Walgreens (2008/12/21 to 2008/12/27)

今期 21 Dec ~ 27 Dec期間, Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買(Mail-in-Rebate)產品:


Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$1.58.


延伸閱讀: Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/12/21 to 2008/12/27)

Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/12/21 to 2008/12/27)

今期 21 Dec ~ 27 Dec期間, Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買(Mail-in-Rebate)產品:

Longs Drugs - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.75;

Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.46;

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$0.83.

以上四十八件產品, 合共賺US$0.38.


延伸閱讀: Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/11/30 to 2008/12/06)

明愛醫院女職員和高層﹐也許他們都是從美國加州回流香港﹖

明愛醫院女職員「見死不救」﹐高層堅持沒有做錯。這就是法治的副作用--多了法治﹐少了人情﹔多了規則﹐少了人性。也許那幾個明愛職員都是美國加州回流香港--滿腦子法律責任﹖某程度上﹐那女職員的行為是可以明白的(假如她當時真的是在想她的"法律責任")。為了一個外人的生死﹐負上刑事或民事責任﹐輸了自己的一生。這是文明社會不容許的﹗真可悲﹗

"好心着雷劈"在美國絕不罕見。以下是一個近期美國加州的"好心人"個案。A小姐撞了車。B小姐嘗試把A小姐救出﹐但不幸地把A小姐弄到癱了。A小姐控告B小姐﹐要B小姐賠償。B小姐以為"好心人"法例會保障好心人。但美國加州最高法院幾天前裁定好心人法例不保障B小姐﹔A小姐可以控告B小姐。法院判辭說﹕人沒有責任幫助其他人﹐假如自行幫助他人的話﹐要自己承擔所有後果和責任。

看來不但港元和美元掛鈎﹐香港的人性和法律思想也開始和美國掛鈎了。看來在不久的將來﹐港人會像"責任思想"的美國人一樣﹕看到有人撞車,連報警也不會--裝作看不見就是了。

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_re_us/samaritan_protection

LOS ANGELES – Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll" can be sued.

California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid.

"If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote.

Torti had argued that she should still be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving "medical care" when she pulled her friend from a car wreck.

Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit.

Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage "like a rag doll." Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis.

Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn's lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled.

Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he's pleased with the ruling.

Torti's attorney, Ronald Kent, of Los Angeles didn't immediately return a telephone call.

--------------

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/18/BAUV14QQIS.DTL&feed=rss.news

A Good Samaritan whose well-meaning but careless rescue effort injures an accident victim can be sued for damages, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court said California's shield against liability for emergency help applies only to people trying to provide medical help.

The 4-3 ruling allows a 27-year-old Los Angeles woman to go to trial in her suit against a friend who pulled her out of a wrecked car and, in the process, allegedly caused injuries that left her permanently paralyzed. The friend, Lisa Torti, said she had seen smoke and thought the car was about to explode, but other witnesses said they had seen no signs of danger.

The court majority said the law Torti cited to try to dismiss the lawsuit was intended only to encourage people to learn first aid and use it in emergencies, not to give Good Samaritans blanket immunity when they act negligently. Dissenting justices said the ruling would discourage people from trying to save lives.

The case dates from 2004, when a group of friends including Torti and Alexandra Van Horn left a bar in suburban Chatsworth (Los Angeles County) in two cars after a Halloween party.

The car in which Van Horn was a passenger went out of control and hit a light pole. Torti, in the other car, pulled Van Horn out just before emergency crews arrived to take her to the hospital, where she underwent surgery for a spinal cord injury and a lacerated liver.

Torti testified that she had carried her friend out carefully, with one arm under her legs and one behind her back. But Van Horn said Torti had grabbed her by the arm and yanked her out.

Other witnesses said Torti had set Van Horn down next to the car, despite Torti's testimony that she was worried the vehicle would blow up.

Torti sought to dismiss the suit under a 1980 state law that bars damage suits against anyone who "in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency" - even for negligent acts that injure the victim.

Although the law does not distinguish between types of emergency care, the court majority said the context shows it was meant to be limited to medical care. The law was part of a package of legislation on emergency medical services, Justice Carlos Moreno said in the majority opinion.

--------------
Source: http://www.mingpaonews.com/20081222/gaa2.htm

【明報專訊】有心臟病人在醫院門外疑 失救死亡，明愛醫院昨日為事件解畫時承認，一名心臟病人前日在醫院正門外暈倒後，其家屬即時走入醫院向一名職員求助，職員建議家屬自行致電999報警而沒 代向急症室求援，最後令該名病人在院外百米之處折騰26分鐘後才送抵醫院，經搶救後死亡。該院行政總監馬學章坦言醫院職員未有即時通知急症室是有不足之 處，但堅稱死者位處不在醫院範圍內，故有關職員「已盡了力」及「跟足指引做」。院方全程未有承認犯錯及道歉。

病人互助組織聯盟主席張德喜炮轟明愛的指引僵化，批評前線職員抱覑「少做少錯」心態辦事，病人「未入到醫院就不理，完全不能接受」。立法會衛生事務委員會主席李國麟、委員何秀蘭認為感情上，明愛這樣僵化處理在醫院門外昏倒的市民於情不合，要求食物及衛生局長周一嶽在立法會交代事件。

事發後，有輿論直指明愛「見死不救」，至昨日下午，明愛行政總監馬學章與明愛醫院急症室主管吳奎，在醫管局質 素及安全總監梁聣賢等人陪同下會見記者交代事件始末。馬學章指死者家屬在前日下午2時43分，曾走入醫院向一名女職員求助，該職員即按醫院指引，建議事主 致電999求助，而沒有通知急症室或任何醫護人員。其間，明愛一名姓韋醫生路經事發地點，發現病人已無脈搏，即時為病人急救，但急症室就沒有派醫護前往。

新指引：對面街也要報警

馬學章解釋，女職員當時在詢問處內看不到病人，加上報警時要正確說出地點、病人狀，所以當時的做法是「最正確」。他指根據醫院指引，職員面對求助事故時應叫對方致電999，但如何處理醫院範圍外的突發事故就無清晰指引給員工。明愛醫院昨晚回覆本報查詢時補充，該院10月才檢討處理有關事故的指引，若有市民在醫院外一街之隔求救，職員應建議事主報警。馬又為該職員辯護，指該職員從未遇過同類事故，事發後4分鐘發現救傷車未到，已通知消防處救護組駐該院聯絡主任，她現時受到很大壓力及困擾。

明愛醫院急症室主管吳奎解釋，當時急症室沒派員前往救援，是因為當時已知道消防處先遣急救員已到達，在急症室為接收該病人作準備會更合適。他強調，消防處先遣隊有輕便的「心臟除顫機」，可盡快救治病人，醫院大堂並沒有這類儀器，將來有可能加裝。

歸咎醫院路牌指示不足

他又將事件歸咎於醫院附近的路牌指示不足，致病人親屬去錯門口，延誤病情。馬學章表示，該處有3條道路通往急症室，「很不幸司機不知道，以為駛至醫院門口便可得到治理，其實醫院範圍內有足夠指引指示急症室位置」，但就承認醫院附近路口指示不足，將與當局檢討考慮加裝路牌。

功夫多的--蜜汁糯米釀雞翼

Molewisdom.m期待品嚐出名功夫多的 -- 蜜汁糯米釀雞翼.

二人合力把雞翼拆骨. 把蒸熟的糯米(及其他材料)放進已拆骨的雞翼內.
(提一提: 釀入糯米至雞翼七成滿, 免爆翼) 再用牙籤將開口縫密.
之後用滾水燙約10秒即撈起.
塗上一層蜜糖並放到陰涼處風乾約數小時.
放進焗爐約200℃內焗至雞翼表面金黃色便可.

食得喇! 看似很美味呢~
餘下的糯米怎麼辦呢? 當然繼續包"糯米包", 蒸妥並待涼後, 放進冰格內. 待Molewisdom.m驚喜一番.
延伸閱讀: 第一次造的臘味糯米包

Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/11/30 to 2008/12/06)

今期 30 Nov ~ 6 Dec期間, Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:

Longs Drugs - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.75;

Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$0.41;

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$6.11.

以上六件產品, 合共賺US$6.45.


延伸閱讀: After Thanksgiving Rite Aid, Walgreens Shopping II 2008

自製蠟燭

心血來潮動手自製蠟燭.

After Thanksgiving Rite Aid, Walgreens Shopping II 2008

今年感恩節後我們到Rite Aid, Walgreens 推出的部份抵買產品:

Rite Aid - 使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$1.71;

Walgreens - 使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.41.

以上四十二件產品, 合共付US$1.30.

近期, 在財經新聞聽到Rite Aid收入不景, 股價曾跌至三毫幾. 未知能否維持下去呢?


延伸閱讀: After Thanksgiving Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens Shopping I(2008)

After Thanksgiving Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens Shopping I (2008)

今年感恩節翌日Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens 推出的部份抵買產品:

Longs Drugs - 連稅後, 共付US$0.74;

Rite Aid - 使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.88;

Walgreens - 使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$5.38.

以上十七件產品, 合共付US$5.24.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
另外, 在WalMart, Rite Aid 買了兩件用品:



延伸閱讀:Rite Aid, Walgreens I (2008/11/23 to 2008/11/29)

Thanksgiving Shopping at Rite Aid

今年感恩節Rite Aid 推出以下朱古力系列, 本人覺得很抵買!

Roca (樂家杏仁)禮盒裝和傳統罐裝朱古力; Royal Dansk (丹麥藍罐)朱古力蛋卷.

各款味道與想像中的相同 -- 好味道!!

Rite Aid, Walgreens I (2008/11/23 to 2008/11/29)

今期23Nov ~ 29 Nov期間, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買產品:

Rite Aid - 使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.36;


Walgreens - 使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$8.74.

以上二十七件產品, 合共付US$8.38.

延伸閱讀: Rite Aid, Walgreens II (2008/11/23 to 2008/11/29)

Rite Aid, Walgreens II (2008/11/23 to 2008/11/29)

今期23Nov ~ 29 Nov期間, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買產品:


Rite Aid - 使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$0.66;

Walgreens - 使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$2.84.

以上四十三件產品, 合共付US$3.5.


延伸閱讀: Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/11/16 to 2008/11/22)

第一次造的臘味糯米包

Molewisdom.m期待品嚐舊式酒樓出爐的 -- 糯米包.


參考材料, 份量約32件:

糯米約2杯, 先把糯米浸過夜
燒賣皮約32片
臘腸兩條 (隨喜好)
香菇仔8粒 (隨喜好)

副材料:
花生粒 (隨喜好)
蔥粒 (隨喜好)

把浸過夜的糯米水倒去, 放上臘腸, 香菇仔等材料, 然後拌勻. 隔水蒸約20~30分鐘, 之後加上蔥粒, 花生粒等副材料再加入適量鹽, 糖, 胡椒粉, 雞粉, 麻油拌勻. 便開始包.
包妥後, 再蒸約10分鐘.

若果吃不完, 把吃餘的糯米包待涼, 入盒, 然後放入冰格. 待下次想食再翻蒸.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Molewisdom.h第一次造的臘味糯米包.
可惜, 灣區華人幾間超市買不到黃色皮的燒賣皮啊~:

16粒迷你糯米包:

Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/11/16 to 2008/11/22)

今期16 Nov ~ 22 Nov期間, Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:


Longs Drugs - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$0.73;

Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$0.41;

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$1.16.

以上八件產品, 合共付US$2.30.


延伸閱讀: Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/11/09 to 2008/11/15)

Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/11/09 to 2008/11/15)

今期9 Nov ~15 Nov期間, Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:

Longs Drugs - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.18;

Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.78;

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$6.70.

以上十一件產品, 合共付US$5.74.


延伸閱讀: Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/11/02 to 2008/11/08)

Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/11/02 to 2008/11/08)

今期2 Nov ~ 8 Nov期間, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:

Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$1.84;

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$5.36.

以上十五件產品, 合共付US$3.52.

延伸閱讀: Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/10/26 to 2008/11/01)

Comments on <<我們有權選總統>> (TVB USA) - 2008/10/26

Hi Gigi,

Here are my comments on last night's debate show.

First of all, you were the star of this episode, along with Dr. Tsang.

- The debate was quite chaotic, with the debaters talking over each other - I felt bad for Marina Tse at several instances.
- The show covered many topics, though not enough time for each topic.
- It would make more sense for the "independent" Dr. Tsang to sit in the middle. However, I understand the male-female-male arrangement that you had. Also, the sofa was too small for the three debaters.

Who was the best?
Dr. Tsang > Chester Chong > Marina Tse

- Dr. Tsang: Calm, knowledgeable, articulate.
- Chester Chong: Calm, okay but not spectacular.
- Marina Tse: Nervous, hurried, confused. Failed in her effort to be a GOP loudspeaker.

For the most part, Dr. Tsang and Chester Chong walked all over Marina Tse (maybe because Marina has difficulty with Cantonese? Or maybe because she was confusing facts with GOP spins?). It was to the point that Marina started to make things up. Here are two examples:

1) She stated that the U.S. has 50% of the world's oil reserve. The more common number I have heard about 3%. I'd be interested to know how Marina arrived at the 50% value.
2) She referred to "Obama's Islamic background"? That's a myth originated early in the campaign season and it has long since been debunked. It was memorable when Dr. Tsang gave an expression of "付之一笑" in his response to Marina.

Two other classic GOP comments by Marina Tse:
1) Marina seemed to imply that all Muslims are violent extremists. Ironically, this characterization of Muslims makes Marina quite extremist as well, pun intended.
2) Marina mentioned that Sarah Palin has been a governor for "many years." The fact is that Palin has been governor for less than 2 years. Interesting to note that Obama has been a senator for more than 3 years.

Of course, the highlight of the episode was when you rebuffed Marina's "Michelle Obama never loved America" comment as 斷章取義. Twice.

Overall, you kept the debate reasonably under control, given the format. Good job as moderator.

Thanks.
P.S. Please congratulate Dr. Tsang for me.

Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/10/26 to 2008/11/01)

今期26 Oct ~ 1 Nov期間, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:


Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.48;

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$0.77.

以上十二件產品, 合共付US$0.29.

延伸閱讀: Walgreens (2008/10/19 to 2008/10/25)

Walgreens (2008/10/19 to 2008/10/25)

今期19 Oct ~ 25 Oct期間, Walgreens推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.96;

Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$3.72.

以上十七件產品, 合共付US$2.76.

延伸閱讀: Longs Drugs, Rite Aid (2008/10/19 to 2008/10/25)

Longs Drugs, Rite Aid (2008/10/19 to 2008/10/25)

今期19 Oct ~ 25 Oct期間, Longs Drugs, Rite Aid推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:


Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$2.33;

Longs Drugs - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$2.28.

以上四件產品, 連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$4.61.


延伸閱讀: Rite Aid (2008/10/12 to 2008/10/18)

My response to TVB's response

Dear [TVB],

Thank you so much for your response. I want to thank you for producing shows that encourage voting. Produced well, these shows provide a great service to the public.

I also reviewed the show and agree that the segment in question pertained to the role of referendums, defined widely to include initiatives, propositions, and "actual" referendums.

State referendums deal with state issues. Even in rare cases where referendums touch federal issues, are the results even binding or enforceable? Using sophisticated concepts like "constitutional amendments" and "presidential impeachment" and "federal" phrases like "100 senators" and "435 representatives" to explain referendum is confusing at best, and misleading at worst. "Federal" examples are inappropriate for that segment, if the goal is to keep it simple. Focusing on simple, state-level examples like state law and state spending would have been better choices.

Let me give you an example of how confusing that segment was. During the show, my wife - who is unfamiliar with politics - asked me, "Professor Tong just said that voters can impeach the President. If people in the US are so dissatisfied with Bush, why don't they impeach him?" Of course, I explain the actual impeachment process to her after the show. I would not be surprised if other viewers were confused as well.

Why explain referendum with rare events such as presidential impeachment when state spending is the common theme in many referendums? Consider this: When you try to explain the role of the Secretary of State, do you say "the fourth person in line to be President" or "the head of the State Department"? Both are true; but I certainly hope that you mention the latter first. Yet, based on the way Professor Tong explained referendum, I won't be surprised if he mentions the former first. And unfortunately, due to time constraint, he may not have time to mention the latter.

I applaud your effort in seeking examples to justify Professor Tong's points, though I am doubtful these examples were what he had in mind as he explained the role of referendum. Here are my responses to some of them:

"... On the federal level, Art. 5 of the US Constitution provides for a special convention to ratify a U.S. Constitutional Amendment as an alternative for Congressional approval."

Article 5 does say that – however, it does not explicitly describe how such a special convention would work. In other words, a state-wide popular vote might be involved, or it might not be. In any case, it is such a fine point that I hope Professor Tong did not have Article 5 in mind as he attempted to explain referendums to the general Chinese viewers.

"... On the state level, some states (e.g. Massachusetts) provide for a state-wide vote to approve U.S. Constitutional Amendments."

Unfortunately, Massachusetts' state-wide voting on U.S. constitutional amendments is advisory only. (Source: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/elebalm/balmover.htm) Without researching further, I would think that "advisory" means non-binding. In any case, I hope Professor Tong would agree that this example is too narrow in scope to explain the general role of referendum to general viewers.

"... But some state legislations also stipulate the rights of citizens to introduce initiatives in ballots calling for the impeachment of the U.S. President and Vice Presidents, as many local electorates have done in recent years."

While this is true, when was the last time such an "impeachment" initiative was put on the state ballot? In public service programs, shouldn't common examples (e.g., state spending) trump the obscure ones? Keep it simple, remember?

"... He agrees with you that few of the propositions involve conflict of interest, and believes that it has been used by special interests to end-run the legislative process."

This makes me wonder why Professor Tong decided to spend several sentences on "conflict of interest" and zero time on special interests. Or was this an oversight during post-production editing?

"... In trying to keep it simple for our general viewers, it might have appeared to be simplistic for you."

I completely agree with you that public service programs should be simple, NOT sophisticated. No, it was not simplistic for me. In fact, when Professor Tong used federal issues such as impeachment and U.S. constitutional amendments to explain referendum, I was confused. I would suspect that even sophisticated viewers were confused as well. Linking referendum to national politics and constitutional law is exactly the kind of sophistication we don't need in service programs aimed at the general public.

I have confidence that Professor Tong is well-versed in American politics. As such, I will have to believe that the confusion in the segment was due to editing. In public service programs, leaving out confusing and potentially misleading portions is probably the best policy. If one has to resort to little-known cases or special examples to support or explain a point, that point is likely too confusing to the general viewers.

Thank you.
-M.W
P.S. There is a confusing ad about "the one vote in Tennessee that gave women the right the vote." Since the goal of the ad apparently is to encourage voting, one would likely assume that the one-vote difference was in the state-wide election. Yet, the fact is that the one-vote difference happened in the state legislature. I asked a couple of people and they were surprised as well.

Link:
TVB's response to "Comments on <<我們有權選總統>>"

TVB's response to "Comments on <<我們有權選總統>>"

Dear Mr. Woo,

Thank you for your comments as well as those you sent earlier regarding previous episodes of the "We have the right to vote" program. Let me respond to your comments as the producer of the program. We are gratified that our program has such well-informed viewers like you to offer useful feedback. Your email also validates our editorial intent to generate more interest in the U.S. political system in general and the presidential election in particular.

We have reviewed the tape of the program and have consulted with Prof. Tong on your comments. If we are not mistaken, all the three comments pertain to the section on the role of "Referendums" in the U.S. In that episode, we aim to explain the purpose of voting, both to elect government officials and to vote on specific issues, on both the federal and local levels. In that segment, we ask Prof. Tong to explain the purpose for Referendums, given the fact that legislators make laws, and the citizens' views are already expressed by legislators who represent their positions. The obvious question is why with laws made by elected legislators, we would still need Referendum. He is trying to explain the conditions under which the legislative votes are not the sole determinants of some issues. He is using the Constitutional Amendment and President Impeachment as examples, among others.

You are of course correct in stating that there are no nation-wide referendum on either the Constitutional Amendment or the Presidential Impeachment processes. Indeed, there are no national electorates in the U.S. Unlike in many nations, referendums in the U.S. are voted on only in the local elections. On Constitutional Amendments, both federal and state legislations do provide for citizen input as a check against an unresponsive legislature. On the federal level, Art. 5 of the US Constitution provides for a special convention to ratify a U.S. Constitutional Amendment as an alternative for Congressional approval. On the state level, some states (e.g. Massachusetts) provide for a state-wide vote to approve U.S. Constitutional Amendments.

On Presidential Impeachment, you are also correct in pointing out that it is the U.S. House and Senate that vote on impeachment. But some state legislations also stipulate the rights of citizens to introduce initiatives in ballots calling for the impeachment of the U.S. President and Vice Presidents, as many local electorates have done in recent years.

Your point that many propositions do not deal with conflict of interest issues is well taken. Prof. Tong is trying to explain the legislative intent to have an alternative to legislators making laws. He agrees with you that few of the propositions involve conflict of interest, and believes that it has been used by special interests to end-run the legislative process.

As the last point illustrates, Prof. Tong was prepared to speak on much greater detail in the program. He wanted to differentiate various types of propositions, referendums and initiatives; trace the historical evolution of these institutions; use U.S. Supreme Court cases to illustrate the nuances; compare the Californian experiences with those of other states. Given the time limitations of our program and the demographics of our viewers, we have suggested that he should keep it simple, since most of our viewers are not as sophisticated as you are. In trying to keep it simple for our general viewers, it might have appeared to be simplistic for you. We regret if that is the case.

I hope I have clarified some issues raised in your comments. Let me thank you again for drawing them to our attention. We share your interest to bring quality public service programs to our viewers.

-[TVB-USA producer]

Link:
Comments on <<我們有權選總統>> (TVB USA) - 2008/10/12
My response to TVB's response

Comments on <<我們有權選總統>> (TVB USA) - 2008/10/12

Hi TVB,

I watched the third episode of "We have the right to vote" last night. I like the simple graphics used to explain concepts.

Unfortunately, some "facts" were misleading or simply wrong.

What I found particularly troubling are the comments by Professor Tong towards the end of the show regarding "other issues" that are determined in nation/state-wide elections.

Professor Tong seemed to say that presidential impeachment and ratification of constitutional amendments are determined in nation-wide elections. Both are wrong in fact.

1) Simply put, the impeachment of a president is handled by the House and Senate, with no involvement by the common citizens via nation-wide elections, as the show seemed to imply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

2) Constitutional amendments are ratified by state legislatures or ratifying conventions, NOT by a nation/state-wide election, as the show seemed to imply.

One might argue that citizens are "given a voice directly" in matters of impeachment and ratification, via the election of senators and congressmen. However, this indirect "voice" is a stretch and hardly fits the context of the comments.

Professor Tong also mentioned "conflict of interest" as a reason for how propositions are "chosen" to be put on ballots, with examples like "length of term" and "increase of salary." While these are valid reasons, they are reasons for relatively few of the amendments (national or state). For example, most of the California state propositions this year have little, if any, to do with conflict of interest by elected representatives. It would be better for Professor Tong to pick "reasons" that are more common.

I hope you can clarify these points in the next episode so viewers are not confused or misled.

Thank you.

Link:
TVB's response to "Comments on <<我們有權選總統>>"

Rite Aid (2008/10/12 to 2008/10/18)

今期12 Oct ~ 18 Oct期間, Rite Aid推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:

Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 以上十二件產品, 合共付US$0.33.

延伸閱讀: Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/09/28 to 2008/10/04)

Comments on <<我們有權選總統>> (TVB USA) - 2008/10/5

1) As long as the viewers see the show as a high school "US History/Government" class lecture, it is an informative show. The UCLA(?) professor definitely brought to the Chinese audience many common textbook concepts of US government. That said, I would say that these concepts are somewhat far from what happens in real life - based on history, court cases, and things like executive orders and signing statements.
2) How in the world did you manage to find those three students!! (Especially the bespectacled one who pursues his happiness in video games and restaurants.) I suppose their apathy made them the perfect "negative examples" of what the show encourages viewers to be. (I hope that was done on purpose.) It would be better to have the following mix instead of three indifferent/uninformed students:

- A student completely indifferent to voting/election
- A student who votes but is not actively involved
- A student who votes AND is actively involved in college political organizations like Young Republicans or Young Democrats

I hope these three students do not represent the political views, or lack thereof, of UCLA students.

Comments on <<我們有權選總統>> (TVB USA) - 2008/9/28

In summary, the election show is informative for first-time voters. Although I am not a first-time voter, I enjoyed the information presented. However, the show has too much feel-good propaganda for "democracy in America" and "the power of the vote." To people familiar with "American democracy", such grandiose presentation is almost nauseating because democracy in America is almost an oxymoron.

I agree that it is important to vote (and I do vote) and to encourage people to vote. But to present "voting in the presidential election" as almighty is a little misleading given that:

- With electoral college, marginal votes in most states are basically meaningless. For example, long before the actual election, those who follow the news know that California and New York will go Democratic while Texas and Oklahoma will go Republican. I long for the day when presidential elections will be decided by a national popular vote - where everyone's vote will actually count.
- The 2000 election was decided 5-4 by the Supreme Court. Nine justices rendering the 100-million-vote election irrelevant - that decision spoke volumes about American democracy.

Even at the state level where elections are determined by individual votes (instead of electoral votes), the vote does not always matter. For example, our votes for state propositions matter ONLY when no one challenges their constitutionality in court, where one or a handful of judges can overturn the will of the people. Prop 187 in California is an example.

That said, while the show itself looks like a gratuitous advertisement for democracy, the concept of the election show is a good one, especially since many Chinese do not vote. Yet, the show should tone down the "effects/power" of voting. Being stirred enough to finally take the leap to vote only to find out that a judge has just made the final decision will make someone lose faith in "democracy" for a long, long time. After all, the larger the expectation, the larger the disappointment.

火鍋湯料 - 小蒙香

特地前去購買小肥羊火鍋湯包, 怎料大華超市, 美心超市都再沒有發售.
於是我們決定嘗試另一牌子的火鍋湯料, 微辣香湯 - 小蒙香.

火鍋湯料, 食後感:

湯底的味道與"小肥羊"相似, 但稍為醎, 食完喉嚨痛!
餘下的湯料待日後烹調.

Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/09/28 to 2008/10/04)

今期28 Sept ~ 4 Oct期間, Rite Aid, Walgreens推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:

Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$3.8;


Walgreens - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$10.20.

以上十九件產品(已包括稅), 合共付US$14.00.


延伸閱讀: Longs Drugs, Rite Aid (2008/09/14 to 2008/09/20)

Longs Drugs, Rite Aid (2008/09/14 to 2008/09/20)

今期14 Sept ~ 20 Sept期間, Longs Drugs, Rite Aid推出的部份抵買Mail-in-Rebate產品:


Longs Drugs - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$1.60;

Rite Aid - After Rebate和使用Coupons及連稅後, 共付US$1.04.

以上七件產品, 連稅後不但免費, 另外還賺US$0.56.


延伸閱讀: Longs Drugs, Rite Aid, Walgreens (2008/08/31 to 2008/09/06)

鄰居很霸道(七) - 他們的來信, 我們的回覆

九月四日, 我們收到他們(一個來自以色列的家庭)的來信.

先介紹角色的稱呼: XXX => 大肚婆, YY => 她的老公. Smith 是他們的假姓, Chan是我們的假姓.

下圖是他們的來信:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
以下四頁是我們的回覆:



延伸閱讀: 鄰居很霸道(六) - 後園新搞作, 鄰居很霸道(五), 鄰居很霸道(四) - 人情冷暖, 世態炎涼, 鄰居很霸道(三) - 移植十一天後, 鄰居很霸道(二), 鄰居很霸道(一)

<世家>台灣精選茗茶--我們被騙了

大家有喝茶包的習慣嗎﹖我們有--通常喝的牌子有<天仁>﹐<世家>和日本綠茶。但近數月開始發覺茶包裡茶葉的份量越來越少﹐味道亦淡了很多。以往﹐沖了三杯的香片茶包仍然有味道﹔現在﹐沖第二次已經差不多沒有味道了。

前兩天我們到大華99時決定索性買茶葉試試。我們看了一段時間﹐不知應該買<太子牌>﹐<天仁>﹐還是<世家>。<太子牌>和<天仁>要買300克﹐覺得太多。所以決定買<世家>的阿里山烏龍(重量是100克)。

回家後﹐打開罐看看--看到茶葉只有罐高度的一半。茶葉比罐細小是意料中事﹔但只有一半高度﹖真是太不環保了。而且茶葉包裝還沒有開已經洩氣﹐茶葉在包裝裡鬆散。之後拿茶葉去檢查重量﹐發現重量只有大約90克--足足少了10克﹐即是少了10%。我們被騙了。真生氣﹗

今天我們品嚐這個茶, 味道當然比茶包好, 但茶葉沒有什麼特別.

鄰居很霸道(六) - 後園新搞作

昨日是勞工節, 突然聽到窗後發出幾次巨響.
我們立即到窗前向街外望, 看見(一個來自以色列的家庭的)大肚婆等三人正在把一盆盆的盆栽從車上搬下來, 準備把那些盆栽移植在後園.真佩服大肚婆, 每次爭拗時候(大概由六月中至今的九月初), 都說自己下星期要臨盆和餵人奶.
但至今嬰孩仍未誕生, 而且仍然能夠搬盆栽; 彎下腰搬泥; 摌泥掘洞等難以置信的行為. 也許是她天生神力吧!

令我們生氣的是她常常在大眾面前裝作行動緩慢, 不便和不時用手保護肚子駁同情, 尤其在業主面前.

但每次和我們爭拗時和同業主面前說自己新到步, 什麼人都不認識. 但原來住在這幾條街的親戚朋友多的是.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
今天下午, 後園又發出孩子的喧嘩聲.
我們走到窗前向街外望, 看見他們三人在後園又有新行動.
他們把一個個木棚插在泥土上, 掘泥坑和不停地灌水. 又看到大肚婆的神功啦!

我們看見他們不時望上來.


前幾天, Molewisdom.h看見大肚婆給業主的紙條 -- 今天, 猜想大概是需要購買的物品, 要求業主資助.
他們又說自己窮! 難道這些物品和植物是免費嗎?


延伸閱讀: 鄰居很霸道(七) - 他們的來信, 我們的回覆, 鄰居很霸道(五), 鄰居很霸道(四) - 人情冷暖, 世態炎涼, 鄰居很霸道(三) - 移植十一天後, 鄰居很霸道(二), 鄰居很霸道(一)

鄰居很霸道(五)

相信大家都想知道當晚激烈爭拗的詳細情況. 究竟業主到達後發生了什麼事呢?

業主到達後(見到業主的車駛入), 我們便出外探視. 看見業主馬上到大肚婆家談話, 我們便一同前去加入.

大肚婆向業主說我們在她窗前種了新的植物, 並且帶業主去她窗前檢查"所謂"新的植物. 當然沒有什麼新的植物. 因為我們根本沒有在她窗前新種或移植任何植物. (我們心裡在暗笑, 這個謊言太誇張了)

她再次向業主提出我們經常偷看她去廁所. 當我們質疑她廁所位置的時候和取笑她是否在客廳去廁所, 她回應這只是一種感覺.

之前(當日下午), 她的丈夫說我們在他們窗前逗留了20分鐘之久. 而業主也質疑他的指控不合理.

大肚婆繼續向業主表示, 她曾多次很有禮貌地請我們不要再在他們的窗前種新植物. 而Molewisdom.m立即駁斥大肚婆我們根本沒有在他們的窗前種植任何的新植物, 而且有禮貌就不會冤枉我們在她窗前種植物和站立20分鐘. Molewisdom.m要她承認我們偷看她去廁所是她編作出來的, 但她不肯承認並馬上轉變另一個話題. (另一個話題又是叫我們不要再種新植物在他們的窗前, 而Molewisdom.m馬上的回應是根本沒有種過, 何來"再次".)

Molewisdom.m說我們的紅椒已死. 她用"專業人仕"的腔調說我們的紅椒死因是種在蕃茄的旁邊. 之後Molewisdom.m用"經驗"回應, 紅椒和蕃茄在半年裡都可以共存,兩者還會開花結果. 但當大肚婆(於8月5日)用石屎插根後, 兩星期後便死了. 大肚婆又轉到"另一個話題".

大肚婆說她樂意對我們已死的植物伸出援手, Molewisdom.m建議她買些貓草和薄荷等新植物來補償死去的植物. 但她說自己很窮, 謝絕我們這個建議.


延伸閱讀: 鄰居很霸道(七) - 他們的來信, 我們的回覆, 鄰居很霸道(六) - 後園新搞作, 鄰居很霸道(四) - 人情冷暖, 世態炎涼, 鄰居很霸道(三) - 移植十一天後, 鄰居很霸道(二), 鄰居很霸道(一)

PetSmart 購買貓糧(2008/09/01)

到PetSmart購物:
以上十一件貓和狗糧(連稅)共付US$1.62.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
另外, 要向大家提一提關於by nature的貓濕糧原來是中國製造.

這包貓濕糧是鯖魚和龍蝦味道. 原價US$0.97. 特價US$0.59. 昨天買回家後才知道是中國製造, 有點失望.

這包貓濕糧明顯比其他罐頭濕糧差. 味道鹽鹽的, 魚的肉質硬如鹽魚, 沒有龍蝦, 只有蝦仔. 者者是包裝翻譯錯誤吧!

貓貓舔了汁, 便離開飯碗, 肉一口也沒有吃.


延伸閱讀: PetSmart 購買貓糧(2008/08/08)