I went to youtube and did the same search, summer 2008 and got back results like summer 2008 on the poker channel, and all the fashion runway shows. The closest thing to sex that I see is SMF Cybersexy which looks like a video game or cartoon of some sorts…definitely animated and not real human body parts. I’m not saying that there are no sex videos on youtube. Search for masturbating and you’ll get some results. However, at least they don’t show naked body parts as the start of the video and therefore the icon for the video.

So to all the home video makers – tag your sex videos as sex, masturbating, whatevers…but so that it’s clearly defined that it’s sex and not that you had sex in 2008 or summer and therefore it ends up in a general search. And really, how about some self restrain and keeping it private. You can still share it but just create a group for sex videos.

I’m a little bit surprised that motionbox doesn’t have better monitoring of the videos that are uploaded. To each his/her own and Motionbox can’t really stop people from updating their homemade porn videos but at the same time, imagine if someone browsing through a search and had their kid sitting next to them staring at the screen. “Mommy/Daddy, what is that? Can we watch it?” And maybe users need a how-to video on naming and tagging their content and what to make public and leave private?

Not everyone eat rice in every meal but for those who do, most Asian and Spanish/Mexican cuisine uses rice in most main dishes.  What about substituting with other grains?  I haven’t surveyed everything but based on what I have purchased recently, the price of pasta has gone up 80-90%.  What I used to be able to get for $.60 is now over $1.00.  The price of meat has gone up but not so much to shock me maybe with the exception of ground meat/hamburgers.

We are a household of 2 and I am already conscious of the price increases.  I can’t imagine how a family with children and multiple cars manage over $4 a gallon for gas, $3 a gallon for milk and everything else.

The Uncommon Male has always said to me that Americans had it cheap compared to Australians who are used to paying $6 a gallon for gas and $13 for a kilo of bananas ( ~ 2 lbs) at one point last season.  Have we always had it too easy and is now just experiencing what is considered just normal in many parts of the world.

Last night was the first time we really started to look at all the options that we have given my new found freedom to be wherever, whenever. We’ve talked about the three places that we’d want to live, New York, London and San Francisco. There are of course pluses and minuses to each and we had always thought that the decision will be made by the location of my next job. However, there is always the question of when will our careers get in sync? The uncommon male is currently working out of Washington DC and I will be joining him down there for the next three months while we sublet our New York apartment.

In this economy, can you move a family, granted it’s only the uncommon male and me, for a new job? How long will it take for the other person to find a new job and how secure is one’s current job?

I was lucky to have survived the 2000-2001 lay-offs unscathed even though I worked for an Internet consulting firm and most Internet consulting firms went out of business during that time frame. I’m not quite as lucky this year but it is an experience I will remember for awhile. It is something which I have never experienced before to walk into work one day and within the hour find out that that company will soon no longer be in operation. It is an overwhelming sense of loss and feeling lost. My poor friend Joanna came back on her honeymoon and ended up on IM with me through that morning’s shock.

Unlike others who may be tied to a location because their siblings or parents are there or who knows that they have to live in New York because it’s home or the most exciting place ever, we’re not really sure home has to be one specific location except that we are together.  D.C. isn’t an obvious choice either for many reasons.

Although we’ve always had two careers in mind, this is the first time we’ve seen how unclear it can be to balance two careers with the choice to decide where those careers will take place.  Can too much freedom be just as frustrating as having little or none?

I’ve been turned on to politics since the beginning of the year.  I watched the coverage of the Iowa caucus which is just fascinating without being trite.  You see everything at work in human interaction from how people organize themselves, peer pressure and persuasion and for better or worse, decisions are made about who gets a headstart into the primaries.  It was victory for Obama and an indictment for Clinton who was supposed to be leading.

I watched the New Hampshire debate as well and found it amusing the Obama-Edwards attack on Clinton who gets cornered into the argument that she should be president because she’s got a lot of experience.  During this time, I was reading Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father.  It is an excellent read that I would recommend to all, regardless of what you think of Obama.  He provides insights into racial friction and what a history of slavery means today as well as feelings of displacement that I think most immigrants are familiar with (being one myself).  One thing that I still don’t understand is the anger that Obama describes.  I mean Asian Americans have suffered and right now, it’s Hispanic Americans whose communities are attacked because of the perception that illegal immigrants are robbing Americans of jobs.   Yet, I don’t think there is the same anger.

Having followed Obama and seeing my friends on Facebook support him, I’m still not clear on what he stands for, aside from change.  What are the changes?  From reading the book, I can see Obama being able to bring people together and accomplishes things with this cooperation.  However, I don’t see what the changes will be.  I mean are we that down on the state of this country that we can just accept change without asking the what the why and the how?

I heard a commercial that features Caroline Kennedy endorsing Obama and again, the main message was just inspiration and change…that Obama is inspirational and can bring about change.

Working in a start-up, I understand more and more that even if you have a plan and the right strategy, what make or break you is the ability to execute.  I just don’t know how Obama will do in execution.

I am still undecided on whether or not to support Obama and I still have issues with Clinton as well.  All I know is I’m definitely not voting for the Republicans who seems so out of touch.

Although most of the sites closed starting at 3 pm and onwards, we managed to make it to 4 locations after a late start at 2 pm.  Our first stop was the Austrian Cultural Forum in the midtown 50′s.  From the outside, it is an impressive modern building squished in a very narrow space designed by Austrian born architect Raimund Abraham.  We were told that Abraham won because his design incorporated the staircase in the back of the building, thereby creating more space than other architects’ designs.

It is an impressive interior functionally for the use of space and makes me think of Ikea! in the use of blond color wood. For such a narrow and tight space, the building has an auditorium complete with a piano that is conveniently stored away in the ceiling. Yes, I’m not mistaken…the ceiling.

Although I have never understood or quite appreciated religion, I am often in awe of churches, temples, mosque (I’ve only been in 1 mosque ever in Kuala Lumpur and I don’t think I was supposed to be there). Church of the Transfiguration in Murray Hill is quite inspiring from its serene front garden (it’s like entering into another world that’s not right in the heart of New York City) to the ceiling of the church with criss-crossed beams like that of the hull of a ship.

I’ll have to remember to go back to the Church of the Transfiguration every month or so, sit in the garden hopefully unnoticed and soak in the serenity. 

Our last stop of the day was Paul Rudolph Foundation/Modulightor Building.  My oh my…what an architectural feat of urban living, granted in miniature form.  I don’t think anyone over 5″10″ can live there without feeling claustrophobic.  Stairs extend from walls and twin size mattresses are found in nook corners that exemplifies coziness while providing a slight bit of privacy in a building where none of the separating walls reaches the ceiling.  Never more so could I say that the decorations bring life to a space as sculptures, vases and other rich cultural artifacts adorns white walls and sand/greyish color furniture pieces.

I couldn’t have spent a more enjoyable Saturday in New York.  It reminds me of what I love about the city, there is so much to see and do.  Next year, I’ll have to start earlier in the day and make my way to the other boroughs.

 I always thought that I’d need to travel to Europe to enjoy really beautiful architecture but it’s all just subway rides away.  I guess architecture is something that’s often overlooked in terms of tourism in New York.  Visitors come here to see the WTC site or Time Square for its sheer overwhelming madness of Soho for the shopping but not necessarily to appreciate the design and urban development.

I will share with you one. This one told to me by my Mother (but never my Father):

“The adult son comes home. He is rude to his elderly mother [for some reason I cannot remember]. Seeing his insolence, the mother chastises the adult son by paddling him with a stick. As the chastisement is being administered, the mother sees that the son has tears in his eyes.

She is puzzled by this and so she asks him: ‘Son, why are you crying? I am old and feeble. I cannot strike you with much force. What hurts you so?’

Wiping the tears from his eyes, the son replies: ‘Mother, I am crying because it hurts me to see you so old and feeble, and not as healthy and vibrant as you once were.’

It is my Mother’s birthday today, 10th October, and as the years go by, I have come to understand and appreciate this parable my Mother told me many moons ago. Sometimes, it’s the little things, said often enough, that makes the greatest impact.

Happy birthday Mum!

In we stepped into the hallway and straight into the living room. And there they stayed. From the day-bed in the living room, they could see the bedroom and I pointed it out to them. Perhaps they went in for a sneak peek.

I have never understood the compunction to give visitors to one’s abode the “grand tour”. Though I admit that I have been given many grand tours before.

From a historical standpoint, I can hypothesize about how the grand tour tradition arose. That is, in many decades past, it was only the wealthy who could afford multi-room accommodations. So when a person had the good fortune to avail himself or herself of such abode, it was natural for them to show off their good fortune to his or her visitors as a very explicit and tangible sign that the hosts/owners had “arrived” in a material sense and also a social standing sense too.

As post-Industrial Revolution swelled the middle-class, more and more people were able to afford multi-room accommodations. And yet, in long industrialised countries where the great majority do live in modern comfort and convenience, we still feel the need to give first-time visitors the ‘grand tour’. Why? Do most of us do it from rote? Or do contemporary people do it for some other reason? Do we, as visitors, feel the need to reassure our hosts that yes, indeed, they spent their money well on their abode – a mutually reassuring “do ask, do tell” norm?

(Note, I do understand that the “grand tour” makes sense in the event of a renovation, when the visitor can make comparison with what had been.)

I’m not quite sure how I learned to manage my money and save. My parents lived within their means and were never extravagant. Yet, my sister ran into a bit of credit card debt after college while I paid off my college credit card bill within the first 2 months of working. Even though my sister and I grew up in the same environment, we had and still have very different ideas about money in our early years but I’m glad to say, have reached similar conclusions in our near/early thirties. Although I didn’t necessarily learn all about financial management through my parents, I definitely did not learn it in school. Thinking back upon it, I am quite puzzle as to why such crucial principles to living responsibly was never taught to me in an academic environment.

In this day and age, when young adults are the target audience of credit card companies and teenagers have thousands of marketers promoting products to them, personal financial management should be a mandatory part of the high school curriculum.  One of our friends’ 16 years old sister recently asked for a pair of Christian Dior diamond earrings which cost several hundreds of dollars for her 16th birthday present.  I don’t think I even knew Christian Dior as a brand until I was in college or graduated from college.  Just consider some recent stats: U.S consumers are carrying $2.456 trillion in debt and the amount of revolving credit rose by $5 billion in July.

Given that many young adults today already face staggering student loans when they graduate, they should really have the tools at hand to manage their finance responsibly. I admit that I knew very little about personal credit score until recently but I wish that was something taught in school as well.  One last thought, teaching financial management is the same as teaching sex education to prevent teenagers/young adults from ruining their lives.

What do I think should be in the curriculum?

- time value of money

- compounding interest

- budgeting/cash flow management

- fine print lines of credit card agreements

And it is the inspiration for this blog. And more particularly, it is the inspiration for a new semi-regular category of entries on this blog. Hence the use of “Part 1″ reference. So, without further ado, I give you installment one:

“Death Nap: the dangers of tilting back the front seat – don’t do it” by Emily Bazelon in Slate.com. posted on 7th September 2007.

And its attendant comments in the discussion forum, the Fray. The comments section is very interesting.

In this article, the author discusses her recent car accident in which she incurred severe injuries but luckily survived. Her injuries were caused by the fact that, notwithstanding she had her lap-sash seat-belt fastened, she had her front passenger seat substantially reclined and not in the (proper and safe) upright position. Mz. Bazelon then proceeds to argue that the government and car companies have been hiding the truth about the dangers of travelling in a car with the seat fully reclined that it warrants an expose and a call for regulated warnings.

Emily Bazelon is an intelligent woman. She writes for Slate.com for goodness sakes! But this story fails the common sense test on many levels. Let me count the ways.

1. Mz. Bazelon fails to mention that, not withstanding the severe injuries she incurred, they would have been more serious, perhaps fatal, if she had not been wearing a seat-belt at all. Further, it should be obvious to the casual reader that if she had been wearing seat-belts and had the seat in the upright position then her injuries would have been much less severe.

I still remember that high school science class where it was shown that unrestrained dummies sitting in the front seats tend to either have a very unfriendly and forceful communication with the dashboard or instead tend to want to unorthodoxically exit the vehicle by crashing through the windshield.

2. Most cars and car ads show the seats in an upright position. And most of those car crash tests show the seats in the upright position too. The common sense deduction would be that seat belts are designed to be used in conjunction with seats that are upright.

3. It is also common sense, if one were to take some time to reflect, that seat-belts are designed and do work because in the event of a crash, the seat-belts hold you in position relative to the seat. That is, they hold you against the seat, making you one with it (and the car) and not like an unrestrained water melon that flies through the cabin from the rear parcel shelf onto the windscreen.

Many of us would have had near accidents whilst wearing seat-belts. We had prior experience with why and how the seat belts worked.

4. Personal responsibility is not the sole responsibility of the regulators. Regulation should be for situations that are unforseeable to the reasonable person. It should not be there as a reason to abrogate common sense. There should be no need for warnings on irons that read “Do not iron garment while wearing garment”.

Common sense is not so common, not because it is hard to figure out, but more likely because a person is too lazy to do it on his or her own or relies on others to bear the consequences.

I invite comments from readers for I have much to learn.

Coming to America, one is surprised by how high-profile the abortion debate is in this country. Those who are pro-abortion state that a woman’s right to integrity of her body is paramount and sacrosanct. As I understand it, their view is also that a foetus is not a separate entity but an extension of the woman and her body. From this perspective then, the decision whether to abort or not is solely and ultimately the woman’s alone. As I understand it, many pro-abortionists (though not all) are feminists. For the sake of argument, I will conflate the two groups in this post.

From a logical perspective, no problems are encountered where upon learning that a woman is pregnant, both the father- and the mother-to-be agree that the foetus should be aborted. And likewise when both agree that the baby should be carried to full term.

Let us visit hypothetical situation X, where upon learning that a woman is pregnant, the father-to-be wants the woman have an abortion but the woman wants to keep the foetus. Pro-abortionists/feminists would argue that the foetus is a part of the woman’s body and further a woman’s right to bodily integrity is paramount. The woman is not bound to follow the father-to-be’s wishes. If the woman does keep the baby, then the man is forced to spend money on child-rearing, notwithstanding his express desire not to have the child.

Now consider the hypothetical situation Y, where upon learning that a woman is pregnant, the father-to-be wants the woman to carry the foetus to full term but it is now the woman who wants to have an abortion. Pro-abortionists/feminists would argue that the foetus is a part of the woman’s body and further a woman’s right to bodily integrity is paramount. The woman is not bound to follow the father-to-be’s wishes. The man is now forced to not spend money on child-rearing (this is different from the man not spending money on child-rearing at all), notwithstanding his express desire to have the child.

What I do not understand is why the decision whether to abort or not is solely and ultimately the woman’s alone.

If it takes two to make a baby, why should it only be the one to make the abortion decision? If, arguably, life is created at conception between a man (sperm) and a woman (ovum), then why is it that the destruction of such created life is at the choosing of only one? That is, if the ideal is that a man and a woman are equal partners in a relationship, then why is the man relegated to a position of powerlessness in matters of abortion? This powerlessness is reinforced by the legal system insofar as courts will award and enforce child support payments (even in situations where the man has expressed his desire not to have the child) and they have a bias to awarding custody to the mother.

This issue came to mind when I was eating dinner at a restaurant in Phoenix. The man next to us had a 2 month old baby in a capsule. We learned that his child was a result of a one night stand. The mother had told the man 2 weeks before the birth. After a paternity test and going through the courts, he was ordered to provide full child support and yet he was granted only weekend access to the child every alternate week. From appearances the man seemed happy to be a father and perhaps is a good father too. (What I want to know is whether the man is granted child support for the two days per fortnight he has the child or whether this has been absorbed into the calculus of his support payments.)
In this real life example, the decision whether to abort or not was solely the woman’s. In effect, the mother ‘forced’ the child upon the man. Yet the man cannot ‘force’ the child upon the woman. Is this fair as a matter of logic?

I invite your comments as I have much to learn.