In the closing days before the midterm elections in November, when Democrats are expecting blue wave, set in by general disgust of the idiocy of Trump since 2016, God seems to looking down on Trump (and GOP by proxy) with another providential act. In 2016, it was the flip-flop of the FBI investigations of Hillary Clinton. This time, it's in the form of migrant caravan.
As an Independent voter, I'm generally on the fence. I don't give a damn about endorsements. Who cares what so-and-so might think of this-and-that candidate? If a candidate has the credentials and the agenda that appeal to me, I vote for that. I can't care less what party affiliation of the candidate.
And so, I look at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, two candidates from the then presidential election in 2016 with almost equal dismay. (Well, truth be told, more dismay about Trump than HRC, but you get my drift.) I don't agree completely either of the candidates or their respective party's proposition. Of course Trump's roundly idiotic worship of half-truth and outright lies is something that I despise and am totally disgusted, but I have thought general voters should be more intelligent than being duped by this con-man. Apparently I was wrong, and almost half of the country voted for this idiot. On the other side of the aisle, we have HRC the experienced hand, the one with voluminous credentials and resume behind her. While it's a laudable goal to be compassionate and empathetic, I'm not sure why I should vote for someone who seems to care more about refugees rights and transgender issues than regular voters' concerns. Afterall she's running for American presidency, not some foreign countries.
In the current climate when political correctness rules the day, I know I would sound anything but. Yet, I have to say, I am of two minds about this migrant caravan in the news.
On the one hand, these are real people with real concerns. But there are rules and regulations. Can anyone jump the queue, ahead of someone dutifully apply for migration into US and wait for their turns for years, by rushing the shore? How does US assess the claim of someone who says they are in fear for their lives without any proof? (Afterall they are not going to bring with them the gangs who threaten to kill them.) How can US possibly separate the claims of economic migrants (who are not allowed in) from genuine asylum seeks for humanitarian reasons (who could be allowed to stay)? Can and should someone get preferential treatments simply because they are bringing in minors with them? The answers, from the outset, look to be, no, no, no, and no.
Put it another way, if these thousands of people in the migrant caravan are allowed to come in, the argument goes, that by proxy US should be allowing the millions from those countries to come in too. Who is to say who is poorer or more fearful for their lives than others? Fact of the matter is, one simply can't discern one from another.
More importantly, if US is to open the border for economic migrants from South America (which would translate into millions who will become eligible to come since all of them are poor and are in search for a better life - well, who isn't, really?), anyone from any other countries can make the same economic claim. Afterall there are hundreds of millions more in Africa and South Asia and beyond who are far, far, far poorer than those from South America. Why isn't US taking them in too?
Ultimately, there is the question of sustainability. Can US become the country to be, to take in everyone and anyone who wants in for a better life? If US can't even take care of its own citizens (and one doesn't need to look further than to look at the millions of working poor and worsening issues of homelessness in this country), where would we find the wherewithal to feed hundreds of millions more? Dems have the arguments for using millionaire tax to fund initiatives, without pointing out how fleeting these millionaires and billionaires are and how easily they can change their abode and move their arse elsewhere (and in some cases, even buy their own islands to settle in for good).
And so, the pragmatic side of me wins over, to the point where everytime I hear HRC (and other Dems or progressive liberals) chants about refugees rights, I can only shake my head, with that little voice ringing in my ears, saying, don't go there. But, go, they did, and so Dems lost, not only in presidential elections, but I'm afraid to say, GOP could likely keep the majority in Congress, come November, even if it's by the slimmest margin.
In a way, the idiocy of Trump has already reduced him (and the presidency) to nothing but a laughing stock. Even if someone agrees with what he says, they are not going to be with him (unless for those who are as idiotic as he is). But just because voters are against Trump, that doesn't mean they are for Dems, which is exactly where I stand currently.
I have long believed that US has the use and needs of migrant workers, and they could make a decent living if they come in legally and orderly. There should have been immigration reforms in the form of H1B for unskilled labor for them to come in and do, say, farm and field jobs that local Americans don't seem to want to do anymore. That would have been a win-win. That would also allow these migrants a chance to reinvest in their home country, that would have been the long term goal to improve their own home country to a point where they would not feel the need to leave anymore.
It sucks to have such imbecile leadership in those countries in South America (and beyond). How many years, and how many billions US has spent over the years to try to help them improve their countries and systems? Yet nothing seems to work. In contrast, look at what the Chinese have accomplished in China. Authoritarianism notwithstanding, their country and system have improved so markedly that a lot of educated Chinese are now moving back to their own country for work. Can South America ever be able to achieve that kind of success? I really don't know.
And so, all these frustrations, all these entitlement claims (that as long as they come in large enough numbers, as long as they bring kids and minors with them, as long as they set foot in US, then they are entitled to anything and everything that the locals enjoy) really rubs me the wrong way. I do empathize their plight, but what happens to paying their dues?
I was once an immigrant myself. I know how it feels like. It's never easy. It's a lot of hard work. In a way, you have to work twice as hard - oftentimes, far more - as the locals in order to excel. It's bad form for newcomers (by jove, these illegal migrants haven't even reached US yet!) to claim their "rights" and protections in US without even setting foot in her soil yet, and for those who came illegally to demand legal protection, benefits and welfare. While Trump is xenophobic, he is not wrong in calling that out. In a civil society, there are rules and regulations that all encumbers need to observe. We can't be simply tending to only those who scream the loudest or have the biggest sob story.
We all do hold the belief that the next generations will get a better shot in life than their forebear. I should hope that I'm not alone as an anecdote, to show that meritocracy does still work in America. I do hope others would have the chance for that, and to do so legally (rather than rushing the shore). Am I too naive in that thought? I sure hope not.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Sunday, October 21, 2018
On the complicated legacy of Hillary Clinton...
I'm a news junkie. Generally I can have my radio tuned to NPR all day. The past couple of years since Trump took the White House in 2016 has me set in fatigue. All the idiotic policy and the rapid-fire about-face, all the dangerous maneuvering in foreign policy, all the embracing of autocratic foreign powers thereby pushing all the noble ideals that America has stood for, all the crass and juvenile name-calling that belittles the presidency. Worst yet, no one seems to have a counter-punch to this idiot. That has been in the news, one form or another, for the past two years. I'm just getting very tired of it all. Some days, I don't even want to hear it at all.
One thing I'm sure to be doing, is to get out and vote. This is the only way to ensure something is done about this whole mess.
Needless to say, this has very little to do with Hillary Clinton, the one female candidate who has achieved the highest honor so far in US history to becoming a presidential candidate as a woman in her own right, the one who can supposedly galvanize the support of all those that oppose everything that Trump stands for. She has star power, the credentials, the works.Yet she lost the election.
Much has been analyzed, all stones turned over (many times over), of what happened, why, and the what-ifs. Let's see if bullet points might have it easier to discern:
It is unfair how women have to bear the wrongs done by their husbands, as HRC did with Bill Clinton's transgression in the Monica Lewinsky affair. It might have been even noble to forgive her husband and stand by him (rather than divorcing him). What she could have done, is to stay silent (to maintain privacy) on this affair, rather than lashing out against Lewinsky as if there is no power play at work. In the revisionist history, Lewinsky would have us believed that she's cowered into having sex with Bill Clinton. In the midst of #MeToo movement, it's easy to take in that version of the story. But I do believe in the other version, the version that Lewinsky flirted furiously with Bill, even flashing her thongs to him. She is no Rose McGowan, she was not coerced into compromising position, she aggressively sought after it due to the lure of power of the White House office. For all those, I would have gladly sided with HRC. There really is no need for HRC to lash out against media and even Lewinsky, she could have risen above the fray. But HRC didn't.
As to the unloseable election in 2016, Bill Clinton had advocated HRC to focus on jobs, economy, and working class votes, as did Joe Biden. They were right. Sadly to say, HRC would rather focus on more progressive issues like refugees' rights and the transgenders fight. (Ironic enough, even those positions of hers are not progressive and far-left enough for most young supporters in the Sanders crowd.) Perhaps HRC and her army of advisers were under the impression that the economy was on the mend (thanks to the steady hands of Obama's administration for the preceding eight years in office). What she did not realize was that, a lot of folks who were hurting from the demise of manufacturing sectors have fallen off of the radar (and unemployment roll) for the longest time. She has come to symbolize all the wrongs of NAFTA. Instead of revisiting the issue, she doubled down on it in advocating TPP. All these liberal trade policies have been great for corporates, with lots of people losing their livelihood in its wake and no means to turnaround.
In a way, Dems have become so similar to GOP when it comes to fundraising and big money influence. This has been the sticky point raised by the late John McCain, that was partly reversed-course during the first Obama campaign when he was able to lure in scores of new voters, young voters, all willing to make small donations to his campaign. But the success of the Obama campaign turns out to be a fluke. Since then, no one has been able to replicate his success with small-time donations; in fact, Obama hasn't even been able to rub off his popularity to candidates that he supports. That's where HRC comes in. She was THE fundraiser of the Dems for the longest time, raising money for both her campaign and those candidates the party supports. In US, money oftentimes equates to winning. In the 2016 season, HRC and the war chest of super PAC was huge, but she still lost. That goes to show the limits that big money could play.
There is the argument that even though HRC lost the 2016 election, she won the popular vote; hence, she still has her appeal. No matter. When it comes to playing the system of electoral college, it's all about swing states, popular vote be damned.
For all the strong deck of cards that HRC has had in 2016, she lost. She was bitter. She blamed sexism. Her staffers blamed Bernie Sanders and his supporters (much as Al Gore's supporters blamed Ralph Nader) for not toeing the line. Bottomline is, it's always someone else's fault. Put it another way, if she had run again, she would run essentially the same campaign all over again. Which she did once before, against Obama, and lost in the primaries.
Given all those, there's little wonder why she refuses to go away. She's only in her 60s, she still has energy, she believes she still has the votes of her support base, and she can still raise money handily. Better yet, she has stature and respect aboard, even though it's less so in US. Could she have done more good by taking the Jimmy Carter route, rather than the Bill Clinton route? Would she be better off elevating herself as elder statesman, rather than over-staying her welcome mat by staying in the trench a tad bit too long? Perhaps if HRC is ready to wrap up her legacy, she would have taken the high road. By rolling herself in the mud and continue fighting it out in the gutter, it's quite clear that she still believes that she has a few more chapters to write before her legacy is done. Messy, it sure is, but then, we won't expect less of that from HRC who has always been a fighter all her life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More to the point of the legacy of HRC, is the future of female candidates. It's hard enough to come up through the ranks. It's almost inconceivable for US to have a female leader, as Margaret Thatcher once did in UK once upon a time and Angela Merkel now in Germany. Why? Because for all the progressive talks in US, most (even the women) still prefer to see a man in the leadership position. Don't tell my word for it. Just take a look at what happens in Massachusetts, the solidly blue state that has yet to see a female governor.
Afterthoughts...
Speaking of Massachusetts, if Dems put Elizabeth Warren on the 2020 ticket, Dems will surely lose since GOP will have their field day with the pocahontas name-calling.
It's all well and good to be progressive and liberal-minded. But let's face it, most (if not all) people will not give a damn about refugees rights or trans rights or human rights of workers in some other countries if they can't even put food on their own table. In short, liberal progressiveness is a high ideal that's great when one's station is safely secured. And in US these days, more than half of the country (hello, white working class) is not.
It's time for Bill Clinton to sunset his campaigning days. Folks from the last generations might look back on the Clinton years longingly, given how the internet boom has spurred one bubble after another. Surely rising tide lifts all boats, but as we can see it now, the Clinton way was not the only way to go about it, but Clinton has effectively traded away the house jewels, dismantling safeguards and regulations to let the markets run wild. It's no surprise that the GOP hates Bill Clinton so much, since he effectively co-opted almost all of their favorites policy talking points, including tax cuts (eg. capital gains tax cuts), welfare cuts (eg. forcing those on welfare roll to work for it), deregulations (eg. dismantling Glass-Steagall Act), and more. For that count alone, anyone with the Clinton last name, including HRC, will not be forgiven.
One thing I'm sure to be doing, is to get out and vote. This is the only way to ensure something is done about this whole mess.
Needless to say, this has very little to do with Hillary Clinton, the one female candidate who has achieved the highest honor so far in US history to becoming a presidential candidate as a woman in her own right, the one who can supposedly galvanize the support of all those that oppose everything that Trump stands for. She has star power, the credentials, the works.Yet she lost the election.
Much has been analyzed, all stones turned over (many times over), of what happened, why, and the what-ifs. Let's see if bullet points might have it easier to discern:
- Young voters don't like her. Some find her too old (but hey, Bernie Sanders is even older, for chrissake). More importantly, they don't find her progressive enough.
- Unions and working class feel abandoned by the Democratic Party, and HRC has come to symbolized all the wrongs from liberal economic policies like NAFTA (thanks to her husband, Bill Clinton) and the nascent (and now dead) TPP (courtesy of Obama).
- Even some female voters were turned off. It's still a puzzle of how women in the conservative ranks would rather vote for a guy like Trump who would gladly and readily call them names if they cross his path, than someone whom they can reason with civilly.
It is unfair how women have to bear the wrongs done by their husbands, as HRC did with Bill Clinton's transgression in the Monica Lewinsky affair. It might have been even noble to forgive her husband and stand by him (rather than divorcing him). What she could have done, is to stay silent (to maintain privacy) on this affair, rather than lashing out against Lewinsky as if there is no power play at work. In the revisionist history, Lewinsky would have us believed that she's cowered into having sex with Bill Clinton. In the midst of #MeToo movement, it's easy to take in that version of the story. But I do believe in the other version, the version that Lewinsky flirted furiously with Bill, even flashing her thongs to him. She is no Rose McGowan, she was not coerced into compromising position, she aggressively sought after it due to the lure of power of the White House office. For all those, I would have gladly sided with HRC. There really is no need for HRC to lash out against media and even Lewinsky, she could have risen above the fray. But HRC didn't.
As to the unloseable election in 2016, Bill Clinton had advocated HRC to focus on jobs, economy, and working class votes, as did Joe Biden. They were right. Sadly to say, HRC would rather focus on more progressive issues like refugees' rights and the transgenders fight. (Ironic enough, even those positions of hers are not progressive and far-left enough for most young supporters in the Sanders crowd.) Perhaps HRC and her army of advisers were under the impression that the economy was on the mend (thanks to the steady hands of Obama's administration for the preceding eight years in office). What she did not realize was that, a lot of folks who were hurting from the demise of manufacturing sectors have fallen off of the radar (and unemployment roll) for the longest time. She has come to symbolize all the wrongs of NAFTA. Instead of revisiting the issue, she doubled down on it in advocating TPP. All these liberal trade policies have been great for corporates, with lots of people losing their livelihood in its wake and no means to turnaround.
In a way, Dems have become so similar to GOP when it comes to fundraising and big money influence. This has been the sticky point raised by the late John McCain, that was partly reversed-course during the first Obama campaign when he was able to lure in scores of new voters, young voters, all willing to make small donations to his campaign. But the success of the Obama campaign turns out to be a fluke. Since then, no one has been able to replicate his success with small-time donations; in fact, Obama hasn't even been able to rub off his popularity to candidates that he supports. That's where HRC comes in. She was THE fundraiser of the Dems for the longest time, raising money for both her campaign and those candidates the party supports. In US, money oftentimes equates to winning. In the 2016 season, HRC and the war chest of super PAC was huge, but she still lost. That goes to show the limits that big money could play.
There is the argument that even though HRC lost the 2016 election, she won the popular vote; hence, she still has her appeal. No matter. When it comes to playing the system of electoral college, it's all about swing states, popular vote be damned.
For all the strong deck of cards that HRC has had in 2016, she lost. She was bitter. She blamed sexism. Her staffers blamed Bernie Sanders and his supporters (much as Al Gore's supporters blamed Ralph Nader) for not toeing the line. Bottomline is, it's always someone else's fault. Put it another way, if she had run again, she would run essentially the same campaign all over again. Which she did once before, against Obama, and lost in the primaries.
Given all those, there's little wonder why she refuses to go away. She's only in her 60s, she still has energy, she believes she still has the votes of her support base, and she can still raise money handily. Better yet, she has stature and respect aboard, even though it's less so in US. Could she have done more good by taking the Jimmy Carter route, rather than the Bill Clinton route? Would she be better off elevating herself as elder statesman, rather than over-staying her welcome mat by staying in the trench a tad bit too long? Perhaps if HRC is ready to wrap up her legacy, she would have taken the high road. By rolling herself in the mud and continue fighting it out in the gutter, it's quite clear that she still believes that she has a few more chapters to write before her legacy is done. Messy, it sure is, but then, we won't expect less of that from HRC who has always been a fighter all her life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More to the point of the legacy of HRC, is the future of female candidates. It's hard enough to come up through the ranks. It's almost inconceivable for US to have a female leader, as Margaret Thatcher once did in UK once upon a time and Angela Merkel now in Germany. Why? Because for all the progressive talks in US, most (even the women) still prefer to see a man in the leadership position. Don't tell my word for it. Just take a look at what happens in Massachusetts, the solidly blue state that has yet to see a female governor.
Afterthoughts...
Speaking of Massachusetts, if Dems put Elizabeth Warren on the 2020 ticket, Dems will surely lose since GOP will have their field day with the pocahontas name-calling.
It's all well and good to be progressive and liberal-minded. But let's face it, most (if not all) people will not give a damn about refugees rights or trans rights or human rights of workers in some other countries if they can't even put food on their own table. In short, liberal progressiveness is a high ideal that's great when one's station is safely secured. And in US these days, more than half of the country (hello, white working class) is not.
It's time for Bill Clinton to sunset his campaigning days. Folks from the last generations might look back on the Clinton years longingly, given how the internet boom has spurred one bubble after another. Surely rising tide lifts all boats, but as we can see it now, the Clinton way was not the only way to go about it, but Clinton has effectively traded away the house jewels, dismantling safeguards and regulations to let the markets run wild. It's no surprise that the GOP hates Bill Clinton so much, since he effectively co-opted almost all of their favorites policy talking points, including tax cuts (eg. capital gains tax cuts), welfare cuts (eg. forcing those on welfare roll to work for it), deregulations (eg. dismantling Glass-Steagall Act), and more. For that count alone, anyone with the Clinton last name, including HRC, will not be forgiven.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
On remembering 9/11, Lehman Brothers, and 2008...
It's time for reflection, 17 years ago this day when 09/11 happened, and 10 years ago when the collapse of Lehman Brothers brought about the subprime crisis, global meltdown, and the Great Recession. So much has changed since then, it's hard not to look back without sounding too wistful.
Remembering 9/11
My office wasn't in downtown when 9/11 happened. It was a normal day. And then some colleagues called out to the rest of us to go to the conference room where there was a big-screen TV. We marched in leisurely, chitchatting, without knowing what the purpose of the meeting was, mistakenly thinking it might just be some impromptu management all-hands meeting. It wasn't. We went in the room, TV was already on. One of the two World Trade Center towers was already billowing black smoke. No one provided any context for what this was all about. I still recalled quite vividly how surreal that picture was, a smoking tower against a perfectly blue sky, with nary a cloud in sight.
And then someone said, it might have been hit by a plane. We could only surmise that this was an accident. Terrorist attacks were quite low on the radar - well, on our radar - that no one even thought of that possibility. There wasn't much details from the news. Perfect visage notwithstanding, it got old after staring at the screen for 10-15 minutes. We all thought, Oh what a horrible accident, and we went back to our desks. Afterall we still had a job to do, and work beckoned. What was on TV felt like a very boring Hollywood movie.
Later that day, folks were calling out for others to go back to the conference room. There, on the TV, the second tower was smoking too, and the first tower was really smoking badly. By then, there were news that this might not have been accidents. FAA had grounded all flights. The country seemed to be in total panic mode. But real-world news didn't happen that fast, not in the pre-Twitter world anyways. We stayed for a bit longer, maybe 30 minutes this time. We went back to our desks once more, feeling more apprehended and helpless this time.
It wasn't until a day or two later when the real impacts were out, with confirmed reports of terrorist attacks, George W Bush went into hiding, all flights grounded, World Trade Center had collapsed, Pentagon plane attack was detailed, with yet another plane went down presumably stopping another attack, that it hit home. We went to the conference room quite often in those succeeding days. It was one of the news report on what happened on the surrounding grounds of World Trade Center, of people covering in ash after the towers collapsed, and footage of people (tiny dots on screen, but real people) jumping from the towers trying to escape, that I couldn't stop my tears that came spontaneously. What could that have been like, to be high up on the towers, to be on the ground, all rendered totally helpless. Who could have done these horrific acts?
The country responded with full force. In the years that follow, George W Bush started two wars - one presumably necessary, another one totally unnecessary. The weight of law enforcement, and hunt for terrorists, intensified. There were some feel-good stories. But, by and large, it's all like fighting ghosts, shape shifting, moving goalposts, and no measurable benchmarks to call it a success (or failure). The joke was really on us, when George W Bush declared it with a big banner, Mission Accomplished. How ironic.
The two wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) have since brought on more angst against Americans, rendering perfect propaganda for terrorist recruitment. Various splinter groups like AQAP, ISIS have risen up to take the place of Taliban. While some of those responsible for 9/11 (notably, Osama bin Laden) had come to pass, the outlook going forward looks grim. Afterall, bin Laden was not Hitler, the stateless terrorist groups don't fight conventional wars. Their wars are far more dirtier. It's hard to identify good guys from bad guys, when so many of them simply don't have allegiance except to their own clans. How do you win a "war" like this?
Worse yet, additional American meddling (or tacit encouragement from idealists like Obama) have spawned off even more unrest in that godforsaken region in the Middle East. There was Arab Spring, there was uprising in Yemen, and then there was war in Syria. With so many clans fighting against each other, with no aim except the end-goal of taking larger share from an existing pie, it's nothing but a hornets nest.
I've come to realize a few things. The more that Americans try to do, however good-intentioned, the more that other countries are going to label USA as the neo-colonial power. There was much wisdom in the surgical strike that Bush Senior did in the First Gulf War, but George W was far from the wisdom of his father. He idiotically followed the lead of the neo-cons like Cheney and Rumsfeld, marching the country into multiple war fronts with no clear goals or plans. It's a gigantic mistaken. What we should have done is to let them be, it's not our country, it's not our fight, Americans shouldn't even have taken side with autocrats like the House of Saud. (I do give credits to the Kurds who have been the last-men-standing in so many worthy fights, including those against ISIS, Taliban, and Syrian government army. Nobody, not the Americans, not even the Russians, has the guts to fight the good fight against the Taliban, and then ISIS.)
As to the refugee crisis, that's a different story for another day...
Remembering Lehman
9/11 feels like a long time ago. In the succeeding years, the US economy went up crazily, then crashed spectacularly, and came back in full force now.
Unlike the terrorist attacks, the financial crisis unleashed by the Lehman collapse hit far closer to home.
No doubt it has impacted on the psyche for many a generations. For those who lost everything (stock portfolios in 2008/09, their mortgage and piece of roof, jobs and livelihood), if they had stayed the course (or had the ability to do so) without doing fire-sale, they would have done well. For those who couldn't (eg. those in retirement already, or those starting out in a depressing job market, or those who lost their jobs and livelihood through no fault of their own), it won't feel so good.
It is thus that I feel for the millennials generation. On top of all these, this is the generation that also sees a ballooning student debt in the trillion-dollar territory. For a generation that did all things asked of them, going to college (even if that means borrowing to the kilt to get a bullshit degree with no marketable skills), what are these young people to do?
No one should profess to have the acumen to time the market. By providence, I was from the generation in the right place at the right time, and was able to stay the course with a decent career, hence scooping up from those who had to do fire-sale. We might not want to admit it, but in those dark days of 2008/09 when all hopes seemed to have lost, one man's gain is indeed another man's loss. I certainly feel that, the more I think of it.
The wealth inequality has worsened, now more than ever. Although it's not a recent phenomenon (since it's started from the go-go days in the 1980s at the height of junk bond), it's become almost a norm. CEO pay has gone through the roof, but no one seems to care much (except the far-left activitsts) anymore. These days, the motto of our society seems to be To Each, His Own. For much the same reason, homelessness is more a nuisance that should be pushed to the next city to handle, as long as it's Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I alternate between optimist and pessimist. There are days I feel hopeful (particularly since I have kids), there are days when things just don't feel right at all (and the idiotic Trump is not helping). What is most worrisome to me, is not necessarily Trump. He is but a symptom, a product of what the American voters want. I used to be a news junkie and can hear/read news all days, but there are days I want to tune out completely.
Is this voters' fatigue? Is this a "thing"?
It wasn't until a day or two later when the real impacts were out, with confirmed reports of terrorist attacks, George W Bush went into hiding, all flights grounded, World Trade Center had collapsed, Pentagon plane attack was detailed, with yet another plane went down presumably stopping another attack, that it hit home. We went to the conference room quite often in those succeeding days. It was one of the news report on what happened on the surrounding grounds of World Trade Center, of people covering in ash after the towers collapsed, and footage of people (tiny dots on screen, but real people) jumping from the towers trying to escape, that I couldn't stop my tears that came spontaneously. What could that have been like, to be high up on the towers, to be on the ground, all rendered totally helpless. Who could have done these horrific acts?
The country responded with full force. In the years that follow, George W Bush started two wars - one presumably necessary, another one totally unnecessary. The weight of law enforcement, and hunt for terrorists, intensified. There were some feel-good stories. But, by and large, it's all like fighting ghosts, shape shifting, moving goalposts, and no measurable benchmarks to call it a success (or failure). The joke was really on us, when George W Bush declared it with a big banner, Mission Accomplished. How ironic.
The two wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) have since brought on more angst against Americans, rendering perfect propaganda for terrorist recruitment. Various splinter groups like AQAP, ISIS have risen up to take the place of Taliban. While some of those responsible for 9/11 (notably, Osama bin Laden) had come to pass, the outlook going forward looks grim. Afterall, bin Laden was not Hitler, the stateless terrorist groups don't fight conventional wars. Their wars are far more dirtier. It's hard to identify good guys from bad guys, when so many of them simply don't have allegiance except to their own clans. How do you win a "war" like this?
Worse yet, additional American meddling (or tacit encouragement from idealists like Obama) have spawned off even more unrest in that godforsaken region in the Middle East. There was Arab Spring, there was uprising in Yemen, and then there was war in Syria. With so many clans fighting against each other, with no aim except the end-goal of taking larger share from an existing pie, it's nothing but a hornets nest.
I've come to realize a few things. The more that Americans try to do, however good-intentioned, the more that other countries are going to label USA as the neo-colonial power. There was much wisdom in the surgical strike that Bush Senior did in the First Gulf War, but George W was far from the wisdom of his father. He idiotically followed the lead of the neo-cons like Cheney and Rumsfeld, marching the country into multiple war fronts with no clear goals or plans. It's a gigantic mistaken. What we should have done is to let them be, it's not our country, it's not our fight, Americans shouldn't even have taken side with autocrats like the House of Saud. (I do give credits to the Kurds who have been the last-men-standing in so many worthy fights, including those against ISIS, Taliban, and Syrian government army. Nobody, not the Americans, not even the Russians, has the guts to fight the good fight against the Taliban, and then ISIS.)
As to the refugee crisis, that's a different story for another day...
Remembering Lehman
9/11 feels like a long time ago. In the succeeding years, the US economy went up crazily, then crashed spectacularly, and came back in full force now.
Unlike the terrorist attacks, the financial crisis unleashed by the Lehman collapse hit far closer to home.
No doubt it has impacted on the psyche for many a generations. For those who lost everything (stock portfolios in 2008/09, their mortgage and piece of roof, jobs and livelihood), if they had stayed the course (or had the ability to do so) without doing fire-sale, they would have done well. For those who couldn't (eg. those in retirement already, or those starting out in a depressing job market, or those who lost their jobs and livelihood through no fault of their own), it won't feel so good.
It is thus that I feel for the millennials generation. On top of all these, this is the generation that also sees a ballooning student debt in the trillion-dollar territory. For a generation that did all things asked of them, going to college (even if that means borrowing to the kilt to get a bullshit degree with no marketable skills), what are these young people to do?
No one should profess to have the acumen to time the market. By providence, I was from the generation in the right place at the right time, and was able to stay the course with a decent career, hence scooping up from those who had to do fire-sale. We might not want to admit it, but in those dark days of 2008/09 when all hopes seemed to have lost, one man's gain is indeed another man's loss. I certainly feel that, the more I think of it.
The wealth inequality has worsened, now more than ever. Although it's not a recent phenomenon (since it's started from the go-go days in the 1980s at the height of junk bond), it's become almost a norm. CEO pay has gone through the roof, but no one seems to care much (except the far-left activitsts) anymore. These days, the motto of our society seems to be To Each, His Own. For much the same reason, homelessness is more a nuisance that should be pushed to the next city to handle, as long as it's Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I alternate between optimist and pessimist. There are days I feel hopeful (particularly since I have kids), there are days when things just don't feel right at all (and the idiotic Trump is not helping). What is most worrisome to me, is not necessarily Trump. He is but a symptom, a product of what the American voters want. I used to be a news junkie and can hear/read news all days, but there are days I want to tune out completely.
Is this voters' fatigue? Is this a "thing"?
Sunday, September 9, 2018
On green envy to other's financial success...
It's only recently that I came across a relatively old news (2016) about a young couple in Toronto (Canada) who became self-professed millionnaire, with their worst sin being their preaching about their methods, resulting in online hate comments.
While I'm never a fan of self-promoters, I don't generally take too kindly to green envy either.
Being frugal alone is not enough.
For a start, why would this couple even opens themselves up for public scrutiny (thereby, ridicule) that way? Call me old-schooled, but I simply find that distasteful. Not too many folks, age notwithstanding, have the blessing in life to find well-paying jobs right after college. No doubt that they consider themselves smart and wise in being frugal, or to disregard elders' conventional wisdom to toll for a mortgage in an overpriced property market. Those alone are not the major factor in their ability to amass their first $500k to seed their stock/bond portfolio.
Where's the revenue source?
More importantly, the main reason they have the ability to save, is because both their jobs (in the IT field) still pay relatively well. And because they have the good fortune to have co-op jobs during college already, they are not burdened with students debts. Put it another way, if they were both in minimum-wage jobs, would they have been able to frugal their way to their $1m goal, simply by bootstrapping? I don't think so.
The arguments for/against a pricey mortgage.
According to this couple, one of their "wisdom" is to not bog themselves down by a pricey mortgage in an overpriced property market. The argument sounds almost intuitive, except that it's not. In retrospect, if they have bought a house property back in 2010, what would the property value and capital gains have been like in 2016 or 2018? A lot, I'd say. In the crazy market in Toronto, if it has been in one of the hottest spots, they could easily have doubled the value. In fact, I would even argue that they could probably have made far more than the $500k, had they bought their own piece of roof. In the end, it could all be just a wash.
That said, they did do one thing right, which is that they do not stretch their finance beyond their means to go for a mortgage that they couldn't afford. God forbids, if they lose their jobs (and they both work in the same field), they could instantly lose their ability to pay for the mortgage. Then again, the same is true even if they are renters. All of which goes back to the earlier point about the more important factor of having the revenue source.
How far can $1m last?
And then there is this assertion that when one gets to the $1m mark, it's safe enough for one to consider (early) retirement. As conventional wisdom goes, all they have to do, is to care-take the portfolio to ensure the yield exceeds their expenses. But, would that always be possible? I highly doubt that.
Bear in mind too that this couple is still young. They are in early 30s, and don't even have kids yet. Should they consider starting a family and having kids, that changes the equation completely. Kids need good schooling (private school is pricey, and moving into nice neighborhood for good public schools by either buying or renting isn't cheap either). God help them, they'd better pray for good health and healthy genes. Maybe that's not a big worry in Canada, but if they were in US and have no healthcare coverage, one medical emergency could be more than sufficient to blow their $500k portfolio out of the window.
Bear in mind too that this couple is still young. They are in early 30s, and don't even have kids yet. Should they consider starting a family and having kids, that changes the equation completely. Kids need good schooling (private school is pricey, and moving into nice neighborhood for good public schools by either buying or renting isn't cheap either). God help them, they'd better pray for good health and healthy genes. Maybe that's not a big worry in Canada, but if they were in US and have no healthcare coverage, one medical emergency could be more than sufficient to blow their $500k portfolio out of the window.
Living large, or just being lazy?
I have decided long time ago that I cannot quite foresee myself to truly retire. I like work, I like the daily rhythm and being productive. Certain level of stress (and the adrenaline that comes with it) can actually be fun. Traveling is great, but that's not a vocation to me. Let's say, in 10 years' time when this couple trod around the world a few times over, what would they be doing then? Going back into their field (IT) after checking-out for years would likely not be an option, and even if they do, would they be willing to toll a developer job when all of their peers have moved up the ladder while they go back to competing with other 20-somethings? It's highly doubtful. To me, retirement cannot be simply about the leisure pursuit.
What of the green envy?
Surely this couple loves the attention, their 15-minute of fame, being self-promoters as they are (even if they deny it), but do they warrant such hateful vitriol? Perhaps they are more clueless than they refuse to see themselves to be. By fashioning themselves as self-help guru and promoting the "We can do it; you can do it too (you've GOT to be!)" motto, it has the unspoken undertone of rubbing it in, adding salt to injury to those who could never be able to make it, however frugal they might be. The question of get-a-mortgage-or-rent is not even on the table since a lot of people simply cannot afford the option to buy (even if they want it). To hear them saying, we can buy but we won't because it's smarter to rent, and see how smart we are and how much money we've made as a result! To me, it's just bad form, hence I can fully understand why they are thrashed online, even if it's not called for. Ultimately if you put yourself out there, with all good intentions, you are inviting others to pass judgment on you, and oft for very good reasons.
To each, his own.
I would never profess to tell others what the best or smartest way is to live one's life. I would not even try to make it sound like how smart I might be than the next guy. Everyone's circumstances are different. While each of us has agency, a lot of things in life are still at the mercy of chance. There are plenty of people who are sensible, do all the right things in life, and still can't make ends meet. This couple's message to those people is simply that, if they can't make it, they must be losers, or doing something wrong. And that is uncalled for.
Some things in life should stay private, and finances is one of those. Just because it's easier these days to self-publish and cheaper to do self-promotion on channels like youtube, it doesn't mean we should. I can only hope that self-promoters like this couple, and all those preaching FIRE, would just shut he hell up. If they need public ridicule to get that message (to shut their trap), it might as well.
Saturday, September 1, 2018
On hot summer...and starting of school...
This summer is hot, hot and humid. I've been trying to avoid having A/C at home due to its environmental impacts. On most days, even in summer time, it's fine with a fan. There are days though, when temperature is well into high 90s and humidity is over 85%, it can get so muggy and at times hard to breathe. Perhaps I'm getting older too, thus feeling the heat a bit more intensely.
Thank good summer is almost over. Sometimes it's good to have four distinct seasons, so that when it gets too hot, I can long for cooler, even cold air. But when winter gets too harsh and my feet feel cold, no matter how high I turn the heat up, I dream of warm summer days. The silver lining is, at least there's something I can look forward to.
I must be getting a bit wistful. End of summer, with the forthcoming Labor Day, then start of school, always means some kind of rush. Getting school supplies, kids needing need clothing, maybe squeezing in one or two activities before school actual starts. Those rituals are fading away as the kids get bigger. There are things they can take care of themselves; hence, they don't need parents for it anymore. There are also things that we no longer do, things like family outings of mini-golf or apple picking.
More importantly, my eldest is going to college. How time flies. I still remember quite vividly all those stress and joy before during pregnancy and after he's born. Part of me feels relieved. Alas, the kid won't be forever tethered to us. He can have his own life independently. But part of me is getting nostalgic. I would miss driving him to soccer practice and games. I would not see him at the end of each day to see how he's doing. His room is looking very empty and clean, for a change.
I'm glad I still have work to keep me busy. I cannot fathom how that would have been like for stay-home parents whose lives revolve around the kids, and what they are going to do with their free time on hand once the kids are off to college or out of the door. I wouldn't think that would be a very healthy thing to build one's life around someone else's. No, I wouldn't want a life like that.
Home is getting much more quieter. In another year, our last kid will be off to college too. Then it'll be reeeeally quiet.
I do feel that my mentality toward work has morphed somewhat. No longer am I as ambitious. Maybe I don't feel like I have to prove anything, if only to myself or anyone else. Or that, I feel like I've accomplished all that I could, hence quite content with what I have so far, rather than regret what I might have missed. I don't like doing what-ifs in my head.
What I need now, is a hobby. I've always been so busy at work all these years that I suddenly realize that I've given up so many would-be hobbies and interests. I used to like drawing and am quite good at it too, but I have given up on the more artsy side of me some years ago.
Or, maybe I'll get a dog. I used to have a dog when I was young, but didn't feel like getting one while we were busy childrearing. I'm having more time now, maybe I can finally do it again.
It's probably time for a change. And I don't mean a change of jobs or careers, although that has certainly crossed my mind. Food for thoughts indeed...
Thank good summer is almost over. Sometimes it's good to have four distinct seasons, so that when it gets too hot, I can long for cooler, even cold air. But when winter gets too harsh and my feet feel cold, no matter how high I turn the heat up, I dream of warm summer days. The silver lining is, at least there's something I can look forward to.
I must be getting a bit wistful. End of summer, with the forthcoming Labor Day, then start of school, always means some kind of rush. Getting school supplies, kids needing need clothing, maybe squeezing in one or two activities before school actual starts. Those rituals are fading away as the kids get bigger. There are things they can take care of themselves; hence, they don't need parents for it anymore. There are also things that we no longer do, things like family outings of mini-golf or apple picking.
More importantly, my eldest is going to college. How time flies. I still remember quite vividly all those stress and joy before during pregnancy and after he's born. Part of me feels relieved. Alas, the kid won't be forever tethered to us. He can have his own life independently. But part of me is getting nostalgic. I would miss driving him to soccer practice and games. I would not see him at the end of each day to see how he's doing. His room is looking very empty and clean, for a change.
I'm glad I still have work to keep me busy. I cannot fathom how that would have been like for stay-home parents whose lives revolve around the kids, and what they are going to do with their free time on hand once the kids are off to college or out of the door. I wouldn't think that would be a very healthy thing to build one's life around someone else's. No, I wouldn't want a life like that.
Home is getting much more quieter. In another year, our last kid will be off to college too. Then it'll be reeeeally quiet.
I do feel that my mentality toward work has morphed somewhat. No longer am I as ambitious. Maybe I don't feel like I have to prove anything, if only to myself or anyone else. Or that, I feel like I've accomplished all that I could, hence quite content with what I have so far, rather than regret what I might have missed. I don't like doing what-ifs in my head.
What I need now, is a hobby. I've always been so busy at work all these years that I suddenly realize that I've given up so many would-be hobbies and interests. I used to like drawing and am quite good at it too, but I have given up on the more artsy side of me some years ago.
Or, maybe I'll get a dog. I used to have a dog when I was young, but didn't feel like getting one while we were busy childrearing. I'm having more time now, maybe I can finally do it again.
It's probably time for a change. And I don't mean a change of jobs or careers, although that has certainly crossed my mind. Food for thoughts indeed...
Thursday, December 28, 2017
2017: Taking stock, and looking ahead...
I've been getting tired of writing journals in recent months (and years), but I hope to keep up at least the sum-up at year end. I generally read back on the year-end summary from the past couple of years, if only for my own amusement before I wrap up.
I have not even recalled that I've pretty much skipped 2016 since it's such a depressing year in the larger world. But looking back to 2015 wrap-up, it's still as relevant as it could ever be.
------
No one in US or the larger world could escape the unrealism delivered by Trump. You can call the guy clueless, with absolutely no impulse control, and extraordinarily erratic by conventional political etiquette and standards, yet he's really quite predictable in so many respects. I'm sure the guy would deliver great TV ratings, given his erratic performance, rendering the whole audience experience amusing (particularly if you want to see how it turns out by giving a 11-year-old petulant child some taste of power, but you would predictably know it already, wouldn't you, that the child would dip his hands in the candy jar for his fill of sugar rush whenever he gets restless, and deny any misdeeds). And he has no concept of suffering consequences of his own act.
I might even find it amusing to watch too (though I've never watched one single episode of reality TV shows in my whole life, just the idea of it sounds like a total waste of time to me), has it not been for the extremely high stakes involved. How could we (American voters) allow a petulant child to take the White House, announcing his readiness to start a nuclear war with North Korea on Twitter??? How could the country be so divided that it has come to this? How could the country (GOP and Dems alike) allow ideology to become so divisive that there is no longer any common ground for compromise and politicking (the good kind)??? How could the establishments (GOP and Dems alike) allow so many voters to be left so far behind that they are willing to be taken in by any words, however unrealistic, from con man like Trump, just so that they could thump their nose to the establishments???
While Trump is an American product, the level of inequality is hardly a phenomenon unique to US. It is basic human psyche - the action and reaction - against the declining station of so many voters in western countries. (Afterall it must be a frightening reality, to have an erstwhile third world country like China to become far richer and more powerful than they are.) It is thus that we see Brexit becoming a reality. In the name of fairness, I do harbor some secret hope to see Catalonia getting its independence and even Scotland breaking away from UK. These are regions and countries that have come up with their own bootstrapping (Britain v Euro, Catalonia v Madrid/Spain, Scotland v England), and have done well, with hundreds of years fighting for their independence. The child inside my head - the child who always wants to see justice served - demands that fairness be granted.
There is another side of the coin, of those countries and regions (eg. Greece, Puerto Rico), who have come to embrace being part of a larger system (eg. Greece staying within EU, Puerto Rico yearning for statehood) when the times were good, but then turned around and complained about being "oppressed" by colonial powers when the times get tough, I'm not as sympathetic. It's like some drunkard eagerly enjoying the alcohol, then turning around and complaining about those supplying them alcohol when they have hangovers. No, you don't always get to have the cake, and eat it too, without ever paying for it. One way or the other, you'll have to pay, or play ball.
Something must be said, about how UK handles the Scotland independence referendum and the Brexit vote peacefully (though rowdily in campaigns) through ballot box, versus the very heavily-handed (and dirty) ways that Madrid had dealt with the Catalan voters with violence. Is there any wonder why the Brits are still held up as a beacon for the rest of the world to look up to, while countries like Spain, albeit considered almost an equal, is looked on with horror and scorn? Something must also be said about the hypocrisy of EU in ignoring Catalonia or failing to condemn Madrid's use of force against a very valid election. What kind of moral standing Merkel is preaching, when she embraces refugees, yet she looks the other way when EU citizens demand fair treatment in the ballot box? For the wider world to look on, and did nothing for Catalonia's independence push, it says something about the world having pretty much lost its ideal. The same can be said of the Kurdish independence push. The Kurds were the last-man-standing in the fight against ISIS, when no one else was willing to risk their lives or limb, not the Russians, and certainly not the Americans. And when ISIS was pushed back (and defeated), US abandons the Kurds to appease "allies" like Turkey. Reading news like this makes me sick.
But while I despise Trump on many levels, his lack of principles, and his being one nasty bully of a human being, I do give it to him that he's able to relate to the aggrieved voters that no other decent politicians like Hilary Clinton could. There is no doubt that HRC would have pushed ahead with TPP regardless of how bad a deal like NAFTA have been to US manufacturing sector, even though the rise of China as the world's sweatshop many times over had as much to blame. And for all his many failings, he seems more focused on trying to deliver on his campaign promises. (Whether he can deliver on them, or whether those campaign promises are good for the country, or not, is an entirely different matter.)
And to see that the POTUS, arguably the most powerful office in the world, is actively promoting fake news, is simply beyond embarrassing. Somehow Trump is so clueless that he forgot to check if he's caught with his pants down, so long as he keeps looking up at the camera and keeps reiterating that he's fully clothed, that's the story he believes. But how could all those voters looking right at him, seeing that his pants are indeed down, to be taken in by his story??? Was that how Hitler fooled his fellow Germans on his rise to power?
I'm still deeply troubled by the fact that we could be witnessing the rise of facism in this country. I hope someday I read back on my journal, and prove myself to be very wrong on this.
------
Could this be the longest ever economy recovery in history that we're experiencing right now? In the area where I live, I can certainly feel it. In fact the economy and property prices have fully recovered from the depth of 2008 by the time it was 2010, and that was seven years ago. Jobs, including decent paying jobs, are aplenty. (But these are jobs that demands skills and education, unlike the bygone era when you could achieve the same with a high school diploma.) There are so many luxury properties sprinting up, I wonder who the buyers really are. I won't be buying properties now, chasing after the market as if there's no tomorrow, that's for sure.
Between healthy GDP numbers, very low unemployment rate in years (that Europe can only dream of), would the GOP's tax cuts (from the tax reform bill) push the economy into overdrive? Naturally Trump is going to want to take all credit for walking into a rising economy, with no gratitude to the hard work that the Obama administration had paved in the past eight years. My worry is, Trump is going to squander away a very healthy economy, the same way George W Bush tanked the economy after Bill Clinton delivered a surplus and roaring economy in decades. Trump calls himself a businessman, but he has no clue on how to run an economy, or what it means to keep a steady hand, rather than delivering boom/bust cycles.
Personally we did quite well for the past year or two (even though 2016 was depressing in wider societal context). It is indeed providence that I should have experienced the rise of the web, the tech bubble (and its bust), the property boom (and the subprime bust), and now renewed tech push. I can only imagine this must be how exhilaration is like riding waves.
The past two decades have been very kind to me, and I've done well professionally and financially (without gambling or even speculating). As my kids come of age, I am increasingly aware of the fact that the younger generations might not be able to enjoy as much opportunities as I have enjoyed. I keep asking myself, are my generation and the generations before mine robbing the younger generations of the opportunities they so desperately need, given that there are more competition (increasing population) locally as well as globally from peers around the world who would be willing to work more for less, often far less?
As I looked back at the country where I grew up, salary level of far more demanding jobs now is less than what I earned twenty years ago. Given inflation and far higher cost of living these days, how could the younger generations handle that without leaning on family for sustenance? And what of those who do not have anyone whom they can lean on to? This is not an issue about race or gender, this is increasingly a class issue, and an issue of the lack of upward mobility. Although minority certainly encounters greater barriers, they are by no means the only ones facing hurdles. I believe strongly in meritocracy, I have benefited from that. I can only hope that America keeps at the ideal to allow a level playing field for anyone who has the capability to rise up and realize their true potential. I truly believe in that, and that's what I strive to do for all those who work for me.
------
Apart from the fake news (in social media in particular), there is a wider diversity theme. I don't do Twitter (or have much care about social media since there's so much white noise and junk), but there's so much on it that I'm getting a diversity fatigue. There are also many societal issues that are age-old, yet they burst onto stage anew. There is #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, #OscarSoWhite, LGBTQ rights, refugee rights, etc etc. It's all exposé, sharing and more sharing. There is much importance of each, and a society good that comes of them, but the amount of sharing and the likes, and the constant barrage of coverage feel so exhausting to me. The one phrase that comes to mind is:
"If everything is important, then nothing is."
That's exactly how I feel.
Then again, there is no gatekeeper anymore, as in the bygone era when we could always look up to Walter Cronkite as arbiter of hard news, good sense and integrity. There is certainly wisdom from the crowd, but there is also much silliness too. Between the very important subjects like sexual abuse, civil rights, diversity, and tolerance, everything seems frivolous. Anything that garners more than 50 likes or retweets become scout topics for even main media like New York Times, and I'm, like, "what, this is news?" That's the main reason I don't do social media, I only do pull with news, I don't like push. I cursory read 5-6 newspapers everyday to ensure some reports aren't just "junk." I do whatsapp to stay in touch with specific families and friends, I check forums if I need wider opinions, but I can't care less if some celebrity has a meltdown or a baby bump. I don't have interests rediscovering decades-old flints on Facebook. I don't watch silly cat videos or some such for amusement. If I want amusement, I watch real movies. I'm sure that makes me a boring person, but that suits me just fine.
------
I work in tech. As I told my kids, there are technologies that will become part of us, going forward. AI, big data, robotics, voice, and blockchain, are some of the easy ones to pick. I'm doing blockchain this year, I've done voice before. I don't know if I want to lose some hair to do a PhD in AI or robotics, but big data isn't too shabby. (No, bitcoin won't go mainstream unless and until it loses some of its anonymity and embraces more governmental oversight from various sovereignty, that's the long and short of it, regardless how the Winklevoss twins might try to up-sell you the bitcoin story. But blockchain as an underlying technology is here to stay.)
------
And if the property market crash again, I'll be ready to buy once more. But not now, not yet.
I have not even recalled that I've pretty much skipped 2016 since it's such a depressing year in the larger world. But looking back to 2015 wrap-up, it's still as relevant as it could ever be.
------
No one in US or the larger world could escape the unrealism delivered by Trump. You can call the guy clueless, with absolutely no impulse control, and extraordinarily erratic by conventional political etiquette and standards, yet he's really quite predictable in so many respects. I'm sure the guy would deliver great TV ratings, given his erratic performance, rendering the whole audience experience amusing (particularly if you want to see how it turns out by giving a 11-year-old petulant child some taste of power, but you would predictably know it already, wouldn't you, that the child would dip his hands in the candy jar for his fill of sugar rush whenever he gets restless, and deny any misdeeds). And he has no concept of suffering consequences of his own act.
I might even find it amusing to watch too (though I've never watched one single episode of reality TV shows in my whole life, just the idea of it sounds like a total waste of time to me), has it not been for the extremely high stakes involved. How could we (American voters) allow a petulant child to take the White House, announcing his readiness to start a nuclear war with North Korea on Twitter??? How could the country be so divided that it has come to this? How could the country (GOP and Dems alike) allow ideology to become so divisive that there is no longer any common ground for compromise and politicking (the good kind)??? How could the establishments (GOP and Dems alike) allow so many voters to be left so far behind that they are willing to be taken in by any words, however unrealistic, from con man like Trump, just so that they could thump their nose to the establishments???
While Trump is an American product, the level of inequality is hardly a phenomenon unique to US. It is basic human psyche - the action and reaction - against the declining station of so many voters in western countries. (Afterall it must be a frightening reality, to have an erstwhile third world country like China to become far richer and more powerful than they are.) It is thus that we see Brexit becoming a reality. In the name of fairness, I do harbor some secret hope to see Catalonia getting its independence and even Scotland breaking away from UK. These are regions and countries that have come up with their own bootstrapping (Britain v Euro, Catalonia v Madrid/Spain, Scotland v England), and have done well, with hundreds of years fighting for their independence. The child inside my head - the child who always wants to see justice served - demands that fairness be granted.
There is another side of the coin, of those countries and regions (eg. Greece, Puerto Rico), who have come to embrace being part of a larger system (eg. Greece staying within EU, Puerto Rico yearning for statehood) when the times were good, but then turned around and complained about being "oppressed" by colonial powers when the times get tough, I'm not as sympathetic. It's like some drunkard eagerly enjoying the alcohol, then turning around and complaining about those supplying them alcohol when they have hangovers. No, you don't always get to have the cake, and eat it too, without ever paying for it. One way or the other, you'll have to pay, or play ball.
Something must be said, about how UK handles the Scotland independence referendum and the Brexit vote peacefully (though rowdily in campaigns) through ballot box, versus the very heavily-handed (and dirty) ways that Madrid had dealt with the Catalan voters with violence. Is there any wonder why the Brits are still held up as a beacon for the rest of the world to look up to, while countries like Spain, albeit considered almost an equal, is looked on with horror and scorn? Something must also be said about the hypocrisy of EU in ignoring Catalonia or failing to condemn Madrid's use of force against a very valid election. What kind of moral standing Merkel is preaching, when she embraces refugees, yet she looks the other way when EU citizens demand fair treatment in the ballot box? For the wider world to look on, and did nothing for Catalonia's independence push, it says something about the world having pretty much lost its ideal. The same can be said of the Kurdish independence push. The Kurds were the last-man-standing in the fight against ISIS, when no one else was willing to risk their lives or limb, not the Russians, and certainly not the Americans. And when ISIS was pushed back (and defeated), US abandons the Kurds to appease "allies" like Turkey. Reading news like this makes me sick.
But while I despise Trump on many levels, his lack of principles, and his being one nasty bully of a human being, I do give it to him that he's able to relate to the aggrieved voters that no other decent politicians like Hilary Clinton could. There is no doubt that HRC would have pushed ahead with TPP regardless of how bad a deal like NAFTA have been to US manufacturing sector, even though the rise of China as the world's sweatshop many times over had as much to blame. And for all his many failings, he seems more focused on trying to deliver on his campaign promises. (Whether he can deliver on them, or whether those campaign promises are good for the country, or not, is an entirely different matter.)
And to see that the POTUS, arguably the most powerful office in the world, is actively promoting fake news, is simply beyond embarrassing. Somehow Trump is so clueless that he forgot to check if he's caught with his pants down, so long as he keeps looking up at the camera and keeps reiterating that he's fully clothed, that's the story he believes. But how could all those voters looking right at him, seeing that his pants are indeed down, to be taken in by his story??? Was that how Hitler fooled his fellow Germans on his rise to power?
I'm still deeply troubled by the fact that we could be witnessing the rise of facism in this country. I hope someday I read back on my journal, and prove myself to be very wrong on this.
------
Could this be the longest ever economy recovery in history that we're experiencing right now? In the area where I live, I can certainly feel it. In fact the economy and property prices have fully recovered from the depth of 2008 by the time it was 2010, and that was seven years ago. Jobs, including decent paying jobs, are aplenty. (But these are jobs that demands skills and education, unlike the bygone era when you could achieve the same with a high school diploma.) There are so many luxury properties sprinting up, I wonder who the buyers really are. I won't be buying properties now, chasing after the market as if there's no tomorrow, that's for sure.
Between healthy GDP numbers, very low unemployment rate in years (that Europe can only dream of), would the GOP's tax cuts (from the tax reform bill) push the economy into overdrive? Naturally Trump is going to want to take all credit for walking into a rising economy, with no gratitude to the hard work that the Obama administration had paved in the past eight years. My worry is, Trump is going to squander away a very healthy economy, the same way George W Bush tanked the economy after Bill Clinton delivered a surplus and roaring economy in decades. Trump calls himself a businessman, but he has no clue on how to run an economy, or what it means to keep a steady hand, rather than delivering boom/bust cycles.
Personally we did quite well for the past year or two (even though 2016 was depressing in wider societal context). It is indeed providence that I should have experienced the rise of the web, the tech bubble (and its bust), the property boom (and the subprime bust), and now renewed tech push. I can only imagine this must be how exhilaration is like riding waves.
The past two decades have been very kind to me, and I've done well professionally and financially (without gambling or even speculating). As my kids come of age, I am increasingly aware of the fact that the younger generations might not be able to enjoy as much opportunities as I have enjoyed. I keep asking myself, are my generation and the generations before mine robbing the younger generations of the opportunities they so desperately need, given that there are more competition (increasing population) locally as well as globally from peers around the world who would be willing to work more for less, often far less?
As I looked back at the country where I grew up, salary level of far more demanding jobs now is less than what I earned twenty years ago. Given inflation and far higher cost of living these days, how could the younger generations handle that without leaning on family for sustenance? And what of those who do not have anyone whom they can lean on to? This is not an issue about race or gender, this is increasingly a class issue, and an issue of the lack of upward mobility. Although minority certainly encounters greater barriers, they are by no means the only ones facing hurdles. I believe strongly in meritocracy, I have benefited from that. I can only hope that America keeps at the ideal to allow a level playing field for anyone who has the capability to rise up and realize their true potential. I truly believe in that, and that's what I strive to do for all those who work for me.
------
Apart from the fake news (in social media in particular), there is a wider diversity theme. I don't do Twitter (or have much care about social media since there's so much white noise and junk), but there's so much on it that I'm getting a diversity fatigue. There are also many societal issues that are age-old, yet they burst onto stage anew. There is #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, #OscarSoWhite, LGBTQ rights, refugee rights, etc etc. It's all exposé, sharing and more sharing. There is much importance of each, and a society good that comes of them, but the amount of sharing and the likes, and the constant barrage of coverage feel so exhausting to me. The one phrase that comes to mind is:
"If everything is important, then nothing is."
That's exactly how I feel.
Then again, there is no gatekeeper anymore, as in the bygone era when we could always look up to Walter Cronkite as arbiter of hard news, good sense and integrity. There is certainly wisdom from the crowd, but there is also much silliness too. Between the very important subjects like sexual abuse, civil rights, diversity, and tolerance, everything seems frivolous. Anything that garners more than 50 likes or retweets become scout topics for even main media like New York Times, and I'm, like, "what, this is news?" That's the main reason I don't do social media, I only do pull with news, I don't like push. I cursory read 5-6 newspapers everyday to ensure some reports aren't just "junk." I do whatsapp to stay in touch with specific families and friends, I check forums if I need wider opinions, but I can't care less if some celebrity has a meltdown or a baby bump. I don't have interests rediscovering decades-old flints on Facebook. I don't watch silly cat videos or some such for amusement. If I want amusement, I watch real movies. I'm sure that makes me a boring person, but that suits me just fine.
------
I work in tech. As I told my kids, there are technologies that will become part of us, going forward. AI, big data, robotics, voice, and blockchain, are some of the easy ones to pick. I'm doing blockchain this year, I've done voice before. I don't know if I want to lose some hair to do a PhD in AI or robotics, but big data isn't too shabby. (No, bitcoin won't go mainstream unless and until it loses some of its anonymity and embraces more governmental oversight from various sovereignty, that's the long and short of it, regardless how the Winklevoss twins might try to up-sell you the bitcoin story. But blockchain as an underlying technology is here to stay.)
------
And if the property market crash again, I'll be ready to buy once more. But not now, not yet.
Saturday, April 22, 2017
On xenophobia, French election, et al...
It's one day from the French election. It's hard not to draw certain similarity between the French candidates lineup, with that of the GOP lineup in the 2016 election (and of course we know how that 2016 election went, with Trump planted solidly in the White House now).
Given the "surprising" result from the 2016 election in US, with Trump coming out on top of Hillary Clinton in that supposedly unloseable election of ours, it's understandable how high the amount of apprehension in the French election. Should Marine Le Pen win, and the National Front takes over, a lot of things will fall on the wayside. As a founding member of the EU project, as the second larget economy inside EU (given that UK is quitting for good in two years), Le Pen's declaration to quit EU is nothing short of blasphemy, essentially declaring death knell to the EU, leaving Germany alone to hold up the tent pole of the whole EU which is untenable.
Much good has come out of the cooperation among the pan-European countries after WWII, as they learnt the lesson and the post-war world order pushes for more integration to reduce future conflicts that had given Europe (and the world) two world wars. Europe, and the world has prospered with it for more than sixty years. Unfortunately to Europe, the 2008 meltdown has exposed much flaws from the EU projects, that this ship sails well in good weather, but fares rather poorly in bad times. There are the poor cousins, like Greece, who enjoyed the largess, effectively borrowing on the good credit of Euro but without doing anything to transform or improve its economy, so much so that when times turn, they have no way to turnaround except to ask for bailouts (and more bailouts). But this, is only the start of the EU unraveling.
Add salt to the injury, is the mess arising from Middle east, resulting in the rise of Islam radicalism, chaotic civil wars that displace millions that have since rushed the European shore to get in, rather than camping out at their home country's border, in the hope of returning home one day. While one could argue that the initial welcome mat that Angela Merkel had made the refugee crisis worse, by encouraging even those who might not otherwise have considered joining the refugee line to also try to go to Europe to seek a better life, and livelihood. Still, even if the refugee numbers were to be half of what it has been in reality, it would still be a very noticeable number.
When you have huge numbers of Muslims coming in, coupled with domestic terrorist attacks that come from the same ethnic groups that look and sound the same in appearance, having the religion, it's hard not to jump to conclusion. Of course everyone knows that not all Muslims are ISIS, and many a Muslim is just as peaceful and hardworking and law-abiding. But how could anyone tell, on the outset? Short answer is, we can't.
And then you have countries like France and Belgium that have an increasing population of Muslim descent that fails to assimilated (or that the society does not allow them upward-mobility social opportunity to assimilate), you have a ticking time bomb with a big portion of populace that is marginalized. No wonder the idealized Islamic heaven appeals to the second- and third-generation Muslim community aspiring to fight for radical groups like ISIS.
This is the sort of outcomes that is expected, though highly undesirable. It's the natural result of failure in policy in France and Belgium in dealing with the issues upfront. The Marine Le Pen-way of dealing with such policy failure, is to stop Muslim population from growing, by halting/reducing future migrants with "undesirable" traits (eg. religion, country of origin) from getting in to France. But that does nothing to deal with the already-marginalized Muslim population within its border that are now full French citizens). This is also the same approach/rationale behind Trump's border wall, and the Australian policy change to make citizenship tests harder for everyone. But there is no getting around the fact that Muslim population already amounts to 7.5% of its population in France, and is only going to grow, given the trajectory of far higher birth rate of Muslim community and the low birth rate of everyone else.
Generally, public discourse on the subject has always been binary (and highly simplistic). You're either with us, if you are ok with more immigration, refugees relocation, because then, you must be a liberal, progressive, and by default, a citizen of the world (the future!). OR, you must be against us, if you are against more immigration, in which case you must be a bigot, xenophobic, a nativism loser.
I can tell you, I highly resent that kind of binary label.
From an economic perspective, while it is true that the "losers" in general are likely to be lower-educated locals that lack the skills to adapt to a changing job markets (where low skills jobs are increasingly relocated to other low-cost countries), it is thus not going to help their cause to shift the blame to immigrants since the disappearance of their jobs is more a policy of corporate titans deciding to reduce costs, thanks to globalization. To that end, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the very many liberal elites in telling these lower-class cohorts that "your jobs are not coming back!" will not go down well at all, even if it's a fact. Blaming these folks as xenophobic (ah, the labeling again) and bigots, without addressing their economic concerns, is ultimately what dooms HRC's 2016 presidential ambitions. This is the liberal's head-in-the-sand approach.
From a cultural perspective, shouting down those whose identity used to define a country, without addressing their concerns, is another ostrich approach. We were told to say, there will be more immigrants, they will be totally different from you in terms of culture and belief and practice, and you just have to accept it. We were told their culture and practice, however repugnant, will not take hold in our society, but is that really? When we live in a democracy, we know that whichever ethnic or demographic group(s) gain majority, will get to be decision-maker. And so, if your country will one day become dominated by a Muslim majority, what will that look like? Ok, maybe France won't look immediately like Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. But would it look like a Turkey or Egypt? It's hardly a prospect that anyone looks forward to, but it can certainly happen. Democracy is a very fragile thing, nothing of it should be taken for granted, as we can see in the recent power grab in the Turkey election. All you need, is a slim majority. There is no guarantee that France or any other country will not one day devolve into that prospective. For the liberal elites to deny that, is another head-in-the-sand approach.
Surely there can be other ways to address these demographics trajectory. But not dealing with the issues, not even acknowledging it to be a potential issue, is simply foolhardy. Stopping immigration in wholesale manner is foolish. But, rather than the dismissing far-right politicians like Marine Le Pen off-handedly, we would all be better served to acknowledge that fact, and to ensure a more balanced approach in immigration policy, to ensure a true diversity in a multi-cultural society. Assimilation does not mean having to forego and give up one's cultural and ethnic identity, but neither should it mean clinging (yes, Obama is totally right on using that word!) onto all of its cultural and religious practice, good or bad. Afterall, if new migrants do not want to change at all, why move to a new country in the first place?
As an immigrant myself, having lived in four different continents, with couple of citizenship/passports in my backpocket, I can quite easily attest to this commonsense approach. I thus do not automatically see everything that Trump or Le Pen said as bigotry (and there are plenty of times when they truly are), there are certain policy and ideas they advocated that do make sense to me. The current political climate of binary easy-labeling anyone does not facilitate sensible political discourse. If there is one thing that far-rights and radical left should agree on, and if they truly admire Reagan, it is that they should aspire to how Reagan and Tip O'Neil had managed to work together, despite their differences. Compromises can be a good thing, it's a necessary art that GOP and Dems need to learn again.
I haven't visited France for some time, so I can't get the pulse of its voters. If main media and elites take voters for granted (as Hillary Clinton and Dems did in 2016), they are bound to lose, and Le Pen will rise. Then again, maybe it's not that bad a thing (!?!). Who knows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By the way, why is it that no one blames any Asian countries for failing to diversify? Has anyone ever condemned China or Japan for not accepting any refugees from the Middle East? Ok, one could argue that the mess in Middle East was a direct result from centuries of colonialism, and foreign meddling by Russia, US, and more. But hey, isn't this supposed to be for humanitarian reasons in accepting refugees relocation? Why the finger-pointing to western countries alone? Why is it ok for Asian countries to preserve their cultural identity and purity, but not the West?
This is the sort of outcomes that is expected, though highly undesirable. It's the natural result of failure in policy in France and Belgium in dealing with the issues upfront. The Marine Le Pen-way of dealing with such policy failure, is to stop Muslim population from growing, by halting/reducing future migrants with "undesirable" traits (eg. religion, country of origin) from getting in to France. But that does nothing to deal with the already-marginalized Muslim population within its border that are now full French citizens). This is also the same approach/rationale behind Trump's border wall, and the Australian policy change to make citizenship tests harder for everyone. But there is no getting around the fact that Muslim population already amounts to 7.5% of its population in France, and is only going to grow, given the trajectory of far higher birth rate of Muslim community and the low birth rate of everyone else.
Generally, public discourse on the subject has always been binary (and highly simplistic). You're either with us, if you are ok with more immigration, refugees relocation, because then, you must be a liberal, progressive, and by default, a citizen of the world (the future!). OR, you must be against us, if you are against more immigration, in which case you must be a bigot, xenophobic, a nativism loser.
I can tell you, I highly resent that kind of binary label.
From an economic perspective, while it is true that the "losers" in general are likely to be lower-educated locals that lack the skills to adapt to a changing job markets (where low skills jobs are increasingly relocated to other low-cost countries), it is thus not going to help their cause to shift the blame to immigrants since the disappearance of their jobs is more a policy of corporate titans deciding to reduce costs, thanks to globalization. To that end, Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the very many liberal elites in telling these lower-class cohorts that "your jobs are not coming back!" will not go down well at all, even if it's a fact. Blaming these folks as xenophobic (ah, the labeling again) and bigots, without addressing their economic concerns, is ultimately what dooms HRC's 2016 presidential ambitions. This is the liberal's head-in-the-sand approach.
From a cultural perspective, shouting down those whose identity used to define a country, without addressing their concerns, is another ostrich approach. We were told to say, there will be more immigrants, they will be totally different from you in terms of culture and belief and practice, and you just have to accept it. We were told their culture and practice, however repugnant, will not take hold in our society, but is that really? When we live in a democracy, we know that whichever ethnic or demographic group(s) gain majority, will get to be decision-maker. And so, if your country will one day become dominated by a Muslim majority, what will that look like? Ok, maybe France won't look immediately like Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. But would it look like a Turkey or Egypt? It's hardly a prospect that anyone looks forward to, but it can certainly happen. Democracy is a very fragile thing, nothing of it should be taken for granted, as we can see in the recent power grab in the Turkey election. All you need, is a slim majority. There is no guarantee that France or any other country will not one day devolve into that prospective. For the liberal elites to deny that, is another head-in-the-sand approach.
Surely there can be other ways to address these demographics trajectory. But not dealing with the issues, not even acknowledging it to be a potential issue, is simply foolhardy. Stopping immigration in wholesale manner is foolish. But, rather than the dismissing far-right politicians like Marine Le Pen off-handedly, we would all be better served to acknowledge that fact, and to ensure a more balanced approach in immigration policy, to ensure a true diversity in a multi-cultural society. Assimilation does not mean having to forego and give up one's cultural and ethnic identity, but neither should it mean clinging (yes, Obama is totally right on using that word!) onto all of its cultural and religious practice, good or bad. Afterall, if new migrants do not want to change at all, why move to a new country in the first place?
As an immigrant myself, having lived in four different continents, with couple of citizenship/passports in my backpocket, I can quite easily attest to this commonsense approach. I thus do not automatically see everything that Trump or Le Pen said as bigotry (and there are plenty of times when they truly are), there are certain policy and ideas they advocated that do make sense to me. The current political climate of binary easy-labeling anyone does not facilitate sensible political discourse. If there is one thing that far-rights and radical left should agree on, and if they truly admire Reagan, it is that they should aspire to how Reagan and Tip O'Neil had managed to work together, despite their differences. Compromises can be a good thing, it's a necessary art that GOP and Dems need to learn again.
I haven't visited France for some time, so I can't get the pulse of its voters. If main media and elites take voters for granted (as Hillary Clinton and Dems did in 2016), they are bound to lose, and Le Pen will rise. Then again, maybe it's not that bad a thing (!?!). Who knows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By the way, why is it that no one blames any Asian countries for failing to diversify? Has anyone ever condemned China or Japan for not accepting any refugees from the Middle East? Ok, one could argue that the mess in Middle East was a direct result from centuries of colonialism, and foreign meddling by Russia, US, and more. But hey, isn't this supposed to be for humanitarian reasons in accepting refugees relocation? Why the finger-pointing to western countries alone? Why is it ok for Asian countries to preserve their cultural identity and purity, but not the West?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)