.
Closer to home, we had cut down on eating out. The kids don't really fancy eating out anyways. While we adults like to sample different restaurants, it's not really the case with the kids. One time, when I asked them whether they like going to restaurants or not, they told me they don't like it, because when we're at home, they can keep playing with their toys and games until the meal is ready. When in restaurants, all they can do is to sit still and wait. There's nothing for them to play, and they can't mess around with the table, should they bring toys with them. Towards the second half of this year when the economy gets worse, they get rid of eating out altogether. Well, we mostly eat out over weekends when there's no school. Given that they have different weekend activities now, there's not much time to eat out leisurely anyways. (We're always in a hurry rushing to different classes.) I must admit, it saves up alot.
And gone are all the discretionary purchases, like occasional liquor purchase, buying of new books, even monthly toys that I've promised the kids. But the kids are fine with library books (they love reading all sorts of books and it's impossible to buy 10-15 new books every week anyways).
Ultimately I realize that our basic needs are actually fairly small. The regular bills (like DSL, utilities, cell phones) and mortgage are unavoidable. Other than that, subsistence living is not that hard, actually.
Closer to home, we had cut down on eating out. The kids don't really fancy eating out anyways. While we adults like to sample different restaurants, it's not really the case with the kids. One time, when I asked them whether they like going to restaurants or not, they told me they don't like it, because when we're at home, they can keep playing with their toys and games until the meal is ready. When in restaurants, all they can do is to sit still and wait. There's nothing for them to play, and they can't mess around with the table, should they bring toys with them. Towards the second half of this year when the economy gets worse, they get rid of eating out altogether. Well, we mostly eat out over weekends when there's no school. Given that they have different weekend activities now, there's not much time to eat out leisurely anyways. (We're always in a hurry rushing to different classes.) I must admit, it saves up alot.
And gone are all the discretionary purchases, like occasional liquor purchase, buying of new books, even monthly toys that I've promised the kids. But the kids are fine with library books (they love reading all sorts of books and it's impossible to buy 10-15 new books every week anyways).
Ultimately I realize that our basic needs are actually fairly small. The regular bills (like DSL, utilities, cell phones) and mortgage are unavoidable. Other than that, subsistence living is not that hard, actually.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
On the world's 10 uglest building, circa 2008...
It's funny yet sad, of how some architects go to great length, design and build some buildings that look so awful, some of which function so poorly as well.
Such is the list of the world's 10 ugliest buildings in the world, circa 2008. I have the "honor" to walk by the Boston City Hall, back then I worked in the downtown Boston area. The matchbox building is a drag. At the time, no doubt there was praise of the kind of open space that is left unused in front of and around the building. With little trees around, it looks like a neo-Coliseum, sans the grandiose in the Roman days. It goes completely against the nearby historic district of Beacon Hill. Perhaps, that's the contrast that I.M. Pei had intended when he designed that dreadful Boston City Hall, much as the futuristic pyramid-like eyesore Louvre.
The same goes to Frank Gehry, whose designs include those unfinished looking MIT building. No wonder he got sued by MIT. That goes to show how someone, anyone, would do anything to stand out from the crowd. But it's the mass herd-mentality who would hail these folks as "great." *yak*
Such is the list of the world's 10 ugliest buildings in the world, circa 2008. I have the "honor" to walk by the Boston City Hall, back then I worked in the downtown Boston area. The matchbox building is a drag. At the time, no doubt there was praise of the kind of open space that is left unused in front of and around the building. With little trees around, it looks like a neo-Coliseum, sans the grandiose in the Roman days. It goes completely against the nearby historic district of Beacon Hill. Perhaps, that's the contrast that I.M. Pei had intended when he designed that dreadful Boston City Hall, much as the futuristic pyramid-like eyesore Louvre.
The same goes to Frank Gehry, whose designs include those unfinished looking MIT building. No wonder he got sued by MIT. That goes to show how someone, anyone, would do anything to stand out from the crowd. But it's the mass herd-mentality who would hail these folks as "great." *yak*
Monday, November 17, 2008
On seafood, farm-raised brethen, and overfishing...
I have always loved seafood since I was a kid. While I like the usual suspects (salmon, tuna, haddock, cod, grouper, sea bass), my love for most everything from the sea (jelly fish, squid, sardine, mackerel, catfish, carp, red snapper, etc) is pretty complete.
My mom would cook (until her "retirement" from the kitchen after my dad took over, upon his retirement from work). Having to feed a family of seven, she would buy the cheaper seafood whenever she could find the bargains. In Asia, that would mean only a small handful of variety to choose from, and they're usually not very fresh. Oftentimes, it's red snappers, mullets, dace, mackerel, and sometimes carp. (Yes, carps were not cheap back then.) Still, it's seafood, all the same, and I have always enjoyed them.
When I was growing up, I never had worries about food stock in the world, much as I love anything that was ivory, without worrying where the ivory might have come from. When I was in my teens, I have become more aware of the environment we all live in. I began to ask myself questions, as to where the elephant tusks might come from. I remember for a brief period, when I would gladly accept the notion that ivory comes from dead elephants only, hence clearing my guilty conscience. But of course that would not do, judging from the large amount of ivory products in the market back then (in the 1980s), I intrinsically knew that could not have been the only source. And then, it hit me when I read about the issues about elephant poaching in Africa. I remember secretly cursing myself for not confronting the issue more consciously, due largely to my vain vanity, for hoping to still hold onto my ivory jewelry. After that, my conscience would not allow me to do that, and I dispose of all the ivory products, and vow not to buy anything ivory.
I have the same issue with red meat; in particular, tender, juicy beef steak. I know vegetarian diet is good for the body. I love vegetarian food too (all veggies, tofu, beans, and the like), but I love steaks and meat too. Perhaps I'm half-lying to myself, but I have always harbored hope that one day, I'll give up meat all together, and go all vegetarian. I just don't want any more killings of animals.
And then there is my love of seafood. I've been reading about issues of overfishing for so long, and that one of these days, fish stock in the world is going to get so depleted that most of the seafood that I have come to love would disappear. Like red meat, I still couldn't bring myself to give up seafood yet. But I've committed myself to eat as little grouper/salmon/tuna, and other seafood as possible; that's not very hard to do since I'm not a big eater anyways. I don't want my kids to not know/like the taste of seafood. I do hope that, starting as an individual and from a small family, I could somehow contribute to a more sustainable fishing pattern in the world
Talking about weak mind (which I'm painfully aware of myself right now). I am yet to have the determination to turn cold turkey, like I did with ivory... :(
My mom would cook (until her "retirement" from the kitchen after my dad took over, upon his retirement from work). Having to feed a family of seven, she would buy the cheaper seafood whenever she could find the bargains. In Asia, that would mean only a small handful of variety to choose from, and they're usually not very fresh. Oftentimes, it's red snappers, mullets, dace, mackerel, and sometimes carp. (Yes, carps were not cheap back then.) Still, it's seafood, all the same, and I have always enjoyed them.
When I was growing up, I never had worries about food stock in the world, much as I love anything that was ivory, without worrying where the ivory might have come from. When I was in my teens, I have become more aware of the environment we all live in. I began to ask myself questions, as to where the elephant tusks might come from. I remember for a brief period, when I would gladly accept the notion that ivory comes from dead elephants only, hence clearing my guilty conscience. But of course that would not do, judging from the large amount of ivory products in the market back then (in the 1980s), I intrinsically knew that could not have been the only source. And then, it hit me when I read about the issues about elephant poaching in Africa. I remember secretly cursing myself for not confronting the issue more consciously, due largely to my vain vanity, for hoping to still hold onto my ivory jewelry. After that, my conscience would not allow me to do that, and I dispose of all the ivory products, and vow not to buy anything ivory.
I have the same issue with red meat; in particular, tender, juicy beef steak. I know vegetarian diet is good for the body. I love vegetarian food too (all veggies, tofu, beans, and the like), but I love steaks and meat too. Perhaps I'm half-lying to myself, but I have always harbored hope that one day, I'll give up meat all together, and go all vegetarian. I just don't want any more killings of animals.
And then there is my love of seafood. I've been reading about issues of overfishing for so long, and that one of these days, fish stock in the world is going to get so depleted that most of the seafood that I have come to love would disappear. Like red meat, I still couldn't bring myself to give up seafood yet. But I've committed myself to eat as little grouper/salmon/tuna, and other seafood as possible; that's not very hard to do since I'm not a big eater anyways. I don't want my kids to not know/like the taste of seafood. I do hope that, starting as an individual and from a small family, I could somehow contribute to a more sustainable fishing pattern in the world
Talking about weak mind (which I'm painfully aware of myself right now). I am yet to have the determination to turn cold turkey, like I did with ivory... :(
Friday, November 14, 2008
On the sturdy "clamshell" plastic packaging...
Man, finally I know I'm not the only one who's frustrated with opening those impossible plastic packaging, for things like toys for the kids, light bulbs, electronic devices like headphones, and even memory cards. Finally I realize that someone (God bless Jeff Bezos for taking the initiative) to do something about this.
I have always wondered what kind of industrial engineer(s) would design such consumer-unfriendly packaging that makes it so very impossible to open. But to think that the "phenomenon" (the kind of terrible packaging) happens across industries, it's simply mind-boggling. It goes to show the herd mentality, even in design, and no one stops and wonders if there's anything wrong with it, or cares to solicit consumer feedback on whether they like/dislike the packaging.
Critical thinking, baby, critical thinking!!!
I have always wondered what kind of industrial engineer(s) would design such consumer-unfriendly packaging that makes it so very impossible to open. But to think that the "phenomenon" (the kind of terrible packaging) happens across industries, it's simply mind-boggling. It goes to show the herd mentality, even in design, and no one stops and wonders if there's anything wrong with it, or cares to solicit consumer feedback on whether they like/dislike the packaging.
Critical thinking, baby, critical thinking!!!
On the new Bond movie "Quantum of Solace"...
Feelings and emotions run high, on the new Bond movie Quantum Of Solace which opens in US today. I must confess I had little confidence in Daniel Craig being cast as the new Bond in his first endeavor in Casino Royale. In fact, I was so pessimistic about his future chance of success that I sold my Omega Seamaster which is the official watch for Bond in the movies.
But I was wrong on Craig who brought new life to the Bond franchise in Casino Royale, which turns out to be pretty intense for a Bond movie. Craig also brings certain seriousness (much more so than Pierce Bosnan) and more depth to a character that is supposed to be a spy (for Christ sake!) than Roger Moore could muster.
Maybe the spin of Roger Moore's Bond on the fancy side of spywork (the shaken-not-stirred martini part, bedding of only the most gorgeous women in the world, and the My-Name-Is-Bond-James-Bond mantra) works so well in tinseltown as a happy escape for audience in the fantasyland, that we don't care much about (or happily ignore) how dangerous and grim a spy can be for so long.
Pierce Bosnan had tried his best to frown more often than Moore, but his image from his The Saint days just couldn't seem to shake.
Which is where Craig came in, with a heavier dose of grimness in spywork. I don't think anyone would complain or argue about that. But there's a lot of complaints about the role of Bond girls, since the main Bond girl in Quantum Of Solace doesn't even bed with Bond - imagine what Moore is supposed to do, if that were to happen. I'm sure that would not suit the past generations of diehard Bond fans who love the fluffy, bubbly Bond, looking through a crystal champagne glass. But it might just as well, if Craig is to bring new life and excitement to Bond, the new Bond and his girls will have to move with times. It's just a matter of time.
But I was wrong on Craig who brought new life to the Bond franchise in Casino Royale, which turns out to be pretty intense for a Bond movie. Craig also brings certain seriousness (much more so than Pierce Bosnan) and more depth to a character that is supposed to be a spy (for Christ sake!) than Roger Moore could muster.
Maybe the spin of Roger Moore's Bond on the fancy side of spywork (the shaken-not-stirred martini part, bedding of only the most gorgeous women in the world, and the My-Name-Is-Bond-James-Bond mantra) works so well in tinseltown as a happy escape for audience in the fantasyland, that we don't care much about (or happily ignore) how dangerous and grim a spy can be for so long.
Pierce Bosnan had tried his best to frown more often than Moore, but his image from his The Saint days just couldn't seem to shake.
Which is where Craig came in, with a heavier dose of grimness in spywork. I don't think anyone would complain or argue about that. But there's a lot of complaints about the role of Bond girls, since the main Bond girl in Quantum Of Solace doesn't even bed with Bond - imagine what Moore is supposed to do, if that were to happen. I'm sure that would not suit the past generations of diehard Bond fans who love the fluffy, bubbly Bond, looking through a crystal champagne glass. But it might just as well, if Craig is to bring new life and excitement to Bond, the new Bond and his girls will have to move with times. It's just a matter of time.
More on the proposed bailout of Detroit...
After I wrote my journal entry, I had my daily online read of today's news, and came across Thomas Friedman's recent posting (11/12/2008) on the same subject, in both International Herald Tribune and New York Times, which precisely sums up how I feel the situation. All the Letters To Editor in New York Times echo the same sentiment.
What was failed to mention is the hailed Obama, who is supposed to the poster boy for environmental protection and all. Here's the president-elect who strongly favors help to the Detroit Three. Why isn't anyone talking about that, rather than discussing the style and comparison of the Obama family to JFK's? This is so freaking ridiculous.
What was failed to mention is the hailed Obama, who is supposed to the poster boy for environmental protection and all. Here's the president-elect who strongly favors help to the Detroit Three. Why isn't anyone talking about that, rather than discussing the style and comparison of the Obama family to JFK's? This is so freaking ridiculous.
On the proposed bailout of the Detroit Three...
It's probably the ultimate free lunch of all, for the Detroit Three (Ford, GM, and Chrysler which were previously known as the Big Three, but have since tumbled so low in market share, valuation, and consumer image, that they are no longer "Big") to lobby and request bailout, in the midst of the financial market turmoil.
For once, the GOP and Bush are expressing commonsense, that the Detroit carmakers do not deserve saving. They've been bleeding for a prolonged period, been consistently demonstrating subpar management, in long-term vision of where the auto industry should be heading (given the growing scarcity of oil and the consumer preference of fuel efficiency vehicles), yet unable to pull themselves together to drop/trim the gas-guzzling SUV and trucks, and commit to increase fuel efficiency. Instead, all they do were to fight regulation attempt to increase fuel efficiency, and to stick with quick profit from SUV/trucks which have now all but evaporized, in the face of slumping economy and rising gas price. The financial market mess (as a result of subprime mortgage market collapse, then credit market squeeze) might have accelerated their descent, but they were not cause for the automakers' woes.
For the incoming Obama administration, and Dem senate (first and foremost, Nancy Pelosi), to propose help to the automakers show how shortsighted the Democrats are.
It's beyond argument that the auto industry has strategic interest to the nation. But if Obama and Pelosi really go down that path, they might as well nationalize the auto industry to prop it up, and to placard the labor union. If they set the precedent for auto industry, they would soon find themselves in deep shit to bail out other struggling industries like the airline.
For once, the GOP and Bush are expressing commonsense, that the Detroit carmakers do not deserve saving. They've been bleeding for a prolonged period, been consistently demonstrating subpar management, in long-term vision of where the auto industry should be heading (given the growing scarcity of oil and the consumer preference of fuel efficiency vehicles), yet unable to pull themselves together to drop/trim the gas-guzzling SUV and trucks, and commit to increase fuel efficiency. Instead, all they do were to fight regulation attempt to increase fuel efficiency, and to stick with quick profit from SUV/trucks which have now all but evaporized, in the face of slumping economy and rising gas price. The financial market mess (as a result of subprime mortgage market collapse, then credit market squeeze) might have accelerated their descent, but they were not cause for the automakers' woes.
For the incoming Obama administration, and Dem senate (first and foremost, Nancy Pelosi), to propose help to the automakers show how shortsighted the Democrats are.
It's beyond argument that the auto industry has strategic interest to the nation. But if Obama and Pelosi really go down that path, they might as well nationalize the auto industry to prop it up, and to placard the labor union. If they set the precedent for auto industry, they would soon find themselves in deep shit to bail out other struggling industries like the airline.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
On market wisdom and Paulson's bailout...
There's certain wisdom to be had, from the five of the top hedge fund managers who testified in Congress about the financial bailout to banks. One of the points raised was that there were not enough strings attached to the capital injection (aka bailout) to banks, and that Treasury (aka Hank Paulson) should have mandated the halting of dividends, restricting cash compensation to executives, and make it more expensive for the banks (ie. the dividend yield to Treasury which is set at a low 5% for the first five years in the bailout plan).
Paulson had argued against attaching strings to the bailout since banks (or rather, the executives) would not sign up for it. We all know that's quite ridiculous. Now, he's trying to stop the banks from just borrowing these cheap funds from government and hoarding it, instead of lending again.
These hedgies point out something so obvious, but yet legislators had had troubles mandating the conditions on Paulson. No doubt, these senators feel intimidated by Paulson, a larger-than-life former top executive from Goldman Sachs, to even try to challenge his position and proposition. But, afterall, Paulson is just like Robert Rubin, his former colleague whose footsteps Paulson has followed.
Paulson had argued against attaching strings to the bailout since banks (or rather, the executives) would not sign up for it. We all know that's quite ridiculous. Now, he's trying to stop the banks from just borrowing these cheap funds from government and hoarding it, instead of lending again.
These hedgies point out something so obvious, but yet legislators had had troubles mandating the conditions on Paulson. No doubt, these senators feel intimidated by Paulson, a larger-than-life former top executive from Goldman Sachs, to even try to challenge his position and proposition. But, afterall, Paulson is just like Robert Rubin, his former colleague whose footsteps Paulson has followed.
On the unfortunate case of Hank Paulson...
Reputation is a precious thing, in which great men (and women alike) would do their utmost to preserve. Just look at the defense from Greenspan (from being hailed as the best Fed chairman, to the enabler to the current subprime mortgage mess), and Rubin (from being the steady hand as Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration, to the Greenspan conspirator in deregulation of Wall Street).
Albeit claims of no regret, no doubt the current Hank Paulson shoots himself in his foot for taking up the short tenure in the sunset Bush administration as a boost to his resume and credentials, only to see the markets going up in flame under his watch. It must be painful, to be seen from the wise, great chairman of Goldman Sachs with bulging wealth, to being a flip-flop, clueless Treasury Secretary.
I won't fault him as much to being clueless. In fact, I don't think anyone has any clue or idea on how to fix the current mess, which is so fluid and changing daily. Still, as a senior figure in the Treasury who's in charge, one would expect or hope him to have at least some idea on how to fix our current mess. Perhaps it's too much to ask for it, since Paulson obviously has no silver bullet or magical pill to make the bogeyman go away. In fact, he's like a one-man-band firefighter, leaping with a hose, jumping from one fire to the next, without any idea of where the next explosion might be, or if he has enough water to hose the fire.
Hell, if you ask me whether I worry about the current economy or not, I would certainly say yes. But there's nothing much I can do about it, so I might as well watch it with the cool, clinical detachment, as if I'm watching the fish in the fishbowl swimming madly while the water is boiling.
I hope the economy will get better soon (heck, haven't we had thought things would turn around by mid- to end-2008 when subprime mess broke, and the aggregated corporate writedowns hit $300 billion mark?!?). Otherwise, it'll delay a more major advertising push of our business in Asia for yet another year.
Albeit claims of no regret, no doubt the current Hank Paulson shoots himself in his foot for taking up the short tenure in the sunset Bush administration as a boost to his resume and credentials, only to see the markets going up in flame under his watch. It must be painful, to be seen from the wise, great chairman of Goldman Sachs with bulging wealth, to being a flip-flop, clueless Treasury Secretary.
I won't fault him as much to being clueless. In fact, I don't think anyone has any clue or idea on how to fix the current mess, which is so fluid and changing daily. Still, as a senior figure in the Treasury who's in charge, one would expect or hope him to have at least some idea on how to fix our current mess. Perhaps it's too much to ask for it, since Paulson obviously has no silver bullet or magical pill to make the bogeyman go away. In fact, he's like a one-man-band firefighter, leaping with a hose, jumping from one fire to the next, without any idea of where the next explosion might be, or if he has enough water to hose the fire.
Hell, if you ask me whether I worry about the current economy or not, I would certainly say yes. But there's nothing much I can do about it, so I might as well watch it with the cool, clinical detachment, as if I'm watching the fish in the fishbowl swimming madly while the water is boiling.
I hope the economy will get better soon (heck, haven't we had thought things would turn around by mid- to end-2008 when subprime mess broke, and the aggregated corporate writedowns hit $300 billion mark?!?). Otherwise, it'll delay a more major advertising push of our business in Asia for yet another year.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
On falling property prices in China and mob mentality...
Reading reports about how the investors/homeowners in China who bought in at the height of the property boom, only to see falling prices now, can get scary. It's not so much about the fact that prices can go up, thus surely it can come down too; but of how the public perceive property investments as fail-safe, and would demand their money back when the market "casino" turns against them.
This is not quite comparable to the impending bonds enquiry in Hong Kong due to the collapse of Lehman Brothers when banks had been selling the bonds as fail-safe. Property investments and speculation in Hong Kong had gone through the same phase as China (and other parts of the world) during the financial crisis in 1997 when property prices in Hong Kong went south, which had never happened before. Back then, no one in Hong Kong would imagine asking for their money back. Afterall, people in Hong Kong are much more used to the idea of investments and the capitalist system.
It goes to show how behind China and its systems (not only legal system in handling complaints, but also the government and private sectors in addressing concerns outside of contractual obligations) are woefully inadequate. While China's huge currency reserve is going to give it muscle to buffer financial and economic hiccups, it'll take much longer for its systems to come up to speed.
Along the same token (that investors/speculators in China property market should be reimbursed of any loss they suffer), neither should those in United States should be refunded. But that's exactly what the Democrat's Congress is pushing for, which is wrong-headed. If America is such a great experiment of capitalism, it should not set a wrong example for the world (and China) to see.
This is not quite comparable to the impending bonds enquiry in Hong Kong due to the collapse of Lehman Brothers when banks had been selling the bonds as fail-safe. Property investments and speculation in Hong Kong had gone through the same phase as China (and other parts of the world) during the financial crisis in 1997 when property prices in Hong Kong went south, which had never happened before. Back then, no one in Hong Kong would imagine asking for their money back. Afterall, people in Hong Kong are much more used to the idea of investments and the capitalist system.
It goes to show how behind China and its systems (not only legal system in handling complaints, but also the government and private sectors in addressing concerns outside of contractual obligations) are woefully inadequate. While China's huge currency reserve is going to give it muscle to buffer financial and economic hiccups, it'll take much longer for its systems to come up to speed.
Along the same token (that investors/speculators in China property market should be reimbursed of any loss they suffer), neither should those in United States should be refunded. But that's exactly what the Democrat's Congress is pushing for, which is wrong-headed. If America is such a great experiment of capitalism, it should not set a wrong example for the world (and China) to see.
On the possible comeback of John Edwards...
Opinions, public or private, of politicians are pretty low; and rightfully so. Scores of public scandals, with Bill Clinton topping it off, are embarrassing enough. But there's something about John Edwards' case that irks me.
Edwards admitted to bedding a former staffer while he's campaigning in the primaries. This was the staffer who was chartered to make a video of Edwards on the campaign trail, to be put on YouTube and the web, to promote him as the "net candidate." Subsequent videos even show how he had flirted with this staffer. This was also the same time when he championed family values, with his wife fighting for her life in cancer treatment while still tucked in tow with the kids to campaign for Edwards. While Bill Clinton had lied, at least he hadn't used Hillary Clinton this way.
There is something hypocritical about Edwards, who cares deeply about his appearance and who allegedly paid $400 for haircuts. This is the guy, who supposedly cares about the causes that he campaigned for, and yet puts himself above the system. I'm sure he knew he would wreck his party, damage his causes, should he won the nomination and even presidency, and the scandal leaks after that. No matter, he cares more about himself than anything/anyone else.
The only words that come to mind about him is: vain.
And now, less than a few months after the scandal broke and he went into hiding, he re-emerges after Obama won. No doubt he wants everyone to forget and move on. But for those who had supported him in the past, particularly through two election seasons, only to be let down drastically by Edwards, it won't be an easy feat. While I'm not an Edwards' supporter, I don't forgive and forget that easily.
Edwards admitted to bedding a former staffer while he's campaigning in the primaries. This was the staffer who was chartered to make a video of Edwards on the campaign trail, to be put on YouTube and the web, to promote him as the "net candidate." Subsequent videos even show how he had flirted with this staffer. This was also the same time when he championed family values, with his wife fighting for her life in cancer treatment while still tucked in tow with the kids to campaign for Edwards. While Bill Clinton had lied, at least he hadn't used Hillary Clinton this way.
There is something hypocritical about Edwards, who cares deeply about his appearance and who allegedly paid $400 for haircuts. This is the guy, who supposedly cares about the causes that he campaigned for, and yet puts himself above the system. I'm sure he knew he would wreck his party, damage his causes, should he won the nomination and even presidency, and the scandal leaks after that. No matter, he cares more about himself than anything/anyone else.
The only words that come to mind about him is: vain.
And now, less than a few months after the scandal broke and he went into hiding, he re-emerges after Obama won. No doubt he wants everyone to forget and move on. But for those who had supported him in the past, particularly through two election seasons, only to be let down drastically by Edwards, it won't be an easy feat. While I'm not an Edwards' supporter, I don't forgive and forget that easily.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
On Jennifer Aniston disses Angelina Jolie...
There is something uncool about Jennifer Aniston. Most people find her personable, but personally I think her whole appeal to the women kind rests on the fact that she really isn't very glamorous, but yet, with proper hairdo, make-up, and some fashion sense, she can look good. And THAT can be a very appealing thing, since glamor suddenly becomes very accessible, as Aniston has shown us all. As an actress, she's not talented; but as long as she keeps up the glam, I'm sure she'll have steady stream of movies for another 5-6 years. After that, I'm not sure if she can still compete with the younger talents in the brutal tinseltown for the leading ladies roles.
Considering that Aniston has serious ambitions to strike it big on the silver screen, thereby pushing back her ex-hubby Brad Pitt's hope to start a family, perhaps even leading to his drifting away from her and their power couple status, to the supposedly home-wrecker Angelina Jolie. Judging by her forever kind words to Pitt, but veiled "uncool" comments about Jolie, one can only feel how bitter and sorrowful she must be, for the whole world to pity on her, being 39 of age, childless and husbandless, with a career going nowhere. All the while when Jolie is on the up and up, with an Oscar already under her belt, a humanitarian mission that no one can fault her on, her motherly love of her kids, the mutual love and respect she has with Pitt, the new Brangelina power couple brand, and of course her sex goddess appeal that Aniston doesn't even come close.
I'm sure Aniston has tried to be graceful. Afterall, it's been more than a couple of years before she finally opens up now, and disses on Jolie for being "uncool" in gushing love to Pitt for the world to see.
In a way, Aniston reminds me of Diana, and how her various books, interviews, and the tell-all expose by her friends (with details fed by none other than Diana herself). Even though I dislike the manipulative Diana, in a way I suppose she has to lash out against a whole establishment of the Royal Family working against her. But Jolie and Pitt had hardly uttered a word about Aniston. In fact, they have simply lived their life joyfully, and it's Aniston who wouldn't seem to move on.
To be honest, to diss out on the situation with ex, with a couple of years after-the-fact, is just so uncool. I wonder what Aniston wishes to accomplish by "speaking out" now. Afterall, she reiterates and re-emphasizes often enough, to let the world know that she doesn't need any pity, and that she's happy and all. But if she's still talking about the past and history, I don't know how she can be a happy person.
Jen, it's time to move on.
Considering that Aniston has serious ambitions to strike it big on the silver screen, thereby pushing back her ex-hubby Brad Pitt's hope to start a family, perhaps even leading to his drifting away from her and their power couple status, to the supposedly home-wrecker Angelina Jolie. Judging by her forever kind words to Pitt, but veiled "uncool" comments about Jolie, one can only feel how bitter and sorrowful she must be, for the whole world to pity on her, being 39 of age, childless and husbandless, with a career going nowhere. All the while when Jolie is on the up and up, with an Oscar already under her belt, a humanitarian mission that no one can fault her on, her motherly love of her kids, the mutual love and respect she has with Pitt, the new Brangelina power couple brand, and of course her sex goddess appeal that Aniston doesn't even come close.
I'm sure Aniston has tried to be graceful. Afterall, it's been more than a couple of years before she finally opens up now, and disses on Jolie for being "uncool" in gushing love to Pitt for the world to see.
In a way, Aniston reminds me of Diana, and how her various books, interviews, and the tell-all expose by her friends (with details fed by none other than Diana herself). Even though I dislike the manipulative Diana, in a way I suppose she has to lash out against a whole establishment of the Royal Family working against her. But Jolie and Pitt had hardly uttered a word about Aniston. In fact, they have simply lived their life joyfully, and it's Aniston who wouldn't seem to move on.
To be honest, to diss out on the situation with ex, with a couple of years after-the-fact, is just so uncool. I wonder what Aniston wishes to accomplish by "speaking out" now. Afterall, she reiterates and re-emphasizes often enough, to let the world know that she doesn't need any pity, and that she's happy and all. But if she's still talking about the past and history, I don't know how she can be a happy person.
Jen, it's time to move on.
On falling home property prices and social psychology...
Human psyche is a funny thing. The current collective doom and gloom, as a result of the falling residential prices, is a case in point.
It's often cited (and is often the case) that our home equity holding is one of the largest purchases in our lifetime. For most of the people, it's also the one primary residence that we would well spend most of our life in. In other words, it's a long term holding/investment. In the bygone days, our generations past would toll away, save up to pay down the mortgage, and would have a mortgage-free property by the time they're retired. With the once new (and now defunct) high finance of home equity loan, our home has become our not-so-little piggy bank that a lot of people cash out to finance their high life that they couldn't otherwise afford and they shouldn't have taken, in the first place.
As in most other long-term investment, we're supposed to sit tight in hard times, and ride it out, which is pretty much what I do right now. Afterall, what does it matter to me now, if I have not considered selling our home now? The only difference is, I would feel poorer, since the market value might not be rising 10-15% every year; and home equity loan might not be as forthcoming (but I never have any intention of taking out home equity loan anyways). For those who still can afford the mortgage payments, I would argue that the falling market value really should have no impact to their immediate life style.
But of course that's not meant to be. Human psychology is at work, and people take their feelings very seriously - BOTH men and women. They feel poorer since the readily available piggy bank with cash is slammed shut. If these homeowners are not forced to sell (for failing to make mortgage payments), their home is still what it is - a home.
The only difference is that, a lot of those who complain about the current mortgage mess are the ones who are encouraged into buying a home (remember the Ownership Society by Bush?) that they couldn't afford and shouldn't have jumped onto the bandwagon, to start with. For those who think the party will go on forever, taking out exotic loans, and now complain that they would not be able to afford interest-only loans (like the homeowner in the article who gloomily commented that his mortgage will be $12,000 a month, nine years from now), should they get help? I don't think so. It's exactly like people going to casino, expecting to strike it rich fast, and when they lose all their money on the roulette table, they complain about the casino taking their money. The air of entitlement by people like that sounds disgusting to me.
It's often cited (and is often the case) that our home equity holding is one of the largest purchases in our lifetime. For most of the people, it's also the one primary residence that we would well spend most of our life in. In other words, it's a long term holding/investment. In the bygone days, our generations past would toll away, save up to pay down the mortgage, and would have a mortgage-free property by the time they're retired. With the once new (and now defunct) high finance of home equity loan, our home has become our not-so-little piggy bank that a lot of people cash out to finance their high life that they couldn't otherwise afford and they shouldn't have taken, in the first place.
As in most other long-term investment, we're supposed to sit tight in hard times, and ride it out, which is pretty much what I do right now. Afterall, what does it matter to me now, if I have not considered selling our home now? The only difference is, I would feel poorer, since the market value might not be rising 10-15% every year; and home equity loan might not be as forthcoming (but I never have any intention of taking out home equity loan anyways). For those who still can afford the mortgage payments, I would argue that the falling market value really should have no impact to their immediate life style.
But of course that's not meant to be. Human psychology is at work, and people take their feelings very seriously - BOTH men and women. They feel poorer since the readily available piggy bank with cash is slammed shut. If these homeowners are not forced to sell (for failing to make mortgage payments), their home is still what it is - a home.
The only difference is that, a lot of those who complain about the current mortgage mess are the ones who are encouraged into buying a home (remember the Ownership Society by Bush?) that they couldn't afford and shouldn't have jumped onto the bandwagon, to start with. For those who think the party will go on forever, taking out exotic loans, and now complain that they would not be able to afford interest-only loans (like the homeowner in the article who gloomily commented that his mortgage will be $12,000 a month, nine years from now), should they get help? I don't think so. It's exactly like people going to casino, expecting to strike it rich fast, and when they lose all their money on the roulette table, they complain about the casino taking their money. The air of entitlement by people like that sounds disgusting to me.
Friday, November 7, 2008
On Yahoo's stupidity...
Legacy is a funny thing, depending where you draw a conclusion on a timeline. When the web was growing out of infancy in the 1990s, and Yahoo was riding high as the portal of choice, Jerry Yang had looked like a genius. In the late 90s, everybody's talking about portal, as if the mere uttering of that buzzword is enough to render a business models for alot of startup hopefuls. Indeed, Yahoo had once been the portal I used, when I first started out. I've since moved on to others, like Northern Light, then AltaVista, then simply a plain-vanilla search page from Google for my needs. I don't need the bullshits from a so-called portal.
Unfortunately, Yahoo seems to have gotten itself stuck in the adolescent stage, and never really grow up. Yahoo has pretty much remained how it's like for the past ten years, without much changes. And for those changes that it has tried to add, like photo sharing or social network, it's just a disaster.
Jerry Yang should have bowed out and moved on, like Pierre Omidyar did with eBay. But I guess Yang is too emotionally attached to it, that when their "baby" has troubles walking, daddy comes back to the rescue, like Michael Dell does with Dell Computers. Not too many people can walk away, like Bill Gates did with Microsoft, unless they get engaged with some other pet projects. (Of course, it's still quite possible that Gates could follow the same footstep, and return to Microsoft, should it get into trouble, like Yahoo and Dell do.)
Long time ago, my brother said one thing to me, "don't fall in love with your investment" (although he has his own issues in following through with his advice). Still, it's a good piece of advice, as noted in the clinical analysis of the dire situations by John Thain when he decided to sell Merrill Lynch to Bank Of America, amid the market turmoil. It's happening almost at the same time when Dick Fuld failed to let go of his beloved Lehman Brothers, which saw Barclays and other potential buyers walking away, and the government let it go bankrupt and die.
The point is, had Jerry Yang had a clear head of what Yahoo is in, he could have achieved the marketing manuveauring like Thain did, and even what Alfred Chuang was able to do, in squeezing more juice from Oracle before Chuang sold to BEA to Oracle prior to the market turning very ugly. But Yang refused negotiation on a too-good-to-be-true offer from Microsoft at $33 a share. And now, YHOO hovers around $11-12, and won't budge unless there's rumor from a resurrection of the Microsoft bid.
I'm sure it's hard for Yang to let go of Yahoo, trying to align with Google, if only just to spite Microsoft. I would not have wanted BEA to go (as the last big independent application server providers), and be sold to Oracle. But we know the force was too strong against BEA, and that it's probably 5-6 years overdue for BEA to have gone, that Chuang had never been able to produce another magic touch, like his acquiring Tuxedo and WebLogic Server. It's the exactly the same way, in which Yahoo has failed, time and again, to revive the company, but always come up short.
As an investor, I don't have confidence that Yang is able to turnaround the company to give me $33 a share in the next 1-2 years. One could argue that my time horizon is too short. If YHOO, like any other publicly traded companies, wants my money/investment, then it needs to keep up good work, which I don't see much coming about. Perhaps I'm looking at the company from the outside in, but I'm running out of patience with Yang.
Unfortunately, Yahoo seems to have gotten itself stuck in the adolescent stage, and never really grow up. Yahoo has pretty much remained how it's like for the past ten years, without much changes. And for those changes that it has tried to add, like photo sharing or social network, it's just a disaster.
Jerry Yang should have bowed out and moved on, like Pierre Omidyar did with eBay. But I guess Yang is too emotionally attached to it, that when their "baby" has troubles walking, daddy comes back to the rescue, like Michael Dell does with Dell Computers. Not too many people can walk away, like Bill Gates did with Microsoft, unless they get engaged with some other pet projects. (Of course, it's still quite possible that Gates could follow the same footstep, and return to Microsoft, should it get into trouble, like Yahoo and Dell do.)
Long time ago, my brother said one thing to me, "don't fall in love with your investment" (although he has his own issues in following through with his advice). Still, it's a good piece of advice, as noted in the clinical analysis of the dire situations by John Thain when he decided to sell Merrill Lynch to Bank Of America, amid the market turmoil. It's happening almost at the same time when Dick Fuld failed to let go of his beloved Lehman Brothers, which saw Barclays and other potential buyers walking away, and the government let it go bankrupt and die.
The point is, had Jerry Yang had a clear head of what Yahoo is in, he could have achieved the marketing manuveauring like Thain did, and even what Alfred Chuang was able to do, in squeezing more juice from Oracle before Chuang sold to BEA to Oracle prior to the market turning very ugly. But Yang refused negotiation on a too-good-to-be-true offer from Microsoft at $33 a share. And now, YHOO hovers around $11-12, and won't budge unless there's rumor from a resurrection of the Microsoft bid.
I'm sure it's hard for Yang to let go of Yahoo, trying to align with Google, if only just to spite Microsoft. I would not have wanted BEA to go (as the last big independent application server providers), and be sold to Oracle. But we know the force was too strong against BEA, and that it's probably 5-6 years overdue for BEA to have gone, that Chuang had never been able to produce another magic touch, like his acquiring Tuxedo and WebLogic Server. It's the exactly the same way, in which Yahoo has failed, time and again, to revive the company, but always come up short.
As an investor, I don't have confidence that Yang is able to turnaround the company to give me $33 a share in the next 1-2 years. One could argue that my time horizon is too short. If YHOO, like any other publicly traded companies, wants my money/investment, then it needs to keep up good work, which I don't see much coming about. Perhaps I'm looking at the company from the outside in, but I'm running out of patience with Yang.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
On Obama winning presidency...
By now, just about every other guy is conducting their own postmortem on what went wrong with McCain's campaign, and what Obama did right, after Obama won presidency yesterday.
But if you ask me, it's more a stroke of luck for Obama that the economy is in such bad shape, that GOP can't deny any responsibility. Don't be fooled though, since Obama has no experience in economy whatsoever. No matter, the fact that George W Bush and his neo-con squandered away eight long years to top off the decline of GOP and any of its residual credential (if any is left) in handling economy, foreign policy, and the military. Not that anyone would dislike tax cut, but the fact that GOP has only that one magical pill in its medicinal box for the economy, and that its insistence (as much as McCain's) in deregulation, have all contributed to the financial mess (first in subprime mortgage market, then credit market, courtesy of Greenspan). And then, there is the Iraq war that we all know full well that Bush and GOP blundered so badly.
But those are (Bush) guilt by association to McCain. I very much doubt that the choice of Sarah Palin adds to his fallacy. Having said that, the relative smear-clean (almost honorable) campaign from McCain had not served him well. It almost points to an impotent campaign, in line with McCain's senior age. That's just too bad.
Still, I dislike Obama. Just about the only thing I checked this morning was the result of the election. I have switched off all the radio and ignored all the news headlines. I can't stand his flash of teeth. It's so freaking annoying.
But if you ask me, it's more a stroke of luck for Obama that the economy is in such bad shape, that GOP can't deny any responsibility. Don't be fooled though, since Obama has no experience in economy whatsoever. No matter, the fact that George W Bush and his neo-con squandered away eight long years to top off the decline of GOP and any of its residual credential (if any is left) in handling economy, foreign policy, and the military. Not that anyone would dislike tax cut, but the fact that GOP has only that one magical pill in its medicinal box for the economy, and that its insistence (as much as McCain's) in deregulation, have all contributed to the financial mess (first in subprime mortgage market, then credit market, courtesy of Greenspan). And then, there is the Iraq war that we all know full well that Bush and GOP blundered so badly.
But those are (Bush) guilt by association to McCain. I very much doubt that the choice of Sarah Palin adds to his fallacy. Having said that, the relative smear-clean (almost honorable) campaign from McCain had not served him well. It almost points to an impotent campaign, in line with McCain's senior age. That's just too bad.
Still, I dislike Obama. Just about the only thing I checked this morning was the result of the election. I have switched off all the radio and ignored all the news headlines. I can't stand his flash of teeth. It's so freaking annoying.
Monday, November 3, 2008
On the eve of Election Day 2008...
I'm somewhat of an anomaly in terms of politics. One may say I'm a liberal, fiscal-conservative. While I have roots in faith, I don't really go to church. I'm liberal in terms of most social issues, and I strongly believe in fiscal discipline. And I have distinct idea of what government should and should not do. (Government is not all bad, and it plays a pivotal role in maintaining a level playing field, be it social safety net, education, and basic infrastructure.) So, on most days, if you're debating with me, you would see me bounce between the positions held by GOP and Dem.
Most days, I listen to NPR. I like its depth and usually even-keeled coverage, but I've become enraged by the Obama-leaning coverage that I've stopped listening to NPR, and read news online instead. While I shouldn't have been surprised by the left-leaning coverage of NPR, I find it highly distasteful for NPR to off-handedly slight McCain, in favor of Obama. It makes me sick.
While I had considered myself detached in terms of politics, I've also come to realize that this election has become highly personal to me. I've come to view Hillary Clinton as a candidate who can present my positions, and is the most qualified among all in this campaign season (including McCain, and definitely Obama). I also know now, that I have come to dislike Obama so much so, that I'm very willing to elect McCain, whose positions I might not agree with all the time (eg. his positions of less regulations is a disaster), in order to keep Obama out.
Some may say, I'm being unrealistic; I'm being childish, to throw out the baby (Dem) with the bath water (Obama). But there have been so much negativity, and so much patronizing of the Obama camp in the blogosphere, to the essence that Clinton supporters like me should just shut up and suck it up. That's the part when I would not take, sitting down. The way that Obama supporters try to shout down dissenters, the more my blood boils.
And all these have nothing to do with Obama's skin color. Quite far from it, it's his demeanor, and his way to present himself as the heir without the throne, yet everyone has to salute him all the same, that gets to me.
Perhaps the latest NPR report of how hard it would be for Dem to win a majority vote, even in the face of a hugely unpopular president (George W Bush with 20% approval rating that was down from 90%), tremendous budget deficit, economy in recession, terrible job market and salary growth, and financial market in disaster.
Tomorrow (Nov 4th) is the moment of truth, and we'll find out if how much of this youth propaganda of Change is going to get materialized, and how much of the so-called small donors translate into real votes. I'll venture to say, that most real voting citizens (particularly the more senior folks) don't go romper-stomper on blogs and get TV coverage, but they're the one to vote.
If Obama really is winning, he would have Bill Clinton's roaring, heady economic days to think for (that people to yearn for), rather than his stupid, empty slogans of hope or change.
Most days, I listen to NPR. I like its depth and usually even-keeled coverage, but I've become enraged by the Obama-leaning coverage that I've stopped listening to NPR, and read news online instead. While I shouldn't have been surprised by the left-leaning coverage of NPR, I find it highly distasteful for NPR to off-handedly slight McCain, in favor of Obama. It makes me sick.
While I had considered myself detached in terms of politics, I've also come to realize that this election has become highly personal to me. I've come to view Hillary Clinton as a candidate who can present my positions, and is the most qualified among all in this campaign season (including McCain, and definitely Obama). I also know now, that I have come to dislike Obama so much so, that I'm very willing to elect McCain, whose positions I might not agree with all the time (eg. his positions of less regulations is a disaster), in order to keep Obama out.
Some may say, I'm being unrealistic; I'm being childish, to throw out the baby (Dem) with the bath water (Obama). But there have been so much negativity, and so much patronizing of the Obama camp in the blogosphere, to the essence that Clinton supporters like me should just shut up and suck it up. That's the part when I would not take, sitting down. The way that Obama supporters try to shout down dissenters, the more my blood boils.
And all these have nothing to do with Obama's skin color. Quite far from it, it's his demeanor, and his way to present himself as the heir without the throne, yet everyone has to salute him all the same, that gets to me.
Perhaps the latest NPR report of how hard it would be for Dem to win a majority vote, even in the face of a hugely unpopular president (George W Bush with 20% approval rating that was down from 90%), tremendous budget deficit, economy in recession, terrible job market and salary growth, and financial market in disaster.
Tomorrow (Nov 4th) is the moment of truth, and we'll find out if how much of this youth propaganda of Change is going to get materialized, and how much of the so-called small donors translate into real votes. I'll venture to say, that most real voting citizens (particularly the more senior folks) don't go romper-stomper on blogs and get TV coverage, but they're the one to vote.
If Obama really is winning, he would have Bill Clinton's roaring, heady economic days to think for (that people to yearn for), rather than his stupid, empty slogans of hope or change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)