2012: Taking stock, and looking ahead...

Every year, I tried to jog down my own little year end review at the end of December.  It's really just for myself, so for those who are reading this, I'm not sure why you even bother to read my blog since it's just my own little journal.

I always read my year-end review the year before, to see how things were like in the prior year.  That, in some ways, provide some kind of perspective.  It's odd that the the macro outlook (be it economic or political) of 2011 was always the same as those of 2012.  So, it saves me some typing, since not much has changed from 2011 to 2012.  

Economy wise, US continues its mend though with the fiscal cliff that hangs over our heads.  That only goes to show how dysfunctional the politics in Washington has been, and I must say, I'm very tired of it.  (If I have the choice, I would fire all of them in the House, and start over from a clean slate.)  As everyone knows, GOP is going to yield in the 11th hour, and they're going to pass some stop-gap measure to kick the can down the road, which was how the fiscal cliff was created in the first place when the fight over budgets and stimulus package took place a few years ago.  Anyone with a bit of sense would realize that GOP has no political capital whatsoever to speak of, continuing its argument that taxes for the rich and wealthy absolutely cannot go up when the rest of the country suffers.  The vociferous Tea Party is waning, for good reasons; hope it stays that way.

Economy in Europe is still muddling along, as with Japan, although the situation looks to be less dire.  But anyone who follows the issues in Europe and Japan knows that nothing has been done to correct the underlying causes and issues.  All everyone is trying to do, is to buy time, and to hope that China continues its growth path.  

That brings us to the economy in China which trajectory has been slowing down considerably, even though its growth rate is still an envy to the developed world.  Its conundrum is not that easily solved.  Its economy is big due to the sheer size of population; but on individual level, barring the land-grab by a handful few who got filthy rich (and who mostly transported their wealth out of the country), its population still live poorly by Western standards.  The middle class rank is growing, but it's still a pipe dream that its consumer buying power can replace the consumers in the West.  The big question in 2013 and beyond: Can the Chinese central government engineer another successful shift from government-directed investment-led economy boom, to a private-sector, consumer-led economy, going forward?  Don't underestimate the determination of the Chinese though, given the track of Deng Xiaoping since 1980s in opening up its economy to the world, and the Chinese are a very adaptive people.  With the monumental change of political guards in the Chinese government in a decade, they can only hope to continue the economy growth in order to appease the growing social unrest, against issues like the widening gap of rich and poor, and corruption.  

Speaking of politics, the presidential election of 2012 finally put it to rest all those GOP and Tea Party trash talks of putting Obama out of office, whatever it takes.  Too bad GOP couldn't come up with a better candidate than the flip-flopping Mitt Romney who could have had a chance in a lifetime to take the White House, if only Romney had the backbone to come out as a moderate Republican.  But, nay, Romney leaned so far right, to even labeled himself as severely conservative, that everything that came out of his mouth during the presidential campaigning season sounded and felt fake and concocted.  In the end, GOP failed to appeal to moderates and independents like myself.  Even though I have not been overly impressed by what Obama has achieved in the past four years, the alternative of turning the White House over to Romney/GOP seemed even less viable and appealing.  So, Obama becomes another Dem president to do a second term.  Whatever his fault might be, I can only hope that he'll continue on the right path that he has started, by and large, since four years ago.

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

On a personal front, stock market has not been that appealing to me this year.  With the mortgage rate still at rock bottom level, I bought another investment property, returning  some 10% annual yield which I'm quite happy about.  

The startup has been going quite well too, which has been keeping me quite busy.  I should be so glad that I get to work behind the scene, rather that having to go out all the time for the startup.  

The kids are growing well and happy which I'm forever thankful for.  I'm rather apprehensive, as they approach puberty which would present new sets of challenges.  But, we'll take it as it comes.  

With the property market still in doldrums, I'm even contemplating buying something in Spain.  (I've always liked Spain, as a country, with its people and culture.)  We'll see what happens when I do my lookback in 2013.  :)

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

Of the notable people who passed away in 2012, Neil Armstrong moved me the most.  His passing was all the more glaring, in this age when everyone looks to have their 15-minute fame in order to make quick bucks, in contrast with Armstrong's quiet strength, intelligence and fortitude.  His death, in a way, signals the passing of an era when this nation was on the rise.  These days, all we have, are kids busy yapping with each other and posting trash comments with little substance, oftentimes even posting as "hard news", thinking social networking is a great leap forever in humanity.  How sad.  

Random thoughts on David Petraeus sex scandal, moral standards of military and general public, et al...

The presidential election is one week old; the economy is still struggling to mend; fiscal cliff is upon us; Europe is still teetering; China economy looks wobbly (or bubbly, depending on your vantage point); we're still actively engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or, are we seriously winding down any time soon?).

And what is main media obsessed on right now?  The salacious scandal of General David Petraeus, the ex-military commander turns CIA chief turns disgraced middle-aged man with an extra-marital affair.

Everyone in general public, main media and the internet seems to know every unfolding details about this scandal, which started out with a glamorous military woman turns grad student, turns biographer of Petraeus.  The two of them must have thought they're being extra-cautious about the cover-up, creating private gmail accounts for their liaison and communications, supposedly thinking that these are anonymous and untraceable. Little did neither of them know that nothing on the web is truly anonymous for very long.  Patraeus must have had very little inkling of how law enforcement traces cyber crime.  How ironic, for a supposedly spy chief of CIA director.

Unfortunate for Patraeus, his undoing is really the poor choice of a crazy mistress who sent anonymous emails to another woman deemed as her rival to the Patraeus attention.  The harassed woman complained to some FBI agent, who brought the issue to the FBI cyber crime division, which then diligently followed up on it, just to turn up evidence of salacious details of the affair between Patraeus and his mistress.  Big ooops, indeed.

Apparently, the harassed woman is no innocent victim, having ensnared the attention of not only the FBI agent eager to send her his bare chest picture, but also another general, one General Allen. Talking about hubris, this harassed woman must be in the league of Comet Hale-Bopp. It's probably safe to say, that she's no innocent victim of the very jealous mistress of Patraeus, being such a name-dropper, social climber.


BUT, the scandal is not what I was intending to write about.  It's not really the scandal itself that caught my attention; rather, it's the reaction that is more interesting - in reflecting our lives and times in this contemporary age.

So, it was that, this morning I was listening to Tom Ashbrook's On Point on NPR, with the interview of an author, Tom Ricks, who wrote a book about generals over the years.  In relation to the matter at hand, some of the facts look to be disreputable.  Patraeus and Allen look to be highly effective generals, and are both very good at what they do in the military.  As per Ricks, given how effective they are as generals, we should give them a break on all these indiscretions, since effective leaders in the military are so hard to come by and our military force has become so complacent with ineffective leadership.  Afterall, according to his logic, even Dwight Eisenhower had had extra-marital affairs; and if we were to choose, he's sure no one would want to replace Eisenhower during the WWII war command.  If we are willing to cut Eisenhower some slack, why not Patraeus or Allen?

Most people who are understanding on the men (and the women) would sympathize that, while it's morally wrong, they are consenting adults, and the total private matters is none of the FBI's concerns. Afterall, divorce rates are at all time high in civilian population; why should the military be treated to a different (and much higher) moral standard?

Those who strike moral high grounds believe these men, who handle highly classified government secrets, have put themselves in compromising position, opening themselves to potentials of blackmails.  In fact, the FBI has since found classified documents on the mistress' computer, though it's unclear where she's got those files from.  The thinking goes, that if these generals have come clean about the affairs, they'll be blackmail-proof, and the marital issues would become private matters between the husband, the wife, and the mistress, and not the FBI or CIA.

These are probably the strongest arguments that I would grant them for.  There are others that are plain sexist (eg. Holly Patraeus should mind her appearance a bit better to keep her husband; or that, these mistresses are just attracted to men in power, much like Monica Lewinsky) are simply too weak or repulsive for me to even consider them. Granted that there are part truth in such statements, I would highly doubt that these men have strayed from their domestic life simply because their wives have gained 20 pounds over a period of 40 years.  These men (and women) want excitement in their life, and the affairs and even just the supposed flirtations, provide welcomed distractions from their mundane daily routines.  Could their wives (or husbands) have done anything to prevent that from happening, perhaps by, say, changing new bedroom costumes from Victoria Secrets every night?  I don't think so.  As the saying goes, they want new meat.

Still, while I was listening to the interview on On Point and the listeners' call-in, with arguments both for and against the "public lynching" of Patraeus and Allen, it's started me on some soul-searching.

If this has been in France or Italy, this kind of discussions probably would not even warrant media prints in the third page. Somehow, America in the 21st century is still remarkably self-righteous, believing themselves to be cut from cloth of higher moral fabric.  (Don't take my word for it: Just look at the multiple affairs and divorces of New Gingrich while he's on the hunt to the Lewinsky liaison during Bill Clinton impeachment, and you'll see why I'm so cynical about all those self-righteous, "religious" men, mainly in the GOP camp.)

Do we aspire our leaders to higher standards, or should we lower the standards, just so that our leaders can cross the bar? I'd rather not.  Still, I don't want to be the one to cast the first stone, even though I've never strayed from the path in my marriage. I can only imagine the tug-and-pull of sexual tension in the formative stage of an affair; and the flirtation must be fun (just ask General Allen, even though he insists that it's all innocent and he hasn't had sexual relationship with the harassed woman in question, it's really just a matter of time).

If we stray only in our heads, with some fantasy that is never acted upon, have we sinned? Where does the moral judgment begin, and end? Afterall, isn't that all Hollywood is about, when people watch movies and become enameled of movie stars as sex symbols?  I doubt there aren't that many women who never drool over George Clooney or Brad Pitt or the six-packs from other movie guys; same goes with praises from men to airheads like Megan Fox.

I do not want to judge, but somehow I have harbored hope against all hopes that the leaders - military leaders, no less - would be able to achieve what we mere mortals can't, ie. to succumb to our whims and fantasy. I would have hoped, that all the talk of military discipline would really mean and count for something in self discipline; or, is  all the ooh-rah's just for show? Is it really that bad (or unachievable, in modern times) for us to aspire our leaders to be the next Winston Churchill? Have we, as general public, scooped so low that they have given up hope that there will not be another Churchill, not only in terms of leadership, courage, wisdom, but also the moral fabrics?

I can only say, that I have not given up the hope for that. But one man after another, these crops of leaders, supposedly elites from West Point and all, have failed. I'm profoundly disappointed. I really am.  I have long given up hopes on politicians, but military elites are no better, apparently.  How sad.

On our new Garmin GPS...

I'm on a roll, of late.  After tackling our "reading" problem with the Nook, I've decided to tackle another problem of mine, which is maps.

Yes, yes, I know, everyone is all over map - pun intended - about the snafu of the iPhone Map that came out very recently.  Not that I care much about iPhone map, I do fully appreciate why it's such an important application for daily use.  The location service on the smartphones are perfect for keeping tab on consumers, going local.  It's perfect for selling personalized mobile ad, wherever the users might be.  Social media is all hyped up, and suddenly everyone wants to know where everyone is, probably down to the precision of the exact cube in the bathroom.  Big money is to be had.  Big wars will be fought (just look at the infighting among Google Maps, Bing Maps, and now iPhone Map).

The scale of my problem is much smaller.  I don't want smartphone apps to give me maps; that has nothing to do with the quality of the new iPhone Map versus Google or Bing Map on every other smartphone.  I don't want to marry my map needs with a data plan for the phone.  I don't want the map providers to tie me to other search or purchase/browser history.  I don't want mobile ad; period.  I get what I need; I don't want to be pushed to buy things.  And I'm not a stalker, I don't need such hyper needs to track everybody else.

I go about my navigation needs the old-fashioned ways.  I have physical maps and atlas, and I check with physical maps and Google Map ahead of time for driving instructions.  That usually work out quite well, except when it doesn't (at times).

I'm sure it happens to everybody else, of how it's like when the map instructions from Google (or Bing, or whoever) are off.  Or, you make a wrong turn, or you miss an intersection; and suddenly everything is off.  Big ooops.  And then, there are detours, traffic jams or accidents, or having to fumble over maps under flashlight in the dark; the works.  For some reasons, those situations happen to me quite often.  My kids have come to expect that.  My son would volunteer to read the maps or instructions for me.  My daughter would periodically ask me, "Are you sure where we are?"

I have not planned for a single-purpose device again, as I've noted before, but there is something appealing about a special purpose device like a GPS.  For one, I only need to pay for the device once, and I won't have to worry about the need to pay monthly fees (for phone data plan) for just checking maps; never mind surfing the web which is not essential to me when I'm on the road.  I can download maps for other countries when I go on trips, and I won't have to worry about getting a local cell phone plan in foreign countries, just to get the smartphone map apps to work.  The satellite tracking is better than triangulation of cell phone towers too, particularly for those cell phone providers who have spotty coverage; in short, I need my maps to be accurate, and I need complete coverage.

So, after the Nook, I've decided to get a Garmin GPS.  As with every other gadgets, once the hump of initial setup is over, things go quite smoothly.  That includes registering the device with Garmin and the lifetime map update (yes, I want updated maps whenever it's available), and downloading the maps which take a good long time of 8+ hours.  But after that, everything's a breeze.  Battery life looks very decent, and I don't have to charge it that often.

It's funny how, for once, my kids sigh a breath of relief after I got it working.  Their relief?  "We won't get lost again."  Hope so...

Granted, I won't give up on my physical maps and checking out Google or Bing Maps before trips.  I don't like to rely solely on electronic devices.  More importantly, I want to actively use my brain whenever I can, rather than mindlessly following driving instructions from some gadget's voice commands.  I'm human, afterall, ain't I!?!


PS:  I've been extremely happy with the "behavioral development" re the Nook so far.  I have worried that my son would spend too much time just playing games.  As it turns out, almost one month into it, my kids have been all too happy to read the few hundred books (most of them classics) that we've got on it so far.  I know, for a fact, that my son would not have volunteered to read up on Two Thousand Leagues Beneath The Sea from library shelf, but he's all too happy to read it in the car during journeys; and he loves it.  On the other hand, my daughter whose interest is in reading on the Nook only, is getting comfortable with gadgets, which is a good thing too.

PPS:  Although if Barnes & Nobles would ask of me, I would certain offer my humble opinion, as a user, of what works and what doesn't.  There are times when things are simply not intuitive at all (ie. I have to dig it out, or search online to find the answers).  I don't know who design the human interface of the Nook, but it does need works.

On Obama's win 2012, Romney's downfall, and GOP set adrift...

The presidential election is over now (finally), and the people spoke their mind.

For months, the GOP talking heads, Romney campaign, and their strategists, have been hiding their heads in the sand, insisting that all is well, ignoring people's wishes and needs, and their candidate (Romney) will win.  Looking back, it just goes to show how silly they have been, all along.

I'm a voter and, for all intent and purposes, more a spectator, except during the final voting hours.  Although I live in a state that is quite heavily Dem leaning, I'd say there are really more Independents than diehard Dem these days.  Such is the case when the Senate has changed hands between the parties unexpectedly, as it should be.  Most people find that to be surprising, but it's not surprising to me at all.  At the heart of it, diehard anything, regardless of far left or far right, is suffocating, preventing true conversations of real issues at hard, never mind any attempt in finding solutions.

Perhaps one could look back on the 2012 election from two angles: How Obama has won the election, and how Romney (and GOP at large) have lost it.

Romney has had so many chance to show he can be presidential (or at least the appearance of it); but with perhaps the only exception of the first presidential debate, he  and his campaign had failed time and again to seize the moment or conversation, and when they did, they did it too soon (hence, rendering them as rash).  He stepped on toes on foreign allies by criticizing London's handling of the Olympics which turned out to be hugely successful and earned himself rebuff and jeers from the Brits.  He criticized the handling of the attacks in Benghazi during the initial hours without knowing all the facts.  He kept talking down on the economic recovery (albeit painfully slow) while everyone knows it's on the mend, property prices on the rise again (finally) and unemployment rate inching down.  He shouted down any criticism of his business hedge funds credentials at Bain Capital as jealousy of capitalism at its best, without realizing how out of touch his wealth and low tax rate are when compared to common folks' daily problems to just finding a job - any job - or to put food on the table, arguing that his low tax rate is legal (while never addressing whether it's ethical or not), which is exactly what Warren Buffet has pointed out.  Romney repeated the standard party line of the hardline stance against (illegal) immigration, proposing self-deportation.  Above all, Romney claims to have a plan - his so-called five-point plan - to fix the economy, yet it's nothing but slogan and no meat.  The list goes on and on, one inept move after another.  It's quite pathetic, really.

To be sure, Obama's campaign is effective but it's nowhere near what it used to be in the 2008 campaign when everyone seemed to ride the wave to his Hope and Change message, which again was just slogan and no meat.  (I never did believe in it.)  As an incumbent this time around, Obama has to campaign on his 4-year record in office.  He backpedaled early on with some campaign promises, but the left leaning interest groups seemed to have forgiven him and moved on.  (Afterall, Obama is the lesser of two evils, should a GOP president be elected.)  Obama did double down on deficit spending and more bailouts that George W Bush had started, to prop up the economy, which is nothing short of any hope to change.  The war might still be winding down, but the books are not closed.  Granted, the economy is indeed on the mend; his push for ObamaCare (which is not ideal but it's one step closer to universal coverage, American style) has come to fruition; his executive order to bypass a highly partisan Congress to go ahead with Dream Act; most notably, the killing of Osama bin Laden.  And so, for anyone to call this president lazy, as the GOP surrogate Sununu has done, is downright wrong.  In fact, this president looks to have worked harder than Bush did, with much less vacation to his ranch as Bush did back in his days.

And so, it's only fair that the country is split almost 50/50, but conservative and far right arguing on non-issue like abortion and women's rights which, to most (me included, especially), should have been issues long settled, have utterly missed the point.  The only effect of such divisive conversation only serves to alienate women's voters at the closing hours of the election.  The condescending tone from these religious and far right GOP groups and supporters have pissed me off so much that I've decided to vote the current GOP Senator in my state out of office (which he did).  I've decided to ensure GOP does not get the majority say.

To be sure, even though sore losers in the GOP camp complain about negative ad attacking Romney's Bain record, there are hardly any real personal attacks in this campaign from either side.  At the very least, Obama's campaign never brought up the issue of Romney being a Mormon (which was an issue early on in the GOP primaries); yet there are still the GOP idiots like Donald Trump who still believes that Obama is not born on US soil, or that he's Muslim, or that he's not patriotic, all of which personal attacks have proven endless times that they are untrue.  All these white noise only goes to show how ignorant a majority in the GOP camp are.

No doubt the loss of 2012 will be more painful than 2008.  At least there's such unrealistic expectation of Obama the candidate, to the point of Messiah's second coming, that it's almost impossible for an old hand like McCain to overcome.  GOP has hoped against hopes that 2012 would bring Obama down to earth, and Romney is the guy to beat him.  As it turns out, Obama's record hasn't been all that shabby, and Romney's record hasn't been all that great.

It's funny how far right and the noisy GOP Tea Partiers have initially rejected Romney as their standard bearer, and turned around to embrace to the guy with the best chance to beat Obama.  That embrace has never been heartfelt, true, or long lasting.

The decisive win of Obama in 2012 serves to remind GOP that much change in 2008 has become permanent, in particular, the demographic shifts and the rise of minority (including women's voters, hispanic voters, and young voters).  There'll surely be much soul searching among the GOP strategists for years to come, since their vaulted hope to get elected on the backs of rural white voters and conservative religious voters alone.  The continuous shifts in the demographics will tar the GOP.

My bets are, the GOP will never embrace the blacks.  With the hispanics voters generally more religious in nature, and this voter bloc is on the rise, GOP will modify their stand in immigration to embrace them.  But if GOP keeps putting out idiotic, combative female candidate like Christine O'Donnell or Michelle Bachmann or Salin Palin, they'll never get any real traction with women's voters.

The bottomline is, can the GOP party machine keep the Tea Party and far right in check, and move to the middle.  The fight over the fiscal cliff is going to be a test case for this, to see if they really want to move toward the center, rather than just being a party of 'No' and be obstructionist.  But if GOP cannot move forward from the old guards like Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove, they'll never be able to reinvent themselves.

On a second dig to USPS...

Earlier, I was reading yet another article about how moribund USPS is.

What gets to me, is not the subject matter.  Afterall, everyone knows USPS has been on a downward death match for a long time now.  What irks me, is the writer - Jeff Jordan - of the abovementioned article, supposedly a partner at a VC fund, coming in with this know-it-all attitude, laying it out, in your face, that "I know your problems better than you do, and I have a solution to every problems you have" type of attitude.  In short, it sounds a whole lot like Mitt Romney, the overpriced consultant.

He makes it sound like he has it all figured out, but what was laid out in the article, is basically information from public domain that have been rehashed, time and again, for so many times, that it has the feeling of beating a dead horse just one more time.

Consider this:

The stamps.com initiative - is exactly the type of innovation that the writer should have been championing about.  This initiative is very popular among users like ebay sellers who can weigh their parcel, print the postage, and simply drop off the packages at post office or at their own mailbox for pickup.  But instead of rallying around innovation like this, what does this writer has to offer, as an "example" of his innovation?  Digital mailbox.  Duh.

Granted, that the "business model" (if you can call it that) of USPS never makes sense to me.  It tries to provide a mandated public service, with strict government and regulator oversight, but with a private revenue focus.  Well, with Congress on its back, it'll NEVER work.  And if USPS really is to go down the path of privatization, as this writer has propositioned, then USPS will stop the last-mile delivery from day one, because that is a surefire money loser.  Any sensible chief executive of a private entity would have cut those money losers, even at the risk of losing tremendous public goodwill.

Jordan further cites the failure of USPS's package business, but I don't think it's losing to UPS and FedEx.  There are actually more people using USPS Priority Mail and Parcel Post service, than UPS and FedEx these days.  For individuals, how many of them would enjoy the "volume discount" (offered by UPS and FedEx) that Jordan refers to anyways.  It's just total bullshit.  As it is now, pricing of Priority Mail and Parcel Post is competitive, for individual customers; I, for one, never have the needs to turn to UPS or FedEx.  And the delivery of Priority Mail or Parcel Post can be just as fast as UPS or FedEx.  I can even leave my packages at my mailbox for the mailman to pick up too.  How do you beat that?

But, there are pathways in which EVERYONE knows USPS has to take, in order to survive.  (We don't need Jordan to tell us that; thank you very much.)  That includes closing more post offices, some of which serve only as watering hole for small town community.  (If the small town folks really need a place to congregate, they should rally their congressmen to open community centers, rather than mandating USPS to keep an office for them to hang out.)  I'll bet you any day, that Congress would never grant full power to USPS to do that, nor to negotiate more flexible labor contracts, all of which have the view to appeasing their own constituents.  Other than a mere mention that this takes "political will," what else has Jordan come up with to help USPS on this front?  Nothing.

As a sometimes USPS customer, and one that has crossed over to the digital world long time ago, I'll tell you what makes sense to me, and what doesn't:

(a)  Those racks that has greeting cards?  Get rid of them.  For the life of me, I've never seen anyone buying or even looking at those cards or calendars or stuffs on offer.  Why waste the space?  Greeting cards and calendars are dying relics of a bygone era.

(b)  Those packing materials?  Put them in a vending machine.  There is no need for customers to have to buy them and pay in person over the counter.  It's a waste of the cash counter's time (to process the transaction) and customer's time (to have to stand in line to pay).

(c)  Add the vending machine for others like stamps, but the machine has to accept credit cards.  No one uses cash these days anymore, except the old ladies.

(d)  I would have used self-serve kiosk to pay for the Priority Mail or Parcel Post packages, but those machines are less cumbersome to use, which often requires having another USPS employee to stand by to help customers.  What's the point of a self-serve kiosk when it requires help every time?

USPS has amassed tremendous public goodwill.  Hindsight is 50/50, and it's a missed opportunity for USPS to position itself as a hub for all bill-pay, physical or digital.  Don't laugh, because this can be done.  Just look at the bill-pay at Auspost in Australia, which provides convenience for customers to pay bills online or by phone or at post office, and is immensely popular in Australia.  USPS never harnessed that beast, allowing banks to come in and take over the bill-pay space.  These days, customer habits have become so entrenched in bank bill-pay that it would have been a herculean uphill battle to wrestle that from banks.  But can it be done?  I do believe there's a slim chance.  There is an under-served market in the non-bank customers, and older customers, or new and illegal immigrants.  Could USPS offer a less intimidating option for them, than the mandate to have a bank account before they can pay bills?  I would think so.

The trajectory of USPS, though, is not working in its favor; and time is running out.  The longer it waits, the faster its death spiral will be.  The way it's going, it's only a matter of time before it defaults.  Why don't we just drop the pretense that USPS is a private entity when it has ALL the hallmarks of a public service and federal agency??  When would we stop kidding ourselves that, if we the taxpayers want the postal service to be universal, we'll have to pay up, one way or the other, either by higher postage, or fund it through direct intervention?  And if we are serious about helping USPS stand on its feet, Congress and Washington have to get off of its back.  And if Congress can't let it go, embrace it and make it a federal agency again.  There is no middle ground: case in point, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  But again, I very much doubt if those power-hungry old farts (aka. the House and the Senate) will let go of their holding powers over USPS.

On KFC and other declining US brands...

I used to love KFC, in particular, its chicken in original recipe and butter-soaked corn on a cob.  During the days when I lived in Australia with my sisters, we used to drive out to KFC in the evening, bought bucketful of chicken pieces, corn, coleslaw, and mash potato with gravy.  One of my sisters used to work part time at a KFC during her college days, but she's never tired of it.  Another sister loves the coleslaw.  I like the mash potato (no gravy), chicken, and, in particular, the corn.  We would have the big meal on the table, munching while watching our favorable TV shows.  (In those days, there were still decent TV shows, like X Files, rather than trash like reality TV these days.)

How times have changed.

I still love a good KFC meal after I moved to US, though I haven't had one for quite some time now.  Perhaps I'm getting older, and I'd like healthier meals than the very greasy and salty KFC chickens, and such.  It's also true that the attitude of local Americans towards KFC is very different from those overseas.

If you're in, say, Asia or Middle East, the general perception would equate brands like KFC or McDonald's with all things American.  The establishments are generally clean, well-staffed and well-lit.  In fact, in places like Hong Kong, McDonald's and KFC are owned and operated outright by the company, rather than as franchise, which could have added vested interest in ensuring its success.  Food might be the same, in general, but people (young folks, in particular) go there to hang out because it's cool.  Just ask anyone from Hong Kong, young and old, for example.

Back home in US, things cannot be more different.  The area where we live, which is a well-off neighborhood, the McDonald's couldn't survive and closed down a few years ago.  In its stead, we have Panera Bread and Starbucks.  If I have to find a Big Mac or KFC, I have to drive to other more blue-collar, working class neighborhoods.  (I don't mean to sound demeaning or mean-spirited, but it's true.)  Even so, you don't generally see those franchises busy.

About two weeks, I suddenly have this craving for the KFC original recipe.  You may call it nostalgia, but craving is craving, and it has to be satisfied.  So, I drove out to another town, for the lone KFC within maybe five miles radius of where we live.  It was around lunch time, but there's only one sit-down customer.  I bought a two-piece chicken meal, original recipe, that comes with a mash potato (with gravy), a muffin (that I didn't eat), and a colesaw.  For what's worth in a box, it sounds like quite good value for the money.  I do reckon KFC probably spends a big chunk in the packaging (and all those little containers) than the actual food.

In any case, I opened the box with much anticipation, bear in mind that this is my KFC meals in maybe ten years' time.  I was hoping the taste will bring back fond memory.  But, I was quite sorely disappointed with the chicken which is not crispy.  I tasted the saltiness but it didn't have the flavor it used to have.  Both the chicken pieces fell apart when I tried to pick them up.  There's a lot of "stuffs" on the skin (that is supposed to be crispy though it's not), but not much meat, never mind the stuffings (even though I don't care about stuffings).  To its credit, the mash potato was still more or less the same (though I realize now that I prefer real mash potato rather fake ones from KFC).  Same goes with the coleslaw.  (I never touch the muffin; I should have told them I don't need it.)

In the end, I've decided that I ate probably one third of what's in the box.  Or, I should have said, about one third in that decent sized box is edible.  For the money I've spent, expecting a lunch, I was still hungry when I was done.  Most disappointing was original recipe chicken which I used to love a lot, but THIS is not it.

While driving home from this very disappointing encounter, I've decided that I've had it with KFC.  This would probably be my last encounter with KFC.

As I was reading the article, about US brands that are now not meant to be, I have to say, there's a lot of truth in it.  Perhaps I'm not alone in my disappointment with KFC, or even McDonald's; those American brands that were staples but have fallen out of favor for a long time now.  McDonald's does try to change with the times, adding healthier choices to its menu, and its coffee isn't that shabby.  I can't say the same with KFC which has a sense of constancy in its decor and food (the look of it, but not the taste), but neither is that appealing to me anymore.  Even though my family has been blessed with good genes (*touch wood*), and we never have to worry about problems with weight, or heart, or cholesterol that comes with eating junk food, I'm getting more conscious about healthier eating habits these days.

Perhaps for those people overseas, they might still mistakenly think that, by eating at these establishments, it'll make them more American and more cool.  In reality, it cannot be further from the truth since a large swath of Americans have ditched these brands, if not for good.  Sometimes, one has to wonder how long these brands can sustain on this kind of illusion in their overseas markets?!?  I'd have to say, sooner or later, that façade has to come off.  It's just a matter of time.

On Lance Armstrong's fall from grace...

I like watching sports, and cycling is one of them, even though I'm not much of a rider.  There is something about competing in sports that feels almost refreshing; afterall, either you win it, or you don't.  Well, apparently, it isn't that clean cut, and it's much shadier than one would have imagined it.

Such is the rise and fall of Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France winner, multiple times over; the cancer survivor who beat back cancer and made such dramatic comeback to win more Tour de France titles; the philanthropist whose foundation and cancer awareness program of Livestrong has been such an inspiration of millions, all of which bring tremendous wealth to the guy whose commercial endorsements are envy of other aspiring cyclists and athletes.  He seems to have it all.

As we know now, all these were never meant to be.  No one doubts Armstrong's fierce determination to win.  As the USADA investigation has peeled off his façade, not only was his win-it-at-all-costs attitude unethical, but his systemic approach to coerce others on his team to get in on the game in his own dirty way is illegal and criminal as well.

For far too long, Armstrong shouts down skeptics and critics in their suspicion that he cheats, pointing out that he has been drug-tested numerous times over the years, and he's never caught red-handed, as evidence that he's not a cheat, and that those critics are  sore losers envious of his success.  He's been so successful in hiding this scheme, that his teammates and co-conspirators have been cowered into not speaking out.  The rightwingers, like those Wall Street Journal readers who posted in the forums in all Armstrong news, are particularly supportive of him, telling others to just give it a rest; that Armstrong deserves every bit of success he's worked for; that he did so much good to the society and to the sport that no lingering doubts on him was justified.

When his teammates have finally, one after another, decided to come out with the truth, Armstrong made his last ditch attempt to prevent the USADA report and evidence from coming out, by deciding to not fight the charges against him.  In the end, USADA releases its report and findings anyway, resulting in his undoing, finally and totally.

I'm sick to my stomach, reading the report on how Armstrong and his enablers coerce others to get dirty in order to stay on the team.  By making everyone around him to dope, he anticipates them to clam up since they are now part of dirty scheme, co-conspirators, and are forced to help cover up the deeds, lest they face the fierce consequences that have now fell him.

I'm glad too to hear that he's going to lose his most prized Tour de France titles that he won unfittingly over the years, and others (eg. Olympics) are going to follow suit soon.  I'm also glad to hear those like Nike are finally stopping their financial support and endorsement on this cheater.  It should leave no doubt to anyone who are still doping, or even contemplating doing so, that there are serious consequences in doping.

Time and again, I read those WSJ readers claiming that it's a waste of taxpayers' money, of USADA, in going after an "honored" athlete like Armstrong; I hope they find their rightful place under their bed, hide and ponder how idiotic they have been in supporting Armstrong, without any critical thinking.

Perhaps I'm naive, or maybe I don't want to seek the truth too deeply, but I know I'm not alone, when I watch sports competitions, that I somehow - wishfully perhaps - hope that the winner pervades because of their skills, sweats, talents, rather than due to unfair advantage like doping.  (This is one of the reasons why I like watching soccer since it's not just about strength and endurance, and you can't fake the skills and footwork and teamwork with dope.)  Afterall, everyone wants to believe in the fairy tale of Armstrong, having not only survived cancer, but making such strong comeback that he would go on to win more Tour de France titles.  This is despite the fact that, deep down, I know somehow that a large part of it could not have been true.  It would have been nice, to go back to a simpler time, when winning and losing are as clear cut as day and night, without an ounce of doubt.  Lance Armstrong utterly destroys that age of innocence.  For that, I would be glad to see him banished from all sports.  Good riddance.

On the hypocrisy of GOP capitalists and their denouncement of government handouts...

I read the article Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza from The Nation, and it makes it sick to the stomach.  The depth of hypocrisy of these big capitalists and hedge funds guys know no bounds. While they are denouncing government handouts and bailouts, they act like rascals, forcing their stockholders responsibility onto the government, then turn around and cry "Losers!" to government and unions.  The sum of money involved, and the huge amount (hundreds of millions to billions in total), is obscene and totally disgusting.  The manner that these hedge funds guys milked the system, hooked the government by way of finagling the control of Delphi and holding GM hostage, is despicable.  Along the way, Bain Capital, and the Romneys benefit handsomely.  Then again, would I expect these guys who only have big dollars in their eyes to behave any differently?  No.

There should be no further illusion when Mitt Romney says, "Let Detroit go bankrupt!" and that he loves cars, he really loves his money more.  To Romney and all those money guys, the rest of the world can go fcuk themselves, as long as their money machine keeps rolling and they keep their ways to play the system, taxpayers be damned.

To that end, I simply cannot recognize how Romney can say it with he's the job creation guy with a straight face.  It's all lies.

I'm so sick of it, I need to go to bathroom and throw up...

On the passing of Locke-Ober...

If you've ever worked in downtown Boston, you would know Locke-Ober.  It's a place that is steep in tradition, for powerbrokers in the city to wheel-deal while having long lunches.  Years ago when I worked in downtown Boston, I used to go there from time to time.

Since then, I haven't visited the place for ages now.  While the place is nice, service is good, decor and atmosphere remind one of its long history, but the food is only decent, and it's outrageously overpriced.  I would not have gone there if I were paying from my own pocket.  That accounts for why I never look back on that place.

I haven't realized it until I heard the report on NPR that Locke-Ober is closing for good this weekend.  I even wonder out loud if I might want to take a special trip to downtown Boston to have a meal there, for the last time.  In the end, I've decided against it since I don't love that place enough to pay the price.

To be sure, it's just a matter of time before Locke-Ober closes door.

Its location hamstrings it, in a way.  The whole area around Downtown Crossing in Boston has been in general decline for more than a decade now.  Even bigbox stores like Filene and Barnes And Nobles couldn't sustain themselves.  It's only a matter of time before others like Macys go.  The newer stores moving into the area are generally of low quality, further accelerating its decline.  It's a vicious cycle.

Locke-Ober did try to change.  Albeit the tradition of all-male wait staff, it tries to move with change of time, by waiving the mandate of customers to wear a jacket, and even just allowing female customers (that only happens since 1970s - imagine that!) in.  But I just can't handle its heavy food - and how over-priced it was - anymore.

Oh, and the price.  With its steep price tag, I can more easily get better food, and service, and value, elsewhere.  Just the appeal of its history alone, is not enough to tempt me to make special trips to go back to the area and dine there.

Part of its appeal is its formality; but my kids dislike it.  I've come to dislike it too, given our increasingly casual lifestyle.

In a way, Locke-Ober mirrors the rise and general decline of Boston in the larger scheme of things.  Boston used to be trend-setter; these days, it's just treading water.  All the financial titans like Fidelity and State Street Bank are shrinking their presence in the area.  Startups prefer to move elsewhere (eg. Cambridge) that is closer to talents pools, like MIT, which is cheaper and provides easier access.  From a strategic perspective, Boston is simply not the center of universe anymore.

Long story short, I might still keep the Locke-Ober matchbox from years ago, but I won't shed any tears for its passing.  Sadly or not, it's time to move on.

On our new Nook Color...

Since Apple's iPhone and iPad burst onto the scene of consumer market, smartphones and tablets are all the rage.  Although I'm in the IT field, I'm not one of those who would pay exorbitant sum just to get my hand (or first-hand experience) on gadgets as new toys.  I don't like to brag about things like "My iPhone rocks!" even though they look really cool, with some very handy apps to boot.  But, by and large, most are just hype.  As pragmatic as I am, I only get what I need, and not what everybody has/wants.  I'm all for the pull, instead of push, approach, when it comes to technology.  It makes life easier, and allows more clarity in life.

And so, it's not hard to imagine my long holdout for not getting any smartphone or tablets.  My regular cell phone, basic as it might be, works fine.  I don't have hyper needs to be online or stay connected via email sync or web access.  (I guess I'm not that important a player; but I can live with that, for want of a simpler life.)  All I need, is some voice calls, with occasional texting.  I don't even play games.  Yes, yes, I know - I'm quite a dinosaur; but again, I can live with that as well; I have better use of my time than checking with Facebook every 30 mins, as a lot of people seem to do these days.  That's what I call, "busy for nothing."

It wasn't until the battery of my basic cell started dying on me, and I couldn't find any OEM battery anymore, that I finally accept a hand-me-down smartphone from my husband.  I appreciate it, more to the fact that the battery lasts much longer, with much longer talk time, and there's enhanced capability to set alarms and check time using world-clock.  I appreciate nice user interface, but I would not pay premium for it; I'm sure the late Steven Jobs would turn in his grave, literally, knowing such holdouts as I am.

As you can imagine, I have much less need for tablets.  At least, with my cell (and now the smartphone), I have it with me all the time.  I don't even bring my laptop with me all the time when I go out; why would I need a tablet?

But, on recent trip to Europe, I'm having second thoughts.  My kids are taught to pack their own bags and decide what stuffs they need (or want) to bring.  Books are a big part of it.  Prior to the trip, we've got maybe 25 books sitting on the table that they want to bring with them, so that they can read while waiting in the airport lounge, or on the plane, or the quiet time in the evening, or whenever wherever, really.  But, bringing 25 thick books with us will not do.  We always travel light, avoiding the need to check bags (and then the eventual wait for bags to come out upon arrival).  Hence, our first need of a tablet - or rather, an e-reader - is born.

After we came back from the trip, my daughter decides that she wants an e-reader as birthday gift.  She's thrilled with the idea that she can now have her own library of a few thousand books that she can bring with her when she's on the road.  (Yes, she is every bit as pragmatic as I am, even though she's still young.)  I've been undecided as to whether I would go for a full-fledged tablet like iPad or just an e-reader like Kindle or Nook.  My son wants iPad (or even just an iPod Touch, if iPhone and iPad are not on the deck); my daughter is fine with an e-reader (though she's unsure about Kindle or Nook).

Last week, we went to the nearby Barnes And Nobles store to buy books (physical books) of a new book they've been waiting on in the public library.  It's a popular book and the wait is bound to be at least six months.  While there, they play around with the Barnes And Nobles devices, including the Nook Tablet, Nook Color, and the regular e-reader.  My son loves the color and the responsiveness of the Nook Tablet, and Color, when playing games.  My daughter just wants to read with the devices.  The Nook Simple Touch is basic enough as an e-reader, with the e-ink not too taxing on the eyes when reading long hours, but it's not as responsive as the Nook Color or Tablet.  The half-second lag in response sometimes have me wondered if I have turned the page already or not, which is not very good.

I toy with the idea for a few more days, as to whether we would go for a device that is single purpose, or whether we should go for something that serves a few more purposes.  I recall the now buried alarm clocks of mine that used to be staples in our daily lives and during trips; with the cell phone that is with me all the time that doubles as clock and alarm clock, I don't want to go back to the days when I carry all the single-purpose devices (in which I have to ensure each one has sufficient battery too) in my bag anymore.

Suddenly, the choice becomes clear to me.  If I dim the brightness of a color device, the reading won't be so bad.  But with the first foray, I don't want to spend big money on something that might not work out (or work as smoothly as it claims).  Plus, I need the device to allow me to borrow books from public library too.

With those goals in mind, it makes decisions easier.  I won't go for Kindle because it doesn't support open standards like e-pub (hence, it won't allow for borrowing books from library).  Most people complain about the lack of apps on the Barnes And Nobles store; but to me, most of the apps on the Apple iStore are white noise anyways, which I don't have much care for.  I do want the wi-fi capability to connect to the web to read newspapers and to surf.  The touch-screen is much more sensitive and responsive in the Nook Color than the Nook Simple Touch.  And Nook Color isn't that expensive, which means that, if it doesn't work out, I won't feel so bad trashing it.

And so, we went to the Barnes And Nobles store again to buy our very first Nook Color, with screen protector and a hard cover to protect it.  Full retail of everything was a little over $200 which is still much cheaper than getting the hyped-up Apple devices.  I do have to go to Microcenter to buy a wireless router to hook it with my home network too.  (Yes, I've delayed setting up wi-fi at home due to security concerns for quite some now, until WPA/WPA2 comes along which is better than WEP.)  And then I have to set up my account with Barnes And Nobles.  In no time, the kids got their first e-book on the Nook Color.  They've been playing some basic games (eg. chess) on it, and read up on things on wikipedia too.  

From a user's perspective, I know the process for all these are pretty much the same for all the other devices, and across vendors.  Now that we've got one going, I'm thinking of getting a few more (used) Nook Color so that the kids can have their own device while we're traveling.  They love it; and I love it too.  

My son is itching to write his own iPhone/iPad app, so I know one of these days, I'll have to get some Apple devices for him, from a developer's and tester's perspective.  (Afterall, a simulator in the IDE will only get you so far.)  But for now, Nook Color is a good start, with a very reasonable price tag and performance.  I can't ask for more.

PS:  I can see how (and why) tablets will eventually cannibalize the netbook market, with the tablet so much smaller, lighter, more responsive, less expensive, yet serving essentially the same purpose.  Netbooks are too small and limiting for serious corporate work, and mostly serve the single-purpose to surf the web, in which tablets can easily do.  Plus, tablets like iPad (based on iOS) and Nook Color/Tablet (based on Android) are much more lightweight in terms of OS, without having to drag along the heavy Windows OS (or even other OS like linux) which can take forever to boot up.  Just a week into it, my kids have all but forgotten the netbooks; one can easily understand why.

PPS:  When you see how consumer behavior can easily mold and change, Steve Jobs had it right.  One should observe how intuitive and un-intimidating a device is for kids to pick up, without having to go through a thick manual, and not be intimidated by the device and the whole process.  

On the second presidential debate 2012...

Much as most everyone who has watched the second presidential debate 2012 between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, I can't be more pleasantly surprised by how different Obama has come across in the second debate.

During the first debate, Obama has been roundly criticized as inept and impotent in putting forth the arguments against Romney, with little to no rebuttal to his opponent, even if Romney repeated the same half-truth and lies.  Obama failed to go after Romney, lest the attempt would make him look less presidential.  But one does not have to brawl to come across as forceful.

And so it was, during the second debate, Obama has succeeded in achieving that, rebutting almost every single argument from Romney and/or retorting with nice catchy byline that was effective not only in neutralizing Romney, but in refuting various half truth and lies (eg. the impossibility that the so-called Romney's five-point plan) and in establishing the track records of the Obama administration during his past four years (even though it's mostly foreshadowed by the lackluster economy).  Perhaps the only glaring exception was Romney's attack of Obama's handling of the Libya attack to the US embassy that led to the killing of four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya.  I can understand why the Republicans are so indignant about the moderator since she almost looked like she's cut off Romney's attack to Obama by moving swiftly to the next question.

For what's worth, Obama has succeeded in a forceful performance in a debate that has utilized a number of talking points on Romney that the Democrats have wanted to rebut  Romney on (including his 47% remarks, that his essentially one-point plan of tax cuts won't be sufficient to get the country back to health), without being disrespectful to his opponent and still looking quite presidential.

To his credit, Romney has maintained his steady-annie performance in his second debate, much as he has in the first debate.  With a more forceful and effective debater from Obama, Romney's arguments ring hollow.  Romney was unable to offer any specifics of his five-point plan, among other things, except offer a vague list of goals that everyone wants to achieve, but no specifics how he could get the country there.  Given that he's essentially a powerpoint guy, his inability to offer specific details only goes to show that he has no plan at all, except to tell potential voters to just "trust me."

Romney indeed looked flustered during the second debate, opening himself up for attacks by Obama (with his repeating end remarks that he's all for 100% Americans, effectively inviting Obama to end the debate to paraphrase Romney's true intent that he really has discarded 47% of the country behind closed doors), and even setting himself up for some late-night jokes and ridicule (like his ridiculous binders full of women remarks).

No doubt, the supporters on both sides are going to read into the tea leaves, with both candidates holding their own, perpetuating their support of their candidates of choice.  For those who are still undecided, the second debate should stem the impression that Obama is just an empty suite.

I'm Independent and have been on the fence (though with leaning towards Democrat this time around), with not that much liking to Obama and even less so with Romney, but indeed the thinking behind what Obama has set out to do with his administration is more forward thinking and progressive (eg. how the policy should help to benefit future generations, rather than just giving tax cuts to the wealthy, here and now, while trashing everything like healthcare and social safety net).  To that end, I hope Romney and GOP go down in flame metaphorically in the election next month, even though I would not wish ill to everyone literally.

On James Bond, 50 years on...

I'm a movie fan.  (Ok, I'm not a fanatic, but I like watching movies.  Most of us do anyways, I'm sure.)  There are certain movies and franchises that are a must-see.  For franchise, there is the Star Wars series (not quite so for the last three, but the first three), the LOTR series, etc, and of course, the James Bond movies.

I've lost track, and have not realized that James Bond in movies have been with us for 50 years now.  It's high time to take stock, wouldn't you think?

My rule of thumb has always been (which I mostly stick with) that, if the movies are based on a published book, I'll read the book first.  Let my imagination do some work based on the book, before allowing the filmmakers define what their vision of the story.  I mostly do that with comic books as well, but not as strictly.

I watch all the James Bond movies.  All of them.  I'm sure for those who watch all the Bond movies, or at least those that span across the decades and the six Bond that we've had so far, we have our own favorite of who the real Bond or the best Bond should be.

The filmmakers of the Bond movies did a decent job in carving out somewhat different personality for the six Bond's, yet retaining some traits, like his preference of martini (shaken, not stirred), or the way he announces himself (My name is Bond, James Bond).  They have become such catchphrases as to become almost cliche; yet they are so instantly recognizable which says volume about the popularity of James Bond and how deeply entrenched he is with pop culture.

Of the six Bonds - Roger Moore, always the gentleman; Timothy Dalton, with a more human touch; Pierce Brosnan, with a bit more intensity and even nervousness; George Lazenby, the forgettable; Daniel Craig, the first ever blond Bond and a very, very intense one, to boot; and then of course, there is Sean Connery, the ultimately definition of who and how Bond should be.

Sometimes I wonder out loud as well, as to why we love Sean Connery so much, as the first and the best ever James Bond there is, laying down the gold standard by which all the subsequent Bond is measured against.

Surely he's as smooth and handsome as anyone would expect from a lady's man like Bond.  But there is also a sense of ruthlessness in Connery just under the surface of his face that makes him convincing as a master spy.  That's what makes Moore's, Dalton's, and Lazenby's Bond come across as unconvincing and feel almost fake.

Brosnan and Craig are much more intense Bond, which is how things should be.  In fact, one would say, they are much more realistic than Connery.  When you're in really hot water, facing life and death (supposedly) on screen, one has got to be intense.  Connery does have his own intensity, but he never feels like he's in a hurry.  That's almost in keeping with the tradition of Bond theme songs as feeling this lazy, jazzy style.

I'm sure if you put Sean Connery in today's movie casting, he wouldn't stand a chance to be cast as Bond.  Back in the days, I can't think of anyone else, or any other way, that a Bond could ever be.

I have not thought I would say it out loud, but indeed I'll be a Bond fan forever.  Such as it is.  :)

On the first presidential debate 2012...

We don't have TV at home.  (We don't like news and entertainment pushed to us; we like to pull it whenever we want it.)  So, I watched with interest the first (of three) presidential debate on Oct 3 between Obama and Romney.

The Romney campaign has been languishing for a while, and Romney desperately needs to reset the campaign.  There is even talk of reset in strategy.  Talk about late course reversal.  Romney, hence, needs to "win" in the debate, at least to look a bit more presidential than he has presented himself so far.  And he succeeded, not necessarily out of superb performance of his own (yes, he's done reasonably well in terms of debate style), but Obama largely handed over the success to Romney.

It's frustrating to see the impotence of Obama.  Granted that I fully understand his rationale for not going negative.  In fact, I give credits to both Romney and Obama for not going negative in the debate, which is a breath of fresh air, amidst all the negative ad by both campaigns and the super PAC.  But, as Romney has succeeded in showing us, you can be more forceful, without going negative or personal.  To this, Obama has largely failed.  (Well, I wouldn't say he failed miserably, but yes, he failed in this first debate.)

Obama has taken a page out of the playbook in the Bill Clinton's DNC Convention speech.  Clinton, the jack-of-all-trades, shows us all, that you can recite details - stats, even! - and touting your own record, without losing the audience.  Bill Clinton has been praised much for that same speech, that heaps praises to his former nemesis of his wife; the guy who is "cool on the outside, but burning in the inside" for America.  Talk about figurative speech.

And so, that's what Obama has tried to do.  He quoted a lot of statistics.  He tried to show American voters that, while the economy is still in doldrums, we've come a long way from the edge of abyss when the sky seemed to be falling since late 2008.  Along the way, Obama has forgotten to go on the attack of the lies and half-truth (if there's half of it) that Romney, Ryan, and GOP have been pushing.  Obama failed to make a more forceful arguments to even just correct what Romney has said and done.  To be sure, he did attempts; but right when he's just maybe started down that path, he recoiled and go back to his cool shell.  That's really frustrating, to see a man who seems not to have the guts to do it, even though we all know he's capable of doing.

In a way, it's a fine line that Obama has walked since his ascent from an unknown senator in Chicago to the White House.  There is this stereotype of angry black man that he so desperately wants to avoid.  He is a much more methodical and use-your-words-first type of person; surely, it must be frustrating for the GOP diehards who have tried (and failed) in painting him as angry black dude (which Obama is not), or Muslim (which he's not); or racist who favors blacks (which he hasn't shown the inclination).  It's hard, to have a whole tribe (the blacks) and a few hundred years of history (in slavery) on your shoulder, and you have to show the world that you're made of stuffs much better - way better - than what is expected.

In contrast, there is this WASP dude in Romney, who was born with silver spoon in his mouth, whose life is privileged and sheltered.  (Well, it's not exactly WASP; afterall, he's a Mormon.)  Granted that Romney has shown his propensity to be much more moderate than he tried to paint himself to be, in the eyes of the right-wing GOP, and he's had decades of personal history doing good and charity, my problem with Romney is mainly that, he's such a chameleon that I'm not sure what we're getting in this package, should he get to the White House.  Given his lack of backbone, pandering to the Tea Party and GOP right-wingers, and his inability or unwillingness to stand up to his own more moderate belief, lest he would lose a few votes, what else would he do just to get a few more votes?  I'd venture to say, anything.

Pundits made harsh criticisms to Obama for his lackluster performance, including the diehard liberals in New York Times.  The next day after the debate, Obama is in full damage control mode, coming out swinging in rally.  I thought to myself, with much frustration, where were you last night when you're much needed in the debate?  There's no point swinging the bat to a friendly, supportive public crowd; he needs to do the swinging to Romney (for goodness sake!).

From my vantage points, I have expected to hear much stronger rebuttal from Obama of the Romney's arguments; that Romney says he has a vision and plan to the country, but really nothing; that Romney is simply kicking the can down the road, rather than fixing and preparing the country for the future.  I want Obama the world to show how lack of backbone Romney - and the GOP at large - really is.  There are two more debates to go.  Obama, show us the stuffs you're made of.

PS:  In principle, although I'm an Independent, the far-right GOP and Tea Party have scared the crap out of me, and I cannot allow the White House to go to GOP.  I didn't vote for Obama in 2008; but this time now, I'm ready to give him my vote, so that he can finish the job that he sets out to do four years ago.

On bag ordnance and throwaway culture...

I'm quite pleased to read the bag ordinance of California that is going into effect which would charge $0.10 for the use of plastic and paper bags, with penalty to retailers that attempt to circumvent the regulations by giving them away for free and build the costs of the bags into the price of the products sold.

I'm glad too, that the CA court has rejected the lawsuits of retailers and plastic industry group to try to overthrow the ruling.  As we teach our kids, every little bit of our actions count.  If it means one less plastic or paper bag going to the landfill, that means one less that needs to be made and then be thrown away.

Surely reusable bags get dirty, but that can be easily addressed by cleaning.  As to the argument that bags - plastic or paper - have become part of our culture, that we need them for other purposes (eg. all-purpose plastic bags to be reused for carrying other stuffs), I would only ask the question:  How did the past consumer generations cope, before the explosion of the use of plastic/paper bags?  And then, there's the argument that it's petty and demeaning to charge consumers $0.10 who bought $10,000 jewelry, for example.

It could take a generation or more in changing perception and behavior.  I remember when I was going up, my mom used to do grocery shopping with a big wicker carrying bag.  Hawkers in wet market would reuse all materials to sell things are loose; they would buy cutout newspapers in bulk (from kids or families who want to earn a little), then reuse newspapers to wrap eggs or fish; they they use weed rope to string up vegetables.  You should see the wet and dirty wicker basket after my mom brought out all the food; but a little rinsing goes a long way.  This was Hong Kong, circa pre-1970s.

The boom time in the 1980s coincides with the consumer culture.  There was (and still is) premium and praise in the over-packaging of Japanese goods.  Truth be told, the packaging is nice; it makes the product itself feel more precious.  There's the beautiful paper bag, lovely wrapping paper, elegant box, luscious lining, eye-catching ribbon, the works.  I have always tried to save those wrapping materials because they are so beautiful that I don't want to throw them out.  My sisters would save all the shopping bags which are quite sturdy.  In my young mind, I've never considered that as wasteful, even though subconsciously I know it is.  Most people won't even have second thoughts, and would throw them away in a heartbeat.

As I grow up, I realize how much materials, resources, and energy it takes to produce just the packaging materials.  I hate it.  Yes, it's a love-hate relationship.  I love to see/have the packaging, but I hate it that it's so wasteful, just to see people throwing them out to the landfill like junk.  (Well, after the product is opened, there isn't much purpose for the packaging anymore; so, it is indeed "junk.")

I've resolved to myself, that at least I can do something about using (or rather, not using) bags when I buy things these days.  I always bring my reusable bags with me, long before this environmental conscience has become almost fashionable and a way for people to make a statement.  Chinese supermarkets, in particular, are always intrigued when I tell them I don't want their plastic bags.

But for most people who are not conscious about this, or are simply too lazy, it takes some drastic measures to change their behavior.  This bag ordinance is perhaps long overdue.  If anyone should doubt whether or how it'll work, look no further than how it's done in Hong Kong and how people have responded.  These days, everyone has a reusable bag up their sleeves, and it's no longer considered "cheap" to not pay the tiny fee to get a new plastic bag for the goods instead which is the biggest behavioral and perception change.  The same is true in other countries like Ireland.  If we can make people use even just one bag - plastic or paper or anything else - to have one less bag going to the landfill, it's worth the effort.  At least we do our part to the environment, rather than just for our own immediate pleasure and convenience.

So, we know it can be done, and it's not too ominous for consumers and retailers alike. Sure, tourists might not be as amendable; then again, tourists are mostly a one-time thing (for the sale), but we shop for daily stuffs every single day.  If local consumers can take the lead, I'm sure everyone will follow.  To that, I salute the CA bag ordinance, and all those cities and countries before it that have implemented such regulations with such determination (to do the right thing), to measurable success.

On Romney's White House bid...

It's less than a month and a half  to the general election in November 2012.  As everyone knows, unless something dramatic (or drastic, depending where you stand) happens, the result is more or less set.

Since Obama won in 2008, it's been some die-hard Republican burning dream to unseat  him at all costs.  Granted that Obama has not done himself any favors in backpedaling on issues, the economy is still doldrums for swarth of populace, and unemployment is still high, there's been turnaround improvements in the past four years.  Sure, economy has not roared back, like the country did when it crawled out from past recessions, the housing property has been looking up in a good part of the country.  Underemployment is still big problem, but at least the official unemployment figures and downturn have been arrested and not going upwards anymore.  Even in foreign policy which was almost a laughing joke of Obama - remember his proposal to do a sit-down with Iranian leaders? Well, it didn't happen - he has shown shrewdness and guts in dealing with tough situations like going after Osama bin Laden (where George W Bush and Bill Clinton have failed to do).  Even Michelle Obama - his spouse with a chip on her shoulder before winning the White House in 2008 - has turned around her public image.  Certainly it helps to have two cute-looking kids for the the cameras and spotlights.

It shouldn't have been bad - or this bad - for Romney.  He has a winsome wife and smart-looking children.  He has wealth.  He's got a good resume in business.  He bills himself as turnaround artist in coming to the rescue of the Salt Lake City winter Olympics.  Despite being a standard bearer of the GOP Party now, he has shown aptitude to work more like an Independent, or even a moderate Republican (if such species still exist), to work across the aisle in the Massachusetts City Hall as its governor.  What more can you ask for from a candidate?  Everything looks perfect on paper.

Of course, things don't always work out as well as they do on papers.  There are many theories as to why Romney's campaign looks so anemic so late in the game, ranging the blame game of Romney himself (he doesn't really have any burning conviction or long-standing principles politically, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly doesn't make him look any better, with even his own campaign staffers billed him as the chameleon who would drop all that he's promised in the primaries, by way of etch a sketch), or the confusion within his own campaign staffers, or the extreme right positions of his own party, or that, maybe the real situation isn't as bad as poll numbers have shown it to be, yada yada yada.

But perhaps his most decided failure is that, no one has much burning passion or rooting for him.  Heck, he doesn't even have the stomach to stand up and defend himself.  He stops touting his business records when the Obama campaign stresses Bain Capital for outsourcing jobs to cut costs, rather than creating jobs.  He refuses to address issues about his wealth or even release his tax returns in order to duck the accusation that he's paying lower tax rate than average Americans; his only defense (and very lame one too) being that, it's all legal.  (I mean, seriously, Mitt? I heard loads of Wall Street bankers using that "it's all legal" lame excuses to do whatever they want, before the 2008 collapse in the financial system.)  He's pandered to the far right in issues like abortion.  He's backtracked on his record of pushing through the healthcare reform in Massachusetts (dubbed RomneyCare), which has been a blueprint of the very unpopular ObamaCare among diehard Republicans.  On almost every single issue, Romney has to backtrack on what he's done or said, with or without the attack from the Obama camp.  Even on the very non-partisan issue where he's tried to drum up his foreign policy standing, with the hope of reminding people how great a job he's done at Salt Lake City, using the visit London Olympics as highlight, he's put his foot in mouth by criticizing London's missteps, resulting in foreign leader's (British prime minister David Cameron) public rebuke.  And then there is the latest 47% remarks, denigrating and essentially writing off those very voters that he should be wooing.  Choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate is supposed to reset the public discourse, emphasizing on the direction of taxes and budget deficit; unfortunately, Romney never seems to be a true believer in the more extreme position of the Ryan plan, worrying that any tinkering of the Medicare will anger the older voters in must-win states like Florida.  Even those supposedly on his side, including the very faithful Wall Street Journal, voice their displeasure on how things have been going with the Romney campaign.

To be sure, I'm not a sworn Democrat; I'm more an Independent issue voter.  I voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election's Dem primaries, and then I switched to John McCain even though McCain looks rather impotent.  At least McCain has shown himself to be a principled man.  Circa 2008, I haven't seen anything from the blank slate of the then Obama, and I didn't - and still don't - buy into the hype of Hope and Change.  I never believe in one-man crusade.

Having said that, Obama has come a long way.  Surely, he's nowhere near the Hope and Change that he's billed himself to be, and anyone pragmatic enough should know that while the president can steer the country to one direction or another, the president alone is not going to bring about the kind of change that many voters - in particular, the young college crowds - have hoped for in Washington.  Obama does show his approach and attempts in addressing issues like the economy and foreign policy, and I like what I see.  It's not sufficient for GOP - let alone Romney - to run a campaign simply with the slogan to vote Obama out, as the antidote for anything ill in this country.  In fact, I blame more on the gridlock in Washington and the Congress (Republicans and Democrats alike) for the increasing partisanship that results in nothing useful being done, rather than the president alone.  Attempts after attempts to undermine the much needed regulations to rein in Wall Streets, banks and financial institutions, like the recent veto of the SEC proposal by the Republican commissioner to reinforce the wobbling money market funds, make me really sick.  Those are the kind of actions that I would like to get done, and Washington fails miserably again and again; and it's nothing of Obama's doing.

Prior to the announcement of Romney becoming the GOP nominee, I have thought that Romney is the most likely candidate to defeat Obama, given that Romney should have the biggest appeal to the moderate and independent voters, like myself.  Since then, the choice of Paul Ryan on the GOP ticket, the failure of Romney to forcibly come out to rebut the many attacks on long-standing women's rights (eg. abortion rights, contraception), and many of these similar incidents, go to reinforce the impression of impotence of the Romney campaign, and his lack of conviction and principles.  Romney's (and all other GOP's, including Ryan) attacks of Obama consist of nothing other than accusation that, yes things are improving but not good enough, so let me give me a try.  For goodness sake, this country is in such deep shit, thanks to the very long eight years under Bush who is so incompetent, he let Cheney and neocon run amok to start, not one, but two wars, and let Wall Street lobbyists tear down all safeguards, aided by Greenspan and the gang.  Do I want to give the White House back to another Republic administration to go back to the same wrong track that Bush has started us down?  Hell, no.

Bottomline is, there's no reason why we shouldn't stay the course, and let Obama finish the job since he's shown sufficient competency and principles to handle the complexity and demands in the job at White House.  If Romney can't even handle a campaign, how can I be sure he and his staffers can handle the real thing?

As Ann Romney says it, "it's hard."  I can only think of one message to her:  But, honey, of course it's hard; your husband is applying for the top job in the world, and you think everyone's going to fall over each other to kiss your feet, simply because you've been earning big bucks for so long?  She must be smoking or something.  I don't doubt that Romney is a nice guy in person, but as Bush has shown us all, I don't want a guy who we would share a beer with, but who is too incompetent for the job.  It's not good enough; it should never be good enough.

On lives of single women, and art imitating life...

Although the influence of network TV has been on the decline for decades now, it must be said that TV series (of networks and even on cable channels) still play a large part in reflecting the lives and times of the contemporary.

Earlier, I was reading the Los Angeles TImes article on various TV offerings focusing on single women as protagonists.  I haven't had - or needed, or wanted - a TV for closer to two decades now, and I haven't felt the urge to go back to it.  I was one of those in the TV generation who literally grew up with TV.  Shows like Murphy Brown indeed demonstrates the kind of feminist and girl power that one, as a woman, does feel exhilarated and liberated.  Afterall, Murphy Brown was successful, she called the shots, she's funny, she made her own agenda, and she's a force of her own.  I must admit Murphy Brown was a pseudo role model (even), unlike the earlier generations when women are subjugated under male influence and control whose sole angst and life goal was to snatch a well-off husband.  So lame.

You can thus see how I lament the fall from grace of women of our younger generations, in shows like Girls (HBO), when the very single, young women are such a whinging bunch, that are nothing but losers in life.  Surely, I must have sounded really harsh, in particular, to those supporters of such shows, saying that such is the generations who, unlike the prosperous 1980s, face one of the greatest economic challenges in more than 70 years.  Surely, these girls deserve some help, and we should cut them some slack.

Perhaps girls like this on TV shows are from a younger demographics (in the age group of 18-21, perhaps?), I might be more forgiving.  But, for goodness sake, we're talking about women - yes, I wouldn't use the very stupid term of girls to describe women in this age group - in their 20s.  Has the academia come up with a stuck-in-the-middle psychological and emotional state to describe anyone in the early-through-late-20s as something that should be treated differently, much like the much-lauded identification of adolescence?

It's depressing to just read through the synopsis of these TV shows about the challenges faced by single women.  There is no more sugar-coating of successful single women looking for sex (Sex And The City), just so women can be on equal footing with sex crazed single men stereotype.  There isn't even gorgeous single women looking for love, treasuring friendship more than anything else (Friends).  Be that as it may, one almost consistent theme that courses through those single-women's show - if you can call it that - in the earlier decade, is that, they are funny and even lighthearted.  I can't say the same about those in this decade, though I could still be proven wrong, since we're still earlier in this decade in 2012, and we have 8 more years to go, before we can close the book on this decade - though I have subconsciously written off this decade as a lost decade, much as the financial cohorts would say about the lost decade of any financial gain and economic turnaround since the economic collapse in 2008.

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

Thinking back my own days as singles, I do recall the almost unspoken anxiety and wonderment, of whether the right man could ever be found.  By jove, I wasn't even looking for a wealthy husband who could afford me with a life without work, nor a handsome prince who would scoop me off of my feet and ride with me to the sunset on his horse.  No, I am, and have always been, a working woman and I treasure my career and financial independence too much to wish myself a life without work.  Neither have I ever put too much stock in the looks department.  But if you are to ask any single, sensible woman of the challenge along this line, you would realize how hard it is, to find a sensible, reliable, and good, honest man who is also compatible with you, with bonus of a sense of humor.

I have long resorted to try consciously not to think about these kind of challenges.  Afterall, the harder you look, the more desperate you try, the more difficult it'll come by.  I just take it as it comes.  I'm sure I'm not alone in my approach.

One thing I find rather befuddled by young women, single or otherwise, is their ease to bed with any men.  Is it really just me, alone in thinking that sex - and sex alone - can't sustain a long term relationship?  Nor do I believe in a relationship in which sex comes before love.  Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned; maybe they don't want a long term relationship.  Everyone just wants to have a good time; or maybe everyone feels like they're stuck in a limbo in this lousy economic with no prospect, and sex is an easy relief, as the Girls have shown us.  I'm unable, though, to subscribe with such a notion.

Before I lay this topic to rest, my disclaimer is in order.  Given all those I've said above, I strongly condemn the GOP's repeated assault on women's rights.  Case in point, Todd Akin.  It's unbelievable and incredibly condescending for GOP to try to revive arguments against basic women's rights like contraception.  Whatever it is that the arts on TV try to reflect the life of our times, what GOP does is inexcusable.  I wish to just let any GOP out there who care to read or listen, I would vote for Obama just on that issue alone (though I'm hardly a single-issue Independent voter).  I rest my case.