Saturday, September 09, 2006
Goodbye Blogspot.
On my 700th post at blogspot, I have decided that I shall now move to Wordpress, where my cluttered life can take new and more organised form.
And of course, where I shall continue living free and true to what I believe in.
To make things easier for all of you:
Alterius Non Sit Qui Suus Esse Potest.
"Let no man belong to another who can belong to himself."
And of course, where I shall continue living free and true to what I believe in.
To make things easier for all of you:
Alterius Non Sit Qui Suus Esse Potest.
"Let no man belong to another who can belong to himself."
shifty.
according to my bf, there are a few varieties of shifty; shifty being tt which refers to a look implying a dishonest or unscrupulous character.
i.e. that person looks shifty, be wary of him.
anyway before i digress off-point, we were discussing shifty looks with regard to a few of (the few there are) the law students in our year.
with 3 people, we managed to identify 3 different types of shifty:
1) the harmless shifty
2) the naughty shifty
3) the dangerous shifty
according to my bf, he usually gives people the impression that he belongs to the third category of shifty.
of course, tt is partly because he does not call them 'dear dear'.
wahaha.
i.e. that person looks shifty, be wary of him.
anyway before i digress off-point, we were discussing shifty looks with regard to a few of (the few there are) the law students in our year.
with 3 people, we managed to identify 3 different types of shifty:
1) the harmless shifty
2) the naughty shifty
3) the dangerous shifty
according to my bf, he usually gives people the impression that he belongs to the third category of shifty.
of course, tt is partly because he does not call them 'dear dear'.
wahaha.
Friday, September 08, 2006
how is this for a security threat?
and who is still on for 'smile singapore 2006', considering tt this is what the people tt we are supposed to be smiling for are saying?
taken from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d29328d2-3f32-11db-a37c-0000779e2340.html:
IMF and World Bank rebuke Singapore
By John Burton in Singapore and Shawn Donnan in Jakarta
Published: September 8 2006 13:16 | Last updated: September 8 2006 13:16
The International Monetary Fund and World Bank on Friday issued an unprecedented rebuke to Singapore over a ban on accredited activists invited to attend the annual meetings of the two financial institutions next week.
The IMF/World Bank suggested that Singapore had violated the terms of its agreement to host the event by blocking the entry of 19 civil society representatives, who allegedly posed a security threat.
"Singapore had promised to faciliate the entry of accredited representatives under the memorandum of understanding with us," a World Bank official said. The IMF/World Bank was only informed this week of Singapore's plans.
The crackdown is part of tough security measures that Singapore will implement during the September 11-20 meetings. The government will also ban all outdoor demonstrations and has warned it will shoot at violent protesters, citing the threat of terrorist attacks.
The incident represents a setback to the IMF/World Bank, which has sought to improve relations with non-governmental organisations that have accused them of conducting policies that have ignored the plight of the world's poor. A record 500 NGO representatives are accredited to attend this year's meeting.
"This is a major blow to the credibility of the IMF/World Bank. It's terribly embarrassing since the World Bank had adopted good goverance as the theme of this year's meeting," said Antonio Tricarrio with Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, who was one of those banned.
Mr Tricarrio said he was "astounded" at Singapore's decision since his group was a widely-respected organisation that had never been associated with violent activities.
Some NGOs alleged that the IMF/World Bank, which holds its annual meetings outside Washington every three years, had selected Singapore as the venue for this year's meeting because of its authoritarian reputation. Previous IMF/World Bank meetings have been marred by violent protests.
Among those banned by Singapore were representatives from the UK-based World Development Movement, Thailand's Focus on the Global South, the Freedom from Debt Coalition in the Philippines and the Forum on Indonesian Development (Infid).
The IMF/World Bank said these "individuals have been cleared to attend the annual meetings by their respective governments and we have accredited them according to our standard procedure."
"We strongly urge the Singapore government to act swiftly and reverse their decision on entry and access to the meetings for these representatives," the IMF/World Bank said in a joint statement.
The Singapore police force said this week that it had compiled a list of potential "troublemakers" who would be denied entry to the city-state. “Every country reserves the right to determine whether a foreigner would be eligible for entry into the country,” said the Singapore police on Friday.
Some NGOs had planned to hold rallies on the neighbouring Indonesian island of Batam because of the security measures in Singapore. But they were told this week by the local police that the protest would be banned because foreign groups were involved in violation of the law.
The chief of Indonesia’s national police, Sutanto, told reporters that NGOs would not be allowed to hold protests on Batam, although authorities would let them meet. “Seminars are welcome,” he said. “But there should be no political agenda, let alone rallies, because this could make foreigners think Indonesia is not safe for investment.”
Additional reporting by Alan Beattie in London and Taufan Hidayat in Jakarta.
taken from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d29328d2-3f32-11db-a37c-0000779e2340.html:
IMF and World Bank rebuke Singapore
By John Burton in Singapore and Shawn Donnan in Jakarta
Published: September 8 2006 13:16 | Last updated: September 8 2006 13:16
The International Monetary Fund and World Bank on Friday issued an unprecedented rebuke to Singapore over a ban on accredited activists invited to attend the annual meetings of the two financial institutions next week.
The IMF/World Bank suggested that Singapore had violated the terms of its agreement to host the event by blocking the entry of 19 civil society representatives, who allegedly posed a security threat.
"Singapore had promised to faciliate the entry of accredited representatives under the memorandum of understanding with us," a World Bank official said. The IMF/World Bank was only informed this week of Singapore's plans.
The crackdown is part of tough security measures that Singapore will implement during the September 11-20 meetings. The government will also ban all outdoor demonstrations and has warned it will shoot at violent protesters, citing the threat of terrorist attacks.
The incident represents a setback to the IMF/World Bank, which has sought to improve relations with non-governmental organisations that have accused them of conducting policies that have ignored the plight of the world's poor. A record 500 NGO representatives are accredited to attend this year's meeting.
"This is a major blow to the credibility of the IMF/World Bank. It's terribly embarrassing since the World Bank had adopted good goverance as the theme of this year's meeting," said Antonio Tricarrio with Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, who was one of those banned.
Mr Tricarrio said he was "astounded" at Singapore's decision since his group was a widely-respected organisation that had never been associated with violent activities.
Some NGOs alleged that the IMF/World Bank, which holds its annual meetings outside Washington every three years, had selected Singapore as the venue for this year's meeting because of its authoritarian reputation. Previous IMF/World Bank meetings have been marred by violent protests.
Among those banned by Singapore were representatives from the UK-based World Development Movement, Thailand's Focus on the Global South, the Freedom from Debt Coalition in the Philippines and the Forum on Indonesian Development (Infid).
The IMF/World Bank said these "individuals have been cleared to attend the annual meetings by their respective governments and we have accredited them according to our standard procedure."
"We strongly urge the Singapore government to act swiftly and reverse their decision on entry and access to the meetings for these representatives," the IMF/World Bank said in a joint statement.
The Singapore police force said this week that it had compiled a list of potential "troublemakers" who would be denied entry to the city-state. “Every country reserves the right to determine whether a foreigner would be eligible for entry into the country,” said the Singapore police on Friday.
Some NGOs had planned to hold rallies on the neighbouring Indonesian island of Batam because of the security measures in Singapore. But they were told this week by the local police that the protest would be banned because foreign groups were involved in violation of the law.
The chief of Indonesia’s national police, Sutanto, told reporters that NGOs would not be allowed to hold protests on Batam, although authorities would let them meet. “Seminars are welcome,” he said. “But there should be no political agenda, let alone rallies, because this could make foreigners think Indonesia is not safe for investment.”
Additional reporting by Alan Beattie in London and Taufan Hidayat in Jakarta.
the cafe royale.
i suppose, coming close to 5 months, we're finally out of our honeymoon period where everything is all fine and dandy. now comes the emotional rollercoasters, the arguments and all else tt i would have hoped to avoid.
but in spite of how sad you make me feel (as well as how much of this horrible slobbering fool), you also manage to make me feel exceedingly happy. =) and although i started out today feeling sad, you took so much trouble to make me feel happy again. and you succeeded.
tt being said, we had crystal jade dim sum for dinner. he never had bbq pork puff pastry before, but he decided tt he really liked it. we also had the usual har kau, siew mai, this beancurd shrimp cake thing tt he liked, my fave chicken feet, as well as a plate of char siew. and dessert of almond cream.
then we headed over to tcc for dessert part 2 (coz they ran out of egg tarts and i love my egg tarts). i had my usual warm chocolate cake with tt lava thingy oozing out, while he decided to be adventurous. instead of ordering his usual blue mountain coffee, he went the extra step to make it a cafe royale.
and when it came... woah.
essentially the cafe royale is the blue mountain coffee... but with 2 extra twists. it comes with a shot of brandy and a cube of sugar tt will be placed on a tea spoon perched atop the cup. so what happens is the waiter pours the brandy over the sugar cube and into the coffee, soaking the cube. then he takes his lighter and lights up the sugar cube, allowing it to flambe and caramelise sufficiently to be stirred into the brandy-infused coffee.
and there you have it - the cafe royale; with a top grade coffee, a shot of brandy, and caramelised sugar.
ben said tt drinking the coffee made him high. he was in a state of elevation when he sent me home. so cute.
i love him. =) yay.
but in spite of how sad you make me feel (as well as how much of this horrible slobbering fool), you also manage to make me feel exceedingly happy. =) and although i started out today feeling sad, you took so much trouble to make me feel happy again. and you succeeded.
tt being said, we had crystal jade dim sum for dinner. he never had bbq pork puff pastry before, but he decided tt he really liked it. we also had the usual har kau, siew mai, this beancurd shrimp cake thing tt he liked, my fave chicken feet, as well as a plate of char siew. and dessert of almond cream.
then we headed over to tcc for dessert part 2 (coz they ran out of egg tarts and i love my egg tarts). i had my usual warm chocolate cake with tt lava thingy oozing out, while he decided to be adventurous. instead of ordering his usual blue mountain coffee, he went the extra step to make it a cafe royale.
and when it came... woah.
essentially the cafe royale is the blue mountain coffee... but with 2 extra twists. it comes with a shot of brandy and a cube of sugar tt will be placed on a tea spoon perched atop the cup. so what happens is the waiter pours the brandy over the sugar cube and into the coffee, soaking the cube. then he takes his lighter and lights up the sugar cube, allowing it to flambe and caramelise sufficiently to be stirred into the brandy-infused coffee.
and there you have it - the cafe royale; with a top grade coffee, a shot of brandy, and caramelised sugar.
ben said tt drinking the coffee made him high. he was in a state of elevation when he sent me home. so cute.
i love him. =) yay.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
look at this page!
guess what? hitler was a baptised catholic! and so was mussolini!
but nvm...
lalala.
bad oranges today good oranges forever more says:
you goddamn liberal
liberated from the shackles of unfounded belief. says:
isnt tt the truth!
liberated from the shackles of unfounded belief. says:
proud of it
guess what? hitler was a baptised catholic! and so was mussolini!
but nvm...
lalala.
bad oranges today good oranges forever more says:
you goddamn liberal
liberated from the shackles of unfounded belief. says:
isnt tt the truth!
liberated from the shackles of unfounded belief. says:
proud of it
the first rebuttal.
christians who believe in the existence of god will tell atheists tt god exists for a number of reasons, most of which cannot be supported by empirical evidence, but nonetheless will garner great popularity among the flock.
one such argument is for the existence of right and wrong, and consequently, the remedying of justice - or the lack thereof - in the current world.
taken off http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html:
(c)Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian"
1. the moral argument for a deity
one form of moral argument for the existence of god, is that there would be no right or wrong unless god existed. the difference between right and wrong may be debatable. however, if we are certain that there is a difference between right and wrong, the question to ask is - is this difference due to god's decree, or is it not?
if the difference between right and wrong is due to god's decree, then for god himself there has to be no difference between right and wrong. in that case, it will no longer be a significant statement to say that god is good. because if we do say, as the theologians do, that god is good, then we must first concede that right and wrong have some meaning that is independent of god's decree, because his decrees have to be good, and not bad, independently of the mere fact that he made them.
and if we say this, we may have to then say that it cannot only be through god that right and wrong came into being, but rather that they are in their essence, logically anterior to him.
2. the moral argument for the remedying of justice
a second form of argument, is that the existence of god is required in order to bring justice into the world. however, in this part of the universe, we know there already exists great injustice, such that oftentimes the good suffer while the wicked prosper. so the argument is that if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole, you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. so as a result, it is said that there must be a god, and there must be a heaven and a hell, so that in the long run there may be justice.
however, looking at the matter from a scientific point of view, a person would say, "i know only this world. i do not know about the rest of the universe, but insofar as one can argue on probabilities, one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, such that if there is injustice here, the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also."
using the crate of oranges principle, if you got a crate of oranges that you opened and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue that the ones underneath must be good so as to redress the balance. you would instead say that the whole lot is probably a bad consignment.
this is also what any scientific person would argue about the universe. that because there is great injustice in this world as far as this goes, this is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore it affords a moral argument more against a deity and not in favor of one.
note: it is not intellectual arguments that moves people however, because religion is rarely founded on logic. religion is usually embraced for 3 other (non-logical) reasons: 1) people are proselytized into religion from early infancy; and 2) because of the profound need for a safety net, for the sort of feeling that there is a 'big brother' who will look after you. this is a strong influence for people believing in a supernatural higher being that is difficult to prove on logical or empirical grounds.
3) most importantly, religion is based primarily and mainly upon fear. it is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as mentioned in point 2), the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. fear for the most part, is also the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. it is because fear is at the basis of those two things.
the counter to this fear is not to look to some supernatural ally in the sky to solve our own problems for us, but rather, to look into our own hearts and rely upon our own efforts, to make the world that we live in a better one.
one such argument is for the existence of right and wrong, and consequently, the remedying of justice - or the lack thereof - in the current world.
taken off http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html:
(c)Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian"
1. the moral argument for a deity
one form of moral argument for the existence of god, is that there would be no right or wrong unless god existed. the difference between right and wrong may be debatable. however, if we are certain that there is a difference between right and wrong, the question to ask is - is this difference due to god's decree, or is it not?
if the difference between right and wrong is due to god's decree, then for god himself there has to be no difference between right and wrong. in that case, it will no longer be a significant statement to say that god is good. because if we do say, as the theologians do, that god is good, then we must first concede that right and wrong have some meaning that is independent of god's decree, because his decrees have to be good, and not bad, independently of the mere fact that he made them.
and if we say this, we may have to then say that it cannot only be through god that right and wrong came into being, but rather that they are in their essence, logically anterior to him.
2. the moral argument for the remedying of justice
a second form of argument, is that the existence of god is required in order to bring justice into the world. however, in this part of the universe, we know there already exists great injustice, such that oftentimes the good suffer while the wicked prosper. so the argument is that if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole, you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. so as a result, it is said that there must be a god, and there must be a heaven and a hell, so that in the long run there may be justice.
however, looking at the matter from a scientific point of view, a person would say, "i know only this world. i do not know about the rest of the universe, but insofar as one can argue on probabilities, one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, such that if there is injustice here, the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also."
using the crate of oranges principle, if you got a crate of oranges that you opened and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue that the ones underneath must be good so as to redress the balance. you would instead say that the whole lot is probably a bad consignment.
this is also what any scientific person would argue about the universe. that because there is great injustice in this world as far as this goes, this is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore it affords a moral argument more against a deity and not in favor of one.
note: it is not intellectual arguments that moves people however, because religion is rarely founded on logic. religion is usually embraced for 3 other (non-logical) reasons: 1) people are proselytized into religion from early infancy; and 2) because of the profound need for a safety net, for the sort of feeling that there is a 'big brother' who will look after you. this is a strong influence for people believing in a supernatural higher being that is difficult to prove on logical or empirical grounds.
3) most importantly, religion is based primarily and mainly upon fear. it is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as mentioned in point 2), the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. fear for the most part, is also the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. it is because fear is at the basis of those two things.
the counter to this fear is not to look to some supernatural ally in the sky to solve our own problems for us, but rather, to look into our own hearts and rely upon our own efforts, to make the world that we live in a better one.
of dancing cows, literary retail therapy and green tea gelato.
school started with the evidence lecture today. following which we had a simple lunch at the cafe before i trotted off for my theratical foundations of crim class, whereby we were introduced to the schools of thought of liberalism vs. legal moralism vs. paternalism vs. econonism (it's not an official word yet, but it may be soon) in the concept of criminalisation.
but i know tt tt will all just be legal/philosophical mumbo-jumbo to you guys, so i'll skip tt. after class, diana, ben and i trooped off to lido to catch 'barnyard', which i really wanted to watch coz of the dancing cows.
and the animals were really cute, especially the chicks. and to me, the highlight of the movie was when the postman had come to post letters and the big male cow (although as diana has rightly pointed out, cows are all supposed to be female. male cows are bulls. sheesh.) was imitating him and teasing him without his knowing. tt part was hilarious. oh, and how is this for title of the day: "ben. a good cow."? hee hee.
but this feel-good movie made me feel old; either tt or 3d animations are getting more and more kiddish. i thought over the hedge was kiddish, but this was little better. as ben puts it, there is too much simple morality. unlike the more adult movies such as the lion king and shrek, while this movie attempts to be a little bit lion-kingish, somehow it fails to inject tt same kind of... dignity or majesty into the father-son relationship tt tt movie had. i suppose because if you don't take yourself seriously to begin with, you don't expect the audience to take you seriously when it comes to the crunch.
but still, tt nonwithstanding, the movie was colourful and entertaining, and i guess any kid would be really happy, so i'll give it tt. lalala.
diana had to leave early to have dinner at home, so ben and i had to hunt for food ourselves. i wanted japanese initially, but coz of the ridiculous queue, we ended up at borders bistro, where he ordered the rib eye steak and myself, the thick fettucine-like pasta with bacon bits in a thick creamy sauce. and a succulent yet crispy plate of calamari to share.
following tt, we visited ben's self-proclaimed "happy place" - borders bookstore. where we indulged in literary retail therapy, the only retail therapy i can actually engage in without feeling like a materialistic bimbo. ben purchased 4 books; i bought 2: the first one being the paperback edition of 'freakonomics', which i'd been interested in since i first saw it in hardcover in canada, and the second being the book by philosopher bertrand russell: 'why i am not a christian'. yay! now i have more fodder to pretend to be intellectual - and of course, more authority to back up my so-called 'lifestyle choices'.
then, because i was being a pedantic child and craving for gelato, we went back upstairs to haato, where i ordered a double scoop of green-tea and chocolate hazelnut gelato in a cone. because the store was closing, the sales girl gave me 2 humongous scoops of ice-cream; ben ordered a double scoop of vanilla and chocolate, and still he seemed to have at least a third less than myself. i got my ice-cream way before he did and yet he finished his before myself - and i eat ice-cream pretty fast.
it was a little past 10pm by this time, so it was time to head home. the bus was packed to full capacity when it came; we barely got on and i had to squeeze up the second step even though the bus driver was keen on us getting off and taking the second bus. this begs the question: assuming tt sbs transit posts tt with the increase in bus fares, efficiency will be increased with more buses arriving at peak hours and accomodation of a capacity of below 90% at such times... why does it still take at least double the standard waiting time printed on the bustop for said bus to come, and still have a literally over capacity of passenger?
you wonder where all tt extra money is going to.
tt being said, thus ends my wednesday. tomorrow i don't have an evidence lecture. yay! but it's not a free day coz i still have personal property at night. never mind. i shall go to school to get some reading done tomorrow. in the meantime... hello bertie! here i come to devour you! lalala.
but i know tt tt will all just be legal/philosophical mumbo-jumbo to you guys, so i'll skip tt. after class, diana, ben and i trooped off to lido to catch 'barnyard', which i really wanted to watch coz of the dancing cows.
and the animals were really cute, especially the chicks. and to me, the highlight of the movie was when the postman had come to post letters and the big male cow (although as diana has rightly pointed out, cows are all supposed to be female. male cows are bulls. sheesh.) was imitating him and teasing him without his knowing. tt part was hilarious. oh, and how is this for title of the day: "ben. a good cow."? hee hee.
but this feel-good movie made me feel old; either tt or 3d animations are getting more and more kiddish. i thought over the hedge was kiddish, but this was little better. as ben puts it, there is too much simple morality. unlike the more adult movies such as the lion king and shrek, while this movie attempts to be a little bit lion-kingish, somehow it fails to inject tt same kind of... dignity or majesty into the father-son relationship tt tt movie had. i suppose because if you don't take yourself seriously to begin with, you don't expect the audience to take you seriously when it comes to the crunch.
but still, tt nonwithstanding, the movie was colourful and entertaining, and i guess any kid would be really happy, so i'll give it tt. lalala.
diana had to leave early to have dinner at home, so ben and i had to hunt for food ourselves. i wanted japanese initially, but coz of the ridiculous queue, we ended up at borders bistro, where he ordered the rib eye steak and myself, the thick fettucine-like pasta with bacon bits in a thick creamy sauce. and a succulent yet crispy plate of calamari to share.
following tt, we visited ben's self-proclaimed "happy place" - borders bookstore. where we indulged in literary retail therapy, the only retail therapy i can actually engage in without feeling like a materialistic bimbo. ben purchased 4 books; i bought 2: the first one being the paperback edition of 'freakonomics', which i'd been interested in since i first saw it in hardcover in canada, and the second being the book by philosopher bertrand russell: 'why i am not a christian'. yay! now i have more fodder to pretend to be intellectual - and of course, more authority to back up my so-called 'lifestyle choices'.
then, because i was being a pedantic child and craving for gelato, we went back upstairs to haato, where i ordered a double scoop of green-tea and chocolate hazelnut gelato in a cone. because the store was closing, the sales girl gave me 2 humongous scoops of ice-cream; ben ordered a double scoop of vanilla and chocolate, and still he seemed to have at least a third less than myself. i got my ice-cream way before he did and yet he finished his before myself - and i eat ice-cream pretty fast.
it was a little past 10pm by this time, so it was time to head home. the bus was packed to full capacity when it came; we barely got on and i had to squeeze up the second step even though the bus driver was keen on us getting off and taking the second bus. this begs the question: assuming tt sbs transit posts tt with the increase in bus fares, efficiency will be increased with more buses arriving at peak hours and accomodation of a capacity of below 90% at such times... why does it still take at least double the standard waiting time printed on the bustop for said bus to come, and still have a literally over capacity of passenger?
you wonder where all tt extra money is going to.
tt being said, thus ends my wednesday. tomorrow i don't have an evidence lecture. yay! but it's not a free day coz i still have personal property at night. never mind. i shall go to school to get some reading done tomorrow. in the meantime... hello bertie! here i come to devour you! lalala.
latest earworm.
LOVE WILL KEEP US ALIVE
- The Eagles
I was standing
All alone against the world outside
You were searching
For a place to hide
Lost and lonely
Now you’ve given me the will to survive
When we’re hungry...love will keep us alive
Don’t you worry
Sometimes you’ve just gotta let it ride
The world is changing
Right before your eyes
Now I’ve found you
There’s no more emptiness inside
When we’re hungry...love will keep us alive
I would die for you
Climb the highest mountain
Baby, there’s nothing I wouldn’t do
I was standing
All alone against the world outside
You were searching
For a place to hide
Lost and lonely
Now you’ve given me the will to survive
When we’re hungry...love will keep us alive
When we’re hungry...love will keep us alive
When we’re hungry...love will keep us alive
- The Eagles
I was standing
All alone against the world outside
You were searching
For a place to hide
Lost and lonely
Now you’ve given me the will to survive
When we’re hungry...love will keep us alive
Don’t you worry
Sometimes you’ve just gotta let it ride
The world is changing
Right before your eyes
Now I’ve found you
There’s no more emptiness inside
When we’re hungry...love will keep us alive
I would die for you
Climb the highest mountain
Baby, there’s nothing I wouldn’t do
I was standing
All alone against the world outside
You were searching
For a place to hide
Lost and lonely
Now you’ve given me the will to survive
When we’re hungry...love will keep us alive
When we’re hungry...love will keep us alive
When we’re hungry...love will keep us alive
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
the fallacy regarding the conflict of ideas.
diana, ben, myself, as well as a couple of diana's friends, have been having a vigourous debate on her blog. basically, she presented her views on the reality that God was real and that we did not create him, and ben and myself found it imperative (individually. there was no concerted effort) to a) point out the logical fallacies (for ben); and b) to defend the stand that we took (for me as a self-professed agnostic).
anyway the vigour of our commentary led to a relatively spirited, yet magnanimous defence by her friends. however, what i will talk about on this blog has little to do with religion, or with friendship - because diana, ben and i, are still close friends and she is not upset with us, because she understands tt this debate is just a cyber extension of the real world debates tt we used to have at the university village starbucks a couple of months back. =)
however, what i will talk about, is the fallacy regarding the conflict of ideas; namely in response to this line in this comment:
"I think the human race is destined to kill each other off with the conflict of ideas."
the premise is in the heat of the debate, the call was for everyone to live happily together without the intrusion of religious faith and scientific ideas.
i don't believe the writer of the comment has access to my blog, but nonetheless, i don't mean him any disrespect, nor do i think tt the comment is stupid. for the most part, this is akin to an envisionment of a utopia, where everyone exists in harmony. where there are probably no wars, and no physical conflicts tt exist in the world today.
but besides the fact tt such a utopia is a practical impossibility in this world, i also feel tt the idea tt a conflict of ideas will inevitably kill off the human race, is a fallacy.
you see, as far as i see it, there is no such thing as a right and a wrong, a black and a white, and people will always throw up a plethora of different ideas, hold different value systems, have different ways of seeing things. even within the realm of religion, it isn't as simple as having a belief in the spiritual vs. having no such belief. even within religion there are so many different schools of thought, so many ethos. there is christianity (and the various denominations, of which there are already differences between each, and a synapse between that and catholicism), there is islam, there is judaism, there is taoism, buddhism, and many more. some hold a belief in a one God, others, in a few, and yet others, in a mere ideal of spirituality. hell, if you believe in scientology, you will even believe in aliens!
my point, is that as long as people hold different ideas, there will always be a conflict. however, difference should not be shunned, but embraced as individuality. to me, harmony through conformity is a revolting thought. i am an individual through and through, and i renounce concepts such as society above self, or conformity. while i believe tt as far as behaviour ought to be regulated so as not to cause harm to others, i do firmly uphold the belief tt self-expression, freedom of thought, and individualism should be staunchly protected.
we are not meant to be robots. if we all thought the same, if we all agreed on everything, we would be highly boring people. seriously. and we would never evolve or improve because no one would throw up new ideas for people to ponder.
in order for there to be dynamism, there has to be open debate. and this necessarily has to come about through a conflict of ideas. when your ideas about something clash with someone else's who clashes with someone else's, you have to come together and debate it out, to see who has the sounder, more logical argument. it is from here where you reach a consensus, where somehow a solution may (or may not) be reached, but somehow something will usually come out of it, usually for society's betterment.
even in law, tt is how precedents are being made. when an area of law is not covered, or where there are legal disputes, people argue and debate until at some point in time, be it now or much much later, somehow some kind of headway may be made into changing or improving the law. and even if somehow there has been a deprovement, this can still be rectified by later debates and arguments.
however, where things are settled or agreed on, sometimes it is scary. as i learnt in my islamic law class, the pre-modernism islamic legal system was incredibly dynamic and forward looking, namely because of the amount of ijtihad or legal debates that went on between the legal scholars over the areas of the law that they could not agree on. and although this was all just supposed to be the intepretation of the Quranic law, there were tons and tons of ways with which to intepret one passage.
however, in post-modernism Islamic law, there have been talks about how much more rigid and static the system is, because there is no more such debate. the law as it stands has been described as unchanging; there are little reforms. and intepretions such as as to the criminal punishment of thiefs in iran (the cutting off of hands) or as to the status of women, no matter how illogical they seem in the modern context, are enbedded because there are no challenges in this sphere.
i believe that a complete lack of conflict, total agreement that something, tt a certain system, is completely infallible, is the most dangerous thing tt you can have. the assertion tt a religion is the one true religion, or tt a government is undoubtedly a first-world government, is just too good to be true. short of us living in tt idealistic utopia, we know there is no such thing.
therefore as i have said before, a conflict of ideas is a way to show difference, and a way to progress.
however, this assumes 2 things: 1) tt there must be a respect for diversity; and 2) tt there must be a willingness to consider others' opinions.
the way i see it, the problem with people, is not so much tt a conflict of ideas will bring about mankind's downfall, but rather, tt the intolerance of mankind, will bring about his own downfall. taking extremist partisan stands and assuming tt your one opinion is correct whereas everyone else's is wrong, is a fine example of intolerance. dismissing someone who does not subscribe to religion because you do is therefore doing so for reasons ranging from societal conformation to blind materialism, is another form of intolerance. if you were to first inquire as to the reasons behind the position taken, or the intentions behind taking up such a position, it would be a lot less difficult to be tolerant and accepting.
so in conclusion, a conflict of ideas does not necessarily lead to the downfall of man (i.e. by promoting war and infighting). instead, it is actually intolerance and the unwillingness to respect diversity, tt will result in the downfall of man.
so just so you know. my 2 cents worth. lalala.
anyway the vigour of our commentary led to a relatively spirited, yet magnanimous defence by her friends. however, what i will talk about on this blog has little to do with religion, or with friendship - because diana, ben and i, are still close friends and she is not upset with us, because she understands tt this debate is just a cyber extension of the real world debates tt we used to have at the university village starbucks a couple of months back. =)
however, what i will talk about, is the fallacy regarding the conflict of ideas; namely in response to this line in this comment:
"I think the human race is destined to kill each other off with the conflict of ideas."
the premise is in the heat of the debate, the call was for everyone to live happily together without the intrusion of religious faith and scientific ideas.
i don't believe the writer of the comment has access to my blog, but nonetheless, i don't mean him any disrespect, nor do i think tt the comment is stupid. for the most part, this is akin to an envisionment of a utopia, where everyone exists in harmony. where there are probably no wars, and no physical conflicts tt exist in the world today.
but besides the fact tt such a utopia is a practical impossibility in this world, i also feel tt the idea tt a conflict of ideas will inevitably kill off the human race, is a fallacy.
you see, as far as i see it, there is no such thing as a right and a wrong, a black and a white, and people will always throw up a plethora of different ideas, hold different value systems, have different ways of seeing things. even within the realm of religion, it isn't as simple as having a belief in the spiritual vs. having no such belief. even within religion there are so many different schools of thought, so many ethos. there is christianity (and the various denominations, of which there are already differences between each, and a synapse between that and catholicism), there is islam, there is judaism, there is taoism, buddhism, and many more. some hold a belief in a one God, others, in a few, and yet others, in a mere ideal of spirituality. hell, if you believe in scientology, you will even believe in aliens!
my point, is that as long as people hold different ideas, there will always be a conflict. however, difference should not be shunned, but embraced as individuality. to me, harmony through conformity is a revolting thought. i am an individual through and through, and i renounce concepts such as society above self, or conformity. while i believe tt as far as behaviour ought to be regulated so as not to cause harm to others, i do firmly uphold the belief tt self-expression, freedom of thought, and individualism should be staunchly protected.
we are not meant to be robots. if we all thought the same, if we all agreed on everything, we would be highly boring people. seriously. and we would never evolve or improve because no one would throw up new ideas for people to ponder.
in order for there to be dynamism, there has to be open debate. and this necessarily has to come about through a conflict of ideas. when your ideas about something clash with someone else's who clashes with someone else's, you have to come together and debate it out, to see who has the sounder, more logical argument. it is from here where you reach a consensus, where somehow a solution may (or may not) be reached, but somehow something will usually come out of it, usually for society's betterment.
even in law, tt is how precedents are being made. when an area of law is not covered, or where there are legal disputes, people argue and debate until at some point in time, be it now or much much later, somehow some kind of headway may be made into changing or improving the law. and even if somehow there has been a deprovement, this can still be rectified by later debates and arguments.
however, where things are settled or agreed on, sometimes it is scary. as i learnt in my islamic law class, the pre-modernism islamic legal system was incredibly dynamic and forward looking, namely because of the amount of ijtihad or legal debates that went on between the legal scholars over the areas of the law that they could not agree on. and although this was all just supposed to be the intepretation of the Quranic law, there were tons and tons of ways with which to intepret one passage.
however, in post-modernism Islamic law, there have been talks about how much more rigid and static the system is, because there is no more such debate. the law as it stands has been described as unchanging; there are little reforms. and intepretions such as as to the criminal punishment of thiefs in iran (the cutting off of hands) or as to the status of women, no matter how illogical they seem in the modern context, are enbedded because there are no challenges in this sphere.
i believe that a complete lack of conflict, total agreement that something, tt a certain system, is completely infallible, is the most dangerous thing tt you can have. the assertion tt a religion is the one true religion, or tt a government is undoubtedly a first-world government, is just too good to be true. short of us living in tt idealistic utopia, we know there is no such thing.
therefore as i have said before, a conflict of ideas is a way to show difference, and a way to progress.
however, this assumes 2 things: 1) tt there must be a respect for diversity; and 2) tt there must be a willingness to consider others' opinions.
the way i see it, the problem with people, is not so much tt a conflict of ideas will bring about mankind's downfall, but rather, tt the intolerance of mankind, will bring about his own downfall. taking extremist partisan stands and assuming tt your one opinion is correct whereas everyone else's is wrong, is a fine example of intolerance. dismissing someone who does not subscribe to religion because you do is therefore doing so for reasons ranging from societal conformation to blind materialism, is another form of intolerance. if you were to first inquire as to the reasons behind the position taken, or the intentions behind taking up such a position, it would be a lot less difficult to be tolerant and accepting.
so in conclusion, a conflict of ideas does not necessarily lead to the downfall of man (i.e. by promoting war and infighting). instead, it is actually intolerance and the unwillingness to respect diversity, tt will result in the downfall of man.
so just so you know. my 2 cents worth. lalala.
admission of guilt.
i was reading through my blog entries for the past few days/ weeks and yes, i finally admit... i sound like a sad love-sick idiot.
ordinarily, a blog like tt would for single-me, trigger some involuntary regurgitation mechanism. so weak, so stupid, so clinging-vine. so... original girl.
so fine, i admit the mush. and i'll def cut back on it. anyway as much as the bf is the largest part of my life at this point in time (as well as the primary cause in my decline in intelligence), i think whoever is left of my readers have had it with reading about how much of a sleepy pig he is, tt waking him up requires sometimes up to 3 hours worth of effort, or how amazing his parking is, such tt i fear what other parts of his father's car he's scratched, or how sensitive his nipples are...
oops. you didn't read tt last part. wahaha. *evil wide grin*
ordinarily, a blog like tt would for single-me, trigger some involuntary regurgitation mechanism. so weak, so stupid, so clinging-vine. so... original girl.
so fine, i admit the mush. and i'll def cut back on it. anyway as much as the bf is the largest part of my life at this point in time (as well as the primary cause in my decline in intelligence), i think whoever is left of my readers have had it with reading about how much of a sleepy pig he is, tt waking him up requires sometimes up to 3 hours worth of effort, or how amazing his parking is, such tt i fear what other parts of his father's car he's scratched, or how sensitive his nipples are...
oops. you didn't read tt last part. wahaha. *evil wide grin*
Monday, September 04, 2006
crocodile hunter killed by stingray.
today, steve irvin was killed by a giant stingray off the great barrier reef. he had swum too close to the animal, and its poisoned barb pierced his chest and his heart. he was pronounced dead shortly after.
rip steve girvin.
rip steve girvin.
the spastic happy incident.
[mush alert]
this morning before school, i had this strange memory flashback as i browsed through my phone, wondering if i should call him to wake him up. it was of the time when we were back in vancouver, close to the exams.
i believe it was a day or two before my last paper. i'd developed the habit of knocking on his window to wake him up in the middle of the day closer to evening for dinner, seeing that he would study all through the night and crash in the morning.
i was walking back from staples towards totem. it was a beautiful day, all bright and cool and sunny. i believe i was still wearing my thick jacket.
from the outside, i peered through the window of fairview into his room. he was deep asleep, wearing only his shorts.
i knocked on his window, but he didn't wake up. in fact, my knocking had to get progressively louder, almost to the point where it was a mad banging tt got me stares from passers-by.
and then, he shot up from slumber, a look of shock in his glazed wide-open eyes, as he searched for the source of the knocking. and then as he saw me, this amazing wide grin, a grin tt i can only describe as immensely spastic and happy all at the same time; he with his puppy dog eyes and his wild messed-up hair, and tt almost psychotic grin...
he didn't even have to tell me tt he was happy to see me. it was written all over his face, even before he jumped up from his bed and bounded towards the window.
and tt memory is one of those tt just stay with me. because i cannot forget how happy i actually felt at tt time. come to think of it, i had never been as instanteously happy as i had been then.
spastic happy. i haven't seen tt mad, wild-eyed look for a while, although he has come close to doing it. i do miss it, of course. but i no longer need signals tt he is happy to see me.
this morning before school, i had this strange memory flashback as i browsed through my phone, wondering if i should call him to wake him up. it was of the time when we were back in vancouver, close to the exams.
i believe it was a day or two before my last paper. i'd developed the habit of knocking on his window to wake him up in the middle of the day closer to evening for dinner, seeing that he would study all through the night and crash in the morning.
i was walking back from staples towards totem. it was a beautiful day, all bright and cool and sunny. i believe i was still wearing my thick jacket.
from the outside, i peered through the window of fairview into his room. he was deep asleep, wearing only his shorts.
i knocked on his window, but he didn't wake up. in fact, my knocking had to get progressively louder, almost to the point where it was a mad banging tt got me stares from passers-by.
and then, he shot up from slumber, a look of shock in his glazed wide-open eyes, as he searched for the source of the knocking. and then as he saw me, this amazing wide grin, a grin tt i can only describe as immensely spastic and happy all at the same time; he with his puppy dog eyes and his wild messed-up hair, and tt almost psychotic grin...
he didn't even have to tell me tt he was happy to see me. it was written all over his face, even before he jumped up from his bed and bounded towards the window.
and tt memory is one of those tt just stay with me. because i cannot forget how happy i actually felt at tt time. come to think of it, i had never been as instanteously happy as i had been then.
spastic happy. i haven't seen tt mad, wild-eyed look for a while, although he has come close to doing it. i do miss it, of course. but i no longer need signals tt he is happy to see me.
spoil
spastic happy. says:
spoil
happy spastic says:
spoil
spoil
happy spastic says:
spoil
Sunday, September 03, 2006
mush in song.
this song is beautiful.
"GOODBYE MY LOVER"
- by James Blunt
Did I disappoint you or let you down?
Should I be feeling guilty or let the judges frown?
'Cause I saw the end before we'd begun,
Yes I saw you were blinded and I knew I had won.
So I took what's mine by eternal right.
Took your soul out into the night.
It may be over but it won't stop there,
I am here for you if you'd only care.
Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.
I am a dreamer but when I wake,
You can't break my spirit - it's my dreams you take.
And as you move on, remember me,
Remember us and all we used to be
I've seen you cry, I've seen you smile.
I've watched you sleeping for a while.
I'd be the father of your child.
Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.
Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.
I'm so hollow, baby, I'm so hollow.
I'm so, I'm so, I'm so hollow.
"GOODBYE MY LOVER"
- by James Blunt
Did I disappoint you or let you down?
Should I be feeling guilty or let the judges frown?
'Cause I saw the end before we'd begun,
Yes I saw you were blinded and I knew I had won.
So I took what's mine by eternal right.
Took your soul out into the night.
It may be over but it won't stop there,
I am here for you if you'd only care.
You touched my heart you touched my soul.
You changed my life and all my goals.
And love is blind and that I knew when,
My heart was blinded by you.
I've kissed your lips and held your head.
Shared your dreams and shared your bed.
I know you well, I know your smell.
I've been addicted to you.
Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.
I am a dreamer but when I wake,
You can't break my spirit - it's my dreams you take.
And as you move on, remember me,
Remember us and all we used to be
I've seen you cry, I've seen you smile.
I've watched you sleeping for a while.
I'd be the father of your child.
I'd spend a lifetime with you.
I know your fears and you know mine.
We've had our doubts but now we're fine,
And I love you, I swear that's true.
I cannot live without you.
Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.
And I still hold your hand in mine.
In mine when I'm asleep.
And I will bear my soul in time,
When I'm kneeling at your feet.
Goodbye my lover.
Goodbye my friend.
You have been the one.
You have been the one for me.
I'm so hollow, baby, I'm so hollow.
I'm so, I'm so, I'm so hollow.
my biggest craving right now is for chendol flavoured potong ice-cream. *pout*
mush.
precious little time, tt they have together. the sun beats down as it warms the earth, middle of day, yet day soon to be gone. she wonders where he is as she steps off the bus; it rolls away as her phone rings off the hook.
he calls her back, and they meet in the midst of the hustle and bustle. a sea of people throng all around, yet in the crowd his eyes find hers. and he watches as she makes her slow descent; his hand reaches for hers even before she completely steps off. and with tt touch, the cares of the world dissipate as surely as the smile tt breaks over her face. the frustrations and irritations, the realities; for tt moment, for tt brief respite, they disappear.
she kisses him. she runs her fingers down his cheeks, traces the outline of his cheeks, and sees a reflection of herself in his eyes. she appears much more beautiful in his eyes than she does in hers. kissing him is one of the many things that she will never tire of. even if they were together for a hundred, or a thousand years to come, even if he were to get old and grey and toothless, or she; she would never tire of kissing those lips, of tracing those lips, or of looking into those eyes.
time passes too quickly; the little time they have together is never quite enough, somehow. time is something tt they might hold in excess; in excess considering the passage of an otherwise unexpected uninterrupted life. yet in the here-and-now, time leaves her rife tt every moment with him will be her last. for the briefness and newness of their relationship, he has come to mean much of her world. her hand instinctively reaches for his if his does not hers; her lips do not even have to, for his.
she's told him before tt she has become addicted to him. she wonders if he believes her.
he calls her back, and they meet in the midst of the hustle and bustle. a sea of people throng all around, yet in the crowd his eyes find hers. and he watches as she makes her slow descent; his hand reaches for hers even before she completely steps off. and with tt touch, the cares of the world dissipate as surely as the smile tt breaks over her face. the frustrations and irritations, the realities; for tt moment, for tt brief respite, they disappear.
she kisses him. she runs her fingers down his cheeks, traces the outline of his cheeks, and sees a reflection of herself in his eyes. she appears much more beautiful in his eyes than she does in hers. kissing him is one of the many things that she will never tire of. even if they were together for a hundred, or a thousand years to come, even if he were to get old and grey and toothless, or she; she would never tire of kissing those lips, of tracing those lips, or of looking into those eyes.
time passes too quickly; the little time they have together is never quite enough, somehow. time is something tt they might hold in excess; in excess considering the passage of an otherwise unexpected uninterrupted life. yet in the here-and-now, time leaves her rife tt every moment with him will be her last. for the briefness and newness of their relationship, he has come to mean much of her world. her hand instinctively reaches for his if his does not hers; her lips do not even have to, for his.
she's told him before tt she has become addicted to him. she wonders if he believes her.
yay! finally a day worth blogging about (kind of)!
lalalalala. =)
yesh, finally i am entitled to do a "i-woke-up-and-brushed-my-teeth" type entry after a long draught. bah.
my mom made breakfast today. and when i say she made breakfast, i really *mean* she made breakfast. she *made* chee kueh and chye dau kueh, which she fried with black soya sauce and 2 eggs. amazing stuff! the chee kueh was big and packed with fragrant rice; the chye dau kueh tasted even better than what you get outside. heehee.
and after breakfast, i went to bukit timah market for breakfast part II, where he ordered mee siam (to soothe my mee siam mai hum craving), and i had tau huey.
and then we had black pepper ribs (me) and black pepper chicken for lunch less than 3 hours later. tt was quite a lot of food! and all we did for the rest of daylight was nua and watch dvds - at least, 1 dvd: this movie 'take the lead' starring antonio bandaras in a strictly ballroom meets you got served meets dangerous minds type movie.
predictable, but very nice dancing. yay!
damn the sun tho. it refused to come out, even though it didn't rain today. bah.
we met chiang liang, his gf, and a whole bunch of other people for dinner at chinatown food street - celebrating cl's birthday in advance. parking in chinatown on a sat night at dinner time is a bit of a problem; fortunately we still managed to find parking. all in all, it was a group of 12.
they had a pushcart stall selling the kolo mee tt was featured in the today's newspaper today, so i and ben got to try it. it's more expensive than normal bak chor mee, and it looks like maggi mee, but it actually tastes quite good. besides the fact tt it does not get soggy, it also absorbs and retains the taste and flavour of the soup/gravy used to cook it, so it's really delicious.
and it's really interesting tt with half the group, the conversation always revolves around dota. cl and ben were trying to get cl's gf to play dota again. it was really hilarious, but it's obviously not gg to work. even though her dota is a hundred times better than mine. bah.
after dinner, we went over to gv marina to catch a movie (in the cinema). the only movie tt looked worth watching was the preview for 'singapore dreaming' at 11.40pm. it being 9.00pm at the time, we had quite a bit of time to kill. so, against both our better judgments, ben went back to chapter 2 to have his hair cut again.
big mistake. after the hair cut, everyone who looked at him stared at his hair. besides the incredulous stares tt we got from the commonfolk, there was this girl in the esplanade as we were walking in, who gave him this blatant stare tt screamed "omg mad man mad man!"... all conveyed in a single look. perhaps the fact tt he was wearing a lock cock t-shirt and his short sexy jjc shorts didn't actually help matters. wahaha.
but anyway apart from the fact tt he *really* looks like he just woke up, his hair is ok. i compared it to tt second hair cut tt he got in vancouver tt was probably part of the reason why my mom ended up thinking tt he was a no-good rogue. basically any haircut in singapore is better than tt hair cut (and the drug addict one too).
we then went for sinful dessert - the 'madagascar' fondue, which is basically this so-called 'top of the line' dark chocolate fondue, which you dip red and green apples, strawberries, bananas, marshmellows, bread sticks and apricots (yuck) into. it was pretty okay - more worth it than max brenner's in terms of price and quantity i guess, but nothing beats the rich creamy smoothness of the haagen daz chocolate fondue.
of course, having a double espresso shot with a rich dark chocolate cube from chocz nearly sent my bf to heaven. now, if only he could be allowed to smoke at the same time... it seems the 3 'C's just go together.
at 10.45pm, we made it outside... for the last song in the set played by EIC! argh! if i had known tt they were playing outside the esplanade on sat night i would have come by to watch them much earlier! *pout* but on the bright side, at least we managed to catch 1 song in tt set, and the song was coldplay's 'yellow', which is one of my fave sing-along songs (as well as a song tt ben and i regularly sang together to on our long car journeys). yay!
and once ben had done his customary smoking thing, we walked from the esplanade through marina boulevard and towards kallang. it's interesting how through experience, you end up being intimately familiar with certain places, such tt a simple walk will give you a lot to contemplate and to speak of.
by the time we walked back to the cinema, it was time to collect the popcorn and go in for the movie. i don't want to give too much away, but i do recommend this movie. i feel tt it is a relatively accurate depiction of the common singaporean; although there are stereotypes, these are not unfounded, and it does speak volumes about the vacuous nature of chasing purely materialistic dreams.
the movie is however, depressing. and not an easy pill to swallow. i was immaculately depressed thereafter. it just reinforces my views tt singapore is not an easy place in which to be happy. and i fear tt i might become like one of the few characters inside, and i might violate the principles tt i now uphold. do your dreams dissipate with age, or marriage, or with the onset of dull insidious practicality, such tt you settle for the mediocre and the mundane to chase impossible and unfulfilling wisps of smoke?
i feel tt all singaporeans should watch this movie. even if you do not wish to be depressed, at least for awareness. however, the sad thing is tt the singaporeans who should watch this the most, won't and never will. *sigh*
after the movie ended, i was strangely hungry. so my baby drove me to get mac's, and then he drove me home.
and thus ends the day worth blogging about. =)
yesh, finally i am entitled to do a "i-woke-up-and-brushed-my-teeth" type entry after a long draught. bah.
my mom made breakfast today. and when i say she made breakfast, i really *mean* she made breakfast. she *made* chee kueh and chye dau kueh, which she fried with black soya sauce and 2 eggs. amazing stuff! the chee kueh was big and packed with fragrant rice; the chye dau kueh tasted even better than what you get outside. heehee.
and after breakfast, i went to bukit timah market for breakfast part II, where he ordered mee siam (to soothe my mee siam mai hum craving), and i had tau huey.
and then we had black pepper ribs (me) and black pepper chicken for lunch less than 3 hours later. tt was quite a lot of food! and all we did for the rest of daylight was nua and watch dvds - at least, 1 dvd: this movie 'take the lead' starring antonio bandaras in a strictly ballroom meets you got served meets dangerous minds type movie.
predictable, but very nice dancing. yay!
damn the sun tho. it refused to come out, even though it didn't rain today. bah.
we met chiang liang, his gf, and a whole bunch of other people for dinner at chinatown food street - celebrating cl's birthday in advance. parking in chinatown on a sat night at dinner time is a bit of a problem; fortunately we still managed to find parking. all in all, it was a group of 12.
they had a pushcart stall selling the kolo mee tt was featured in the today's newspaper today, so i and ben got to try it. it's more expensive than normal bak chor mee, and it looks like maggi mee, but it actually tastes quite good. besides the fact tt it does not get soggy, it also absorbs and retains the taste and flavour of the soup/gravy used to cook it, so it's really delicious.
and it's really interesting tt with half the group, the conversation always revolves around dota. cl and ben were trying to get cl's gf to play dota again. it was really hilarious, but it's obviously not gg to work. even though her dota is a hundred times better than mine. bah.
after dinner, we went over to gv marina to catch a movie (in the cinema). the only movie tt looked worth watching was the preview for 'singapore dreaming' at 11.40pm. it being 9.00pm at the time, we had quite a bit of time to kill. so, against both our better judgments, ben went back to chapter 2 to have his hair cut again.
big mistake. after the hair cut, everyone who looked at him stared at his hair. besides the incredulous stares tt we got from the commonfolk, there was this girl in the esplanade as we were walking in, who gave him this blatant stare tt screamed "omg mad man mad man!"... all conveyed in a single look. perhaps the fact tt he was wearing a lock cock t-shirt and his short sexy jjc shorts didn't actually help matters. wahaha.
but anyway apart from the fact tt he *really* looks like he just woke up, his hair is ok. i compared it to tt second hair cut tt he got in vancouver tt was probably part of the reason why my mom ended up thinking tt he was a no-good rogue. basically any haircut in singapore is better than tt hair cut (and the drug addict one too).
we then went for sinful dessert - the 'madagascar' fondue, which is basically this so-called 'top of the line' dark chocolate fondue, which you dip red and green apples, strawberries, bananas, marshmellows, bread sticks and apricots (yuck) into. it was pretty okay - more worth it than max brenner's in terms of price and quantity i guess, but nothing beats the rich creamy smoothness of the haagen daz chocolate fondue.
of course, having a double espresso shot with a rich dark chocolate cube from chocz nearly sent my bf to heaven. now, if only he could be allowed to smoke at the same time... it seems the 3 'C's just go together.
at 10.45pm, we made it outside... for the last song in the set played by EIC! argh! if i had known tt they were playing outside the esplanade on sat night i would have come by to watch them much earlier! *pout* but on the bright side, at least we managed to catch 1 song in tt set, and the song was coldplay's 'yellow', which is one of my fave sing-along songs (as well as a song tt ben and i regularly sang together to on our long car journeys). yay!
and once ben had done his customary smoking thing, we walked from the esplanade through marina boulevard and towards kallang. it's interesting how through experience, you end up being intimately familiar with certain places, such tt a simple walk will give you a lot to contemplate and to speak of.
by the time we walked back to the cinema, it was time to collect the popcorn and go in for the movie. i don't want to give too much away, but i do recommend this movie. i feel tt it is a relatively accurate depiction of the common singaporean; although there are stereotypes, these are not unfounded, and it does speak volumes about the vacuous nature of chasing purely materialistic dreams.
the movie is however, depressing. and not an easy pill to swallow. i was immaculately depressed thereafter. it just reinforces my views tt singapore is not an easy place in which to be happy. and i fear tt i might become like one of the few characters inside, and i might violate the principles tt i now uphold. do your dreams dissipate with age, or marriage, or with the onset of dull insidious practicality, such tt you settle for the mediocre and the mundane to chase impossible and unfulfilling wisps of smoke?
i feel tt all singaporeans should watch this movie. even if you do not wish to be depressed, at least for awareness. however, the sad thing is tt the singaporeans who should watch this the most, won't and never will. *sigh*
after the movie ended, i was strangely hungry. so my baby drove me to get mac's, and then he drove me home.
and thus ends the day worth blogging about. =)
Friday, September 01, 2006
ponderance...
it's been a long time since my last entry; at least by my standards.
there isn't tt much to blog about (because i don't have the stamina to conduct another whole diatribe on the imf-world bank coming to singapore and all the other going-ons tt i have issues with); generally my life has been revolving around going to school, and going home. and of course, lunch, dinner, studying a little (omg!), and a lot of ben.
yesh yesh. everytime i get to school earlier than he does coz he's in sleepyville (okay, to clarify, this isn't because he's a sleepy pig. it's because he studies/goes for supper all night and therefore cannot wake up the next day), everyone will naturally throw this conversation-starter at me:
"so, where's ben?"
the most interesting highlights of my week were probably (in no particular order):
1. developing a major mee siam craving after listening to tt harmless podcast one too many times;
2. tasting teh tahrik and nutella flavoured ice-cream for the first time, and suddenly wanting to taste teh tahrik ice-cream right now;
3. having my islamic law module end on wed on a high (sort of), and rediscovering my respect for my prof;
4. deciding tt i have an academic crush on my personal property tutor (which isn't making my bf too happy);
5. realising how much i love my bf - and how angry he can make me sometimes, even with incidents tt might be considered small.
tt being said, i still think tt my anger is justified from my point of view, but i don't believe tt it will ever be from yours. i guess it's because the issue is based on character and mindset differences, and the only solution to avoid such issues is to reach a compromise on such future events. but i know how much you try to make me happy, and i do know how much sacrifice you have made and still make for me. i know you love me.
i love you too. sleep well baby.
now playing: hotel costes - cafe de flor
there isn't tt much to blog about (because i don't have the stamina to conduct another whole diatribe on the imf-world bank coming to singapore and all the other going-ons tt i have issues with); generally my life has been revolving around going to school, and going home. and of course, lunch, dinner, studying a little (omg!), and a lot of ben.
yesh yesh. everytime i get to school earlier than he does coz he's in sleepyville (okay, to clarify, this isn't because he's a sleepy pig. it's because he studies/goes for supper all night and therefore cannot wake up the next day), everyone will naturally throw this conversation-starter at me:
"so, where's ben?"
the most interesting highlights of my week were probably (in no particular order):
1. developing a major mee siam craving after listening to tt harmless podcast one too many times;
2. tasting teh tahrik and nutella flavoured ice-cream for the first time, and suddenly wanting to taste teh tahrik ice-cream right now;
3. having my islamic law module end on wed on a high (sort of), and rediscovering my respect for my prof;
4. deciding tt i have an academic crush on my personal property tutor (which isn't making my bf too happy);
5. realising how much i love my bf - and how angry he can make me sometimes, even with incidents tt might be considered small.
tt being said, i still think tt my anger is justified from my point of view, but i don't believe tt it will ever be from yours. i guess it's because the issue is based on character and mindset differences, and the only solution to avoid such issues is to reach a compromise on such future events. but i know how much you try to make me happy, and i do know how much sacrifice you have made and still make for me. i know you love me.
i love you too. sleep well baby.
