On parenting et al...

I was profoundly moved by the opinion piece in New York Times today about a mother whose child suffers a genetic disorder with no cure and which is certain to see a premature passing. Sometimes, as Steve Jobs had famously noted in his 2005 Stanford commencement speech, as was the Last Lecture Series by the late Randy Pausch, knowing that death is imminent can be the most powerful catalyst to jolt one into focus and set the life priorities straight. As in the case of the mother whose focus is on yo here-and-now on the well-being of the child, without any possibility of hopes, dreams, and future that regular parents would have expected from their children.

In a way, it's almost like committing to a pet like dogs and cats, that you know for certain that you'll outlive the pets. In a finite amount of time (maybe 12-15 years), you'll have to say farewell to the beloved pets, sometimes even having to make the painful decision of putting the animals down in order to lessen the animals' pain. I know, because I used to have a dog when I was little. I love my dog, even though I had not done a good job training him. As a result, he's a wild one, even biting me on numerous occasions; though I never came to blame him. My love for him is irrevocable. Talking about blind puppy love...

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

Incidentally I was talking to a colleague this morning. She was bemoaning how she and her husband spend $40k a year for each child on private school. Given that they have two kids in high school now, it's alot of dough. She's essentially working just so they can pay for the tuition. Don't get me wrong; she's tremendously proud for both kids getting in this private school which is apparently über-competitive, not just in admission, but in staying alive/ahead in school.

When I talked to her a while back, she's glowing about their Ivy League prospect, plus the chance for their kids to start networking - yes, networking! - when they start middle/high school. I thought at the time, Omigod, is this really happening; parents pushing for kids to do that? She makes that Tiger Mom in Amy Chua sounds lame. Having both coming from Asian backgrounds, there must be something in there somewhere.

This time around, things sound a shade different. Sure, there's still the glowing remarks of difficult schoolwork and assignments, critical thinking, and what-not. But in an arms race when every other kid in the school would look for some competitive edge, any competitive edge, it's not enough to just let people know your kids getting admitted to the school. The kids used to be straight A's in regular classes; they now suddenly realize that they are B+, at best, when they get in advance placements. Sure, they play some sport; but every kid in school play sports. Same goes with playing musical instruments. The kids feel bummed-out in the advanced classes because the other kids obviously are either super-smart, or they have had outside tutorials that have already taught them all the materials in the advanced classes.

These days, how do you stand out in a crowded, highly competitive field for Ivy League when straight A's + sports + music + community service + working on school newspaper, are no longer enough. And now, they can't even guarantee their straight A's anymore. The kids are stressed out; as is her husband. But she perseveres. Afterall, they have sunk so much money and time in this private school, they can't possibly quit at this point. Last but not least, her argument (more to herself) is that, it's such a tough school to get admitted, they can't possibly just give it up.

She cited some anecdotal evidence that some Ivy League schools might be within reach. Afterall, there was one kid who was in an Intel finalist, that got early admission to every schools that he applied, except Harvard. (He flunked the interview.) He ended up going to MIT. But how many Intel finalists did this school ever have? (She didn't say.)

And then there is the networking aspect which was considered valuable to her. Here, she cited one of the snobbish kids who, on prompt of where he lives, emphasized that he lives in a specific part of town that is most exclusive part, in case anyone hasn't already noticed. Such snobs are the ones that her kids are to network with. Surely there are nicely and more civil ones, but to think of a school populated by rich, entitled kids, it's not very inspiring.

Long story short, she and her husband will just have to stick with it for the long haul, and so will their kids (I truly feel sorry for them). As she has rightly noted, if the kids have not gone to this expensive private schools, she can probably retire by now. That might be so; but such was a path and journey that she embarks on, just as Amy Chua has noted in her stupid Tiger Mom book. She can't possibly expect much sympathetic words. (I can't come up with any.)

Oh, by the way, she has already whitelisted some of the professions that she doesn't want her kids to take on. Just thinking of the mental list that she has to keep score with is already too exhausting for me.

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

Looking at the juxtaposition of the conversation with my colleague's parenting decisions and woes, and the New York Times article of a mother mentally and physically preparing for the eventual death of her child, the effect is chilling to me.

While regular parents like us can't be letting the kids do whatever, with abandonment, I'm always mindful of not imposing too much of my hopes and dreams on my kids. They have their lives to live. I remember there're times when they ask me what I would like them to be. I told them, it matters not what I want, and I turn the table and ask them what they want to do instead. While basic life skills and discipline have to be imposed upon them, if they are independent and mature enough to make wise choices, and to pursue their dreams with conviction, I would have considered my job as a parent complete.

On the passing of Steve Jobs...

I was saddened today when I got in to my computer this evening, and saw the news that Steve Jobs, the Apple co-founder and former CEO, has passed away. His rise and fall, and rise again in his personal history was truly phenomenal, which coincided with bursts of innovations in more industry than one. Most people feel a personal connection to Jobs since he had come to personified all the Apple products that he brought to users and consumers. From Apple II, to the Mac, iPod and iTune, iPhone, iPad, to Pixar, even the spartan concept of retail Apple store, his reach and influence has reached not only the computing industry, but music industry, telcos and communications industry, the entertainment industry, and breath fresh air to the retail space as well.

Although there were anecdotal stories of his mercurial temper and micromanagement style, his vision is equally remarkable. While he might not have been true pioneer in each of the industry, he was able to turn around existing industry norms and gadgets that users have come to know, and deliver something that is so new, easy to use, yet so very elegant in product design, that his products have all become must-haves. With his ability to integrate everything in his head, from the kind of user experience that he wanted, to product design (what features to be in, and what not), to execution and marketing, he's the one linchpin that holds everything together. Jobs was, in short, Apple.

I have been immensely moved by his 2005 Stanford commencement speech which is truly inspirational. (Actually, reading it in text feels even more powerful.) Jobs had defined a generation of pioneers and leaders that came out of Silicon Valley, along the tradition of the greats in the past, like David Packard and Bill Hewlett, the co-founders of HP.

To reminisce the passing of Jobs, I was watching some of the videos, including the 2007 on-stage interview of Steve Jobs and his contemporary Bill Gates. (I just wish that the female interviewer in that video had been ejected from stage. She's so clueless that she reflects so poorly on all female peers. Stupid woman.)

RIP, Steve.

On the fate of USPS...

Changes can be hard to swallow sometimes, in the face of technological and cultural shifts. It's particular so, for long-standing services and habits. Examples abound, and we need to look no further than LP albums, to cassette tapes and walkman, to CD, then mp3 players, and now tunes in the cloud (hello, iTune) that renders all predecessors obsolete.

Not everyone listens to music, but most everyone gets mails. Even with overwhelmingly junk mails, there is certain comfort in seeing something as regular as daily mail delivery in the mailbox. Alas, at least something stays constant in life...but not for long. Judging from the way that USPS is hemorrhaging, I'm not sure how long it can stay afloat.

Sometimes I find it rather bizarre, looking at the way that public/private services are in US. Much like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the USPS provides a very public civic service. In the case of Fannie and Freddie, they pretty much underwrite the secondary mortgage market with a quasi-government backing, even though they are "private entity" in name. I've always found that disingenuous, if only so that Americans (particularly the GOP cohorts) want no government in life or business enterprise. Yet, those markets and everyone who has a mortgage or a hand in the financial markets all have a hand in seeing to it that Uncle Sam's hidden role (as the guy backing Fannie and Freddie) stays hidden but is kept alive.

The same is true with USPS which is turned into a private entity, yet its finance and operations are largely hamstrung by public policy. Without change in regulations, they can't raise prices, they can't cut service, they can't even cut much staff, not to mention those generous pension. That's a terrible way to run a business.

I can't fathom a country without a postal service. Even though there are alternatives (eg. FedEx, UPS), postal service would and should remain public entity. On the other hand, regardless of whether it's public or not, one can't simply run it as if resources and funding are unlimited; to do otherwise is unconscionable.

I don't USPS that much these days. For my incoming mails, almost all the bills that I receive, I've ordered electronic bills and statements; so, there goes 80% of my mails in thin air. There are a few other billers who still can't do e-bills (eg. property taxes from county), but it's just a matter of time before they do. I still have only one journal (namely, Fortune magazine) that I still like it in print form. Everything else I get from the web and online subscription. The rest is all junk mail that goes to recycle bin. As to my outgoing mails, I pay all bills online. (How many billers can't receive online bill-pay these days anyways?!) So, I hardly need to send any mails at all. Those first-class stamps are gathering dust on my desk.

If my case is any indication of the impact to the USPS mail volume, it'll indeed be a very worrisome sign. And if USPS is to rely solely on the revenue on mail volume, then sooner or later it's going to go bankrupt. There's simply no other way.

Truth be told, USPS has had some innovations in recent years, including partnering with vendors like eBay to make it easier for merchants to ship packages, and stamps.com. They are not sufficient to ramp up revenue fast enough to compensate for the rapid decline of the physical mail volume.

I buy stuffs quite often on the web, and those packages are probably the times when USPS comes in most handily. I hope USPS will live on, but I don't think its current course is sustainable, with Congress behind its back (for whipping, not for much financial backing).