I always review the wrap-up from the previous year, and the looking-ahead apart, to see how things have fared for me in general in this past year in 2009.
After the new-found interest in politics and the election in 2008, I've settled back in my usual way of life, which is not a bad thing. How much adrenaline can one pump through the veins? Apparently, you can pump all you can, but not for too long. After Obama was sworn into office, I revert back into the mode of observing from afar, mostly just to see how many promises Obama would break, and how business-as-usual he really would have been in politics. For all the campaign talk of I'll-have-a-sit-down-with-Iran from Obama the candidate, he now realizes how incredibly naive and unrealistic he has been. But even more incredulous, tens of millions voters bought in to his naive talk. Looking at his Iran policy, there's nothing distinguishing at all.
Although I don't spend much energy following politics now, I still can't seem to avoid the daily barrage of the Obama news coverage. He seems to be all over the place, inserting himself in every single subject in ordinary American's daily dinner-table discussions. The only notable exception was during the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack. Suddenly, the talk was relegated to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), rather than the chosen one. It might just as well, since her backpedaling put the spotlight squarely on her. Oh well, what's new anyways. So much for "leadership" from the prez.
Of course politics isn't the main focus this year; the economy is. By almost all measure, the economy as a whole has probably bottomed out around March this year. Things are looking brighter now, although having unemployment above 10% is nothing to brag about. While things don't look so bleak, I'm not sure if I can call it economic recovery, as per the book definition of economists.
But while I feel bad for those who lost their jobs and whose livelihood is threatened, I'm somewhat ambivalent everytime I read news reports on how we should save those who're underwater in their real estate hole they dug themselves with easy credit from banks. By all means, we save alot (even in the best of times), and in July, we refinanced in order to lock in a low rate of 4.25% for 30 years. From what I see it, if we had played it fast and loose, we could have borrowed to buy a $1+ million house, and we would have been in the same sh*t hole as these people. But we're still living in our modest condo, because we knew then (as we know now), that we shouldn't borrow and live beyond our means; so we didn't. I do not foresee or expect anyone would have rushed to help us out, if we dig a financial hole like that for ourselves. For this, I ask myself time and again, why would these people feel so entitled that Washington and the banks should bail them out, and reduce their balance, so that they can continue to keep their ill-gotten big houses? They might come out begging, but that sense of entitlement still puzzles (even enrages) me. It's simply wrong.
The same can be said of those in the financial industry (eg. banks), who play it fast and loose, and now they're suddenly "too big to fail." In short, they use someone else's money to get short-term gains, collect humongous bonus, but when things go bad, it's someone else's mess. The compensation structure of this industry is just so darn wrong.
With everyone in holding pattern, no one is buying much luxury (watches, accessories). So, our side venture goes into a holding pattern too. Hopefully, 2010 will look brighter. Asia has certainly been holding up much better in 2009, and most likely will continue the surge ahead next year.
On the bright side, I'm half way through my masters degree. Hard work it might be, but it helps keeping me busy. At least it's something productive I'm doing, apart from work. With the work I might be doing for another startup, I sometimes wonder how much more crazy my schedule is going to be.
It's a good thing too, that I've found an interest in stock trading. I don't like day-trading, but for the momentum buying/selling that I do, which gives me 23% return this year, I'm very thankful already. Along the way, I'm getting a sense of how it's like, for those people whose job involves meeting targets (eg. sales quota), and the stress that comes with it. Around mid-year, I've a sense of how much I could make in a monthly, given the amount of risks that I'm willing to take. That, in turns, has become my quasi-target each month that I'm testing myself (to see if I can make the monthly goal). Interestingly, I'm close to making the ~2% target each month on average, even though I have up's and downs, contributing to the 23% yearly return. I've been thinking, from here on out, given less volatibility, I'll probably take even less risks.
I've been talking to the kids about the economy, and its effect on people's daily lives. It's good that they're becoming more aware of what's around them (eg. they're more conscious of making donations), without getting too nervous about their own way of lives. I hope this serves them well in the future.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
On job hunting and covert racial discrimination...
I was reading in the New York Times about covert racial discrimination and job hunting this morning. It reminds me of an incident some years back when I first came to US. It actually happened to someone else, but the incidents recounted in the article were strikingly similar.
When I first came to US, I joined my husband who was a grad student at MIT at the time, sharing an apartment with another guy. I have to say something about this guy since it could have some bearings on the events to be unfolded. This guy was ethnic Chinese, came to US with his wife maybe 2-3 years prior to my arrival, to pursue an MBA at Sloane School. (His wife was also pursing an MBA with another school - can't remember exactly now, but I think it's at Columbia.) It must have been a big gamble for both of them since they quit their supposedly cushy jobs in China (even though the pay was meager, compared to their counterparts in US), paid full tuition to study MBA in top schools in US. I think he was working in a pharmaceutical company in China before the MBA study. At least they didn't have kids to worry about at the time.
In any case, this guy chose to major in marketing at Sloane. He's been struggling a bit. Still, Sloane is one of the top schools, and that alone, was enough to get him interviews (supposedly) during the plumb days in the late 1990s when economy was on the up-and-up. When I arrived US, he's towards the end of the study, and was busy arranging interviews. Though he has some work experience, he hadn't had too much luck, even though he had the Sloane name tugged under his belt. He got a few interviews locally, but they didn't pan out. And then, one day, I remember during dinner time, he came back all excited, and telling us that he's got a job interview to a big name consulting company. They talked to him on the phone, and sounded very excited in meeting him. They even paid him return airfare, accommodation, and the works, to fly him down for the interview. He thought, if they were willing to pay for all these, they must be genuinely interested.
Or so they thought. A few days later, he flew back and was all dejected at the apartment. We asked him how it went. He was all pissed about the interviewers, saying they were not serious about it. They pretty much lost interest in him 5 minutes into the interview, according to him. The only thing he was bitter about was, if they were not interested, why they paid for all these and made him go through all the hassles, just to send him rejections (!?!). He further complained that, it's not like they didn't know he's Chinese, because they talked on the phone prior to the face-to-face interview arrangement.
I have to say something more about this guy. Yes, he's ethnic Chinese, and he's maybe 5'1", bespectacled, drooping a bit, and when he talks, he tends to talk quite loudly (almost to the point as if he's yelling). I don't know if that's the way Mandarin speakers are like (since I've observed that trait in alot of them). His case was probably a bit different from those mentioned in the article, since those black guys might not even have a chance for interviews, given their black-sounding names or African-American accent over the phone. At least this guy had the chance to show his ethnicity, and the interviewers had not had a problem with that (or even his loud voice). I'd say, in his case, it's probably has alot to do with presentation. When you're in consulting, you want someone to project confidence, in order to win confidence from clients. This guy never struck me as anywhere that comes close to that. When he wants your attention, he would talk louder to your ears.
One other thing he complained about was that, the interviewers were trying to challenge him and trash him during the interviews (there were a few rounds of it when he was there), indicating that he did not know the cultural issues well enough to provide insights in marketing. They were asking him, why he chose marketing in the first place, since he's obviously not good at it. He readily admitted that he hadn't been able to master the western culture and nuance to be very good at marketing, or maybe he's not extrovert enough to be in marketing at all. Still, he went back to the point, saying that the interviewers had known all these (that he majored in marketing at Sloane, and that his grades were not excellent). They should not need to trash him like they did.
Was that consider discrimination? He certainly thought so, although I'm not so sure about it. That phrase "cultural fit" was mentioned in the article. That might probably have something to do with this guy. I hate to say it, but life is not a fair game. If you have to choose between two persons, with everything being equal, would you have chosen a better-looking one that is 6', oor someone who's bespectacled with drooping shoulders that is 5'1? I would probably have picked the former candidate too.
Interestingly, his wife who was graduating around the same time, had not had troubles with interviews. She had rather quickly landed on a consulting job. Perhaps you might see her as more "regular looking," being 5'2 or 5'3 (yes she's taller than he), and with a more confident air.
Which all leads back to the question. Is there racial discrimination? I have no doubt it's there. But does anything lead back to race? I don't think so. In the case of the blacks, the case of race can probably be more overt, and competition more intense. Afterall, with Asia and China rising in prominence, alot of companies want to have some Chinese expertise. The same is true with India. But you can't say that with Africa-Americans who are kind of "stuck" here, having to strike success in this home turf. I hate to say this, but it's true, to my mind.
PS: As a woman in ethnic group (double minority, if you will), I never feel discriminated or experience it in a material way. Perhaps I can count myself lucky. Perhaps it's also because of the field that I'm in (even though it's a predominantly male field). I'd say, there are times when I know I get less out of the grapevine because I don't socialize with management (more white managers). But it's a personal choice I made, since my life priorities have changed after our kids are born. Sometimes, your life is what you make of it. Sometimes, it's also true that discrimination decreases when the "law of large numbers" is reached (ie. when there is enough diversity, people don't feel it in the big melting pot).
When I first came to US, I joined my husband who was a grad student at MIT at the time, sharing an apartment with another guy. I have to say something about this guy since it could have some bearings on the events to be unfolded. This guy was ethnic Chinese, came to US with his wife maybe 2-3 years prior to my arrival, to pursue an MBA at Sloane School. (His wife was also pursing an MBA with another school - can't remember exactly now, but I think it's at Columbia.) It must have been a big gamble for both of them since they quit their supposedly cushy jobs in China (even though the pay was meager, compared to their counterparts in US), paid full tuition to study MBA in top schools in US. I think he was working in a pharmaceutical company in China before the MBA study. At least they didn't have kids to worry about at the time.
In any case, this guy chose to major in marketing at Sloane. He's been struggling a bit. Still, Sloane is one of the top schools, and that alone, was enough to get him interviews (supposedly) during the plumb days in the late 1990s when economy was on the up-and-up. When I arrived US, he's towards the end of the study, and was busy arranging interviews. Though he has some work experience, he hadn't had too much luck, even though he had the Sloane name tugged under his belt. He got a few interviews locally, but they didn't pan out. And then, one day, I remember during dinner time, he came back all excited, and telling us that he's got a job interview to a big name consulting company. They talked to him on the phone, and sounded very excited in meeting him. They even paid him return airfare, accommodation, and the works, to fly him down for the interview. He thought, if they were willing to pay for all these, they must be genuinely interested.
Or so they thought. A few days later, he flew back and was all dejected at the apartment. We asked him how it went. He was all pissed about the interviewers, saying they were not serious about it. They pretty much lost interest in him 5 minutes into the interview, according to him. The only thing he was bitter about was, if they were not interested, why they paid for all these and made him go through all the hassles, just to send him rejections (!?!). He further complained that, it's not like they didn't know he's Chinese, because they talked on the phone prior to the face-to-face interview arrangement.
I have to say something more about this guy. Yes, he's ethnic Chinese, and he's maybe 5'1", bespectacled, drooping a bit, and when he talks, he tends to talk quite loudly (almost to the point as if he's yelling). I don't know if that's the way Mandarin speakers are like (since I've observed that trait in alot of them). His case was probably a bit different from those mentioned in the article, since those black guys might not even have a chance for interviews, given their black-sounding names or African-American accent over the phone. At least this guy had the chance to show his ethnicity, and the interviewers had not had a problem with that (or even his loud voice). I'd say, in his case, it's probably has alot to do with presentation. When you're in consulting, you want someone to project confidence, in order to win confidence from clients. This guy never struck me as anywhere that comes close to that. When he wants your attention, he would talk louder to your ears.
One other thing he complained about was that, the interviewers were trying to challenge him and trash him during the interviews (there were a few rounds of it when he was there), indicating that he did not know the cultural issues well enough to provide insights in marketing. They were asking him, why he chose marketing in the first place, since he's obviously not good at it. He readily admitted that he hadn't been able to master the western culture and nuance to be very good at marketing, or maybe he's not extrovert enough to be in marketing at all. Still, he went back to the point, saying that the interviewers had known all these (that he majored in marketing at Sloane, and that his grades were not excellent). They should not need to trash him like they did.
Was that consider discrimination? He certainly thought so, although I'm not so sure about it. That phrase "cultural fit" was mentioned in the article. That might probably have something to do with this guy. I hate to say it, but life is not a fair game. If you have to choose between two persons, with everything being equal, would you have chosen a better-looking one that is 6', oor someone who's bespectacled with drooping shoulders that is 5'1? I would probably have picked the former candidate too.
Interestingly, his wife who was graduating around the same time, had not had troubles with interviews. She had rather quickly landed on a consulting job. Perhaps you might see her as more "regular looking," being 5'2 or 5'3 (yes she's taller than he), and with a more confident air.
Which all leads back to the question. Is there racial discrimination? I have no doubt it's there. But does anything lead back to race? I don't think so. In the case of the blacks, the case of race can probably be more overt, and competition more intense. Afterall, with Asia and China rising in prominence, alot of companies want to have some Chinese expertise. The same is true with India. But you can't say that with Africa-Americans who are kind of "stuck" here, having to strike success in this home turf. I hate to say this, but it's true, to my mind.
PS: As a woman in ethnic group (double minority, if you will), I never feel discriminated or experience it in a material way. Perhaps I can count myself lucky. Perhaps it's also because of the field that I'm in (even though it's a predominantly male field). I'd say, there are times when I know I get less out of the grapevine because I don't socialize with management (more white managers). But it's a personal choice I made, since my life priorities have changed after our kids are born. Sometimes, your life is what you make of it. Sometimes, it's also true that discrimination decreases when the "law of large numbers" is reached (ie. when there is enough diversity, people don't feel it in the big melting pot).
Friday, November 27, 2009
On feminism, advancement of women, Portfolio, and Joanne Lipman...
I can't remember if I've ever written in my journal the thoughts on feminism. (For all the world we know, why wouldn't Google provide search in blogger, is quite beyond me.) In any case, I recently read in New York Times about an article on the stalling of advancement of women and feminism which stirs up some thoughts. I meant to write about this, but I was so busy this month that I haven't got round to putting down the thoughts in this journal, until now.
The article begins and ends well, with common sense. What goes on in between, which is 95% of the writing, isn't though. Where should we begin...
First off, I didn't realize that the author, Joanne Lipman, was the editor of the now defunct online magazine, Portfolio. I can't recall exactly now when this might be, but when Portfolio first went live, I checked it out on its articles and reporting online. As I've always been a avid fan of Fortune magazine, and Portfolio has the ambition to rival Fortune, I thought it could be interested. Lo and behold, the headline story in Portfolio, a supposedly investigative piece on one hedge fund manager and his rise of star, was the exact same subject matter as another detailed investigative piece that Fortune published around the same time. Like wine tasting, when you put things alongside each other for sampling, you'll be amazed by how striking the differences are. In this case, we have Portfolio's piece that basically covers everything that was hand-fed to Portfolio by the subject matter (this fund manager and her beautiful European wife), what with all the arts collection, wedding arrangement, and all. On the other hand, you have Fortune's piece that used some of the materials from interviewing this fund manager, but a large part (probably more than 85% of the content) covered the interviews around this guy (employees, ex-employees, competitors, old friends, etc), plus other juicy details on how business deals and performance have evolved around this guy and his hedge fund. Fortune provide a much more comprehensive and multi-layered view that it could easily blow Portfolio away and leave it in the dust.
In any case, that's quite a digression from what I have wanted to write about. Point is, I wasn't too impressed by Portfolio and the quality of its work...(and I didn't even know what the gender mix was among its staff, but that's beside the point). Portfolio bashing aside, the reason why the article brought me back to those articles I read in Fortune and Portfolio so long ago was that, I wasn't impressed by what was written in this article either.
Given the ambivalence to feminism by alot of people of both genders and by different generations, the headline of the article and its premise did easily catch one's eyes. At least Lipman did that right, by making big claims. Her justification, though, for what are seemingly her justifications for the claims are so lame and weak that I could almost laugh.
She began by laying out the claims that her own gender did make big strides in career advancement, and she's not one of them (post-feminists). She excelled in her profession, as she noted, but her gender has not kept up, followed by some simple statistics. But her a-ha moment came, when she claimed that everyone has been measuring up the wrong thing!!! And that, while the sliding of dollar salary earned by females does indicate stalling of advancement of women, she turned around and told us that we were wrong - that we should have been measuring and monitoring attitude, rather than the dollar earned, or number of women making partners or Fortune 500 C-suites.
Sure, we all know the bias reporting of main media. But, as Lipman told us, on why women have stalled out..."part of the reason can be traced to the aftermath of 9/11."
I'm, like, what!?! Apparently, 9/11 was such a big thing for Lipman (which I don't doubt the life-changing impact of such trauma to be at the World Trade Center when the disaster happened), that Lipman has to make some justification, in whatever shape and form, to insert her first-hand experience of 9/11 into her article and writing, that everything must flow out of 9/11, because 9/11 has become so freaking important to her. Beat me, on what strong link Lipman finds between 9/11 and post-feminism, but I don't see any.
Lipman's writing, and all its twists and turns, are so puzzling to me, that I have no doubts now, as to why I never revisited Portfolio's website, whose meat in its reporting was lesser than the shorter pieces of BusinessWeek. It's easy to blame one's failure on external forces that are beyond control; in Lipman's case, she easily blamed the demise of Portfolio on larger trend that traditional media has been on steady decline, burning through $100 million in a few short years. But if the quality of her magazine and website had been better, she would certainly have had me as an additional subscriber. (I still subscribe to both Fortune and BusinessWeek.) For a business magazine to die, it has to be because the magazine never connects to its core audience (who has money). No doubt, Portfolio never connected to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On a different note, since Lipman was talking about the stalling of female advancement, I would chip in a few words from my corner.
I work in software development, a predominantly male environment. Sure, proportion of female staff on board is low (probably lingers between 7-10%) in the technical side, but there's never any issue of discrimination. As one of the measurement metrics that Lipman used in the article, the female bathroom is actually bigger than the men's bathroom. So, the female bathroom is obviously much lightly used.
I don't doubt though, that different industries have their entrenched culture. The IT industry, being a new-age industry that brings in big dollars, that relies on its man-power and intellect, is all meritocracy. Perhaps, I have been lucky that I've chosen this industry, and I'm measured by my work rather than my look (or what I wear to work, which is just jeans). A large part of it, on how others perceive and treat you, is how you project yourself, which is true for both men and women. And this is the ending part of Lipman's article that I concur with, when it comes to common sense, which is that, girls have to be confident in themselves.
Then again, isn't that true for men and women alike (!?!), which makes Lipman's claim to have found the receipe for curing the stalling of female advancement must less mute.
All in all, I find Lipman's article a waste of my time.
The article begins and ends well, with common sense. What goes on in between, which is 95% of the writing, isn't though. Where should we begin...
First off, I didn't realize that the author, Joanne Lipman, was the editor of the now defunct online magazine, Portfolio. I can't recall exactly now when this might be, but when Portfolio first went live, I checked it out on its articles and reporting online. As I've always been a avid fan of Fortune magazine, and Portfolio has the ambition to rival Fortune, I thought it could be interested. Lo and behold, the headline story in Portfolio, a supposedly investigative piece on one hedge fund manager and his rise of star, was the exact same subject matter as another detailed investigative piece that Fortune published around the same time. Like wine tasting, when you put things alongside each other for sampling, you'll be amazed by how striking the differences are. In this case, we have Portfolio's piece that basically covers everything that was hand-fed to Portfolio by the subject matter (this fund manager and her beautiful European wife), what with all the arts collection, wedding arrangement, and all. On the other hand, you have Fortune's piece that used some of the materials from interviewing this fund manager, but a large part (probably more than 85% of the content) covered the interviews around this guy (employees, ex-employees, competitors, old friends, etc), plus other juicy details on how business deals and performance have evolved around this guy and his hedge fund. Fortune provide a much more comprehensive and multi-layered view that it could easily blow Portfolio away and leave it in the dust.
In any case, that's quite a digression from what I have wanted to write about. Point is, I wasn't too impressed by Portfolio and the quality of its work...(and I didn't even know what the gender mix was among its staff, but that's beside the point). Portfolio bashing aside, the reason why the article brought me back to those articles I read in Fortune and Portfolio so long ago was that, I wasn't impressed by what was written in this article either.
Given the ambivalence to feminism by alot of people of both genders and by different generations, the headline of the article and its premise did easily catch one's eyes. At least Lipman did that right, by making big claims. Her justification, though, for what are seemingly her justifications for the claims are so lame and weak that I could almost laugh.
She began by laying out the claims that her own gender did make big strides in career advancement, and she's not one of them (post-feminists). She excelled in her profession, as she noted, but her gender has not kept up, followed by some simple statistics. But her a-ha moment came, when she claimed that everyone has been measuring up the wrong thing!!! And that, while the sliding of dollar salary earned by females does indicate stalling of advancement of women, she turned around and told us that we were wrong - that we should have been measuring and monitoring attitude, rather than the dollar earned, or number of women making partners or Fortune 500 C-suites.
Sure, we all know the bias reporting of main media. But, as Lipman told us, on why women have stalled out..."part of the reason can be traced to the aftermath of 9/11."
I'm, like, what!?! Apparently, 9/11 was such a big thing for Lipman (which I don't doubt the life-changing impact of such trauma to be at the World Trade Center when the disaster happened), that Lipman has to make some justification, in whatever shape and form, to insert her first-hand experience of 9/11 into her article and writing, that everything must flow out of 9/11, because 9/11 has become so freaking important to her. Beat me, on what strong link Lipman finds between 9/11 and post-feminism, but I don't see any.
Lipman's writing, and all its twists and turns, are so puzzling to me, that I have no doubts now, as to why I never revisited Portfolio's website, whose meat in its reporting was lesser than the shorter pieces of BusinessWeek. It's easy to blame one's failure on external forces that are beyond control; in Lipman's case, she easily blamed the demise of Portfolio on larger trend that traditional media has been on steady decline, burning through $100 million in a few short years. But if the quality of her magazine and website had been better, she would certainly have had me as an additional subscriber. (I still subscribe to both Fortune and BusinessWeek.) For a business magazine to die, it has to be because the magazine never connects to its core audience (who has money). No doubt, Portfolio never connected to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On a different note, since Lipman was talking about the stalling of female advancement, I would chip in a few words from my corner.
I work in software development, a predominantly male environment. Sure, proportion of female staff on board is low (probably lingers between 7-10%) in the technical side, but there's never any issue of discrimination. As one of the measurement metrics that Lipman used in the article, the female bathroom is actually bigger than the men's bathroom. So, the female bathroom is obviously much lightly used.
I don't doubt though, that different industries have their entrenched culture. The IT industry, being a new-age industry that brings in big dollars, that relies on its man-power and intellect, is all meritocracy. Perhaps, I have been lucky that I've chosen this industry, and I'm measured by my work rather than my look (or what I wear to work, which is just jeans). A large part of it, on how others perceive and treat you, is how you project yourself, which is true for both men and women. And this is the ending part of Lipman's article that I concur with, when it comes to common sense, which is that, girls have to be confident in themselves.
Then again, isn't that true for men and women alike (!?!), which makes Lipman's claim to have found the receipe for curing the stalling of female advancement must less mute.
All in all, I find Lipman's article a waste of my time.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
On meteor shower...
I like reading news because the topics are so varied everyday, and it keeps up my interest.
The article this morning on meteor shower evokes memory that I haven't been conscious of for a very long time. I have only seen meteor shower once. This was when I was maybe 14 or 15, back in Hong Kong. I don't know if teens in Asia still do that or not, but back then, we like to go house-camping (as opposed to wild-camping, which is what you would have done in the West, camping out in the wild). Basically, we just had out a vacation rental in more remote area, and just spent the weekend there. Since Hong Kong is such a small place, not too many people get the chance to do wild-camps. We would do various activities, like going to the beach and play in the water, digging clams, BBQ, sometimes hiking.
That night, after we'd had BBQ and a long day on the beach, some of our friends were indoor watching TV. I and a few friends were hanging out on the roof top watching stars in the night sky. It's funny how I have forgotten now who were in that house-camp, but I remember vivdly how clear the sky was and how bright the stars were. And there were so many stars. That's one of those nights when it reminded me how I have wished I know how to read constellation in the night sky. (Due to the urban setting, you don't get to see that many stars in the sky in the city of Hong Kong. I suppose it's worse these days due to the smog.) We were chit-chatting away, and then I lucked out, when I was looking at the right direction, and saw a number of shooting stars coming down over the tree tops in the distance. It's probably not one would call meteor shower, but the fact that I was able to see shooting stars with my own eyes is simply amazing.
My first reaction was to close my eyes and make a wish. That's what people say, that if you make a wish right when you see a shooting star, that wish will come true. You know how teens are like, that they would take things like myths and rumors quite seriously. :) I don't remember now what wish I made, since I only remember my immediate response of making that wish. Right after that, I told my friends about the shooting stars. They all looked, but of course, it's too late. The night sky is back to its still, beautiful form, saved twinkling of stars. It's like a million (countless, actually) fireflies or smiley faces dancing around you. It's heavenly.
I still count it as my luck to have seen the shooting stars that one time. But it'll stay with me for a lifetime.
The article this morning on meteor shower evokes memory that I haven't been conscious of for a very long time. I have only seen meteor shower once. This was when I was maybe 14 or 15, back in Hong Kong. I don't know if teens in Asia still do that or not, but back then, we like to go house-camping (as opposed to wild-camping, which is what you would have done in the West, camping out in the wild). Basically, we just had out a vacation rental in more remote area, and just spent the weekend there. Since Hong Kong is such a small place, not too many people get the chance to do wild-camps. We would do various activities, like going to the beach and play in the water, digging clams, BBQ, sometimes hiking.
That night, after we'd had BBQ and a long day on the beach, some of our friends were indoor watching TV. I and a few friends were hanging out on the roof top watching stars in the night sky. It's funny how I have forgotten now who were in that house-camp, but I remember vivdly how clear the sky was and how bright the stars were. And there were so many stars. That's one of those nights when it reminded me how I have wished I know how to read constellation in the night sky. (Due to the urban setting, you don't get to see that many stars in the sky in the city of Hong Kong. I suppose it's worse these days due to the smog.) We were chit-chatting away, and then I lucked out, when I was looking at the right direction, and saw a number of shooting stars coming down over the tree tops in the distance. It's probably not one would call meteor shower, but the fact that I was able to see shooting stars with my own eyes is simply amazing.
My first reaction was to close my eyes and make a wish. That's what people say, that if you make a wish right when you see a shooting star, that wish will come true. You know how teens are like, that they would take things like myths and rumors quite seriously. :) I don't remember now what wish I made, since I only remember my immediate response of making that wish. Right after that, I told my friends about the shooting stars. They all looked, but of course, it's too late. The night sky is back to its still, beautiful form, saved twinkling of stars. It's like a million (countless, actually) fireflies or smiley faces dancing around you. It's heavenly.
I still count it as my luck to have seen the shooting stars that one time. But it'll stay with me for a lifetime.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
On the choice between love and work...
I was reading this article, about the personal choice between love and work. Which one would we choose?
I have always thought of myself as career-minded. You might consider me a workaholic, since I don't mind working weekends, and I certainly don't mind working 90-hour work week. I guess I have inherited that work ethics from my parents.
I never really have had much problem with having to choice love and work in the past, until the time when my husband and I have to decide what we want to do with our long distance relationship. We were not married back then. I was in Australia. He was in Chicago. Our long distance affair had been ongoing for five years, with annual getting gathering. The idea is quite romantic. We would go about our lives, focus on our work, and we'll have long chats over phone often. (Don't ask about how much the phone bill is, though, because it'll pop your eyes.) It's not a bad thing to have five years, free of other distractions, so that we can focus on our career. But then, at some point, the whole premise will get shaky. At some point, when we both know we are serious about each other, we have to do something about our relationship. That's the point when decisions have to be made; our moment of truth.
As I'm in IT, the skills are pretty portable around the world. He's in research (biology), and should not have problems finding jobs in Australia. Eventually, I decided to relocate to America. I've lived in different countries in the past, so it's not that big a deal for me to move. And, I travel light.
It's been a good decision, since things have worked out well, both work and our personal lives. To be sure, personal relationships (be it married or otherwise) are never easy. One would always have to work at it. But I truly believe that, if both parties are willing to try, it'll work out (in most cases).
So, I can empathize with those mentioned in the article, on the need to choose between love and work. I'd say, as one gets older, one tends to lean towards love, rather than work. I tend to be very pragmatic (much like my mother). I'm not sure if I would give up my work that easily, nor would I give up my personal life, for the sake of work. Somehow, I always believe that, I would find a way, if I will it to be. There are times when my husband prods me to spend more time with the family and the kids because I have to work in office for long hours. Instead of quitting my job, I find a way to work from home. While working from home can mean even longer working hours, but having the chance to be with the kids and family makes a world of difference.
I always believe that, with some luck, when there's a will, there's a way.
I have always thought of myself as career-minded. You might consider me a workaholic, since I don't mind working weekends, and I certainly don't mind working 90-hour work week. I guess I have inherited that work ethics from my parents.
I never really have had much problem with having to choice love and work in the past, until the time when my husband and I have to decide what we want to do with our long distance relationship. We were not married back then. I was in Australia. He was in Chicago. Our long distance affair had been ongoing for five years, with annual getting gathering. The idea is quite romantic. We would go about our lives, focus on our work, and we'll have long chats over phone often. (Don't ask about how much the phone bill is, though, because it'll pop your eyes.) It's not a bad thing to have five years, free of other distractions, so that we can focus on our career. But then, at some point, the whole premise will get shaky. At some point, when we both know we are serious about each other, we have to do something about our relationship. That's the point when decisions have to be made; our moment of truth.
As I'm in IT, the skills are pretty portable around the world. He's in research (biology), and should not have problems finding jobs in Australia. Eventually, I decided to relocate to America. I've lived in different countries in the past, so it's not that big a deal for me to move. And, I travel light.
It's been a good decision, since things have worked out well, both work and our personal lives. To be sure, personal relationships (be it married or otherwise) are never easy. One would always have to work at it. But I truly believe that, if both parties are willing to try, it'll work out (in most cases).
So, I can empathize with those mentioned in the article, on the need to choose between love and work. I'd say, as one gets older, one tends to lean towards love, rather than work. I tend to be very pragmatic (much like my mother). I'm not sure if I would give up my work that easily, nor would I give up my personal life, for the sake of work. Somehow, I always believe that, I would find a way, if I will it to be. There are times when my husband prods me to spend more time with the family and the kids because I have to work in office for long hours. Instead of quitting my job, I find a way to work from home. While working from home can mean even longer working hours, but having the chance to be with the kids and family makes a world of difference.
I always believe that, with some luck, when there's a will, there's a way.
Monday, October 19, 2009
On unsightly models favored by fashion industry...
There's this recent spat of the use of Polo Ralph Lauren (PRL) of a dangerously underweight model in a magazine. It turns out, PRL doctored the picture to trim the model, who has since been fired since she's considered too full-bodied.
I must say, I really don't understand the mentality of the fashion industry. I seriously if anyone (or a majority of the target audience) finds those very under-aged and under-weighed models appealing. Personally, I find those pictures I see in magazines and on the web repulsive. Apparently, the fashion industry thinks otherwise. And the use of these highly unappealing models is so pervasive in this industry that one can hardly avoid seeing these sickly pictures of models, pushing all sorts of products, from shoes, to fashion, accessories, fragrances, cosmetics, and more. Honestly, these pictures make it less likely for me, as a potential customer, to buy these products, when I see how these products are used. Still, these industries keep using these sickly-looking models. Why they still keep doing it, I really can't comprehend.
Maybe I'm at an age when I'm very comfortable with myself, my body, my self-esteem, that I know what I like and don't like. For younger girls and women, they are much more impressionable, and they are the ones who are being molded (or brainwashed) to believe that the thinner you are, the better-looking you will become, even though you're looking more malnourished by the day.
So, for me, this spat between PRL and this model (and the feminist movement) is more like storm in a tea cup to me, since I pretty much ignore this very unsightly picture that are heavily doctored. For others, it gets more personal, demanding apology from PRL. Although I don't give a damn about these fashion pictures, I do believe that the fashion industry should apologize for continuing such sickly practice.
Bottomline is, someone needs to stand up and tell the fashion industry that, whatever that they think is beautiful, it just looks so darn sick that they've pretty lost my business, because of that.
I must say, I really don't understand the mentality of the fashion industry. I seriously if anyone (or a majority of the target audience) finds those very under-aged and under-weighed models appealing. Personally, I find those pictures I see in magazines and on the web repulsive. Apparently, the fashion industry thinks otherwise. And the use of these highly unappealing models is so pervasive in this industry that one can hardly avoid seeing these sickly pictures of models, pushing all sorts of products, from shoes, to fashion, accessories, fragrances, cosmetics, and more. Honestly, these pictures make it less likely for me, as a potential customer, to buy these products, when I see how these products are used. Still, these industries keep using these sickly-looking models. Why they still keep doing it, I really can't comprehend.
Maybe I'm at an age when I'm very comfortable with myself, my body, my self-esteem, that I know what I like and don't like. For younger girls and women, they are much more impressionable, and they are the ones who are being molded (or brainwashed) to believe that the thinner you are, the better-looking you will become, even though you're looking more malnourished by the day.
So, for me, this spat between PRL and this model (and the feminist movement) is more like storm in a tea cup to me, since I pretty much ignore this very unsightly picture that are heavily doctored. For others, it gets more personal, demanding apology from PRL. Although I don't give a damn about these fashion pictures, I do believe that the fashion industry should apologize for continuing such sickly practice.
Bottomline is, someone needs to stand up and tell the fashion industry that, whatever that they think is beautiful, it just looks so darn sick that they've pretty lost my business, because of that.
Friday, October 9, 2009
On a decidely undeserved Nobel Peace Prize to Obama...
I was stunned this morning when I started up my computer and read the news headline: Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize!
At first, I thought it was one of those satire from The Onion, like they duped me in last time. I was wrong. Obama really had got the Nobel.
My second reaction was an immediate question: What has he done? I kept thinking and thinking, and I couldn't come up with anything. While I like some of the initiatives and instructions that he has initiated since he took the presidency, I have yet to see any results. In fact, I don't really know if he can deliver. I don't think anyone knows, including Obama himself.
It's apt to call the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, the Nobel Hope Prize this year. I would have expected much deeper considerations to go in with a Nobel prize, let alone nomination. Given that the nomination of Obama (by whoever the sycophant) came just 12 days after he was sworn in, his nomination itself alone stood on the most shakiest grounds. How could such important a prize be given to someone with no results to show for??? I simply cannot believe how naive this Nobel committee has been, jumping on the Obama bandwagon, and awarded him a Nobel, based on nothing but posturing and looks.
This whole thing is such a farce to me. It's not unlike awarding a PhD to a college freshman, simply because he tries very hard to get in the program, he's working hard now, and he looks to be "on the right track." Is that good enough? Absolutely not. And I expect much more from a Nobel committee.
From this day on, I'll look at a Nobel Peace Prize in a whole new, different, negative light. In fact, I don't think I would bother much with this peace prize anymore. It's totally ridiculous, and worths less than a joke.
At first, I thought it was one of those satire from The Onion, like they duped me in last time. I was wrong. Obama really had got the Nobel.
My second reaction was an immediate question: What has he done? I kept thinking and thinking, and I couldn't come up with anything. While I like some of the initiatives and instructions that he has initiated since he took the presidency, I have yet to see any results. In fact, I don't really know if he can deliver. I don't think anyone knows, including Obama himself.
It's apt to call the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, the Nobel Hope Prize this year. I would have expected much deeper considerations to go in with a Nobel prize, let alone nomination. Given that the nomination of Obama (by whoever the sycophant) came just 12 days after he was sworn in, his nomination itself alone stood on the most shakiest grounds. How could such important a prize be given to someone with no results to show for??? I simply cannot believe how naive this Nobel committee has been, jumping on the Obama bandwagon, and awarded him a Nobel, based on nothing but posturing and looks.
This whole thing is such a farce to me. It's not unlike awarding a PhD to a college freshman, simply because he tries very hard to get in the program, he's working hard now, and he looks to be "on the right track." Is that good enough? Absolutely not. And I expect much more from a Nobel committee.
From this day on, I'll look at a Nobel Peace Prize in a whole new, different, negative light. In fact, I don't think I would bother much with this peace prize anymore. It's totally ridiculous, and worths less than a joke.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
On Polanski and the 30-year-old rape case against him...
I don't put much stock in celebrity talking. Mostly they just yap, and we just ignore. But in the 30-year-old case on child rape against Roman Polanski, I have to say, enough is enough.
Sure, I like his movies, and no one doubts his talent. But everyone knows a crime is a crime. Crimes against children are particularly heinous. For all the details admitted by all parties, of how Polanski plied the 13-year-old girl with alcohol, then imposed himself on her, I cannot believe it, when I read what Whoopi Goldberg said, this does not sound like "it was rape-rape"?!? I guess by her loud-mouthed definition, rape-rape must have involved violence. If it had been a 13-year-old boy instead of a girl, would she have had a different opinion?
At the end of the day, he raped a child. That's the crime the court should be judging him for, not how many Oscar he's won, or great movies he's made. Nor does it matter how long ago that crime was, or how old he has become.
I can understand why the Polanski victim wants the case to be dropped. Afterall, it's hard to go through an ordeal like that. But as far as I'm concerned, Polanski is a sex offender and predator. If he had done it once, he can and will do it again, whether it's 46 or 76. If he's not brought to justice, other children would only continue to suffer in silence.
Sure, I like his movies, and no one doubts his talent. But everyone knows a crime is a crime. Crimes against children are particularly heinous. For all the details admitted by all parties, of how Polanski plied the 13-year-old girl with alcohol, then imposed himself on her, I cannot believe it, when I read what Whoopi Goldberg said, this does not sound like "it was rape-rape"?!? I guess by her loud-mouthed definition, rape-rape must have involved violence. If it had been a 13-year-old boy instead of a girl, would she have had a different opinion?
At the end of the day, he raped a child. That's the crime the court should be judging him for, not how many Oscar he's won, or great movies he's made. Nor does it matter how long ago that crime was, or how old he has become.
I can understand why the Polanski victim wants the case to be dropped. Afterall, it's hard to go through an ordeal like that. But as far as I'm concerned, Polanski is a sex offender and predator. If he had done it once, he can and will do it again, whether it's 46 or 76. If he's not brought to justice, other children would only continue to suffer in silence.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
On musing consumer-driven economy and growth...
Earlier today, I read an article on Wall Street Journal about how manufacturers in China are expanding their domestic market in China, in the hope of replacing the declining export market to developed countries like US and Europe.
Since I was a very little child, as soon as I'm aware of the concepts of economics, I have always wondered the notion of economic growth that is dependent on consumerism.
I started off with distaste for consumption due to unnecessary packaging. I had thought, how unnecessary and wasteful it is, to wrap a product so very nicely, only to be ripped up and thrown out when it's opened. I remember some 20 years back, Japanese products commanded a high premium over products made in other countries (except those with the "Made In Italy", "Made In France", "Made in USA", or "Made In England" labels). I would be the first to admit that the packaging of Japanese goods really were very nice. Over time, I find myself saving up quite some of the wrappings (eg. nice boxes that products are packaged in). One day, I have this epiphany, asking myself why these wrappings exist in the first place. They are completely and absolutely unnecessary. If they had not been saved (by me), thereby sitting in my room, they would be in the landfill, most of which might not be broken down for a hundred years. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it becomes.
And then, there is the economic side of things. Granted that I don't study economics, I have some levels of understanding in terms of money supply, and others. (These days, most everyone can be a self-made economist, to some degree.) I have always been doubtful about the heavy reliance of consumptions and consumerism to prop up economic growth and expansion. As if on cue, this current financial crisis shows us all how global markets fall like dominoes, with the abrupt withdrawal syndrome of American consumers. In hindsight, it's always easy to say the obvious, that the show cannot go on forever, that American consumers (who borrowed to the max, bought on credits and later their property into some biggy banks for cash out, thereby fueling the property market bubble, until it all came crashing in late 2008) cannot possibly afford to keep spending and buying everything that the world made for them.
Which brings us back to the WSJ article on the inward focus of Chinese manufacturers on their domestic market now. Surely, stimulus from the Chinese government has helped propped up the market in China. How long can that last is anyone's guess. Still, my question remains: Now that Americans stop buying/spending/consuming, all eyes are on the Chinese market. Is that the only way that economies can expand on? Surely we know the growth engine for the next 20-40 years will be in India and China. But what happens next?
Does everyone have to keep throwing out our 2-year-old cell phone and buy new one, or thrashing their 3-year-old sedan for the latest model, in order for the economy to grow? Do we really need to extract all these precious natural resources from Mother Earth, then thrashing them like a kid onto his next new toy, just so that the economy keeps expanding? Is there any other way??
Since I was a very little child, as soon as I'm aware of the concepts of economics, I have always wondered the notion of economic growth that is dependent on consumerism.
I started off with distaste for consumption due to unnecessary packaging. I had thought, how unnecessary and wasteful it is, to wrap a product so very nicely, only to be ripped up and thrown out when it's opened. I remember some 20 years back, Japanese products commanded a high premium over products made in other countries (except those with the "Made In Italy", "Made In France", "Made in USA", or "Made In England" labels). I would be the first to admit that the packaging of Japanese goods really were very nice. Over time, I find myself saving up quite some of the wrappings (eg. nice boxes that products are packaged in). One day, I have this epiphany, asking myself why these wrappings exist in the first place. They are completely and absolutely unnecessary. If they had not been saved (by me), thereby sitting in my room, they would be in the landfill, most of which might not be broken down for a hundred years. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it becomes.
And then, there is the economic side of things. Granted that I don't study economics, I have some levels of understanding in terms of money supply, and others. (These days, most everyone can be a self-made economist, to some degree.) I have always been doubtful about the heavy reliance of consumptions and consumerism to prop up economic growth and expansion. As if on cue, this current financial crisis shows us all how global markets fall like dominoes, with the abrupt withdrawal syndrome of American consumers. In hindsight, it's always easy to say the obvious, that the show cannot go on forever, that American consumers (who borrowed to the max, bought on credits and later their property into some biggy banks for cash out, thereby fueling the property market bubble, until it all came crashing in late 2008) cannot possibly afford to keep spending and buying everything that the world made for them.
Which brings us back to the WSJ article on the inward focus of Chinese manufacturers on their domestic market now. Surely, stimulus from the Chinese government has helped propped up the market in China. How long can that last is anyone's guess. Still, my question remains: Now that Americans stop buying/spending/consuming, all eyes are on the Chinese market. Is that the only way that economies can expand on? Surely we know the growth engine for the next 20-40 years will be in India and China. But what happens next?
Does everyone have to keep throwing out our 2-year-old cell phone and buy new one, or thrashing their 3-year-old sedan for the latest model, in order for the economy to grow? Do we really need to extract all these precious natural resources from Mother Earth, then thrashing them like a kid onto his next new toy, just so that the economy keeps expanding? Is there any other way??
Monday, September 28, 2009
On the 18% yearly gain on trading this year...
I'm not a day trader, although I watch the market couple of times throughout the day. I trade, but I don't feel compelled to make bets or to close out my position by end of day, everyday. That takes too much energy and my time. I have a family to attend to, a day job to do, and side venture to worry about it. I don't need to have to think of my investment in equity.
After I saw the balance of my rollover IRA cut in half, I've decided to take it back in my own hands. So, late last year (Dec 2008), I rolled-over almost all my IRA balance to etrade, and started trading on the stocks and ETF's that I like, rather than praying for the mercy of some mediocre fund manager to work his/her way back to where my IRA was supposed to be.
I was a bit lucky, since I liquidated during a 7-day rally in Dec '08, and got 10% extra on the balance. When I rolled-over, I was pretty much breakeven, as if I never got any employer matching 401k contribution, and no growth over the entire period. In short, I would have been better off putting it under my mattress.
Still, I don't like to look back. I'm mostly a forward-looking person. After a few months of trying things out, I located the stocks and ETF's (in various sectors) that I like, and started trading. I don't have time to do basic research, so I have to trade on momentum. But I only pick the stocks and ETF's that I wouldn't mind holding, for the long term.
I pretty much started in Jan 2009. My year-on-year gain so far is 18%. Since it's my rollover IRA balance, I don't have to worry about taxes (for now), though I still keep all trading records, just in case. And I save a few percentages paying those fund managers who might be choosing some pigs that I don't like.
I must admit, I feel quite good about it. I take an ultra-conservative approach, since I only use about 10-40% of my balance to trade. I keep everything else in cash (not money market fund, but cold-hard cash). My husband was quite impressed by my record so far as well, since to have the gain of 18%, that would mean I would have almost doubled the amount I have put in to trade, all the while keeping over 50% of my balance in cash to buffer any drastic market downturn.
I know momentum trading is not going to last forever, since I need the huge market volatility to make gains. (Mind you, I don't do leverage. I strictly buy-and-hold, or buy-and-sell only.) But looking at the performance of average hedge funds (14% so far for this year), with some making losing 15% or more, my record so far this year really hasn't been too shabby at all.
But that article in Wall Street Journal also brings up a very good question: If S&P is up more than 55% in the first half of 2009, while these fund managers are down, someone (or some company) must be ripping huge gains. I'm always intrigued by questions like this. Someone, somewhere out there, must be doing some detective work right now to find out who that might be. If anyone tells me it's Goldman Sachs, I would not be too surprised, given its big gains in flash trading.
After I saw the balance of my rollover IRA cut in half, I've decided to take it back in my own hands. So, late last year (Dec 2008), I rolled-over almost all my IRA balance to etrade, and started trading on the stocks and ETF's that I like, rather than praying for the mercy of some mediocre fund manager to work his/her way back to where my IRA was supposed to be.
I was a bit lucky, since I liquidated during a 7-day rally in Dec '08, and got 10% extra on the balance. When I rolled-over, I was pretty much breakeven, as if I never got any employer matching 401k contribution, and no growth over the entire period. In short, I would have been better off putting it under my mattress.
Still, I don't like to look back. I'm mostly a forward-looking person. After a few months of trying things out, I located the stocks and ETF's (in various sectors) that I like, and started trading. I don't have time to do basic research, so I have to trade on momentum. But I only pick the stocks and ETF's that I wouldn't mind holding, for the long term.
I pretty much started in Jan 2009. My year-on-year gain so far is 18%. Since it's my rollover IRA balance, I don't have to worry about taxes (for now), though I still keep all trading records, just in case. And I save a few percentages paying those fund managers who might be choosing some pigs that I don't like.
I must admit, I feel quite good about it. I take an ultra-conservative approach, since I only use about 10-40% of my balance to trade. I keep everything else in cash (not money market fund, but cold-hard cash). My husband was quite impressed by my record so far as well, since to have the gain of 18%, that would mean I would have almost doubled the amount I have put in to trade, all the while keeping over 50% of my balance in cash to buffer any drastic market downturn.
I know momentum trading is not going to last forever, since I need the huge market volatility to make gains. (Mind you, I don't do leverage. I strictly buy-and-hold, or buy-and-sell only.) But looking at the performance of average hedge funds (14% so far for this year), with some making losing 15% or more, my record so far this year really hasn't been too shabby at all.
But that article in Wall Street Journal also brings up a very good question: If S&P is up more than 55% in the first half of 2009, while these fund managers are down, someone (or some company) must be ripping huge gains. I'm always intrigued by questions like this. Someone, somewhere out there, must be doing some detective work right now to find out who that might be. If anyone tells me it's Goldman Sachs, I would not be too surprised, given its big gains in flash trading.
Friday, September 11, 2009
On child mortality rate decline globally, and my grandma...
I read alot of news online everyday. We don't have a TV and I don't feel like having a TV blasting news or junk in my fact. I prefer to pull, rather than pull, model (ie. I pick and get the news whenever and wherever I want; but I do not want news dumped on me). Except for Fortune, I pretty much cancel all mail subscriptions, and move all subscriptions online. It's my one luxury when I'm not online, so that I have a copy in my hand while I sip my coffee.
This morning, I was reading the news on child mortality rate globally (in particular, in developing countries) has declined. It's great news. Thousands of children are saved daily. If I put myself in the shoes of those parents and mothers, and find that I can save my child from some diseases that are perfectly preventable and curable, I would be over the moon.
Some 2/3 down the article, it talks about the infrastructure put in place to deliver these simple care to these rural people in Africa which have saved so many lives. The same infrastructure is used to deliver other care, including provision of birth control. Interviews of women indicate how life-changing this has been. For a change in life, they can instantly regain the control of their lives. As one woman aptly put it, if she had a choice, she would have four children, instead of nine, because she can barely feed them with the harvest from her tiny plot of barren land, let alone trying to save them from illness. If she had had less children, she could provide better care for them.
I was reading, then starring at the screen, quite speechless. The child mortality rate is mother nature's way of telling these poor souls that they cannot afford to have more children, so Darwinism would have to pick and choose. I was speechless, because it's such an awful idea, just thinking about it. Women in the western world and more developed countries have had access to birth control, which allows them to plan out their life, including life-changing events like when to have children. Those poor women in Africa do not have a choice. When their husbands want it, they have to give. I can't imagine how those poor women keep getting pregnant and bearing children every year. These women are not stupid. They want the same birth control choice that their western counterparts have.
And then, my thoughts turn to George W Bush, of how during his presidency, he directed government funding to cut off birth control and abortion service for developing countries, in return for getting aid. This was done all in the name of God. Conservatives can't sing enough praises to Bush, but they hardly care about what kind of lives those poor women and babies have.
I believe in God and the Bible, even though I'm not that religious. I can understand the position of Vatican and where Bush came from. I have to stress that I value lives as well. But this brings me back to my original (and very first) thought, after I read the article. If mother nature and God have not intended those unwanted babies to live, what should one do? I do not, in any way, believe that we can stand by and watch babies die. They are flesh and blood, just like us. But if we have playing god, and save those that nature has not intended them to live; shouldn't we be doing the same about prevention in the first place? Why is birth control so evil that it has to be banned, given that it's possibly the only tool that these women have in putting some orders and control in their hands?
No doubt, I'm looking at the issue from a totally pragmatic view, without regard of what the Bible says. I do believe, though, that we should either take all the steps consistently from one side, or the other. We either refrain birth control from these poor women, let them procreate and multiply, and let the babies die naturally; or we put in our might to save as many as we can, but give the women the tool to do what nature would have them do (if you can't afford the baby, don't bring the baby to this world).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All these thoughts bring me back to my paternal grandmother. She died more than 20 years ago when she's in her late 90s. (I think she was 97 or 98 when she passed away.) She suffered a stroke which paralyzed her. She remained hospitalized and unconscious for one month, before she died naturally. I remember when I got the news, I rushed to the hospital with my brother to see her. I couldn't help my tears when I opened the door to her room and saw the tubes and needles all over her. Prior to the visit, my mom had a talk with us, who told us that the situation (with grandma in a coma) could drag on for years. Mom wanted us to be prepared, that all of us would have to help out when grandma moved in with us.
Before I opened that door, I had secretly hoped that grandma would live, if only for just a bit more time. I still remember vividly feeling how selfish I had been, for wishing her to live, once I opened that door and saw the condition she was in. Living in coma and tubes/needles in a bed is not a life I would wish grandma to have for her remaining years. Afterall, I wouldn't want that for myself either.
That night, we got a phone call from the hospital. It's probably around 3am. It's a quick request for us to go to the hospital to see grandma. We all knew what's coming. Us kids went to our rooms and got dressed quickly and in silence. Mom and dad were in the kitchen preparing something. We got in a cab, ran up to grandma's room, and saw her lying in bed, as if she's sleeping most peacefully. I touched her hand gently and felt it ice cold. She had passed away for quite some time, but the nurses did not know. I looked at grandma and said my goodbye to her in my heart.
Mom instructed us to not touch grandma's body, probably due to some ancient Chinese superstitions (and there are many). I didn't see the big deal of it. When mom got the stuffs from her bag she and dad were preparing in the kitchen, I realized what they were for. Among those was a small coffee mug filled with red dates and water. Mom was muttering something under her breath, no doubt wishing a good afterlife for grandma. Then, mom used a spoon to feed some to grandma's mouth, to bring sweetness to her in her afterlife. Naturally, since grandma was pretty stiff already, all the red dates water dripped down her cheek onto the pillow.
I remember the only other feelings that I had was one of relief. I was relief not only for the living, but for the dead. I don't think anyone wants a life like that.
Parents organized a Chinese funeral for grandma, with all the traditions like burning tons of paper money and paper-made everything (houses, cars, bridges, etc) for grandma's afterlife. I've always wonder how the paper stuffs can support grandma. After everything's done at the funeral hall, it's customary to have a feast for everyone who came to the funeral. This was to bring back smiles to everyone...supposedly. When we got home after the feast, dad broke down and cried. That was the first and only time I ever saw him cry. He's a very dutifully son, and he loved her very much. Somehow, he felt that she had preference for the elder daughter (ie. my paternal aunt), and she would scrap by everything, including food and every dollar that my dad gave her, and pass them to the daughter. I never knew my dad had bored that deep bitterness for so long.
Grandma was very easily satisfied. She's not ambitious. She could stay at home, napping or doing nothing all day long. She's happy with those few daily routines she had. When I was very young, she used to tell me stories about the nature (how she would go to the river and catch fish for family meals; how she identified different kinds of birds). Given that this was 19th century, her stories would only mean one thing, which is that she had had a hard life. Some years back, dad made a cryptic comment, that grandma had not been the first wife of granddad. (I never knew him. He died naturally when my dad was 15.) Dad said grandma might have married granddad after he's widowed or something. That might have indicated that grandma might have had a previous marriage, but she never talked about it with dad, hence he never knew. Now, that history died with her.
A few years after grandma died, I was chitchatting with mom. She said, if it had been in the olden days, grandma would have died almost rightaway from that stroke. There will be no prolonged suffering on her part, and no extended angst on the descendants. But modern medicine changes all that. We put her on life support, without asking for her permission, thinking that that's what she would have wanted. But did she, at the age of 97 or 98? I have always had serious doubts that she did.
One of these days, I'll write a bit more on the little that I know of the grandparents (both maternal and paternal side), so my children would know.
This morning, I was reading the news on child mortality rate globally (in particular, in developing countries) has declined. It's great news. Thousands of children are saved daily. If I put myself in the shoes of those parents and mothers, and find that I can save my child from some diseases that are perfectly preventable and curable, I would be over the moon.
Some 2/3 down the article, it talks about the infrastructure put in place to deliver these simple care to these rural people in Africa which have saved so many lives. The same infrastructure is used to deliver other care, including provision of birth control. Interviews of women indicate how life-changing this has been. For a change in life, they can instantly regain the control of their lives. As one woman aptly put it, if she had a choice, she would have four children, instead of nine, because she can barely feed them with the harvest from her tiny plot of barren land, let alone trying to save them from illness. If she had had less children, she could provide better care for them.
I was reading, then starring at the screen, quite speechless. The child mortality rate is mother nature's way of telling these poor souls that they cannot afford to have more children, so Darwinism would have to pick and choose. I was speechless, because it's such an awful idea, just thinking about it. Women in the western world and more developed countries have had access to birth control, which allows them to plan out their life, including life-changing events like when to have children. Those poor women in Africa do not have a choice. When their husbands want it, they have to give. I can't imagine how those poor women keep getting pregnant and bearing children every year. These women are not stupid. They want the same birth control choice that their western counterparts have.
And then, my thoughts turn to George W Bush, of how during his presidency, he directed government funding to cut off birth control and abortion service for developing countries, in return for getting aid. This was done all in the name of God. Conservatives can't sing enough praises to Bush, but they hardly care about what kind of lives those poor women and babies have.
I believe in God and the Bible, even though I'm not that religious. I can understand the position of Vatican and where Bush came from. I have to stress that I value lives as well. But this brings me back to my original (and very first) thought, after I read the article. If mother nature and God have not intended those unwanted babies to live, what should one do? I do not, in any way, believe that we can stand by and watch babies die. They are flesh and blood, just like us. But if we have playing god, and save those that nature has not intended them to live; shouldn't we be doing the same about prevention in the first place? Why is birth control so evil that it has to be banned, given that it's possibly the only tool that these women have in putting some orders and control in their hands?
No doubt, I'm looking at the issue from a totally pragmatic view, without regard of what the Bible says. I do believe, though, that we should either take all the steps consistently from one side, or the other. We either refrain birth control from these poor women, let them procreate and multiply, and let the babies die naturally; or we put in our might to save as many as we can, but give the women the tool to do what nature would have them do (if you can't afford the baby, don't bring the baby to this world).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All these thoughts bring me back to my paternal grandmother. She died more than 20 years ago when she's in her late 90s. (I think she was 97 or 98 when she passed away.) She suffered a stroke which paralyzed her. She remained hospitalized and unconscious for one month, before she died naturally. I remember when I got the news, I rushed to the hospital with my brother to see her. I couldn't help my tears when I opened the door to her room and saw the tubes and needles all over her. Prior to the visit, my mom had a talk with us, who told us that the situation (with grandma in a coma) could drag on for years. Mom wanted us to be prepared, that all of us would have to help out when grandma moved in with us.
Before I opened that door, I had secretly hoped that grandma would live, if only for just a bit more time. I still remember vividly feeling how selfish I had been, for wishing her to live, once I opened that door and saw the condition she was in. Living in coma and tubes/needles in a bed is not a life I would wish grandma to have for her remaining years. Afterall, I wouldn't want that for myself either.
That night, we got a phone call from the hospital. It's probably around 3am. It's a quick request for us to go to the hospital to see grandma. We all knew what's coming. Us kids went to our rooms and got dressed quickly and in silence. Mom and dad were in the kitchen preparing something. We got in a cab, ran up to grandma's room, and saw her lying in bed, as if she's sleeping most peacefully. I touched her hand gently and felt it ice cold. She had passed away for quite some time, but the nurses did not know. I looked at grandma and said my goodbye to her in my heart.
Mom instructed us to not touch grandma's body, probably due to some ancient Chinese superstitions (and there are many). I didn't see the big deal of it. When mom got the stuffs from her bag she and dad were preparing in the kitchen, I realized what they were for. Among those was a small coffee mug filled with red dates and water. Mom was muttering something under her breath, no doubt wishing a good afterlife for grandma. Then, mom used a spoon to feed some to grandma's mouth, to bring sweetness to her in her afterlife. Naturally, since grandma was pretty stiff already, all the red dates water dripped down her cheek onto the pillow.
I remember the only other feelings that I had was one of relief. I was relief not only for the living, but for the dead. I don't think anyone wants a life like that.
Parents organized a Chinese funeral for grandma, with all the traditions like burning tons of paper money and paper-made everything (houses, cars, bridges, etc) for grandma's afterlife. I've always wonder how the paper stuffs can support grandma. After everything's done at the funeral hall, it's customary to have a feast for everyone who came to the funeral. This was to bring back smiles to everyone...supposedly. When we got home after the feast, dad broke down and cried. That was the first and only time I ever saw him cry. He's a very dutifully son, and he loved her very much. Somehow, he felt that she had preference for the elder daughter (ie. my paternal aunt), and she would scrap by everything, including food and every dollar that my dad gave her, and pass them to the daughter. I never knew my dad had bored that deep bitterness for so long.
Grandma was very easily satisfied. She's not ambitious. She could stay at home, napping or doing nothing all day long. She's happy with those few daily routines she had. When I was very young, she used to tell me stories about the nature (how she would go to the river and catch fish for family meals; how she identified different kinds of birds). Given that this was 19th century, her stories would only mean one thing, which is that she had had a hard life. Some years back, dad made a cryptic comment, that grandma had not been the first wife of granddad. (I never knew him. He died naturally when my dad was 15.) Dad said grandma might have married granddad after he's widowed or something. That might have indicated that grandma might have had a previous marriage, but she never talked about it with dad, hence he never knew. Now, that history died with her.
A few years after grandma died, I was chitchatting with mom. She said, if it had been in the olden days, grandma would have died almost rightaway from that stroke. There will be no prolonged suffering on her part, and no extended angst on the descendants. But modern medicine changes all that. We put her on life support, without asking for her permission, thinking that that's what she would have wanted. But did she, at the age of 97 or 98? I have always had serious doubts that she did.
One of these days, I'll write a bit more on the little that I know of the grandparents (both maternal and paternal side), so my children would know.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
On afterthoughts to refinancing...
Last month, we refinanced our current mortgage. It was a 7-year ARM at 4.625%, which is still a good deal. But as it's expiring mid next year, we want to lock in the current low rate. So, we refinanced it, paid some points, and we're now at 4.25%, fixed 30 years. I reckon, we can easily make the points back by staying for 3 years or so in our current place, which we intend to do anyways. We also take our the uncertainty of variable rate after the 7-year term of the previous ARM, since USD is bound to go down further at some point due to the huge deficit, and interest rate has to go up further down the line. The new mortgage payment is down about 10% (including escrows for property taxes), which is much cheaper than paying rent. Our area is a stable neighborhood, which has actually seen property prices holding up and on their way up again, due to the good public schools. I'm truly thankful that things have worked out fine.
This is actually not our first mortgage. We've had our first mortgage some 12 years ago, with 8.5% interest, fixed for 30 years. About two years later, we refinanced it to fix at 6.25%, fixed for 30 years. And then, maybe another 2 years later, we paid it off completely, so we don't have to have the debt hanging over our heads. That's about the time when, after the stock market bubble burst in 2000 and the next bubble started building up in real estate. Over the next few years, we saw our neighborhood prices going up by 20-30% per year which, to any sane mind, was pretty crazy by American standards. As my husband doesn't normally pay much attention to markets, he initially would not believe me that our property's value has probably doubled, since we bought it some 6 years before. During bubble times, no one really cares about to do sanity checks. All everyone wanted to do was to buy and flip, or buy and wait to see prices to go up another 50% or more before they sell and trade up. As we intend to stay there long term, it doesn't really matter much to us, though I must admit, it's very amusing to see. The psychology of the crowd can be powerful though. When you're sitting on paper gain of 200%, you feel rich. That's what's been fueling the American economy.
The underwriter of our initial mortgage was Chase. I like them alot, since the processing is super-efficient and we never had any trouble with it. When we refinanced, our loan was eventually sold, and we ended up with Chase again. I couldn't be more happier. Interestingly, when we bought our current place (second mortgage), our loan got bought out by Chase once again. I certainly won't complain, since I've heard horror stories about lesser underwriters whose processing was shoddy, with mortgage payments getting lost and all. I would have loved to stay with Chase forever. Chase has always kept us on their books, which is what I like.
After we refinanced last month, we were told that the underwriter (some no-name mortgage company) routinely sells their loans within 60 days of closing. Hence, they never bother to send us permanent mortgage payment coupons. As it happens, it looks like we're going to be with Bank Of America, starting next month (yep, within 60 days of closing, alright). Apparently, even though there's so much talk in the news that banks are reluctant to lend, they are still buying up mortgage loans from secondary market like crazy. I hope BoA would keep us on their books too, so we don't have to keep switching underwriters, every year or so.
From a business perspective, an solid investment with interest paying 4.25% for 30 years is not bad a deal, given that the treasury is currently paying 1% or less. If I have had the capital, I wouldn't mind getting into this business at all. :) But I would probably stick with the community bank type of business model, so that I would get to know my customers well, and keep them on my books. Granted that it's not an expansionist view (to get big as fast as possible and to buy/sell on secondary market etc), I like the idea of solid growth with solid customers. Perhaps that's just me. :)
This is actually not our first mortgage. We've had our first mortgage some 12 years ago, with 8.5% interest, fixed for 30 years. About two years later, we refinanced it to fix at 6.25%, fixed for 30 years. And then, maybe another 2 years later, we paid it off completely, so we don't have to have the debt hanging over our heads. That's about the time when, after the stock market bubble burst in 2000 and the next bubble started building up in real estate. Over the next few years, we saw our neighborhood prices going up by 20-30% per year which, to any sane mind, was pretty crazy by American standards. As my husband doesn't normally pay much attention to markets, he initially would not believe me that our property's value has probably doubled, since we bought it some 6 years before. During bubble times, no one really cares about to do sanity checks. All everyone wanted to do was to buy and flip, or buy and wait to see prices to go up another 50% or more before they sell and trade up. As we intend to stay there long term, it doesn't really matter much to us, though I must admit, it's very amusing to see. The psychology of the crowd can be powerful though. When you're sitting on paper gain of 200%, you feel rich. That's what's been fueling the American economy.
The underwriter of our initial mortgage was Chase. I like them alot, since the processing is super-efficient and we never had any trouble with it. When we refinanced, our loan was eventually sold, and we ended up with Chase again. I couldn't be more happier. Interestingly, when we bought our current place (second mortgage), our loan got bought out by Chase once again. I certainly won't complain, since I've heard horror stories about lesser underwriters whose processing was shoddy, with mortgage payments getting lost and all. I would have loved to stay with Chase forever. Chase has always kept us on their books, which is what I like.
After we refinanced last month, we were told that the underwriter (some no-name mortgage company) routinely sells their loans within 60 days of closing. Hence, they never bother to send us permanent mortgage payment coupons. As it happens, it looks like we're going to be with Bank Of America, starting next month (yep, within 60 days of closing, alright). Apparently, even though there's so much talk in the news that banks are reluctant to lend, they are still buying up mortgage loans from secondary market like crazy. I hope BoA would keep us on their books too, so we don't have to keep switching underwriters, every year or so.
From a business perspective, an solid investment with interest paying 4.25% for 30 years is not bad a deal, given that the treasury is currently paying 1% or less. If I have had the capital, I wouldn't mind getting into this business at all. :) But I would probably stick with the community bank type of business model, so that I would get to know my customers well, and keep them on my books. Granted that it's not an expansionist view (to get big as fast as possible and to buy/sell on secondary market etc), I like the idea of solid growth with solid customers. Perhaps that's just me. :)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
On the old Hitchcock movie, 39 Steps...
I like old movies and watched alot of them when I was growing up. These days, even though I'm busy, I still managed to watch maybe 7-10 movies a week.
Last night, I watched the 39 Steps, the old Hitchcock movie. Perhaps like most people, I tend to judge older movies with more sentimentality. A lot of the silliness in older movies are looked upon with fondness, which, if you put those silliness in modern movies, they can be downright annoying. Such is the endearing Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant in Charade, as compared to the 2002 remake The Truth About Charlie/Charade.
The reason why that comparison came to mind was that, I have no doubt that should I be younger, the chemistry and sexual innuendo between the main characters would probably have provoked romantic ideas in me. These days, I tend to find them more annoying. Would anyone really think a quick-snap romance like that would last? Does anyone really think there's any element of love in that? I do not think so.
Still, old movies tend to evolve ideals from a more innocent time. I think that's what I miss most, rather than the silliness of it.
Last night, I watched the 39 Steps, the old Hitchcock movie. Perhaps like most people, I tend to judge older movies with more sentimentality. A lot of the silliness in older movies are looked upon with fondness, which, if you put those silliness in modern movies, they can be downright annoying. Such is the endearing Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant in Charade, as compared to the 2002 remake The Truth About Charlie/Charade.
The reason why that comparison came to mind was that, I have no doubt that should I be younger, the chemistry and sexual innuendo between the main characters would probably have provoked romantic ideas in me. These days, I tend to find them more annoying. Would anyone really think a quick-snap romance like that would last? Does anyone really think there's any element of love in that? I do not think so.
Still, old movies tend to evolve ideals from a more innocent time. I think that's what I miss most, rather than the silliness of it.
Monday, September 7, 2009
On real life terror plots and Spooks/MI-5 the TV show...
We don't have a TV. Although I grew up with TV and I watched tons of TV, I don't really want my kids to sit around dinner table just starring at the TV while eating dinner. There's more quality time for the family when there's no TV distraction. Still, from time to time, I would still enjoy a TV show and two.
Earlier this year, I discovered MI-5 (aka Spooks) on netflix. I like the plots, and the production is good and serious. But I normally watch it much like any other TV shows, which is that, it's just a TV show with made-up plots.
And then, real-life news broke, that MI-5 and British police had successfully convicted (on firsts trial and re-trial), 3 local British Muslims who plotted to blow up airliners and cause chaos and mayhem. The most scary part is, the surveillance, plots, arrests, etc, all sound like they came right out of the scripts for Spooks. There's an element of surrealism, of life imitating art.
I have never had real exposure to the plights of the Muslims in those countries in Middle East that have inspired so many young minds (even the highly educated ones like doctors) would crossover to the fundamentalists that advocate maim and killings. There's always been complaints about the sanitized versions of news events in main media. I do not doubt for one moment that those in dire needs are all but forgotten by the media, who drops them from their radar as yesterday's news, and forever chases the flavor-of-the-day. Why these young people decide that violence is the only solution to help is something beyond me, though.
In the decades past, there's the arctic bear of the Russia as the foe of democracy in the Cold War days. Those were dangerous times, no doubt; but at least the Russians were cold, calculating, and mostly rational minds that the West could play mind games (and even dangerous war games) with. The dangerous new world with the Muslim fundamentalists is a whole new ball game.
I'm normally friendly to all ethnicity, and open-minded in listening and discussing issues with others, I sometimes wonder, when bright, intelligent minds have followed each others to convert to fundamentalism and violence, how could one be sure that the ones that we're talking to today is not going to be a mass murderer tomorrow? For all that matters, they could turn around tomorrow and decide that I stand in their way of seeking justice, in the eyes of their Allah, and should need to be annihilated. While that thought might sound dramatic, it was never too far from my conscience. Not that I would treat them any differently (since I do not subscribe to discrimination), I sometimes wonder if befriending an otherwise friendly Muslim is going to somehow turn my life to a TV show one day, when s/he becomes object of interest in some terrorist plot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That thought was never very far from me when I come to think of an ex-colleague of mine. He's born in mid-east, but has been a German citizen for a very long time. He got his degree and was looking for a break in jobs in US since unemployment in Germany was (and still is) so high. He told me it's next to impossible for him to get a job or advance in career in business in Germany. Through his relatives, he landed an unpaid internship at the previous company I worked for. I would have to admit that he doesn't have enough business or common sense at times to pick up projects, or sometimes even simple tasks. Slowly but surely, he was sidelined. The CEO just wanted him to leave on his own accord, since the company would not sponsor his green card application. After a little over a year, he had to go back to Germany.
During his last year of stay, I rented him my second home. While he's a fairly decent tenant (payment on time, never made a fuss or noises), the condo manager disliked his presence in the building, most likely for no other better reason than the fact that his skin is too dark in an mostly white neighborhood. The condo manager who happened to own a majority of the unit in the building, even threatened us to change the by-laws to disallow us to rent our condo out. Not that I need the money (and I rented it out to this guy mostly just as a favor), and I hate it when someone like this condo manager would try to push me around for no good reason.
In any case, as his visa expired, he had to leave US. He went back to Germany, but no luck still. It's been almost four years now, and his job situation is still going nowhere. Honestly I feel bad for him. Although he's friendly to me, I can feel this pent-up anger in him, about injustice and his feelings that he could have done more, if he's only given a chance. I had tried to point out to him, in areas where he can use some improvements, but I don't think he heeds the advice. He's still searching and finds nothing.
I normally trust my gut feeling. (My gut feeling has served me very well many times in the past.) I know, at the bottom of my heart, that if this guy has followed the path like those three young Muslim men did, who went to distribute humanitarian aid to distressed Muslims in mid-east but came back converted to fundamentalism after seeing so much injustice, he would have done the same thing. There's a certain gullibility and innocence in him, and his deep belief in justice, that made him particularly susceptible to fundamentalist ideals.
Deep in my heart, I can only pray that he would not turn, like those others before him. But when life deals one bad hand after another to him, I'm not sure how long it'll be before he crosses over. When I read news like this, I always hope that I would not see his name on the news. For whatever the injustice that he sees, I hope he find another way to channel that energy and anger into to make this a better world.
Earlier this year, I discovered MI-5 (aka Spooks) on netflix. I like the plots, and the production is good and serious. But I normally watch it much like any other TV shows, which is that, it's just a TV show with made-up plots.
And then, real-life news broke, that MI-5 and British police had successfully convicted (on firsts trial and re-trial), 3 local British Muslims who plotted to blow up airliners and cause chaos and mayhem. The most scary part is, the surveillance, plots, arrests, etc, all sound like they came right out of the scripts for Spooks. There's an element of surrealism, of life imitating art.
I have never had real exposure to the plights of the Muslims in those countries in Middle East that have inspired so many young minds (even the highly educated ones like doctors) would crossover to the fundamentalists that advocate maim and killings. There's always been complaints about the sanitized versions of news events in main media. I do not doubt for one moment that those in dire needs are all but forgotten by the media, who drops them from their radar as yesterday's news, and forever chases the flavor-of-the-day. Why these young people decide that violence is the only solution to help is something beyond me, though.
In the decades past, there's the arctic bear of the Russia as the foe of democracy in the Cold War days. Those were dangerous times, no doubt; but at least the Russians were cold, calculating, and mostly rational minds that the West could play mind games (and even dangerous war games) with. The dangerous new world with the Muslim fundamentalists is a whole new ball game.
I'm normally friendly to all ethnicity, and open-minded in listening and discussing issues with others, I sometimes wonder, when bright, intelligent minds have followed each others to convert to fundamentalism and violence, how could one be sure that the ones that we're talking to today is not going to be a mass murderer tomorrow? For all that matters, they could turn around tomorrow and decide that I stand in their way of seeking justice, in the eyes of their Allah, and should need to be annihilated. While that thought might sound dramatic, it was never too far from my conscience. Not that I would treat them any differently (since I do not subscribe to discrimination), I sometimes wonder if befriending an otherwise friendly Muslim is going to somehow turn my life to a TV show one day, when s/he becomes object of interest in some terrorist plot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That thought was never very far from me when I come to think of an ex-colleague of mine. He's born in mid-east, but has been a German citizen for a very long time. He got his degree and was looking for a break in jobs in US since unemployment in Germany was (and still is) so high. He told me it's next to impossible for him to get a job or advance in career in business in Germany. Through his relatives, he landed an unpaid internship at the previous company I worked for. I would have to admit that he doesn't have enough business or common sense at times to pick up projects, or sometimes even simple tasks. Slowly but surely, he was sidelined. The CEO just wanted him to leave on his own accord, since the company would not sponsor his green card application. After a little over a year, he had to go back to Germany.
During his last year of stay, I rented him my second home. While he's a fairly decent tenant (payment on time, never made a fuss or noises), the condo manager disliked his presence in the building, most likely for no other better reason than the fact that his skin is too dark in an mostly white neighborhood. The condo manager who happened to own a majority of the unit in the building, even threatened us to change the by-laws to disallow us to rent our condo out. Not that I need the money (and I rented it out to this guy mostly just as a favor), and I hate it when someone like this condo manager would try to push me around for no good reason.
In any case, as his visa expired, he had to leave US. He went back to Germany, but no luck still. It's been almost four years now, and his job situation is still going nowhere. Honestly I feel bad for him. Although he's friendly to me, I can feel this pent-up anger in him, about injustice and his feelings that he could have done more, if he's only given a chance. I had tried to point out to him, in areas where he can use some improvements, but I don't think he heeds the advice. He's still searching and finds nothing.
I normally trust my gut feeling. (My gut feeling has served me very well many times in the past.) I know, at the bottom of my heart, that if this guy has followed the path like those three young Muslim men did, who went to distribute humanitarian aid to distressed Muslims in mid-east but came back converted to fundamentalism after seeing so much injustice, he would have done the same thing. There's a certain gullibility and innocence in him, and his deep belief in justice, that made him particularly susceptible to fundamentalist ideals.
Deep in my heart, I can only pray that he would not turn, like those others before him. But when life deals one bad hand after another to him, I'm not sure how long it'll be before he crosses over. When I read news like this, I always hope that I would not see his name on the news. For whatever the injustice that he sees, I hope he find another way to channel that energy and anger into to make this a better world.
On the use of dictionary in the internet age...
I read, with keen interest, of the article on dictionary in this internet age.
When I was small, I used to love read dictionary. I like reading a seemingly complete collection of all words that one can think of, and what all those words mean. It's much like my feelings to libraries: Every time I go to a library, I have this urge to read all the books and articles that I can lay my hands on.
Much as the somewhat morphed use of library resources, as our reading habits change, so do our attitude and usage of dictionaries. While I still love holding a book in my hand, I'm just as happy reading all I can on the web, particularly on news which change much more frequently. I can understand why a growing number of people of using reading devices like Amazon's Kindle or Sony's eReader. I'd say, at some point, I might even give it a try.
The same is true with dictionary. I still have a few volumes of different dictionaries on my shelf, but I hardly used them. This is not to say that dictionary has no place in our life. Quite far from it, the concept of dictionary is more important than ever. One cannot say the same with the modus operandi of dictionary. One has to confront the reality that there are an increasing number of sources competing for our attention, in particular, the younger generations.
We insist on our kids learning how to use dictionary. The methodical way to locate a word in a thick book is still very applicable. Yet, if I look at my own behavior, it speaks volume. My dictionaries are gathering dust since I haven't used or touched them for ages now. The circular reference used in dictionary can be frustrating. New words get created daily, and dictionaries are hard to keep up. Due to space limitation, alot of dictionaries don't provide example of usage either. All these problems are resolved online. The only sticky point of looking up words on the web is that, there is really no one authoritative source to provide *the* meaning of a word. Users like me would sample the web search of the word over a number of search results. If they are saying more or less the same meaning, that's the one I'd take.
If only I have my volume of dictionaries reside online, with expansion on usage, and frequent updates, that would be a combination made in heaven for me. Although the only downside is, the art of looking up a word in a traditional dictionary is going to be forever lost when kids start using free-form search like google search.
I often wonder, for dictionary to achieve what would be useful to me, does that deal a death kilt to the art of word search, the traditional way? Would it die the same slow death the way that morse code did? I would be very sad when that day comes.
When I was small, I used to love read dictionary. I like reading a seemingly complete collection of all words that one can think of, and what all those words mean. It's much like my feelings to libraries: Every time I go to a library, I have this urge to read all the books and articles that I can lay my hands on.
Much as the somewhat morphed use of library resources, as our reading habits change, so do our attitude and usage of dictionaries. While I still love holding a book in my hand, I'm just as happy reading all I can on the web, particularly on news which change much more frequently. I can understand why a growing number of people of using reading devices like Amazon's Kindle or Sony's eReader. I'd say, at some point, I might even give it a try.
The same is true with dictionary. I still have a few volumes of different dictionaries on my shelf, but I hardly used them. This is not to say that dictionary has no place in our life. Quite far from it, the concept of dictionary is more important than ever. One cannot say the same with the modus operandi of dictionary. One has to confront the reality that there are an increasing number of sources competing for our attention, in particular, the younger generations.
We insist on our kids learning how to use dictionary. The methodical way to locate a word in a thick book is still very applicable. Yet, if I look at my own behavior, it speaks volume. My dictionaries are gathering dust since I haven't used or touched them for ages now. The circular reference used in dictionary can be frustrating. New words get created daily, and dictionaries are hard to keep up. Due to space limitation, alot of dictionaries don't provide example of usage either. All these problems are resolved online. The only sticky point of looking up words on the web is that, there is really no one authoritative source to provide *the* meaning of a word. Users like me would sample the web search of the word over a number of search results. If they are saying more or less the same meaning, that's the one I'd take.
If only I have my volume of dictionaries reside online, with expansion on usage, and frequent updates, that would be a combination made in heaven for me. Although the only downside is, the art of looking up a word in a traditional dictionary is going to be forever lost when kids start using free-form search like google search.
I often wonder, for dictionary to achieve what would be useful to me, does that deal a death kilt to the art of word search, the traditional way? Would it die the same slow death the way that morse code did? I would be very sad when that day comes.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
On the pain of growing student loan, et al...
I feel the pain for the younger generations who have to borrow heavily in order to get themselves a decent education.
To be sure, I grew up in Hong Kong, and back then before Hong Kong turns basically every community college and second tier education institutes into a full university, being able to get admission into either Hong Kong University or Chinese University of Hong Kong is like winning a lottery ticket. Affordability is not the question, but it's the sheer demand for the highly limited supply of university seats. Most families who want a better education for their kids would scrap every cent to fund their overseas study, either to England or Canada or Australia or US. That's just the way it was. Unlike Americans, Chinese families rarely borrow externally (eg. banks) for their kids' education. Most fundings are from within families and relatives, and they don't charge interests for this. That lessens the burden tremendously. Although it's not universally true anymore, back then if you have a university degree from overseas and have a decent command of English, you're almost certain to get a very decent paying job in Hong Kong.
I started my university study later in life. As I didn't really know what I really wanted to do, I worked for a few years before I decided that I wanted to do either computer science or journalism or law. (Don't ask me why these three vastly differing subjects, but they appealed to me in various aspects at that point.) I got admitted to a few universities in England to study computer science and law. I never applied for journalism anywhere. Maybe it's not as hard to get as CS or law, and my competitive spirit had me dropped it subconsciously. In those couple of years, I managed to my salary 2 times (changing jobs often certainly helped). So, I saved all I could, enough to pay my own tuition. I was lucky to never have to ask my parents for any help in tuition since they would not be in a position to, given that my older brother and one older sister had used up most everything in fundings that our family could afford, sending them to Australia. Both my parents had been very supportive for my endeavor.
After I got to England, I was lucky enough too, to find part time work in one of the university faculty who was able to formally sponsor my employment. I never like working grey-market jobs or under-the-table. I said it's lucky too, since this was in the deep recession in UK in early 1990s, and unemployment was very high at the time.
In the middle of my study, when my family eventually migrated to Australia, they asked me to join them. Although I love the academic environment in England, funding the tuition and accommodation for myself as an overseas student continued to be a great challenge, where I literally spent more time working the part time jobs than studying. Moving to Australia would mean I would study as a local student, with much reduced tuition. All things considered, I moved from England to Australia, and finished my bachelor degree there.
I'm forever indebted to Australia for the chance that it afforded me. I was able to defer the tuition payment, with no interest penalty. With Austudy and the girl-friday I got in a computer graphics company, I was able to support both myself and my younger sister who's studying at university with me. I could focus on my study, for a change, without having to worry about whether I would have enough money for the next tuition payment. In the junior year, I was luck enough to get an internship with an investment bank. In my course, the internship component is a mandatory requirement for graduation. During the mid 1990s when Australian economy was in the ditch, there're some 350-400 students (probably 97% in all) in various stages of their study in my course who couldn't find internship and were unable to graduate due to that. Shortly after the internship started , the investment bank offered me the position full time and paid for my tuition (so I didn't have to repay the tuition of the classes that I was doing when I was with them). That gave me a much welcomed head-start on gaining relevant work experience. Although I had my full time work, I continued to take full-time course load for each semester (and in one of the semesters, I was doing 1.25x normal full-time load). That allowed me to graduate ahead of most of my class, while accumulating experience in the field.
During my study in Australia, I had never needed to worry much about money or health care coverage (since Medicare provides universal coverage for citizens). Eventually, after I graduated, I repaid the government all the tuitions that I deferred.
When I look back at my own experience, in comparison with the younger folks in America now who struggle with tens (oftentimes even hundreds) of thousands of dollars of tuitions and other higher education costs, I'm flabbergasted. The article rightly points out that, instead of much needed debate and potential reform to higher education, all the government can do is to dough out more loans, which completes the feedback loop to the colleges and universities about what kind of increases they can charge to the tuition and others. Afterall, if students can keep (borrowing and) paying, they can keep charging. It's a vicious cycle on a downward spiral.
It's true that taxes in Australia are outrageously high, which is one of the perpetual complaint of working class folks downunder. When you consider all the taxes you paid in totality in US, those in Australia are not that much higher. If you factor in the health care that you pay in US, the taxes you pay in Australia can seem even downright cheap. Much as the argument against the welfare states in Europe, while people would complain that the welfares in Australia remove the incentive for people to work, one can also argue that it allows the labor market flexibility (since one does not have to consider simply based on whether the job provides health coverage or not). Indeed, I would admit that I was once somewhat resentful of the obscene amount of taxes that came out of my paycheck back then in Australia, it doesn't look too bad in introspect.
The longer I live in America, the more I have come to realize the flaws in the "capitalist" way in America. Americans have very low threshold to anything that has the smell or label of socialism, but most of them do not realize how much they have been on the short end. Given the total amount of money that Americans have been paying health care and other services, and the poor services provided to its populace at large, one has to wonder why so many people are willing to maintain the status quo. With airheads like Sarah Palin, the debate on reforms like health care and education is not going to go anywhere. If only these ignorant folks could be shipped out to live in different overseas countries for a period of time, and experience the different kinds of systems out there in the world (without the filters from media and lobbyists), they would perhaps come to realize how stupid they've been all along.
To be sure, I grew up in Hong Kong, and back then before Hong Kong turns basically every community college and second tier education institutes into a full university, being able to get admission into either Hong Kong University or Chinese University of Hong Kong is like winning a lottery ticket. Affordability is not the question, but it's the sheer demand for the highly limited supply of university seats. Most families who want a better education for their kids would scrap every cent to fund their overseas study, either to England or Canada or Australia or US. That's just the way it was. Unlike Americans, Chinese families rarely borrow externally (eg. banks) for their kids' education. Most fundings are from within families and relatives, and they don't charge interests for this. That lessens the burden tremendously. Although it's not universally true anymore, back then if you have a university degree from overseas and have a decent command of English, you're almost certain to get a very decent paying job in Hong Kong.
I started my university study later in life. As I didn't really know what I really wanted to do, I worked for a few years before I decided that I wanted to do either computer science or journalism or law. (Don't ask me why these three vastly differing subjects, but they appealed to me in various aspects at that point.) I got admitted to a few universities in England to study computer science and law. I never applied for journalism anywhere. Maybe it's not as hard to get as CS or law, and my competitive spirit had me dropped it subconsciously. In those couple of years, I managed to my salary 2 times (changing jobs often certainly helped). So, I saved all I could, enough to pay my own tuition. I was lucky to never have to ask my parents for any help in tuition since they would not be in a position to, given that my older brother and one older sister had used up most everything in fundings that our family could afford, sending them to Australia. Both my parents had been very supportive for my endeavor.
After I got to England, I was lucky enough too, to find part time work in one of the university faculty who was able to formally sponsor my employment. I never like working grey-market jobs or under-the-table. I said it's lucky too, since this was in the deep recession in UK in early 1990s, and unemployment was very high at the time.
In the middle of my study, when my family eventually migrated to Australia, they asked me to join them. Although I love the academic environment in England, funding the tuition and accommodation for myself as an overseas student continued to be a great challenge, where I literally spent more time working the part time jobs than studying. Moving to Australia would mean I would study as a local student, with much reduced tuition. All things considered, I moved from England to Australia, and finished my bachelor degree there.
I'm forever indebted to Australia for the chance that it afforded me. I was able to defer the tuition payment, with no interest penalty. With Austudy and the girl-friday I got in a computer graphics company, I was able to support both myself and my younger sister who's studying at university with me. I could focus on my study, for a change, without having to worry about whether I would have enough money for the next tuition payment. In the junior year, I was luck enough to get an internship with an investment bank. In my course, the internship component is a mandatory requirement for graduation. During the mid 1990s when Australian economy was in the ditch, there're some 350-400 students (probably 97% in all) in various stages of their study in my course who couldn't find internship and were unable to graduate due to that. Shortly after the internship started , the investment bank offered me the position full time and paid for my tuition (so I didn't have to repay the tuition of the classes that I was doing when I was with them). That gave me a much welcomed head-start on gaining relevant work experience. Although I had my full time work, I continued to take full-time course load for each semester (and in one of the semesters, I was doing 1.25x normal full-time load). That allowed me to graduate ahead of most of my class, while accumulating experience in the field.
During my study in Australia, I had never needed to worry much about money or health care coverage (since Medicare provides universal coverage for citizens). Eventually, after I graduated, I repaid the government all the tuitions that I deferred.
When I look back at my own experience, in comparison with the younger folks in America now who struggle with tens (oftentimes even hundreds) of thousands of dollars of tuitions and other higher education costs, I'm flabbergasted. The article rightly points out that, instead of much needed debate and potential reform to higher education, all the government can do is to dough out more loans, which completes the feedback loop to the colleges and universities about what kind of increases they can charge to the tuition and others. Afterall, if students can keep (borrowing and) paying, they can keep charging. It's a vicious cycle on a downward spiral.
It's true that taxes in Australia are outrageously high, which is one of the perpetual complaint of working class folks downunder. When you consider all the taxes you paid in totality in US, those in Australia are not that much higher. If you factor in the health care that you pay in US, the taxes you pay in Australia can seem even downright cheap. Much as the argument against the welfare states in Europe, while people would complain that the welfares in Australia remove the incentive for people to work, one can also argue that it allows the labor market flexibility (since one does not have to consider simply based on whether the job provides health coverage or not). Indeed, I would admit that I was once somewhat resentful of the obscene amount of taxes that came out of my paycheck back then in Australia, it doesn't look too bad in introspect.
The longer I live in America, the more I have come to realize the flaws in the "capitalist" way in America. Americans have very low threshold to anything that has the smell or label of socialism, but most of them do not realize how much they have been on the short end. Given the total amount of money that Americans have been paying health care and other services, and the poor services provided to its populace at large, one has to wonder why so many people are willing to maintain the status quo. With airheads like Sarah Palin, the debate on reforms like health care and education is not going to go anywhere. If only these ignorant folks could be shipped out to live in different overseas countries for a period of time, and experience the different kinds of systems out there in the world (without the filters from media and lobbyists), they would perhaps come to realize how stupid they've been all along.
On the moon landing conspiracy...
I was duped today. I couldn't believe it. I was reading google news, and there it was, one of the headlines, with big marking of "the satire", about Neil Armstrong turning around and admitting to the conspiracy theory, and I thought it's true! I failed to notice the "satire" alert.
But of course, I was marveled, given how reticent and media-shy Neil Armstrong had been ever since he's been a national hero as the first man-on-the-moon. What I did after reading that satire was probably what most people would do, which is to find out more about the conspiracy theory on the moon landing, all the proponent and opponent arguments. I never put much stock into any conspiracy theory, hence even though the moon landing conspiracy has been around for so long, I never bother to look into the argument for such conspiracy.
My first stop was YouTube, since I want to see the actual moon landing broadcast in 1969. I want to see the real thing first, then all the arguments for/against it. There's no shortage of footage about all the arguments against the moon landing authenticity, including the impossibility of the rippling of the flag, to the footprint, to the man-in-shadow, and more. I must admit, the arguments sound pretty impressive. While I know how adamant conspiracy theorists are usually, I must say too, that I'm kind of taken aback by the great length these people went in proving their points.
So, I thought, there might really be some merits in the moon landing conspiracy. When my husband came home in the afternoon, I exclaimed to him that Neil Armstrong has come out supporting the conspiracy theory. When he got to his computer, looked in the news, opened up the article that I read it from, and asked me if that's where I read it from, I said yah. That had him fallen off his chair laughing at my gullibility. He said, "it's from The Onion!" And then, I realized I was duped. It's funny that normally he's the more gullible one, but this one I fell for it.
Judging by the user comments in those YouTube videos on moon landing conspiracy, I was not alone in getting duped. Quite alot of people thought they read the real article on Armstrong's change of heart. It's almost funny, but it also goes to show how easy something untrue can spread like wild fire on the web.
But of course, I was marveled, given how reticent and media-shy Neil Armstrong had been ever since he's been a national hero as the first man-on-the-moon. What I did after reading that satire was probably what most people would do, which is to find out more about the conspiracy theory on the moon landing, all the proponent and opponent arguments. I never put much stock into any conspiracy theory, hence even though the moon landing conspiracy has been around for so long, I never bother to look into the argument for such conspiracy.
My first stop was YouTube, since I want to see the actual moon landing broadcast in 1969. I want to see the real thing first, then all the arguments for/against it. There's no shortage of footage about all the arguments against the moon landing authenticity, including the impossibility of the rippling of the flag, to the footprint, to the man-in-shadow, and more. I must admit, the arguments sound pretty impressive. While I know how adamant conspiracy theorists are usually, I must say too, that I'm kind of taken aback by the great length these people went in proving their points.
So, I thought, there might really be some merits in the moon landing conspiracy. When my husband came home in the afternoon, I exclaimed to him that Neil Armstrong has come out supporting the conspiracy theory. When he got to his computer, looked in the news, opened up the article that I read it from, and asked me if that's where I read it from, I said yah. That had him fallen off his chair laughing at my gullibility. He said, "it's from The Onion!" And then, I realized I was duped. It's funny that normally he's the more gullible one, but this one I fell for it.
Judging by the user comments in those YouTube videos on moon landing conspiracy, I was not alone in getting duped. Quite alot of people thought they read the real article on Armstrong's change of heart. It's almost funny, but it also goes to show how easy something untrue can spread like wild fire on the web.
Friday, September 4, 2009
On men's business fashion...
I subscribe to Fortune. I like its in-depth coverage in business, and investigative journalistic pieces. But every time I get my copy in the mail, the first thing I check is the back page, for the Stanley Bing column. His columns provide much needed oft comic relief to an otherwise boring business world.
I get my September 14 copy of Fortune in the mail today. When I read Bing's column on The Elephants of Styles, I almost laughed out loud. It's not that the piece is supposed to bring hysterical laughter to readers, but there are things that are so to-the-point that I find it very amusing.
I'm not referring to the apt observation in the fashion sense brought to men by Sammy Davis Jr (whose big collars was such a signature) or Steve Jobs (who perfects the men-in-black casual look in formal occasions like delivering keynote speaker speech) or even Warren Buffet.
I'm referring to the 1980s investment-bank look of pinstripe, parsley suspender and bright yellow or red ties, pioneered by John T Molloy and Alan Flusser. The poster boy, of course, is Gordon Gekko from the movie Wall Street. The reason why I find it so amusing, is that, it so aptly reminds me of alot of the investment bankers at Lehman Brothers that I worked with briefly in the 1980s. Indeed, back then this was almost like school uniforms for those guys, almost to the point of laughable. I must admit, I like the style which has a very clean, neat look. But the invariability of it, that every guy turned it into a business men look or bankers look, is rather pathetic, I must say. To top it off, of course no investment bankers outfit would be complete without the accessories of a Mont Blanc pen, and an HP financial calculator (not the vertical ones, but the horizontal ones).
There was this guy named Simon who struck out, in particular. Back in Asia at Lehman those days, majority of the investment bankers are expat gwei-lo, with a few Asians (one Korean, one Philipino, a couple of Chinese). It's almost like an exclusive club for these few Asian guys, among the sea of white faces. This Simon is one of the Chinese, who wants to project himself "white." It's funny that most everyone (expat and non-expat alike) disliked him, even though he thought he's popular. It's true that most things about Simon were truly quite annoying, from the fake American accent, to the investment bankers uniform, everything to the t, down to the suspenders, made him one of the most faithful Gordon Gekko-uniform loyalists. There are cases when some of the bankers had such protuding love-handle in their mid-section, that made the suspenders serve some real, much-needed purpose. But for a slight, slim Asian guy like Simon. The only impression his suspenders projected is hideous, utter pretension.
That's why it makes this Bing's column so funny in a way, as it brings about such repressed, yet vivid memory of mine that I didn't realize I have harbored.
As to those guys who carry the day with their fashion sense, these men carry it off (and even get away with it) because they have such deep pockets that, I suspect, other men copy them just to emulate their I'm-rich-but-casual style. For Simon, it simply wouldn't do.
I get my September 14 copy of Fortune in the mail today. When I read Bing's column on The Elephants of Styles, I almost laughed out loud. It's not that the piece is supposed to bring hysterical laughter to readers, but there are things that are so to-the-point that I find it very amusing.
I'm not referring to the apt observation in the fashion sense brought to men by Sammy Davis Jr (whose big collars was such a signature) or Steve Jobs (who perfects the men-in-black casual look in formal occasions like delivering keynote speaker speech) or even Warren Buffet.
I'm referring to the 1980s investment-bank look of pinstripe, parsley suspender and bright yellow or red ties, pioneered by John T Molloy and Alan Flusser. The poster boy, of course, is Gordon Gekko from the movie Wall Street. The reason why I find it so amusing, is that, it so aptly reminds me of alot of the investment bankers at Lehman Brothers that I worked with briefly in the 1980s. Indeed, back then this was almost like school uniforms for those guys, almost to the point of laughable. I must admit, I like the style which has a very clean, neat look. But the invariability of it, that every guy turned it into a business men look or bankers look, is rather pathetic, I must say. To top it off, of course no investment bankers outfit would be complete without the accessories of a Mont Blanc pen, and an HP financial calculator (not the vertical ones, but the horizontal ones).
There was this guy named Simon who struck out, in particular. Back in Asia at Lehman those days, majority of the investment bankers are expat gwei-lo, with a few Asians (one Korean, one Philipino, a couple of Chinese). It's almost like an exclusive club for these few Asian guys, among the sea of white faces. This Simon is one of the Chinese, who wants to project himself "white." It's funny that most everyone (expat and non-expat alike) disliked him, even though he thought he's popular. It's true that most things about Simon were truly quite annoying, from the fake American accent, to the investment bankers uniform, everything to the t, down to the suspenders, made him one of the most faithful Gordon Gekko-uniform loyalists. There are cases when some of the bankers had such protuding love-handle in their mid-section, that made the suspenders serve some real, much-needed purpose. But for a slight, slim Asian guy like Simon. The only impression his suspenders projected is hideous, utter pretension.
That's why it makes this Bing's column so funny in a way, as it brings about such repressed, yet vivid memory of mine that I didn't realize I have harbored.
As to those guys who carry the day with their fashion sense, these men carry it off (and even get away with it) because they have such deep pockets that, I suspect, other men copy them just to emulate their I'm-rich-but-casual style. For Simon, it simply wouldn't do.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
On geolocation tracking and privacy...
Even though I work in IT and software development, I'm pretty old-school when it comes to using social networking tools. There's something about the younger generations who seem to have an urgent and almost obscene need to expose themselves on the web, to friends and strangers alike.
In retrospect, I don't think it has much to do with age, but rather the earnestness, to keep private life private. Even writing this journal requires conscious mental efforts in ensuring not too much private details are exposed. For those who know me, they would know the background and wouldn't need much explaining; for those who don't, why should they need to know anyways. I don't mind some general backgrounds, like ethnicity etc, but not much else.
The other day, I was reading about twitter coming out with new geolocational features, allowing tweet followers to track the twitters, every step of the way. To start with, I'm probably the last person in the world to care the mundane details and chores of friends (and strangers? forget about it). To me, those are not interactions among friends. Those are voyeuristic intrusions (and invitations by twitter users) into someone's life. To me, it's a very unhealthy development. So, it comes as no surprise that sensible individuals would reject the use of such geolocation features from twitters.
Sometimes, new product feature does not necessarily mean that I have to jump to use it. It's funny how the younger crowds on the web like to jump on board to beta-test everything that comes out, marveling it as god-send, without much afterthoughts. I wonder how many of them have considered that they can be tracked by both good and bad guys (stalkers, anyone?) alike. When you're young, there's certain sense of invincibility. They'll probably come to their senses as they mature into their 30s.
In retrospect, I don't think it has much to do with age, but rather the earnestness, to keep private life private. Even writing this journal requires conscious mental efforts in ensuring not too much private details are exposed. For those who know me, they would know the background and wouldn't need much explaining; for those who don't, why should they need to know anyways. I don't mind some general backgrounds, like ethnicity etc, but not much else.
The other day, I was reading about twitter coming out with new geolocational features, allowing tweet followers to track the twitters, every step of the way. To start with, I'm probably the last person in the world to care the mundane details and chores of friends (and strangers? forget about it). To me, those are not interactions among friends. Those are voyeuristic intrusions (and invitations by twitter users) into someone's life. To me, it's a very unhealthy development. So, it comes as no surprise that sensible individuals would reject the use of such geolocation features from twitters.
Sometimes, new product feature does not necessarily mean that I have to jump to use it. It's funny how the younger crowds on the web like to jump on board to beta-test everything that comes out, marveling it as god-send, without much afterthoughts. I wonder how many of them have considered that they can be tracked by both good and bad guys (stalkers, anyone?) alike. When you're young, there's certain sense of invincibility. They'll probably come to their senses as they mature into their 30s.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
On the Saturday mail delivery no more...
How often in our life will we be able to stay, with certainty, that something is definitely a goner? Apparently, not often enough. Such is the debate, if you can call it a debate, on whether USPS should continue delivering mails on Saturdays, or to do away with it, and save $3 billion a year?
Perhaps, before jumping to some sort of conclusion, there's soul-searching to be done. How often do I actually use the mail? What do I actually get in the mail these days, anyways? Do I really miss much, if there's no mail on Saturdays?
To start with, I actually don't check mails on Saturdays. I check my mailbox on weekdays when I go in/out, and when my mind is actively at work (and attending to things). On Saturdays, when I'm not working, I don't do alot of things that I would normally do on Monday - Friday. Checking mails is certainly one of those tasks. So, logistically speaking, I don't really know or care if the postmen come on Saturdays. Their hardwork has been wasted on me, for a very long time now.
And then, there are the contents in the mails. Every year, we took long vacation or time-off during summer, and go overseas. One of the great things about living in condo is that, you pay your dues (in the form of management fees), but when you want to be gone, you lock the door and can be gone for as long as you want. There's no maintenance to do (as in houses), no garden to attend to, no lawn to mow, no bush to trim, etc. The only catch is that, USPS would only hold mails for you for a month. If you're gone beyond one month, you would find an exploding mailbox when you're back. As we're usually gone for at least a month, that becomes a constant headache for me, so that I have to rely on (and beg for) my good neighbors to help me clean out the mailbox beyond the one-month period. And I don't like to rely on someone's charity when I'm away on vacation.
My resolution to that? I electronify everything. I've used paperless statements for all bank accounts. I get bills and invoices in email, which I can pay online, regardless of where I might be. I cancel all journal and magazine mail delivery, except Fortune, since it comes only once a month, and I like reading hardcopy of it when I go to places. And I use online subscription for other stuffs that I like to read (eg. Wall Street Journal), which I can read, wherever I am.
Mostly, these days, I get only junk mail and my periodic dose of DVD from netflix in my mail. That has dramatically cut down wasted time (having to go through, then shred all the junk mail), wasted papers (from all junk mails) for recycle but which shouldn't be printed in the first place, and I cut down my total mails by probably 70% or more. At least, even if I have to impinge on my neighbors to help me collect mails beyond one month, it won't be bags and bags of mails when I get back.
For all the abovementioned good reasons, I have to ask myself, why people are still holding onto this relics of Saturday USPS mail delivery when they hardly use it these days. Everybody get bills and pay bills online. Nobody bothers to write anymore. You either email, or text, or IM, or video conference with someone online with webcam, or send greeting cards etc to friends and family, etc. I would venture to say that, most people, like myself, hardly check mails on Saturdays.
I find that most of the comments or arguments against dropping the Saturday mail delivery to be more sentimental than rational. Those who argue to preserve it are really arguing for preserving a way of life that is fast becoming obsolete, when they refuse to face the fact that they want it more for the idea of keeping up the appearance and keeping the relics alive, rather than much real usage of it.
In a way, it's not unlike those who argue against big government in health care, and yet they are exactly the people who are already currently receiving government benefits at this very moment. It just makes very little sense, reading or listening these silly people talking about the fact that they don't want government in this and that, and they want the things exactly as they are now, when in fact what they're having now is exactly government handouts. I have very little tolerance to silly arguments like this. Ah but, this is a heavy subject for another day. :)
Perhaps, before jumping to some sort of conclusion, there's soul-searching to be done. How often do I actually use the mail? What do I actually get in the mail these days, anyways? Do I really miss much, if there's no mail on Saturdays?
To start with, I actually don't check mails on Saturdays. I check my mailbox on weekdays when I go in/out, and when my mind is actively at work (and attending to things). On Saturdays, when I'm not working, I don't do alot of things that I would normally do on Monday - Friday. Checking mails is certainly one of those tasks. So, logistically speaking, I don't really know or care if the postmen come on Saturdays. Their hardwork has been wasted on me, for a very long time now.
And then, there are the contents in the mails. Every year, we took long vacation or time-off during summer, and go overseas. One of the great things about living in condo is that, you pay your dues (in the form of management fees), but when you want to be gone, you lock the door and can be gone for as long as you want. There's no maintenance to do (as in houses), no garden to attend to, no lawn to mow, no bush to trim, etc. The only catch is that, USPS would only hold mails for you for a month. If you're gone beyond one month, you would find an exploding mailbox when you're back. As we're usually gone for at least a month, that becomes a constant headache for me, so that I have to rely on (and beg for) my good neighbors to help me clean out the mailbox beyond the one-month period. And I don't like to rely on someone's charity when I'm away on vacation.
My resolution to that? I electronify everything. I've used paperless statements for all bank accounts. I get bills and invoices in email, which I can pay online, regardless of where I might be. I cancel all journal and magazine mail delivery, except Fortune, since it comes only once a month, and I like reading hardcopy of it when I go to places. And I use online subscription for other stuffs that I like to read (eg. Wall Street Journal), which I can read, wherever I am.
Mostly, these days, I get only junk mail and my periodic dose of DVD from netflix in my mail. That has dramatically cut down wasted time (having to go through, then shred all the junk mail), wasted papers (from all junk mails) for recycle but which shouldn't be printed in the first place, and I cut down my total mails by probably 70% or more. At least, even if I have to impinge on my neighbors to help me collect mails beyond one month, it won't be bags and bags of mails when I get back.
For all the abovementioned good reasons, I have to ask myself, why people are still holding onto this relics of Saturday USPS mail delivery when they hardly use it these days. Everybody get bills and pay bills online. Nobody bothers to write anymore. You either email, or text, or IM, or video conference with someone online with webcam, or send greeting cards etc to friends and family, etc. I would venture to say that, most people, like myself, hardly check mails on Saturdays.
I find that most of the comments or arguments against dropping the Saturday mail delivery to be more sentimental than rational. Those who argue to preserve it are really arguing for preserving a way of life that is fast becoming obsolete, when they refuse to face the fact that they want it more for the idea of keeping up the appearance and keeping the relics alive, rather than much real usage of it.
In a way, it's not unlike those who argue against big government in health care, and yet they are exactly the people who are already currently receiving government benefits at this very moment. It just makes very little sense, reading or listening these silly people talking about the fact that they don't want government in this and that, and they want the things exactly as they are now, when in fact what they're having now is exactly government handouts. I have very little tolerance to silly arguments like this. Ah but, this is a heavy subject for another day. :)
Monday, August 10, 2009
On mid-summer nights' dreams...
I must admit, I have not spent as many summers in America. Most summers, we flew back to Asia to catch up with extended families, relatives, and friends. I enjoy that alot, although I don't enjoy the sub-tropical hot, and very humid weather. I would rather it rain than shine, since I drag the sun burning my skin, frying me on a hot pan like a fish.
This summer, we chose to stay put. Some of the families are not flying back to Asia either. I guess, in this economy, it's more prudent to preserve cash than to spend $20k on a long summer vacation. I must say, summer classes in Asia (at least those ones that I find more interesting, rather than the ones that don't do much) are not as much cheaper than those in America. But there's more variety in summer camps to choose from in America. The kids enjoy it more, since all summer camps here have swimming and more outdoor activities. It could also be that, since they don't speak the language in Asia, they have not enjoyed the summer programs there as much.
As to myself, one of the things I discover this summer is less tangible. There are days when it's hot and humid here too; in fact, there are more hot, humid days than I remember in those few summers when we spent here. But at night, the south-facing windows always bring in cool breeze to cool us down, so much so that I've never had to turn on the A/C (which is good for the environment too). When we were in Asia, I can't recall a single night when we could sleep without closing the doors and turn up the A/C, to deal with not only the hot, humid weather, but also the ever-annoying mosquitoes. I get less tolerable to humidity, as I get older.
And then, there are the crickets and cicadas. There are quite some trees and bushes around where we live. I was somewhat surprised by the amount of sound (or noise, depending on whether you like it or not) they made. It's also surprising that I have never paid attention to that. I've come to appreciate the cicadas and the crickets chirping.
There are so many things in life, the little details that fly by us if we don't pay attention to them. The sounds they made are beautiful. Some nights, when I was putting the kids to bed, I would sometimes roll around with them a little chit-chatting with them, and we would have the lights all off, watching the silhouette of the trees waving in the breeze in the night sky, hearing the crickets and cicadas, it's so peaceful and happy. You can almost smell the trees in breeze. It takes all the stress in life away.
This summer, we chose to stay put. Some of the families are not flying back to Asia either. I guess, in this economy, it's more prudent to preserve cash than to spend $20k on a long summer vacation. I must say, summer classes in Asia (at least those ones that I find more interesting, rather than the ones that don't do much) are not as much cheaper than those in America. But there's more variety in summer camps to choose from in America. The kids enjoy it more, since all summer camps here have swimming and more outdoor activities. It could also be that, since they don't speak the language in Asia, they have not enjoyed the summer programs there as much.
As to myself, one of the things I discover this summer is less tangible. There are days when it's hot and humid here too; in fact, there are more hot, humid days than I remember in those few summers when we spent here. But at night, the south-facing windows always bring in cool breeze to cool us down, so much so that I've never had to turn on the A/C (which is good for the environment too). When we were in Asia, I can't recall a single night when we could sleep without closing the doors and turn up the A/C, to deal with not only the hot, humid weather, but also the ever-annoying mosquitoes. I get less tolerable to humidity, as I get older.
And then, there are the crickets and cicadas. There are quite some trees and bushes around where we live. I was somewhat surprised by the amount of sound (or noise, depending on whether you like it or not) they made. It's also surprising that I have never paid attention to that. I've come to appreciate the cicadas and the crickets chirping.
There are so many things in life, the little details that fly by us if we don't pay attention to them. The sounds they made are beautiful. Some nights, when I was putting the kids to bed, I would sometimes roll around with them a little chit-chatting with them, and we would have the lights all off, watching the silhouette of the trees waving in the breeze in the night sky, hearing the crickets and cicadas, it's so peaceful and happy. You can almost smell the trees in breeze. It takes all the stress in life away.
Friday, August 7, 2009
On the first lost baby tooth of my daughter...
When kids are much younger, there are so many milestones to check. Baby's first words, first steps, first tooth, and so on. When they get older, milestones are fewer and far in between.
This morning marked my daughter's first lost baby tooth, while she's eating an apple. She's been wiggling it for weeks now. Most of her friends have had some baby teeth out already, and she can't wait till it's her turn. So, when one of her lower front teeth started getting loose, she was ecstatic. We can even see the whites from the permanent tooth that has been coming out right behind this baby tooth. For weeks now, she's been diligently drinking more than enough milk (since we told her she needs calcium for strong teeth, and for the permanent teeth to keep growing in order to come out). I guess that's her rite of passage.
So, this morning, she bit into an apple, and that first loose baby tooth came out. She was so happy. We took pictures, and cooing around the baby, marveling on that tiny tooth.
At 7, she's still innocent enough to believe in tooth fairy. A couple of years ago, my son has discovered that I'm the tooth fairy who's been swapping his teeth under the pillow with a few dollar bills, ever since he found all his lost baby teeth in a little box in my drawer. My daughter said she's going to put her baby tooth under the pillow tonight. Being the wise guy as he is now, he told her, mommy is the tooth fairy. She refuted, saying tooth fairy exists only if you believe it; hence, it won't exist for him, since he doesn't believe in it. For her, it's all a matter of faith. To that, he just rolls his eyes. I find it quite funny and amusing to watch them in action.
Way back when, before my son lost his innocence about tooth fairy, he has once remarked that he's going to ask for all his baby teeth back from the tooth fairy, so that he can sell them to the tooth fairy again, but at a much higher price! He made that remark as we were starting our business, and he discovered the law of buy-low-sell-high. :)
Although they have both pretty much grown out of it, they used to love the book series on Arthur and DW. I love them too, since they're so innocent, yet educational. We watch most of the Arthur cartoon as well. I've been glad that they can relate to Arthur and DW as brother and sister in a loving family. I think I'll keep all those books as keepsake.
This morning marked my daughter's first lost baby tooth, while she's eating an apple. She's been wiggling it for weeks now. Most of her friends have had some baby teeth out already, and she can't wait till it's her turn. So, when one of her lower front teeth started getting loose, she was ecstatic. We can even see the whites from the permanent tooth that has been coming out right behind this baby tooth. For weeks now, she's been diligently drinking more than enough milk (since we told her she needs calcium for strong teeth, and for the permanent teeth to keep growing in order to come out). I guess that's her rite of passage.
So, this morning, she bit into an apple, and that first loose baby tooth came out. She was so happy. We took pictures, and cooing around the baby, marveling on that tiny tooth.
At 7, she's still innocent enough to believe in tooth fairy. A couple of years ago, my son has discovered that I'm the tooth fairy who's been swapping his teeth under the pillow with a few dollar bills, ever since he found all his lost baby teeth in a little box in my drawer. My daughter said she's going to put her baby tooth under the pillow tonight. Being the wise guy as he is now, he told her, mommy is the tooth fairy. She refuted, saying tooth fairy exists only if you believe it; hence, it won't exist for him, since he doesn't believe in it. For her, it's all a matter of faith. To that, he just rolls his eyes. I find it quite funny and amusing to watch them in action.
Way back when, before my son lost his innocence about tooth fairy, he has once remarked that he's going to ask for all his baby teeth back from the tooth fairy, so that he can sell them to the tooth fairy again, but at a much higher price! He made that remark as we were starting our business, and he discovered the law of buy-low-sell-high. :)
Although they have both pretty much grown out of it, they used to love the book series on Arthur and DW. I love them too, since they're so innocent, yet educational. We watch most of the Arthur cartoon as well. I've been glad that they can relate to Arthur and DW as brother and sister in a loving family. I think I'll keep all those books as keepsake.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
On touch-and-go appreciation of arts...
There's an interesting article in New York Times the other day, about how people would go to museums, take quick snaps of all the artistry (paintings, sculptures, and what not), and be in-and-out in no time.
It's very true, that these days, rarely do people have time to slow down, and take the time to observe and appreciate things in life (be it arts, nature, and all). We seem to be always in a hurry. Certainly all the handy gadgetry these days, from digital camera, camera/smart phone plus texting and instant messaging capability, to laptops and netbooks that allow us to be online, 24x7.
I have always wondered if it's really necessary for me. I distinctly remember that, only some 12 years ago, during one chat with colleagues, when one guy remarked that he needed his cell phone so that he can "stand-by", I declared that I don't need or want a cell phone.
How I have corrected myself these days, when the three things I would grab before going out are keys, wallet, and my cell phone. I do admit that all on-demand capacity has allowed me to accomplish more in a compressed timeframe. Afterall, I would not have been able to work from home, while doing stock trading on the side, and monitoring the daily schedule of my household (kids, mine, and my husband's). I know I would have needed to find personal helpers to do things for me. Instead, now I can even squeeze time to run errands or do some "flash" grocery shopping, and even doing dishes (!!! imagine that !!!) During weekends, we can go out with the kids for their activities or even to the library.
But I have also found myself walking faster, talking faster, and doing everything in a hurry. Even my friends would remark that, they thought I needed to go somewhere, since I was talking so fast these days. In a way, maybe I have accustomed myself to the fast pace of the gadgets, so that I can do more with less.
It does take a conscientious effort to slow down sometimes, particularly during vacation when I'm supposed to relax and slow down some. This summer holiday, we haven't done much so far, except for the various summer camps for the kids. I do look forward to the Toronto trip in end August. I think I'm a little burnt out (what with all the study, refinancing, side ventures, work and more work), and badly need a break.
In our current state of (poor) economy, when everything is in such a flush, I guess I won't complain about being too busy. Afterall, it's better be busy than idling around.
It's very true, that these days, rarely do people have time to slow down, and take the time to observe and appreciate things in life (be it arts, nature, and all). We seem to be always in a hurry. Certainly all the handy gadgetry these days, from digital camera, camera/smart phone plus texting and instant messaging capability, to laptops and netbooks that allow us to be online, 24x7.
I have always wondered if it's really necessary for me. I distinctly remember that, only some 12 years ago, during one chat with colleagues, when one guy remarked that he needed his cell phone so that he can "stand-by", I declared that I don't need or want a cell phone.
How I have corrected myself these days, when the three things I would grab before going out are keys, wallet, and my cell phone. I do admit that all on-demand capacity has allowed me to accomplish more in a compressed timeframe. Afterall, I would not have been able to work from home, while doing stock trading on the side, and monitoring the daily schedule of my household (kids, mine, and my husband's). I know I would have needed to find personal helpers to do things for me. Instead, now I can even squeeze time to run errands or do some "flash" grocery shopping, and even doing dishes (!!! imagine that !!!) During weekends, we can go out with the kids for their activities or even to the library.
But I have also found myself walking faster, talking faster, and doing everything in a hurry. Even my friends would remark that, they thought I needed to go somewhere, since I was talking so fast these days. In a way, maybe I have accustomed myself to the fast pace of the gadgets, so that I can do more with less.
It does take a conscientious effort to slow down sometimes, particularly during vacation when I'm supposed to relax and slow down some. This summer holiday, we haven't done much so far, except for the various summer camps for the kids. I do look forward to the Toronto trip in end August. I think I'm a little burnt out (what with all the study, refinancing, side ventures, work and more work), and badly need a break.
In our current state of (poor) economy, when everything is in such a flush, I guess I won't complain about being too busy. Afterall, it's better be busy than idling around.
Friday, July 31, 2009
On tattle-telling...or not...
I read an article on whether to tattle-tell on your best friend's cheating other half. It's an interesting problem that I have the fortune of never having to face, neither the telling or the receiving end.
I sometimes wonder why it's such a hard decision. For me, it would always have a very easy choice, for I would definitely tell my friend, should I find out that his/her other half has not been faithful. I don't think I'll ever do otherwise, of keeping my mouth shut, while watching my friend getting cheated. That has always been me.
I was, thus, a little surprised when I learnt from my kids a short while back, on their recounting how their teachers were kind of reprimanding their classmates for tattle-telling on their classmates. To me, the kids were telling the truth, and were telling the teachers that their classmates were doing something wrong. But the teachers were telling them, they shouldn't tattle-tell, which completely goes against our advocating the kids to tell the truth and speak their minds. Naturally, how the truth is told, on top of what is told, has probably had alot to do with the impression that one is tattle-telling or speaking one's mind truthfully. Still, I don't think it's right. Surprisingly, when I talk to some friends about this, they told me that's how it's like, at least in this culture (in America). One would never have this problem in Asia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And then, it occurred to me that I have not always been acting according to my own "style" (ie. speaking the truth). The incidence happened some years back, in my first job. One of the guys (let's call him G) who's on my team had been dating this girl (let's call her V) who worked in another department. The guy was divorced from his first wife who cheated on him. Eventually, his wife got custody of two boys (in grade school), married the guy whom she's been seeing. In between paying child support, and a taste in finer things in life (three piece suits, latest model fast cars, etc), he declared bankruptcy, even though his salary and he remained single was well in six figure. At the time, V considered G to be quite a catch. A few things between V and G matched, including height (both less than 5'1"), religion (Catholics), ethnicity (Italian), and jobs (decent white collar jobs). At the time when V told us that she's seeing G, we were all kind of taken aback, since G never showed much affection to V. But they're doing this dining-out-once-or-twice-a-week thing, and V thought they're going steady. V even considered going long term and serious with G, and propositioned marriage to G, which G always deferred, citing that he couldn't have annulled his first marriage. So things dragged on.
And dragged on, it did. At the time, G had been driving cross states every weekend to see his kids. We all lauded his devotion to his kids. But soon we the colleagues realized that there's more to it, even without G explicitly saying so. It turned out, G was seeing the mother of his two kids' classmates in school, who was estranged from her husband and was trying to get a divorce. G started putting her pictures all over his desk (so everyone could see...everyone except V, that is). G would portrait this new girlfriend of his as a glamorous air-hostess who could get him free companion tickets that they could fly to places.
For all of those who worked with G, we were all disgusted privately. But no one spoke up, or spoke to V, not even a hint to tell her to be more aware. All the while, V was thinking how devoted G had been, driving to another states to see his kids, when he was actually driving over to see his new gf.
2+ years came and went. His new gf's divorce was finally in place, and G decided to quit the job and moved out of state. G initiated the breakup, citing better job prospect in the other state. V again propositioned that she could go with him (and married him). G said no, again citing the fact that he could not have remarried due to the impossibility to get an annulment. After much tears from V, G was gone.
I didn't know who eventually spilled the beans, but eventually V realized that G moved and left her, not because of jobs or his kids, but because he wanted to marry another woman. Within a year, G got the annulment, and was remarried. V was utterly disillusioned. She was asking us, those who had been around both of them, of why none of us ever spoke up. One of the girls told her, we couldn't have said anything, since it's between the two of them. All we could have hoped for, was that V would one day woke up, and find out by herself. But, she never did.
The disillusionment had been hard on V. She realized G had lied to her all along (about their going steady; about the impossibility of annulment; about the impossibility of marriage). She's a modest, humble person, and she's been blaming herself for not being smarter. But one time, when a few of us girl-pals went out to chit-chat, she mentioned that she had been fooled by G, possibly because she was getting "desperate", desperate because she's in her 30s and was still single, and in her large Italian family, an old maiden is not a welcome state. Of course, we know 30s is really the new 20s, but in some culture, that would never do.
Thinking back, I know I would not have tattle-tell because I had not been very close to V, even though we worked quite closely as a team.
As an epilogue, V remarked that G was doing what his first wife did to him (ie. cheated on him), although G was the third rail, this time around. V had harbored the vengeful hope that one day, the same thing would happen to G again, and he'll go bankrupt again. That would likely be so, given that he would now have to support not two but four kids (2 from his own former marriage, and 2 from his new wife's prior marriage). That could well be so, and that would certainly be poetic justice for V.
I sometimes wonder why it's such a hard decision. For me, it would always have a very easy choice, for I would definitely tell my friend, should I find out that his/her other half has not been faithful. I don't think I'll ever do otherwise, of keeping my mouth shut, while watching my friend getting cheated. That has always been me.
I was, thus, a little surprised when I learnt from my kids a short while back, on their recounting how their teachers were kind of reprimanding their classmates for tattle-telling on their classmates. To me, the kids were telling the truth, and were telling the teachers that their classmates were doing something wrong. But the teachers were telling them, they shouldn't tattle-tell, which completely goes against our advocating the kids to tell the truth and speak their minds. Naturally, how the truth is told, on top of what is told, has probably had alot to do with the impression that one is tattle-telling or speaking one's mind truthfully. Still, I don't think it's right. Surprisingly, when I talk to some friends about this, they told me that's how it's like, at least in this culture (in America). One would never have this problem in Asia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And then, it occurred to me that I have not always been acting according to my own "style" (ie. speaking the truth). The incidence happened some years back, in my first job. One of the guys (let's call him G) who's on my team had been dating this girl (let's call her V) who worked in another department. The guy was divorced from his first wife who cheated on him. Eventually, his wife got custody of two boys (in grade school), married the guy whom she's been seeing. In between paying child support, and a taste in finer things in life (three piece suits, latest model fast cars, etc), he declared bankruptcy, even though his salary and he remained single was well in six figure. At the time, V considered G to be quite a catch. A few things between V and G matched, including height (both less than 5'1"), religion (Catholics), ethnicity (Italian), and jobs (decent white collar jobs). At the time when V told us that she's seeing G, we were all kind of taken aback, since G never showed much affection to V. But they're doing this dining-out-once-or-twice-a-week thing, and V thought they're going steady. V even considered going long term and serious with G, and propositioned marriage to G, which G always deferred, citing that he couldn't have annulled his first marriage. So things dragged on.
And dragged on, it did. At the time, G had been driving cross states every weekend to see his kids. We all lauded his devotion to his kids. But soon we the colleagues realized that there's more to it, even without G explicitly saying so. It turned out, G was seeing the mother of his two kids' classmates in school, who was estranged from her husband and was trying to get a divorce. G started putting her pictures all over his desk (so everyone could see...everyone except V, that is). G would portrait this new girlfriend of his as a glamorous air-hostess who could get him free companion tickets that they could fly to places.
For all of those who worked with G, we were all disgusted privately. But no one spoke up, or spoke to V, not even a hint to tell her to be more aware. All the while, V was thinking how devoted G had been, driving to another states to see his kids, when he was actually driving over to see his new gf.
2+ years came and went. His new gf's divorce was finally in place, and G decided to quit the job and moved out of state. G initiated the breakup, citing better job prospect in the other state. V again propositioned that she could go with him (and married him). G said no, again citing the fact that he could not have remarried due to the impossibility to get an annulment. After much tears from V, G was gone.
I didn't know who eventually spilled the beans, but eventually V realized that G moved and left her, not because of jobs or his kids, but because he wanted to marry another woman. Within a year, G got the annulment, and was remarried. V was utterly disillusioned. She was asking us, those who had been around both of them, of why none of us ever spoke up. One of the girls told her, we couldn't have said anything, since it's between the two of them. All we could have hoped for, was that V would one day woke up, and find out by herself. But, she never did.
The disillusionment had been hard on V. She realized G had lied to her all along (about their going steady; about the impossibility of annulment; about the impossibility of marriage). She's a modest, humble person, and she's been blaming herself for not being smarter. But one time, when a few of us girl-pals went out to chit-chat, she mentioned that she had been fooled by G, possibly because she was getting "desperate", desperate because she's in her 30s and was still single, and in her large Italian family, an old maiden is not a welcome state. Of course, we know 30s is really the new 20s, but in some culture, that would never do.
Thinking back, I know I would not have tattle-tell because I had not been very close to V, even though we worked quite closely as a team.
As an epilogue, V remarked that G was doing what his first wife did to him (ie. cheated on him), although G was the third rail, this time around. V had harbored the vengeful hope that one day, the same thing would happen to G again, and he'll go bankrupt again. That would likely be so, given that he would now have to support not two but four kids (2 from his own former marriage, and 2 from his new wife's prior marriage). That could well be so, and that would certainly be poetic justice for V.
On movies that are classic but heavy...
I was reading an opinion piece in a local newspaper, and I couldn't help smiling at myself while reading it. The writer laments on his failed attempt to aspire to movies like Rashomon that are classic but heavy. His vanity was boosted by netflix that doesn't impose due dates on DVD rentals and no late fees, though the carrying cost, in the form of monthly subscription cost, can get hefty, should he decide to keep it for long. It turns out, this writer has kept it for more than a year now, and the DVDs keep starring back at him from the dusty shelf. According to the writer too, he's not alone, based on some (unscientific) online poll.
I too have this issue sometimes, even though I watch classics and old movies all the time. I don't normally "waste" my netflix rentals, and my turnaround time is always 1-2 days. (Netflix probably loses money on regulars like me who are heavy users, but faithful.) But I would procrastinate with DVDs that are from library. Afterall, if I don't watch it, I'll just return it, and borrow it again. There's no penalty to it.
I've noticed that I've been treating the Watch-it-now queue in netflix like I treat the library DVDs. Afterall, it doesn't cost me anything. And they will always be available at a later date anyways.
That leads me to ponder on the wisdom of how economics can modify human behavior; or rather, human behavior is often adjusted to suit economic needs. I bet if I had not needed to pay for the netflix monthly, I would have treated it the same way. I've been thinking too, that if my masters program has not been this expensive (even if my employer is paying for it), and that I need grades of B+ or above in order to get reimbursed, I might not have that diligent to the class.
Humans, humans... We can be quite vain.
I too have this issue sometimes, even though I watch classics and old movies all the time. I don't normally "waste" my netflix rentals, and my turnaround time is always 1-2 days. (Netflix probably loses money on regulars like me who are heavy users, but faithful.) But I would procrastinate with DVDs that are from library. Afterall, if I don't watch it, I'll just return it, and borrow it again. There's no penalty to it.
I've noticed that I've been treating the Watch-it-now queue in netflix like I treat the library DVDs. Afterall, it doesn't cost me anything. And they will always be available at a later date anyways.
That leads me to ponder on the wisdom of how economics can modify human behavior; or rather, human behavior is often adjusted to suit economic needs. I bet if I had not needed to pay for the netflix monthly, I would have treated it the same way. I've been thinking too, that if my masters program has not been this expensive (even if my employer is paying for it), and that I need grades of B+ or above in order to get reimbursed, I might not have that diligent to the class.
Humans, humans... We can be quite vain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)