30 Before 30

There is something about turning thirty. One remembers the number of great rock musicians who have died before they are thirty: Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Jimmi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Buddy Holly. Einstein came up with his major theoretical breakthroughs a few years before his thirtieth birthday. Newton revolutionized physics before that age. By thirty, most great sportsmen are seen to be on the decline, be they footballers, basketball players or tennis players.

When you approach thirty, there is palpable sense that you should have achieved something, come close to establishing yourself. If not securing some little nest egg, then at least deciding what you are going to do with the remaining fifty years you have on this planet. This makes this particular turning point ripe in significance (and for a existential crisis). This has led to an online trend for creating a mini bucket list of things to do, loosely, thirty before thirty.

I am probably being premature about this, but I thought I would start early. All too often people begin this existential soul searching after they cross their 29th birthday, and the tasks they set themselves are a little on the frivolous side (e.g. go sky diving, visit the Pyramids, bake a pumpkin pie!). This is certainly important, but I also wanted concrete (and even occasionally difficult) goals which might take longer than a few months to achieve. Doing 30 things in a short space of time is difficult, giving myself the better part of two years to do so enables me to set harder tasks.

There weren't many ground rules for coming up with the 30 things. The first is, unlike normal new year resolutions they should not be merely aspirational. There should be a degree of achievability. So no vague resolutions of wanting to exercise more. Stating something like, I want to learn how to be proficient in rock climbing, on the other hand, is more specific, and something that can clearly be attained.

Many of the items on the list were things that I have been meaning to do for awhile. The hope is that setting them down in a concrete way will give me the added motivation to actively pursue them.

In no particular order, the thirty things are:

1. Obtain a place in a Phd program and choose a specific field of study at an overseas university
   
2. Learn the basics of English grammar and linguistics
3. Complete a short collection of essays or similar literary endeavour (and attempt to publish it)
   
4. Master a third language to at least basic conversational level (or improve mandarin to such a level)
   
5. Develop an understanding of film theory, film criticism and practical film making
   
6. Create a wardrobe that is comprehensive, fairly stylish, and most importantly one that I am comfortable with
7. Create and maintain a website
8. Blog regularly (4-5 posts a month)
   
9. Host a formal dinner party in which the dishes are all prepared by me
10. Learn how to cook basic dishes and to be comfortable in a kitchen
    
11. Keep a monthly budget and manage finances closely
12. Learn about investing, stocks and shares and create a portfolio (however meager)
    
13. Climb another mountain (at least Kinabalu, preferably Kilimanjaro)
    
14. Master the basics of rock climbing
15. Open a really expensive bottle of wine and share it with some close friends
16. Obtain a driver's license
    
17. Finish watching a list of 50 classic films (see list in another blog post)
    
18. Read twenty classic works of literature (see list in another blog post)
19. Finish in the Top 100 of the World Quizzing Championships
20. Make a return trip to the UK, catch up with old friends, watch Wimbledon, visit Hay-on-Wye (for the literary festival)
21. Write regular film/theater/book reviews and attempt to parlay this into a freelance position
    
22. 
    
23. 
    

As you can tell this list is still a work in progress. Suggestions for the remaining things to accomplish are more than welcome.

A Million Words and Counting

A Million Word and Counting
by Paul Payack
Citadel Press, 2008

There have been innumerable books and articles on the notion that English has become the global language, the international language of business and the chosen medium of cross-cultural communication. Much has been made of how globalizing forces has cemented English's status as the lingua franca (perhaps lingua anglia?) - the majority of web pages and blogs are published in English, hundreds of millions of people around the globe want to learn it and it is the only feasible medium of exchange either in the corridors of power in Brussels or when a Chinese investor attempts to seal a deal in Africa (and vice versa).

Paul Payack, a self-styled word maven has shown a penchant for self-promotion when his site, the Global Language Monitor claimed to have found the millionth word in English. As many linguistic scholars have already pointed out, such as David Crystal, the doyen of word popularizers, the very exercise was a "load of rubbish". It became more so when the millionth word turned out to be the completely insipid choice of "Web 2.0", a selection made more out of self-interest and one that hardly fulfills the goals of highlighting the "diversity and dynamic growth of English" that was the supposed aim of the whole exercise.

This book turns out to be a prelude to all the needless hoopla. Payack claims himself not merely to be a word maven but a trivia fiend, and these qualities are on display here. He gives us numerous lists and groups of facts, no doubt culled from the archives of the Global Language Monitor. What he is forgotten is the basic principle that lists (and reams of trivia) are never interesting in themselves, but only hold value if they are relevant, and are fascinating only when they are out of the ordinary and not completely mundane.

What this book primarily consists of is groups and lists of English words organized according to various topics such as 'the silver screen', television' and 'celebrities' (including a random list of weird celebrity children names), most of which are pointless and mundane. A list of Top 25 'Bushisms' is hardly original though at least randomly funny. I hardly need a book like his to tell me that the top phrases associated with Hurricane Katrina were "disaster, catastrophe, apocalypse and end of the world" among others; nor was his Katrina word explainer really illuminating: explaining what cajun is was interesting, but do I really need a defintion of 'search and rescue', or 'superdome' or 'recovery' or 'sandbag'? Similarly, I nearly fell out of my chair in surprise and shock when he listed the frequently used tech words of 2007 as 'iPod, nano, cookie, megahertz, plasma, and blu-ray', among others.

The biggest disappointment is that when Payack veers away from the mundane, which is rare enough, he fails to go beyond listing various words and phrases to explaining how they might come about. So as an example, it was interesting to me that in Finnish English a "noobie" is a slang word for a rookie, or in Polish English "thanks for the mountain" roughly means thank you in advance. The problem is, Payack never does explain in any kind of detail how these terms might have come about, something that was supremely unsatisfying.

Worse is when Payack inundates us with completey pointless lists of facts, often without ever revealing their significance. So he gives us a list of the Top 25 Fashion Cities based on his company's predictive quantities indicator, saying that it is "surprising" but failing to reveal how he came by this list at all. More pointless are lists of every country and its capital city, or the names of powers of ten up to a googolplex and other reams of random information that anyone could probably find in an almanac. Within the random lists there are some nuggets that I found of genuine interest, such as a list of countries without a national language (now that is certainly something that never crossed my mind), but it was rather tiring sorting through all the chaff.

In sum, Payack's book is a disappointment in a field already chock full of books celebrating the rise of English as a global language. With such a broad and fascinating subject area, what is truly is amazing is that Payack has produced a book that contains so much that is insipid. Rather like Web 2.0 if you ask me. Global English, in all its varied diversity certainly deserves better.

World Quizzing Championships 2010

As my friends will know, I am a huge fan of all things trivia and quiz related, so one of the highlights of my year is the World Quizzing Championships. This year marked the second time that I officially took part in the competition - I had previously been a competitor in 2006 while studying in England, deciding to make the trip to Cardiff (where it was held) despite the fact that my final PPE exam was just two days later. That experience, as well as trying out the 2008 and 2009 sets of questions underlined that the World Quizzing Championships provides high quality but extremely challenging questions.

I had planned to take part in the quiz in Manila, and the Philippines itself has the strongest quizzing culture in Southeast Asia (though a distant second in Asia to the quiz mad Indians) but I ended up organizing a small leg of the competition in Singapore instead (Malaysia also has a tiny leg with around 2-3 competitors). In the end, we held the Singapore leg at The Yard, a small quiet British pub on River Valley Road (with claims to be the oldest British pub in Singapore). Joining me in this trivia madness was Jake, an American friend of mine who has partnered me in many quizzes in the past, and Kenneth, whom I met at the weekly quiz at Brewerkz and who hopes to take part in College Bowl quizzes in America, where he is headed to study.

A bit on the rules of the competition. Basically, there are eight categories - Culture, Lifestyle, Media, Entertainment, Sport and Games, World, History, and Science. They are divided at random into two parts of four categories each. There are 30 questions in each category for a total of 240 overall. The quiz is done individually, with no conferring, and competitors get an hour for each part. Their total score is tabulated by dropping their worst category and adding together the scores for the remaining seven, for a maximum total of 210 points. If scores are tied the person with the higher score in their worst category is ranked first.

What makes the quiz very tough is the quality and difficulty of the questions and the question of speed. Having 1 hour for 4 categories works out to 60 minutes for 120 questions or 30 seconds per question including reading the question itself, trying to recall the answer (or in some cases trying to work it out) and of course trying not to second guess yourself. The questions are often much tougher than your average pub quiz. All in all it makes for quite a challenge.

I set myself a number of goals for this year's quiz. First, I hoped to crack 100 points. Seemingly modest considering that the highest possible score was 210 (eight categories of 30 questions each, with the lowest scoring category disregarded), so surely scoring 50% or 105 should be a easy right? I knew from past experience that attaining even 15 in any category was a major challenge though I did hope to break 100 and if possible score 50%.

Besides that, I hoped to be the top scoring competitor in Southeast Asia. For that reason, I had hoped to fly over to the Philippines, where the best competitors are to take part there. It would also be a good opportunity to meet other quizzers which would have been nice.

In the end, I accomplished neither. I ended up with a respectable 98 points, good enough for a 127th in the world. A Filipino quizzer by the name of Leonard Gapol scored an even 100 to beat me by a mere 2 points. To break the top 100, a score of 105 was needed (which was coincidentally exactly half the marks). To put the result in perspective, there were over 1200 competitors taking part in this year's WQC, so my placing puts me just fractionally outside the top 10%. Not bad, even if I failed to accomplish my two other targets.

As for the questions, I was particularly proud because I didn't drop that many questions and managed to work out those that I knew I knew but took some time remembering. In my case it was the British fashion designer that committed suicide (Alexander McQueen), the French city where there was an alternative papacy (Avignon), the standard measurement of distance in Ancient China (the li) or the very young British diver who one of the youngest competitors at the Beijing Olypics (Tom Daley). In a quiz of this difficulty there is nothing more irksome that to have an answer at the tip of a brain which you can't quite pull out.

Of the ones that got away I should have gotten the clue to the Tuileries Gardens in Paris (mixed it up with the Luxembourg Gardens), and a music clip clue from the musical Hairspray, but there weren't that many dropped points for me in this particular quiz.

This turned out to be especially important this year as it was a fairly tough quiz compared to the ones in 2008 and 2009. I struggled on Sciences (which includes the Social Sciences), which was expected, but I didn't even manage a score of 10 in History, which is surprising, given it is a subject I am normally quite decent at. In the end I managed 19 in Media, 16 in Sport and Culture, 14 in Entertainment, 13 in Lifestyle, 11 in World, 9 in History and 8 in Science. Here's to more quizzing and a better score next year!

30 Things A Man Should Own Before 30

1. A skin care regimen. C’mon guys, healthy complexions aren’t just for metrosexuals!: Not going to happen, and so far, not needed.
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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
   
4. 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.
5. 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.
   
6. A tailored suit Done. Just need more occasions to wear it! And with a bow tie too!
   
7. 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.
   
8. Enough clean underwear (no holes!) to get him through a week between laundry sessions. Yes, an absolute essential.
   
9. Independence from his mama. Absolutely. Independence is good. From women. Period.
   
10. The ability to ask for directions. You don't need to ask if you don't get lost!
    
11. 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.
    
12. A favorite cookbook. I'll have to work on understanding them first.
    
13. A decent set of pots and pans. And knives. Never forget the knives.
    
14. An emergency kit in the trunk of his car. Again, no car, so no worries.
    
15. 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.
    
16. 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.
    
17. A pair of jeans that makes his butt look good. I think I do own a pair. Girls, feedback welcome on the latter bit.
    
18. Jumper cables. Don't own a car, so not bothered.
    
19. A driver’s license. I was close to getting one. Will go ahead and finish it.
    
20. 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?
    
21. Sheets that don’t scratch.
    
22. A nightstand that doesn’t say “Handle with care” on the side. Huh?
    
23. A smile he uses generously. Use it too much and it loses its luster. I say reserve it for special occasions and special someones.
    
24. At least one lamp that didn’t once belong in a dorm room.
    
25. Enough confidence to approach someone he finds attractive. Always difficult, this.
    
26. 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.
    
27. 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.
    
28. The beginning of a nest egg. Sigh. I wish.
    
29. 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.
    
30. At least one sex move he’s received lots of positive feedback on. Errr, well. I couldn't possibly comment, could I?

This internet meme is courtesy of The Frisky.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.