It's Camels All Round

On one particular occasion when my sister invited some friends over to our home, a particularly nerdy lab mate of hers (who was unsurprisingly going out with an equally nerdy fellow lab mate) started pontificating on the difference between one-humped and two-humped camels. This certainly stuck in my mother's mind as she commented about this afterward (citing this as rather strange behaviour). I would have thought that my predilection for strange facts would have inured her to that by now. 

Still, as if to prove that no knowledge is ever useless, this piece of information came up in a pub quiz I was taking part in a few months afterwards. How many humps does a Dromedary Camel have, it asked. I could not for the life of me remember. It seems that camel humps was one of the few random bits of information that I found difficult to digest and my team got that question wrong.

So when it was mentioned that Bactrian camels, native to China, have two humps unlike their Arabian one-humped cousins, in The Man Who Loved China,  a book by Simon Winchester about Joseph Needham and the inspiration behind his magnum opus Science and Civilisation in China, I decided once and for all to set the record straight. So, Bactrian - two humps, native to East and Central Asia (also highly endangered apparently). Dromedary, far more common, native to the Middle East (and also the ones you are likely to pose for a photo with in front of the Great Pyramids in Egypt before getting asked by its handlers for a fee), and most definitely one humped.

So there, this hardly proved to be one hump too many!

J.B Jeyaretnam (1926 - 2008)

I was extremely saddened to hear of the passing of J.B Jeyaretnam, stalwart Singaporean opposition politician, who died of a heart attack on 30th September. Even more saddening and shocking for me was the fact that I only realized the fact a good 4 days later, having failed to read of it in the papers. More stunning still to me, it had not come up in the course of my daily conversations on interesting happenings in the world with my friends. I stumbled upon the news randomly while surfing the web. It will be the greatest dereliction of duty, whether one agrees with him or not, to not pay some homage to JBJ's service as a public figure and his ceaseless quest to promote democracy and justice in Singapore.

I was thus tremendously pleased that The Economist choose to feature JBJ in their obituary for their October 11th-18th issue (they only feature an obituary for one notable individual per issue). JBJ also received mention in many famous newspapers around the world, including the New York Times, and most of the British dailies. The Economist perhaps put it best. Quoting Lee Kuan Yew's assertion that the government engaged all those multitudinous libel actions to protect the government's reputation and not to silence the opposition, the publication noted that "Certainly, Mr Jeyaretnam, most distinguished of that tiny band, was never silenced. Lee Kuan Yew may have been the infinitely greater statesman, but some would have judged Mr Jeyaretnam the infinitely bigger man." I am inclined to agree.

The Return of the Prodigal Son

When my quiz team recruited me on that fateful day over a year ago now, they commented that I was a classic 'ringer' given my quizzing pedigree. Little did they know. I had missed the quiz on 17th September after my class overran and I heard later that my usual team had finished in an abysmal 5th position. The following week, I was asked to be the substitute quizmaster as Pete was suffering from some hip trouble. My team took part, without me, and finished 3rd, outside the prizes for the second week in the a row. 

This might seem to be just a minor run of bad fortune, but it has to be put into perspective. With me in their side they have never finished outside the top two. Indeed, at one point our team was so dominant that the quizmaster was attempting to come up with a suitable handicap for us after we strung together five consecutive wins, and nine in ten weeks. Lo and behold, I fail to join them for two weeks, and they splutter into a fifth and a third placing!

I could hardly afford to abandon them this week though I was quick to point out, tongue firmly in cheek, how badly they needed me, so I went for the quiz. Things got a little more complicated when Iris, an old friend from my ACJC days, ambled into the pub quite unexpectedly, having made a reservation to do the quiz. It was her first time there and she professed herself fond of 'trivia nights' as they call it in Melbourne where she studies. Oh, if there were only more ladies like her! I was sorely tempted to abandon the lads and join her team, but my loyalty held, and I stuck with them. Bros before Hoes as they say.

Given the return of the prodigal son to the team, it was quite inevitable that we triumphed this week and quite handily at that. It was a comfortable victory, apart from a round where we were forced to guess if individuals were dead or alive - far more difficult than one would necessarily think. In that round I made the gaffe of thinking Sir Roger Bannister (first man to run the four minute mile) dead - I had mistakenly thought they had a memorial service for him when I was at Oxford!

Afterwards, Iris, her sister and her friends headed over to Lau Pa Sat for supper, and I was quite happy to follow. It enabled us to catch up on our assorted acquaintances from our Junior College days and reminisce about the good and not so good old times. Come to think of it Iris is just the last in a long string of old friends who seem to be wandering into the Shoe. First it was a couple of old ACS(I) friends, then it was Edwin, Julian Han and of all people Sheryl Tan (a classmate from my first three months in JC) who popped by the Shoe the week I was the quizmaster. It was wonderful to see them all again, especially Sheryl who seems far more talkative now than I ever remembered her to be (but then again she was the quietest person I knew). So old friends in a familiar setting, perfect all round.

A Walk in the Rain

I had decided to join my parents, and my uncle at Lunar since it was the eve of a public holiday. The usual suspects were there - Kent, girlfriend in tow and an assorted group of his friends who proceeded to more or less take over my Uncle's usual table; Edmund; and Yanni, a friend of Kent and his girlfriend. It was the birthday of Darren, one of the managers at the club, who has treated my uncle marvelously, and judging by the number of well-wishers he was well-liked indeed.

The real adventure began when we decided to leave for home at around 3.45 am. Clarke Quay is never the best of places to attempt to get a taxi on any occasion. On the eve of a public holiday it turns into a mess. To make matters worse, it was raining rather heavily, thus affecting the number of available cabs. The taxi queue was long, and it wasn't moving, the phone lines were jammed as everyone in the vicinity was attempting to call a cab, and in short the situation was quite hopeless.

I thus attempted to cross the road to flag a cab instead of waiting hopelessly in the queue. Despite waiting in the rain for the better part of a half hour, it proved a rather hopeless situation. There were scores of people lining the roadside, some walking a good 500m down the road in either direction. I later heard that my uncle had walked all the way to the City Hall area in order to get a taxi. I finally gave up, only to find on my return that my parents had disappeared from the queue and had somehow managed to get a cab.

Seeing that joining the queue (which had ballooned even further) was a hopeless scenario, and I didn't have a handphone with me to attempt to call a cab (which was probably hopeless too), I decided that I might as well go for a wander. All the better if I were to find a late night kopitiam for supper. So I started off in the rain, which didn't bother me one jot as I had already been pretty much soaked through. It was definitely interesting, and somewhat surreal wandering off aimlessly, in the pouring rain, with no particular direction in mind, in an area linking Clarke Quay and Chinatown that I had not seen much of previously.

In the end, sadly, I only passed one deserted coffee shop, before locating a 24-hour McDonalds which served breakfast. So it was a Big Breakfast for me at five something in an already bustling McDonalds. I then found myself just a few steps from Chinatown MRT station and I took the very first train of the morning home, finding myself with an interesting assortment of early birds - night workers returning home, some office workers getting an early start, teenagers (why are teenagers always out and about) headed somewhere, probably some of them having gone through a night of revelry. 

There was something perhaps oddly magical about it all, the warm fuzzy glow that comes about after imbibing a few whiskies, the almost familiar patter of rain, lessening in intensity but still falling, largely deserted streets haloed in street lamps, and the sense that at this moment, at least, you are free to glower, and to laugh at the world in turn, perhaps even simultaneously.

Faldo's Failure?

Following Europe's heavy defeat in the Ryder Cup, Nick Faldo has come in for some heavy criticism. As the team captain responsible for making a number of key decisions, it is inevitable that his tactics and selections have been called into question in the wake of the defeat. It seems to me that Ryder Cup captains in general, and Faldo in particular, are often blamed, justly or unfairly, when their team loses. Ultimately, it is the players that win (or lose) the Cup out on the course, and in this instance there is little doubt that the Americans were just better on the weekend.

That isn't to say that the Ryder Cup captains do not sometimes make the most bizarre and baffling decisions. Hal Sutton's decision to pair Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson together despite the fact that they clearly loathed each other springs immediately to mind. In such instances, criticism of the Captain is justified. However, I believe that most of the decisions that Nick Faldo made at Valhalla were fairly sound. For the sake of argument I will go over them and other factors that might have led to the European defeat:

Wild Card Selections: Faldo was heavily criticized for his choice of Ian Poulter as a second wildcard over Darren Clarke. Poulter however, by scoring four points (which could easily have been a full five had he and Justin Rose not thrown away their foursomes match on the first day) has more than justified his selection. Any criticism now that Clarke, or Monty or anyone else might still have been a better pick seems spurious against the fact that Poulter turned out to be by far Europe's best performing player. Monty was seriously out of form and it is doubtful that his erratic play would stand up to Ryder Cup pressure. But all that is speculation. Poulter and Casey were chosen, they played well (especially Poulter), and it is facile to criticize Faldo in this regard.

Resting/Dropping Garcia and Westwood: Faldo was criticized for dropping Garcia and Westwood for the fourballs session on the second day. There seems some merit in this criticism given Garcia's tremendous fourballs record - he has never lost a fourballs match. Garcia and Westwood have also done tremendously well together in the fourballs in the past. However, I believe that Faldo did make the right decision. You have to choose your pairing based on how well the players are playing on the day, not their past record. Garcia and Westwood were not playing at all well (they failed to muster a single win between them throughout the Ryder Cup). Garcia's fourballs record was only preserved on the first day when the American's threw victory away on the last hole. Besides, the session when they were dropped was the only one that Europe won. Had Faldo stuck with Garcia and Westwood blindly, he would probably be criticized for putting too much faith in his trusted guns and for an inability to make tough decisions.

Bottom Loading the Singles: Faldo was criticized for leaving Europe's best players at the end in the singles, especially when their matches became redundant after the Americans had sealed the victory earlier on. It is suggested that had he top loaded the singles, and put some blue on the board, momentum would swing Europe's way. However, it is first worth noting that Europe lost the Ryder Cup in the middle order, not the front, and also the fact that the singles pairings is a notoriously fickle exercise. Starting things off with Sergio Garcia (with such an excellent Ryder Cup record) is hardly a slouch, but Anthony Kim looked like he was game to beat anyone on the day. Some of the Americans were just on amazing form - Oliver Wilson played his round 4 under (through 15 holes) and still lost to Boo Weekly. With Europe behind, Faldo was gambling on his players pulling some points back early and his big guns being inspired into sealing the deal. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Still, I give him full marks for having the guts to try.

Lack of Assistants: Faldo was criticized for only appointing Jose Maria Olazabal as an Assistant Captain, and of being too egoistic to have more support which was important for a European victory. Faldo has been dogged by claims that he is standoffish and arrogant throughout his career. The crux of the question is whether Faldo's leadership style and his purported need to make all the key decisions affected the team negatively. Would having more assistants have helped? It would certainly have meant that Faldo could afford to have more people on the course monitoring play and offering advice or just a calming word or two to the players where needed. In my opinion, it probably would have helped Faldo to have an additional assistant or two, if only to reduce Faldo's immense workload, and to provide a trusted ear, where needed. 

The issue with Faldo is, he probably wouldn't have wanted an additional advice. In the end, I think this issue had been played up too much - it would have been more significant had the Europeans had more inexperienced Ryder Cup players/rookies or if the rookies had wilted under the pressure. Instead, it was Europe's Ryder Cup old guard that failed to perform and you would hardly expect Faldo to have to mollycoddle them. Also, Faldo has his own style of captaining the team which should be respected. Seve Ballesteros before him was endlessly energetic - which extended to his offering advice while his players were out on course, including one occasion where one of the them proceeded to dump his next shot in the water. Faldo's style was different, a no-fuss assured style of leadership which I believe the Europeans responded to. Some players, notably Garcia, could have done with a more fiery, less phlegmatic style, but then again, not all of them.

There's No Place Like Home: The recent European success in America belies the difficulty of winning the Cup away from home, especially when there is a partisan crowd out in force. The crowd at Valhalla was most definitely partisan, though mostly in good taste (Westwood's complaints at Boo Weekly stirring up the crowd aside). Playing at home also gives an advantage in terms of setting up the course favourably to your side. The Americans certainly did that at Valhalla. If there was one factor that won or lost the Cup it was putting. The organizers made sure that the greens were slick and fast, which definitely favoured the Americans. Much has been made about the contributions of the American Ryder Cup rookies, about their enthusiasm, but the whole American team was buoyed by the crowd, which was a big X factor throughout the weekend.

So in the end, I would suggest, that the Americans won because they played better over the 3 days. That may be the most facile and unhelpful of statements, but that doesn't make it any less true. There is a understandable tendency in the wake of a defeat to dissect the decisions made, and engage in what if recrimination. This is especially the case with Ryder Cup captains. Perhaps we should give Faldo a break and in true Ryder Cup spirit, applaud the Americans for playing a marvelous weekend of golf.

Lord of the Rings Marathon

I finally succumbed and bought the DVD Special Edition Box Set of the Extended Versions of the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. Quite a mouthful, and indeed quite representative of the length of the movies themselves. 

What better way to celebrate the immensity of the purchase (it set me back around S$130) than to hold a massive marathon movie session to view all three movies back to back (to back) in its extended format? I had previously attended a Lord of the Rings marathon where all three theatrical releases were shown through the night at a cinema in Oxford, but this would be the ultimate test, with all the additional cut footage bringing each movie beyond four hours in length.

Watching the extended versions of the movies turned out to be quite a fun game of detective work, as various people chimed in as to whether this or that particular scene was 'in the original'. It also presented an interesting view into the movie editing process, particularly in scenes which had been retained, but where specific shots had been cut or edited. It is a pity that some scenes had to be cut out, particularly extended footage of the Shire at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring, and the Houses of Healing scene in the Return of the King. The scenes involving the Mouth of Sauron were also immensely cool. One scene which I was happy to see cut involved Aragon in the Halls of the Dead, and involved Aragon, Gimli and Legolas running for cover to avoid being inundated by cascading skulls. That was Peter Jackson at his most B grade horror kitsch.

I must thank Edward, Vernon and Karin for staying all the way through the whole night, and Rachel and Hiankai for coming for portions of it. There is nothing like watching the Lord of the Rings with a group of fellow Tolkien fans. It was also something to watch the three movies together, as a seamless whole, which they are undoubtedly meant to be. Now, I have to start working on the three DVDs of extras, commentary, interviews and other footage, which should be an adventure in itself!

Mom's 50th Birthday Party

It is a truism of course that you only turn fifty once (in fact that can be said for any particular age in your life), but celebrating a half century on earth is certainly a special occasion that calls for a huge celebration. Given my parents, and their ability to have fun, it was bound to be a memorable evening, as indeed it turned out to be.

The party was held at a small pub - Utopia 17 - near Chinatown which had been booked out specifically for the occasion. My dad had planned quite a few fun activities in advance, and among the festivities was a wonderfully creative lady that made balloon sculptures, a task where my mom had to find three people that matched her height, weight and waist size exactly, one where my dad has stuck five one thousand dollar bills in a glass bottle and my mom had to take them out, and finally a special salsa dance with a (supposedly) sexy dancer hired for the evening by Cat, a family friend.

The guests represented the diverse range of friends and acquaintances that my mom had accumulated over the years, including their current salsa group, a large group of clubbing buddies (both current and past), former students of my father's from way back (Jude, one of my dad's very first students), to the present (Grace and Luke), and indeed a former student that has since gone on to become a business professor as well (Brian). Some of my friends who have become well known to the family also came, notably Fergus, as well as Jasmine.

It turned out to be a very long evening indeed. After the club shut at 3am, the whole group ended up heading over to Dragonfly to continue in the revelry. We all ended up heading home at around 6am or so. The following afternoon was spent sorting through the gifts. Notable among them was the huge amount of alcohol - two bottles of whisky, one of martell, three bottles of champagne, and around eight bottles of wine. If we aren't already closet alcoholics we are well on are way to getting there given this haul! Grace and Luke were creative in giving my mom bird's nest (to be taken presumably the morning after big clubbing nights). So it was definitely a birthday to remember, even as 50th birthdays go.

Palin and Pregnancy

As if her announcement as the VP candidate wasn't cause for enough surprise. It has just been revealed that Sarah Palin's 17 year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant. Bristol has decided to keep the baby and will soon be marrying the father. Both the McCain and Obama camps have rightly pointed out that this is a private matter that should be left to the discretion of the Palin family.

It is unlikely that Palin's appeal to the social conservatives will be damaged by news of the pregnancy given the decision of her daughter not only to keep the baby but to marry the father.
What Bristol Palin's pregnancy is bound to do is highlight once again the enormously high teenage pregnancy rate in the United States. What it should do is raise questions about the role that social conservatives (and the policies they advocate) have to play in creating this situation.

America has a startlingly high rate of teenage pregnancies. According to statistics cited by the BBC, around 750,000 teenage American girls get pregnant every year. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that keeps tabs on such statistics has revealed that about one third of American girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Of these pregnancies, 80% are 'undesired' or 'occurring sooner than desired'. These are shocking statistics to say the least.

One reason that has been cited for the high teenage pregnancy rate is the social conservatives insistence on advocating abstinence only sex education, a policy supported by current President George W. Bush. Critics suggest that the statistics have shown that teaching abstinence is not only ineffective but socially irresponsible. The evidence suggests that a huge majority (around 90% or greater) of teenagers break abstinence only pledges, and worse of all, those who make such pledges are much less likely to use any form of birth control or protection when they do end up having sex.

Sarah Palin herself is a strong proponent of abstinence only sex education. In fact, she pledged during her campaign for governor that she would categorically refuse any funding for sex education programs in Alaska. To her, teenagers should be encouraged not to have sex, not how to protect themselves when and if they do. This is highly unfortunate given that Alaska has one of the highest teenage STD transmission rates in the whole of the United States. It does seem perverse that Governor Palin would withhold funding for a policy designed to give teenagers information that might help them to protect themselves from infectious diseases (besides unwanted pregnancy).

Bristol Palin's pregnancy is certainly not unique among American teenagers her age. Republicans are trying to present this as yet another instance where Palin has shown herself to fit the typical soccer mom image she identified herself with when accepting the nomination. That this pregnancy is so commonplace as to resonance with the average everyday American must be cause to cast light on Sarah Palin's policies on sex education.

Bristol is 17 years old, and she will soon find herself a mother, a role many would agree no 17 year old is really ready to face. The fact is that American teenage girls are sexually active, many at a relatively young age. It will be delusional, and more than that, irresponsible, for Sarah Palin to pretend otherwise.

Addendum: Nobody is questioning that the Palins gave Bristol all the support she needed when she found out she was pregnant. Still, feminists will be outraged at what to them is a shotgun marriage forced upon an unwitting 17-year old on the basis of throwback pre-women's liberation good as apple pie family values. There is of course also the possible influence that Sarah Palin, with her strongly avowed pro-life stance, had on her daughter with regards to keeping the pregnancy itself. Some commentators were highly bemused by the suggestion that Palin, a pro-life conservative, could win over Hilary Clinton supporters. There was little doubt she would really resonate with female voters. It was just a question whether the voters would delve deep enough to realize just how conservative she is. The pregnancy is bound to put that in the spotlight.

So 'Nice'

I had an English Literature teacher who absolutely banned the use of certain four letter words in his class. Contrary to what you might think, it was not the common swear words or expletives that would set him on edge it was the four letter words 'nice' and 'good'. He taught a class on practical criticism, so it was common for him to hand out poems, or extracts from plays, have us read it and then, inevitably ask us what we thought of the piece. The fastest way to draw his ire was to reply that you found the poem 'nice' or that the poet's use of language was 'good'.

The problem with saying that something is 'nice', particularly a poem, is that to a degree, you aren't really saying much of anything at all. 'Nice' and 'good' are words that have been more or less leached of any specific context or meaning to the point where they only express generalities. Saying that something is 'nice' probably gives it a certain sense of warm fuzziness, but in practical criticism, and I would argue for much of writing, what is needed is a greater degree of precision.

I was reminded of my English Lit teacher's one man war on 'nice' when I encountered this extract from Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey, which I am currently reading. Catherine Moreland, the main character of the story had just described a book she was reading as 'nice' only to be rather impertinently asked by her friend Henry Tilney if she meant its binding. When asked why she should not describe a book as nice if she finds it so, Tilney replies:

"Very true, and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! it is a very nice word indeed! - it does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement; - people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word"

I rather agree. Indeed, I could have hardly put it more nicely myself! Or perhaps, what I meant to say is I could not have put it more succintly, accurately, or comprehensively myself. So the end result of this post? Perhaps, using the word 'nice' is well, not so nice after all!

Saving Federer's Season

It has been a very disappointing year by the stratospheric standards of Roger Federer. Having won at least two grand slams in every year from 2004, he has yet to win a grand slam this year with just the US Open to go. He was humiliated by Nadal in the French Open final, and worst, lost to Nadal on his own turf at SW19 in an epic final that denied him the chance of a sixth consecutive Wimbledon title. He then crashed out to James Blake at the Olympics though he redeemed himself by winning a gold in the doubles for Switzerland. Then, immediately afterwards, he finally lost the world No.1 ranking for the first time in more than 200 weeks, a serious psychological blow enshrining Nadal formally as the top player in the world, something that had been apparent throughout the year in all but name.

But has this really been such a disastrous year for Roger Federer? Perhaps only because he is a victim of the inflated expectations that his dominance of men's tennis over the past three years has created. No wonder that he gets along so well with Tiger Woods. But in a sense, this year has been a disaster because of the very lofty expectations that Federer places on himself. He believes that he deserves to be and is the best player in the world. This isn't the case anymore. It used to be a question of whether Federer could overcome his hoodoo with Nadal at Roland Garros. Now Federer must be asking himself whether he can ever beat Nadal, on any surface, period.

Let's put things into perspective first with regards to the US Open. Federer has already won it an unprecedented four times in a row. Nobody has managed that since the great Bill Tilden in the 1920s and nobody has ever done it in the Open era. John McEnroe won three in a row and so did Ivan Lendl in the 1980s but Federer has already set the standard in terms of his recent dominance of the tournament (it remains to be seen if Federer can match Lendl's record of 8 consecutive finals). History suggests that Federer can't maintain this streak. The fact that he is supposedly having a bad year and is more vulnerable than he has been in a long while, seems to point to a Federer defeat.

Which is why I believe that Federer will win this year's US Open. What Federer has going for him is that the hardcourt (particularly at the Grand Slams) is probably Nadal's least favourite surface. His previous best showing was a QF defeat to Mikhail Youzhny in 2006, hardly a stellar record. However, Nadal's semifinal performance at the Australian Open earlier this year (where he was defeated by a truly inspired Jo-Wilfred Tsonga) gives an inkling of how much he has improved playing the high bounce hardcourts of the Grand Slams. While the Wimbledon defeat to Nadal was galling, it was not altogether a shock (more pundits had actually backed Nadal to win). Nadal had reached the previous two Wimbledon finals against Federer and had pushed him closer and closer each time. If Federer were to meet Nadal at the US Open (and this can only happen if they both reach the final) it would rank as a far bigger shock to me if he lost than the Wimbledon 'upset'. That defeat, were it to occur, would truly be the final shattering psychological blow, but I don't think it will.

In fact, I will go as far as to suggest that Federer's biggest threat will be Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals. The Serb is oozing with confidence (though less so after a disappointing Olympics and US Open run up) and defeated Federer at the Australian earlier this year en route to winning his first Slam. He is also a smooth operator on the hardcourts and this is his breakout year. Amidst all the hoopla and the struggles with Nadal, the talk of rising stars like Djokovic threatening the established order, it might be easy to forget one thing - Roger Federer is a winner. He is four time defending champion. My bet is at this US Open he will respond like a champion and restore his pride. Discount him at your own peril.