I'm not sure what happens to me lately, but I feel like having less need to interact with others. I know working from home 24x7, as Dilbert would have it, doesn't help. I communicate with colleagues, my boss, and external parties all over the wire, either in IM, or email, or phone. So, I hardly need to actually come face-to-face with people.
Quite recently I realize that I don't feel like spending the energy to socialize with the other parents in my kids' school activities. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anti-social person. I can chat with people quite easily, if I want to. The problem is, I don't feel like it.
Maybe part of the problem is that, alot of those parents feel fake to me. The ones I feel least want to socialize with are the stay-at-home moms. I have no intention to discriminate against any social group(s), but I'm beginning (and this feeling has probably been brewing for at least a couple of years) to find it hard to think of topics to talk with them. While we all have the same kids worries, household chores and the like, what is a working mom to talk with a stay-home mom about, except the kids, and nothing but the kids?
I remember reading it somewhere an article which mentions that parents often encounter anxiety going back to school again. No doubt those were wonder years and every parent feels self confident about themselves. Thing is, I never felt that way when I was in school, growing up. But perhaps it's the cultural gap that I'm feeling? I don't know.
I was talking to my kid's violin teacher, who moved to Harvard Yard about a year ago. We're talking about Boston and the undercurrent of indifference and snobbishness. He's an all American, but he feels that rather acutely too. In fact, he mentioned that none of the neighbors bother to say hello or good morning, except one Indian family next door from him.
I know that I'm currently stressed out right now. There are things at work that I need to attend to. There are also lots of readings, assignment, and weekly quiz for my graduate study. There is also additional work that I've promised a professor I would deliver to him on a class that he's going to teach. On top of that, we're also preparing for the refinancing of our mortgage, while the economy is in the dump at the moment. And we need to spend the funding for our business venture while the economy is down and out right now. There are just so many things on my plate.
And I know I'm stressed out because I wouldn't sleep at night. Normally, I try to sleep late, so that when it comes time to sleep, I'll be very tired and I'll hit the sac with no dreams or worries. Lately that has not been the case.
Whenever I'm stressed out, I would find a good book, and I would spend all my time reading it (and enjoying it), rather than doing the other tasks that I'm supposed to do. I know I'm evading the eventuality. Well, but I just finished The Brass Verdict, and Michael Connelly never fails me as a writer (since his first book The Poet).
I do prefer being busy than idling around. The weekly activities for the kids, chauffeuring them here and there, distract me in a way that can be soothing sometimes. Those are the tasks that I can go on auto-pilot, without having to tax my brain too much. I hope I'm not stressing out my kids, when I'm stressed out myself.
Now that I'm done with the book, I think I'm ready to tackle the other tasks, starting tomorrow. I need to sleep early tonight... :)
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
On toilet paper and environmental consciousness...
I don't remember if I have written about this in this journal previously (which I probably have, but I don't feel like clicking through the entries to revise my old writings), but I always teach my kids to respect the environment and not to be wasteful.
One of the things I do with them is, saving unnecessary flush of toilets. Naturally, it's not very hygienic to do that after poop, but pee-pee really isn't so bad. At one point, I read somewhere that toilet flushes use more than 30% of household water consumption, which can translate into thousands of gallons of fresh water. After I read that, the urging to my kids to maintain this habit (of saving flushes, only until the last one of us is done pee'ing, particularly in the morning rituals, when everyone files in/out of the bathroom) has taken on new meanings to me, and I feel the urgency to make sure they definitely do that.
The same goes for recycle aluminum cans. Reports indicate that the energy used to make a new aluminum can is enough for 3 hours of TV. To me, recycling the cans is a no-brainer. But these days, when I see any cans, be it on the street or in the public bin, I would pick it up and find a recycle bin to put it in. My public duty and conscience demands me to do it.
So now, it comes to the use of toilet papers. This is another practice that I have urged my kids to do. If I do not refrain them, they would be rolling toilet paper off like it's a dancing ribbon, and could use as much as 20-30 parts of toilet paper for one wipe. I was horrified when I saw the toilet paper rolling out, and they simply enjoying the sight of it. So, I give them a rule, use 3 parts (max) at any one time. If the wipe is not clean, use another 3-part wipe. Since the toilet paper is of good quality (and thick), 3 parts are more than enough.
And then I read about all these controversy, about Sheryl Crow advocating using less toilet papers, and I was astounded - not by what she advocates (which makes absolute sense), but at how negative people were receiving it. I thought to myself, what's wrong with these people? What's wrong with limiting ourselves to use only what is necessary?!?
I must confess though, that I am yet to convert my husband. He does not oppose to my recycling at all, and he would put recyclables in the correct bin. But he would never volunteer to do it. If the recycle bin is full, I have no doubts that he'll leave them there, and throw the rest of the recyclables to the trash. And, he still ensures that he has enough for 2 wipes, each wipe with at least 5-6 parts of toilet paper. Once, I asked him why he needs so much toilet paper? He told me he has a hairy butt, and he needs more paper. Well, I couldn't argue with him on that. :)
I'm yet to refrain my husband of not letting the water running in the faucet while he's brushing. Another time, I asked him why he needs the water running ferociously when he's still brushing. He told me he likes the sound of it. Pray to God that he'll see the light of environmental protection one day...
One of the things I do with them is, saving unnecessary flush of toilets. Naturally, it's not very hygienic to do that after poop, but pee-pee really isn't so bad. At one point, I read somewhere that toilet flushes use more than 30% of household water consumption, which can translate into thousands of gallons of fresh water. After I read that, the urging to my kids to maintain this habit (of saving flushes, only until the last one of us is done pee'ing, particularly in the morning rituals, when everyone files in/out of the bathroom) has taken on new meanings to me, and I feel the urgency to make sure they definitely do that.
The same goes for recycle aluminum cans. Reports indicate that the energy used to make a new aluminum can is enough for 3 hours of TV. To me, recycling the cans is a no-brainer. But these days, when I see any cans, be it on the street or in the public bin, I would pick it up and find a recycle bin to put it in. My public duty and conscience demands me to do it.
So now, it comes to the use of toilet papers. This is another practice that I have urged my kids to do. If I do not refrain them, they would be rolling toilet paper off like it's a dancing ribbon, and could use as much as 20-30 parts of toilet paper for one wipe. I was horrified when I saw the toilet paper rolling out, and they simply enjoying the sight of it. So, I give them a rule, use 3 parts (max) at any one time. If the wipe is not clean, use another 3-part wipe. Since the toilet paper is of good quality (and thick), 3 parts are more than enough.
And then I read about all these controversy, about Sheryl Crow advocating using less toilet papers, and I was astounded - not by what she advocates (which makes absolute sense), but at how negative people were receiving it. I thought to myself, what's wrong with these people? What's wrong with limiting ourselves to use only what is necessary?!?
I must confess though, that I am yet to convert my husband. He does not oppose to my recycling at all, and he would put recyclables in the correct bin. But he would never volunteer to do it. If the recycle bin is full, I have no doubts that he'll leave them there, and throw the rest of the recyclables to the trash. And, he still ensures that he has enough for 2 wipes, each wipe with at least 5-6 parts of toilet paper. Once, I asked him why he needs so much toilet paper? He told me he has a hairy butt, and he needs more paper. Well, I couldn't argue with him on that. :)
I'm yet to refrain my husband of not letting the water running in the faucet while he's brushing. Another time, I asked him why he needs the water running ferociously when he's still brushing. He told me he likes the sound of it. Pray to God that he'll see the light of environmental protection one day...
On the joy of cooking and pasta...
While I'm never a cook, I love food. I love to watch cooking show. My husband credits me for a sensitive taste buds, which help me pick out what ingredients are used in a dish, usually with pretty good success rate. Since he likes to cook and to experiment with dishes, it's a perfect match. We would go to a restaurant, we order new dishes, we taste it, and I make out the ingredients, and we discuss how it might be made, then he would go home and try it out.
(Of course, I'm sure restaurant chefs have their own secret recipe that makes the dishes taste good. That, plus the nice service and environ, makes eating out justifiable.)
He attacks cooking with gusto. He treats it like the lab experiments he did during his Ph.D and postdoc years in biology. He thinks there are alot of similarities between cooking and science - you have a hypothesis, you set up the experiment, and you try it out; if it fails, you keep tweaking the experiment, one parameter at a time, until you have it just right.
But I don't really cook. Not that I don't like cooking, but given the full-time workload, and the graduate study, and the chores at home, I'll have to delegate the cooking duties. He sometimes jokes that I would starve to death if he doesn't cook for us (me and the kids), but that's not the reality. Before he accepts the charge to all the cooking at home (and by proxy, doing grocery shopping regularly), I used to cook all the time. I do admit that I'm a kinda happy-go-lucky cook, and quality of my dishes are not very...shall we say...consistent. Maybe I go the fast way, and he takes the more meticulous way in dealing with the method of cook.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other day I read the article on cooking pasta. I know how to make pasta, but I have always dislike the starchy cooking water after the pasta is taken out. I have never in my wildest dream, considered saving that water, and use it as the sauce. After I read it, I said to myself, it makes so perfect sense to use the leftover cooking water for making the sauce since it's already quite thick, with much flavor from the pasta itself.
I told my husband about it. Maybe he'll give it a try next time, when we feel like cooking Italian at home. :)
(Of course, I'm sure restaurant chefs have their own secret recipe that makes the dishes taste good. That, plus the nice service and environ, makes eating out justifiable.)
He attacks cooking with gusto. He treats it like the lab experiments he did during his Ph.D and postdoc years in biology. He thinks there are alot of similarities between cooking and science - you have a hypothesis, you set up the experiment, and you try it out; if it fails, you keep tweaking the experiment, one parameter at a time, until you have it just right.
But I don't really cook. Not that I don't like cooking, but given the full-time workload, and the graduate study, and the chores at home, I'll have to delegate the cooking duties. He sometimes jokes that I would starve to death if he doesn't cook for us (me and the kids), but that's not the reality. Before he accepts the charge to all the cooking at home (and by proxy, doing grocery shopping regularly), I used to cook all the time. I do admit that I'm a kinda happy-go-lucky cook, and quality of my dishes are not very...shall we say...consistent. Maybe I go the fast way, and he takes the more meticulous way in dealing with the method of cook.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The other day I read the article on cooking pasta. I know how to make pasta, but I have always dislike the starchy cooking water after the pasta is taken out. I have never in my wildest dream, considered saving that water, and use it as the sauce. After I read it, I said to myself, it makes so perfect sense to use the leftover cooking water for making the sauce since it's already quite thick, with much flavor from the pasta itself.
I told my husband about it. Maybe he'll give it a try next time, when we feel like cooking Italian at home. :)
Monday, March 2, 2009
On Obama budget, and ailing GOP...
I didn't vote for Obama. I had voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and went for McCain, perhaps just to spite Obama. I can't stand his schmuck grin - I really can't stand it. I have ignored watching all speeches from Obama since he won the election, including the so-called historical inaugural speech.
But deep down, I know I had prefer Clinton's agenda (and Obama copycat it). Now that Obama is in office, for better or for worse, I would not wish him ill or fail. Afterall, the country and future direction could depend on this man. So, reluctantly, I brought myself to belatedly watch Obama's speech to Congress, prior to the release of his first budget proposal.
I must admit though, that Obama has approached the deep issues facing this country with pragmatism. At least in words, Obama looks to have the big picture and priorities right, which is to fix the economy in the immediate term, and fix the big issues (notably, energy, health care, and education) for the strategic future. Other approaches like bringing competitive bidding to medicare, should have been done long ago.
I do hope that he would follow through on his rhetoric that Obama is famous for, although his record of backpedaling is staggering, even during the presidential campaign. Who is there to hold him accountable for his pretty words? All we can do is hope - yes, that's the "hope" that he's been trying to sell to the voters, because that's all we can do now.
With the economy and bad news coming in every day, what with unemployment number (California reaches 10.1%), stock markets at all time low, and there's no end in sight, I'm sure everyone wants to be seen as doing something.
But while I'm still highly skeptical of Obama (and will only be convinced by actions and results, not words), I'm equally convinced that, should McCain win, he would not have offered much fresh ideas, or to change much of the wrong-headed course that George W Bush had charged this country down on.
These days, GOP, as if stuck in neutral, only has one line to offer - tax cuts. Rush Limbaugh, unbelievably, has become the face of GOP. When so many ordinary folks hurting due to job loss and sour economy, the GOP rising stars would have us believed that government is not the answer, unemployment benefits should not be increased, and everything would go back to normal if government gets out of the way of Wall Street.
While I do not believe government should be all-encompassing, I do not subscribe to the notion that there's no role for the government to play. A good government should establish a reliable, fair, and enforceable (backed with effective enforcement) framework and level playing field, whereby private parties can strive on. The eight years of Bush, and the Greenspan/Rubin reign during the eight years prior under Bill Clinton, have essentially reduced this country to the wild-wild-west for the Wall Street where everything and anything goes. The profit-at-all-costs is simply and completely unacceptable. I can't believe it either, that GOP still has the thick skin to reiterate those same old tired lines to the American people. Hell - can anyone be more tone-deaf than the GOP right now?
While I did not read the whole budget draft, the fact that some agencies like EPA are getting additional funding is indeed good news. Without the funding, those federal agencies (like SEC) are effectively reduced to be toothless tiger. I'm still hoping that more regulations (with less DUI from lobbyists on the Congress) are going to rein in alot of things that are ailing this country.
I'm still hoping and waiting.
But deep down, I know I had prefer Clinton's agenda (and Obama copycat it). Now that Obama is in office, for better or for worse, I would not wish him ill or fail. Afterall, the country and future direction could depend on this man. So, reluctantly, I brought myself to belatedly watch Obama's speech to Congress, prior to the release of his first budget proposal.
I must admit though, that Obama has approached the deep issues facing this country with pragmatism. At least in words, Obama looks to have the big picture and priorities right, which is to fix the economy in the immediate term, and fix the big issues (notably, energy, health care, and education) for the strategic future. Other approaches like bringing competitive bidding to medicare, should have been done long ago.
I do hope that he would follow through on his rhetoric that Obama is famous for, although his record of backpedaling is staggering, even during the presidential campaign. Who is there to hold him accountable for his pretty words? All we can do is hope - yes, that's the "hope" that he's been trying to sell to the voters, because that's all we can do now.
With the economy and bad news coming in every day, what with unemployment number (California reaches 10.1%), stock markets at all time low, and there's no end in sight, I'm sure everyone wants to be seen as doing something.
But while I'm still highly skeptical of Obama (and will only be convinced by actions and results, not words), I'm equally convinced that, should McCain win, he would not have offered much fresh ideas, or to change much of the wrong-headed course that George W Bush had charged this country down on.
These days, GOP, as if stuck in neutral, only has one line to offer - tax cuts. Rush Limbaugh, unbelievably, has become the face of GOP. When so many ordinary folks hurting due to job loss and sour economy, the GOP rising stars would have us believed that government is not the answer, unemployment benefits should not be increased, and everything would go back to normal if government gets out of the way of Wall Street.
While I do not believe government should be all-encompassing, I do not subscribe to the notion that there's no role for the government to play. A good government should establish a reliable, fair, and enforceable (backed with effective enforcement) framework and level playing field, whereby private parties can strive on. The eight years of Bush, and the Greenspan/Rubin reign during the eight years prior under Bill Clinton, have essentially reduced this country to the wild-wild-west for the Wall Street where everything and anything goes. The profit-at-all-costs is simply and completely unacceptable. I can't believe it either, that GOP still has the thick skin to reiterate those same old tired lines to the American people. Hell - can anyone be more tone-deaf than the GOP right now?
While I did not read the whole budget draft, the fact that some agencies like EPA are getting additional funding is indeed good news. Without the funding, those federal agencies (like SEC) are effectively reduced to be toothless tiger. I'm still hoping that more regulations (with less DUI from lobbyists on the Congress) are going to rein in alot of things that are ailing this country.
I'm still hoping and waiting.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
On Goop.com and Gwyneth Paltrow...
For some reason, I never like to watch Gwyneth Paltrow. In fact, I don't understand why and how she could have won that Oscar for her shallow performance in Shakespeare In Love.
Having said that, I wouldn't argue that she's good-looking. I would wonder though, as to whether anyone would want to emulate her.
Apparently, Paltrow has a different idea, and thinks that everyone wants to look, dress, and live like her. Such was her attempt at starting Goop.com. The ridiculous life-style website that she's started, expecting people to flock to her like people used to do with everything Martha Stewart.
Paltrow must not have realized the reason why people like Sandra Bullock more than herself. That's because Bullock is infinitely more accessible to everyday women than Paltrow, as people can more readily relate to Bullock than to Paltrow, primarily because Bullock looks like an ordinary women. When Bullcok makes herself look good or cute, women feel that they can do that too.
That's definitely not the case with Paltrow. Sure, she has the golden, flower-child look, and ridiculously thin skeleton that is likely to qualify her as an malnourished model on catwalk. But that's what most women themselves. When Paltrow thinks she looks good in that skimpy dress, it's likely that 99.99999% of the women out there can't even get a similar looking dress pass their buttocks.
So, when criticisms start piling in on her, it's amazing that Paltrow can still argue against the crowd, claiming that everyone else who disagrees with her just "doesn't get it." She fails to see that she's the only one who doesn't get it.
I very much doubt that the criticisms on Goop.com are based primarily on the fact that Paltrow is tone-deaf about how bad the economy is right now, and that women would hardly have time or money to follow her every move like paparazzi. Good times or bad, I simply do not believe that Paltrow is going to succeed in translating her golden look into cult following and extra revenue source to her. I simply don't think people care much about Paltrow, after her split with Brad Pitt.
Having said that, I wouldn't argue that she's good-looking. I would wonder though, as to whether anyone would want to emulate her.
Apparently, Paltrow has a different idea, and thinks that everyone wants to look, dress, and live like her. Such was her attempt at starting Goop.com. The ridiculous life-style website that she's started, expecting people to flock to her like people used to do with everything Martha Stewart.
Paltrow must not have realized the reason why people like Sandra Bullock more than herself. That's because Bullock is infinitely more accessible to everyday women than Paltrow, as people can more readily relate to Bullock than to Paltrow, primarily because Bullock looks like an ordinary women. When Bullcok makes herself look good or cute, women feel that they can do that too.
That's definitely not the case with Paltrow. Sure, she has the golden, flower-child look, and ridiculously thin skeleton that is likely to qualify her as an malnourished model on catwalk. But that's what most women themselves. When Paltrow thinks she looks good in that skimpy dress, it's likely that 99.99999% of the women out there can't even get a similar looking dress pass their buttocks.
So, when criticisms start piling in on her, it's amazing that Paltrow can still argue against the crowd, claiming that everyone else who disagrees with her just "doesn't get it." She fails to see that she's the only one who doesn't get it.
I very much doubt that the criticisms on Goop.com are based primarily on the fact that Paltrow is tone-deaf about how bad the economy is right now, and that women would hardly have time or money to follow her every move like paparazzi. Good times or bad, I simply do not believe that Paltrow is going to succeed in translating her golden look into cult following and extra revenue source to her. I simply don't think people care much about Paltrow, after her split with Brad Pitt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)