A thought a day...

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

2012-01-27T16:23:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

Couple of things.

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

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

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

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

2012-01-25T16:50:00.008-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the crisis of confidence in capitalism...

2012-01-17T22:42:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's about damn time that this should happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-11T01:31:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the definition of what constitutes Europe...

2012-01-10T21:33:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the positive trend for hard news...

2012-01-09T19:41:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

2012-01-09T10:34:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-08T15:53:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another relic from the pre-digital age...

2012-01-06T22:24:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Random thoughts on a new year...

2012-01-01T22:58:00.008-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011: Taking stock, and looking ahead...

2011-12-31T09:35:00.002-05:00

I hardly have the time to write in my journal this month, but as the last day of the year rolls by, I must do a year-end review to wrap up.

I always read my year-end review last year, and see how things compare. At least on the economy front, the downward trend of US seems to be abating. Contrast with the high unemployment of 9.8% in 2010, we have 8.9% in 2011, which is still terrible, but at least there's some reduction. It's cold comfort for those millions of people who are unemployed and can't find a job. There was much talk of the green job pipe dreams of Obama who hopes that the green energy is going to be the new job creating industry in US, much like the IT sector did in the last decade. In a big democracy, doing that kind of government-backed initiative is always messy, sometimes even scandalous. Three years on, that stands in stark contrast with the rise of the solar industry in China which looks to be eating everybody's lunch, including US and Germany, driving down prices and picking up market share. But what would happen to the Chinese solar manufacturers when customers disappear, like the coming exit of the solar subsidies in Germany in 2012?

Which brings us to the topic of China's economy. The US economy is on the mend, though painfully slow. China has been trending down throughout 2011, and more still in 2012. The slow train wreck in Europe is going to roll into 2012, ensnaring Italy too, which is the third largest economy in the Euro zone. France doesn't look so strong now, and I've never been too impressed by Sarkozy who is more apt at grabbing news headline with his supermodel wife or tries to look like the boss when he's not it. Everyone looks to Germany to do something - anything - which is to say, everyone wants Germany to pay up, and pay up some more. I almost feel bad for Germany for such terrible bind since she wants Euro to stand, but they would not have been able to do so without committing yet more resources in bailouts and firewalls for the weaker economies in the euro zone.

As I don't go to China that often, I look to Hong Kong as a good proxy indicator of its health since the Hong Kong economy and markets are so inexplicably linked to those in China. The property market in Hong Kong has been trending down throughout 2011, with transaction volume going down, albeit no major crash in property prices...yet. Hang Seng Index has been off its high. There's been much talk of the softening of economy in China, with commodity prices trending down too, dragging commodity-heavy currencies like AUD and CAD down off of their highs. China will go down for sure, though it's anyone's guess if it's gonna be 2012 or pushed out to 2013. No doubt the Chinese central government is going to mobilize its trillion-dollar reserve to prop up the economy, the question really is, how long they can do so, without triggering inflation, building up the bubbles in properties and stocks some more, and depleting its reserve. The rising economy, and by proxy, the political power that comes with the economic heft, is the only thing that legitimates the continual rule of the communist government which will do whatever it takes to prop it up. For a chance, I'm sure the governments in US and Europe are going to be happy to see the Chinese government continue to play its part.

Japan is in its usual path of muddling along, so we can forget about that for a bit. (Yes, yes, there's been much talk about the impact of the tsunami and earthquake, but let's face it, Japan has been in the doldrums for so long now that no one really pays too much heed of it anymore.)

It's a low-key turning point on the personal front. I finished my masters degree this year, and almost right after, work with a startup starts while holding down my regular job. It's a lot of work, but it's fun. I can't ask for more, and more perfect timing.

Stock trading strategy continues to evolve. There's no more easy money to be made, like we saw in 2009 when everything - yes, literally everything - bounced from its low, and you could easily get 20% return just by going in the stock market. 2010 got tougher, and by 2011, you can see the charts of almost all stocks are trending down. I don't even feel like being in the market because the gut feel is telling me that something bad is going to happen. It might not be a flash crash one-time event in 2010; nay, it's going to be something bad that is more sustained. Don't ask me where this gut feel comes from, but I always trust my gut feel. (The only few times I dismissed my gut feel, I turn out to be wrong and I should have trusted my instinct on those occasions.)

Kids continue to grow, and parents' health continue the slow decline. I don't really want anything major to happen on these fronts.

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

As a side note, there were people passed away in 2011, but Steve Jobs was the one who moved me. The worldwide outpouring was swift and powerful, overwhelmingly positive, with negative ones sprinkled here and there, mostly on how he was such a prick and jerk and in treating people badly. But what moved me was his personal narrative, the way he had handled his rise and fall and rise again, how he had loved what he did throughout. There is no mention of money which looks to be the overarching goal of entrepreneurs and IT startups these days. Jobs took the Silicon Valley baton from the pioneers of HP, but there are very, very few in the Silicon Valley who truly can take the baton to pass it on. It's such a shame.

On the milestone of 7 billion world population...

2011-11-01T16:34:00.003-04:00

Oct 31 came and went. Yes, it's mostly symbolic, for it marks the date when the world population was established to have reached seven billion. It's a rather scary thought, seven billion mouths to feed.

It's taken humans millennia to reach the first-billion mark. But with the advance in technology and medicine, population growth has accelerated at a much faster clip. Still, we're always told, there is more than enough food on earth to feed 8 or even 9 billion population. With the current growth projectile, it won't take too long before the earth reaches the mark of 9 billion population, and oil would probably run out by then, together with the extinct species. What are we do to? Even if we don't have to deal with that today, somewhere down the road, our future generations will have to face the music. I can't say I relish the thought of kicking the can down the road for our future generations to deal with.

Population growth is a sensitive issue. It's a good thing afterall...or is it? One measure to measure how well a country is doing, is infant mortality rate. The lower, the better, for obvious reason. Modern medicine prolongs the lives of many elderly too, some even against their own will, all in the name of humanity. Natural disasters have to be dealt with. Wars are to be avoided. Human lives are to be saved at all costs, again for obvious reasons.

Sometimes, though, in the dead of night when sleep would not come, I would look up and wonder if those are really such good ideas. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a nazi or anything close to that. Of course we need to save lives, even though it runs counter to nature. There are people who would have died of strokes. There are harsh weather and elements like drought that would have naturally prevented population growth from going out of control (eg. Africa). But no one wants to see anyone dying. I can resolutely say, I don't. So, we save as many lives as we can, rather than seeing innocent children dying in front of our eyes due to preventable illnesses or lack of food. It's all for good causes.

And then, we have seven billions...

Perhaps I'm just one helpless lowly individual who don't deal pressing world issues. On a personal level, population growth sounds like a good thing to me. It sounds good on a macro-economic level too. But it doesn't sound right from an environmental perspective. There is one Chinese saying that goes something like this: If China continues to rise, the Chinese would one day eat all the exotic animals and seafood to extinction. While you might find that saying racist or discriminatory, except that it's not. The Chinese themselves know it, but with 1.3 billion others out there, the extinction threats to species is always someone else's problem. Or so the thinking goes....

I probably won't see the next billion in my lifetime. I certainly hope not.

But then, if we should help one another for the sake of humanity, what are we to do to upkeep our duty as the custodian of Mother Earth? On this, I do know the answer, which is population control.

The Chinese saw it coming, and had it right. While the western countries did all the condemning they want, China implements its one-child policy with gusto. Sure, it's harsh. But then, isn't it better to limit pregnancy and childbirth, rather than to wait for the babies to arrive, only to smother them to death or give them up for adoption, as India would often do? When the general populace is educated enough, they would realize that a controlled population (in numbers) is a much better option that having too many mouths to feed. Just ask the ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong, who decades ago used to have the same mentality as the mainland Chinese in having as big a family as one can have. These days, the Hong Kong Chinese would more than willingly limit their family size to 1-2 children at most, or even no child at all. If the Chinese in rural areas do not see the reasons in that, the the central government will impose its will on them. That sounds harsh, but the Chinese has it right on this: If it has to be done, it has to be done; and it might as well be now.

Along the same reason, I find it maddening for the self-righteous conservative right-wingers like GOP and the Vatican, rejecting the notion of birth control. While I feel uncomfortable about full endorsement of abortion (particularly full-term abortion), I don't see any issues in birth control at all.

If only the rest of the world, like Africa and the Middle East, and even India and China, would see reasons in practicing birth control voluntarily, our future generations might not face as dire a consequence in the depleting and dwindling natural resources that Mother Earth would provide us.

On Greece, and the slo-mo train wreck of the Euro debt crisis...

2011-11-01T09:13:00.003-04:00

Quite often, watching what unfolds in Europe and how the Euro bloc deals with the sovereign debt crisis is like the watching an unavoidable train wreck in slo-mo. Every few weeks, Germany and France would present some sort of plans, the markets would get a boost for a day or two and then they'll tank again.

The latest plan is supposed to be a triumph for Merkel and Sarkozy, wrestling a 50 per cent haircut from bondholders. Markets seem to like it. It's announced on a Thursday, with a boost for a day on Friday. And then, the markets tank again the following Monday when the news came out that the Greek prime minister intends to call for a referendum for the public to decide whether they want to accept this latest bailout plan and to stay with Euro as their national currency or not.

Germany and France must be furious, having worked so hard, wrestled so many arms to get to this deal in order to try to save Greece from default, only to have Greece seemingly reneg'ed on it. But I see it a little differently. The call for referendum is such master stroke.

The Greek general public has been staging protests and riots to vote their disapproval of the austerity programs and budget cuts that must be pushed through in order to pay down the sovereign debt. The public generally loves staying with Euro, and Greece in general has benefited greatly from joining Euro, with borrowing rate going down substantially in the past decade. That allows its economy to grow without really addressing the underlying issue of poor productivity and required reforms to make the country more efficient and productive. With the recession in its third year now, Greece can delay the pain no more.

The public blames the government for bringing on the pain from necessary austerity measures, but is the government really the only one to blame? Everyone has been drinking the Euro kool-aid, thinking the money spigot will never run dry. Nobody wants to check the worst-case scenario in which the government can no longer borrow, nor can the private sector. The money has to come from somewhere.

The Greek prime minister must have realized that this latest bailout plan will only last for a short period of time, and then the next batch of sovereign debts are going to come due, and then Greece will have to go begging to Germany, France, and maybe even China, again. Rather than having the ruling party take the blame for all things ill, this referendum is going to put the onus back on the people. Do they really want to be rescued, and with that, tightening their belts drastically? Do they really want to stay with Euro and endure all these pains? If the vote is yes, then they're all in it together. There's no more blaming of the Greek government alone in forcing the austerity measures on its people, because the people have voted 'yes.' There is no more blame of Germany either, for imposing harsh terms on them either, because they have accepted the fate. But if they vote 'no,' then the current Greek government will go down.

In a way, it's probably fitting, that we should see such thermonuclear option. Afterall, it's the ultimate democratic gesture, in a country where all western democracy found its seeds. The people have to decide. The ruling parties are no smarter than the collective wisdom. No one should be imposing anything on the people. If you ask my opinion, I'd say, the move is brilliant.

Obviously, the outcome is likely to be messy, with huge uncertainty and overhang. But, hey, democracy is messy. Nobody expects democracy to be clean and neat. If they do, they would all go to China where the elite Politburo decides everything in the country. Most analysts and governments disagree with the proposed referendum because they want more certainty, and they don't want to hear the possibility that a majority of Greeks would rather risk leaving Euro than to suffer under the austerity measures for years (even decades) to come. As Arab Spring and even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us, sometimes what the people want do not necessarily equate a political palatable solution to foreign governments.

Greece is not alone in the mess. Italy and Spain are scarier and much bigger version of the sovereign debt mess. Germany and France would want (and need) to save Greece and beyond since the banking and financial systems in the countries are so intertwined and connected so tightly with the government debts. If Greece defaults or Euro breaks up (with some of the countries quitting the Euro currency), the ramifications would be huge for the global markets.

I'm not sure how it'd play out, but I don't feel like being in the stock markets right now.

On parenting et al...

2011-10-20T23:18:00.003-04:00

I was profoundly moved by the opinion piece in New York Times today about a mother whose child suffers a genetic disorder with no cure and which is certain to see a premature passing. Sometimes, as Steve Jobs had famously noted in his 2005 Stanford commencement speech, as was the Last Lecture Series by the late Randy Pausch, knowing that death is imminent can be the most powerful catalyst to jolt one into focus and set the life priorities straight. As in the case of the mother whose focus is on yo here-and-now on the well-being of the child, without any possibility of hopes, dreams, and future that regular parents would have expected from their children.

In a way, it's almost like committing to a pet like dogs and cats, that you know for certain that you'll outlive the pets. In a finite amount of time (maybe 12-15 years), you'll have to say farewell to the beloved pets, sometimes even having to make the painful decision of putting the animals down in order to lessen the animals' pain. I know, because I used to have a dog when I was little. I love my dog, even though I had not done a good job training him. As a result, he's a wild one, even biting me on numerous occasions; though I never came to blame him. My love for him is irrevocable. Talking about blind puppy love...

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

Incidentally I was talking to a colleague this morning. She was bemoaning how she and her husband spend $40k a year for each child on private school. Given that they have two kids in high school now, it's alot of dough. She's essentially working just so they can pay for the tuition. Don't get me wrong; she's tremendously proud for both kids getting in this private school which is apparently über-competitive, not just in admission, but in staying alive/ahead in school.

When I talked to her a while back, she's glowing about their Ivy League prospect, plus the chance for their kids to start networking - yes, networking! - when they start middle/high school. I thought at the time, Omigod, is this really happening; parents pushing for kids to do that? She makes that Tiger Mom in Amy Chua sounds lame. Having both coming from Asian backgrounds, there must be something in there somewhere.

This time around, things sound a shade different. Sure, there's still the glowing remarks of difficult schoolwork and assignments, critical thinking, and what-not. But in an arms race when every other kid in the school would look for some competitive edge, any competitive edge, it's not enough to just let people know your kids getting admitted to the school. The kids used to be straight A's in regular classes; they now suddenly realize that they are B+, at best, when they get in advance placements. Sure, they play some sport; but every kid in school play sports. Same goes with playing musical instruments. The kids feel bummed-out in the advanced classes because the other kids obviously are either super-smart, or they have had outside tutorials that have already taught them all the materials in the advanced classes.

These days, how do you stand out in a crowded, highly competitive field for Ivy League when straight A's + sports + music + community service + working on school newspaper, are no longer enough. And now, they can't even guarantee their straight A's anymore. The kids are stressed out; as is her husband. But she perseveres. Afterall, they have sunk so much money and time in this private school, they can't possibly quit at this point. Last but not least, her argument (more to herself) is that, it's such a tough school to get admitted, they can't possibly just give it up.

She cited some anecdotal evidence that some Ivy League schools might be within reach. Afterall, there was one kid who was in an Intel finalist, that got early admission to every schools that he applied, except Harvard. (He flunked the interview.) He ended up going to MIT. But how many Intel finalists did this school ever have? (She didn't say.)

And then there is the networking aspect which was considered valuable to her. Here, she cited one of the snobbish kids who, on prompt of where he lives, emphasized that he lives in a specific part of town that is most exclusive part, in case anyone hasn't already noticed. Such snobs are the ones that her kids are to network with. Surely there are nicely and more civil ones, but to think of a school populated by rich, entitled kids, it's not very inspiring.

Long story short, she and her husband will just have to stick with it for the long haul, and so will their kids (I truly feel sorry for them). As she has rightly noted, if the kids have not gone to this expensive private schools, she can probably retire by now. That might be so; but such was a path and journey that she embarks on, just as Amy Chua has noted in her stupid Tiger Mom book. She can't possibly expect much sympathetic words. (I can't come up with any.)

Oh, by the way, she has already whitelisted some of the professions that she doesn't want her kids to take on. Just thinking of the mental list that she has to keep score with is already too exhausting for me.

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

Looking at the juxtaposition of the conversation with my colleague's parenting decisions and woes, and the New York Times article of a mother mentally and physically preparing for the eventual death of her child, the effect is chilling to me.

While regular parents like us can't be letting the kids do whatever, with abandonment, I'm always mindful of not imposing too much of my hopes and dreams on my kids. They have their lives to live. I remember there're times when they ask me what I would like them to be. I told them, it matters not what I want, and I turn the table and ask them what they want to do instead. While basic life skills and discipline have to be imposed upon them, if they are independent and mature enough to make wise choices, and to pursue their dreams with conviction, I would have considered my job as a parent complete.

On the passing of Steve Jobs...

2011-10-05T22:56:00.003-04:00

I was saddened today when I got in to my computer this evening, and saw the news that Steve Jobs, the Apple co-founder and former CEO, has passed away. His rise and fall, and rise again in his personal history was truly phenomenal, which coincided with bursts of innovations in more industry than one. Most people feel a personal connection to Jobs since he had come to personified all the Apple products that he brought to users and consumers. From Apple II, to the Mac, iPod and iTune, iPhone, iPad, to Pixar, even the spartan concept of retail Apple store, his reach and influence has reached not only the computing industry, but music industry, telcos and communications industry, the entertainment industry, and breath fresh air to the retail space as well.

Although there were anecdotal stories of his mercurial temper and micromanagement style, his vision is equally remarkable. While he might not have been true pioneer in each of the industry, he was able to turn around existing industry norms and gadgets that users have come to know, and deliver something that is so new, easy to use, yet so very elegant in product design, that his products have all become must-haves. With his ability to integrate everything in his head, from the kind of user experience that he wanted, to product design (what features to be in, and what not), to execution and marketing, he's the one linchpin that holds everything together. Jobs was, in short, Apple.

I have been immensely moved by his 2005 Stanford commencement speech which is truly inspirational. (Actually, reading it in text feels even more powerful.) Jobs had defined a generation of pioneers and leaders that came out of Silicon Valley, along the tradition of the greats in the past, like David Packard and Bill Hewlett, the co-founders of HP.

To reminisce the passing of Jobs, I was watching some of the videos, including the 2007 on-stage interview of Steve Jobs and his contemporary Bill Gates. (I just wish that the female interviewer in that video had been ejected from stage. She's so clueless that she reflects so poorly on all female peers. Stupid woman.)

RIP, Steve.

On the fate of USPS...

2011-10-02T18:47:00.009-04:00

Changes can be hard to swallow sometimes, in the face of technological and cultural shifts. It's particular so, for long-standing services and habits. Examples abound, and we need to look no further than LP albums, to cassette tapes and walkman, to CD, then mp3 players, and now tunes in the cloud (hello, iTune) that renders all predecessors obsolete.

Not everyone listens to music, but most everyone gets mails. Even with overwhelmingly junk mails, there is certain comfort in seeing something as regular as daily mail delivery in the mailbox. Alas, at least something stays constant in life...but not for long. Judging from the way that USPS is hemorrhaging, I'm not sure how long it can stay afloat.

Sometimes I find it rather bizarre, looking at the way that public/private services are in US. Much like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the USPS provides a very public civic service. In the case of Fannie and Freddie, they pretty much underwrite the secondary mortgage market with a quasi-government backing, even though they are "private entity" in name. I've always found that disingenuous, if only so that Americans (particularly the GOP cohorts) want no government in life or business enterprise. Yet, those markets and everyone who has a mortgage or a hand in the financial markets all have a hand in seeing to it that Uncle Sam's hidden role (as the guy backing Fannie and Freddie) stays hidden but is kept alive.

The same is true with USPS which is turned into a private entity, yet its finance and operations are largely hamstrung by public policy. Without change in regulations, they can't raise prices, they can't cut service, they can't even cut much staff, not to mention those generous pension. That's a terrible way to run a business.

I can't fathom a country without a postal service. Even though there are alternatives (eg. FedEx, UPS), postal service would and should remain public entity. On the other hand, regardless of whether it's public or not, one can't simply run it as if resources and funding are unlimited; to do otherwise is unconscionable.

I don't USPS that much these days. For my incoming mails, almost all the bills that I receive, I've ordered electronic bills and statements; so, there goes 80% of my mails in thin air. There are a few other billers who still can't do e-bills (eg. property taxes from county), but it's just a matter of time before they do. I still have only one journal (namely, Fortune magazine) that I still like it in print form. Everything else I get from the web and online subscription. The rest is all junk mail that goes to recycle bin. As to my outgoing mails, I pay all bills online. (How many billers can't receive online bill-pay these days anyways?!) So, I hardly need to send any mails at all. Those first-class stamps are gathering dust on my desk.

If my case is any indication of the impact to the USPS mail volume, it'll indeed be a very worrisome sign. And if USPS is to rely solely on the revenue on mail volume, then sooner or later it's going to go bankrupt. There's simply no other way.

Truth be told, USPS has had some innovations in recent years, including partnering with vendors like eBay to make it easier for merchants to ship packages, and stamps.com. They are not sufficient to ramp up revenue fast enough to compensate for the rapid decline of the physical mail volume.

I buy stuffs quite often on the web, and those packages are probably the times when USPS comes in most handily. I hope USPS will live on, but I don't think its current course is sustainable, with Congress behind its back (for whipping, not for much financial backing).

On remembering 9/11, ten years on...

2011-09-11T09:23:00.007-04:00

Whenever it comes to memorable events, time seems to stand still. Most everyone has a story to tell, or remember where they were when it happened.

I'm one of those ordinary citizenry who is not even remotely connected to what happened to 9/11. I don't know anyone who died in the plan attacks to the sites. I don't know anyone connected to the illness from the rescue in the World Trade Center. I'm only affected by it only as a result of all the rules and regulations changes in the aftermath of 9/11; mostly in the airport checks, long lines of waiting, and delays. That's about it. I'm pretty much a spectator in the whole chains of events.

But I remember it well on that day.

I was working in office in a suburban office building. I went about it like any other regular mornings. And then my colleagues called out to me, saying we need to go to the conference room. We thought it's some ad-hoc all-hands meeting. Since there was a few rounds of layoffs already (as a result of the 2000 tech bubble burst), we thought the most that could come of it was another round of layoff announcement. We were walking in there, along the corridor in single file. We were even chitchatting, joking and had a few laughs. The big conference room had a very large TV, and it's on when we walked in. It's tuned to CNN news live, but at the time, I didn't realize it's news. The first picture I saw was the first World Trade Center tower in smoke. I remember asking one of my colleagues, "what is this?" And then, one of them realized what's going on, and said the WTC was burning. No one even knew that it's hit by a plane. The newscast was somewhat confusing, and none of us was watching the TV before we filed in to the conference room. That picture on the TV was so picture-perfect, we couldn't believe it's real. Another colleague commented that, it looked like a perfect Hollywood movie, with the perfectly clear blue sky in the background, all the details of the bellowing black smoke from the building came out so starkly clear on the high-def TV. Some of us were talking about factual details of WTC, like one of them talking about how many floors WTC had; that one of the brothers of her best friend worked there; etc etc. So, the some twenty of us, standing around the room, watching the TV for maybe 30 minutes or so, with not much details from the news, decided that we've watched enough; and we went back to our cube.

It's never occurred to me at the time the enormity of the event. A little while later, someone yelled out, the second tower was hit. This time, we rushed back to conference room, and saw smoke AND fire coming from the WTC towers. And then, we realized, "oh my God, it's real." We stayed on for some more time. This time, our boss came in, and said, we can't be standing here watching this. So, we went back to our cube one more time.

Even though we knew it's real, it's so surreal that our senses and emotions did not kick in. It's only until the next day, when the news of events of that day had settled in, that I realize how bad it was. A few days later, we filed back to the same conference room for the third and the last time, for the sake of 9/11 during lunch (and our boss didn't say anything this time - it's just lunch time afterall). The images from CNN were those from the ground. The towers were coming down and collapsing; people on the street were yelling, screaming and running away from it; huge clouds of dark dust and smoke in their wake. It's when I saw those images, that for some reason, my tears started coming down. People were dying; this was not a Hollywood movie afterall; and there's nothing I could do about it.

That's what I remember of 9/11.

In the aftermath, I learn from some colleagues, who learnt from their customers, that anyone in the IT field who had the first inkling of someone amiss is the hot link of backups between the financial firms (those with offices in the World Trade Center) and a major IT tech firm (who manages their hot backup) started having red lights flashing everywhere. That's when the original site's system is down, and hot backup is requested/required. It's more than coincidental that all the firms are having problems at the same time. The staff was thinking it must have been power grid failure or something. No one would even remotely think that the whole buildings were gone.

Sometimes, I try to empathize and re-imagine how it's like on the other side of the terrorist's jihad. The muslims were angry at the west for bombing and killing their own people. Even to this day, in the name of the war on terror, soldiers from the west were bombing and raiding different middle eastern countries like Afghanistan. Their people are sometimes taken or kidnapped for questioning and subject to torture practice, with no recourse. Sometimes I imagine myself in their shoes; I have to say, I'll probably get very angry too. Those are the times when militant groups and extremists like Osama bin Laden are able to exploit the underdogs' emotions, to recruits people to join their jihad against the west.

To that end, even though bin Laden was now killed, he had largely succeeded in dividing the muslim public (and their public opinion), and the western world. He had also succeeded in terrorizing the western world, making it looking its shoulders at every turn. And he had succeeded in making his name a legend for evading capture for so long; and a legacy (almost a blueprint) for future jihadist to model after. It's tremendously sad that this would be what 9/11 has amounted to.

I'm not too well-versed in the long history of Israel and Muslim. Perhaps this would be the time, post 9/11, for the Israelis to tell us all, that this is exactly what they've been living with, the constant worry and fear of bombs and destruction, and the forever vigilance that they mount against the muslim countries around Israel.

It's taken decades for the terrorist activities in plane hijacks back back in the 1970s to recede. Sometimes I wonder if the current sentiment ever comes to pass.

On another Plan B on housing from Obama...

2011-08-25T11:49:00.003-04:00

Sometimes, you can see nonsense right when it shows up. The latest proposal from the Obama administration, on providing government-backed help to homeowners to refinance their homes, is one of those.

There are appealing aspects to that, to be sure. It won't need Congress approval. It won't have immediate impact on the budget deficit shit-hole that this country is already in. It prevents more homes falling into foreclosures. It allows homeowners to unlock additional cash from their homes, so that they can use the new cash to continue their buying habits funded on debts, and more debts. At the proposed low rate of 4%, everyone would love it.

It gets me really peeved when I sees proposals like that. The main reason for the subprime crisis that started in late 2008, triggered by the collapse of Lehman, was due to unchecked mortgage lending to those who should never be qualified for a mortgage. When the economy goes down, when the prices start its free fall, these folks can no longer count on periodically refinancing the properties to take money out of this pseudo-piggybank. The market - the Invisible Hand, if anyone still believes in free market - is supposed to check this kind of reckless behavior. The credit is supposed to get tightened - as it is happening now - and these low-quality borrowers are supposed to get squeezed out of the system, allowing the system to slowly grow back to life again. For those who have diligently play by the system, who save up religiously hoping to get a chance to buy into the market, they are supposed to get rewarded by lower properties and lower mortgage rate.

All those are out of the window, when 2012 election is coming into focus, and Obama needs to do something fast, to fix the economy. The fix is supposed to be jobs - yes, job growth - so that unemployment can go down. When regular people start having regular, steady income again, they are supposed to be able to buy again. Naturally, that is much harder to do, given the intense competition (particularly in manufacturing) from other countries like China. Given its inability to grow jobs, Obama instead looks at housing...again.

For what it's worth, the proposal is essentially guaranteeing those low-quality borrowers, once again, that they would be underwritten. All they need to do, is to stop paying their mortgage, and wait for Obama to refinance their mortgage at 4%. It does not matter anymore, whether these folks can even pay for mortgages for 4% or not. Obama (and Congress) just wants to stop these properties from showing up on foreclosure statistics. In other words, it's government-funded private housing. In Asia, there's a term for that - it's called, public housing. No matter, Americans won't call it that because it's politically incorrect. They want government out of their life and off of their backs when it comes to taxes, but they want government help when it comes to financial difficulties.

Those in Obama administration know full well that, two years into this recession, those who can afford to (and qualified for doing so) refinance, have already done so. Those, like me, who never bought into the buying frenzy in properties before property market started crashing in late 2008. Those, like me, who refinancing in the succeeding two years, given the historical low rate. To put it another way, those who can't refinance now are the one who should not have qualified for it. However way you look at it, it's effectively free money and handouts from government to these folks. And that makes me quite angry.

And then there're talks, and more talks, of supporting the property market. I've ranted before in my journal, that there's no point in supporting the market, because when folks have jobs and money, when they need a place to stay and it becomes cheaper to buy than to rent, they will buy properties again. Obviously, we're not there yet - quite far from it, in fact. While property prices have come down alot (some as much as 50-60%, in some regions), there are other places where prices never crash, per se, and where they have gone back up again already. I'm one of those too, who bought a new place for investment.

In short, I'm slowly saving up, and investing in a limited scale, while ensuring that I have sufficient buffer to cover an extended period if things turn south (eg. job loss, rental units not renting out, etc). Sure, if Obama wants to help, I'm all for getting some free money. But all the government policies and regulations I see so far have been about protecting and even extending the reckless behavior that should not have happened in the first place. (That reckless behavior includes the much screwed-up compensation structure on Wall St, by the way.)

I don't think I'll vote for Dem or GOP in 2012 at all. Tea Party is too loony for me. For a change and to make a statement, if Ron Paul is in, I'll probably vote for him.

On the (un)importance of cubicles, telecommuting, et al...

2011-08-23T15:06:00.008-04:00

How important is it, or how attached are we, to a cubicle? I've always asked myself that question, though I never really sit down and formulate my thoughts on that. The article in NYTimes today, on the rethinking of office workspace and cubicles, comes quite timely. I might as well add a few thoughts on that.

I've been telecommuting for more than eight years now, long before telecommuting becomes hot topic, work/life balance a vogue, and offshoring of work becomes prevalent. Most people express such envy for me when they hear how I can organize my work and life with much more ease.

I must say, the kind of flexibility is really valuable, particularly if one has kids at home. As long as the work is task- and goal-oriented, it should be relatively easy to allow workers to switch to telecommuting. Afterall, there is little point for companies to waste money in real estate, tie up the space, tie down the workers to the assigned cubes, and do the work that they could well have done anywhere else. It saves money, and it makes sense. Or so we thought...

But things do not always turn out so easily. My telecommuting path hasn't taken such straightforward path. Even though my work has always been task- and goal-oriented, the management of my last employer didn't let anyone telecommute. The office was quiet as graveyard (since little interaction is needed) since no one needed to collaborate often in order to get their job done. Everyone could have turned themselves into Dilbert and work at home in their pajamas. But the old-fashioned management wants to see bodies physically at their desk whenever they want by (even though it rarely happened). It doesn't make sense.

Having telecommuted for so long, I must say, I enjoy the flexibility, but I miss my cube. Even though I don't need to interact with others much while I'm doing my work, I still like to feel - yes, to feel - that I'm part of a larger community. For a long time, even though I telecommute, I still maintain my cube at work, albeit rarely used. My cube is my last hanging thread with a physical community that I used to call office. But since my telecommuter work status is officiated, I have given up my cube. The good thing is, I don't need to force myself to go back to office for a few days a month for no good reason. The bad (or good too) thing is, everything is now virtual. I do my work whenever I want, as long as I get it done, as per schedule.

Yes, that is quite quite nice. When kids are sick and have to stay home, or I need to attend PTO meeting for school, or when cars need to go to repair shop, or when I need to pop out to some grocery or run errands, or if I simply need to take a power nap, and some such, I can easily squeeze that into my day, and continue doing my work at night. I can get to continue building my career without sacrificing my family or personal life.

But - and there's always a but - I'm always on. Even though I don't need to be around, 24 x 7, I feel the compelling need to be online for work purpose. It's as if I feel the need to show others that, yes, apart from my assigned work, I can do more. Yes, it's all psychological. Telecommuters feel the need to justify their existence. In this day and age, when work can easily have been done 50 times cheaper by some no-name guy in India or China or Russia, the feeling of job insecurity is palpable.

Naturally, having a cube is definitely no guarantee any job security at all. But like I said, it's all psychological. It's as if the cube justifies our own existence. If you want to telecommute, you'd better be darn sure of your own self-worth. If you are an insecure person to start with, I can tell you that you won't feel good telecommuting at all, losing that opportunity to connect to someone and something physically.

Coming back to the topic of workspace, do I really miss my cubicle? Deep down, I know I still do. Cubicles (and rooms) are one very physical and powerful way to measure one's importance in the company's hierarchy. If I get my window or corner cube or room, if I get a cube or room twice the size of the guy next to me, I know instantly where I am in the pecking order. When everything is virtual in a telecommuting world, there's no way for you to tell, unless you're very sure of where you stand, in the large scheme of things.

So, while everyone's complaining about their cubes, and how they're tied down to it, they should be careful of what they ask for. Once you become virtual, your employer can get rid of you much more easily (as long as the next guy can pick up whatever work you're doing). That next guy can be in India, or China, or Ukraine, or Philippines, or Chile.

On poor economy and help to homeowners in mortgages...

2011-08-22T09:24:00.003-04:00

The so-called policies put forth by GOP normally don't make much sense to me, but they're right about one thing: Obama shouldn't be pushing for mortgage modifications to help homeowners who are underwater, with big mortgages worth more than the underlying property. As it is, liberal media like NYTimes is advocating exactly that, that federal government should help struggling homeowners by forcing banks to modifying loans.

I'm no economist, but the policy makes little sense to me. What's more important to the economy is jobs and the income generation, and not wealth protection (ie. protecting the value of the property). Albeit all the reports that property prices have come down alot, in some states, significantly lower than the peak at 2008, the price level is still considerably higher than what it used to be. Those artificially inflated prices were propped up by outsized leverages that needs to be rid from the system. The market has its way of finding its equilibrium by having prices come down (and supply increasing) to a level where demand can meet. It's unreasonable to expect the government to step and get banks to artificially lower the outstanding mortgage or interest rate on the loans (thereby forcing banks to eat the losses), in order to allow the carpetbaggers to stay in their properties. In the logic of the government, doing so would provide much needed support to the property prices. When people feel wealthier, they'll spend again, so the thinking goes.

There is also the push to get banks to lend again. Given that general financial conditions of the populace are still rather dire, it's only fair and prudent that banks don't want to lend. I don't see much problem with that. Obviously, if banks are getting effectively free cash from government, with an obligation to lend, it could be a different matter.

To be sure, it doesn't matter how low the property price level goes, any sane person won't jump onto a 30-year fixed mortgage if s/he is not sure whether their job is safe. Afterall, that's the prudent and right thing to do. As the contemporary thinking goes, people should buy properties again, if it's low enough. If you ask me, I'd tell you, that is but one of the many factors that I would consider long term fixed investment like real estate.

In this respect, both GOP and Dem/Obama are suspects, in pushing for mortgage help to underwater homeowners. It amounts to a move to appease voters to buy their votes. I don't buy that. I don't want the burden and responsibility to get push down to the future generations.

On the faded glamor of air hostesses...

2011-08-21T22:56:00.002-04:00

There will always be things that one can look back with nostalgia, yet at the same time, quite happy to see their passing. The high glamor of air hostesses yonder is probably one of them.

There was a time, decades past, when air travel is high drama and luxury. It was so expensive and inaccessible that only the rich and famous can afford it. The exclusivity of it has lent prestige of all flight crew (pilots and attendants alike), allowing them not only the chance to fly to other parts of the world (woooow...), but the chance to dress up to serve the rich. It matters little that there's so much sexism and discrimination that was inherent in it. Air hostesses had to be single, tall and beautiful, skill and talented.

While I'm no hardcore feminist, I'm happy to see the liberalization of that profession. Come to think of it, flight attendants (as they are called now) are but there to serve customers and to maintain order inflight. Why should it matter if it's a man or woman; or, if s/he is single; or, if s/he is 5'7" or 5'1"? With the liberalization of air travel, it's become so cheap to fly coach that passengers are mostly just cheapo.

The loss of civility among airline passengers is probably one for nostalgia; but the loss of glamor for flight crew isn't.

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

When I was little, I once dreamt of being an air hostess too. I'm glad that little passion didn't last very long, and that I haven't followed that longing. These days, I mostly just feel pity for flight attendants (particularly the female ones), some of whom are still required to wear makeup, tight outfit, pantyhose, heels, while serving meals to customers. I see no glamor in it at all. In fact, I would find it more like torture, if I were to dress up like that, serving meals.

On the foreign students walkout from summer work program...

2011-08-18T08:22:00.004-04:00

I was reading the news this morning, about the students walkout from a chocolate factory that is part of their J-1 summer work program. I don't mean to sound mean or crude, but I'm not sure if I'm totally sympathetic.

For all we hear, these foreign students from different countries, pay a handsome fees to come to America for a summer work program. They expect too earn handsomely, have fun jobs, do traveling, experience the culture, make friends. Instead, they get crappy factory assembly jobs, work night shifts, hardly have time or make enough money to go out or make any friends or experience the culture. They are not happy, and I won't be surprised if they want their money back.

The first thing that comes to mind when I read the news was, they got what they're coming here for. This is the American culture. We work till we drop. These foreign students can't ask for anything more accurately reflecting what's really going on in America. If they think, by paying $6000 for a J-1 visa fees, they would come in, get a cushy white-collar job that pays them (enough to cover the medical school tuition, as one foreign student has put it), they must be either dreaming, or smoking god-knows-what.

And, hey, they can make friends in the factory too. I remember fondly of the summer jobs in factories that I used to have when I was in high school. Sure, it's long hours and it's tough, but it's also fun since they're all in it since students made up half of the workforce in the factory during the summer months.

Sometimes, I don't know about the kids and young people these days, who would not (and could not) handle even low-paying or boring work that might be transient or entry level. Everyone expects to make quick bucks in a hurry. Everyone expects to become the next Bill Gates after a few years. Oftentimes, I get tired just hearing the whining of the younger generations, simply because they are asked to put in the sweat.

Yes, yes, I know I sound very unsympathetic, and I'm over-generalizing. Of course there are honest, young students who would do what it takes. But it's often those who aren't, who would scream the loudest for "their own rights." The Chinese factory workers are getting good at it. Maybe they should be sent back to China to get their summer-work program.

On a truly relaxing vacation...

2011-08-17T17:47:00.005-04:00

As is often the case, workdays and school days are more rhythmic and easier to handle than vacations. We can keep at the schedule and activities. It's busy, but manageable. It's usually that sick days, or school holidays, or vacations, are much more stressful.

I haven't had a truly relaxing, real vacation for quite a long time. In fact, that has ceased to exist since our firstborn which was years ago. When the kids were younger, it's hard to get any vacations at all. Afterall, they're growing so fast that their schedule, needs, taste and preferences are changing every few months; it could be hard to keep up. Their attention span is short, and physically they don't last for more than half a day before they crash. It's when the kids get to maybe 9-10 in age that things can get easier to handle.

It's under this pretext that I experience a truly relaxing vacation for years. The kids are getting bigger now, that they don't want to do summer day-camps anymore. (They say it's boring.) I can understand it, since alot of day-camps are more like babysitting pen for pre-teens. Granted that they try to organize different activities for kids, it's often just touch-and-go. But I don't want to organize those educational camps for the kids in the summer, where they would drill on life or academic skills. Summers should be the time for kids to chill and have fun.

So, for a change, this summer, we took two different trips, one to a big city, and one to rural country.

We did the usual in the city. Visits to museum, water park, lots of restaurants. I love museums, but kids' attention span is still rather limited. At least they're at an age where they can go off on their own periodically to check out exhibits, and we would meet up again. And the water park was a blast, and help to kill off their excess energy, fast. We would bathe in the shade on sunny days while the kids ran off from one game to another, and we wouldn't have to be the doting parents, for a change. Decision which restaurants to go to is easy. Kids actually don't give much thoughts about which restaurant we're going to, as long as it has lots of meats.

And then, we have the country trip with a totally different experience. We slaughtered a sheep; built our own fire for bonfire and BBQ; camping out; milking and herding cows; feeding pigs and chickens; even playing in creek and stream. There's alot of home cooking, with all the fresh ingredients from local produce. I even got my wish to see another shooting star (since my first/last time when I was little), and found Big Dipper for the first time on my own (no, I'm not very good at identifying constellation). In hindsight, it's not a bad thing that we're totally cut off from the world, given that there's little to no internet access. That's how we can enjoy the here-and-now. I can't ask for more.

The good thing about it is, we don't need to plan out our day. We'll check the weather at the start of day, and do whatever that Mother Nature would allow us. I haven't relaxed like that for years now. It's awesome.

On inter-racial marriage, and other thoughts...

2011-08-08T21:23:00.002-04:00

Sometimes, it's hard to imagine ourselves in someone else's shoe. Granted that interracial marriages (particularly those involved white men and women from other races) were taboo in the bygone days, I have - perhaps rather naively - expected that most urban dwellers, in particular, those who are professionals, should have overcome most, if not all, of the obstacles. Apparently, that's not the case.

Or perhaps, it's not really a taboo for Asian women. In fact, alot of them still consider marrying a white man as a classy act. This is in large part a remnant of the colonial and post-colonial days, when white men living in Asia were predominantly well-off expatriates who live large. Just ask Wendi Deng, Rupert Murdoch's ambitious third wife, who was able to literally springboard herself from poor coastal China, stealing one husband 31 years her senior in LA to get a green card, then stealing Murdoch to become the rich wife that affords her the money and fame to fix with the other celebrity, rich and famous. As Deng Xiaoping once put it, "do not care if the cat is black or white, what matters is it catches mice." For Wendi Deng, who cares if the meal ticket is 30 or 40 years her senior - as long as she gets the money and fame, that's good enough. Even if it means doing cat-fights in public on camera, like those rural peasant women do in China, what matters is, she needs to protect her meal ticket. If Murdoch kicks the bucket today, she could end up having peanuts (instead of the reportedly $1 billion payout to Murdoch's second wife from their divorce).

Ah, but I have digressed...

But the point is, for Asian women like Wendi Deng, there is no taboo in the interracial marriage. It's actually a status symbol.

It's an interesting read, of the article in Wall Street Journal on black professional women's plight of insufficient qualifying black men to marry, resulting in a surprisingly high ratio of black professional women remaining single, or "marrying down" (ie. marrying men of professions that pay substantially less). Perhaps the most surprising findings in the article are that, there are so many little details about black women and their thought process, that has never occurred to me. Topics like, hair, chocolate babies, even sticking with black men as a political statement. The other interesting note in the article is the suggestion to these professional black women, that they should seriously consider marrying out of their own race. Not only would that reduce the number of black women (ratio 2-1 in professional circles) pursuing available black men, but it would reduce the "power" in which black men have traditionally held all the cards in choosing whichever black women of their choosing.

I must admit, I was rather surprised by how I feel about the reports in the article. I feel sad to the plight of those black professional women who might feel trapped (even subconsciously) by their own history and culture. I would bet you, there won't be as much odds stacked against a Chinese woman, should she want to pursue a man of another race. Again, go ask Wendi Deng.

To put things in perspective, some of the plights are not unique to black women. Traditionally, professional women of all the other races face the same issue of not having enough available professional men to choose from, as mates and partners. Not sure where all the eligible and available men have gone. For the blacks, the article could argue that a large number of black men are incarcerated. But that's not the case with professional men of other races. Perhaps a good number of them have come out of the closet and declare themselves gay.

I'm still trying to figure this one out.

On 3-D movies...

2011-08-01T23:12:00.005-04:00

Recently, I brought the kids to watch a few movies. It's one of the summer must-do's for them. Thankfully, there are a few that they would jump to go (Harry Potter final installment, Cars 2), while others aren't so hot (Kung Fu Panda 2).

I must say, though, going to the movies is getting pricier these days. On top of the actual ticket price increase, now theaters are charging hefty premium for the same movies, but in 3-D. My only response is, who cares.

Sure, sure, you can always find some of those people who value highly of their movie experience. I'm guessing, those must be the same people who must have home entertainment and home theater system. I'm a rather complacent person, when it comes to that. I want a good movie, and good movie to me is more than just CGI. In other words, I'm not one of the willing crowds who pay to see extra visual effects. My kids don't care much either.

And then there are those annoying 3-D glasses that get in the way of my own spectacles, mostly just giving me dizzying headache. I would in fact pay extra to not see 3-D.

I don't think I'm alone though.

A few weeks ago, I went to see the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 with the kids. I picked the 2-D schedule. Granted that it's a very popular movie, I had not expected the theater to be completely full. (In fact, that was among the few times when I sat in a theater that was full house.) The movie was good, well-rounded on all fronts, 2-D notwithstanding. Throughout the day, there were only two screenings for 2-D, everything else in 3-D. I found out later that the 3-D showing (which was about half an hour later than the 2-D show that we're watching) was less than half full. That in itself should be a good indicator and a tell-tale sign.

Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson does have a point, in pushing for lower 3-D ticket prices. But of course, if movie studio and theater owners can get away with charging audience more, they would; hence the dissing of Spielberg and Jackson's position by Jeff Katzenberg in that same article.

Perhaps it's just too bad, that Katzenberg doesn't get it. If he or anyone thinks that they can keep raising the prices, even by doing a little more in showing some 3-D effects (however well made it might be), they're quite wrong. I, for one am more than happy to wait for the DVD on netflix. Afterall, I'm not one of those who must have the first edition of everything - iphone, anyone? - and I don't need 3-D to make me love a movie. To be, 3-D is just sugar-pop.

On Yao Ming and the China pride...

2011-07-31T14:41:00.003-04:00

Yao Ming has been the China pride for quite a long time. Ten years, to be exact.

It must not have been an easy feat to have a whole nation's pride and glory in the sport front resting on his lone shoulders. For Asians who generally have shorter, slimmer build, the tall poppy of Yao Ming who breaks away to join the NBA league is something of an anomaly. Surely, there must be another Yao Ming lurking amidst its 1.1 billion population. Even statistics should give it a higher probability to find another Yao Ming....right?

But the Chinese establishment has a way to beat even the remote statistics of Yao Ming. In ten years, China fails to produce another Yao Ming. Now that he's retiring, there is no one he can past the torch to. It's a true pity, that the rigid Chinese establishment has failed to produce more heroes in sports that its denizens so sorely need, in order to hold on to the Chinese pride.

No matter, China can now turns its star-gazing to another sport - tennis. Li Na, the newly minted champion of Australian Open, the first Chinese from China (nope - Michael Chang is technically more American than Chinese) to win any majors, provides the much needed relief for the mainland Chinese populace to feel that they can make it too in the sports arena.

But if the Li Na story is any guidance, it is that her success comes in spite of her breakaway from the official Chinese sports establishment. That says volume about the competence and effectiveness of that establishment. China's 1.1 billion people need better than this, and deserve better than to wait for another 10 years to see if it is capable of producing another Yao Ming or Li Na.

On paper calendars and their electronic equivalence...

2011-07-30T23:20:00.003-04:00

Earlier today, I was reading the New York Times article today on paper calendars with interests and amusement.

No doubt there is powerful trend for pushing calendars to the ether virtual world. Most people do that out of convenience which is hard to disprove. Once the calendar is set up online (eg. Google Calendar), you can access any time, anywhere. You can access it with your browser, or smart phone, even regular phone that has online access. You can expose your calendar to privileged few (eg. families and friends). Even in the pre-cloud days, when mostly corporate calendars reside on proprietary servers like emails do (Blackberry, anyone?), you can quite easily sync your PDA with servers. You won't have to worry about losing your Filofax, hence the whole year's worth of your life. No more writing; just typing. Sweet, right?

But of course, when there is push, there is always some pull. Although it's not easy found these days, there are still quite some people who hang on to their paper calendars and address books and alarm clocks, even though you can easily get all these functions in any basic smartphones. There is something to be said, about holding something in your hand, that you know it's real, that this is my calendar and it belongs to me and me alone (rather than some bits and bytes in binary on some no-name servers tucked in some dark corners of who-knows-where the datacenters might reside).

I have to tell you, I too have tried to hang on to paper calendars, for my private reasons. I have soft spots for leather bound journals and diary and address books. I love to touch and smell of leather. I like the physicality of writing in notes and entries with my pen. I really do.

Unfortunately, the goings with electronic calendars are just too strong to resist. I used to use leather-bound yearly calendars, and I hate to have to shelf them once the year is over. There's when I switch to using organizers. But I have to lug the deadweight of my 2-inch thick organizer (with address book, calendar, with journal papers and notes) with me everyday. I have to worry about losing it (yes, I've lost mine before, and it's a royal pain). It wastes papers (thereby, cutting down more trees) and money too for buying inserts. I don't share or expose my calendars to anyone, but now I can plan my calendar forever, rather than one year out. I can set up alerts and reminders of events. And although it takes longer to login and check calendars online than flipping pages, it's worth the efforts.

These days, I've decided to do my own haphazard version of mix-and-match of online and offline calendar for myself. I want the convenience of online calendars (eg. I don't want to have to copy and paste all the important birthdays and anniversary dates at the beginning of each year from one paper calendar to another), but I equally want to use my brain a bit more, lest my brain gets lazy with delegating all the remembering to computers. So, every day, I login to check my daily schedules, plus cursory check on how the weekly and monthly schedules in the coming weeks/months look like. Then, I would write down the daily things to do on a scrap piece of papers. At the end of the day, I can cross what I've done, and I can simply throw out the scrap paper to recycle bin. I can also jog down what's new on the paper, then transpose them to my online calendar at day's end. The semi-automatic calendar updates work for me because I want to force myself to remember some events, rather than delegating to computers totally.

I still miss my leather bound calendars, organizers, address books and all other stuffs that I have now rolled online or in one single gadget. I guess I'll have to live with it. Those previously used (and loved) journals and calendars on my shelf will simply become part of my relics for nostalgia, when I get the time for it.

On the elusive housing recovery...

2011-07-29T17:01:00.016-04:00

There are often enough times when I get bored reading business news and market news. You see, I do trading as a side interest, and I read a few newspapers from a few different countries to start my day. You can get an overall picture and a sense of where things are going. To me, it's a much better gauge than the mumble-jumble of those so-called market analysts who would try to find some reasoning - more like excuses - to justify the events of the day as the day wraps up. You see, that's not a very difficult thing to do, since there are always some news that are good, and some news that are bad. All they have to do is to pick and choose which ones fit in the pattern of what has happened in the market movement. I often find it laughable how business news would follow what has happened in other markets (Europe, Hong Kong and Japan), and say, our markets in US is going to up (or down) because of x-y-z happening in the other markets. So, they say, futures are going up (or down). And then, things in US would blow up in their face, shattering whatever predictions they have made at day start. By end of day, they would wrap up the day and say, no, the market today is actually focusing on something else than we have predicted. In short, they always have a 50-50 chance to come out looking smart ("see, that's what we have predicted!" or "markets look the other day because they are nervous!").

For all that, I prefer to look at the raw data, rather than the gummed-up analysis from these mediocre analysts.

Quite often, raw data are confusing on their own right, depending on what raw data the main media wants to report to the audience (ie. us).

Take the unemployment picture. There's the short term number in unemployment benefits claim (which doesn't look good). There's the longer term number (which looks very weak and wobbly). And then, there is the number of long-term unemployed (ie. those who have exhausted the unemployment benefits and are on their own; in short, they don't count anymore) which everyone seems to suddenly stop reporting on.

And then, there is the number of new jobs created, particularly by private sector. But no one dares to talk about the kind of shitty jobs being created now, in place of the relatively good paying jobs that were lost in this Great Recession. Politicians in Washington don't even want to talk about the number of shitty jobs created. Afterall, there is a natural limit in how much spin doctors can spin a story. So, instead of talking about bad things with no prospects of improving in sight, they would rather stop talking about it.

Barring the dismal employment picture, this recession is all about housing. No one has a freaking clue which industry would emerge from ashes and rise up to take the place of tech (in the go-go days of late 1990s) and housing (in the subsequent years after the tech bubble burst in 2000), and provide the kind of jobs and pay and prospects to the lower strata in society. Everyday, the business and market news cover the same-old, same-old on the foreclosure numbers, price trends of cities and nation wide, new housing starts, existing home sales, yada yada. The way it's going now, you can easily skip 3 months' worth of news, come back in the fall, and the news reports (on these very same topics) would still look the same. *yaaawn*

Don't get me wrong, those raw data have to be collected in order to study the longer term trends. But I don't see how talking repeatedly on the same subject matters and numbers are going to move the needle.

To me, it all comes down to simple math. If you have a property that, over a 10-year period has gone up by 300%, does a downturn of 50% from the peak mean it has come down far enough to become affordable again? This is not a number that I just threw out from a hat. This was how much I have bought (in late 1990s) and sold (in late 2007) my property for in the Northeast.

I like to look for patterns and trends. Nowhere have I seen such fantastic growth in prices (of properties), with little to no support from fundamentals (eg. rental growth) during that same period. The whole housing boom was based on one ponzi scheme, more akin to a big casino gamble.

I don't flip properties. In fact, I've kept property that I sold in 2007 for close than 7 years because I like it. I would still have held on to it, had it not been my husband who was getting tired to the monthly upkeep for a physical property. It doesn't really mean or change a thing for me, because there's no mortgage left on the property. Sure, if you ask me whether I'm glad that I've sold it, I'd tell you I'm glad to have made a 300% profit on that property. It doesn't negate the fact that I still miss the place due to sentimental value. I don't want to sound schmuck about it, for cashing out before the market crash, because I'm no genius. It's all pure chance. Bottomline to me is, while I'm better off now with the proceeds from the sale, I would have been no worse off if I had held on to it.

No one is going to argue against the sweetness of turning 300% yield on an investment. Truth be told, I don't think the place is suddenly worth 300% more than what I'd paid it for. Given the growth of economy over that same period, perhaps a price growth of 50% would have been considered fantastic already, so that a 20-30% downturn in the recession since then would have returned it back to equilibrium. But that would be blasphemous to alot of people who are used to outsized price growth. No one wants to lose the capability of turning their property into a piggybank and a ready ATM machine.

But...nothing of what I said is new. It's just that no one wants to admit to it. No one wants to say outright, that the property market, as depressed as it is now, should still fall another 20-30% or more in some places in order to go back to a more normal curve. Politicians can't tell the emperors (voters) that they have no clothes on. It's downright suicidal.

And so, what do we get? Let's switch off the discussions on unemployment (nothing new); let's not talk about housing (nothing new either); let's forget about market reforms (because no one can fight the lobby groups and big corporate money); don't worry about the wars (which are still raging on); public education does not matter for now. Suddenly all eyes are on deficit and spending.

I can only tell you, I'm very sick and tired of all these ping-pong games between Dem and GOP on the budget talks and possibility of a default. The whole Washington establishment - Congress and White House alike - is so inept to achieve anything remotely useful (except with the focus of scoring political points), it's so freaking disappointing. Such a shame.

But if you must ask me of an opinion, I'd say, spending and entitlement have to be scaled back. Taxes have to be raised somehow. I don't like the idea of the raising the debt ceiling without any serious talks of scaling back. To be sure, there are so many low-hanging fruits of corporate tax subsidy (ethanol, anyone?) that simply don't make sense and should have been rid of long long time ago. While I don't fancy Dem getting any moral high grounds, I simply don't see how GOP could keep singing the moral high tunes of cutting spending while defending their corporate backers of all the subsidy and loopholes. It's truly despicable.

On children's noise level, et al...

2011-07-29T12:18:00.005-04:00

I don't normally read much of those news of children-not-welcome stories, like the one about banning young children from restaurant. It's a balancing act between keeping a young child engaged and entertained, while trying to minimize the nuisance to others.

I've been on both sides of the fence. While my kids are getting bigger now, they have been young once. It can get apprehensive, hoping and praying that my kids would cooperate and don't cry or scream in movie theaters or on long-haul flights. When I look at parents or families bringing in very young kids or babies in those situations, I can get apprehensive too, hoping and praying that those kids won't just cry or scream their guts out, and the rest of us would have a bit of quiet time. But then, you can't blame the babies, infants and toddlers for doing for they're doing, when they don't have the ways and means to tell the adults that they don't want to be restricted to the confined space for a prolonged period.

Restaurants and parks, on the other hand, are somewhat different. They are not confined space. And there are plenty of options for parents to bring their kids too. If the kids start acting up in restaurants, one of the adults/parents can always bring the kids outside for a walk to calm the nerve or for distraction. That's what my husband and I always did, and it worked out quite well. So, if a restaurant puts out children-unwelcomed sign, I don't see what the big deal is for the families to bring their business elsewhere where tolerance level for their kids is higher. In short, this kind of stories is not news-worthy to me.

And then, today I read about some Sydney residents complaining about the noise level of children playing in parks. I must say though, that this is getting a bit out of hand. I understand that some people simply can't stand children's crying or screaming. Afterall, that's one of the reasons some adults quoted as rationale for not having kids of their own. Surely, if a park is designed with structures and playthings for kids to kill their energy, can anyone blame the kids for having a blasting fun time and scream their guts out? Honestly, I can't say I do. How does one define the playthings and structures in a park that would limit the kids to play more passively, so that they won't make that much noise? Kids are fairly straightforward animals; they either have a good time, or they don't. If the kids don't enjoy playing in that park, they simply won't want to come. And if the residents have been so worried about it, they should have voiced their concerns before the park was built and/or during the design stage of the park.

You're quite right, in that, I don't have alot of sympathy in the complaints about kids having too much fun in park (hence making too much noise). No doubt, people want more parks and green space; that enhances the environment, thereby boosting property value. There are gives and takes, and times like this, you can't have it both ways, wanting the pie and eating it too. They should have been happy that kids and families are utilizing the parks, rather than thugs and criminals (as alot of idle park space can attract).

On schools stop teaching cursive...

2011-07-28T19:19:00.006-04:00

Not until I listened to the Diane Rehm Show on WGBH earlier today did I realize that some schools are planning to stop teaching kids cursive. I must admit, I was flabbergasted when I heard of it.

Many so-called arguments were put forth to support that notion, some of which come straight from fantasyland. It's said that kids need to learn typing more than writing cursive, in order to compete in this digital age. It's said that kids can print and don't need cursive. It's said that kids' learning cursive is a waste of time, during budget crunch time, schools can ill-afford to spend resources on. It's said that with increasing use of electronic media in schools and work environment, kids need to adapt. It's said that some kids simply find it too hard to learn cursive, and they should be left to pick whatever way to write or type. It's even said that in this day and age, when electronic signature is widely accepted, kids won't even need to sign their name anymore. And so on, and so forth.

Thank goodness counter-arguments are abound. It's argued that kids have plenty of opportunities to learn typing (texting, anyone?). It's argued that kids would at least need to sign their name physically with a pen. And while digital media is all around us, it must be recognized that there are many more students who do not have ready access to computers or electronic devices, and who would need to still resort to pens and papers. But the more important and valid point was raised by one of the audience callers to the show, which is that, learning cursive is one important way for kids (at around the age of grade 3-4) to master the fine mortar skills while they are formulating thoughts in their heads. In fact, the last argument was recognized even by the cursive-abolishing proponents that kids have been having increasing difficulty in both thinking and writing/typing at the same time.

The topic of learning cursive hits home to me at this particular juncture, since my kids have showed so much interests in it, and even more pride too in mastering cursive so that they can sign their name!

To be sure, their teachers haven't actually spent that much time in teaching them cursive anyways. Cursive, as an art of writing, is such an integral part of civilization that it would be such a shame and incredible disservice to kids by not teaching them cursive at all. I resent the argument of cursive being too hard for kids. So much of what kids are taught seem to be based on convenience, catering to the kids' liking. If something is deemed too hard for the kids, they should be spared of it. In fact, isn't that the very same argument that alot of parents shy away from pushing their kids to master math and science?

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

Incidentally, yesterday I read another article, about a high school teacher getting suspended (but was later reluctantly reinstated) for dissing her own students for being "lazy" and "frightfully dim". I have no doubts that there are students to that caliber. More surprisingly is how some readers' comments from supposedly parents saying that they would pull their kids out from the class, should this teacher be teaching. Sure, parents should be the best champion (our princes and princesses) for their own kids, but have we, collectively as parents, got to a point where we cannot accept potentially truthful comments about our kids?

As another fair-minded reader noted in the forum, kids these days have become so used to entitlement, that everyone has to have a trophy for just being present in a soccer or baseball game. Parents have to understand that, at some point (most likely when kids start middle school), kids are going to get used to the increasingly competitive world. If kids do not master the basic skills and discipline and attitude before they reach grade 5, they would have had serious problems catching up. If parents continue to foster that an entitlement mentality in kids, that they deserve to have good grades just by being there or putting in a less-than-average essay, even if schools and teachers cave in and give them all straight A's, these kids are going to have more problems when (and if) they get to college, or when they start working in the adult world.

On the housing needs in Hong Kong, et al...

2011-07-26T10:45:00.007-04:00

I was reading this CNN article about the so-called coffin homes in Hong Kong. This came in close succession with the Wall Street Journal on the same topic just couple of days prior.

I grew up in Hong Kong, and I have my opinion on the issue. To be sure, the wealth gap in Hong Kong has always been big which accounts for one of the priciest in terms of real estate in the world for a very long time. If you think the coffin home phenomenon is new, you're quite wrong.

The lower strata of the society in Hong Kong has always tried to scrap by. In the post-WWII era, there had been lots of squatters who built their sheds on hillside. These squatters suffered various safety concerns, not the least fire hazard (since illegal utility cables were put in to steal electricity from main powerlines), but also the elements (including typhoons and landslides). Over the years, the then colonial British Hong Kong government had tried various means to dismantle these squatters, but they always sprang back to life. Afterall, these people had nowhere to turn to. During the push to build affordable public housing for lower income families, most (if not all) of these squatters were immediately relocated to public housing estates. Even to this day, getting in public housing in Hong Kong is like winning a lottery ticket, because unlike those in US, the public housing projects are very well run in Hong Kong and is very affordable to lower income families. The decent public housing, plus public education, has allowed them pathway to move up the food chain in economic ladders. Indeed, I view this as one of the achievements of the colonial British government in Hong Kong.

One would ask, why the sudden focus on the topic again, decades later now?

There is truth in the statement, that the wealth gap in Hong Kong has become wider. One could say too, that the challenge to the current Hong Kong government (the SAR - Special Administrative Region - that is now part of the greater mainland China) is bigger. The SAR Hong Kong government has tried to maintain the status quo, following the same playbook as the previous colonial British government for Hong Kong. It doesn't quite work out that well though.

There are now influx of immigrants from mainland China to Hong Kong that it's unable to say no to. For its small plot of land, Hong Kong has grown from some 5.5 million in population around 1997 (when its sovereignty was handed over to China by Britain) to more than 7 million now. The huge influx of wealth from mainland China has also created opportunities, but headaches as well, to this old British colony. As the mainland Chinese can pay, property developers would obviously want to cater for them, racing to build more bigger luxury units in Hong Kong. The overall wealth effect that jacks up property prices of almost all real estates further pushes the low income families to the fringe.

You normally would not hear much of the Hong Kong native locals complain too much about it, because they know this has always been the case. The new immigrants from China, some of those who are used to getting help from the government, are not so sanguine about it. They expect to find gold in Hong Kong, and surely they would be sorely disappointed.

I have first-hand observations of this, because when I was small, my mom used to own a building which is subdivided into a number of 1-bedrooms to individual tenants. Obviously these 1-bedrooms were considerably bigger and better than these coffin homes. Afterall, they are 70-100 square feet per, and usually singles or childless couples rented them. Rents were low, but it's a roof over their heads, and it allows them a way station to save up for something better. I remember there were times when I would go with my mom to the building and collect rents at month end. The tenants were decent, honest, working-class folks, and my mom dealt with them with respect. Although my mom had since sold that building, I still have fond memories going there from time to time.

These days, I have no doubts that new immigrants from China would regard those 1-bedrooms with distaste. They would say, they are not treated humanely. They would say, Hong Kong government does not do a good job helping them. They would say, it's not fair for them to have to work so hard, and still live in a tinny-tiny home, when someone else has a mansion. If they think waiting three years for a public housing unit is long, they should ask the locals to see how some had waited for 10+ years for one. Nothing is a given in Hong Kong.

I know I would sound like a Tea Party or even GOP fundamentalist for saying this, but you know what, the government in Hong Kong (before '97) had never given more handouts to its citizens than it is now. In fact, the way that current Hong Kong SAR government bends over to win public approval is sometimes quite laughable, its giving away of HK$6000 for free is a case in point. The colonial Hong Kong government would take decisive actions and push forward with the effort; the current SAR government would take whatever actions that either Beijing, or main media, or poll numbers, would want them to take. It's pathetic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really in the Tea Party or GOP camp on principle. Quite far from it, I do believe that the government does have moral responsibility to provide certain safety net to the poorest in society. Providing decent public housing to some of the poorest is desperately needed. For others who simply think, "we want to pay less for housing, and the government should for that," I'd say, m'am, I'd like that too, but that's not what a government is for. Along the same line, I don't agree with the Obama's push to delay or stop foreclosure, in order to keep people in their homes (???). I'd say, dude, if you can't afford it, it's not your home, to start with, and the government has no business keeping you there, just so that you can live there, rent free.

On the Gates philanthropy on education, public school system, et al...

2011-07-23T10:46:00.008-04:00

A small disclaimer is in order. I have not been a big fan of Bill Gates, nor most Microsoft software(not the first version of anything anyways). (I'm more in the Steve Jobs' and Apple camp, in terms of innovation.) But one thing that Microsoft has exhibited, that inherits from its founder, is its perseverance and tenacity in pursing something, and the trial-and-error in mastering the execution.

My opinion has since turned around quite some on Gates after his retirement from the commercial world, turning his focus on philanthropy. Although Gates Foundation is still very much a work in progress, I've been impressed by the passion and effort that go with it, even if the impact of success is still oft elusive.

Another plus is Gates' candidness on his foundation's impact to improving the schooling system.

I'm not an educator. I'm a parent with young kids, hence my vested interest in the subject matter. I'm schooled at various stages in four continents, including Asia, Europe, Australia and US; as such, I have my own opinion as a student myself in this domain. Granted that I never pay as much attention to the area of education until I have kids of my own, all the nitty-gritty little details over the years have come back to me.

To compare those various systems that I was exposed to, with what's in US now, I can't help but feeling exasperated by how dysfunctional the US system is.

Before I even get to that, I must say, I never have any preconceived notion on labor unions. I understand how they work; I understand their need of existence, particularly in the turn of the last century when the little people need to band together in order to stem exploitation and to improve their collective bargaining ability. That's especially true for traditionally grueling work like coal mining. I get that.

But what strikes me as particularly dysfunctional in the whole debate of standardized testing students, or measuring/evaluating teacher performance, or the No Child Left Behind Act, is how backward the teacher's union (and other labor unions who chime in to this subject) has handled the whole debate.

I must admit, I can get pretty worked up - angry, even - when I hear all those statements from teacher's union countering the need to measure students performance, that teachers' profession is really different, that you can't simply measure students performance or dream about linking teacher's performance with what students have learnt. Whenever I hear anyone say to me "oh, this is different," like the way analysts tried to justify the ridiculous IPO price for outfits like Webvan that turned out to be big flame-out. The underlying argument for not wanting to measure their performance - Webvan or teachers - is really the same. Although past performance is never a sure thing to measure future success, history does provide a good guidance of what works and what doesn't, and a decent indication to weed out alot of bottom feeders.

To me, all those debates and discussions really come down to this: What is the function of a teacher? Teachers are there to do a job, and that job is to educate the young minds of students. Teachers are not there just to babysit kids and let kids stay in school for 6-8 hours a day doing nothing. That inexplicable link between students performance and teachers performance cannot be explained away, saying it does not matter. Yes, it does matter, hugely.

Granted that there are many exterior and intrinsic factors that impact on students performance too in which teachers cannot control. Parents involvement and expectations on students matter 95% of the time. One cannot expect a student to learn all that s/he can within the 6-8 hours while in school, then stop the learning outside of school. It's indeed unrealistic. That, however, does not remove the need to evaluate teachers' performance. Do we stop measuring the teacher's performance simply because students' family is not helping? The answer is obviously no.

As it is, for all that I hear, that's exactly what teachers' unions are advocating. Their argument is that, since there are other factors that go in to a student's performance, you cannot blame the teacher for not doing his/her job when the student performs poorly in tests. So, the students should not be tested (so that no one would know that the student hasn't learnt anything at all); instead, students should either be moved swiftly up or out of the schooling system. Out of sight; out of mind, and it becomes someone else's problem. And if the students' performance is not measured, neither should the teachers. In short, teachers and school administrations can do whatever they want. All they need (and care about), is their mandatory pay raises, benefits, sick and vacation days.

I have been lucky enough not having to subject myself to failing school systems like those dropout factories mentioned by Gates or the documentary Waiting For Superman. I've had more than enough second hand accounts of such failing schools to get the picture. Whenever I think of such ailment, it's maddening and sickening to me at the same time.

How could teachers' union protect its weakest members who oftentimes have no right to be a teacher at all? How dare the unions risk students' and kids' future by protecting and preserving its self-interests, all in the name of helping the kids. It has nothing to do with the kids, and everything to do with the adults (bad teachers). The position of the unions is that, they don't want to measure teachers' performance because they don't want to distinguish bad teachers from good ones. They don't want the good ones to be rewarded, because it would mean the bad ones would invariably have to be dropped, and then the union membership (and coffer) will drop.

Gates has it absolutely right. No one in their right mind can support the argument that, multiplication in Massachusetts is different from multiplication in Alabahama or New York and others. But that's exactly what's happening now. As public schools fail to educate kids on basic skills like math and reading/writing, they would rather dumb down the standards instead, hence all the push-back of standardized tests for kids (mandate of No Child Left Behind), teachers' evaluation, or even resorting to cheating to juice up the test scores.

Thing is, there are many good teachers, or at least reasonably decent ones. And the advocacy of Gates for standard core curriculum makes alot of sense to me. One way or the other, students and teachers need to be tested on what they have learnt and how well they have taught. I would not accept any argument lesser than that.

What about those students whose family can be so uncooperative that teachers can't do anything about it? Truth be told, there will always cases like that. In some areas like inner city, a large majority of student body falls in that category. How do you help the teachers to help the kids? Teachers can't deal with that alone. School admin and state have to step in.

To be sure, for all those comparison of student test scores between US and Asia and other countries, it probably has ingrained this impression to most Americans or westerners that there's nothing ailing public schools in Asia. That's far from truth. Take the case of Hong Kong, for example. Public schools are categorized into Band 1 (best) to Band 5 (our inner city equivalence of the terribles and our dropout factories in US). It's a nightmare to teach in Band 5 schools. There are even studies about it. Most teachers in Band 5 don't and can't do much teaching. It's discouraging, it's frustrating, sometimes it's even life-threatening (eg. knifes in schools). But mostly, all we hear is the exemplary straight-A students from Asia who are out to take our jobs and the future of our kids. That only shows half of the picture.

It's laudable to have someone as high profile as Gates to push the subject of and the need to improve our public schools, looking at it from all angles (basic research, the financing, alternative schooling avenues like charter schools and parochial schools, the core and variations in curriculum etc). The kind of public debate from politicians, with such near-sighted focus on school vouchers (thereby pretty much giving up hope of ever repairing public schools). Then again, no one wants their kids to be the guinea pigs for any experimental projects, as the Waiting For Superman documentary has rightly pointed out.

I can only hope, that Gates and others who have ambition to do good in this area do not get so discouraged that they would give up on it in the end. The idea of just throwing money (and more money) to the current system, without any change and real reform, is not going to work. It's going to only line the pockets of bad teachers, and kids in bad schools are going to be the ones holding the bags. We can't be complacent to just let it happen. As a society, we simply can't afford to have future generations all falling through cracks like that.

On migraines, and other thoughts...

2011-07-22T08:43:00.004-04:00

I was reading the New York Times on Michelle Bachmann's migraine. I have little care about Tea Party (of whom Bachmann is a clear favorite), and I don't want to talk politics today. The report does bring back some old memory on migraine.

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

My sister used to have a church friend (Wendy) who was also a family friend. I use past tense because she has passed away some years back. She had had migraine since she's quite young. She had always been told, it's normal since alot of women have it and suffer from it. We all thought it's normal.

A few decades back, my dad suffered from back pain. Occupational hazard, for his line of work. Some acquaintance recommended a doctor in a coastal city in China for treatment. He dutifully bought his own medicine, syringe and all the supplies, and went with my mom to that hospital where this doctor practiced. See, this was before Deng Xiaoping opened the door of China to the outside world, and this hospital was really a rather backward-looking building with no clean supplies. They practice mostly Chinese medicine treatment, and there was very little equipment for diagnosis, like those you would find in modern hospitals in the western world.

Part of the reason why my dad went to China for treatment was that, he had pretty much exhausted all options in modern medicine. He tried therapy; he tried medication, most of which had only provided temporary short-term alleviation, if at all. Eventually, the doctors told my dad that the only option left was to have a major surgery to correct a couple of disks in his lower back, which is a major and costly operation with no guarantee of success, and no guarantee that the issue would recur. The China trip was more like a last resort.

Quite miraculously, the non-invasive treatment (with no diagnosis done on dad whatsoever) worked for dad. The treatment consisted of mostly herbal medicine, and this procedure that uses a primitive suction cup type of glass device on the lower back multiple times a day. Within a few months, the lower back pain went away. It hasn't recurred since then, which has now been more than three decades now. Because of that, my dad has almost come to worship this doctor as some kind of god-like figure. He has since turned himself into a walking proof of the medical marvel that this doctor was capable of, and would recommend the doctor to anyone with any kind of ailment. You see, in Chinese medicine, there is no such thing as specialty - a chinese doctor would treat any ailment. My mom has come to resent the simplistic, single-focus view my dad has, of what this doctor was capable of doing. I would admit, I have my doubts too.

Fast forward a couple of decades. One time, when Wendy was visiting us, she casually mentioned about her migraine that had bothered her since childhood. My dad, being a rather simple innocent man that he is, leaped at the chance to recommend this doctor to Wendy. His enthusiasm was so infectious that she had decided to give it a try. One month into her new marriage, she flew to Hong Kong, bought her medical supplies, and flew to China to see this doctor. (Although China has since improved alot, clean medical supplies can still come up short.) She stayed for a few weeks of non-invasive treatment, got the rest of the herbal medicine supplies, and went back to Hong Kong for recuperation. The treatment, quite remarkably (and almost unremarkably at the same time), was exactly the same as the one that my dad had received a decade earlier, only that his ailment was back pain, and hers was serious migraine. No matter, it's all the same thing to Chinese doctors.

Less than two months into the regiment, Wendy was dead. She died in Hong Kong, in the arms of her husband of less than six months.

It turned out, the autopsy showed that her migraine that had bothered her since childhood had been a result of a benign brain tumor. It had been brewing all these years, but she never got it checked out. Afterall, everyone told her that most women had it, and it was not at all uncommon. She never took it seriously. As in the case of Bachmann and all the subsequent discussions on her "migraine problem," everyone just presumes that it's ok to just take preventive medication to stop the pain.

But of course, the pain is the one power mechanism in which our body tells us, there's something wrong inside our body, and we need to check it out. Wendy never did, apparently. The brain tumor grew, but the migraine had become so familiar to her that she just took it as a matter of course.

There has been saying, that tumor and cancerous cells need protein to feed on. Wendy ate and lived rather healthily, so the brain tumor just grew ever so slowly over time. Unfortunately for her, the herbal medicine from the chinese doctor was so nourishing to her body that it helped feed the brain tumor too. So nourishing, in fact, that the brain tumor was able to grow in a few short months to sufficient size to eventually kill her.

While the causal relationship of her untimely death, and the migraine treatment from the chinese doctor, was not fully established, it was pretty understood that the link between the two was just too strong to ignore. Although Wendy's family was sad, they did not feel bitter or grow hostile to my dad for his almost innocent suggestion on the god-like power of this chinese doctor. They understood it, that he meant to do good, with his well-meaning intentions. Regardless, my dad has felt the guilt to the extent that he never mentions or recommends his chinese doctor to anyone anymore from then on.

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

Bachmann's episode and the attitude of the discussions toward her handling of her own migraine problem remind strongly of what happened to Wendy, before and since.

Is migraine really something that we (women, in particular) have to endure? Should we have pushed more for diagnosis, rather than just taking medication to suppress the symptom of pain? I believe, it's a yes and yes, to both questions.

I hope there won't be more repeats of another Wendy, of treatment without diagnosis, be the treatment simply pain-killer or some other form of treatment (invasive or otherwise).

On raising kids in a globalized world...

2011-07-18T20:44:00.012-04:00

These days, it's almost fashionable for American parents to feel fear for their kids. Fear for not pushing their kids hard enough. Fear for not having enough extracurricular activities (sports, music). Fear for the kids not having enrolled on sufficient advanced placement classes to jostle their way into one of the Ivy Leagues. Fear for the kids losing out and not being able to compete in the globalized world.

And why not.

Many parents themselves have struggled with the same fear for themselves, not the least due to their own job being outsourced and offshored to another lower-cost country like India and Eastern Europe (for high tech jobs), and China (for manufacturing, of course). The parents themselves have been unable to stem this tide of job loss, and hope their kids would not suffer the same fate (not to mention, excel in this global rat race).

Americans used to have big ego, and rightfully so. The whole world seems to gravitate around them. US is the single largest economy (and consumers) in the world. It has high paying jobs. It has the deepest and most liquid financial markets. USD is global currency. Everyone has to learn English in order to keep up with it. Americans are kings and princelings.

How time has changed. The Great Recession that was brought on by the subprime mortgage mess starting in 2008 has brought the greatest economy to its knee, and no one has any freaking clue how to fix it. Washington (White House and Congress alike) is paralyzed on how best to handle it. Meanwhile, the debt ceiling is nigh, and all we hear is the bickering on whether and how to increase the debt ceiling so that US government (and Americans) can continue borrowing. No matter that credit agency threatens the same treatment to US treasury (ie. downgrade) as the Greek sovereign debts have suffered. All these must have brought on an incredible amount of self-doubt and soul-searching among alot of Americans, even though politicians are unable or unwilling to do so.

Add to that is the rise of Dragon in the East - that great big middle kingdom that only a few centuries ago, had the same belief that it too was the center of the universe (hence, the name middle kingdom). Indeed, the more than meteoric rise to economic power in just a few short decades since Deng Xiaoping opened its door to the outside world, is nothing to snort about. No matter that China can and has borrowed hugely from the lessons learnt by the western world in the hard way, and can take/borrow/coerce the technological know-how from the West to perfect its industries (including manufacturing and financial).

And then there is the so-called Tiger Mom book that claims to have found the exact recipe to rearing the perfect student ripe for Ivy League. It matters little, that it's the mother who was doing all the choosing ("kid, you are doing violin") and pushing (how about 4 hours violin practice every night) and thinking (you're going to apply to Harvard). No doubt it'll churn out technocrats. Afterall, just looking at the huge number of university graduates with technical degrees in China and India is enough to give any American parents shudder, if not an outright cold.

Equally ironic is the almost action-and-reaction kind of New Yorker column of JT Tran on the bamboo ceiling. The hard question to ask, and the cold reality to face, is, what happens to the straight-A, Ivy League kiddo graduates from parental wings, to reeeeally compete in this globalized world. While some people don't want to admit it, or acknowledge that he has hit on an equally raw nerve of Asian Americans, even second and subsequent generations, that there's this unseen, untalked of, bamboo ceiling that they have to break through. No violin lesson, or Ivy League diploma, is going to give cover to sonny for too long. Afterall, there's only one Yo Yo Ma. (No, Lang Lang is more a loud performer than a true pianist.) Can the kids really think for themselves? Can the Amy Chua kids do that?

These days too, it's fashionable to get johnnys or marys Mandarin-speaking nanny. Full immersion. Kids have to learn Mandarin to succeed in this global world! Much as learning Japanese was fashionable, 30 years before. And why not, Japan was on its way to overtake America in every conceivable ways. If you don't learn Japanese, you can't compete. It's not cheap doing all these full immersion thing of course, but parents have to make do.

For those who have even more resources, you have to relocate your butts to the East. Full immersion to the language is not enough. Full immersion to the culture is the key, as we're told.

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

I always look at all these with mild amusement. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for quite a number of the propositions. Learning a second language is always a good thing. Knowing different cultures is even better. I, too, have two young kids who would one day join this global rat race. I would be lying if I say I don't give a damn. I certainly do; but with my own flavor.

I grew up in a highly homogeneous society in Asia. We learn English early on, but learning a language without understanding the culture is like perfecting the skills of reciting A-Z, without knowing how to use that to make meaningful words with the letters. My parents are not highly educated. While they have high expectations for us the kids to do well in school, they never push us to do any extracurricular activities. I master my English because I find the language interesting, and it's a medium that I went on to master other more interesting stuffs (watching sitcoms - ha!). But it wasn't until I started schooling in a western country (on my own initiative) that I was forced to learn more of the actual culture, not just the manufactured ones from Hollywood or MTV. I went on to work in four different continents in high tech jobs for the past 20 years. I won't say I'm successful in mastering this globalized world, but I'd say, I'm fairly comfortable going from one country (and culture) to another with ease.

My parents never push me to do any of these. I follow my interests, and life takes interesting turn. The closest description to that, is the connecting the dots comments by Steve Job's immensely insightful and inspiring commencement speech at Stanford. As he so precisely nailed it, you can't connect the dots looking forward (as the Amy Chua types would want to have you believe that she can). It's when you look back that you can connect the dots. I know exactly what Jobs meant by that, because looking back, it's as if by God's providence, that I would do this and that in my life. In fact, I too had taken a couple of years of sojourn working different jobs before going back to college to study computer science. While it might feel as if I've lost (and wasted) those couple of years in career building, I feel that those early years of work have allowed me to see things differently, an almost different perspective on the highly organized things of 0's and 1's binary facts in computer science. I was much more grounded. And I was able to build my later life and work, leveraging on those early years too.

The difficulty (and a life challenge, no less) of child rearing is that, you can't tell the kids what to love and not love. I find it almost sad, that parents would pave an exacting path for their kids to follow. In the Asian world of childrearing, particularly in this competitive globalized world, Asian parents (I should say, parents in Asia) do not allow any margin of errors. I understand the tug and pull, and the inherent contradictions of that, because looking at my extended families in Asia now, with nephews around the same age as my young kids, I can see how much more pressure that they're under. Homework and practice for 4-6 hours every night (excluding dinner time) are not uncommon. That's what it takes to have a robo-serial standardized test buster. Kids are taught not to think, not even feel, but just do. That's what it takes to solve as many equations within a 5 minutes cramp. It drills into you.

When I look back at articles like this one, that talks about immersing kids in the culture. I sometimes secretly wonder, what kind of identity would the kid has of him/herself. It goes back to my own experience, and the self-doubt and searching of one's own identity in shifting cultures. I can tell you that, if I have not had those few years of sojourn, I would not have been as sure of myself, of who I am. Sometimes blending in - the more clinical term for it, is assimilation into a society and culture - is good; it's even necessary. But if you're not sure of yourself; if you don't even know who you are or what you're made of, you'll become another drifter.

From time to time, I wish I could teach the kids the kind of experience that I've immersed in, to learn different cultures, to experience life, while at the same time, pursuing a fruitful career. But I don't want to choose for them. I've made a conscientious decision, that I would allow them exposure to as many activities as they fancy, and let them choose. After that, it's their life they have to decide; it's their life they need to lead.

It's sad that, so many have been taken in by the Amy Chua style parenting, as if it's gospel. It's equally sad for others to rebuff her in a knee-jerk reaction, saying they'll let their kids do whatever they want. Therein lies the issue. As parents, we're not supposed to just let kids do whatever. But neither should we restrict them so much that there's no room for them to choose, let alone think for themselves.

It's a fine balance that each parent has to find, in order to get to that nirvana of controlled chaos. I'm still learning that with my kids, and each day is a bright new day (as my son puts it).

On name change and marriage...

2011-07-17T10:45:00.006-04:00

I respect customs and traditions of other cultures, much as I expect others to respect mine. But that doesn't lessen the absurdity that I sometimes secretly feel about some of the practices. Name change of the bride after marriage to match that of her husband is one of those.

In Asia, no one expects the woman to change her name upon marriage. Like the Chinese, people would call you Mrs so-and-so (the husband's last name), or add the Husband last name to the full name of the wife. But it's all that's for - during greetings and social interactions. Nothing is necessary on papers.

My first encounter on how strongly the West feels about this issue was some years back, when a friend of mine was getting married. She's marrying to an very open-minded guy. She wanted to keep her last name; he had no problem with that at all. But of course, there's always problem. And the problem was the in-laws (to be). Both in-laws felt so strongly that their future daughter-in-law was to carry their family name, that they refused to attend their wedding. In fact, the in-laws even threatened to disown the son for marrying a woman who wouldn't change her last name to bear the husband's last name. The in-laws and the son had stopped all communications.

Both being grad students at an Ivy League at the time, the couple didn't agree with the in-laws. The guy sided with the wife. They decided to live their own life. The way the husband saw it was that, he felt no animosity against his own parents, but he didn't agree with their position. He said, they (his parents) would just have to deal with it, because this is his wife, not theirs. If they wanted to make up, they know how to find him (he's studying/working on campus anyways). If not, so be it.

Such as the way it should be.

So, this morning, when I read this column on Wall Street Journal about the big fuss of name change again, that incident of my friend came rushing back to me. Almost two decades later, it still baffles me.

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

Perhaps I was lucky not to have to confront with such issues. I do have some appreciation on how much a hassle a name change involves.

I've always kept the same name that my parents gave me. I always thought, this is the name my parents gave me, and this is who I am. Socially, people know me by my English name, but on papers, I've always kept my ethnic name. That does come with its own difficulty. My ethnic name is rather hard to pronounce, and others always mistake my name as a guy's name. I always find it amusing, when I see mass-marketers mix-and-match my name and my husband's name this way and that, butchering us to make up one identities. Sometimes, he would have my last name; sometimes, I would have his last name; sometimes, my middle name (from my ethnic name) would become my first or last name; same goes with my husband. I don't care about junk mails, but when it's things like tax records, or bank details, and some such, it's not so funny.

Finally, couple of years ago, I decided to bite the bullet. Rather than having someone butchered my name for me, I would add some clarity to it. After using my English informally (or sometimes doing double-quote my English name, to denote it as my nickname) for more than two decades now, I've decided that this name should become part of my permanent fixture. I've decided to take it up as English name, then putting my regular ethnic name as my middle name, and my last name would stay the same. My parents have no issue with it at all. My husband is all for it.

One morning, I went to the City Hall to enquire about it, and was referred to the court house (where all the personal and public records were kept). When I announced my intention to change name (which I thought should be fairly straightforward) to the clerk, she asked me if I filled out the form yet. I said no; and was given a fairly simple form to fill...except that it requires the signature of my husband!!! I asked the clerk, why do I need my husband's signature (ie. approval) for a name change. I was told, that's the law - when a married woman wants a name change, it has to have the husband's signature (as if he's her legal guardian or something). I asked her, would the husband need the wife's signature if he changes his name? The answer was no.

I must tell you, I'm more than mildly annoyed about this. I'm an adult with good standing on my own right. Why do I need to get someone else's signature to signify my actions, one way or the other, simply because I'm married to a man? I took the form and went home. I was still seething about the injustice of it, on how men and women are treated.

While my husband understands and sympathizes it all, his philosophy is, let's get it over and done with, then we won't have to worry about it, even though it won't solve any of the underlying injustice, which is a fight for another day.

I finally relented, signed the damn form, with the grudging approval seal of husband's signature on it. The rest went through relatively painlessly. I submitted the signed form, paid the small fee, and got the name change certificate rightaway. To be sure, there're hassles to be had (ie. change all the names on ALL the documents and papers). All in all, it probably took me close to a year, before I finally change my name on everything, including some obscure docs that I rarely remember.

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

Looking back, I won't force the requirement of name change on anyone at all. To the customs and traditions of bride taking up the groom's last name, I'd say, it's long overdue to update such outdated customs. There is no need to "brand" the wife in such offensive way as to claim her as his. If the wife wants to be branded, fine; if not, it should be her personal choice. No one should ever be forced upon to make such decision as to change one's own identity. Period.

On cutting my own hair...

2011-07-15T18:22:00.013-04:00

I used to have long hair way back when, but I've long given up on it after my first child was born. I don't have time to deal with it. Plus I don't need guys to look at or compliment my long straight jet black hair. I wish I have come to realize the big market (and needs) for selling or donating hair since my hair used to garner so much compliment that I wish I have found better use of the hair after they were cut. It's too late now. Still, I love my short hair. It's one of the best things I've discovered. I don't even need to comb my hair. I don't have to worry about strong wind blowing this way and that, and I forget to bring my scrunchie to tie up my hair. Yes, the compliments were nice, but I've come to appreciate efficiency and convenience much more. Plus, I don't need guys looking at me anymore. Leave that to the younger women. :)

Don't get me wrong, my long hair never gave me much hassle. I never need to use hairdryer, and I never really need to comb or brush it. Afterall, the weight of the hair itself and the natural straightness would ensure it that once the hair is dried, they just came straight down my back. I only comb my hair when I like to play with my hair. I must admit it too, that there are so many more ways to play with one's hair - tie it up this way and that, french braid, ponytail, pigtail, bun, all up or separate sideway, add to those the variety of scrunchies and clips and headbands, the possibilities are endless. Ah, how I miss those, but I don't have time for them anymore.

I don't know about you, but I've always had a haircut problem. I need a haircut every three months or so. With the short hair now, three months are about the most I can stretch it out to. I can't even begin to count how many hair salons I've tried, but rarely do they cut it to my liking. What most hair stylists fail to see it from my perspective is that, I want my hair to be really short. These days, with the pixie cut back in vogue, it at least makes it easier to explain the kind of layering I want it. Still, pixie cut is still too long for me in the back and on the side. Most stylists can't possibly give me a boy cut, but that's much closer to what I want than they are willing to deliver. While I understand their concerns (since there's no turning back, should they cut my hair too short, and I could get very upset with them), it doesn't lessen the frustration.

And so, it was almost a godsend to discover this hair salon near chinatown, where two male salonists provide haircuts to men and women alike. I have come to like my back to be cut using razors. Having said that, the haircuts were never exactly perfect. In particular, the spots above the ears were always insufficiently thinned, so that I always have to do some trimming afterwards. Still, this hair salon was the closest I could find that gave a haircut I want, so I stick with them.

The other problem with this hair salon was that, I don't live anywhere near chinatown, so every three months, I had to make special trips to chinatown to get my haircuts over the weekends. Funny thing is, weekends were always either very busy, or very quiet. When it's busy, the waiting time was long. When it's quiet, all there were left in the shop were the assistants who did only hair wash and sweeping floor. I'd had my fair share of angst, when I got to the hair salon, and was quickly shoved through the hair wash, waiting for hours for the salonists to show up. Their rationale must be that, once customers got their hair all wet, they became captive audience and would have to wait, no matter what.

Parking is such a pain in chinatown. I drag the prospect every time when it's close to the haircut time because it could mean I would get not only a haircut, but a parking ticket as well.

So then, earlier this year, the awakening was finally here. I took the train to the city (since I didn't want to drive and have to find parking), walked to chinatown, just to discover the shock that the hair salon had closed down. It must have been around for more than ten years now. I thought their business was ok; I guess it's not good enough.

I dragged my feet back home with such heavy heart. You can't imagine the drag I was going through, and the prospect that I have to go through the same looking-and-searching and trial-and-error, in order to find any hair salon. I was quite fed up with it.

I did some thinking when I got home. I have become quite determined that I don't want to be held hostage by that again, that I can get a perfect haircut, whenever I want it. I think back to how the guys cut my hair, and ask myself, is there anything I can (or cannot do). I go to google and youtube to check how people do it. Some of the very professional looking salonists disgust me because their hands and scissors move about so furiously fast that I know I could never do on my own head. But then, the now defunct hair salonists in chinatown were never that fast, and they did my short haircut ok; hence, I've come to rest on the comfort that if the chinatown guys could do it, I should be able to do too. I know I won't be able to use razors, so I look online for alternatives.

One thing I distinctly remember was how the chinatown guys thin and layer my hair using a pair of shear scissors, yet so little hair came off in each cut. I have a pair of shear scissors at home too, but each cut always see large chunks of hair coming off with it. I realize it must be a different kind of shear scissors than mine. And then, I found the online forum with people having the same issue. The cause? The salonists were using double-shear whereas I was using single-shear scissors. Double-shear scissors cut far less hair in each cut, allowing much easier and more time for trimming, thinning, and layering. I went to ebay and bought a pair of double-shear scisorrs, and was waiting for it with trepidation.

When the pair of double-shear scissors finally arrives, I handle it with such apprehension. My 1-2 weeks of wait time were cutting close, and I was pass the three months' mark and needed a haircut badly. So, one night, after dinner, I locked myself in the bathroom. With a mirror in front of me, armed with a few pairs of scissors (single-shear, double-shear, straight blade), a comb, another hand-held mirror for checking the back of my hair, with even duster and dustpan for cleanup, I was quite determined that, one way or the other, hair will come off. I had to strip (as my arms needed to raise during the cutting) first, then sat straight on a low-back chair, and stared at myself in the mirror.

And cut, I did. With the double-shear in my right hand, my left hand started feeling the back tentatively. I could easily find the lower back of my hair where it needed thinning and layering very badly. That's where I would start. After a few cuts, I became much more confident, since the double-shear scissors indeed cut much less hair than the single-shears. The layering felt right to my left hand after the few cuts. It bears out with verifying by two mirrors, one in front and one from the back. I realized then, that I have a winner.

In the end, I got the perfect haircut that I've always been wanting. I can't believe my own eyes. :) Granted that the chinatown guys could finish the job in less than 10 minutes, and it took me over an hour. It's quite tiring. But I can't tell you how much satisfaction I've got when it's all done. I finally, finally find my perfect short haircut, that I can have it whenever I want it. For all that, it's free!!! You can't beat that.

Secretly, I know my family has the brave side in us all. Back then my younger sister had the same courage to cut her own hair too. (She also had a short haircut in high school.) When I told her about my endeavor, she told me, her motivation was exactly the same as mine. She was kind of forced into it, since she couldn't find anyone or anywhere who could give her a haircut that she wanted.

So, now, I'm free. I won't be held hostage to a less than perfect service. I won't need to make trips to the hair salon every three months for my pilgrimage. And it costs me nothing. Now, I can give myself small trims every now and then. I won't have to wait until the hair gets in my eyes or neck, which gets me so worked up that I would endure another trip to chinatown because the hair annoyance outweighs convenience. I won't have to make such decisions anymore. I was so proud of myself, for the rather professional looking haircut.

It's so awesome.

On the recent price hike of Netflix...

2011-07-13T18:25:00.007-04:00

I've been with Netflix for some seven years now. It's been a fun ride. I got tired of having to physically go to DVD stores for rental and returns; the late fees were even more tiresome. I guess they have to make their money somewhere.

Netflix has been reasonable. The delivery and processing are fast. If I time it right, I usually get new DVD in the mail every other day. Not bad, aye. Netflix has always been laser-focused on what their core competency is. I like it that they don't get distracted by all the social networking hype. Heck, they even got rid of their community feature which got alot of subscribers mad. But I don't mind it at all. Afterall, I keep my movie queues, and I find the movies and TV shows and documentaries I like. I have little care about anyone else. The recommendation engine by Netflix is decent. So, I can't complain. In fact, Netflix has been quite fair-minded. There were a few occasions in which the Netflix website was down, and I got refund even without prompting. I can tell you, that's a rarity in the corporate world. Try telling that to the big telco; my calls get dropped from time to time, and my complaints won't even get answered satisfactorily by their support, and you can very much forget about refund.

Not sure if you know the background of the recent spat of Netflix users. A little while back (it might have been a year or so ago), Netflix wants to jostle its way into online streaming. It aggressively expands its online streaming catalog, steadily improves the streaming quality. Any subscribers can get the online streaming for free. Netflix has become such a force to behold, that movie studios and cable companies must be trembling with fear.

So then, yesterday I got email notifications from Netflix, saying that they have decided to split the DVD rental service with online streaming. In short, no more free lunch. In the parlour of Google, no more beta version of the real thing. With it, comes price change. I've been on the cheapest plan, $9.99 a month for unlimited DVD, one DVD at a time. With the split, my DVD only plan would actually see price reduced to $7.99 a month. But for those people who want online streaming too - those who would scream "I WANT TO SEE IT NOW!" no doubt - they'll have to fork out another $7.99 a month for the streaming-only subscription.

To be sure, I've become a bit spoilt and pampered by Netflix with its free lunch. Granted that its DVD catalog and streaming catalog are quite different. As much as Netflix has tried to paint that picture, you can most likely find only old movies and TV shows on its streaming catalog. No doubt the movie studios will see to it, that Netflix doesn't get the streaming rights of the latest and greatest movies just hot off the theatre. For me, I like classics, old movies, and documentaries. So, the online streaming free lunch allows me to watch it on my laptop whenever I get bored from work. I'm a patient person; I can still wait for the DVD for latest movies in the mail. I have no problem with that.

Apparently, once something is given out for free, people take it for granted, like it's their birthright. Such is the case with the ferocious attacks to Netflix about its price change, or pseudo price hike of some 60%, as they see it, since they would have to pay double (for 2 plans, one for DVD, one for streaming) instead of just one plan.

I find it all rather amusing. For all the threats of defecting and cancelation of their Netflix subscription, I wonder how many of those would actually carry it through. Afterall, if they have been on the cheapest plan (like I do, paying $9.99 a month), the price change would mean ($7.99 x 2) - $9.99, which comes down to an extra $5.99 a month. If they truly love the streaming service, is $5.99 really that big a deal? Most people pay more than that to buy chips or snacks or even coffee. This is perhaps the biggest cheapskate in my most recent memory.

Price change or not, I'm actually rather secretly glad about this split of subscription plans. The DVD-only plan has worked quite well for me. It's delay gratification; in between the waiting time, I can truly focus on doing some real work (since watching movies is my main entertainment). The instant gratification from its Instant Viewing feature means that I spend more time watching movies than doing real work, which is...not good for me, and I know it. Imagine, instead of doing work or reading a book, I would watch 2-4 movies or documentaries every night. It's free afterall, and I almost feel some obligation to watch in order to get my money's worth (!!!). Twisted logic, isn't it. :)

For that very private reason of mine, I'm only too glad to oblige to Netflix, by telling Netflix that I don't really need online streaming. Yeah yeah, call me old-fashioned. I don't like or believe in social networking. And I don't really want online streaming that much afterall. As such, I change my subscription, and change it back to DVD-only, starting next month. For all that, I get price reduction (from $9.99 to $7.99 a month). All the more reason. :)

Now, I'm happy to have all my time at night again, for some work done, or a few books, or even more chitchats with family. It's a good decision for me. Thanks, Netflix. :)

PS - Granted that I'm in the top 0.001% of movie reviewer ranking on Netflix, I don't think I'll miss writing reviews too much.

On merits and stigma of vocational school...

2011-07-10T10:33:00.012-04:00

It's always refreshing whenever one reads articles or reporting that makes senses. The New York Times article on vocational school today is one of those.

I never understand why everyone's dead set on insisting 4-year college degree for all kids - and I mean, all kids. Have those in authority ever considered the fact that not all kids are cut out to take the college track? Granted that basic literacy is fundamental to all kids, that does not equate to pushing all kids down the college path. By talking up the value proposition of 4-year college, it's synonymous to talking down all other possible alternatives, vocation and trade schools being one of those. It's a huge disservice to kids who could feel like a failure, taking the trade school path, instead of the traditional path high school to college to Wall Street job.

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

This whole thing reminds me of this kid (who is now a middle-aged man) of a family friend. Some background of him is in order.

The family is solidly middle class. The father was a professional driver. Being the eldest among 5 siblings, the mother had high hopes on him. High hopes, in a sense that, she wanted him to soar from their blue collar root. She actually counseled this kid to not follow the path of trade school or vocational school, even though it's very clear all these times that he's not the academic type. She wanted him to have a white collar job, be in suit and tie, go to air-conditioned office and work without breaking a sweat. That's her ideal of the eldest son, their first-born.

In a way, I don't blame the mother. She had very little education or aspiration outside of the narrowest vision of what she saw on TV - yes, she found her inspirations for the son from TV soap opera. She did the best she could at the time.

My mom used to converse every now and then with this family. Although my mom came from similar humble roots, she's much more open-minded and pragmatic. What she saw in this kid is that, he's not the reading material, and it could be a lost cause trying to push him down the white collar path. From my mom's perspective, he could be much better off going to trade school or vocational school, acquiring a life skill that would set him to a very solid path in blue collar life. To my mom, there's no stigma in being blue collar. A good job is a good job, is a good job. I remember my mom even told his mom, "look, he could even have his own car repair shop or more!"

But his mom would have none of that for her son. In fact, there's a bit of a fall-out between the two mothers, because his mom saw my mom's counsel as nothing more than "putting his son in his place (a very blue collar one, no less)," while the children in our family are all on the path of regular college education. She wanted her son to do that too, and she saw my mom's advice (advice that was unasked for) to ill-serve her son.

Fast forward another 10 years. All children in our family finished college. Myself and all siblings are in different fields, some of us even relocate to other western countries. That sets the jealousy of this mother in high gear. Now she not only wanted her son (and other younger kids too) to not only have white collar jobs, but be able to move to other western countries. To alot of Asian families, the ability to migrate to western countries like US or Canada or Australia is an ultimate goal. They view the western countries being superior in all respects, including living environment, salary level, wealth accumulation, and more. The rise of economic power in Asia, in particular, China, and the Great Recession in the US, might have tampered their expectations. But if you ask 100 families in Asia, you would very likely find that 99+ of them want to migrate to the west, or at least have their kids received a prized education in a western country.

Looking back, I must say, I feel sorry for this son. He had tried (and failed) to live up to his mother's expectation. He narrowly graduated from high school, and found a first job in a call center. When his mother broke the news to my mom on the phone, boosting that he's working in an AC office that requires him in white shirt and slack everyday, my mom couldn't help but shake her head. Still, my mom was graceful enough to congratulate her and the son. Perhaps that's truly what his mother considered as a remarkable accomplishment, rightly or not.

But, working in a call center doesn't really require that much skill. (Not as much as car repair or electrician or plumber anyways, all of such jobs cannot be outsourced or offshored.) He was subsequently downsized, tried to go back to school and learn PC repair. His mother called up my mom, telling her that he's now in the computer business. She wanted to keep up the appearances, and talked up the possibility because at the time, I was in software development in US earning six-figure salary. When my mom told me about it, I asked her how that mother knew I was earning a six-figure salary? My mom said, I told her. I admonished my mom for doing that, not least due to imaginary and real hint of boasting about the success (or simply, "making it") of one's child, thereby tacitly encouraging the comparison of different children. I hate that.

In any event, the son got his certificate in PC repair. It's unclear if he was ever able to get in computer repair. When the financial crisis hit Asia in '97, he was downsized once again. The middle-aged son now works as a security guard. Having not too much to boast about, the mother now focuses on the youngest daughter who marries a photographer and has migrated to California. When my mom told me about it, I told her I do not want her to keep talking about her kids (ie. us) and all the things we've done, because I don't want this mother to keep pushing or expecting her kids to mimic someone else's path in life.

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

At times, when I look back on the paths that this son has chosen, we can say with higher confidence that, should he have gone to a trade or vocational school and acquired a life skill, he would not likely be bouncing from one job to another. Like the 19-year-old mentioned in the New York Times article, if anyone (like the Obama administration) uses him as a statistics, he would have been deemed as a failure. The reality is quite far from it. This kid is able to acquire a skill that he likes, which allows him to see a brighter future in life. Success breeds success, and now he can even see himself following further degree in college, because he now has some skills to build on, some skills that the society needs. Would a traditional four-year college degree have given him that kind of satisfaction and motivation in life? I highly doubt that.

In a way, if the now middle-aged man of the family friend had had that kind of encouragement, he would likely have followed a much more satisfying life than what he has now. And no, he's not married yet, because he can't afford to start a family. How sad.

And for those in authority, who continuously talks down the viability of vocational or trade school, I'd say, shame on you. Reinforce basic literacy (math and reading) in elementray school, but that is not mutually exclusive from vocational school. Not everyone is cut out to be a hedge fund manager or Wall St type that earns millions sitting in office contributing very little in real life except moving money around. (Yes, I'm being critical or exaggerate a bit here, but let's face it, alot of fund managers and traders, particularly mediocre ones, do exactly that.) Give the kids the choice, and don't deem them as failure, because they are far from it.

On what college degree (or life choice) one should make...

2011-07-08T19:14:00.008-04:00

In this day and age, when economy is in doldrums, everyone feels crappy. Top that up with the uncertainty and high anxiety to whatever choice in college major, and how much a college degree costs (measured in terms of student loan that one has to carry for life), that's enough to make headline news in places like Yahoo Finance, like, The College Degrees That You Have Gotten, or The Top Paying Jobs In America.

For those who are to make the choice, or to try to get in a field that might pay off in the longer term, this must've sounded all so confusing. Everyone seems to have a different ticks on things. There are also those who proclaim that College Degree Is Useless.

Although my kids are not coming of age yet, I'm forever mindful of that. Afterall, I myself am still in this life journey. Granted that you could say I luck out. I chose a field (computer science) that I like which turns out to be in high demands for the past 15 years or so. The field was also highly transportable from one country to another, allowing me to relocate with ease. I've always wondered the what-ifs, should I have chosen law or journalism instead (which were the other two fields I was considering).

But one thing is quite clear. We have to start out with something that we like. My parents, being older generations from Asia, are forever mindful of money and the payoff. (In hindsight, that's not a sole phenomenon with Asian parents alone, if we consider the amount of attention and write-up in the news of the cost-effectiveness and comparison in America.) For them, the best paying jobs are the best jobs to be had. I remember one time, my mom told me how much so-and-so's daughter is making this-and-that much, as a therapist to disabled children. I remember, my first response to my mom was, I hope she enjoys her work and truly loves working with children and helping others. I told my mom, imagine how it's like, locked in a room, most likely windowless, 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week. Fat paycheck only comes once or twice a month, but she's doing that 40+ hours a week. She'd better enjoy it, otherwise it'd be torture, no matter how much it's paid. That response gave a 15-second pause to my mom; to that, she replied, "you're probably right." Mind you, my mother is a very strong-willed woman, and she doesn't admit error in judgment that easier. To her credit, she's also relatively open-minded, given her age.

I have no care about that Amy Chua's Tiger Mom thing. (And yes, I read her book, for good measure, in order to be sure I'm fair-minded to my critique about her so-called parenting which is ridiculous.) My guiding principle is that, kids need to have sufficient exposure to try different things. That way, they'll find their own interests, desire and passion, and then they follow it. When they settle on something, they'd better give their 120% to see it through. As a parent, I don't want to be making life choice for the kids (which they'll likely regret later on in life). I don't want them to make life choice based solely on immediate monetary rewards. Just ask Steve Jobs, as illustrated by his excellent 2005 commencement speech at Stanford.

But there are certain basic building blocks in life that, if not mastered early on in life, will become very hard (if at all) to be mastered as one gets older. Math proficiency is one. Science is another. Reading and writing skills are a must. Whether one follows through with a math/science degree is a different matter - that's a path that the kid makes for him/herself. But if kids don't master math/science when they're young, they basically shut out at least half of college majors that are available, and almost all the good-paying jobs these days (which is important for those who look at the salary charts to discover their path in life). The latter argument doesn't carry too much weight for me, as the former one, which is that, one has to keep all options open. In other words, be open-minded, and be prepared so that one can make whatever choice when one feels like it, without being hamstrung by the SAT.

Since my kids are still young, I really would have no clue what they would want to do. Apart from pushing them to discover their own interests (whatever that might be), do their best (and I expect the best out of them), master the basics (math/reading/writing/science), do at least one sport activity, and do at least one music. The rest they can choose.

Having said that, some kids might not find their calling early in life. Heck, some people never find their calling in their entire life (!). But I wouldn't want their life choice to be solely based on near-term monetary gains. That's just too shortsighted to me.

On the death of wristwatches...or not.

2011-07-08T15:03:00.003-04:00

Reading the New York Times article on resurgence of wristwatches among the younger generations today brings a not-so-surprising smile to me today. While the article focuses mainly on men, the same can be said of women to a large extent from that same generations. Afterall, even one of my sisters has ditched her wristwatch more than a decade ago, though for a rather different, if not cosmetic, reason. She doesn't want her arm to be tanned with a wristwatch shadow on it. No matter.

I've stuck by my watch all these times. With the flood of all-things-digital, alot of the gadgets have consolidated. The more utilitarian, commodity-type, functions like alarm clock and calculator were long gone, and have long been incorporated into the smartphones (and the PDA's before them), for all the good reasons. Less space, less bulky gadgets that we need to carry on the road, less battery required. And, who cares about what alarm clock or calculator others use anyways?

Ah, but, wristwatches are quite a different matter. Someone once said to me, if you want to see the taste and style of a man, you only need to look at the necktie they wear and the watch on their wrist. Of course there were other discerning factors, a well-tailored suit, for example. But you can go easily go out to a tailor shop and get a tailor-made suite. Neckties and wristwatches are a different matter. They require you to go out and choose, that in and of itself show the taste and style of the man.

Times have changed. Cool jobs for men don't often require formal wear, so there goes the necktie thing. Men's fashion has become one big sloppy affair, with men dressing more and more like women (men in skinny jeans! men going to facial treatment!). As the article has rightly noted, most younger men in their 20s and even 30s grow up with electronic gadgets. They might not care much about wristwatches since all they need (games, music, phone, clock, alarms, calculator, notebook, phonebook, browser, and more) come in one tinny-tiny gadget. The logic goes, that they would never need to look back to the bygone days for things like vinyl record players, walkman, and some such. It was due time to declare death of wristwatches.

Call me old-fashioned. I like wristwatches. I always have. While I can't think in the men's shoes, I can't say I would give up my wristwatch for my smartphone. True, strictly speaking, I don't need my watch since I won't leave home without my smartphone. But my watch is much much more than just for telling time. My watch is about the only thing that truly follows me since it's worn on my wrist (technically, so are my ring and earrings). I can't say the same about my phone. (Yes, I've lost my phone before, and it's a royal pain.) And I have always believed that my watch represents part of who I am. One other thing is, I truly enjoy the craftsmanship and beauty of a good watch. Vintage is even better.

As such, I like Patek Philippe and Rolex. I reserve the Patek for more special occasion, and Rolex and Cartier are for everyday use. My Breguet is even more special to me than Patek, and it sits mostly in my collection for my private appreciation. No cool gadget is going to beat that. They are like old friends that stay with me. You can't say the same about your iPhone or drod phone that you'll likely ditch or upgrade in less than a couple of years.

As the article has attested to it, these men in the younger generations are now coming to rediscover the coolness in wristwatches, it being a fashion in its own right. It's about time. My only question to these men is, what takes them so long to rediscover the coolness of wristwatch, dude?

On the loss of appeal of divorce...

2011-06-24T12:22:00.002-04:00

I read the other day an interesting article on NYTimes, on the loss of appeal in divorce by the recent generations.

Amid the observation, that the divorce rate among well-educated couples are going down, even though it's relatively easy to get divorce these days. There's so much psycho-analysis on what went through the women's mind, when they come to the conclusion that they want out. But a few points stand out to me.

I read this with personal interest because I've gone through some of the same internal thought process in the past myself, when my marriage hits some low points.

Here, we're talking about women with means, oftentimes women with career. In any case, alimony from a well-to-do ex-husband could have sustained these women and their kids, should they go down the path of divorce. So, let's jump to the assumption that financial concerns are not the major factor in the discussions.

Much was said about these women, and men, who want to keep the family intact, for the sake of the children, are actually very true. At least the same thing has gone through the minds of myself and my husband. We want to do the best for the kids. While much was also said, that if the divorced parents hold up the family traditions together, be civic and what not, it won't impact much to the kids, this argument/suggestion is so half-hearted and lame. It's almost like, saying out loud the half truth enough times might make it a reality. I personally feel that it's never the same when the kids see the parents separate, particularly when they're younger than teen years. So, let's face it, to say that it won't impact the kids, and the adults do whatever they see fit and convenient, is more for the adults. It's really just a justification for the actions (divorce) that the adults take, in order to make themselves feel better (that divorce has no impact to kids as long as the parents spend holidays together, for example).

Childrearing is hard. Even if money is not the issue, and we (the mothers) can get outside help on looking after the kids, it's not the same as sharing the duties and concerns and worries with our spouse/partner. The fact and value that we have a partner to share the pain and pleasure with cannot be underestimated at all. That's why I have tremendous respect for single mothers, because I can appreciate how hard it must be, to make it work.

On another side of the coin, I'm not so sure about the stigma of divorce on women, particularly in this day and age. I have no doubt that in some society and community, the stigma that they fail somehow in making the marriage work, can be high. Personally, that's probably the least of my concerns when I was contemplating the idea of divorce during the low points of my marriage. I thought the peer pressure thing would work mostly in teenage years, not women with established life and career in their 30s and 40s. If those women (and mothers) let the others, their peers in the park, babies in tow, influence them that greatly, one way or another, then they're really quite weak. I have very little patience for weak-minded people, albeit politically incorrect to utter it out loud.

And then, the article mentions this notion that women tend to feel the "freedom" (You go, girl!) when they become divorced, going back to the singles dating scene. I'm, like, really? seriously? That would probably the last thing I want, to go back to the singles dating scene. Do women really see more success in Jennifer Aniston (the gorgeous, single, childless 40-year-old who serial dates but never has a steady relationship for longer than a few year since the implosion of her Brad-Pitt thing?), or Angelina Jolie (the equally gorgeous, married, 30+ year old who have big families, alot of kids, and a loving husband whom she shares joy and sorrow with)?

I know, I know. this is such a hot topic, the Aniston-Jolie feud. Then again, Aniston should have been over with and moved on from her break-up with Pitt. Afterall, it's been, what, more than 6 years ago, for goodness sake. But as much as Aniston tried to diffuse the subject, blaming Pitt as philanderer and Jolie as a homewrecker, there's more than an ounce of truth, that kids and extended families can help gel a couple's relationship, which invariably will move through stages in life, from love and passion, to becoming life partners. Personally, however gorgeous I might still look, I'm not sure if I want to drag my 40-year-old body out there every night partying and bar-hopping to find another partner.

I don't want to disparage Aniston or anyone who goes through divorce. I honestly don't. Afterall, everyone's situation is unique, and I'd want to avoid casting the first stone. It would, however, be tremendously helpful to other women, if we, for one, are honest to ourselves, about what works and what doesn't, and the motivation that drives us one way or the other.

As to my own marriage, most of those arguments during the low point of our marriage came from difference in opinion in childrearing. Interestingly, as time goes on, and as the kids get bigger, we have come to see that we have more similarities than differences in our approaches (eg. a stricter versus more relaxed parenting style). If one comes to appreciate the pros and cons of different appraoches, while keeping an open mind, it could go a long way.

I know, I know. It takes two to tango too. Oftentimes, divorce has nothing to do with the women, but the men have simply drifted apart/away. In those cases, hey, you do what you need to do. If divorce is what it comes down to, so be it.

On the sovereign debt woes of Greece...

2011-06-24T11:30:00.006-04:00

Looking at the deteriorating sovereign debt situation in Europe, in particular, Greece, is like watching a train wreck in slo-mo.

I've always wondered how Euro could have worked, with countries having a garden variety of economies and state of affairs coming together to join in hip by only their currency (thereby fiscal policy), and nothing much else. Back in late 1990s when one of my projects in a big bank was to convert all transactions and contracts from various European currencies into euros, I've always wondered to myself how this could have worked. I have my doubts because I don't see how it could work. Then again, I'm not economics type. I thought the economists and all the talking heads knew better (or knew something that I didn't), since everyone was so gungho and excited about this whole euro thing. I let that idea/doubt go. My project went through with flying colors, and that's what happened to me then. I still miss some of the currencies (like DEM, FRF, and more). At least GBP is still around, so I'm good.

And then, the worldwide economic recessions that started in US in 2008 - the Great Recession, as some call it - put everything under harsher spotlight, in particular, the PIIGS economies, Greece being one of them.

The first bailout of Greece came in 2010, now they're talking about the second bailout. It's such a big white elephant in the room. Everyone knows it's going to fail. Everyone knows Greece won't make it. But no one wants to admit it. No one wants to call the default, a default, which is what Greece is. The idea of "buying Greece some time" to sort things out, to clean up the house, whatever the actions might require, is so weak. Don't get me wrong, I would not want to see a whole country fail, thereby pushing the Greek livelihood over the edge of the cliff. The fact that big brothers, like Germany and France, who want to keep Greece in the fold of euro, yet are reluctant to embrace full rescue, both fiscally and monetarily, are simply self-defeating.

But we all know, Greece is like another Lehman (that collapsed in 2008), except that, unlike Lehman, Greece is another "too big to fail" basket case. No one wants to see a repeat of Lehman - just ask Hank Paulson - particularly given that Greece is considered the birthplace of western philosophy and democracy, and its failure would have not only financial, but symbolic, significance.

So, what do we do?

The US is too busy trying to rescue itself. Europeans are in the I-don't-want-to-help-but-maybe-I-need-to-do-something mode. Everyone knows that ECB and other European countries will step in, one way or another. However much the haircut the bondholders are going to take, they're going to come out whole, one way or another. So, emerging big brothers like China are going to step in the void and scoop up whatever resources and assets and bonds that Europeans and PIIGS are selling. In a decade or two, everyone will be working for the Chinese to pay off their debts; so, everyone is looking up to the new master (China) now already. Learning mandarin is only the first step.

Surprisingly (or not), the credit agencies, who were accused to have been sleeping on their watch during the subprime meltdown in US, are the watchdogs that everyone is looking up to again, without any meaningful reforms whatsoever on how to avoid their conflicts of interests they committed during the subprime mess. Some things in life never change. Sad...

Nothing of these is news to anyone anyways. Ireland will tough it out. The Irish people have the kind of fortitude and resolve to tough it out, but the Greeks don't. The celtic tiger is going to come out from this mess roaring again, but the continental peers like Greece and Portugal and Spain are going to continue dragging their feet.

I would be very interested to see what's going to happen to the small eastern European cohorts who newly join euro.

Then again, as I said, I'm not an economics type. I hope I'm wrong (I really do), but I have this nagging feelings that something seriously wrong is in this whole picture. Everyone wants to see the rosy colors, but no one wants to consider the worst-case scenarios. The future generations around the world are going to be paying for the sins and mistakes that this generation commits. Very sad...

On marriage back-up plan...

2011-05-27T13:09:00.006-04:00

I can't believe I haven't had the time to jog down my random thoughts for the past month or so. I've saved so many articles and links and collection of thoughts in the browser bookmarks that I don't even want to scroll down the list to see what I want to write, and what to discard as too random a thought.

But here it is, fresh off from today's reading, which should be a good (re)start -

I like reading Sydney Morning Herald because they have more interesting thoughts and columns that the rather bland and generic American and even British main media. (There's an interesting article the other day on The Guardian about spotting psychopath though, but it'll have to wait for another time...)

So then, there's this article today, about marriage back-up plan. Presumably, it's for the young folks that are comfortable with each other enough to enter in informal pact to get married, should they remain single when they get to their 40s. The main motivation is that, these men and women do not want to grow old alone. Presumably too, that they like each other's company enough to commit to a lifelong arrangement two decades later.

I didn't think much of it, on first thought. In retrospect, there's a bit more to it.

I'd imagine, these men and women like each other as companion, but are not madly in love, to the extent that they want to become married in their 20s. The assumption behind it, is that, there are bigger fish to catch; bigger wild parties to roam. Companionship is not high on the list, but certainly at the back of their mind.

One has to ask, is marriage really just that (about companionship)? Is there nothing more to it, but that? Would we value our partners/spouse, if we forever label each other as the back-up option, since nothing else pans out in 20 odd years, tacitly acknowledging that they are both losers in the dating/mating game? Is this (marriage back-up plan) a better arrangement, than the let's-get-married-and-consider-divorce-later deal in the conventional world? Or, is this all borne out of the commitment phobia in the younger generations?

I should be the first to admit, that I would never have considered such a notion. If I'm comfortable with someone enough, and if he's comfortable enough with me, so that we want to spend the rest of our lives together, we should commit. If not for love, it should be for the benefits of the kids (that can quite likely and happily happen); for the ease of financial arrangement. While all of my family is religious, I'm not die-hard religious. But one could argue that, the union of a man and woman would be deemed appropriate, in the eyes of God.

Explicit in the pact, is the worry that people don't want to grow old as old maid (or male). When the libido subsides, the companionship takes on a whole new meaning. Looking back, I don't think this is the motivation for me and my husband to get married. But I have to admit, that it's never too far from the surface, that yearning for a conventional family, a loving husband, happy kids, all of which form great foundation for looking into the future with hope and joy, and not with dread.

One of my sisters is a self-made, self-reliant woman. She's highly educated, got to senior managerial rank in big organization, but yet harbors insecurity, deep down. She's conscious of her age (even when she's just in her 20s!!), the consciousness of which has only grown over the years. She's religious in a conventional Christian/Catholic sense, and has this romantic notion of the role of a woman in a household, that the man should be the head of the household, bring home the bacon, and the woman should just stay home and take care of the kids. She also has this streak to want to be different. She rejects all the eligible suitors in her own race, and chooses a gwei-lo instead. Not that race has anything to do with it, but this gwei-lo turns out to be a pseudo bum (ie. all talks about starting his own business and can never quite get it off the ground; big on spending money when he leaves the money worries to my sister to tend to; never help much with household chores or child-rearing; etc etc). Since this guy didn't have the money, she paid for everything in the wedding, including the wedding dress, and the rings.

After the marriage, she even gave up her promising career to stay home to try to have kids, while pouring her financial resources to help the guy to start his business. The kids turn out to be a handful. The guy's business goes nowhere in 10 years, and s/he still wouldn't give up. And, he's always busy with business stuffs, and lets her deal with the kids, the worries in finances, and the whole nine yards.

I respect my sister and her choice, but it pains me to see her keeping up appearances of one happy family, when it's clear that he's been dragging her along for the ride. The only contribution that he's had is probably the sperms that brought the kids about. And she gets to go out and be the Mrs so-and-so.

Sometimes, in the quiet of night, I wonder out loud, does it really worth it? Does she have any regrets? Was my sister really that desperate to be married, and be seen as married? (Here, I don't even add the kids in the picture, because there are so many single successful career women who acquire sperms or adopt, to become mothers that way. So, his contribution of the sperms are mute.)

These are questions that I can never answer, on my sister's behalf. It all depends on how strong her desires were, at the time, although I'm not sure if I would go through everything that she's gone through, just to become a married woman with a guy.

So, although on first thought, I find the notion of marriage back-up plan to be rather silly, I should not be the first to pass judgment, on second thought. If I can judge it, in my sister's shoes, I should extend that courtesy to others who go down the non-traditional route....

On body piercing of children...

2011-03-15T13:45:00.006-04:00

It's an odd thing to read an article earlier today, on how some people consider body piercing - in particular, ear piercing - child abuse. Never has it crossed my mind that anyone would even considered that, which makes it rather astonishing to me.

On second thought, one can perhaps argue that it's not unlike the parents' decision to have their child circumcised. Afterall, it's a decision made on the child that cannot be undone, which my husband and I have decided positively for our son.

But my daughter was a bit different in this case. I never consider piercing her ears. Afterall, there is no real reason for it. Unlike my son, in which the circumcision decision is fundamentally one of hygiene, there's no reason why my daughter would need to pierce ears. Afterall, I didn't have my own ears pierced until I was in my mid 20s, when I know full well what I'm getting into, and decide that this is something I'm going to like for the rest of my life (and I still very much do). Perhaps my daughter sees it that I have my ears pierced, and it looks cool. Perhaps it could also be due to the fact that she wants to try the different earrings of mine.

I have resisted letting her making that decision. The same goes with sporting long hair. She has wanted long hair and piercing her ears very very early on, probably starting when she's around 3. I have told her, she's not getting any of these, unless and until she knows how to take care of herself. This includes how to handle the hygiene side of things properly. It's much harder for a child to wash their hair, particularly when it gets longer. The same goes with pierced ears and the earrings. Afterall, they have to be cleaned often. She has to be aware of the earrings getting caught by the hair. And even small things like, don't play around the earrings because they can get loose and be lost. I need her to learn this because I'm not going to let her wear just any earrings. I'll give her gold earrings, with much less chance of infection or irritation to her skin, and I don't want to have to keep buying gold earrings for her, if she keeps losing them. The other thing I taught her about choosing an appropriate pierced earrings is that, the stems must not be too thick, and it should not be too heavy. It should be so comfortable that you don't even feel its existence, rather than giving you pain and headache. She learns all these well.

Lucky for me...or rather, for her...she's turned out to be very responsible and cognizant of all these. She learns to shower by herself since she's 6. A few months after she starts doing that, in which I can make sure that she clean herself well every time, I let her grow her hair longer. One time we're traveling when she's 5, and we went by a jeweler store, she has her ears pierced as well. I must admit, she's much braver than most adults during the process. Not once did she even wince. She's been so happy with her earrings that she would not change to other earrings, even though I bought her more than a dozen different gold earrings. Now that she's outgrowing all those kiddie gold earrings, I'll probably have to give them away or sell them.

I would be very reluctant condemning other parents in piercing their children's ears. Some culture does it automatically. There are so many Indian families who do that to their girls when they are babies. Traditionally, Chinese families did that too, although very few do that these days, at least not in the urban cities. My mom certainly never did that on me or my sisters. And I've learnt from her the bad lessons about choosing the wrong kind of earrings. My mom used to get infections all the time since she's allergic to everything except 24k gold earrings, and she has had heavy, thick-stemmed earrings which widen the pierced holes so much that she can't wear tiny stud earrings anymore, since the studs will fall through the holes. It's not something that I would want to happen to myself or my daughter.

So, there you have it. It isn't really that bad to have your (or your child's) ears pierced. But you have to know what you're getting into. And you'd better make sure it's something you would want to live with...for life.

On the importance of a good-fitting bra...

2011-03-09T18:07:00.012-05:00

Much can be said of the importance of a good-fitting bra. It's one of the most personal things for a woman that guys will never understand. (Men only see bra as some sexy object that is meant to be taken off when the sex starts.)

Interestingly, my sister would also emphasize of the importance of good quality toilet paper. Afterall, we use it so often everyday, and no one wants a chafed butt. Ah, but that's another story for another day...

Back to the point on bra, I was reading an interesting article on Sydney Morning Herald about bra, how important it is to have a good-fitting bra, the variety of bras available, etc. Much fuss is made out of it, like the variety of bra, and how to choose a bra. But to me, it only comes down to two questions: is it comfortable, and is it appropriate?

On the question of comfort, I've lived my earlier life wearing ill-fitting bra when I was growing up. There's no under-wire. They were hand-me-downs that are loose-fitting (since my big sis are all bigger than I am in body size and boob size), and they don't hold shape. The idea back then was, as long as the bra prevents the showing of the nipple, that's good enough. Worse still, the straps were always slipping off my shoulder which was a constant nuisance. In short, I hate them.

I've been complacent for so long since I have been doctrinated into thinking that all bras are like that, or that women have to suffer through it, much like period cramps every month. I never knew better.

I remember, the first time I realize there's other option was when someone mentioned to me about sport bra. What caught my attention was the cross-shoulder strap that would not slip. I thought I found my savior.

The problem with sport bra is that, they lose elasticity pretty quick. Perhaps it's the earlier invention of sport bra, and the fabric just wasn't very good (even though I paid good money for it). With sport bra, the shoulder straps no longer slip down my shoulder which is a great relief. But after a short while, the bra itself would start sliding upwards. I found myself having to pull my bra down every so often which is a new nuisance. I blame my small boob size for the problem, rather than the bra. I don't know better.

My second epiphany came, when I was carrying my first child. With the hormonal changes in my body, my boob suddenly went up two sizes, both in inches and in cup size. I find it almost impossible to have to pull the sport bra on/off me, given the increasing bulk of the baby in my stomach. And then, someone suggests this radical idea to me: I should give under-wire a try.

It's radical to me because it's almost counter-intuitive. With the baby growing in size, perhaps the last thing I would want is to put wire between my breast and my stomach. Wouldn't that hurt the baby, I had thought. What I really need back then is the support to my breast that is getting heavy, so that I can focus on carrying the baby. And, of course, I know now, that it won't hurt the baby one bit.

I can't tell you how much of a difference to me, when I first tried on an under-wired bra, it's like night and day. It's so comfortable because it provides the kind of support to my breast that I've never experienced before. And the padding helps protect my increasingly sensitive nipples from rubbing against the clothing.

I never look back because I've found what I've always needed. You might ask, don't you want to try this, or that? I'd say, I know what I want now, and what I have now is comfortable to me. That's what I need.

As to the question of appropriateness, I'd say, get me a few different colors, and I'm good to go.

Do I really need 300 different varieties of bra? I highly doubt it. Sure, there will be occasions when I wear halter and strapless dress. All I need is simply a variation of my padded under-wired bra when I can easily remove the straps; and I'm good.

So, there you have it. It took me decades to get to this point. And the solution is so simple: I just need under-wired padded bra. It's almost like a no-brainer, much like having wings in sanitary pads to prevent leakage. Why does it take the industry so long to come to this?

But then, different people might have different needs and wants. Some people who have big boobs would probably hate padded bra because they don't want their boobs to look any more bigger than they already are. Some people love lace; some people hate it. (I personally hate lace. It's not comfortable, and it's mostly just for show...to the guys.) Some people don't like bra at all. That's all well and good, as long as you find what you need/want...and I'm happy to say, I've found mine. :)

On the callousness of the younger generation and the use of web...

2011-03-08T23:59:00.004-05:00

I was in college when the internet started booming. Usage was mostly among those on campus and academia. I remember how irc was still such an innocent place where 99% of us on the channels were just college students. My first job in IT didn't even have internet access. There was no need to because the web was still in its infancy and there wasn't much out there that was useful to search. It's so unlike what it is these days. So much information is out there, and so much of my life is conducted on the web, that I cannot fathom if I don't have my broadband access for even just one day. Still, I don't considered myself "hooked". As much as irc was addictive, I was only hyperactive on it for maybe six months; in fact, I was almost completely off of irc within a year. Afterall, most of my irc friends have either graduated or moved on with their real life. After a while, I come to realize that those who stayed on in irc for years are losers or bums in real life, like one of the guys from UT whom I talked to often have been on irc for close to 10 long years! To be sure, he's actually quite a funny guy on irc and he's quite popular too, but I seriously doubt if he can conduct or present himself the same way in real life, which would account for why he's hooked on irc for so long.

I digress again. Where was I...

Ah yes, I meant to write about the callousness of the younger generations these days and on how they use the web or conduct themselves. We know cyber-bullying is all over the place these days. Today, I read the article on this loser bum 21-year-old who took video of himself singing to elementary school kids, then replaced his song with sexually explicit lyrics, and posted the clip on the web and youtube. One can only sigh at the total cluelessness of these younger kids (albeit in his early 20s now), and their lack of civility. The town in Michigan wants to hang him high and dry, as a showcase of how the law will come down on them with a potential heavy sentence of 20 years and more. This dude has no lack of supporters. Apart from the usual cohort of the free-speech crowds who want everyone to do whatever whenever wherever, there are those who come out in support of him, saying he hasn't really "hurt" anyone...or has he?

I can't disagree with the last argument more. The same can almost be said, of passing child pornography on the web. Afterall, it's just the streaming of binary bits of 0's and 1's. But in his so doing, he's explicitly associating very young kids to sexual references that would and should never have happened in real life. The litmus test of this is, if he would not do it in person, believing that singing sexual explicit songs in front of young kids is inappropriate, why would he edit the clip, linking the two?

Surely we know the heavy sentence is like killing a fly with a sledgehammer. But if we don't do something outrageous, the younger generations will never wake up to the potential grave consequences that their actions on the web warrant.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the free-speech argument. Those people are mostly nuts, arguing for criminals for the sake of arguing.

On Pauline Hanson the aussie bigot...

2011-03-08T16:57:00.007-05:00

I cringe every time I see Pauline Hanson's name in the news, and there is no shortage of it. From her burst onto the aussie political scene with the One Nation Party using the small town of Ipswich in Queensland, to her speech blatantly full of bigotry and racism, to her fall from grace (as if she ever was) with convicted fraud charges, to the dismantle of One Nation, to her abandoning of Australia moving to Britain, to her return to Australia after discovering the supposedly greener pasture in Britain is no better than that in Australia, to her attempt to reinvent herself for a comeback to politics in Sydney this time.

To a very small extent, I feel sorry for this woman who has exhibited nothing but ignorance. This small-town fish-and-chip shop owner rode the wave of voter nervousness and xenophobia towards each succession of migration population. Never once did she pause to ponder her own status in Australia as a migrant herself. Afterall, the aborigines are the true indigenous Australians; everybody else (the Brits, the whites, the Chinese, the Indians, and now those from the middle eastern descent) is just another migrant to this blessed land we called home. I'm sure Hanson would argue that she is not a first-generation migrant, so she can be regarded as an Australian. We could argue too, that the same can be said of a large majority of the aussie populace that falls in this category. The fact that she is white and her forefathers who once came from Britain does not entitle her any more an Australian than anybody else who has pledged allegiance to the country. If anything could be said of her forefathers, one could argue that they were most likely once convicts and criminals. Chinese, who are quick to disparage her too, would easily dismiss her as her "thief" look; but I'm not going to go there.

So, what do I make of her latest comeback attempt? I can only think of the word pathetic. After her attempt to ditch Australia to move to Britain, thinking that Britain should be more "pure" than the multi-cultural Australia, she must have thought that she would find more familiar grounds and cohorts there. Afterall, they still have the royals! I'm sure she has conveniently failed to acknowledge the fact that the class system (or at least the concept of it) of the Brits is still quite alive and well. It's not surprising that the Brits did not embrace her and her radical racial views. She would, in fact, find more brown faces (eg. those from India) in UK than in Australia. And, the Britis don't have that good a medicare system as Australia.

I can only hope that the Australian voters in NSW see through the fraud in this Hanson character, and vote with their feet. To allow her back in the Senate is only going to give her a legitimate platform to vent and rant, which can never be good for Australia as a whole. I, for one, am going to vote against this woman, when the time comes.

What makes an American american, or French french etc...

2011-03-08T10:24:00.003-05:00

I just came back from Australia, the other adopted country of mine, and have been having some soul-searching. I read, with interest, the New York Times article on the French president Sarkozy wanting to erect some museum that is sufficiently monumental to his presidency. Like much of everything else he pursues, his ambition meets with ridicule. Given the rich culture in France, Sarkozy is surprisingly shallow, much like the scandalous Italian prime minister Berlusconi who is another joke and laughing stock.

Scandals and jokes aside, the latest Sarkozy pursuit prompts me to think of what makes a French french, or American american, or Australia australia. During my stay in Australia, this is consistent a theme of discussion (more like debate) in both news and documentary. In countries where multi-culturalism is supposed to be celebrated, how far back does one have to go before claiming to be part of that culture?

In Australia, it always starts with the painful history of the harsh treatment of the aborigines by the whites, which no one disputes about by now. Notwithstanding the 1992 Keating apology, I don't think the Australian aboriginal culture has ever made it to mainstream, or become part of the cultural fabrics of the country. Acknowledging its existence is one thing, but incorporating it into the overall culture is quite a different matter. I would venture that most, if not all, impression of the Aussie culture is one of sunshine, blue sky, relaxed laid-back surfer dude. Even the outback lifestyle, albeit all the interests and documentary on SBS, is more a spectator sport. One only needs to look at the tourist numbers going to Gold Coast, versus those venturing to the outback to acknowledge that fact.

I would hope to think that I'm a fairly open-minded person, to the point where I would correct and argue with my parents when they were making jokes about the aborigines looking like monkeys whenever they are featured on TV. Afterall, I teach my kids that one should never judge a book by its cover, so too should I walk the walk and talk the talk, to the point where I would not tolerate bigotry, even in words, however benign it might be. The aborigines have as much rights as any other Australians in the country. To the extent in which the recent migrants like those well-to-do ones from China who move up the economic and academic ladder much faster than the aborginal bums, and in their subversive collective contempt to anyone who are less fortunate than they are, it's something smack of low taste, to say the least. But when I am to be honest to myself, I find that I'm unable to truly claim that I've embraced the aborigines as fellow Australians. Perhaps it's because I rarely see any aborigines at all in Sydney proper, and I rarely have time to venture outside of my comfort zone.

The same can be said of America or France or even Britain, and elsewhere. These countries have embraced migrants from other countries. America is perhaps a more successful story, as a melting pot of various cultures, perhaps due to its sheer size and volume, compared to Australia. Still, post 9/11, no one is foolish enough not to notice the backlash against the muslim community. In fact, the same undercurrent is happening in Australia where there are suburbs considered to be invaded and even taken over by different ethnities like the Chinese (eg. Hurtsville) and the Middle East crowds (eg. the recent "land of the falafel" remarks over inner west in Sydney). It'll take a long time, if ever, for Australia to truly and wholeheartedly embrace the middle eastern culture. The chinese is a slight different matter since they are rich and can spend right now, and they are generally not as aggressive as the those from the middle eastern regions, thereby evoking less resistance in Australia in general.

Much like Keating apology, Clinton has made his landmark apology to blacks back in 1997 in acknowledge the wrongs. And of course there was also the big fuss - and such a big deal was made of it - of having a black president (Obama) elected in America for the first time, no matter that he is only half-black and for the most part, he looks and acts no different than any other white progressive presidents like Bill Clinton. Symbolism is all there is.

For all those, can we still celebrate multi-culturalism? It's a decidedly positive first step, that we should come to acknowledge the existence of others, all men being equal. It sounds all like some academic exercise. But if one is the examine the history of a country, both past and present, since history is a living and evolving concept, why would people get so offended by Sarkozy's proposal in evoking its Christian past? Perhaps if one posts the question in a more balanced way, that history, both past and present deserve to have their voice to heard, it might not be such a big deal. I would hope that one does not gloss over the difficulty and struggle, like the riots and clashes that happened in the past due to all the cultural struggle. Somehow though, people tend to use historical references to suit their current needs, like the comparison of the Crusades and the struggle between Islam/Christianity countries in the centuries past.

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

On a more personal front, I often ponder what message I should send to my kids. Afterall, they are more like citizens of the world, having three different nationalities (and the passports to show for it). Does it make them any less American, or Australian, or Chinese, as any other who live in these countries all their lives, much as my kids do, but yet *look* like one? Does it make them less Australia or American because they do not look cauasian? Ethnicity is a rather abstract concept to the kids. There was once some classmates of my kids pointed out to her (with no malice) that she is chinese, rather than american. That is just so wrong, I have explained to her back then. It's such a teaching moment that I have to seize on, to make my kids understand that they are no less american, or australian, or chinese, than any of their peers, simply because they look different, or eat different kinds of food. It is something that I find myself revisiting with them since moments like this recur so often, sadly or not.

On "road rage", and the latest "sidewalk rage"...

2011-02-16T09:25:00.002-05:00

I am a rather impatient person. I don't think it's gotten any better even as I get older. It's just too bad, I guess. I feel like, I have a finite amount of time, and I have a lot of things I need/want to do. If I don't hurry, I'll never get them done or they'll be left unfinished. My friends and family have increasingly often made comments to me, that I'm talking very fast, or walking very fast, or even eating quite fast, and they would ask me "do you need to go somewhere?" or "are you in a hurry?" Interestingly, during those times when I'm prompted, I find that I wasn't in need to go anywhere or do anything. It's simply become a habit of mine. I'm a fast girl.

One thing I have to consciously slow myself is, when I'm driving. I don't want to speed. More importantly, speed driving can kill, and I don't want to kill anyone, myself included. I abide by the rules on the road. But, I can get mad when I'm stuck behind a slow driver; obviously more so when I'm in a real hurry. Usually, when I find that it's a senior driving, I'll shake my head, overtake the car, and move on. Afterall, seniors can't help it; they probably want to drive fast, but driving at that slow speed is probably the best they can manage. That, I understand. But I cannot forgive young drivers who are reckless and/or clueless and/or slow. There is simply no excuse. If they cannot drive by the rules on the road, they have no place driving; in fact, they probably shouldn't even have gotten the driving license in the first place. Whenever I run into one of these, I would mutter some muffled curse (because my kids are still a bit young for that), or at times, honk.

The same goes with walking. But I don't get that kind of rage when slow walkers are in front of you. Afterall, it's much easier to weave yourself and overtake them, than to waste my precious breath cursing them.

But I'm quite sure, should I be put under examination, I might be categorized as some clinical case of road rage. Afterall, Americans seem to have a clinical term for every phenomenon under the sun, or moon, or anywhere in between. I'm particularly bemused by the Wall Street Journal article today on sidewalk rage. Why am I bemused, you would ask. If you read the article, you would quickly notice that every single "diagnosis" or "strategy" noted is simply common sense. What to do with sidewalk rage? Calm down, of course! Yah, right. Those are advices from my kids when I got upset while driving due to some slow, silly driver blocking me. They would ask me, "mommy, calm down; it's alright." And they were only 4 and 5 then. One has to ask then, of how better all these researchers and scientists can do, than to dough out advice that my 4-year-old knows already? I would have to see it to believe it, but if this article shows us anything, it is that all these scientists and doctors are just bidding their time. They would have much better served the society by researching on something much more useful than describing how I feel while walking fast, and to tell me to "take a deep breath."

Or perhaps, the best they have done so far is to con another phrase - sidewalk rage - and get it clinically "proven" in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, then everyone gets funding and reimbursement. But if you were to ask my humble opinion, I'd say, it's a disgrace.

On the allure (or not so much) of mega cruise...

2011-02-15T19:23:00.002-05:00

With some interests, I read the New York Times article on mega cruise ship.

Going on cruise has never been my kind of thing. I'm not sure if I can stand being bound on a ship for a period of time, however finite it might be. Perhaps I'm too high-strung in work that I don't normally take a step back and relax, in a more conventional sense. One time, the kids and I went to Florida with my husband when he's attending a trade show. While he's away at the exhibition center, the kids and I were relaxing in the swimming pool at the hotel, then stroll down to the long stretch of beach to enjoy the sun, water, and blue sky. Nothing can be more picture-perfect than that. But while I was watching the kids by the pool side while they're having fun, I was suddenly overwhelmed by a sense of boredom. Right there and then, I realize I'm born a working woman, and I most likely won't enjoy a conventional retirement. In fact, I probably work till I drop. No doubt some people would consider that a curse, that's not the case for me because I enjoy it.

A few months ago, my brother and sister-in-law announce that they're going on a world-wide cruise lasting for the next five months. I'm sure they go on the world-wide cruise because they enjoy it. For most Chinese (like my parents), it's the all-you-can-eat free food that appeals them. While I enjoy food, I'm not one of those who eat too much anyways; hence, this appeal is moot to me. These days, there are tons of activities on cruise to distract and engage. But as my husband aptly puts it, we can as easily have those activities, without paying tens of thousands (in the case of wordwide cruise, hundreds of thousands) of dollars, just so that we can do it on a ship, as if we're on land. It doesn't make sense to us.

And so, I read the article on mega cruise with interest, not only because it's well written, but it also covers what the biggest cruise might be like these days. I must say, it only reconfirms my belief of how illusional it all is. For all that it claims, the bigger the cruise ship is, the more it masks the fact that passengers are at sea because they are offered the illusion of all the land-based activities. So then, one would ask, why getting on a ship? Maybe, as one Chinese acquaintance has once put it, it's the appeal of this kind of handicap cruise, ie. that you don't have to think or do anything, that all there is to do is to eat, sleep, and seek pleasure.

One thing I do find in the article that is interesting to me, is her reference to the smaller cruise yonder - "cozy dinners with the ship’s officers, quiet afternoon teas and thoughtful lectures by foreign correspondents" - which holds certain appeal to me. I always like a certain explorative and adventurous side of things, that I can get to learn and enrich myself in any way, and not just eat, sleep and play. Sure, one would say, there are tons of classes in bigger cruise. But mega cruise would never afford the kind of coziness and closeness that smaller cruise or tour can afford.

Perhaps, just perhaps, one day I might consider small cruise. But mega cruise, definitely not for me.

On Farrah's iconic swimsuit poster then, and now...

2011-02-15T07:33:00.002-05:00

I was reading one latest (so-called) news, of the latest cover girl for the Sports Illustrated's swimsuit cover, and can't help but feeling, how times have changed.

Although Farrah Fawcett is a bit ahead of my times back then, Farrah's iconic swimsuit poster has always been one of my favorite. It's not fleshy, but sexy, foxy, and healthy. Compared that to the the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover, in which the model has to wear so little, strike such suggestive and revealing pose, in order to be considered as "sexy." While I won't trash the latter to the category of looking cheap, I must say it makes the girl look so desperate (to want to be called sexy). It's no comparison to Farrah's pose which is so natural, and she doesn't even need big boots.

One thing is for sure, 30 years on, Farrah's poster remains one iconic classic that it's going to Smithsonian for the future generations to remember. We can be quite sure that the forgettable SI swimsuit cover will not go down that path. In fact, I'm not even sure if anyone would remember it, one year from now.

On the vicious GOP attack of Obama...

2011-02-14T18:03:00.003-05:00

I would be the first to admit, I'm not a fan of Obama. I never was. While I'm an Independent, I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2008. She's a smart woman with proven records. Her positions align closest to what I see as important, not only as an individual, but for the country as whole. I cannot begin to tell how sorely disappointed when Clinton lost the Dem primary. In fact, I was so upset that I voted for John McCain, just to spite this one-term, never-done-anything, senator called Obama. Sure, people love him precisely because he's never done or achieved anything politically. Afterall, he's a clean slate, his rhetoric sounds soaring, and he's even black - alright, half black, if that's black enough - so, anyone can project whatever they want to see or hear to this fresh face. Better yet, he has a young family with two photogenic daughters (although I'm not so sure about Michelle Obama who is fond of flexing her biceps just to show off her youth side of things).

Granted that McCain is a very decent person, I don't think he or the GOP at large has what it takes to change the course that this country has been going down, starting from the first term of George W Bush. The near monopoloy of the neo-con in the Bush administration in shaping the the rhetoric of this country, championing it to go to not just one (the necessary one in Afghanistan), but two (the totally unnecessary one in Iraq) wars along its way. The accountability of government agencies was chipping away rapidly, given all the Bush cronies installed on the top, one of the most notorious ones being the idiotic FEMA head who totally missed the mark in the handling of Katrina. The Fed became completely hands-off to a financial market(s), gone awry and berserk. The list goes on. For all those, I don't think McCain, however decent he might be, is not going to be able to cope.

Some fresh face has to come in, Obama or Clinton. Under the false pretense of Change (remember Yes We Can?) and Reform, the empty rhetoric of Obama that dupes so many a voters at the time, Obama was swept into White House. While we know now, two years into his term, that Obama is mostly doing just doing what Bush has started out, only doubly down the chips in the gamble, including the war efforts, the debt, bailout of markets (not just financial markets, but the mortgage market too, in stupidly trying to keep people in their homes even if they should have default and be foreclosed on their property). He sells voters way short in his promise of what he would do, versus what he has actually done. But one has to acknowledge certain efforts from Obama and his attempt to even try, like the ObamaCare. Don't get me started on ObamaCare though, because it's not at all a universal healthcare system that Obama has championed it to be. All it does is, it forces you to get yourself covered, without the public option passing into the law as well.

Still, one has to look at the bigger picture. Sure, I don't like Obama sitting in White House. But as long as he's sitting in there, I do not want him to fail, for his fate is extricably linked to the fate of this country. For him to fail would mean that America will go down with him. On that alone, I must say, I do hope and pray that he would succeed. He has made some minor and limited efforts in changing the course of this ship of America from capsizing.

One would think, any responsible American should and would think along that line (in hoping that Obama would not fail). That is not the case in reality. In fact, the GOP and Tea Party attacks to Obama are so vicious and personal that I'm pretty sure they want to throw the baby out with the bath water, just to spite the Dem (and Obama) and their supporters. What the GOP and Tea Party fail to see is that, their rage toward Obama has blinded them into a collective failure to see that such attacks do not amount to any meaningful policy.

In fact, the vicious GOP/Tea Party attacks reminds me of the empty and increasingly violent rhetoric by the so-called student leaders in Tiananmen Square in China back in 1984. I remember clearly at the time, of how violent their verbal attacks to the government and Deng Xiaoping (the supreme leader in China at the time), with the constant slogan of "hit the bottle" (because "xiaoping" in Chinese rhymes with "little bottle"). Even in my young mind at the time, I was wondering out loud, of what these students want to achieve by pulling the government down. Unlike the recent Egypt peaceful protests that brought down Mubarak, in which opposition groups have secretly lined up for the aftermath, should the government be toppled. There was nothing like that in the 1984 protests. The picture of one student standing defiantly in front of a tank makes powerful imaginary, but it doesn't help a country of 1.1 billion people when you don't have a Plan B. To me, the attacks of GOP, Sarah Palin and the gang now are exactly like those empty rhetoric of the Chinese students in the 1984 protests. There is no Plan B. To me, it's not good enough to just say no. To be taken seriously, one has to be able to speak and present a constructive plan. I don't see one from the 1984 Chinese student leaders, and I don't see it from GOP now. And, by jove, those students are just a bunch of 20-something, and GOP is supposed to be an organized political party supposedly worthy to rule this country!!! How scary.

On first kiss the most memorable kiss...

2011-02-14T10:19:00.002-05:00

There is always something tacky about Valentine's Day because we know full well that it's such an "event" made up by commercial organizations, aided by heavy campaigning and advertising, with nothing more to the sole purpose than to make everyone feel guilty not to spend and buy something for our loved ones. Still, we always fall for it. Such is human fallacy.

I normally ignore all those nonsense written solely for the purpose of this day. There is, however, this article on first kiss that caught my eyes. Not that it has much true revelation in it, but it's somehow comforting knowing that even in this age of causal sex, one night stand, and quick hook up's in dorm rooms, the younger generations still value that first kiss. Indeed how powerful first kiss can be, and how deep an impression it leaves. I don't think anyone will ever forget their first kiss.

Although I have meant this journal to be private (for myself and perhaps for my kids' browsing in the future), it's still in public domain. It is with such regret that I can't and won't put down my thoughts and details of my own first kiss. Even after all these years, I can still remember clearly that fluttering and sighing of the heart, and how it skips a beat. And how in that dim dorm room back in England (Coventry, to be exact) the warm lips have come on the spring day, so tentative, so unsure, that travels from ears, to cheek, to neck, but never to the lips! Perhaps there is still such innocence in the present days.

Sometimes when we look back, there will always be the questions of what-ifs. To be sure, I don't think I have made the wrong decision, even though it broke both hearts at the time. But situation dictates it, and we're not meant to be. I don't think I'll ever go back to a time when I regret it; still, I wish we could have had more time together than a mere year. I know I would have had regretted it, if I had given up my study and be a housewife and mother instead. I know I would never forgive myself for not fulfilling the calling in career, and not knowing what I could have achieved so early on, but to devote a life of domestication. Yes, that sounds really selfish, but I know that's how it's going to turn out to be. I've been glad to have met this great guy and my husband now, both of whom have been so supportive to me. Any men who have less confidence in themselves, could not have had the guts to face the fact that their potential partner and spouse could have achieved more than they do. But I also know, that with our mercurial temper, we could not have ended well. Perhaps then, it might as well that we'll forever cherish that year of innocence together, with such laughter, joy and tears. I don't think I can ever forget that.

Can online dating kill all that? I'm not sure about the formalized setting in online dating sites, but for anyone who's never been in it (like irc in its innocent days), their longing and aching can still be so real. But of course, in this day and age, one never knows if the one on the other side of the connection is just a crook or con. In the early irc days, like the early days of facebook when only college students are around, times were much different. I must say though, that sooner or later, that kiss will have to come when two have to come face-to-face. But of course, it can quite easily kill all those loving feelings. I wouldn't recommend online or speed dating though; in fact, I would strong argue against it, because of the perils involved. How time has changed...

On the decline in popularity of McMansions...

2011-02-13T22:25:00.003-05:00

McMansions used to be the big thing, the ultimate trophy to show off one's excess and outsized wealth in the boom time. Since the mortgage crisis set in in end 2008, and the ensuing Great Recession which still sees close to 10% unemployment more than two years later, it's not surprising to see the decline in popularity of McMansions.

I don't know about you, but I always find the new money and McMansions too gaudy for me. I'm one of those who want low maintenance, self reliance, and maximum efficiency. I want to know and use intimately every inch of my home. If we need three bedrooms, kitchen, bathrooms, and living room, that's what I'm going for. I don't need three+ extra bedrooms that never get used. I don't need to spend double on utility bill on A/C in summer and heating in winter, twice too big for me. I don't want to dust and clean the space that I rarely set foot in. And if I have to keep the doors closed to keep the dust out, that would mean I would not bother opening those doors. I don't want a yard and garden three times the size of the house, then pay someone to rake leaves, landscape it, and shovel snow, just to keep up the appearance with the neighbors, because I want to be able to do all these. With career and business venture going in parallel with the family needs, I can't afford to spare my time on these wasted space. This is not to mention about the big roof, big water boiler, an unnecessarily big property tax bill, and what-not, that go with a McMansion. And I can go on and on about this.

In short, I don't know why people would need (or want, even) such a big McMansion, except for vanity. Sure, sometimes I look at some houses, I would say to myself, that looks nice. But my mom raises me as such a pragmatic person that my second thought would always start with maintenance. And, high maintenance is a big turn-off for me.

I grew up a city girl, and I like the low maintenance of condo. My husband grew up in big house. Even though he doesn't like the maintenance that goes with it and the fact that he'll be tied down to the chores of the house, he acknowledges the benefits of having outdoor space to play with the kids. To that, I always tell him, the park is right next door from us. It'll be foolhardy for us not to make sure of these free public space when we have paid our dues in property taxes. Better yet, we won't have to mawn the grass or rake leaves or shovel snow in the park. Whenever we want to have extended vacations, we can simply lock our door and go. The only hassle is to ensure that our mails are held at the post office, and we can pay bills online. Condo is the perfect solution for me.

I'm sure there'll be some regrets at some point, maybe of my husband, or of my kids, that they won't be growing up with our own opening space. That may well be, but I haven't got to that point yet. Perhaps by the time I get to feel those regrets, it's time for me to move to retirement village. :)

On Obama's proposal to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac...

2011-02-12T20:19:00.002-05:00

For all the talk (particularly those pushed by GOP and Tea Party idiots like Sarah Palin), I must admit that I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest Obama proposal on what to do with Fannie Mae and Freddic Mac, given their role in accentuating the mortgage crisis since 2008.

I have always found the idea of Fannie/Freddie odd. Of all the talks on how "capitalistic" America, Fannie/Freddic are anything but. I have to put the word capitalistic in quotes, because I don't find it capitalistic at all. Afterall, if the federal government is provide quasi-underwriting guarantee of 9 in 10 mortgages written in this country, the government is effectively and essentially underwriting everything in the mortgage market. Sure, without Fannie/Freddie, we might never have 30-year fixed mortgage (which is unheard of and is an envy in other countries in the world). But the conflict of interests in these two quasi-government entities are too huge to ignore. They were made a private entity, yet they have government guarantee; hence, when the risks are effectively transferred to the government (taxpayers), what is there to prevent Fannie/Freddie to make poor (more like very bad) decisions to chase the market, without concerns of risk factors?

It's long overdue that something has to be done about the situation. But no one politician from any party has the guts to come out and say, the government should not be in this business, because no one wants to tell their voters and constituents that the government does not promote property ownership. No one is willing to tell the idiotic voters that, if they can't afford to afford conventional mortgage payment, they should not own a home, because home ownership is not a birthright; it's something that has to be earned. If anyone can't afford it, go and be a renter. As simple as that.

So, for Obama to now come out with a proposal to effectively say that, there are cases there ownership does not make sense to some people and they should stay as renters. And that, the taxpayer guarantee to the mortgage market is unsustainable and untenable, it's a breath of fresh air. It's only then, that we acknowledge the gist of the problem, that we can begin the process of fixing what is so broken in the system in America.

Sure, mortgage rate may well go up, mortgage underwriting rules are going to get tightened, downpayment is going to go up too. But such should have always been the norm, which had gone out of the window because the markets were so out of whack under the Greenspan fed. I'd rather pay the price now, and have the country be on a healthier path of existence, than to kick all these problems down the road, and let the future generations (my kids' generations) to handle it.

Now, if only the Obama's own Dem constituents like the unions would just shut up, and do something useful, for a change. So too will we have to see if the GOP will turn around and be the obstructionist to block the Obama proposal to wind down Fannie/Freddie in 5-7 years, for the sake of being obstructionists.

On Madonna and Lady Gaga...

2011-02-12T19:14:00.002-05:00

Although I grew up listening to all the pops, I've fallen out of that habit for a very long time. Some songs and tunes will stay with you forever. There are times when I hear some tunes or song fragments, and they would immediately transport me back to those exact moments in the past when I first heard them. I love those moments.

I can name the classics that I love because there are just so many of them that I love. There are true oldies golden classics from the 1950s, '60s, and then there are classics from the hippie times in the '70s. But it's the '80s that I love. I listen to alot of Modern Romance and Euro-pops, the Roxy Music, Police and Sting, and all those. Across the Atlantics, Madonna stood out and stands the tests of time. I've eased out of music in the 90s, and feel particularly disgusted by hip-hop. There are a few in the '90s that catch my ears, but other than that, I don't miss the '90s much. The '00s in the start of the millenium is equally unimpressive. I don't even bother with all those singers or names. Sometimes, when debates run high, I would take a second look to see what's the big fuss about. Such is the case with Lady Gaga.

I must say, I have not been impressed with Lady Gaga at all. For all her outrageous MTV, it's mostly just a rehash of the coming out of Madonna in the 1980s, and by jove, Madonna is 30 years ahead of her time. (Perhaps that would explain the enduring surccess of Madonna through these years, even though I haven't followed any of her newer songs since the 1990s.) Those dance moves and outrageous costumes of Lady Gaga look more like copycat of Madonna in the 1980s. I must say though, at least Madonna's have been more pleasing in the eye even though hers was outrageous at the times. For Lady Gaga? It's just outrageous, sans the pleasing part. I'm sure all those young Lady Gaga fans are going to rip me apart for such blasphermy. But sorry folks, your idol is not the real deal. (Those youngsters who think they have a goddess representative of their time now would be sorely disappointed that their idol now is nothing more than a mirage from 30 years before.) Given time, we'll be able to judge if Gaga can grow out of this copycat phase to have something more original of her own, because one cannot survive to be a copycat forever.

Sure, there's talk of Gaga the person, and how down-to-earth she is. Madonna has been famous for her personality when she was starting out, of how she grew out and grew up from being manipulated by record companies to put out sugarpop songs like Borderline, to give us much more sophisticated Vogue, Justify My Love, Express Yourself, Papa Don't Preach, and the more mallow Crazy For You, Take A Bow, and more.

Speaking of Madonna's Express Yourself, there's rage over the very obvious plagiarized tune and idea in Gaga's Born This Way. For all the rage, I've decided to check it out and see/hear it for myself. I must say, I'm so surprised on how similar in the tune snippets of the two songs, the idea of the lyrics, and even the arrangement of the song's instrument and the heavy use of drums in the dance beat too. Perhaps Gaga has provided a very ripe opportunity to prove herself that she's indeed a copycat, given Madonna's ahead of Gaga for 30 years. Disappointing.

While I would admit that some of Gaga's songs like Alejandro are pretty good dance beat, but she's no comparison to Madonna, in terms of originality in songs, creativity and even as a dancer. And even in the Alejandro music video, it's a mix of the copy from Madonna's various music videos, including Express Yourself and Vogue.

Perhaps Madonna has given us the shock-and-awe factor that there is still yet to be topped. For all the talk of Gaga's costume, like covering herself in raw meat, sure it's a first, to be sure. But it's never going to be like Madonna who single-handedly made wearing your undergarment (corset and all) fashionable that others can and will copy. And that's what makes Madonna enduring. I'm sure how Gaga can top herself since her racy MTV's are already literally putting sex show on stage, boy-on-boy, boy-on-girl, and what-not. I've always enjoyed Madonna's music videos; but Gaga's copycats are simply so low in taste and style, forget about class.

On the Queensland flood, its aftermath, and reflection on community and democracy...

2011-02-01T22:05:00.003-05:00

As I'm visiting Australia right now, the flood in Queensland have moved me in a big way, not only in the natural disasters that could strike anyone at any time, but in the collective outpouring in financial and physical support to the Queensland community by both fellow Australians and the state/federal government alike.

Perhaps more importantly, in contrast to the fast disaster relief from the Australian government, the Bush administration's inept and non-response of FEMA to what happened when Katrina struck is decidedly humiliating.

Although I've been out of Australia for a number of years now, I've identified with my adopted country in a big way, contributing financially in however way I can. It's amazing how fast the donations have quickly racked up more than A$1 billion in disaster relief.

Collectively, we know what is to come. Food price in general is going to go up. Inflation would inch up. Export would get hit, as is GDP. Collectively, everyone tightens their belts. I don't hear much complaint from folks.

And then, the federal government, under Julia Gillard, did something that what seems like reasonable, but to many, it looks like unthinkable. She institutes a temporary flood levy. No doubt, those in America would find it incomprehensible. Truth be told, the temporary levy (that would last for a year) would cost A$5 a week for those in highest income bracket (A$200,000 or above). You won't have to pay if you earn A$50,000 a year. If you look at how a regular coffee would cost A$3+, and Australians drink a lot of coffee, you would realize that the levy is nothing, really. So, the torrent of criticism on the flood levy must be mostly psychological.

Perhaps no one sums it up better than Ross Gittins, in his common sense article on why Australians hate it so much. It has nothing to do with partisanship (which, if it had been in America, GOP and Tea Party would surely seize on). It is that general lack of faith in the financial stewardship of the Aussie governments, and the respect of the elected leaders in general. (Afterall, as Gittins is quick to point out, Gillard inherits the prime ministership not really out of rightful election, but rising up from vice-prime ministership when Kevin Rudd was pushed aside.

It's not inconceivable that, come next election, Gillard, the Labor PM now, could likely hand the baton back to the Conservative. To me, I'm always cynical and ambivalent about one politician as opposed to another, because politicans are politicans afterall. They are there to buy votes, with the ultimate goal to stay in power, whatever it takes. It doesn't matter if it's in Canberra or in Washington, DC. It's a ll the same. Or, as the old Cantonese saying goes, all crows are black under the sky.

On the change afoot in the Mid East...

2011-02-01T09:23:00.003-05:00

I'm not normally too tune in to the development in the Middle East. The issues, history and politics are complex and intermingled with religions, cultures and various ethnicity, so much so that their events usually just stay outside of my peripheral vision. Surely, 9/11 has brought their issues and concerns closer to home, but I cannot honestly say that I feel too much for the issues in that part of the world. I can only imagine that most of America feels more or less the same way, even though America is waging two wars over there, namely, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Long story short, most Americans just want to have as little to do with the complexity in that region as possible. Afterall, that's what voters have been asking for, which is to end the wars and bring all soldiers home, no matter what.

But sometimes, when issues can become larger than life that they can force themselves to our face. The regime change in Tunisia due to peaceful, democratic protests recently, forcing out a decades-old dictator, is almost like a breath of fresh air. Afterall, isn't that exactly what America (or more precisely, George W. Bush and the gang) has been hoping and calling for? You can't buy democracy because it has to come from the people collectively.

Malice spreads easily. People see what can be achieved in Tunisia, and words/actions spread quickly to Egypt, leading to unrest (so far, peaceful and persistent). It doesn't take long for an 8-year-old to figure out that the domino there is going to fall.

To preempt the popular unheaval, Jordan rolls a few heads at the top already, perhaps in the hope of heading off public demand for regime change too.

The more interesting and vexing question is, what happens after the regime change. It's particularly worrisome, because it's quite an unknown who will fill the void. Would it be another moderate, West-leaning government, or would it be a fanatic government like the Taliban? Given how disenfranchised the general public has been in the Middle East in general, it's foreseeable that the Muslim fundamentalists would be able to fill that void quickly with angry rhetoric and even fear-inducing bombs that can terrorize the populace to fall in line with their radical agenda, much like what's happening now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But sometimes, what is right does not mean it's good. Or rather, what's right and good for one country does not mean it's right/good for another, as clearly demonstrated by how agitated and worried Israel has been, since these unrest across the region has broken out. Israel is not a country (or a people) to mince words, as marked by the pointed words and criticism to Obama, the Prez, and Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, as naive at best. Even for those who are partisan in the debate, one should know the reality that Israel has pointed out, because in the calling for regime change in Egypt by Obama and Clinton, America is effectively abandoning a long-time ally, albeit a dictator one, who has been among the first to sign and maintain peace treaty with Israel, and who has helped keep the peace and stability in the volatile Middle East. The same goes with Jordan, and no doubt Saudi Arabia is nervously watching.

I'm not sure if Obama and/or Clinton has any illusion of the purpose of US in that region, because Middle East is one big hornet's nest, which takes a few very heavy hands to keep the hornets from coming out and stinging everyone in its path. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying what US has done in the past, in endorsing and supporting all those dictatorships is the right thing to do; but those are necessary things for US, in its best self-interest. Afterall, everyone watches out for only its best interest. If anyone thinks otherwise, that would be just too naive. Even for a casual observer like myself, it's as plain as daylight.

So, what's the next move of Obama/Clinton? Given that they both have legal and lawyerly training, one would hope and expect that when they ask a question, they should know the answer to the question first. But given that there's no clear viable opposition leadership in neither Tunisia, nor Egypt, nor Jordan, to step in the void after a regime change, it doesn't look like Obama/Clinton knows what's going to happen next at all.

And that's the most worrisome development, that no one knows what to expect next. Worst case scenario, some Muslim fundamentalist groups would rise up to the occasion, get the popular vote and/or support from their military. Then we'll be seeing another repeat like Taliban-in-Afghanistan.

Let's hope that it won't happen that way. I'm hoping when I look back on journal today, from some future point in time, and this prediction turns out to be wrong.

On how one pays down debts...

2011-01-31T20:31:00.002-05:00

Perhaps I've always been rather adverse to short-term debts like credit cards, that I don't have much experience at all of carrying balance on credit cards from month on month. I must confess too, that I can't quite comprehend the thinking behind those who would willingly to do, even with full knowledge of how much they are going to pay interests on credit cards, given the exorbitant interest rate on card balance. With all these, I always find it oddly interesting reading articles on how people pile up debts that seem to be beyond their power to pay back, then complain about how they get buried by the debts.

It's true that everyone's situation is different. For those who have lost their jobs and who have exhausted all other income source, credit cards could become the only way to pay for even just food, let alone anything else. But for those who have the ways and means, and supposedly the intelligence to gauge the appropriateness of whether they should put purchases on their cards, they should know better. I have no sympathy to those in the latter category.

Such is the case in the no-sympathy-from-me category, for the woman who racks up debts of $46,000 with her now-divorced husband on things like golf trip, all while they have comfortable jobs and feel that they have deserved it. Sure, we all work hard and we deserve a pat on the shoulder (even by ourselves) for working so damn hard. But going on a $10,000 trip to golf resort on credit card, without a worry in the world of how one would pay for it when the monthly card statement comes, is total reckless. And then, for this woman's attempt to pay down all those debts in four long years, we are supposed to congratulate her? I'm sorry, but I can't do that. If she can do that (racking up big, unnecessary debts) once in such reckless way, she can do it again. Being debt-free for six months is nothing to boost about. For all we know, she could very well do that again, since she has worked so hard to pay down those debts, right? She could easily go on another spending spree, because, guess what, she deserves it!

One thing is for sure: This woman says she works for an "international consulting company." I, for one, would not hire such consultants under any circumstance, given how reckless she has been and how she can't even get her own house in order. What kind of confidence does that exult, on any advice that she's going to provide for her clients?

My husband has always said, I'm a liberal conservative. It's an oxy-moron, in Washington's parlour, but is one that makes total sense to me. While I might be liberal in quite some social issues (but not to the extent of gay marriage), I'm much more fiscally conservative that most of those self-proclaimed fiscal hawks in GOP or Tea Party (if we can indeed find one in these parties). The trend these days, of celebrating those like the woman mentioned above, is totally beyond me. In the more civil, prudent days (perhaps before the advent of the web), one would quietly toll away to get oneself back on one's feet. With the web, everyone wants their 15-minute worth of fame, even if it means showing the world one's own dirty laundry. It's a complete turn-off to me that would never fly.

On supermodels and breast-feeding...

2011-01-31T19:17:00.002-05:00

A lot of people find it incomprehensible, of why there are so many haters towards the breast-feeding picture of supermodel Miranda Kerr, the new mother. There's equal strong emotion against another supermodel rank of Gisele Bundchen in calling for breast-feeding law recently.

One should realize that, child birth, breast feeding and child rearing are highly personal subjects; as such, the subjects can become very emotional charged. For most mothers like myself, we know that what works for others does not necessarily mean that it works for ourselves. Like myself, I pumped breast milk for my kids, because neither of my kids was able to latch on to my breasts. So, like I said, whatever works, will work for me. If that means I need to pump breast milk, so be it.

I know of other mothers who are highly opinionated and feel strongly towards one approach or the other. Some women insist natural child birth (not even painkillers). Some women insist breast-feeding even long after the kids should have outgrown the needs for the comfort of a mother's breast, let alone the real need for the supposed benefits of breast milk to boost the kids' immune system. Most mothers know what works and what doesn't for their kids.

That's why there's so much criticism about Amy Chua on her suppposed recipe of successful parenting style (ridiculous). There's why there's so much haters towards these supermodels telling others that everyone should breast-feed (equally ridiculous).

What these clueless women like Chua or Kerr or Bundchen fail to understand is that, what might work for them or in one situation does not translate well to others. Their own approach is hardly a case for generatlization to cover the rest of the women on earth. The undertone of their advocation is that, since their approach works (for them), it must be the best and right approach; hence, any other approach must be wrong or inappropriate.

But of course we know that's not true. Every kid is different. Every mother is different. Every child birth is different. Sometimes a mother can't even do the exact same thing from one child to another within the same family. For much the same reason, I normally ignore most so-called conventional wisdom, because most of them simply are not true - or rather, not true when applied to my kids.

So, for those other mothers who get upset about these silly women like Chua or Kerr or Bundchen, I'd say, the best approach is to ignore them. Don't buy their books; don't blog on the web in response to them. That's because the web works in a perverse way. When we comment on them on other blogs, even to blast them with criticism, we would be inadvertently helping to build their fame (or notoriety). To that end, the web does not distinguish between fame or notoriety, because it all perversely translates into "popularity," as measured by google's algorithm of search hits.

Naturally, that's hard to do, because when one feels strong for or against a subject, it's hard not to voice one's opinion. Afterall, I write about my displeasure to these women in my own journal here. But I've made a point not to write in any comments to any news or blogs. I hope others would take heed too.

On Google and philanthropy...

2011-01-31T18:29:00.003-05:00

Whenever the goliath of google is mentioned, people tend to have this apprehension and notion that whenever google steps in a field, it's going to dominate the field and crowd out everyone else. Failed projects after failed projects like google wave litter the field. After a decade of dominance in search and advertising, google can demonstrate otherwise, that this one-trick-pony can do its one trick very well, but not much else.

To its credit, it has touched and bettered our life. I've come to enjoy and rely on gmail since its inception. I use google docs from time to time. Google map is one of its pioneers, though I don't find much use in google earth. I'm even use google's blogger for keeping my journal. I guess my life is simple enough that I don't find use much real use of anything else. And with its financial strength, google can afford to throw money away. When its one trick is still working, Wall Street will tolerate; when its growth slows, investors won't be so tolerant.

When the google's philanthropy initiative was first announced, I must say, I wish it successes. I have high hopes that its philanthropic success would translate into much human good. Afterall, one rarely finds for-profit organizations to commit as much resources to philanthropic causes. Surely it must do some good, isn't it? It's sad to see how its half-hearted approach results in so little results. Perhaps, like its motto of Don't be evil, it's more for show than anything else. Its shot-gun approach to try to find and fund ideas, and its equally lightning fast approach in dropping projects that don't deem to be success, could be its ultimate downfall. Why would anyone doubt its gradual decline in morale (and exodus of prized engineers to other startups) when google's successes is far and few in between.

In one word, disppointing.

On Chinese dining etiquette...

2011-01-28T22:48:00.002-05:00

With the Chinese ascent in economic might and all the talk that the coming decades will be all red rising, so it seems that everything Chinese are in vogue. First, there's this rage about why Chinese mothers are superior (I'll write more on that, and its absurdity), and now gwei-lo wants to learn manners at a Chinese dining table.

Which is all well and good. Afterall, it's always good to be cross-cultural and understand more from other cultures. I'm all for it. What irks me sometimes, is how people (particularly people like Amy Chua and some such) who would abuse the obvious lack of understanding on everything Chinese by the other countries, snap some outrageous headline-wrapping titles with the word "Chinese" in it, and call themselves an expert. These people not only cheapens the Chinese culture, but have done a huge disservice for fellow Chinese (not the least, keeping alive stereotypes that others have tried to hard to shatter).

Compared to Chua, the article on the five Chinese dining etiquette I read today seems almost harmless. Afterall, if you're a gwei-lo, Chinese would not mind it at all if you flip the fish on the plate. But perhaps one thing that is missing is that, nowhere does it mention, that these etiquette universal in China at all. Much as the vast cultural difference even within the yanks and the deep south in America, so too is the food, culture and even etiquette from across China. What is mentioned in that article should be labeled as southern China - or more appropriately, Hong Kong Chinese - dining manner. Hong Kong started out as a fishing port more than a century ago, that's why the etiquette on eating fish (and treating it right, even as they're sitting on the plate to serve as your food) is so important. So are the fingers knocking during tea pouring, and others.

But, would anyone care to add clarification to that? Probably not. Afterall, Hong Kong is now part of China, and everything is supposed to be under one big auspice of Chinese style. But to think that there is one universal style that is Chinese, it's totally naive and ignorant.

Which is exactly what Chua has done. Hers is arguably worse, because she's not even born in the East. She's just a freaking hypocrite who writes in a loud way to get attention, and once she succeeds in that, she wants to backpedal for her own self-image.

There is a colloquial saying in Cantonese (ie. Hong Kong, to be exact), that one can do loud things to get attention. The exact wordings are, to be "out of steps" (or stepping out from others' steps). Chua most certainly did that, but with all of my despise, as a mother, as a Chinese born and raised in Hong Kong, and swim in the Chinese culture.

PS: I can't believe I morph from talking about dining etiquette to Chua again. :)

On "princess phase", Cinderella, and development of little girls...

2011-01-23T21:38:00.005-05:00

There's a very well-established conventional wisdom, that the "princess phase," as it's called, is part of the inevitable developmental phase of all little girls. It's understood that little girls, from 3 to tweens, will cling to the "princess phase" and all things pink, as an almost self-evident, reinforcing their own identity as a girl. No one seems to dispute that notion, whether you like it or not.

It's only today, during my short visit with my aging parents, when I was talking to my mother about everything that is conventional wisdom. When I was young, I was told that it's conventional wisdom that most women would experience abdominal pain during menstrual period; I was told that it would go away when I get married (no true); I was then told it would go away when I get pregnant (not sure). My menstrual pain can become so intense that, for the first couple of days, I would curl up in bed, popping painkillers every few hours to control the cramps. I was told that it's normal. It's only until I found out from cat-scan that I have a sizable cyst in my ovary, and only after the cyst is removed, when my period cramps go away - completely. And, there goes my respect for everything that is conventional wisdom, because there can be so much misconception, false truth, and outright lies in it.

And so, when I look at the so-called princess phase and the conventional wisdom that all girls have to go through it, then move onto American Girl and Bratz dolls, with a very critical eye. I look at it from the development of my own daughter.

She's almost 9 now, so it's a high time to take a look back at how she has fared, in this "unavoidable" princess phase. She has experienced that urge for everything pink (and purple) for, maybe, less than 6 months in total, when she was about 4. That year, she asked for a princess Halloween costume. I see all these as rather harmless, so I let her be. Honestly, I think she asks for all these pink and princess stuffs, not really out of her own liking, but mostly it's because most of her friends and classmates have or want them. It's more peer pressure than anything else.

And then, without any warning, she declares to me she doesn't like pink or purple anymore, before she turns 5. That's about the time when she learns her real independence, really even long chapter books (and all seven Harry Potter books) all by herself. Perhaps it could also be attributed to the fact that, being her mother, I'm not a very girly-girl type of person. I remember she uses to ask me what colors I like, and I tell her, I like dark colors - black, navy blue, dark green, brown, and so on. Not that I dislike light or bring colors - in fact, I like white alot - but I prefer darker colors. And I like men's and military style clothings. Around the same time, my husband starts teaching her martial arts (much at around the same age when he starts teaching our son martial arts). She uses to ask me what it means by "sexy," because she hears someone talking about it. We explains to her the best we can, without the discussions of the topic of sex itself (since she would not be able to comprehend that at the age of 5 and its implications). So now, she attributes all those girly-girl talks, clothing, and all, as silly stuffs. Not that she dislikes all things feminine. Much as I have advocated to her, it's more important to hear something comfortable than inappropriate (eg. too little clothes; exposing body parts; etc). She has come to appreciate and love wearing cargo pants (the hand-me-downs from her bigger brother) than skinny jeans. I think she looks much smarter in the cargo pants than skinny ones.

Albeit what the media and commercial corporations have advocated, I do think that girls look to have skipped this princess phase much earlier than the conventional wisdom would have us believed otherwise. Even my daughter's friends and classmates have started to claim the mantle that they are tom-boy (!!!). But of course, my daughter would come home and tell me, saying with pride, no less, that so-and-so says she's tom-boy, but she dosn't think so, since so-and-so is still wearing pink and girly clothes. What I haven't been sure of, is whether my daughter has been spreading the trend and leading the pack, to let everyone knows that, it's cool to look tom-boy too, or whether it's a general trend among girls her age.

To tell the truth, I think how young girls perceive themselves and the world are, in large parts, shaped by the belief and value systems of their parents. If their parents push the conventional wisdom on them, buying everything pink and purple for them, if their mothers are themselves silly girls who can't go out without make-up on, then it's likely that their daughters would go through the same value systems and footstep. Bottomline is, I do not believe that this "princess phase" is at all an unavoidable phase that all young girls have to go through. Afterall, I myself am one case in point, because I never went through that, and I grow up just fine. :)

On the 20 things that go obsolete in the past decade...

2010-12-23T11:23:00.013-05:00

Since it's the end of a decade, it's high time to look back on things, particularly those that might invoke nostalgia since they could be gone for good. I read an article earlier today which suggests 20 things that have become obsolete in this past decade. I thought it's pretty good reminder of what would be gone from the landscape. For my own benefits, here it is:

VCR and VHS tapes
Travel agents
The separation of work life and personal life
Forgetting (since the web records everything and forgets nothing)
Bookstores
Watches
Phone sex via 1-900 numbers
Maps
Calling
Classifieds in newspapers
Dial-up connections
Encyclopedias
CD's
Landline phones
Films and film cameras
Yellow pages and address books
Catalogs
Fax machines
Wires
Handwritten letters

Not that I agree with this list completely (for example, the "forgetting" part is arguable, as popular sites like GeoCities came and went, after Yahoo shutters it, so too are the lives and times recorded there), but it enumerates quite a number of things that have been in long, slow decline for quite some time now, including bookstores, encyclopedias, maps, and fax machines. Their functions will still be in high demands (eg. encyclopedias, newspaper classifieds, maps), it's just that it'll reincarnate in some other form (hello, wikipedia, craigslist, GPS and google maps). Do I really think they would do an equally good job? No. What we trade for some (eg. speed to search; available for search anywhere anytime, as long as you have a web connection), we lose on the others (eg. how body of knowledge is organized can be completely lost on the younger generation; the patience in doing basic research against the instant gratification of plagiarism). As imaging copies become legally accepted, fax machines will not be needed anymore (although in some countries like China, there's still a loooong way to go on this, but perhaps we can export all our fax machines to China!?! Just a thought...)

Perhaps alongside the disappearing of handwritten letters, one thing that is harder to pinpoint and quantify, is the disappearing language and communication skills of the younger generations. The instant gratifications of instant messaging and texting that encapsulates everything in 160 characters mean that the younger generations are increasingly incapable to express lengthier thoughts or even write proper sentence or essays. (Or, do they have the patience to write at all, given that even emails are too slow and cumbersome for them?)

Other skills like map-reading the use of a compass could also become a dying art, now that everyone relies so much on their GPS device to tell them where to go, reducing humans to a dummy.

Other things that should have made the list but are left out include:

Newspapers in print (and how journalism on hard news might survive?)
TV (Now that I watch everything on my computer, anytime anywhere, I don't need it anymore)
Ethernet cables and connections (As wi-fi security gets beefed up, does anyone really need or want their ethernet connections?)
Brick-and-mortar stores (Not that this will disappear altogether. Afterall, you can eat the binary 0's and 1's, and the web can't deliver real stuffs like food, but stuffs like clothing and increasingly, luxury goods like jewelry, can be ordered online and delivered to your doorstep. It'll put the standalone brick-and-mortar stores in constant peril.)

If we look at it, all the physical stuffs (like books, and everything in prints) are fast disappearing. Everything goes online. Afterall, I'm even writing my own journal online, so there goes. :) When I look back on my life and ask myself the question of whether my life has changed for the better (or worse) thanks to technology, I have to say, the positives outweigh the negatives. I'm sad to see things like bookstores and alot of brick-and-mortar stores closing (maybe due to the poor economy, but the proliferation of everything online has alot more to do with it); on the other hand, it's a good thing that alot of wastage can be avoided. Things like, stacks of big yellow pages books that come every year that rarely do anyone use them anyone uses them anymore, should have been gone for good a long time ago.

I can only hope, that in the next decade when the younger generations come of age, they would find some appreciation of things of old, so that technology could help preserve these arts, albeit in completely different formats.

And, we should bring back morse codes.

On the "Waity Katy" syndrome...

2010-12-22T21:09:00.002-05:00

I read an article the other day on Sydney Morning Herald on the Waity Katy syndrome, and can't help smiling. Australians are obsessed about everything royal. Diana was a national obsession back then. Now they have their own fix, with the fairy tale Aussie commoner girl who is now princess of Denmark. Yes, she is quite stylish and all, but one must admit that there looks to be a tad bit lack of glamor in her otherwise classy style. (I know, I know, it must be a blasphemy to slight the Danish princess from Downunder; no matter.) But with the latest British royal news of engagement by Prince William and Kate Middleton, it's become fever pitch and the Brits are back in vogue again.

Whatever the republic agenda pushed by the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, Australia would always want to hold onto the English coattail. Sad, but true. If the Queen is smart, she would pass directly the throne to the more photogenic Will and Middleton, bypassing Charles and Bowles altogether. Not that it's fair to Charles. Afterall, even though I don't give a damn about the royals, I do think he does an ok job. Reality is, royal families survive and thrive on hopes and dreams (more fairy tales). That's something that Will can deliver, and Charles is sorely lacking. One can say, it's totally unfair to Charles, but nothing is life does anyways.

...Ah, I'm digressing again. Where was I?...

Ah yes, the "Waity Katy" syndrome. It's about the eight long years that Kate Middleton has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for Will to pop that question. Will he? Won't he? He loves me. He loves me not. You have to give it to Kate. When it comes to patience, nothing compares to the hopes and dreams of a girl to be a real princess. How cool is that...in name. Every girl has to curtsy to you, Your Highness this, Your Highness that. And, don't forget the castle and jewelry. One might say, Diana was that naive when she stepped in that shoe. Afterall, she was, what, 19 when all these started, and one year later, it's become her ticket to heaven and hell. Oh, but Katy is quite a different matter. She starts waiting from 20, and finally after 8 long years, she's finally getting the engagement, at 28. I don't mean to sound mean, but I'm not sure if love alone would survive that. I'm sorry to say, but I honestly don't.

At least for Katy, she's betting that she's getting more out of the marriage, than if she doesn't. For the rest of the commoner girls, when their guys keep them hanging and guessing, should the girl wait, or just bail?

Personally, I think it comes down to what the girl wants most. Some girls don't want wedding, marriage, kids, attachment, commitment. That's all well and good. For these minority, I presume, it's no problem at all. In fact, she might even freak out if the guy pops the question.

And then, there are the rest of the majority who really wants to get marriage, have family and kids, and a backyard, what should they do? If I were the girl in this category, and if the guy hasn't proposed yet, chances are, he's not going to do it. Afterall, c'mon, if the girl has wanted all these formality, the guy could not have been so clueless that he doesn't know that's what she wants. But if her wants do not align with his, all the waiting is just one big losing proposition. The girl would be much better off bailing out from the relationship. Remember that movie Made of Honor? The movie is a nice eye-candy, but it's fairy tale. If you want Hollywood escape to some la-la land where rich, gorgeous guys are going to fall head over heels, and pop the question after 10 years, fine. In reality? It's not gonna happen.

Truth be told, I feel bad for Middleton, having every step of hers to be compared with Diana's. I don't know about you, but I am to constantly be compared with my mother-in-law, from looks, to style, to works and achievement (if you can call it that), and perhaps, most sadly of all, fate and future, I would be extremely annoyed, to put very mildly. Afterall, it does not matter how madly in love they seem to be, or how gorgeous the wedding might look, everyone is expecting the same fate - a boring, unhappy marriage, or even divorce - down the road. While I don't want to wish ill on anyone, royal or otherwise. The limelight can make such commoner's problems look even harsher.

On the illusion of universal health care, ObamaCare, and constitution...

2010-12-22T16:38:00.002-05:00

Since the brouhaha of ObamaCare, the latest uproar is on the constitutionality of its health insurance mandate after the federal court in Virginia ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional for forcing citizens to buy health insurance coverage.

Ok, so there are two parts of the question. What the ObamaCare is trying to achieve, and how. The "what" part seems pretty obvious. The goal is to providing universal health care. Isn't that obvious, one would say. But you can't be too sure if you ask Obama what it truly means for universal health care.

Before answering that "what" question, one should perhaps look at what universal health care coverage means in other advanced countries, like Europe or Australia. Those countries, while spending less per person in medical care, truly covers everyone in country. And the government pays for it, by taxes, naturally.

Which, to the eyes of American, is a big no-no, to impose high taxes on everyone, but at the same time, truly covers everyone. To the conservative GOP, that would be close to blasphemy, a socialist welfare state. The idea of cradle-to-grave is a non-starter. That's exactly what federal programs like social security and medicare are like, but you will not hear any GOP pushing the scrapping of those programs. These days, that kind of entitlement mentality, that once it's there, it becomes one's birth right and cannot be taken away, is too dear to their heart to part with. So, never mind the fiscal conservatism.

As to the "how" part of the question, the Dem and Obama try to claim the mantle of providing universal health care in name, by expanding health care to more of the tens of millions of folks who don't have any coverage right now. That's the essence of the health insurance mandate in the ObamaCare. Since GOP would never agrees to the execution of universal health care the way that Europe and Australia does, namely, to have the central government pay for everyone's coverage by imposing high taxes, ObamaCare now mandates everyone to buy coverage themselves! Voilà, problem solved! Suddenly there'll be a thriving health insurance business. Everyone is paying for each other's health care needs. And the federal government doesn't need to do a thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for universal health care. Afterall, I find it most ridiculous for people to consider whether to accept a job not just based on whether the job itself, but if the employer provides health care. I would never dream of having to do that, not when I was in Australia or England, not even in Hong Kong, the most capitalist place in the world. Worse thing with this mandate is that, everyone is now being held hostage and beholden on the insurance industry to decide how much premium we have to pay. But the worst thing that Obama has done in this whole ObamaCare fiasco is that, he let the lobbyists and GOP delete the public health care option, which is arguably the thing that would more truly bring America closer to universal health care, as everyone in the world knows it.

But I have to say, you have to give it to the Americans, to have such faith in the legal system and the constitution, that everything and anything can be - and it seems like, it should be - settled in courts.

So it is then that the case is almost destined to go to Supreme Court, and more drama ensues. What will happen to the wobbly two-legged stool in the ObamaCare setup, when the federal government can't force the healthy ones to buy insurance coverage, so that the insurance industry will hopefully make enough money to care for the sick and the poor? That's anyone's guess, but my bet is, it's not going to hold up under scrutiny.

Everyone touts the avant garde law in Massachusetts in which ObamaCare is based on. But if you ask anyone in Massachusetts, you should not be surprised to find not much praise to that law, with the largest voice going to increasingly loud complaint of how much health care costs of private insurance is growing, year-on-year. Checks on premium growth are almost non-existent. If you ask me, I'd say, that idea is a disgrace. But Ted Kennedy would not be around to fix the mess he pushed on us.

2010: Taking stock, and looking ahead...

2010-12-21T11:58:00.002-05:00

It's another interesting year. I always like to read my journal, from my year-end review the year before, and see how much has panned out according to plan, and how much is fluke.

It turns out things are going much as expected, both on the economy, personal lives, and things in general.

Hmm, what has happened this past year of 2010...

On the economy front, the US unemployment rate, though down from the scary 10% in 2009, is still stuck at a high 9.8%. There's much talk of the drag for the permanent long-term unemployed - yes, that's bleak prospect that was once only a fixture in the wealth states in Europe, but looks to be here to stay in US now. That's all the more reason why one should not swagger and boost about how there's new normal, and no one wants the Old Europe.

There's also much talk - ATNA, as in, all talk, no action - in Europe, about what to do with the deteriorating sovereign debts, spreading from Greece, to Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and now worryingly, to Belgium, now even France is in the talks of potential sovereign debt downgrades. I feel bad for them, but then, how would they govern a unified Euro, when they have one hand tied to their back? So, on the one hand, you have Germany who is an incredible disciplined people and who has no problem roaring back from recession. On the other hand, you have the rest of Europe who lives fast and loose on easy credit. There's all carrot, but the ultimate (and only) stick in the game, of allowing sovereign debt default, is guaranteed not to be happening. Then, you'll ask, what is there to stop these loosy-goosy countries from doing that again? Afterall, someone else is guaranteed to bail them out. Honestly, this unified Euro is a losing proposition from the start. But there's no plan for Europe to roll back to the pre-Euro world. There is no Plan B. Such a terrible bind.

For those who still have a job, 2010 doesn't feel so bad. The economy is slowly coming back. People are buying luxury goods again and their prices are roaring back, so you know they're having money to spare/spend again. If...and only if...China doesn't fall flat on its face in 2011, it should still be able to claim the world mantle for another year to be the last man standing in saving the hides of the rest of the developed world. Indeed, if you have a chance to go to China or Hong Kong, you can feel the giddiness in the air. And why not. Luxury shops like Louis Vuitton are crowded with almost 100% mainland Chinese tourists who roll their hand-carry suitcase to buy luxury and beauty care products, then resell in China. If you peek into these shops, you would never ever have imagined that China still has a large rural population that lives on less than a few thousand dollars a year. Hot money from mainland China dramatically pushes up prices all luxury properties in Hong Kong. In China, speculation in property, and increasingly in stock market, has become a popular spectator sport/pass-time for common folks. While all the talks in China are about chastening the West (most notably, US, of course) for fast and loose credits, China is literally doing the exact same thing, with huge stimulus to its local economy. China is in a different bind than Europe, but in a not dissimilar way. For all the noble intention of the central government to control inflation and speculation, and to tamper with social unrest, its main weapon is to prop up the economy. Chinese, much like Singaporeans, are like ants. As long as the society is peaceful and harmonious, they live in peace, with the hopes to prosper in life. The Chinese government cannot and will not allow the economy to go down, or property prices to decline, or stock markets to nose-dive. Much like Europe, there is no Plan B.

I feel sad every time I see an empty storefront when we go out. I've been seeing an increasing number of "For Lease" signs in our neighborhood, and we're supposed to be holding up quite well since the Great Recession took hold in 2008. Unfortunately, deep down, I know they are not going to come back. I'm particularly fond of book stores. But after Barnes & Noble, then Borders, closing the store near us, everyone knows they'll never come back again. You can say, I'm torn between their store closing, and what it means to the environment and green movement. Afterall, while I still treasure having a physical book in my hand - and the smell and feel that come with a book, even my own reading habits have been changing. I don't cherish the prospect of publishers and book stores having to produce stacks of books, then sell them, in order to make enough money to survive. Perhaps, the solution comes with e-readers like Kindle, Nook, and iPad. I have particularly strong feelings about this, because this past week, I've been doing house-cleaning, and there are tons of books (eg. children's books from my kids) that I have to either donate or sell. I never doubt the great impact of a physical children's book for my kids, but I don't like having to chop down all the trees to make these books that are destined to recycle bin. My own private solution to all these? I've stopped buying books for the kids. We spend hours at public library anyways, so I've resorted to making donations to public libraries, and let them buy the books instead, so that they can be shared among general public. It's a win-win.

As I was telling my kids, one such category that is particularly ripe for e-reader is the school textbooks. They are way over-priced. Every year, publishers or authors make slight modifications, put out an updated version, and all students have to throw out the older version to get new ones. It's all so ridiculous and incredibly wasteful. If they have it on e-reader, I would jump onto the bandwagon without second thoughts.

Speaking of textbooks, I'm quite happy that I'm almost done with my masters degree. (One last class to go, and I'm over it.) I don't know if I might do the unthinkable again, and take up a second job in the finance field, on top of my regular job in software, with the side venture in e-commerce, plus a bit of stock trading. I'm glad that my husband and kids are very supportive of that idea. But I'll just have to wait and see what happens in 2011.

Perhaps the not-so-good news this year has been my parents' health, which has been declining. They're in their 80's now afterall, so it's not a surprising development. I can only pray to God that, when my parents' time comes, it'll be peaceful and painless.

Kids are growing up fast too. The other day, I turn around at home, and there I see my son playing ball at home, and my daughter reading a book on the sofa. They look so big to me. They are among the many things that I'm so thankful for in life.

2011 should be looking up still. I just hope that China doesn't suffer hard landing in its economy, and at least there'll still be one leg standing in the three-legged stool of world economy. But I can only hope.

On the future of liberal arts departments in universities, et al...

2010-11-25T15:28:00.002-05:00

Quite recently, there were a few articles and reports, all of which point to attempts to re-think the future of liberal arts like the future of department for French, and even the tenure of professors. The writing is all over the wall. That, in this season of budget squeeze and belt-tightening everywhere, schools can't afford to pay for everything. In short, something has to give. With its salary prospect being so much lower than practical subjects like Computer Science, and the ensuing dwindling student enrollment, liberal arts programs are the one of those whose existence is hardest to justify. The same goes with the rewriting of tenured professorship, which goes against the rationale of paying performance with rewards. Given a tenure at hand already, it's not hard to imagine how that would provide for a highly prized lifetime meal ticket that doesn't require much work for. For those of us who work in the private sectors when you have to work hard, year on year, just to stay in the game, the idea of a tenure is quite unjust and almost obscene.

To be honest, I never find the idea of tenure (be it professors or teachers) appetizing. Afterall, why is academia so different from the rest of the world anyways? Are these group of people really doing something so differently, and the work being so different, that they have to be treated on a completely different parallel universe? I don't think so.

On the other hand, just the idea of eliminating liberal arts program saddens me. It's true that salary and job prospects of straight liberal arts students have never been very good, never mind that it's much worse now, in this recession season. Over the lifetime of the students, that salary/job gap of liberal arts versus practical science majors grow ever more wider. But, does it really mean that we, as a society, can and should do without liberal arts, like history, language and art? I would consider it very, very short term vision, for anyone to even propose the idea that we can do without it. Afterall, that's part of our civilization, without the foundation of which, we will never grow, not to mention thrive.

Asians are mostly practical people. You would rarely find any college or university in Asia that stands out with its liberal arts faculty, like, say, what you would find in University of Chicago. Granted that Asia is on the up and up these days, and everyone raves about how many science graduates they're churning out every year from their universities, but I can tell you that, alot of Asians look to the west with admiration, in part because of the diversity in their programs that one can never find in any university in Asia. For anyone to even suggest that our universities should emulate what is practiced in the east, simply because their economy is on its upswing, just goes to show how short-sighted that statement is.

On the mainland Chinglish...

2010-11-25T12:46:00.002-05:00

If you know proper Chinese and have even just casual command of English, you would find the ridiculous Chinglish amusing, even entertaining.

There is nothing to laugh about, if someone has no knowledge of it. One would think that, for public signs and displays, governments and companies should at least be a little bit more care in ensuring that nothing is lost (or added) in translation. The way it is now, is a public disgrace and really quite silly, particularly for an emerging world power like China.

On the right of the poor to live in expensive neighborhood...

2010-11-25T12:00:00.003-05:00

I read alot of news everyday, and I usually save the links to jog down thoughts in my journal here when I get the chance to do so. Being quite busy as I am this month, I only get to do some writing on the Thanksgiving Day, when things are quiet. (And no, I'm not so keen in meeting my mother-in-law, who rebuffs me 14 years earlier without even knowing my name, and who disowns my husband for marrying. But that's a story for another day.)

A few weeks ago, I was reading BBC News, on the row over housing benefits that subsidize the poor to live in expensive neighborhood.

I'm always quite ambivalent about the subject. The housing benefits resemble the rent control in New York, which allows those with lesser means to live in NYC where rents can get astronomical. I can most certainly understand the noble cause behind it, although I can't say if the execution of it is as fair and just.

I grew up in Hong Kong. In a place as small and expensive (particularly in rents) as Hong Kong, when the juxtaposition of the very rich and the poor can be stark, there has never been much about that. Why? Because the colonial government (prior to the handover of sovereignty from British to China in 1997) has done a very good job in providing and maintaining very decent public housing for average joes and the poor. Unlike those in US, public housing estates in Hong Kong were and still are very decent, with reasonably low rents and good maintenance. There's no stigma for living in public housing. As a matter of fact, you would be considered lucky to get a public housing unit from application (with long waiting list) or lottery. The colonial government has also made a point of softly peddling segregation of the areas, so that the highly prized areas (that are considered rich neighborhoods), like the Peak and Mid-levels, or in the south side of the island, would not suddenly have a public housing project erected next to it. One could say that, the exclusivity of those areas is almost obscene; but the colonial government has done a good job in walking that fine line. While the public housing provides a stable, safe, and cheap environment for the lower middle class to thrive (and to strive for their upward mobility), it allows the price of the nice neighborhoods to maintain their prices and values. That works out quite well, and nobody ever complains.

But what came next, after the pre-1997 colonial government became the post-1997 puppet government for Beijing, things change. Granted that there were situations beyond anyone's control, namely, the 1997 financial meltdown that started from Asia, the subsequent handling of the acute housing needs by the first chief executive of the government, Tung Chee-Hwa, has generated so much angst and despise by general public, that he was nicknamed 85000, short for the huge number of public housing that he aimed to add to the market to placard public needs.

Why the despise and angst, you would ask? Afterall, it's a noble goal to provide for the average citizenry. Nobody would dispute the nobility of the goal, but the execution was horrible. The government, under Tung, picked the prized areas (eg. some of which have water views that everyone would die for) to build public housing projects. Surely, whoever gets the lottery to win one of the public housing units in these new projects are going to grin ear-to-ear. At the same time, it generates so much dismay to those who see the value of the once expensive neighborhood came down so much, not only from the financial meltdown, but also from the influx of cheap public housing that private citizens would pay millions of dollars to buy. General public was appalled as well, since they see the general property prices going down the tube. In the surreal Hong Kong where its economic well-being ties so much with property development, nothing good can become of it. The end result? Nobody was happy, except those few who got lucky to win a public housing unit.

Perhaps due to the observations over the years, and that noble goals don't always translate well into practice, I can't say I'm that hot on the idea of force-integration of mixing the very rich with the poor. Yes yes, I know it's politically incorrect to say, but I have to get that out of my chest, because it's true.

The way I see it, if the government has done a decent job in providing decent public housing and transportation for the public, there should not have been any stigma or trepidation in occupying a public housing unit. Afterall, my family lived in one when I was growing up, and we love it. The togetherness of the middle class families along the corridor, and the kids next door, was great. This is unlike the scare in even driving by public housing projects in US, when one would fear for one's own life, ranging from robbery, rape, and even drive-by shooting. To me, it's a disgrace for government to just erect public housing projects, without follow-up to ensure a safe neighborhood, that puts such a stigma on the idea of public housing. The essence of public housing is still as sound as ever.

So, you would ask, do I support housing subsidy in UK, or rent control in NYC, or forced mix income neighborhood in Boston? I can't say I do, albeit the noble goal. Such measures are not unlike the school vouchers in US. These are just the quick-fix that government opts out of fixing something that needs to be fixed. Instead of trying to fix public schools, they would give school vouchers and allow citizenry to opt of the poor public facilities (education or housing), and go for the private ones, at a substantial cost. To me, that's just wrong.

On another royal wedding, but no illustion of fairy tale...

2010-11-25T11:15:00.003-05:00

It's long time coming, but finally there's a bit of cheery news from the British royal family. At long last, Prince William has announced engagement with his girlfriend.

Such a déjà vu, when the Prince Charles and Diana announced their engagement back in 1981. Such happy times, with a fresh-faced and innocently looking Diana and the young prince. But of course we know how it all ends now, almost voyeuristically like the reality TV show, with blow-by-blow updates carefully leaked by Diana and counter-leaked by the royal PR machinery. There was the alleged infidelity of Charles, more infidelity by Diana, allegations of royal mistreatment to Diana who is as blue-blooded as anyone can get. Perhaps, the finally straw to the royal family's tolerance of a daughter-in-law ran astray was when Diana announced that she's the Princess of the Hearts, advocating the throne to bypass Charles and go straight to her kiddie son, William. That all ended, when Diana died in a car crash with her Egyptian lover. More tabloid news pursued when the Egyptian father wouldn't let go of a conspiracy theory that the car crash was orchestrated by the royal machinery to shut Diana up for good.

Every family has dirty laundry. Oftentimes, it takes two to tango, with faults on both sides (Charles' and Diana's). I don't have much sympathy for Charles, but at least he's been almost faithful to his long-time love interest, Camilla Parker Bowles, whom he eventually marries. I lose count of how many lovers or love interests that Diana had. She probably thought that, by staying pretty, everyone would love her, no matter what, however many lovers she'd have. I don't have sympathy for Diana either.

Regardless, what is past, is past. One can only wish luck for the two young royal couple-to-be that, being not as young and naive as Diana had been, they won't repeat the exact same errors that William's parents made. But the uncanny resemblance of every steps that Prince William and Kate Middleton are going through now, in honor of the traditions that the royals at Windsor are so proud of, doesn't look very promising.

But one thing is for sure, no one has any illusion about fairy tales, that the handsome prince will sweep the maiden off of her feet, take her to the castle, and they live happily ever after. These days, not even a 5-year-old girl would buy those tales anymore.

On the loss of Obama message to voters, and upcoming mid-term election...

2010-10-29T16:09:00.002-04:00

The mid-term election this year is next Tuesday, and Democrats are bracing themselves for heavy losses and loss of the Senate majority. It's all too easy to blame it as a communication problem, as Democrats and Obama cohorts alike have tried hard to tell voters that the pain that they are feeling shouldn't really be so bad. Obama kept throwing facts at voters, telling them that the help to Wall Street have really made (rather than lost) money. Obama even got on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to "connect" to the younger voters who are supposed to be his mainstay, insisting that the hopes and change that he ran his presidential campaign on were high bar, and that while he promised to deliver change, he didn't promise the change to be done in 18 months (his time in the White House so far). It sounds pathetic, reminding me of the I-smoke-but-I-didn't-inhale argument by Bill Clinton.

All of these have an ounce of truth in it. I don't understand why it's so hard for Obama and the Democrats to understand that it's not enough to just tell people that they are better off now, because statistics show the economy is on the mend. How can you explain that to someone who has lost their job and can't find another one in 2+ years, and still think that it's a communication problem? There is simply no argument, that people are worse off now than they were, when the recession started to take hold, starting Oct 2008?

There is also truth in the statement that most jobs that have gone overseas will never come back, as most people already know that already, as a result of globalization. It's an unfortunate chain of events that deliver this blunt fact to most people, when the economy went downhill and alot of good jobs were axed, all at once, which started with the subprime crisis in Oct 2008.

It's not a communication problem either, that Wall Street has bounced back readily and quickly, after Washington has tried every means to prop it up. Corporate earnings are rising. Stock markets are zigzagging back upward. Without Washington's help, both Wall Street and main street would have limped along together. Now, the Wall Street bunny has leaped forward, but the main street turtle is left crawling, one inch at a time. And that, is the perception that no spinning could have shaken it. In fact, that is the perceived injustice that makes people angry, even those like me who earn six-figures and have weathered this recession unscathed so far. Afterall, the taxpayers are the ones who pay those goddamn politicians in Washington, and who have picked up the tab in the Wall Street bailout. But the lower strata of taxpaying public is the one who are caught with their pants down, and who are blamed (rightly or wrongly) for spending beyond their means.

As for me, I feel angry too, mostly due to the ineptness and ineffectiveness of Washington, and that special interests and lobbyists still rule Washington. As an Independent, it doesn't really matter if Dem or GOP are in office, because the callousness and ineffectiveness are more or less the same, although GOP is arguably less appetizing for their relentless push for less regulations, which left Wall Street and big corporates like Big Oil, unchecked. So, I'm very ready to vote any independents who can offer an alternative to GOP or Dem.

PS: Sorry, no Tea Party, who are for headlines grabbers and illiterate, and who can't even hold a rational argument. I simply cannot stand irrationals, like Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell.

On the end of Sony Walkman...

2010-10-25T14:08:00.002-04:00

I feel sad, when learning of Sony's decision to retire its Walkman. I haven't been a big fan of Walkman since I don't need my music to go where I go. (For much the same reason, I'm not a big fan of boombox either.) But Walkman associates with it some memories of mine that has come to pass.

When I left Lehman to go back to college more than two decades ago, my boss gave me a gift of a Sony Walkman. I had no idea what I would do with it, and he explained to me that I could record lectures and listen to them again, should the need arise. It had never occurred to me that I would not pay enough attention to the lectures that I would miss anything. In any case, a gift is a gift, and it's a thoughtful, no less.

I used my Walkman for a handful of times in college, all within the first month. I sat in the first rows, hoping that that reception for the recording would be good enough. It didn't. I would replay the lectures afterwards, just to hear how the sound quality of it. It turned out, the professors sounded like they were swimming under water while talking, and I could only hear less than 10% of what they said.

As the Walkman didn't do much to me, and the price of two AA batteries was too much for me (I had no rechargeable battery for it), plus the hassle of moving dormitory halls on campus more than four times in the school year and I wanted to shed as much luggage and possessions as I could, I sold it.

I miss it (for the memory), and I don't miss it (for its non-use). But everytime when Sony Walkman is mentioned, it brings me back that small piece of memory of college gift. It would still bring a smile to me.

On long hair and middle-aged women...

2010-10-25T13:05:00.004-04:00

As I'm inching closer to middle age (!!!), I read, with interest, the New York Times article attending to rebut all criticisms about middled-aged women sporting long (grey hair). For the most obvious reasons, the author is a woman, aged 55, and in her prime middle age.

I can empathize with her passion and love of long hair. I had short hair when I was growing up, because it's too high maintenance, in my mom's taste. As a rebellion of sorts, and for my love of long hair, I sported long hair in my 20s. It's long as long as waist-length which could look unhealthy on the ends, but longer than chest-length. My hair has always been black and thick. I can't recall how much praise I got, when I let my hair down. People would say, my hair looks a black waterfall, shiny and sparkle in the sun. Another thing I should add is, perhaps due to my laziness, I don't like using conditioner, and I don't like combing or brushing my hair. After each washing, I just let it dry by itself; and when it's dried, it just flows. It's that easy.

It certainly sounds nostalgic, but I don't think I miss having to care for my long hair, albeit not having to take much care for my locks. I have to watch my earrings, in case the loops or backs get tangled with the hair. I remember some time back, I read an article (jokingly, perhaps), that bad guys like to nab girls and women in long hair, because the hair is easy to grab. But the real catalyst for the dramatic haircut (from chest-length to boy trim) is the first childbirth. To be sure, it's a difficult child birth; but mostly, it's the dramatic sweat during those 13 hours of hard laboring. I can still recall vividly the tremendous pain and the amount of sweat on me...and the long hair that was sticking to my face, my neck, and my back. I've told myself, I don't need the hair on my neck anymore.

I don't think I ever look back on my long hair. This is particularly so, since the grey hair starts coming out. It probably took me maybe 6 months or so to come to terms with having grey hair amidst my jet black hair. With the grey sprinkle now, it actually looks more natural to me. With a still young family and kids to take care of, I don't think I can afford the time to dye the hair, or worry about whether other men like the look on my head! And, hey, I'm married; so, I'm not bothered at all.

This is thus so, when I read that article, of this 55-year-old woman who's trying to justify the existence of the very long, very grey hair on her head, that I find it rather pathetic. I don't mean to sound judgmental. Afterall, it's anyone's choice to sport whatever hairdo. I just find it rather pathetic, that this woman is still holding onto her long hair. I don't doubt it that she probably has very pretty hair in her younger, and more glorious, days. (Afterall, I've been through that too.) But, c'mon, long hair in mid 50s??!!?? I don't think I can accept myself with that prospect. Plus, the fact that, I am yet to find and see a woman in her 50s and 60s with strong, grey hair, lovely enough to be long too. Maybe she still hopes to catch the fancy of some suitor. To me, it just sounds pathetic and hopeless (even the suitor part).

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

It reminds me of a friend of mine. Every so often, our circle of friends would gather together, to chit-chat and to have some funs, in our girls-night-out. Every one of us, single or married, has trimmed our hair short...all except one of them, who's now a mother of two. None of us in our close circle is judgmental enough to think that her long hair is unbecoming. Afterall, her hair is still rather thick and strong, with minimal grey hair to boot. Still, something just doesn't quite click. I've been reading the other day, and suddenly it came to me - she hasn't had a different look since she was probably 14. I was thinking to myself, boy, that's sad, for someone to be holding onto her look since her teens. Garnering praise and courtship when one is young is one thing, but attempts to hold onto those "glory days" when the time has passed is quite another. I'm quite happy to brush my daughter's hair and admire her very beautiful hair, which is so much like mine back then (except that hers is alot more chestnut brown than my jet black locks). It's high time to pass the banter to the younger girls to have their days in the sun. :)

On the distress of Democrats and the falling stars of Obama...

2010-10-13T20:55:00.002-04:00

The mid-term election in November 2th is nigh, and the Democrats are in distress, and rightly so. Two years after all the hoopla of Change and Hope imbued with the Obama presidency, nobody is disillusioned anymore, except perhaps for the African-Americans who are still solidly behind Obama, which is more out of affinity of their very similar skin color than with the actual job performance from Obama.

New York Times call it The Education of a President. The Obama camp is still touting essentially the same lines and reasoning to appease those who are now pissed off at him. The wars were started by Bush. Economy is already crumbling down when he was sworn in. For the most parts, those are factual and true. The reasoning goes, if voters are now getting upset with Obama, it must be because they don't understand that his administration has already been doing things to make things better. So then, voters frustration (which very likely will eliminate the Democrat majority in the Senate after the November mid-term election) must be a communication problem, rather than a problem with Obama himself...per se.

One of the things that Obama and his camp don't seem to understand is that, voters know all these. It's not like they don't know that he has inherited a big mess when he won the presidency. I don't think anyone expects him to fix everything rightaway. But, boy, if he's still complaining he inherits all these problems two years after, making it an excuse for not being able to deliver the hopes and changes that he has promised, *that* is the main problem. If Obama can deliver in two years, he'll probably still be saying the same thing in another two years. Afterall, he's just buying time, hoping that the economy will right itself, so that he can ride the wave. In fact, that's exactly what his wife, Michelle, is doing, pleading voters to give her husband more time. How much time does he need, really? No one can say. Just keep the faith, and keep praying.

Granted that Obama has reversed course from the hardline attitude from the previous Bush administration, with the most noticeable turnaround being the willingness to re-regulation industries. The kind of wild, wild west mentality in which anyone goes, as the Bush administration will just let the industries do whatever they want, in the name of free market, is simply unacceptable. I'd give credits to Obama for achieving that. But I can't say much with the rest.

The health reform is more like reforms, for reform sake. It doesn't go far enough in achieving the universal healthcare that liberals have wanted (and which I would think it's a good thing too, even though I'm not a sworn Dem). There are many more areas that feel like an extension of the Bush doctrine (eg. Patriot Act), rather than a rebuttal of it. For all the hopes and changes and bipartisanship that Obama has sworn to push through, it's a huge letdown. If Obama attributes all those to just a communication problem, then he must be dreaming or smoking something.

For that, Obama has only himself to blame. He's the one who dug that hole for himself, creating this huge expectation, as if he's the second coming of the messiah. Or perhaps it's due to his total lack of experience and obliviousness, that it's only until now that he realizes that what he promises (for changing Washington) is all that easy or even doable. Back then, he said it's not a problem, that it's a good thing that he's a clean slate. For those who bought into his pipe-dream, they are perhaps just as naive and ignorant.

Hence, there won't be any use for Obama to go on the campaign trail, because everyone has deserted him, from the diehard Dems, to the liberals in general, to the independents, to the young college crowds. What is he going to pump them with? There's no more hope, no more change. Talk is cheap, but we don't see enough of the actions we want to see. In short, he talks the talk, but he can't walk the walk.

I'm seriously tempted to vote everything against the Dems, to show them my displeasure. But the Dems might be onto something, when they are reminding voters, that they are the lesser of two evils, when compared to the GOP (and certainly so, about the crazy folks from the Tea Party), which is certainly true. To be sure, I don't want to deliver any form of success to any of them, be it Dems, or GOP, or Tea Party. If there's any independents on the ballot that might look decent, I'll settle for that; if none, I don't think I'll go out to vote. Sad.