On the implosion of Donald Trump...

I haven't written on my journal for a while. Spring/summer travel, the works. There have been so much going on that I wish I have more time to jog down my thoughts on each of them. There were the refugee crisis in Europe, the on-going destruction in Middle East (flavor-of-the-month being Syria, of course), bomb and terrorist attacks in various European countries, Brexit, and to cap it all, the presidential election. Boy, that's quite a mouthful just to enumerate them.

Let's take the presidential election in US.

Surely it hasn't been this "entertaining" for the longest time, with plots thickened by the day, that it's becoming like the reality version of House Of Cards. But of course, there's nothing funny or amusing about it since the stake is so high. Whoever gets to the White House is going to almost dictate the direction of where the country (and by proxy, the rest of the world) goes for the next four years, and with the appointment of Supreme Court appointments at stake, the larger impact of the presidency would be felt in at least the next three to four decades to come.

I generally don't vote for anyone just because a candidate share the same gender as I do, although one can hardly deny the very powerful symbolic notion of the first female president, holding court in the most powerful office in the world. It's about damn time, one could say. But no, Hillary Clinton (HRC) has not had my votes by default. I have to admit, she has earned it, fair and square, through decades of dedication that work toward the largely same goals through public service, sans the time she's private practice, I suppose. Although I don't agree totally with the liberal agenda, the general directions that she has laid out are ok (or at least better than what Donald Trump has propositioned). Yet, I would not have wanted to see the near amnesty of illegals in the country, nor take-your-pick-in-gender fights where one can essentially choose whatever gender one wants, or the push of trade deals that imperils the working class in US (case in point being NAFTA).

When one looks at the other alternatives to HRC, she instantly looks more electable. I won't take Jill Stein (Green Party) or Gary Johnson (Libertarian) seriously. I was particularly unimpressed by one interview I heard Stein on the radio where she was asked whether she would admit she's wrong in supporting the anti-vaccination movement back then, even after the myth was totally debunked without any scientific proof. Without much of an admission of guilt, all she could muster in response was, trust me, I'm a doctor. I'm, like, really? So what if she's a medical doctor when she couldn't even look at scientific data in the eyes and face the facts.

As to Gary Johnson, there's nothing more to be said. The guy self-implodes the moment he half-admitted that he didn't even know what Aleppo is when it's all over the news about Syria. That says so much about his narrow worldview as a libertarian, no doubt.

And then, there is Donald Trump. Watching the love-hate relationship between Trump and GOP establishment during the primary season was priceless. We know now, that the ostrich approach didn't work out so well. Without so much of any effective rebuttal from GOP establishment and leaders, Trump goud each candidates, devours them one after another. All the while, GOP grassroots and core supporters egg him on. And why not? Trump is the ultimately protest choice of the GOP grassroot supporters, the largely white working class, particularly men, who have been left behind in economy. They were the ones who were fed the red meat rhetoric about liberal conspiracy whenever things don't go right, so that they would not have time to look closely at what their own party has done for them. After more than two decades of wool over eyes, they look to have finally wise up and opt for someone like Trump who is totally outside of the system, totally unconventional, and who also totally turns off the GOP establishment. So much the better. It doesn't matter if he's crass, or bigotry, or petty, or ignorant. In Trump, these voters see themselves in him, only with more money.

I won't even bother with all those stupid back-and-forthing about email server issue of HRC (extremely careless but no crime) or even Bill Clinton's infidelity issue (as if a husband's philandering is the fault of the wife, ah!), or how HRC might have acted dismissive toward those other women. I'm pretty sure no one in GOP, or in Trump's campaign, cares to ask opinion of any woman of how they might feel if they were in the shoes of HRC during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If they have asked me, I would have told them I would probably have reacted the same way as HRC. Before the proof, no wife would want to believe in the betrayal. Afterall, Lewinsky did do her best in seducing a very married man. Him philandering, no question about it. But it takes two to tango, and Lewinsky was just as sinful as Bill Clinton did. Was that something that can be blame on the wife (HRC)? No.

But, we all knew of those incidents years ago now. The public, and GOP, has had more than thirty years of continuous vetting of the Clintons. GOP and Trump are just wasting their breath, and every voter's time, in diverting the attention from the real issues that this election really should have focused on.

Trump, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. He's an unknown entity. Bit by bit, things came out. Trump cast himself as the successful billionaire who can use his business experience to run the country. And then, news came out that he really isn't as successful as he claims to be, with reports that he didn't pay his bills or his workers, and even evaded taxes for years using huge losses accumulated on papers. No matter, he's shameless enough to grab the megaphone to claim him to be smarter than thou, that if he can game the system (or you) and you don't, it's your fault, not his. Just one month from election day, the revelation came, in the form of lewd conversations of Trump talking casually about groping women, all recorded on tape for the world to see. More women came forth with accusations against Trump, even though most were from years ago. Trump campaign tried desperately to duck, deflate and counter-attack HRC, dismissing the talks (as "locker room banter"), dismissing the women and their credibility, even threatening libel lawsuit. Perhaps this is the final straw for those like Paul Ryan who reluctantly walked with Trump, but finally had ammo to proudly claim he's breaking from him for good.

It sure is highly entertaining. All that HRC has to do, is to tread lightly, and watch Trump implodes. That said, I highly doubt that HRC would win with as big a margin as one would have claimed to be a mandate for her ultimate presidency. It's highly likely that she would end up follow Obama's footsteps, having to prove his worth with a two-term presidency, a re-election, turning around the economy, tackling intractable issues like pushing for climate change, and even introducing a flawed health bill that we now know it as ObamaCare. Still, a good half of the nation's voters would not go with Obama. I'd bet, it'll be the same pattern for HRC, even if she wins.

No matter, we can never please everyone, so we might as well push ahead whatever way we see fit. I hope HRC takes that path.

I won't even contemplate Trump winning.  :)

On my support for Brexit and its win in referendum...

I haven't been writing in my journal for a few months now. Too busy with other things, I guess, or maybe there's just too much same-old-same-old. There were however a few things worthy to note, one of which is the rout within the GOP after Donald Trump won the de facto nomination (which is worthy to note in another post), but the more recent one was the Brexit vote on June 23, in which Britain has voted 52% to 48% in favor of leaving the EU.

It was said that the Brexit vote shows generation divide among young voters (who more strongly favor staying in the EU in general) and old voters (who mostly want UK to stand on its own feet again). There's talk of despair among young voters after they lost the referendum, of fear from uncertainty, of resentment toward the elders who "sold them out," as they call it.

There was also talk of racial bigotry against immigration as it shaped up to be one key issues (inability to control immigration within EU and burdensome regulations from EU), hence the disparage of less affluent, less educated, lower-class voters by those citizens-of-the-world class championed in the City of London where its financial hub thrives, thrashing those who wanted out as anyone who can't handle change or uncertainty or competition.

The intense campaigning and drumbeat of the Brexit referendum from the Remain campaign and the Leave campaign, what with all the misinformation matches those from the Trump campaign. Both sides are to blame in the playing up of the element fear, of uncertainty.

In the Remain campaign, David Cameron, the PM who resigned the next day after losing the Brexit vote, and all business elites worked incredibly hard as trumpeting the call of mass exodus of jobs and business headquarters and financial services out of UK and London to the continent. For a while, I almost thought that worked for them; afterall, Cameron used the very same tactics during Scotland referendum for independence in 2014. History would not repeat itself with the mainland, and it goes to show the Englishmen prefer pride and independence more so than the Highlanders.

On the other side of the fence, the Leave campaign played up the element of fear from a different vantage point. There is the uncontrolled immigration primarily from eastern European countries who are free to come to UK to work, enjoy its healthcare and welfare system, pushing down wages with intense competition for low-end jobs, all of which UK cannot say no because they are part of one big happy (not) family within the EU. Even the debunked euro-myth of EU regulations governing the shape of bananas sold is still much cited by by the Leave campaigners, including the ex-London Mayor, Boris Johnson. While the banana regulation might not be true, there are plenty other regulations in all shapes and forms across all industries to pick on. While they might not be worthy for news headline, anyone who finds Brussels overbearing will not have a hard time finding something to chew on.

There is much parallels between the steady-hand campaign message from Hillary Clinton, and the upstart, rock the boat messages (for better or worse) from Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in this very season of primaries season on this side of the Atlantic. Clinton mirrors (and supports) the Remain campaign, Trump bleats about the Brexit vote that Leave won. The underlying current, voter angst and distrust of anything that establishment told them, is very real. It didn't help that the chiming in by other foreign dignitaries, including Obama and Merkel and Juncker (as if UK voters care about what Juncker had to say), essentially telling UK voters to not do the stupid thing (ie. to vote to leave EU), akin to very stern talking down to them like little school children by their principal. Even my kids would tell me, long before the vote, that the approach will not work. It didn't.

So now, after the Brexit vote, Cameron is out with more carnage to come. The one person who should be running scare right now, should be Hillary Clinton.  But...I'm digressing.

Why do young voters, those under 35 in general, were so scare? It's indeed conceivable for much of their apprehension. Afterall they had born into this world, knowing nothing about Britain being its own country, when all they know in their life is UK being part of EU. Indeed it would be hard for them to fathom a time when their country had been standing all alone when the Nazis came marching across the continent, and all those countries in the continent were dropping like flies. The Brits were tough, and they were blessed with visionary leaders like Winston Churchill who had the wisdom and toughness to stand against the wind.

In modern times, the marching does not come with guns and weaponry, but with trade and dollar bills. While I don't want to thrash the younger generations to be as weak as the Vichy government back in WWII days whose job in collaborating with the occupied force of Nazis, there is much parallel in that. All it takes, is to wave "a good life" in front of time, and their knees would turn to mush. In modern times, these younger folks would cloak that in another euphemism called inclusion, or progressiveness, or pan-internationalism, or liberalism, whatever.  No matter, the result is the same, which is that they are all too ready to give up sovereignty and self-control for a better life, an easier life.

So, why do I support Brexit?

I've supported Thatcher back then with keeping GBP alive, even if UK opted to join EC (the precursor of EU).  Ease of bilateral trade can indeed be beneficial to everyone. I worked in the financial sector at the time when Euro was rolled out in 2000, and I never understood. (Well, of course I could certainly hear all the "benefits" from the Euro camp, but I was never convinced or sold on how ECB can manage a single currency for so many countries, even with the disparity back then between the economic fortunes for the smaller eurozone was substantial less than what it is today.) At least with GBP still alive, Bank of England can effect some change to its economic fate in terms of fiscal and monetary policy. Without GBP? Well, you need to look no further than Greece, and the deep shit it's in. Enough said.

I have always considered free movement of all EU citizens to all EU countries to be possible only if these countries are largely on the same boat, with similar economic fortunes. That was indeed the case in the earlier days of EC, and then EU. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the break-up of the Soviet Union, all its former communist satellites were let loose. Over the years, western Europe has rushed to embrace these poor cousins, starting with East Germany.

One has to realize, having a meal with someone is not the same as going to bed. What started as a trade bloc and strategic alliance (in the form of NATO) now requires much than just trade agreement or sharing with military secrets, all of which individual countries can choose to do with, or without, because they still retain that modicum of control. When you give up your currency, you give up your ability to control both fiscal and monetary policy. For small countries rushing to join the big boy's league, there might be argument for that; but a country that is more than capable of doing that, why would you give that up? And when free movement suddenly means open border and free for all (including welfare and health care), all while your own citizens are struggling, it all makes so much less sense.

Some would call me ranting and fear-mongering, but is it really? There is even name-calling from younger voters, of how older voters ruining their future. Is that the only future they can envision? (If yes, it'll be the saddest thing of all.) For those young people who says they want to be part of Europe too. What's stopping them? They still can move anywhere of their choosing. Is showing a passport that big of a deal, as compared to giving up their country's fiscal and monetary policy and border control? I would argue that it's not.

Thirty years on, and one global recession (circa 2008) later, we now know the wisdom from Thatcher (even if it's just on GBP alone). Some would call it isolationism, or rolling back the clock in the face of global trade deals like NAFTA. As the young people and working class (both of whom are struggling) in US would attest to it, global trade deals invariably benefit multinational corporations who won't have nary a care about local livelihood or ruined economies because the trade deals allow them to simply move from one country to another after devouring everything from that land. When will the young voters in UK wake up to that? While we're on that, when will Scotland and Northern Ireland (both of whom now want to breakaway from UK to join EU) start to learn something from the unfolding debacles in Greece who is still paying the price to stay in the eurozone, with no end in sight.

By the way, I never see immigration as the main issue for Brexit. I see sovereign control on issues pertinent within its own borders to be of paramount importance. Immigration, if regulated and managed properly, can be a good thing. This should be something that US should learn something about as well, rather than the Democrats (and Obama's) assertion to provide pseudo amnesty to all illegal migrants, just because they manage to cross the borders. If anything, I find that offensive. To me, it has nothing to do with nativism, or racial bigotry.

I do hope Brexit would serve a case study for other countries, not only for those who rush to join trade deals, but also for those who believe being a hanger-on to someone else's coattails is the only way to live and compete with competitors like China.

As to the aftermath of Brexit, EU now wants UK to leave as soon as possible as if contagion will not happen. It only goes to show how out of touch with reality those in Brussels are. Anti-establishment sentiment has been rising substantially in all countries (and not just on the continent due to the refugee/migrant crisis from the Middle East). Even if the exit UK is to complete tomorrow, those parties like Podemos in Spain, or Marine Le Pen in France, and even the Five Star Movement in Italy will accelerate in their rise.  While Trump is crass, crude, and at times, even comical, one would be foolish to dismiss him as an also-ran.

I do look forward to a day when Britain would show the world that there is a third way to survive and thrive in this increasingly competitive globalized world. If there is anything that we should learn from Britain (and Churchill), standing all alone in the face of great adversity, with much courage and vision, we should realize that British voters might have once again shown us that that courage and vision. The question now is, do the Brits have another visionary leaders like Churchill to march with them?

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

I should say though, that one area that Britain would definitely lose out, is the seat at the big boys' table. The Brits have been profoundly apt in playing politics on the world stage. Leaving EU would mean it's vacating its seat on the EU table. I would suspect though, that over time, UK will find its way in again, when Germany needs a more capable ally than France on all EU matters.

On Chinese almanac...

Chinese almanac (通勝) has not crossed my mind for a long time. But when I read the New York Times article about English translated copies of it, it brings back some fond memory of years past.

Before my parents were converted to Christianity, they used to observe traditional rituals rather religiously on every Chinese festivals and important days. We used to live right across a very popular Taoist temple. I liked to sit high up at home watching the faithfuls waiting for the temple gate to open at 6am in the morning, bringing with them food (you have to have whole chicken, with head intact, for offering), incense sticks, candles, paper money etc, all for the temple patron or their ancestors. Some prayed for fortune, others for protection, yet more for predictions. I like the smell of burning, it feels peaceful to me.

Back then, my mom believed in the powers of fortune-telling, though she never exploits it much. All her life, she has only had her fortune told twice, once as a gift from a monk when she was very little after grandma gave the monk some food, the other time was to ask if she should send my brother, her only son, to college overseas. To this day, long after she's taken to Christianity, she still holds the belief that those two fortune-tellers told the truth. (As Christians should not worship idol gods, she has relinquished all those ancestral rituals these days.)

The monk had patted head, and told grandma that if this girl (my mom) were a boy, she would achieve great things. Pity she's a girl, he said. Mom strongly believes it still. And yes, she's a decisive woman, and highly independent in her times. In modern days, she would be called headstrong, even willful, but she's also sensible and practical, though she's quite risk averse. Maybe there's some truth in it.

In the second time, a fortune-teller told my mom, if you sent your son to Canada, you would never see him again; but if you sent him to Australia, he would attract unwanted woman (with a somewhat derogatory term I can't quite find a translation in English). My brother was thus sent to Australia for college and, lo and behold, he was involved with a woman almost ten years older, and they eventually married. Their marriage never gained approval of my parents. To add insult to injury, she has been unable to bear babies. My dad never forgave them for the inability to carry on the bloodline or the family name with offsprings. Oh well, I guess every family has their woes. In any case, that was the last that my mom ever deals with fortune-telling.

One of the things that my mom shows me, was the Chinese almanac (通勝). Its annual prints are a must-have for farmers who rely on it to tell the weather pattern in the coming years, based on the study of the Sun, stars, and constellation. Through five thousand years of study and trial-and-errors, the almost inch-thick booklet does contain quite some wisdom in that regard one would think, although I'm not so sure about the predictions about "this day (whatever date that's marked on the lunar calendar in the almanac) is good for long haul journey" or "wedding" and some such, which sounds more like superstition than anything else to me. A lot of Chinese still adhere to it though, with those days that are marked for weddings would become popular for wedding banquets. Yep, better safe than sorry, as most folks see it.

There is a lot more details contained in a Chinese almanac, some of which are the same in every prints. One of those is a tabular table for 稱骨. In essence, this table helps in measuring a very very broad prediction of your life, fortune-selling for you from an essentially 100,000-feet birds' eye view since your birth. With the input of your birth date (in lunar calendar) and time of birth, you can come up with a number, ranging from 2.2 to 8.1. Each one of which comes with four verses that would describe your life. The heavier you are (ie. the higher the number you get), the more blessed your life is. Supposedly, 8.1 is almost likely to be the emperors, princes and lords, while the 2.2's are for beggars and the very poor (throughout their life).

There you have it, most people's destiny is set right at the time of their birth, although I was once told by someone who has "studied" fortune-telling who says that yes, it's a birds' eye view, but the exact path is not set. That's where other studies come in, like palm reading. And if we care to look, we would see the lines in our palms will continue to change throughout our lifetime. He says, "do you notice your hands are never in "straight" palm position? That's because when your palms are bent, or half-closed, lines continue to form, and change. And that's how you control your life, literally." I heard that when I was very young, but I still find it fascinating, from a philosophical perspective. At least we all have some measure of control over our destiny, rather than deferring to the four verses that describe us (some six billions people on world, no less!) in such broad terms as can be dimmed meaningless. It's however cold comfort for those who are born as a 2.2 and who will never rise too much above their station.

As my mom sees it, her four verses describe her life perfectly. Now that she's pushing 90, it's safe for her to look back and make some tentative conclusion. Essentially, her verses describe her fierce independent spirit, my rough life when she's young, but she'll have a very peaceful and good life as she gets older. Maybe there's some truth in it afterall.

As you can see, there are billions of people on this planet, and for this table to describe anyone with some measures of accuracy, however small they might be, the verses have to be understandably vague, and they have to describe one's whole life. It's no small task.

(I'm not quite that old yet, but when I get to that point, I would probably look back and see the truth in my four verses as well.)

I've often wondered how many people in the younger generations even know their existence or how to use them, even those who grew up within China. How much of these knowledge, even the benefits of knowing about the superstition practiced in generations past, would be lost in the younger generations' relentless push to modernity? Is that a fair price to pay in terms of civilization?

Of one impediment, is the fact that most old manuscripts and prints are in complex Chinese characters which to most, if not all, of those who grew up in China learning only the simplified Chinese characters, would never be able to read or write. Yes, the simplified characters might make it easier to learn and to write, but they would have lost that part of history and traditions since they would never be able to learn. Chinese almanac is always printed in complex Chinese characters, in keeping with traditions, but maybe one solution is to reprint it in simplified characters, much like translated English version. But is it really the same?

It is thus ironic to see the mention of the Chinese almanac, and the translation of it, being made in the western world, in an English medium like New York Times. Would the tradition of one country be preserved by and in a foreign country because its homeland country can't shed those traditions fast enough? From the look of it, it increasingly looks that way.

2015: Taking stock, and looking ahead...

I have come to enjoy this little ritual of mine, to read my year-end entry of my journal of the previous year(s) about taking stock of the year, and to look ahead. In ways big and small, it allows me to reflect on changes on both personal front and the larger world, keeping a hopeful eye to the year ahead.

------

Losing a parent is never easy, and I've come to learn that. I loved my dad, and when he passed away, I felt like part of me (the better part) has died with him. No, I'm not depressed, and I've recovered from grief in the months since his passing. I'm only so grateful that there was much fond memory that I have of him, so that every time I think of it, I would make the food that he liked to cook for the family, and me in particular, since I shared a love of the many dishes with my dad, including salty/spicy squids, steam fish (and its skin, and fish belly part for fresh-water fish, and back of the fish for salt-water fish), the many soups, and congee (with fresh beef or sliced fish). I learnt so much from him, the work ethic and discipline in life, the wider perspective in things. More importantly, he's a good father, a family man, patient and understanding, allowing me to do the things I want to do without ever doubting my ability to achieve them, giving me the space and independence to go out and pursuing things without undue worry. Unlike my mom, my dad was the "me-worry?" type. His easy laughter was always infectious to me. And I learnt how to cook rice on his first teaching when I couldn't, for the longest time, understand how mom did it. My parents teach things in very different ways, and dad had the ability to appreciate how kids need to learn it, he could always show me the "tricks." I missed him dearly. 

I have thought I would become more religious with his death. Afterall, my whole family is religious, and they are all praying for my "salvation." Thankfully they let me take my time. I was hoping I could feel dad's presence after his death, but somehow I didn't feel anything. Somehow I feel like that's the end of it, and the light's out like an extinguished candle. 

I'm glad that at least mom is still holding strong and active. She's adjusting to the nursing home life. With dad's gone, there is no more bickering, and mom seems curiously peaceful about it (though she looks sad in the first few months since dad's passing). Perhaps it's just as well.

It seems like suddenly the kids' milestone is upon us, when one day I realized they're all taller than me already. They are about to enter the rat race. That's something I don't want to contemplate too much on right now.

------

With the first rate hike by the Fed since 2008, I'm just so glad that I've wrapped up the refi of the property that was previously still on an ARM mortgage. Now that all of them are on 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, and the cash outlay on that front is known, I can at least rest a bit more easily without having to worry about further rate hikes which will surely come in 2016 and beyond. 

The other thing I'm happy to have wrapped up before the rate hike last week, is the re-balancing of the property portfolio, cashing out on some of them while keeping the solid ones. I don't want to be too overweight on real estate or in stock market.

No doubt those who rely on the easy money policy from the Fed and China are not going to be happy about the tightening in US policy and the softening in economy in China, but one should realize that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have ups and downs as part of the economic growth. The up and up trajectory between the late 1990s (with only a small blip in 2000 due to the tech bubble burst) and 2008 is simply not sustainable in the long term.

With those in place, I should be able to switch my focus more on the job/work front which I very much look forward to doing in the coming year. That should be exciting.

------

There have been so many world events that worth noting, but I can't help looking at the horrific Paris attacks last month and the worsening refugee crisis in Europe that has no end in sight. Discrimination against Muslims in wholesale fashion is wrong, yet it's hard for average citizens not to cave in to that tendency. I really don't see how that can be resolved without first stabilizing Middle East, in particular, Syria, and Iraq, Afghanistan. 

In comparison, Russia's invasion of Crimea seems almost benign and peaceful; afterall, there are indeed a lot of those people in Crimea who identify themselves more with Russia than with Ukraine. How ironic.

With all these geopolitical crises, the bailout of Greece (yes, again) in mid year looks decidedly like soap opera. Afterall everyone knows that EU would not let Greece fail, and Greece would not drop the use of Euro so that one way or the other, Greece will have to play ball (which it did, eventually and as expected).

Will 2016 bring more peace and quiet? I kind of doubt it. China's mini-aggression in South China Sea will continue. China's economy will continue to slow, and most likely on an accelerating rate, sending shivers to all other countries that have come to depend heavily on the China trade. Greece economy will flare up again, no doubt. There will be many more millions of refugees (genuine or economic ones) rushing the shores and borders of EU, to further test its limits, resources, and patience. The seesawing of all the military conflicts in the Middle East will continue, with radical groups continue their social media campaign (thanks to the insistence to "free speech" by all the social media companies and Google and Apple that implicitly lend them a helping hand in recruitment).

On the domestic fronts, White House will change guards in 2016, with the presidential election. At least US economy should continue to limp along, with growth in jobs, GDP numbers, but not in wages. Some things, though, will remain unchanged, including broken infrastructure. Inequality in income and wealth will continue to widen. 

Are there any reasons to be hopeful about the wider world? I do hope so, but somehow I'm holding my breath. When can I exhale?

On student stress, and high parents expectations...

It's hard to be a parent, but I guess most of those who are a parent themselves would attest to that. You might think it's hard when the kids are small, but to me, it's actually more manageable. As parents, you can have much more control the environment and even the outcome. You can decide on group daycare versus nanny versus stay-home, 24x7. You can decide if the kids should have vaccine shots. You can decide where to move to for schooling. You can decide if kids should go to public or private schools. You can decide where to go for the next vacation, and kids will tag along all the same. You arrange for all the playdates. You can decide what they wear (since you're buying), and what they eat (since you're cooking). You can decide what activities kids should do, and drive them too. Surely there are aspects that parents need to work at, like the financials, the work-life balance thing, the works. But those are things parents can work on, and decide. (Well, I'm sure a lot of people might disagree, arguing that even just the work situation can be out of an individual's control, but hey, you can always look for another job.)

Wait till the kids get older, and you'll feel it when that sense of control will slowly slip away from your fingertips. It might not be a bad thing, in some ways. Kids get more independent. Kids can get to choose more, and parents will acquiesce. Parents might still push, but kids will push back. Increasingly, the society will push back too. Case in point, the school debate in Princeton, New Jersey.

No doubt there's a cultural aspect to it, in which Asian-American parents (particularly first-generations parents) expect the world from their kids, pitched against the largely liberal-minded (if you can call it that), mainly white American parents who want everything to be fun and game to their kids, with the slightest hint of stress as a bad thing. Anything short of a hurt feeling or bruised ego must be banned.

I am the first to admit, I'm partial to the debate. I'm asian, I'm a first generation parent to my kids born in this country, I was raised in Asia even though I've lived in US for decades now. Having lived and studied and worked in US and four different countries over three continents does lend me a certain perspective on things.

Believe me when I say to you, you don't want to be brought up under that Asian system. True to God. I was brought up under that "stuffed duck" education system (as the Hong Kongers call it), ie. you just stuff the duck to fill it up, never mind how the duck feels, never mind if the duck needs the food, never mind if the duck can actually absorb anything. It's more about the process (the stuffing, the grades, the exams) than anything else. It's almost sad to admit to this, but I have always thought the system works perfectly, even though I hate most of the teachers, I do love my school. I hate the learning part (because that's what the teachers stuff us), but I love my friends in school. It's like, you can be patriotic and love your country, but you hate the government.

That kind of dis-associative thoughts never really crystallize in my head until much later in life when I have experiences in other forms of systems.

As it turns out, I was pretty good in that old Asian system. I excelled in tests/exams because I like the adrenaline rush. I have a pretty good memory, and I learnt to beat that system. I never bothered to study because there's no point, the teachers didn't want or expect you to. You get "A" or 100% full mark when you can regurgitate texts from books. You don't need to understand the text as long as you can do brain-dump well. It makes the teachers' job easy in grading because if you quote the full text from textbooks, it would be full mark. To game that system, I would always do last-minute all-nighters on the night before the tests or exams, crammed as much from the textbooks into my head (the short term memory of my brain), then dumped everything on the paper, and voila, you're gold.

I'm sure for anyone who reads the above way of "learning," you'll see the problem in it rightaway. There's no learning involved, there's no understanding in the materials, there's no initiative (because everything was driven by what the tests/exams demanded of me, nothing else). I got good grades fairly easily even though my mother would get upset at me. She would see me loitering around most of the time, then all-nighters the nights before exams, and she oftentimes couldn't understand how I got the good grades.

It wasn't until I graduated from high school and moved away from that system, when I started college overseas, that I realized the huge pitfalls of the "education" that I've received. Good grades notwithstanding, I felt so inadequate because I never developed deeper understanding of anything that I should have mastered. I didn't have sufficient initiative to push myself forward since the western system expect me to push, and I didn't know how.

Catching up with the 12+ years of prior schooling in the few short years in college is hard. I cannot tell you how stressful it was. But no, I never once considered quitting or suicide, because they were not an option (I have told myself that much, without anyone telling me so). I've decided that the college degree is what I've wanted, and I'll make it happen, no matter what.

All the while, I have to work multiple part time jobs during college in order to pay my own way. (No, I never asked my parents to fund my college.)

So, you see, I know a thing or two about stress, and about dysfunctional educational systems too. I've had first-hand experience of education systems in four different countries, all of which are different. If there's something to say about adaption, I can add a few footnotes to it too.

Back to to the NJ parents' debate about the schooling change/reforms, I can totally see the fault line.

On the one hand, there are the Asian-American parents who feel that even though it's an excellent public school district, the superintendent is introducing the changes to make school/learning almost too easy. They are always pushing their kids to go for AP classes, extra-curricular activities like music and math, without which, the thinking goes, their kids would have less chance of success in this foreign land (even if their kids might be born here, and are as much an American as the next white kid). Every chance to gin up the kids' chance must be seized on. Expectations and the bar must be set high, because anything otherwise is not an option. It is the constantly under siege mentality that I don't think any white American parents who themselves grew up comfortably and didn't have to compete too hard (against 1.3 billion people of your own kind, perhaps) would never appreciate or understand.

On the other hand, there are the largely white liberal American parents who worry their kids are under too much stress, that there's too much work, that schools are no longer fun, that johnny and jane are not eating well, so much so that things must be too difficult for them. These are the parents who are equally adamant as the Asian-American parents, and who would not hesitate to jump right in to lower the bar, just so that their kids, all kids, can get through the hurdle. Afterall, isn't that saying goes, that no child should be left behind, that every kid is a success. If that is indeed true, and if any kid feels like they can't make it, the altruist impulse must be to stop the game, and wait for the kid to catch up. Well, won't we all feel good in the end (!!).

Dramatization aside, I'm sure everyone sees the problem here. On the one hand, one group wants to raise the bar higher so that only the most discerned kids (their kids, hopefully) will get through, while another group wants to lower the bar so that every kid will make it to the finishing line. Can there be any middle ground?

Before we get to the middle ground discussions, one has to acknowledge a few facts and understanding:

• As noble and altruistic a goal as it is, not all kids will succeed, at least not by the same standards to everyone anyways. In a society, you need doctors and lawyers, but you also need car mechanics and coffee shop workers, and kids don't follow the same path, nor do they need the same cookie-cutter kind of education or training. Some people are never cut out for academics, much as some people are not cut out to be soldiers. Should we push everyone to the frontline in a battle because we believe everyone should be a soldier? Of course not. Some might want to drop out of regular school and learn a trade. Does that make them less of a success? Well, if you measure everyone by how much they earn, then yes they are less successful. But should we define success so narrowly? As most, if not all, liberal-minded folks would agree, one has to follow their heart and choose a path that makes them happy in life, and if these kids are happy to be a tradesman (albeit earning less), then they are as much a success as the next CEO who might be earning millions in compensation. Unfortunately our society these days have conditioned (brainwashed, even) everyone to thinking that EVERYONE has to get a college degree and go for white collar desk job to be successful, so much so that every other kid who does not want to follow this path is labeled a failure. This is just so wrong.
• How much stress is too much? Nobody can tell exactly, since everyone's threshold is different. While no one wants to see any suicide to happen, is it really true that every stressful situation would lead to that one conclusion when a kid will take his own life? I don't think so. I can't recall how many times I felt almost suffocated (literally gasping for air) with pulsating heartbeat when I thought of the hurdles ahead of me during college, the amount of work (and the self-learning that I had to do before I could do those work), and how little time I had. It could be said that the one driving force in me, was the fact that I really do want this (to finish the college degree), and I'm generally a stubborn person. And so, I kept going, and I slowly learnt to master my own system to deal with stress, to multi-task, and to prioritize the tasks. I have to learn it myself, in my own way, in my own time. My parents could not have done for me, however much they might want to help. No one can, and no one should. 
• Parents need to understand that kids have to learn to deal with failures, as much as how they need to learn to deal with stress. Parents cannot do the learning for the kids. It is oftentimes the parents who cannot deal with the idea of failures that they push the kids forward (as the Asian-American parents do), or pull the kids back (as the liberal white American parents do), worrying that their kid cannot compete, that the kids will feel bad and hurt their pride/ego. 

With that said, I would only say a few more words, and no more.

There's almost no point pushing your kids to be just as academically good, but be a "square" in everything else. Getting into a brand-name college might give your kids a leg-up in johnny's first job, perhaps, but three to five years after graduation, there won't be much discerning difference anymore.

The kids need to be doing the pushing, ie. that driving force (of what they want to pursue), need to come from the kid. It cannot and should not be coming from the parents. If the kids don't have that, they would languish later on in life.

At the same time, we can't be lowering the bar of expectation every time a kid says "work is hard." What kind of message do we, as adults, send to the kids by removing every chance of hard work so that they expect everything else in life to be easy and a piece of cake? I still recall the tremendous amount of satisfaction and pleasure when I finally made it through one of the most difficult classes in college, all on my own. I felt like I could take on the world, if I could get through that, and I did. I would not trade that feeling for anything else. Those liberal parents should take away that chance of push and hard work that johnny should be doing, so that he would learn to stumble, stand up again, and make it on his own terms. As a student, that kind of learning and discipline would benefit the kid for the rest of his life.

So, where's the middle ground?

One has to ask, with this very excellent public school system being around for so long, why is it that suddenly everyone thinks it's broken and needs to be fixed? Why do the kids need more work, or less work, today when kids from decades past didn't and those alums all did just fine?

Is it that the middle ground should have been more choices? Why does the school superintendent need to take away the work, effectively lower the expectation of the kids to make things easier? Why can't there be different track, where kids can choose their pace, the same way one can choose between taking (or not taking) AP classes? Surely if those white American parents want less stress for their kids, their kids can opt for the less intense classes, whereas if the Asian-American kids want to push, they can opt for the AP classes.

But of course we all secretively know the answer to that, even if no one wants to admit it outright, when we see the kind of passive-aggressiveness of so many liberal white Americans in general. While they want to make things easier for their own kids, they realize that their kids will be at a disadvantage if they don't take AP classes (for example). In order to maintain the status quo, they cannot allow any other kids to get ahead (the Asian-American kids, in particular) so that their own kids can catch up. And the only way for that to happen, is to change the rules of the system, alter the rules of the game in their favor.

You can see now, that I'm a fairly aggressive person, and I'm not a pushover. Hence, I have a particular distaste of passive-aggressiveness. I see all these being played out in my kids' current school system as well, although not as acutely as those in NJ.

Given my own experience, I do constantly remind myself that I need to step back, to let the kids learn independence, to allow them time to find their own internal driving force. As I told them many times before, as they get older, I'm not going to do the pushing anymore. I do have certain expectations of them, and I do know their ability (of how far they can go), but the rest (what they want to do, where to push it) will have to come from them. For parents, this is a constant learning process to letting go, and to have faith in the kids that they'll push through ok somehow. My parents had the wisdom to let me take the driving seat and decide what to do, I can only hope I learn to have enough trust in them to let them drive. It's not easy, and I'm still learning the rope.

On the appeal of Donald Trump, and the angst of American voters...

The GOP primaries are coming up shortly, and I find pretty good entertainment from its primary season. On top of having a real entertainer (Donald Trump) in their line-up, the GOP has every other man (and woman, in the form of Carly Fiorina) seeing themselves as the next US president when they look themselves in the mirror every time, never mind whether they are up to it or not. While a few losers (hello, Bobby Jindal) admitted defeat, there are still some ten of them refused to admit to the fact that they're just wasting their own as well as everybody else's time. Early on, I have thought Jeb Bush might be the one, given the name stake, the money machine and establishment solidly behind him, and the relatively moderate tone in his rare speeches at the time; but no more. Now Bush is just decidedly an also-ran, giving way to Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Who would have thought, even just a few months ago. No matter, Trump is still sitting at the top, seemingly unfazed by any attacks to him about his outrageous acts, speeches and positions; in fact, the more outrageous he sounds, the more support he seems to get, perhaps even from the disillusioned Tea Party voters.

I would be the first one to admit, I'm totally turned off by Trump the entertainer, what with his very fake hairdo, very artificial tan on his face, and the very outrageous speeches. Oddly though, I find certain part of my inner self saying, there is certain appeal in what the guy is saying, or at least what he represents. No, I'm not saying at all that Trump represents the little guys completely, but he's willing to go out there, and say the politically incorrect things that most people have on their mind but are unwilling to say it due to etiquette, or politically correctness. Even Trump's manner and tone, the crassness that this guy has come across, the decidedly low-classness (billionaire notwithstanding) would mirror a lot of little guys whose voice has long been ignored by establishments from both the left- and the right-side of the aisles in Washington. Remember the 1960s movie Network? Trump has succeeded in channeling that famous quote "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." That's what all the Trump supporters have wanted to say.

I have no doubt that there's sufficient disillusionment from the left, of Obama's Audacity of Hope campaign slogan that has fallen way short of the false hope that Obama has sold to the voters. While he might be the first black president to take the White House, his impact is really largely symbolic. He is not really that different from any other Democrat's president (say, Hillary Clinton). Under his watch, the livelihood of the blacks hasn't changed much; in fact, given all the incidents underlying the Black Lives Matter campaign (if you can call it a "campaign"), it's really just same old, same old. Yes, he pushes through Affordable Care Act (dubbed as his namesake ObamaCare), but it's nothing about healthcare reform that it's claimed to be, which at its core, is simply a health insurance change, rather than healthcare coverage change. While ACA doesn't affect me at all personally, I can certainly appreciate the anger from those people who are forced to seek and buy insurance coverage, or risk paying penalty, particularly in those states where the plans available from the so-called health exchange are getting pricier due to insurers exiting poorer states.

There has been much talk about the explosive growth of student debts in just the past decade and a half, and Washington failed to act on it to ease the load. Why? Because politicians in both parties are all in the pockets of lobbyists whose interests are in protecting the investors' interest (hello, Wall St) rather than the voters.

And then there is widening gap in income and wealth. To be sure, government policy shouldn't be about redistribution of income and wealth, but there is nothing that helps in leveling the playing fields. All everyone wants is quick fixes. GOP wants school vouchers, rather than fixing broken/failing public schools. Democrats wants to give more money to teachers unions, but no guarantee of results. Nobody wants to test the students, saying they alone can't fix failing student performance. So, what do we do? Instead of testing every students to find out where they're at (as demanded by No Child Left Behind Act), Obama is throwing the baby out with the bath water by repealing NCLB and rebranding it as Every Student Succeeds Act. And what does it do? You can still test the students but no one will be held accountable to the test results, hence why would anyone care? Yes yes, education is hard to fix, education requires long term vision and investments, precisely the kind of things that US seems totally incapable to do these days. Is that why every other voters get angry? I know I would.

Same goes with issues in affordable housing. Democrats and liberals in general want us to believe that in order to lift the lives of poor, the quickest way to fix it is to let them live side by side with the wealthy. The thinking goes, that would be an immediate resolution to allow poor families and children to have immediate access to better schools and facilities. No one wants to do the tough job of fixing poor neighborhood. What ends up happening is, the well-to-do feels squeezed and the poor feels envious. Is there any wonder why no one loves the "poor door" arrangement in New York City, even though the poor fight over each other's bodies to get their hands on it like it's a lottery won already? It's only going to benefit a small handful of families while the rest of the dilapidated neighborhoods continue to flatter, yet politicians can claim they are doing something to help the poor without even trying.

And don't get anyone started on the economy which is picking up speed, so much so that the Fed feels prudent and comfortable to raise the rate, the first hike in eight years. As impressive as it may sound, in this two-speed economy when the well-off class has been doing quite well already and can surely handle a 0.25% hike, everybody is still waiting to see their green shoots, particularly in states that are not on either coast.

While US and Europe have been wallowing under the weight of the Great Recession, China has been flying high. Even with the slowing growth in China in the past couple of years, its economy has come a long way so fast that it's been the World No. 2 and is set to overtake the No. 1 position by US as the world's biggest economy in coming years faster than anyone might think. While the Chinese in general feel a sense of hope in their future (matched by the aply named China Dream slogan), with the diminishing world dominance, the American Dream looks decidedly broken. The stature of being an American doesn't count for much anymore in the world stage, even as a tourist these days. Who are we to lecture others about human rights (or abuse), civic society, government structure, ideology and more? When you're going downhill, you lose the rights to gloat about how good you are, because others have shown that their alternate form of government and society can do just as well, maybe even more so.

This is on top of all the disastrous major military undertakings overseas, in the form of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the heedless foreign policy that aims high and shoots low. George W Bush would say democracy to be the cure of all evils, Obama openly praises Arab Spring to give powers to the people, all these are but ideological talks without understanding what that would really do to a society. So, one by one, stable (authoritarian and oppressive, notwithstanding) governments were toppled, the aftermath of which US has not prepared for. In their stead, power vacuum is created in every other country in the Middle East, allowing radical terrorist groups like ISIS (even worse than AQAP) to spring up, displacing residents with civil wars. Is there any wonder millions are rushing the shore of Europe in the refugee crisis this year? The Paris attacks were horrific, but it's just a matter of time that it happens. No one wants to imagine that to happen in US, but the San Bernardino shooting should be another wake-up call to show how easy this is to be carried up, planned by just a few nutjobs.

The list goes on.

It's in the news, day in day out. Is there any wonder why voters are anxious, angry, and feel vulnerable? It can be just as upsetting when average Americans are told we're just fine, that things are really alright, that economy is good (even though you don't feel it), that our kids can really compete in the global marketplace (even though more jobs are being shipped overseas), that we are all over-reacting, that we should open our borders even more (even though a lot of voters are already feeling overwhelmed by competing for jobs locally), that we should pay for more refugees to come in to show our goodwill (even though a lot of classroot voters can't even put food on their table or pay their bills).

These are messages that Donald Trump is saying out loud that no one wants to say it and his anti-establishment message personifies, because to do so is to admit defeat (that our economy is bad, that we're losing the No. 1 position, that we're too poor to tell others what to do or listen to us, that some developing countries are living a better life than we do, free speech be damned because politically correctness is killing the "free speech" in this country anyways).

It is thus that I'm not surprised to see that, as anecdotal as it is, even a Democrat voter is going for Trump. While I don't think Trump has what it takes to govern a country, he would have no trouble attracting sufficient protest votes to tell both GOP and Democrats that voters don't want either of them anymore. And while die-hard libertarians and Tea Party voters might not warm to Trump, he would appeal to their contrarian spirit to, heck, upset the status quo, for a change.

On de-cluttering, digitization (and disappearing) of our footprints...

The other day when I was walking around the block, I came upon a few boxes of "free stuffs" that people put on the street, the stuffs that they intend to throw out that someone else might find interests in. I found a few things of interests. In them, I found a couple of old books, old prints hardcover books that were from the 19th century. There were inscriptions in the front pages, notes of gift to some friends, one of them had notes from a god-parent to the child. 

I don't really have any needs for these old books, but for some reasons, I felt compelled to take them, almost as if I felt the needs to save these very old artifacts from going to the landfill. Part of me too, felt soothed when holding something so ancient in my hands, it feels so real when I touch those yellowed pages and tattered covers.

And so, when I read the New York Times article about de-cluttering, I truly feel for it.

Articles like this are almost always written by older folks feeling nostalgic about a fast disappearing era where there are physical artifacts to touch, to feel, to keep, to past down to the next generations, the same way I would have felt for those old books. The larger social trend though, is moving in the opposite direction.

I bought my first Nook for my kids more than a few years ago out of necessity. In the past, whenever we go on road trips, my kids would load up on books, borrowed from library. That works out fine since they could bring as many books as they want and put them in the car. (They usually bring 25-30 books each time.) That won't do when we go overseas as it becomes too cumbersome bring all those physical books. The Nook was almost a godsend since they can bring as many e-books as they want, and they can read on their own device. These days, they've built up their own digital library of hundreds of books, and they can read them anywhere, anytime. How else could you bring the complete Sherlock Holmes collection, and all the Jane Austen's books, and all the books with you all the time? There's simply no way it can be done physically, and digital copy is an elegant solution to a practical problem.

The kids love it because they have become used to all things digital. While they still read physical books from school and library, they are used to having everything else in softcopy. I'd actually argue that all those studies that equate kids' academic performance to the number of books at home are rather outdated because those studies simply do not have the empirical evidence from homes that have gone digital. In other words, for kids that are older, I don't think they read any less than on e-books than they would otherwise have with physical books. Well, not for my kids anyways.

I would say though, that it would still matter for very young kids to learn reading with a physical book, read by some adults to them physically. That makes a much bigger impact when their very young brain is still forming and needs to learn from touch and feel. But, that's a different story.

There is no doubt, however, that my kids would have missed out on a connection to a past era when there will no longer be any physical artifacts to be had. These days, we don't write letters, we don't buy books, we don't keep the physical stuffs. The home is so clear of everything, it's like a neo-minimal furniture showroom, with nothing on the shelf except a few pot plants.

Even this journal that I'm writing, this blog that I've really just meant for my kids to read, a journal that I would otherwise have kept and written in my long hand, would evaporate in the ether, should blogger.com cease to exist. All that it takes, is for someone to pull the plug on this blogger.com server, and all these years' of journal entries will be gone. 

I sometimes feel ambivalent about that kind of minimal footprint. There will come a day when I pass away, and there will be very few artifacts that connect back to me, except these binaries. I generally don't mind it, but I'm beginning to think that I should really discuss this with my kids, of how their generation would treat this subject. Do they really need - or want - physical artifacts to remember me by? If so, maybe I should start building a collection for some time capsule for them someday.