On sexism and Australia's first female PM...

I don't know if you are familiar with or aware of the politics in Australia. I do, because I'm an Australian expat, watching how the politics played out Downunder, from afar. Although I still read Australian newspapers everyday, that kind of views are largely shaped by the newspapers' reporting.

Last year, when I traveled back to Australia for a family visit, I was able to get a first-hand feel for how voters on the ground and people in general truly think. And I was in for a few surprises.

Perhaps the first surprise was the amount of contempt that voters across the board, regardless of whether they consider themselves Labor or Liberal voters. The economy in Australia has been largely spared of the Great Recession that US and Europe has suffered (and are still suffering), and it's still going quite strong, given the strong demands for commodities from emerging markets like China. One would have thought that general public should feel quite good about themselves, shouldn't they. But no, they are generally more prone to complaints, like the inflation and outrageous property market that is still in a rage. By jove, when people ridicule the more than US$4 dollar a cup of coffee from Starbucks, one should be made aware of the fact that a A$3.50 a cup of just plain vanilla coffee in Sydney is the norm.

The media really does their best too, to play the voters' general belief of rampant inflation, into the carbon tax that Julia Gillard has helped introduced - a reneg on a campaign promise that some considered as cardinal sin. But is it really? Public opinion has it that, the carbon tax is going to make inflation worse, all thanks to Gillard.

And then there is the issue of Kevin Rudd who's been hanging over her head since the day she deposed him in a Labor leadership challenge. Rudd has never been able to settle with being a foreign minister after getting unseated from the top job as prime minster (PM). So now, he's doing the same thing to Gillard, mounting a leadership challenge to her. While his failure again in reclaiming the PM mantel, it only serves to fan the dissent.

While I don't have any love lost with Gillard as the PM, I do get the feeling that some of the blame that aren't really deserving. True to form, sexism has played a part as well. In particular, I don't understand why so many of the Aussie folks I talked to brought up the personal life or the outward appearance of Gillard as sticky issues. I must admit that, to a certain extent, I almost feel like Australia has moved backwards in that sense.

I have considered Australia to be a progressive country that is open (and open-minded enough). But talks after talks, people have criticized Gillard for having a unmarried, live-in partner, or the fact that she has no children ("she could not have understood family issues or values"), or the way in which she talks ("she doesn't talk as if she shows any emotions"), and the like. I thought, why are these general public playing into the hands of the media, and regurgitate the lines that the media has pumped into them? To be honest, I feel almost offended as I heard more of the same type of non-arguments.

The way that it's going, even though Gillard survives the leadership challenge from Rudd within her own Labor Party, her days are numbered since no one expects her to be able to win in a general election (unless some miracle happens). As a woman voter, I feel dismayed that Australia seems to be going backwards. While I don't normally judge any candidate based on their gender or race, I can't help but feel that most Australian voters are not in my camp. Afterall, Julia Gillard is not Hillary Clinton (who is still a galvanizing force within the Democratic Party in US and is held in very high regard).

Although I would love to see Australia moving in that progressive direction, I'm having serious doubts that I would see this happening in my lifetime. Afterall, Australians in general seem to be still in love with traditions (hello, British royal family) and everything that comes with it. I doubt if Australians can handle a Margaret Thatcher within their midst.

On DropBox a life-saver...

Once every year or two, I get new laptops from work. When you have to do development with tools and utilities needing ever increasing horsepower to run, you need that kind of upgrade. Most people love new machines since it means new toys, more capability to do stuffs that they might otherwise not be able to do with older machine with less powerful machines.

While that's all well and good, I can't tell you how much I drag that possibility. Don't get me wrong, I like machines with more horsepower. Who can't resist that anyways. But I hate the idea of having to reconfigure and set up a brand new environment every time that happens. True, I can get the machine imaged to load up company-censured apps, but I would still need to set up the stuffs that I need for my environment. Even just as mundane as copying files across from one environment to another environment is a royal pain. I have to remember what files to copy, and make sure the copy would happen. It's really mundane, but it has to be done.

But that's not the worst. At least with machine upgrade, it'll only happen once. My worst nightmare is the sync'ing of different machines and laptop that I use for work and personal purposes. With dev stuffs, it's easier since I can always use source control as the ultimate repository for files of importance. Everything else, it's not so fortunate. There's been a while when I would use Google Docs to hold the latest version of files (particularly personal stuffs) that I need. But I can tell you it's still a major hassle. At the end of a long working day, I can't always be sure to upload the files with changes since I just want to get away from the machine so badly.

And then, something magical happens. It's called DropBox.

I can't believe it I haven't discovered it sooner. Well, you see, I've got a new laptop (again) - I love the horsepower - but I have to do the configuration and copying all over again. Every damn time I switch machines, I would invariably lose some files along the way. It's when I decide to give it a try, given the word of mouth and how easy it is to use.

Indeed, if you think of it, the functionality of DropBox is actually not that revolutionary, but it's so easy to use and it looks to be fairly robust. It's essentially a little utility that lets you to drive mapping; but instead of mapping network drive from, say, your local machine, you're doing the mapping with DropBox's server in the cloud. (Well, you should know by now that the cloud is just another much hyped-up glam name for services delivered over the web. Yep, you get it, like it's a "big deal," IMHO.)

But the DropBox functionality is so focused yet it's something that's so fundamental and essential. So, I install the utility, create my account with them (free basic first, in case it doesn't work out), then designate what folders and files to sync and share. Not that I have any compelling reason to share my machine or life with anyone, the fact that I can now sync at least the portion of the environment(s) on different machines save me so much time and angst, that I can't thank DropBox often enough.

I know, I know, I almost sound like religion. I wish DropBox would pay me to do advertisement since I'd love to be their case study. :) But, no, I just have to write the little note in my journal, for how far cloud service has come along; by that, I mean truly meaningful services and not just time-wasting stuffs. I don't give a horse-shit about social networking (which is for those with too much time on their hands), but the DropBox functionality has made my day.

On microlending gone awry...

I've always looked at microlending with admiration, which borne out of Grameen Bank, in the hope to helping lift the very poor out of abject poverty by providing much needed financing in small amounts.

What went wrong since then, when microfinancing shifts from non-profit to for-profit, with investors rushing in to cash on this business, is a lesson for all. I'm disgusted and dismayed to hear and read about the kind of abuses of borrowers - to the extremes of publicly humiliating borrowers, to abetment of suicides - who are too poor to fend for themselves. It's equally disgusting, though I'm not surprised at all, to read the investigative report that shows SKS (the now publicly traded company) repeatedly ignores the abuses. Instead of correcting the unscrupulous practice, as the then founder/CEO had tried to do on numerous occasions, the company, backed by the board, decides to look the other way, and pushes out the whistle-blowers.

This is but another prime example to show those who thinks that free market capitalism can solve all ills, with no role of government or non-profit.

To be sure, I'm realistic enough to understand that, whoever might take up the cause to help the poor, there will be certain level of malfeasance as a result. The important thing is the checks and controls in place to ensure that the abuses are caught and corrected. In the drive to profit-taking, I do not have as much confidence in a for-profit organization, a public company no less, driven not only by the profit-making goals, but also the relentless hunger for revenue and profit growth by Wall Street.

Some things are best handled by non-profit organizations, with government oversight. The case study of microlending is a cautionary tale. If microlending has largely stayed as a humanitarian project, would the likes of the unscrupulous SKS loan officers (who push the borrowers for laon repayment, driving them to suicide) and sales (who pushes loans to borrowers that are unlikely to have the ability to repay or the skills to make good use of the funds) have been made largely redundant? Surely the subject is arguable on certain level. I do truly believe that the abuses would not have been this bad.

On reality shows with kids...

Don't get me started on how much I despise reality shows; worse yet are those with kids, one of which was Jon & Kate Plus 8.

I sometimes wonder about what the appeal is, though I have no doubt that the voyeuristic look into someone's life is appealing to a lot of people. It's not just about walking through someone else's house with the camera, following them in lock-steps their daily chores; more importantly, there must be this appeal to see not just how happy those people are, but what they mess up and how they bitch and moan about it.

Truth be told, I never watch a full episode of any reality show in my life since I can find better use of my time. By jove, I don't even own (or have a need for) a TV. Back then, with all the rage about the J&K Plus 8 shows, I did wonder if there might be some exception in this show. Since I have a few moments to spare this evening, I check out the snippets of the episodes on YouTube. After some 9 minutes of it, I told myself I'm done with this. It's nothing new afterall.

But of course, we know now how the story of this family unfolded publicly - perhaps too publicly, for the kids. The wife's bitching and moaning got worse on the show, till eventually the husband walked out. For whatever very public bitching on both parties, life seems to go on with the guy. While he still expresses care for the kids, they're staying with the mom. And what next? The mom tries different things (hello, Dancing With The Stars), none of which works out. With her 15-minutes up, her go-solo show with the kids got canceled, she's resolved to staying in the limelight by declaring to the world with teary eyes that, "I'm so lonely." She blames her chances of meeting another guy to near zero, all because she's a "mother of eight." For however stupid the audience might be, the thousands of readers' comments are telling, with the majority saying, it's not the kids' problems. This woman doesn't even realize that guys have problems with bitch like HER. Sad huh? When there's success, it's Kate's success (never mind the 8 cute kids); when there's failure, it's because of the kids.

I feel bad for the kids since they did not sign up for this. The same is true with the Octomom thing. The kids didn't even ask to be born. Thanks for fertility treatment, individuals like these are able to suddenly get a big handful of babies, get some news headline, and their 15-minutes' worth of fame. Whatever happens to the kids after that, how the kids are reared; I doubt any reality shows would show interest in tracking how the kids would do after the light of the shows (with them in it) go dark. I feel bad for them. I really do.

Sometimes I seriously doubt the authenticity of these reality shows. The adults, in particular, know full well when the camera is on her/him. (Just ask Sarah Palin.) So, whatever persona that these individuals let on in front of the camera is really the persona that they want the world to know them of. The kids, on the other hand, could be a different matter; in particular, the very young kids who are doubtful to be able to experience a normal, regular childhood since they are always being followed by the camera crew. Why would anyone consider reality show to be real "reality," is quite beyond me.

I don't think the trend of reality shows is healthy for a civil society. As a bystander, I can only do my part by not participating or showing any kind of support to such initiative. Watching that 9-minute clip of this Plus 8 show is as far as I'll go. I don't want or have any need to see another mother trying to be the super-mom, getting everything perfect, and still can squeeze the time to take care of her dye and 'do, or another facelift or breast augmentation.

I sure hope that my silent vote is going to make a difference...though the prognosis does not look good so far.

On the strange universe of tax systems in US...

I'm not sure how GOP con continue its argument, with straight face, that the wealthy deserves not to pay the same amount of taxes as the working mass, all in the faith that the wealthy is going to spend and spend and create jobs for the rest of us.

But I'm even more surprised to see the ability of GOP to convince those towards the bottom of the food chain, who could otherwise only dream of ever joining the top dog club to pay less in taxes in percentage than they currently are, to go along.

I've always wondered if those at the bottom support, who buy in to the GOP party line that the wealth and rich deserve paying less as a percentage of their income in taxes, really think that this is fair, in the hope that one day they would be the one on that receiving end to reap the benefit. I also wondered if they ever consider empirical evidence of how unfair that kind of tax treatment, like the fact that "carried interest" income is treated as non-regular income, hence allowing it to be taxed at a much lower rate. Surely those in the top 1-2% who have been reaping these gains for years would not oppose to it. (Warren Buffet, the civic-minded billionaire who proposes the Buffet Rule to Obama's latest tax treatment change in the latest budget outline, certainly is in the minority.) For those who are currently paying the lion share of taxes in percentage, yet supporting and even advocating the current tax system to be extended, really know what's going on? What are they thinking, really??

Perhaps there are those who don't even understand what they're supporting. Or, maybe they can't comprehend the mountain of evidence arguing against what they're supporting. Those are ignorant folks that can otherwise be excused. But for those who know full well what they're getting into, yet continue to support a system that perpetuates the squeezing the rank-and-file like themselves, I seriously think it approaches insanity.

On women's rights and conservative view (aka GOP)...

You should know by now that I'm not a GOP supporter, but let me get that out of my system, just to be sure. I view myself more of an issue voter, rather than someone who votes by party line or in accordance to endorsement (which I never do). Even my husband finds it hard to pin down how to "label" me, because I can liberal one day, and conservative the next, but mostly, I'm view myself more of an Independent.

In any case, I don't put much stock in the hoopla of the GOP primaries and the news headlines that go with it since I know they'll get me fire up and mad as hell. But all the flavor-of-the-month type of in candidate that rise and fall faster than a meteorite, from names like Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty, and John Huntsman. Looking at the lame GOP line-up, one has to say, why bother? They all look different, yet they all look/sound/smell the same.

Once in a while, I do get upset. Today is one of those days, when I read one of Rick Santorum's big supporters as saying, the best contraception for women is to keep their legs shut. If you follow the news, you'd know that this all borne out of the debate over contraception, and the recent Obama attempt to make healthcare insurers to provide coverage of contraception.

While I'm unsure of the political agenda of Obama in injecting this debate into the political at this time of the year when the GOP conservatives are all fired up about who would be best to unseat Obama in the 2012 presidential election in November, I find the knee-jerk - I hope it's knee-jerk - reaction by the GOP conservatives frightfully maddening.

While I'm a bit more leery about across-the-board endorsement of abortion, late-term abortion and abortion due to circumstances (eg. incest, rape, or medical conditions that endanger the woman's life), I don't have any moral dilemma about contraception. As the poll shows, I'm not alone. Sure, Catholic Church is going to come out swinging with their opposition with anything related to birth control, on a practical and pragmatic level, contraception has been a godsend to women of all stripes. Some GOP right-wing conservatives want to paint the picture of birth control (contraception, abortion, what-have-you) as a negative byproduct of women's liberation movement and feminism, I strongly beg to differ.

For millennium, women have been reduced to commodity and objects. Women have no control over their own lives (or those of their children or family) or their own body. The natural tendency of a woman to be left with the caring of her baby when she's made pregnant, be it out of choice or not, renders the woman dependent on someone else (primarily men) to provide for their livelihood. Contraception has been one great way for women to claim their lives back, in the most humane way possible. How dare they, for Santorum and those in the GOP right-wing corners to come out and tell women what they should or should not with their own lives?

On a more pragmatic level, I would rather be able to provide a better life and support for a smaller number of children, than to have a large number of offsprings that I cannot provide for. If GOP really is a party about self-reliant, they should realize that, on a fundamental level, this is all about self-sufficiency. Do they really want to see the rank of welfare single mothers to grow, or would they rather see more children growing up as healthy, productive members of the society? To the eyes of any reasonable (wo)man, the choice is so easy and straightforward that there cannot be any argument about it.

And so, to those in the GOP conservatives that still continue to push the ban of birth control like contraception, I have only two words for them: Shut up.