On the 20 things that go obsolete in the past decade...

Since it's the end of a decade, it's high time to look back on things, particularly those that might invoke nostalgia since they could be gone for good. I read an article earlier today which suggests 20 things that have become obsolete in this past decade. I thought it's pretty good reminder of what would be gone from the landscape. For my own benefits, here it is:

1. VCR and VHS tapes
2. Travel agents
3. The separation of work life and personal life
4. Forgetting (since the web records everything and forgets nothing)
5. Bookstores
6. Watches
7. Phone sex via 1-900 numbers
8. Maps
9. Calling
10. Classifieds in newspapers
11. Dial-up connections
12. Encyclopedias
13. CD's
14. Landline phones
15. Films and film cameras
16. Yellow pages and address books
17. Catalogs
18. Fax machines
19. Wires
20. Handwritten letters
    

Not that I agree with this list completely (for example, the "forgetting" part is arguable, as popular sites like GeoCities came and went, after Yahoo shutters it, so too are the lives and times recorded there), but it enumerates quite a number of things that have been in long, slow decline for quite some time now, including bookstores, encyclopedias, maps, and fax machines. Their functions will still be in high demands (eg. encyclopedias, newspaper classifieds, maps), it's just that it'll reincarnate in some other form (hello, wikipedia, craigslist, GPS and google maps). Do I really think they would do an equally good job? No. What we trade for some (eg. speed to search; available for search anywhere anytime, as long as you have a web connection), we lose on the others (eg. how body of knowledge is organized can be completely lost on the younger generation; the patience in doing basic research against the instant gratification of plagiarism). As imaging copies become legally accepted, fax machines will not be needed anymore (although in some countries like China, there's still a loooong way to go on this, but perhaps we can export all our fax machines to China!?! Just a thought...)

Perhaps alongside the disappearing of handwritten letters, one thing that is harder to pinpoint and quantify, is the disappearing language and communication skills of the younger generations. The instant gratifications of instant messaging and texting that encapsulates everything in 160 characters mean that the younger generations are increasingly incapable to express lengthier thoughts or even write proper sentence or essays. (Or, do they have the patience to write at all, given that even emails are too slow and cumbersome for them?)

Other skills like map-reading the use of a compass could also become a dying art, now that everyone relies so much on their GPS device to tell them where to go, reducing humans to a dummy.

Other things that should have made the list but are left out include:

• Newspapers in print (and how journalism on hard news might survive?)
• TV (Now that I watch everything on my computer, anytime anywhere, I don't need it anymore)
• Ethernet cables and connections (As wi-fi security gets beefed up, does anyone really need or want their ethernet connections?)
• Brick-and-mortar stores (Not that this will disappear altogether. Afterall, you can eat the binary 0's and 1's, and the web can't deliver real stuffs like food, but stuffs like clothing and increasingly, luxury goods like jewelry, can be ordered online and delivered to your doorstep. It'll put the standalone brick-and-mortar stores in constant peril.)
  

If we look at it, all the physical stuffs (like books, and everything in prints) are fast disappearing. Everything goes online. Afterall, I'm even writing my own journal online, so there goes. :) When I look back on my life and ask myself the question of whether my life has changed for the better (or worse) thanks to technology, I have to say, the positives outweigh the negatives. I'm sad to see things like bookstores and alot of brick-and-mortar stores closing (maybe due to the poor economy, but the proliferation of everything online has alot more to do with it); on the other hand, it's a good thing that alot of wastage can be avoided. Things like, stacks of big yellow pages books that come every year that rarely do anyone use them anyone uses them anymore, should have been gone for good a long time ago.

I can only hope, that in the next decade when the younger generations come of age, they would find some appreciation of things of old, so that technology could help preserve these arts, albeit in completely different formats.

And, we should bring back morse codes.

On the "Waity Katy" syndrome...

I read an article the other day on Sydney Morning Herald on the Waity Katy syndrome, and can't help smiling. Australians are obsessed about everything royal. Diana was a national obsession back then. Now they have their own fix, with the fairy tale Aussie commoner girl who is now princess of Denmark. Yes, she is quite stylish and all, but one must admit that there looks to be a tad bit lack of glamor in her otherwise classy style. (I know, I know, it must be a blasphemy to slight the Danish princess from Downunder; no matter.) But with the latest British royal news of engagement by Prince William and Kate Middleton, it's become fever pitch and the Brits are back in vogue again.

Whatever the republic agenda pushed by the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, Australia would always want to hold onto the English coattail. Sad, but true. If the Queen is smart, she would pass directly the throne to the more photogenic Will and Middleton, bypassing Charles and Bowles altogether. Not that it's fair to Charles. Afterall, even though I don't give a damn about the royals, I do think he does an ok job. Reality is, royal families survive and thrive on hopes and dreams (more fairy tales). That's something that Will can deliver, and Charles is sorely lacking. One can say, it's totally unfair to Charles, but nothing in life does anyways.

...Ah, I'm digressing again. Where was I?...

Ah yes, the "Waity Katy" syndrome. It's about the eight long years that Kate Middleton has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for Will to pop that question. Will he? Won't he? He loves me. He loves me not. You have to give it to Kate. When it comes to patience, nothing compares to the hopes and dreams of a girl to be a real princess. How cool is that...in name. Every girl has to curtsy to you, Your Highness this, Your Highness that. And, don't forget the castle and jewelry. One might say, Diana was that naive when she stepped in that shoe. Afterall, she was, what, 19 when all these started, and one year later, it's become her ticket to heaven and hell. Oh, but Katy is quite a different matter. She starts waiting from 20, and finally after 8 long years, she's finally getting the engagement, at 28. I don't mean to sound mean or cynical, but I'm not sure if love alone would survive that. I'm sorry to say, but I honestly don't believe it.

At least for Katy, she's betting that she's getting more out of the marriage, than if she doesn't. For the rest of the commoner girls, when their guys keep them hanging and guessing, should the girl wait, or just bail?

Personally, I think it comes down to what the girl wants most. Some girls don't want wedding, marriage, kids, attachment, commitment. That's all well and good. For these minority, I presume, it's no problem at all. In fact, she might even freak out if the guy pops the question.

And then, there are the rest of the majority who really wants to get marriage, the white-dress wedding, the big stone on the ring finger, have family and kids, and a backyard, and to take up husband's last name, what should they do? If I were a girl in this category, and if the guy hasn't proposed yet, chances are, he's not going to do it. Afterall, c'mon, if the girl has wanted all these formality, the guy could not have been so clueless that he doesn't know that's what she wants, after all the months and years together. But if her wants do not align with his, all the waiting is just one big losing proposition. The girl would be much better off bailing out from the relationship. Remember that movie Made of Honor? The movie is a nice eye-candy, but it's fairy tale. If you want Hollywood escape to some la-la land where rich, gorgeous guys are going to fall head over heels over you, and pop the question after 10 years, fine. In reality? It's not gonna happen.

Truth be told, I feel bad for Middleton, having every step of hers to be compared with Diana's. I don't know about you, but if I am to constantly be compared to my mother-in-law, from looks, to style, to works and achievement (if you can call it that), and perhaps, most sadly of all, fate and future, I would be extremely annoyed, to put it very mildly. Afterall, it does not matter how madly in love they seem to be now, or how gorgeous the wedding might look, everyone is expecting the same fate - a boring, unhappy marriage slowly and gradually descend to divorce - down the road. While I don't want to wish ill on anyone, royal or otherwise. The limelight can make such commoner's problems look even harsher.

On the illusion of universal health care, ObamaCare, and constitution...

Since the brouhaha of ObamaCare, the latest uproar is on the constitutionality of its health insurance mandate after the federal court in Virginia ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional for forcing citizens to buy health insurance coverage.

Ok, so there are two parts of the question. What the ObamaCare is trying to achieve, and how. The "what" part seems pretty obvious. The goal is to providing universal health care. Isn't that obvious, one would say. But you can't be too sure if you ask Obama what it truly means for universal health care.

Before answering that "what" question, one should perhaps look at what universal health care coverage means in other advanced countries, like Europe or Australia. Those countries, while spending less per person in medical care, truly covers everyone in country. And the government pays for it, by taxes, naturally.

Which, to the eyes of American, is a big no-no, to impose high taxes on everyone, but at the same time, truly covers everyone. To the conservative GOP, that would be close to blasphemy, a socialist welfare state. The idea of cradle-to-grave is a non-starter. That's exactly what federal programs like social security and medicare are like, but you will not hear any GOP pushing the scrapping of those programs. These days, that kind of entitlement mentality, that once it's there, it becomes one's birth right and cannot be taken away, is too dear to their heart to part with. So, never mind the fiscal conservatism.

As to the "how" part of the question, the Dem and Obama try to claim the mantle of providing universal health care in name, by expanding health care to more of the tens of millions of folks who don't have any coverage right now. That's the essence of the health insurance mandate in the ObamaCare. Since GOP would never agrees to the execution of universal health care the way that Europe and Australia does, namely, to have the central government pay for everyone's coverage by imposing high taxes, ObamaCare now mandates everyone to buy coverage themselves! Voilà, problem solved! Suddenly there'll be a thriving health insurance business. Everyone is paying for each other's health care needs. And the federal government doesn't need to do a thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for universal health care. Afterall, I find it most ridiculous for people to consider whether to accept a job not just based on whether the job itself, but if the employer provides health care. I would never dream of having to do that, not when I was in Australia or England, not even in Hong Kong, the most capitalist place in the world. Worse thing with this mandate is that, everyone is now being held hostage and beholden on the insurance industry to decide how much premium we have to pay. But the worst thing that Obama has done in this whole ObamaCare fiasco is that, he let the lobbyists and GOP delete the public health care option, which is arguably the thing that would more truly bring America closer to universal health care, as everyone in the world knows it.

But I have to say, you have to give it to the Americans, to have such faith in the legal system and the constitution, that everything and anything can be - and it seems like, it should be - settled in courts.

So it is then that the case is almost destined to go to Supreme Court, and more drama ensues. What will happen to the wobbly two-legged stool in the ObamaCare setup, when the federal government can't force the healthy ones to buy insurance coverage, so that the insurance industry will hopefully make enough money to care for the sick and the poor? That's anyone's guess, but my bet is, it's not going to hold up under scrutiny.

Everyone touts the avant garde law in Massachusetts in which ObamaCare is based on. But if you ask anyone in Massachusetts, you should not be surprised to find not much praise to that law, with the largest voice going to increasingly loud complaint of how much health care costs of private insurance is growing, year-on-year. Checks on premium growth are almost non-existent. If you ask me, I'd say, that idea is a disgrace. But Ted Kennedy would not be around to fix the mess he pushed on us.

2010: Taking stock, and looking ahead...

It's another interesting year. I always like to read my journal, from my year-end review the year before, and see how much has panned out according to plan, and how much is fluke.

It turns out things are going much as expected, both on the economy, personal lives, and things in general.

Hmm, what has happened this past year of 2010...

On the economy front, the US unemployment rate, though down from the scary 10% in 2009, is still stuck at a high 9.8%. There's much talk of the drag for the permanent long-term unemployed - yes, that's bleak prospect that was once only a fixture in the wealth states in Europe, but looks to be here to stay in US now. That's all the more reason why one should not swagger and boost about how there's new normal, and no one wants the Old Europe.

There's also much talk - ATNA, as in, all talk, no action - in Europe, about what to do with the deteriorating sovereign debts, spreading from Greece, to Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and now worryingly, to Belgium, now even France is in the talks of potential sovereign debt downgrades. I feel bad for them, but then, how would they govern a unified Euro, when they have one hand tied to their back? So, on the one hand, you have Germany who is an incredible disciplined people and who has no problem roaring back from recession. On the other hand, you have the rest of Europe who lives fast and loose on easy credit. There's all carrot, but the ultimate (and only) stick in the game, of allowing sovereign debt default, is guaranteed not to be happening. Then, you'll ask, what is there to stop these loosy-goosy countries from doing that again? Afterall, someone else is guaranteed to bail them out. Honestly, this unified Euro is a losing proposition from the start. But there's no plan for Europe to roll back to the pre-Euro world. There is no Plan B. Such a terrible bind.

For those who still have a job, 2010 doesn't feel so bad. The economy is slowly coming back. People are buying luxury goods again and their prices are roaring back, so you know they're having money to spare/spend again. If...and only if...China doesn't fall flat on its face in 2011, it should still be able to claim the world mantle for another year to be the last man standing in saving the hides of the rest of the developed world. Indeed, if you have a chance to go to China or Hong Kong, you can feel the giddiness in the air. And why not. Luxury shops like Louis Vuitton are crowded with almost 100% mainland Chinese tourists who roll their hand-carry suitcase to buy luxury and beauty care products, then resell in China. If you peek into these shops, you would never ever have imagined that China still has a large rural population that lives on less than a few thousand dollars a year. Hot money from mainland China dramatically pushes up prices all luxury properties in Hong Kong. In China, speculation in property, and increasingly in stock market, has become a popular spectator sport/pass-time for common folks. While all the talks in China are about chastening the West (most notably, US, of course) for fast and loose credits, China is literally doing the exact same thing, with huge stimulus to its local economy. China is in a different bind than Europe, but in a not dissimilar way. For all the noble intention of the central government to control inflation and speculation, and to tamper with social unrest, its main weapon is to prop up the economy. Chinese, much like Singaporeans, are like ants. As long as the society is peaceful and harmonious, they live in peace, with the hopes to prosper in life. The Chinese government cannot and will not allow the economy to go down, or property prices to decline, or stock markets to nose-dive. Much like Europe, there is no Plan B.

I feel sad every time I see an empty storefront when we go out. I've been seeing an increasing number of "For Lease" signs in our neighborhood, and we're supposed to be holding up quite well since the Great Recession took hold in 2008. Unfortunately, deep down, I know they are not going to come back. I'm particularly fond of book stores. But after Barnes & Noble, then Borders, closing the store near us, everyone knows they'll never come back again. You can say, I'm torn between their store closing, and what it means to the environment and green movement. Afterall, while I still treasure having a physical book in my hand - and the smell and feel that come with a book, even my own reading habits have been changing. I don't cherish the prospect of publishers and book stores having to produce stacks of books, then sell them, in order to make enough money to survive. Perhaps, the solution comes with e-readers like Kindle, Nook, and iPad. I have particularly strong feelings about this, because this past week, I've been doing house-cleaning, and there are tons of books (eg. children's books from my kids) that I have to either donate or sell. I never doubt the great impact of a physical children's book for my kids, but I don't like having to chop down all the trees to make these books that are destined to recycle bin. My own private solution to all these? I've stopped buying books for the kids. We spend hours at public library anyways, so I've resorted to making donations to public libraries, and let them buy the books instead, so that they can be shared among general public. It's a win-win.

As I was telling my kids, one such category that is particularly ripe for e-reader is the school textbooks. They are way over-priced. Every year, publishers or authors make slight modifications, put out an updated version, and all students have to throw out the older version to get new ones. It's all so ridiculous and incredibly wasteful. If they have it on e-reader, I would jump onto the bandwagon without second thoughts.

Speaking of textbooks, I'm quite happy that I'm almost done with my masters degree. (One last class to go, and I'm over it.) I don't know if I might do the unthinkable again, and take up a second job in the finance field, on top of my regular job in software, with the side venture in e-commerce, plus a bit of stock trading. I'm glad that my husband and kids are very supportive of that idea. But I'll just have to wait and see what happens in 2011.

Perhaps the not-so-good news this year has been my parents' health, which has been declining. They're in their 80's now afterall, so it's not a surprising development. I can only pray to God that, when my parents' time comes, it'll be peaceful and painless.

Kids are growing up fast too. The other day, I turn around at home, and there I see my son playing ball at home, and my daughter reading a book on the sofa. They look so big to me. They are among the many things that I'm so thankful for in life.

2011 should be looking up still. I just hope that China doesn't suffer hard landing in its economy, and at least there'll still be one leg standing in the three-legged stool of world economy. But I can only hope.

On the future of liberal arts departments in universities, et al...

Quite recently, there were a few articles and reports, all of which point to attempts to re-think the future of liberal arts like the future of department for French, and even the tenure of professors. The writing is all over the wall. That, in this season of budget squeeze and belt-tightening everywhere, schools can't afford to pay for everything. In short, something has to give. With its salary prospect being so much lower than practical subjects like Computer Science, and the ensuing dwindling student enrollment, liberal arts programs are the one of those whose existence is hardest to justify. The same goes with the rewriting of tenured professorship, which goes against the rationale of paying performance with rewards. Given a tenure at hand already, it's not hard to imagine how that would provide for a highly prized lifetime meal ticket that doesn't require much work for. For those of us who work in the private sectors when you have to work hard, year on year, just to stay in the game, the idea of a tenure is quite unjust and almost obscene.

To be honest, I never find the idea of tenure (be it professors or teachers) appetizing. Afterall, why is academia so different from the rest of the world anyways? Are these group of people really doing something so differently, and the work being so different, that they have to be treated on a completely different parallel universe? I don't think so.

On the other hand, just the idea of eliminating liberal arts program saddens me. It's true that salary and job prospects of straight liberal arts students have never been very good, never mind that it's much worse now, in this recession season. Over the lifetime of the students, that salary/job gap of liberal arts versus practical science majors grow ever more wider. But, does it really mean that we, as a society, can and should do without liberal arts, like history, language and art? I would consider it very, very short term vision, for anyone to even propose the idea that we can do without it. Afterall, that's part of our civilization, without the foundation of which, we will never grow, not to mention thrive.

Asians are mostly practical people. You would rarely find any college or university in Asia that stands out with its liberal arts faculty, like, say, what you would find in University of Chicago. Granted that Asia is on the up and up these days, and everyone raves about how many science graduates they're churning out every year from their universities, but I can tell you that, alot of Asians look to the west with admiration, in part because of the diversity in their programs that one can never find in any university in Asia. For anyone to even suggest that our universities should emulate what is practiced in the east, simply because their economy is on its upswing, just goes to show how short-sighted that statement is.

On the mainland Chinglish...

If you know proper Chinese and have even just casual command of English, you would find the ridiculous Chinglish amusing, even entertaining.

There is nothing to laugh about, if someone has no knowledge of it. One would think that, for public signs and displays, governments and companies should at least be a little bit more care in ensuring that nothing is lost (or added) in translation. The way it is now, is a public disgrace and really quite silly, particularly for an emerging world power like China.

On the right of the poor to live in expensive neighborhood...

I read alot of news everyday, and I usually save the links to jog down thoughts in my journal here when I get the chance to do so. Being quite busy as I am this month, I only get to do some writing on the Thanksgiving Day, when things are quiet. (And no, I'm not so keen in meeting my mother-in-law, who rebuffs me 14 years earlier without even knowing my name, and who disowns my husband for marrying. But that's a story for another day.)

A few weeks ago, I was reading BBC News, on the row over housing benefits that subsidize the poor to live in expensive neighborhood.

I'm always quite ambivalent about the subject. The housing benefits resemble the rent control in New York, which allows those with lesser means to live in NYC where rents can get astronomical. I can most certainly understand the noble cause behind it, although I can't say if the execution of it is as fair and just.

I grew up in Hong Kong. In a place as small and expensive (particularly in rents) as Hong Kong, when the juxtaposition of the very rich and the poor can be stark, there has never been much about that. Why? Because the colonial government (prior to the handover of sovereignty from British to China in 1997) has done a very good job in providing and maintaining very decent public housing for average joes and the poor. Unlike those in US, public housing estates in Hong Kong were and still are very decent, with reasonably low rents and good maintenance. There's no stigma for living in public housing. As a matter of fact, you would be considered lucky to get a public housing unit from application (with long waiting list) or lottery. The colonial government has also made a point of softly peddling segregation of the areas, so that the highly prized areas (that are considered rich neighborhoods), like the Peak and Mid-levels, or in the south side of the island, would not suddenly have a public housing project erected next to it. One could say that, the exclusivity of those areas is almost obscene; but the colonial government has done a good job in walking that fine line. While the public housing provides a stable, safe, and cheap environment for the lower middle class to thrive (and to strive for their upward mobility), it allows the price of the nice neighborhoods to maintain their prices and values. That works out quite well, and nobody ever complains.

But what came next, after the pre-1997 colonial government became the post-1997 puppet government for Beijing, things change. Granted that there were situations beyond anyone's control, namely, the 1997 financial meltdown that started from Asia, the subsequent handling of the acute housing needs by the first chief executive of the government, Tung Chee-Hwa, has generated so much angst and despise by general public, that he was nicknamed 85000, short for the huge number of public housing that he aimed to add to the market to placard public needs.

Why the despise and angst, you would ask? Afterall, it's a noble goal to provide for the average citizenry. Nobody would dispute the nobility of the goal, but the execution was horrible. The government, under Tung, picked the prized areas (eg. some of which have water views that everyone would die for) to build public housing projects. Surely, whoever gets the lottery to win one of the public housing units in these new projects are going to grin ear-to-ear. At the same time, it generates so much dismay to those who see the value of the once expensive neighborhood came down so much, not only from the financial meltdown, but also from the influx of cheap public housing that private citizens would pay millions of dollars to buy. General public was appalled as well, since they see the general property prices going down the tube. In the surreal Hong Kong where its economic well-being ties so much with property development, nothing good can become of it. The end result? Nobody was happy, except those few who got lucky to win a public housing unit.

Perhaps due to the observations over the years, and that noble goals don't always translate well into practice, I can't say I'm that hot on the idea of force-integration of mixing the very rich with the poor. Yes yes, I know it's politically incorrect to say, but I have to get that out of my chest, because it's true.

The way I see it, if the government has done a decent job in providing decent public housing and transportation for the public, there should not have been any stigma or trepidation in occupying a public housing unit. Afterall, my family lived in one when I was growing up, and we love it. The togetherness of the middle class families along the corridor, and the kids next door, was great. This is unlike the scare in even driving by public housing projects in US, when one would fear for one's own life, ranging from robbery, rape, and even drive-by shooting. To me, it's a disgrace for government to just erect public housing projects, without follow-up to ensure a safe neighborhood, that puts such a stigma on the idea of public housing. The essence of public housing is still as sound as ever.

So, you would ask, do I support housing subsidy in UK, or rent control in NYC, or forced mix income neighborhood in Boston? I can't say I do, albeit the noble goal. Such measures are not unlike the school vouchers in US. These are just the quick-fix that government opts out of fixing something that needs to be fixed. Instead of trying to fix public schools, they would give school vouchers and allow citizenry to opt of the poor public facilities (education or housing), and go for the private ones, at a substantial cost. To me, that's just wrong.

On another royal wedding, but no illustion of fairy tale...

It's long time coming, but finally there's a bit of cheery news from the British royal family. At long last, Prince William has announced engagement with his girlfriend.

Such a déjà vu, when the Prince Charles and Diana announced their engagement back in 1981. Such happy times, with a fresh-faced and innocently looking Diana and the young prince. But of course we know how it all ends now, almost voyeuristically like the reality TV show, with blow-by-blow updates carefully leaked by Diana and counter-leaked by the royal PR machinery. There was the alleged infidelity of Charles, more infidelity by Diana, allegations of royal mistreatment to Diana who is as blue-blooded as anyone can get. Perhaps, the finally straw to the royal family's tolerance of a daughter-in-law ran astray was when Diana announced that she's the Princess of the Hearts, advocating the throne to bypass Charles and go straight to her kiddie son, William. That all ended, when Diana died in a car crash with her Egyptian lover. More tabloid news pursued when the Egyptian father wouldn't let go of a conspiracy theory that the car crash was orchestrated by the royal machinery to shut Diana up for good.

Every family has dirty laundry. Oftentimes, it takes two to tango, with faults on both sides (Charles' and Diana's). I don't have much sympathy for Charles, but at least he's been almost faithful to his long-time love interest, Camilla Parker Bowles, whom he eventually marries. I lose count of how many lovers or love interests that Diana had. She probably thought that, by staying pretty, everyone would love her, no matter what, however many lovers she'd have. I don't have sympathy for Diana either.

Regardless, what is past, is past. One can only wish luck for the two young royal couple-to-be that, being not as young and naive as Diana had been, they won't repeat the exact same errors that William's parents made. But the uncanny resemblance of every steps that Prince William and Kate Middleton are going through now, in honor of the traditions that the royals at Windsor are so proud of, doesn't look very promising.

But one thing is for sure, no one has any illusion about fairy tales, that the handsome prince will sweep the maiden off of her feet, take her to the castle, and they live happily ever after. These days, not even a 5-year-old girl would buy those tales anymore.

On the loss of Obama message to voters, and upcoming mid-term election...

The mid-term election this year is next Tuesday, and Democrats are bracing themselves for heavy losses and loss of the Senate majority. It's all too easy to blame it as a communication problem, as Democrats and Obama cohorts alike have tried hard to tell voters that the pain that they are feeling shouldn't really be so bad. Obama kept throwing facts at voters, telling them that the help to Wall Street have really made (rather than lost) money. Obama even got on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to "connect" to the younger voters who are supposed to be his mainstay, insisting that the hopes and change that he ran his presidential campaign on were high bar, and that while he promised to deliver change, he didn't promise the change to be done in 18 months (his time in the White House so far). It sounds pathetic, reminding me of the I-smoke-but-I-didn't-inhale argument by Bill Clinton.

All of these have an ounce of truth in it. I don't understand why it's so hard for Obama and the Democrats to understand that it's not enough to just tell people that they are better off now, because statistics show the economy is on the mend. How can you explain that to someone who has lost their job and can't find another one in 2+ years, and still think that it's a communication problem? There is simply no argument, that people are worse off now than they were, when the recession started to take hold, starting Oct 2008?

There is also truth in the statement that most jobs that have gone overseas will never come back, as most people already know that already, as a result of globalization. It's an unfortunate chain of events that deliver this blunt fact to most people, when the economy went downhill and alot of good jobs were axed, all at once, which started with the subprime crisis in Oct 2008.

It's not a communication problem either, that Wall Street has bounced back readily and quickly, after Washington has tried every means to prop it up. Corporate earnings are rising. Stock markets are zigzagging back upward. Without Washington's help, both Wall Street and main street would have limped along together. Now, the Wall Street bunny has leaped forward, but the main street turtle is left crawling, one inch at a time. And that, is the perception that no spinning could have shaken it. In fact, that is the perceived injustice that makes people angry, even those like me who earn six-figures and have weathered this recession unscathed so far. Afterall, the taxpayers are the ones who pay those goddamn politicians in Washington, and who have picked up the tab in the Wall Street bailout. But the lower strata of taxpaying public is the one who are caught with their pants down, and who are blamed (rightly or wrongly) for spending beyond their means.

As for me, I feel angry too, mostly due to the ineptness and ineffectiveness of Washington, and that special interests and lobbyists still rule Washington. As an Independent, it doesn't really matter if Dem or GOP are in office, because the callousness and ineffectiveness are more or less the same, although GOP is arguably less appetizing for their relentless push for less regulations, which left Wall Street and big corporates like Big Oil, unchecked. So, I'm very ready to vote any independents who can offer an alternative to GOP or Dem.


PS: Sorry, no Tea Party, who are for headlines grabbers and illiterate, and who can't even hold a rational argument. I simply cannot stand irrationals, like Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell.

On the end of Sony Walkman...

I feel sad, when learning of Sony's decision to retire its Walkman. I haven't been a big fan of Walkman since I don't need my music to go where I go. (For much the same reason, I'm not a big fan of boombox either.) But Walkman associates with it some memories of mine that has come to pass.

When I left Lehman to go back to college more than two decades ago, my boss gave me a gift of a Sony Walkman. I had no idea what I would do with it, and he explained to me that I could record lectures and listen to them again, should the need arise. It had never occurred to me that I would not pay enough attention to the lectures that I would miss anything. In any case, a gift is a gift, and it's a thoughtful, no less.

I used my Walkman for a handful of times in college, all within the first month. I sat in the first rows, hoping that that reception for the recording would be good enough. It didn't. I would replay the lectures afterwards, just to hear how the sound quality of it. It turned out, the professors sounded like they were swimming under water while talking, and I could only hear less than 10% of what they said.

As the Walkman didn't do much to me, and the price of two AA batteries was too much for me (I had no rechargeable battery for it), plus the hassle of moving dormitory halls on campus more than four times in the school year and I wanted to shed as much luggage and possessions as I could, I sold it.

I miss it (for the memory), and I don't miss it (for its non-use). But everytime when Sony Walkman is mentioned, it brings me back that small piece of memory of college gift. It would still bring a smile to me.

On long hair and middle-aged women...

As I'm inching closer to middle age (!!!), I read, with interest, the New York Times article attending to rebut all criticisms about middled-aged women sporting long (grey hair). For the most obvious reasons, the author is a woman, aged 55, and in her prime middle age.

I can empathize with her passion and love of long hair. I had short hair when I was growing up, because it's too high maintenance, in my mom's taste. As a rebellion of sorts, and for my love of long hair, I sported long hair in my 20s. It's long as long as waist-length which could look unhealthy on the ends, but longer than chest-length. My hair has always been black and thick. I can't recall how much praise I got, when I let my hair down. People would say, my hair looks a black waterfall, shiny and sparkle in the sun. Another thing I should add is, perhaps due to my laziness, I don't like using conditioner, and I don't like combing or brushing my hair. After each washing, I just let it dry by itself; and when it's dried, it just flows. It's that easy.

It certainly sounds nostalgic, but I don't think I miss having to care for my long hair, albeit not having to take much care for my locks. I have to watch my earrings, in case the loops or backs get tangled with the hair. I remember some time back, I read an article (jokingly, perhaps), that bad guys like to nab girls and women in long hair, because the hair is easy to grab. But the real catalyst for the dramatic haircut (from chest-length to boy trim) is the first childbirth. To be sure, it's a difficult child birth; but mostly, it's the dramatic sweat during those 13 hours of hard laboring. I can still recall vividly the tremendous pain and the amount of sweat on me...and the long hair that was sticking to my face, my neck, and my back. I've told myself, I don't need the hair on my neck anymore.

I don't think I ever look back on my long hair. This is particularly so, since the grey hair starts coming out. It probably took me maybe 6 months or so to come to terms with having grey hair amidst my jet black hair. With the grey sprinkle now, it actually looks more natural to me. With a still young family and kids to take care of, I don't think I can afford the time to dye the hair, or worry about whether other men like the look on my head! And, hey, I'm married; so, I'm not bothered at all.

This is thus so, when I read that article, of this 55-year-old woman who's trying to justify the existence of the very long, very grey hair on her head, that I find it rather pathetic. I don't mean to sound judgmental. Afterall, it's anyone's choice to sport whatever hairdo. I just find it rather pathetic, that this woman is still holding onto her long hair. I don't doubt it that she probably has very pretty hair in her younger, and more glorious, days. (Afterall, I've been through that too.) But, c'mon, long hair in mid 50s??!!?? I don't think I can accept myself with that prospect. Plus, the fact that, I am yet to find and see a woman in her 50s and 60s with strong, grey hair, lovely enough to be long too. Maybe she still hopes to catch the fancy of some suitor. To me, it just sounds pathetic and hopeless (even the suitor part).

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

It reminds me of a friend of mine. Every so often, our circle of friends would gather together, to chit-chat and to have some funs, in our girls-night-out. Every one of us, single or married, has trimmed our hair short...all except one of them, who's now a mother of two. None of us in our close circle is judgmental enough to think that her long hair is unbecoming. Afterall, her hair is still rather thick and strong, with minimal grey hair to boot. Still, something just doesn't quite click. I've been reading the other day, and suddenly it came to me - she hasn't had a different look since she was probably 14. I was thinking to myself, boy, that's sad, for someone to be holding onto her look since her teens. Garnering praise and courtship when one is young is one thing, but attempts to hold onto those "glory days" when the time has passed is quite another. I'm quite happy to brush my daughter's hair and admire her very beautiful hair, which is so much like mine back then (except that hers is alot more chestnut brown than my jet black locks). It's high time to pass the banter to the younger girls to have their days in the sun. :)

On the distress of Democrats and the falling stars of Obama...

The mid-term election in November 2th is nigh, and the Democrats are in distress, and rightly so. Two years after all the hoopla of Change and Hope imbued with the Obama presidency, nobody is disillusioned anymore, except perhaps for the African-Americans who are still solidly behind Obama, which is more out of affinity of their very similar skin color than with the actual job performance from Obama.

New York Times call it The Education of a President. The Obama camp is still touting essentially the same lines and reasoning to appease those who are now pissed off at him. The wars were started by Bush. Economy is already crumbling down when he was sworn in. For the most parts, those are factual and true. The reasoning goes, if voters are now getting upset with Obama, it must be because they don't understand that his administration has already been doing things to make things better. So then, voters frustration (which very likely will eliminate the Democrat majority in the Senate after the November mid-term election) must be a communication problem, rather than a problem with Obama himself...per se.

One of the things that Obama and his camp don't seem to understand is that, voters know all these. It's not like they don't know that he has inherited a big mess when he won the presidency. I don't think anyone expects him to fix everything rightaway. But, boy, if he's still complaining he inherits all these problems two years after, making it an excuse for not being able to deliver the hopes and changes that he has promised, *that* is the main problem. If Obama can deliver in two years, he'll probably still be saying the same thing in another two years. Afterall, he's just buying time, hoping that the economy will right itself, so that he can ride the wave. In fact, that's exactly what his wife, Michelle, is doing, pleading voters to give her husband more time. How much time does he need, really? No one can say. Just keep the faith, and keep praying.

Granted that Obama has reversed course from the hardline attitude from the previous Bush administration, with the most noticeable turnaround being the willingness to re-regulation industries. The kind of wild, wild west mentality in which anyone goes, as the Bush administration will just let the industries do whatever they want, in the name of free market, is simply unacceptable. I'd give credits to Obama for achieving that. But I can't say much with the rest.

The health reform is more like reforms, for reform sake. It doesn't go far enough in achieving the universal healthcare that liberals have wanted (and which I would think it's a good thing too, even though I'm not a sworn Dem). There are many more areas that feel like an extension of the Bush doctrine (eg. Patriot Act), rather than a rebuttal of it. For all the hopes and changes and bipartisanship that Obama has sworn to push through, it's a huge letdown. If Obama attributes all those to just a communication problem, then he must be dreaming or smoking something.

For that, Obama has only himself to blame. He's the one who dug that hole for himself, creating this huge expectation, as if he's the second coming of the messiah. Or perhaps it's due to his total lack of experience and obliviousness, that it's only until now that he realizes that what he promises (for changing Washington) is all that easy or even doable. Back then, he said it's not a problem, that it's a good thing that he's a clean slate. For those who bought into his pipe-dream, they are perhaps just as naive and ignorant.

Hence, there won't be any use for Obama to go on the campaign trail, because everyone has deserted him, from the diehard Dems, to the liberals in general, to the independents, to the young college crowds. What is he going to pump them with? There's no more hope, no more change. Talk is cheap, but we don't see enough of the actions we want to see. In short, he talks the talk, but he can't walk the walk.

I'm seriously tempted to vote everything against the Dems, to show them my displeasure. But the Dems might be onto something, when they are reminding voters, that they are the lesser of two evils, when compared to the GOP (and certainly so, about the crazy folks from the Tea Party), which is certainly true. To be sure, I don't want to deliver any form of success to any of them, be it Dems, or GOP, or Tea Party. If there's any independents on the ballot that might look decent, I'll settle for that; if none, I don't think I'll go out to vote. Sad.

On whether women can have it all - babies and career...

It's an age-old question, which seems to ebb and flow through generations. The question is, of course, on whether women can have it all - babies and career. The feminist movement in the 1960s and 70s was perhaps most famous in liberating women from corsets, but it doesn't seem to have removed the self-doubt that most women still feel, as evident by the latest article that I read on the subject.

I feel quite strongly about it, because oftentimes, I feel that alot women unnecessarily subject themselves to the barrage of misinformation and opinions around them. Bit by bit, they take them in to their sub-conscience, about the idea that women should settle with a man, have babies at a certain age, have (or don't have) a career, etc etc.

Do we, as a collective female species, really feel such strong need to conform? And for those who defy the conventional wisdom of the bygone days, to go down the path in singleville, why is there often such regret?

Perhaps we should admit to it that by nature, most (but not all) of us female do feel the urge to have babies at some point. Surely, some women don't feel it, and that's perfectly ok. For those who would have otherwise chosen this path and have babies early, but have instead chosen to defer the decision, since the generations before us have fought so hard to liberate all females, so the argument goes, that one must take advantage of it, and make our stand. To have babies is almost like forfeiting a woman's rightful place in the career ladder. So, career now, babies later (or no baby at all).

Somehow, I never feel such a strong urge to make a stand. I didn't really feel the anxiety when I was approaching my own so-called used-by date at age 30. As the article has rightly pointed out, there will always be others around you, those who care for you, even, to project their own anxiety for and onto you, thinking that "omigod, you're almost 30; you should settle down and have a baby soon." I quite distinctly remember my own mother saying those words in not an uncertain way to me. Did I get bothered by it? Not really. I have made a decision to myself, that if I don't get married, I won't have babies. Period. You could say I'm old-fashioned; or however you want, but that's my position. So, if the Mr. Right doesn't come along, then there's life for me. I can accept that.

So then, it was toward my late 30s that my husband and I decided to either call it quit, and make our long-distance relationship real. We decided to give it a try. It's a big deal, but it's one that both parties have to come to the same understanding and be supportive to each other. I guess, it's at that point that one should realize it's no longer just a me-only decision in life anymore. Most, if not all, decisions will involve consultation, whether you like it or not. As a matter of fact, it was only a year or so ago, that I've decided to add my English name (that I've used for so long) onto my legal papers. But I found that I couldn't even do that, without the explicit consent and signature from my spouse. I thought to myself, what's up with that?!? But sometimes some things in life, that's what it takes.

We didn't actually have babies until some time later in marriage, that my husband dreams of babies. One time, he recalled a dream when he was holding a baby girl in his arms and he told me she was so cute. That's when we both knew we should give it a try. Like I said, I've always wanted babies; as a matter of fact, 4 would be a perfect number - 2 boys, 2 girls; so that neither the boys nor the girls will get lonely. My husband has noted that probabilities do not always work out exactly 50/50 in life. While I said it's "nice," it's never really a requirement for me.

After the birth of our second kid, we've decided that perhaps it would do for us. In a way, I know I would always have some regrets, for getting to that lucky number of 4, but so it should be.

All through these times, I've been working and never take any breaks from work (except maybe the couple of months of maternity leave). I've decided that I can't mentally handle being a stay-at-home mom. I know I got it easy, since my chosen profession, though male dominated, is very technical in nature. And surprisingly, the male dominated environment is full of new-age guys, alot of them around my age and have their own kids too, so that they fully understand how hard it is to be a mother, giving birth and all. There's never any question or concern at work about me bringing the baby to office, for as long as I can sort out daycare arrangements, or as long as my assigned tasks are all done, with no compromise in deadline or quality.

One could say, I got it easy, and I've got it all. I have my beautiful children; I get to keep my career; I can work from home to care for the kids; I can even squeeze time to work on my advanced degree for professional development.

Why am I saying all these? To all those female peers of mine, I can only say that, while it's alot of hard work, and it'll never be easy, but it can be done. Even if the others tell you that you can't have it all, it doesn't have to be so.

But, does it mean that you have to have it all, if you're more inclined to stay at home with your babies? To that, I'd say, why not? It's your decision, not Bill O'Reilly's or Jennifer Aniston's to make. But you have to will it to work.

~~~~~~~~~~

And then, there's the question of whether we need a man to have a baby, as the Aniston/O'Reilly spat so easily politicized. I'd say, O'Reilly is just a loud-mouthed jerk. I never paid any attention to what he says at any given time, who is always making big claims to get news headlines. But in this case, there's an ounce of truth in what he said. Can a woman make a baby all on her own? Scientifically, she can't, because she still needs a sperm; then again, neither can a guy alone (although they have much less inclination to want to have babies on their own). But when O'Reilly pointed this out in women's face, he's simply trying to put down the women, telling them how pathetic they are, for wanting a baby without getting a man. That reason alone is enough for me to despise him for a very, very long time.

Realistically, though, even if I can have a baby on my own (IVF or adoption), I'm not sure if I want to go through that. This has nothing to do with the need of a man or not, but it has to do with the support infrastructure that one can get. My immediate family, who are the ones I trust completely in this world, is not around me. Even as a professional woman with the wherewithal to get hired hands to take care of my babies, I don't think I'll take that as acceptable option. If I am to have babies, I have to get them my all. I cannot accept those women who would give birth to babies in a heartbeat, and not bothering taking good care of them. My husband shares the same view. So, between the two of us, we take care of our kids; not once did we ever use a babysitter or nanny. Again, one could say we get it easy, since we can both work from home. But like I said, when there is a will, there is a way.

~~~~~~~~~~

I should add one thing: I fully emphasize those who can't afford to it though, since alot of families (particularly women) who don't have the resources to even put food on the table.

Our family was poor when I was growing up. Like most strong Jewish or Italian mothers, my mom (Chinese) is very strong-willed, intelligent and shrewd in managing the household finance. She's the one whom I learn from, that I need to do long-term planning. Having babies is a life-long commitment. Without sufficient resources, my hands could be tied. I take her (and my dad's) work ethics to heart, and bought my own apartment for rental, two years out of college. That was a time when most of my classmates were still out partying after they got their first paychecks. My assets and investments continue to accumulate throughout these years, which allow me to not worry excessively about finance, although it's never too hard behind in my mind.

I must say too, that it's my mom who gave me this advice: Don't give up your career. One time, she told me, she would kill to have the kind of career opportunities that my sisters and I have. In her generations, women never have that kind of chances in career. As such, she has always been a stay-home mom. In a way, I know that's one of her regrets that she's hoping her daughters do not have to suffer. As we have got ahead in career, she can only advise me that, once I give it up, I might not be able to get it back, which is most certainly true, since that's exactly what happens to one of my sisters who used to be in management, yet is finding it so hard to get back into the profession after taking a break from work for some 6 years now, taking care of her children at home.

I've been ferociously accumulated assets and investments because I know one day I'll need them to sustain me. Although that day hasn't come yet, that kind of financial freedom is what eases my mind. That's what allows me to know that, even if it's busy and tough work, things can be done.

On the decline of children's picture books...

This often happens to me. I go about my daily life, I see/hear things, I observe and listen, when needed, I read up on the topic, and then I form my opinion. Oftentimes, this happens so subtly and I do it so swiftly and subconsciously that sometimes I don't notice it. These opinions often get formed in my head, and I kind of mentally file them away. Afterall, I'm not a columnist and commentator. I don't find the need to air out every single thought in my head, in twitter and some such, for example. That would be too crass. When need be, I'll speak.

So then, today I read this article in New York Times about the decline of children's picture books. Memories and emotions flood back to me, like the filing system inside my head is about to burst. That's in large part due to the many observations and own experience, in all these years while bringing up my kids, and books are an integral part of it. Life can be too busy for one to reflect on things. But this is one of those times.

I didn't read much at all when I was a kid. In those days, resources were simply too scarce. We didn't even get to go to public libraries which seemed like a luxury to us. All we read were textbooks, and we did well in schools. It's no surprise since, growing up in Asia, everything is about standardized tests since the feudal days in imperial China. The British colonial rule kept up with that system very well too. No one feels bad about not reading any other materials. If you do well in school, you're golden.

You won't know how I felt when I went to the public library the first time in my teens. The public library was obviously much bigger than our school library. I wandered from aisle to aisle, touching and smelling the books, picking them up at random, and reading them. I was lost in space and time. Since then, I've been going to the library on my own; and my friends would think that I've gone mental, for wanting to dig the books rather than watching TV or movies. Granted that I literally grew up with the TV, I've found a new friend in books. This might sound strange in US, but this was back then a few decades in Asia.

I still keep up that habit in reading on my own. I'm secretly wishing to make up for all the lost grounds. How I wish I have found the interests in books at a younger age. I have no doubts that I would have read much more interesting books. And I would learn to become a faster reader too. As it is now, I read surely, though rather slowly. I have my regrets.

My husband is a different animal. He's a prolific reader. He would finish a book in two days, that would have taken me more than a week. These days, in between the busy life, I can only find time to read maybe 2-3 books a month. I always secretly harbor the envy to those people who can keep at reading at least a book a week. That would have made me very happy, to cover all the books that I have wanted to read. For now, they would have to wait.

For the most obvious reasons then, I never have to chance to experience picture books as a child. Still, I enjoy them all the same. After my kids were born, we used to go to bookstores often, and we bought alot of picture books for the kids. I'd say, they enjoy them, particularly the classics like Goodnight Moon and Dr Seuss, but not the kind of head-over-heels type of ecstasy that I have expected from them. As a matter of fact, I think they love them, not only because of how interesting the book is, but mainly on the quality time that we read them together, as parents and children. I have no doubts about their usefulness, in easing the kids into lifelong reading habit, as my husband does, in seeking out books for both research, interests and comfort.

So, with the ever-increasing competition, both locally but in an ever-expanding globalized world. As the article has pointed out, parents are urging kids to skip over picture books, and jump right into chapter books at a younger and younger age. Can a 4-year-old truly enjoy Charlotte's Web or Stuart Little on their own? Honestly, I'd say, without the guidance and encouragement from an adult, they can't...not unless you have a child prodigy, I suppose. But you shouldn't be surprised to find that alot of parents consider their child to be a prodigy on some level. Afterall, if the parents can nudge them into reading the chapter books at 4-5 years old, that's quite something....right?

For me, I don't really nudge my kids, one way or the other. My husband, on the other hand, has quite strong views on what they should do at what age, guided by his own experience. Afterall, he starts learning his phonics when he was 3, and he starts reading Greek mythology when he's 5. I must admit, there're times when I'm ambivalent about pushing the kids to start at too young an age. I don't want to kill their natural curiosity.

Somehow, my husband proves to me that my ambivalence is misguided. Our kids can indeed master both phonics and the basic of mathematics around 3-4. Once they master the basics, my husband lets them choose. They would choose a topic of interests, and read up on the topics like crazy. My son would get to know everything about sharks, dinosaurs, soccer (his passion), and more. My daughter would find interests in arts and crafts, minerals, history, architecture, and more. It's quite amazing.

One thing that I've learnt from the kids and all these years is that, one should not look at the simple guidelines of whether there are pictures in the book or not. That rule is just too simplistic. There are indeed chapter books that cater for both, like the Geronimo Stilton series, and the Magic Tree House series, with text inter-parsed with illustrations.

My husband also grew up with comic books too. He loves Calvin and Hobbes, and Tin Tin. He's the one who introduces comic books to the kids. But they love it so much, and they've graduated to the Marvel series and others which are not always appropriate for their young age, given the amount of violence in it, to say the least. So, now, my husband is giving the kids marching orders to curb on the amount of time they spend on comic books.

But does all these mean that there's no place of picture books? I don't think so. There is a space and time in the kids' life for that. I don't think picture books and full-length text have to be mutually exclusive. If I were the parent who takes all the fun out of my kid's childhood, because I want him/her to get in Harvard, 18 years down the line, I think I'm doing them a disservice. Sure, Harvard is nice, and it's not that I don't want them to get the best. Somehow, there should be a balance.

On the importance of hard news, inflation, and the price that goes with it...

I was paying bills the other day while listening to live streaming from NPR public radio on my laptop. I was simultaneously reading news on both Wall Street Journal and New York Times.

Politico likes to pigeon voters into categories; and for good reasons (to them). It's easier to tabular and measure. It's easier to show results. And it's easier to grab news headlines and soundbites. But I don't think alot of people are that easily pigeon-holed. Take me, for example. While I'm liberal leaning on most social issues, I don't subscribe to alot of issues that AARP or NAACP champions. And while I'm fiscally conservative, I believe government has a strong role to play, particularly in proper regulations and their enforcement, and in providing basic infrastructure and framework for the society to function. So, I don't agree with the one-size-fits-all notion from GOP that government should shrink to a barebone minimal and that it should get out of our life. At the same time, GOP wants big government in military and defense. What gives, one would ask? To me, that kind of clear-cut, black-and-white GOP argument only befits a 7-year-old. In real life, things are always much, much more complicated than a one-line soundbite. And I strongly believe in kicking all lobbyists out of Washington, which I have no doubts none of the politicians would support the move (as their finance depends so heavily on lobbying groups).

Why am I saying all these, you'd ask? I read news from different sources because I want different perspectives, in order to make informed decisions and to form my opinion. I hardly read any of the blogs on the web, because I don't need yet more opinions from some talking heads like Huffington Post. What I need is the basic facts, and I make my own judgment, thank you very much. And then, I've suddenly come to realize that, without all the traditional news source, there is no more source for hard news. I realize that I'd probably be caught off guard, should any of these news organization cease to exist, the possibility of which can be quite real. Granted that Wall Street Journal is relatively safe under the Murdoch wing. Other news organizations like New York Times and Reuters have been struggling financially for quite some time, and it's likely to remain the same or even worsen in the years to come, given freeloaders like Google News who use the contents from someone else for free. Don't get me wrong, I read Google News quite often too, but I don't think it's fair to just use someone else's contents which can be so expensive to put together.

And so, as I was paying my bills, I realize that I've been a freeloader as well. Talking about casting the first stone on Google News. :P To talk the talk and walk the walk, I put in the subscription for Wall Street Journal and New York Times right there and then. WBUR is running fund-raising as well, so I call in to make a donation in the amount of the subscriptions to the other newspapers. And suddenly, I feel better about myself. :)

For everything in life, it comes with a price. The price of hard news, which I value so much, is high. I don't think I can afford not to have hard news on any given day. I should do my part.

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

Speaking of price to pay, my thoughts circle back to the low inflation that we've come to enjoy for so long (what, more than a decade now?). In fact, I don't think prices in supermarket have really gone up much at all for the past ten years. Sure, I enjoy the low, steady prices when I go grocery-shopping. Who won't be?

The other day, I bought a pack of 3 frozen white fish fillet from a Chinese supermarket for less than 5 bucks. It's awesome, because it's so cheap and it's pretty tasty too. And then, I read the article on the appalling conditions on some catfish farm in countries like Vietnam where the fish are kept in rolling on filthy waters and can still thrive, given the excessive amount of steroids inserted in their bodies. They grow fast and big, without need of much attention. While I think the article might have focused excessively on the negative side of things, it has answered some of the nagging questions at the back of my mind for a very long time. How can prices be so cheap on food, year on year, for so long? Granted that technology has improved alot, raw materials don't. It just doesn't sit right to me, that we can sit at the table, and have everything we want. Somehow, something's gotta give. That "something," is the steroid and mercury level in these fish. They are cheap, tasty, but they can do harm to your body too. I've since decided that I'm not buying those fish fillets anymore.

The same goes with the "everyday low price" at Walmart. I was watching the 2005 documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price the other day. I find myself agreeing with the observations of my own, of how small communities who can't compete on the low prices alone get crushed by Wal-mart, and how important it is to buy local and to support local community and economy.

While I emphasize deeply with those who need to save a penny, I don't normally buy at the cheapest source I can find. (I've only been to a Wal-mart a few times in my life.) For small communities, in particular, it's a vicious cycle to have Wal-mart moves in, crushes all local stores, then everyone in town would have no choice but to seek employment with Wal-mart who doesn't care about living wage or decent benefits to its employees. These folks would then become beholden even more by the low prices that Wal-mart feeds them. For as long as I can afford, I don't want to be in that situation, when I would become beholden on a behemoth like that.

The price of low-price is simply too high to me.

On cold symptoms, immune system, and other thoughts...

I was reading the article in New York Times about how studies confirm the sometimes counter-intuitive perception that cold symptoms don't make us sick. Somehow, I don't find it that hard to believe. While cold symptoms are unpleasant, what with all the running nose and sore throat, but your body almost always wins in the end. And you won't get sick for quite some time, since your body has produced antibody to last you for quite some time.

But there's more. The finding indicates that, since it's good to let your body fight the good fight (and win in the end), it's a bad thing to take all those herbal supplements and vitamins to try to protect your body from coming down with colds. This one might be harder to believe, but somehow, I buy that too.

I remember when I was going up, my mother used to tell us this: If you have a temperature (low grade fever), that's ok; because you're going to grow an inch or two after that. Her saying has stuck with me for a very long time, and I truly believed it. My secret wish to get sick (and have a fever) is solely cosmetic. I was rather skinny and slim-built when I was growing up, and I've always, always wished that I could grow taller. The myth that my mother told me somehow gave me this hope that I could perhaps get another inch or two, should I get sick more often. I know it sounds rather perverse, and the logic is all backwards; but don't argue that with a 7-year-old.

And there's more: If I get sick, mom would let me stay home, in bed all day, and do nothing but drink soup, or have congee, or rice noodle in soup. I'm born a soup/congee/noodle person, and that means heaven to me, no matter that I might be suffering from unpleasant symptoms. I didn't consider those things, because in my mind, the goods outweigh the bads. So, that's that.

But I never really get my wish fulfilled. You'd think it's relatively easy to come true, coming down with colds every darn winter. That might well be true in these days. But back then, this was not so for me. From when I was born, until I'm well into my early adulthood, I hardly get sick. For as far as my memory can serve me, I can only remember myself coming down with slight temperature twice. Both times, I got my wish and my fill of soup/congee/noodle; although the grow-a-few-inch part never materialized. (I would have to wait until puberty before I get my growth spurt.)

Resources were very limited back then, and we never have all the seemingly modern-day luxury like annual checkup, or going to see the doctor when you're sick, which has now become national obsession in this country, given all the debates for healthcare reform. Being old-fashioned mother as she is, mom somehow did all the right things. Let your body fight the fight. Eat well, sleep well. Balance diet. Exercise, and playing. Back then, if someone is reeeally sick (diarrhea was probably the worse that I can recall) , you get over-the-counter medicine. Believe it or not, they still work their wonders for me these days.

But you know, I know deep down there's something more than just doing the right things by my mom that kept us healthy. I know it has to be something more. Even these days, when my kids might come down sick, contagious with all the cold or flu symptoms or all sorts of virus, I somehow almost always am the last one standing (since my husband almost always gets infected too). In the household, we do all the routines together. In fact, my kids are much more active in outdoor activities than I am now. My husband does his exercise frequently too. So, I know it has to be something else.

And then, I remember the food that my mom made.

We didn't have alot of money back then. Mom is a stay-home mother, and dad is forever working long hours to get enough money to feed the family. So, mom watches the household finance extremely carefully, and we're reeeeeally frugal. (Oh, you'd think getting food stamps, or soup kitchen, or not having Christmas presents is frugal? Those are luxuries, because there's still someone lending a helping hand - be it the government, or charitable organizations.) When we were young, there was no such thing as eating-out. You watch every penny. You don't have any - and I mean, any - money to buy anything extra, other than food or pay the rent. We didn't have a TV until I was 12.

You might think, gosh, I feel bad for you. Or, I'm really sorry to hear the tight situation in the household. But don't be. That's because we never felt poor. Mom did a tremendously marvelous job in keeping the household going. With the very little money, she would get sometimes cast-out food from the fresh food market, like tomatoes or oranges or fruits that people throw out by the hawkers because they are 1/3 or half rotten. She's an expert in cutting out the rotten parts, and we eat only the good parts. For that, we have fresh food in every meal, and fruits everyday. She would cook our meals fresh, everyday. She would walk us to school. She would make sure everything in the household is clean. In our spare times, we would make up our own games and play. Or, I would draw pictures. I like drawing pictures.

I'm not an anomaly in my family, because my parents and my siblings rarely get sick either. As I get older, I'm beginning to attribute the good health that my mom imbues in us, through those rotten food that she bought. I would get much stronger stomach than my husband or kids because I can take almost any kind of food, even those not in the best condition. In the back of my mind, I've also believed that, being exposed in a controlled dose of bad stuffs (eg. virus) can somehow make you stronger. This was way before I come to realize how alot of vaccines are made, which are essentially dead or even live virus in low dosage. Somehow, we have to learn let your body how to fight a fight. To a certain extent, the study in this article confirms that belief of mine.

But I know, if I am to tell people, try to get rotten food, trim the bad parts, and eat them, it's going to major heresy. No one in the modern days is going to take me seriously on that. Afterall, there's always modern medicine to help you when you get sick. And good food is aplenty. No one is going to go out and seek out rotten food in supermarkets, not even those on food stamps who complain that they don't have money to buy food. In a rich, developed country like this, no one would accept that as modus operandi. I guess, if I were to have the seriously limited resources like my parents have had back then, I would have adopted those practices without second thoughts. But if one has money in the pocket, it's hard to suggest them (me included) to go get rotten food.

On sex survey and the reality...

Yes, it's one of those times when people publish survey results about sex, this time it's about contemporary sexual behavior. I don't normally pay much attention to this kind of results, since they are mostly just silly, and nothing much. This latest one claims to find interesting shifts in contemporary Americans, after a survey of 6000 adults. (Although, no doubt, the margin of errors must be huge, given a small sample size of 6000 adults, with no inkling on how they are selected and other details like demographics. So, it's likely that it's just one of those surveys that make big claims and nothing else.)

So, this survey says it found "surprising" results about the high number of masturbation, among men, even after they're in their adulthood. I don't know who in their right mind should be surprised by that. Do other women really get offended when they find their husbands/boyfriends masturbate, even though they have an active sex life? Well, I just know that I don't.

And then there's this finding that women are faking their orgasm more often than men. The study's conclusion is that, there needs to be more communication to overcome this perceived "problem." I don't know about you, but I don't see how letting my husband know that I almost never get an orgasm in sex is going to help. It's the famous "it's not you, it's all in me" type of thing. If I can't get orgasm from normal intercourse with my partner, how is it going to help by telling him every time that he fails, when he has tried so hard to please me?

Oh, and then there's the masturbation about women, which the study breezes over without touching on much. But I can tell the surveyor that at least I can get an orgasm much easier by masturbation than by normal intercourse. And when I'm by myself, I don't have to fake it to please anyone. If I don't get it, I don't get it. That in itself is liberating.

And then, there's the surprise about condom use. Perhaps my husband is one of those new age guy, condom use is never even a question. It's one of those things that we need to use. Period. I would think, too, that we're not an anomaly in that. Many modern couples would use condom, if they have a little bit of commonsense.

Last but not least, is the subject on anal sex. The study finds it more widely practiced in bedrooms, than was previously thought. If we correlate this finding with the other result, that women fake their orgasm more often, I would imagine the sex life is getting even more torturous and painful for women than one would imagine. But would anyone be surprised that women have to fake orgasm if they're practicing anal sex more often? I don't know about you, but I can't stand anal sex. Let's be honest with ourselves, that guys do like to come from behind sometimes. Way back when, we gave anal sex a try, but it's so painful that I almost literally jumped right out of our bed. We figure out a compromise. He can come from behind, but it has to go through the normal intercourse's channel.

From what I see it, these kind of sex surveys don't do much, except garnering some attention in women/girls' magazine, in sex revelation...which is to say, it's like gazing crystal ball to see your future (more myth than reality).

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

Talks on sex are never a question or topic in traditional Asian families. I remember my mother never feels comfortable touching on anything related to sex when I was growing up. It's only after I got married, that she probably thinks I'm old enough now, that she can even bring herself to dance on this subject.

About the only time(s) that my mother talks about it, was how some husbands would demand it (ie. sex) so often that it can become a torture. The Chinese word she uses to describe it was synonymous to jumping on you, or crawling all over, and some such, none of which evokes anything pleasant. I guess it's like a duty or chore for wives, even to this day.

This is not to say that sex can be such torture. My husband is a gentle person in the bedroom, even to the point of respectful gentleman, and he won't do anything that doesn't please me. It can be fun at times. But I can empathize those women whose husbands are anything less than that.

On cyber bullying and cluelessness of the young...

I read, with disgust, the Rutger student who committed suicide by jumping to his death due to his roommate's streaming his making out with another guy. The extent of vulgarity and cluelessness of this roommate is beyond belief. Afterall, they are not 5-year-olds, but 18. One would expect them to have learnt a bit of civility and respect to another human being. And for his friend's coming to his rescue, claiming that this roommate is just being "open-minded" in exposing someone else, be it a gay or a girl, is no excuse at all at the extent of his crime. Why is it that the teens and younger generations these days think it's so cool to expose someone else, and that spying on someone else is no big deal? The extent of cluelessness is astounding. I hope this roommate, and the female accomplice who helps him along, will do jail time.

Has writing become a dying art form?

The other day, I read an article on Sydney Morning Herald, about a million-dollar pen in pen-and-stationery stop in Sydney. I was interested, not of how much a pen can get - or even the question of whether anyone would care to put up that kind of money for a pen - but how writing has become so vintage that this store has become part of this cottage industry and niche.

In a way, I'm saddened by it. I like pens and stationery. I like reading. This is despite the fact that my writing is quite terrible, and I'm no calligrapher at all. As a matter of fact, I hardly need to write for a very long time now, since I work exclusively with just my laptop. I haven't even needed to use my printer either, so there goes anything that's remotely related to papers.

All these are well and good, very environmental-friendly. I'm sure I've helped saved alot of trees due to that, plus it frees up so much space at home (since I telecommute). Recently, I applied for another mortgage, and I was able to use all soft-copy of documents exclusively. All 2Gb worth of documents, which would otherwise have required reams of papers, ink and printing, they are now all on a tiny thumb drive that I can put away in my safebox. Isn't that sweet?

Having said all that, I still miss my pens. I have some really nice pens, some of them I used to use very often, including a Mont Blanc and a Parker that I used in my college days. You have no idea how much I long to use them again. I have tried to put them on my desk, so that I can get to use them, should the chance allow it. But they only get to gather dust, and I have to put them away in the drawer. The word vintage quite nicely describes the fond memory that good pens, but an old, broken-down leather bag, is valuable and, as such, should be treasured.

My only hope is, I might still get to use it from time to time. Hence, they are still in my drawer, rather than in my safebox. If that should become reality one day, I would be very sad. :)

From horror show on runway to wearable fashion on streets...

Since flying back from the summer trip to Asia, I've been so busy catching up on everything, including kids starting school, work and all, I can barely find time to even think of my journal, even though I have so much on my mind that I wish I could just do a brain-dump of them all.

So, these past few days, I read a few fashion-related articles, which have addressed some of my long-standing questions or feelings in general, one way or another.

One of the article is on a fashion column whose columnist obviously glows over Vera Wang, in particular, her latest runway show and collection, with pictures of a couple of runway clothes to boot. Not that I think Vera Wang's designs are all bad. Quite far from it, I see designs from her, from time to time, which looks very cute and pretty. But, by jove, how big a disconnect between fashion columnists (and their big opinions), and their readers; likewise to a fashion industry's near-obsession to use models that can only be described as death becomes her, and the loud, larger-than-life clothing that is totally unwearable, and the market audience's loathe of it. The article best illustrates these disconnects, particularly in the near-universal refute of how horrid-looking the clothing and models are, as expressed by almost all the readers' comments to the article.

So, there goes one of those things that has stayed at the back of my mind, and now I know I'm not alone in seeing how hateful the audience feels, towards all these supposedly contributions from the fashion industry.

But then, how does it justify the fashion industry going so strong, year after year, with runway shows still a yearly mainstay?

The second mystery was quite neatly addressed by another article I read, which illustrates how a seemingly outrageous runway design of a Donna Karan shirt is transformed from runway to become store-salable merchandise for everyday women. It's indeed a quite fascinating read for me, since I'm not in the industry, and obviously have no inkling of what goes on behind the scene to try to relate the runway to our fashion on sidewalk. For that, it shows how extravagant or exaggerating details of the runway design are trimmed, modified, eliminated or replaced, in order to make it a wearable clothing for an average woman.

All those are good to know for me, because I've come to loathe this whole fashion industry which is nothing but narcissistic to me. I've come to wonder how many designers it would take to translate those outrageous clothings from the likes of Marc Jacob or Jean-Paul Gaultier, into something that we can wear. But what more curiously is, at which point has this whole fashion industry moved out of steps from the classic designs of Chanel, in which every woman would dream of having "that exact same dress on the runway," into something on the runway in which we can really relate to? At what point has these runway fashion shows become just a show?

New money in China, and its effect overseas...

I haven't been writing in my journal for a couple of months now, mostly because our family has taken a couple of months to travel to Asia during the summer. Between kids' activities, gatherings with friends, work and family engagements, there isn't much time left for anything else. Now that the summer vacation is winding down, it might be a good time to jog down some thoughts:

1. One would think that, since I grew up in Hong Kong, I should be accustomed to its heat and humidity. I'm still amazed by how much it gets to me, every time I travel back to my hometown. The constant sweating and stickiness can be quite unpleasant. It's no wonder why everyone (no exception) seeks out A/C treatment, even for however brief a moment. We're never big on A/C, but I'm almost saddened, to have to say that we can't sleep without the A/C on. How ironic it is, for a city that is actively promoting going green.
   
   
2. On going green, Hong Kong has come a long way. But whatever it is, the most powerful behavior changer is always with money. These days, with all supermarkets and convenience stores charging an extra HK$0.50 for a plastic bag, almost everyone brings their own shopping bag. While HK$0.50 might not be much, it can quickly add up, with multiple trips to grocers. I'm impressed by how pervasive the behavior has changed among all walks of life, judging by BYOB ("bring your own bag") is practiced by most everyone, including the very old. When I was going up, my mom used to use her own wicker basket to buy grocery in the wet market. I'm glad that people are reverting to the old tradition.
   
   The success of other green measures though, is less than stellar. One of which is the half-hearted measure of recycle bins. There are groups of recycle bins for metal, plastic, papers, but alas - no glass! They are strategically placed at busy intersections in busy residential areas (but almost none to be found at commercial districts like Central). Very, very rarely would you see any overflowing recycle bins, most likely because you can still easily see the recyclables like plastic bottles and cans being dumped as trash. By jove, in our condo building in US, the recycle bins 50% bigger than the ones used in Hong Kong would have been filled up within two days after they are cleared. I'd say, if the Hong Kong government has really wanted to increase the level of recycling, they can easily have put out coin machine where each can or plastic or glass bottle is reimbursed by just HK$0.50 or even HK$0.10. I can bet ya, it'll overwhelm the system with recyclables within days.
   
   
3. Hong Kong is forever changing, sometimes to my dismay. There seems to be less and less interest among the locals to value history, like old style restaurants or historic buildings. In the past, Hong Kong government has made it more of a point to promote its history (eg. floating an old-style fishing boat in Victoria Harbor that signifies the fishing root of Hong Kong more than a century ago). That's because western tourists appreciate its uniqueness. These days, with an overwhelming majority of tourists in Hong Kong coming from mainland China, no one seems to care. (Afterall, mainland China has been busy shedding its own history, racing to pull down historic districts, replacing them with skyscrappers.) One time, when I was walking into this really old teahouse style of restaurant in Central, I overhead a few mainland Chinese tourists thrashing this restaurant, saying that they have "lots of these" dingy restaurants in their hometown in China. When they come to Hong Kong, they want to see new things, buy new clothes and jewelry. They have no interests, whatsoever, in seeking out the history of Hong Kong which makes it so unique. That makes me both angry and sad, all at once.
   
   
4. Which brings my thought to the new wealth from those mainland Chinese, alot of them tourists, but with an increasing number of them coming to Hong Kong just to shop, invest, and move/park their monies. For this, you would have to be physically in Hong Kong to truly experience these new wealth coming from China. In the olden days, you would identify mainland Chinese by how backward-looking they dress. These days, you can quite easily pick out those who are from China by how they look too, but now, it's those who go shopping with their luggage (on trolley wheels), and by counting all the incredibly expensive brands that you can't possibly imagine, all on a single body, from eyeglasses, to earrings, to necklace, watches, rings and bracelets, clothes, handbags, and shoes, most of which in very loud colors. The kind of gawdiness can blind you instantly. The ones that tops it all, were one young couple (in late teens to their early 20s) I saw on a bus on the Hong Kong island. The boy dressed in the most asexual way, with full collections in Prada and Louis Vuitton. The girl dressed likewise, but with a blinding diamond necklace and bracelet that would make evening gown look dim. To top it all, he was picking her ears...publicly on a double-decker bus.
   
   
5. And yes, that brings me to another thought, of how uncivilized the mainland Chinese can behave. Apart from the ear-picking episode on bus, I've also seen another young couple scratching and picking each other's feet while waiting for a cross-harbor ferry. Even my youong kids are flabbergasted when they see it; how can it be that these young adults can be so oblivious of how terrible that looks in public? Do they do the same in China too???
   
   
6. The other thing that you won't believe it, is the amount of wealth that these mainland Chinese bring to Hong Kong (for shopping and investment). It's not uncommon to see outrageously priced luxury condo being bought by mainland Chinese, or the jewelry and skin care products...all in cash. One time, I was in this watch shop in Causeway Bay browsing. The sales assistant in the shop was trying to entertain a small group of unruly mainland Chinese. They were asking "which are the most expensive watches?" to which the shopkeeper points out the Vacheron Constantin to them. These mainland Chinese men were suitably impressed by the price tags (upward of HK$200k), but one of them thrashing them, saying"Cons-si-what?" in Chinese.
   
   
7. One has to ask, where does all these wealth come from? One would not imagine that they come from the monthly savings from salary of regular workers. The consensus answer comes from government stimulus. When the government turns on the spigot, monies flow left, right, and center, to officials and those businessmen who pay to get results from these officials. Everyone worries about the possibilitiy of collapse of this not-so-invisible bubble in China, even the thought of a slowdown sends shudder around the world now.
   
   While there's no doubt about the red-hotness in the Chinese economy, one has to wonder, how real is the statistics put out by government. How much of those 8-9% GDP growth have ended up in private pockets, rather than going towards public good, like the social safety net for healthcare?
   
   
8. Beneath the almighty China lies the small but dynamic Hong Kong which is famous for reinventing itself. I've slowly come to the realization that Hong Kong is losing its own uniqueness, while trying to mimic itself as another Chinese city like Shanghai or Beijing. With its gradual loss of grip in manufacturing and potential financial sector, would it one day have lost its way in reinventing itself with a new sector? Its education system has been on shaky grounds since its handover back to China in 1997, with shifting focus from English to Mandarin, then to dual language, then back to try to hold onto English, with a lost generation of teachers having the capability to teach English. The mass production of graduates from the many universities (promoted from little more than community colleges or technical institutes) with depreciating level of competitiveness, offers little comfort. To be sure, I emphasize with the younger generations these days, whose starting salary of graduates is on par with my starting salary 20 years ago. How they survive, with higher inflation and cost of living, is quite beyond my imagination.
   

Next week, we're going to take a trip to China to see how it looks there. It'll be interesting to see how things are like on the other side of the fence....