On Polanski and the 30-year-old rape case against him...

I don't put much stock in celebrity talking. Mostly they just yap, and we just ignore. But in the 30-year-old case on child rape against Roman Polanski, I have to say, enough is enough.

Sure, I like his movies, and no one doubts his talent. But everyone knows a crime is a crime. Crimes against children are particularly heinous. For all the details admitted by all parties, of how Polanski plied the 13-year-old girl with alcohol, then imposed himself on her, I cannot believe it, when I read what Whoopi Goldberg said, this does not sound like "it was rape-rape"?!? I guess by her loud-mouthed definition, rape-rape must have involved violence. If it had been a 13-year-old boy instead of a girl, would she have had a different opinion?

At the end of the day, he raped a child. That's the crime the court should be judging him for, not how many Oscar he's won, or great movies he's made. Nor does it matter how long ago that crime was, or how old he has become.

I can understand why the Polanski victim wants the case to be dropped. Afterall, it's hard to go through an ordeal like that. But as far as I'm concerned, Polanski is a sex offender and predator. If he had done it once, he can and will do it again, whether it's 46 or 76. If he's not brought to justice, other children would only continue to suffer in silence.

On musing consumer-driven economy and growth...

Earlier today, I read an article on Wall Street Journal about how manufacturers in China are expanding their domestic market in China, in the hope of replacing the declining export market to developed countries like US and Europe.

Since I was a very little child, as soon as I'm aware of the concepts of economics, I have always wondered the notion of economic growth that is dependent on consumerism.

I started off with distaste for consumption due to unnecessary packaging. I had thought, how unnecessary and wasteful it is, to wrap a product so very nicely, only to be ripped up and thrown out when it's opened. I remember some 20 years back, Japanese products commanded a high premium over products made in other countries (except those with the "Made In Italy", "Made In France", "Made in USA", or "Made In England" labels). I would be the first to admit that the packaging of Japanese goods really were very nice. Over time, I find myself saving up quite some of the wrappings (eg. nice boxes that products are packaged in). One day, I have this epiphany, asking myself why these wrappings exist in the first place. They are completely and absolutely unnecessary. If they had not been saved (by me), thereby sitting in my room, they would be in the landfill, most of which might not be broken down for a hundred years. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it becomes.

And then, there is the economic side of things. Granted that I don't study economics, I have some levels of understanding in terms of money supply, and others. (These days, most everyone can be a self-made economist, to some degree.) I have always been doubtful about the heavy reliance of consumptions and consumerism to prop up economic growth and expansion. As if on cue, this current financial crisis shows us all how global markets fall like dominoes, with the abrupt withdrawal syndrome of American consumers. In hindsight, it's always easy to say the obvious, that the show cannot go on forever, that American consumers (who borrowed to the max, bought on credits and later their property into some biggy banks for cash out, thereby fueling the property market bubble, until it all came crashing in late 2008) cannot possibly afford to keep spending and buying everything that the world made for them.

Which brings us back to the WSJ article on the inward focus of Chinese manufacturers on their domestic market now. Surely, stimulus from the Chinese government has helped propped up the market in China. How long can that last is anyone's guess. Still, my question remains: Now that Americans stop buying/spending/consuming, all eyes are on the Chinese market. Is that the only way that economies can expand on? Surely we know the growth engine for the next 20-40 years will be in India and China. But what happens next?

Does everyone have to keep throwing out our 2-year-old cell phone and buy new one, or thrashing their 3-year-old sedan for the latest model, in order for the economy to grow? Do we really need to extract all these precious natural resources from Mother Earth, then thrashing them like a kid onto his next new toy, just so that the economy keeps expanding? Is there any other way??

On the 18% yearly gain on trading this year...

I'm not a day trader, although I watch the market couple of times throughout the day. I trade, but I don't feel compelled to make bets or to close out my position by end of day, everyday. That takes too much energy and my time. I have a family to attend to, a day job to do, and side venture to worry about it. I don't need to have to think of my investment in equity.

After I saw the balance of my rollover IRA cut in half, I've decided to take it back in my own hands. So, late last year (Dec 2008), I rolled-over almost all my IRA balance to etrade, and started trading on the stocks and ETF's that I like, rather than praying for the mercy of some mediocre fund manager to work his/her way back to where my IRA was supposed to be.

I was a bit lucky, since I liquidated during a 7-day rally in Dec '08, and got 10% extra on the balance. When I rolled-over, I was pretty much breakeven, as if I never got any employer matching 401k contribution, and no growth over the entire period. In short, I would have been better off putting it under my mattress.

Still, I don't like to look back. I'm mostly a forward-looking person. After a few months of trying things out, I located the stocks and ETF's (in various sectors) that I like, and started trading. I don't have time to do basic research, so I have to trade on momentum. But I only pick the stocks and ETF's that I wouldn't mind holding, for the long term.

I pretty much started in Jan 2009. My year-on-year gain so far is 18%. Since it's my rollover IRA balance, I don't have to worry about taxes (for now), though I still keep all trading records, just in case. And I save a few percentages paying those fund managers who might be choosing some pigs that I don't like.

I must admit, I feel quite good about it. I take an ultra-conservative approach, since I only use about 10-40% of my balance to trade. I keep everything else in cash (not money market fund, but cold-hard cash). My husband was quite impressed by my record so far as well, since to have the gain of 18%, that would mean I would have almost doubled the amount I have put in to trade, all the while keeping over 50% of my balance in cash to buffer any drastic market downturn.

I know momentum trading is not going to last forever, since I need the huge market volatility to make gains. (Mind you, I don't do leverage. I strictly buy-and-hold, or buy-and-sell only.) But looking at the performance of average hedge funds (14% so far for this year), with some making losing 15% or more, my record so far this year really hasn't been too shabby at all.

But that article in Wall Street Journal also brings up a very good question: If S&P is up more than 55% in the first half of 2009, while these fund managers are down, someone (or some company) must be ripping huge gains. I'm always intrigued by questions like this. Someone, somewhere out there, must be doing some detective work right now to find out who that might be. If anyone tells me it's Goldman Sachs, I would not be too surprised, given its big gains in flash trading.

On child mortality rate decline globally, and my grandma...

I read alot of news online everyday. We don't have a TV and I don't feel like having a TV blasting news or junk in my fact. I prefer to pull, rather than pull, model (ie. I pick and get the news whenever and wherever I want; but I do not want news dumped on me). Except for Fortune, I pretty much cancel all mail subscriptions, and move all subscriptions online. It's my one luxury when I'm not online, so that I have a copy in my hand while I sip my coffee.

This morning, I was reading the news on child mortality rate globally (in particular, in developing countries) has declined. It's great news. Thousands of children are saved daily. If I put myself in the shoes of those parents and mothers, and find that I can save my child from some diseases that are perfectly preventable and curable, I would be over the moon.

Some 2/3 down the article, it talks about the infrastructure put in place to deliver these simple care to these rural people in Africa which have saved so many lives. The same infrastructure is used to deliver other care, including provision of birth control. Interviews of women indicate how life-changing this has been. For a change in life, they can instantly regain the control of their lives. As one woman aptly put it, if she had a choice, she would have four children, instead of nine, because she can barely feed them with the harvest from her tiny plot of barren land, let alone trying to save them from illness. If she had had less children, she could provide better care for them.

I was reading, then starring at the screen, quite speechless. The child mortality rate is mother nature's way of telling these poor souls that they cannot afford to have more children, so Darwinism would have to pick and choose. I was speechless, because it's such an awful idea, just thinking about it. Women in the western world and more developed countries have had access to birth control, which allows them to plan out their life, including life-changing events like when to have children. Those poor women in Africa do not have a choice. When their husbands want it, they have to give. I can't imagine how those poor women keep getting pregnant and bearing children every year. These women are not stupid. They want the same birth control choice that their western counterparts have.

And then, my thoughts turn to George W Bush, of how during his presidency, he directed government funding to cut off birth control and abortion service for developing countries, in return for getting aid. This was done all in the name of God. Conservatives can't sing enough praises to Bush, but they hardly care about what kind of lives those poor women and babies have.

I believe in God and the Bible, even though I'm not that religious. I can understand the position of Vatican and where Bush came from. I have to stress that I value lives as well. But this brings me back to my original (and very first) thought, after I read the article. If mother nature and God have not intended those unwanted babies to live, what should one do? I do not, in any way, believe that we can stand by and watch babies die. They are flesh and blood, just like us. But if we have playing god, and save those that nature has not intended them to live; shouldn't we be doing the same about prevention in the first place? Why is birth control so evil that it has to be banned, given that it's possibly the only tool that these women have in putting some orders and control in their hands?

No doubt, I'm looking at the issue from a totally pragmatic view, without regard of what the Bible says. I do believe, though, that we should either take all the steps consistently from one side, or the other. We either refrain birth control from these poor women, let them procreate and multiply, and let the babies die naturally; or we put in our might to save as many as we can, but give the women the tool to do what nature would have them do (if you can't afford the baby, don't bring the baby to this world).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All these thoughts bring me back to my paternal grandmother. She died more than 20 years ago when she's in her late 90s. (I think she was 97 or 98 when she passed away.) She suffered a stroke which paralyzed her. She remained hospitalized and unconscious for one month, before she died naturally. I remember when I got the news, I rushed to the hospital with my brother to see her. I couldn't help my tears when I opened the door to her room and saw the tubes and needles all over her. Prior to the visit, my mom had a talk with us, who told us that the situation (with grandma in a coma) could drag on for years. Mom wanted us to be prepared, that all of us would have to help out when grandma moved in with us.

Before I opened that door, I had secretly hoped that grandma would live, if only for just a bit more time. I still remember vividly feeling how selfish I had been, for wishing her to live, once I opened that door and saw the condition she was in. Living in coma and tubes/needles in a bed is not a life I would wish grandma to have for her remaining years. Afterall, I wouldn't want that for myself either.

That night, we got a phone call from the hospital. It's probably around 3am. It's a quick request for us to go to the hospital to see grandma. We all knew what's coming. Us kids went to our rooms and got dressed quickly and in silence. Mom and dad were in the kitchen preparing something. We got in a cab, ran up to grandma's room, and saw her lying in bed, as if she's sleeping most peacefully. I touched her hand gently and felt it ice cold. She had passed away for quite some time, but the nurses did not know. I looked at grandma and said my goodbye to her in my heart.

Mom instructed us to not touch grandma's body, probably due to some ancient Chinese superstitions (and there are many). I didn't see the big deal of it. When mom got the stuffs from her bag she and dad were preparing in the kitchen, I realized what they were for. Among those was a small coffee mug filled with red dates and water. Mom was muttering something under her breath, no doubt wishing a good afterlife for grandma. Then, mom used a spoon to feed some to grandma's mouth, to bring sweetness to her in her afterlife. Naturally, since grandma was pretty stiff already, all the red dates water dripped down her cheek onto the pillow.

I remember the only other feelings that I had was one of relief. I was relief not only for the living, but for the dead. I don't think anyone wants a life like that.

Parents organized a Chinese funeral for grandma, with all the traditions like burning tons of paper money and paper-made everything (houses, cars, bridges, etc) for grandma's afterlife. I've always wonder how the paper stuffs can support grandma. After everything's done at the funeral hall, it's customary to have a feast for everyone who came to the funeral. This was to bring back smiles to everyone...supposedly. When we got home after the feast, dad broke down and cried. That was the first and only time I ever saw him cry. He's a very dutifully son, and he loved her very much. Somehow, he felt that she had preference for the elder daughter (ie. my paternal aunt), and she would scrap by everything, including food and every dollar that my dad gave her, and pass them to the daughter. I never knew my dad had bored that deep bitterness for so long.

Grandma was very easily satisfied. She's not ambitious. She could stay at home, napping or doing nothing all day long. She's happy with those few daily routines she had. When I was very young, she used to tell me stories about the nature (how she would go to the river and catch fish for family meals; how she identified different kinds of birds). Given that this was 19th century, her stories would only mean one thing, which is that she had had a hard life. Some years back, dad made a cryptic comment, that grandma had not been the first wife of granddad. (I never knew him. He died naturally when my dad was 15.) Dad said grandma might have married granddad after he's widowed or something. That might have indicated that grandma might have had a previous marriage, but she never talked about it with dad, hence he never knew. Now, that history died with her.

A few years after grandma died, I was chitchatting with mom. She said, if it had been in the olden days, grandma would have died almost rightaway from that stroke. There will be no prolonged suffering on her part, and no extended angst on the descendants. But modern medicine changes all that. We put her on life support, without asking for her permission, thinking that that's what she would have wanted. But did she, at the age of 97 or 98? I have always had serious doubts that she did.

One of these days, I'll write a bit more on the little that I know of the grandparents (both maternal and paternal side), so my children would know.

On afterthoughts to refinancing...

Last month, we refinanced our current mortgage. It was a 7-year ARM at 4.625%, which is still a good deal. But as it's expiring mid next year, we want to lock in the current low rate. So, we refinanced it, paid some points, and we're now at 4.25%, fixed 30 years. I reckon, we can easily make the points back by staying for 3 years or so in our current place, which we intend to do anyways. We also take our the uncertainty of variable rate after the 7-year term of the previous ARM, since USD is bound to go down further at some point due to the huge deficit, and interest rate has to go up further down the line. The new mortgage payment is down about 10% (including escrows for property taxes), which is much cheaper than paying rent. Our area is a stable neighborhood, which has actually seen property prices holding up and on their way up again, due to the good public schools. I'm truly thankful that things have worked out fine.

This is actually not our first mortgage. We've had our first mortgage some 12 years ago, with 8.5% interest, fixed for 30 years. About two years later, we refinanced it to fix at 6.25%, fixed for 30 years. And then, maybe another 2 years later, we paid it off completely, so we don't have to have the debt hanging over our heads. That's about the time when, after the stock market bubble burst in 2000 and the next bubble started building up in real estate. Over the next few years, we saw our neighborhood prices going up by 20-30% per year which, to any sane mind, was pretty crazy by American standards. As my husband doesn't normally pay much attention to markets, he initially would not believe me that our property's value has probably doubled, since we bought it some 6 years before. During bubble times, no one really cares about to do sanity checks. All everyone wanted to do was to buy and flip, or buy and wait to see prices to go up another 50% or more before they sell and trade up. As we intend to stay there long term, it doesn't really matter much to us, though I must admit, it's very amusing to see. The psychology of the crowd can be powerful though. When you're sitting on paper gain of 200%, you feel rich. That's what's been fueling the American economy.

The underwriter of our initial mortgage was Chase. I like them alot, since the processing is super-efficient and we never had any trouble with it. When we refinanced, our loan was eventually sold, and we ended up with Chase again. I couldn't be more happier. Interestingly, when we bought our current place (second mortgage), our loan got bought out by Chase once again. I certainly won't complain, since I've heard horror stories about lesser underwriters whose processing was shoddy, with mortgage payments getting lost and all. I would have loved to stay with Chase forever. Chase has always kept us on their books, which is what I like.

After we refinanced last month, we were told that the underwriter (some no-name mortgage company) routinely sells their loans within 60 days of closing. Hence, they never bother to send us permanent mortgage payment coupons. As it happens, it looks like we're going to be with Bank Of America, starting next month (yep, within 60 days of closing, alright). Apparently, even though there's so much talk in the news that banks are reluctant to lend, they are still buying up mortgage loans from secondary market like crazy. I hope BoA would keep us on their books too, so we don't have to keep switching underwriters, every year or so.

From a business perspective, an solid investment with interest paying 4.25% for 30 years is not bad a deal, given that the treasury is currently paying 1% or less. If I have had the capital, I wouldn't mind getting into this business at all. :) But I would probably stick with the community bank type of business model, so that I would get to know my customers well, and keep them on my books. Granted that it's not an expansionist view (to get big as fast as possible and to buy/sell on secondary market etc), I like the idea of solid growth with solid customers. Perhaps that's just me. :)

On the old Hitchcock movie, 39 Steps...

I like old movies and watched alot of them when I was growing up. These days, even though I'm busy, I still managed to watch maybe 7-10 movies a week.

Last night, I watched the 39 Steps, the old Hitchcock movie. Perhaps like most people, I tend to judge older movies with more sentimentality. A lot of the silliness in older movies are looked upon with fondness, which, if you put those silliness in modern movies, they can be downright annoying. Such is the endearing Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant in Charade, as compared to the 2002 remake The Truth About Charlie/Charade.

The reason why that comparison came to mind was that, I have no doubt that should I be younger, the chemistry and sexual innuendo between the main characters would probably have provoked romantic ideas in me. These days, I tend to find them more annoying. Would anyone really think a quick-snap romance like that would last? Does anyone really think there's any element of love in that? I do not think so.

Still, old movies tend to evolve ideals from a more innocent time. I think that's what I miss most, rather than the silliness of it.

On real life terror plots and Spooks/MI-5 the TV show...

We don't have a TV. Although I grew up with TV and I watched tons of TV, I don't really want my kids to sit around dinner table just starring at the TV while eating dinner. There's more quality time for the family when there's no TV distraction. Still, from time to time, I would still enjoy a TV show and two.

Earlier this year, I discovered MI-5 (aka Spooks) on netflix. I like the plots, and the production is good and serious. But I normally watch it much like any other TV shows, which is that, it's just a TV show with made-up plots.

And then, real-life news broke, that MI-5 and British police had successfully convicted (on firsts trial and re-trial), 3 local British Muslims who plotted to blow up airliners and cause chaos and mayhem. The most scary part is, the surveillance, plots, arrests, etc, all sound like they came right out of the scripts for Spooks. There's an element of surrealism, of life imitating art.

I have never had real exposure to the plights of the Muslims in those countries in Middle East that have inspired so many young minds (even the highly educated ones like doctors) would crossover to the fundamentalists that advocate maim and killings. There's always been complaints about the sanitized versions of news events in main media. I do not doubt for one moment that those in dire needs are all but forgotten by the media, who drops them from their radar as yesterday's news, and forever chases the flavor-of-the-day. Why these young people decide that violence is the only solution to help is something beyond me, though.

In the decades past, there's the arctic bear of the Russia as the foe of democracy in the Cold War days. Those were dangerous times, no doubt; but at least the Russians were cold, calculating, and mostly rational minds that the West could play mind games (and even dangerous war games) with. The dangerous new world with the Muslim fundamentalists is a whole new ball game.

I'm normally friendly to all ethnicity, and open-minded in listening and discussing issues with others, I sometimes wonder, when bright, intelligent minds have followed each others to convert to fundamentalism and violence, how could one be sure that the ones that we're talking to today is not going to be a mass murderer tomorrow? For all that matters, they could turn around tomorrow and decide that I stand in their way of seeking justice, in the eyes of their Allah, and should need to be annihilated. While that thought might sound dramatic, it was never too far from my conscience. Not that I would treat them any differently (since I do not subscribe to discrimination), I sometimes wonder if befriending an otherwise friendly Muslim is going to somehow turn my life to a TV show one day, when s/he becomes object of interest in some terrorist plot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That thought was never very far from me when I come to think of an ex-colleague of mine. He's born in mid-east, but has been a German citizen for a very long time. He got his degree and was looking for a break in jobs in US since unemployment in Germany was (and still is) so high. He told me it's next to impossible for him to get a job or advance in career in business in Germany. Through his relatives, he landed an unpaid internship at the previous company I worked for. I would have to admit that he doesn't have enough business or common sense at times to pick up projects, or sometimes even simple tasks. Slowly but surely, he was sidelined. The CEO just wanted him to leave on his own accord, since the company would not sponsor his green card application. After a little over a year, he had to go back to Germany.

During his last year of stay, I rented him my second home. While he's a fairly decent tenant (payment on time, never made a fuss or noises), the condo manager disliked his presence in the building, most likely for no other better reason than the fact that his skin is too dark in an mostly white neighborhood. The condo manager who happened to own a majority of the unit in the building, even threatened us to change the by-laws to disallow us to rent our condo out. Not that I need the money (and I rented it out to this guy mostly just as a favor), and I hate it when someone like this condo manager would try to push me around for no good reason.

In any case, as his visa expired, he had to leave US. He went back to Germany, but no luck still. It's been almost four years now, and his job situation is still going nowhere. Honestly I feel bad for him. Although he's friendly to me, I can feel this pent-up anger in him, about injustice and his feelings that he could have done more, if he's only given a chance. I had tried to point out to him, in areas where he can use some improvements, but I don't think he heeds the advice. He's still searching and finds nothing.

I normally trust my gut feeling. (My gut feeling has served me very well many times in the past.) I know, at the bottom of my heart, that if this guy has followed the path like those three young Muslim men did, who went to distribute humanitarian aid to distressed Muslims in mid-east but came back converted to fundamentalism after seeing so much injustice, he would have done the same thing. There's a certain gullibility and innocence in him, and his deep belief in justice, that made him particularly susceptible to fundamentalist ideals.

Deep in my heart, I can only pray that he would not turn, like those others before him. But when life deals one bad hand after another to him, I'm not sure how long it'll be before he crosses over. When I read news like this, I always hope that I would not see his name on the news. For whatever the injustice that he sees, I hope he find another way to channel that energy and anger into to make this a better world.

On the use of dictionary in the internet age...

I read, with keen interest, of the article on dictionary in this internet age.

When I was small, I used to love read dictionary. I like reading a seemingly complete collection of all words that one can think of, and what all those words mean. It's much like my feelings to libraries: Every time I go to a library, I have this urge to read all the books and articles that I can lay my hands on.

Much as the somewhat morphed use of library resources, as our reading habits change, so do our attitude and usage of dictionaries. While I still love holding a book in my hand, I'm just as happy reading all I can on the web, particularly on news which change much more frequently. I can understand why a growing number of people of using reading devices like Amazon's Kindle or Sony's eReader. I'd say, at some point, I might even give it a try.

The same is true with dictionary. I still have a few volumes of different dictionaries on my shelf, but I hardly used them. This is not to say that dictionary has no place in our life. Quite far from it, the concept of dictionary is more important than ever. One cannot say the same with the modus operandi of dictionary. One has to confront the reality that there are an increasing number of sources competing for our attention, in particular, the younger generations.

We insist on our kids learning how to use dictionary. The methodical way to locate a word in a thick book is still very applicable. Yet, if I look at my own behavior, it speaks volume. My dictionaries are gathering dust since I haven't used or touched them for ages now. The circular reference used in dictionary can be frustrating. New words get created daily, and dictionaries are hard to keep up. Due to space limitation, alot of dictionaries don't provide example of usage either. All these problems are resolved online. The only sticky point of looking up words on the web is that, there is really no one authoritative source to provide *the* meaning of a word. Users like me would sample the web search of the word over a number of search results. If they are saying more or less the same meaning, that's the one I'd take.

If only I have my volume of dictionaries reside online, with expansion on usage, and frequent updates, that would be a combination made in heaven for me. Although the only downside is, the art of looking up a word in a traditional dictionary is going to be forever lost when kids start using free-form search like google search.

I often wonder, for dictionary to achieve what would be useful to me, does that deal a death kilt to the art of word search, the traditional way? Would it die the same slow death the way that morse code did? I would be very sad when that day comes.

On the pain of growing student loan, et al...

I feel the pain for the younger generations who have to borrow heavily in order to get themselves a decent education.

To be sure, I grew up in Hong Kong, and back then before Hong Kong turns basically every community college and second tier education institutes into a full university, being able to get admission into either Hong Kong University or Chinese University of Hong Kong is like winning a lottery ticket. Affordability is not the question, but it's the sheer demand for the highly limited supply of university seats. Most families who want a better education for their kids would scrap every cent to fund their overseas study, either to England or Canada or Australia or US. That's just the way it was. Unlike Americans, Chinese families rarely borrow externally (eg. banks) for their kids' education. Most fundings are from within families and relatives, and they don't charge interests for this. That lessens the burden tremendously. Although it's not universally true anymore, back then if you have a university degree from overseas and have a decent command of English, you're almost certain to get a very decent paying job in Hong Kong.

I started my university study later in life. As I didn't really know what I really wanted to do, I worked for a few years before I decided that I wanted to do either computer science or journalism or law. (Don't ask me why these three vastly differing subjects, but they appealed to me in various aspects at that point.) I got admitted to a few universities in England to study computer science and law. I never applied for journalism anywhere. Maybe it's not as hard to get as CS or law, and my competitive spirit had me dropped it subconsciously. In those couple of years, I managed to my salary 2 times (changing jobs often certainly helped). So, I saved all I could, enough to pay my own tuition. I was lucky to never have to ask my parents for any help in tuition since they would not be in a position to, given that my older brother and one older sister had used up most everything in fundings that our family could afford, sending them to Australia. Both my parents had been very supportive for my endeavor.

After I got to England, I was lucky enough too, to find part time work in one of the university faculty who was able to formally sponsor my employment. I never like working grey-market jobs or under-the-table. I said it's lucky too, since this was in the deep recession in UK in early 1990s, and unemployment was very high at the time.

In the middle of my study, when my family eventually migrated to Australia, they asked me to join them. Although I love the academic environment in England, funding the tuition and accommodation for myself as an overseas student continued to be a great challenge, where I literally spent more time working the part time jobs than studying. Moving to Australia would mean I would study as a local student, with much reduced tuition. All things considered, I moved from England to Australia, and finished my bachelor degree there.

I'm forever indebted to Australia for the chance that it afforded me. I was able to defer the tuition payment, with no interest penalty. With Austudy and the girl-friday I got in a computer graphics company, I was able to support both myself and my younger sister who's studying at university with me. I could focus on my study, for a change, without having to worry about whether I would have enough money for the next tuition payment. In the junior year, I was luck enough to get an internship with an investment bank. In my course, the internship component is a mandatory requirement for graduation. During the mid 1990s when Australian economy was in the ditch, there're some 350-400 students (probably 97% in all) in various stages of their study in my course who couldn't find internship and were unable to graduate due to that. Shortly after the internship started , the investment bank offered me the position full time and paid for my tuition (so I didn't have to repay the tuition of the classes that I was doing when I was with them). That gave me a much welcomed head-start on gaining relevant work experience. Although I had my full time work, I continued to take full-time course load for each semester (and in one of the semesters, I was doing 1.25x normal full-time load). That allowed me to graduate ahead of most of my class, while accumulating experience in the field.

During my study in Australia, I had never needed to worry much about money or health care coverage (since Medicare provides universal coverage for citizens). Eventually, after I graduated, I repaid the government all the tuitions that I deferred.

When I look back at my own experience, in comparison with the younger folks in America now who struggle with tens (oftentimes even hundreds) of thousands of dollars of tuitions and other higher education costs, I'm flabbergasted. The article rightly points out that, instead of much needed debate and potential reform to higher education, all the government can do is to dough out more loans, which completes the feedback loop to the colleges and universities about what kind of increases they can charge to the tuition and others. Afterall, if students can keep (borrowing and) paying, they can keep charging. It's a vicious cycle on a downward spiral.

It's true that taxes in Australia are outrageously high, which is one of the perpetual complaint of working class folks downunder. When you consider all the taxes you paid in totality in US, those in Australia are not that much higher. If you factor in the health care that you pay in US, the taxes you pay in Australia can seem even downright cheap. Much as the argument against the welfare states in Europe, while people would complain that the welfares in Australia remove the incentive for people to work, one can also argue that it allows the labor market flexibility (since one does not have to consider simply based on whether the job provides health coverage or not). Indeed, I would admit that I was once somewhat resentful of the obscene amount of taxes that came out of my paycheck back then in Australia, it doesn't look too bad in introspect.

The longer I live in America, the more I have come to realize the flaws in the "capitalist" way in America. Americans have very low threshold to anything that has the smell or label of socialism, but most of them do not realize how much they have been on the short end. Given the total amount of money that Americans have been paying health care and other services, and the poor services provided to its populace at large, one has to wonder why so many people are willing to maintain the status quo. With airheads like Sarah Palin, the debate on reforms like health care and education is not going to go anywhere. If only these ignorant folks could be shipped out to live in different overseas countries for a period of time, and experience the different kinds of systems out there in the world (without the filters from media and lobbyists), they would perhaps come to realize how stupid they've been all along.

On the moon landing conspiracy...

I was duped today. I couldn't believe it. I was reading google news, and there it was, one of the headlines, with big marking of "the satire", about Neil Armstrong turning around and admitting to the conspiracy theory, and I thought it's true! I failed to notice the "satire" alert.

But of course, I was marveled, given how reticent and media-shy Neil Armstrong had been ever since he's been a national hero as the first man-on-the-moon. What I did after reading that satire was probably what most people would do, which is to find out more about the conspiracy theory on the moon landing, all the proponent and opponent arguments. I never put much stock into any conspiracy theory, hence even though the moon landing conspiracy has been around for so long, I never bother to look into the argument for such conspiracy.

My first stop was YouTube, since I want to see the actual moon landing broadcast in 1969. I want to see the real thing first, then all the arguments for/against it. There's no shortage of footage about all the arguments against the moon landing authenticity, including the impossibility of the rippling of the flag, to the footprint, to the man-in-shadow, and more. I must admit, the arguments sound pretty impressive. While I know how adamant conspiracy theorists are usually, I must say too, that I'm kind of taken aback by the great length these people went in proving their points.

So, I thought, there might really be some merits in the moon landing conspiracy. When my husband came home in the afternoon, I exclaimed to him that Neil Armstrong has come out supporting the conspiracy theory. When he got to his computer, looked in the news, opened up the article that I read it from, and asked me if that's where I read it from, I said yah. That had him fallen off his chair laughing at my gullibility. He said, "it's from The Onion!" And then, I realized I was duped. It's funny that normally he's the more gullible one, but this one I fell for it.

Judging by the user comments in those YouTube videos on moon landing conspiracy, I was not alone in getting duped. Quite alot of people thought they read the real article on Armstrong's change of heart. It's almost funny, but it also goes to show how easy something untrue can spread like wild fire on the web.

On men's business fashion...

I subscribe to Fortune. I like its in-depth coverage in business, and investigative journalistic pieces. But every time I get my copy in the mail, the first thing I check is the back page, for the Stanley Bing column. His columns provide much needed oft comic relief to an otherwise boring business world.

I get my September 14 copy of Fortune in the mail today. When I read Bing's column on The Elephants of Styles, I almost laughed out loud. It's not that the piece is supposed to bring hysterical laughter to readers, but there are things that are so to-the-point that I find it very amusing.

I'm not referring to the apt observation in the fashion sense brought to men by Sammy Davis Jr (whose big collars was such a signature) or Steve Jobs (who perfects the men-in-black casual look in formal occasions like delivering keynote speaker speech) or even Warren Buffet.

I'm referring to the 1980s investment-bank look of pinstripe, parsley suspender and bright yellow or red ties, pioneered by John T Molloy and Alan Flusser. The poster boy, of course, is Gordon Gekko from the movie Wall Street. The reason why I find it so amusing, is that, it so aptly reminds me of alot of the investment bankers at Lehman Brothers that I worked with briefly in the 1980s. Indeed, back then this was almost like school uniforms for those guys, almost to the point of laughable. I must admit, I like the style which has a very clean, neat look. But the invariability of it, that every guy turned it into a business men look or bankers look, is rather pathetic, I must say. To top it off, of course no investment bankers outfit would be complete without the accessories of a Mont Blanc pen, and an HP financial calculator (not the vertical ones, but the horizontal ones).

There was this guy named Simon who struck out, in particular. Back in Asia at Lehman those days, majority of the investment bankers are expat gwei-lo, with a few Asians (one Korean, one Philipino, a couple of Chinese). It's almost like an exclusive club for these few Asian guys, among the sea of white faces. This Simon is one of the Chinese, who wants to project himself "white." It's funny that most everyone (expat and non-expat alike) disliked him, even though he thought he's popular. It's true that most things about Simon were truly quite annoying, from the fake American accent, to the investment bankers uniform, everything to the t, down to the suspenders, made him one of the most faithful Gordon Gekko-uniform loyalists. There are cases when some of the bankers had such protuding love-handle in their mid-section, that made the suspenders serve some real, much-needed purpose. But for a slight, slim Asian guy like Simon. The only impression his suspenders projected is hideous, utter pretension.

That's why it makes this Bing's column so funny in a way, as it brings about such repressed, yet vivid memory of mine that I didn't realize I have harbored.

As to those guys who carry the day with their fashion sense, these men carry it off (and even get away with it) because they have such deep pockets that, I suspect, other men copy them just to emulate their I'm-rich-but-casual style. For Simon, it simply wouldn't do.