I'm a movie fan. (Ok, I'm not a fanatic, but I like watching movies. Most of us do anyways, I'm sure.) There are certain movies and franchises that are a must-see. For franchise, there is the Star Wars series (not quite so for the last three, but the first three), the LOTR series, etc, and of course, the James Bond movies.
I've lost track, and have not realized that James Bond in movies have been with us for 50 years now. It's high time to take stock, wouldn't you think?
My rule of thumb has always been (which I mostly stick with) that, if the movies are based on a published book, I'll read the book first. Let my imagination do some work based on the book, before allowing the filmmakers define what their vision of the story. I mostly do that with comic books as well, but not as strictly.
I watch all the James Bond movies. All of them. I'm sure for those who watch all the Bond movies, or at least those that span across the decades and the six Bond that we've had so far, we have our own favorite of who the real Bond or the best Bond should be.
The filmmakers of the Bond movies did a decent job in carving out somewhat different personality for the six Bond's, yet retaining some traits, like his preference of martini (shaken, not stirred), or the way he announces himself (My name is Bond, James Bond). They have become such catchphrases as to become almost cliche; yet they are so instantly recognizable which says volume about the popularity of James Bond and how deeply entrenched he is with pop culture.
Of the six Bonds - Roger Moore, always the gentleman; Timothy Dalton, with a more human touch; Pierce Brosnan, with a bit more intensity and even nervousness; George Lazenby, the forgettable; Daniel Craig, the first ever blond Bond and a very, very intense one, to boot; and then of course, there is Sean Connery, the ultimately definition of who and how Bond should be.
Sometimes I wonder out loud as well, as to why we love Sean Connery so much, as the first and the best ever James Bond there is, laying down the gold standard by which all the subsequent Bond is measured against.
Surely he's as smooth and handsome as anyone would expect from a lady's man like Bond. But there is also a sense of ruthlessness in Connery just under the surface of his face that makes him convincing as a master spy. That's what makes Moore's, Dalton's, and Lazenby's Bond come across as unconvincing and feel almost fake.
Brosnan and Craig are much more intense Bond, which is how things should be. In fact, one would say, they are much more realistic than Connery. When you're in really hot water, facing life and death (supposedly) on screen, one has got to be intense. Connery does have his own intensity, but he never feels like he's in a hurry. That's almost in keeping with the tradition of Bond theme songs as feeling this lazy, jazzy style.
I'm sure if you put Sean Connery in today's movie casting, he wouldn't stand a chance to be cast as Bond. Back in the days, I can't think of anyone else, or any other way, that a Bond could ever be.
I have not thought I would say it out loud, but indeed I'll be a Bond fan forever. Such as it is. :)
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
On the first presidential debate 2012...
We don't have TV at home. (We don't like news and entertainment pushed to us; we like to pull it whenever we want it.) So, I watched with interest the first (of three) presidential debate on Oct 3 between Obama and Romney.
The Romney campaign has been languishing for a while, and Romney desperately needs to reset the campaign. There is even talk of reset in strategy. Talk about late course reversal. Romney, hence, needs to "win" in the debate, at least to look a bit more presidential than he has presented himself so far. And he succeeded, not necessarily out of superb performance of his own (yes, he's done reasonably well in terms of debate style), but Obama largely handed over the success to Romney.
It's frustrating to see the impotence of Obama. Granted that I fully understand his rationale for not going negative. In fact, I give credits to both Romney and Obama for not going negative in the debate, which is a breath of fresh air, amidst all the negative ad by both campaigns and the super PAC. But, as Romney has succeeded in showing us, you can be more forceful, without going negative or personal. To this, Obama has largely failed. (Well, I wouldn't say he failed miserably, but yes, he failed in this first debate.)
Obama has taken a page out of the playbook in the Bill Clinton's DNC Convention speech. Clinton, the jack-of-all-trades, shows us all, that you can recite details - stats, even! - and touting your own record, without losing the audience. Bill Clinton has been praised much for that same speech, that heaps praises to his former nemesis of his wife; the guy who is "cool on the outside, but burning in the inside" for America. Talk about figurative speech.
And so, that's what Obama has tried to do. He quoted a lot of statistics. He tried to show American voters that, while the economy is still in doldrums, we've come a long way from the edge of abyss when the sky seemed to be falling since late 2008. Along the way, Obama has forgotten to go on the attack of the lies and half-truth (if there's half of it) that Romney, Ryan, and GOP have been pushing. Obama failed to make a more forceful arguments to even just correct what Romney has said and done. To be sure, he did attempts; but right when he's just maybe started down that path, he recoiled and go back to his cool shell. That's really frustrating, to see a man who seems not to have the guts to do it, even though we all know he's capable of doing.
In a way, it's a fine line that Obama has walked since his ascent from an unknown senator in Chicago to the White House. There is this stereotype of angry black man that he so desperately wants to avoid. He is a much more methodical and use-your-words-first type of person; surely, it must be frustrating for the GOP diehards who have tried (and failed) in painting him as angry black dude (which Obama is not), or Muslim (which he's not); or racist who favors blacks (which he hasn't shown the inclination). It's hard, to have a whole tribe (the blacks) and a few hundred years of history (in slavery) on your shoulder, and you have to show the world that you're made of stuffs much better - way better - than what is expected.
In contrast, there is this WASP dude in Romney, who was born with silver spoon in his mouth, whose life is privileged and sheltered. (Well, it's not exactly WASP; afterall, he's a Mormon.) Granted that Romney has shown his propensity to be much more moderate than he tried to paint himself to be, in the eyes of the right-wing GOP, and he's had decades of personal history doing good and charity, my problem with Romney is mainly that, he's such a chameleon that I'm not sure what we're getting in this package, should he get to the White House. Given his lack of backbone, pandering to the Tea Party and GOP right-wingers, and his inability or unwillingness to stand up to his own more moderate belief, lest he would lose a few votes, what else would he do just to get a few more votes? I'd venture to say, anything.
Pundits made harsh criticisms to Obama for his lackluster performance, including the diehard liberals in New York Times. The next day after the debate, Obama is in full damage control mode, coming out swinging in rally. I thought to myself, with much frustration, where were you last night when you're much needed in the debate? There's no point swinging the bat to a friendly, supportive public crowd; he needs to do the swinging to Romney (for goodness sake!).
From my vantage points, I have expected to hear much stronger rebuttal from Obama of the Romney's arguments; that Romney says he has a vision and plan to the country, but really nothing; that Romney is simply kicking the can down the road, rather than fixing and preparing the country for the future. I want Obama the world to show how lack of backbone Romney - and the GOP at large - really is. There are two more debates to go. Obama, show us the stuffs you're made of.
PS: In principle, although I'm an Independent, the far-right GOP and Tea Party have scared the crap out of me, and I cannot allow the White House to go to GOP. I didn't vote for Obama in 2008; but this time now, I'm ready to give him my vote, so that he can finish the job that he sets out to do four years ago.
The Romney campaign has been languishing for a while, and Romney desperately needs to reset the campaign. There is even talk of reset in strategy. Talk about late course reversal. Romney, hence, needs to "win" in the debate, at least to look a bit more presidential than he has presented himself so far. And he succeeded, not necessarily out of superb performance of his own (yes, he's done reasonably well in terms of debate style), but Obama largely handed over the success to Romney.
It's frustrating to see the impotence of Obama. Granted that I fully understand his rationale for not going negative. In fact, I give credits to both Romney and Obama for not going negative in the debate, which is a breath of fresh air, amidst all the negative ad by both campaigns and the super PAC. But, as Romney has succeeded in showing us, you can be more forceful, without going negative or personal. To this, Obama has largely failed. (Well, I wouldn't say he failed miserably, but yes, he failed in this first debate.)
Obama has taken a page out of the playbook in the Bill Clinton's DNC Convention speech. Clinton, the jack-of-all-trades, shows us all, that you can recite details - stats, even! - and touting your own record, without losing the audience. Bill Clinton has been praised much for that same speech, that heaps praises to his former nemesis of his wife; the guy who is "cool on the outside, but burning in the inside" for America. Talk about figurative speech.
And so, that's what Obama has tried to do. He quoted a lot of statistics. He tried to show American voters that, while the economy is still in doldrums, we've come a long way from the edge of abyss when the sky seemed to be falling since late 2008. Along the way, Obama has forgotten to go on the attack of the lies and half-truth (if there's half of it) that Romney, Ryan, and GOP have been pushing. Obama failed to make a more forceful arguments to even just correct what Romney has said and done. To be sure, he did attempts; but right when he's just maybe started down that path, he recoiled and go back to his cool shell. That's really frustrating, to see a man who seems not to have the guts to do it, even though we all know he's capable of doing.
In a way, it's a fine line that Obama has walked since his ascent from an unknown senator in Chicago to the White House. There is this stereotype of angry black man that he so desperately wants to avoid. He is a much more methodical and use-your-words-first type of person; surely, it must be frustrating for the GOP diehards who have tried (and failed) in painting him as angry black dude (which Obama is not), or Muslim (which he's not); or racist who favors blacks (which he hasn't shown the inclination). It's hard, to have a whole tribe (the blacks) and a few hundred years of history (in slavery) on your shoulder, and you have to show the world that you're made of stuffs much better - way better - than what is expected.
In contrast, there is this WASP dude in Romney, who was born with silver spoon in his mouth, whose life is privileged and sheltered. (Well, it's not exactly WASP; afterall, he's a Mormon.) Granted that Romney has shown his propensity to be much more moderate than he tried to paint himself to be, in the eyes of the right-wing GOP, and he's had decades of personal history doing good and charity, my problem with Romney is mainly that, he's such a chameleon that I'm not sure what we're getting in this package, should he get to the White House. Given his lack of backbone, pandering to the Tea Party and GOP right-wingers, and his inability or unwillingness to stand up to his own more moderate belief, lest he would lose a few votes, what else would he do just to get a few more votes? I'd venture to say, anything.
Pundits made harsh criticisms to Obama for his lackluster performance, including the diehard liberals in New York Times. The next day after the debate, Obama is in full damage control mode, coming out swinging in rally. I thought to myself, with much frustration, where were you last night when you're much needed in the debate? There's no point swinging the bat to a friendly, supportive public crowd; he needs to do the swinging to Romney (for goodness sake!).
From my vantage points, I have expected to hear much stronger rebuttal from Obama of the Romney's arguments; that Romney says he has a vision and plan to the country, but really nothing; that Romney is simply kicking the can down the road, rather than fixing and preparing the country for the future. I want Obama the world to show how lack of backbone Romney - and the GOP at large - really is. There are two more debates to go. Obama, show us the stuffs you're made of.
PS: In principle, although I'm an Independent, the far-right GOP and Tea Party have scared the crap out of me, and I cannot allow the White House to go to GOP. I didn't vote for Obama in 2008; but this time now, I'm ready to give him my vote, so that he can finish the job that he sets out to do four years ago.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
On bag ordnance and throwaway culture...
I'm quite pleased to read the bag ordinance of California that is going into effect which would charge $0.10 for the use of plastic and paper bags, with penalty to retailers that attempt to circumvent the regulations by giving them away for free and build the costs of the bags into the price of the products sold.
I'm glad too, that the CA court has rejected the lawsuits of retailers and plastic industry group to try to overthrow the ruling. As we teach our kids, every little bit of our actions count. If it means one less plastic or paper bag going to the landfill, that means one less that needs to be made and then be thrown away.
Surely reusable bags get dirty, but that can be easily addressed by cleaning. As to the argument that bags - plastic or paper - have become part of our culture, that we need them for other purposes (eg. all-purpose plastic bags to be reused for carrying other stuffs), I would only ask the question: How did the past consumer generations cope, before the explosion of the use of plastic/paper bags? And then, there's the argument that it's petty and demeaning to charge consumers $0.10 who bought $10,000 jewelry, for example.
It could take a generation or more in changing perception and behavior. I remember when I was going up, my mom used to do grocery shopping with a big wicker carrying bag. Hawkers in wet market would reuse all materials to sell things are loose; they would buy cutout newspapers in bulk (from kids or families who want to earn a little), then reuse newspapers to wrap eggs or fish; they they use weed rope to string up vegetables. You should see the wet and dirty wicker basket after my mom brought out all the food; but a little rinsing goes a long way. This was Hong Kong, circa pre-1970s.
The boom time in the 1980s coincides with the consumer culture. There was (and still is) premium and praise in the over-packaging of Japanese goods. Truth be told, the packaging is nice; it makes the product itself feel more precious. There's the beautiful paper bag, lovely wrapping paper, elegant box, luscious lining, eye-catching ribbon, the works. I have always tried to save those wrapping materials because they are so beautiful that I don't want to throw them out. My sisters would save all the shopping bags which are quite sturdy. In my young mind, I've never considered that as wasteful, even though subconsciously I know it is. Most people won't even have second thoughts, and would throw them away in a heartbeat.
As I grow up, I realize how much materials, resources, and energy it takes to produce just the packaging materials. I hate it. Yes, it's a love-hate relationship. I love to see/have the packaging, but I hate it that it's so wasteful, just to see people throwing them out to the landfill like junk. (Well, after the product is opened, there isn't much purpose for the packaging anymore; so, it is indeed "junk.")
I've resolved to myself, that at least I can do something about using (or rather, not using) bags when I buy things these days. I always bring my reusable bags with me, long before this environmental conscience has become almost fashionable and a way for people to make a statement. Chinese supermarkets, in particular, are always intrigued when I tell them I don't want their plastic bags.
But for most people who are not conscious about this, or are simply too lazy, it takes some drastic measures to change their behavior. This bag ordinance is perhaps long overdue. If anyone should doubt whether or how it'll work, look no further than how it's done in Hong Kong and how people have responded. These days, everyone has a reusable bag up their sleeves, and it's no longer considered "cheap" to not pay the tiny fee to get a new plastic bag for the goods instead which is the biggest behavioral and perception change. The same is true in other countries like Ireland. If we can make people use even just one bag - plastic or paper or anything else - to have one less bag going to the landfill, it's worth the effort. At least we do our part to the environment, rather than just for our own immediate pleasure and convenience.
So, we know it can be done, and it's not too ominous for consumers and retailers alike. Sure, tourists might not be as amendable; then again, tourists are mostly a one-time thing (for the sale), but we shop for daily stuffs every single day. If local consumers can take the lead, I'm sure everyone will follow. To that, I salute the CA bag ordinance, and all those cities and countries before it that have implemented such regulations with such determination (to do the right thing), to measurable success.
I'm glad too, that the CA court has rejected the lawsuits of retailers and plastic industry group to try to overthrow the ruling. As we teach our kids, every little bit of our actions count. If it means one less plastic or paper bag going to the landfill, that means one less that needs to be made and then be thrown away.
Surely reusable bags get dirty, but that can be easily addressed by cleaning. As to the argument that bags - plastic or paper - have become part of our culture, that we need them for other purposes (eg. all-purpose plastic bags to be reused for carrying other stuffs), I would only ask the question: How did the past consumer generations cope, before the explosion of the use of plastic/paper bags? And then, there's the argument that it's petty and demeaning to charge consumers $0.10 who bought $10,000 jewelry, for example.
It could take a generation or more in changing perception and behavior. I remember when I was going up, my mom used to do grocery shopping with a big wicker carrying bag. Hawkers in wet market would reuse all materials to sell things are loose; they would buy cutout newspapers in bulk (from kids or families who want to earn a little), then reuse newspapers to wrap eggs or fish; they they use weed rope to string up vegetables. You should see the wet and dirty wicker basket after my mom brought out all the food; but a little rinsing goes a long way. This was Hong Kong, circa pre-1970s.
The boom time in the 1980s coincides with the consumer culture. There was (and still is) premium and praise in the over-packaging of Japanese goods. Truth be told, the packaging is nice; it makes the product itself feel more precious. There's the beautiful paper bag, lovely wrapping paper, elegant box, luscious lining, eye-catching ribbon, the works. I have always tried to save those wrapping materials because they are so beautiful that I don't want to throw them out. My sisters would save all the shopping bags which are quite sturdy. In my young mind, I've never considered that as wasteful, even though subconsciously I know it is. Most people won't even have second thoughts, and would throw them away in a heartbeat.
As I grow up, I realize how much materials, resources, and energy it takes to produce just the packaging materials. I hate it. Yes, it's a love-hate relationship. I love to see/have the packaging, but I hate it that it's so wasteful, just to see people throwing them out to the landfill like junk. (Well, after the product is opened, there isn't much purpose for the packaging anymore; so, it is indeed "junk.")
I've resolved to myself, that at least I can do something about using (or rather, not using) bags when I buy things these days. I always bring my reusable bags with me, long before this environmental conscience has become almost fashionable and a way for people to make a statement. Chinese supermarkets, in particular, are always intrigued when I tell them I don't want their plastic bags.
But for most people who are not conscious about this, or are simply too lazy, it takes some drastic measures to change their behavior. This bag ordinance is perhaps long overdue. If anyone should doubt whether or how it'll work, look no further than how it's done in Hong Kong and how people have responded. These days, everyone has a reusable bag up their sleeves, and it's no longer considered "cheap" to not pay the tiny fee to get a new plastic bag for the goods instead which is the biggest behavioral and perception change. The same is true in other countries like Ireland. If we can make people use even just one bag - plastic or paper or anything else - to have one less bag going to the landfill, it's worth the effort. At least we do our part to the environment, rather than just for our own immediate pleasure and convenience.
So, we know it can be done, and it's not too ominous for consumers and retailers alike. Sure, tourists might not be as amendable; then again, tourists are mostly a one-time thing (for the sale), but we shop for daily stuffs every single day. If local consumers can take the lead, I'm sure everyone will follow. To that, I salute the CA bag ordinance, and all those cities and countries before it that have implemented such regulations with such determination (to do the right thing), to measurable success.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
On Romney's White House bid...
It's less than a month and a half to the general election in November 2012. As everyone knows, unless something dramatic (or drastic, depending where you stand) happens, the result is more or less set.
Since Obama won in 2008, it's been some die-hard Republican burning dream to unseat him at all costs. Granted that Obama has not done himself any favors in backpedaling on issues, the economy is still doldrums for swarth of populace, and unemployment is still high, there's been turnaround improvements in the past four years. Sure, economy has not roared back, like the country did when it crawled out from past recessions, the housing property has been looking up in a good part of the country. Underemployment is still big problem, but at least the official unemployment figures and downturn have been arrested and not going upwards anymore. Even in foreign policy which was almost a laughing joke of Obama - remember his proposal to do a sit-down with Iranian leaders? Well, it didn't happen - he has shown shrewdness and guts in dealing with tough situations like going after Osama bin Laden (where George W Bush and Bill Clinton have failed to do). Even Michelle Obama - his spouse with a chip on her shoulder before winning the White House in 2008 - has turned around her public image. Certainly it helps to have two cute-looking kids for the the cameras and spotlights.
It shouldn't have been bad - or this bad - for Romney. He has a winsome wife and smart-looking children. He has wealth. He's got a good resume in business. He bills himself as turnaround artist in coming to the rescue of the Salt Lake City winter Olympics. Despite being a standard bearer of the GOP Party now, he has shown aptitude to work more like an Independent, or even a moderate Republican (if such species still exist), to work across the aisle in the Massachusetts City Hall as its governor. What more can you ask for from a candidate? Everything looks perfect on paper.
Of course, things don't always work out as well as they do on papers. There are many theories as to why Romney's campaign looks so anemic so late in the game, ranging the blame game of Romney himself (he doesn't really have any burning conviction or long-standing principles politically, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly doesn't make him look any better, with even his own campaign staffers billed him as the chameleon who would drop all that he's promised in the primaries, by way of etch a sketch), or the confusion within his own campaign staffers, or the extreme right positions of his own party, or that, maybe the real situation isn't as bad as poll numbers have shown it to be, yada yada yada.
But perhaps his most decided failure is that, no one has much burning passion or rooting for him. Heck, he doesn't even have the stomach to stand up and defend himself. He stops touting his business records when the Obama campaign stresses Bain Capital for outsourcing jobs to cut costs, rather than creating jobs. He refuses to address issues about his wealth or even release his tax returns in order to duck the accusation that he's paying lower tax rate than average Americans; his only defense (and very lame one too) being that, it's all legal. (I mean, seriously, Mitt? I heard loads of Wall Street bankers using that "it's all legal" lame excuses to do whatever they want, before the 2008 collapse in the financial system.) He's pandered to the far right in issues like abortion. He's backtracked on his record of pushing through the healthcare reform in Massachusetts (dubbed RomneyCare), which has been a blueprint of the very unpopular ObamaCare among diehard Republicans. On almost every single issue, Romney has to backtrack on what he's done or said, with or without the attack from the Obama camp. Even on the very non-partisan issue where he's tried to drum up his foreign policy standing, with the hope of reminding people how great a job he's done at Salt Lake City, using the visit London Olympics as highlight, he's put his foot in mouth by criticizing London's missteps, resulting in foreign leader's (British prime minister David Cameron) public rebuke. And then there is the latest 47% remarks, denigrating and essentially writing off those very voters that he should be wooing. Choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate is supposed to reset the public discourse, emphasizing on the direction of taxes and budget deficit; unfortunately, Romney never seems to be a true believer in the more extreme position of the Ryan plan, worrying that any tinkering of the Medicare will anger the older voters in must-win states like Florida. Even those supposedly on his side, including the very faithful Wall Street Journal, voice their displeasure on how things have been going with the Romney campaign.
To be sure, I'm not a sworn Democrat; I'm more an Independent issue voter. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election's Dem primaries, and then I switched to John McCain even though McCain looks rather impotent. At least McCain has shown himself to be a principled man. Circa 2008, I haven't seen anything from the blank slate of the then Obama, and I didn't - and still don't - buy into the hype of Hope and Change. I never believe in one-man crusade.
Having said that, Obama has come a long way. Surely, he's nowhere near the Hope and Change that he's billed himself to be, and anyone pragmatic enough should know that while the president can steer the country to one direction or another, the president alone is not going to bring about the kind of change that many voters - in particular, the young college crowds - have hoped for in Washington. Obama does show his approach and attempts in addressing issues like the economy and foreign policy, and I like what I see. It's not sufficient for GOP - let alone Romney - to run a campaign simply with the slogan to vote Obama out, as the antidote for anything ill in this country. In fact, I blame more on the gridlock in Washington and the Congress (Republicans and Democrats alike) for the increasing partisanship that results in nothing useful being done, rather than the president alone. Attempts after attempts to undermine the much needed regulations to rein in Wall Streets, banks and financial institutions, like the recent veto of the SEC proposal by the Republican commissioner to reinforce the wobbling money market funds, make me really sick. Those are the kind of actions that I would like to get done, and Washington fails miserably again and again; and it's nothing of Obama's doing.
Prior to the announcement of Romney becoming the GOP nominee, I have thought that Romney is the most likely candidate to defeat Obama, given that Romney should have the biggest appeal to the moderate and independent voters, like myself. Since then, the choice of Paul Ryan on the GOP ticket, the failure of Romney to forcibly come out to rebut the many attacks on long-standing women's rights (eg. abortion rights, contraception), and many of these similar incidents, go to reinforce the impression of impotence of the Romney campaign, and his lack of conviction and principles. Romney's (and all other GOP's, including Ryan) attacks of Obama consist of nothing other than accusation that, yes things are improving but not good enough, so let me give me a try. For goodness sake, this country is in such deep shit, thanks to the very long eight years under Bush who is so incompetent, he let Cheney and neocon run amok to start, not one, but two wars, and let Wall Street lobbyists tear down all safeguards, aided by Greenspan and the gang. Do I want to give the White House back to another Republic administration to go back to the same wrong track that Bush has started us down? Hell, no.
Bottomline is, there's no reason why we shouldn't stay the course, and let Obama finish the job since he's shown sufficient competency and principles to handle the complexity and demands in the job at White House. If Romney can't even handle a campaign, how can I be sure he and his staffers can handle the real thing?
As Ann Romney says it, "it's hard." I can only think of one message to her: But, honey, of course it's hard; your husband is applying for the top job in the world, and you think everyone's going to fall over each other to kiss your feet, simply because you've been earning big bucks for so long? She must be smoking or something. I don't doubt that Romney is a nice guy in person, but as Bush has shown us all, I don't want a guy who we would share a beer with, but who is too incompetent for the job. It's not good enough; it should never be good enough.
Since Obama won in 2008, it's been some die-hard Republican burning dream to unseat him at all costs. Granted that Obama has not done himself any favors in backpedaling on issues, the economy is still doldrums for swarth of populace, and unemployment is still high, there's been turnaround improvements in the past four years. Sure, economy has not roared back, like the country did when it crawled out from past recessions, the housing property has been looking up in a good part of the country. Underemployment is still big problem, but at least the official unemployment figures and downturn have been arrested and not going upwards anymore. Even in foreign policy which was almost a laughing joke of Obama - remember his proposal to do a sit-down with Iranian leaders? Well, it didn't happen - he has shown shrewdness and guts in dealing with tough situations like going after Osama bin Laden (where George W Bush and Bill Clinton have failed to do). Even Michelle Obama - his spouse with a chip on her shoulder before winning the White House in 2008 - has turned around her public image. Certainly it helps to have two cute-looking kids for the the cameras and spotlights.
It shouldn't have been bad - or this bad - for Romney. He has a winsome wife and smart-looking children. He has wealth. He's got a good resume in business. He bills himself as turnaround artist in coming to the rescue of the Salt Lake City winter Olympics. Despite being a standard bearer of the GOP Party now, he has shown aptitude to work more like an Independent, or even a moderate Republican (if such species still exist), to work across the aisle in the Massachusetts City Hall as its governor. What more can you ask for from a candidate? Everything looks perfect on paper.
Of course, things don't always work out as well as they do on papers. There are many theories as to why Romney's campaign looks so anemic so late in the game, ranging the blame game of Romney himself (he doesn't really have any burning conviction or long-standing principles politically, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly doesn't make him look any better, with even his own campaign staffers billed him as the chameleon who would drop all that he's promised in the primaries, by way of etch a sketch), or the confusion within his own campaign staffers, or the extreme right positions of his own party, or that, maybe the real situation isn't as bad as poll numbers have shown it to be, yada yada yada.
But perhaps his most decided failure is that, no one has much burning passion or rooting for him. Heck, he doesn't even have the stomach to stand up and defend himself. He stops touting his business records when the Obama campaign stresses Bain Capital for outsourcing jobs to cut costs, rather than creating jobs. He refuses to address issues about his wealth or even release his tax returns in order to duck the accusation that he's paying lower tax rate than average Americans; his only defense (and very lame one too) being that, it's all legal. (I mean, seriously, Mitt? I heard loads of Wall Street bankers using that "it's all legal" lame excuses to do whatever they want, before the 2008 collapse in the financial system.) He's pandered to the far right in issues like abortion. He's backtracked on his record of pushing through the healthcare reform in Massachusetts (dubbed RomneyCare), which has been a blueprint of the very unpopular ObamaCare among diehard Republicans. On almost every single issue, Romney has to backtrack on what he's done or said, with or without the attack from the Obama camp. Even on the very non-partisan issue where he's tried to drum up his foreign policy standing, with the hope of reminding people how great a job he's done at Salt Lake City, using the visit London Olympics as highlight, he's put his foot in mouth by criticizing London's missteps, resulting in foreign leader's (British prime minister David Cameron) public rebuke. And then there is the latest 47% remarks, denigrating and essentially writing off those very voters that he should be wooing. Choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate is supposed to reset the public discourse, emphasizing on the direction of taxes and budget deficit; unfortunately, Romney never seems to be a true believer in the more extreme position of the Ryan plan, worrying that any tinkering of the Medicare will anger the older voters in must-win states like Florida. Even those supposedly on his side, including the very faithful Wall Street Journal, voice their displeasure on how things have been going with the Romney campaign.
To be sure, I'm not a sworn Democrat; I'm more an Independent issue voter. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election's Dem primaries, and then I switched to John McCain even though McCain looks rather impotent. At least McCain has shown himself to be a principled man. Circa 2008, I haven't seen anything from the blank slate of the then Obama, and I didn't - and still don't - buy into the hype of Hope and Change. I never believe in one-man crusade.
Having said that, Obama has come a long way. Surely, he's nowhere near the Hope and Change that he's billed himself to be, and anyone pragmatic enough should know that while the president can steer the country to one direction or another, the president alone is not going to bring about the kind of change that many voters - in particular, the young college crowds - have hoped for in Washington. Obama does show his approach and attempts in addressing issues like the economy and foreign policy, and I like what I see. It's not sufficient for GOP - let alone Romney - to run a campaign simply with the slogan to vote Obama out, as the antidote for anything ill in this country. In fact, I blame more on the gridlock in Washington and the Congress (Republicans and Democrats alike) for the increasing partisanship that results in nothing useful being done, rather than the president alone. Attempts after attempts to undermine the much needed regulations to rein in Wall Streets, banks and financial institutions, like the recent veto of the SEC proposal by the Republican commissioner to reinforce the wobbling money market funds, make me really sick. Those are the kind of actions that I would like to get done, and Washington fails miserably again and again; and it's nothing of Obama's doing.
Prior to the announcement of Romney becoming the GOP nominee, I have thought that Romney is the most likely candidate to defeat Obama, given that Romney should have the biggest appeal to the moderate and independent voters, like myself. Since then, the choice of Paul Ryan on the GOP ticket, the failure of Romney to forcibly come out to rebut the many attacks on long-standing women's rights (eg. abortion rights, contraception), and many of these similar incidents, go to reinforce the impression of impotence of the Romney campaign, and his lack of conviction and principles. Romney's (and all other GOP's, including Ryan) attacks of Obama consist of nothing other than accusation that, yes things are improving but not good enough, so let me give me a try. For goodness sake, this country is in such deep shit, thanks to the very long eight years under Bush who is so incompetent, he let Cheney and neocon run amok to start, not one, but two wars, and let Wall Street lobbyists tear down all safeguards, aided by Greenspan and the gang. Do I want to give the White House back to another Republic administration to go back to the same wrong track that Bush has started us down? Hell, no.
Bottomline is, there's no reason why we shouldn't stay the course, and let Obama finish the job since he's shown sufficient competency and principles to handle the complexity and demands in the job at White House. If Romney can't even handle a campaign, how can I be sure he and his staffers can handle the real thing?
As Ann Romney says it, "it's hard." I can only think of one message to her: But, honey, of course it's hard; your husband is applying for the top job in the world, and you think everyone's going to fall over each other to kiss your feet, simply because you've been earning big bucks for so long? She must be smoking or something. I don't doubt that Romney is a nice guy in person, but as Bush has shown us all, I don't want a guy who we would share a beer with, but who is too incompetent for the job. It's not good enough; it should never be good enough.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
On lives of single women, and art imitating life...
Although the influence of network TV has been on the decline for decades now, it must be said that TV series (of networks and even on cable channels) still play a large part in reflecting the lives and times of the contemporary.
Earlier, I was reading the Los Angeles TImes article on various TV offerings focusing on single women as protagonists. I haven't had - or needed, or wanted - a TV for closer to two decades now, and I haven't felt the urge to go back to it. I was one of those in the TV generation who literally grew up with TV. Shows like Murphy Brown indeed demonstrates the kind of feminist and girl power that one, as a woman, does feel exhilarated and liberated. Afterall, Murphy Brown was successful, she called the shots, she's funny, she made her own agenda, and she's a force of her own. I must admit Murphy Brown was a pseudo role model (even), unlike the earlier generations when women are subjugated under male influence and control whose sole angst and life goal was to snatch a well-off husband. So lame.
You can thus see how I lament the fall from grace of women of our younger generations, in shows like Girls (HBO), when the very single, young women are such a whinging bunch, that are nothing but losers in life. Surely, I must have sounded really harsh, in particular, to those supporters of such shows, saying that such is the generations who, unlike the prosperous 1980s, face one of the greatest economic challenges in more than 70 years. Surely, these girls deserve some help, and we should cut them some slack.
Perhaps girls like this on TV shows are from a younger demographics (in the age group of 18-21, perhaps?), I might be more forgiving. But, for goodness sake, we're talking about women - yes, I wouldn't use the very stupid term of girls to describe women in this age group - in their 20s. Has the academia come up with a stuck-in-the-middle psychological and emotional state to describe anyone in the early-through-late-20s as something that should be treated differently, much like the much-lauded identification of adolescence?
It's depressing to just read through the synopsis of these TV shows about the challenges faced by single women. There is no more sugar-coating of successful single women looking for sex (Sex And The City), just so women can be on equal footing with sex crazed single men stereotype. There isn't even gorgeous single women looking for love, treasuring friendship more than anything else (Friends). Be that as it may, one almost consistent theme that courses through those single-women's show - if you can call it that - in the earlier decade, is that, they are funny and even lighthearted. I can't say the same about those in this decade, though I could still be proven wrong, since we're still earlier in this decade in 2012, and we have 8 more years to go, before we can close the book on this decade - though I have subconsciously written off this decade as a lost decade, much as the financial cohorts would say about the lost decade of any financial gain and economic turnaround since the economic collapse in 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thinking back my own days as singles, I do recall the almost unspoken anxiety and wonderment, of whether the right man could ever be found. By jove, I wasn't even looking for a wealthy husband who could afford me with a life without work, nor a handsome prince who would scoop me off of my feet and ride with me to the sunset on his horse. No, I am, and have always been, a working woman and I treasure my career and financial independence too much to wish myself a life without work. Neither have I ever put too much stock in the looks department. But if you are to ask any single, sensible woman of the challenge along this line, you would realize how hard it is, to find a sensible, reliable, and good, honest man who is also compatible with you, with bonus of a sense of humor.
I have long resorted to try consciously not to think about these kind of challenges. Afterall, the harder you look, the more desperate you try, the more difficult it'll come by. I just take it as it comes. I'm sure I'm not alone in my approach.
One thing I find rather befuddled by young women, single or otherwise, is their ease to bed with any men. Is it really just me, alone in thinking that sex - and sex alone - can't sustain a long term relationship? Nor do I believe in a relationship in which sex comes before love. Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned; maybe they don't want a long term relationship. Everyone just wants to have a good time; or maybe everyone feels like they're stuck in a limbo in this lousy economic with no prospect, and sex is an easy relief, as the Girls have shown us. I'm unable, though, to subscribe with such a notion.
Before I lay this topic to rest, my disclaimer is in order. Given all those I've said above, I strongly condemn the GOP's repeated assault on women's rights. Case in point, Todd Akin. It's unbelievable and incredibly condescending for GOP to try to revive arguments against basic women's rights like contraception. Whatever it is that the arts on TV try to reflect the life of our times, what GOP does is inexcusable. I wish to just let any GOP out there who care to read or listen, I would vote for Obama just on that issue alone (though I'm hardly a single-issue Independent voter). I rest my case.
Earlier, I was reading the Los Angeles TImes article on various TV offerings focusing on single women as protagonists. I haven't had - or needed, or wanted - a TV for closer to two decades now, and I haven't felt the urge to go back to it. I was one of those in the TV generation who literally grew up with TV. Shows like Murphy Brown indeed demonstrates the kind of feminist and girl power that one, as a woman, does feel exhilarated and liberated. Afterall, Murphy Brown was successful, she called the shots, she's funny, she made her own agenda, and she's a force of her own. I must admit Murphy Brown was a pseudo role model (even), unlike the earlier generations when women are subjugated under male influence and control whose sole angst and life goal was to snatch a well-off husband. So lame.
You can thus see how I lament the fall from grace of women of our younger generations, in shows like Girls (HBO), when the very single, young women are such a whinging bunch, that are nothing but losers in life. Surely, I must have sounded really harsh, in particular, to those supporters of such shows, saying that such is the generations who, unlike the prosperous 1980s, face one of the greatest economic challenges in more than 70 years. Surely, these girls deserve some help, and we should cut them some slack.
Perhaps girls like this on TV shows are from a younger demographics (in the age group of 18-21, perhaps?), I might be more forgiving. But, for goodness sake, we're talking about women - yes, I wouldn't use the very stupid term of girls to describe women in this age group - in their 20s. Has the academia come up with a stuck-in-the-middle psychological and emotional state to describe anyone in the early-through-late-20s as something that should be treated differently, much like the much-lauded identification of adolescence?
It's depressing to just read through the synopsis of these TV shows about the challenges faced by single women. There is no more sugar-coating of successful single women looking for sex (Sex And The City), just so women can be on equal footing with sex crazed single men stereotype. There isn't even gorgeous single women looking for love, treasuring friendship more than anything else (Friends). Be that as it may, one almost consistent theme that courses through those single-women's show - if you can call it that - in the earlier decade, is that, they are funny and even lighthearted. I can't say the same about those in this decade, though I could still be proven wrong, since we're still earlier in this decade in 2012, and we have 8 more years to go, before we can close the book on this decade - though I have subconsciously written off this decade as a lost decade, much as the financial cohorts would say about the lost decade of any financial gain and economic turnaround since the economic collapse in 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thinking back my own days as singles, I do recall the almost unspoken anxiety and wonderment, of whether the right man could ever be found. By jove, I wasn't even looking for a wealthy husband who could afford me with a life without work, nor a handsome prince who would scoop me off of my feet and ride with me to the sunset on his horse. No, I am, and have always been, a working woman and I treasure my career and financial independence too much to wish myself a life without work. Neither have I ever put too much stock in the looks department. But if you are to ask any single, sensible woman of the challenge along this line, you would realize how hard it is, to find a sensible, reliable, and good, honest man who is also compatible with you, with bonus of a sense of humor.
I have long resorted to try consciously not to think about these kind of challenges. Afterall, the harder you look, the more desperate you try, the more difficult it'll come by. I just take it as it comes. I'm sure I'm not alone in my approach.
One thing I find rather befuddled by young women, single or otherwise, is their ease to bed with any men. Is it really just me, alone in thinking that sex - and sex alone - can't sustain a long term relationship? Nor do I believe in a relationship in which sex comes before love. Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned; maybe they don't want a long term relationship. Everyone just wants to have a good time; or maybe everyone feels like they're stuck in a limbo in this lousy economic with no prospect, and sex is an easy relief, as the Girls have shown us. I'm unable, though, to subscribe with such a notion.
Before I lay this topic to rest, my disclaimer is in order. Given all those I've said above, I strongly condemn the GOP's repeated assault on women's rights. Case in point, Todd Akin. It's unbelievable and incredibly condescending for GOP to try to revive arguments against basic women's rights like contraception. Whatever it is that the arts on TV try to reflect the life of our times, what GOP does is inexcusable. I wish to just let any GOP out there who care to read or listen, I would vote for Obama just on that issue alone (though I'm hardly a single-issue Independent voter). I rest my case.
Friday, September 7, 2012
On tailor-made clothing and market force...
Boy, I can't believe I haven't jogged down a single thought in more than three months. How time flies by, and we don't even notice it. Now that the kids are back to school, and the various property dealings are settled, life is back on a rhythm again and I can write a bit more.
I was reading this article in New York Times about bespoke suites. I can't help but think back of the times, more than a few decades ago when I was growing up in Asia. Back then, without the benefits - or is it really a benefit?? - of mass production, craftsmanship was something to be desired, valued, and yes, expensive. I used past tense in describing that since this oftentimes doesn't seem to be the case anymore. It was a time when Made In Italy or Made In France really means something special, and with that, really expensive.
I have a fetish of sorts about shoes. I love shoes that are Made In Italy since they are so comfortable. You see, my feet are rather oddly shaped (in my opinion); they're wider on the sides. With years of high keels, my bunion also hurts. I've come to value comfortable shoes since they really make a world of difference.
But, Italian shoes were expensive back then. In between Italian shoes, I would buy tailor-made shoes locally made by shoemakers. I would say, the prices of tailor-made shoes costed at least 25% less than the Italian shoes. I got to pick the materials - leather, mostly - and I saw the shoes created by hands. The craftsmanship, though not as beautiful as those of the Italians - was something to behold of. I have the patience to wait as well.
These days, market forces have worked against anything that requires craftsmanship. Women's fashion-related industry is even worse than men since women have been successfully molded to change their wardrobe every season, couple of times a year. With that kind of turnover, who has the time and patience to wait for tailor-made stuffs? Everything is bought, with the expectation that they'll be thrown out within six months. Nobody holds onto anything. And mass-production is infinitesimally cheaper than the beautiful stuffs from tailors, no matter how hard they try and how much more beautiful their wares are.
Men's fashion might be marginally better than women's, but men of the younger generations are being molded to become more like the ADHD fashion sense of the women's. Tailor-made industry might still hold a tiny niche in the very high-end men's fashion corner, but the way it's getting stagnant in growth and the lack of scalability in operation, as noted in the NYTimes article, speaks of its impending doom.
The tailors that caters for women's needs have all but disappeared in Hong Kong. There are still some surviving in some corners in China, but their craftsmanship is nowhere near where their Hong Kong counterparts of old could offer, and they're scrapping by more like bottom-feeding individually than a niche industry that has a prospect to survive, particularly in the face of a world where everything in China is mass-produced.
I'm in my nostalgia mode today, and think back fondly of the days when beautifully craftsman was to be treasured and desired and kept like treasure - not to mention the high price tag that goes with it. The younger generations don't seem to have any patience, or mostly don't have the deeper pocket to pay for that multiple times a year.
How ironic, when one looks at the almost outdated tagline of Patek Philippe campaign, that "You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely take care of it for the next generation." It's not incidentally that Patek's - and other major watch brands - collectable items all cater for men. In a way, I almost find it insulting that such honoring of traditions only targets men; but can I blame them for that, since women certainly have not helped themselves, by being such a fickle? *sigh*
I was reading this article in New York Times about bespoke suites. I can't help but think back of the times, more than a few decades ago when I was growing up in Asia. Back then, without the benefits - or is it really a benefit?? - of mass production, craftsmanship was something to be desired, valued, and yes, expensive. I used past tense in describing that since this oftentimes doesn't seem to be the case anymore. It was a time when Made In Italy or Made In France really means something special, and with that, really expensive.
I have a fetish of sorts about shoes. I love shoes that are Made In Italy since they are so comfortable. You see, my feet are rather oddly shaped (in my opinion); they're wider on the sides. With years of high keels, my bunion also hurts. I've come to value comfortable shoes since they really make a world of difference.
But, Italian shoes were expensive back then. In between Italian shoes, I would buy tailor-made shoes locally made by shoemakers. I would say, the prices of tailor-made shoes costed at least 25% less than the Italian shoes. I got to pick the materials - leather, mostly - and I saw the shoes created by hands. The craftsmanship, though not as beautiful as those of the Italians - was something to behold of. I have the patience to wait as well.
These days, market forces have worked against anything that requires craftsmanship. Women's fashion-related industry is even worse than men since women have been successfully molded to change their wardrobe every season, couple of times a year. With that kind of turnover, who has the time and patience to wait for tailor-made stuffs? Everything is bought, with the expectation that they'll be thrown out within six months. Nobody holds onto anything. And mass-production is infinitesimally cheaper than the beautiful stuffs from tailors, no matter how hard they try and how much more beautiful their wares are.
Men's fashion might be marginally better than women's, but men of the younger generations are being molded to become more like the ADHD fashion sense of the women's. Tailor-made industry might still hold a tiny niche in the very high-end men's fashion corner, but the way it's getting stagnant in growth and the lack of scalability in operation, as noted in the NYTimes article, speaks of its impending doom.
The tailors that caters for women's needs have all but disappeared in Hong Kong. There are still some surviving in some corners in China, but their craftsmanship is nowhere near where their Hong Kong counterparts of old could offer, and they're scrapping by more like bottom-feeding individually than a niche industry that has a prospect to survive, particularly in the face of a world where everything in China is mass-produced.
I'm in my nostalgia mode today, and think back fondly of the days when beautifully craftsman was to be treasured and desired and kept like treasure - not to mention the high price tag that goes with it. The younger generations don't seem to have any patience, or mostly don't have the deeper pocket to pay for that multiple times a year.
How ironic, when one looks at the almost outdated tagline of Patek Philippe campaign, that "You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely take care of it for the next generation." It's not incidentally that Patek's - and other major watch brands - collectable items all cater for men. In a way, I almost find it insulting that such honoring of traditions only targets men; but can I blame them for that, since women certainly have not helped themselves, by being such a fickle? *sigh*
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
On the hate crime verdict of the Rutgers student...
How do you define idiots - and I mean, total idiot? Try Dharun Ravi, the 20-year-old ex-Rutgers student who thought it's funny to use webcam to spy on his roommate with another man, and then, announce it to the world, inviting everyone to look see.
If it were in grade school, I'm sure this would be considered bullying, and the kid would get an earful. When it's in college, Ravi and his parents and supporters call it "pranks." To him, sure it's no harm no foul. To Tyler Clementi, the victim who couldn't bear to be out'ed by his roommate in such a public, humiliated way, jumped off of a bridge and killed himself, it's an entirely different matter.
While it's true this doesn't involve violence or coercion or the traditional type of hate crime traits that one can easily identify it with, words and actions can equally kill.
What I find most callous, is the lack of emotion or remorse from this perpetrator, who never even came out to say he's sorry, or utter some word of apology, or express certain remorse or regret that his actions led to the death of his roommate (although I'm sure Ravi didn't consider Clementi a "friend"). The only time he cried, was when he realized that he's going to spend 30 days in prison, for causing someone else to die. He regrets it simply because he got caught and was getting punished for the crime.
Sure, sure, I can already hear people jumping up and down, saying that this prosecution is not about the death of the victim, but the process (the spying, the singling out the gay, and for exposing him to the world). Being a spectator, I have no care about the technicalities. The outcome is the same. This guy, through the process, directly caused the outcome; and someone died, as a result. Someone has to pay for the crime. Dharun Ravi should be made to pay, one way or the other.
It's equally callous, for Ravi's family and proponents to say he doesn't deserve to do time in jail. He did the crime; he did the time. That's how I see it.
The controversy of the verdict ends with the judge's sentencing which includes only 30-day prison time (out of 10 years potential maximum), some community service, small fine of $10,000 to help with victim's fund, and no recommendation of deportation. When I first hear of it, I'm, like, no way, this is not fair for the victim. The guy died because of his action, and he got 30 days of jail? It's like having do retention after-school at principal's office for pushing a classmate over a cliff.
On second thought, it sounds like quite a well-thought out sentence. Ravi would remain a felon after the 30-day jail term, he's going to do crime, he could still face deportation (back to India), he's kicked out of Rutgers. Being a supposedly bright 20-year-old, his future is probably done for. He'll live with the stigma of being the stupid idiot from Rutgers who spies on friends and acquaintances. A total wanker.
With the high profile trial, I hope it raises sufficient awareness among other idiotic teens, young adults, and adults alike, that bloodless pranks can have serious consequences. Crimes don't pay, and they should think twice (if they're able of using their heads, for a change) before they commit to idiotic acts, as Dharun Ravi did.
If it were in grade school, I'm sure this would be considered bullying, and the kid would get an earful. When it's in college, Ravi and his parents and supporters call it "pranks." To him, sure it's no harm no foul. To Tyler Clementi, the victim who couldn't bear to be out'ed by his roommate in such a public, humiliated way, jumped off of a bridge and killed himself, it's an entirely different matter.
While it's true this doesn't involve violence or coercion or the traditional type of hate crime traits that one can easily identify it with, words and actions can equally kill.
What I find most callous, is the lack of emotion or remorse from this perpetrator, who never even came out to say he's sorry, or utter some word of apology, or express certain remorse or regret that his actions led to the death of his roommate (although I'm sure Ravi didn't consider Clementi a "friend"). The only time he cried, was when he realized that he's going to spend 30 days in prison, for causing someone else to die. He regrets it simply because he got caught and was getting punished for the crime.
Sure, sure, I can already hear people jumping up and down, saying that this prosecution is not about the death of the victim, but the process (the spying, the singling out the gay, and for exposing him to the world). Being a spectator, I have no care about the technicalities. The outcome is the same. This guy, through the process, directly caused the outcome; and someone died, as a result. Someone has to pay for the crime. Dharun Ravi should be made to pay, one way or the other.
It's equally callous, for Ravi's family and proponents to say he doesn't deserve to do time in jail. He did the crime; he did the time. That's how I see it.
The controversy of the verdict ends with the judge's sentencing which includes only 30-day prison time (out of 10 years potential maximum), some community service, small fine of $10,000 to help with victim's fund, and no recommendation of deportation. When I first hear of it, I'm, like, no way, this is not fair for the victim. The guy died because of his action, and he got 30 days of jail? It's like having do retention after-school at principal's office for pushing a classmate over a cliff.
On second thought, it sounds like quite a well-thought out sentence. Ravi would remain a felon after the 30-day jail term, he's going to do crime, he could still face deportation (back to India), he's kicked out of Rutgers. Being a supposedly bright 20-year-old, his future is probably done for. He'll live with the stigma of being the stupid idiot from Rutgers who spies on friends and acquaintances. A total wanker.
With the high profile trial, I hope it raises sufficient awareness among other idiotic teens, young adults, and adults alike, that bloodless pranks can have serious consequences. Crimes don't pay, and they should think twice (if they're able of using their heads, for a change) before they commit to idiotic acts, as Dharun Ravi did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)