I am a rather impatient person. I don't think it's gotten any better even as I get older. It's just too bad, I guess. I feel like, I have a finite amount of time, and I have a lot of things I need/want to do. If I don't hurry, I'll never get them done or they'll be left unfinished. My friends and family have increasingly often made comments to me, that I'm talking very fast, or walking very fast, or even eating quite fast, and they would ask me "do you need to go somewhere?" or "are you in a hurry?" Interestingly, during those times when I'm prompted, I find that I wasn't in need to go anywhere or do anything. It's simply become a habit of mine. I'm a fast girl.
One thing I have to consciously slow myself is, when I'm driving. I don't want to speed. More importantly, speed driving can kill, and I don't want to kill anyone, myself included. I abide by the rules on the road. But, I can get mad when I'm stuck behind a slow driver; obviously more so when I'm in a real hurry. Usually, when I find that it's a senior driving, I'll shake my head, overtake the car, and move on. Afterall, seniors can't help it; they probably want to drive fast, but driving at that slow speed is probably the best they can manage. That, I understand. But I cannot forgive young drivers who are reckless and/or clueless and/or slow. There is simply no excuse. If they cannot drive by the rules on the road, they have no place driving; in fact, they probably shouldn't even have gotten the driving license in the first place. Whenever I run into one of these, I would mutter some muffled curse (because my kids are still a bit young for that), or at times, honk.
The same goes with walking. But I don't get that kind of rage when slow walkers are in front of you. Afterall, it's much easier to weave yourself and overtake them, than to waste my precious breath cursing them.
But I'm quite sure, should I be put under examination, I might be categorized as some clinical case of road rage. Afterall, Americans seem to have a clinical term for every phenomenon under the sun, or moon, or anywhere in between. I'm particularly bemused by the Wall Street Journal article today on sidewalk rage. Why am I bemused, you would ask. If you read the article, you would quickly notice that every single "diagnosis" or "strategy" noted is simply common sense. What to do with sidewalk rage? Calm down, of course! Yah, right. Those are advices from my kids when I got upset while driving due to some slow, silly driver blocking me. They would ask me, "mommy, calm down; it's alright." And they were only 4 and 5 then. One has to ask then, of how better all these researchers and scientists can do, than to dough out advice that my 4-year-old knows already? I would have to see it to believe it, but if this article shows us anything, it is that all these scientists and doctors are just bidding their time. They would have much better served the society by researching on something much more useful than describing how I feel while walking fast, and to tell me to "take a deep breath."
Or perhaps, the best they have done so far is to con another phrase - sidewalk rage - and get it clinically "proven" in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, then everyone gets funding and reimbursement. But if you were to ask my humble opinion, I'd say, it's a disgrace.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
On the allure (or not so much) of mega cruise...
With some interests, I read the New York Times article on mega cruise ship.
Going on cruise has never been my kind of thing. I'm not sure if I can stand being bound on a ship for a period of time, however finite it might be. Perhaps I'm too high-strung in work that I don't normally take a step back and relax, in a more conventional sense. One time, the kids and I went to Florida with my husband when he's attending a trade show. While he's away at the exhibition center, the kids and I were relaxing in the swimming pool at the hotel, then stroll down to the long stretch of beach to enjoy the sun, water, and blue sky. Nothing can be more picture-perfect than that. But while I was watching the kids by the pool side while they're having fun, I was suddenly overwhelmed by a sense of boredom. Right there and then, I realize I'm born a working woman, and I most likely won't enjoy a conventional retirement. In fact, I probably work till I drop. No doubt some people would consider that a curse, that's not the case for me because I enjoy it.
A few months ago, my brother and sister-in-law announce that they're going on a world-wide cruise lasting for the next five months. I'm sure they go on the world-wide cruise because they enjoy it. For most Chinese (like my parents), it's the all-you-can-eat free food that appeals them. While I enjoy food, I'm not one of those who eat too much anyways; hence, this appeal is moot to me. These days, there are tons of activities on cruise to distract and engage. But as my husband aptly puts it, we can as easily have those activities, without paying tens of thousands (in the case of wordwide cruise, hundreds of thousands) of dollars, just so that we can do it on a ship, as if we're on land. It doesn't make sense to us.
And so, I read the article on mega cruise with interest, not only because it's well written, but it also covers what the biggest cruise might be like these days. I must say, it only reconfirms my belief of how illusional it all is. For all that it claims, the bigger the cruise ship is, the more it masks the fact that passengers are at sea because they are offered the illusion of all the land-based activities. So then, one would ask, why getting on a ship? Maybe, as one Chinese acquaintance has once put it, it's the appeal of this kind of handicap cruise, ie. that you don't have to think or do anything, that all there is to do is to eat, sleep, and seek pleasure.
One thing I do find in the article that is interesting to me, is her reference to the smaller cruise yonder - "cozy dinners with the ship’s officers, quiet afternoon teas and thoughtful lectures by foreign correspondents" - which holds certain appeal to me. I always like a certain explorative and adventurous side of things, that I can get to learn and enrich myself in any way, and not just eat, sleep and play. Sure, one would say, there are tons of classes in bigger cruise. But mega cruise would never afford the kind of coziness and closeness that smaller cruise or tour can afford.
Perhaps, just perhaps, one day I might consider small cruise. But mega cruise, definitely not for me.
Going on cruise has never been my kind of thing. I'm not sure if I can stand being bound on a ship for a period of time, however finite it might be. Perhaps I'm too high-strung in work that I don't normally take a step back and relax, in a more conventional sense. One time, the kids and I went to Florida with my husband when he's attending a trade show. While he's away at the exhibition center, the kids and I were relaxing in the swimming pool at the hotel, then stroll down to the long stretch of beach to enjoy the sun, water, and blue sky. Nothing can be more picture-perfect than that. But while I was watching the kids by the pool side while they're having fun, I was suddenly overwhelmed by a sense of boredom. Right there and then, I realize I'm born a working woman, and I most likely won't enjoy a conventional retirement. In fact, I probably work till I drop. No doubt some people would consider that a curse, that's not the case for me because I enjoy it.
A few months ago, my brother and sister-in-law announce that they're going on a world-wide cruise lasting for the next five months. I'm sure they go on the world-wide cruise because they enjoy it. For most Chinese (like my parents), it's the all-you-can-eat free food that appeals them. While I enjoy food, I'm not one of those who eat too much anyways; hence, this appeal is moot to me. These days, there are tons of activities on cruise to distract and engage. But as my husband aptly puts it, we can as easily have those activities, without paying tens of thousands (in the case of wordwide cruise, hundreds of thousands) of dollars, just so that we can do it on a ship, as if we're on land. It doesn't make sense to us.
And so, I read the article on mega cruise with interest, not only because it's well written, but it also covers what the biggest cruise might be like these days. I must say, it only reconfirms my belief of how illusional it all is. For all that it claims, the bigger the cruise ship is, the more it masks the fact that passengers are at sea because they are offered the illusion of all the land-based activities. So then, one would ask, why getting on a ship? Maybe, as one Chinese acquaintance has once put it, it's the appeal of this kind of handicap cruise, ie. that you don't have to think or do anything, that all there is to do is to eat, sleep, and seek pleasure.
One thing I do find in the article that is interesting to me, is her reference to the smaller cruise yonder - "cozy dinners with the ship’s officers, quiet afternoon teas and thoughtful lectures by foreign correspondents" - which holds certain appeal to me. I always like a certain explorative and adventurous side of things, that I can get to learn and enrich myself in any way, and not just eat, sleep and play. Sure, one would say, there are tons of classes in bigger cruise. But mega cruise would never afford the kind of coziness and closeness that smaller cruise or tour can afford.
Perhaps, just perhaps, one day I might consider small cruise. But mega cruise, definitely not for me.
On Farrah's iconic swimsuit poster then, and now...
I was reading one latest (so-called) news, of the latest cover girl for the Sports Illustrated's swimsuit cover, and can't help but feeling, how times have changed.
Although Farrah Fawcett is a bit ahead of my times back then, Farrah's iconic swimsuit poster has always been one of my favorite. It's not fleshy, but sexy, foxy, and healthy. Compared that to the the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover, in which the model has to wear so little, strike such suggestive and revealing pose, in order to be considered as "sexy." While I won't trash the latter to the category of looking cheap, I must say it makes the girl look so desperate (to want to be called sexy). It's no comparison to Farrah's pose which is so natural, and she doesn't even need big boots.
One thing is for sure, 30 years on, Farrah's poster remains one iconic classic that it's going to Smithsonian for the future generations to remember. We can be quite sure that the forgettable SI swimsuit cover will not go down that path. In fact, I'm not even sure if anyone would remember it, one year from now.
Although Farrah Fawcett is a bit ahead of my times back then, Farrah's iconic swimsuit poster has always been one of my favorite. It's not fleshy, but sexy, foxy, and healthy. Compared that to the the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover, in which the model has to wear so little, strike such suggestive and revealing pose, in order to be considered as "sexy." While I won't trash the latter to the category of looking cheap, I must say it makes the girl look so desperate (to want to be called sexy). It's no comparison to Farrah's pose which is so natural, and she doesn't even need big boots.
One thing is for sure, 30 years on, Farrah's poster remains one iconic classic that it's going to Smithsonian for the future generations to remember. We can be quite sure that the forgettable SI swimsuit cover will not go down that path. In fact, I'm not even sure if anyone would remember it, one year from now.
Monday, February 14, 2011
On the vicious GOP attack of Obama...
I would be the first to admit, I'm not a fan of Obama. I never was. While I'm an Independent, I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2008. She's a smart woman with proven records. Her positions align closest to what I see as important, not only as an individual, but for the country as whole. I cannot begin to tell how sorely disappointed when Clinton lost the Dem primary. In fact, I was so upset that I voted for John McCain, just to spite this one-term, never-done-anything, senator called Obama. Sure, people love him precisely because he's never done or achieved anything politically. Afterall, he's a clean slate, his rhetoric sounds soaring, and he's even black - alright, half black, if that's black enough - so, anyone can project whatever they want to see or hear to this fresh face. Better yet, he has a young family with two photogenic daughters (although I'm not so sure about Michelle Obama who is fond of flexing her biceps just to show off her youth side of things).
Granted that McCain is a very decent person, I don't think he or the GOP at large has what it takes to change the course that this country has been going down, starting from the first term of George W Bush. The near monopoloy of the neo-con in the Bush administration in shaping the the rhetoric of this country, championing it to go to not just one (the necessary one in Afghanistan), but two (the totally unnecessary one in Iraq) wars along its way. The accountability of government agencies was chipping away rapidly, given all the Bush cronies installed on the top, one of the most notorious ones being the idiotic FEMA head who totally missed the mark in the handling of Katrina. The Fed became completely hands-off to a financial market(s), gone awry and berserk. The list goes on. For all those, I don't think McCain, however decent he might be, is not going to be able to cope.
Some fresh face has to come in, Obama or Clinton. Under the false pretense of Change (remember Yes We Can?) and Reform, the empty rhetoric of Obama that dupes so many a voters at the time, Obama was swept into White House. While we know now, two years into his term, that Obama is mostly doing just doing what Bush has started out, only doubly down the chips in the gamble, including the war efforts, the debt, bailout of markets (not just financial markets, but the mortgage market too, in stupidly trying to keep people in their homes even if they should have default and be foreclosed on their property). He sells voters way short in his promise of what he would do, versus what he has actually done. But one has to acknowledge certain efforts from Obama and his attempt to even try, like the ObamaCare. Don't get me started on ObamaCare though, because it's not at all a universal healthcare system that Obama has championed it to be. All it does is, it forces you to get yourself covered, without the public option passing into the law as well.
Still, one has to look at the bigger picture. Sure, I don't like Obama sitting in White House. But as long as he's sitting in there, I do not want him to fail, for his fate is extricably linked to the fate of this country. For him to fail would mean that America will go down with him. On that alone, I must say, I do hope and pray that he would succeed. He has made some minor and limited efforts in changing the course of this ship of America from capsizing.
One would think, any responsible American should and would think along that line (in hoping that Obama would not fail). That is not the case in reality. In fact, the GOP and Tea Party attacks to Obama are so vicious and personal that I'm pretty sure they want to throw the baby out with the bath water, just to spite the Dem (and Obama) and their supporters. What the GOP and Tea Party fail to see is that, their rage toward Obama has blinded them into a collective failure to see that such attacks do not amount to any meaningful policy.
In fact, the vicious GOP/Tea Party attacks reminds me of the empty and increasingly violent rhetoric by the so-called student leaders in Tiananmen Square in China back in 1984. I remember clearly at the time, of how violent their verbal attacks to the government and Deng Xiaoping (the supreme leader in China at the time), with the constant slogan of "hit the bottle" (because "xiaoping" in Chinese rhymes with "little bottle"). Even in my young mind at the time, I was wondering out loud, of what these students want to achieve by pulling the government down. Unlike the recent Egypt peaceful protests that brought down Mubarak, in which opposition groups have secretly lined up for the aftermath, should the government be toppled. There was nothing like that in the 1984 protests. The picture of one student standing defiantly in front of a tank makes powerful imaginary, but it doesn't help a country of 1.1 billion people when you don't have a Plan B. To me, the attacks of GOP, Sarah Palin and the gang now are exactly like those empty rhetoric of the Chinese students in the 1984 protests. There is no Plan B. To me, it's not good enough to just say no. To be taken seriously, one has to be able to speak and present a constructive plan. I don't see one from the 1984 Chinese student leaders, and I don't see it from GOP now. And, by jove, those students are just a bunch of 20-something, and GOP is supposed to be an organized political party supposedly worthy to rule this country!!! How scary.
Granted that McCain is a very decent person, I don't think he or the GOP at large has what it takes to change the course that this country has been going down, starting from the first term of George W Bush. The near monopoloy of the neo-con in the Bush administration in shaping the the rhetoric of this country, championing it to go to not just one (the necessary one in Afghanistan), but two (the totally unnecessary one in Iraq) wars along its way. The accountability of government agencies was chipping away rapidly, given all the Bush cronies installed on the top, one of the most notorious ones being the idiotic FEMA head who totally missed the mark in the handling of Katrina. The Fed became completely hands-off to a financial market(s), gone awry and berserk. The list goes on. For all those, I don't think McCain, however decent he might be, is not going to be able to cope.
Some fresh face has to come in, Obama or Clinton. Under the false pretense of Change (remember Yes We Can?) and Reform, the empty rhetoric of Obama that dupes so many a voters at the time, Obama was swept into White House. While we know now, two years into his term, that Obama is mostly doing just doing what Bush has started out, only doubly down the chips in the gamble, including the war efforts, the debt, bailout of markets (not just financial markets, but the mortgage market too, in stupidly trying to keep people in their homes even if they should have default and be foreclosed on their property). He sells voters way short in his promise of what he would do, versus what he has actually done. But one has to acknowledge certain efforts from Obama and his attempt to even try, like the ObamaCare. Don't get me started on ObamaCare though, because it's not at all a universal healthcare system that Obama has championed it to be. All it does is, it forces you to get yourself covered, without the public option passing into the law as well.
Still, one has to look at the bigger picture. Sure, I don't like Obama sitting in White House. But as long as he's sitting in there, I do not want him to fail, for his fate is extricably linked to the fate of this country. For him to fail would mean that America will go down with him. On that alone, I must say, I do hope and pray that he would succeed. He has made some minor and limited efforts in changing the course of this ship of America from capsizing.
One would think, any responsible American should and would think along that line (in hoping that Obama would not fail). That is not the case in reality. In fact, the GOP and Tea Party attacks to Obama are so vicious and personal that I'm pretty sure they want to throw the baby out with the bath water, just to spite the Dem (and Obama) and their supporters. What the GOP and Tea Party fail to see is that, their rage toward Obama has blinded them into a collective failure to see that such attacks do not amount to any meaningful policy.
In fact, the vicious GOP/Tea Party attacks reminds me of the empty and increasingly violent rhetoric by the so-called student leaders in Tiananmen Square in China back in 1984. I remember clearly at the time, of how violent their verbal attacks to the government and Deng Xiaoping (the supreme leader in China at the time), with the constant slogan of "hit the bottle" (because "xiaoping" in Chinese rhymes with "little bottle"). Even in my young mind at the time, I was wondering out loud, of what these students want to achieve by pulling the government down. Unlike the recent Egypt peaceful protests that brought down Mubarak, in which opposition groups have secretly lined up for the aftermath, should the government be toppled. There was nothing like that in the 1984 protests. The picture of one student standing defiantly in front of a tank makes powerful imaginary, but it doesn't help a country of 1.1 billion people when you don't have a Plan B. To me, the attacks of GOP, Sarah Palin and the gang now are exactly like those empty rhetoric of the Chinese students in the 1984 protests. There is no Plan B. To me, it's not good enough to just say no. To be taken seriously, one has to be able to speak and present a constructive plan. I don't see one from the 1984 Chinese student leaders, and I don't see it from GOP now. And, by jove, those students are just a bunch of 20-something, and GOP is supposed to be an organized political party supposedly worthy to rule this country!!! How scary.
On first kiss the most memorable kiss...
There is always something tacky about Valentine's Day because we know full well that it's such an "event" made up by commercial organizations, aided by heavy campaigning and advertising, with nothing more to the sole purpose than to make everyone feel guilty not to spend and buy something for our loved ones. Still, we always fall for it. Such is human fallacy.
I normally ignore all those nonsense written solely for the purpose of this day. There is, however, this article on first kiss that caught my eyes. Not that it has much true revelation in it, but it's somehow comforting knowing that even in this age of causal sex, one night stand, and quick hook up's in dorm rooms, the younger generations still value that first kiss. Indeed how powerful first kiss can be, and how deep an impression it leaves. I don't think anyone will ever forget their first kiss.
Although I have meant this journal to be private (for myself and perhaps for my kids' browsing in the future), it's still in public domain. It is with such regret that I can't and won't put down my thoughts and details of my own first kiss. Even after all these years, I can still remember clearly that fluttering and sighing of the heart, and how it skips a beat. And how in that dim dorm room back in England (Coventry, to be exact) the warm lips have come on the spring day, so tentative, so unsure, that travels from ears, to cheek, to neck, but never to the lips! Perhaps there is still such innocence in the present days.
Sometimes when we look back, there will always be the questions of what-ifs. To be sure, I don't think I have made the wrong decision, even though it broke both hearts at the time. But situation dictates it, and we're not meant to be. I don't think I'll ever go back to a time when I regret it; still, I wish we could have had more time together than a mere year. I know I would have had regretted it, if I had given up my study and be a housewife and mother instead. I know I would never forgive myself for not fulfilling the calling in career, and not knowing what I could have achieved so early on, but to devote a life of domestication. Yes, that sounds really selfish, but I know that's how it's going to turn out to be. I've been glad to have met this great guy and my husband now, both of whom have been so supportive to me. Any men who have less confidence in themselves, could not have had the guts to face the fact that their potential partner and spouse could have achieved more than they do. But I also know, that with our mercurial temper, we could not have ended well. Perhaps then, it might as well that we'll forever cherish that year of innocence together, with such laughter, joy and tears. I don't think I can ever forget that.
Can online dating kill all that? I'm not sure about the formalized setting in online dating sites, but for anyone who's never been in it (like irc in its innocent days), their longing and aching can still be so real. But of course, in this day and age, one never knows if the one on the other side of the connection is just a crook or con. In the early irc days, like the early days of facebook when only college students are around, times were much different. I must say though, that sooner or later, that kiss will have to come when two have to come face-to-face. But of course, it can quite easily kill all those loving feelings. I wouldn't recommend online or speed dating though; in fact, I would strong argue against it, because of the perils involved. How time has changed...
I normally ignore all those nonsense written solely for the purpose of this day. There is, however, this article on first kiss that caught my eyes. Not that it has much true revelation in it, but it's somehow comforting knowing that even in this age of causal sex, one night stand, and quick hook up's in dorm rooms, the younger generations still value that first kiss. Indeed how powerful first kiss can be, and how deep an impression it leaves. I don't think anyone will ever forget their first kiss.
Although I have meant this journal to be private (for myself and perhaps for my kids' browsing in the future), it's still in public domain. It is with such regret that I can't and won't put down my thoughts and details of my own first kiss. Even after all these years, I can still remember clearly that fluttering and sighing of the heart, and how it skips a beat. And how in that dim dorm room back in England (Coventry, to be exact) the warm lips have come on the spring day, so tentative, so unsure, that travels from ears, to cheek, to neck, but never to the lips! Perhaps there is still such innocence in the present days.
Sometimes when we look back, there will always be the questions of what-ifs. To be sure, I don't think I have made the wrong decision, even though it broke both hearts at the time. But situation dictates it, and we're not meant to be. I don't think I'll ever go back to a time when I regret it; still, I wish we could have had more time together than a mere year. I know I would have had regretted it, if I had given up my study and be a housewife and mother instead. I know I would never forgive myself for not fulfilling the calling in career, and not knowing what I could have achieved so early on, but to devote a life of domestication. Yes, that sounds really selfish, but I know that's how it's going to turn out to be. I've been glad to have met this great guy and my husband now, both of whom have been so supportive to me. Any men who have less confidence in themselves, could not have had the guts to face the fact that their potential partner and spouse could have achieved more than they do. But I also know, that with our mercurial temper, we could not have ended well. Perhaps then, it might as well that we'll forever cherish that year of innocence together, with such laughter, joy and tears. I don't think I can ever forget that.
Can online dating kill all that? I'm not sure about the formalized setting in online dating sites, but for anyone who's never been in it (like irc in its innocent days), their longing and aching can still be so real. But of course, in this day and age, one never knows if the one on the other side of the connection is just a crook or con. In the early irc days, like the early days of facebook when only college students are around, times were much different. I must say though, that sooner or later, that kiss will have to come when two have to come face-to-face. But of course, it can quite easily kill all those loving feelings. I wouldn't recommend online or speed dating though; in fact, I would strong argue against it, because of the perils involved. How time has changed...
Sunday, February 13, 2011
On the decline in popularity of McMansions...
McMansions used to be the big thing, the ultimate trophy to show off one's excess and outsized wealth in the boom time. Since the mortgage crisis set in in end 2008, and the ensuing Great Recession which still sees close to 10% unemployment more than two years later, it's not surprising to see the decline in popularity of McMansions.
I don't know about you, but I always find the new money and McMansions too gaudy for me. I'm one of those who want low maintenance, self reliance, and maximum efficiency. I want to know and use intimately every inch of my home. If we need three bedrooms, kitchen, bathrooms, and living room, that's what I'm going for. I don't need three+ extra bedrooms that never get used. I don't need to spend double on utility bill on A/C in summer and heating in winter, twice too big for me. I don't want to dust and clean the space that I rarely set foot in. And if I have to keep the doors closed to keep the dust out, that would mean I would not bother opening those doors. I don't want a yard and garden three times the size of the house, then pay someone to rake leaves, landscape it, and shovel snow, just to keep up the appearance with the neighbors, because I want to be able to do all these. With career and business venture going in parallel with the family needs, I can't afford to spare my time on these wasted space. This is not to mention about the big roof, big water boiler, an unnecessarily big property tax bill, and what-not, that go with a McMansion. And I can go on and on about this.
In short, I don't know why people would need (or want, even) such a big McMansion, except for vanity. Sure, sometimes I look at some houses, I would say to myself, that looks nice. But my mom raises me as such a pragmatic person that my second thought would always start with maintenance. And, high maintenance is a big turn-off for me.
I grew up a city girl, and I like the low maintenance of condo. My husband grew up in big house. Even though he doesn't like the maintenance that goes with it and the fact that he'll be tied down to the chores of the house, he acknowledges the benefits of having outdoor space to play with the kids. To that, I always tell him, the park is right next door from us. It'll be foolhardy for us not to make sure of these free public space when we have paid our dues in property taxes. Better yet, we won't have to mawn the grass or rake leaves or shovel snow in the park. Whenever we want to have extended vacations, we can simply lock our door and go. The only hassle is to ensure that our mails are held at the post office, and we can pay bills online. Condo is the perfect solution for me.
I'm sure there'll be some regrets at some point, maybe of my husband, or of my kids, that they won't be growing up with our own opening space. That may well be, but I haven't got to that point yet. Perhaps by the time I get to feel those regrets, it's time for me to move to retirement village. :)
I don't know about you, but I always find the new money and McMansions too gaudy for me. I'm one of those who want low maintenance, self reliance, and maximum efficiency. I want to know and use intimately every inch of my home. If we need three bedrooms, kitchen, bathrooms, and living room, that's what I'm going for. I don't need three+ extra bedrooms that never get used. I don't need to spend double on utility bill on A/C in summer and heating in winter, twice too big for me. I don't want to dust and clean the space that I rarely set foot in. And if I have to keep the doors closed to keep the dust out, that would mean I would not bother opening those doors. I don't want a yard and garden three times the size of the house, then pay someone to rake leaves, landscape it, and shovel snow, just to keep up the appearance with the neighbors, because I want to be able to do all these. With career and business venture going in parallel with the family needs, I can't afford to spare my time on these wasted space. This is not to mention about the big roof, big water boiler, an unnecessarily big property tax bill, and what-not, that go with a McMansion. And I can go on and on about this.
In short, I don't know why people would need (or want, even) such a big McMansion, except for vanity. Sure, sometimes I look at some houses, I would say to myself, that looks nice. But my mom raises me as such a pragmatic person that my second thought would always start with maintenance. And, high maintenance is a big turn-off for me.
I grew up a city girl, and I like the low maintenance of condo. My husband grew up in big house. Even though he doesn't like the maintenance that goes with it and the fact that he'll be tied down to the chores of the house, he acknowledges the benefits of having outdoor space to play with the kids. To that, I always tell him, the park is right next door from us. It'll be foolhardy for us not to make sure of these free public space when we have paid our dues in property taxes. Better yet, we won't have to mawn the grass or rake leaves or shovel snow in the park. Whenever we want to have extended vacations, we can simply lock our door and go. The only hassle is to ensure that our mails are held at the post office, and we can pay bills online. Condo is the perfect solution for me.
I'm sure there'll be some regrets at some point, maybe of my husband, or of my kids, that they won't be growing up with our own opening space. That may well be, but I haven't got to that point yet. Perhaps by the time I get to feel those regrets, it's time for me to move to retirement village. :)
Saturday, February 12, 2011
On Obama's proposal to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac...
For all the talk (particularly those pushed by GOP and Tea Party idiots like Sarah Palin), I must admit that I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest Obama proposal on what to do with Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac, given their role in accentuating the mortgage crisis since 2008.
I have always found the idea of Fannie/Freddie odd. Of all the talks on how "capitalistic" America, Fannie/Freddic are anything but. I have to put the word capitalistic in quotes, because I don't find it capitalistic at all. Afterall, if the federal government is provide quasi-underwriting guarantee of 9 in 10 mortgages written in this country, the government is effectively and essentially underwriting everything in the mortgage market. Sure, without Fannie/Freddie, we might never have 30-year fixed mortgage (which is unheard of and is an envy in other countries in the world). But the conflict of interests in these two quasi-government entities are too huge to ignore. They were made a private entity, yet they have government guarantee; hence, when the risks are effectively transferred to the government (taxpayers), what is there to prevent Fannie/Freddie to make poor (more like very bad) decisions to chase the market, without concerns of risk factors?
It's long overdue that something has to be done about the situation. But no one politician from any party has the guts to come out and say, the government should not be in this business, because no one wants to tell their voters and constituents that the government does not promote property ownership. No one is willing to tell the idiotic voters that, if they can't afford to afford conventional mortgage payment, they should not own a home, because home ownership is not a birthright; it's something that has to be earned. If anyone can't afford it, go and be a renter. As simple as that.
So, for Obama to now come out with a proposal to effectively say that, there are cases there ownership does not make sense to some people and they should stay as renters. And that, the taxpayer guarantee to the mortgage market is unsustainable and untenable, it's a breath of fresh air. It's only then, that we acknowledge the gist of the problem, that we can begin the process of fixing what is so broken in the system in America.
Sure, mortgage rate may well go up, mortgage underwriting rules are going to get tightened, downpayment is going to go up too. But such should have always been the norm, which had gone out of the window because the markets were so out of whack under the Greenspan fed. I'd rather pay the price now, and have the country be on a healthier path of existence, than to kick all these problems down the road, and let the future generations (my kids' generations) to handle it.
Now, if only the Obama's own Dem constituents like the unions would just shut up, and do something useful, for a change. So too will we have to see if the GOP will turn around and be the obstructionist to block the Obama proposal to wind down Fannie/Freddie in 5-7 years, for the sake of being obstructionists.
I have always found the idea of Fannie/Freddie odd. Of all the talks on how "capitalistic" America, Fannie/Freddic are anything but. I have to put the word capitalistic in quotes, because I don't find it capitalistic at all. Afterall, if the federal government is provide quasi-underwriting guarantee of 9 in 10 mortgages written in this country, the government is effectively and essentially underwriting everything in the mortgage market. Sure, without Fannie/Freddie, we might never have 30-year fixed mortgage (which is unheard of and is an envy in other countries in the world). But the conflict of interests in these two quasi-government entities are too huge to ignore. They were made a private entity, yet they have government guarantee; hence, when the risks are effectively transferred to the government (taxpayers), what is there to prevent Fannie/Freddie to make poor (more like very bad) decisions to chase the market, without concerns of risk factors?
It's long overdue that something has to be done about the situation. But no one politician from any party has the guts to come out and say, the government should not be in this business, because no one wants to tell their voters and constituents that the government does not promote property ownership. No one is willing to tell the idiotic voters that, if they can't afford to afford conventional mortgage payment, they should not own a home, because home ownership is not a birthright; it's something that has to be earned. If anyone can't afford it, go and be a renter. As simple as that.
So, for Obama to now come out with a proposal to effectively say that, there are cases there ownership does not make sense to some people and they should stay as renters. And that, the taxpayer guarantee to the mortgage market is unsustainable and untenable, it's a breath of fresh air. It's only then, that we acknowledge the gist of the problem, that we can begin the process of fixing what is so broken in the system in America.
Sure, mortgage rate may well go up, mortgage underwriting rules are going to get tightened, downpayment is going to go up too. But such should have always been the norm, which had gone out of the window because the markets were so out of whack under the Greenspan fed. I'd rather pay the price now, and have the country be on a healthier path of existence, than to kick all these problems down the road, and let the future generations (my kids' generations) to handle it.
Now, if only the Obama's own Dem constituents like the unions would just shut up, and do something useful, for a change. So too will we have to see if the GOP will turn around and be the obstructionist to block the Obama proposal to wind down Fannie/Freddie in 5-7 years, for the sake of being obstructionists.
On Madonna and Lady Gaga...
Although I grew up listening to all the pops, I've fallen out of that habit for a very long time. Some songs and tunes will stay with you forever. There are times when I hear some tunes or song fragments, and they would immediately transport me back to those exact moments in the past when I first heard them. I love those moments.
I can name the classics that I love because there are just so many of them that I love. There are true oldies golden classics from the 1950s, '60s, and then there are classics from the hippie times in the '70s. But it's the '80s that I love. I listen to alot of Modern Romance and Euro-pops, the Roxy Music, Police and Sting, and all those. Across the Atlantics, Madonna stood out and stands the tests of time. I've eased out of music in the 90s, and feel particularly disgusted by hip-hop. There are a few in the '90s that catch my ears, but other than that, I don't miss the '90s much. The '00s in the start of the millenium is equally unimpressive. I don't even bother with all those singers or names. Sometimes, when debates run high, I would take a second look to see what's the big fuss about. Such is the case with Lady Gaga.
I must say, I have not been impressed with Lady Gaga at all. For all her outrageous MTV, it's mostly just a rehash of the coming out of Madonna in the 1980s, and by jove, Madonna is 30 years ahead of her time. (Perhaps that would explain the enduring surccess of Madonna through these years, even though I haven't followed any of her newer songs since the 1990s.) Those dance moves and outrageous costumes of Lady Gaga look more like copycat of Madonna in the 1980s. I must say though, at least Madonna's have been more pleasing in the eye even though hers was outrageous at the times. For Lady Gaga? It's just outrageous, sans the pleasing part. I'm sure all those young Lady Gaga fans are going to rip me apart for such blasphermy. But sorry folks, your idol is not the real deal. (Those youngsters who think they have a goddess representative of their time now would be sorely disappointed that their idol now is nothing more than a mirage from 30 years before.) Given time, we'll be able to judge if Gaga can grow out of this copycat phase to have something more original of her own, because one cannot survive to be a copycat forever.
Sure, there's talk of Gaga the person, and how down-to-earth she is. Madonna has been famous for her personality when she was starting out, of how she grew out and grew up from being manipulated by record companies to put out sugarpop songs like Borderline, to give us much more sophisticated Vogue, Justify My Love, Express Yourself, Papa Don't Preach, and the more mallow Crazy For You, Take A Bow, and more.
Speaking of Madonna's Express Yourself, there's rage over the very obvious plagiarized tune and idea in Gaga's Born This Way. For all the rage, I've decided to check it out and see/hear it for myself. I must say, I'm so surprised on how similar in the tune snippets of the two songs, the idea of the lyrics, and even the arrangement of the song's instrument and the heavy use of drums in the dance beat too. Perhaps Gaga has provided a very ripe opportunity to prove herself that she's indeed a copycat, given Madonna's ahead of Gaga for 30 years. Disappointing.
While I would admit that some of Gaga's songs like Alejandro are pretty good dance beat, but she's no comparison to Madonna, in terms of originality in songs, creativity and even as a dancer. And even in the Alejandro music video, it's a mix of the copy from Madonna's various music videos, including Express Yourself and Vogue.
Perhaps Madonna has given us the shock-and-awe factor that there is still yet to be topped. For all the talk of Gaga's costume, like covering herself in raw meat, sure it's a first, to be sure. But it's never going to be like Madonna who single-handedly made wearing your undergarment (corset and all) fashionable that others can and will copy. And that's what makes Madonna enduring. I'm sure how Gaga can top herself since her racy MTV's are already literally putting sex show on stage, boy-on-boy, boy-on-girl, and what-not. I've always enjoyed Madonna's music videos; but Gaga's copycats are simply so low in taste and style, forget about class.
I can name the classics that I love because there are just so many of them that I love. There are true oldies golden classics from the 1950s, '60s, and then there are classics from the hippie times in the '70s. But it's the '80s that I love. I listen to alot of Modern Romance and Euro-pops, the Roxy Music, Police and Sting, and all those. Across the Atlantics, Madonna stood out and stands the tests of time. I've eased out of music in the 90s, and feel particularly disgusted by hip-hop. There are a few in the '90s that catch my ears, but other than that, I don't miss the '90s much. The '00s in the start of the millenium is equally unimpressive. I don't even bother with all those singers or names. Sometimes, when debates run high, I would take a second look to see what's the big fuss about. Such is the case with Lady Gaga.
I must say, I have not been impressed with Lady Gaga at all. For all her outrageous MTV, it's mostly just a rehash of the coming out of Madonna in the 1980s, and by jove, Madonna is 30 years ahead of her time. (Perhaps that would explain the enduring surccess of Madonna through these years, even though I haven't followed any of her newer songs since the 1990s.) Those dance moves and outrageous costumes of Lady Gaga look more like copycat of Madonna in the 1980s. I must say though, at least Madonna's have been more pleasing in the eye even though hers was outrageous at the times. For Lady Gaga? It's just outrageous, sans the pleasing part. I'm sure all those young Lady Gaga fans are going to rip me apart for such blasphermy. But sorry folks, your idol is not the real deal. (Those youngsters who think they have a goddess representative of their time now would be sorely disappointed that their idol now is nothing more than a mirage from 30 years before.) Given time, we'll be able to judge if Gaga can grow out of this copycat phase to have something more original of her own, because one cannot survive to be a copycat forever.
Sure, there's talk of Gaga the person, and how down-to-earth she is. Madonna has been famous for her personality when she was starting out, of how she grew out and grew up from being manipulated by record companies to put out sugarpop songs like Borderline, to give us much more sophisticated Vogue, Justify My Love, Express Yourself, Papa Don't Preach, and the more mallow Crazy For You, Take A Bow, and more.
Speaking of Madonna's Express Yourself, there's rage over the very obvious plagiarized tune and idea in Gaga's Born This Way. For all the rage, I've decided to check it out and see/hear it for myself. I must say, I'm so surprised on how similar in the tune snippets of the two songs, the idea of the lyrics, and even the arrangement of the song's instrument and the heavy use of drums in the dance beat too. Perhaps Gaga has provided a very ripe opportunity to prove herself that she's indeed a copycat, given Madonna's ahead of Gaga for 30 years. Disappointing.
While I would admit that some of Gaga's songs like Alejandro are pretty good dance beat, but she's no comparison to Madonna, in terms of originality in songs, creativity and even as a dancer. And even in the Alejandro music video, it's a mix of the copy from Madonna's various music videos, including Express Yourself and Vogue.
Perhaps Madonna has given us the shock-and-awe factor that there is still yet to be topped. For all the talk of Gaga's costume, like covering herself in raw meat, sure it's a first, to be sure. But it's never going to be like Madonna who single-handedly made wearing your undergarment (corset and all) fashionable that others can and will copy. And that's what makes Madonna enduring. I'm sure how Gaga can top herself since her racy MTV's are already literally putting sex show on stage, boy-on-boy, boy-on-girl, and what-not. I've always enjoyed Madonna's music videos; but Gaga's copycats are simply so low in taste and style, forget about class.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
On the Queensland flood, its aftermath, and reflection on community and democracy...
As I'm visiting Australia right now, the flood in Queensland have moved me in a big way, not only in the natural disasters that could strike anyone at any time, but in the collective outpouring in financial and physical support to the Queensland community by both fellow Australians and the state/federal government alike.
Perhaps more importantly, in contrast to the fast disaster relief from the Australian government, the Bush administration's inept and non-response of FEMA to what happened when Katrina struck is decidedly humiliating.
Although I've been out of Australia for a number of years now, I've identified with my adopted country in a big way, contributing financially in however way I can. It's amazing how fast the donations have quickly racked up more than A$1 billion in disaster relief.
Collectively, we know what is to come. Food price in general is going to go up. Inflation would inch up. Export would get hit, as is GDP. Collectively, everyone tightens their belts. I don't hear much complaint from folks.
And then, the federal government, under Julia Gillard, did something that what seems like reasonable, but to many, it looks like unthinkable. She institutes a temporary flood levy. No doubt, those in America would find it incomprehensible. Truth be told, the temporary levy (that would last for a year) would cost A$5 a week for those in highest income bracket (A$200,000 or above). You won't have to pay if you earn A$50,000 a year. If you look at how a regular coffee would cost A$3+, and Australians drink a lot of coffee, you would realize that the levy is nothing, really. So, the torrent of criticism on the flood levy must be mostly psychological.
Perhaps no one sums it up better than Ross Gittins, in his common sense article on why Australians hate it so much. It has nothing to do with partisanship (which, if it had been in America, GOP and Tea Party would surely seize on). It is that general lack of faith in the financial stewardship of the Aussie governments, and the respect of the elected leaders in general. (Afterall, as Gittins is quick to point out, Gillard inherits the prime ministership not really out of rightful election, but rising up from vice-prime ministership when Kevin Rudd was pushed aside.
It's not inconceivable that, come next election, Gillard, the Labor PM now, could likely hand the baton back to the Conservative. To me, I'm always cynical and ambivalent about one politician as opposed to another, because politicans are politicans afterall. They are there to buy votes, with the ultimate goal to stay in power, whatever it takes. It doesn't matter if it's in Canberra or in Washington, DC. It's a ll the same. Or, as the old Cantonese saying goes, all crows are black under the sky.
Perhaps more importantly, in contrast to the fast disaster relief from the Australian government, the Bush administration's inept and non-response of FEMA to what happened when Katrina struck is decidedly humiliating.
Although I've been out of Australia for a number of years now, I've identified with my adopted country in a big way, contributing financially in however way I can. It's amazing how fast the donations have quickly racked up more than A$1 billion in disaster relief.
Collectively, we know what is to come. Food price in general is going to go up. Inflation would inch up. Export would get hit, as is GDP. Collectively, everyone tightens their belts. I don't hear much complaint from folks.
And then, the federal government, under Julia Gillard, did something that what seems like reasonable, but to many, it looks like unthinkable. She institutes a temporary flood levy. No doubt, those in America would find it incomprehensible. Truth be told, the temporary levy (that would last for a year) would cost A$5 a week for those in highest income bracket (A$200,000 or above). You won't have to pay if you earn A$50,000 a year. If you look at how a regular coffee would cost A$3+, and Australians drink a lot of coffee, you would realize that the levy is nothing, really. So, the torrent of criticism on the flood levy must be mostly psychological.
Perhaps no one sums it up better than Ross Gittins, in his common sense article on why Australians hate it so much. It has nothing to do with partisanship (which, if it had been in America, GOP and Tea Party would surely seize on). It is that general lack of faith in the financial stewardship of the Aussie governments, and the respect of the elected leaders in general. (Afterall, as Gittins is quick to point out, Gillard inherits the prime ministership not really out of rightful election, but rising up from vice-prime ministership when Kevin Rudd was pushed aside.
It's not inconceivable that, come next election, Gillard, the Labor PM now, could likely hand the baton back to the Conservative. To me, I'm always cynical and ambivalent about one politician as opposed to another, because politicans are politicans afterall. They are there to buy votes, with the ultimate goal to stay in power, whatever it takes. It doesn't matter if it's in Canberra or in Washington, DC. It's a ll the same. Or, as the old Cantonese saying goes, all crows are black under the sky.
On the change afoot in the Mid East...
I'm not normally too tune in to the development in the Middle East. The issues, history and politics are complex and intermingled with religions, cultures and various ethnicity, so much so that their events usually just stay outside of my peripheral vision. Surely, 9/11 has brought their issues and concerns closer to home, but I cannot honestly say that I feel too much for the issues in that part of the world. I can only imagine that most of America feels more or less the same way, even though America is waging two wars over there, namely, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Long story short, most Americans just want to have as little to do with the complexity in that region as possible. Afterall, that's what voters have been asking for, which is to end the wars and bring all soldiers home, no matter what.
But sometimes, when issues can become larger than life that they can force themselves to our face. The regime change in Tunisia due to peaceful, democratic protests recently, forcing out a decades-old dictator, is almost like a breath of fresh air. Afterall, isn't that exactly what America (or more precisely, George W. Bush and the gang) has been hoping and calling for? You can't buy democracy because it has to come from the people collectively.
Malice spreads easily. People see what can be achieved in Tunisia, and words/actions spread quickly to Egypt, leading to unrest (so far, peaceful and persistent). It doesn't take long for an 8-year-old to figure out that the domino there is going to fall.
To preempt the popular unheaval, Jordan rolls a few heads at the top already, perhaps in the hope of heading off public demand for regime change too.
The more interesting and vexing question is, what happens after the regime change. It's particularly worrisome, because it's quite an unknown who will fill the void. Would it be another moderate, West-leaning government, or would it be a fanatic government like the Taliban? Given how disenfranchised the general public has been in the Middle East in general, it's foreseeable that the Muslim fundamentalists would be able to fill that void quickly with angry rhetoric and even fear-inducing bombs that can terrorize the populace to fall in line with their radical agenda, much like what's happening now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But sometimes, what is right does not mean it's good. Or rather, what's right and good for one country does not mean it's right/good for another, as clearly demonstrated by how agitated and worried Israel has been, since these unrest across the region has broken out. Israel is not a country (or a people) to mince words, as marked by the pointed words and criticism to Obama, the Prez, and Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, as naive at best. Even for those who are partisan in the debate, one should know the reality that Israel has pointed out, because in the calling for regime change in Egypt by Obama and Clinton, America is effectively abandoning a long-time ally, albeit a dictator one, who has been among the first to sign and maintain peace treaty with Israel, and who has helped keep the peace and stability in the volatile Middle East. The same goes with Jordan, and no doubt Saudi Arabia is nervously watching.
I'm not sure if Obama and/or Clinton has any illusion of the purpose of US in that region, because Middle East is one big hornet's nest, which takes a few very heavy hands to keep the hornets from coming out and stinging everyone in its path. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what US has done in the past, in endorsing and supporting all those dictatorships is the right thing to do; but those are necessary things for US, in its best self-interest. Afterall, everyone watches out for only its best interest. If anyone thinks otherwise, that would be just too naive. Even for a casual observer like myself, it's as plain as daylight.
So, what's the next move of Obama/Clinton? Given that they both have legal and lawyerly training, one would hope and expect that when they ask a question, they should know the answer to the question first. But given that there's no clear viable opposition leadership in neither Tunisia, nor Egypt, nor Jordan, to step in the void after a regime change, it doesn't look like Obama/Clinton knows what's going to happen next at all.
And that's the most worrisome development, that no one knows what to expect next. Worst case scenario, some Muslim fundamentalist groups would rise up to the occasion, get the popular vote and/or support from their military. Then we'll be seeing another repeat like Taliban-in-Afghanistan.
Let's hope that it won't happen that way. I'm hoping when I look back on journal today, from some future point in time, and this prediction turns out to be wrong.
But sometimes, when issues can become larger than life that they can force themselves to our face. The regime change in Tunisia due to peaceful, democratic protests recently, forcing out a decades-old dictator, is almost like a breath of fresh air. Afterall, isn't that exactly what America (or more precisely, George W. Bush and the gang) has been hoping and calling for? You can't buy democracy because it has to come from the people collectively.
Malice spreads easily. People see what can be achieved in Tunisia, and words/actions spread quickly to Egypt, leading to unrest (so far, peaceful and persistent). It doesn't take long for an 8-year-old to figure out that the domino there is going to fall.
To preempt the popular unheaval, Jordan rolls a few heads at the top already, perhaps in the hope of heading off public demand for regime change too.
The more interesting and vexing question is, what happens after the regime change. It's particularly worrisome, because it's quite an unknown who will fill the void. Would it be another moderate, West-leaning government, or would it be a fanatic government like the Taliban? Given how disenfranchised the general public has been in the Middle East in general, it's foreseeable that the Muslim fundamentalists would be able to fill that void quickly with angry rhetoric and even fear-inducing bombs that can terrorize the populace to fall in line with their radical agenda, much like what's happening now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But sometimes, what is right does not mean it's good. Or rather, what's right and good for one country does not mean it's right/good for another, as clearly demonstrated by how agitated and worried Israel has been, since these unrest across the region has broken out. Israel is not a country (or a people) to mince words, as marked by the pointed words and criticism to Obama, the Prez, and Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, as naive at best. Even for those who are partisan in the debate, one should know the reality that Israel has pointed out, because in the calling for regime change in Egypt by Obama and Clinton, America is effectively abandoning a long-time ally, albeit a dictator one, who has been among the first to sign and maintain peace treaty with Israel, and who has helped keep the peace and stability in the volatile Middle East. The same goes with Jordan, and no doubt Saudi Arabia is nervously watching.
I'm not sure if Obama and/or Clinton has any illusion of the purpose of US in that region, because Middle East is one big hornet's nest, which takes a few very heavy hands to keep the hornets from coming out and stinging everyone in its path. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what US has done in the past, in endorsing and supporting all those dictatorships is the right thing to do; but those are necessary things for US, in its best self-interest. Afterall, everyone watches out for only its best interest. If anyone thinks otherwise, that would be just too naive. Even for a casual observer like myself, it's as plain as daylight.
So, what's the next move of Obama/Clinton? Given that they both have legal and lawyerly training, one would hope and expect that when they ask a question, they should know the answer to the question first. But given that there's no clear viable opposition leadership in neither Tunisia, nor Egypt, nor Jordan, to step in the void after a regime change, it doesn't look like Obama/Clinton knows what's going to happen next at all.
And that's the most worrisome development, that no one knows what to expect next. Worst case scenario, some Muslim fundamentalist groups would rise up to the occasion, get the popular vote and/or support from their military. Then we'll be seeing another repeat like Taliban-in-Afghanistan.
Let's hope that it won't happen that way. I'm hoping when I look back on journal today, from some future point in time, and this prediction turns out to be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)