I have almost forgotten how relaxing it is to do outdoor sports. Ever since I have my kids, I don't think I have ever got out at all. Actually...come to think of it, I haven't been doing much outdoorsy things since high school.
So, it should have been fun to go kayaking with my kids today. While my son has tried it before, it's the first time for me and the little one. My husband is missing-in-action since I started a cold war of sort with him, on disagreement in disciplining kids. Strangely but sadly, I don't feel like I miss his presence. I'd rather be left alone, than to have to put up with his grumpy attitude. In fact, speaking of grouchiness, the occasional whining and fussing of my kids during the kayak trip had put a dent on my otherwise high spirit to the trip. Perhaps it's our first steps toward a very long separation, as customary to most Chinese couples, which is sadly but true. I must admit, when you catch me on a bad day, and I'm grumpy and grouchy too, I even have the urge to divorce him. If it's not for the kids, I probably would have taken that step already.
Granted that I understand kids being kids, they're bound to seemingly trivial things, and I have come to less tolerate their almost-civic disobedience when I tell them to do things. My daughter certainly knows how to press my hot buttons, by saying "I hate you" or "You are a bad mother" kind of things for mindless things, like I refuse to let her take all her layers off except a short sleeve since she just got off of a warm car, when it's 50F outside, and we're about to go on the kayaks and go out to river which will be even chillier, and there will be no clothes for her when she gets cold, which is a certainty.
Sometimes I do wonder to myself why I have to keep yelling at the kids to get them do things. Well, that's one complaint my husband has of me, which is that I don't discipline them well, hence the need to yell. But I do not subscribe to the notion of beating up kids in the name of discipline.
In any case, I had not realized how much I enjoy other different things, like looking at the waters, the oars making whirlpools when pedaling, trees with leaves falling on the river, and the geese flying off in the steel gray sky. It's a nice change of scene from working in front of my laptop all the time.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
On NYTimes endorsement of Obama...
On the utterly unimaginative and predictable endorsement of New York Times of Obama, I can't help but completely agree with one of the letters to editors (see below):
To the Editor:
In 2000, The New York Times, in its presidential endorsement of Al Gore, said of him, “We today firmly endorse Al Gore as the man best equipped for the presidency by virtue of his knowledge of government, his experience at the top levels of federal and diplomatic decision-making.”
In that same endorsement, in contrast, The Times wrote of George W. Bush: “But his résumé is too thin for the nation to bet on his growing into the kind of leader he claims already to be. He does have great personal charm.”
In its 2008 general-election presidential endorsement, The Times could have aptly recycled these aforementioned quotes nearly verbatim, this time substituting John McCain’s name for Al Gore’s and Barack Obama’s for George W. Bush’s.
One can only conclude that the only difference this time around is that the eminently more qualified but less charismatic candidate happens to be a Republican.
Nicole Samura
Chelsea, Mass., Oct. 24, 2008
That precisely sums up how I feel.
Friday, October 24, 2008
On Oil, a book and a movie...
It's almost coincidental that we're gripping with world events that move oil prices in big swings, both ups and downs, in the past year or so, with a recent movie There Will Be Blood that goes with it, and I came across this tiny book called Oil, A Groundwork Guide by James Laxer last weekend at the public library. Since my increased attention to oil related events, I've decided to read the little book and see the movie too.
Sure enough, the book has the feel of a lecture series by a professor who takes me through some brief historical background, landmark events in the oil industry, and where it's headed. While some might say the book is left-leaning, it's quite even-keeled. There could have been more quantitative data to backup some of its claim. But then, the book has not attempted to be an encyclopaedia of all things that are oil, but a time capsule of major events that are leading until now (2008) when it's published.
Surely most adults would know of world events like the Six Day War in 1967, the oil embargo and the resulting oil crisis in 1973, the geopolitical struggles between Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, the struggles in Latin America (notably oil in Mexico and Venezuela), and the like. But the book succeeded in putting the events into perspective for me, in relating events and struggles in the Middle East, Latin America, Russia, United States, Europe, even Canada. There is the stark contrast between the partial nationalization of BP and PetroCanada, and the private nature of US oil enterprises (yet impacting public policy tremendously), illustrating the plain hypocrisy of US government in mixing and masking for-profit oil outfits with national security interests. And while I know about the anti-trust case and the eventual break-up of Standard Oil, I had not realized the importance and the amount of oil that Texas had produced in the bygone days that had once dominated the world market, hence I had not come to the appreciation of why Americans have still been so fond of talking about onshore (even offshore) drilling on its soil. No wonder both John McCain (GOP) and Barack Obama (Dem) have been open to the idea of drilling in Alaska, both having almost exact same position in this presidential campaign.
As to the movie, I was moved by its grittiness and mean-spiritedness, which is pretty much how the image of the oil industry has been. I don't doubt the hard-ball that oil executives play in coercing more out of the oil field owners, be it small farm owners or third world countries. Sure, one can argue that since the movie was adapted from Upton Sinclair, it must be about some power struggle that put down the lower class. But the movie surprised me in many ways, including the focus of the movie as a character study of Daniel Plainview (name of the main character is, ironically, anything but "plain view"), and the hypocrisy of some of the people around him, including the young church pastor (the "Sunday" folks, who sport the same last name too) who use the church to line his own pocket.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For so many reasons, mankind is long overdue in sucking up resources from the land (now that it's inarguable that oil, among other resources, is but a finite natural resource that would run out some day), and starts stepping up to being better steward of this planet earth. Surely, transition to alternative energy source(s) is going to be painful. But the longer we postpone it, the more painful it's going to get. I would not want to see my children, grandchildren, and beyond to bear the blunt to have to live with the last barrel of oil.
Sure enough, the book has the feel of a lecture series by a professor who takes me through some brief historical background, landmark events in the oil industry, and where it's headed. While some might say the book is left-leaning, it's quite even-keeled. There could have been more quantitative data to backup some of its claim. But then, the book has not attempted to be an encyclopaedia of all things that are oil, but a time capsule of major events that are leading until now (2008) when it's published.
Surely most adults would know of world events like the Six Day War in 1967, the oil embargo and the resulting oil crisis in 1973, the geopolitical struggles between Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, the struggles in Latin America (notably oil in Mexico and Venezuela), and the like. But the book succeeded in putting the events into perspective for me, in relating events and struggles in the Middle East, Latin America, Russia, United States, Europe, even Canada. There is the stark contrast between the partial nationalization of BP and PetroCanada, and the private nature of US oil enterprises (yet impacting public policy tremendously), illustrating the plain hypocrisy of US government in mixing and masking for-profit oil outfits with national security interests. And while I know about the anti-trust case and the eventual break-up of Standard Oil, I had not realized the importance and the amount of oil that Texas had produced in the bygone days that had once dominated the world market, hence I had not come to the appreciation of why Americans have still been so fond of talking about onshore (even offshore) drilling on its soil. No wonder both John McCain (GOP) and Barack Obama (Dem) have been open to the idea of drilling in Alaska, both having almost exact same position in this presidential campaign.
As to the movie, I was moved by its grittiness and mean-spiritedness, which is pretty much how the image of the oil industry has been. I don't doubt the hard-ball that oil executives play in coercing more out of the oil field owners, be it small farm owners or third world countries. Sure, one can argue that since the movie was adapted from Upton Sinclair, it must be about some power struggle that put down the lower class. But the movie surprised me in many ways, including the focus of the movie as a character study of Daniel Plainview (name of the main character is, ironically, anything but "plain view"), and the hypocrisy of some of the people around him, including the young church pastor (the "Sunday" folks, who sport the same last name too) who use the church to line his own pocket.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For so many reasons, mankind is long overdue in sucking up resources from the land (now that it's inarguable that oil, among other resources, is but a finite natural resource that would run out some day), and starts stepping up to being better steward of this planet earth. Surely, transition to alternative energy source(s) is going to be painful. But the longer we postpone it, the more painful it's going to get. I would not want to see my children, grandchildren, and beyond to bear the blunt to have to live with the last barrel of oil.
On sushi bullies and etiquette of eating sushi...
I've always like raw food since I was a kid. Back then, my mom would admonish me for "stealing" the raw food that she's marinating, or licking the marinating sauce off of the raw meat that I'm not supposed to eat (like pork or chicken).
That's probably one main reason why I like sushi so much. I read the Wall Street Journal, with interest, on sushi bullies - the sushi chefs who dictate which patrons get to eat what and how. I must confess that I routinely break sushi rules and etiquette, like ordering miso soup upfront, and adding more wasabi than I'm supposed to, because I like very spicy food, and I like the kick out of a heavy dose of wasabi. But there are a few things that I would do right. For one, I hate California rolls (I don't know how anyone would like these rolls). And I don't like too much soy sauce.
There's this sushi place in Boston, MA, called Sushi Express which offers pretty decent Japanese food for very reasonable price. It's a small, dingy place with maybe 5 small tables on high stools, a tiny sushi bar, and they do takeouts. But there's no sushi bullying chef to boss you around. You order whatever you want, and it won't break your wallet. The kids have come to love sushi too. For a decent meals for a family of four, it can cost less than $50. If you compare that to Mr Sushi in Brooklina, MA, for example, and you'll feel the pain when the bill comes, particularly in this hard economic times.
That's probably one main reason why I like sushi so much. I read the Wall Street Journal, with interest, on sushi bullies - the sushi chefs who dictate which patrons get to eat what and how. I must confess that I routinely break sushi rules and etiquette, like ordering miso soup upfront, and adding more wasabi than I'm supposed to, because I like very spicy food, and I like the kick out of a heavy dose of wasabi. But there are a few things that I would do right. For one, I hate California rolls (I don't know how anyone would like these rolls). And I don't like too much soy sauce.
There's this sushi place in Boston, MA, called Sushi Express which offers pretty decent Japanese food for very reasonable price. It's a small, dingy place with maybe 5 small tables on high stools, a tiny sushi bar, and they do takeouts. But there's no sushi bullying chef to boss you around. You order whatever you want, and it won't break your wallet. The kids have come to love sushi too. For a decent meals for a family of four, it can cost less than $50. If you compare that to Mr Sushi in Brooklina, MA, for example, and you'll feel the pain when the bill comes, particularly in this hard economic times.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
On the about-face of Greenspan...
It's almost painful to see the unraveling of the mystique of Alan Greenspan, having been kept under wrap for so long, the guy with the midas touch, who was credited with the economic expansion, the stock market rise, and the soft landing since the tech bubble burst in 2000. For the general populace, it's better to maintain the facade, knowing that perhaps someone really does know most everything, and have the capability to deliver salvation, in the face of disaster. Such was the collapse of credibility of Greenspan, and to a less extent, Robert Rubin.
The reckoning was long overdue, now that we know how vehemently these two men had fought against any attempt to regulate derivatives that are at the heart of the current credit market woes. Now we also know that the free market has systematically failed to regulate itself (against what Greenspan had long maintained would be far more effective than government regulation), when risks can all be packaged and passed along to the next guy like hot potatoes.
For Greenspan to consistently maintaining the current events as a once-in-a-century tsunami-like event, that there's no way to avoid it from happening, is just plain BS. While government regulations could have muffled market innovations, they would also have reduced the blunt impact of catastrophic events, should the market fail to operate according to theory.
If only Greenspan and Rubin had allowed even better mandatory disclosure of derivatives to provide some form of transparency, we would not have been in deep shit like we are now, when no one practically knows where the most toxic elements are. Perhaps then, Hank Paulson, the current Treasury Secretary and the fall guy holding the bag, who tries to devise some bailout plan, would have been in a better position to do something more effectively, rather than limping from crisis to crisis. As it is now, Paulson is but one impotent demigod who is losing his confidence game fast.
Last year, when things started getting worse from mid 2007, people were saying, things will get better by end 2008. From the look of it now, and how the subprime, then the credit market have been pulling down not just the housing, but the general economy as a whole, it looks increasingly like that it'll be at least another year, till end of 2009 that things will look any better, before it gets worse.
There are buying opportunities, although it's sad that our business venture in watches will probably have to wait till economy picks up again before it takes off. You win some, you lose some.
The reckoning was long overdue, now that we know how vehemently these two men had fought against any attempt to regulate derivatives that are at the heart of the current credit market woes. Now we also know that the free market has systematically failed to regulate itself (against what Greenspan had long maintained would be far more effective than government regulation), when risks can all be packaged and passed along to the next guy like hot potatoes.
For Greenspan to consistently maintaining the current events as a once-in-a-century tsunami-like event, that there's no way to avoid it from happening, is just plain BS. While government regulations could have muffled market innovations, they would also have reduced the blunt impact of catastrophic events, should the market fail to operate according to theory.
If only Greenspan and Rubin had allowed even better mandatory disclosure of derivatives to provide some form of transparency, we would not have been in deep shit like we are now, when no one practically knows where the most toxic elements are. Perhaps then, Hank Paulson, the current Treasury Secretary and the fall guy holding the bag, who tries to devise some bailout plan, would have been in a better position to do something more effectively, rather than limping from crisis to crisis. As it is now, Paulson is but one impotent demigod who is losing his confidence game fast.
Last year, when things started getting worse from mid 2007, people were saying, things will get better by end 2008. From the look of it now, and how the subprime, then the credit market have been pulling down not just the housing, but the general economy as a whole, it looks increasingly like that it'll be at least another year, till end of 2009 that things will look any better, before it gets worse.
There are buying opportunities, although it's sad that our business venture in watches will probably have to wait till economy picks up again before it takes off. You win some, you lose some.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
On aging and women...
There is always something reassuring, yet repulsive, about reading women (and men alike) and their attempt to "stay young." Lots of them are in display. Mike Jagger, for one, is infamous in the male species, who in his 60s, is still flashing his pouting lips. In the female species, we have an exemplary "model" of Madonna.
Don't get me wrong. I like Madonna. I've always enjoyed her music, maybe not so much the sugar-pops in her very early days, but her skills and music have matured and morphed to stay ahead of her times. And I like her attitude, not so much her tendency/need to provoke sexually, but her way of keeping her life firmly in her own hands and control.
I do have one problem with Madonna, in terms of aging, as she reaches 50 now, though. Not that I think being 50 is old. Quite far from it, I think there's still alot of life and legs left. But do we, as a collective group, really need to redefine 50 as the new 40 or even the new 30? Should we really accept our sense and space in time, carve out our niche in the 50-year-old's space, and hold our own; rather than competing for attention with the 20- and 30-year-olds? That's how I feel now about Madonna, and the Sydney Morning Herald article captures this essence well.
Recently, I watched Sex And The City (SATC), the movie. Honestly, I think it's a mistake for Sarah Jessica Parker to try to prolong a franchise that should have been graceful retired, much like Seinfeld. Do we really feel the need to see women stepping into middle age to talk obsessively about sex and their toy boy, as one of the main characters would have us believed? I don't think so. Not that Madonna is doing that much anymore (with her new found domesticity, kids adoption and all), but I really don't need to see a 50-year-old in fishnet stockings on stage. To me, it's just not cool.
When I find the need to see older women acting their part and have fun, I'd rather watch Something's Gotta Give, a truly funny movie and is age appropriate. To me, that's acceptance for the gracefully aged. Madonna and Mike Jagger are decidedly not one of them.
Don't get me wrong. I like Madonna. I've always enjoyed her music, maybe not so much the sugar-pops in her very early days, but her skills and music have matured and morphed to stay ahead of her times. And I like her attitude, not so much her tendency/need to provoke sexually, but her way of keeping her life firmly in her own hands and control.
I do have one problem with Madonna, in terms of aging, as she reaches 50 now, though. Not that I think being 50 is old. Quite far from it, I think there's still alot of life and legs left. But do we, as a collective group, really need to redefine 50 as the new 40 or even the new 30? Should we really accept our sense and space in time, carve out our niche in the 50-year-old's space, and hold our own; rather than competing for attention with the 20- and 30-year-olds? That's how I feel now about Madonna, and the Sydney Morning Herald article captures this essence well.
Recently, I watched Sex And The City (SATC), the movie. Honestly, I think it's a mistake for Sarah Jessica Parker to try to prolong a franchise that should have been graceful retired, much like Seinfeld. Do we really feel the need to see women stepping into middle age to talk obsessively about sex and their toy boy, as one of the main characters would have us believed? I don't think so. Not that Madonna is doing that much anymore (with her new found domesticity, kids adoption and all), but I really don't need to see a 50-year-old in fishnet stockings on stage. To me, it's just not cool.
When I find the need to see older women acting their part and have fun, I'd rather watch Something's Gotta Give, a truly funny movie and is age appropriate. To me, that's acceptance for the gracefully aged. Madonna and Mike Jagger are decidedly not one of them.
Monday, October 20, 2008
On Joe The Plumber and Obama...
I'm sure Obama must have wished that he hadn't taken the impromptu question from Joe The Plumber, the average-joe who asked him a seemingly innocent question about taxes.
Not that I disagree with Obama completely. In a way, government has a role to play to even out wealth distribution, and to provide some social safety net, among its populace. Obama's response was forthcoming enough, in a sense that he acknowledged he would tax the higher income bracelet in order to "spread the wealth."
What I find highly distasteful is how Joe The Plumber was treated by main media (including NPR), that as one NPR's listener response I heard on radio the other day, that this average guy would need to get briefed on the latest US tax codes and to keep his financial house in order, before he should go open his mouth and ask a presidential candidate on the proposed policy change that would impact him. I find it equally distasteful that the Obama camp and main media would choose to attack this guy, for not agreeing 110% with Obama and to go with the flow. For what Obama had accused McCain in doing (ie. sidestepping policy discussions and choosing to go personal), he's doing the exact same thing for an average voter who disagrees with him.
For what's worth, the follow-up news conference by Joe The Plumber is surprisingly down-to-earth. Here is a guy who is opinionated and is not afraid to speak up for what's on his mind, while acknowledging he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Over half of those questions that the reporters asked in this news conference were completely beside the point (ie. not pertinent to the tax question that he had asked Obama). No wonder average Americans are having less of it from main media.
McCain is supposed to be behind in poll numbers right now, and there are only 2 more weeks to go. If it had been the Bill Clinton's famous campaign "it's the economy, stupid" that puts Clinton into the White House, and if McCain is to come from behind to win on November 4th, it would have been Joe The Plumber. I would also highly doubt that to be due to the so-called Bradley Effect, should Obama lose. The society has advanced and become much more tolerant and open since then, and those who blame Obama's loss to lingering race issue are but fools. It's all policy, policy, policy (or the lack thereof).
Not that I disagree with Obama completely. In a way, government has a role to play to even out wealth distribution, and to provide some social safety net, among its populace. Obama's response was forthcoming enough, in a sense that he acknowledged he would tax the higher income bracelet in order to "spread the wealth."
What I find highly distasteful is how Joe The Plumber was treated by main media (including NPR), that as one NPR's listener response I heard on radio the other day, that this average guy would need to get briefed on the latest US tax codes and to keep his financial house in order, before he should go open his mouth and ask a presidential candidate on the proposed policy change that would impact him. I find it equally distasteful that the Obama camp and main media would choose to attack this guy, for not agreeing 110% with Obama and to go with the flow. For what Obama had accused McCain in doing (ie. sidestepping policy discussions and choosing to go personal), he's doing the exact same thing for an average voter who disagrees with him.
For what's worth, the follow-up news conference by Joe The Plumber is surprisingly down-to-earth. Here is a guy who is opinionated and is not afraid to speak up for what's on his mind, while acknowledging he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Over half of those questions that the reporters asked in this news conference were completely beside the point (ie. not pertinent to the tax question that he had asked Obama). No wonder average Americans are having less of it from main media.
McCain is supposed to be behind in poll numbers right now, and there are only 2 more weeks to go. If it had been the Bill Clinton's famous campaign "it's the economy, stupid" that puts Clinton into the White House, and if McCain is to come from behind to win on November 4th, it would have been Joe The Plumber. I would also highly doubt that to be due to the so-called Bradley Effect, should Obama lose. The society has advanced and become much more tolerant and open since then, and those who blame Obama's loss to lingering race issue are but fools. It's all policy, policy, policy (or the lack thereof).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)