On honor killing, barbarism, and assimilation...

I'm so disgusted today when I read of the honor killing in Canada by a wealthy Afghan family, yet allowed to stay in Canada as refugees. The victims were their three teenage daughters and their stepmother. What disgusts me most is the total disregard of the local customs and traditions that they are supposed to be assimilated into, with the father practicing polygamy, and now the killing of three daughters for supposedly disgracing the family by dating boys.

The father, together with the second wife and the son, conspire to the killing, even though they know full well that this is against the laws in Canada. No matter, they want to practice their own customs, even as they want to stay in their adopted country. Their total disregard of another human beings, trampling on women and girls like dogs, is beyond disgust to me. I'm so glad that they get life sentence. I wish to rot in jail, and in hell.

The story also highlights a point of how some immigrants' total disregard of the local culture, customs and laws, even as they try to stay in the foreign land. During my travel to Asia, I've seen more than a few incidents when mainland Chinese, emblazoned by their new-found wealth, thump their nose on the locals as if they're dogs, in order to have their ways. The currygate incident in Singapore is a case in point. The same goes, with Kong Qingdong, the so-called professor in China, who is blatant enough to insult Hong Kong as "running dog" of the colonialism (referenced to the Hong Kong history which has flourished under the British rule for a hundred years into a world class city), all because a mainland Chinese parent blatantly ignored the local rules for disallowing eating in the MTR in order to keep clean and allowing their kids to eat noodles on the train. But of course, Kong doesn't stop that; watch his insult to Taiwan as well. I'm not sure how this man gets to his professorship, given the very uncivilized ways of basic arguments, without regard to basic facts and simple analysis of what's right and what's wrong.

Those are the prices to pay, for the rise in China. I've known the passive-aggressive nature of mainland Chinese. Granted that I've met a lot of mainland Chinese who are civil and totally respect local laws and custom, there are times when one or two bad applies, like Kong or the immigrant Chinese family in the currygate incident, are enough to leave much bad aftertaste in my mouth.

On student movement, Chilean Winter, and 1989 student protests at Tiananmen Square...

I read, with interests, the student movement in Chile, dubbed Chilean Winter, or "We're the 90 percent" (to echo the "we're the 99 percent" in US). What borne out of anger and frustration towards the inequality and the increasingly inaccessibility of higher education is looking more to become something of a real political movement that has already seen traction in seeing political changes in Chile.

Why am I interested, even though I'm not a communist? I could name a couple of reasons.

I was in Hong Kong when the student protests broke out in Tiananmen Square in 1989, which seems a lifetime ago. There was life coverage in the media, 24x7 in Hong Kong at the time, tracking all the details, including coverage of the few student leaders (amongst those, Wang Dan, Chai Ling, and Wu'erkaixi). What started out as idealistic and impromptu sit-in was turned into something more widespread. The students at the time were probably emblazoned by the endorsement of the leading political figures of Hu Yaobang (whose passing sparked the memorial that turned into protests for god-knows-what), and Zhao Ziyang. They must have thought that the polituro had fallen in love with the young, and would let them pout and whinge a bit, without ramifications. We know now that, that's not meant to be. The old, wise men like Deng Xiaoping would never allow things to get out of control, not to mention giving in to kids' demands, whatever the demands were which people seemed to be unsure about, because there were never any clear goals or plans. Those so-called student leaders like Chai Ling who are more radical in nature had only wanted to add the rush to the students' adrenaline by making new slogans everyday, eventually calling for the downfall of Deng, the supreme leader at the time. When the tanks rolled in, Chai were infamous quoted as saying, she's ready to die as martyr, and the rest of the students outside of her camps at night were oblivious what she had had in mind, since they were meant to be collaterals in writing down a page in history, with their blood.

Twenty-three years on, most of these so-called student leaders have "moved on," most notably, Chai Ling, who moved to the west, got her wish for a facelift (of double eyelids, as ridiculous and petty as it might sound), stole ideas from Harvard Business School's system to start her business, and comfortably making her money as a businesswoman. (Yes, you can easily note from my description that I despise this woman, but that's another story for another day.) Wu'erkaixi, for his part, became a radio DJ in Taiwan. Wang Dan is perhaps the lone student leader who stayed in China, did his time, eventually exiled, but has stayed true to what the student movement has started out.

What is so (un)remarkable is that, after twenty-three long years, nothing - absolutely nothing - has happened. The newer generations have heeded to what Chai Ling is doing now, which is to move on to the money-making business. So much for political changes; afterall, folks like Chai won't need political changes, as long as they can go on their merry ways to make more and more money. For those who did not see it close enough in 1989, they would have thought that it's politically incorrect to criticize any of the students leaders at the time. But what I'm surprised is, how this controversy has taken so long to surface. We watched the news everyday, and the news coverage in Hong Kong back then was surprisingly neutral in its coverage. Even then, there's been reports, towards the end of the student protests (and before the crackdown happened), there had been reports about that that were the same as the one noted in documentary. Sure, Chai has the money now to launch lawsuits; afterall, it's only natural that she would want to retain a pristine and clean name, for a legacy that should have been under more scrutiny.

Even back then, when we're all glued to the media for every tidbits of news coming from Tiananmen Square, the public at large had been wondering what the students really wanted. Even back then, in my young mind, I'd been wondering out loud, how these students would go on to rule a country under the same political structure. Now we know that, without real change in political system, whoever rises to the top, Chai included, would only go on to perpetuate an oppressive structure, as long as she has her change at the money pot and the power that it infers. For 1.1 billion people in China at the time, pulling down a political figure like Deng is not going to do one iota of change. One could say, these students were naive, at best. Should they have been given the chance to rule the country, what would have come of it? One doesn't even want to go there.

In contrast, I look on at Chilean Winter with admiration, how organized, disciplined and mature these student leaders have shown so far. Student leaders like Camila Vallejo Dowling would probably move on to become political figures, much like Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, whose peaceful rally for changes in an oppressive regime has brought admiration far and wide. Those like Chai and Wu'erkaixi didn't even come close.

One could argue, that perhaps the Tiananmen Square protests were never meant to be, in an era of prosperity in the 1980s. Almost two and a half decades later, inequality become the rich and the poor in China has grown so substantially, yet one would only hear pockets of protests or riots when the poor has absolutely nowhere to turn. If the central government throws them a bit of bread crumbs, so to speak, they would just go on tolling in their hard lives. That's how it's always been, for thousands of years, in China. There really is nothing "communist" about the central government in China at all, because one can find little to no evidence of how the Chinese government redistributes the wealth, in the spirit of communism. For all the saber-rattling of the western countries like US, in decrying the communism in China, they should realize that, yes, oppression as it is, there isn't anything communistic about the system in China at all.

One can only hope that the Chilean Winter would yield something far more productive, to the benefits of the general populace. But I would certainly not be consulting those involved in the student protests in Tiananmen Square for inspiration or advice, since they're self-serving individuals whose first goal is to save their own hide.

On high fashion, racism, ethnicity et al...

I'm not surprised by the firestorm as a result of the silly piece from French Elle about how Obama's coming into the White House has codified the "white code" and fashion sense.

People are always fascinated by a youngish looking president and first lady, with young kids in tow, moving into the White House. Just look at how Americans still oohs-and-aahs about JFK's presidency, all the hoopla about Jackie O, and their kids (who are not young anymore, and by jove, one of them had even passed away already). Afterall, Jackie O codifies the French chic, bringing a touch of classy worldliness to the White House that had always been rather provincial, under the guise of previous first ladies.

While Michelle Obama might not be chic and desirable as the trend-setting Jackie O, the Obama family adds a twist to the formula. Their kids show everyone that common, reasonably priced fashion (hello, Gap) can look chic and cool, even preppy. And then, there is Michelle Obama whom French Elle must have been referencing to, about how ethnicity mixed in with white dress codes.

Couple of things.

Although Michelle Obama dresses appropriately for her and for the occasions, I never find her style very appealing to me. (I don't normally follow or chase fashion trends, so there goes.) As such, I always find all those talks and hoopla about her fashion sense quite overblown. Honestly, I find her clothing and style to be quite common, at best.

I'm sure the French Elle columnist meant to sing praise to the Obama family's fashion style, but it's a bonehead attempt, to link whatever that they wear (which is decent looking, but really is quite common looking) to ethnicity, it's such baloney. That Elle columnist really deserves the maelstrom as a result of it.

Sometimes I don't understand why people always have to add the racial or sexual or political or religious twist in any darn discussions. You should just read the reader's forums in Wall Street Journal and you'll be amazed how ridiculous some of the comments are, in linking every dang thing, however farfetched it might be, to politics, and then to Obama, as a reason or justification enough to vote for any hypocritical GOP candidate in its very weak 2012 election lineup. I'm just so sick and tired of it, even though I'm not an Obama supporter.

On women getting older and the hiding of it (or not)...

I was reading this obituary in New York Times today about the passing of an author of women's style books, editor to a few women's magazine, and columnist to some style columns. I don't know this woman, so I'm not sure how good (or not so good) she might be. I do have some initial misgivings about a couple of her books, namely, How Not To Look Old, or How Not To Look Fat Again.

Only recently, I went on a business trip with two colleagues, both of whom are sales type. Although we're all approaching middle age - is 40's middle age? I guess it is, so let's assume so - we have a rather different take on looking young; or rather, not looking old. I work in a technical field, and work remotely at that (think Dilbert, but a female version), so I don't have to dress up. It also helps that my husband doesn't bother much with looks. In fact, he suggests that I should just leave my grey hair alone (and no need for hair dye). My two colleagues are a bit different. The guy is a rather vanity type. Although he hasn't done so, he's seriously considering getting rid of all those grey hair with hair dye. He sees it as a necessity when he goes out to see clients. I suppose, in the high-tech world, people favor the young and the geek, and they might not want to deal with someone with too much grey hair in the sales and marketing world. The girl is not really a vanity type as the guy is, but she acknowledges the reality of it, and she is acting according to what the external world demands of it. As it is, she's using hair dye; it's not that she likes it, but she sees the necessity of it.

And so, when I look at the obituary of this author and her books, I have the initial misgivings that, by publishing books teaching women how to not look their age, she's tacitly endorsing such practice. And this is what I find irksome, because I hate to have women subject themselves to such covert straitjacket. For all that, the freedom and liberation of the womankind over the centuries will all come to naught.

But then, talking to my colleagues and the very real reality that they face, day in day out, should I be the judge and jury, and the one to cast the first stone? Perhaps the fact that I do not have to subject myself to that kind of scrutiny is extremely lucky. I do understand that there are so many people out there - not just women, but men alike - who are subject to age discrimination on a daily basis. Heck, just look at the jet-black hair of all the old men in the Chinese politburo, and one should realize how real it is, that these men cannot and will not let anyone see a single thread of hair that has any shadow or tinge that is anything other than black. Honestly, I find it sad, very sad.

I do believe that, while I cannot and should not judge others' situations, I need to set a proper example to my kids. I have to make them understand that, we have to be happy and be comfortable with what and who we are. Perhaps I've been blessed - and am extremely lucky too - that I have never been fat. In fact, I've always been so skinny and lanky that my parents have always considered me the runt of the family. No matter, after two childbirths, when my body fills out a bit, I'd admit that I'm more happy with my body than I've ever been for decades (with the exception of a little floppy in the mid-section, but I'll live with that). And so, I won't have to read books like How Not To Look Fat Again. Still, I truly believe that there's as much in the good gene as it is in the attitude to life. If we're not happy with who we are or how we look, then all bets are off. For that reason, and that reason alone, I won't be reading books like How Not To Look Old.

Speaking of how not to look old, I'm a true believer in smart-looking clothing, and that has very little to do with age. If you would ask of one person that I would endorse their style, I'd say, it's Christine Lagarde, the new IMF chief. Her style and clothing, circa 2011, reflects so well and looks so good on her, regardless of her age of mid 50s. That's why I find it bullshit, for book titles like How Not To Look Old, because being old can still look good. Lagarde's is one way to put that to rest.

On the crisis of confidence in capitalism...

With the GOP primaries in full swing, all the candidates in the pack are in on the attack of Mitt Romney who's the current frontrunner. It runs the gambit of him being the moderate governor from Massachusetts, him being not conservative enough for the GOP core base, him being a Mormon and not a true Christian (even though Mormons would love to point out to anyone cares to hear it out, that Mormons and Christians are one and the same, albeit quite far from truth), him being a flip-flopper, him being too bland and stiff and run-of-the-mill. But finally, finally, someone is looking more closely at his business record.

Indeed, Romney looks like a liberal conservative, much like Scott Brown, the senator from Massachusetts who surprisingly took the senate seat vacated by the passing of Ted Kennedy, which in itself it blasphemous enough. (How dare anyone takes any senate seat from a Kennedy in MA! But that's exactly what happened.) One would think, that should make Romney more electable and appealing to the Independents in the middle, come general election, than, say, Ron Paul. Unfortunately (or not), the GOP base is a lot more conservative than the Mormon moderate in Romney can offer. The South Carolina GOP primary this week should be a good litmus test for Romney.

Unfortunately for Romney, the candidates left standing right now are not going to let up in their attack to the frontrunner. The latest magnifying glass is focused on Romney's past record at Bain Capital, in which he touts as evidence that he's a business leader, that he understands what it takes to fix this economy and high unemployment of close to 9%, yada yada. He claims to have created 100,000 jobs during that tenure, but fails to point out how many jobs he helped axed. Net-net, it's more like a wash, so prefers to leave the details (on how to calculate those 100,000-job-created) murky.

And then, today he offers up another red meat to his GOP rivals, that Romney admits to paying only 15% tax rate, versus the average 21%-35% income tax rate that average Americans pay, the reason being which, he draws income most from capital gains (instead of salary income). One has to wonder how much he really understands the plight and challenges of average Americans, particularly those who have lost jobs during the recession and are unable to find new jobs. And why would he anyways.

I'm sure Democrats are having a field day and good laugh out of the attacks that Obama can easily reuse, come general election time. For all attacks, the 15% tax rate is probably the most damning. It evidently validates what Warren Buffet has claimed, that he pays less than his secretary, and Buffet reckons it's not fair. For all the cynicism from GOP and right-wing editorials like WSJ about the proposed Buffet Rule, he has been right on point. Although GOP would not admit it, they are basically saying, they want to pay less taxes when they become rich enough like Romney and Buffet.

All of these lead to the talk of the increasing disenchantment of the mass public, particularly about income inequality, and the ability of the whole Washington establishment - yes, the whole darn thing, GOP and Democrats included - to do anything about it, since Washington is in it for the ride. It increasingly leads to more soul-searching among Americans in general, on the merits of capitalism (upon which GOP has such strong belief).

It's about damn time that this should happen.

The other day, I was chitchatting with my brother over the phone. He studies economics in college and he likes reading history, and is contemplative, big picture guy. For years, he has tolled in corporate sector, moved up the management rank, until he's downsized, much like everyone else. With the lousy job market, he's decided to give himself early retirement which, I still feel, is a waste of human resources since he's a brilliant guy.

My brother doesn't normally voice an opinion unless and until he's thought through it. What he says the other day rather caught me by surprise. In a few words, he essentially says, we've all been drinking the kool-aid of economics since we're little. We're brought up to believe in the economic theories, division of labor, globalization, free market, and whole nine yards, are all well and good. He reckons now, that all these are just brainwash and all but lies, lies that work only for those in power and those in corporates that are there to make profits. Some of the examples he cites include the decimation of small farmers in developing countries like Mexico after the free trade agreements like NAFTA. Studies after studies support those notions. Those in power in governments and corporate sectors want those in place because it helps consolidate power. The suffering and decimation of the mass public are justified, all in the name of free market, because "free market is good," as we're taught to believe. Increasingly, he's come to question what "good" it's doing and whom it's good for.

Don't get me wrong, my brother is not an Occupy movement guy. He's a level-headed guy and not the demonstration type. But if we look at how all the protests around the world, from Arab Spring, to Europe's youth protests due to austerity measures, to the Occupy Wall Street movement, to even the Tea Party movement, it's protesting the same thing in essence, which is that, the mass public is fed up with the oppression, be it political or economical. No wonder Ron Paul is riding the wave to become the rival GOP candidate to Romney who cannot be further apart in terms of philosophy and outlook than each other.

While I'm quite comfortable in the upper-middle class rung, I must admit I'm becoming increasingly worried about the outlook of the world for the future generations in which my kids are going to grow into. The kind of upward mobility that was once within easy reach seems to slip further and further away. For one, I know the kind of well-paying jobs and opportunities that I've been exposed to would likely not be there anymore when my kids come of age, because most of the opportunities are now spread globally. That's good for corporates since they can make money, picking low cost counties for labor to manufacturing, agriculture, and commodities, and selling to higher priced countries. But I'm not sure if it's really good for any of the countries involved in the long term, if corporates have their way.

One has to ask, isn't that economic progress (stemmed from globalization) exactly the way to help boost China from an economic backwater to a global powerhouse now? It's a qualified yes, because China is essentially putting in place the corporate structure (yes, the capitalism with a communist central-planning twist) that the West has been using. And look what happens to the West now, with Americans and Europeans swimming in debts and no end in sight.

It indeed sounds quite depressing. It's always depressing to talk about an ideal (of capitalism) in which cultures and economies have been built on for hundreds of years. With the collapse of Berlin Wall, there is essentially no competing theories to capitalism now). Look - even China is retrofitting capitalism into their communist structure. One would think the GOP and capitalism believers should be jumping for joy for such triumph and validation of this theory, but we're seeing the exact opposite, which is that people are starting to question the validity of capitalism.

To be honest, I have never believe a complete free market is the way to go. Government has a role to play, in leveling the playing field. There are social safety net that profit-oriented corporates would never bother, should they be left with their own device. Why would they care anyways, if that's not that goal?

There, I said it. I'm sure GOP free market believers would condemn me to hell, but I don't give a dang about GOP. Neither do I believe in Democrats whose real concerns are to maintain the existing infrastructure and power base. America needs its own Arab Spring. I'll be messy but some real change is sorely needed.

On the self-imposed deadline to achieve any dreams (or not)...

Ah, how timely. I read a column in Sydney Morning Herald about some self-imposed deadline to achieve one's dream/goal. In the case of this columnist, her self-imposed deadline is 35, after which she's content and/or resigned to the fact that her life is what it's going to be, going forward. To see the glass half-full, it's as good as it gets; as half-empty, life isn't going to what you dreamt it to be, if it hasn't happened already.

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

The article is timely because the other night, my son came home with a school assignment. It is to interview a woman who inspires him. He chooses me. The first obvious question I have for him was, why do I inspire him? I could hear the clicking of his brain working, because he couldn't think of another reason, other than the obvious one that he looks up to me since he's a baby. I guess why parents are generally the role model and first inspiration for their kids, before they find something better, later on in life.

His school assignment also includes a series of questions that he uses in interviewing me, the subject. Amongs the questions, I was asked, what I have dreamt myself to be (ie. my ambition); are you happy with your life; and some such. That led me to a mini-introspection that night as I went to bed. I don't think I've been a very aggressive or ambitious person, when I was growing up. I never found a role model that motivates me enough to mirror my life goal after her/him. My motto has always been that: If someone can achieve something, it doesn't mean I can do it too; BUT if someone can't achieve something, it doesn't mean I can't achieve it either. In short, I never model my goal or path after anyone because I want to walk my own path.

Looking back, I should be mighty grateful for Providence who has provided me with all that I've ever wished for. I like to travel, and I got the chance to travel quite a bit on my own money in my 20s. I long to study aboard, and I saved up enough to go back to college after working for a couple of years and went to England (my ideal for starting an academic life). I like learning from different careers, and I changed full time jobs and have numerous part times in my 20s that allow me to learn so much for a number of industries, including finance, retail, jewelry and merchandising. Like most girls, I dream of finding love and passion, and I did, in my 20s. I can go on with it, but it would make it sound boastful. And now, I have a supportive husband and two beautiful children.

As I told my son, I'm happy with what and where I am now. Perhaps because my expectations have not been too high (in my own opinion anyways), I've been able to achieve everything that I've set out to achieve. And I'm in a career that can utilize my brain, earn a good living. And I'm able to start a second career in something else, hopefully with better control of my life (even though this chapter has just begun).

And then, this article sets me thinking. Is the notion of self-imposed (overtly or covertly) real? Would I have had the energy to still keep going, if I had not achieved all those (that I mentioned above) in my 20s? My knee-jerk response was, c'mon, one has to be more hopeful than that. But then, I stop myself mid-track, and realize that there's some truth in it. While the article says 35 is the deadline for that columnist, and this could be different for some people (say, 40, perhaps?), I do realize that I have that in the back of my mind. On retrospect, I'd say, my self-imposed limit is probably even younger than that; mine is probably 30.

At 30, it was also the year I got married.

I don't mean to say, at 30, as I got married, my pursuit to dreams end. Perhaps I'm lucky enough to have achieved all those that I've wanted to do before I turned 30. After marriage, life goals change. Family concerns come first. When babies come, life goals and focus change once more. At least in the first ten years of the baby's life, focus is not ourselves; it's total focus just on the kid. I was lucky enough too, that I was able to refocus myself as the kids get older now.

The other thing the article points out, which is also very true, is that, it's exhausting to pursue those goals and dreams and fantasy. Although those "dreams" (or goals, whatever you call it) of mine aren't very fanciful and can be quite achievable, oftentimes they came with some stroke of luck (or Providence, whatever you call it). Yes, it's exhausting, with a very high degree of anxiety.

I remember quite clearly, when I did my first career change, I said to myself (almost innocently), that I want to be an analyst in five years' time. At the time, just being able to change my career into the technical field was considered a big feat. I truly have no idea why I made that goal. I even told my sister about it. I was working my butt off, learning everything that I could, seizing on every available opportunity. It turns out, I became a senior officer in two years' time (with far higher rank in much less time). Perhaps, that's the point when I realized that I really can achieve something, if I put my mind to it. But you know, sometimes that would also mean all the stars have to align at just the right time, and I'll have to be in just the right place, before I can really get what I want. Again, Providence has delivered.

I'm not a very religious person, even though I have certain faith. But, as Steve Jobs' famous commencement speech had noted, you can't connect the dots looking forward; but looking back, everything was so clear to me that things have been lined up for me. It's as if I only need to work at it, and it'll be delivered.

I know I've been lucky, because there are so many people out there who try and try, so hard in their lives, but things still won't come out right. And there are certainly people who try harder than I am, and they still never won't get what they want. I attribute some of those to luck, or destiny, or fate, or Providence; whatever one might want to call it, because there's no other way to put it, on why one person gets so much right, and others who try just as hard, if not harder, but they might get nothing. I don't want to get too philosophical about it; otherwise, all my hair would turn grey.

And because so much of the factors are external and out of our control, there really isn't a recipe of success. There are things that we can control, like our own discipline, perseverance, optimistic outlook of life, keep a smile on your life and be grateful for what you have already, things like that. But, try hard, we must; and try the best we can. I truly believe in that.

Before I went back to college, I got together with my close circle of friends, a few of them have wanted to do the same. Unfortunately (or not), they never believe it enough, or believe in themselves strong enough that they can pull it through; hence they never even give it a try. Perhaps that's what I would consider as the cardinal sin, which is not to try-and-fail, but to not even giving it a try at all (for fear of failure).

On the definition of what constitutes Europe...

We all have certain definitions and facts in our heads that we've accepted as truth or conventional wisdom. There are times, though, when articles come along that throw everything up in the air.

Today, I read an article in NYTimes about What Is Europe. It's interesting because I have a rather well-defined (at least I thought I have) notion of what Europe is in my head, that it hasn't occurred to me to really put that into very concrete details. The article documents the moving targets of what defines and constitutes Europe, say, geographically, or culturally, or economically, and so on. I presume I would have a quick answer to that question rightaway, but I find myself having second thoughts.

I don't think I accept some of the notions noted in the article. Upon introspection, I realize that I have never really accepted the notion of the financial unions of the Euro, as it is now, that includes some Eastern European countries and smaller cohorts like Cyprus. The "Europe" in my head really is the "western Europe" before the Cold War ended; hence, Switzerland and Britain are part of the "Europe" in my head, even though they have not joined the Euro. And then there is Eastern Europe, that consists of those countries in the Balkans, stretching from Warsaw Pact all the way to the new neighbors like Ukraine that have broken away from USSR. Eastern Europe ends when Russia starts. (No, Russia has never been part of my "Europe.") And then, there are the Mediterranean countries that includes Turkey and Greece that have never been part of my "Europe" either. The northern part of Europe, technically the Scandinavia, including countries like Norway and Finland, is part of my "Europe" though.

As the article has rightly noted, everyone has their own idea of what "Europe" is, much like a kaleidoscope in which everyone sees their own version of pattern, even though they're looking at the same thing. I guess this is my definition of it, albeit a vague one. In retrospect, my own private "Europe" is subject to much scrutiny since this "Europe" isn't even that coherent anyways. One could argue that maybe it's more along congregate around Christianity, or Anglo-Saxon culturally. But in the modern society, this might not even hold true anymore.

As such, don't ask me to argue for it, since my definition is highly subjective. I'm sure in a few generations, the definition of what "Europe" is, is going to change yet again. At least at this point in time, my definition of "Europe" is good enough for me, for now.

But at least you know, if I tell you I'm going to visit Turkey, I won't tell you I'm visiting Europe; if I'm going to visit Plague, I'm going to Eastern Europe; but if I'm visiting Finland, I might say, I'm visiting Scandinavia or Europe (since this is interchangeable in my head). This sure can be confusing to others who have a different definitions of "Europe." No matter, I'm sure we mostly live our lives just fine, with only a vague notion of what Europe consists of, even though the current financial mess of Euro in Europe is sure to induce pain to far-flung countries around the globe.

On the positive trend for hard news...

At long last, something that makes sense is finally making it to the news. I'm talking about the NYTimes article that shows divergent trend of CBS, NBC, and ABC in bucking the trend to follow hard news stories of their own, rather than everyone reporting on the same topic, and see who gets the more sensational headlines or soundbites.

It's a welcome and much pleasant surprise, given how hyped-up the whole notion of social networking is, and how so many journals seem to be following the herd mentality, to think that there's no place for hard news now, but to crowdsource what 1-minute soundbite the crowds would like to hear, contributing much to the decline in the quality of hard news and original reporting.

Finally, finally, someone is waking up to it, and realize that there's so much idiocy false/half truth in the crowd that it's not always wise to just kiss up to what the crowds want, but to follow your journalistic hearts to provide in-depth, original reporting that I crave so much these days.

On going back to the land amidst economic recession...

The worldwide economic slump, barring China, has ensnared so many in numerous countries. Unemployment rate among the younger generations is particularly worrisome since they have had so much less opportunities to help launch their career.

I read, with interests, article in New York Times about how young Greeks going back to the land, in the face of economic hardship in the country. This is not unlike what's happening in Japan, as reported in New York Times two years ago, in the depth of economic recession, that young Japanese are increasingly resorted to working in farms.

There is something comforting about the physical labor in working the land (or sea). It's physical since the work can sometimes be back-breaking; yet the products are so real. One reaps the harvests from the labor one puts in. Naturally it has to come with the blessing of Mother Nature. When it comes to that, when humans are working in harmony with what Nature would allow it, the notion can even be romantic.

Yet one shouldn't overtly romanticize the need to subject oneself to hard labor and the mercy of Nature. Such has always been the hope and dreams of forebears, working hard in affording better education for their children so that the younger ones do not have to go through the kind of hard labor that they have to go through.

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

My parents went through those same thought process, and they succeeded in sending my siblings and I to college, seeing to it that we all have good jobs, a more comfortable life, and a more secure future.

Sometimes though, things do not always happen the way they would have wanted it. Like the Greek mother noted in the article, she works hard to send his sons to college to be engineers. Now, with economy going down the drain in Greece, all the sons become unemployed. Still, she has not wanted them to go back to the village and the land since that would represent a big step backwards, and all her life efforts would have come to naught.

The same goes through my parents' mind. Among our five siblings, we all started our career quite well. But my brother's career was cut short by an downsizing effort in a bank some 10 years ago now, when his whole department disappeared. For a while, he was onto more lucrative contract work. When this recent recession hits in 2008, the contract ended, and he has not been able to find anything comparable to that. It matters little that he has expertise in both accounting and IT; when companies don't want to expand payroll, they don't take on any new staff and would cut headcounts to conserve cash.

One of my other sisters went through similar snag, though with a twist. She was in senior management in audit when she was sabotaged by one of her staff who has much bigger ambition to push out my sister so as to get herself promoted to head the department. My sister had not realized that this woman was curry-flavoring with senior management and backstabbling her. When the news came, it's a total shock. Still, the result is the same when she hits the bump in her career. Unlike my brother who is still trying (with no luck so far) to land other job offers, my sister decides to become a full-time stay-home mom, and turns her focus to starting her own business when her kids get a bit older. I'd say, good for her.

From my parents' perspective though, the speed bump faced by my brother and sister, though originated from different sources (my brother's loss being totally out of his control due to company reorganization and outsourcing, while my sister's loss was due to office politics and power play), it's one and the same. My parents are sad to see that their kids' careers are cut short or hindered in any way. They went through physical back-breaking labor when they're younger, and they would not have wanted to see their kids going through the same.

Sometimes, I do feel that my generation is not as tough as the bygone generations of my parents' who have gone through much toughness and the wars before they found their footing, established the families, and set their children to a smoother path. As such, we (or at least I) are much weaker than they are physically. Most of us are weaker (ie. not as tough) mentally as well. Take my brother as an example. After his initial loss (from the company's outsourcing decision), he never really bounces back completely. For a period, I suspect he suffers depression (albeit mild one) due to all the rejections from job search. While my sister has switched gears and moved on with her life, I can't say my brother ever got over that hump.

Personally, while my career has been going quite well, as with my two other sisters, sometimes I wonder how I would have handled it, should I encounter the same snag as my brother and sister (as with so many others who are currently unemployed). I know, deep down, I do share this sense of insecurity (particularly the one shared by mom), that all these that we work so hard for, can be snatched away in a split of seconds. Afterall, company policies change; economies go through highs and lows. We could be flying high in one instance, and be let go the next day. Do we really have much say in it?

Precisely because of that, I've always been working more than one job at a time since I was in high school. Whether the job is part time, or full time, what matters to me is, I have a plan B. I'm also relentless in making conservative investments that provides me with income stream. I don't do this out of concern of retirement; I do this more because I worry about loss of income before retirement. My sense of insecurity pushes me to secure financial independence since a very young age.

And, I can't get too comfortable in any one particular job, as it was the case with my sister, when she thought she was in a good position, senior management and all, with her own department and team of staff.

Along the same line, I'm unable to be a big spender either. Don't get me wrong, I don't live miserly. I like make charitable donations as I believe in lending a helping hands to the less fortunate ones.

This keeps me on tiptoe, even in the best of times in the economy, and it has served me well so far. At least with the economy going down, I'm able to snatch up bargain investments at rock-bottom prices in the past 2-3 years which are now roaring back. (Albeit all the talks of groom and doom, some investments like certain real estate and stocks, are actually quite a bargain in 2009/2010, but it's getting overpriced again now.)

There are times when I even contemplate getting a bigger place with a tiny plot of land, so that we can learn to till the land in manageable chunk. Last year when we visited friends in their farm in rural Virginia, life is peaceful and straightforward, though it's by no means cheap. It can be an expensive proposition to till the land extensively, what with all the infrastructures, farm equipments, labor and all. I grew up in the city, and by no means, I would survive by just farming alone. I know that much. I do want to learn the life skill to live a simple life, knowing more about the food (rather than just buying from supermarkets).

I wonder when I might be able to put that idea (of tilling my own tiny plot of land) into action...

On all the hot air re Brangelina and Aniston...

The web has democratized the world of news. Everyone's shouting their opinion as if they're standing on top of a 2-inch platform, screaming their lungs out. A large majority of it is hot air. One has to wonder about not just the wisdom of the crowd, but the idiocy of the crowd as well. Such is what we see, a proliferation of all the non-news bubbling up to news headlines, in order to serve this idiotic crowds.

Celebrity news is one of those. In case you've missed it (which is pretty hard to do, since this has been so in your face that it's impossible to miss), Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were once married for a period of five years, and were divorced in 2005. Yes, that was 2005, and we're in 2012 now. That's seven long years, in case anyone hasn't noticed. One would think any normal, healthy adults should have moved on with their lives in that seven years, wouldn't you think?

Apparently, that's not the case with the Pitt/Aniston fans who were so taken in by their fairy tale romance and wedding, and couldn't handle their eventual divorce. Worse still, there's a third party involved. Who else would that be, but Jolie that took the blame for the breakup of the marriage. Jolie then commits the cardinal sin of getting together with Pitt. That seals her label by the Aniston fans of Jolie as the despicable woman.

Every reasonable person (adults, no less) should know that relationships and marriage are complicated matters. There are feelings and emotions to handle, the needs and wants that might stay unmet. The guy wants kids, and the woman doesn't want it (she wants career first, then babies later). The woman wants to party and romance and nights-out with friends, and the guy just wants to stay home and quiet evenings (how boring!). Stuffs like that. If one has to be fair and reasonable, the only conclusion is, if the parties are not ready to reconcile the differences and compromise, then the split is just a matter of time, with or without any third party involved.

I'm not fans of Pitt or Aniston or Jolie. Aniston's acting is boring since her repertoire never deviates too much from her role in Friends. (I've wondered if she ever gets tired of the romedy roles that she keeps playing, 20 years on. Is she going to grow old in those roles??) Jolie alternates from over-the-top acting (like her role in Beowulf) to reasonable acting (like her performance in Changeling). But if one needs validation of her propensity to perform, her Oscar should be quite a solid proof. Pitt has some reasonable performances, and I sometimes almost feel pity for him since he never seems to break out from the golden boy image due to his good looks. (Perhaps Moneyball would provide him with much needed vindication.)

What I find amusing is that, their fans still can't get over what happened seven years ago. It doesn't matter if Jolie or Pitt have done so much good work for humanitarian causes; nor does it matter that they have since started a family together, with happy kids, and they are visibly blissful. Aniston, for her part, has tried numerously times to defuse her loser image in this whole setup. That includes her pronouncement that she's happily single, that she would love to be a mother one day (even though it was said she didn't want kids while she was still married to Pitt), that nobody should feel sorry for her, yada, yada.

Apparently, Aniston's fans still feel mighty sorry for her and angry at Pitt/Jolie, as evident by the outburst in the readers' forum of an apparently innocuous comment about how Jolie appreciates and is proud of Pitt's putting the kids first and taking a fall in order to protect the kids. No matter, the only thing that everyone drills on, is her calling Pitt "hubby." OMG, you have no idea of vicious some readers' comments are, just for her saying that simply because, what, they're not formally married yet? Has the civility of our society really come this low, condemning a loving couple and parents simply because they delay marriage?

It's not a bad thing, that Pitt/Jolie have mostly been able to ignore all these nonsense, and shield their kids from all these nonsensical hot air. Aniston has remained mostly civil, if only she would drop those veil bitter comments from time to time, of what happened seven years ago.

For one, I'm soooooooo over this, and I want news headlines to be used for something for that true purpose, ie. hard news, for a change.

Another relic from the pre-digital age...

Last month, the local phone company is again delivering stockpiles of phone books and yellow pages to our building. It's almost like an annual ritual. When the new one comes, we take it, trash the old one, and let it sit for another year.

But no more. I've long since given up claiming our copy of the phone book/yellow pages. We never use it anyways. Just a manual look-up for local numbers is not sufficient for me. With the web these days, we can search anywhere, anytime, without even getting my fingers dirty. Along the way, I'm hoping to save a few trees with the saved papers, printing, delivery, and ultimately, recycling.

Apparently, phone companies never catch on (or are they just totally clueless?). They should realize that I'm not alone in not taking our copy of the two-inch thick yellow page and phone book. Apparently almost everyone in the building seems to be doing the exact same thing. For weeks, the copies were sitting next to the mailbox in the foyer, brand new in plastic wraps, with no one bothering to even touching or breaking the plastics.

Today, all of them were gone. I reckon, the building management folks must have had enough of it. And since no one was touching them, it's just sitting trash. I really, really hope that they have recycled all those papers, rather than just dumping them in trash.

I'm suspecting, the phone companies are using the print copies' numbers as evidence to their advertisers (if anyone still cares to put paid advertisements in those phone books and yellow pages) to drum up sales, much like newspaper companies do with tons of giveaway copies of the newspapers, much like WSJ did in the scandal of massaged numbers in circulation. If that is the case, the only way that this whole relic would die (which it should have had, long time ago), is for the advertisers to wise up one day, and realize that all of their advertising dollars in those phone books and yellow pages are money down the drain, because no one ever reads or uses them anymore.

Random thoughts on a new year...

In the ending months of last year, 2011 (boy, I make it sound like a long time ago, but December 2011 was only just yesterday!), I've had so much in my head that I have wanted to jog down in my journal, but never get around to doing that. Maybe, on this day of the first day of a new year, I should clear out some of those random thoughts...

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

Last year, scandal broke, that a few college students were posing as high school students to take SAT exams on their behalf, for a few thousand dollars a piece. It causes outrage, of how low the moral of these college students (albeit smart as they are) in impersonating and taking exams for others for a profit; of how widespread the practice is in the well-to-do high schools in Long Island; and of how lax the controls and checks are by the SAT exam centers (thereby making it so easy for such impersonation to take place).

What comes as a surprise to me, is not that it has happened, but rather, how it's discovered only now. It really shouldn't have been a surprise. When the kids and their families with the wherewithal, when the kids' future in college admission depends so much on SAT, when the administering of SAT exams is so lax, no doubt the temptations are too great to resist.

It's unfair for those who work hard at prepping their kids, and at truly teaching their kids to be smart, rather than just street-smart. This past year, my eldest kid start taking prep class in SAT. Everyone says he's very young for the SAT tests. I don't really fancy drilling the kids just for tests and exams; but if he's ready for it, I want him to know how far he can go. While I won't sign him up for the actual SAT tests yet, he's doing the prep classes just for fun (all it takes is friends and pizza). Why is it so hard for those Long Island kids to do the same? Why would their parents allow such thing to happen? What kind of moral standards do these parents teach their kids, that cheating is ok, that they're willing to pay for them to cheat too?

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

Every time some upstart economy comes along, US starts its self-doubt. In the 1980s, there's Japan, with all the talk of quality circle, and how Japan was going to take over the world. Everyone was running scared since Japan was buying up properties and investments everywhere. The prolific savings of Japan was phenomenal. And Japan was starting to move from copycats of everything from the West, to becoming an innovator of its own right (hello, Sony).

That does sound familiar, doesn't it. You can replace the word "Japan" with "China," stretching it out from 1990 till maybe another 5-10 years in the future, and China would probably have gotten there.

Academics, analysts and investment communities are jumping onto the bandwagon too, noting how superior the Chinese model is in getting things done (and how slow-moving, if at all, things are going in US and Washington). Readers' responses oscillate between the mournful (of the decline of US) and hateful (of how China is rising up to jostle US on international stage), or gleeful (China is the way to go!).

If China is really taking the same path as Japan, with the surprisingly similar path of property bubble that popped in Japan a decade ago (resulting in the lost decade in Japan), and the build-up of the property bubble currently brewing in China, what conclusion or lesson can one draw from that?

There are other similarities too, between the two Asian counterparts. China has risen up as the manufacturing sweatshops of the world. It's since catching up fast, with its populace having laser-sharp focus on education. The result is a rising China on the R&D, catching up, if not surpassing the technology know-how of the West (and US, primarily).

Similarities don't just stop there. Albeit one authoritarian rule and one democracy, both Asian counterparts are rigid in their political, labor, business and other cultural settings. How easy or willing, by the Chinese central government, in tackling the issue of corruption that is rampant in China is anyone's guess. And, Japan has an edge over China in the not-so-wide income inequality gap between the rich and the poor.

Most folks in America believe that, if US sits out long enough, China would implode and US would resume its world leadership role. I'm not so sure about that either. Sure, America still has one of the most enviable environment in living and conducting businesses; but it has also been living off of its innovations and residual gains from the last World War when the US government had poured in tremendous resources in R&D and military, spawning tons of innovations as a result. No one is seeing anyone stepping up to the mantel...and certainly not the commercial firms and public companies who have to report to and are rewarded by Wall Street for very short term thinking, rather than strategic long term planning. And THAT is the most worrisome thought of all, with or without China.

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

Speaking of wars (World War II and then the Cold War), it's particularly enlightening and heartening to read the revelation of a cold war secret that is only now coming to light.

It is amazing to see how a small group of remarkably smart, resourceful, and absolutely dedicated people coming together, work on a tremendously challenging project that could make or break a nation.

Do we even see any of these nowadays? I highly doubt it. All we see and hear of, from bright young kids coming out of college, is their desire to make money, and more money. Going to Wall Street is their main goal (before the 2008 crash), rather than making rockets. Or starting some me-too startups with the only hope of selling it for ridiculous profits, rather than dedicating to finding some cure to intractable diseases.

And all these were done in absolute secrecy. Contrast that to the fifteen-minute fame that everyone seeks these days, from reality TV shows, to ridiculous YouTube self-portrait videos, to expose of all sorts of laundry secrets. It was a class act of its own.

That is something that I miss, when I watch movies like Apollo 13 because I don't see that same kind of hope and idealism that was bubbling in those bygone days. All I see is dollar sign in everyone's eyes.