I'm slacking off in upkeeping my journal, even for the year-end review and a look-back at all the momentous events this past year. Mental fatigue of too much news (and noise) will do that to you. But, let's get this done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always read the year-end recap from last year before writing the wrap-up for the year. Quite a lot has happened, but sadly to say, so much remains the same.
On the economic front, it's tumultuous and steady-as-she-goes, all at once. Domestic economic is going strong, even though the agriculture sector is bearing most of the brunt from the Agriculture sector suffers in US trade war with China with China that Trump has stared. Not surprisingly, the rural sector is a hardy bunch and ardent Trump supporters (for the most part), and they seem to have the grit to hold out for longer. It is instead the urban sectors, the liberal folks who worry about the suffering of the farming sector that they advocate against - or at least "caution" - the trade war.
Economists close ranks and all advocate against the trade war. But by and large, most Americans agree that China needs to be checked. China - and Russia too - has become blazen in espionage (including commercial and military), and hyper-aggressive in military manuveauring. Case in point: China aggression in South China Sea out of nothing in international waters, and unilaterally redrawing territorial waters with Nine-Dash Line which cuts into the waters of neighboring countries.
Response from the rest of the world on all these aggression was moot, unfortunately. There was UN complaint, there was Tribunal ruling on China aggression, but that was three years ago, and no one can seem to stop what China is doing. If this had been in the pre-WWII days, it would have been called appeasement. In modern days, as China has risen to become the No.2 in world economy, with its increasing economic clout (both as an increasingly important markets for the world, and as a vital financial backer to infrastructure projects that third world countries have come to rely on, even to their own long term peril), no one dares to speak up. With US being the No.1 economy (for now), US seems to be the only one who can afford to say no to China.
I'm not a fan of Trump. In fact I utterly despise this guy. (No, he's not qualified to be a president at all in every single aspect.) Yet, he has been the only guy who has the unpredictable and volatile temperament to start a trade war with China, and can roil up his GOP base to rally support for it. The timing of it, is prudential (for the Hong Kong protests). God does work in His own mysterious ways.
Personally I do believe that China's aggression urgently needs to be checked. If it means a fucking trade war, if it means lower GDP, so be it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking of economic pain and lower GOP, it brings to mind the bruhaha of Brexit. There's so much scary talks since the referendum was passed three years ago. Economists - much like their universal disapproval of the US trade war - uniformly gave their thumbs down. There was talk of armageddon and collapse in economy (it didn't happen). When pocketbook issues did not seem sufficient to scare the Brits shitless, scare turned to border issues of Northern Ireland that maybe The Troubles in Northern Ireland could be reignited (I doubt it would).
There's a lot of talks about how Boris Johnson mirrors Donald Trump, in terms of temperament, melodrama, nativism-leaning). That much is true. Incidentally they were both able to push through an agenda (that half of the country despises) at a time when they both shoveled a female peer aside: Trump defeated Hillary Clinton (even though she's way more qualified than he is), Johnson sidelined Theresa May. More interestingly, Johnson called the snap election (in the hope to secure a mandate from the people to push Brexit through, even if it's a no-deal Brexit) and won by a landslide. Not so long ago, May took the exact same steps, and she lost miserably. The deal - if you can call it that - that Johnson advocates is essentially the same (if not worse) as May's. So, what's the difference between Johnson and May? Well, for one, May was trying to please everyone and ended up pleasing no one. Johnson? He roiled up his core base, and there's that.
As to Brexit, I really don't see what's the big fucking deal with this, and why so many people sound so scared about it. Yes, there'll be less trade between UK and EU, GDP will be lower, but UK will live. I'll bet in the end, deal or no deal, UK will likely adopt most of the trade rules so that commerce will flow again. What UK will gain back, is its sovereignty, and its ability to call the shot again about its own border. Is that such a bad thing to be able to control one's own border and immigration policy? I would say, no. The UK politicians all want to retain their seats at the decision-making table at Brussels, even if that means UK has to contribute billions of funding to EU every year. It's plain to see that UK voters believe that's a bad deal. I don't disagree at all.
The moment of truth will come soon, in 2020.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking of politics, there is the impeachment of Trump which is only the third time in history. Trump must have been doing his victory lap when the Mueller Investigation did not amount to a conviction, so much so that Trump became so emboldened that he literally asked Ukraine to investigate his political opponent in exchange for military aid that Congress had already approved for Ukraine. What the hell was Trump (and his peeon like Guiliani) thinking, really? Every extra day that Trump sits in the White House, it's another day that he makes a mockery of the rule of law and US constitution duty that a president swears to uphold. Worse still, the whole GOP establishment would still stand behind this despicable guy, even defending (!!) him on the most indefensible offense, it's totally unacceptable.
Although I've had initially misgiving about impeaching Trump as the 2020 election is drawing closer, I've come to realize that the impeachment means something more. Yes, the best way to beat Trump is at the ballot box, but given the mounting evidence from the Ukraine scandal, we can no longer let it slide, as if such conduct (of the White House occupant, the fucking commander-in-chief) is acceptable. It is no longer just about defeating Trump, it's about defining what is acceptable - and NOT acceptable - conducts for a US president. This, is something that needs to be laid down, as the rule of law, and the US constitution, demands of us (both Congress and voters). We can no longer look away. So, I have to agree with Nancy Pelosi, in this regard.
Listening to the full impeachment hearings in the House, I was totally disgusted by how ignorant, naive, and clueless the GOP have been, who couldn't seem to hold an intelligent argument. What's wrong with these fucking idiots?!?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As the campaigning of the Democrats primaries kicks into high gear, I was getting somewhat battle fatigue. As the news reporting progresses, it's quite clear that main media (and social media too) is going to get it wrong (AGAIN) about this election (much as it was wrong about projecting landslide victory by Hillary Clinton (HRC), yet she lost the 2016 election to Trump anyways).
Joe Biden continues to lead every single polls in the match-up against Trump, yet all I can see is "bad news" about Biden, about how he's too old, too timid, too same-old-same-old, too "obama". Going moderate, taking incremental approach, has suddenly had a bad name. Why? Because HRC didn't give a flying fuck about bread-and-butter issues of the working class in 2016, thereby giving up (and giving away) all the swing states, even the erstwhile solid blue states. Dems have come to take it for granted that unions (and working class) will always vote Dem, but that's no longer true. Perhaps the only challenge I would like Biden to confront is: What would he do about trade liberation? Will he continue trade war with China? (I hope he does.) What would he do about the economic misfortune for those who don't have the skills to pivot to the new knowledge-society (apart from giving out more and more welfare)? With all that said, Biden is still the only who has consistently sat at the top of all polls (except the couple of early primaries which, to be honest, don't mean much after their primaries are over). If Dems really believes that the number-one task, is to take down Trump, who else could it be, but Biden?
And then there are those on the far-left, in the form of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren). Honestly, I can't stand Bernie Sanders, but at least he's "consistent" in his stance all these years. Warren? She might have "evolved," but seeing her as the people's warrior when she used to defend big corporate clients, once upon a time, it seems hypocritical for her to criticize Pete Buttigieg's fundraising activities (which is no different from what Warren used to do). As the saying goes, don't cast the first stone. It is thus that I'm not surprised to see her star declines after the sixth Dem debate. It's about time.
The two other younger candidates that I watch are, Pete Buttigieg, and Andrew Yang. Buttigieg is an interesting case. On papers, he's probably the dream candidate that Dem should have clammered for. He's young (37), a military veteran, religious and/but gay, smart (Rhodes scholar), comes from rural area (mayor of a small town in IN), and older voters love him (since he speaks respectfully and he carries his arguments well). What is puzzling, is young voters don't like him (they still like Sanders, the oldest candidate in the Dem lineup), and black voters don't like him (they still prefer Biden). Can he overcome these two major voters bloc, to become candidate? It's a major gamble.
And then there is Andrew Yang, the odd ball. America might not be ready for an Asian-American president, but the more I watch him speak and look at his policy agenda, the more I like him. Apparently I'm not alone. His star, surprisingly, is also rising. He doesn't talk like a politician, he doesn't speak like a politician. More importantly, if anyone should need truly fresh ideas, Yang is the one who comes up with the beef. No wonder his Yang Gang hard-core following is growing in size.
As to everyone else (we still have, what, 25 in the Dems lineup?!?), it's all just a joke. I really don't know why they're still in the race. They should just all pack up and go home. (Especially Tulsi Gobbard, Julian Castro, and Cory Booker.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps the most momentous event that touches me the most in this past year, is the protests in Hong Kong that started in June. The initial demand to withdraw the Extradition Bill has since morphed into much bigger issues, exposing fault lines and weakness in the so-called One-Country-Two-Systems (1C2S) model that was decided for Hong Kong by Britain in the 1980s, that was meant to "guarantee" no change in the systems (if you can believe that) in Hong Kong for 50 years, after which China can do whatever it wants with Hong Kong.
Anyone who cares to read those words, would realize that it was never meant to work. China resumes sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997, and can really do whatever it wants with it. In the three decades since the signing of the Sino-British agreement in 1982, the economic fortune and significance of Hong Kong has waned significantly, accounting for 18%+ of China's GDP back then to only 2% today. Everything that Hong Kong has now is inextricably tied to China, beholden its economy to the China trade and tourists to prop itself up, on top of the water and food supply.
Hongkongers have always been an apolitical, pragmatic bunch. Everything has always been about pocketbook. The younger generations in Hong Kong thus take everyone by surprise. They reject the military threat from China, they go on million-man march on the street to demand democracy (universal suffrage) and independent investigation on police brutality against young protesters, they even persist in protests that have resulted in violent confrontations without backing down. And, they make full use of the social media, and organize with clear leaders (so that government cannot easily pin down and crack down on a few leaders, as police did in the 2014 Umbrella Movement). In fact, their guerrilla tactics have been so successful that the government and police are still unable to put a stop to the protests, amidst arresting thousands of protesters (some as young as 12 years old).
I have to say, I admire and respect the Hongkongers and its protests. In fact, this should have happened back in 1982 when China and UK were in secret talks to decide on the future of Hong Kong. That generation, unfortunately, never did anything. They co-op'ed out the future of their birthplace, buying themselves time (50 years and no more) to jump ship and migrate to other countries. In a few words, they didn't care. And that mess is now the reality for this generation. I thus fully support the young protesters and their demands. Yet, so many of those older generations sound disapprobation against the protests since the protests "inconvenience" them, and their comfortable retirement. Such attitude is selfish and despicable.
I joined a number of peaceful march in Hong Kong this past year while I was there. I see it with my own eyes, I feel it in the air. These people are peaceful, they only want to upkeep their civic establishments, the impartiality of judicial system. Unfortunately, Carrie Lam (the current chief executive who is nothing more than a kiss-arse to whoever is in power in Beijing) has neither the wisdom nor the skills to govern, instead she makes use of the brunt force of military tactics against unarmed protesters. Is there any wonders why protesters have to up the ante in order to maintain the momentum? If anything, Carrie Lam is going to go down in history book as the traitor to give away the future of Hong Kong.
The 1C2S has always been just a gimmick, a carrot/bone thrown in Taiwan's way as a "viable" option for peaceful unification into the arms of China. With the weakness of 1C2S fully exposed now, it's no wonder that Taiwan is saying thanks, but no thanks. I would have done the same, if I were Taiwan. Afterall, Taiwan already has democracy, it already has everything that an independent country has (except maybe not the full diplomatic ties to countries that bent backwards for China due to China's economic incentives/threats), why would anyone give those up?
What China is good at, is pretty (and empty) words. They talk beautifully, they have "laws" (but they have kangaroo courts), they have "rule of law" (but "law" is whatever Beijing says it is), making a mockery of those three words. If anyone should still harbor the fancy that Beijing would play nice and treat Hong Kong fairly, they are just delusional. Case in point: Look at how China treats those muslims in Xinjiang. It's a daily threat that's going to come to Hong Kong.
I was happy when Congress passed the Bill to support Hong Kong (or at least put a check on China's actions on Hong Kong) with overwhelming support, so much so that even Trump - who is capable of only seeing everything in transactional nature and is clearly worried about further antagonizing China in the trade war negotiations - has to sign it since the Bill is veto-proof. Again, God works in His own mysterious way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On a more personal front, I've had some minor health scare. As people always say, it's always those life-and-death moments that are most effective in prompting us to evaluate our life choices. For me, it is perhaps really high time that I should consider slowing down and take an easier (and slower) path in life.
This is particularly so as I'm joining the ranks of empty-nesters. I'm still very hopeful in life, looking forward to the kids making a better path in life than I do. There is however storm clouds on the horizon. Income equality in society across the globe is worsening, job prospects (in the face of big tech and onslaught of AI, big data, and robotics) can look uncertain, and climate change (even if it's further out in the horizon) is getting real. I can only hope that my generations are not leaving a world to the younger generations that is worse off than when I inherit it. This is also the same reasons why I support the young protesters in Hong Kong, precisely because they are fighting for a better future, how could anyone not support that??
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Monday, May 6, 2019
On Trump tweets that moves and shakes the markets around the world...
Has anyone ever wondered if Trump violates any SEC laws by firing tempestuous tweets that moves and shakes the markets around the world, like the latest ones he did that threatens to double the tariffs against China to $200B, causing markets around the world to tremble?
It would have been so easy to prove criminal intents, if Trump or any of his cronies profit from the sudden plunge in markets by placing shorts bet ahead of his tweets. Dems and those who have been trying to catch him red-handed should really take note.
It would have been so easy to prove criminal intents, if Trump or any of his cronies profit from the sudden plunge in markets by placing shorts bet ahead of his tweets. Dems and those who have been trying to catch him red-handed should really take note.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
On workism and the hustle culture in work...
It must be vogue now to bash about the falsehood of WeWork culture in liberal media, the latest one came from The Atlantic, under the banner of workism.
A few misconceptions:
In the end, the writer repudiates himself and all of his "arguments," saying only that "extreme success" is bad, obsessing oneself with sharing one's success on social media is bad, but everything else (the so-called workism) is really not a bad thing. Why? Because he's one of the practitioners.
While public policy would alleviate public's anxiety in work-life balance, government is NOT the villain in advocating work-first ethos. And, how would this change the americans' "devotion"? In fact, more family-friendly public policy would just free up more personal time to devote to work.
Ultimately, it's really a personal choice. If you enjoy work and you happen to be very good at it, and earn gobs of money in the process, all the power to you. But if you simply suck, and you can't find anything that you like to do or are good at, then you'll just be miserable, no matter if you're a "workist" or not.
A few misconceptions:
- College diploma is NOT equivalent to better educated.
- Loving one's work and out to change the world, is NOT the same as chasing a title or climbing a career ladder or making billions of dollars, even though that's the implication a lot of people are equating them with.
- Trying to link social media as "external trauma" of the millennials in terms of workaholism is just lame.
- Output of white-collar work (eg. algorithms) is NOT intangible and invisible. This goes to show how little the writer knows or understands about the open-source movement which has been the rage for a very long time now.
In the end, the writer repudiates himself and all of his "arguments," saying only that "extreme success" is bad, obsessing oneself with sharing one's success on social media is bad, but everything else (the so-called workism) is really not a bad thing. Why? Because he's one of the practitioners.
While public policy would alleviate public's anxiety in work-life balance, government is NOT the villain in advocating work-first ethos. And, how would this change the americans' "devotion"? In fact, more family-friendly public policy would just free up more personal time to devote to work.
Ultimately, it's really a personal choice. If you enjoy work and you happen to be very good at it, and earn gobs of money in the process, all the power to you. But if you simply suck, and you can't find anything that you like to do or are good at, then you'll just be miserable, no matter if you're a "workist" or not.
Friday, February 22, 2019
On the returns of jihadi brides...
I have considered myself one of those independent voters who are in general fiscally conservative but socially liberal. But there are times when issues can still irk me immensely, the latest lawsuit to have a jihadi bride returned home is one of those.
With the imminent defeat of ISIS, all its remnants are scattering about like rats rushing to escape a sinking ship. In a natural order of things, these rats should sink (and die) with the sinking ship, and a chapter is rightly closed. In our modern, civilized society, everyone demands their rights, even if they had been brutally suppressing others when they were in power. In times like this, I do wish they all just die and rid this world of extremists that bring so much hatred and destruction.
Just a few years ago when ISIS was all the rage, extremist groups like Talibans and ISIS terrorized large swath in society, destroying cities and villages, imposing their religious and social orders, maiming and killings those who dare to oppose them. Suddenly, women became invisible, hidden behind niqab, banished from daylight, effectively reduced to providing only domestic functions like being a vassel for procreation and domestic chores. It is a radical new world order that Islamic extremists want to impose on the rest of the infidel world. You're either for or against them, in latter case, you die. From my vantage point, it's not unlike the Aryan nation propositioned by the Nazis.
While I understand that every religion harbor extremist views, and there might be a peaceful side of Islam, the fact that the silent majority of Muslims around the world did nothing to counter the extremist views from the likes of ISIS and Talibans feel almost like a tacit endorsement of their way of imposing the Muslim world view to the rest of the world. Would there come a day when Sharia law becomes a reality? I sure hope not. For that alone, I would say, one must close ranks and fight the spread of Islam, lest Sharia law would take hold.
In reality, there is always many shades of grey. Even among all the Muslims in the Middle East, I doubt if they have one true definition of what Muslim should be, hence allowing anyone to claim the mantle, and confusing the rest of the world about what Islam really is. No matter. Prior to the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then Syria, accompanied by the collapse of a number of functioning (some barely) governments in countries like Yemen, the rest of the world saw only strongmen in Middle East. There was Saddam Hussein in Iraq, there is Bashar al-Assad, there is the House of Saud, plus the many "royalties" in the region, all of whom are imposing rules not unlike the authoritarian rule in China.
There was never any radicalization of Muslims from these strongmen and rule, which obviously point to the fact that they are not really that appealing. But, they were able to keep peace, which was more than enough for the rest of the world. It also allows the world to continue using Iran as the straw man, the ultimate bad guy. In hindsight, Iran looks almost like an adult in a room full of trigger-happy extremists like ISIS. At least Iran tries to run and govern a nation. ISIS? They just want misery for everybody.
The plight of Palestinians as a result of suppression from Israel has become a rally cry. It was almost fashionable in the academic and bohemian circles to talk against Israel. But that never spreads far beyond the circle to the mainstream and metastasize into radicalization of general public. There used to be gatekeepers in how the news is packaged and presented. News have to be investigated, presented in a measured and even-keel way that reminiscent of Walter Cronkite.
What's changed, is the perfect storm of the rise of social media and the subsequent wars in Iraq (and then Syria). Suddenly, everyone is a citizen reporter, everyone who has access to the web can broadcast what they see. Wars are always brutal, and suddenly everyone can tell the world that people are dying in Iraq or Syria or wherever. Whether the cause is just or not, has almost become a moot point. No longer is anyone aspired to be calm and measured like Cronkite, you now need to be loud, bold, and your reports need to be extreme in order to get eyeballs. Beheading, stoning, burning a live human, it's all become commonplace.
One has to ask, how could anyone EVER want to aspire to an extremist like that? How could anyone become brainwashed and indoctrinated to consider that kind of extreme measures can EVER be good? How could anyone EVER consider that being condoned by a supposedly peace-loving religion, as some Muslims advocate Islam to be? How could anyone EVER think that such extreme measures is a utopia, particularly those grew up in the western civil society? In one word, idiots.
All of which brings us back to these jihadi brides. Young, impressionable, naive, stupid stupid idiotic teenagers who believe that all those extreme measures can bring about their ideal society. I do not believe for a second that they did not know better, or that they were "blinded" by indoctrination. These are not 5-6yo, these are 15-16yo. They were tech savvy. I have no doubt that they were aware of the news and brutalities of what ISIS did. How could they have ever justified the ISIS brutality against the Yazidis while talking about suppression of Muslims? I'd say, in their half-developed frontal lobe, all they dreamt of, was adventures.
In the cases of the jihadi brides who were from US and Britain, and who now want to come home, I don't have any sympathy to them at all. They left their families and countries behind, burnt their passports, actively advocated violence against their countries. Apparently, all it takes is a few years of hardship, after a few husbands and babies, they are "ready to come home," as if their adventures to Disneyland is done. Where are the consequences? What of the people who died, thanks to their complicity (even if it's hard to get exact proof)? There are things that cannot be undone, particularly those who have died. Actions, have consequences.
For those who want to atone to their sins, I'm at least willing to hear them out (though human emotions are so easily manipulated, and all these women need to do, is to tell a few sob stories, shed a few tears in front of a camera, and all is forgiven). For those who don't even express remorse? I'd say, fuck you very much, you can rot in the place that you chose to go to in the first place, and die like those whose lives have perished as a result of your complicity.
Citizenship comes with rights, as well as responsibility. For this US jihadi bride's family to sue to have her repatriated, it totally rubs me the wrong way. The liberal side of me says, give them a second chance. But the world-wary side of me says, not everyone has a second chance and not everyone deserves a second chance. Yes, there is complication with young children involved, but the issue becomes even more fraught when the child comes of age, and turns out to be another radicalized or idiotic, like their parents once was. Somehow, I'm not inclined to give them the benefits of the doubts. On rare occasions like this, I do agree with Trump.
With the imminent defeat of ISIS, all its remnants are scattering about like rats rushing to escape a sinking ship. In a natural order of things, these rats should sink (and die) with the sinking ship, and a chapter is rightly closed. In our modern, civilized society, everyone demands their rights, even if they had been brutally suppressing others when they were in power. In times like this, I do wish they all just die and rid this world of extremists that bring so much hatred and destruction.
Just a few years ago when ISIS was all the rage, extremist groups like Talibans and ISIS terrorized large swath in society, destroying cities and villages, imposing their religious and social orders, maiming and killings those who dare to oppose them. Suddenly, women became invisible, hidden behind niqab, banished from daylight, effectively reduced to providing only domestic functions like being a vassel for procreation and domestic chores. It is a radical new world order that Islamic extremists want to impose on the rest of the infidel world. You're either for or against them, in latter case, you die. From my vantage point, it's not unlike the Aryan nation propositioned by the Nazis.
While I understand that every religion harbor extremist views, and there might be a peaceful side of Islam, the fact that the silent majority of Muslims around the world did nothing to counter the extremist views from the likes of ISIS and Talibans feel almost like a tacit endorsement of their way of imposing the Muslim world view to the rest of the world. Would there come a day when Sharia law becomes a reality? I sure hope not. For that alone, I would say, one must close ranks and fight the spread of Islam, lest Sharia law would take hold.
In reality, there is always many shades of grey. Even among all the Muslims in the Middle East, I doubt if they have one true definition of what Muslim should be, hence allowing anyone to claim the mantle, and confusing the rest of the world about what Islam really is. No matter. Prior to the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then Syria, accompanied by the collapse of a number of functioning (some barely) governments in countries like Yemen, the rest of the world saw only strongmen in Middle East. There was Saddam Hussein in Iraq, there is Bashar al-Assad, there is the House of Saud, plus the many "royalties" in the region, all of whom are imposing rules not unlike the authoritarian rule in China.
There was never any radicalization of Muslims from these strongmen and rule, which obviously point to the fact that they are not really that appealing. But, they were able to keep peace, which was more than enough for the rest of the world. It also allows the world to continue using Iran as the straw man, the ultimate bad guy. In hindsight, Iran looks almost like an adult in a room full of trigger-happy extremists like ISIS. At least Iran tries to run and govern a nation. ISIS? They just want misery for everybody.
The plight of Palestinians as a result of suppression from Israel has become a rally cry. It was almost fashionable in the academic and bohemian circles to talk against Israel. But that never spreads far beyond the circle to the mainstream and metastasize into radicalization of general public. There used to be gatekeepers in how the news is packaged and presented. News have to be investigated, presented in a measured and even-keel way that reminiscent of Walter Cronkite.
What's changed, is the perfect storm of the rise of social media and the subsequent wars in Iraq (and then Syria). Suddenly, everyone is a citizen reporter, everyone who has access to the web can broadcast what they see. Wars are always brutal, and suddenly everyone can tell the world that people are dying in Iraq or Syria or wherever. Whether the cause is just or not, has almost become a moot point. No longer is anyone aspired to be calm and measured like Cronkite, you now need to be loud, bold, and your reports need to be extreme in order to get eyeballs. Beheading, stoning, burning a live human, it's all become commonplace.
One has to ask, how could anyone EVER want to aspire to an extremist like that? How could anyone become brainwashed and indoctrinated to consider that kind of extreme measures can EVER be good? How could anyone EVER consider that being condoned by a supposedly peace-loving religion, as some Muslims advocate Islam to be? How could anyone EVER think that such extreme measures is a utopia, particularly those grew up in the western civil society? In one word, idiots.
All of which brings us back to these jihadi brides. Young, impressionable, naive, stupid stupid idiotic teenagers who believe that all those extreme measures can bring about their ideal society. I do not believe for a second that they did not know better, or that they were "blinded" by indoctrination. These are not 5-6yo, these are 15-16yo. They were tech savvy. I have no doubt that they were aware of the news and brutalities of what ISIS did. How could they have ever justified the ISIS brutality against the Yazidis while talking about suppression of Muslims? I'd say, in their half-developed frontal lobe, all they dreamt of, was adventures.
In the cases of the jihadi brides who were from US and Britain, and who now want to come home, I don't have any sympathy to them at all. They left their families and countries behind, burnt their passports, actively advocated violence against their countries. Apparently, all it takes is a few years of hardship, after a few husbands and babies, they are "ready to come home," as if their adventures to Disneyland is done. Where are the consequences? What of the people who died, thanks to their complicity (even if it's hard to get exact proof)? There are things that cannot be undone, particularly those who have died. Actions, have consequences.
For those who want to atone to their sins, I'm at least willing to hear them out (though human emotions are so easily manipulated, and all these women need to do, is to tell a few sob stories, shed a few tears in front of a camera, and all is forgiven). For those who don't even express remorse? I'd say, fuck you very much, you can rot in the place that you chose to go to in the first place, and die like those whose lives have perished as a result of your complicity.
Citizenship comes with rights, as well as responsibility. For this US jihadi bride's family to sue to have her repatriated, it totally rubs me the wrong way. The liberal side of me says, give them a second chance. But the world-wary side of me says, not everyone has a second chance and not everyone deserves a second chance. Yes, there is complication with young children involved, but the issue becomes even more fraught when the child comes of age, and turns out to be another radicalized or idiotic, like their parents once was. Somehow, I'm not inclined to give them the benefits of the doubts. On rare occasions like this, I do agree with Trump.
Saturday, February 9, 2019
On the bashing of billionaires...
There's been much talk about income and wealth inequality in US, and indeed the rest of the world, for the past few years. Arguably those are part of the reasons millennials tag further to the left, opting for Bernie Sanders (the self-proclaimed socialist) than the middle-of-the-road, keep-the-current-system-going Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries for the Democrats. That election came and went. HRC lost, and we have an alleged billionaire (Trump) in the White House now.
The fact that Trump won the 2016 election has been an interesting phenomenon. The supposedly little guys (read: white, working-class voters) ditched the unions and Dems in droves. Instead of embracing the do-nothing agenda (except maybe to the LGBTQ community and refugees) propositioned by HRC, they flocked to the rip-'em-up-and-burn agenda of Trump. Trump, being so unfit as president both intellectually and temperamentally, it's become vogue to bash the wealth, given Trump the self-proclaimed Exhibit A of billionaire with ostentatious wealth.
If one could say GOP has lost its soul by tacitly endorsing (or by overtly staying silent on) Trump and his policy agenda, one can also say that Dems are also desperately in search of its lost soul.
The era under Bill Clinton has seen much success economically, but he has also shifted so much to the center (even right of center) by embracing so much of GOP policy agenda. The economy loves it. The two main parties have become almost indistinguishable when it comes to embracing big businesses and trade deals that everyone was eager to move ahead, so much so that, if it means leaving the little guys behind, so be it. Those were the years when offshoring of operations started. By the turn of the century, it has basically completed in gutting the manufacturing sector in US, either near-shoring to Mexico (thanks to NAFTA) or offshoring to China/India (thanks to championing on China's behalf into WTO).
It's little wonder why the little guys have become so bitter. The more interesting twist since 2000s is that, the little guys now include all those younger generations who largely couldn't get ahead.
This is all while the concentration of wealth (never mind income inequality) continues to accelerate. That inverted funnel, in which an increasing amount of wealth goes increasingly to a very small group of elites. This is happening not just in US, Europe, Middle East, Africa, but in China, Latin America, and certainly in Russia as well.
No one seems to be able to stop that trend (of wealth consolidation into fewer hands). In autocratic and authoritarian countries, this will not stop, for the most obvious reasons. Even in supposedly democratic countries like US, the worship of money (arguably started since the go-go, junk bond days in the 1980s) makes it hard to anyone to even think that being able to earn an obscene amount of money is a bad thing. Trump, for one, touts that fact, and he does it on steroid.
It's worth the time to take a step back, to dissect the notion of a billionaire. Yes, we all know that we don't need a billion dollars to live a comfortable, meaningful (alas!) life. But before we jump to the morals of using one's wealth responsibly (alas!), one should ask, how do these individuals get to accumulate this much wealth in the first place.
There are cases like the oil oligarch in Russia, state-owned enterprises in China, even in other countries where getting the right connections (eg. those who benefited from the close alliances with the Soharto and military in Indonesia) would guarantee them access to business opportunities that in turn would guarantee them instant wealth. This is corruption, benefiting from corrupt systems, through and through. For these billionaires, confiscation of their wealth should suffix, no question. But whether their respective (corrupted) government will do anything about these protected individuals is a totally different questions - of course the government should, but will they?
And then there are cases where entrepreneurs spend years, decades even, in building a business through hard work. (I don't use the word legally since money can indeed sway, even buy, a system they want, to make something looks legal. This is what happens with two-tier systems, one set of rules for the rich, and one for the poor. Cases in point: carried interest, Ultra-low corporate tax rate versus the far higher income tax.) No doubt that these entrepreneurs have the dreams of being successful, but I much rather doubt that their first dream/goal is "to be a billionaire." These are the individuals that we should encourage, their businesses are what drive an economy, create jobs. They should not be penalize for being successful in the end.
There is however the notion that everyone should pay their fair share, contributing back to the society. Billionaires do not make money just by bootstrapping and sheer will (though these are part of the apparatus), they become successful because the society, the system, provides the infrastructure and stable for their businesses to flourish. If these individuals self-congratulate themselves that it's just because of themselves, and them alone, that billions can be made, that's simply BS. It is thus that there's an argument to be made, that billionaires have a social responsibility too, to give back, and contribute back to the society, and the world at large, in which their businesses have benefited so much from, albeit invisibly. For those socially responsible billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, it's a perfect example.
A third category of billionaires - probably more likely broken into numerous millionaires and multi-millionaires - are those who inherit wealth from their predecessors. These are individuals who are simply there out of sheer luck (alas!) of being born into the right families with billionaire parents. While there's a question of fairness, since it's their inherited money by right. Their parents have worked hard for it, afterall (assuming their parents are the ones who worked to build the businesses). Here of course, the heirs could veer toward the socially responsible side (eg. the Waltons), or they could veer toward the ostentatious, self-absorbed side with total entitlement mentality (hello, Trump indeed). Although I don't have anything against inheritance, I don't think it's a healthy situation anyways. I'm thus not against heavy taxes on inheritance. These are cases that are perfect for giving back to society.
Now that we dispense with the notion that not all "billionaires" are created equal, let's see what they - and we as a society - can or should do about their billions of dollars in wealth.
But rather, the question is, can we as a society regulate how someone use their wealth (be it responsibly or ostentatiously)? The question is likely that, if we are to adhere to our principle of being an open society, that individuals are indeed the king of his own castle, then we can't - and shouldn't - be regulating how others use their wealth. Afterall if you can regulate someone's billions, what's there to stop you from regulating someone's millions, or even down to their pennies in pocket? This, in a few words, is a matter of fairness.
As society and from a public policy standpoint, it is thus better and easier and fairer to regulate it when the billions are being made, not after it's been made. Once it's someone's own property, it becomes much harder to extract, or even be justified whether the extraction is fair.
And so, when I look at all the Dems' proposal to tax the billionaires, even to the notion of abolishing billionaires, I'd say, it's a wrong-headed approach. Rather than grabbing news headlines to demonize billionaires (and it's so easy to do, given Trump's notoriety) - as shiny new objects like AOC and Elizabeth Warren have proposed to do - they could and should have looked harder into beefing up the current tax codes to plug loopholes that allows the rich and corporates to play with one set of rules while the rest 99% of people have to abide by another set of rules. But of course, that kind of news headlines ("let's fix the tax codes" is far less sexy than "tax the billionaires out of existence"). In a megaphone-hyped society, whoever sounds the more outrageous gets the attention and buzz. These young Dems have learnt well from Trump.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the meantime, with our globalized world, these billionaires have all the ways and means to move their domicile and wealth around the globe. If US becomes less receptive - and worships the money less - in all likelihood they would just pack up and leave to other tax havens. Many a country would bend over backwards to take them in. There's no doubt of that.
The fact that Trump won the 2016 election has been an interesting phenomenon. The supposedly little guys (read: white, working-class voters) ditched the unions and Dems in droves. Instead of embracing the do-nothing agenda (except maybe to the LGBTQ community and refugees) propositioned by HRC, they flocked to the rip-'em-up-and-burn agenda of Trump. Trump, being so unfit as president both intellectually and temperamentally, it's become vogue to bash the wealth, given Trump the self-proclaimed Exhibit A of billionaire with ostentatious wealth.
If one could say GOP has lost its soul by tacitly endorsing (or by overtly staying silent on) Trump and his policy agenda, one can also say that Dems are also desperately in search of its lost soul.
The era under Bill Clinton has seen much success economically, but he has also shifted so much to the center (even right of center) by embracing so much of GOP policy agenda. The economy loves it. The two main parties have become almost indistinguishable when it comes to embracing big businesses and trade deals that everyone was eager to move ahead, so much so that, if it means leaving the little guys behind, so be it. Those were the years when offshoring of operations started. By the turn of the century, it has basically completed in gutting the manufacturing sector in US, either near-shoring to Mexico (thanks to NAFTA) or offshoring to China/India (thanks to championing on China's behalf into WTO).
It's little wonder why the little guys have become so bitter. The more interesting twist since 2000s is that, the little guys now include all those younger generations who largely couldn't get ahead.
This is all while the concentration of wealth (never mind income inequality) continues to accelerate. That inverted funnel, in which an increasing amount of wealth goes increasingly to a very small group of elites. This is happening not just in US, Europe, Middle East, Africa, but in China, Latin America, and certainly in Russia as well.
No one seems to be able to stop that trend (of wealth consolidation into fewer hands). In autocratic and authoritarian countries, this will not stop, for the most obvious reasons. Even in supposedly democratic countries like US, the worship of money (arguably started since the go-go, junk bond days in the 1980s) makes it hard to anyone to even think that being able to earn an obscene amount of money is a bad thing. Trump, for one, touts that fact, and he does it on steroid.
It's worth the time to take a step back, to dissect the notion of a billionaire. Yes, we all know that we don't need a billion dollars to live a comfortable, meaningful (alas!) life. But before we jump to the morals of using one's wealth responsibly (alas!), one should ask, how do these individuals get to accumulate this much wealth in the first place.
There are cases like the oil oligarch in Russia, state-owned enterprises in China, even in other countries where getting the right connections (eg. those who benefited from the close alliances with the Soharto and military in Indonesia) would guarantee them access to business opportunities that in turn would guarantee them instant wealth. This is corruption, benefiting from corrupt systems, through and through. For these billionaires, confiscation of their wealth should suffix, no question. But whether their respective (corrupted) government will do anything about these protected individuals is a totally different questions - of course the government should, but will they?
And then there are cases where entrepreneurs spend years, decades even, in building a business through hard work. (I don't use the word legally since money can indeed sway, even buy, a system they want, to make something looks legal. This is what happens with two-tier systems, one set of rules for the rich, and one for the poor. Cases in point: carried interest, Ultra-low corporate tax rate versus the far higher income tax.) No doubt that these entrepreneurs have the dreams of being successful, but I much rather doubt that their first dream/goal is "to be a billionaire." These are the individuals that we should encourage, their businesses are what drive an economy, create jobs. They should not be penalize for being successful in the end.
There is however the notion that everyone should pay their fair share, contributing back to the society. Billionaires do not make money just by bootstrapping and sheer will (though these are part of the apparatus), they become successful because the society, the system, provides the infrastructure and stable for their businesses to flourish. If these individuals self-congratulate themselves that it's just because of themselves, and them alone, that billions can be made, that's simply BS. It is thus that there's an argument to be made, that billionaires have a social responsibility too, to give back, and contribute back to the society, and the world at large, in which their businesses have benefited so much from, albeit invisibly. For those socially responsible billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, it's a perfect example.
A third category of billionaires - probably more likely broken into numerous millionaires and multi-millionaires - are those who inherit wealth from their predecessors. These are individuals who are simply there out of sheer luck (alas!) of being born into the right families with billionaire parents. While there's a question of fairness, since it's their inherited money by right. Their parents have worked hard for it, afterall (assuming their parents are the ones who worked to build the businesses). Here of course, the heirs could veer toward the socially responsible side (eg. the Waltons), or they could veer toward the ostentatious, self-absorbed side with total entitlement mentality (hello, Trump indeed). Although I don't have anything against inheritance, I don't think it's a healthy situation anyways. I'm thus not against heavy taxes on inheritance. These are cases that are perfect for giving back to society.
Now that we dispense with the notion that not all "billionaires" are created equal, let's see what they - and we as a society - can or should do about their billions of dollars in wealth.
But rather, the question is, can we as a society regulate how someone use their wealth (be it responsibly or ostentatiously)? The question is likely that, if we are to adhere to our principle of being an open society, that individuals are indeed the king of his own castle, then we can't - and shouldn't - be regulating how others use their wealth. Afterall if you can regulate someone's billions, what's there to stop you from regulating someone's millions, or even down to their pennies in pocket? This, in a few words, is a matter of fairness.
As society and from a public policy standpoint, it is thus better and easier and fairer to regulate it when the billions are being made, not after it's been made. Once it's someone's own property, it becomes much harder to extract, or even be justified whether the extraction is fair.
And so, when I look at all the Dems' proposal to tax the billionaires, even to the notion of abolishing billionaires, I'd say, it's a wrong-headed approach. Rather than grabbing news headlines to demonize billionaires (and it's so easy to do, given Trump's notoriety) - as shiny new objects like AOC and Elizabeth Warren have proposed to do - they could and should have looked harder into beefing up the current tax codes to plug loopholes that allows the rich and corporates to play with one set of rules while the rest 99% of people have to abide by another set of rules. But of course, that kind of news headlines ("let's fix the tax codes" is far less sexy than "tax the billionaires out of existence"). In a megaphone-hyped society, whoever sounds the more outrageous gets the attention and buzz. These young Dems have learnt well from Trump.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the meantime, with our globalized world, these billionaires have all the ways and means to move their domicile and wealth around the globe. If US becomes less receptive - and worships the money less - in all likelihood they would just pack up and leave to other tax havens. Many a country would bend over backwards to take them in. There's no doubt of that.
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
On the WeWork culture, and rise-and-grinder...
This NYTimes article on the WeWork culture, and rise-and-grind culture is interesting. The writer is absolutely negative about it, essentially dismissing it as propaganda and exploitative to young workers, at the mercy of employers, management, and investors.
Yet I can't help feeling something is totally amiss in its one-sided criticism.
To start, where is the agency of the millennials, arguably the target audience in this dawn-of-the-century cult where startups promote the constant need to hustle? Has the article tried to interview anyone working at Google anonymously, perhaps, to at least get a feel for whether these googlers truly love their work or not? According to the writer of the article, workers cannot possibly love their job, so she posits that they must have been so brainwashed by such "high priest" as Elon Musk who openly talks about long work week because, hey, he loves his work (well, he says he loves his work, and maybe he truly does, who in any case has been rewarded mighty handsomely).
The other argument was that, wages have been stagnant while workers are told to up their game and hustle some more. Here, the writer slips easily into the generalized conclusion based on stagnant wage level of the economy as a whole, while conveniently ignoring the fact that some of those young-and-ambitious workers who work long hours might very well have been rewarded quite handsomely. That would likely ease the pain of having to toll excruciatingly long hours at get the work done.
And then there is the ethos of "follow your passion," or what about the "find the job you love and follow your dream." Has it remotely occurred to the NYT writer that these small groups of IT workers might indeed be following their dreams, and doing the things they love? If one truly loves or enjoy their work, I very much doubt they think of their long hours as something to "increase productivity." Maybe the investors would think in terms of ROI, but the workers? I highly doubt it.
While I despise those words from Marissa Mayer touting their own long week as something for others to model on, I do find some truth in what Elon has said about the pain.
I said all these, because I've been there.
When I was fresh out of college, I was young, ambitious and full of energy. My colleagues were likewise. We worked long hours, but it was fun. (I don't say this sarcastically; I truly mean, fun.) Getting your codes to work the way you want it, can be a satisfying experience. I did have a few colleagues of mine who slept under their desks on occasions. We did this with a shared mission for the company because, yes, we had stock options, hence the vested interests to see the company (its products and services) to be successful. So, no, we didn't need some high priest or permission to do what we do, as if we don't have any agency. To say otherwise, is simply ridiculous.
I do want to say a few words about the constant need to hustle though.
When you are young, you're healthy, you can afford to thrash your body as if you can live forever. The high stress, protracted lack of sleep (and rest for your body), coupled with tons of caffeine, can be detrimental; in some cases, even lethal. Looking back, I would say, no matter how much the rewards might be, it's not worth one's health. When you get sick, when you die, no one will give a rat.
You love what you do? Excellent. But why do you need to work extreme long hours? If you are truly very good at what you do, you probably shouldn't need that much time to get stuffs done. And if you're a manager and you still have to work that much hours? Well well, that means you're just not very good at management since you can't even delegate and manage a team to produce the level of work that you need.
And then there is also the issue of sustainability. You might not feel the toll on your body and health in your 20s. As you age, you'll feel it. Do we really want to get age out of workplace by the time we reach 35 because you are so burnt out, you don't have much to offer anymore? I'm sure no one will say yes.
More importantly, life with just work only is just monotonous and boring. You don't have outside interest. You don't have any outside life. In fact, oftentimes it's when you're away from work that solutions come to you. That's what happens to me, time and again, when you walk away from some blockers in codes, that solutions would come to me when I seemingly am not thinking about it. Arguably that's because my subconsciousness is still thinking of my codes, but the point is, solutions can come to you when you're relaxed, not when your eyes are blurry from looking at the damn codes for 36 hours straight, with so much caffeine in your system that all you can feel, is heart palpitation and jittery nerve.
And so, while this NYT article almost sounds like sour-grapes type of annoying, there is an ounce of truth in it, but not by much.
Yet I can't help feeling something is totally amiss in its one-sided criticism.
To start, where is the agency of the millennials, arguably the target audience in this dawn-of-the-century cult where startups promote the constant need to hustle? Has the article tried to interview anyone working at Google anonymously, perhaps, to at least get a feel for whether these googlers truly love their work or not? According to the writer of the article, workers cannot possibly love their job, so she posits that they must have been so brainwashed by such "high priest" as Elon Musk who openly talks about long work week because, hey, he loves his work (well, he says he loves his work, and maybe he truly does, who in any case has been rewarded mighty handsomely).
The other argument was that, wages have been stagnant while workers are told to up their game and hustle some more. Here, the writer slips easily into the generalized conclusion based on stagnant wage level of the economy as a whole, while conveniently ignoring the fact that some of those young-and-ambitious workers who work long hours might very well have been rewarded quite handsomely. That would likely ease the pain of having to toll excruciatingly long hours at get the work done.
And then there is the ethos of "follow your passion," or what about the "find the job you love and follow your dream." Has it remotely occurred to the NYT writer that these small groups of IT workers might indeed be following their dreams, and doing the things they love? If one truly loves or enjoy their work, I very much doubt they think of their long hours as something to "increase productivity." Maybe the investors would think in terms of ROI, but the workers? I highly doubt it.
While I despise those words from Marissa Mayer touting their own long week as something for others to model on, I do find some truth in what Elon has said about the pain.
I said all these, because I've been there.
When I was fresh out of college, I was young, ambitious and full of energy. My colleagues were likewise. We worked long hours, but it was fun. (I don't say this sarcastically; I truly mean, fun.) Getting your codes to work the way you want it, can be a satisfying experience. I did have a few colleagues of mine who slept under their desks on occasions. We did this with a shared mission for the company because, yes, we had stock options, hence the vested interests to see the company (its products and services) to be successful. So, no, we didn't need some high priest or permission to do what we do, as if we don't have any agency. To say otherwise, is simply ridiculous.
I do want to say a few words about the constant need to hustle though.
When you are young, you're healthy, you can afford to thrash your body as if you can live forever. The high stress, protracted lack of sleep (and rest for your body), coupled with tons of caffeine, can be detrimental; in some cases, even lethal. Looking back, I would say, no matter how much the rewards might be, it's not worth one's health. When you get sick, when you die, no one will give a rat.
You love what you do? Excellent. But why do you need to work extreme long hours? If you are truly very good at what you do, you probably shouldn't need that much time to get stuffs done. And if you're a manager and you still have to work that much hours? Well well, that means you're just not very good at management since you can't even delegate and manage a team to produce the level of work that you need.
And then there is also the issue of sustainability. You might not feel the toll on your body and health in your 20s. As you age, you'll feel it. Do we really want to get age out of workplace by the time we reach 35 because you are so burnt out, you don't have much to offer anymore? I'm sure no one will say yes.
More importantly, life with just work only is just monotonous and boring. You don't have outside interest. You don't have any outside life. In fact, oftentimes it's when you're away from work that solutions come to you. That's what happens to me, time and again, when you walk away from some blockers in codes, that solutions would come to me when I seemingly am not thinking about it. Arguably that's because my subconsciousness is still thinking of my codes, but the point is, solutions can come to you when you're relaxed, not when your eyes are blurry from looking at the damn codes for 36 hours straight, with so much caffeine in your system that all you can feel, is heart palpitation and jittery nerve.
And so, while this NYT article almost sounds like sour-grapes type of annoying, there is an ounce of truth in it, but not by much.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
On Trump's lies and whether he expects to win the presidency at all...
I've been so fed up with the Trump politics that I have not wanted to put in anything at all about the current state of politics, lest it taints my journal. Yet, the latest BuzzFeed scoop about Trump's instructing his erstwhile lawyer to lie to Congress does warrant a word. Although Special Investigator Mueller releases a statement that BuzzFeed's account is not totally accurate, there is no substantive and blanket rebuttal of the BuzzFeed report. More tellingly is Guilliani, Trump's current lawyer and attack dog, backpedaling on his never stating there's no collusion of Trump campaign with Russia, which I'm sure is his way to cover his arse, lest he's put in the same situation as Michael Cohen (who is now charged with federal crimes for covering up for Trump).
Of all the reports and opinion pieces, this article from New York Times on how Trump never expected to win the presidency and all campaigning is but the best PR he was ever hoping to get, makes total sense. Everyone knows Trump is only interested in making money. Everyone knows that he does not have what it takes to be a president, not intellectually, and certainly not temperamentally. All that Trump was hoping for, is to elevate his name (and brand name) recognition, so that he can have another TV hit of reality show (which I'm sure, would be called The Candidate), and he can build a few more Trump Tower, not the least in Russia, plus he would surely become the Fox News darling commentator to continue pedaling his fake news and loudspeaker nonsense about Crooked Hillary, and more birther conspiracy theories on Obama.
And so, he's crass and crude, but as long as he's not a president, he can say whatever he wants and he won't be held accountable, thanks to the free speech protection. His finances and personal affairs would not be held under microscopic scrutiny either since no one can force him to do so, nor would he be required to. In short, Trump has everything to win by NOT winning the 2016 presidential election. Yet, he did. How ironic.
Now, everything that he's said and done would be brought into focus. He might think he can backtrack and deny things that he's said and done. But under the court of law, he's perjury many times over. His peanut-sized brain (probably matched only by his manhood) is only now beginning to grasp that reality. He thinks he can do whatever he wants in the White House, but it only goes to show how little he understands how the judicial system and executive branch work in a civic government. To say he's clueless and idiotic, is far too kind and a gross understatement.
We know Trump won't back down. That's his modus operandi. If he's impeached, he would just scream louder, professing himself to martyr for right-wing causes, at the swords of liberals and Dems. No doubt Mike Pence will pardon him, and then all will be well for him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One should be noted that just because one is saying No to Trump does not necessarily mean an endorsement to the Dems' agenda.
All the shiny new objects like Ocacio-Cortez are just side-shows. Removing Trump from White House does not address the pressing questions that half of the country's voters have agreed on, which is the issue of immigration. Making it easier for all the economic migrants from South America to come in under the pretense of "aslyum" does nothing to solve the underlying issue. All that Dems has done so far, is to stir up more interests in more migrant caravans with more kids jumping on board. The end results? There'll be a far larger cohorts of DACA in 10-15 years.
It is thus that for all the idiocy and outrageousness of Trump, the symbolic fight to erect a border wall is simply something that electorates in general want, which is to toughen immigration enforcement and to introduce immigration reforms. If the country truly needs and can make good use of immigrants, let them come through officially, track them, let them pay taxes. Afterall that was the intent of H1B, wasn't it? Granted that there has been much abuse reported in the H1B system, it has worked, by and large, by bringing in needed high-tech workers and skilled labor into the country. There must be a way to get that working for low/no-skill workers, though the system would have to be enforced and monitored far more vigorously since it can be so easily gamed and abused.
One way or the other, this HAS to work. I'm sick of all the talks of DACA, yet it's silly to demonize migrants.
Of all the reports and opinion pieces, this article from New York Times on how Trump never expected to win the presidency and all campaigning is but the best PR he was ever hoping to get, makes total sense. Everyone knows Trump is only interested in making money. Everyone knows that he does not have what it takes to be a president, not intellectually, and certainly not temperamentally. All that Trump was hoping for, is to elevate his name (and brand name) recognition, so that he can have another TV hit of reality show (which I'm sure, would be called The Candidate), and he can build a few more Trump Tower, not the least in Russia, plus he would surely become the Fox News darling commentator to continue pedaling his fake news and loudspeaker nonsense about Crooked Hillary, and more birther conspiracy theories on Obama.
And so, he's crass and crude, but as long as he's not a president, he can say whatever he wants and he won't be held accountable, thanks to the free speech protection. His finances and personal affairs would not be held under microscopic scrutiny either since no one can force him to do so, nor would he be required to. In short, Trump has everything to win by NOT winning the 2016 presidential election. Yet, he did. How ironic.
Now, everything that he's said and done would be brought into focus. He might think he can backtrack and deny things that he's said and done. But under the court of law, he's perjury many times over. His peanut-sized brain (probably matched only by his manhood) is only now beginning to grasp that reality. He thinks he can do whatever he wants in the White House, but it only goes to show how little he understands how the judicial system and executive branch work in a civic government. To say he's clueless and idiotic, is far too kind and a gross understatement.
We know Trump won't back down. That's his modus operandi. If he's impeached, he would just scream louder, professing himself to martyr for right-wing causes, at the swords of liberals and Dems. No doubt Mike Pence will pardon him, and then all will be well for him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One should be noted that just because one is saying No to Trump does not necessarily mean an endorsement to the Dems' agenda.
All the shiny new objects like Ocacio-Cortez are just side-shows. Removing Trump from White House does not address the pressing questions that half of the country's voters have agreed on, which is the issue of immigration. Making it easier for all the economic migrants from South America to come in under the pretense of "aslyum" does nothing to solve the underlying issue. All that Dems has done so far, is to stir up more interests in more migrant caravans with more kids jumping on board. The end results? There'll be a far larger cohorts of DACA in 10-15 years.
It is thus that for all the idiocy and outrageousness of Trump, the symbolic fight to erect a border wall is simply something that electorates in general want, which is to toughen immigration enforcement and to introduce immigration reforms. If the country truly needs and can make good use of immigrants, let them come through officially, track them, let them pay taxes. Afterall that was the intent of H1B, wasn't it? Granted that there has been much abuse reported in the H1B system, it has worked, by and large, by bringing in needed high-tech workers and skilled labor into the country. There must be a way to get that working for low/no-skill workers, though the system would have to be enforced and monitored far more vigorously since it can be so easily gamed and abused.
One way or the other, this HAS to work. I'm sick of all the talks of DACA, yet it's silly to demonize migrants.
Saturday, January 12, 2019
On following up on New Year resolution...
It's two weeks, and counting. My New Year resolution is still holding up, by and large.
Going into office is tough, since it's so coffee-oriented. Coffee breaks (that long ago replaces smoke breaks) have become the time when folks get together for chats. It seems almost pointless to just hold a bottle of water in hand. So far, I've only offended once, with a cup of decaf. It doesn't seem to have impacted my blood pressure and heart rate adversely. Maybe there really is something in decaf that I should have given it more credits for.
Still, a coffee is a coffee, decaf or otherwise. At least when I'm not in office, when I'm away from all the temptations, I haven't touched any coffee or even feel the urge for it. Fingers crossed.
As with the coffee, I've offended once while eating out with office folks over lunch. One pack of chips. I feel horrible afterwards, for breaking my own rules. More fingers crossed.
I do get to keep at the daily exercise regiment. Daily kettlebell workout and stretching in the evening.
The exercise also helps to tire me out, and I have been sleeping earlier (before 11pm). I've also been waking up on my own around dawn without feeling tired. The withdrawal symptoms of low-grade headache and tirelessness in the afternoon is long gone.
Things are going good, so far. Blood pressure came back down to normal range. Heart rate came back down to 70 (from the coffee days of 97) which is amazing to me. And I don't feel heart palpitation (which I felt almost every night when I laid down on bed) anymore.
I've also lost some 6 pounds without any change in diet or fluids intake. (In fact, I've been drinking water more often.)
I feel great.
The only thing I do miss occasionally, is the caffeine rush with the first cup of coffee, and that sudden clearness in the head right after. But, it's not worth all the potential health risks that comes with it.
Going into office is tough, since it's so coffee-oriented. Coffee breaks (that long ago replaces smoke breaks) have become the time when folks get together for chats. It seems almost pointless to just hold a bottle of water in hand. So far, I've only offended once, with a cup of decaf. It doesn't seem to have impacted my blood pressure and heart rate adversely. Maybe there really is something in decaf that I should have given it more credits for.
Still, a coffee is a coffee, decaf or otherwise. At least when I'm not in office, when I'm away from all the temptations, I haven't touched any coffee or even feel the urge for it. Fingers crossed.
As with the coffee, I've offended once while eating out with office folks over lunch. One pack of chips. I feel horrible afterwards, for breaking my own rules. More fingers crossed.
I do get to keep at the daily exercise regiment. Daily kettlebell workout and stretching in the evening.
The exercise also helps to tire me out, and I have been sleeping earlier (before 11pm). I've also been waking up on my own around dawn without feeling tired. The withdrawal symptoms of low-grade headache and tirelessness in the afternoon is long gone.
Things are going good, so far. Blood pressure came back down to normal range. Heart rate came back down to 70 (from the coffee days of 97) which is amazing to me. And I don't feel heart palpitation (which I felt almost every night when I laid down on bed) anymore.
I've also lost some 6 pounds without any change in diet or fluids intake. (In fact, I've been drinking water more often.)
I feel great.
The only thing I do miss occasionally, is the caffeine rush with the first cup of coffee, and that sudden clearness in the head right after. But, it's not worth all the potential health risks that comes with it.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
New Year resolution...
I don't generally do New Year resolutions. I have some goals in mind that generally spans more than one year, hence the idea of resolution over the coming year seems too short term to me. Well, that was in the past anyways. As I get older, maybe I should take things in smaller, bite-sized chunks.
What spurs me into action, is the realization, almost by providence, that I've had high blood pressure. It's surprise to me since I have always had low blood pressure all my life. In fact, I feel just fine, so much so that I've been pushing off the annual medical check-up with my PCP for some five years now.
I was visiting families over the Christmas period. As my mother is getting older, she's very health-conscious. As she settles in her nursing home routines, she's used to taking blood pressure three times a day, and various medications five times a day. During the visit, I took my own blood pressure with her gauge out of curiosity. To my horror, my high readings were well in the hypertension range (more than 190 in upper readings, close to 100 in lower readings, and heart rate of 97). How could I allow myself to sway into such danger zone?
Initially I was in state of denial. I took another readings after a few hours, thinking the earlier readings must have been just anomaly. Not so, unfortunately, as the second readings were almost as high as the first one. I again took it the next day, and the day after that. Over the course of three days, my blood pressure never came down. Worse yet, my readings were higher than those of my mother's (!!).
Something must be done about it.
Lifestyle change is the first order of business. I don't want to reduce myself to a life sustained by medications and machines. As a reminder to myself, I've set a New Year resolution for myself, for a change.
What spurs me into action, is the realization, almost by providence, that I've had high blood pressure. It's surprise to me since I have always had low blood pressure all my life. In fact, I feel just fine, so much so that I've been pushing off the annual medical check-up with my PCP for some five years now.
I was visiting families over the Christmas period. As my mother is getting older, she's very health-conscious. As she settles in her nursing home routines, she's used to taking blood pressure three times a day, and various medications five times a day. During the visit, I took my own blood pressure with her gauge out of curiosity. To my horror, my high readings were well in the hypertension range (more than 190 in upper readings, close to 100 in lower readings, and heart rate of 97). How could I allow myself to sway into such danger zone?
Initially I was in state of denial. I took another readings after a few hours, thinking the earlier readings must have been just anomaly. Not so, unfortunately, as the second readings were almost as high as the first one. I again took it the next day, and the day after that. Over the course of three days, my blood pressure never came down. Worse yet, my readings were higher than those of my mother's (!!).
Something must be done about it.
Lifestyle change is the first order of business. I don't want to reduce myself to a life sustained by medications and machines. As a reminder to myself, I've set a New Year resolution for myself, for a change.
- I don't get addicted to anything easily, but I've started drinking coffee since I was 7. Coffee is a passion that I shared with my dad over many decades, and we loved almost the same kind of food (even the specific part of dish, like the skin of a steamed fish, and sauteed squid). Every time we got together, we would have a good cup of coffee (he liked cappuccino and flat white, so do I). After my dad passed away three years ago, coffee is almost a daily reminder of his presence with me. But, I know it's time to let it go.
- I've always been slender all my life. (I'm the slim one in the family.) My metabolism has always been high. I could eat a lot and never gain weight. But, I've rested on laurel for far too long. Although I still like to move around, it would seem that it's not enough anymore. As I get older, my metabolism is slowing as well. I've noticed my mid-section has been expanding somewhat, and I've gained some 15 pounds in the past 1.5 years, with no change in routines or diet. Others might not have noticed it, but I know it for a fact. It's time for me to seriously pick up daily exercise, rather than relying on the "moving around".
- I need to cut down my periodic cravings for junk food (hello, chips and salami).
Well before my Christmas vacations with family wraps up, I cut out my daily coffee habits. I check my blood pressure for the next three days. To much pleasant surprise, my blood pressure has gone back to the normal range once I stop my caffeine intake. I deliberately keep everything else in my daily routine the same, except the one (missing) variable of coffee, as a control test. I was truly amazed by how immediate the impact has been. I'm resolved to abstain from caffeine from now on. I've had withdrawal symptoms for some four days, with low-grade headache in the afternoon. But on the fifth day, it's gone. I still get a bit tired in the afternoon, occasional catnap and earlier sleeping habit will suffix.
I've also ordered a blood pressure gauge online, so that when I get home, it'll be there for me to start right on it, checking up everyday.
And, there'll be no more junk food, not even "on occasions." As I age, I don't think I can afford that luxury anymore, thrashing my body like that.
As to the no-salt diet, it's never been a problem with me since I don't really eat that much salty food anyways, apart from the occasional chips and salami.
I'm still working on a schedule to block out some time everyday to do some power-walking to pump my heart. But I can start on the weights and sit-ups at home everyday, which is easy enough. Workout with the kettlebells isn't hard at all.
Such are my resolutions for 2019 and beyond. My first resolutions ever. It doesn't sound too strenuous or difficult to me. Let's see how I fare when I take stock by end of the year. I'm hopeful of that. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)