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.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
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...
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.
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.
Friday, October 19, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
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.
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.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
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. :)
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. :)
Friday, October 5, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)