Urban Grit in the SV

Deb and I both grew up in the Southeast, where most folks we knew lived in brand-new subdivisions recently carved from the forest.  Sure, there were the old neighborhoods inside the Beltline -- both genteel neighborhoods with huge houses and iron fences, and less savory developments "downtown" -- but our families, and those of most of our friends, were part of the thriving middle class seeking to grab their piece of the American dream in suburbs springing up like kudzu further and further away from the city center.  

Silicon Valley, however, is a very different place.  With natural barriers to sprawl, most neighborhoods hail from the post-WWII housing boom.  Our house, which was built in 1956, is fairly typical.  However, for a Southern boy used to bigger, newer houses built on half-acre lots (if not considerably larger), an area with smaller, older houses and postage-stamp-sized yards was not very desirable.  In fact, when we first drove through the area where we currently live -- shortly after we moved to the Bay Area and years before we relocated to the South Bay -- I think I may have even asked Deb to lock the car doors!

Having now lived in our house for six years, I've come to love our location.  We can walk to a variety of restaurants (soon after we moved here, we learned that we're in the midst of what passes for Silicon Valley's Koreatown), the supermarket, the city park, and the city library.  Despite these conveniences, we still live a fairly typical suburban lifestyle that -- aside from the smaller house and lawn -- isn't that different from what had on the East Coast.

But something happened the other day that guarantees us at least a little street cred with our friends back in the Southeast.  While walking back home from a neighbor's Fourth of July cookout, we noticed this on our fence:

We'd been tagged!  (Admittedly, the artist might benefit from some spray painting lessons, but that's not the point.)  We've now experienced something our friends back east in their large houses and estates can't claim.  So the next time our East Coast friends ask us why houses here in Silicon Valley cost several times as much as comparable houses in their neck of the woods, we can explain that it's not only that land is expensive, we also pay a premium to keep it real.

Peace out.

Five Reasons I'm Not Voting for Obama

Maybe it's an artifact of living in the Bay Area, but almost all of my friends at work will be voting for Obama in the fall.  Even among my evangelical friends, a surprisingly high number are still undecided or leaning Obama.  (Of course, a surprisingly high number are frighteningly uninformed, but that's another blog entry altogether.)  Living here in California, our electoral college votes will ultimately go to the Democrats.  But, when asked (as is often the case), here are the five reasons I'm not voting for Obama.

1.  It's the economy, stupid!

Comprehensive healthcare reform is at the heart of Obama's domestic policy.  I'm not sure when Social Security and Medicare righted themselves (what happened to the lockbox?), but to hear Barack talk about healthcare reform, you would think that the Treasury is flush with cash and we're struggling to find ways to spend it all.  I'm all for comprehensive healthcare reform.  I think it's horrible that many Americans are uninsured or underinsured, that healthcare insurance is tied to employment, that inefficiencies abound in the system, and that many general practioners are overworked and underpaid.   But in a time of economic instability, the last thing we need is the inauguration of a major new entitlement program.  

This program will not only bind our hands today (and prevent us from spending tax revenue in ways tailored to stimulating economic growth), but will be a continuing obligation of the US government -- the proverbial albatross around the nation's neck.  We'll end up paying for it by either increasing the national debt, and mortgaging our children's futures, or raising taxes today, when the economy can least afford it.

2.  Iraq

In hindsight, it's pretty clear that we should not have invaded Iraq.  It's equally evident that once we decided to invade, we should have adhered to the Powell Doctrine instead of the Rumsfeld gambit.  However, while clear, hindsight tends to focus attention on the assessment of blame rather than the development of solutions.  And in Iraq, blame is in much greater supply than solutions.

Obama's simplistic solution would be for us to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible.  This course of action would result, at best, in an Iraq that is a puppet state of Iran, and, at worst, in full-blown civil war.  In either case, this outcome breaches our responsibility to the people of Iraq, whose lives we disrupted by invading Iraq and to whom we owe a moral obligation to restore a measure of normality.  While a quick withdrawal might result in short-term gains in the US's international prestige, in the long term it would reinforce our enemies' belief that the US is fundamentally a paper tiger and hamper our ability to negotiate on the world stage.  Finally, withdrawal would ultimately decrease the security of the US mainland, by providing terrorists with fertile recruiting and training ground and by moving the lines of combat from Iraq to the continental US.

Under General Patraeus' leadership, we are finally improving the security situation in Iraq, winning some hearts and minds, and starting to rebuild the country's infrastructure.  This would be the worst time to pull out.  We may never have another opportunity to begin to cure our previous errors and truly effect positive change in the Middle East.  If we don't follow through on our current efforts, I have little doubt that the future actions of today's insurgents will be far worse than what we've faced up to this point.

3.  Abortion

I'm a huge proponent of equal rights for women.  It's a travestry that, even in these enlightened times, many women are still paid less than men for doing the same job and are responsible for most of the housework (sorry, Dr. Dobson).  I know pregnancy is difficult and dangerous, and I understand and empathize with the pro-choice argument that women should be allowed to control their bodies.  

My position on the abortion question, however, comes down to one issue: when does life begin.  I am not absolutely certain that life begins as conception.  But I am absolutely certain that a person's mere physical location -- inside or outside of the womb -- should not dictate whether that person is deemed alive.  Babies in the womb are deemed viable at 25 weeks -- just over halfway through a typical pregnancy.  It's ridiculous to me that a baby born at 25 weeks should be entitled to rights and protection that a baby inside the womb would not be equally entitled to.  And the 25-week marker is an arbitrary one.  Babies born earlier than 25 weeks have been known to survive, and technology pushes the barrier earlier every year.

We require criminal juries to determine guilt beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.  Yet pro-choice advocates seem perfectly happy to sentence what may be an innocent child to death with much less certainty.  Pregnancy, however challenging, is temporary; death is permanent.  Obama claims to be the champion of the underdog.  But as an advocate of abortion, he suggests that his patronage may only extend to that limited portion of humanity that actually has a vote.

4.  Experience

As Hillary famously asked in her phone ad, who do you want picking up the red phone at 3 am in the morning?  My preference is the candidate who'd already served almost a decade in Congress by the time Obama graduated from law school.  Obama heralds the fact that he's a Washington novice, not yet tainted by life inside the Beltway.  But success in the White House -- especially in times of crisis -- often depends on a comprehensive knowledge of the relevant issues and strong personal relationships with the members of Congress, military officers, and career bureaucrats you're going to be working with.  It's this knowledge and these relationships -- on both sides of the aisle -- that McCain's developed in his quarter century in the nation's capitol.  It's easy for Obama to tout his experience working in the Illinois Senate as suggestive of his ability to effectively motivate and coordinate folks in DC.  I for one, however, remember the last candidate whose success in state politics prompted him to declare, "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Taking a longer view of things, the recent trend of selecting candidates with light resumes does not bode well for the future of American politics.  Americans today would prefer to elect a charismatic, untested candidate on whom they can project their hopes and desires than a more seasoned candidate with known warts and wrinkles.  The flip-side of American optimism is the expectation that our leaders will be perfect.  And the increased information available in the modern media-rich world has made that perfection only attainable by those who have done very little.  Already many of the most qualified individuals are eschewing higher office, leaving the field with a strange combination of the least-experienced and the most ambitious (a combination not uncommonly found in the same individual).  If we want the best political leaders for America, it's time for us to reward those who have served Amercia.  Obama may eventually turn out to be an effective president, but I am willing to accept a few warts and less charisma for increased certainty about the future.

5.  Where's the straight talk?

Obama weaves a great vision of hope and change, albeit in inoffensive, ambiguous terms.  But he's less consistent about his choice of political supporters, about his positions, and about his beliefs.  While he promises to clean up Washington and to bring an end to politics as usual, he neglects to mention his own background in the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics -- a city not known for clean politics -- and his personal association with the likes of Tony Rezko, an inner-city slum lord now indicted for influence-peddling in the administration of Illinois Governor Blagojevich.  He told voters in Ohio that he'd renegotiate NAFTA, while he sent an aide to the Canadian government to let them know not to worry, and he reassured supporters at a swanky fund-raiser in San Francisco that he's actually in favor of free trade through and through.  At that same fund-raiser, Obama expressed his true feelings about small-town Americans:

"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Notwithstanding whether or not small town voters are actually bitter, it's peculiar that man who frequently proclaims his own faith so casually associates the faith of others with guns, prejudice, and anti-immigrant sentiment.

I don't think Obama is a bad person; in fact, I genuinely believe that his intentions -- and those of Senator McCain -- are good.  As good-intentioned as Obama may be, and as charismatic and eloquent he is, however, he's not always going to be right.  When he's wrong, I don't want visions of hope and change, I want the facts.  Democracy isn't an election that happens every four years, it's a continuous process of give and take involving the media, advocacy groups, and individual citizens participating in an ongoing dialogue with our elected leaders.  Perhaps no elected official is always fond of these exchanges, but McCain at least understands the importance of the conversation and often seems to enjoy engaging in free-ranging discussion with the press and voters.  He's also not afraid to say exactly what he thinks -- even when his audience doesn't agree with him.  In fact, I find that I don't always agree with McCain, but at least I know where he stands.  In contrast, Obama prefers carefully-staged, stadium-style events where he controls the message and everyone is expected to stay on-script.  He may sound prettier, but when it comes to straight talk, the self-proclaimed harbinger of change seems fundamentally aligned with the current occupant of the White House.

Those Darn Canadians

As I mentioned in my last post, Obama and Clinton have recently been battling it out to see who can more completely disavow any prior support for NAFTA. Despite the fact most economists (and a prior incarnation of Hillary Clinton) agree that NAFTA has had a positive impact on America (per FactCheck.org), the Democratic candidates are scrambling over each other to proclaim their willingness to withdraw from the treaty.

On that topic, I just had to share this hilarious quote from former Texas senator Phil Gramm: "If we can’t compete with Canada, who can we compete with?" He continued, "Are these people proposing that we go build a wall around America and hide under a rock somewhere?"

Gramm was out stumping for McCain, who had this to say on the subject:

"I want to tell our Canadian friends, I want to tell our friends in Mexico and other trading partners around the world that I will negotiate and conclude free trade agreements and I will not, I will not, after entering into solemn agreements, go and say that I will abrogate those agreements."

I may not have Obama or Clinton's legal skills, but standing by your commitments makes sense to me.

Unionizing Obama

It's pretty clear whom I'll be voting for in the general election, but I have to admit I haven't been immune to the Obama-mania sweeping the land. After all, he's obviously a smart guy and a great speaker, and we even attended, in different years, the same law school -- although while he edited the Harvard Law Review, I edited the Harvard Law Record, the law school newspaper. (For the non-lawyers out there, the law review is a respected academic journal; the law school newspaper is akin to the free publication you'd pick up at your local Starbucks.)

Obama talks a good bipartisan game, but his voting record indicates that his actual positions are far to the left of most Americans. That fact, along with the closeness of the Democratic primary, raises the alarming specter of unions calling a lot of the shots in any Obama administration. The influence of unions in the Obama campaign, as well as his long-standing connections to unions, have been documented by many news sources. No less than the New York Times (which prints well-researched articles in addition to unsubstantiated innuendo) has noted that he "has long maintained ties to [the Service Employees International Union]. He sought its endorsement, and its main Web page is filled with photos of him and videos of his speeches." To quote an official from the union, "S.E.I.U. members are waging an unprecedented effort to mobilize their co-workers and communities to elect Barack Obama. We are committed to bringing all of our resources to bear to ensure he is our next president."

Unions have done a lot of good historically to improve working conditions in this country. These days, however, most unions tend to support policies that are protectionist at best and patently racist at worst. This is evident in unions' opposition to treaties like NAFTA -- which most economists have said has been good for America. Factcheck.org notes that Clinton made that same point herself, back in 2004, before the tight Democratic primary forced both Democratic candidates to start pandering to the unions on issues like NAFTA.

We were at the Anaheim convention center a few weeks ago to staff a trade show booth for the small business we run on the side. We've attended this particular trade show for years, so we're used to being gouged by the local union, which, among other things, requires the use of union labor to bring materials into the convention center and then charges outrageous rates for their services. As we were setting up our booth this time, however, we were unexpectedly accosted by a union member who told us to immediately stop our set-up, since this too apparently requires the use of union labor. Let me mention that the display structure in our booth is composed of panels that you snap together; no tools are required, and it typically takes only a couple of hours to set up (and a lot of that time is spent rearranging pieces and figuring out how you want the display to look). We pointed out that we've never been required to use union labor for setup before and that many of the booths around us had been set up without union labor. We took this issue up to the floor manager, who explained that she had been "forcing union labor" on exhibitors all day and that the exhibitors who avoided the requirement had just been lucky. The union member also sheepishly noted that times are tough and guys are losing their jobs, so we should do our part to help out.

After some back and forth, we finally agreed to take one union laborer for one hour to help put up the display structure. For one hour of unskilled labor, we were charged $135. Hour for hour, this is considerably more than I make as an in-house lawyer here in Silicon Valley, and this is not that much less than what certain legal staffing services charge high-tech companies for experienced attorneys. The guy tasked with helping us out was almost a caricature of a union laborer; he arrived at our booth at around 4 pm, and the first thing he said was, "Just to let you know, I have a scheduled break at 4:15." We were able to convince him to delay his break (after we went to go talk with the floor manager), but he spent most of the time trying to chat up our team members and had no experience setting up booths like ours -- he kept on talking about how easy it was to set up our display (which is exactly why we bought this system, so we could set it up ourselves). Because we were focused on erecting the booth as quickly as possible and not looking at the clock, we ended up using him for more than an hour. For that, we were charged for an extra 30 minutes at time and a half. (Afterwards, another exhibitor told us that the trick to avoiding the union labor requirement was to wait until 5 pm to start setting up, since that's when most of the union guys ended their day.)

I think back to what the first union guy said -- times are tough, so we should do our part. I completely agree with his comment. But as a small business, our part is to develop and sell useful, quality products. Money that we earn goes back into the economy through our company's expenditures, our purchases, and our team members' purchases. Our part is not to subsidize unions engaged in anti-competitive, unproductive activities. These activities are bad for small business, bad for the economy as a whole, and ultimately bad for the union laborer, who has no incentive to retool for a more productive career.

The union members we met at the trade show all seemed reasonably smart, and no one struck me as a bad person. These are folks who want what most of us want -- honest work and a living wage -- and these are folks who, for the most part, should be able to make the transition to the new economy. But they're focused on the short term, and they seem to have a sense of entitlement about what they're owed. Obama talks about change, but if there's really going to be change, we have to open our arms wide to innovation and a global economy. At a time when we need change, the unions are trying to strap us into a straitjacket. And Obama seems more than happy to climb right in.

Restoring Possibility

Obama has a great line that he trotted out at Thursday's Democratic presidential debate: "Part of what I would like to do is restore a sense of what is possible in government."

While that's a great sound bite -- and sums up nicely what is most attractive about Obama's candidacy -- it underscores one major difference between Democrats and Republicans. While the Democrats want to restore a sense of what is possible in government, we Republicans want to restore a sense of what is possible in America.

Obama's comment focuses on what government can do. But the secret of the American experiment is that America's never been about what government can do, but what kind of environment government can foster to allow the American people to do amazing things.

McCain-Huckabee

Democrats may be longing for a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket, but I'm hoping for a McCain-Huckabee ticket. If McCain has any hope of mobilizing Republicans in November, he'll need the excitement that Huckabee generates among the (evangelical) conservative base. I also rather like Huckabee. While Huckabee's positions are sometimes alarmingly naive (I'm particularly troubled by the Fair Tax), his heart seems to be in the right place, and he's a very effective communicator. A colleague of mine who attended all of the CNN-YouTube debates commented that, while she's Democrat, if she were a Republican, she would probably vote for Huckabee. Four to eight years under McCain's tutelage might be just what Huckabee needs to make a successful bid for the White House.

McCain and the Changing Religious Right

It's the middle of rainy season here in Silicon Valley; we've had rain almost every day this past week with only periodic glimpses of blue sky. Fortunately, we've gotten some sun from the Sunshine State, where John McCain just won the Republican primary!

Despite finally reclaiming the title of front-runner, it'll still be a slog for McCain to win the Republican nomination, given his lack of support among many hard-line conservatives. McCain has a 83% rating from the American Conservative Union, but he does hold some moderate positions, particularly when it comes to issues like climate change, immigration, and campaign finance reform. However, I happen to agree with a moderate approach to these particular issues, and I don't think I'm alone.

I'm an evangelical. I've listened to Focus on the Family for most of my life (love James Dobson, but don't agree with many of his views), and I attend church activities more than once a week. I was born and raised in the South -- I'm still proud to have grown up a Southern Baptist -- and I'm pro-life and pro-family. I came of voting age around the time of the rise of the Christian Coalition, and I credit the Christian Coalition for contributing to my interest in politics.

I also believe that humanity is in danger of irrevocably upsetting nature's delicate equilibrium (or at least that equilibrium in which we've grown accustomed to living), and that our government should do more to protect the environment. Most Christians agree that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment, as Christianity Today notes. Major evangelical leaders, most notably (and controversially) Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, have argued in favor of actions to slow down global warming. While there is still considerable debate on this issue within the evangelical community, evangelicals can no longer be relied upon to echo business interests in rejecting the threat of climate change.

Applying Christian principles to immigration, evangelicals should be more sympathetic to giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship than most other conservatives. Christianity has always been about loving your neighbor, and if the parable of the Good Samaritan doesn't speak to the current debate about immigration, I'm not sure what it speaks to. In addition, the foreign missions focus of many evangelical churches has led these Christians to become more familiar and comfortable with foreign cultures than other native-born Americans from the same regions. For example, the Southern Baptist church in which I grew up had a very active ministry to the local Chinese immigrant community -- which is how I ended up attending that church. While evangelicals are also generally in favor of law and order -- and have little patience for lawbreakers -- I suspect that an increasingly significant segment of this population will begin to support giving those illegal immigrants who haven't otherwise broken the law a chance to stay in the country legally.

What seems to be at the heart of at least some evangelical leaders' disdain for McCain is campaign finance reform -- or, more specifically, McCain-Feingold, which prevents organizations (including evangelical organizations) from participating in certain electioneering activities. Campaign finance reform is a very complex issue, but ultimately it's not a values issue. It is an important issue, and I personally think that our current system forces candidates and elected officials alike to spend too much time raising money instead of governing and dissuades some of the most qualified individuals from getting involved in politics at all. But evangelical leaders should move past their own self-interest to focus on the social issues they claim to be most interested in.

Many commentators have suggested that the 2008 Republican primary is a referendum on the coalition of neo-conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and evangelicals that Reagan built. I'm not sure that's entirely the case, since, if my own views are any indication, many evangelicals are proponents of small government, individual responsibility, strong defense, and fiscal accountability. However, those positions don't justify giving carte blanche to business interests on issues like the environment and campaign finance reform or succumbing to parochialism or thinly-veiled racism on issues like immigration. I agree with many anti-McCain pundits that it's time for the Republican party to return to its core principles, but I think it's also time for evangelicals in the party to redefine how those principles are applied.

Slippery Mitt

I heard part of Mitt Romney's remarks following the Florida primaries, and one particular line caught my attention. Here's the line from the transcript in the Washington Post:

"We look to Washington for leadership, but Washington has failed us. . . . We asked them to end our dependence on foreign oil. They haven't."

Statements like this typify what annoys me about Romney. Here he is speaking to Super Tuesday voters, making the argument that you can't expect a Washington insider to fix Washington. While it may sound good, there are quite a few problems with Romney's logic, such as the fact that it is McCain's maverick status in DC that has made it difficult for the Republican establishment to line up behind him and the fact that it often takes someone who knows the game to beat the game. To a casual Silicon Valley voter who may not be following the Romney campaign very closely (and who is likely to be in favor of increasing fuel efficiency), Mitt's statement has the added benefit of implying that Mitt is actually in full agreement.

Just a scant two weeks ago, however, Romney said something very different to the Detroit Economic Club:

"In fact, in face of all of the existing burdens that weigh down our domestic auto industry, instead of throwing over a life preserver, Washington has dropped yet another anvil on Michigan with higher CAFE standards. And now, it's passively sitting back to see if the car companies can swim."

What's Mitt's problem? He identifies our dependence on foreign oil as a problem, but he rails against a rational solution to that problem. Why does a guy as smart as Mitt take such an odd position? Because he was trying to court Michigan voters. If that's not politics as usual in Washington, I don't know what is. It's exactly politics like this that prevent Washington from taking real action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

To underscore the point, here's a Romney quote on the same subject from back in 2005, when he was governor of Massachusetts:

"Dad was a man ahead of his time. . . . He also coined the term 'gas-guzzling dinosaurs.' That's what we're driving today and that's got to change."

When it comes to oil, Mitt's one slippery guy.

Dire Straits

One of the better shows on the radio these days is NPR's On the Media, which analyzes and critiques the media. This week's show included a report on the two contradictory tapes released regarding the January 6 confrontation between U.S. Navy and Iranian Republican Guard ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The interviewee was Bill Arkin of the Washington Post, who indicated that each of the U.S. and Iran had doctored the tape it released of the incident by melding video of the event with unrelated audio.

Now I don't know if Arkin is correct (and a cursory online search didn't turn up any dispositive corroborating evidence), but if he is, this is just another example of the current administration's enormous disrespect for the American people. This disrespect is particularly irritating to me because I voted for Bush in the 2000 and 2004 general elections (though I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary). While I was never overly impressed by Dubya's rhetorical skills or business acumen, his record of reaching across the aisle in Texas suggested an end to the partisan bickering that marked the end of the Clinton era. I was impressed by the Republican luminaries that lined up behind the man. And I was enticed by the promise of "compassionate conservatism" -- promise that remains largely unrealized, except perhaps in certain aspects of the Bush immigration proposal.

Eight years later, the once-bright potential of the second Bush administration lies overshadowed by the decision to go to war in Iraq. Amid the paranoid secrecy, clumsy lies, and rabid partisanship of the current administrations, it's clearly time for a change. Government should be honest, transparent, and collegial. And more than any other candidate on either side of the aisle, McCain embodies those qualities. South Carolina voters seem to have agreed last Saturday. Hopefully, Florida voters will feel the same way on Tuesday.

Why I Can't Vote for Romney

Romney's a successful businessman, a capable organizer, and a guy who gets things done. These are great characteristics. Unfortunately, he's also extraordinarily expedient. He's more interested in the ends than the means. And the ends are often personal ends rather than policy ends -- as his flip-flopping on the abortion issue suggests. While Romney's approach often wins over the shareholders of a company, it does much less for citizens interested in preserving constitutional rights, maintaining transparent government, and getting the straight facts. Time and time again he's shown himself more than happy to put a healthy spin on the truth.

That's exactly how he landed in the mess over his father's supposed march with MLK. And while his attacks on McCain at last night's South Carolina debate weren't outright lies, he once again revealed his willingness to take the easy route, rather than the honest one. According to Reuters, Romney attacked McCain (who had been speaking in favor of educational programs to retrain workers) for admitting that some jobs are leaving Michigan and not coming back. Romney declared, "I disagree. I'm going to fight for every single job, Michigan, South Carolina, every state in this country, we're going to fight for jobs and make sure our future is bright."

Romney's many things, but he's neither stupid or naive. The man knows that times are a-changing, and that the best hope for the autoworkers of Michigan and the textile workers of South Carolina is retraining for the new economy -- what McCain is proposing. Once again Romney is more interested in giving voters what he thinks they want to hear than in promoting policies that actually address the real issues at hand. And that's why I can't vote for Romney.

Backing Mac

Despite always being interested in politics -- and majoring in Political Science in college -- I've never made a donation to a political campaign. I usually back a particular candidate, and I'm more than glad to share my views with others. But we've always taken the position that, to the extent we have money to donate, that money is better spent going to our church or another Christian organization like InterVarsity, World Vision, or Focus on the Family.

This year, for the first time, we made a donation to a political campaign -- the John McCain campaign. Our donation wasn't large -- just $25 (so far, at least). But a colleague of mine who previously worked for the McCain campaign said that every bit helps -- and may generate more support by demonstrating that the candidate has support. We supported McCain in 2000 too, and one has to wonder how the world might be different if more of his supporters had stepped up to the plate then.

Christmas Card 2007

We actually sent out Christmas postcards this year! They went out a bit late -- and a few still need to go out. However, for those who we may have accidentally left off the list, here it is:

The three of us started 2007 navigating the crowded streets of Hong Kong, straining to catch a glimpse of the ball drop in Hong Kong's Times Square. While we didn't get close enough to see the ball -- or Times Square, for that matter -- we continued to stay on the move throughout 2007.

Just a few weeks after returning from Hong Kong, we drove south to Anaheim for the Craft and Hobby Association's winter trade show. CHA Winter is the most important sales event of the year for Maya Road, the craft supplies company we own with Deborah's sister and brother-in-law. With the Lau grandparents watching Jonathan back at the hotel, we were able to do some effective hawking of Maya Road products. In May we finally took a long-overdue trip to Raleigh, Augusta, and Atlanta with Jonathan. We enjoyed seeing some friends we hadn't seen for years, and Jonathan spent some quality time with both sets of grandparents. We were on the road again to Southern California for a wedding in June, and in July we flew to Chicago for the CHA summer trade show. We spent a weekend up at Lake Tahoe in September, and in November we returned to Hong Kong for Thanksgiving. Jonathan enjoyed spending time with his great grandmother and fighting over toys with his cousin Noah. We're looking forward to spending Christmas this year in Raleigh, before we fly back home to the Bay Area to ring in the new year.

On an individual level, Jonathan started 2007 fairly stationary, but was crawling by April, walking by June, and running by his first birthday in July. He's gone from cooing and babbling to mastering his first handful of words. Parenting has definitely had its stressful moments, but it's also been enormously fun, and we're thankful every day to have Jonathan in our lives.

Professionally, Deborah is still at PayPal working on building new online payments products, and I'm still at Google providing end users with all the content that's fit to copy, distribute, create derivative works of, display, or perform. When she's not hanging out with Jonathan and me, Deborah spends most of her free time designing exciting new crafts products for Maya Road; we're already gearing up to launch more than 100 new products at CHA Winter in February 2008.

As we look back over the year, we are amazed by God's many blessings, and the kindness and support of all our family and friends. Thank you for being in our life. We hope to see you in 2008.