Friday, 23. October 2009, 09:59:28
Recently, I came across several horrendous examples of bad spelling.
October was misspelled as "Octorber"
Regret was misspelled as "regrad"
Everyday was misspelled as "everday"
Although I'm a fairly accomplished speller and I recognize that many people may not be as competent in English as I am due to lack of talent or opportunity, I find it hard to excuse mistakes when they're made on modern word processing software. It's one thing to be unable to spell correctly when writing by hand, but it's another thing not to turn on the spell-check in any half-decent word processor or worse, ignore glaring mistakes highlighted by the spell-check.
If there is a way to misspell a word, it will be misspelled: Murphy's Law is still very much alive and kicking.
Friday, 23. October 2009, 09:38:41
I just returned from a short week of military training and am now enjoying the civilian life again.
Perhaps I'm unusually excitable this year, but I'm so looking forward to Christmas. October in Singapore is slow and dreary after all the excitement of National Day in August and the Night Grand Prix in September, and it's going to remain this way until the shopping districts light up with the festive lights of the Christmas season. Though Singapore was spared the worst of the vagaries of the economic recession, this has been a difficult year both for the country and for me personally. Hopefully with renewed excitement on ushering in the new year, we can all look forward to something better in the year to come. Christmas won't wave any of the difficulties away like magic, but it's a symbolic milestone which reminds us that we've come this far and offers hope to those looking for fresh starts.
Hope is never the equivalent of reality. But sometimes hope is all that we're going to get. And it'd have to be enough.
Wednesday, 2. September 2009, 13:30:35
Contrary to the hubbub in Singapore in the month of August (with all the fanfare over National Day – one of the few events that actually has a chance of denting a Singaporean’s psyche), August in America is usually a slow news month.
Usually.
Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed as the 11th Supreme Court Justice without much fanfare. The confirmation hearings were surprisingly boring as the Republicans rolled over to preserve political capital. But the intensity of the Healthcare fight took many by surprise.
Perhaps the Democrats misread their victories in the 2008 elections. Perhaps Obama overreached by governing with a liberal agenda. Perhaps Obama was too permissive by allowing Congress to run amok with conflicting versions of the proposed bill. Perhaps the opposition was too good at manufacturing fear, uncertainty and panic. Perhaps the fear-mongering by the unholy trinity of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin was too effective.
Whatever.
The draft bill came up to a purported 1000 pages, and when it’s a morass of such gigantic proportions, it is bound to scare people.
It’s a fundamental thing that people fear change. We have comfort zones, and it takes a little bit of courage and adventurism to step out of it, just like most people aren’t entrepreneurs. The proposed changes may threaten some cherished values like the special relationship between physician and patient when it’s the patient’s life at stake. The proportion of America’s GDP that is spent on healthcare is also staggering enough to warrant caution in moving forward.
Yet, possibly fearing a repeat of Hillarycare in 1994 followed by the loss of control of Congress by the Democrats, the Obama administration tried to rush the bill through Congress before the summer recess.
That was a surefire ticket to disaster.
A bill of such gigantic proportions requires time to contemplate. Even if its intentions are noble, there is no telling of the impact of any given provision or how individual provisions would interact with one another. A classic example is China’s one-child policy – it achieved the desired effect of curbing population growth, but the strong preference for boys in the Chinese tradition has contributed to a serious gender disparity with attendant social problems.
Besides, Congress has an unsavory reputation as a lover of pork, and the $800-billion stimulus passed earlier this year contained many pet projects that hardly looked like they were going to have any useful impact on the average man’s life. That a deadline would force many congressmen to vote without being able to digest the bill would make it difficult to account to their constituents. The presence of multiple drafts also made it difficult to defend any one version.
As Congress returns from its recess, it appears that the confusion has not ebbed as Democrat leaders have issued conflicting statements about the inclusion of the public option, two of the three Republicans on the key Senate committee look increasingly likely to pull out, and Obama’s ratings fall. Still, Obama has much clout and Democrats control Congress, and a bill may still pass simply because there's no going back despite the consequences of moving forward.
For many people in other countries, this would not directly affect their lives. But with the proportion of health care expenditure in America being bigger than many countries’ GDP, a wrong move here may have unintended and unwanted repercussions to the world economy. A key difference between left and right philosophy, that of government intervention vs. individual responsibility, is also taking center stage, which may affect how America is governed in the future.
This is an important battle to watch.
Sunday, 26. July 2009, 13:11:27
Oops...
|
You Are Running on 87% Adrenaline
|
Your Adrenaline Level: Very Dangerous
Life is passing you by so quickly, you hardly can notice what's going on.
You definitely need to slow down before you crash hard!
|
Sunday, 26. July 2009, 13:00:24
I'm mildly surprised. I can't comment on whether I'm wise or not. But the description is spot on...
|
You Are Wise
|
You are a protector and teacher. You help people deal with their struggles.
Right now, you are seeking excitement and a bit of adventure in your life.
You are drawn to people who are passionate and deep.
You feel like there are many major things in your life that need to be changed.
You make a lot of course corrections in your life. Your first reaction is usually not your final verdict.
|
Sunday, 26. July 2009, 12:49:49
I love Opera.
About 8 years ago, I decided that I have had enough of Internet Explorer with its frequent crashes, slow speeds and clunky interface. I tried out the much-touted Firefox at first, and although it was superior to Internet Explorer, I didn't like to have to fiddle with add-ons to get it working the way I wanted it to. So I continued looking around until I discovered Opera. And I liked Opera so much that I continued to use it as my browser and email client after my transition from Windows to Mac.
How do I love Opera? Let me count the ways.
1. Great out of the box. Some people love customizing their browsers until the cows come home, but I prefer to use the software as it is unless absolutely necessary. Opera comes equipped with all the functions that I need (tabbed browsing, email client, etc.) and I don't have to hunt for add-ons all over the place.
2. Consistent interface across platforms. Opera looks and feels the same whether it's on Windows or Mac. That's quite important to me as I'm no Safari fan. One of the biggest things I miss about Windows (yes, I'm not blindly anti-Microsoft) is it's ability to customize windows. Safari can't do that, but Opera can (and Firefox too).
3. Small user base. I know Opera can always do with bigger market share, but it feels good to be rooting for the underdog. Most people don't even know what Opera is and childish as it is, I can feel smug to be one of the tiny minority that uses the best browser ever!
4. MyOpera. I have blogged with a few other service providers, but I was most satisfied by MyOpera. I like its clean interface, ease-of-use, and best of all, its rarity. Most people I know blog at the common service providers and will not find me on the same community. Therefore, I can be more selective as to whom I share my blog with.
Here's to hoping that Opera will continue to innovate so that I can find even more ways to like it 
Monday, 29. June 2009, 15:36:04
I've been wanting to write this post for a long time but didn't do so as I was too busy earlier.
Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by U.S. President Barack Obama to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, is the lightning rod at the center of the fierce conservative-liberal fight for an enduring majority in the Supreme Court. Given that Supreme Court appointments are lifelong appointments and Sotomayor is only 55 (there are justices serving into the 70s), having her on the court is a liberal wet dream that may leave conservatives frothing at their mouths. She would then join liberal justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg to counteract the effects of conservative justices like Samuel Alito and the Chief Justice himself, John Roberts.
The personal politics of Sotomayor aside, since the confirmation hearings in Congress will only take place later in the year, there isn't much that is known about her now... except for two things of note. One is her now-infamous quote "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" that was used in several of her speeches in various forms, and her decision to throw out a case lodged by some white firefighters after results of an all-important test at work they sat for were not certified because the number of passes supposedly did not reflect the racial proportion of the test-takers and was therefore feared to racially biased.
The quote itself has already been flogged to death many times over. But though it wouldn't (and shouldn't) be a main factor in determining Sotomayor's confirmation, it does raise some nagging doubts about how she would be as a judge. If Sotomayor thinks that a "wise Latina woman" would make better conclusions than "white men" because the latter "hasn't lived that life", what is stopping people from saying "a wise W (insert race) X (insert gender)" would make better conclusions than "Y (insert race) Z (insert gender)" because Y-Z hasn't lived that life? Why should any race or gender be deemed as intrinsically superior, more capable, or simply better than any others?
Though the White House has tried to defuse this mild embarrassment by saying it was "a poor choice of words" and Sotomayor has had to "clarify" what she meant, the seeds of doubt have been sown, else there wouldn't have been a need for damage control. An interesting parallel is the decision she made as part of the Appeals Court that rejected the white firefighters' case. Though the case was made on the grounds that the city council that administered the test was within its rights not to certify the results if it could violate the Civil Rights Act, I believe there is an amplifying effect that made Sotomayor appear to be for minority interests at the expense of fairness and meritocracy. That the Supreme Court just reversed this decision by a 5-4 vote doesn't make her look too good either.
Polls suggest that although Americans have some concerns about how she would be as a Supreme Court Justice, there appears to be no violent objection against her appointment. Democrats have nearly all the votes needed to confirm her, and Republicans are leery of launching a filibuster that could solidify their current reputation as the "party of no". Still, confirmation hearings can be vicious acts where all sorts of old dirt is dug up and the would-be appointee is expected to answer for them, after which details would be made public. This is not counting the fiercely partisan and personal manner that the questioning can be, of course.
The Sotomayor confirmation hearings would be interesting to watch.
Sunday, 28. June 2009, 12:11:54
The U.S. House of Representatives just passed their version of the energy-climate bill, a.k.a. "cap-and-trade", by a slim margin of 219-212. 44 Democrats bucked pressure from President Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to vote against it, and 8 Republicans went against the party line and voted for it. The mainstream American media, considered by some to be hopelessly lost in Obama-worship, is hailing the passage of the bill as a landmark victory for the president's ambitious agenda.
The bill is now due for review through the Democrat-controlled Senate, though chances of passage are not assured as centrist Democrats may yet form an unlikely alliance with Republicans to kill the bill as it is. Many of these centrist Democrats hail from states that may stand to be most badly affected by cap-and-trade, and as the mid-term congressional elections are only a year away, supporting the bill at the expense of their constituents may cost them their seats.
From my various blog entries on American politics, I believe it is rather clear that I look at Democrat policies with great distaste. But distaste or no, I'm not an American citizen and I don't have a part to play in the American political process; I can't even vote. However, I see the successful passage of the bill as a destabilizing agent to the now-fragile world economy, which, given America's huge influence on the rest of the world, would eventually affect my country of residence and my livelihood. If this sounds far-fetched, I have already lost bonuses due to the market fallout and I expect not to be given any in the next few years.
But let me ramble on with some reasons why I am personally opposed to cap-and-trade.
1. The creation of carbon credits by government fiat creates inefficiency and wastage.
Carbon credits are not a real good for consumption because they are needed or desired, and they exist only because they are created by government fiat. There is therefore no intrinsic demand or supply for them. However, to facilitate the trade of carbon credits, an entire structure has to be created. This ostensibly "creates jobs", but it produces nothing of real value that is intrinsically needed or desired by consumers. Limiting the carbon output already limits total potential economic output, and building an entire structure to support this system diverts resources away from production of goods that are actually needed and wanted.
2. The practical impossibility of increasing the proportion of energy that is produced by "clean" sources.
The overwhelming majority of the world's energy comes from non-renewable sources such as petroleum, natural gas and uranium. "Clean" sources of energy such as rivers, wind and sun are extremely inadequate when it comes to meet energy needs. Not every riverine location is suitable for building a dam, and places with high winds and strong sun are few and far between. The very idea that situational sources of energy can even partially meet an ever-expanding appetite for energy everywhere is little more than an exercise in wishful thinking.
Besides, a huge initial investment of resources is needed to create new facilities to generate "clean" energy, which America may not be ready for during this economic downturn. Vested interests may also oppose the development of clean energy sources. Environmental activists are known to protest against the building of dams due to their disruptive effects on local ecosystems. Ironically, even in Senate Majority Leader Harry's Reid's home state of Nevada, a proposal to build a windmill farm was opposed by local residents for fear that the unsightly windmills would hurt the tourism trade.
3. The verdict on global warming and the dubious efficacy of carbon credits in addressing it.
For the past ten years, despite the increasing amounts of carbon dioxide emitted, there hasn't been any corresponding increase in global temperatures. I see this as a strong dent in the argument that global warming is due to man. Even the change of title from "global warming" (which suggests a definite rise in temperatures) to "climate change" (which doesn't say anything rising or falling of temperatures) may already be a reflection of this fact. Until this phenomenon is adequately explained by global warming alarmists, there should be no reason to jump into hasty action.
Wall Street Journal carried an article about the failure of the carbon credit system in Europe that strongly suggested that a carbon credits system would not work in the U.S. In Australia, prominent senator Steve Fielding was reported to be unconvinced that human activity was linked to global warming and this has presented a possible obstacle to the passage of environmental legislation. Developing countries such as China and India are also major carbon emitters but neither wants to curb emissions at the expense of economic output, further putting in doubt the overall effectiveness of any emissions caps.
During a time of economic crisis, I believe one of the worst things that can happen is for the government to impose artificial limitations that deprive the economic system of the fuel it needs. In this respect, as noble and laudable as is the goal of reducing carbon emissions, economies and livelihoods of people are at stake. The top priority of the U.S. government should be to directly address its economic problems and not address a non-livelihood issue that may compromise the economy further by benefiting certain sectors at the expense of others.
After all, when people are jobless, I doubt if climate change would mean anything to them.
Tuesday, 26. May 2009, 16:50:26
It seems that Barack Obama's lofty talk about "talking" to rogue nations is now being put to the test. In a calculated political move, North Korea has conducted another nuclear test despite the opposition of the international community. This is the second test since 2006, and the results this time appear to be considerably more successful as it has generated no small measure of alarm around the world.
It is rather amusing to watch various groups denounce North Korea, such as politicians, demonstrators and the United Nations, if only because their posturings and denunciations are utterly ineffectual. All the grandstanding has yet to translate into some concrete action, and just as a child who misbehaves has no incentive to change if the parents merely threaten to punish him and do not back up the threats, North Korea has no incentive to change its ways either. Some political observers have commented that such moves are made after careful calculation that they would only draw verbal chastisement from the international community and that the latter would sooner offer aid in a feeble attempt at placation rather than risking conflict.
It would be interesting to see how Obama, who champions "talking" to rogue nations, would fare better than Bush, who advocated a "pre-emptive strike" strategy in the name of protecting American interests. Indeed, this round of nuclear testing has put Obama in a bind: he has to demonstrate that his way actually does work better than Bush's. If he succeeds, he will bolster the support from his Democratic base and silence his Republican critics, but if he fails, Republicans will take this opportunity to mock him and sway public opinion against him, so the stakes are high. His approval ratings may be sky-high now, but this is characteristic of most new presidents (yes, including Bush) and many small chips on a seemingly impenetrable fortress can eventually bring it crashing down.
This brings to mind Theodore Roosevelt, Republican President of the United States from 1901-1909. He was an advocate of the "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick" foreign policy, which advised caution and non-aggression but which were backed up with an ability to do violence if needed. Violence is rarely necessary and should only be a last resort, but the essential principle is that of backing up talk with action if necessary. It remains to be seen if Obama has any action to back up his words if talk fails.
Talk is cheap, but action isn't.
Monday, 25. May 2009, 14:11:24
I'm surprised. Even after staying off encyclopedias for more than 10 years, the knowledge gleaned is still relatively intact...
|
There Are 0 Gaps in Your Knowledge
|
Where you have gaps in your knowledge:
No Gaps!
Where you don't have gaps in your knowledge:
Philosophy
Religion
Economics
Literature
History
Science
Art
|
1 2 3 4 5 ... 22 Next »
Showing posts 1 -
10 of 218.
(33%)
WIDGETIZE