I was so glad to read in the news that the 3-4 year old little girl who was raped and taped in Nevada is identified and found.
There is good to be made from the rapid transmission of news in this information age, and it's a good call that the FBI and law enforcement agencies to release the little girl and the rapist's picture from the video.
I hope more good will come out of finding and helping victims. I really do.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
On Bush's "push" on climate policy in UN...
Now this is "good."
First, Bush ambushed the Kyoto Protocol; lost all morale ground; then try to resurrect himself (and see if he can put down anything in his "legacy", if any) in his lame duck phase second term by first, claiming the headline that he's going to tackle the climate change, then proposing to allow countries to do good by making the cap of carbon dioxide emission *voluntary* (rather than mandatory).
He gets even "better." The argument of doing away with mandatory emission cap is that, because countries (like US, most notably) won't comply with mandatory requirement. So, let's make it voluntary, so that everyone (including US) will sign...and, nothing (ie. no one will bother to cap the emission) will happen!!! The Bush administration calls it a "strategy."
By jove, since when did we sink this low in logics!!??!! I don't think this argument (if you can call it an argument) can pass the muster of a 5-year-old.
No matter, Bush still has John Howard, the lone pee-on in Australia, to agree with him on that one.
First, Bush ambushed the Kyoto Protocol; lost all morale ground; then try to resurrect himself (and see if he can put down anything in his "legacy", if any) in his lame duck phase second term by first, claiming the headline that he's going to tackle the climate change, then proposing to allow countries to do good by making the cap of carbon dioxide emission *voluntary* (rather than mandatory).
He gets even "better." The argument of doing away with mandatory emission cap is that, because countries (like US, most notably) won't comply with mandatory requirement. So, let's make it voluntary, so that everyone (including US) will sign...and, nothing (ie. no one will bother to cap the emission) will happen!!! The Bush administration calls it a "strategy."
By jove, since when did we sink this low in logics!!??!! I don't think this argument (if you can call it an argument) can pass the muster of a 5-year-old.
No matter, Bush still has John Howard, the lone pee-on in Australia, to agree with him on that one.
On New York Times killing the TimeSelect paid service...
It's just a matter before New York Times would kill its foray into monetizing its popular website in creating the TimeSelect paid subscription service. So, it comes as no surprise when NYTimes ends this service.
While its columnists at NYTimes are popular, I don't think these days anyone would pay to read others' opinion online. Afterall, everyone (even dogs, if they could type) has an opinion, duly exposed in the millions of blogs out there. Nobody is going to pay to read yet some more opinions.
I would say, though, that NYT always has wonderful and indepth reporting. If I were to do research and study, I could use the archive library of NYT even if I have to pay. If NYT is not already doing that, maybe they should consider that (in order to make some bucks to help with the bottomline).
The attempt of NYTimes is quite different from, say, Wall Street Journal, which even I myself am considering signing up. When I pay, I want to see real, good quality content that is *hard news*, and WSJ fits my requirement. On top of that, I want to read it whenever and wherever I want it. I don't want to have to wait for the newspaper delivery at my door everyday. And I get to do my part for not wasting more trees, printing newspapers hardcopy. (I really hate it that people in the neighborhood would order their daily newspapers, just to have them thrown out, in their original plastic wrap. It's despicable.)
I must disclose my displeasure of Murdoch's takeover of Wall Street Journal. I really, really hope the newsroom of WSJ will not suffer. Otherwise, I'll vote with my feet.
While its columnists at NYTimes are popular, I don't think these days anyone would pay to read others' opinion online. Afterall, everyone (even dogs, if they could type) has an opinion, duly exposed in the millions of blogs out there. Nobody is going to pay to read yet some more opinions.
I would say, though, that NYT always has wonderful and indepth reporting. If I were to do research and study, I could use the archive library of NYT even if I have to pay. If NYT is not already doing that, maybe they should consider that (in order to make some bucks to help with the bottomline).
The attempt of NYTimes is quite different from, say, Wall Street Journal, which even I myself am considering signing up. When I pay, I want to see real, good quality content that is *hard news*, and WSJ fits my requirement. On top of that, I want to read it whenever and wherever I want it. I don't want to have to wait for the newspaper delivery at my door everyday. And I get to do my part for not wasting more trees, printing newspapers hardcopy. (I really hate it that people in the neighborhood would order their daily newspapers, just to have them thrown out, in their original plastic wrap. It's despicable.)
I must disclose my displeasure of Murdoch's takeover of Wall Street Journal. I really, really hope the newsroom of WSJ will not suffer. Otherwise, I'll vote with my feet.
Do not forget and give up on this little girl...
I hope the report on this little 4-5 year old girl will not be forgotten after just one day on cnn.com
She was found to be raped on video tape by an adult white male (face caught on video), but the police does not know who or where she is. I want to cry and my heart aches when I read reports like this. I hope someone out there could rescue this girl, and all those girls and boys who are in similar or worse situation.
How could any humans (if they are still humans) possibly do anything like that to kids? I hope they get castrated, and rot somewhere (no, not in jail, since I don't want these animals to be fed and taken care of) in hell. I really do.
She was found to be raped on video tape by an adult white male (face caught on video), but the police does not know who or where she is. I want to cry and my heart aches when I read reports like this. I hope someone out there could rescue this girl, and all those girls and boys who are in similar or worse situation.
How could any humans (if they are still humans) possibly do anything like that to kids? I hope they get castrated, and rot somewhere (no, not in jail, since I don't want these animals to be fed and taken care of) in hell. I really do.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
On the "happiness gap" between men and women...
The blog at New York Times on the Happiness Gap between men and women makes very interesting read.
What we do know is women are not that happy these days, compared to previous generations.
The blog mentions this "study" that shows a "happiness gap" between men and women, and that women are more unhappy than men. I would be very curious to find out the methodology, sample size, and the interpretation of the actual results, among other things of this "study", before I jump to a conclusion. No matter, people responding to the blog do (jump to the conclusion that the study *IS* indeed accurate and realistic). So, we see a lot of generalizations, caricatures, stereotypes, and implied feelings and meanings from the bloggers (based on their perceived notion on this topic, and their own experience and observations).
What we see is something like this:
Men's (mostly, based on their screen names which might not be truly reflective) responses...
(1) That women of the post-feminism era are whinners. They asked for more, and now they have the opportunites, they're having too much for them to chew for.
(2) That men don't sweat details, but women can get too hung up on details in life that they don't see necessary or important. (Case in point: Picking up socks scattered around the house, or dishes not stack in the right place or in the right way in the cabinet.) As a result, they don't bother cleaning up. The result? The women can't stand it, so they do it themselves, on top of all the chores and work they have to do. And they complain the men are lazy.
(3) Along the lines of (2), men don't do the things that women might deem important or necessary. However, they would do it, if they're asked to. But the women don't. Why? Cuz the women *think* the "men are lazy," so they don't bother asking. All the women should do is ask.
(4) The house-husbands or supportive partners postings to the successful career women/mothers are revealing. They acknowledge the ability of their wives, and are fully supportive of it (ie. do the chores, take care of the kids, be supportive, in general). They are happier than their own fathers since these men spent more of their time with childrearing, and are enjoying the quality time. The wives, on the other hand, are not happy still. While they might have the time with the kids after work etc, and they enjoy success at work, they would never be comparable to their own mothers who, in the previous generations' perfect world, are stay-home moms. However, they *do* want to go out and "use their brain power." So, while they might attend career success and family harmony, that falls short of their own "ideal" of perfect mothers.
Women's (again, based on screen names only, which can be deceptive) responses...
(5) There are so many guys who are *pigs* (the good-at-nothing couch potatoes), and too few good, straight men. They are lazy and won't help with chores and kids. Why do women have to do it all? "Of course I'm unhappy."
(6) "What're you talking about? I'm happy in life, being single and all." (Or substitute the word "single" with "single mom.")
(7) "Don't whine, girls. If you don't want babies, take the pills. Don't have the babies and then whine about all the work that follows."
(8) "I feel trapped" trying to beat the career path, and raising a family.
etc etc etc...
I work (the top 5% income bracket), and I have kids and husband. Over the years, here are what I learn from the process (and it's evolving still):
(a) Let's get the priority straight. The family (and the kids) comes first. Jobs and career come and go, but family is what stays with you for life.
(b) I don't think I'll be able to focus on my career, if my husband has not given up his. This is not some Asian countries like India or Thailand or Hong Kong, when it's cheap and easy to keep housemaids. (In those countries, it almost a given that you would have to have that, if you want to keep a 2-income family.) Well, something (or someone) has to give. In those countries, the maids are all-too-often poor mothers in their own countries (eg. Philippines) who have to forsake their own family care, in order to work for some other better-off families, allowing their masters and mistresses to continue their career paths.
(c) Along the lines of (b), with families usually so far apart in America, there is little extended family support either. So, one of us has to stay with the kids.
(d) I used to sweat the details too, which used to be one source of spousal arguments. (He would do the dishes, but for some mysterious reasons, would not put them in the dish holders. So the cleaned, wet, dripping dishes all ended up sitting on the counter, and I have to stack them away.) But he does take care of other things (eg. cooking, schooling). I learnt to do my part. I might be busy, but how hard is it to put the clean dishes away anyways?!? My tolerance level on messiness is getting higher too. When it gets to a point where I can't stand it, I tell him to clean up, and he will. Being messy is one thing, but I don't tolerate dirty stuffs.
(e) Learn to multi-task, and multi-task well. As a working mother, you have to do. Period.
(f) Learn to delegate. Everyone in the family has to pull their weight, including the kids. There is no servant here. When it's clean-up time, everyone does clean-up. Period.
(g) Be mindful of the psychological toll on the husband for giving up a career to stay home. Be creative. Think of some career move that your husband can do at home, so that he can control his schedule, and keep a link to the outside. It's good for his self-esteem as well.
(h) With all that's going on, the stay-home dad needs to learn to multi-task well as well. That's no other alternative.
(i) Be realistic. Ask yourself if you really, really want the romantic ideals of the bygone days, of stay-home moms. A lot of women (like myself) really do want, and need to work and stay active. If we waste away our brain cells staying at home for 14-15 years or so for the kids, and one day find the kids decide it's time they make out on their own, what are we to do? Ditto with the men/husbands. In this day and age, I strongly believe we (men and women) have to beat out our own path. Just following the footsteps and stereotypes of our parents is just not good enough. It took me some 10 years to come to that realization. We have to adjust our behavior, and expectations, and goals, in order to be happy.
I'm pretty happy with where we are now with the family. I do wish I have 36 hours a day, so that I can do more. While he's starting a venture from home, I want to start a separate venture of my own too, on top of the existing job. All these, while taking care of the kids, and enjoying time with them too. Oh, did I mention I want to do an MBA or follow a masters degree to enrich myself too? Hm...come to think of it, I wish I have 48 hours a day...
What we do know is women are not that happy these days, compared to previous generations.
The blog mentions this "study" that shows a "happiness gap" between men and women, and that women are more unhappy than men. I would be very curious to find out the methodology, sample size, and the interpretation of the actual results, among other things of this "study", before I jump to a conclusion. No matter, people responding to the blog do (jump to the conclusion that the study *IS* indeed accurate and realistic). So, we see a lot of generalizations, caricatures, stereotypes, and implied feelings and meanings from the bloggers (based on their perceived notion on this topic, and their own experience and observations).
What we see is something like this:
Men's (mostly, based on their screen names which might not be truly reflective) responses...
(1) That women of the post-feminism era are whinners. They asked for more, and now they have the opportunites, they're having too much for them to chew for.
(2) That men don't sweat details, but women can get too hung up on details in life that they don't see necessary or important. (Case in point: Picking up socks scattered around the house, or dishes not stack in the right place or in the right way in the cabinet.) As a result, they don't bother cleaning up. The result? The women can't stand it, so they do it themselves, on top of all the chores and work they have to do. And they complain the men are lazy.
(3) Along the lines of (2), men don't do the things that women might deem important or necessary. However, they would do it, if they're asked to. But the women don't. Why? Cuz the women *think* the "men are lazy," so they don't bother asking. All the women should do is ask.
(4) The house-husbands or supportive partners postings to the successful career women/mothers are revealing. They acknowledge the ability of their wives, and are fully supportive of it (ie. do the chores, take care of the kids, be supportive, in general). They are happier than their own fathers since these men spent more of their time with childrearing, and are enjoying the quality time. The wives, on the other hand, are not happy still. While they might have the time with the kids after work etc, and they enjoy success at work, they would never be comparable to their own mothers who, in the previous generations' perfect world, are stay-home moms. However, they *do* want to go out and "use their brain power." So, while they might attend career success and family harmony, that falls short of their own "ideal" of perfect mothers.
Women's (again, based on screen names only, which can be deceptive) responses...
(5) There are so many guys who are *pigs* (the good-at-nothing couch potatoes), and too few good, straight men. They are lazy and won't help with chores and kids. Why do women have to do it all? "Of course I'm unhappy."
(6) "What're you talking about? I'm happy in life, being single and all." (Or substitute the word "single" with "single mom.")
(7) "Don't whine, girls. If you don't want babies, take the pills. Don't have the babies and then whine about all the work that follows."
(8) "I feel trapped" trying to beat the career path, and raising a family.
etc etc etc...
I work (the top 5% income bracket), and I have kids and husband. Over the years, here are what I learn from the process (and it's evolving still):
(a) Let's get the priority straight. The family (and the kids) comes first. Jobs and career come and go, but family is what stays with you for life.
(b) I don't think I'll be able to focus on my career, if my husband has not given up his. This is not some Asian countries like India or Thailand or Hong Kong, when it's cheap and easy to keep housemaids. (In those countries, it almost a given that you would have to have that, if you want to keep a 2-income family.) Well, something (or someone) has to give. In those countries, the maids are all-too-often poor mothers in their own countries (eg. Philippines) who have to forsake their own family care, in order to work for some other better-off families, allowing their masters and mistresses to continue their career paths.
(c) Along the lines of (b), with families usually so far apart in America, there is little extended family support either. So, one of us has to stay with the kids.
(d) I used to sweat the details too, which used to be one source of spousal arguments. (He would do the dishes, but for some mysterious reasons, would not put them in the dish holders. So the cleaned, wet, dripping dishes all ended up sitting on the counter, and I have to stack them away.) But he does take care of other things (eg. cooking, schooling). I learnt to do my part. I might be busy, but how hard is it to put the clean dishes away anyways?!? My tolerance level on messiness is getting higher too. When it gets to a point where I can't stand it, I tell him to clean up, and he will. Being messy is one thing, but I don't tolerate dirty stuffs.
(e) Learn to multi-task, and multi-task well. As a working mother, you have to do. Period.
(f) Learn to delegate. Everyone in the family has to pull their weight, including the kids. There is no servant here. When it's clean-up time, everyone does clean-up. Period.
(g) Be mindful of the psychological toll on the husband for giving up a career to stay home. Be creative. Think of some career move that your husband can do at home, so that he can control his schedule, and keep a link to the outside. It's good for his self-esteem as well.
(h) With all that's going on, the stay-home dad needs to learn to multi-task well as well. That's no other alternative.
(i) Be realistic. Ask yourself if you really, really want the romantic ideals of the bygone days, of stay-home moms. A lot of women (like myself) really do want, and need to work and stay active. If we waste away our brain cells staying at home for 14-15 years or so for the kids, and one day find the kids decide it's time they make out on their own, what are we to do? Ditto with the men/husbands. In this day and age, I strongly believe we (men and women) have to beat out our own path. Just following the footsteps and stereotypes of our parents is just not good enough. It took me some 10 years to come to that realization. We have to adjust our behavior, and expectations, and goals, in order to be happy.
I'm pretty happy with where we are now with the family. I do wish I have 36 hours a day, so that I can do more. While he's starting a venture from home, I want to start a separate venture of my own too, on top of the existing job. All these, while taking care of the kids, and enjoying time with them too. Oh, did I mention I want to do an MBA or follow a masters degree to enrich myself too? Hm...come to think of it, I wish I have 48 hours a day...
Thursday, September 20, 2007
On being a Christian and a woman...
It's always a challenge, reading articles like this that discusses about the failings of Christians, and indeed in this case, two pastors/preachers who were married and are now filing for divorce due to domestic violence.
I am never illusioned about how difficult it is to be a Christian, and to preach the Christian way of living. But it's hard, looking at someone (here, a female preacher) who preaches (and teaches) black women of how to be a good wife, of how to stroke the ego of the husband, and to deal with sexual desire and promiscuity while preaching chastity, among other things.
One might say that her experience is particularly hard to swallow, given what she preaches, and the way she's going from one marriage to another, both ending in domestic violence. Is herself or the husband or both, to be blamed for the failing? How could the husband, in this case when he's a "bishop" himself, be hitting his wife while preaching for loving and caring relationship? There is so much hypocrisy when people looking at Christians, or indeed whoever claims to be Christians.
It's very true that people hold Christians to higher bar and standard when it comes to the way of living and the preaching that are coming from them. It's a very dangerous to elevate any individual to be "prophetess" (as in the case of this female preacher), and equate her with Bible teachings. One can quickly get disillusioned when failures happen. This is one reason I don't go to church often, although I regard myself as generally, a believer. One could argue that one needs the support group to strive and grow and share. I don't know if I'm ready to set myself up for disappointment and disillusionment.
Maybe someday God will show me the way. For now, I'm content staying at the sideline...
I am never illusioned about how difficult it is to be a Christian, and to preach the Christian way of living. But it's hard, looking at someone (here, a female preacher) who preaches (and teaches) black women of how to be a good wife, of how to stroke the ego of the husband, and to deal with sexual desire and promiscuity while preaching chastity, among other things.
One might say that her experience is particularly hard to swallow, given what she preaches, and the way she's going from one marriage to another, both ending in domestic violence. Is herself or the husband or both, to be blamed for the failing? How could the husband, in this case when he's a "bishop" himself, be hitting his wife while preaching for loving and caring relationship? There is so much hypocrisy when people looking at Christians, or indeed whoever claims to be Christians.
It's very true that people hold Christians to higher bar and standard when it comes to the way of living and the preaching that are coming from them. It's a very dangerous to elevate any individual to be "prophetess" (as in the case of this female preacher), and equate her with Bible teachings. One can quickly get disillusioned when failures happen. This is one reason I don't go to church often, although I regard myself as generally, a believer. One could argue that one needs the support group to strive and grow and share. I don't know if I'm ready to set myself up for disappointment and disillusionment.
Maybe someday God will show me the way. For now, I'm content staying at the sideline...
Monday, September 17, 2007
On Katrina and federal government's role in its rebuilding...
It's disheartening, reading the article "Where's the money?" from Fortune magazine in the August 20, 2007 issue.
One glaring point to take away is the gross ineptness of the federal government (read, Bush administration) in dealing with the issue. What Bush is saying/doing is, I opened my wallet, here's some money, go take care of yourself.
I might probably be labeled an independent liberal, but I'm no socialist. I do strongly believe that there are certain basic infrastructure and human needs, which responsibilities the federal government cannot abdicate. The needs for the rebuild is so vast, huge and urgent (still) that they call for the federal government to take over on temporary basis. This decisive step would have, should have, could have removed most, if not all, the feudal territorial infightings of different ruling agencies, local governments, and private entities. But the Bush administration does not have the competency and insight to do the right thing. All Bush does was, try to take the easy way out, and claim the glory of it.
It leads me to wonder, if Bush is unable to rebuild even a piece of land in his own backyard, how is he to be trusted to rebuild a remote landmass for a mess that the neo-cons (with his full endorsement) made in Iraq? As we all know too well, Iraq is infinitely worse than New Orleans (there really is no comparison). But in terms of planning, they both show the same pattern of incompetency of this Bush administration.
It makes me angry, very angry in fact, to see that pattern repeating again and again. And I'm very angry at Bush for what he has allowed this country to come down to, and what he has marched this country toward. Sometimes, I wish he would have the chance to stand for re-election, then the voters would show him what he's worth.
Don't bother with legacy, Mr Bush, since you have these two forever marred on your nameplate.
One glaring point to take away is the gross ineptness of the federal government (read, Bush administration) in dealing with the issue. What Bush is saying/doing is, I opened my wallet, here's some money, go take care of yourself.
I might probably be labeled an independent liberal, but I'm no socialist. I do strongly believe that there are certain basic infrastructure and human needs, which responsibilities the federal government cannot abdicate. The needs for the rebuild is so vast, huge and urgent (still) that they call for the federal government to take over on temporary basis. This decisive step would have, should have, could have removed most, if not all, the feudal territorial infightings of different ruling agencies, local governments, and private entities. But the Bush administration does not have the competency and insight to do the right thing. All Bush does was, try to take the easy way out, and claim the glory of it.
It leads me to wonder, if Bush is unable to rebuild even a piece of land in his own backyard, how is he to be trusted to rebuild a remote landmass for a mess that the neo-cons (with his full endorsement) made in Iraq? As we all know too well, Iraq is infinitely worse than New Orleans (there really is no comparison). But in terms of planning, they both show the same pattern of incompetency of this Bush administration.
It makes me angry, very angry in fact, to see that pattern repeating again and again. And I'm very angry at Bush for what he has allowed this country to come down to, and what he has marched this country toward. Sometimes, I wish he would have the chance to stand for re-election, then the voters would show him what he's worth.
Don't bother with legacy, Mr Bush, since you have these two forever marred on your nameplate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)