Monday, July 19, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Scholarship Essays Evaluation
Today I was invited by UC Berkeley Alumni Association to evaluate UC Leadership Scholarship essays. Roughly 100 readers participated in this effort. Whenever we found something interesting, we would shared with the readers next to us. There was laughter all around. I was totally amused by some of the essays.
The most clueless scholarship essay i read today: "A true leader must be able to guide and attract masses. For example, last year I organized a biking trip with five friends..."
The most clueless scholarship essay i read today: "A true leader must be able to guide and attract masses. For example, last year I organized a biking trip with five friends..."
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
RZ's Daily Spark of Life
try not to add any more complications to an already complicated situation O_O
Monday, July 05, 2010
My Comments on Elena Kagan’s Confirmation Hearing
As I watched Ms. Kagan’s confirmation hearings before Senate Judiciary Committee last week, I was intrigued and amused by her superb intellectual capability and her balanced judicial temperament. I would like to comment on her response to one of the questions from Senator Coburn.
It’s a simple question really, Sen. Coburn asked Ms. Kagan should Congress tell Americans what they can or cannot eat? Let’s say if the government passes a hypothetical law stating that every citizen must eat two vegetables a day, do you think the government is abusing its right on the ‘commerce clause’?
Ms. Kagan responded by saying that although this is a stupid law, and it’s not the duty of the court o strike down stupid laws. The court only deals with the constitutionality of the law.
Senator Coburn was implying that the current health care reform where Congress requires every American to buy insurance is like Congress telling Ameircans what they should eat. Ms. Kagan characterized the hypothetical law as a “stupid law”, which distinguishes it from the real and complicated health care reform bill.
Ms. Kagan went on and argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t strike down a law simply because it’s stupid. The Supreme Court should only decide on its constitutionality. She was correct at interpreting the constitutional authority of the court as laid out by the Founding Fathers. She cleverly stated that even if a law is super-unpopular, Supreme Court should upload it. Her implied message was that only the political branch should legislate and further implication was that she would not strike down the health care bill.
It’s a simple question really, Sen. Coburn asked Ms. Kagan should Congress tell Americans what they can or cannot eat? Let’s say if the government passes a hypothetical law stating that every citizen must eat two vegetables a day, do you think the government is abusing its right on the ‘commerce clause’?
Ms. Kagan responded by saying that although this is a stupid law, and it’s not the duty of the court o strike down stupid laws. The court only deals with the constitutionality of the law.
Senator Coburn was implying that the current health care reform where Congress requires every American to buy insurance is like Congress telling Ameircans what they should eat. Ms. Kagan characterized the hypothetical law as a “stupid law”, which distinguishes it from the real and complicated health care reform bill.
Ms. Kagan went on and argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t strike down a law simply because it’s stupid. The Supreme Court should only decide on its constitutionality. She was correct at interpreting the constitutional authority of the court as laid out by the Founding Fathers. She cleverly stated that even if a law is super-unpopular, Supreme Court should upload it. Her implied message was that only the political branch should legislate and further implication was that she would not strike down the health care bill.
Why I Prefer In-Person Convos over Instant Messages
1. In-Person Convos are more efficient. We can talk about a lot more things (not just breath but also depth) in one hour in-person than one hour over IM.
2. People can often misunderstand what I said over IM. If I am not clear during an in-person convo, I have the chance of clarify, explain or elaborate based on my observation of tones and facial expressions. On the other hand, what does a smiley face, “haha” or “lol” mean in IM? A “haha” during an in-person convo can only mean a few things; nevertheless a “haha” in IM can mean 100 different things.!
3. There is no long delay in a in-person convo (unless it’s super-awkward of course ^_^). If there is a delay in IM, I have no idea if the other person either disapproves what I said or the other person is busy doing something else.
4. My brain dislikes having different convos with different people at the same time over IM. So in most cases I can only engaged myself in one convos and therefore paying less attention to others. Consequently I maybe perceived as not interested in talking with others.
5. Most importantly, I cannot observe other people’s body languages over IM! This point is related to some of the points I mention above. I would like to single it out again because it’s frustrating that I cannot utilize this advantage. It’s killing me. =(
What do you think? Do you prefer in-person convos or IM?
2. People can often misunderstand what I said over IM. If I am not clear during an in-person convo, I have the chance of clarify, explain or elaborate based on my observation of tones and facial expressions. On the other hand, what does a smiley face, “haha” or “lol” mean in IM? A “haha” during an in-person convo can only mean a few things; nevertheless a “haha” in IM can mean 100 different things.!
3. There is no long delay in a in-person convo (unless it’s super-awkward of course ^_^). If there is a delay in IM, I have no idea if the other person either disapproves what I said or the other person is busy doing something else.
4. My brain dislikes having different convos with different people at the same time over IM. So in most cases I can only engaged myself in one convos and therefore paying less attention to others. Consequently I maybe perceived as not interested in talking with others.
5. Most importantly, I cannot observe other people’s body languages over IM! This point is related to some of the points I mention above. I would like to single it out again because it’s frustrating that I cannot utilize this advantage. It’s killing me. =(
What do you think? Do you prefer in-person convos or IM?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)