The sister, CL, and myself met at Holland Village for lunch, and given the usual ding dong backwards and forwards discussion of where to eat, I plumped for Mexican. Holland Village itself has two Mexican restaurants sitting plumb right beside one another. Family tradition has dictated that we always dine at El Patio, which has a slightly more homely feel compared to Cha Cha Cha which was reputed to serve food that was less than authentic.
That age old tradition was to be broken today. We arrived at El Patio and stood outside briefly perusing the menu. The restaurant was completely empty, rather dire for a Sunday afternoon. We could blatantly see the one staff member on duty inside the restaurant, sitting at one of the tables, doing her damnedest to blithely ignore us. Even when we stood there for five minutes and began staring straight are her. I finally made irritated waving motions and she slowly and very reluctantly began to rise from her slouch, by which time me and the sister were so irritated, we walked away.
It was thus that we came to dine at Cha Cha Cha. The service was admittedly much more prompt. We were soon shown to a table. That, if anything, could explain why they had 6 or 7 tables occupied to El Patio's none. All was going rather well. Until the food came. I had ordered the mixed combo - one hard taco with beef, one chicken burrito. By the time I was half way through the hard taco, I was confronted with stringy bits of meat at the bottom, which was so tasteless, I couldn't remember whether I had ordered the beef or the chicken with the taco, and quite honestly, on taste alone I couldn't tell. I guessed it was beef based on the coloration, and nothing else. My sister was similar unenthused about her meal - her rice wasn't quite to her liking, and the refried beans tasted like they had probably been refried one too many times. The result was poor CL being subjected to a litany of complaints about the food from the two of us.
So, the puzzling question for us remained: how did these two establishments survive for longer than a decade at Holland Village, given the poor food in one, and the poor service in the latter (though the poor service at El Patio was probably due to a change in management). More importantly, where can Caleb and the sister go if they want some good mexican food? There is of course the Cafe Iguana, near Clarke Quay and with a newly opened outlet on Greenwood, which is decent. But we're looking for really authentic Mexican, stuff which can vaguely measure up to what we had when we spent a few months in Texas. Can anyone help us with our conondum, please do send recommendations. We need to eat proper Mexican after the debacle that was Cha Cha Cha.
7 June 2009
6 June 2009
My Simple Pleasures
It all started when CL sent an SMS commenting about the simple joys of gelato, and watching happy dogs and exuberant children frolic about, with a subsequent query about what my simple pleasures were. Conventional wisdom tells us to count our blessings, a simple old as apple pie piece of advice that has been echoed by countless self-help and positive psychology books centering on how we can achieve happiness. Admittedly though, having the question posed so starkly gave me pause, though it hardly took me all that long to reply. What I can up with was:
reading a good book, watching an enjoyable movie in the cinema, browsing in a bookstore or a library, watching a play or a concert, holding someone you care about deeply, my dog wagging her tail and bringing me her toy ball whenever I step through the door, a beer in the pub with some friends, dinner at a nice restaurant with good company, meeting new and interesting people, catching up with old friends, randomly bumping into someone on a street corner, the thrill of pulling out a random piece of trivia or information, sleeping in, sharing a bottle of wine with company, staying up late doing absolutely nothing, spur of the moment decisions, suppers, lazy Sundays, reading the news, heartfelt kisses, the fresh smell of a brand new book and the musty smell of an old one, pretty notebooks, dry humour, long rambling discussions, sitting and watching the stars, hiking and walking, visiting new places, lovely little cafes and eateries
Of course the list doesn't end there. But the rather long list shows that as cynical as you care to be, there are lots of little things in life that inherently make it worth living.
reading a good book, watching an enjoyable movie in the cinema, browsing in a bookstore or a library, watching a play or a concert, holding someone you care about deeply, my dog wagging her tail and bringing me her toy ball whenever I step through the door, a beer in the pub with some friends, dinner at a nice restaurant with good company, meeting new and interesting people, catching up with old friends, randomly bumping into someone on a street corner, the thrill of pulling out a random piece of trivia or information, sleeping in, sharing a bottle of wine with company, staying up late doing absolutely nothing, spur of the moment decisions, suppers, lazy Sundays, reading the news, heartfelt kisses, the fresh smell of a brand new book and the musty smell of an old one, pretty notebooks, dry humour, long rambling discussions, sitting and watching the stars, hiking and walking, visiting new places, lovely little cafes and eateries
Of course the list doesn't end there. But the rather long list shows that as cynical as you care to be, there are lots of little things in life that inherently make it worth living.
3 June 2009
When Harry Dumped Sally
I was having a random chat with M. when we both mentioned that we really enjoyed When Harry Met Sally. Which is unsurprising given that it is a cult romantic comedy classic but surprising given that we are both a little bit cynical and jaded, and don't ordinarily watch rom coms.
The cynical side of us did come through of course. Like in any romantic comedy, the two protagonists end up together at the end. That wasn't a spoiler. If you are watching a rom com you know it is going to happen. Anyhow, I mentioned that I always thought that Harry and Sally would divorce after say 5 years of marriage because they would start to drive each other nuts. M said that she always thought that it would happen that way too. Of course given that the American divorce rate is hovering at about 50%, we have a odds on chance of being right.
So we started imagining what would happen after the credits rolled. So they divorce after 5 years but what do they do then? Perhaps Sally buys a dog to help her get over the break-up and she meets a lovely guy while walking the dog in the park one day. M was like no no maybe Sally turns lesbian (being so put out by men after Harry) and meets this really hot chick and ends up with her! Maybe they meet while Sally is walking her dog.
As for Harry. Well, he probably leaves New York and goes out of state in order to try to find himself. M wanted him to turn fat, and lose his job and be miserable. But, he needs some kind of redeeming quality too. What if he turns gay as well? I tell M. that we can't have both of them turn gay as that will go beyond the bounds of all credibility. Maybe he joins a hippie commune or loses himself in Zen Buddhism.
Where we can agree is that Harry and Sally don't end up back together. We are too realistic and cynical for us to believe or even want that to happen. Life doesn't always imitate the movies. I proposed the title When Harry Dumped Sally as suitably nice. M did say that even she found the idea and the title depressing. It would make her lose all hope in love. Which probably means that it won't sell.
I've always harboured secret dreams of writing a screenplay. Why not write a cheap sequel to a cult classic. Goodness knows it has been done often enough before! I'll just go check on the availability of Rob Reiner to direct, and of course Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal to star......
The cynical side of us did come through of course. Like in any romantic comedy, the two protagonists end up together at the end. That wasn't a spoiler. If you are watching a rom com you know it is going to happen. Anyhow, I mentioned that I always thought that Harry and Sally would divorce after say 5 years of marriage because they would start to drive each other nuts. M said that she always thought that it would happen that way too. Of course given that the American divorce rate is hovering at about 50%, we have a odds on chance of being right.
So we started imagining what would happen after the credits rolled. So they divorce after 5 years but what do they do then? Perhaps Sally buys a dog to help her get over the break-up and she meets a lovely guy while walking the dog in the park one day. M was like no no maybe Sally turns lesbian (being so put out by men after Harry) and meets this really hot chick and ends up with her! Maybe they meet while Sally is walking her dog.
As for Harry. Well, he probably leaves New York and goes out of state in order to try to find himself. M wanted him to turn fat, and lose his job and be miserable. But, he needs some kind of redeeming quality too. What if he turns gay as well? I tell M. that we can't have both of them turn gay as that will go beyond the bounds of all credibility. Maybe he joins a hippie commune or loses himself in Zen Buddhism.
Where we can agree is that Harry and Sally don't end up back together. We are too realistic and cynical for us to believe or even want that to happen. Life doesn't always imitate the movies. I proposed the title When Harry Dumped Sally as suitably nice. M did say that even she found the idea and the title depressing. It would make her lose all hope in love. Which probably means that it won't sell.
I've always harboured secret dreams of writing a screenplay. Why not write a cheap sequel to a cult classic. Goodness knows it has been done often enough before! I'll just go check on the availability of Rob Reiner to direct, and of course Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal to star......
29 May 2009
Eating: Some Commense Rules
Eating, previously one of life's simplest and most pleasurable activities, has become increasingly complicated. I have always adopted a simple philosophy towards eating which has served me well thus far: "eat first, worry about it later". When pressed, I would joke that the stress of worrying about what you eat will probably kill you faster than anything present in the food.
Joking aside, we have been given an incredible amount of dissenting advice regarding our diets. Previously, we were told about the dangers of fat and cholesterol only to find that the 'trans-fats' that replaced them in our diet (in products such as margarine), were even more deadly. Now we are told that carbohydrates are the bogeymen, the overconsumption of which is cause for much of the obesity that plagues Western society (Atkins diet anyone?). We should eat more fish because they contain Omega-3s which is the new holy grail for everything from reduced cancer risk to better brain cells. But fish may also contain harmful substances like mercury.
Michael Pollan, in his book In Defence of Food, nicely deflates the prevailing trend towards 'nutritionism' where food is not seen as food but as an item made up of calories and nutrients. He brutally de-bunks nutritionism, showing how it is unreliable at best, and bad science with links to the food and medical industries at its worst. Nutritionism, to a degree, has become a blanket excuse to create processed foods, with studies commissioned by the food industry showing nutritional benefits of whatever food they are asked to assess. Pollan states rather cynically that a qualified FDA health claim for any product amounts to a euphemism for "all but meaningless". By the end of the book, you are rather inclined to agree, especially when you read about a chair in "Chocolate Science" being endowed by the Mars Corporation at the University of California Davis.
One of the worst failings that Pollan documents involves the so-called 'lipid hypothesis' linking the rise in heart disease (and other illnesses) to consumption of fats and cholesterol. That led to a drastic change in diets - not necessarily for the better as it turns out. Pollan rightly points out the manichean nature of dietary advice - previously protein was bad and carbs were good, now carbs are bad and protiens are good. The only thing that is universally acclaimed to be generally pretty harmless and actually quite beneficial is leaves and fruit and that goes to the heart of Pollan's advice for what we should eat.
Pollan also rightly points out that the reductionist nature of nutritionism just doesn't work. Scientists enjoy isolating an individual vitamin, mineral or nutrient within a particular foodstuff and praising or blaming it for having beneficial or deleterious effects on your health, but ultimately foods themselves are highly complex agglomerations that defy analysis. So is it really the Omega 3 fatty acids alone that makes fish such a nutritional food? Or is it the Omega 3s working in conjunction with other individual proteins in fish that has some effect during the digestion process? The most basic but crucial thing that Pollan does is to emphasize that we have to once again think about food, as well food.
Ultimately, I have distilled from Pollan's book a small number of simple maxims with the aim of eating more healthily but also being able to enjoy food a lot more. He presents about two dozen or so simple and sensible general rules which you will be well advised to check out. After finishing the book I have resolved to:
Joking aside, we have been given an incredible amount of dissenting advice regarding our diets. Previously, we were told about the dangers of fat and cholesterol only to find that the 'trans-fats' that replaced them in our diet (in products such as margarine), were even more deadly. Now we are told that carbohydrates are the bogeymen, the overconsumption of which is cause for much of the obesity that plagues Western society (Atkins diet anyone?). We should eat more fish because they contain Omega-3s which is the new holy grail for everything from reduced cancer risk to better brain cells. But fish may also contain harmful substances like mercury.
Michael Pollan, in his book In Defence of Food, nicely deflates the prevailing trend towards 'nutritionism' where food is not seen as food but as an item made up of calories and nutrients. He brutally de-bunks nutritionism, showing how it is unreliable at best, and bad science with links to the food and medical industries at its worst. Nutritionism, to a degree, has become a blanket excuse to create processed foods, with studies commissioned by the food industry showing nutritional benefits of whatever food they are asked to assess. Pollan states rather cynically that a qualified FDA health claim for any product amounts to a euphemism for "all but meaningless". By the end of the book, you are rather inclined to agree, especially when you read about a chair in "Chocolate Science" being endowed by the Mars Corporation at the University of California Davis.
One of the worst failings that Pollan documents involves the so-called 'lipid hypothesis' linking the rise in heart disease (and other illnesses) to consumption of fats and cholesterol. That led to a drastic change in diets - not necessarily for the better as it turns out. Pollan rightly points out the manichean nature of dietary advice - previously protein was bad and carbs were good, now carbs are bad and protiens are good. The only thing that is universally acclaimed to be generally pretty harmless and actually quite beneficial is leaves and fruit and that goes to the heart of Pollan's advice for what we should eat.
Pollan also rightly points out that the reductionist nature of nutritionism just doesn't work. Scientists enjoy isolating an individual vitamin, mineral or nutrient within a particular foodstuff and praising or blaming it for having beneficial or deleterious effects on your health, but ultimately foods themselves are highly complex agglomerations that defy analysis. So is it really the Omega 3 fatty acids alone that makes fish such a nutritional food? Or is it the Omega 3s working in conjunction with other individual proteins in fish that has some effect during the digestion process? The most basic but crucial thing that Pollan does is to emphasize that we have to once again think about food, as well food.
Ultimately, I have distilled from Pollan's book a small number of simple maxims with the aim of eating more healthily but also being able to enjoy food a lot more. He presents about two dozen or so simple and sensible general rules which you will be well advised to check out. After finishing the book I have resolved to:
- Set aside specific time for eating as a sole activity and spend more time eating - no eating in front of the TV, or computer, or at a desk while finishing work.
- Have more meals with other people - good company and excellent conversation makes a meal that much more enjoyable, and actually reduces the amount you eat.
- No snacking - eat three square meals and avoid having little snacks in between. So no nuts, crisps, chicken wings etc.
- Stop eating junk food or fast food - there are far far better ways to spend $7 than on a upsized Big Mac Meal; there are also much better ways to spend $4 than on a pack of Lays potato chips.
- Eat more green, leafy vegetables - try having 2 servings of vegetables and 1 serving of meat for dinner instead of the other way round.
- Eat fruit more regularly - try to have freshly squeezed fruit juice at hawker centers/foodcourts. One serving of fruit after dinner.
- Cut down on the amount of meat you eat - fish and seafood might be better options. Perhaps choose a day where you can forgo meat entirely (a la Catholics on friday).
- Avoid any kind of food that looks like it is processed. If it didn't once look alive, don't buy it.
- Cut down on alcohol consumption - you don't have to go teetotal but binge drinking is generally a very bad idea. Also if you are going to drink, try a glass of red wine every evening rather than beer or spirits.
- Learn to cook - what better way of really understanding what on earth you are eating? Plus it will make you appreciate and enjoy food all the more.
- Taking supplements - the jury is still out whether supplements are really all that effective. However, it is also true that modern factory farming has resulted in foods that give much higher yields but lower nutrient values. It may be worth taking a multivitamin.
- Portions - Is it better to have five small meals a day rather than the traditional three solid meals? It is worth finding out the evidence on either side. Will it be too much of a hassle to change?
28 May 2009
All Roads Lead to Rome
It was the final that every neutral football fan wished for. Arguably the two top teams in the world going head to head for the right to be crowned European Champions. More than that, two teams who play open attacking football, with two of the best and most exciting players in the world in Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi competing to settle the issue of who is better once and for all in a personal duel on the pitch. The names of those on show dripped off the tongue: Henry, Eto'o, Messi, Iniesta, Ronaldo, Giggs, Rooney.
On paper, a truly Olympian struggle was promised at the Olympic stadium in Rome. What ensued was a compelling match, but unfortunately not one for the ages. It is not often that Sir Alex Ferguson can be accused of being tactically outmaneuvered, especially in a major final, but after Pep Guardiola's side took the lead, very much against the run of play, they played masterful possession football and strangled the life out of an erratic and disappointing Man United side that were almost thoroughly outplayed.
The pundits had given the advantage to United, particularly given the frailties of a Barcelona defence deprived of its two starting full backs and defensive rock Marquez. Sir Alex's side has shown they could contain Barcelona in the previous year's semi-finals, when a nil-nil stalemate was followed by a Paul Scholes stunner that put United through. It was expected that Barcelona would have more possession, but United's defensive solidity and ability to counter attack at pace would enable them to pierce the makeshift Barca defence.
United started the match with the confidence that comes from being the current champions of Europe, dominating possession in the opening exchanges, and wasting a few half chances, especially from Cristiano Ronaldo. As amazing as it sounds, the Barcelona front three barely had a touch on the ball between them for the first 10 minutes. United were then hit with the proverbial sucker punch. Iniesta was allowed to run through a gap in midfield far too easily, and played a weighted ball through to Eto'o who turned Vidic and squeezed a shot past Van Der Sar's near post. It was Barcelona's first meaningful attack of the match. It was disappointing defending by United and by Vidic in particular.
The goal clearly lifted Barcelona, who began to dominate possession, settling into their usual mercurial passing game that left the United players chasing shadows for a large part of the remainder of the half. The confidence only grew during the second half, as United was forced to throw caution to the wind. Tevez was brought on for an ineffectual Anderson in the hope that his attacking qualities might manufacture a breakthrough, but more importantly that his terrier like hounding and running might actually unsettle a Barcelona midfield that was stroking the ball about with supreme confidence.
Iniesta was particularly peerless in this regard, playing lovely little passes and neat one-twos that left his markers flummoxed. He was involved once again in the build up to an excellent Barca chance at the start of the second half, Man Utd's old tormentor Thierry Henry bursting through only for Van Der Sar to save smartly with his feet. At one point, his pinpoint passing, and general awareness led the commentator to ask rhetorically if he was even capable of misplaying a pass. The answer was yes, but not often.
Lionel Messi was also living up to his billing as a world class player, terrorizing the United with his direct slalom like running. Often the only way United could stop him was resorting to cutting him down. One such challenge led to a free kick at the edge of the area, and Xavi curled a lovely shot round the wall, only to see it carom off the upright. It was no surprise that it was Messi that supplied the coup de grace, from a pinpoint Xavi cross after United had given away possession cheaply and Evra only half cleared the ball. It was a superb ball into the box, but Messi still had to lean backwards while hanging in the air to guide the ball past a flailing Van Der Sar into the bottom corner of the net.
Credit must be given to Barcelona for their superb passing, and for the incessant pressure they put on United. Their makeshift backline was never much of a factor given their ability to close United down from up the field, and to starve them of space and possession. Gerard Pique, who only re-signed for Barca after failing to secure a first team place at United, had an excellent night, blocking a Park attempt on 2 minutes, and denying Ronaldo a clear shot that would have given United hope moments after Barca had taken a two goal lead. Beyond that, Vidic and Berbatov had headers off target, but United never really threatened the Barcelona goal in the closing stages.
Ultimately though, it was a surprisingly toothless performance from a United side that was lacking leadership, self-belief, and real quality on the day. What they would have given for a midfield enforcer in the Roy Keane mold, who could stamp his authority in the middle of the park, and harry Iniesta and Xavi. For all their other talents, Carrick can't tackle and man-marking are not the best attributes that Giggs or Anderson possess. The closest United have to that kind of a player in their current side is Darren Fletcher, who was suspended for the final and was sorely missed.
The entire United midfield was disappointing on the day, Carrick spraying passes all over the place, Anderson running aimlessly. Rooney was deployed first on the left, briefly led the line and ended the game on the right flank and cut a frustrated figure throughout. Ryan Giggs looked his age for probably the first time this season, looking tired and ragged by the early stages of the second half, as the Barcelona team continued to run circles around him. Paul Scholes should certainly have been brought on earlier - his intelligent runs and long range passing were sorely needed on a day when the United midfield was largely misfiring.
Tactically, United chopped and changed frequently, to little effect. Players often looking strangely clueless on the field. They started ostensibly with a 4-3-2-1 formation similar to Barca's that occasionally evolved into a 4-4-2 with Giggs tucking just behind Ronaldo up front. The 4-4-2 was singularly ineffectual, with the Barca midfield dominating United, so Ferguson brought Tevez on in a straight 4-4-2 with Giggs taking the place of Anderson in central midfield, Ronaldo moving to the flank and Rooney and Tevez pressing the Barca backline. That proved even worse, as Barca threatened to tear United to ribbons with their intelligent link up play, exploiting the gaps that United left as they pushed forward. Barca never tinkered with their tried and tested formation, looking comfortable playing their usual attacking and pressing game.
By the end of the game, Ferguson had his entire fab four of Rooney, Tevez, Berbatov, and Ronaldo on the field in what was effectively a 4-2-4 formation. It didn't make one jot of difference. United were a team lacking real leadership (Paul Scholes as the captain for the last twenty minutes?), any self-belief or even any fluency. There was to be no repeat of 1999 when United stole the trophy from under Bayern's nose due to a dogged refusal to give in. In 2009, it wasn't an exaggeration to say that they capitulated.
It was certainly not third time lucky for Ferguson, who despite his vast experience and supreme talent, has arguably been outplayed in all three Champions League finals he has been involved in. He was undoubtedly lucky in Barcelona in 1999 (brilliant substitutions aside) when Bayern bossed the game only to be hit by a double whammy in the last 3 minutes. Last year, Chelsea probably edged the game overall, despite United's domination of the first half - Drogba will be cursing the crossbar, and Terry will probably never be able to forget the nightmare of seeing what would be the winning penalty smack off the upright. Fergie ran out of luck this time round, flummoxed and well beaten by a truly marvelous Barcelona side.
On paper, a truly Olympian struggle was promised at the Olympic stadium in Rome. What ensued was a compelling match, but unfortunately not one for the ages. It is not often that Sir Alex Ferguson can be accused of being tactically outmaneuvered, especially in a major final, but after Pep Guardiola's side took the lead, very much against the run of play, they played masterful possession football and strangled the life out of an erratic and disappointing Man United side that were almost thoroughly outplayed.
The pundits had given the advantage to United, particularly given the frailties of a Barcelona defence deprived of its two starting full backs and defensive rock Marquez. Sir Alex's side has shown they could contain Barcelona in the previous year's semi-finals, when a nil-nil stalemate was followed by a Paul Scholes stunner that put United through. It was expected that Barcelona would have more possession, but United's defensive solidity and ability to counter attack at pace would enable them to pierce the makeshift Barca defence.
United started the match with the confidence that comes from being the current champions of Europe, dominating possession in the opening exchanges, and wasting a few half chances, especially from Cristiano Ronaldo. As amazing as it sounds, the Barcelona front three barely had a touch on the ball between them for the first 10 minutes. United were then hit with the proverbial sucker punch. Iniesta was allowed to run through a gap in midfield far too easily, and played a weighted ball through to Eto'o who turned Vidic and squeezed a shot past Van Der Sar's near post. It was Barcelona's first meaningful attack of the match. It was disappointing defending by United and by Vidic in particular.
The goal clearly lifted Barcelona, who began to dominate possession, settling into their usual mercurial passing game that left the United players chasing shadows for a large part of the remainder of the half. The confidence only grew during the second half, as United was forced to throw caution to the wind. Tevez was brought on for an ineffectual Anderson in the hope that his attacking qualities might manufacture a breakthrough, but more importantly that his terrier like hounding and running might actually unsettle a Barcelona midfield that was stroking the ball about with supreme confidence.
Iniesta was particularly peerless in this regard, playing lovely little passes and neat one-twos that left his markers flummoxed. He was involved once again in the build up to an excellent Barca chance at the start of the second half, Man Utd's old tormentor Thierry Henry bursting through only for Van Der Sar to save smartly with his feet. At one point, his pinpoint passing, and general awareness led the commentator to ask rhetorically if he was even capable of misplaying a pass. The answer was yes, but not often.
Lionel Messi was also living up to his billing as a world class player, terrorizing the United with his direct slalom like running. Often the only way United could stop him was resorting to cutting him down. One such challenge led to a free kick at the edge of the area, and Xavi curled a lovely shot round the wall, only to see it carom off the upright. It was no surprise that it was Messi that supplied the coup de grace, from a pinpoint Xavi cross after United had given away possession cheaply and Evra only half cleared the ball. It was a superb ball into the box, but Messi still had to lean backwards while hanging in the air to guide the ball past a flailing Van Der Sar into the bottom corner of the net.
Credit must be given to Barcelona for their superb passing, and for the incessant pressure they put on United. Their makeshift backline was never much of a factor given their ability to close United down from up the field, and to starve them of space and possession. Gerard Pique, who only re-signed for Barca after failing to secure a first team place at United, had an excellent night, blocking a Park attempt on 2 minutes, and denying Ronaldo a clear shot that would have given United hope moments after Barca had taken a two goal lead. Beyond that, Vidic and Berbatov had headers off target, but United never really threatened the Barcelona goal in the closing stages.
Ultimately though, it was a surprisingly toothless performance from a United side that was lacking leadership, self-belief, and real quality on the day. What they would have given for a midfield enforcer in the Roy Keane mold, who could stamp his authority in the middle of the park, and harry Iniesta and Xavi. For all their other talents, Carrick can't tackle and man-marking are not the best attributes that Giggs or Anderson possess. The closest United have to that kind of a player in their current side is Darren Fletcher, who was suspended for the final and was sorely missed.
The entire United midfield was disappointing on the day, Carrick spraying passes all over the place, Anderson running aimlessly. Rooney was deployed first on the left, briefly led the line and ended the game on the right flank and cut a frustrated figure throughout. Ryan Giggs looked his age for probably the first time this season, looking tired and ragged by the early stages of the second half, as the Barcelona team continued to run circles around him. Paul Scholes should certainly have been brought on earlier - his intelligent runs and long range passing were sorely needed on a day when the United midfield was largely misfiring.
Tactically, United chopped and changed frequently, to little effect. Players often looking strangely clueless on the field. They started ostensibly with a 4-3-2-1 formation similar to Barca's that occasionally evolved into a 4-4-2 with Giggs tucking just behind Ronaldo up front. The 4-4-2 was singularly ineffectual, with the Barca midfield dominating United, so Ferguson brought Tevez on in a straight 4-4-2 with Giggs taking the place of Anderson in central midfield, Ronaldo moving to the flank and Rooney and Tevez pressing the Barca backline. That proved even worse, as Barca threatened to tear United to ribbons with their intelligent link up play, exploiting the gaps that United left as they pushed forward. Barca never tinkered with their tried and tested formation, looking comfortable playing their usual attacking and pressing game.
By the end of the game, Ferguson had his entire fab four of Rooney, Tevez, Berbatov, and Ronaldo on the field in what was effectively a 4-2-4 formation. It didn't make one jot of difference. United were a team lacking real leadership (Paul Scholes as the captain for the last twenty minutes?), any self-belief or even any fluency. There was to be no repeat of 1999 when United stole the trophy from under Bayern's nose due to a dogged refusal to give in. In 2009, it wasn't an exaggeration to say that they capitulated.
It was certainly not third time lucky for Ferguson, who despite his vast experience and supreme talent, has arguably been outplayed in all three Champions League finals he has been involved in. He was undoubtedly lucky in Barcelona in 1999 (brilliant substitutions aside) when Bayern bossed the game only to be hit by a double whammy in the last 3 minutes. Last year, Chelsea probably edged the game overall, despite United's domination of the first half - Drogba will be cursing the crossbar, and Terry will probably never be able to forget the nightmare of seeing what would be the winning penalty smack off the upright. Fergie ran out of luck this time round, flummoxed and well beaten by a truly marvelous Barcelona side.
26 May 2009
Telegraph 100 Essential Novels
It is in the vogue for newspapers to come up with lists of novels that everyone should read now, and the latest list I have found is on the Telegraph website. I probably only discovered it so late because I don't read the Telegraph as a general rule but was directed there when a friend sent me a link about a new Jane Austen biography, claiming, you guessed it, to have found that mysterious man that broke her heart and eventually led her becoming the ultimate literary chick lit novelist.
The Telegraph's selections are:
100 The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkein
99 To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
98 The Home and the World by Rabindranath Tagore
97 The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
96 One Thousand and One Nights by Anonymous
95 The Sorrows of Young Werther by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
94 Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie
93 Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by John le Carré
92 Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons
91 The Tale of Genji by Lady Murasaki
90 Under the Net by Iris Murdoch
89 The Golden Notebook by Doris Lessing
88 Eugene Onegin by Alexander Pushkin
87 On the Road by Jack Kerouac
86 Old Goriot by Honoré de Balzac
85 The Red and the Black by Stendhal
84 The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas
83 Germinal by Emile Zola
82 The Stranger by Albert Camus
81The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
80 Oscar and Lucinda by Peter Carey
79 Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys
78 Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
77 Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
76 The Trial by Franz Kafka
75 Cider with Rosie by Laurie Lee
74 Waiting for the Mahatma by RK Narayan
73 All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Remarque
72 Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant by Anne Tyler
71 The Dream of the Red Chamber by Cao Xueqin
70 The Leopard by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa
69 If On a Winter’s Night a Traveller by Italo Calvino
68 Crash by JG Ballard
67 A Bend in the River by VS Naipaul
66 Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
65 Dr Zhivago by Boris Pasternak
64 The Cairo Trilogy by Naguib Mahfouz
63 The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson
62 Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift
61 My Name Is Red by Orhan Pamuk
60 One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez
59 London Fields by Martin Amis
58 The Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolaño
57 The Glass Bead Game by Herman Hesse
56 The Tin Drum by Günter Grass
55 Austerlitz by WG Sebald
54 Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
53 The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
52 The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger
51 Underworld by Don DeLillo
50 Beloved by Toni Morrison
49 The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
48 Go Tell It On the Mountain by James Baldwin
47The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera
46 The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark
45 The Voyeur by Alain Robbe-Grillet
44 Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre
43 The Rabbit books by John Updike
42 The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
41 The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle
40 The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton
39 Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe
38 The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald
37 The Warden by Anthony Trollope
36 Les Misérables by Victor Hugo
35 Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis
34 The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler
33 Clarissa by Samuel Richardson
32 A Dance to the Music of Time by Anthony Powell
31 Suite Francaise by Irène Némirovsky
30 Atonement by Ian McEwan
29 Life: a User’s Manual by Georges Perec
28 Tom Jones by Henry Fielding
27 Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
26 Cranford by Elizabeth Gaskell
25 The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins
24 Ulysses by James Joyce
23 Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
22 A Passage to India by EM Forster
21 1984 by George Orwell
20 Tristram Shandy by Laurence Sterne
19 The War of the Worlds by HG Wells
18 Scoop by Evelyn Waugh
17 Tess of the D’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy
16 Brighton Rock by Graham Greene
15 The Code of the Woosters by PG Wodehouse
14 Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë
13 David Copperfield by Charles Dickens
12 Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
11 Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
10 Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
9 Mrs Dalloway by Virginia Woolf
8 Disgrace by JM Coetzee
7 Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë
6 In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
5 Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
4 The Portrait of a Lady by Henry James
3 Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
2 Moby-Dick by Herman Melville
1 Middlemarch by George Eliot
I've personally managed almost a quarter of them. 24 out of 100. Mostly classic choices on the list but some odd ones - Waiting for the Mahatma by R.K Narayan? The Savage Detective by Robert Bolano? Strangely, it is those odd ones that I want to seek out first, if only to slake my curiousity as to why they were included!
The Telegraph's selections are:
100 The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkein
99 To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
98 The Home and the World by Rabindranath Tagore
97 The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
96 One Thousand and One Nights by Anonymous
95 The Sorrows of Young Werther by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
94 Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie
93 Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by John le Carré
92 Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons
91 The Tale of Genji by Lady Murasaki
90 Under the Net by Iris Murdoch
89 The Golden Notebook by Doris Lessing
88 Eugene Onegin by Alexander Pushkin
87 On the Road by Jack Kerouac
86 Old Goriot by Honoré de Balzac
85 The Red and the Black by Stendhal
84 The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas
83 Germinal by Emile Zola
82 The Stranger by Albert Camus
81The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
80 Oscar and Lucinda by Peter Carey
79 Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys
78 Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
77 Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
76 The Trial by Franz Kafka
75 Cider with Rosie by Laurie Lee
74 Waiting for the Mahatma by RK Narayan
73 All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Remarque
72 Dinner at the Homesick Restaurant by Anne Tyler
71 The Dream of the Red Chamber by Cao Xueqin
70 The Leopard by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa
69 If On a Winter’s Night a Traveller by Italo Calvino
68 Crash by JG Ballard
67 A Bend in the River by VS Naipaul
66 Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
65 Dr Zhivago by Boris Pasternak
64 The Cairo Trilogy by Naguib Mahfouz
63 The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson
62 Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift
61 My Name Is Red by Orhan Pamuk
60 One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez
59 London Fields by Martin Amis
58 The Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolaño
57 The Glass Bead Game by Herman Hesse
56 The Tin Drum by Günter Grass
55 Austerlitz by WG Sebald
54 Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
53 The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
52 The Catcher in the Rye by JD Salinger
51 Underworld by Don DeLillo
50 Beloved by Toni Morrison
49 The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
48 Go Tell It On the Mountain by James Baldwin
47The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera
46 The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark
45 The Voyeur by Alain Robbe-Grillet
44 Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre
43 The Rabbit books by John Updike
42 The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
41 The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle
40 The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton
39 Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe
38 The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald
37 The Warden by Anthony Trollope
36 Les Misérables by Victor Hugo
35 Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis
34 The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler
33 Clarissa by Samuel Richardson
32 A Dance to the Music of Time by Anthony Powell
31 Suite Francaise by Irène Némirovsky
30 Atonement by Ian McEwan
29 Life: a User’s Manual by Georges Perec
28 Tom Jones by Henry Fielding
27 Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
26 Cranford by Elizabeth Gaskell
25 The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins
24 Ulysses by James Joyce
23 Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert
22 A Passage to India by EM Forster
21 1984 by George Orwell
20 Tristram Shandy by Laurence Sterne
19 The War of the Worlds by HG Wells
18 Scoop by Evelyn Waugh
17 Tess of the D’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy
16 Brighton Rock by Graham Greene
15 The Code of the Woosters by PG Wodehouse
14 Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë
13 David Copperfield by Charles Dickens
12 Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
11 Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
10 Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
9 Mrs Dalloway by Virginia Woolf
8 Disgrace by JM Coetzee
7 Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë
6 In Search of Lost Time by Marcel Proust
5 Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
4 The Portrait of a Lady by Henry James
3 Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
2 Moby-Dick by Herman Melville
1 Middlemarch by George Eliot
I've personally managed almost a quarter of them. 24 out of 100. Mostly classic choices on the list but some odd ones - Waiting for the Mahatma by R.K Narayan? The Savage Detective by Robert Bolano? Strangely, it is those odd ones that I want to seek out first, if only to slake my curiousity as to why they were included!
12 May 2009
Much Ado About Nothing
There is something that makes outdoor performances of Shakespeare highly agreeable. It is of course worth bearing in mind that the Globe Theater itself was open to the elements. The thought of spending an evening amidst the greenery of Fort Canning sipping wine was a highly enticing one, so I jumped at the chance of catching the Singapore Repertory Theater's outdoor performance of Much Ado About Nothing with Karin.
Of course, I had first fallen in love with outdoor Shakespeare performances while at Oxford, where summer lawn productions - especially of Shakespeare - were a common feature of Trinity term. There is something quite magical about watching a play in the small intimate surroundings of an Oxford garden, in the time just between dusk and twilight that I will never forget. Of course, this production was on a much bigger scale, with lighting and sound equipment to match, so I had to struggle not to compare the two.
Probably the most hilarious moment I have ever come across in an open air production of Shakespeare was when I watched a amateur production of Romeo and Juliet whilst visiting my aptly named friend Juliet in Devon. It was a beautiful setting near Devon Castle and all would have been well if not for a steady drizzle which began towards the end of Act II and began getting heavier as Act III wore on. It was thus with a significantly ironic glance up to the already opened up heavens that the actor playing Lord Capulet uttered the lines near the end of Act III:
When the sun sets, the air doth drizzle dew; But for the sunset of my brother's son It rains downright.
with an appropriately heavy emphasis, given the circumstances, on 'rains downright'. The play was moved indoors shortly afterwards.
But I digress. Singapore doesn't quite face the problem of persistent rain that the UK does, but an unseasonably hot May evening did temper my enjoyment of the play somewhat. It was downright muggy and left everyone sweating through the entirety of the play, futile efforts at fanning oneself with the program being largely ineffectual. One could only pity the cast members, especially the male characters, who were dressed up in stifling long sleeved navy whites.
The staging and costuming was rather interestingly and elegantly done. A 1920s Singapore colonial era setting and feel was chosen for the play and fitted quite well, on the whole. The set was rather beautiful and was designed in the form of the exterior of colonial style bungalow complete with large slatted swinging doors leading to the 'inside' of the house, a small swimming pool which is put to good use in the play itself, and the natural greenery of Fort Canning surrounding the stage being the garden of the bungalow itself.
The costumes were similarly sumptuous, with the men in navy dress white uniforms, complete with peak caps and epaulettes, and the ladies in lovely full length cocktail dresses. The highlight for me must surely be a 1920s style uber-retro full body swimming costume that Benedick is made to wear in Act III.
Overall, one minor gripe was the whole attempt at the colonial period thing was overdone at times, especially attempts to include chinese/nonya elements into the mix. Having traditional erhu music played during the funeral scenes in a misguided attempt to enhance the mood led to a sense of melodrama, as was having everyone wear traditional chinese/nonya garb at the wedding, complete with fancy headress for Hero. You would not expect a uppity British colonial to dress in any such way, so it was not keeping in character with the setting, and led to a bit of a unnecessary hodge podge feel.
It is no surprise that when an operatic adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing was made, it was titled Beatrice and Benedick. For better or for worse although not the main love story of the play, they stand as the main comic pillars. Claudio and Hero's love story might be the main narrative centerpiece, but their somewhat soppy wooing of each other followed by the enormously melodramatic renunciation (followed by Hero's faked death) hardly make them compelling characters.
Adrian Pang again shows wonderful stage presence as an ever playful Benedick. His experience in performing Shakespeare clearly comes through in his wonderfully witty deliveries, particularly his observance of the pauses and comic timing that is essential to Shakespearean humour. He was also helped by begin given some of the funniest comic set pieces in the play, notably one where he sneaks around the swimming pool and tries to hide behind a plant to overhear his friends conversing about Beatrice and another when he has to grab whatever headgear is at hand in order to cover up his crown jewels after a strategically placed towel is whipped away (Adrian Pang was wearing skin coloured briefs just in case a wardrobe malfunction happened).
Wendy Kweh's Beatrice to Pang's Benedict was very much his catty and teasing equal in the scenes that they were playing off each other, but she was less effective on her own. Beatrice is in many ways one of Shakespeare's strongest female characters (Katherine from The Taming of the Shrew and perhaps the sisters Goneril and Regan from King Lear are the only ones that can even remotely rival her). Kweh nicely brought out Beatrice's independent streak but her reading of the script sometimes lacked the subtlety and dramatic pauses necessary to really bring out the full unbridled wit. That is just a small gripe, all things consider, in a largely effective and really quite fiery performance.
Given the complexity, fun and flair of Beatrice and Benedick, the actors playing Claudio and Hero always risk being upstaged. Julie Wee does her best in what is largely a cardboard character role, playing the lovely chaste besotten bride adequately. I was more disappointed with Jason Chan, who overplayed Claudio, descending into melodrama when denouncing his bride on their wedding day, and similarly lacking subtlety and range in expressing remorse (at his inadvertant betrayal) and joy (at discovering her to be alive). Prancing around and declaiming loudly a good Shakespearean hero doth not make.
The play was bolstered by an excellent supporting cast. Particular praise must go to a suitably villanious Don John (in a small, largely cliched role), and an effective Don Pedro, who served as an important foil to Claudio and Benedick. I was far more ambivalent about Leonato - especially in the more dramatic scenes involving Hero's denouncement. The play as a whole certainly handled the comedic elements far more effectively that the dramatic ones. The Watch also seemed to garner some laughs and more half-hearted ones when they could have threatened to steal the show.
Overall, it was certainly a pretty entertaining evening. For me the witty banter between Adrian Pang's Benedick and Wendy Kueh's Beatrice was fun enough to just about warrant the price of admission (a relatively cheap $25 student ticket in my case). The beautifully designed sets and costumes were a real bonus. Still, I never thought of Much Ado About Nothing as one of Shakespeare's stronger comedies and me and Karin agreed that the play as a whole lacked any high note (apart from seeing Adrian Pang almost totally naked, complete with six pack for the ladies). Still, a enjoyable, if humid evening out.
Of course, I had first fallen in love with outdoor Shakespeare performances while at Oxford, where summer lawn productions - especially of Shakespeare - were a common feature of Trinity term. There is something quite magical about watching a play in the small intimate surroundings of an Oxford garden, in the time just between dusk and twilight that I will never forget. Of course, this production was on a much bigger scale, with lighting and sound equipment to match, so I had to struggle not to compare the two.
Probably the most hilarious moment I have ever come across in an open air production of Shakespeare was when I watched a amateur production of Romeo and Juliet whilst visiting my aptly named friend Juliet in Devon. It was a beautiful setting near Devon Castle and all would have been well if not for a steady drizzle which began towards the end of Act II and began getting heavier as Act III wore on. It was thus with a significantly ironic glance up to the already opened up heavens that the actor playing Lord Capulet uttered the lines near the end of Act III:
When the sun sets, the air doth drizzle dew; But for the sunset of my brother's son It rains downright.
with an appropriately heavy emphasis, given the circumstances, on 'rains downright'. The play was moved indoors shortly afterwards.
But I digress. Singapore doesn't quite face the problem of persistent rain that the UK does, but an unseasonably hot May evening did temper my enjoyment of the play somewhat. It was downright muggy and left everyone sweating through the entirety of the play, futile efforts at fanning oneself with the program being largely ineffectual. One could only pity the cast members, especially the male characters, who were dressed up in stifling long sleeved navy whites.
The staging and costuming was rather interestingly and elegantly done. A 1920s Singapore colonial era setting and feel was chosen for the play and fitted quite well, on the whole. The set was rather beautiful and was designed in the form of the exterior of colonial style bungalow complete with large slatted swinging doors leading to the 'inside' of the house, a small swimming pool which is put to good use in the play itself, and the natural greenery of Fort Canning surrounding the stage being the garden of the bungalow itself.
The costumes were similarly sumptuous, with the men in navy dress white uniforms, complete with peak caps and epaulettes, and the ladies in lovely full length cocktail dresses. The highlight for me must surely be a 1920s style uber-retro full body swimming costume that Benedick is made to wear in Act III.
Overall, one minor gripe was the whole attempt at the colonial period thing was overdone at times, especially attempts to include chinese/nonya elements into the mix. Having traditional erhu music played during the funeral scenes in a misguided attempt to enhance the mood led to a sense of melodrama, as was having everyone wear traditional chinese/nonya garb at the wedding, complete with fancy headress for Hero. You would not expect a uppity British colonial to dress in any such way, so it was not keeping in character with the setting, and led to a bit of a unnecessary hodge podge feel.
It is no surprise that when an operatic adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing was made, it was titled Beatrice and Benedick. For better or for worse although not the main love story of the play, they stand as the main comic pillars. Claudio and Hero's love story might be the main narrative centerpiece, but their somewhat soppy wooing of each other followed by the enormously melodramatic renunciation (followed by Hero's faked death) hardly make them compelling characters.
Adrian Pang again shows wonderful stage presence as an ever playful Benedick. His experience in performing Shakespeare clearly comes through in his wonderfully witty deliveries, particularly his observance of the pauses and comic timing that is essential to Shakespearean humour. He was also helped by begin given some of the funniest comic set pieces in the play, notably one where he sneaks around the swimming pool and tries to hide behind a plant to overhear his friends conversing about Beatrice and another when he has to grab whatever headgear is at hand in order to cover up his crown jewels after a strategically placed towel is whipped away (Adrian Pang was wearing skin coloured briefs just in case a wardrobe malfunction happened).
Wendy Kweh's Beatrice to Pang's Benedict was very much his catty and teasing equal in the scenes that they were playing off each other, but she was less effective on her own. Beatrice is in many ways one of Shakespeare's strongest female characters (Katherine from The Taming of the Shrew and perhaps the sisters Goneril and Regan from King Lear are the only ones that can even remotely rival her). Kweh nicely brought out Beatrice's independent streak but her reading of the script sometimes lacked the subtlety and dramatic pauses necessary to really bring out the full unbridled wit. That is just a small gripe, all things consider, in a largely effective and really quite fiery performance.
Given the complexity, fun and flair of Beatrice and Benedick, the actors playing Claudio and Hero always risk being upstaged. Julie Wee does her best in what is largely a cardboard character role, playing the lovely chaste besotten bride adequately. I was more disappointed with Jason Chan, who overplayed Claudio, descending into melodrama when denouncing his bride on their wedding day, and similarly lacking subtlety and range in expressing remorse (at his inadvertant betrayal) and joy (at discovering her to be alive). Prancing around and declaiming loudly a good Shakespearean hero doth not make.
The play was bolstered by an excellent supporting cast. Particular praise must go to a suitably villanious Don John (in a small, largely cliched role), and an effective Don Pedro, who served as an important foil to Claudio and Benedick. I was far more ambivalent about Leonato - especially in the more dramatic scenes involving Hero's denouncement. The play as a whole certainly handled the comedic elements far more effectively that the dramatic ones. The Watch also seemed to garner some laughs and more half-hearted ones when they could have threatened to steal the show.
Overall, it was certainly a pretty entertaining evening. For me the witty banter between Adrian Pang's Benedick and Wendy Kueh's Beatrice was fun enough to just about warrant the price of admission (a relatively cheap $25 student ticket in my case). The beautifully designed sets and costumes were a real bonus. Still, I never thought of Much Ado About Nothing as one of Shakespeare's stronger comedies and me and Karin agreed that the play as a whole lacked any high note (apart from seeing Adrian Pang almost totally naked, complete with six pack for the ladies). Still, a enjoyable, if humid evening out.
10 May 2009
Acts and Omissions
It is currently far more acceptable to allow instances of passive euthanasia (allowing someone to die by withholding treatment), as compared to active euthanasia (injecting them with a lethal drug that would prematurely end their lives). This is partly linked to our strong inclinations towards the sanctity of life. While many would be squeamish at actively taking a role in causing a death (even if acting on a person's wishes), they are less likely to feel the same way about causing a death in an indirect way (e.g. withholding potential treatment).
This can be clearly seen in the responses to the classic runaway cart scenario. In the scenario, there is a runaway cart hurtling down some tracks. It is currently headed for a group of four workers in the distance, who are too far away to warn and too preoccupied to notice in time to get out of the way. However, you can throw a switch diverting the cart onto a separate set of tracks which would spare the four workers, however, in doing so a single individual would be killed. Most people would find it acceptable to throw the switch.
However, in a separate scenario, the same cart is hurtling towards the same four people, but the only way to stop it is to push a bystander next to you onto the tracks. He happens to be quite a large individual with the bulk necessary to stop the cart. If you throw yourself on the tracks, it would be insufficient to stop the cart entirely and the four workers would still die. In this latter case, most people would not push the person onto the tracks to save the four people. The only fundamental difference is whether you would be directly on indirectly causing the death of one person in saving the four.
So this difference over the direct vs. indirect causation of death is deeply held and can seem to translate to a doctrine of acts and omissions. So I play an active role if I administer an injection or prescribe a cocktail of drugs which the patient then takes (note in this case I am merely giving the patient the means to end their life). A passive role would be to 'let nature take its course' for example by withholding drugs so a patient would die 'naturally' from an illness. Studies have shown that many doctors (and nurses) often carry out the latter for infants with severely deformities, for example, or in prescribing large doses of painkillers that will hasten death but provide some comfort in the case of terminal illnesses. Some nurses even allow very elderly patients in nursing homes to succumb to treatable illnesses such as pneumonia, rather that subject them to intrusive medical care, particularly if that patient has been ill a number of times.
Two classic contrasting examples illustrate our strange understanding of acts and omissions. The first is that of 'Baby Doe', a baby born with severe Down's syndrome, but also an oesophagus that was not fully formed. The baby was thus not able to digest food. An operation could be performed to fully connect the oesophagus which would allow for the normal intake of food but Baby Doe's parents requested that the operation not be performed. The baby died five days later after two courts upheld the parent's request. That the baby could have survived if the operation had been performed is not in doubt, though he would have faced severe mental deficiencies.
Compare this to the case of Samuel Linares, a young toddler that swallowed an object that became lodged in his throat. He was rushed to hospital but suffered severe brain damage due to the lack of oxygen intake to his brain. He was only kept alive by a respirator, and was comatose for over nine months, after which the hospital recommended that he be placed in a long term care unit, as it was unlikely that he would ever regain consciousness. His parents' request that he be taken off the respirator were ignored. Eventually, his father, armed with a pistol, forced his way into the ward and disconnected the respirator personally, cradling Samuel in his arms until the baby died. He then surrendered himself, weeping uncontrollably, to the police.
The two cases are especially illustrative because if both babies had lived, there is little doubt that Baby Doe would have a significantly better quality of life. Given Samuel Linares was in what was effectively a persistent vegetative state, and doctors were unsure if he would ever regain consciousness, it is doubtful if you can say he even had a quality of life at all. (A British High Court Judge made a similar remark when ruling about Anthony Bland, a football fan in a persistent comatose state as a result of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster).
Does it make sense that we allow Baby Doe's parents to effectively consign him to death (by not giving permission for the operation) while refusing to allow Samuel Linares' parents to make a decision allowing for their son to die peacefully by removing the respirator that was sustaining him? If one viewed the respirator as an artificial form of intervention that is sustaining Samuel's life, then one can argue that the parents should have a decision in stating that he should not be put on a respirator in the first place (a rejection of intervention to save life), just as Baby Doe's parents refused the operation (which was a rejection of a life saving intervention). If we agree that both should have the decision, why should we not allow Linares' parents to pull the plug on the respirator, assuming that doctors had done all they could, and it was unknowable and even doubtful if Samuel would ever wake up?
This can be clearly seen in the responses to the classic runaway cart scenario. In the scenario, there is a runaway cart hurtling down some tracks. It is currently headed for a group of four workers in the distance, who are too far away to warn and too preoccupied to notice in time to get out of the way. However, you can throw a switch diverting the cart onto a separate set of tracks which would spare the four workers, however, in doing so a single individual would be killed. Most people would find it acceptable to throw the switch.
However, in a separate scenario, the same cart is hurtling towards the same four people, but the only way to stop it is to push a bystander next to you onto the tracks. He happens to be quite a large individual with the bulk necessary to stop the cart. If you throw yourself on the tracks, it would be insufficient to stop the cart entirely and the four workers would still die. In this latter case, most people would not push the person onto the tracks to save the four people. The only fundamental difference is whether you would be directly on indirectly causing the death of one person in saving the four.
So this difference over the direct vs. indirect causation of death is deeply held and can seem to translate to a doctrine of acts and omissions. So I play an active role if I administer an injection or prescribe a cocktail of drugs which the patient then takes (note in this case I am merely giving the patient the means to end their life). A passive role would be to 'let nature take its course' for example by withholding drugs so a patient would die 'naturally' from an illness. Studies have shown that many doctors (and nurses) often carry out the latter for infants with severely deformities, for example, or in prescribing large doses of painkillers that will hasten death but provide some comfort in the case of terminal illnesses. Some nurses even allow very elderly patients in nursing homes to succumb to treatable illnesses such as pneumonia, rather that subject them to intrusive medical care, particularly if that patient has been ill a number of times.
Two classic contrasting examples illustrate our strange understanding of acts and omissions. The first is that of 'Baby Doe', a baby born with severe Down's syndrome, but also an oesophagus that was not fully formed. The baby was thus not able to digest food. An operation could be performed to fully connect the oesophagus which would allow for the normal intake of food but Baby Doe's parents requested that the operation not be performed. The baby died five days later after two courts upheld the parent's request. That the baby could have survived if the operation had been performed is not in doubt, though he would have faced severe mental deficiencies.
Compare this to the case of Samuel Linares, a young toddler that swallowed an object that became lodged in his throat. He was rushed to hospital but suffered severe brain damage due to the lack of oxygen intake to his brain. He was only kept alive by a respirator, and was comatose for over nine months, after which the hospital recommended that he be placed in a long term care unit, as it was unlikely that he would ever regain consciousness. His parents' request that he be taken off the respirator were ignored. Eventually, his father, armed with a pistol, forced his way into the ward and disconnected the respirator personally, cradling Samuel in his arms until the baby died. He then surrendered himself, weeping uncontrollably, to the police.
The two cases are especially illustrative because if both babies had lived, there is little doubt that Baby Doe would have a significantly better quality of life. Given Samuel Linares was in what was effectively a persistent vegetative state, and doctors were unsure if he would ever regain consciousness, it is doubtful if you can say he even had a quality of life at all. (A British High Court Judge made a similar remark when ruling about Anthony Bland, a football fan in a persistent comatose state as a result of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster).
Does it make sense that we allow Baby Doe's parents to effectively consign him to death (by not giving permission for the operation) while refusing to allow Samuel Linares' parents to make a decision allowing for their son to die peacefully by removing the respirator that was sustaining him? If one viewed the respirator as an artificial form of intervention that is sustaining Samuel's life, then one can argue that the parents should have a decision in stating that he should not be put on a respirator in the first place (a rejection of intervention to save life), just as Baby Doe's parents refused the operation (which was a rejection of a life saving intervention). If we agree that both should have the decision, why should we not allow Linares' parents to pull the plug on the respirator, assuming that doctors had done all they could, and it was unknowable and even doubtful if Samuel would ever wake up?
17 April 2009
Science as Magic (or Religion)
It was Arthur C. Clarke who proposed, as one of his three 'laws', that a civilisation, coming into contact with science and technology far in advance of them, would view such technology as magic. This idea is hardly a novel one, and anyone who has read the tragic tale of Cortez and his small band of conquistadors overcoming the mighty Aztec empire will clearly see its antecedents. The Aztecs, unable to comprehend Spanish technology such as guns, came to view the conquistadors as reincarnated Gods with predictably disastrous consequences for themselves.
The supposedly opposing poles of Science and Magic has long provided a powerful theme for Science Fiction and Fantasy writers. A pioneer in this, aided by the fact that she was working in both the Science Fiction and Fantasy fields, was Andre Norton, most notably in her Witch World series of novels.
In those novels, a technologically advanced civilisation, fleeing some kind of self-generated catastrophe that has made their homeworld uninhabitable, enters a much more primitive world through a portal, seeking to use their more advanced technology to subjugate the native inhabitants and claim it for their own. However, they are opposed by a matriarchal society whose leaders are witches and able to harness magic (actual magic, not the science in disguise variety).
A new and novel treatment of this ongoing theme is Sharon Shinn's Samaria series of novels, particularly her second novel, Jovah's Angels. In a marvelous twist of irony, she takes the two typically opposing poles of science and mysticism and welds them together in one sure stroke. Our modern scientific way of thinking is perceived to have been borne out of the enlightenment, which involved a total rejection of mysticism and religious dogma. But what if science were the source of mysticism and religion?
In Samaria all beings worship the god Jovah (the parallel with Jehovah is not coincidental). A special group of beings with wings - Angels - are given the task of ensuring society in Samaria is harmonious. These angels can intercede with Jovah by 'praying', for example to change weather patterns, ask for seeds to be sent down and even medical supplies in times of plague or illiness.
However, Jovah also demands obedience from its subjects as any good god would. To prove that the peoples of Samaria still live in harmony, a Gloria must be sung every year led by the Archangel and his Angelica or spouse, with representatives from each of the many races that live on the planet. Three specially appointed prophets 'speak' to Jovah and intercede with him in some long forgotten tongue using some special device.
Shinn's genius is that Jovah is no god but is the computer of the interstellar ship that brought the original colonists to Samaria. The prophets use a simple keyboard to correspond with the God, and the Angels' - beings created through genetic engineering at the dawn of Samarian colonization - prayers are picked up by Jovah's long range sensors where the computer triggers the necessary responses. Control of the weather is enabled through influencing the planet's upper atmosphere, seeds and medicines can be released and dropped from the ship's massive storage hangers, and if the Samarians choose to disobey, the ship's lasers can smite a mighty hole in the planet below.
This is Clarke's third law brought to spectacular life, and Shinn's strong characterization, and utilization of biblical terminology lends the first two books in the series a really strong feel. The implications are strongly felt but neatly sidestepped. Alleluia, despite the realization that everything she believed and worshiped if not quite a lie then is undoubtedly drastically wrong, decides to hide the truth. Samaria cannot know because the implications would be immense - and catastrophic.
Still, given the slow rise of technology (which the original settlers had renounced as being the root of evil), there will eventually come a time when the peoples of Samaria will begin to question the mythology and religion they held so blindly. More fundamentally, it would only take the first telescope pointed up at the Samarian night sky to reveal the orbiting spaceship and raise fundamental questions that will not be left unanswered.
A long running jibe at the irrationality of religion is to posit that there is a giant teacup orbiting the outer edge of the solar system, and that it will eventually bring out the annihilation of the earth. For the people of Samaria, it is a spaceship not a teacup. Perhaps, mankind should not be so quick to laugh, and as we continue to peer out into the darker reaches of our universe, we might just find some hint as to the beginnings of our creation. Now that is a kind of faith in itself.
The supposedly opposing poles of Science and Magic has long provided a powerful theme for Science Fiction and Fantasy writers. A pioneer in this, aided by the fact that she was working in both the Science Fiction and Fantasy fields, was Andre Norton, most notably in her Witch World series of novels.
In those novels, a technologically advanced civilisation, fleeing some kind of self-generated catastrophe that has made their homeworld uninhabitable, enters a much more primitive world through a portal, seeking to use their more advanced technology to subjugate the native inhabitants and claim it for their own. However, they are opposed by a matriarchal society whose leaders are witches and able to harness magic (actual magic, not the science in disguise variety).
A new and novel treatment of this ongoing theme is Sharon Shinn's Samaria series of novels, particularly her second novel, Jovah's Angels. In a marvelous twist of irony, she takes the two typically opposing poles of science and mysticism and welds them together in one sure stroke. Our modern scientific way of thinking is perceived to have been borne out of the enlightenment, which involved a total rejection of mysticism and religious dogma. But what if science were the source of mysticism and religion?
In Samaria all beings worship the god Jovah (the parallel with Jehovah is not coincidental). A special group of beings with wings - Angels - are given the task of ensuring society in Samaria is harmonious. These angels can intercede with Jovah by 'praying', for example to change weather patterns, ask for seeds to be sent down and even medical supplies in times of plague or illiness.
However, Jovah also demands obedience from its subjects as any good god would. To prove that the peoples of Samaria still live in harmony, a Gloria must be sung every year led by the Archangel and his Angelica or spouse, with representatives from each of the many races that live on the planet. Three specially appointed prophets 'speak' to Jovah and intercede with him in some long forgotten tongue using some special device.
Shinn's genius is that Jovah is no god but is the computer of the interstellar ship that brought the original colonists to Samaria. The prophets use a simple keyboard to correspond with the God, and the Angels' - beings created through genetic engineering at the dawn of Samarian colonization - prayers are picked up by Jovah's long range sensors where the computer triggers the necessary responses. Control of the weather is enabled through influencing the planet's upper atmosphere, seeds and medicines can be released and dropped from the ship's massive storage hangers, and if the Samarians choose to disobey, the ship's lasers can smite a mighty hole in the planet below.
This is Clarke's third law brought to spectacular life, and Shinn's strong characterization, and utilization of biblical terminology lends the first two books in the series a really strong feel. The implications are strongly felt but neatly sidestepped. Alleluia, despite the realization that everything she believed and worshiped if not quite a lie then is undoubtedly drastically wrong, decides to hide the truth. Samaria cannot know because the implications would be immense - and catastrophic.
Still, given the slow rise of technology (which the original settlers had renounced as being the root of evil), there will eventually come a time when the peoples of Samaria will begin to question the mythology and religion they held so blindly. More fundamentally, it would only take the first telescope pointed up at the Samarian night sky to reveal the orbiting spaceship and raise fundamental questions that will not be left unanswered.
A long running jibe at the irrationality of religion is to posit that there is a giant teacup orbiting the outer edge of the solar system, and that it will eventually bring out the annihilation of the earth. For the people of Samaria, it is a spaceship not a teacup. Perhaps, mankind should not be so quick to laugh, and as we continue to peer out into the darker reaches of our universe, we might just find some hint as to the beginnings of our creation. Now that is a kind of faith in itself.
15 April 2009
Profiling Yourself
The internet abounds with profiles of yourself. Taking myself as an example, I have profiles on Facebook and MySpace. I keep a blog. I have a short write-up (and some reviews posted) on Amazon. I am sure my internet footprint goes even wider than that. This can be rather more scary than one would necessarily realize.
Other netizens have already written about the pressure that this kind of blatant self-describing can bring. What books or movies should I list among my favourites on Facebook on other sites? Harry Potter is just about acceptable, but stating that you love Dan Brown sends a clear message of a low brow, follow the herd mentality that doesn't speak well. List Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Satre and Derrida and you risk looking like a pretentious twat. It's worse on internet dating sites where the entire point of the exercise is to present and market yourself.
Like in most things, honesty is usually the best bet. You don't want to portray a great love of Ayn Rand only to struggle to remember who the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged is. Don't ever list anything that you can't talk about in more than vague terms (The main guy was Howard Roark, oh wait that was the Fountainhead wasn't it doesn't count, to use the Rand example).
Needless to say, everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Two economists (I forget where I read this exactly, I think it was in Freakonomics) showed that the better part of 75% of women list themselves as "above average" or better in looks on internet dating websites. There is a similar discrepancy in the income range figures that men claim to make and the median national income. Both are clearly not possible. It does seem to solidify the social stereotypes that physical attractiveness and wealth respectively are the two main trump cards that men and women are perceived to be looking for in prospective partners.
We all come into contact with various profiles of acquaintances of acquaintances, or random strangers on Facebook. I even heard of couples getting together after viewing each other on Facebook and then deciding to meet. I must admit to having browsed some of these many profiles randomly (on Facebook and other sites), particularly when pursuing one of my most natural and innate talents - namely procrastination.
I have come to realize that looking at what some people write about creates powerful and immediate gut reactions. I need not be told that it is probably fundamentally unsound to decide whether you like or dislike a girl based on the fact that you listed similar favourite books or films, or you share certain interests, or if you liked the particularly witty or rambling way in which she writes.
More powerful than shared affinities though, is what I call the ick factor. Situations where you cannot help but recoil in mild disgust. They need not necessarily be deal breakers, but there has to be considerable affinity in other aspects of personality or interests to overcome them. I think it is useful guide - in a sense we are better at understanding what we dislike rather than what we really like.
I've come up with a short list that will almost immediately cause a shiver of revulsion:
Definite Turn Ons:
The sum total of this exercise? The laws of human attraction are inherently inexplicable (unlike the more scientific laws of electromagnetism that govern our world). Perhaps out of all this procrastination I do have a clearer idea of what I want after all.
Other netizens have already written about the pressure that this kind of blatant self-describing can bring. What books or movies should I list among my favourites on Facebook on other sites? Harry Potter is just about acceptable, but stating that you love Dan Brown sends a clear message of a low brow, follow the herd mentality that doesn't speak well. List Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Satre and Derrida and you risk looking like a pretentious twat. It's worse on internet dating sites where the entire point of the exercise is to present and market yourself.
Like in most things, honesty is usually the best bet. You don't want to portray a great love of Ayn Rand only to struggle to remember who the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged is. Don't ever list anything that you can't talk about in more than vague terms (The main guy was Howard Roark, oh wait that was the Fountainhead wasn't it doesn't count, to use the Rand example).
Needless to say, everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Two economists (I forget where I read this exactly, I think it was in Freakonomics) showed that the better part of 75% of women list themselves as "above average" or better in looks on internet dating websites. There is a similar discrepancy in the income range figures that men claim to make and the median national income. Both are clearly not possible. It does seem to solidify the social stereotypes that physical attractiveness and wealth respectively are the two main trump cards that men and women are perceived to be looking for in prospective partners.
We all come into contact with various profiles of acquaintances of acquaintances, or random strangers on Facebook. I even heard of couples getting together after viewing each other on Facebook and then deciding to meet. I must admit to having browsed some of these many profiles randomly (on Facebook and other sites), particularly when pursuing one of my most natural and innate talents - namely procrastination.
I have come to realize that looking at what some people write about creates powerful and immediate gut reactions. I need not be told that it is probably fundamentally unsound to decide whether you like or dislike a girl based on the fact that you listed similar favourite books or films, or you share certain interests, or if you liked the particularly witty or rambling way in which she writes.
More powerful than shared affinities though, is what I call the ick factor. Situations where you cannot help but recoil in mild disgust. They need not necessarily be deal breakers, but there has to be considerable affinity in other aspects of personality or interests to overcome them. I think it is useful guide - in a sense we are better at understanding what we dislike rather than what we really like.
I've come up with a short list that will almost immediately cause a shiver of revulsion:
- An inability to write in complete sentences; gross ineptitude in the use of grammar or punctuation
- Using txt speak or excessive CAPS
- Stating a love for Korean and/or Chinese TV dramas
- Saying that God is their best friend, and/or listing the Bible as their favourite book
- Listing romance novels or worse fashion magazines as favourite reads
- Music tastes that include mainly J-pop and Jay Chou, Hip/Hop, R&B and Rap
- Smokers
- Listing main interests as shopping and karaoke
Definite Turn Ons:
- A penchant for intelligent conversation
- A person who loves to read, and read widely (and who enjoys some of the same authors that I do)
- A love of theater and musicals
- A love of independent, art house and classic movies
- Thinking about philosophy, values, and other such deep, impractical issues
- Enjoying traveling
- Saying that they like nerds
- Someone who is quirky and a little random, out of the ordinary.
The sum total of this exercise? The laws of human attraction are inherently inexplicable (unlike the more scientific laws of electromagnetism that govern our world). Perhaps out of all this procrastination I do have a clearer idea of what I want after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
