- A skin care regimen. C’mon guys, healthy complexions aren’t just for metrosexuals!: Not going to happen, and so far, not needed.
- A tasty signature dish he can whip up for a date: Cooking is useful but I'll learn it for myself. A signature dish would be cool.
- Respect for women as equals and not just as heads attached to boobs. Absolutely, as long as they don't behave like heads attached to boobs
- At least four good pairs of shoes: dressy, business casual, casual, exercise: There's a difference between exercise and casual? Just kidding. I'll have to work on this one comfortable shoes that fit me are tough.
- At least one friend who gives honest fashion advice I think I've found someone, but fashion advice is something you never get in too short a supply if you are me.
- A tailored suit Done. Just need more occasions to wear it! And with a bow tie too!
- A toolbox that includes: a hammer, screwdriver, wrench, nails, work gloves. I definitely need to improve on the handyman bit. No point having tools if you are clueless about how to use them. I CAN change a light bulb. I think.
- Enough clean underwear (no holes!) to get him through a week between laundry sessions. Yes, an absolute essential.
- Independence from his mama. Absolutely. Independence is good. From women. Period.
- The ability to ask for directions. You don't need to ask if you don't get lost!
- A great road map when there’s no one to ask. I don't drive, and you don't need road maps in Singapore. It's too small.
- A favorite cookbook. I'll have to work on understanding them first.
- A decent set of pots and pans. And knives. Never forget the knives.
- An emergency kit in the trunk of his car. Again, no car, so no worries.
- A hobby that does not include a television set or a 6-pack of beer. I will take this to be an active hobby that requires you to sweat. I'm thinking rock climbing.
- A trusted barber or hair stylist. This is a perennial problem. I need one that speaks in English, and will just give me a trendy easy maintain look that doesn't require me to put in much effort. Recommendations welcome.
- A pair of jeans that makes his butt look good. I think I do own a pair. Girls, feedback welcome on the latter bit.
- Jumper cables. Don't own a car, so not bothered.
- A driver’s license. I was close to getting one. Will go ahead and finish it.
- Always enough toilet paper. Obviously. Just don't expect me to put the toilet seat back up.... why can't you put it down if you need it?
- Sheets that don’t scratch.
- A nightstand that doesn’t say “Handle with care” on the side. Huh?
- A smile he uses generously. Use it too much and it loses its luster. I say reserve it for special occasions and special someones.
- At least one lamp that didn’t once belong in a dorm room.
- Enough confidence to approach someone he finds attractive. Always difficult, this.
- Enough sense not to use a cheesy pick-up line. (When in doubt, say “hello!”) I never do cheesy pick up lines. I only come up with sardonically witty retorts that nobody ever understands.
- A great razor. Being Chinese I have no regular need of one. That said, having tried to grow a mustache in my university days, I know how ridiculous I look with one.
- The beginning of a nest egg. Sigh. I wish.
- A place where everyone knows his name. I've got that. I am a firm believer in the local pub where everybody is friendly with everyone. That, and most of the second hand bookstores in Singapore.
- At least one sex move he’s received lots of positive feedback on. Errr, well. I couldn't possibly comment, could I?
21 May 2010
30 Things A Man Should Own Before 30
16 May 2010
A Host of Benefits
I was quite tickled by this. What helps to burn calories and increase your overall fitness, reduces the risk of heart disease, increases your immunity against influenza and the common cold, helps to reduce depression, and even gives you a better sense of smell? Of course benefits only accrue with sustained regular doses.
I'm sure that by now you have an inkling about what the answer to the above just might be. Appropriate warnings must be issued as with any form of drug or treatment: this particular one should only be administered with an individual in whom you have due care and trust. Thankfully there is low risk of an overdose. Might induce euphoria and temporary feelings of happiness and emotional dependence.
I'm sure that by now you have an inkling about what the answer to the above just might be. Appropriate warnings must be issued as with any form of drug or treatment: this particular one should only be administered with an individual in whom you have due care and trust. Thankfully there is low risk of an overdose. Might induce euphoria and temporary feelings of happiness and emotional dependence.
8 May 2010
British General Election
So it has come to be. Most of the media commentators had predicted a hung parliament, and I did as well. David Cameron needed a very big swing in his favour - almost all 80 odd marginals (with a 8 point swing to the Conservatives needed to gain the seat) and then somehow conjuring up another 30 odd seats from somewhere. While the Conservatives did well enough in winning back seats in their own heartlands of the South-West (and to a lesser extent the South-East) they failed singularly in making any significant dent in Scotland, much of a dent in Wales (though they did pick up 5 seats), and in any major urban area in the UK. While David Cameroon has made significant strides in a Conservative Party revival, the fact that his party still remains toxic to many voters and his failure to penetrate much into Labour strongholds is a significant cause of concern for his party.
If there was one advantage that Gordon Brown brought to this election, it was strangely enough his Scottishness, and it clearly showed. The Conservatives managed to retain their only seat in Scotland but made absolutely no inroads anywhere else, and all of the marginal Labour (and Lib Dem) seats there returned their MPs with larger majorities on the whole. It will be interesting to see how much of the poor showing in Scotland is down to genuine antipathy towards the Conservatives (as opposed to nationalistic support for Brown and former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy). The Scottish vote, with only 1 in 59 seats going Conservative, renews questions about devolution and the West Lochlian problem. The Conservatives would have a clear majority in Commons excluding Scotland and with a number of key bills in the Commons that do not pertain significantly to Scotland (Blair's raising of University tuition fees comes to mind) passed only due to Scottish MPs, this is an interesting constitutional question that has reared it head more significantly in the context of this election.
The Conservatives have always relied predominantly on the rural vote, but their inability to make almost any inroads in the cities and industrial areas in this election is still noteworthy. Apart from winning back the marginals in their Southern base such as Hove, Portsmouth North, Watford and Bristol, they were fairly unsuccessful in making much inroads into any of the Northern or North-Central cities. They did win Cardiff North, and took back Southampton, and succeeded in wresting Oxford West and Abingdon in a big swing away from the Lib Dems but even in the Southern heartlands the Conservatives embarrassingly lost Brighton Pavilion to the Greens and Eastbourne to the Lib Dems. In an election when they needed to win literally everything in the South West and South East, the fact that even Southern cities like Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Colchester and Bristol are fairly ambivalent in what should have been big Conservative wins, does not bode well for Cameroon and his party.
For the Lib Dems this election revealed that much of the hype surrounding them and their leader was merely just that - hype. Given the economic uncertainties and a deeply unpopular standing Government, the electorate was hardly likely to favour a third party, which despite Nick Clegg's rhethoric, was never remotely considered a credible party for Government. While in certain cases, anger against Labour translated into Lib Dem gains, the scalping of Charles Clarke a notable case, more often the Lib Dems also suffered from the anti-Labour backlash, particularly in the South-West and also in losing two significant MPs in Lembit Opik and Dr Evan Harris. Opik, certainly one of the most colourful characters in Parliament, found himself decapitated by the masterful conservative strategy of finding a plain spoken local Welshman to run against him in Montgomeryshire. A more stark contrast to the celebrity dating, chat show regular Opik would be hard to imagine.
My personal sympathies go out to Dr Harris. I voted for him in the last general election when I was a student living in Central Oxford. He was the victim of redistricting (which reduced the student vote he so relied on) in part, but his loss was still quite a shock. I certainly hope he runs for parliament again, and given the marginal loss he suffered (it went to a recount), one should not bet against him winning back his seat the next time around.
As for Labour, this is almost certainly the end of the road for Gordon Brown. In taking the most seats, and the popular vote, the Conservatives clearly have the mandate to govern, hung parliament or no. Given that the electorate had clearly turned against Labour, the best they could have hoped for was that the Conservatives would be prevented from attaining a clear victory, which is what transpired. Brown must almost certainly make way for someone else to be Leader of the Opposition, most likely David Milliband. Labour still maintain a big stranglehold on Scotland, Wales, the North West and most of the big cities (including large swathes of London) and with most of their power base intact, they will continue to be the other major player in UK politics. In many ways, the bigger threat to Labour might have been a major Lib Dem breakthrough, with the Lib Dems gaining 20 or even 30 seats and approaching the 100 seat mark. This would be similar to the situation with the rise of Labour and the decline of the Liberal Party at the turn of the last century. As it stands, Labour can regroup and bide its time as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
The fascinating question will be how the hung parliament will pan out. It is almost certain that the Conservatives will have to make common cause with the Lib Dems. They could just about form a majority with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and assorted Northern Irish parties, but it would not be a stable base for governing. Ruling with the Lib Dems could mean giving them cabinet positions and more vitally, giving ground on Lib Dem demands for more proportional representation in Parliament and some modification to the first past the post system. Once again, it has been shown that the first past the post system is not at all friendly to the third biggest party except in the case of hung parliaments where they tip the balance. As such, while this election has been a disaster for Nick Clegg in every other respect, in this one regard the Lib Dems have made their most significant stride in their party's history. How they use this opportunity will likely determine the next cabinet, and the future of the party itself.
If there was one advantage that Gordon Brown brought to this election, it was strangely enough his Scottishness, and it clearly showed. The Conservatives managed to retain their only seat in Scotland but made absolutely no inroads anywhere else, and all of the marginal Labour (and Lib Dem) seats there returned their MPs with larger majorities on the whole. It will be interesting to see how much of the poor showing in Scotland is down to genuine antipathy towards the Conservatives (as opposed to nationalistic support for Brown and former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy). The Scottish vote, with only 1 in 59 seats going Conservative, renews questions about devolution and the West Lochlian problem. The Conservatives would have a clear majority in Commons excluding Scotland and with a number of key bills in the Commons that do not pertain significantly to Scotland (Blair's raising of University tuition fees comes to mind) passed only due to Scottish MPs, this is an interesting constitutional question that has reared it head more significantly in the context of this election.
The Conservatives have always relied predominantly on the rural vote, but their inability to make almost any inroads in the cities and industrial areas in this election is still noteworthy. Apart from winning back the marginals in their Southern base such as Hove, Portsmouth North, Watford and Bristol, they were fairly unsuccessful in making much inroads into any of the Northern or North-Central cities. They did win Cardiff North, and took back Southampton, and succeeded in wresting Oxford West and Abingdon in a big swing away from the Lib Dems but even in the Southern heartlands the Conservatives embarrassingly lost Brighton Pavilion to the Greens and Eastbourne to the Lib Dems. In an election when they needed to win literally everything in the South West and South East, the fact that even Southern cities like Brighton, Portsmouth, Southampton, Colchester and Bristol are fairly ambivalent in what should have been big Conservative wins, does not bode well for Cameroon and his party.
For the Lib Dems this election revealed that much of the hype surrounding them and their leader was merely just that - hype. Given the economic uncertainties and a deeply unpopular standing Government, the electorate was hardly likely to favour a third party, which despite Nick Clegg's rhethoric, was never remotely considered a credible party for Government. While in certain cases, anger against Labour translated into Lib Dem gains, the scalping of Charles Clarke a notable case, more often the Lib Dems also suffered from the anti-Labour backlash, particularly in the South-West and also in losing two significant MPs in Lembit Opik and Dr Evan Harris. Opik, certainly one of the most colourful characters in Parliament, found himself decapitated by the masterful conservative strategy of finding a plain spoken local Welshman to run against him in Montgomeryshire. A more stark contrast to the celebrity dating, chat show regular Opik would be hard to imagine.
My personal sympathies go out to Dr Harris. I voted for him in the last general election when I was a student living in Central Oxford. He was the victim of redistricting (which reduced the student vote he so relied on) in part, but his loss was still quite a shock. I certainly hope he runs for parliament again, and given the marginal loss he suffered (it went to a recount), one should not bet against him winning back his seat the next time around.
As for Labour, this is almost certainly the end of the road for Gordon Brown. In taking the most seats, and the popular vote, the Conservatives clearly have the mandate to govern, hung parliament or no. Given that the electorate had clearly turned against Labour, the best they could have hoped for was that the Conservatives would be prevented from attaining a clear victory, which is what transpired. Brown must almost certainly make way for someone else to be Leader of the Opposition, most likely David Milliband. Labour still maintain a big stranglehold on Scotland, Wales, the North West and most of the big cities (including large swathes of London) and with most of their power base intact, they will continue to be the other major player in UK politics. In many ways, the bigger threat to Labour might have been a major Lib Dem breakthrough, with the Lib Dems gaining 20 or even 30 seats and approaching the 100 seat mark. This would be similar to the situation with the rise of Labour and the decline of the Liberal Party at the turn of the last century. As it stands, Labour can regroup and bide its time as Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
The fascinating question will be how the hung parliament will pan out. It is almost certain that the Conservatives will have to make common cause with the Lib Dems. They could just about form a majority with the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and assorted Northern Irish parties, but it would not be a stable base for governing. Ruling with the Lib Dems could mean giving them cabinet positions and more vitally, giving ground on Lib Dem demands for more proportional representation in Parliament and some modification to the first past the post system. Once again, it has been shown that the first past the post system is not at all friendly to the third biggest party except in the case of hung parliaments where they tip the balance. As such, while this election has been a disaster for Nick Clegg in every other respect, in this one regard the Lib Dems have made their most significant stride in their party's history. How they use this opportunity will likely determine the next cabinet, and the future of the party itself.
20 April 2010
Theological Questioning and Evil
At the prompting of a good friend, I am starting to revisit theological questions. Or more accurately, I am again look at religion and particularly theology from a philosophical perspective. My closer friends will know that I accept, to a fundamental degree, that the firm foundations of religious faith can never come from reason alone. I accept the need for Kierkegaard's "leap of faith". That said, any faith that is blind, that is reached without deep questioning and searching to me is fundamentally hollow, and perhaps even rotten, a soft center without any weight.
For me, one of the most difficult philosophical (let alone religious) problems that exist is the problem of evil. Not merely that there is evil in the world, but that it is often the completely innocent that suffer unjustly. Christianity though in particular has a much greater burden in relation to the problem of evil because they posit a God who is personal, whom you can seek comfort in, pray and talk to, who watches over each and every person just as he watches over the sparrow.
While a humanist can bite the bullet and say that injustice is often a brutal fact of a cold, uncaring world a religious person cannot. A volcano doesn't have intentions, nor an earthquake. It cares not for the fact that a town or a city or a school or tens of million people living nearby. But Christians cannot escape the question of how an all knowing, all powerful God could allow for those many thousands of innocents to die. Indeed, some psychologists have suggested that it is precisely in the fact of the inexplicable brutality of existence, in our need to find some kind of meaning in the very first place, that many turn to God as an answer.
As Peter Singer argues, I have never been able to find a satisfactory answer to this question short of saying that God's ways are unknowable, and any attempt by feeble human minds to understand God's intentions is akin to a monkey trying to grasp the depth and power of Shakespeare. I find this reply unsatisfactory. To begin with, the argument is circular. It attempts to argue that we are incapable of knowing God precisely by presupposing that God is omnipotent and omniscient as well as good, the very three things that seem incompatible together when we deal with unjust evil in the world. More damning for me is the denigration of reason. As I said earlier, any faith that I shall ever come to will be through constant thought, struggle and reflection. It is far far too easy, and correspondingly also too dangerous to just say God's reason is unknowable. Let us not seek to grapple or understand. Let us just accept.
Perhaps that is the crux of religion. Acceptance. Submission (which is the major tenant of Islam). Thy kingdom come they will be done, now and forever. Amen.
For me, one of the most difficult philosophical (let alone religious) problems that exist is the problem of evil. Not merely that there is evil in the world, but that it is often the completely innocent that suffer unjustly. Christianity though in particular has a much greater burden in relation to the problem of evil because they posit a God who is personal, whom you can seek comfort in, pray and talk to, who watches over each and every person just as he watches over the sparrow.
While a humanist can bite the bullet and say that injustice is often a brutal fact of a cold, uncaring world a religious person cannot. A volcano doesn't have intentions, nor an earthquake. It cares not for the fact that a town or a city or a school or tens of million people living nearby. But Christians cannot escape the question of how an all knowing, all powerful God could allow for those many thousands of innocents to die. Indeed, some psychologists have suggested that it is precisely in the fact of the inexplicable brutality of existence, in our need to find some kind of meaning in the very first place, that many turn to God as an answer.
As Peter Singer argues, I have never been able to find a satisfactory answer to this question short of saying that God's ways are unknowable, and any attempt by feeble human minds to understand God's intentions is akin to a monkey trying to grasp the depth and power of Shakespeare. I find this reply unsatisfactory. To begin with, the argument is circular. It attempts to argue that we are incapable of knowing God precisely by presupposing that God is omnipotent and omniscient as well as good, the very three things that seem incompatible together when we deal with unjust evil in the world. More damning for me is the denigration of reason. As I said earlier, any faith that I shall ever come to will be through constant thought, struggle and reflection. It is far far too easy, and correspondingly also too dangerous to just say God's reason is unknowable. Let us not seek to grapple or understand. Let us just accept.
Perhaps that is the crux of religion. Acceptance. Submission (which is the major tenant of Islam). Thy kingdom come they will be done, now and forever. Amen.
15 April 2010
Catholic Church, Abuse and Homosexuality
The degree to which the Catholic Church engaged in a systematic cover-up of the sex abuse cases which are now being revealed is certainly still contentious. What is not is the series of ill-advised, and in some cases downright insulting remarks that have issued from the Vatican revealing a Church very much on the defensive.
First, the Pope's very own personal pastor made an allusion to the current series of scandals being akin to the persecution of the Jews. That this comparison is inaccurate is self-evident, that it is thoughtless, and an insult to the 6 million Jews who lost their lives in the holocaust is even more so. Many of the victims of the holocaust lost their freedom, their livelihoods and ultimately their lives as a result of blind hatred and pure prejudice. To equate their plight with a Church that is under attack due to the abuse of trust and criminal behavior of admittedly a minority of its members is not just bad taste but horrendously wrong. It is insulting not only to the Jews, but to the actual victims of abuse, and a pathetic attempt to paint the Church as a victim, instead of having it as a body give a fully accounting and reckoning for what has happened.
This especially is the case as more and more victims of abuse come forward with testimony, and with more circumstantial evidence showing the culpability of senior members of the church, who if they did not actively attempt to cover-up or circumvent the truth, at least chose to do nothing, which is a form of culpability in and of itself. The fact that church has repeatedly insisted that this is a private matter that will be dealt with internally, like many other instances of Vatican bureaucratic secrecy, has increased speculation that the church has something to hide. In any other circumstance, individuals facing such allegations would have to come before the open court to face their charges. Some opaque form of internal censure surely is not sufficient given the age of many of the victims when the abuse occurred, the abuse of positions of trust and power of the perpetrators, and the heinous nature of many of the acts. Those suspected of pedophilia should be investigated, and if found guilty, jailed.
Worse still, a senior Bishop, effectively the second most powerful man in the Vatican, has come out with the accusation that pedophilia is inextricably linked to homosexuality. The irony is, in the context of the Church, this might very well be the case. That it is not so for the wider homosexual and transgender community may be testament to the lasting damage of the Church's outmoded stance on sex and sexuality.
That there is a link between pedophilia and homsexuality in the Catholic Church context, is ironically, very much due to the fact that taking up the robe is seen as a last resort to many individuals unable to reconcile their religious beliefs which condemns homosexual acts in any form, and their own innate tendencies. Facing the notion that their inclinations and desires are inherently wrong, they choose instead to renounce desire altogether, taking vows of chastity, hoping that purity can be found in abject self-denial.
I am not saying that all the pedophiles and sex abusers were homosexual, in fact, far from it, something that already shows the inaccuracy and plain idiocy of Cardinal Bertone's remarks. What is does serve to underline is that abject self-denial, which is in line with the Church's notion of the sexual act as a kind of impurity can be signficantly damaging if the repression results in systematic abuse. This leaving aside the psychological trauma faced by some of the clergy, particularly the homosexual ones in this form of repressive self-denial.
How ironic then that the current Pope was the author of the last major Catholic statement on homosexuality, which trots out the usual cliches on the matter. Violence against them is no doubt wrong, but we should never detract from its inherent wrongness. Homosexual inclinations itself is not a sin - presumably engaging in homosexual acts itself would constitue such, but it "is a strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil". Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Indeed, because it is a moral disorder, it prevents achieving personal fulfilment and happiness. As such "The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom". So, telling individuals that what many of them perceive (or feel) to be a fundamental part of their identity is an intrinsic evil they are extending the sphere of personal freedom. By condemning a whole group of individuals as intrinsically morally evil (and then stating that of course, they should still have our love), they are promoting their best interest. I struggle to see how.
Attempting to accept or condone homosexual beliefs is seen as seeking to undermine the Church. Those who represent the view of acceptance are ignoring the teaching of the Church. Supporting gay rights on grounds of equality is mistaken and an attempt at manipulation given that homosexuality "may threaten the lives and well-being of a great number of people". How exactly? By undermining the church?
In contrast, we have the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality, and indeed their views on sex in general including contraception. What harm has that done? Just ask the numerous victims who have been sexually abused by Catholic clergy in whom they had the utmost trust, and were often allowed to continually abuse young children systematically over an extended period of time. Just ask the young, confused homosexual men and women who are not able to reconcile their sexual identities with a faith that tells them they are inherently sinful. Tell that to an African woman who is infected with HIV because the Church tells her husband that using condoms is a moral wrong, and he uses that as an excuse to have unprotected sex with her. There is real harm, here. Harm that the Catholic Church must answer for. Harm that it can no longer deny and hide away. Harm that will not dissipate from feeble attempts to paint the church as a victim, or indeed as a bastion under siege.
First, the Pope's very own personal pastor made an allusion to the current series of scandals being akin to the persecution of the Jews. That this comparison is inaccurate is self-evident, that it is thoughtless, and an insult to the 6 million Jews who lost their lives in the holocaust is even more so. Many of the victims of the holocaust lost their freedom, their livelihoods and ultimately their lives as a result of blind hatred and pure prejudice. To equate their plight with a Church that is under attack due to the abuse of trust and criminal behavior of admittedly a minority of its members is not just bad taste but horrendously wrong. It is insulting not only to the Jews, but to the actual victims of abuse, and a pathetic attempt to paint the Church as a victim, instead of having it as a body give a fully accounting and reckoning for what has happened.
This especially is the case as more and more victims of abuse come forward with testimony, and with more circumstantial evidence showing the culpability of senior members of the church, who if they did not actively attempt to cover-up or circumvent the truth, at least chose to do nothing, which is a form of culpability in and of itself. The fact that church has repeatedly insisted that this is a private matter that will be dealt with internally, like many other instances of Vatican bureaucratic secrecy, has increased speculation that the church has something to hide. In any other circumstance, individuals facing such allegations would have to come before the open court to face their charges. Some opaque form of internal censure surely is not sufficient given the age of many of the victims when the abuse occurred, the abuse of positions of trust and power of the perpetrators, and the heinous nature of many of the acts. Those suspected of pedophilia should be investigated, and if found guilty, jailed.
Worse still, a senior Bishop, effectively the second most powerful man in the Vatican, has come out with the accusation that pedophilia is inextricably linked to homosexuality. The irony is, in the context of the Church, this might very well be the case. That it is not so for the wider homosexual and transgender community may be testament to the lasting damage of the Church's outmoded stance on sex and sexuality.
That there is a link between pedophilia and homsexuality in the Catholic Church context, is ironically, very much due to the fact that taking up the robe is seen as a last resort to many individuals unable to reconcile their religious beliefs which condemns homosexual acts in any form, and their own innate tendencies. Facing the notion that their inclinations and desires are inherently wrong, they choose instead to renounce desire altogether, taking vows of chastity, hoping that purity can be found in abject self-denial.
I am not saying that all the pedophiles and sex abusers were homosexual, in fact, far from it, something that already shows the inaccuracy and plain idiocy of Cardinal Bertone's remarks. What is does serve to underline is that abject self-denial, which is in line with the Church's notion of the sexual act as a kind of impurity can be signficantly damaging if the repression results in systematic abuse. This leaving aside the psychological trauma faced by some of the clergy, particularly the homosexual ones in this form of repressive self-denial.
How ironic then that the current Pope was the author of the last major Catholic statement on homosexuality, which trots out the usual cliches on the matter. Violence against them is no doubt wrong, but we should never detract from its inherent wrongness. Homosexual inclinations itself is not a sin - presumably engaging in homosexual acts itself would constitue such, but it "is a strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil". Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Indeed, because it is a moral disorder, it prevents achieving personal fulfilment and happiness. As such "The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom". So, telling individuals that what many of them perceive (or feel) to be a fundamental part of their identity is an intrinsic evil they are extending the sphere of personal freedom. By condemning a whole group of individuals as intrinsically morally evil (and then stating that of course, they should still have our love), they are promoting their best interest. I struggle to see how.
Attempting to accept or condone homosexual beliefs is seen as seeking to undermine the Church. Those who represent the view of acceptance are ignoring the teaching of the Church. Supporting gay rights on grounds of equality is mistaken and an attempt at manipulation given that homosexuality "may threaten the lives and well-being of a great number of people". How exactly? By undermining the church?
In contrast, we have the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality, and indeed their views on sex in general including contraception. What harm has that done? Just ask the numerous victims who have been sexually abused by Catholic clergy in whom they had the utmost trust, and were often allowed to continually abuse young children systematically over an extended period of time. Just ask the young, confused homosexual men and women who are not able to reconcile their sexual identities with a faith that tells them they are inherently sinful. Tell that to an African woman who is infected with HIV because the Church tells her husband that using condoms is a moral wrong, and he uses that as an excuse to have unprotected sex with her. There is real harm, here. Harm that the Catholic Church must answer for. Harm that it can no longer deny and hide away. Harm that will not dissipate from feeble attempts to paint the church as a victim, or indeed as a bastion under siege.
14 April 2010
Interesting Puzzle
I am glad that I rushed down to take part in the Brewerkz pub quiz after ringing Jake up mainly because we managed to win, with a team of just four people. That worked out to a cool 80 over dollars per person on the night, which was quite wonderful. I also won a free beer to boot after betting with Jake that Yokohama was the second largest city in terms of population in Japan after Tokyo, though Jake rightly pointed out that much of that depended on things like how you defined city and metropolitan limits.
I ended up having a long chat with the quiz masters afterwards, and it turned out that one of them was a banker, dealing with derivitives and thus analytical by nature. His background in gambling actually helped a great deal, at least in terms of securing him his job, because some of the interview questions were actually based on logic and probability. He challenged us with two specific puzzles which I only fully worked out afterwards, and it makes enormous intuitive sense, I thought I would share them.
The first puzzle involved a game of chance with a die. Let us say that you will pay in cash the amount equivalent to the die roll (e.g. if it lands on a six, the person wins six dollars). What price should you make a person pay in order to compete in the game? The answer is derived by using simple math. First, there is an equal probability of each outcome (the die landing on any number from one to six). So the average payout can be calculated by taking the total payout in each individual outcome (i.e. $1 in the case of die roll 1, $2, in the case of die roll 2) and dividing it by 6. So what you get is $1+$2+$3+$4+$5+$6= $21 in total, dividing by 6 gives you $3.50. So you should charge at a very minimum $3.50 for a roll.
He then added a more challenging twist. Say you give the gambler a chance at a second roll of the die. The number that then comes up on the second roll is the payout will be given (i.e. if you roll 3 on the first go and 2 on the second, the payout is $2). What price would you set for a person to compete in this 2 roll game? Would it be the same as in the first case, more expensive, or less expensive?
The answer of course is that you have to set it more expensive. Calculating the exact amount is a matter of logically predicting the behaviour of the gambler. To begin with, the gambler will not re-roll unless he has a even or better chance of improving his payout. Because there is always a risk that he will throw lower the second time around. So the gambler will probably hold if he rolls 4,5 or 6 the first time, and re-roll if he rolls 1,2,3. If he re-rolls the scenario exactly mirrors the first one above. However, given that the gambler has the option of holding on a high number and improving his payout on a low one, it logically means that the price has to be set higher.
How to calculate this? Very simple, first deal with the first roll which has a payout of 4+5+6 divided by 3 which is 5 - the gambler will re-roll otherwise. As calculated above, the average payout on a second roll (should the gambler roll 1,2 or 3) is 3.5. So the price set for a gambler to take part in this second game is the average of these two which is 8.5 divided by 2 which is 4.25. So you should make someone pay $4.25 in order to take part in the double roll game.
I ended up having a long chat with the quiz masters afterwards, and it turned out that one of them was a banker, dealing with derivitives and thus analytical by nature. His background in gambling actually helped a great deal, at least in terms of securing him his job, because some of the interview questions were actually based on logic and probability. He challenged us with two specific puzzles which I only fully worked out afterwards, and it makes enormous intuitive sense, I thought I would share them.
The first puzzle involved a game of chance with a die. Let us say that you will pay in cash the amount equivalent to the die roll (e.g. if it lands on a six, the person wins six dollars). What price should you make a person pay in order to compete in the game? The answer is derived by using simple math. First, there is an equal probability of each outcome (the die landing on any number from one to six). So the average payout can be calculated by taking the total payout in each individual outcome (i.e. $1 in the case of die roll 1, $2, in the case of die roll 2) and dividing it by 6. So what you get is $1+$2+$3+$4+$5+$6= $21 in total, dividing by 6 gives you $3.50. So you should charge at a very minimum $3.50 for a roll.
He then added a more challenging twist. Say you give the gambler a chance at a second roll of the die. The number that then comes up on the second roll is the payout will be given (i.e. if you roll 3 on the first go and 2 on the second, the payout is $2). What price would you set for a person to compete in this 2 roll game? Would it be the same as in the first case, more expensive, or less expensive?
The answer of course is that you have to set it more expensive. Calculating the exact amount is a matter of logically predicting the behaviour of the gambler. To begin with, the gambler will not re-roll unless he has a even or better chance of improving his payout. Because there is always a risk that he will throw lower the second time around. So the gambler will probably hold if he rolls 4,5 or 6 the first time, and re-roll if he rolls 1,2,3. If he re-rolls the scenario exactly mirrors the first one above. However, given that the gambler has the option of holding on a high number and improving his payout on a low one, it logically means that the price has to be set higher.
How to calculate this? Very simple, first deal with the first roll which has a payout of 4+5+6 divided by 3 which is 5 - the gambler will re-roll otherwise. As calculated above, the average payout on a second roll (should the gambler roll 1,2 or 3) is 3.5. So the price set for a gambler to take part in this second game is the average of these two which is 8.5 divided by 2 which is 4.25. So you should make someone pay $4.25 in order to take part in the double roll game.
11 April 2010
Singapore Live Music
I was invited by a friend to attend a free live gig at the Esplanade outdoor open stage this evening. It was a metal gig, and though it is not one of my favourite popular music genres - I prefer alternative and rock - I thought I might give it a go. She was going because her cousin was a guest musician playing back-up guitar.
There are often complaints in Singapore about the lack of any kind of independent music scene here, complaints that I increasingly find are thoroughly unjustified. It is an undeniable fact that the live music you get in most commercial bars and pubs consists of nothing more than cover bands, but I am increasingly learning of what a vibrant original music scene Singapore actually possess. Beyond our ability to manufacture Taiwanese pop divas, we have interesting bands that play stuff on the edges (metal, grunge, rap) many of whom are more than decent.
I love the feel of live music, the evident passion of many of the fans. The concert was fairly dead though until to the amusement, surprise and general gawking disbelief of everyone, an old uncle, dressed in classic striped short sleeve shirt got up and started head bobbing, doing air guitar and generally just prancing around. Singapore never ceases to surprise. Seeing him along with some of his old uncle friends attending a metal gig was already cause for much surprise - seeing him mimic a riff on an imaginary guitar, that was just thrilling and completely out of the blue.
There are often complaints in Singapore about the lack of any kind of independent music scene here, complaints that I increasingly find are thoroughly unjustified. It is an undeniable fact that the live music you get in most commercial bars and pubs consists of nothing more than cover bands, but I am increasingly learning of what a vibrant original music scene Singapore actually possess. Beyond our ability to manufacture Taiwanese pop divas, we have interesting bands that play stuff on the edges (metal, grunge, rap) many of whom are more than decent.
I love the feel of live music, the evident passion of many of the fans. The concert was fairly dead though until to the amusement, surprise and general gawking disbelief of everyone, an old uncle, dressed in classic striped short sleeve shirt got up and started head bobbing, doing air guitar and generally just prancing around. Singapore never ceases to surprise. Seeing him along with some of his old uncle friends attending a metal gig was already cause for much surprise - seeing him mimic a riff on an imaginary guitar, that was just thrilling and completely out of the blue.
26 January 2010
Burns Night
Robbie Burn's legacy certainly lives on, from renditions of Auld Lang Syne (which incidentally means Old Long Way) every New Year's Eve, and more quixotically, in the celebration of Scottishness that accompanies the anniversary of his birth every year. I had never celebrated a Burns night before, despite being a part of innumerable other random British and Oxford traditions, from singing in the spring on May day morning, to wearing suits to exams. This was something I was keen to rectify so I jumped at the chance of attending a Burns night celebration at the Shoe.
And what good fun it was. The place was bedecked in tartan and of course with Scottish saltires, courtesy of the St Andrew's society of Singapore. The bar staff wore kilts, and there was the obligatory piper. The most fascinating part of the Burns night tradition is a ceremonial procession honouring the haggis, where it is marched in to the sound of pipes. There is then a traditional address to the haggis, usually in the form of Burns' famous poem, read out preferably in full Scottish brogue.
Everyone was given free haggis with neaps and tatties (which I found to my disappointment was no more exciting than potato and turnip). A bottle of Macallan whisky was raffled out and the winner generously decided to share it around. I am told that the best way to accompany a haggis is with a single malt - it probably helps to mask the taste!
In the spirit of Burn's night I thought I would mention some bits of Scottish trivia. Apparently, it is a tradition that real Scottish men don't wear anything under their kilt. Perhaps the idea though is to keep everyone guessing. As a member of the Scottish parliament said: "The mystery of what a true Scotsman wears under his kilt is as big a part of our culture as the Loch Ness Monster". Perhaps the best way to find out? Find a kilt wearing Scotsman and ask him to show you!
And what good fun it was. The place was bedecked in tartan and of course with Scottish saltires, courtesy of the St Andrew's society of Singapore. The bar staff wore kilts, and there was the obligatory piper. The most fascinating part of the Burns night tradition is a ceremonial procession honouring the haggis, where it is marched in to the sound of pipes. There is then a traditional address to the haggis, usually in the form of Burns' famous poem, read out preferably in full Scottish brogue.
Everyone was given free haggis with neaps and tatties (which I found to my disappointment was no more exciting than potato and turnip). A bottle of Macallan whisky was raffled out and the winner generously decided to share it around. I am told that the best way to accompany a haggis is with a single malt - it probably helps to mask the taste!
In the spirit of Burn's night I thought I would mention some bits of Scottish trivia. Apparently, it is a tradition that real Scottish men don't wear anything under their kilt. Perhaps the idea though is to keep everyone guessing. As a member of the Scottish parliament said: "The mystery of what a true Scotsman wears under his kilt is as big a part of our culture as the Loch Ness Monster". Perhaps the best way to find out? Find a kilt wearing Scotsman and ask him to show you!
12 January 2010
New Year's Greetings
This is rather rather late, but better late than never. So to all my friends, and to the (seemingly non-existent) readers of this blog, I offer my New Year's greetings:
May you live in adventure and mystery, in the warm glow of enchantment, and the thrill and fright of shadowy things. Read books that are good, and wise, that make you laugh and cry. May you kiss someone you love, and perhaps more importantly, be kissed by someone who loves you. Catch a snowflake or moonbeam, delight in the inconsequential. Most of all, find something not quite happiness somewhere in between rapture and joy.
[As inspired by Neil Gaiman]
May you live in adventure and mystery, in the warm glow of enchantment, and the thrill and fright of shadowy things. Read books that are good, and wise, that make you laugh and cry. May you kiss someone you love, and perhaps more importantly, be kissed by someone who loves you. Catch a snowflake or moonbeam, delight in the inconsequential. Most of all, find something not quite happiness somewhere in between rapture and joy.
[As inspired by Neil Gaiman]
10 January 2010
700 Sundays
700 Sundays| Billy Crystal
Those used to the name dropping and revelations that are a staple of celebrity biographies will be pleasantly surprised by this book, a quietly humourous portrait of Billy Crystal's family which ends just as he begins his ascent to Hollywood fame. The book covers Crystal's childhood as part of an extended Jewish family growing up on Long Island, centering on his relationship with his father, and delving into his three abiding passions in life - baseball, dixieland big band jazz, and what would eventually bring him fame and riches, stand up comedy.
The book had its impetus in a Broadway show, which won a Tony award, and it is easy to see its roots. The advantage is the powerfully authentic and often personal voice that comes out of many of the pages. You can almost audibly hear in your head Crystal's famous voice doing his shtick. The drawback stems from the same source: for however good it translates to prose, many parts of the book begs to be performed. You want to see him work the crowd and do the physical expressions that are fundamental to some of the portraits in the book. A number of jokes in the early part of the book fall particularly foul of the translation from theater hall to the page, in particular a re-enactment of his very own circumcision, which might have worked with Billy charm and sense of comic timing but doesn't seem that funny inked out.
What a family Billy had though. The stories abound, from his Uncle Milt founding the famous Commodore Records which meant that the young Billy had personal interactions with a whole slew of jazz musicians, both famous and forgotten. Indeed, it was Billie Holiday who took a young Crystal to watch his first movie, and Billy's grandmother decided to give Louis Armstrong a hilarious piece of advice when Louis visited the family, which Armstrong thankfully didn't take. Billy's father eventually came to work for Milt and helped in the running of the record business as well as staging jazz performances and dances, and the result is a wonderful portrait of the grandeur and sophisticated charm of big band dixieland jazz in its heyday.
A particularly powerful portrait from the book, one that is easily overlooked, comes in the third chapter which takes the form of an extended one way phone conversation between a favourite aunt and her friend in which she reveals, complete with numerous asides and digressions, her coming to terms with her daughter being lesbian, and the brave decision she made to attend her daughter's wedding. It was an utterly authentic, real and moving portrait of everyday domestic bravery which deserves to be celebrated.
One of Billy's big passions is baseball and this is well represented in the short book, from his first visit to Yankee stadium, which began a life long love affair, to numerous household games with his two older brothers where they played out entire imaginary games, including their very own backyard World Series. One of Billy's abiding memories of the 700 Sundays he spent with his father is his dad patiently teaching him the fundamentals of baseball, and Billy finally mastering a way to hit his father's wicked curveball, all of which served him well when he managed to win a baseball scholarship to College.
It was also Billy's father, along with an utterly hilarious Uncle called Berns who had a special talent for accents and mimicry which an inspired Billy soon adopted, who initiated Billy's love of comedy. Billy used to perform jokes (often boardering on the inappropriate and sometimes scandalous) copied from stand up acts he had seen, at large Crystal family gatherings. Thankfully, the extended family not only has the grace not to take offence at the gall of the young budding comedian, but actually laughed uproariously.
Tragedy was to strike when Crystal was 15, when his father died of a heart-attack during a weekly bowling game, following some angry words with Billy, leaving his son both heartbroken and guilty. The rest of the book is probably the weakest section, tapering off with largely narrative sections depicting Crystal dealing with his grief, meeting and falling in love with his future wife (which strangely seems a bit dead and lacking much sparkle), and eventually ending with the death of his mother.
700 Sundays is a short volume, but is an enormous surprise as celebrity autobiographies go. This is a funny, moving portrait of an All-American family that is equal parts laugh out loud hilarious and poignant. It certainly deserves to be read, and if you are so lucky, perhaps even seen.
Grade: B+
Those used to the name dropping and revelations that are a staple of celebrity biographies will be pleasantly surprised by this book, a quietly humourous portrait of Billy Crystal's family which ends just as he begins his ascent to Hollywood fame. The book covers Crystal's childhood as part of an extended Jewish family growing up on Long Island, centering on his relationship with his father, and delving into his three abiding passions in life - baseball, dixieland big band jazz, and what would eventually bring him fame and riches, stand up comedy.
The book had its impetus in a Broadway show, which won a Tony award, and it is easy to see its roots. The advantage is the powerfully authentic and often personal voice that comes out of many of the pages. You can almost audibly hear in your head Crystal's famous voice doing his shtick. The drawback stems from the same source: for however good it translates to prose, many parts of the book begs to be performed. You want to see him work the crowd and do the physical expressions that are fundamental to some of the portraits in the book. A number of jokes in the early part of the book fall particularly foul of the translation from theater hall to the page, in particular a re-enactment of his very own circumcision, which might have worked with Billy charm and sense of comic timing but doesn't seem that funny inked out.
What a family Billy had though. The stories abound, from his Uncle Milt founding the famous Commodore Records which meant that the young Billy had personal interactions with a whole slew of jazz musicians, both famous and forgotten. Indeed, it was Billie Holiday who took a young Crystal to watch his first movie, and Billy's grandmother decided to give Louis Armstrong a hilarious piece of advice when Louis visited the family, which Armstrong thankfully didn't take. Billy's father eventually came to work for Milt and helped in the running of the record business as well as staging jazz performances and dances, and the result is a wonderful portrait of the grandeur and sophisticated charm of big band dixieland jazz in its heyday.
A particularly powerful portrait from the book, one that is easily overlooked, comes in the third chapter which takes the form of an extended one way phone conversation between a favourite aunt and her friend in which she reveals, complete with numerous asides and digressions, her coming to terms with her daughter being lesbian, and the brave decision she made to attend her daughter's wedding. It was an utterly authentic, real and moving portrait of everyday domestic bravery which deserves to be celebrated.
One of Billy's big passions is baseball and this is well represented in the short book, from his first visit to Yankee stadium, which began a life long love affair, to numerous household games with his two older brothers where they played out entire imaginary games, including their very own backyard World Series. One of Billy's abiding memories of the 700 Sundays he spent with his father is his dad patiently teaching him the fundamentals of baseball, and Billy finally mastering a way to hit his father's wicked curveball, all of which served him well when he managed to win a baseball scholarship to College.
It was also Billy's father, along with an utterly hilarious Uncle called Berns who had a special talent for accents and mimicry which an inspired Billy soon adopted, who initiated Billy's love of comedy. Billy used to perform jokes (often boardering on the inappropriate and sometimes scandalous) copied from stand up acts he had seen, at large Crystal family gatherings. Thankfully, the extended family not only has the grace not to take offence at the gall of the young budding comedian, but actually laughed uproariously.
Tragedy was to strike when Crystal was 15, when his father died of a heart-attack during a weekly bowling game, following some angry words with Billy, leaving his son both heartbroken and guilty. The rest of the book is probably the weakest section, tapering off with largely narrative sections depicting Crystal dealing with his grief, meeting and falling in love with his future wife (which strangely seems a bit dead and lacking much sparkle), and eventually ending with the death of his mother.
700 Sundays is a short volume, but is an enormous surprise as celebrity autobiographies go. This is a funny, moving portrait of an All-American family that is equal parts laugh out loud hilarious and poignant. It certainly deserves to be read, and if you are so lucky, perhaps even seen.
Grade: B+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
