My daughter always loves hugging people. She loves to do that since she's a toddler. She can run to hug anyone that she knows, men or women, boys or girls. Her hugs are quite disarming and often infectious, since everyone loves it, and they all love her.
As she grows older now, we try to teach her that it's nice to hug, but it's not proper to hug just about anyone. She would even give hugs to grown-up men too, which, given her height, she would be hugging the men around that groin level, and that is totally inappropriate and unacceptable. It helps that her school now has a no-hugs-no-kisses policy. That validates our teaching to her, that it might not be proper to hug anyone. These days, when she's 7 now, she doesn't hug much anymore, not even to me. In a way, being a mommy, I feel kind of sad. But I know it's part of her learning process to growing up.
So, it comes as somewhat of a surprise, when I read an article about the culture of hugging (and giving hugs), boys or girls, among teenagers. I'm not sure if I would have endorsed a blanket hugs-everyone attitude for everyone, since it reduces the true meaning of a hug. But then, I think back on how my daughter used to be like, when she would hug everyone. It means something to her, given her open attitude. Unfortunately, in this day and age, I would rather be more reserved than open. Sad, but true.
Friday, May 29, 2009
On Bill Clinton's grudge against the Kennedys...
Can anyone blame Bill Clinton for holding grudge against those like the Kennedys and Bill Richardson in endorsing Obama during Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign? Apparently lots of people do; otherwise, it would not have made it to the news.
Some might think that Bill Clinton is acting childish and a sore loser. I bet to differ. Quite the contrary, I find both Bill and Hillary Clinton to be pretty gracious when it comes to losing. Afterall, Bill Clinton has no problem with Obama. While Bill might not run out to give Obama hugs, he does not badmouth or criticize Obama either, unlike what Dick Cheney is doing now, once Cheney is out of the office. Perhaps, it's the etiquette as an ex-president, like George W Bush does now, in abstaining from criticizing newcomer, as a show of solidity, regardless of whether you like the new policies or not.
But you know what, if I were Bill Clinton, I would probably have reacted the same, and the resented those pee-on's who crowded around him and Hillary when they're in power (and in office), but sold them out and betrayed them for some better bets. If these people have been true friends, they would have abstained from endorsing anyone. Richardson is comparatively a more despicable prick than the Kennedys, for he himself had been appointed to cabinet positions by Bill Clinton. Apparently, those meant nothing to Richardson, when he saw a better chance to be a veep candidate. Too bad, Rich, since Obama picked Joe Biden.
It's perhaps quite fitting, to see Bill Richardson to fall from grace (and fall flat on his own fat face), and to see how "powerful" (aka not powerful) the Kennedy's name really has become, when Caroline Kennedy herself shot herself in the foot, in her failed Senate bid for the New York seat. To me, these are true losers in the story.
Some might think that Bill Clinton is acting childish and a sore loser. I bet to differ. Quite the contrary, I find both Bill and Hillary Clinton to be pretty gracious when it comes to losing. Afterall, Bill Clinton has no problem with Obama. While Bill might not run out to give Obama hugs, he does not badmouth or criticize Obama either, unlike what Dick Cheney is doing now, once Cheney is out of the office. Perhaps, it's the etiquette as an ex-president, like George W Bush does now, in abstaining from criticizing newcomer, as a show of solidity, regardless of whether you like the new policies or not.
But you know what, if I were Bill Clinton, I would probably have reacted the same, and the resented those pee-on's who crowded around him and Hillary when they're in power (and in office), but sold them out and betrayed them for some better bets. If these people have been true friends, they would have abstained from endorsing anyone. Richardson is comparatively a more despicable prick than the Kennedys, for he himself had been appointed to cabinet positions by Bill Clinton. Apparently, those meant nothing to Richardson, when he saw a better chance to be a veep candidate. Too bad, Rich, since Obama picked Joe Biden.
It's perhaps quite fitting, to see Bill Richardson to fall from grace (and fall flat on his own fat face), and to see how "powerful" (aka not powerful) the Kennedy's name really has become, when Caroline Kennedy herself shot herself in the foot, in her failed Senate bid for the New York seat. To me, these are true losers in the story.
On the bitter pill to autoworkers and Detroit bankruptcy...
It's quite sad, looking at the Detroit automakers descending into bankruptcy, starting with Chrysler, and now GM. With bankruptcy, of course, it'll mean the end of an era, when signing on as an autoworker means a ticket to the middle class and American Dream, particularly for those with little education.
The UAW and other unions in their respective industries all serve a purpose, in leveling the collective bargaining playing field with the corporate. I remember one time, I visited a closed coal mine in Wales (UK) and its museum, with the history for the mine itself, coal mining in England, and the evolution of the miners' union. I remember reading about the horrendous working conditions for the coal miners, including children and animals, since they were often small enough to go into small shafts to dig. It wasn't the miners banded together to form unions and demand better pay and working conditions, that things started to change for the better. But of course, economic times change too, the mine could no longer stay profitable and was eventually shut down. I remember putting on a miner's hat, and going down the shaft with my friends and the tour guide, it's pitch dark down there, with no way out. I thought to myself, this is a horrible situation to work.
Back with the UAW, it has become so political and victim of its own success, that it thinks it can wring as much from Detroit, until Detroit is bled to death. How else can one possibly foresee a company like GM that supports more than benefits for 650,000+ retirees, with 70,750 current employees and a ever shrinking market share and sliding sales? During economic boom times, the high tides mask and effectively delay the inevitable, that these automakers really should not have survived in the long term, given its current shape and form.
Now, the autoworkers have to swallow the bitter pill, that the middle class ticket is no longer a sustainable option, and that no one is going to pay them (near) full pay forever after being laid off. I'm sure it's very tough for those families, to have come to expect very decent pay and benefits, only to find that it's going to disappear very soon. But it's a reality for most of the others in the nation, and indeed the rest of the world. For better or for worse, that has been a reality for most everyone, thanks to globalization, higher population and less resources to go around. Perhaps, these autoworkers should have been thankful that they had been afforded with such job security and comforts for this long, when others have been on the rope to fend for themselves.
I don't say this out of envy or bitterness about UAW or bitterness. Quite far from it, I can appreciate the kind of uncertainty that these autoworkers are facing. But as we all learn and know now, times change, and we have to adapt to it. It's nice to have constancy and security, but it's a luxury for us in our times.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember when I was young, my dad used to say to me, get a good job, keep your head down, work as hard as you can, and rewards will come to you. My dad is an old-school type, and he's very hardworking. For the longest time, he'd work upward of 18 hours a day, as a driver of his own minibus, to provide for the family. I never heard him complain.
It's providence that he never felt ill all these times. I remember one time (when I was maybe 8 or 9), he passed on and felt on the kitchen floor. Mom was terrified. She brought out all sorts of over-the-counter medicinal ointment and rubbed on them on his temples and chest. Me and my siblings were too young to appreciate the graveness of the situation. (Mom was a homemaker, and there was no health or life insurance coverage whatsoever.) Miraculously, he came to about 5 minutes later, got on his feet, and he's off to his work again. He didn't even utter a word about it thereafter.
To this day, I have always wondered what the cause of passing out. Was it exhaustion? Or, some other medical condition? We do not know. When we're going up, our family never visited any doctors, unless we're sick. It saved money...
Our family and my siblings have pulled through quite well, with everyone graduating from universities, and almost everyone in the family has a higher degree too. I have much appreciation and little doubt that, out there in the world, there are still many more families struggling like we did. My family had actually been doing quite well, and steadily improving financially, thanks to my dad's hard work and my mom's shrewdness. But there are many, many more families and children (like those in Africa, for example) who would never, ever have the chances that we had, no matter how hard they try.
I have always wondered what I can do, as an individual to improve the quality of life for the lesser fortunate ones. My siblings and I used to sponsor children via World Vision. We were particularly distraught when World Vision advised us it had lost touch with the young African girl that my sister sponsored due to civil war in the region.
I always though, there must be some other way I can contribute better and more...
The UAW and other unions in their respective industries all serve a purpose, in leveling the collective bargaining playing field with the corporate. I remember one time, I visited a closed coal mine in Wales (UK) and its museum, with the history for the mine itself, coal mining in England, and the evolution of the miners' union. I remember reading about the horrendous working conditions for the coal miners, including children and animals, since they were often small enough to go into small shafts to dig. It wasn't the miners banded together to form unions and demand better pay and working conditions, that things started to change for the better. But of course, economic times change too, the mine could no longer stay profitable and was eventually shut down. I remember putting on a miner's hat, and going down the shaft with my friends and the tour guide, it's pitch dark down there, with no way out. I thought to myself, this is a horrible situation to work.
Back with the UAW, it has become so political and victim of its own success, that it thinks it can wring as much from Detroit, until Detroit is bled to death. How else can one possibly foresee a company like GM that supports more than benefits for 650,000+ retirees, with 70,750 current employees and a ever shrinking market share and sliding sales? During economic boom times, the high tides mask and effectively delay the inevitable, that these automakers really should not have survived in the long term, given its current shape and form.
Now, the autoworkers have to swallow the bitter pill, that the middle class ticket is no longer a sustainable option, and that no one is going to pay them (near) full pay forever after being laid off. I'm sure it's very tough for those families, to have come to expect very decent pay and benefits, only to find that it's going to disappear very soon. But it's a reality for most of the others in the nation, and indeed the rest of the world. For better or for worse, that has been a reality for most everyone, thanks to globalization, higher population and less resources to go around. Perhaps, these autoworkers should have been thankful that they had been afforded with such job security and comforts for this long, when others have been on the rope to fend for themselves.
I don't say this out of envy or bitterness about UAW or bitterness. Quite far from it, I can appreciate the kind of uncertainty that these autoworkers are facing. But as we all learn and know now, times change, and we have to adapt to it. It's nice to have constancy and security, but it's a luxury for us in our times.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember when I was young, my dad used to say to me, get a good job, keep your head down, work as hard as you can, and rewards will come to you. My dad is an old-school type, and he's very hardworking. For the longest time, he'd work upward of 18 hours a day, as a driver of his own minibus, to provide for the family. I never heard him complain.
It's providence that he never felt ill all these times. I remember one time (when I was maybe 8 or 9), he passed on and felt on the kitchen floor. Mom was terrified. She brought out all sorts of over-the-counter medicinal ointment and rubbed on them on his temples and chest. Me and my siblings were too young to appreciate the graveness of the situation. (Mom was a homemaker, and there was no health or life insurance coverage whatsoever.) Miraculously, he came to about 5 minutes later, got on his feet, and he's off to his work again. He didn't even utter a word about it thereafter.
To this day, I have always wondered what the cause of passing out. Was it exhaustion? Or, some other medical condition? We do not know. When we're going up, our family never visited any doctors, unless we're sick. It saved money...
Our family and my siblings have pulled through quite well, with everyone graduating from universities, and almost everyone in the family has a higher degree too. I have much appreciation and little doubt that, out there in the world, there are still many more families struggling like we did. My family had actually been doing quite well, and steadily improving financially, thanks to my dad's hard work and my mom's shrewdness. But there are many, many more families and children (like those in Africa, for example) who would never, ever have the chances that we had, no matter how hard they try.
I have always wondered what I can do, as an individual to improve the quality of life for the lesser fortunate ones. My siblings and I used to sponsor children via World Vision. We were particularly distraught when World Vision advised us it had lost touch with the young African girl that my sister sponsored due to civil war in the region.
I always though, there must be some other way I can contribute better and more...
Thursday, May 28, 2009
On insomnia and sleep solution...
I often how widespread insomnia is. I'm sure there are tons of studies out there, with all kinds of statistics.
I live near a number of big-name universities, and alot of hospitals (including teaching hospitals). There are always tons of researches recruiting subjects. I can gauge the flavor-of-the-month research topic(s), based on how many studies are out there recruiting subjects. For a while, the studies on various kinds of diets dominated the day. Right now, it's all kinds of sleep studies, which usually pay quite well, ranging from $3k to more than $5k, depending on how many nights subjects are required to spend sleeping in the lab. If I had not had kids, I'll probably do those and get extra pocket money.
Sleep studies and solutions interest me, because my mom suffers insomnia. For a long time now, she's been sleeping for less than two hours every night. She gets irritable during the day. She tried all kinds of things, including non-intrusive ways. Things like, small glass of red wine nightly, one spoonful of raw beans in vinegar (some trend from Japan, she heard?), etc. Invariably, all these solutions would work for a short period of time initially, giving her hope that she can have a good night sleep. But invariably, they would fail to work after a while. I suspect it has more to do with her psychological state of mind than anything else. Naturally, she tries sleeping pills as well, although it's good that she hasn't wanted to rely on pills, and would restrict herself to half a pill per night, max.
Interestingly, my dad has always slept like a baby. He goes to bed early, and he would have a night of sound sleep, sans his bladder problem common to most older aged men. You put him in any place, and he can sleep in any place. I guess mom always looks on to dad with envy and disgust, since she's always on high alert.
These days, since they're both in their 80s now, she's always reminiscing the younger days, the kids, grand-kids, their journey through life. She says those reminiscence always keeps her awake. We told her not to think too much, or worry about things. Of course, it's easier said than done.
I remember for a short period of time, I haven't been able to sleep well either. I know it has to do with my stress level. I used to have to sleep at least 9-10 hours every night, in order to function well during the day, and I like nap time in the afternoon. I can't do those anymore. Maybe I'm getting older (and naturally need less sleep). Maybe I'm more alert (I don't like napping during the day when the kids around - what if they go outside without letting me know, and I wouldn't know where they go?!). Maybe there're just more things to worry about (afterall, we have the whole family, finances, kids stuffs, etc, on our mind all the time).
In any case, on normal nights, I would do 5 hours of sleep. Some days (like the night before my menstrual period comes), I would get particularly tired and sleepy, and I'd need a full 9 hours sleep. My husband always urges me to sleep earlier, so I can wake up in time in the morning. But I told him I don't want to sleep too early, since I don't want to wake up in the middle of the night. I want to tire myself out so much so that I would be exhausted when I hit the sack, and I would have full 5-6 hours of deep sleep. No dreams, no stir. That's what I like.
Sometimes, I wonder if I would be like my mom, reminiscing the past when I get older. Come to think of it, I have no doubt that I'd almost certainly do that. Before that day comes, I'll keep to my 6-hour sleep ritual.
The other day, I read this article that talks about sleep solutions. Some of the suggestions are quite sensible. I'll probably try some of those, when I come to need it.
I live near a number of big-name universities, and alot of hospitals (including teaching hospitals). There are always tons of researches recruiting subjects. I can gauge the flavor-of-the-month research topic(s), based on how many studies are out there recruiting subjects. For a while, the studies on various kinds of diets dominated the day. Right now, it's all kinds of sleep studies, which usually pay quite well, ranging from $3k to more than $5k, depending on how many nights subjects are required to spend sleeping in the lab. If I had not had kids, I'll probably do those and get extra pocket money.
Sleep studies and solutions interest me, because my mom suffers insomnia. For a long time now, she's been sleeping for less than two hours every night. She gets irritable during the day. She tried all kinds of things, including non-intrusive ways. Things like, small glass of red wine nightly, one spoonful of raw beans in vinegar (some trend from Japan, she heard?), etc. Invariably, all these solutions would work for a short period of time initially, giving her hope that she can have a good night sleep. But invariably, they would fail to work after a while. I suspect it has more to do with her psychological state of mind than anything else. Naturally, she tries sleeping pills as well, although it's good that she hasn't wanted to rely on pills, and would restrict herself to half a pill per night, max.
Interestingly, my dad has always slept like a baby. He goes to bed early, and he would have a night of sound sleep, sans his bladder problem common to most older aged men. You put him in any place, and he can sleep in any place. I guess mom always looks on to dad with envy and disgust, since she's always on high alert.
These days, since they're both in their 80s now, she's always reminiscing the younger days, the kids, grand-kids, their journey through life. She says those reminiscence always keeps her awake. We told her not to think too much, or worry about things. Of course, it's easier said than done.
I remember for a short period of time, I haven't been able to sleep well either. I know it has to do with my stress level. I used to have to sleep at least 9-10 hours every night, in order to function well during the day, and I like nap time in the afternoon. I can't do those anymore. Maybe I'm getting older (and naturally need less sleep). Maybe I'm more alert (I don't like napping during the day when the kids around - what if they go outside without letting me know, and I wouldn't know where they go?!). Maybe there're just more things to worry about (afterall, we have the whole family, finances, kids stuffs, etc, on our mind all the time).
In any case, on normal nights, I would do 5 hours of sleep. Some days (like the night before my menstrual period comes), I would get particularly tired and sleepy, and I'd need a full 9 hours sleep. My husband always urges me to sleep earlier, so I can wake up in time in the morning. But I told him I don't want to sleep too early, since I don't want to wake up in the middle of the night. I want to tire myself out so much so that I would be exhausted when I hit the sack, and I would have full 5-6 hours of deep sleep. No dreams, no stir. That's what I like.
Sometimes, I wonder if I would be like my mom, reminiscing the past when I get older. Come to think of it, I have no doubt that I'd almost certainly do that. Before that day comes, I'll keep to my 6-hour sleep ritual.
The other day, I read this article that talks about sleep solutions. Some of the suggestions are quite sensible. I'll probably try some of those, when I come to need it.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
On the good pilot and not-so-good pilot...
I don't drink in the past. Most alcohol smell like gasoline to me, and never appeals to me. This is one part of the Western culture in general (and binge drinking) that I never really get. The only alcoholic beverage that I consume is beer. Light cold beer in a hot day or barbecue can be a delight.
My husband grows up in such Western culture, and he drinks. It's thankful that he doesn't indulge in it. He consumes relatively small quantity, and he enjoys good ones.
One of the things that he has introduced me to, is the concept of tasting. At various points in time, we sample-taste different kinds of things, including boutique beers, vintage ports (it's heavenly with blue cheese), apples (I grew up knowing only Washington applies - the delicious reds - that taste good, but I've come to realize it actually tastes quite bland), seafood and fish, alcohol (whisky in particular) etc. Amazingly, he even convinces to try a sip of whisky. I can't say I enjoy strong alcohol like whisky, cognac, vodka and the like. But I now realize what is smooth, and not so smooth.
What does that have to do with good pilots and the not-so-good pilots? It does, because much as in tasting, we would come to distinguish the good ones from the bad by juxaposition. Putting them side by side, sample them, and the result can hit you right in the head. The effect can be so powerful that you simply cannot ignore it.
Why do I say that? Normally aircraft accidents don't happen that often, miracles even more rare. Although news and FAA reports always reveal the true nature of the accidents, because these incidents happen so infrequently that we normally treat them as isolated incidents. We read them, and we move on.
That's not the case recently, when we have the Miracle on the Hudson, witht the hero pilot staying laser-sharp focus, keeping his cool, saving the whole plane and everyone on it, by landing the plane on The Hudson due to total engine failure. You can't get cooler than that.
And then, we have a subpar pilot, and an inexperienced co-pilot, who didn't even realize the deep sh*t they're in, engaged in idle small talk, thereby bringing down the plane and burying everyone on it, including themselves.
I look at it like we were sampling apples. You take a bite of Red Delicious, then a bite of Fuji, then a bite of McIntosh, and you'll immediately realize the differences in their tastes. Without doing that, most people can't tell or won't remember the tastes. The same is true with these two pilots.
How the company could allow such a mediocre staffer with subpar standard to become captain and pilot of a plane, is quite beyond me. Perhaps there's the issue of salary difference. But does anyone know if these two pilots might have been paid in a widely different scale? I have my doubts. The only reasonable guess that I can put forth is that, the company (and people in general) cut this subpar pilot slack, enough slack over a period of time, in fact, to allow him to slip in through the door, to eventually become a pilot. I'd imagine, that doomed co-pilot could have made it in the same way this doomed pilot had made it in. Scary, isn't it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember I used to date a guy in college. We're both in college, and he's good at computer science. He was accepted by medical schools, but he decided to do computer science. Granted that he likes both fields, both his reasoning for choosing computer science is quite simple: If he makes mistakes in computer science and doesn't catch a bug, the worst that could happen is, his program fails the testcase. But he can always debug again, and re-run the tests. In the medical field, there's no such luxury, and he doesn't want to deal with life-and-death.
Back then, I thought to myself, that's a rather lame reason for picking computer science over med school. Perhaps there's some wisdom behind it. Naturally, if he truly loves the profession, he could have strived to be error-free and excel in it. But he's not the aggressive type. So, he eventually becomes just another programmer.
Perhaps those two pilots in the doomed Flight 3407 should have realized their own limitations, rather than letting money and vanity take precedence, and pursued other professions that do not involve life-and-death decisions. Perhaps then, they wouldn't be bringing the doom to themselves and all those poor souls on that plane.
Maybe they couldn't help themselves in the career choice. Perhaps I shouldn't sound too harsh in judging them, now that they're all dead. But I can't help it in laying the blame squarely on their slack and sloppiness, when so many people (and surely all those who fly on their planes) place their lives in their hands.
It makes me wonder how many other subpar (co)pilots are out there. Can anyone tell me??
My husband grows up in such Western culture, and he drinks. It's thankful that he doesn't indulge in it. He consumes relatively small quantity, and he enjoys good ones.
One of the things that he has introduced me to, is the concept of tasting. At various points in time, we sample-taste different kinds of things, including boutique beers, vintage ports (it's heavenly with blue cheese), apples (I grew up knowing only Washington applies - the delicious reds - that taste good, but I've come to realize it actually tastes quite bland), seafood and fish, alcohol (whisky in particular) etc. Amazingly, he even convinces to try a sip of whisky. I can't say I enjoy strong alcohol like whisky, cognac, vodka and the like. But I now realize what is smooth, and not so smooth.
What does that have to do with good pilots and the not-so-good pilots? It does, because much as in tasting, we would come to distinguish the good ones from the bad by juxaposition. Putting them side by side, sample them, and the result can hit you right in the head. The effect can be so powerful that you simply cannot ignore it.
Why do I say that? Normally aircraft accidents don't happen that often, miracles even more rare. Although news and FAA reports always reveal the true nature of the accidents, because these incidents happen so infrequently that we normally treat them as isolated incidents. We read them, and we move on.
That's not the case recently, when we have the Miracle on the Hudson, witht the hero pilot staying laser-sharp focus, keeping his cool, saving the whole plane and everyone on it, by landing the plane on The Hudson due to total engine failure. You can't get cooler than that.
And then, we have a subpar pilot, and an inexperienced co-pilot, who didn't even realize the deep sh*t they're in, engaged in idle small talk, thereby bringing down the plane and burying everyone on it, including themselves.
I look at it like we were sampling apples. You take a bite of Red Delicious, then a bite of Fuji, then a bite of McIntosh, and you'll immediately realize the differences in their tastes. Without doing that, most people can't tell or won't remember the tastes. The same is true with these two pilots.
How the company could allow such a mediocre staffer with subpar standard to become captain and pilot of a plane, is quite beyond me. Perhaps there's the issue of salary difference. But does anyone know if these two pilots might have been paid in a widely different scale? I have my doubts. The only reasonable guess that I can put forth is that, the company (and people in general) cut this subpar pilot slack, enough slack over a period of time, in fact, to allow him to slip in through the door, to eventually become a pilot. I'd imagine, that doomed co-pilot could have made it in the same way this doomed pilot had made it in. Scary, isn't it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember I used to date a guy in college. We're both in college, and he's good at computer science. He was accepted by medical schools, but he decided to do computer science. Granted that he likes both fields, both his reasoning for choosing computer science is quite simple: If he makes mistakes in computer science and doesn't catch a bug, the worst that could happen is, his program fails the testcase. But he can always debug again, and re-run the tests. In the medical field, there's no such luxury, and he doesn't want to deal with life-and-death.
Back then, I thought to myself, that's a rather lame reason for picking computer science over med school. Perhaps there's some wisdom behind it. Naturally, if he truly loves the profession, he could have strived to be error-free and excel in it. But he's not the aggressive type. So, he eventually becomes just another programmer.
Perhaps those two pilots in the doomed Flight 3407 should have realized their own limitations, rather than letting money and vanity take precedence, and pursued other professions that do not involve life-and-death decisions. Perhaps then, they wouldn't be bringing the doom to themselves and all those poor souls on that plane.
Maybe they couldn't help themselves in the career choice. Perhaps I shouldn't sound too harsh in judging them, now that they're all dead. But I can't help it in laying the blame squarely on their slack and sloppiness, when so many people (and surely all those who fly on their planes) place their lives in their hands.
It makes me wonder how many other subpar (co)pilots are out there. Can anyone tell me??
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
On couples tag-team to deal with child care and family...
Just now, I read an excellent and very timely article on couples tag-team to deal with child care and family, in the face of the poor economy.
The article gets it down to the dot, on couples' tightly choreographed daily routines in taking care of the family. It's particularly true when people are tightening their belts, sometimes due to job loss, shrinking business, or simply the psychological need to reduce household expenses to conserve cash to buffer for any unexpected catastrophe.
Our household has always had very high savings rate. We save probably 60% of our take home pay, with the rest going to mortgage, grocery, utility, and sundry expenses. My husband and I are not big spenders. His biggest luxury is to shop for good food, since he likes to cook. My biggest expenditure is the trips to toy stores with the kids buying them toys.
Since the start of this year, we've decided to stop sending our kids to after-school program. The after-school program is great for them to spend the afternoons with another group of kids (outside of their schools) to have fun activities. But since we also sign them up for other more stimulating programs like robotics and fun science classes, they oftentimes would miss a few days of the program, spending maybe one afternoon only (or not at all) a week. For that, we pay more than $500 a month, which we subsequently decide that it's just not worth it.
Since I telecommute and work from home, my husband picks up the duty of picking up the kids from school, sometimes letting them play in the park for a while before coming back. As the after-school classes end at different times on different days, we have to check the schedules everyday and train the kids to remember what to do, where to go, as school and classes end. These all seems to have worked out quite well. So, now, my husband picks up more responsibilities (on top of the grocery shopping, and cooking), and the kids are more independent and self-reliant. That allows me time not only to work, but to pursue my masters degree as well. And my husband works on his businesses and ventures during the hours when the kids are in school.
Challenges abound though --
(1) The article has it right, when it points out the tag-team approach can bring couples together stronger, the couples will have to have strong faith in each other, since they won't have much time for each other.
(2) The approach works well too, when everything's on schedule; but when unexpected events happen (eg. kids get sick), it can throw everything and all the planning off-balance. I can imagine how much disruptions it would have been, for situations like schools closing for seven straight days due to the recent swine flu outbreak. Some of the families might not be able to cope.
(3) It also helps tremendously that at least one couple will have to have flexible work/business schedule. That allows you to plan ahead. But if you work in office 9-5, what can you plan anyways, apart from taking vacation or sick days off, whenever there's uncertainty?
(4) When the kids are very young, the tag-team approach might not work as well. Afterall, babies under one year of age would need to be closer to the mother.
I do want to note that the tag-team approach can work out quite well, and I hope couples out there, who are facing challenges and considering alternatives, will consider this possible solution. In better economic times, everything is outsourced (eg. babysitting, lawn mowing, house cleaning, child care, etc). Doing everything ourselves makes us busier, but oftentimes does not bring the family closer. I do hope this is one silver lining from this otherwise terrible economic times that we're facing.
The article gets it down to the dot, on couples' tightly choreographed daily routines in taking care of the family. It's particularly true when people are tightening their belts, sometimes due to job loss, shrinking business, or simply the psychological need to reduce household expenses to conserve cash to buffer for any unexpected catastrophe.
Our household has always had very high savings rate. We save probably 60% of our take home pay, with the rest going to mortgage, grocery, utility, and sundry expenses. My husband and I are not big spenders. His biggest luxury is to shop for good food, since he likes to cook. My biggest expenditure is the trips to toy stores with the kids buying them toys.
Since the start of this year, we've decided to stop sending our kids to after-school program. The after-school program is great for them to spend the afternoons with another group of kids (outside of their schools) to have fun activities. But since we also sign them up for other more stimulating programs like robotics and fun science classes, they oftentimes would miss a few days of the program, spending maybe one afternoon only (or not at all) a week. For that, we pay more than $500 a month, which we subsequently decide that it's just not worth it.
Since I telecommute and work from home, my husband picks up the duty of picking up the kids from school, sometimes letting them play in the park for a while before coming back. As the after-school classes end at different times on different days, we have to check the schedules everyday and train the kids to remember what to do, where to go, as school and classes end. These all seems to have worked out quite well. So, now, my husband picks up more responsibilities (on top of the grocery shopping, and cooking), and the kids are more independent and self-reliant. That allows me time not only to work, but to pursue my masters degree as well. And my husband works on his businesses and ventures during the hours when the kids are in school.
Challenges abound though --
(1) The article has it right, when it points out the tag-team approach can bring couples together stronger, the couples will have to have strong faith in each other, since they won't have much time for each other.
(2) The approach works well too, when everything's on schedule; but when unexpected events happen (eg. kids get sick), it can throw everything and all the planning off-balance. I can imagine how much disruptions it would have been, for situations like schools closing for seven straight days due to the recent swine flu outbreak. Some of the families might not be able to cope.
(3) It also helps tremendously that at least one couple will have to have flexible work/business schedule. That allows you to plan ahead. But if you work in office 9-5, what can you plan anyways, apart from taking vacation or sick days off, whenever there's uncertainty?
(4) When the kids are very young, the tag-team approach might not work as well. Afterall, babies under one year of age would need to be closer to the mother.
I do want to note that the tag-team approach can work out quite well, and I hope couples out there, who are facing challenges and considering alternatives, will consider this possible solution. In better economic times, everything is outsourced (eg. babysitting, lawn mowing, house cleaning, child care, etc). Doing everything ourselves makes us busier, but oftentimes does not bring the family closer. I do hope this is one silver lining from this otherwise terrible economic times that we're facing.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
On professionals doing the wrong thing...
I was reading the article in New York Times the other day, on the confessions from a professional reporter in financial news no less, of how he got drawn into his own personal credit crisis.
I don't know how the writer/reporter had meant this to be received by the readers. I, for one, am somewhat puzzled. Does the reporter want sympathy? Does he want to share others pain, by shouldering some personal responsibility in contributing to this very messy credit crisis in the nation. Does he intend to express his understanding in how good people do bad things, as he's on fully display?
I perhaps feel a fix of all the above for this reporter. But the least I feel for him is sympathy. He, and his wife, knew full well the consequences. They just didn't want to face the music, and own up their action.
Surely everyone wants to feel rich. Heck, everyone wants to be rich. I want that too, but I simply couldn't let myself loose like that. Millions of responsible Americans didn't either. If one spends beyond one's means, eventually it'll turn ugly. How could a financial news reporter have claimed innocence is quite beyond me. Or, maybe he didn't; but the article surely came across like that. Considering that he still has a job that pays him $120k a year, he's most lucky, compared to those who lose both incomes in the household.
I don't know how the writer/reporter had meant this to be received by the readers. I, for one, am somewhat puzzled. Does the reporter want sympathy? Does he want to share others pain, by shouldering some personal responsibility in contributing to this very messy credit crisis in the nation. Does he intend to express his understanding in how good people do bad things, as he's on fully display?
I perhaps feel a fix of all the above for this reporter. But the least I feel for him is sympathy. He, and his wife, knew full well the consequences. They just didn't want to face the music, and own up their action.
Surely everyone wants to feel rich. Heck, everyone wants to be rich. I want that too, but I simply couldn't let myself loose like that. Millions of responsible Americans didn't either. If one spends beyond one's means, eventually it'll turn ugly. How could a financial news reporter have claimed innocence is quite beyond me. Or, maybe he didn't; but the article surely came across like that. Considering that he still has a job that pays him $120k a year, he's most lucky, compared to those who lose both incomes in the household.
Monday, May 18, 2009
On brute force fix to Hubble...
Once upon a time, space race and Sputnik had captured the imagination of many a nation. I'm not very science heavy, but I like sci-fi fictions all the same. Although movies like 2001 A Space Odyssey are not very comforting, the more nostalgic ones like October Sky is still my favorite.
For a long time now, NASA seems to have been on life support, what with all the budget cuts under Bush, fiascoes like the Mars Rovers, and tragedies. It is thus such a relief and change of scene, to see the NASA teamwork paid off with the latest Hubble fix by the astronaut, out of sheer force (of will and means) by all involved.
I'll eagerly await NASA's next adventure, to take another big step by mankind in space.
For a long time now, NASA seems to have been on life support, what with all the budget cuts under Bush, fiascoes like the Mars Rovers, and tragedies. It is thus such a relief and change of scene, to see the NASA teamwork paid off with the latest Hubble fix by the astronaut, out of sheer force (of will and means) by all involved.
I'll eagerly await NASA's next adventure, to take another big step by mankind in space.
On the career slide as one ages...
I don't normally use LinkedIn. It might sound surprising to some of my acquaintances, colleagues, and friends, particularly since I'm in the IT field, and it seems like it's a must-have for IT folks to do some networking online.
I must say though, that LinkedIn looks to have reached some critical mass, so that most every tech guy (and gal) I know seems to have a profile there. It's synonymous to Spoke to the finance field.
Out of necessity (since I need to do some research on website features on the website), I login to LinkedIn after as many years. Curiosity piqued me, and I did a quick search on a few people I used to work with, quite some years ago. Not surprisingly, I found all of them.
One of the guys I looked up used to be in my current company, working his way up the ladder, from a manager, to senior manager, to director, to eventually senior director. He had his ascent fast initially, but he's been in his last position for more than a few years. All in all, he did it in a little over seven years. I would also say that he did his various jobs quite well, all told.
I can't find it now, but I remember reading this article in Fortune (or could it be some Ask Annie column Q&A?), on a general rule of thumb that, if you stay in the same job for more than seven years, and going nowhere, chances are, you won't go anywhere. I remember reading that article, then looking around me at people I worked with or knew, and to my amazement, there could be some truth in it.
Some power struggle ensued, and this senior director lost. Even though he's an ultimate company man, he left for another company, on a lateral move. I thought, a lateral move might not be too bad for him. It was a smaller company, but perhaps it would provide more opportunity for him. He even asked me to jump ship to his new dig, though I declined.
I thought he had found his new dream job, and was a little surprised when I was told by someone that he left that new company. It's been less than two years. It's been four years now, and today I found him to be an manager in a fitness center, looking out for another job.
I feel bad for him. He's in his 50's now, been through lots of M&A in the IT field, moving his way up the ladder, only to see it all crumbling down. No doubt times are tougher now, given the sluggish economy, and even more sluggish job market. I have doubts that he'll ever make his way back to the managerial position (let alone senior rank) in the technical field before he reaches his retirement.
Others' experience serve as a vivid daily reminder to me. But for one, I'm not sure if I want to be in the IT field for the rest of my life. It's all new and exciting when I was fresh from college. But after some 15 years in the field, all those new and exciting things (what with all the new languages and gadgetry) just seem more like "old wine, new bottle" to me. After moving from C, to C++, to Java, and all, I don't feel the rush to embrace another pretty new thing. I'm probably one of those to cede the field to the younger generation, and would be all too happy to move onto something else, some completely different field and career.
But before I do that, I'll have to make sure that my second career is ready for when I jump ship. It is thus, with great trepidation, that I would still fulfill my duty in my current job everyday, with the hope that the economy would bounce back in time, and we can all make our second career a reality.
I must say though, that LinkedIn looks to have reached some critical mass, so that most every tech guy (and gal) I know seems to have a profile there. It's synonymous to Spoke to the finance field.
Out of necessity (since I need to do some research on website features on the website), I login to LinkedIn after as many years. Curiosity piqued me, and I did a quick search on a few people I used to work with, quite some years ago. Not surprisingly, I found all of them.
One of the guys I looked up used to be in my current company, working his way up the ladder, from a manager, to senior manager, to director, to eventually senior director. He had his ascent fast initially, but he's been in his last position for more than a few years. All in all, he did it in a little over seven years. I would also say that he did his various jobs quite well, all told.
I can't find it now, but I remember reading this article in Fortune (or could it be some Ask Annie column Q&A?), on a general rule of thumb that, if you stay in the same job for more than seven years, and going nowhere, chances are, you won't go anywhere. I remember reading that article, then looking around me at people I worked with or knew, and to my amazement, there could be some truth in it.
Some power struggle ensued, and this senior director lost. Even though he's an ultimate company man, he left for another company, on a lateral move. I thought, a lateral move might not be too bad for him. It was a smaller company, but perhaps it would provide more opportunity for him. He even asked me to jump ship to his new dig, though I declined.
I thought he had found his new dream job, and was a little surprised when I was told by someone that he left that new company. It's been less than two years. It's been four years now, and today I found him to be an manager in a fitness center, looking out for another job.
I feel bad for him. He's in his 50's now, been through lots of M&A in the IT field, moving his way up the ladder, only to see it all crumbling down. No doubt times are tougher now, given the sluggish economy, and even more sluggish job market. I have doubts that he'll ever make his way back to the managerial position (let alone senior rank) in the technical field before he reaches his retirement.
Others' experience serve as a vivid daily reminder to me. But for one, I'm not sure if I want to be in the IT field for the rest of my life. It's all new and exciting when I was fresh from college. But after some 15 years in the field, all those new and exciting things (what with all the new languages and gadgetry) just seem more like "old wine, new bottle" to me. After moving from C, to C++, to Java, and all, I don't feel the rush to embrace another pretty new thing. I'm probably one of those to cede the field to the younger generation, and would be all too happy to move onto something else, some completely different field and career.
But before I do that, I'll have to make sure that my second career is ready for when I jump ship. It is thus, with great trepidation, that I would still fulfill my duty in my current job everyday, with the hope that the economy would bounce back in time, and we can all make our second career a reality.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
On Gap jeans and fashion...
I used to be a perfect UK size 8. I like shopping in Asia too, eg. Hong Kong, because the clothing in stores are always a perfect fit for me. I have never needed to make any modifications when I go shopping. I used to also like shopping at UK stores in Hong Kong like Dodwell. I like the British stores too, because I like the more long-lasting styling.
But that was then, some 15 years ago. A lot have changed since then. Dodwell is now replaced with Marks & Spencer, which is pretty much everywhere in Hong Kong. Fashion has changed so much too, from the oversized shoulder pads (Dallas style), to the low-rise jeans (Britney Spear style).
Granted that I'm a perfect UK size 8, I didn't always find the clothings I like in Asia. Fashion in Asia is heavily influenced by Japan, but the more elaborate Japanese fashion isn't really to my liking. I guess I've always been the LLBean or Lands End kind of gal, even before I knew the existence of these brands.
I remember when I first moved to America, I was both delighted and dismay at the same time on my first outing to shop for clothes. I like the more down-to-earth styling (like Lands End), but to my dismay, the US sizes are so very big. This was before I discover that I need to shop for the "petit" section, and hunt for size 2 or below. It's hard work sometimes, but at least there's an option. Tops are easier to fit, but pants always "kill" me. To my dismay, it's almost impossible for me to find a pair of pants or jeans in America. I always have to shop for pants on my trips to Asia. Maybe my legs are too short. :)
So, you can imagine how happy I was, when I found that the Gap jeans, original boot cut, fit me quite well. I normally stock up on a few pairs since I wear jeans all the time. That can last me for at least 3-4 years.
Last week, I realized that my last pair of original boot cut Gap jeans has a 2-inch tear right under one of the back pockets. Yes, that's right - it's where the butts are, and I have to get new pairs. I thought it'll be a piece of cake. I know the store (Gap), the size (US size 2 regular), the style (original boot cut). How can anything go wrong? Afterall, it's "original," and must always be around.
This afternoon, I went to a nearby Gap store, hoping to buy a few pairs of Gap jeans again. I was dismay that, first, they replace the original boot cut with the mid-rise boot cut, low-rise boot cut, or ultra low-rise boot cut. There's nothing "original" about it anymore. I was hoping maybe the mid rise boot cut could suffix. (I hate low rise pants. Anyone wearing low rise pants should be mandated by law to use suspenders.) So, I grapped two sizes (size 2 and size 1) of the mid rise boot cut to the fitting room, thinking it could probably be an easy fit.
You cannot imagine how angry I was, when I realize that the size 2 is not a size 2 at all. The part (butt, thigh) where it's close fitting becomes form fitting. The part where it's wide (the cuff) becomes so wide that it's like a parachute. And the length of the jeans has at least 2 extra inches to it, so that you would literally be dragging your jeans on the road, no doubt performing some public service to clean the road at the same time.
I was so peeved that I dropped the jeans, and left with my kids, vowing never to return to Gap again.
I cannot believe how the designers of Gap sell out the more loyal customer base, to try and chase the fickly fashion of the late teens crowd. Didn't Gap already have had a mishap of dropping the iconic Gap khaki style for the more "modern" look, marginalizing and chasing away its more mature, loyal customer base in khaki? Well, apparently Gap just chased me away over jeans as well. Gap will never see me again.
But that was then, some 15 years ago. A lot have changed since then. Dodwell is now replaced with Marks & Spencer, which is pretty much everywhere in Hong Kong. Fashion has changed so much too, from the oversized shoulder pads (Dallas style), to the low-rise jeans (Britney Spear style).
Granted that I'm a perfect UK size 8, I didn't always find the clothings I like in Asia. Fashion in Asia is heavily influenced by Japan, but the more elaborate Japanese fashion isn't really to my liking. I guess I've always been the LLBean or Lands End kind of gal, even before I knew the existence of these brands.
I remember when I first moved to America, I was both delighted and dismay at the same time on my first outing to shop for clothes. I like the more down-to-earth styling (like Lands End), but to my dismay, the US sizes are so very big. This was before I discover that I need to shop for the "petit" section, and hunt for size 2 or below. It's hard work sometimes, but at least there's an option. Tops are easier to fit, but pants always "kill" me. To my dismay, it's almost impossible for me to find a pair of pants or jeans in America. I always have to shop for pants on my trips to Asia. Maybe my legs are too short. :)
So, you can imagine how happy I was, when I found that the Gap jeans, original boot cut, fit me quite well. I normally stock up on a few pairs since I wear jeans all the time. That can last me for at least 3-4 years.
Last week, I realized that my last pair of original boot cut Gap jeans has a 2-inch tear right under one of the back pockets. Yes, that's right - it's where the butts are, and I have to get new pairs. I thought it'll be a piece of cake. I know the store (Gap), the size (US size 2 regular), the style (original boot cut). How can anything go wrong? Afterall, it's "original," and must always be around.
This afternoon, I went to a nearby Gap store, hoping to buy a few pairs of Gap jeans again. I was dismay that, first, they replace the original boot cut with the mid-rise boot cut, low-rise boot cut, or ultra low-rise boot cut. There's nothing "original" about it anymore. I was hoping maybe the mid rise boot cut could suffix. (I hate low rise pants. Anyone wearing low rise pants should be mandated by law to use suspenders.) So, I grapped two sizes (size 2 and size 1) of the mid rise boot cut to the fitting room, thinking it could probably be an easy fit.
You cannot imagine how angry I was, when I realize that the size 2 is not a size 2 at all. The part (butt, thigh) where it's close fitting becomes form fitting. The part where it's wide (the cuff) becomes so wide that it's like a parachute. And the length of the jeans has at least 2 extra inches to it, so that you would literally be dragging your jeans on the road, no doubt performing some public service to clean the road at the same time.
I was so peeved that I dropped the jeans, and left with my kids, vowing never to return to Gap again.
I cannot believe how the designers of Gap sell out the more loyal customer base, to try and chase the fickly fashion of the late teens crowd. Didn't Gap already have had a mishap of dropping the iconic Gap khaki style for the more "modern" look, marginalizing and chasing away its more mature, loyal customer base in khaki? Well, apparently Gap just chased me away over jeans as well. Gap will never see me again.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
On the tone-deaf Cheney...
Can a former veep be more tone-deaf than Dick Cheney? As discreet (rare comments, much like Alan Greenspan when he's Fed Chief) as he was, these guys just won't shut up. We have Greenspan who just keeps talking and talking and can't shut up. Now, we have Cheney expounding on everything from defending Bush administration, to disparaging Powell and the current Obama administration.
These guys are embarrassing. No doubt they have some diehard fans (probably more so for Cheney than Greenspan). But the guys belong so decidedly to yesteryear, clinging to the past practices (more so for Cheney too). And yes, "cling" is the right word. If the GOP wants to follow Cheney's advice, picking Limbaugh as GOP face and voice, it's marching itself down the death valley.
Even though I didn't vote for Obama, his administration has taken the pragmatic approach to issues that I'm happy to observe from afar. Even the most obvious things like, getting some "data" (however useless it might be in reality) to support policy, as in the case of conducting bank stress tests in order to ascertain their health, one would have thought that it should have been done long ago. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that when he first demanded blank checks from Congress and taxpayers to bailout banks, based on nothing more than the trust-me approach? While the Obama team is largely extending on almost all policies from the Bush administration (more bailouts, same defense secretary), the new team is able to put out a bit more justification for its actions, which is so unlike the Bush team who took action when they "saw fit", with few questions answered.
In a way, Obama's relative clean-slate approach to Washington is indeed a plus. If it has been Hillary Clinton, the moment she mentioned the word healthcare, GOP is going to mock her with with the failure of HillaryCare, among other things. Now, every time Obama speaks, people listen, and GOP is completely immobilized, too stunned to find its voice.
As time progresses, as GOP leans more towards its loyal diehard fan base, it's going to reduce itself as a regional, more radical party. And the Party of No mantra is going to stick. It's quite amazing to see the GOP disintegrate in front of our eyes, after they lost the election.
These guys are embarrassing. No doubt they have some diehard fans (probably more so for Cheney than Greenspan). But the guys belong so decidedly to yesteryear, clinging to the past practices (more so for Cheney too). And yes, "cling" is the right word. If the GOP wants to follow Cheney's advice, picking Limbaugh as GOP face and voice, it's marching itself down the death valley.
Even though I didn't vote for Obama, his administration has taken the pragmatic approach to issues that I'm happy to observe from afar. Even the most obvious things like, getting some "data" (however useless it might be in reality) to support policy, as in the case of conducting bank stress tests in order to ascertain their health, one would have thought that it should have been done long ago. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that when he first demanded blank checks from Congress and taxpayers to bailout banks, based on nothing more than the trust-me approach? While the Obama team is largely extending on almost all policies from the Bush administration (more bailouts, same defense secretary), the new team is able to put out a bit more justification for its actions, which is so unlike the Bush team who took action when they "saw fit", with few questions answered.
In a way, Obama's relative clean-slate approach to Washington is indeed a plus. If it has been Hillary Clinton, the moment she mentioned the word healthcare, GOP is going to mock her with with the failure of HillaryCare, among other things. Now, every time Obama speaks, people listen, and GOP is completely immobilized, too stunned to find its voice.
As time progresses, as GOP leans more towards its loyal diehard fan base, it's going to reduce itself as a regional, more radical party. And the Party of No mantra is going to stick. It's quite amazing to see the GOP disintegrate in front of our eyes, after they lost the election.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
On withdrawl freeze by 401k...
Yet another reason to stay away from 401k (or mutual funds, in general): withdrawal freeze by 401k because fund managers would not allow people to withdraw their money, with worries that it would force the fund to sell assets in a depressed market at substantially reduced price.
This is but one of the reasons why I have come to dislike 401k and mutual funds in general. On top of the fees that one has to pay, regardless of the mediocre (if not downright bad) performance, I can't fathom how someone could stop me from withdrawing my money, due to the potential adverse impact on the funds (and other fundholders). Isn't the fund supposed to maintain sufficient level of liquidity to allow for redemption needs?
I've been glad to have rolled over my 401k to an Rollover IRA and manage the money myself. I was giddy too, since I've made some decent profit today (one of my transactions made 20% net profit trading in two days). As it is, my trading ability, thereby my gains, is currently limited to the amount of time that it takes for settlement. If only US can catch up with the rest of the world and give us T+1 (like Hong Kong Stock Exchange), instead of T+3...
I'm not really fanatic about basic research or financial news, and I stick with only solid companies and ETF index funds. I don't even watch TV, never mind the always-on CNN, various talking heads on network news, and the numerous bloggingheads. I find most of those simply talking up each other's soundbites, with nothing much new add to it. If there's any new news, I only want to read or hear it once. I don't want to waste my time hearing or watching 100+ different people talking about the same thing or topics. That's why it's helpful to browse the headlines. It gives you a feel for things (and economy, in general) without having to be bogged down by details. If an article looks interesting, I read on.
I guess that keeps me sane: Not get too gloomy when everyone's talking down the economy, but not too giddy when everyone's chasing the market. I watch for trends, I set goals, I attain them, and I take profit. I don't get greedy, and I don't do regrets. If I don't get out on a stock on its high, that's ok. As long as I get the profit I want, I don't mind leaving some money on the table. Everyone needs some crumbs to feed on. And I take a longer term view: I don't have urgent need to get out of a stock (since I would not have bought it if I don't like it), so I'll just buy-and-hold the dogs. As a matter of fact, right now my cash-to-investment ratio is 70%, meaning I'm using only 30% of my funds for trading, while my overall year-to-date performance is 15%. I couldn't ask for more. The 70% cash buffer is more than comfortable, since it's FDIC insured and ready for investment, if I want to; and I don't mind cutting loss if all the 30% goes down the drain.
There's an old Chinese (Cantonese) saying: fortune don't come to pockets in need. Loosely translated, it means, when you're desperate (urgent need for money), fortune won't come your way. Maybe it's the emotions that come in the way, or maybe there's some kind of natural law governing, but there's quite some truth and wisdom in it. Just ask how many desperate gamblers who need to win big in casino, and turn out losing everything.
I don't know if my kids are learning from me by observing what I do. Although they probably won't see much actions from me in trading (since I work my real job most of the time, and I only check the market once in a while), I do share with them what my trading performance is like. Perhaps one day, they'll pick up some tricks of the trade, from a layman like me. :)
This is but one of the reasons why I have come to dislike 401k and mutual funds in general. On top of the fees that one has to pay, regardless of the mediocre (if not downright bad) performance, I can't fathom how someone could stop me from withdrawing my money, due to the potential adverse impact on the funds (and other fundholders). Isn't the fund supposed to maintain sufficient level of liquidity to allow for redemption needs?
I've been glad to have rolled over my 401k to an Rollover IRA and manage the money myself. I was giddy too, since I've made some decent profit today (one of my transactions made 20% net profit trading in two days). As it is, my trading ability, thereby my gains, is currently limited to the amount of time that it takes for settlement. If only US can catch up with the rest of the world and give us T+1 (like Hong Kong Stock Exchange), instead of T+3...
I'm not really fanatic about basic research or financial news, and I stick with only solid companies and ETF index funds. I don't even watch TV, never mind the always-on CNN, various talking heads on network news, and the numerous bloggingheads. I find most of those simply talking up each other's soundbites, with nothing much new add to it. If there's any new news, I only want to read or hear it once. I don't want to waste my time hearing or watching 100+ different people talking about the same thing or topics. That's why it's helpful to browse the headlines. It gives you a feel for things (and economy, in general) without having to be bogged down by details. If an article looks interesting, I read on.
I guess that keeps me sane: Not get too gloomy when everyone's talking down the economy, but not too giddy when everyone's chasing the market. I watch for trends, I set goals, I attain them, and I take profit. I don't get greedy, and I don't do regrets. If I don't get out on a stock on its high, that's ok. As long as I get the profit I want, I don't mind leaving some money on the table. Everyone needs some crumbs to feed on. And I take a longer term view: I don't have urgent need to get out of a stock (since I would not have bought it if I don't like it), so I'll just buy-and-hold the dogs. As a matter of fact, right now my cash-to-investment ratio is 70%, meaning I'm using only 30% of my funds for trading, while my overall year-to-date performance is 15%. I couldn't ask for more. The 70% cash buffer is more than comfortable, since it's FDIC insured and ready for investment, if I want to; and I don't mind cutting loss if all the 30% goes down the drain.
There's an old Chinese (Cantonese) saying: fortune don't come to pockets in need. Loosely translated, it means, when you're desperate (urgent need for money), fortune won't come your way. Maybe it's the emotions that come in the way, or maybe there's some kind of natural law governing, but there's quite some truth and wisdom in it. Just ask how many desperate gamblers who need to win big in casino, and turn out losing everything.
I don't know if my kids are learning from me by observing what I do. Although they probably won't see much actions from me in trading (since I work my real job most of the time, and I only check the market once in a while), I do share with them what my trading performance is like. Perhaps one day, they'll pick up some tricks of the trade, from a layman like me. :)
On the coming out of Elizabeth Edwards to her husband's affair...
I used to be very stubborn, pretty self-centered (as any teenagers would be), and head-strong. But as I age, I have come to understand compromises a bit more.
I remember way back when, when I was much younger and way before I got married, my friends were chitchatting about marriage and infidelity. I remember declaring to my friends that I definitely would not tolerate infidelity, and I would seek divorce rightaway, should I find out my spouse is cheating on me.
I don't think I have change that stance after I got married. Perhaps even with the union of a marriage, we are still two separate persons. Now that we've had kids, it really has complicated the situation and clouded that question, leaving no easy and black-and-white answer.
If there's no kids involved, a divorce is fairly clear-cut. We walk out, and we move on. We're adults afterall. But kids are part of both of us (my husband and I), and they need us. It would not have been fair to them if the decisions of parents to separate would impact them forever. I understand, because at some points past after some fights, I'd once (or twice) considered that possibility of leaving my husband. But my kids make me stay. And my husband makes effort to change himself as well. I guess my husband and I more alike than we would have thought or admit. Things have been going well for a long time now, and the kids are happy, having happy parents at home.
What would it have been like, had I walked out? Unlike most teenage single mothers, I don't think I'll remarry. I have too much worry of how stepfathers might be like to my kids. And I can take care of my kids while telecommuting for work. So, I don't worry as much about the welfare of my kids. Undeniably, though, they need their father, a father figure and role model for them to look up to. If I had walked out, I would have denied them of that.
I guess those were burst of moments when I had considered walking out. My husband has been a very responsible and reliable husband and father, although he's more stubborn than I am, in terms of getting things right. In childrearing, it's not an exact science, and that could upset him sometimes that things do not go exactly according to plan. We have discussed this, that he has to be more flexible, without compromising on his belief and principle. I guess he's slowly finding his way.
What does this have to do with Elizabeth Edwards? I guess people either love/sympathize her, or hate her. Loving her for her courage and strength in fighting cancer and still stenuously supporting her husband in his presidential bid. It thus must be even more hurtful when John Edwards' affair was exposed in a high profile way, months after his failed presidential bid.
It's only now, that she's finally opening up to talk about the ordeal. People blog to despise her for being still in denial, for seemingly trying to find find excuses for her unfaithful husband, and for not walking out (no spine perhaps?!?). And then, there are those who implore others to cut her some slack, given her fight for life amid cancer treatment. Still, even in interviews, her only condition is that, she would not address Rielle Hunter by name.
Like Hillary Clinton before her, people expect more courage and spine to stand up for themselves. Afterall, Edwards and Clinton are both strong, successful women in their own right. But they chose to stay. No doubt the situation is not ideal. How many second-chances will you give to an unfaithful spouse? How much humilitation do you endure before you can it quit?
Most people despise Clinton and Edwards for one more reason, which is their own ambition to be a power spouse, which status will be jeopardized, should they become divorced. While you may say so with Clinton, that is not the case with Edwards (since John Edwards is a nobody now, now that his political career is pretty much dead). While this was probably among one of the factors that went through these women's minds, I have no doubts that they have their kids in mind, not unlikely what had gone through my mind when I was contemplating my own walkout.
There were crude comments on Elizabeth Edwards that somehow her husband's philandering has anything, something to do with her loss of looks. There is probably some truth in it. While I find those comments offensive, I look at the picture with dismay, of how she looks like his mother (or elder sister), even though they're similar in age, given the amount of treatment she has gone through for her illnesses. I have always held this belief that if someone loves me, he would not go for my look and my look alone, but I'm also realistic enough to understand that that's part of the appeal of the opposite sexes. Given the boyish look of John Edwards, he looks more like early 40s. Honestly, it's disgusting to me.
What would I have told my daughter, when she's coming of age, of what she should do, or what I would have done, should our spouse cheat on us? In a way, I still can't quite contemplate that. It has been easier for me not to walk out, since the fights with my husband were really over something rather trivial, which we could have worked out, in the way of adjusted attitude. But what of infidelity?
I really sympathize Elizabeth Edwards for her seemingly inability to walk out. Perhaps, to me, if my kids are grown up, I would probably walk out in no time; but if they're still young, it's more complicated. I'm still wondering what I would do in a situation like this...
I remember way back when, when I was much younger and way before I got married, my friends were chitchatting about marriage and infidelity. I remember declaring to my friends that I definitely would not tolerate infidelity, and I would seek divorce rightaway, should I find out my spouse is cheating on me.
I don't think I have change that stance after I got married. Perhaps even with the union of a marriage, we are still two separate persons. Now that we've had kids, it really has complicated the situation and clouded that question, leaving no easy and black-and-white answer.
If there's no kids involved, a divorce is fairly clear-cut. We walk out, and we move on. We're adults afterall. But kids are part of both of us (my husband and I), and they need us. It would not have been fair to them if the decisions of parents to separate would impact them forever. I understand, because at some points past after some fights, I'd once (or twice) considered that possibility of leaving my husband. But my kids make me stay. And my husband makes effort to change himself as well. I guess my husband and I more alike than we would have thought or admit. Things have been going well for a long time now, and the kids are happy, having happy parents at home.
What would it have been like, had I walked out? Unlike most teenage single mothers, I don't think I'll remarry. I have too much worry of how stepfathers might be like to my kids. And I can take care of my kids while telecommuting for work. So, I don't worry as much about the welfare of my kids. Undeniably, though, they need their father, a father figure and role model for them to look up to. If I had walked out, I would have denied them of that.
I guess those were burst of moments when I had considered walking out. My husband has been a very responsible and reliable husband and father, although he's more stubborn than I am, in terms of getting things right. In childrearing, it's not an exact science, and that could upset him sometimes that things do not go exactly according to plan. We have discussed this, that he has to be more flexible, without compromising on his belief and principle. I guess he's slowly finding his way.
What does this have to do with Elizabeth Edwards? I guess people either love/sympathize her, or hate her. Loving her for her courage and strength in fighting cancer and still stenuously supporting her husband in his presidential bid. It thus must be even more hurtful when John Edwards' affair was exposed in a high profile way, months after his failed presidential bid.
It's only now, that she's finally opening up to talk about the ordeal. People blog to despise her for being still in denial, for seemingly trying to find find excuses for her unfaithful husband, and for not walking out (no spine perhaps?!?). And then, there are those who implore others to cut her some slack, given her fight for life amid cancer treatment. Still, even in interviews, her only condition is that, she would not address Rielle Hunter by name.
Like Hillary Clinton before her, people expect more courage and spine to stand up for themselves. Afterall, Edwards and Clinton are both strong, successful women in their own right. But they chose to stay. No doubt the situation is not ideal. How many second-chances will you give to an unfaithful spouse? How much humilitation do you endure before you can it quit?
Most people despise Clinton and Edwards for one more reason, which is their own ambition to be a power spouse, which status will be jeopardized, should they become divorced. While you may say so with Clinton, that is not the case with Edwards (since John Edwards is a nobody now, now that his political career is pretty much dead). While this was probably among one of the factors that went through these women's minds, I have no doubts that they have their kids in mind, not unlikely what had gone through my mind when I was contemplating my own walkout.
There were crude comments on Elizabeth Edwards that somehow her husband's philandering has anything, something to do with her loss of looks. There is probably some truth in it. While I find those comments offensive, I look at the picture with dismay, of how she looks like his mother (or elder sister), even though they're similar in age, given the amount of treatment she has gone through for her illnesses. I have always held this belief that if someone loves me, he would not go for my look and my look alone, but I'm also realistic enough to understand that that's part of the appeal of the opposite sexes. Given the boyish look of John Edwards, he looks more like early 40s. Honestly, it's disgusting to me.
What would I have told my daughter, when she's coming of age, of what she should do, or what I would have done, should our spouse cheat on us? In a way, I still can't quite contemplate that. It has been easier for me not to walk out, since the fights with my husband were really over something rather trivial, which we could have worked out, in the way of adjusted attitude. But what of infidelity?
I really sympathize Elizabeth Edwards for her seemingly inability to walk out. Perhaps, to me, if my kids are grown up, I would probably walk out in no time; but if they're still young, it's more complicated. I'm still wondering what I would do in a situation like this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)