I read with dread, the New York Times article on the poor women in Tanzania who suffer fistula after difficult childbirth. No doubt, the suffering goes to poor women alike in other undeveloped countries in Africa and Asia. I feel for them.
The childbirth of my son (the first childbirth of mine) has been difficult enough. It's 13 hours of hard labor. My water broke right before midnight. My husband and mother walked me to the hospital (we're within walking distance), and they stayed with me throughout the whole process. At the time, my mom didn't mention to me that, if water breaks, it could mean a much more difficult/painful childbirth. She didn't want to worry me. I had a few hours of sleep, and woke at 4am in the room, my husband and mom napping in the rocking chairs. A nurse came in to check up on me. I could feel some pain already, and this nurse (a Philipino nurse) told me, the pain later shouldn't be too much more than you're feeling now. I thought to myself, that's not too bad, since it's just somewhat a bit worse than PMS.
But the nurse lied. The intense pain started at around 7am. By that time, it's too late (and dangerous for the baby) to add painkiller in the drip, and it's way too late for epidural (since I was shaking all over and wouldn't be able to hold myself still for the epidural to go to my spine). Towards the end, the pain came every 30-45 seconds, and I still can't find words to describe the kind of pain that went through me. And so it went, until hours later, and my son arrived. I was completely exhausted (with the hard laboring and nothing in my stomach for close to 24 hours), and didn't even have strength to hold the baby.
I remember I said to myself, I'm going to cut my hair short since I don't want the hair to stick on my face and neck with the sweat. And I know, if I can endure such pain, I can do alot more things that I didn't know I could do.
But at least C-section was always a standby option for me, when I was staying with one of the best hospitals in the country. I can't even begin to imagine how horrible it would have been, for those poor women who suffered hard laboring for days that killed their babies and left them with fistula, wounded and incontinent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After my son was born, my mom told me stories about childbirth in the olden days in China. It's a gamble with life (and death), since childbirth was one major reason women was killed, and difficult childbirth almost certainly kills. While my husband was holding my hand, helping me with whatever ways he could (eg. giving me ice cubes in between my hard laboring), my mom watched helplessly on the rocking chair. She has a heart problem and high blood pressure, and was so worried about watching my childbirth that she thought she's going to collapse any minute.
When I was preparing for the second childbirth of my daughter, I had my hair cut short, and I had epidural. The experiences between the first and second childbirth couldn't have been more different.
Some women (particularly those in this country - US) have this romantic notion that they don't want painkillers or any modern medicine, and that they would scold at anyone who wouldn't breastfeed their babies. To those, I can only say, it's all BS. While it's true that a difficult childbirth would toughen a woman up. (It's quite true that a mother can do anything, after a difficult childbirth.) But if I were to have another baby, I don't think I'd choose the difficult path again.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
On ineffectual politics, and sublimal entitlement mentality...
I was disgusted, reading the article in BusinessWeek about attempts after attempts in Washington (including Chris Dodd and Hank Paulson) to try to head off the current housing foreclosure crisis, but unfailingly, their attempts fell far short of the goal, reducing it to nothing more than window-dressing (like the Hope For Homewoners program which aimed to help with 400,000 loans, but ended with with a ridiculous 25 refinanced loans instead).
I was equally disgusted, though, by the supposedly horror stories of homeowners who face foreclosure due to their stupid decision to assume a mortgage that they wouldn't have been able to afford (other than the sunniest-day scenario of "property prices keep going up+mortgage rate remains low+their incomes keep coming in"). In the end, one of the homeowners who was still unable to pay a mark-down mortgage payment, remarked that they still couldn't afford the re-adjusted lower mortgage, but a "All we want is a mortgage we can afford."!!!
Albeit fully admitting their own stupidity, the homeowners interviewed by the article, much like the banking industry who still refuses to face up to the reality that they would have to lose alot of skin in this crisis, are still in denial that they shouldn't be in that big house in the first place, and it's not their right to keep/stay in that house, simply because another stupid banker write them a loan. If they couldn't and can't afford the loan, they should just get out.
While I see sadness in these people's lives, and I can appreciate one's hope and dream in owning their own home, I stick by my parents' ethics which is that we shouldn't afford something that we can't afford.
I was equally disgusted, though, by the supposedly horror stories of homeowners who face foreclosure due to their stupid decision to assume a mortgage that they wouldn't have been able to afford (other than the sunniest-day scenario of "property prices keep going up+mortgage rate remains low+their incomes keep coming in"). In the end, one of the homeowners who was still unable to pay a mark-down mortgage payment, remarked that they still couldn't afford the re-adjusted lower mortgage, but a "All we want is a mortgage we can afford."!!!
Albeit fully admitting their own stupidity, the homeowners interviewed by the article, much like the banking industry who still refuses to face up to the reality that they would have to lose alot of skin in this crisis, are still in denial that they shouldn't be in that big house in the first place, and it's not their right to keep/stay in that house, simply because another stupid banker write them a loan. If they couldn't and can't afford the loan, they should just get out.
While I see sadness in these people's lives, and I can appreciate one's hope and dream in owning their own home, I stick by my parents' ethics which is that we shouldn't afford something that we can't afford.
Monday, February 9, 2009
On relationship, self-help books, et al...
I always find it annoying, reading all those self-help or relationship guru disecting what went through in someone else's relationship, what they should do, etc. It's even more maddening to see how popular these kinds of articles or publications sell.
I'm not in Australia anymore, so I can only read its newspapers online. For some reason, Sydney Morning Herald has loads on this topic on offer. First, there's this discussion about this so-called "Notting Hill" effect, on how movies set unrealistic expectations on real-life relationships. And then, there is this discussion on real-life "application" of the book It's Just Not That Into You.
The fact that so many women, in particular, are in such dire needs to have someone else psycho-analyze them and their lives, says volume about what's wrong with the situation. Ok, the younger ones, like the teens or young adults might be a bit more excusable since one could argue that they don't have enough life experience. But women in their 30s, 40s and beyond, needing relationship help? I would think these groups are a bit beyond help, if they don't know what they know, who they are, what their needs are, and the like.
Perhaps, part of us always enjoy reading about someone else's misery, make some self-comparison, and our own misery doesn't look too bad or pathetic.
A recurring theme in all these books (and movies and all) is the desperate need for men and women alike to have great sex, great steamy, passionate sex, like those you would find in movies and Jackie Collins books. While it's undeniable that sex is part and parcel of a long-term relationship, all these nonsense conditioning that any couple would need steamy sex over some designated frequency is totally bogus to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's perhaps ironic too, that there're so many "light" reads in Sydney Morning Herald. I sure hope that my fellow Australians' needs to follow religious on the British Royal family, and all celebrity gossips, is a reflection of a lack of (often very sad) hard-core news happening in the country (which can be a good thing, cuz no news is good news), versus the fact that they're just more used to sticking their heads in the clouds.
I'm not in Australia anymore, so I can only read its newspapers online. For some reason, Sydney Morning Herald has loads on this topic on offer. First, there's this discussion about this so-called "Notting Hill" effect, on how movies set unrealistic expectations on real-life relationships. And then, there is this discussion on real-life "application" of the book It's Just Not That Into You.
The fact that so many women, in particular, are in such dire needs to have someone else psycho-analyze them and their lives, says volume about what's wrong with the situation. Ok, the younger ones, like the teens or young adults might be a bit more excusable since one could argue that they don't have enough life experience. But women in their 30s, 40s and beyond, needing relationship help? I would think these groups are a bit beyond help, if they don't know what they know, who they are, what their needs are, and the like.
Perhaps, part of us always enjoy reading about someone else's misery, make some self-comparison, and our own misery doesn't look too bad or pathetic.
A recurring theme in all these books (and movies and all) is the desperate need for men and women alike to have great sex, great steamy, passionate sex, like those you would find in movies and Jackie Collins books. While it's undeniable that sex is part and parcel of a long-term relationship, all these nonsense conditioning that any couple would need steamy sex over some designated frequency is totally bogus to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's perhaps ironic too, that there're so many "light" reads in Sydney Morning Herald. I sure hope that my fellow Australians' needs to follow religious on the British Royal family, and all celebrity gossips, is a reflection of a lack of (often very sad) hard-core news happening in the country (which can be a good thing, cuz no news is good news), versus the fact that they're just more used to sticking their heads in the clouds.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
On more audio to the miracle crash landing in the Hudson...
I have to blog to save this audio from the last communication between the pilot of US Airways Flight 1549 and air traffic controller minutes before crash-landing to the Hudson, and miraculous saving everyone on the plane. What's striking is the calm and cool that the pilot and even the air traffic controller were able to keep in handling the urgency.
Once in a long while, we have talented people who do the job, and do it right, as demonstrated by Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger (the pilot), his team on board, and the air traffic controllers. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same for those who are on Wall Street or in Washington.
Once in a long while, we have talented people who do the job, and do it right, as demonstrated by Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger (the pilot), his team on board, and the air traffic controllers. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same for those who are on Wall Street or in Washington.
On hero pilot and the plane crash landing in the Hudson...
In times of uncertainty (like the bad economy we have now), everyone yearns for heroes or white knights coming to the rescue. We don't get those from the government, judging from the clueless attempts from Bush administration and now Obama administration to try this and that to dabble into the rescue. But it came from the miracle crash landing of the plane in The Hudson.
The pilot of US Airways Flight 1549 became instant hero, not only for his steering the plane to land in the water after losing both engines upon hitting flock of birds, but for his professionism and grace in handling the life/death crisis, ensuring everyone on the plane was safe before evacuating himself from the plane.
Being an ex-fighter pilot (Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger) certainly helps in handling the stress. But his calm, from the audio and first-hand account of the passengers, paints a very nerve-soothing picture. Here is a guy, who knows a crisis when he sees one, handles it with a calm steely, takes care to communicate with everyone involves (his "brace for impact" announcement to passengers before the crash would grossly underestimate the kind of danger they were all in), making sure that everyone's safe and out of the plane before himself, and even small-talking with people when they're waiting for rescue once they're out of danger.
Here it is, a life-and-death crisis, and it's a God-send to have someone who knows his job and does it right (perfectly, actually). Compared that to the clueless, slimey CEO's (and everyone involved in the mortgage mess) and politicians who have no clues of what's going on, how to fix things, and wouldn't even take responsibilities that are so obviously theirs. Here's a guy
Deservedly, Sullenberger now would go down in history with his own wiki entry. He's a guy who teaches/preaches what he knows, and does what he preaches. He's a guy who talks the talk, and walks the walk. Sadly, we don't see that in business or politics much at all.
Why don't (and can't) we have more heroes like Sullenberger in every industry?
The pilot of US Airways Flight 1549 became instant hero, not only for his steering the plane to land in the water after losing both engines upon hitting flock of birds, but for his professionism and grace in handling the life/death crisis, ensuring everyone on the plane was safe before evacuating himself from the plane.
Being an ex-fighter pilot (Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger) certainly helps in handling the stress. But his calm, from the audio and first-hand account of the passengers, paints a very nerve-soothing picture. Here is a guy, who knows a crisis when he sees one, handles it with a calm steely, takes care to communicate with everyone involves (his "brace for impact" announcement to passengers before the crash would grossly underestimate the kind of danger they were all in), making sure that everyone's safe and out of the plane before himself, and even small-talking with people when they're waiting for rescue once they're out of danger.
Here it is, a life-and-death crisis, and it's a God-send to have someone who knows his job and does it right (perfectly, actually). Compared that to the clueless, slimey CEO's (and everyone involved in the mortgage mess) and politicians who have no clues of what's going on, how to fix things, and wouldn't even take responsibilities that are so obviously theirs. Here's a guy
Deservedly, Sullenberger now would go down in history with his own wiki entry. He's a guy who teaches/preaches what he knows, and does what he preaches. He's a guy who talks the talk, and walks the walk. Sadly, we don't see that in business or politics much at all.
Why don't (and can't) we have more heroes like Sullenberger in every industry?
On the silver lining of a bad economy...
In a bad economy, it can be tough to keep our heads keep and remain optimistic. But I find some silver lining amidst all the gloom and doom.
We used to be so busy making money, focusing much on the job and work. But as the economy turns bad, my hsuband and I have actually had more communication and talks, from things like how our business is going (pretty stagnant right now but thankfully it's debt-free and requires no additional bank loan), to expense control. Times like this, we learn to be more flexible. We cut all non-essential expenses, including dining out, toys to kids that they hardly touch after the excitement from the act of buying wears off in less than a couple of hours, and all the extras that we've been carrying which we shouldn't have. Those extras include some 20 website domain names that I've registered and kept, but never got round to using them. So, last month, I dropped all the domain name registration, saved the 5 that we are using or might still use.
The kids don't actually mind about not dining out at all. They find it boring, sitting around in the restaurant waiting for food and not having anything else to do. (Food is just food for them.) And the kids have been doing more outdoorsy activities, rather than just going to toy stores and buy toys they don't play (and destined for either donation or trash or recycle bins). The other silver lining is, we find more time to do things at home together. My husband has been doing a bit more baking (from pies to muffins), rather than buying from bakery and supermarkets. The kids love the baking "project" together. The more (quality) time together, as a family, is definitely a plus.
Of course, all those expense curb mean even less spending in the economy. But I've come to wonder out loud: Do economic improvement really depends on consumerism and consumerism alone? Given that consumerism (of material goods) involves extracting more from the environment. Do we really need or want that? Do we really need to upgrade our cell phones or get the latest ipod every year or so? Would a more service-oriented society could facilitate economic growth, without having to tax the environment so much?
I'm not an economics major, and I don't have a way to measure the economic impact of the above propositions. But I do hope that, as American's wherewithdrawal in financiing their ever-increasing consumer spending has come to an end, it would allow us to collectively dig deeper into our soul and ask ourselves if all those spendings are really needed or justified, and our place in history as custodian to the environment and this planet earth.
We used to be so busy making money, focusing much on the job and work. But as the economy turns bad, my hsuband and I have actually had more communication and talks, from things like how our business is going (pretty stagnant right now but thankfully it's debt-free and requires no additional bank loan), to expense control. Times like this, we learn to be more flexible. We cut all non-essential expenses, including dining out, toys to kids that they hardly touch after the excitement from the act of buying wears off in less than a couple of hours, and all the extras that we've been carrying which we shouldn't have. Those extras include some 20 website domain names that I've registered and kept, but never got round to using them. So, last month, I dropped all the domain name registration, saved the 5 that we are using or might still use.
The kids don't actually mind about not dining out at all. They find it boring, sitting around in the restaurant waiting for food and not having anything else to do. (Food is just food for them.) And the kids have been doing more outdoorsy activities, rather than just going to toy stores and buy toys they don't play (and destined for either donation or trash or recycle bins). The other silver lining is, we find more time to do things at home together. My husband has been doing a bit more baking (from pies to muffins), rather than buying from bakery and supermarkets. The kids love the baking "project" together. The more (quality) time together, as a family, is definitely a plus.
Of course, all those expense curb mean even less spending in the economy. But I've come to wonder out loud: Do economic improvement really depends on consumerism and consumerism alone? Given that consumerism (of material goods) involves extracting more from the environment. Do we really need or want that? Do we really need to upgrade our cell phones or get the latest ipod every year or so? Would a more service-oriented society could facilitate economic growth, without having to tax the environment so much?
I'm not an economics major, and I don't have a way to measure the economic impact of the above propositions. But I do hope that, as American's wherewithdrawal in financiing their ever-increasing consumer spending has come to an end, it would allow us to collectively dig deeper into our soul and ask ourselves if all those spendings are really needed or justified, and our place in history as custodian to the environment and this planet earth.
On executive pay and bonus cap from government stimulus plan...
The recent announcement of the proposed government stimulus package from the Obama administration includes a clause which would cap the executive pay of all firms seeking bailout money to be $500k. The pay for US presidents is $400k, so it reasons that giving the celebrity CEO's an extra $100k seems to be fair.
That proposal caps the public imagination and anger over the outrageous Wall Street compensation while the companies were bleeding cash. The latest whipping boy is John Thain, the ex-Merrill Lynch CEO who managed to sell itself to Bank of America when Wall Street was going down (Lehman, for one, failed to get sold or rescued by Washington; hence bankrupt now). He was lauded not to have the emotional attachment the way Dick Fuld had with Lehman, hence be able to decide on clinical terms that Merrill could not survive unless sold. That could well be, but Thain's decision to accelerate the bonus grant to Merrill executives, from Jan 2009 (when BoA will take over all decision making) to Dec 2008, thereby shortcircuiting BoA, upset many. His spending of more than $1 million in decorating his Merrill office, amidst horrible economy and company performance, parallels the bad deeds in the Enron, Tyson, WorldCom days.
To be fair, the Obama cap would grap news headline, but I very much doubt if it achieves it intended consequence. Big companies CEO will get paid more than $500k, that much for sure. If it's not in cash and stocks/options, they'll finagle a way to get themselves the compensation. And if the companies do earn its keep, I don't think anyone would mind paying them. The more fundamental issue is, how do we (or the companies) decide what "performance" is real, and what is just smoke-screen. The problem is, most Wall St firms pay bonus based on short-term yearly results. Traders would love to take big positions, and if it works out, take the big bonus with no ramifications; if it doesn't work out, it's the company/shareholders who are holding the bag.
As we can see now, all those who had a hand in all the subprime and mortgage mess (from credit agencies who routinely rated every junk tranch as triple-A without a clue what's going on under-the-hood, to Wall St who sliced the underlying securities with no care for inherent risks and pushed them to investors, to everyone down-stream of course, from mortgagees to property appraisers, etc) were all paid based on the here-and-now transaction volume. When the securities turned sour, all these parties would have received their compensation, including all the traders and investment banks in Wall St, long long ago. Is it fair? Absolutely not.
The question is whether the Obama cap is going to prompt all the compensation committees in public companies to start looking at tying long-term company performance (not just the short-term year-on-year gains) to compensation of ANYONE, CEO included. But to tell the truth, I'm not holding out my breath.
That proposal caps the public imagination and anger over the outrageous Wall Street compensation while the companies were bleeding cash. The latest whipping boy is John Thain, the ex-Merrill Lynch CEO who managed to sell itself to Bank of America when Wall Street was going down (Lehman, for one, failed to get sold or rescued by Washington; hence bankrupt now). He was lauded not to have the emotional attachment the way Dick Fuld had with Lehman, hence be able to decide on clinical terms that Merrill could not survive unless sold. That could well be, but Thain's decision to accelerate the bonus grant to Merrill executives, from Jan 2009 (when BoA will take over all decision making) to Dec 2008, thereby shortcircuiting BoA, upset many. His spending of more than $1 million in decorating his Merrill office, amidst horrible economy and company performance, parallels the bad deeds in the Enron, Tyson, WorldCom days.
To be fair, the Obama cap would grap news headline, but I very much doubt if it achieves it intended consequence. Big companies CEO will get paid more than $500k, that much for sure. If it's not in cash and stocks/options, they'll finagle a way to get themselves the compensation. And if the companies do earn its keep, I don't think anyone would mind paying them. The more fundamental issue is, how do we (or the companies) decide what "performance" is real, and what is just smoke-screen. The problem is, most Wall St firms pay bonus based on short-term yearly results. Traders would love to take big positions, and if it works out, take the big bonus with no ramifications; if it doesn't work out, it's the company/shareholders who are holding the bag.
As we can see now, all those who had a hand in all the subprime and mortgage mess (from credit agencies who routinely rated every junk tranch as triple-A without a clue what's going on under-the-hood, to Wall St who sliced the underlying securities with no care for inherent risks and pushed them to investors, to everyone down-stream of course, from mortgagees to property appraisers, etc) were all paid based on the here-and-now transaction volume. When the securities turned sour, all these parties would have received their compensation, including all the traders and investment banks in Wall St, long long ago. Is it fair? Absolutely not.
The question is whether the Obama cap is going to prompt all the compensation committees in public companies to start looking at tying long-term company performance (not just the short-term year-on-year gains) to compensation of ANYONE, CEO included. But to tell the truth, I'm not holding out my breath.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
On more bungled Obama cabinet nominations due to tax issues...
It really is quite sickening, looking at the economy going down the tube, and Obama yapping the top of his lungs that his administration is going to be different, his policies are going to be great, his people are going to be lobbyist-free, and yet cabinet nomination after cabinet nomination, his buddies are dropping like flies, amidst ethical and tax issues.
While Bill Richardson's withdrawal (due to ethical issues) from his bid to be Commerce Secretary would leave us cynical, I doubt if there are that many out there who are angry. And then there was Timothy Geithner's relatively small debacle of failing to pay some $34k of back taxes. (Yes, $34k might seem alot to us, but it's less than a drop in these Washington fat cat's bucket.) And yes, Geithner could well argue that the accountant didn't catch the mistake, it can hardly be said of Tom Daschle, where he knew long while back that he has back taxes to be paid, he never cared to pay it until he's about to stand the Congressional hearing. It is so hypocritical, in this day and age, when average-joes struggle with daily life expenses, losing jobs left and right, and this guy who has more than enough money, would not even pay taxes. And here's the guy who's supposed to draw up reforms and head a major government agency! No wonder, the relatively minor Nancy Killefer, who was nominated to be a new Chief Performance Officer, quickly threw up her hands and withdrew her name, even though she has less than $1k back taxes. Hey, but who knows what else (and other dirty laundry and surprises) she has in store.
For those who want to find faults, the spousal doubt on the donations to Bill Clinton's foundation hardly sticks on Hillary Clinton when she went through her nomination to be Secretary of State. It's almost benign and collegial in her hearings.
Should Obama take the blame for nominating all these tainted buddies? You bet. And, judging from how "staunchly" he was "solidly" supporting the nominees, and how fast (in matters of hours, not even days) he changed course to let them drop, one can see how slimy and sleazeball Obama is.
These are not the kind of "Change" I can believe in.
While Bill Richardson's withdrawal (due to ethical issues) from his bid to be Commerce Secretary would leave us cynical, I doubt if there are that many out there who are angry. And then there was Timothy Geithner's relatively small debacle of failing to pay some $34k of back taxes. (Yes, $34k might seem alot to us, but it's less than a drop in these Washington fat cat's bucket.) And yes, Geithner could well argue that the accountant didn't catch the mistake, it can hardly be said of Tom Daschle, where he knew long while back that he has back taxes to be paid, he never cared to pay it until he's about to stand the Congressional hearing. It is so hypocritical, in this day and age, when average-joes struggle with daily life expenses, losing jobs left and right, and this guy who has more than enough money, would not even pay taxes. And here's the guy who's supposed to draw up reforms and head a major government agency! No wonder, the relatively minor Nancy Killefer, who was nominated to be a new Chief Performance Officer, quickly threw up her hands and withdrew her name, even though she has less than $1k back taxes. Hey, but who knows what else (and other dirty laundry and surprises) she has in store.
For those who want to find faults, the spousal doubt on the donations to Bill Clinton's foundation hardly sticks on Hillary Clinton when she went through her nomination to be Secretary of State. It's almost benign and collegial in her hearings.
Should Obama take the blame for nominating all these tainted buddies? You bet. And, judging from how "staunchly" he was "solidly" supporting the nominees, and how fast (in matters of hours, not even days) he changed course to let them drop, one can see how slimy and sleazeball Obama is.
These are not the kind of "Change" I can believe in.
Monday, February 2, 2009
On farce of a new kingdom...
I don't know much about Czech culture and attitude, but from the way that Czechs take lightly the joke that sprang out new, imaginary kingdom, that's quite funny.
I find it funny too, that a Pakistani was asking for political asylum from this imaginary kingdom, only to be told that they're not real.
While we might find it just a comic relief, it's just a matter of time before the news travel to China, and human traffickers spread rumors of the new kingdom in "Europe" granting asylum to those Chinese seeking economic refuge.
I find it funny too, that a Pakistani was asking for political asylum from this imaginary kingdom, only to be told that they're not real.
While we might find it just a comic relief, it's just a matter of time before the news travel to China, and human traffickers spread rumors of the new kingdom in "Europe" granting asylum to those Chinese seeking economic refuge.
On learning musical instruments...
I have always loved learning musical instruments since I was a kid. I like piano, in particular. But it never happened. Music lessons were (and still are) expensive. A large family with five kids mean we didn't get to those extra-circular activities that could be done without.
In the past year or so, my kids have, at different points in time, expressed interests in learning musical instruments. After his school starts teaching recorder in the music lessons, my son has been playing it every night, on his own initiative. Over the past summer, my daughter said she wants to learn violin too. So, now she's practising maybe 1-1.5 hours every night.
This past Christmas, we bought a piano to make it easier for her to tune and practice the violin. Now, my son says he wants to learn piano too.
I must say though, that the kids really do pick things up much faster: the fingering practice, reading of the music notes, and a much sharper ear. I still have comparatively flexible fingers, but maybe I have other worries on my mind to distract, or that I'm just getting older. In any case, I'm trying to pick up playing the piano on the side as well. It's hard work, and I'm able to play simple songs already, after practicing for not too long. I still have a long way to go though, in terms of reading the notes, and coordinating my left and right hands and fingers.
I know someday, I'm going to be able to play songs from music books, and I would be proud of my accomplishment. It'll probably take me a long while. For now, I'll have to focus on work and the advanced degree that I'm going to start this year. (In a sluggish economy like now, it doesn't hurt to go back to school.)
In the past year or so, my kids have, at different points in time, expressed interests in learning musical instruments. After his school starts teaching recorder in the music lessons, my son has been playing it every night, on his own initiative. Over the past summer, my daughter said she wants to learn violin too. So, now she's practising maybe 1-1.5 hours every night.
This past Christmas, we bought a piano to make it easier for her to tune and practice the violin. Now, my son says he wants to learn piano too.
I must say though, that the kids really do pick things up much faster: the fingering practice, reading of the music notes, and a much sharper ear. I still have comparatively flexible fingers, but maybe I have other worries on my mind to distract, or that I'm just getting older. In any case, I'm trying to pick up playing the piano on the side as well. It's hard work, and I'm able to play simple songs already, after practicing for not too long. I still have a long way to go though, in terms of reading the notes, and coordinating my left and right hands and fingers.
I know someday, I'm going to be able to play songs from music books, and I would be proud of my accomplishment. It'll probably take me a long while. For now, I'll have to focus on work and the advanced degree that I'm going to start this year. (In a sluggish economy like now, it doesn't hurt to go back to school.)
On the worst snow storm in England since 1991...
Every time when there's news about snow storm (which is quite rare) in England, it brings back memory. Right now, England is experiencing its worst snow storm in 18 years, since 1991.
It reminds me of my dorm days back in 1991, the day we're supposed to move dorms before the Christmas school holidays. I woke up to find one third of my window in the tiny dorm room covered. That was new to me, since I'd never seen snow. I went to the window, just to see everything (the field, trees and bushes outside my window, for as far as I can see) covered in white snow. My room was on the 3rd floor. I ran to the stairs where there's a bigger window looking out to the other side of the university and the roof tops of mostly residential buildings further out. Everything white, clean, and very pretty. I remember the picture brought a smile to my face.
The whole dorm was buzzing with excitement and activities. Most students were supposed to be picked up by parents/relatives, and go home for the Christmas holiday. For those of us who stayed, we're supposed to move to a few designated dorms, probably for reasons of security and energy conservation. Everyone was happy that school was over, but no parents yet - which means, party time. Loud music and all night partying in the kitchen ensued. Everyone was running up and down the stairs, and chatting joyously.
But the fun didn't last too long. England is not used to having snow. Like the snow storm right now, which goes to only 8 inches accumulation (try comparing that to New England or Midwest winter), it paralyzed the country. Most families were unable to arrive in short order. By the third day of stranding in the dorm, the novelty wore off. Everyone just sat staring blankly at the small TV in the kitchen. As the power lines were down, we were advised not to drink water straight from the tap. Someone started plugging one of the bathtubs to save water in order for a decent cup of tea!!! We were running low on food as well. You could feel the worries in the air.
I can't remember clearly now when families started coming in to pick up my dorm-mates. It probably took more than 4 days before they started arriving. In the end, everyone was so happy to see their family to come pick them up, that there're very few cheery goodbyes and see-yas. Some of my friends helped me wheeled my meagre, worldly belongings to the new, temporary dorm in a supermarket trolley. I must say, I was very happy to see myself moved finally as well.
Such was my memory of one of England's worst snow storms, in 1991. And the memory will stay with me forever.
It reminds me of my dorm days back in 1991, the day we're supposed to move dorms before the Christmas school holidays. I woke up to find one third of my window in the tiny dorm room covered. That was new to me, since I'd never seen snow. I went to the window, just to see everything (the field, trees and bushes outside my window, for as far as I can see) covered in white snow. My room was on the 3rd floor. I ran to the stairs where there's a bigger window looking out to the other side of the university and the roof tops of mostly residential buildings further out. Everything white, clean, and very pretty. I remember the picture brought a smile to my face.
The whole dorm was buzzing with excitement and activities. Most students were supposed to be picked up by parents/relatives, and go home for the Christmas holiday. For those of us who stayed, we're supposed to move to a few designated dorms, probably for reasons of security and energy conservation. Everyone was happy that school was over, but no parents yet - which means, party time. Loud music and all night partying in the kitchen ensued. Everyone was running up and down the stairs, and chatting joyously.
But the fun didn't last too long. England is not used to having snow. Like the snow storm right now, which goes to only 8 inches accumulation (try comparing that to New England or Midwest winter), it paralyzed the country. Most families were unable to arrive in short order. By the third day of stranding in the dorm, the novelty wore off. Everyone just sat staring blankly at the small TV in the kitchen. As the power lines were down, we were advised not to drink water straight from the tap. Someone started plugging one of the bathtubs to save water in order for a decent cup of tea!!! We were running low on food as well. You could feel the worries in the air.
I can't remember clearly now when families started coming in to pick up my dorm-mates. It probably took more than 4 days before they started arriving. In the end, everyone was so happy to see their family to come pick them up, that there're very few cheery goodbyes and see-yas. Some of my friends helped me wheeled my meagre, worldly belongings to the new, temporary dorm in a supermarket trolley. I must say, I was very happy to see myself moved finally as well.
Such was my memory of one of England's worst snow storms, in 1991. And the memory will stay with me forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)